Category: World

White European Males, GamerGate and DongleGate

First things first, a disclaimer:

  1. I don’t condone, nor I accept any form of harassment, physical, verbal or electronic.
  2. I don’t mix technical qualities with life situations. Your choices, opinions, abilities and disabilities may affect the quality of your work, but this is not about those, but about the result: your work.
  3. I don’t promote abusive behaviour as a form of getting your point across, even if no abusive intention was meant.
  4. I do promote inclusion in STEM to balance towards the real proportion in society.
  5. Both GamerGate and DongleGate were disasters on their own, for very different reasons. I want neither to happen.
  6. I have Asperger’s Syndrome and see things more black and white than most people. I cannot accept qualitative features being used for quantitative purposes. None of this is meant as an offence, or to explain or validate harassment, abuse or any other unethical behaviour. It’s just an analysis.

What was

When Charles Babbage begun creating his analytical machine, he was worried about the hardware and the implications of it for mathematics and the world. But we all know that hardware is only as good as its software, and so Ada Lovelace’s work was of equal importance on that critical milestone. Both of them were mathematicians of an elite that weren’t thoroughly recognised until much later. Both were extremely methodical, eccentric and disconnected from reality. All well known characteristics that Hans Asperger recognised circa 1920 as what we now know as autism.

In the 40’s to 60’s, only really brilliant mathematicians could understand computing, mostly because they were just developing it, but thousands of men and women took part in building and using them. At that time, the proportion of people “using computers” was closer to the social distribution than it is today. However, the number of people working “with computers” was independent of their understanding of the underlying technology. Naturally, the distribution then follows the source group’s own. But after the first real case for general computing (WWII), the world was left with a tool that could do so much more, and people realised that they needed to take it to the next level.

Still too many people were clueless as to how computers worked, and a huge effort was made to get people “into computing”. But the importance and prevalence of computing those days were inexistent, so the appeal to the general public, men and women, were close to zero. The kind of people that felt attracted by it then, and during the 70’s and 80’s were the same groups as Babbage, Lovelace, Turin: people in the autistic spectrum. This is not to say that non-autistic people did’t do it, or worse, that they couldn’t do it. On the contrary, the proof that this is not an autistic-only field is today’s proliferation of computer scientists around the world, regardless of their mental status, gender, race or culture.

During the 70’s, computers had specific purposes, and only universities and very big companies had them. The 80’s saw the first boom in “personal” computing, but it was still dominated by self-built kits, and those like me that remember that time fondly, know how much of a weirdo we were in the eyes of the general population. While more people were taking on computing careers, those experimenting at home still had a clear autistic predisposition.

It was only in the 90’s, when Bill Gates became a millionaire, that people started giving “some” credit to the field, and personal computing toppled and then completely replaced mainframes. During the 80’s, operating systems were developed for the common tasks like word editing, spreadsheets and simple databases, but it wasn’t until the 90’s that most people had one in their homes and small shops. It became ubiquitous only then.

But even in the 90’s, all the attempts to simplify programming (Logo? Basic?) couldn’t really help you do much with computers. They were (and still are) basically toys. So, people that learnt Basic have realised early on that they couldn’t write anything meaningful and would either have to delve deep into C, or give up completely. That was still promoting those of the more autistic disposition to stay and the rest to find something more interesting to do.

The niche

But as with every spectrum, thresholds are biased.

If you understand a bit about autism, you know that all we want is to be left alone to our own devices. Don’t come to my house telling me what to do and how. This is most upsetting for autistic people and you will be faced with some unintentional harsh responses due to the genetic reasons that autistic people cannot control or fix.

Autistic people were *always* banned from social life for thousands of years (maybe more?), and since ever they tried to group into segregated societies, often characterised with bigotry and rudeness, not uncommonly harassment. The Royal Society was such a place, and not unlike the current computer science scenario, was dominated by “White European Males“.

It seems obvious to me that the “White European” part is easily explained because of the degree of development that Europe had at the time (1600’s), compared to everywhere else in the world. The parallel with modern computer scientists is clear: North America and Western Europe have a much higher rate of Caucasians well educated and positioned in society, for obvious reasons that don’t fit this text to discuss, than the other groups.

When a field is new and needs pressure to get to, most of the people that will get in will be of a similar disposition. In the same way that most voluntary army cadets will have a similar mentality. I would never be an army volunteer, but I was a computer enthusiast since I was 5 years old.

Recent studies have shown that the proportion of males and females in high-functioning autistic people (the ones that like to solve complex problems for fun) is 4:1. But boys and girls behave very differently, with boys having a lot more physically and verbally violent games, and girls being more sensitive. With a start ratio of 4:1, it’s not hard how that biased self-selection can get to 10:1 or more.

What has become

But after the initial self-balancing, true bigots and abusers (trolls), saw the chance to belong to a society that was professing, for completely different reasons, that different people be kept out. I hope it’s clear enough that high-functioning autistic people have a valid and important reason to keep people out of their lives and groups. Otherwise, they cannot function properly.

Moreover, autistic people have the tendency of responding badly to social pressure, and that includes behaviour that is often misinterpreted as harassment, bullying and violent. It is not uncommon to see very drastic ends to really sad stories.

Autistic people also have a higher than usual rate of trusting people, and therefore much more easily abused by trolls, who will become part of a community and extend their modus operandi, but not necessarily their intention.

People on less advantageous backgrounds (wealth, disabilities, minorities, life choices) had even less chances of getting in a club that was trying to keep people out. But with trolls inside, they’ll make sure this becomes impossible, and that’s how situations like GamerGate happen.

It is important to separate the original cause of aggregation and demand for separation, sometimes aggressively, as a classic high-functioning autistic process, from the subsequent harassment and directed intentional aggression that trolls had after they took over well meaning but fearful and trusting mostly autistic people.

That fact, however, does not condone any aggression, including from autistic people. But what people have to understand is that, if the aggression comes from an autistic person, even high-functioning, they very likely cannot control it and need help. Being offended is ok, but reserving the right to then discharge your own contained aggression, even if you are a minority, is not the way to solve this.

We all have problems, but turning off your care-meter because you are a minority and have just being offended is not ok. And that includes autistic people, too.

Why is this important?

Because computer science has moved on from the nerd-zone for at least 20 years, but much more so in the last 10.

Nowadays there are a huge number of architectures, languages, tools, spare parts and they’re all accessible to a huge chunk of the world to play with. It is not a mostly autistic activity any more, and there are languages (like Python, Java, Haskell, Go, Swift, even JavaScript and Scratch) and hardware (like RaspberryPi, Arduino, Mindstorms) which allow you to do amazing things very easily.

