[liberationtech] Web Inventor Releases Ambitious Plan to Take Back Net

[Mariette Papic]

 Any identification of apps with their national producers is already a
problematic reality. To further understand the liberation of humans within
the current technological sphere we should be careful to these cultural
limits and biases that are as old, boring and useless within a hundred
years or less.

The destabilization of the planet through a compromised habitat will
actually change all these parameters. I deeply believe that entities as
less important as signatories and individuals are actually the most
important. This implies greater needs for education so people can
understand themselves as netizens, as people who inhabit a web that is part
of the new human reality. Within that reality the self is potentially
powerful because of many reasons not the least of which is due to the fact
that the online self can meet with others to actually impede all forced
frames and acts of compliance.

To be alive in China and Muslim is not apolitical. To be a woman in Saudi
Arabia is not apolitical. To be an environmentalist in North America is not
apolitical. To even remotely think that one can remain apolitical within
internets overseen by large centralized power structures is incongruous
with their very architecture. You can not build freedom within the current
system and yes ,the internet will never be fully free or uniform because
that is not how life works. Nodal distribution of power via a vis
infrastructure, mesh networks, and a variety of hard and soft architectures
is the only comprehensive path forward.

We need to stop dumbing this down for ourselves and for others.

On Thu, Nov 28, 2019, 16:44 Maria Al-Masani <maria at ardiso.com> wrote:

