I think privacy is something we should strive for, but I think that when something is said publically on a globally broadcasted medium people cannot reasonably have an expectation of privacy. The problem with privacy in my mind is when there can reasonably be an expectation of privacy but that isn't met.
If I tweet something it's clear that's public. If I DM someone that should be private.
Why is it reasonable to not expect that there would be someone saving public data?
Facebook had created puppet profiles from people's contact information and made them public, notoriously.
Like, at what point would you like to accept that GPs statement is not hyperbole? Would all information that was private need to go public? By then I'd say it is too late.
This is a rather silly argument where you try to draw some line in online services that has been willfully greyed by the people who create these platforms for their own benefit.
If you want to call GP a privacy fatalist, then I'll just call you a privacy denialist and leave it there.
Is it so absurd to say that if I post stuff publically I cannot expect it to be private and if I post stuff privately I should absolutely be able to depend on it to be private?
I think your example of parler is an example of a service that was not adequately secured to protect it's private communications and the facebook example is clearly unethical and just one of the reasons I don't use the service.