The barrier into technology is so low now that anyone can enter, and once they’re in, they don’t need to be autistic to enjoy. Furthermore, neurotypical people can be as good (or better) than autistic people even in the hardest of problems. After all, being high-functioning autistic doesn’t mean you’re smarter, just means you want to do something that keep you away from people, and talking to machines is the best thing I can think of.

So nowadays we have all kinds of people, and with that, we’re back to the real distribution that societies have. All minorities are now represented by what they are in society. But trolls are haters, and they know some very cunning ways to keep unwanted people around, mostly using subversive tactics like physical, verbal and social abuse, doxing, DDoSing, etc.

We need to remove the trolls from our societies together. This is not a minorities vs majorities fight, this is a fight for the right to be safe. The new minorities have as much right to be safe as the original minority who created the space. And both minorities have the right to be represented, but so does the majorities. The only thing we want to get rid of are the trolls.

What we should move towards

So, autistic people want a space of their own, trolls take over, destroy the Internet. Minorities try to participate, trolls shoot them down, behave like assholes. What else is news? As it all started in the 40’s, we need a compatible distribution with the rest of society. The very definition of minority is that there is less of. So it makes no sense to expect an equal distribution of minority and majority on each specific scale.

For instance, on average worldwide, we have half men, half women. So I would expect the same distribution in STEM subjects. We may be far from it in computer science and physics, but not in biology or chemistry. It’s still not 50/50, so we can’t take each topic to be exactly 50/50, but we can expect the whole STEM subjects to be around that ballpark.

Of the world population, at a glance I see 18% is Han Chinese, while about two thirds of that is “European”, and a third of each Arabic, Hindu and African, living all over the world. The real distribution doesn’t matter much, but I’d expect a similar distribution for STEM in the same way.

Now, getting there will involve two distinct activities:

  1. Deep grass root movements to increase the development and literacy of impoverished communities, education of better off communities regarding equality and inclusion.
  2. Improve STEM inclusion and attractiveness for all members of society, as well as remove the exclusion characteristics (trolls) of the already existing community.

People that are keen on seen global equality (1) have to fight that battle outside of STEM subjects. The fights you should have inside are those that discriminate minorities that can already be represented in STEM subjects (2).

For example, all the feminists advocate for inclusion in open source communities already have the will and ability to participate on equal grounds as men. The fact that someone is gay or transgender makes absolutely no difference in a STEM community and should bear no value in inclusion or acceptance. The fact that they are not included is a horrible mistake and has to be fixed inside STEM communities.

We should move towards STEM communities that have a relevant distribution as far as STEM can have on its own. We’re not looking for equal numbers of all minorities, we’re looking for equal distribution of minorities, and those are two very different things.

What we cannot have

What seems to be happening, and it’s something that will not fix anything, is that we’re moving to the other side.

We have to discourage any kind of troll, regardless if they agree with you. It may be satisfying to see someone on your side trolling someone you’re against, but that’s as bad as their side’s troll behaviour. Encouraging hate, even in the form of biased consensus and imposed cultural traits is just as bad as any other form of harassment.

More importantly, it’s that form of harassment that gets to the core of autistic people, including high-functioning ones. It’s the very reason why we hide from people and talk to machines. Cases like DongleGate are as extremist as GamerGate, and as offensive to me.

The fact that one misinterpreting person with one picture and one tweet can get someone fired is disconcerting beyond words. As disconcerting as people ganging up on girls just because they want representativeness on their games, or some of those girls ganging up back and doing horrible things with the “excuse” of retaliation. All those behaviours are equally beyond words.

What we cannot have is to flip sides and have the suffering minorities so far gaining the upper hand and gaining the right to harass the majority or worse still, the forgotten minority that started it all and had no intentional part in any of the bullying.

We need to protect the minorities from abuse, and that includes the odd folks that don’t look mentally retarded or deficient in any way but behave oddly and sometimes aggressively. Those people are too often interpreted as bullies when all they want is to be left alone, and all they need is help adapting to an alien society.

The Falacy of Empathy

Empathy, or the ability to feel what other people are feeling, is often associated with good hearted people. In theory, empathy should provide the tools you need to understand someone else’s feelings before you act on instinct, and will block your impulsive actions, making you look like a nice person. Another view of empathy is of people that can display the same emotions as they see, for instance crying when watching a sad film. This empathy is powerful as a motivator, and that’s why so many charities use strong images of poverty or sick puppies to raise money.

On both cases, from an external point of view, it’s hard to understand the reason why people behave nicely or poorly. It’s often assumed that, when people behave well, either being nice to people or helping people in need, they have a high degree of empathy. Conversely, when they don’t, they don’t have empathy. However, that assumption is based on no facts other than apparent behaviour, which can (and often is) manipulative and false.

Why do we need empathy?

Human beings, as other animals, have behavioural strategies to enhance their survival rates. Dogs are known to show deep empathic behaviour, like standing by their owners, or fetching help and saving peoples’ lives, some times without request from a human. Other animals, like monkeys and dolphins show even higher degrees of empathy in some situations, but a much lower on others.

That begs the question: why do we need empathy? Is empathy really important for survival rates, or evolution? Or did we really evolve empathy after we stopped being naturally selected, a few dozen thousand years ago?

There are a few strategies that enhance survival of a species, some of them are related to social relationships. Social animals, those that live in large groups, understand the value in belonging to that group. A zebra alone is an easy prey. Naturally, wanting to belong to a group is a life and death choice. Like zebras, humans are social animals, and it was only after we started bundling ourselves in towns that we needed agriculture and it was after agriculture was introduced that the human race exploded in significance. From an evolutionary point of view, those who were more social ended up gathered inside towns, and prospered. The others, were more easily hunted, or suffered more from the elements, and probably died out in the long run. So, what was left of the human race, were the ones with more social affinity.

It seems obvious to me that empathy (feeling or simulation) is a great enhancement of one’s social abilities. It’ll help you get along with other people even if you don’t like them, it’ll help you not upset them and gain more from your relationship with them. It’s probably the best tool one can have when relating socially with other people. But, as I reasoned above, it’s very hard to separate intention from behaviour, and there are many people that can display extreme empathic behaviour at times, and be a sociopath at others. These people are very likely simulating their behavioural empathy, and in large numbers, it’s hard to separate them from the “real” empaths.

