librelist archives

« back to archive

The next billion. A broken web. Social implications.

The next billion. A broken web. Social implications.

From:
Anish Mangal
Date:
2015-09-17 @ 10:25
Wanting to have a discussion with folks who work with or are involved in
providing internet access to people/places which didn't have it before.

Volunteering for the SchoolServer/XSCE[1] project, I largely work with
communities which are rural, often remote, and largely disconnected to the
internet. At these places, access to CC-licensed or public domain content
is provided to children (sometimes specifically in schools) and the larger
community through village-spanning wifi networks (for an example, see
[2][3]). Many times there is no internet access, but in a few cases there
is some limited (in bandwidth) connectivity available. Naturally, the
question of "enabling the internet" comes up. Whether it be some educator
or an elder in the village, they want to be aware of the benefits and the
dangers of enabling internet access.

A few years ago, I myself believed that the internet is a force for good,
and wider internet access is the only way forward. Lately however, my
perceptions have changed. There are many real issues related to privacy,
cultural change etc. that need to discussed at length with the community
and this involves effort. The short cut is to assume that people will learn
themselves once access is provided, but I don't believe in that any more.

So, if I as a volunteer working in these places cannot spend time to have
this discussion with the stakeholders involved, I would actually prefer not
providing access (postponing for later). This would have sounded crazy to
me 3-4 years ago, but is perhaps why I'm subscribed to this list right now
:-)

Through the XSCE project we have control over the kind of (offline)
services we provide and internet websites we allow access to. Still, I
would love to have a discussion to form some kind of:

(1) Key points worth discussing with a community before enabling internet
access
(2) Have some kind of on-ramp as a template

I know there are large foundations and many people working at this, and
this needs to be thought through. For example, if you go to the mozilla
web-literacy website [4] they seem to have a logical progression structure
from Explore -> Build -> Connect. I don't think that is correct.

Regardless of my actions or whatever the XSCE project does, more people are
going to go online through Facebook's internet.org, or google balloons
etc.. So this is a fight worth fighting.  :-)

Thoughts?

[1] http://wiki.laptop.org/go/XS_Community_Edition/FAQ
[2]
https://bhagmalpur.wordpress.com/2013/07/21/hello-world-from-bhagmalpur-part-1/
[3]
https://bhagmalpur.wordpress.com/2013/07/27/hello-world-from-bhagmalpur-part-2/
[4] https://teach.mozilla.org/teach-like-mozilla/web-literacy/

Cheers,
Anish

Re: [redecentralize] The next billion. A broken web. Social implications.

From:
Christian de Larrinaga
Date:
2015-09-17 @ 11:07
Where are you Anish?

I was invited as their guest and attended the INCA conference in Bristol
UK for last two days in which alternative and community networks in UK
such as B4RN were very much in evidence.

One of the outcomes on my intray today is I was approached for some
enabling documentation that alternative network community providers
could provide to communities to better inform them of the issues and
comparisons between going to telco based broadband v. their own network
service.

The more upstream issues around using applications such as web Ad based
services and the general levels of insecurity through third party
information sharing or theft (doxing)

Local Internet Society chapters are a good resource for this such as
mine ISOC UK England but as volunteer bodies they need community support
to build this type of information resource.


Christian

Anish Mangal wrote:
> Wanting to have a discussion with folks who work with or are involved in
> providing internet access to people/places which didn't have it before.
> 
> Volunteering for the SchoolServer/XSCE[1] project, I largely work with
> communities which are rural, often remote, and largely disconnected to
> the internet. At these places, access to CC-licensed or public domain
> content is provided to children (sometimes specifically in schools) and
> the larger community through village-spanning wifi networks (for an
> example, see [2][3]). Many times there is no internet access, but in a
> few cases there is some limited (in bandwidth) connectivity available.
> Naturally, the question of "enabling the internet" comes up. Whether it
> be some educator or an elder in the village, they want to be aware of
> the benefits and the dangers of enabling internet access.
> 
> A few years ago, I myself believed that the internet is a force for
> good, and wider internet access is the only way forward. Lately however,
> my perceptions have changed. There are many real issues related to
> privacy, cultural change etc. that need to discussed at length with the
> community and this involves effort. The short cut is to assume that
> people will learn themselves once access is provided, but I don't
> believe in that any more.
> 
> So, if I as a volunteer working in these places cannot spend time to
> have this discussion with the stakeholders involved, I would actually
> prefer not providing access (postponing for later). This would have
> sounded crazy to me 3-4 years ago, but is perhaps why I'm subscribed to
> this list right now :-)
> 
> Through the XSCE project we have control over the kind of (offline)
> services we provide and internet websites we allow access to. Still, I
> would love to have a discussion to form some kind of:
> 
> (1) Key points worth discussing with a community before enabling
> internet a ccess
> (2) Have some kind of on-ramp as a template
> 
> I know there are large foundations and many people working at this, and
> this needs to be thought through. For example, if you go to the mozilla
> web-literacy website [4] they seem to have a logical progression
> structure from Explore -> Build -> Connect. I don't think that is correct.
> 
> Regardless of my actions or whatever the XSCE project does, more people
> are going to go online through Facebook's internet.org
> <http://internet.org>, or google balloons etc.. So this is a fight worth
> fighting.  :-)
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> [1] http://wiki.laptop.org/go/XS_Community_Edition/FAQ
> [2]
> https://bhagmalpur.wordpress.com/2013/07/21/hello-world-from-bhagmalpur-part-1/
> [3]
> https://bhagmalpur.wordpress.com/2013/07/27/hello-world-from-bhagmalpur-part-2/
> [4] https://teach.mozilla.org/teach-like-mozilla/web-literacy/
> 
> Cheers,
> Anish
> 

-- 
Christian de Larrinaga  FBCS, CITP,
-------------------------
@ FirstHand
-------------------------
+44 7989 386778
cdel@firsthand.net
-------------------------

Re: [redecentralize] The next billion. A broken web. Social implications.

From:
Anish Mangal
Date:
2015-09-17 @ 12:52
Hi Christian,

I'm in India - currently Delhi, but hover about a lot in the mountains to
the north/north-east. I will look up the names you mentioned - thanks for
sharing them. If you have links or document(s) handy, that would be really
great too.