> Congress is corrupt - so a group of hackers that support Snowden have more
> legitimacy to common people. I think honestly people are so partisan
> because they have something at stake, emotional and irrational because of
> the Trump election - prefer to stay in their Silos rather than reach out -
> the only effect of Silicon Valley being in an echo chamber is increased
> racism and violence.
>
> If you have a PhD and a good job, you are far removed from a farmer or
> entrepreneur eeking a living trying to survive, the way Marie Antoinette
> was removed from the farmers, but thought she was a good person playing
> milk maids and telling the farmers to eat cake but lost her head. Many
> minorities in the West behave like Assad supporting Christians. Of course I
> have some friends who are Syrian Christians who condemn Assad's and Putin's
> behavior - but many put the survival of their ethnic group that they think
> is better under Assad the genocidal maniac above his crimes. I do find
> minorities against Trump to behave towards rural Americans in the same way.
> All increasing censorship does in my experience is increases anger then
> gets people to the dark web where they mix with Neo Nazis.
>
> The most effective thing to reduce the harms of racism is to reach out. I
> do think some minorities will have the Assadist Christian mentality and
> prioritize their group survival over their ethics and what's best for
> humanity or the US. Sharing of knoweldge is the valve that prevents people
> from killing each other. If you don't let people release steam, you will
> have a revolution on your hands at the next economic crisis. Let's be open.
> I am Arab while Yosem is Latino and Trump has not been great for the Latino
> community. Some of my friends support him in California as the lesser evil
> compared to progressive tyranny and don't do the Assadist Christian thing
> but others do.
>
> The censorship happy culture of Silicon Valley has to change so you are
> perceived as the "good guys" again. Otherwise to most of the world, Silicon
> Valley offers apps that are more censorship happy and less Liberal than
> Chinese and Russian ones. Just don't criticize the Chinese/Russian
> government and the Chinese/Russian apps leave you alone to live your life
> and you have no problems. Having dedicated my life to fighting dictatorship
> I realize I have to earn a living so am going on those apps instead. I'd
> rather Russia and China dictate the terms ... because I can't keep up with
> what is the latest "hate speech" on Western apps, where the terms keep
> changing. Chinese and Russian apps .. just don't criticize their government
> and post what you like, block if you don't like. Friends are much happier
> with their products so... I will make a move to the freer Russian-Chinese
> web. it saddens me. I used to monitor human rights violations in Yemen but
> its too hard with all the scared of Trump face book "omg hitler could have
> bought ads on it" that makes it utterly useless to Arab spring activists.
> You have to give your phone number to twitter not like when we signed up
> and sometimes these numbers are comprimised, given to dictators, activists
> identity uncovered.
>
> So many people have died in the name of "fighting trump bots" with their
> identity accidentally uncovered. Without anonymity civilians can't fight
> back dictators. Dictators have the money to buy a lot of foreign sim cards
> unlike civilians. The system is broken because of the overzealous fear of
> Trump and un-useable. It's no longer liberation technology but an
> information gulag armed often by scared "minorities for Assad".
>
> Before one even goes there... its important to talk to activists and users
> what are the problems they face. Yet I don't think anyone on the Left cares
> to consult like they used to 5 years ago, but force themselves on others.
> Consent is sexy but we lost the meaning of that in our day and age. To stop
> harm, we have to take responsibility for our side of the problem - which
> few want to. We have to reach out to others, overcome objections - sell our
> philosophy. Instead Silicon Valley acts like a silo and wing of the Obama
> faction of the Democrat Party. You share you country with other people,
> have to learn to be less sectarian and share the sandbox, consult with
> broad section of end users without prejudice.
>
> All the best,
> Maria
> Yemen Rights Monitor
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 3:50 PM Yosem Companys <ycompanys at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Interesting, Catherine. I appreciate your perspective. In your opinion,
>> what's the solution to this problem?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Yosem
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 11:47 AM Catherine Fitzpatrick <
>> catfitz at verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>> This "contract" was likely drafted by the NGO Access Now, which has
>>> worked on this for years and is associated with this effort. Access now is
>>> led by Andrew McLaughlin, formerly of Google, and Berkman and the Obama
>>> Administration and many other things, and Brett Solomon, the other
>>> Australian, who has been promoting these fuzzy but extremist views for
>>> years with little criticism.
>>>
>>> It is not a democratic exercise by any stretch of the imagination as
>>> NGOs, however much they are needed in society, are advocacy organizations,
>>> not democratic organizations, and this is not a legislative exercise by a
>>> democratically-elected Congress in a liberal democracy under the rule of
>>> law. I would prefer Congress as a drafting body than a group of hackers who
>>> support Snowden.
>>>
>>> In that sense, it's very good it is not binding because it comes out of
>>> the Benevolent Dictatorship hacker culture and warmed-over Google
>>> opportunism.
>>>
>>> There is nothing about protecting private property and copyright which
>>> are actually what made the Internet viable, such as it is.
>>>
>>> Any effort involving "an Internet Bill of Rights" or "Guiding
>>> Principles" that sound like the UN should not succeed because it is not
>>> democratic or legitimate.
>>>
>>> Tim Berners-Lee engineered into the Internet its very flaws bothering
>>> people so much today: collectivism, lack of private property and copyright
>>> protection, "sharing of knowledge" uber alles, and
>>> lack of privacy.
>>>
>>> Catherine Fitzpatrick
>>>
>>> On Thursday, November 28, 2019, 12:19:55 PM EST, Thomas Delrue <
>>> thomas at epistulae.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 11/24/19 10:31 PM, Yosem Companys wrote:
>>> > The contract is non-binding, however. And funders and partners in the
>>> > endeavor include Google and Facebook, whose data-collecting business
>>> > models and sensation-rewarding algorithms have been blamed for
>>> > exacerbating online toxicity.
>>>
>>> I'm a little confused by the choice of words in the term "contract for
>>> the web"... Can someone explain to me what exactly a non-binding
>>>
>>> contract is?
>>>
>>> The first 7 words of the Wikipedia entry for 'contract' are literally "A
>>> contract is a legally binding agreement". How can a 'legally binding
>>> agreement' be non-binding?
>>> MW has as its first entry for 'contract' the following "a binding
>>> agreement between two or more persons or parties especially : one
>>> legally enforceable".
>>>
>>> Forgive my cynicism, but what exactly will this do or accomplish if it
>>> isn't binding, except to make some folks feel warm and fuzzy for signing
>>> something that will be forgotten in a heartbeat?
>>> Surely, this is nothing more than a PR stunt? It's about as vacuous as
>>> the statement "Don't be evil" (by google) or "We care about your
>>> privacy" (by facebook), no?
>>>
>>> Don't get me wrong, I'm happy that TBL has started this conversation, as
>>> it is one to be had. However, without the binding-ness, the good
>>> intentions and desires, outlined in the 'contract', will go no-where.
>>> Unfortunately, we don't need more conversation on this subject, we need
>>> actual change, and that requires enforceability.
>>>
>>> If the purpose of making it non-enforceable was to make sure entities
>>> like google or facebook signed as well, then I ask "why? Why do they
>>> have to sign as well"? Especially if they are the highest probability
>>> candidates to violate the intention of the document. Why would it have
>>> been important for them to sign something that will make no difference?
>>> Why not leave them excluded and let them be on display for the predatory
>>> entities that they are?
>>>
>>> --
>>> Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable from any major
>>> commercial search engine. Violations of list guidelines will get you
>>> moderated: https://lists.ghserv.net/mailman/listinfo/lt. Unsubscribe,
>>> change to digest mode, or change password by emailing
>>> lt-owner at lists.liberationtech.org.
>>>
>> --
>> Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable from any major
>> commercial search engine. Violations of list guidelines will get you
>> moderated: https://lists.ghserv.net/mailman/listinfo/lt. Unsubscribe,
>> change to digest mode, or change password by emailing
>> lt-owner at lists.liberationtech.org.
>
> --
> Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable from any major
> commercial search engine. Violations of list guidelines will get you
> moderated: https://lists.ghserv.net/mailman/listinfo/lt. Unsubscribe,
> change to digest mode, or change password by emailing
> lt-owner at lists.liberationtech.org.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ghserv.net/pipermail/lt/attachments/20191201/46cd5c5c/attachment-0001.html>