Up until a few thousand years ago, the civilisations were disconnected enough that displaying empathy would only take you so far. But as they began connecting with each other, invading and assimilating cultures, human interaction changed from mono-cultural to multi-cultural, and that’s when displays of empathy became the most powerful tool in human societies.

The Roman religion changed drastically from pluri theistic to mono theistic, and collected a pout-pourri of elements from the diverse cultures it had invaded in order to strongly relate to them and keep other cultures, not just countries, tight with Rome. The Roman empire has fallen, but the dominance of the Catholic church is as strong as ever. That display of empathy, which is the base of the whole catholic church, is what made them the most powerful people in the world for millennia.

We all know the outrageous behaviours that church officials have in all religions, from the most junior to the most senior positions, including most popes, which leads to the conclusion that empathy can be used for both good and evil, and that most people in the world find it hard to separate between good (real) empathy and bad (simulated) empathy.

Whenever you have two survival strategies that provide identical effects to identical stimuli, neither of them are selected over the other, but they coexist in a proportion that is not fixed themselves, but are selected by other means. For instance, politicians must posses the simulated empathy, otherwise, they would never be able to pass on laws that were harmful to a large group of people. The same can be said about the legal and advertising fields, and most senior positions on companies, like CEOs. Those professions are crucial to how our society expect to behave, and thus those kind of people will never be selected out.

One could argue that we don’t really need politicians or lawyers to thrive, and I would agree, but the fact that they’re in power, means they’ll continue to hold that power until there’s enough pressure to push them down. But it will never be strong enough, since people with simulated empathy are being born every day, so there is a pressure to keep the world as it is, due to the very existence of those people.

But of course, neurotypical people considered to have empathy form the large majority of human beings. So, not all simulated empathic people are politics, lawyers or evil people. Some of those people still believe they have real empathy, and can easily convince others of that. Maybe those others also have simulated empathy, or maybe they’re so empathic that they agree to avoid wrong judgement. All in all, by multiple mechanisms, empathic behaviour is self preserved.

To whom do we show empathy?

In the history of human kind, we have seen that most of the time, empathy is directional. Slavers did not feel bad for the slaves, nor whale hunters for whales. In a predominantly white, middle class neighbourhood in the US, people are more likely to cry over a puppy that was ran over by a car than a black kid that was murdered by the police. Excuses like “he probably deserved it” is how people cope with this severe lack of empathy.

In poor countries, like Brazil, the wealth difference is so striking that the same behaviour is common between rich and poor people, no matter the origin. In Sao Paulo, rich people drive their fancy cars around extremely poor people every day. Some otherwise average youngsters burn homeless people alive, others shoot stray cats and dogs in the street, but when they go back home, they love their families, and they’re good kids at school.

In other countries like Israel and Palestine, people are raised to protect their own and to kill the other side. They love their families and friends with such a strength that they would die for them, but as easily kill an entire family in brutal ways just because they belong to another group. This detachment from reality is extremely polarised: empathy towards your own group is as strong, as negative empathy towards competing groups.

This is not specific to Israel, Brazil or the US. I know many people in those countries who are great people who wouldn’t hurt a fly, and who would instantly help people (or other animals) in need. But examples like that can be seen anywhere in the world.

Trends, and the distortion of empathy

Another behaviour that was socially selected is how well you can follow the trends, which basically translates to being politically correct. One that doesn’t know or understand a conflict between gender equality since the last century may look very rude and lacking empathy if one says: “some people are naturally more direct and blunt, and women are normally more emotional, thus more easily take offence”. Regardless of the veracity in that phrase, this is an opinion like any other, and in itself, devoid of context. But fights for women suffrage in the last decades have made that kind of comparison somewhat rude.

More recently, the fight has also started on the sexuality realm, where people are no longer content with homo/bi-sexuality, but needed to create a huge number of terms to describe, with accuracy, their feelings about their own sexuality. All in all, a great effort, and certainly very important to the subgroup where this has any meaning, but to a large extent, this matters very little to most other human affairs.

Laws, education, health, jobs, technical discussions, travel, culture, religion and almost all other important subjects that we deal with on a daily basis need no separation between skin colour, ethnicy, gender or sexual orientation. The very fact of making those separations clear, is prejudice in itself, much like stating on a federal law that “black people should also get the vote” when there is no other legal separation between “white” people and “black” people in the voting laws.

We can all see that in practice this is not true, there is a huge separation of intent, execution and judgement across all minorities everywhere in the world, but creating specific categorisations will only create problems for the categories that don’t yet exist. We’ll have to repeat the legalisation of vote for every new category that appear in the future.

But this is also considered empathy, since it’s a matter of exacerbating your empathy towards the cases that you know need exacerbating, because the trend is to do so. Even people that would naturally empathise with some minorities’ problems, have to show an increased response to the topic. That increase response cannot be naturally selected, not even socially selected.

It stands to reason, then, that understanding empathy trends and acting upon them, also known as being politically correct, is solely an artificial factor, and therefore a simulated empathic response. The term politically correct already carries that meaning in itself, but the importance of this is wider: being politically correct is just another behaviour that natural and simulated empathic behaviour express itself, and it would be naive to believe that this is the only simulated empathic response since we split from apes.

This fact, not only reinforces the idea of the existence of simulated empathy embedded in human nature, but helps show that humanity will never get rid of it, as it is a crucial mechanism with which we group ourselves.

Lack of empathy? Or lack of simulation?

In Baron-Cohen’s original paper, where children were asked to choose an option from the point of view of the character, not themselves, autistic children have consistently selected the wrong answer. Is this because they cannot sympathise with the character, or because they cannot understand why, in possession of all the knowledge, they have to choose the wrong place?

I myself have answered that wrong by instinct, and got myself laughing at it. I have also cried like a baby in Grave of the Fireflies and The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas, and I can’t watch most American “comedies”, because they all rely on deep embarrassment, and I cannot cope with it, to the point of having real physical discomfort.

Autistic people (Asperger’s included), often offend people and are generally regarded as rude. Is it because they intend to offend, or because they can’t see past the social norm, the politically correct response? Or is it because they really cannot empathise with the other party and end up being cold hearted? I can’t answer that for other people, but I can certainly empathise with people’s feelings, I help a good number of charities that help animals and people, and I teach my kids to respect everyone, independent of their origins. When I’m told I offended someone, I feel deeply and I try very hard to make up, but that doesn’t mean I will be able to do “the right thing” next time.