I believe the problem has atleast two aspects - educating people and
engaging them in conversation which was the thing I had in mind when I
shared this email, and second, the larger fight of generally making
internet a better place :-)

Cheers,
Anish




On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 4:37 PM, Christian de Larrinaga <cdel@firsthand.net>
wrote:

> Where are you Anish?
>
> I was invited as their guest and attended the INCA conference in Bristol
> UK for last two days in which alternative and community networks in UK
> such as B4RN were very much in evidence.
>
> One of the outcomes on my intray today is I was approached for some
> enabling documentation that alternative network community providers
> could provide to communities to better inform them of the issues and
> comparisons between going to telco based broadband v. their own network
> service.
>
> The more upstream issues around using applications such as web Ad based
> services and the general levels of insecurity through third party
> information sharing or theft (doxing)
>
> Local Internet Society chapters are a good resource for this such as
> mine ISOC UK England but as volunteer bodies they need community support
> to build this type of information resource.
>
>
> Christian
>
> Anish Mangal wrote:
> > Wanting to have a discussion with folks who work with or are involved in
> > providing internet access to people/places which didn't have it before.
> >
> > Volunteering for the SchoolServer/XSCE[1] project, I largely work with
> > communities which are rural, often remote, and largely disconnected to
> > the internet. At these places, access to CC-licensed or public domain
> > content is provided to children (sometimes specifically in schools) and
> > the larger community through village-spanning wifi networks (for an
> > example, see [2][3]). Many times there is no internet access, but in a
> > few cases there is some limited (in bandwidth) connectivity available.
> > Naturally, the question of "enabling the internet" comes up. Whether it
> > be some educator or an elder in the village, they want to be aware of
> > the benefits and the dangers of enabling internet access.
> >
> > A few years ago, I myself believed that the internet is a force for
> > good, and wider internet access is the only way forward. Lately however,
> > my perceptions have changed. There are many real issues related to
> > privacy, cultural change etc. that need to discussed at length with the
> > community and this involves effort. The short cut is to assume that
> > people will learn themselves once access is provided, but I don't
> > believe in that any more.
> >
> > So, if I as a volunteer working in these places cannot spend time to
> > have this discussion with the stakeholders involved, I would actually
> > prefer not providing access (postponing for later). This would have
> > sounded crazy to me 3-4 years ago, but is perhaps why I'm subscribed to
> > this list right now :-)
> >
> > Through the XSCE project we have control over the kind of (offline)
> > services we provide and internet websites we allow access to. Still, I
> > would love to have a discussion to form some kind of:
> >
> > (1) Key points worth discussing with a community before enabling
> > internet a ccess
> > (2) Have some kind of on-ramp as a template
> >
> > I know there are large foundations and many people working at this, and
> > this needs to be thought through. For example, if you go to the mozilla
> > web-literacy website [4] they seem to have a logical progression
> > structure from Explore -> Build -> Connect. I don't think that is
> correct.
> >
> > Regardless of my actions or whatever the XSCE project does, more people
> > are going to go online through Facebook's internet.org
> > <http://internet.org>, or google balloons etc.. So this is a fight worth
> > fighting.  :-)
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > [1] http://wiki.laptop.org/go/XS_Community_Edition/FAQ
> > [2]
> >
> https://bhagmalpur.wordpress.com/2013/07/21/hello-world-from-bhagmalpur-part-1/
> > [3]
> >
> https://bhagmalpur.wordpress.com/2013/07/27/hello-world-from-bhagmalpur-part-2/
> > [4] https://teach.mozilla.org/teach-like-mozilla/web-literacy/
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Anish
> >
>
> --
> Christian de Larrinaga  FBCS, CITP,
> -------------------------
> @ FirstHand
> -------------------------
> +44 7989 386778
> cdel@firsthand.net
> -------------------------
>
>

Re: [redecentralize] The next billion. A broken web. Social implications.

From:
Christian de Larrinaga
Date:
2015-09-17 @ 13:00
There are five Internet Society chapters in India, Delhi, Kolkata,
Bangalore, Chennai, Trivandrum. One each in Nepal, Bangladesh, Pakistan
and Sri Lanka.

http://www.internetsociety.org/find-chapter

Delhi Chapter
http://www.isocdelhi.in
Contact Name:
Dr. Govind
Contact Email:
mukesh@nixi.in
Date Chartered: Chartered December 2002. Rejuvenated in November 2008.

I don't that chapter although I've seen evidence the Chennai chapter has
been active as we've had some links and policy project with them fairly
recently.


Christian

Anish Mangal wrote:
> Hi Christian,
> 
> I'm in India - currently Delhi, but hover about a lot in the mountains
> to the north/north-east. I will look up the names you mentioned - thanks
> for sharing them. If you have links or document(s) handy, that would be
> really great too.
> 
> I believe the problem has atleast two aspects - educating people and
> engaging them in conversation which was the thing I had in mind when I
> shared this email, and second, the larger fight of generally making
> internet a better place :-)
> 
> Cheers,
> Anish
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 4:37 PM, Christian de Larrinaga
> <cdel@firsthand.net <mailto:cdel@firsthand.net>> wrote:
> 
>     Where are you Anish?
> 
>     I was invited as their guest and attended the INCA conference in Bristol
>     UK for last two days in which alternative and community networks in UK
>     such as B4RN were very much in evidence.
> 
>     One of the outcomes on my intray today is I was approached for some
>     enabling documentation that alternative network community providers
>     could provide to communities to better inform them of the issues and
>     comparisons between going to telco based broadband v. their own network
>     service.
> 
>     The more upstream issues around using applications such as web Ad based
>     services and the general levels of insecurity through third party
>     information sharing or theft (doxing)
> 
>     Local Internet Society chapters are a good resource for this such as
>     mine ISOC UK England but as volunteer bodies they need community support
>     to build this type of information resource.
> 
> 
>     Christian
> 
>     Anish Mangal wrote:
>     > Wanting to have a discussion with folks who work with or are
>     involved in
>     > providing internet access to people/places which didn't have it
>     before.
>     >
>     > Volunteering for the SchoolServer/XSCE[1] project, I largely work with
>     > communities which are rural, often remote, and largely disconnected to
>     > the internet. At these places, access to CC-licensed or public domain
>     > content is provided to children (sometimes specifically in
>     schools) and
>     > the larger community through village-spanning wifi networks (for an
>     > example, see [2][3]). Many times there is no internet access, but in a
>     > few cases there is some limited (in bandwidth) connectivity available.
>     > Naturally, the question of "enabling the internet" comes up.
>     Whether it
>     > be some educator or an elder in the village, they want to be aware of
>     > the benefits and the dangers of enabling internet access.
>     >
>     > A few years ago, I myself believed that the internet is a force for
>     > good, and wider internet access is the only way forward. Lately
>     however,
>     > my perceptions have changed. There are many real issues related to
>     > privacy, cultural change etc. that need to discussed at length
>     with the
>     > community and this involves effort. The short cut is to assume that
>     > people will learn themselves once access is provided, but I don't
>     > believe in that any more.
>     >
>     > So, if I as a volunteer working in these places cannot spend time to
>     > have this discussion with the stakeholders involved, I would actually
>     > prefer not providing access (postponing for later). This would have
>     > sounded crazy to me 3-4 years ago, but is perhaps why I'm
>     subscribed to
>     > this list right now :-)
>     >
>     > Through the XSCE project we have control over the kind of (offline)
>     > services we provide and internet websites we allow access to. Still, I
>     > would love to have a discussion to form some kind of:
>     >
>     > (1) Key points worth discussing with a community before enabling
>     > internet a ccess
>     > (2) Have some kind of on-ramp as a template
>     >
>     > I know there are large foundations and many people working at
>     this, and
>     > this needs to be thought through. For example, if you go to the
>     mozilla
>     > web-literacy website [4] they seem to have a logical progression
>     > structure from Explore -> Build -> Connect. I don't think that is
>     correct.
>     >
>     > Regardless of my actions or whatever the XSCE project does, more
>     people
>     > are going to go online through Facebook's internet.org
>     <http://internet.org>
>     > <http://internet.org>, or google balloons etc.. So this is a fight
>     worth
>     > fighting.  :-)
>     >
>     > Thoughts?
>     >
>     > [1] http://wiki.laptop.org/go/XS_Community_Edition/FAQ
>     > [2]
>     >
>     
https://bhagmalpur.wordpress.com/2013/07/21/hello-world-from-bhagmalpur-part-1/
>     > [3]
>     >
>     
https://bhagmalpur.wordpress.com/2013/07/27/hello-world-from-bhagmalpur-part-2/
>     > [4] https://teach.mozilla.org/teach-like-mozilla/web-literacy/
>     >
>     > Cheers,
>     > Anish
>     >
> 
>     --
>     Christian de Larrinaga  FBCS, CITP,
>     -------------------------
>     @ FirstHand
>     -------------------------
>     +44 7989 386778 <tel:%2B44%207989%20386778>
>     cdel@firsthand.net <mailto:cdel@firsthand.net>
>     -------------------------
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Christian de Larrinaga  FBCS, CITP,
-------------------------
@ FirstHand
-------------------------
+44 7989 386778
cdel@firsthand.net
-------------------------