I can’t simulate empathy. I can’t increase or create empathy for something that society demands me to. I can’t change my opinion or behaviour towards people just because they belong to a group that is trendy. In the same way, I can’t simulate behaviour (I’d be a horrible actor), but I have good imagination (I could be a writer). I can’t simulate affection, love, hate, laughter, but I do posses all those feelings and I display them wholeheartedly. This certainly makes me neurologically atypical, but does that make me wrong? Deficient?

Neural diversity

As with everything else in the universe, neural diversity is a spectrum. But unlike simple things, it’s composed of a large number of factors that compose behaviour, capacity and plasticity. Even though most research on autism have found strong correlations for hereditary, most genes found in autistic more often than in neurotypical people were present in a small percentage of autistic people. This means that the number of genes and the expression of each one count little towards the overall phenotype. People with milder forms of autism, included Aspergers’ Syndrome, have even fuzzier relationships.

Even though it’s assumed that autism account for 1-2% of the population in one form or another, the behaviour autistic people demonstrate can be observed in otherwise neurotypical people, like perseverance on comfortable tasks, lack of sight amidst multiple choices, irritability towards certain sensory inputs (loud music, too many people talking, too hot, too cold), etc.

It would be an interesting line of research to determine how mild or abrupt is the theoretical wall that separates those tagged as “neurotypical” from those diagnosed as autistic of some form, with regards to all known “disability” traits. The fact that people consider that disability is a clear demonstration that they do not accept that behaviour as “normal”. However, how does one define normal? How many abnormal traits do I have to have to be considered autistic? How far should I be from “the norm”?

In IQ tests, the answer is simple. There’s an arbitrary number, 100, and everything above is good, below, not so much. There was a lot of work done (by Raven and others since) to transform the answers of the diverse tests into virtually the same range of numbers, and a lot of controversy stemmed from that, but the general idea applies. You can also apply statistical modelling and define those one sigma above and below, and treat them accordingly. For instance, there are some countries that have reduced prison sentences for people below one or two sigma.

But, like when you mix all the colours of modelling clay together, everything is now turning grey. There is no black and white, no man and woman, no gay and straight. Everything is a spectrum, and behaviour is not an exception. So, what do we accept as good or bad behaviour? How do we include intent when that’s clearly hidden and easily simulated?

Murder is easily on the wrong side of the spectrum, but shouting is a very common and non-abusive behaviour in autistic people. It’s often a response to stressful situations, when you don’t know what else to do. The difference is that stressful situations arise in autistic people that wouldn’t in neurotypical people, for example, when having a hair cut, or when someone else cannot understand what you’re saying. Even though they’re directed at the barber or the other person, they’re absolutely not personal.

How much to accept?

There is, of course, the danger that, allowing some people to behave oddly because they have a letter from the doctor, we’ll encourage other opportunistic people to behave in the same way. An example, if my interpretation is correct, is the Linux mailing list. I don’t know Linus personally, but from his emails and what I hear from people that do know him well, he is most certainly not an asshole.

His consistent behaviour classed as “abuse” is his inflamed reaction to bad code, which cannot easily be separated from the people who wrote it. Some people take it personally, others don’t. My view is that those who do, are either neurotypical or have had history of abuse, and those who don’t, are either towards the autistic end of the spectrum or actively ignore it from a sense of higher purpose, or worse, are opportunists. So, while his behaviour is questionable, and mostly unnecessary, I don’t see the intent of abuse in it, and different people react one way or another for different reasons.

Clearly, a person of his position relying solely on abuse, even with a great intellect, would have fallen long ago (ex. Ulrich Drepper). But that’s not the same for the opportunists, like people that have lesser intellects and need to get their ways via abuse alone, or as a reinforcement. On a healthy community, that kind of behaviour gets automatically curbed with time, but on a community that has its key member (read – great and necessary intellect) behaving in an encouraging way, will have positive feedback, and it can be a lot harder to get rid of the opportunists, and it may even encourage the rise of more of them with time. Linus seem to deal with those people reasonably efficiently (he also trashes maintainers), but not only it generates more work for him and more stress to the community, but it also decreases the trust in that community, which translates into good people abandoning ship.


My opinion in all this is simple: treat the disease, not the symptoms.

If Linus encourages opportunistic people, convince him why he should avoid rants for the right reason. Saying it’s not politically correct will most certainly have the opposite effect. Codes of conduct can easily be cheated, abused and transformed. People with intent to do harm will plan well their actions, those that will be caught, however, will be the unaware and innocent.

Do not be offended, unless there was intent. Offence is the easiest thing to get wrong. I may cough and you interpret as an insult, and it all goes downhill. Every time you feel offended, ask the offender the reasons. He/she may surprise you.

It’s not all about you. If I behave badly near you, it doesn’t have to be because of what you’ve done, or who you are, or how you see yourself in the mirror. Most people don’t care much about you (or me), and offence is normally taken by self-important people. Self importance is not a bad thing, and it normally comes in response to previous abuse and sudden revelation (I’m going through that phase myself), but it doesn’t justify offence. I have since had people describing me as disabled or an asshole, and all I did was to explain most of the contents in this post. From now on, I can just send a link.

I personally don’t care much if they understand or agree, as long as they don’t affect my life. This is a liberating feeling that I recommend to every one that has “come out” for whatever reason: be yourself, but respect everyone else.

Asperger’s and the failure of the educational system

Asperger’s Syndrome (more info), a condition within the Autism spectrum where social awareness is lacking, but communication skills are not affected much, is a topic floating around our house for a few years. After many ups and downs, our son has finally been diagnosed with it, and the rest of the family will need serious checking, too.

That has brought us many explanations to most of our problems at work and school, and got me thinking on many of the issues I found illogical in the educational system, but always though it was my fault for not adapting to it. Now, the more I think, the more I realise that any system that base teaching on the average child is, to say the least, mediocre.

On a large scale, children (and adults), range from very low to very high skills in many areas, from IQ, to social, to artistic or empathic skills. With so many different dimensions, and so many scales focused on defining people for what they are, and so many different types of peoples around, trying to create the imaginary “average child” to educate is a folly quest. But a lot more serious than folly, is the quest to force different children to accommodate to that imaginary average and brutalise them when they don’t. There is a name for it: bullying.

Schools are well known for not caring much for the “lesser minds“, since they don’t contribute much to the scoring system, under disability Acts, they’re free to refer those problematic children to special schools, where they will be marginalised and receive funding from the government for the rest of their lives, even though, if thought well, they could perfectly have a decent living by themselves.