Re: [redecentralize] The next billion. A broken web. Social implications.

From:
hellekin
Date:
2015-09-17 @ 14:17
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

On 09/17/2015 09:52 AM, Anish Mangal wrote:
> 
> I believe the problem has atleast two aspects - educating people and
> engaging them in conversation which was the thing I had in mind when I
> shared this email, and second, the larger fight of generally making
> internet a better place :-)
>

The problem with "educating people" is that you're already coming with
the assumption that you're right, and they should come to agreement with
your position if only they had the correct information.  It might not
feel like this, but it's the case.  Many cultures around the world have
conflicting world with the global Western approach.

The Western mind has a lust for general principles and since Descartes
and with the Enlightenment, we have a tendency to reduce the picture of
the world to support our totalitarian claims.  If Newtonian physics
works most of the time, we've known for a Century already that it does
not in all cases.  But the reductionist world view still prevails,
destroying as it builds, seeking universality from flattened and
dysfunctional models.

In the last few decades, a new force has been growing fast and strong,
that rejects reductionism, but still proceeds from a similar bias: it
starts considering an issue (e.g., Internet access), and restricts the
field of observation until it fits the agenda; it still works on
computable/measurable parts, and leaves complexity to "externalities".
This "good enough" / "just in time" / "stakeholder" approach can be very
helpful in many circumstances, but still fails when people try to
extrapolate universals from constituent parts.  I would call this the
holographic approach.

The difference between reductionism and this is that the former assumes
the world to be mechanical, and therefore entirely computable,
measurable, controllable.  The latter, while it's a lot more
sophisticated, still assumes homomorphism between a partial model and
reality.  It works for specific, limited cases where we already know the
parts and can combine them according to some predetermined logic, and
appears to be effective even in more complex cases.  But it often comes
at the expense of other ways to conceive life that do not assume an
informational world.

I do think there are homomorphisms in the world, but I do not believe in
an informational world that can be reduced to ones and zeros.  If you
come to a conversation with the assumption that you're right and your
interlocutor needs to be educated, then you're not ready to listen to
them and understand where you might be wrong.  An awful lot of
ideologies today assume that "progress" is "good", that "democracy" is
"necessary", that "transparency" is "appropriate", or that "technology"
will bring all solutions to all problems.  They often fail to consider
the genealogy and diversity of situations and tend to remove from "the
big picture" anything that "doesn't compute".

A prime example is this belief that connecting everyone to the Internet
will bring more benefits than harm.  But so far, there's no
demonstration that communities thrive better with Internet access.
Certainly isolated communities can defend themselves better if they can
reach out to the Internauts and have them pressure their politicians.

If "the next billion" is to connect to the Internet with Apple devices
and Facebook, well, they won't get any benefit from it: they will join
the hordes of ignorant people sucked by a machine that requires their
brains and purchasing power to fulfill their own agenda.  There's
nothing automatic in accessing the Internet and magically obtaining
empowerment.  As you embrace new technologies, your environment changes,
and with it your organism, from biological to political.  With the few
hindsight we have gained on communication technologies, we can tell that
powers already there can use them to their advantage as much as wannabe
liberation technologies, except at a must large scale: they act as
amplifiers, but when everyone is shouting, who's listening?  As much as
I like the Internet, I'm still worried that promoting its expansion is
more beneficial to the likes of Putin than to the rest of us.

I didn't see much homogeneity within the ISOC to tell that local
chapters can be helpful.  The Argentinian chapter for what I know is an
exclusive club of merchants who don't even take the time to update their
website nor respond to email.  But they still claim to be a local
chapter of ISOC, and there's no official ISOC response trying to unlock
the situation.  The truth is that this is all a theater, where people
try and play their part as much as they can.  But there's no text
written for this piece.  Everyone is writing their part as we go.
Acceptance without criticism means we're giving ink to those who do in
the name of others, using their broken assumptions, confirmed in their
biases by their apparent successes.

Regards,

==
hk
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2

iQJ8BAEBCgBmBQJV+st5XxSAAAAAAC4AKGlzc3Vlci1mcHJAbm90YXRpb25zLm9w
ZW5wZ3AuZmlmdGhob3JzZW1hbi5uZXRFQ0IyNkIyRTNDNzEyMTc2OUEzNEM4ODU0
ODA2QzM2M0ZDMTg5ODNEAAoJEEgGw2P8GJg9Dg4P/0rNhbo9+ZMRN1yLdKSD4Qs6
eNmge3oz+9/iUwqhRAWEWbROV05EPzlj0VUJfhQhN6l8FD+Wk0T0v88dZU3fg86F
EeLeiZchuai7lK8uvYYIRjnO1Vmbv/O6wuNMkwjb0UjgE/xXcTCa1KG2JXCifSFu
4Niwd2E0Css43XFSajl2IScIqLYbzKocjcgMJTuaNMuOIM4hdflCBTzbk1Y5a6lO
vegchJI3iMlsIv5dKgaZhVeTf9wT4RPppEZIXzogPzWMtK9gUkQdB+UYsFoqA64l
JODtNvJAYGW/wXBqzJHz6KAH8PpEWNRte8pDWLIR4cDVxOra8vHPa9ZQ19Rz5j8V
R2QJ96tGw6ukeTvL5YNi2dH+R8So68d2gK/aLLFcg/X0LxzX8yTIX9qh9N+nvvzp
ghCWu5NUPlLJ9cnRzeDC2KZs/RP7shU3tlaPYMsow7QIdRXZWOvMQS2blugkWtA9
v95GH/4EpEnALuMIAXqmYeWlJ+BbUHNW2bxq0Xy9+FS+1DYIB01Tr/So7w4Ym8Kt
W+I1XFLS992QoeixFmsWhVhxiLGgwzTNcoaRNoz+BbhRnRNPlHUngazivo9yge+S
L2q7Q7khjdOaFYpg9yHhQBMbIbo763HZ1vKQMpyv/VIsg4NlwEhbDTjEzOCcGSQS
ZldUk1d+wZ2kt59IT9gm
=5cFY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [redecentralize] The next billion. A broken web. Social implications.

From:
Anish Mangal
Date:
2015-09-17 @ 15:32
Hi hk (sorry don't have your name),

Thank you for this well thought out and long response, a lot of which I can
connect with.

My primary focus is certainly not to "educate", perhaps I used the wrong
word. If you read my email, the progression went something like

pull from the field about being aware of pitfalls and benefits
> "Whether it be some educator or an elder in the village, they want to be
aware of the benefits and the dangers of enabling internet access."

me being naive
> I myself believed that the internet is a force for good, and wider
internet access is the only way forward.

me growing up (though certainly not being free of biases), and trying to
best address that need.

In most of the places I work in, I try to rely less on my "educating", or
imparting knowledge, and more on observing whether the people who are on
the ground, who are part of that community have within themselves (mostly
motivation) to think this through. I *do* believe this is necessary in
learning environments like schools where we deploy servers.

So, what I am looking to answer is how to best address that motivation to
learn about the internet. I do not claim to be smarter than anybody,
certainly in the sense that my way is the right way - but I do recognize
that it is important to discuss things which people might not be aware of
on their own when they first get online, and make their own decisions - and
being free of bias while doing that.

To throw in some real world data, here are two cases from the Himalayas in
India:

School #1:
Large school, does not allow internet access for children, though slow
internet is available in the area a year or so ago. A content, and media
server is present in the school. Now, faster internet is available, but the
school admins don't want to enable internet because:
- They claim they do not know the dangers, they've heard stories that
"somebody got on the internet and did X which resulted in Y"
- They want to be able to curate the content their students have access to.
- School principal is open to deploying technology and exploring new
methods of learning. Currently they pay some money to a proprietary content
vendor but they want to get out that deal gradually with the profusion of
freely licensed, high quality learning content.

Village community #2:
- Small village, about 30-50 families spread over a mountain slope looking
to setup a village network.
- The person from the community with whom I had the conversation with has
been living there for 20 yrs and is very concerned about the privacy
implications of accessing the internet. He wants originally to create a
local web and then enable internet access in a controlled fashion.
- Is afraid of people uploading objectionable content which may pose a
threat to the network (i.e. some govt. agency might use it as an excuse to
shut it down) so wants to grow this slowly in a trust building kind of
fashion.


So, here's the question. How would you best engage in a conversation with
these communities? Note that we only deploy in places where there is strong
pull from the field, since that automatically implies people on the ground
will have the time, resources and energy to take things forward and take
ownership of the technology they're setting up/using.

--
Anish


On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 7:47 PM, hellekin <hellekin@gnu.org> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA512
>
> On 09/17/2015 09:52 AM, Anish Mangal wrote:
> >
> > I believe the problem has atleast two aspects - educating people and
> > engaging them in conversation which was the thing I had in mind when I
> > shared this email, and second, the larger fight of generally making
> > internet a better place :-)
> >
>
> The problem with "educating people" is that you're already coming with
> the assumption that you're right, and they should come to agreement with
> your position if only they had the correct information.  It might not
> feel like this, but it's the case.  Many cultures around the world have
> conflicting world with the global Western approach.
>
> The Western mind has a lust for general principles and since Descartes
> and with the Enlightenment, we have a tendency to reduce the picture of
> the world to support our totalitarian claims.  If Newtonian physics
> works most of the time, we've known for a Century already that it does
> not in all cases.  But the reductionist world view still prevails,
> destroying as it builds, seeking universality from flattened and
> dysfunctional models.
>
> In the last few decades, a new force has been growing fast and strong,
> that rejects reductionism, but still proceeds from a similar bias: it
> starts considering an issue (e.g., Internet access), and restricts the
> field of observation until it fits the agenda; it still works on
> computable/measurable parts, and leaves complexity to "externalities".
> This "good enough" / "just in time" / "stakeholder" approach can be very
> helpful in many circumstances, but still fails when people try to
> extrapolate universals from constituent parts.  I would call this the
> holographic approach.
>
> The difference between reductionism and this is that the former assumes
> the world to be mechanical, and therefore entirely computable,
> measurable, controllable.  The latter, while it's a lot more
> sophisticated, still assumes homomorphism between a partial model and
> reality.  It works for specific, limited cases where we already know the
> parts and can combine them according to some predetermined logic, and
> appears to be effective even in more complex cases.  But it often comes
> at the expense of other ways to conceive life that do not assume an
> informational world.
>
> I do think there are homomorphisms in the world, but I do not believe in
> an informational world that can be reduced to ones and zeros.  If you
> come to a conversation with the assumption that you're right and your
> interlocutor needs to be educated, then you're not ready to listen to
> them and understand where you might be wrong.  An awful lot of
> ideologies today assume that "progress" is "good", that "democracy" is
> "necessary", that "transparency" is "appropriate", or that "technology"
> will bring all solutions to all problems.  They often fail to consider
> the genealogy and diversity of situations and tend to remove from "the
> big picture" anything that "doesn't compute".
>
> A prime example is this belief that connecting everyone to the Internet
> will bring more benefits than harm.  But so far, there's no
> demonstration that communities thrive better with Internet access.
> Certainly isolated communities can defend themselves better if they can
> reach out to the Internauts and have them pressure their politicians.
>
> If "the next billion" is to connect to the Internet with Apple devices
> and Facebook, well, they won't get any benefit from it: they will join
> the hordes of ignorant people sucked by a machine that requires their
> brains and purchasing power to fulfill their own agenda.  There's
> nothing automatic in accessing the Internet and magically obtaining
> empowerment.  As you embrace new technologies, your environment changes,
> and with it your organism, from biological to political.  With the few
> hindsight we have gained on communication technologies, we can tell that
> powers already there can use them to their advantage as much as wannabe
> liberation technologies, except at a must large scale: they act as
> amplifiers, but when everyone is shouting, who's listening?  As much as
> I like the Internet, I'm still worried that promoting its expansion is
> more beneficial to the likes of Putin than to the rest of us.
>
> I didn't see much homogeneity within the ISOC to tell that local
> chapters can be helpful.  The Argentinian chapter for what I know is an
> exclusive club of merchants who don't even take the time to update their
> website nor respond to email.  But they still claim to be a local
> chapter of ISOC, and there's no official ISOC response trying to unlock
> the situation.  The truth is that this is all a theater, where people
> try and play their part as much as they can.  But there's no text
> written for this piece.  Everyone is writing their part as we go.
> Acceptance without criticism means we're giving ink to those who do in
> the name of others, using their broken assumptions, confirmed in their
> biases by their apparent successes.
>
> Regards,
>
> ==
> hk
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v2
>
> iQJ8BAEBCgBmBQJV+st5XxSAAAAAAC4AKGlzc3Vlci1mcHJAbm90YXRpb25zLm9w
> ZW5wZ3AuZmlmdGhob3JzZW1hbi5uZXRFQ0IyNkIyRTNDNzEyMTc2OUEzNEM4ODU0
> ODA2QzM2M0ZDMTg5ODNEAAoJEEgGw2P8GJg9Dg4P/0rNhbo9+ZMRN1yLdKSD4Qs6
> eNmge3oz+9/iUwqhRAWEWbROV05EPzlj0VUJfhQhN6l8FD+Wk0T0v88dZU3fg86F
> EeLeiZchuai7lK8uvYYIRjnO1Vmbv/O6wuNMkwjb0UjgE/xXcTCa1KG2JXCifSFu
> 4Niwd2E0Css43XFSajl2IScIqLYbzKocjcgMJTuaNMuOIM4hdflCBTzbk1Y5a6lO
> vegchJI3iMlsIv5dKgaZhVeTf9wT4RPppEZIXzogPzWMtK9gUkQdB+UYsFoqA64l
> JODtNvJAYGW/wXBqzJHz6KAH8PpEWNRte8pDWLIR4cDVxOra8vHPa9ZQ19Rz5j8V
> R2QJ96tGw6ukeTvL5YNi2dH+R8So68d2gK/aLLFcg/X0LxzX8yTIX9qh9N+nvvzp
> ghCWu5NUPlLJ9cnRzeDC2KZs/RP7shU3tlaPYMsow7QIdRXZWOvMQS2blugkWtA9
> v95GH/4EpEnALuMIAXqmYeWlJ+BbUHNW2bxq0Xy9+FS+1DYIB01Tr/So7w4Ym8Kt
> W+I1XFLS992QoeixFmsWhVhxiLGgwzTNcoaRNoz+BbhRnRNPlHUngazivo9yge+S
> L2q7Q7khjdOaFYpg9yHhQBMbIbo763HZ1vKQMpyv/VIsg4NlwEhbDTjEzOCcGSQS
> ZldUk1d+wZ2kt59IT9gm
> =5cFY
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>