But the brightest children are also in peril, for they do contribute to scoring, and in a positive way. They’re sought after by schools that have no idea on how to educate those children. With the failure to understand their advanced needs, those kids become repugnant braggarts. Even though they can go beyond on arts, maths or science, most of them lack any social skills or, for the very definition of “special“, fail miserably to conform to the “average child” norm.

The expectation that special children have the same traits as average children, plus a few special skills, is idiotic, and I’m really surprised that this has passed in so many countries and educational systems as the norm to be followed, and imposed. It shows that whomever is dealing with educating the brightest minds are not brightest minds themselves. It’s the same as giving the job to rehabilitate petty criminals to serial killers.

Scoring System

The very notion of scoring system is at the core of the standardisation of the human race.

Each group in society has a different take on what’s important for their cohesion. Some rely on competition and selfish behaviour to keep the capitalism alive and kicking, others rely on knowledge and logical thinking to progress science, and so on. This diversity is paramount to define the human race as a multi-cultural species, where every aspect of it is as valuable as every other.

The notion of a National Curriculum is a good one, since even the most artistic ones have to be able to add up at the grocery store, and the brightest mathematicians should be able to plat instruments, if they so chose. But what happens in most schools, and certainly in all public schools we’ve been in England, so far, it’s that they treat the curriculum as a golden standard, and don’t even attempt to go beyond.

The same way when you’re speeding on the road, and the policeman stop you and say “The speed limit is a limit, not a guideline”, the National Curriculum is a minimum, not a guideline. It means that, if you’re not teaching at least that, you should not be called a “school” to begin with. But it also means that you should go beyond, at least for the children that have the capacity to follow.

No child will follow on every category, so you need to know what each child can do on each extra topic. That also means that, while the least able children will have at least the National Curriculum, the average children will have more in different areas, and the only difference between the average and the above-average children is the amount of extra subjects and topics they learn. It’s that simple.


But for it to be that simple, the way exams work have to change completely. Exams today don’t test for what a child knows or have learnt, but it tests for what they are able to memorise in a short term, or how effectively they can guess, or how efficiently they can cheat.

Take, for example, the SAT tests, which are the exams taken by all children between primary and secondary schools. The format here is to fill the blanks. It’s a lot better than multiple choice, even though there are many questions in it that are multiple choice there, but it’s not testing the ability of children to think at all.

It is true that average children will have to think to answer those questions. It is also true that average children will have to have learnt that in the first place by listening and memorising the concepts, but not necessarily understood why they’re like that. There seems to be no questions about why the universe behaves in that way, or why I can solve the same mathematical problem in different ways and still get the same results.

But the biggest failure is that the tests are standardised to the National Curriculum, and standardised to what an ideal average child will be able to understand and answer from her memory. In the age of the technological revolution, we have to ask ourselves if this is the right way forward.

Do we want to continue forcing people to follow averages, if we want humans to be a better species? Do we need more average people doing specialised work? Isn’t our technological level ready for a de-centralised, de-normalised learning experience, which will fare a lot better on all non-average children in the world (ie. all children), and allow better matching to their own skills, desires and abilities?

One such way would be to have more meaningful questions, with non-obvious answer, and software to analyse them. So, instead of drawing the circulatory system and asking children to fill the lines pointing to organs with names, ask them to describe how the blood circulates inside the body. True, natural language processing is still not there yet, but there are a number of different ways to ask questions and make sure that the answer will be simple enough to be dealt with simple regular expressions or state machines that, in context, will be limited to only a number of valid answers.

Each answer will lead to different following questions, based on the answer, and each new step will take you towards harder or easier questions, or more specific to one topic or another. Recording the paths for each child will also tell you what are the missing knowledge in each child, and what topics the teachers have to cover more in depth, in general.

Personalised learning per se is not optimal, as I have seen myself with the Khan academy and programming books. My son could easily write new programs, and they would certainly work, but he couldn’t explain to me why. It was only when I intervene that he starting to understand why, but the attitude remains: he won’t need to understand why while questions, exams and results are measured by multiple choice, filling the blanks or guessing the answer.

Asperger’s disadvantage

Among intelligent people, those with Asperger’s have a serious disadvantage: as with other types of Autism, they can pattern match instinctively, and come up with accurate results without knowing how they did it. During primary school this is a huge advantage, since all questions are too silly to matter, but as you progress to secondary school (or worse, if you have a perfectionist father), you’ll have more and more difficulties in answering the questions that really matter: why?

Knowing “why” is fundamental because of reproducibility. Science is all about method. Mathematics is only consistent because it has a single method. Science follow suite, and is only consistent because it’s based on maths. This consistency comes in the form of reproducibility. If you can describe your method, and others can follow, than you have a proof, or a theory. Otherwise, it’s pseudo-science, or religion.

If one wants to answer questions, not just get them right on average, one wants to understand why certain method works, on which cases, with which constraints. If you spent your whole (short) life guessing and getting accurate answers (not necessarily correct ones), and if all the school cares is to be reasonably correct, than you’ll think you’re a genius (the school will, too), and you won’t learn how to think until it’s too late.

Since schools don’t even try to understand the differences between the learning process of children, they never spot this in any child. We only got an early warning from one of the head teachers (the best, so far, at Queen Edith’s), because of behaviour issues, not learning problems. They were simply unaware that our son would not even know why he was right. This is very similar to what expert computer systems can do, and we don’t consider them to be intelligent.

Recently, I took matters into my own hands and am teaching both my kids to think. I don’t care what answer they give me, I want to know why they think that’s the answer. I want explanations, not step-by-step equation solving that can be easily memorised, I want them to tell me why they can apply that step in solving that equation. Why do they think that stars are hotter than planets, why can’t you send messages faster than the speed of light, even with entanglement. Why is what really matters, and that’s the least worry in all schools I’ve ever been, or have ever seen.

Time for a change

Until we manage to find a way to ask why, and get meaningful and measurable answers from our children, we’ll still be in the stone ages. All the progress that we think we’ve made since the wheel is but a fleck on what we can achieve. People that assume our understanding as complete, or even good enough are idiots and should not be given any level of control over our society.

Next time you vote, ask your candidate why, and be ready to change candidates if they don’t understand, or can’t answer the question. You’ll see, like Russel Brand did, that you’ll end up without a candidate.