Re: [redecentralize] The next billion. A broken web. Social implications.

From:
Christian de Larrinaga
Date:
2015-09-17 @ 16:36
Anish these are great examples. Do you mind if I push them to some
people who work in school online community building to see if they have
any thoughts or support to offer you to help take this forward?

Am I right in assuming you are offering a connectivity service locally?

Christian

Anish Mangal wrote:
> Hi hk (sorry don't have your name),
> 
> Thank you for this well thought out and long response, a lot of which I
> can connect with.
> 
> My primary focus is certainly not to "educate", perhaps I used the wrong
> word. If you read my email, the progression went something like
> 
> pull from the field about being aware of pitfalls and benefits
>> "Whether it be some educator or an elder in the village, they want to
> be aware of the benefits and the dangers of enabling internet access."
> 
> me being naive
>> I myself believed that the internet is a force for good, and wider
> internet access is the only way forward.
> 
> me growing up (though certainly not being free of biases), and trying to
> best address that need.
> 
> In most of the places I work in, I try to rely less on my "educating",
> or imparting knowledge, and more on observing whether the people who are
> on the ground, who are part of that community have within themselves
> (mostly motivation) to think this through. I *do* believe this is
> necessary in learning environments like schools where we deploy servers.
> 
> So, what I am looking to answer is how to best address that motivation
> to learn about the internet. I do not claim to be smarter than anybody,
> certainly in the sense that my way is the right way - but I do recognize
> that it is important to discuss things which people might not be a ware
> of on their own when they first get online, and make their own decisions
> - and being free of bias while doing that.
> 
> To throw in some real world data, here are two cases from the Himalayas
> in India:
> 
> School #1:
> Large school, does not allow internet access for children, though slow
> internet is available in the area a year or so ago. A content, and media
> server is present in the school. Now, faster internet is available, but
> the school admins don't want to enable internet because:
> - They claim they do not know the dangers, they've heard stories that
> "somebody got on the internet and did X which resulted in Y"
> - They want to be able to curate the content their students have access to.
> - School principal is open to deploying technology and exploring new
> methods of learning. Currently they pay some money to a proprietary
> content vendor but they want to get out that deal gradually with the
> profusion of freely licensed, high quality learning content.
> 
> Village community #2:
> - Small village, about 30-50 families spread over a mountain slope
> looking to setup a village network.
> - The person from the community with whom I had the conversation with
> has been living there for 20 yrs and is very concerned about the privacy
> implications of accessing the internet. He wants originally to create a
> local web and then enable internet access in a controlled fashion.
> - Is afraid of people uploading objectionable content which may pose a
> threat to the network (i.e. some govt. agency might use it as an excuse
> to shut it down) so wants to grow this slowly in a trust building kind
> of fashion.
> 
> 
> So, here's the question. How would you best engage in a conversation
> with these communities? Note that we only deploy in places where there
> is strong pull from the field, since that automatically implies people
> on the ground will have the time, resources and energy to take things
> forward and take ownership of the technology they're setting up/using.
> 
> --
> Anish
> 
> 
> On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 7:47 PM, hellekin <hellekin@gnu.org
> <mailto:hellekin@gnu.org>> wrote:
> 
> On 09/17/2015 09:52 AM, Anish Mangal wrote:
> 
>> I believe the problem has atleast two aspects - educating people and
>> engaging them in conversation which was the thing I had in mind when I
>> shared this email, and second, the larger fight of generally making
>> internet a better place :-)
> 
> 
> The problem with "educating people" is that you're already coming with
> the assumption that you're right, and they should come to agreement with
> your position if only they had the correct information.  It might not
> feel like this, but it's the case.  Many cultures around the world have
> conflicting world with the global Western approach.
> 
> The Western mind has a lust for general principles and since Descartes
> and with the Enlightenment, we have a tendency to reduce the picture of
> the world to support our totalitarian claims.  If Newtonian physics
> works most of the time, we've known for a Century already that it does
> not in all cases.  But the reductionist world view still prevails,
> destroying as it builds, seeking universality from flattened and
> dysfunctional models.
> 
> In the last few decades, a new force has been growing fast and strong,
> that rejects reductionism, but still proceeds from a similar bias: it
> starts considering an issue (e.g., Internet access), and restricts the
> field of observation until it fits the agenda; it still works on
> computable/measurable parts, and leaves complexity to "externalities".
> This "good enough" / "just in time" / "stakeholder" approach can be very
> helpful in many circumstances, but still fails when people try to
> extrapolate universals from constituent parts.  I would call this the
> holographic approach.
> 
> The difference between reductionism and this is that the former assumes
> the world to be mechanical, and therefore entirely computable,
> measurable, controllable.  The latter, while it's a lot more
> sophisticated, still assumes homomorphism between a partial model and
> reality.  It works for specific, limited cases where we already know the
> parts and can combine them according to some predetermined logic, and
> appears to be effective even in more complex cases.  But it often comes
> at the expense of other ways to conceive life that do not assume an
> informational world.
> 
> I do think there are homomorphisms in the world, but I do not believe in
> an informational world that can be reduced to ones and zeros.  If you
> come to a conversation with the assumption that you're right and your
> interlocutor needs to be educated, then you're not ready to listen to
> them and understand where you might be wrong.  An awful lot of
> ideologies today assume that "progress" is "good", that "democracy" is
> "necessary", that "transparency" is "appropriate", or that "technology"
> will bring all solutions to all problems.  They often fail to consider
> the genealogy and diversity of situations and tend to remove from "the
> big picture" anything that "doesn't compute".
> 
> A prime example is this belief that connecting everyone to the Internet
> will bring more benefits than harm.  But so far, there's no
> demonstration that communities thrive better with Internet access.
> Certainly isolated communities can defend themselves better if they can
> reach out to the Internauts and have them pressure their politicians.
> 
> If "the next billion" is to connect to the Internet with Apple devices
> and Facebook, well, they won't get any benefit from it: they will join
> the hordes of ignorant people sucked by a machine that requires their
> brains and purchasing power to fulfill their own agenda.  There's
> nothing automatic in accessing the Internet and magically obtaining
> empowerment.  As you embrace new technologies, your environment changes,
> and with it your organism, from biological to political.  With the few
> hindsight we have gained on communication technologies, we can tell that
> powers already there can use them to their advantage as much as wannabe
> liberation technologies, except at a must large scale: they act as
> amplifiers, but when everyone is shouting, who's listening?  As much as
> I like the Internet, I'm still worried that promoting its expansion is
> more beneficial to the likes of Putin than to the rest of us.
> 
> I didn't see much homogeneity within the ISOC to tell that local
> chapters can be helpful.  The Argentinian chapter for what I know is an
> exclusive club of merchants who don't even take the time to update their
> website nor respond to email.  But they still claim to be a local
> chapter of ISOC, and there's no official ISOC response trying to unlock
> the situation.  The truth is that this is all a theater, where people
> try and play their part as much as they can.  But there's no text
> written for this piece.  Everyone is writing their part as we go.
> Acceptance without criticism means we're giving ink to those who do in
> the name of others, using their broken assumptions, confirmed in their
> biases by their apparent successes.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> ==
> hk
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Christian de Larrinaga  FBCS, CITP,
-------------------------
@ FirstHand
-------------------------
+44 7989 386778
cdel@firsthand.net
-------------------------