We need to change how we think, and the question of this century is why?. Ask your kids every day, why. Don’t let them ask why if they can’t answer why. Every day, wake up, look at yourself in the mirror and ask…


Open Source and Profit

I have written extensively about free, open source software as a way of life, and now reading back my own articles of the past 7 years, I realize that I was wrong on some of the ideas, or in the state of the open source culture within business and around companies.

I’ll make a bold statement to start, trying to get you interested in reading past the introduction, and I hope to give you enough arguments to prove I’m right. Feel free to disagree on the comments section.

The future of business and profit, in years to come, can only come if surrounded by free thoughts.

By free thoughts I mean free/open source software, open hardware, open standards, free knowledge (both free as in beer and as in speech), etc.

Past Ideas

I began my quest to understand the open source business model back in 2006, when I wrote that open source was not just software, but also speech. Having open source (free) software is not enough when the reasons why the software is free are not clear. The reason why this is so is that the synergy, that is greater than the sum of the individual parts, can only be achieved if people have the rights (and incentives) to reach out on every possible level, not just the source, or the hardware. I make that clear later on, in 2009, when I expose the problems of writing closed source software: there is no ecosystem in which to rely, so progress is limited and the end result is always less efficient, since the costs to make it as efficient are too great and would drive the prices of the software too high up to be profitable.

In 2008 I saw both sides of the story, pro and against Richard Stallman, on the views of the legitimacy of propriety control, being it via copyright licenses or proprietary software. I may have come a long way, but I was never against his idea of the perfect society, Richard Stallman’s utopia, or as some friends put it: The Star Trek Universe. The main difference between me and Stallman is that he believes we should fight to the last man to protect ourselves from the evil corporations towards software abuse, while I still believe that it’s impossible for them to sustain this empire for too long. His utopia will come, whether they like it or not.

Finally, in 2011 I wrote about how copying (and even stealing) is the only business model that makes sense (Microsoft, Apple, Oracle etc are all thieves, in that sense) and the number of patent disputes and copyright infringement should serve to prove me right. Last year I think I had finally hit the epiphany, when I discussed all these ideas with a friend and came to the conclusion that I don’t want to live in a world where it’s not possible to copy, share, derive or distribute freely. Without the freedom to share, our hands will be tied to defend against oppression, and it might just be a coincidence, but in the last decade we’ve seen the biggest growth of both disproportionate propriety protection and disproportional governmental oppression that the free world has ever seen.

Can it be different?

Stallman’s argument is that we should fiercely protect ourselves against oppression, and I agree, but after being around business and free software for nearly 20 years, I so far failed to see a business model in which starting everything from scratch, in a secret lab, and releasing the product ready for consumption makes any sense. My view is that society does partake in an evolutionary process that is ubiquitous and compulsory, in which it strives to reduce the cost of the whole process, towards stability (even if local), as much as any other biological, chemical or physical system we know.

So, to prove my argument that an open society is not just desirable, but the only final solution, all I need to do is to show that this is the least energy state of the social system. Open source software, open hardware and all systems where sharing is at the core should be, then, the least costly business models, so to force virtually all companies in the world to follow suit, and create the Stallman’s utopia as a result of the natural stability, not a forced state.

This is crucial, because every forced state is non-natural by definition, and every non-natural state has to be maintained by using resources that could be used otherwise, to enhance the quality of the lives of the individuals of the system (being them human or not, let’s not block our point of view this early). To achieve balance on a social system we have to let things go awry for a while, so that the arguments against such a state are perfectly clear to everyone involved, and there remains no argument that the current state is non-optimal. If there isn’t discomfort, there isn’t the need for change. Without death, there is no life.


Of all the bad ideas us humans had on how to build a social system, capitalism is probably one of the worst, but it’s also one of the most stable, and that’s because it’s the closest to the jungle rule, survival of the fittest and all that. Regulations and governments never came to actually protect the people, but as to protect capitalism from itself, and continue increasing the profit of the profitable. Socialism and anarchy rely too much on forced states, in which individuals have to be devoid of selfishness, a state that doesn’t exist on the current form of human beings. So, while they’re the product of amazing analysis of the social structure, they still need heavy genetic changes in the constituents of the system to work properly, on a stable, least-energy state.

Having less angry people on the streets is more profitable for the government (less costs with security, more international trust in the local currency, more investments, etc), so panis et circenses will always be more profitable than any real change. However, with more educated societies, result from the increase in profits of the middle class, more real changes will have to be made by governments, even if wrapped in complete populist crap. One step at a time, the population will get more educated, and you’ll end up with more substance and less wrapping.

So, in the end, it’s all about profit. If not using open source/hardware means things will cost more, the tendency will be to use it. And the more everyone uses it, the less valuable will be the products that are not using it, because the ecosystem in which applications and devices are immersed in, becomes the biggest selling point of any product. Would you buy a Blackberry Application, or an Android Application? Today, the answer is close to 80% on the latter, and that’s only because they don’t use the former at all.

It’s not just more expensive to build Blackberry applications, because the system is less open, the tools less advanced, but also the profit margins are smaller, and the return on investment will never justify. This is why Nokia died with their own App store, Symbian was not free, and there was a better, free and open ecosystem already in place. The battle had already been lost, even before it started.

But none of that was really due to moral standards, or Stallman’s bickering. It was only about profit. Microsoft dominated the desktop for a few years, long enough to make a stand and still be dominant after 15 years of irrelevance, but that was only because there was nothing better when they started, not by a long distance. However, when they tried to flood the server market, Linux was not only already relevant, but it was better, cheaper and freer. The LAMP stack was already good enough, and the ecosystem was so open, that it was impossible for anyone with a closed development cycle to even begin to compete on the same level.

Linux became so powerful that, when Apple re-defined the concept of smartphones with the iPhone (beating Nokia’s earlier attempts by light-years of quality), the Android system was created, evolved and dominated in less than a decade. The power to share made possible for Google, a non-device, non-mobile company, to completely outperform a hardware manufacturer in a matter of years. If Google had invented a new OS, not based on anything existent, or if they had closed the source, like Apple did with FreeBSD, they wouldn’t be able to compete, and Apple would still be dominant.

Do we need profit?

So, the question is: is this really necessary? Do we really depend on Google (specifically) to free us from the hands of tyrant companies? Not really. If it wasn’t Google, it’d be someone else. Apple, for a long time, was the odd guy in the room, and they have created an immense value for society: they gave us something to look for, they have educated the world on what we should strive for mobile devices. But once that’s done, the shareable ecosystem learns, evolves and dominate. That’s not because Google is less evil than Apple, but because Android is more profitable than iOS.

Profit here is not just the return on investment that you plan on having on a specific number of years, but adding to that, the potential that the evolving ecosystem will allow people to do when you’ve long lost the control over it. Shareable systems, including open hardware and software, allow people far down in the planing, manufacturing and distributing process to still have profit, regardless of what were your original intentions. One such case is Maddog’s Project Cauã.

By using inexpensive RaspberryPis, by fostering local development and production and by enabling the local community to use all that as a way of living, Maddog’s project is using the power of the open source initiative by completely unrelated people, to empower the people of a country that much needs empowering. That new class of people, from this and other projects, is what is educating the population of the world, and what is allowing the people to fight for their rights, and is the reason why so many civil uprisings are happening in Brazil, Turkey, Egypt.


All that creates instability, social unrest, whistle-blowing gone wrong (Assange, Snowden), and this is a good thing. We need more of it.

It’s only when people feel uncomfortable with how the governments treat them that they’ll get up their chairs and demand for a change. It’s only when people are educated that they realise that oppression is happening (since there is a force driving us away from the least-energy state, towards enriching the rich), and it’s only when these states are reached that real changes happen.

The more educated society is, the quicker people will rise to arms against oppression, and the closer we’ll be to Stallman’s utopia. So, whether governments and the billionaire minority likes or not, society will go towards stability, and that stability will migrate to local minima. People will rest, and oppression will grow in an oscillatory manner until unrest happens again, and will throw us into yet another minimum state.

Since we don’t want to stay in a local minima, we want to find the best solution not just a solution, having it close to perfect in the first attempt is not optimal, but whether we get it close in the first time or not, the oscillatory nature of social unrest will not change, and nature will always find a way to get us closer to the global minimum.


Is it possible to stay in this unstable state for too long? I don’t think so. But it’s not going to be a quick transition, nor is it going to be easy, nor we’ll get it on the first attempt.

But more importantly, reaching stability is not a matter of forcing us to move towards a better society, it’s a matter of how dynamic systems behave when there are clear energetic state functions. In physical and chemical systems, this is just energy, in biological systems this is the propagation ability, and in social systems, this is profit. As sad as it sounds…

Hypocrite Internet Freedom

Last year, the Internet has shown its power over governments, when we all opposed to the SOPA and PIPA legislations in protests across the world, including this very blog. Later on, against ACTA and so on, and we all felt very powerful indeed. Now, a new thread looms over the Internet, the ITU is trying to take over the Internet.

To quote Ars Technica:

Some of the world’s most authoritarian regimes introduced a new proposal at the World Conference on International Telecommunications on Friday that could dramatically extend the jurisdiction of the International Telecommunication Union over the Internet.

Or New Scientist:

This week, 2000 people have gathered for the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) in Dubai in the United Arab Emirates to discuss, in part, whether they should be in charge.

And stressing that:

WHO runs the internet? For the past 30 years, pretty much no one.

When in reality, the Internet of today is actually in the precise state the US is trying to avoid, only that now they’re in control, and the ITU is trying to change it to an international organization, where more countries have a say.

Today, the DNS and the main IP blocks are controlled by the ICANN, however, Ars Technica helps us reminding that ICANN and IANA are:

the quasi-private organizations that currently oversee the allocation of domain names and IP addresses.

But the ICANN was once a US government operated body, still with strong ties with Washington, localized solely on the US soil, operating on US law jurisdiction. They also failed on many accounts to democratize their operations, resulting in little or no impact for international input. Furthermore, all top level domains that are not bound to a country (like .com, .org, .net) are also within American jurisdiction, even if they’re hosted and registered in another country.

But controlling the DNS is only half the story. The control that the US has on the Internet is much more powerful. First, they hold (for historical and economical reasons), most of the backbone of the Internet (root DNS servers, core routers, etc). That means the traffic between Europe and Japan will probably pass through them. In theory, this shouldn’t matter and it’s actually an optimization of the self-structuring routing tables, but in fact, the US government has openly reported that they do indeed monitor all traffic that goes within their borders and they do reserve the right to cut it, if they think this presents a risk of national security.

Given the amount of publicity the TSA had since 2001 for their recognition of what poses a security threat, including Twitter comments from British citizens, I wouldn’t trust them, or their automated detection system to care for my security. Also, given the intrusion that they have on some governments like the case of Dotcom in January, where national security operations in New Zealand were shared inappropriately with the American government, I never felt safe when crossing American soil, physically or through the Internet.

Besides, Hollywood has shown in Scandinavia and in UK that they hold a strong leash on European governments when related to (US) copyright laws, forcing governments, once liberals, to abide to American rules, arresting their own citizens, when content is being distributed over the Internet. It’s also interesting to remember than SOPA, PIPA and ACTA, mainly driven by Hollywood, were all created within closed doors.

So, would ITU control be better?

No. Nothing could be further from the truth. Although, in theory, it’s more democratic (more countries with decision power), this decision power has been sought for one main purpose: to enforce more strict laws. I generally agree that the ITU would not be a good controlling body, but believing that nobody controls the Internet is, at least, naive, and normally a pretentious lie.

A legal control of many countries over something as free as the Internet would impose the same dangers as having it free of legal control, since it leaves us with indirect control from the strongest player, which so far, has been the US. The other countries are only so strongly minded about the ITU because the US won’t let them have their voices, and the ITU is a way to create an UN for the Internet.

In that sense, the ITU would be a lot like the UN. Worthless. A puppet in the hands or the strong players. Each country would have more control over their borders, and that would impact almost nothing in the US, but the general rules would stop being valid, and the US (and other countries) would have to do a lot more work than they do today. One example is the stupid rule in the UK where the sites, including international ones, have to warn users that they are using cookies.

Don’t be fooled, the US government is not really worried about your safety and security, nor your freedom. They’re trying to avoid a lot of work, and a big loss in market in the Middle East and South Asia. With countries (that they like to say are authoritarian regimes) imposing stricter rules on traffic, including fees, taxes and other things that they have on material goods, the commerce with those governments will be a lot more expensive.

Ever since the second world war, the US economy is based mainly on military activities. First, helping Europe got them out of the big depression, then they forced rebellions throughout Latin America to keep the coins clinking and currently, it’s the Middle East. With the climate change endangering their last non-war resources (oil), they were betting on the Internet to spread the American Way Of Life to the less fortunate, with the off chance of selling a few iPads on the process, but now, that profit margin is getting dangerously thin.