Re: [redecentralize] The next billion. A broken web. Social implications.

From:
Anish Mangal
Date:
2015-09-17 @ 16:59
Hi Christian,

Go right ahead! :)

Yes, in the village case (#2), they are more interested in connecting their
village (i.e. residents with one another) locally and to other neighbouring
villages through wifi and directional antennas. Internet is secondary.

Also should make it clear at this point that this is NOT a commercial
service. There is no plan to charge "users" with "fees" - just the upfront
installation cost will be borne through a means and running costs taken
care of.

Best,
Anish


On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 10:06 PM, Christian de Larrinaga <cdel@firsthand.net
> wrote:

> Anish these are great examples. Do you mind if I push them to some
> people who work in school online community building to see if they have
> any thoughts or support to offer you to help take this forward?
>
> Am I right in assuming you are offering a connectivity service locally?
>
> Christian
>
> Anish Mangal wrote:
> > Hi hk (sorry don't have your name),
> >
> > Thank you for this well thought out and long response, a lot of which I
> > can connect with.
> >
> > My primary focus is certainly not to "educate", perhaps I used the wrong
> > word. If you read my email, the progression went something like
> >
> > pull from the field about being aware of pitfalls and benefits
> >> "Whether it be some educator or an elder in the village, they want to
> > be aware of the benefits and the dangers of enabling internet access."
> >
> > me being naive
> >> I myself believed that the internet is a force for good, and wider
> > internet access is the only way forward.
> >
> > me growing up (though certainly not being free of biases), and trying to
> > best address that need.
> >
> > In most of the places I work in, I try to rely less on my "educating",
> > or imparting knowledge, and more on observing whether the people who are
> > on the ground, who are part of that community have within themselves
> > (mostly motivation) to think this through. I *do* believe this is
> > necessary in learning environments like schools where we deploy servers.
> >
> > So, what I am looking to answer is how to best address that motivation
> > to learn about the internet. I do not claim to be smarter than anybody,
> > certainly in the sense that my way is the right way - but I do recognize
> > that it is important to discuss things which people might not be a ware
> > of on their own when they first get online, and make their own decisions
> > - and being free of bias while doing that.
> >
> > To throw in some real world data, here are two cases from the Himalayas
> > in India:
> >
> > School #1:
> > Large school, does not allow internet access for children, though slow
> > internet is available in the area a year or so ago. A content, and media
> > server is present in the school. Now, faster internet is available, but
> > the school admins don't want to enable internet because:
> > - They claim they do not know the dangers, they've heard stories that
> > "somebody got on the internet and did X which resulted in Y"
> > - They want to be able to curate the content their students have access
> to.
> > - School principal is open to deploying technology and exploring new
> > methods of learning. Currently they pay some money to a proprietary
> > content vendor but they want to get out that deal gradually with the
> > profusion of freely licensed, high quality learning content.
> >
> > Village community #2:
> > - Small village, about 30-50 families spread over a mountain slope
> > looking to setup a village network.
> > - The person from the community with whom I had the conversation with
> > has been living there for 20 yrs and is very concerned about the privacy
> > implications of accessing the internet. He wants originally to create a
> > local web and then enable internet access in a controlled fashion.
> > - Is afraid of people uploading objectionable content which may pose a
> > threat to the network (i.e. some govt. agency might use it as an excuse
> > to shut it down) so wants to grow this slowly in a trust building kind
> > of fashion.
> >
> >
> > So, here's the question. How would you best engage in a conversation
> > with these communities? Note that we only deploy in places where there
> > is strong pull from the field, since that automatically implies people
> > on the ground will have the time, resources and energy to take things
> > forward and take ownership of the technology they're setting up/using.
> >
> > --
> > Anish
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 7:47 PM, hellekin <hellekin@gnu.org
> > <mailto:hellekin@gnu.org>> wrote:
> >
> > On 09/17/2015 09:52 AM, Anish Mangal wrote:
> >
> >> I believe the problem has atleast two aspects - educating people and
> >> engaging them in conversation which was the thing I had in mind when I
> >> shared this email, and second, the larger fight of generally making
> >> internet a better place :-)
> >
> >
> > The problem with "educating people" is that you're already coming with
> > the assumption that you're right, and they should come to agreement with
> > your position if only they had the correct information.  It might not
> > feel like this, but it's the case.  Many cultures around the world have
> > conflicting world with the global Western approach.
> >
> > The Western mind has a lust for general principles and since Descartes
> > and with the Enlightenment, we have a tendency to reduce the picture of
> > the world to support our totalitarian claims.  If Newtonian physics
> > works most of the time, we've known for a Century already that it does
> > not in all cases.  But the reductionist world view still prevails,
> > destroying as it builds, seeking universality from flattened and
> > dysfunctional models.
> >
> > In the last few decades, a new force has been growing fast and strong,
> > that rejects reductionism, but still proceeds from a similar bias: it
> > starts considering an issue (e.g., Internet access), and restricts the
> > field of observation until it fits the agenda; it still works on
> > computable/measurable parts, and leaves complexity to "externalities".
> > This "good enough" / "just in time" / "stakeholder" approach can be very
> > helpful in many circumstances, but still fails when people try to
> > extrapolate universals from constituent parts.  I would call this the
> > holographic approach.
> >
> > The difference between reductionism and this is that the former assumes
> > the world to be mechanical, and therefore entirely computable,
> > measurable, controllable.  The latter, while it's a lot more
> > sophisticated, still assumes homomorphism between a partial model and
> > reality.  It works for specific, limited cases where we already know the
> > parts and can combine them according to some predetermined logic, and
> > appears to be effective even in more complex cases.  But it often comes
> > at the expense of other ways to conceive life that do not assume an
> > informational world.
> >
> > I do think there are homomorphisms in the world, but I do not believe in
> > an informational world that can be reduced to ones and zeros.  If you
> > come to a conversation with the assumption that you're right and your
> > interlocutor needs to be educated, then you're not ready to listen to
> > them and understand where you might be wrong.  An awful lot of
> > ideologies today assume that "progress" is "good", that "democracy" is
> > "necessary", that "transparency" is "appropriate", or that "technology"
> > will bring all solutions to all problems.  They often fail to consider
> > the genealogy and diversity of situations and tend to remove from "the
> > big picture" anything that "doesn't compute".
> >
> > A prime example is this belief that connecting everyone to the Internet
> > will bring more benefits than harm.  But so far, there's no
> > demonstration that communities thrive better with Internet access.
> > Certainly isolated communities can defend themselves better if they can
> > reach out to the Internauts and have them pressure their politicians.
> >
> > If "the next billion" is to connect to the Internet with Apple devices
> > and Facebook, well, they won't get any benefit from it: they will join
> > the hordes of ignorant people sucked by a machine that requires their
> > brains and purchasing power to fulfill their own agenda.  There's
> > nothing automatic in accessing the Internet and magically obtaining
> > empowerment.  As you embrace new technologies, your environment changes,
> > and with it your organism, from biological to political.  With the few
> > hindsight we have gained on communication technologies, we can tell that
> > powers already there can use them to their advantage as much as wannabe
> > liberation technologies, except at a must large scale: they act as
> > amplifiers, but when everyone is shouting, who's listening?  As much as
> > I like the Internet, I'm still worried that promoting its expansion is
> > more beneficial to the likes of Putin than to the rest of us.
> >
> > I didn't see much homogeneity within the ISOC to tell that local
> > chapters can be helpful.  The Argentinian chapter for what I know is an
> > exclusive club of merchants who don't even take the time to update their
> > website nor respond to email.  But they still claim to be a local
> > chapter of ISOC, and there's no official ISOC response trying to unlock
> > the situation.  The truth is that this is all a theater, where people
> > try and play their part as much as they can.  But there's no text
> > written for this piece.  Everyone is writing their part as we go.
> > Acceptance without criticism means we're giving ink to those who do in
> > the name of others, using their broken assumptions, confirmed in their
> > biases by their apparent successes.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > ==
> > hk
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Christian de Larrinaga  FBCS, CITP,
> -------------------------
> @ FirstHand
> -------------------------
> +44 7989 386778
> cdel@firsthand.net
> -------------------------
>
>

Re: [redecentralize] The next billion. A broken web. Social implications.

From:
Christian de Larrinaga
Date:
2015-09-17 @ 17:26
OK.


C

Anish Mangal wrote:
> Hi Christian,
> 
> Go right ahead! :)
> 
> Yes, in the village case (#2), they are more interested in connecting
> their village (i.e. residents with one another) locally and to other
> neighbouring villages through wifi and directional antennas. Internet is
> secondary.
> 
> Also should make it clear at this point that this is NOT a commercial
> service. There is no plan to charge "users" with "fees" - just the
> upfront installation cost will be borne through a means and running
> costs taken care of.
> 
> Best,
> Anish
> 
> 
> On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 10:06 PM, Christian de Larrinaga
> <cdel@firsthand.net <mailto:cdel@firsthand.net>> wrote:
> 
>     Anish these are great examples. Do you mind if I push them to some
>     people who work in school online community building to see if they have
>     any thoughts or support to offer you to help take this forward?
> 
>     Am I right in assuming you are offering a connectivity service locally?
> 
>     Christian
> 
>     Anish Mangal wrote:
>     > Hi hk (sorry don't have your name),
>     >
>     > Thank you for this well thought out and long response, a lot of
>     which I
>     > can connect with.
>     >
>     > My primary focus is certainly not to "educate", perhaps I used the
>     wrong
>     > word. If you read my email, the progression went something like
>     >
>     > pull from the field about being aware of pitfalls and benefits
>     >> "Whether it be some educator or an elder in the village, they want to
>     > be aware of the benefits and the dangers of enabling internet access."
>     >
>     > me being naive
>     >> I myself believed that the internet is a force for good, and wider
>     > internet access is the only way forward.
>     >
>     > me growing up (though certainly not being free of biases), and
>     trying to
>     > best address that need.
>     >
>     > In most of the places I work in, I try to rely less on my "educating",
>     > or imparting knowledge, and more on observing whether the people
>     who are
>     > on the ground, who are part of that community have within themselves
>     > (mostly motivation) to think this through. I *do* believe this is
>     > necessary in learning environments like schools where we deploy
>     servers.
>     >
>     > So, what I am looking to answer is how to best address that motivation
>     > to learn about the internet. I do not claim to be smarter than
>     anybody,
>     > certainly in the sense that my way is the right way - but I do
>     recognize
>     > that it is important to discuss things which people might not be a
>     ware
>     > of on their own when they first get online, and make their own
>     decisions
>     > - and being free of bias while doing that.
>     >
>     > To throw in some real world data, here are two cases from the
>     Himalayas
>     > in India:
>     >
>     > School #1:
>     > Large school, does not allow internet access for children, though slow
>     > internet is available in the area a year or so ago. A content, and
>     media
>     > server is present in the school. Now, faster internet is
>     available, but
>     > the school admins don't want to enable internet because:
>     > - They claim they do not know the dangers, they've heard stories that
>     > "somebody got on the internet and did X which resulted in Y"
>     > - They want to be able to curate the content their students have
>     access to.
>     > - School principal is open to deploying technology and exploring new
>     > methods of learning. Currently they pay some money to a proprietary
>     > content vendor but they want to get out that deal gradually with the
>     > profusion of freely licensed, high quality learning content.
>     >
>     > Village community #2:
>     > - Small village, about 30-50 families spread over a mountain slope
>     > looking to setup a village network.
>     > - The person from the community with whom I had the conversation with
>     > has been living there for 20 yrs and is very concerned about the
>     privacy
>     > implications of accessing the internet. He wants originally to
>     create a
>     > local web and then enable internet access in a controlled fashion.
>     > - Is afraid of people uploading objectionable content which may pose a
>     > threat to the network (i.e. some govt. agency might use it as an
>     excuse
>     > to shut it down) so wants to grow this slowly in a trust building kind
>     > of fashion.
>     >
>     >
>     > So, here's the question. How would you best engage in a conversation
>     > with these communities? Note that we only deploy in places where there
>     > is strong pull from the field, since that automatically implies people
>     > on the ground will have the time, resources and energy to take things
>     > forward and take ownership of the technology they're setting up/using.
>     >
>     > --
>     > Anish
>     >
>     >
>     > On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 7:47 PM, hellekin <hellekin@gnu.org
>     <mailto:hellekin@gnu.org>
>     > <mailto:hellekin@gnu.org <mailto:hellekin@gnu.org>>> wrote:
>     >
>     > On 09/17/2015 09:52 AM, Anish Mangal wrote:
>     >
>     >> I believe the problem has atleast two aspects - educating people and
>     >> engaging them in conversation which was the thing I had in mind
>     when I
>     >> shared this email, and second, the larger fight of generally making
>     >> internet a better place :-)
>     >
>     >
>     > The problem with "educating people" is that you're already coming with
>     > the assumption that you're right, and they should come to
>     agreement with
>     > your position if only they had the correct information.  It might not
>     > feel like this, but it's the case.  Many cultures around the world
>     have
>     > conflicting world with the global Western approach.
>     >
>     > The Western mind has a lust for general principles and since Descartes
>     > and with the Enlightenment, we have a tendency to reduce the
>     picture of
>     > the world to support our totalitarian claims.  If Newtonian physics
>     > works most of the time, we've known for a Century already that it does
>     > not in all cases.  But the reductionist world view still prevails,
>     > destroying as it builds, seeking universality from flattened and
>     > dysfunctional models.
>     >
>     > In the last few decades, a new force has been growing fast and strong,
>     > that rejects reductionism, but still proceeds from a similar bias: it
>     > starts considering an issue (e.g., Internet access), and restricts the
>     > field of observation until it fits the agenda; it still works on
>     > computable/measurable parts, and leaves complexity to "externalities".
>     > This "good enough" / "just in time" / "stakeholder" approach can
>     be very
>     > helpful in many circumstances, but still fails when people try to
>     > extrapolate universals from constituent parts.  I would call this the
>     > holographic approach.
>     >
>     > The difference between reductionism and this is that the former
>     assumes
>     > the world to be mechanical, and therefore entirely computable,
>     > measurable, controllable.  The latter, while it's a lot more
>     > sophisticated, still assumes homomorphism between a partial model and
>     > reality.  It works for specific, limited cases where we already
>     know the
>     > parts and can combine them according to some predetermined logic, and
>     > appears to be effective even in more complex cases.  But it often
>     comes
>     > at the expense of other ways to conceive life that do not assume an
>     > informational world.
>     >
>     > I do think there are homomorphisms in the world, but I do not
>     believe in
>     > an informational world that can be reduced to ones and zeros.  If you
>     > come to a conversation with the assumption that you're right and your
>     > interlocutor needs to be educated, then you're not ready to listen to
>     > them and understand where you might be wrong.  An awful lot of
>     > ideologies today assume that "progress" is "good", that "democracy" is
>     > "necessary", that "transparency" is "appropriate", or that
>     "technology"
>     > will bring all solutions to all problems.  They often fail to consider
>     > the genealogy and diversity of situations and tend to remove from "the
>     > big picture" anything that "doesn't compute".
>     >
>     > A prime example is this belief that connecting everyone to the
>     Internet
>     > will bring more benefits than harm.  But so far, there's no
>     > demonstration that communities thrive better with Internet access.
>     > Certainly isolated communities can defend themselves better if
>     they can
>     > reach out to the Internauts and have them pressure their politicians.
>     >
>     > If "the next billion" is to connect to the Internet with Apple devices
>     > and Facebook, well, they won't get any benefit from it: they will join
>     > the hordes of ignorant people sucked by a machine that requires their
>     > brains and purchasing power to fulfill their own agenda.  There's
>     > nothing automatic in accessing the Internet and magically obtaining
>     > empowerment.  As you embrace new technologies, your environment
>     changes,
>     > and with it your organism, from biological to political.  With the few
>     > hindsight we have gained on communication technologies, we can
>     tell that
>     > powers already there can use them to their advantage as much as
>     wannabe
>     > liberation technologies, except at a must large scale: they act as
>     > amplifiers, but when everyone is shouting, who's listening?  As
>     much as
>     > I like the Internet, I'm still worried that promoting its expansion is
>     > more beneficial to the likes of Putin than to the rest of us.
>     >
>     > I didn't see much homogeneity within the ISOC to tell that local
>     > chapters can be helpful.  The Argentinian chapter for what I know
>     is an
>     > exclusive club of merchants who don't even take the time to update
>     their
>     > website nor respond to email.  But they still claim to be a local
>     > chapter of ISOC, and there's no official ISOC response trying to
>     unlock
>     > the situation.  The truth is that this is all a theater, where people
>     > try and play their part as much as they can.  But there's no text
>     > written for this piece.  Everyone is writing their part as we go.
>     > Acceptance without criticism means we're giving ink to those who do in
>     > the name of others, using their broken assumptions, confirmed in their
>     > biases by their apparent successes.
>     >
>     > Regards,
>     >
>     > ==
>     > hk
>     >
>     >
>     >
> 
>     --
>     Christian de Larrinaga  FBCS, CITP,
>     -------------------------
>     @ FirstHand
>     -------------------------
>     +44 7989 386778 <tel:%2B44%207989%20386778>
>     cdel@firsthand.net <mailto:cdel@firsthand.net>
>     -------------------------
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Christian de Larrinaga  FBCS, CITP,
-------------------------
@ FirstHand
-------------------------
+44 7989 386778
cdel@firsthand.net
-------------------------