Not to mention the military threat, since a lot of the intelligence is now being gathered through the Internet, and recent attacks on Iranian nuclear power plants via the Stuxnet worm, would all become a lot harder. The fact that China is now bigger and more powerful than they are, in every possible aspect (I dare say even military, but we can’t know for sure), is also not helping.

What is then, the solution? Is it possible to really have nobody running the Internet? And, if at all possible, is it desirable?

Mad Max Internet

I don’t think so.

It’s true that IPv6 should remove completely the need for IP allocation, but DNS is a serious problem. Letting DNS registration to an organic self-organized process would lead to widespread malicious content being distributed and building security measures around it would be much harder than they already are. The same is true with SSL certificates. You’d expect that, on a land with no rules, trusted bodies would charge a fortune and extort clients for a safe SSL certificate, if they actually produce a good one, that is, but this is exactly what happens today, on ICANN rule.

Routing would also be affected, since current algorithms rely on total trust between parties. There was a time when China had all US traffic (including governmental and military) through its routers, solely done via standard BGP rules. On a world where every country has its own core router, digitally attacking another country would be as easy as changing one line on a router.

We all love to think that the Internet is a free world already, but more often than ever, people are being arrested for their electronic behaviour. Unfortunately, because there isn’t a set of rules, or a governing body, the rules that get people arrested are the rules of the strongest player, which in our current case, is Hollywood. So, how is it possible to reconcile security, anonymity and stability without recurring to governing bodies?

The simple answer is, it’s not. The Internet is a land with no physical barriers, where contacting people over 1000s of miles is the same as the one besides you, but we don’t live in a world without borders. It’s not possible to reconcile the laws of all countries, with all the different cultures, into one single book. As long as the world keeps its multiculturalism, we have to cope with different rules for different countries, and I’m not in favour of losing our identity just to make the Internet a place comfortable to the US government.

Regulating multi-body

It is my opinion that we do, indeed, need a regulating body. ICANN, ITU, it doesn’t matter, as long as the decisions are good for most.

I don’t expect that any such governing body would come up with a set of rules that are good for everybody, nor that they’ll find the best rules in the first N iterations (for large N), but if the process is fair, we should reach consensus (when N tends to infinity). The problem with both ICANN and ITU is that neither are fair, and there are other interests at play that are weighted much more than the interests of the people.

Since no regulating body, governmental or not, will ever account for the interests of the people (today or ever), people tend to hope that no-rule is the best rule, but I hope I have shown that this is not true. I believe that instead, a governing multi-body is the real solution. It’s hypocrite to believe that Russia will let the US create regulations within its borders, so we can’t assume that will ever happen from start, if we want it to work in the long run. So this multi-body, composed by independent organizations in Europe, Asia, Oceania, Africa and Americas would have strong powers on their regions, but would have to agree on very general terms.

The general terms would be something like:

  1. There should be no cost associated with the traffic to/from/across any country to any other country
  2. There should be no filtering of any content across countries, but filtering should be possible to/from a specific country or region based on religious or legal grounds
  3. It should be possible for countries to deny certain types of traffic (as opposed to filtering above), so that routing around would be preferred
  4. Misuse of Internet protocols (such as BGP and DNS spoofing) on root routers/DNS servers should be considered an international crime with the country responsible for the server in charge of the punishments or sanctions against that country could be enforced by the UN
  5. Legal rights and responsibilities on the Internet should be similar (but not identical) as they are on the physical world, but each country has the right and duty to enforce their own rules

Rule 1 is fundamental and would cut short most of the recent ITU’s proposals. It’s utter nonsense to cross-charge the Internet as it is to do it with telecoms around the world, and that is probably the biggest problem of the new proposal.

Rules 2 and 3 would leave control over regional Internet with little impact on the rest. It’d also foment creation of new routes around problematic countries, which is always beneficial to the Internet reliability as a whole. It’s hypocrite to assume that the US government has the right to impose Internet rules on countries like Iran or China, and it’s up to the people of China and Iran to fight their leaders on their own terms.

It’s extremely hypocrite, and very common, in the US to believe that their system (the American Way of Life) is the best for every citizen of the world, or that the people of other countries have no way of choosing their own history. It’s also extremely hypocrite to blame authoritarian governments on Internet regulations and at the same time provide weapons and support local authoritarian groups. Let’s not forget the role of the US on Afghanistan and Iraq prior to the Gulf War, as opposition to Russia and Iran (respectively), and their pivot role on all major authoritarian revolution in Latin America.

Most countries, including Russia and the ones in Middle East would probably be fine with rules 2 and 3, with little impact on the rest of the world. Which leaves us with rule 4, to account for the trust-worthiness of the whole system. Today, there is a gang of a few pals who control the main routers and giving more control over less trust-worthy pals over DNS and BGP routes would indeed be a problem.

However, in fact, this rule is in vigour today, since China routed US traffic for only 18 minutes. It was more a show of power than a real attack, but had China been doing this for too long, the US would think otherwise and with very strong reasons. The loose control is good, but the loose responsibility is not. Countries should have the freedom to structure their Internet backbones but also do it responsibly, or be punished otherwise.

Finally, there’s rule 5. How to account when a citizen of one country behaves in another country’s website as it’s legal for his culture, but not the other? Strong religious and ethical issues will arise from that, but nothing that there isn’t already on the Internet. Most of the time, this problem is identical to what already happens on the real world, with people from one country that commit crimes on another country. The hard bit is to know what are the differences between physical and logical worlds and how to reconcile the differences in interpretation of the multiple groups that will take part on such governing multi-body.


ITU’s proposal is not good, but ICANN’s is neither. The third alternative, to lack complete control is only going to make it worse, so we need a solution that is both viable and general enough, so that most countries agree to it. It also needs to relinquish control of internal features to their own governments in a way to not affect the rest of the Internet.

I argue that one single body, being it ITU or ICANN, is not a good model, since it’s not general enough nor they account for specific regions’ concerns (ICANN won’t listen to the Middle East and ITU won’t regard the US). So, the only solution I can see possible is one that unites them all into a governing multi-body, with very little in global agreement, but with general rules powerful enough to guarantee that the Internet will be free forever.

The American constitution is a beautiful piece of writing, but in reality, over the years, their government have destroyed most of its beauty. So, long term self-check must also be a core part of this multi-body, with regular review and democratic decisions (sorry authoritarian regimes, it’s the only way).

In a nutshell, while it is possible to write the Internet Constitution and make it work in the long term, humanity is very likely not ready to do that yet, and we’ll probably see the destruction of the Internet in the next 10 years.



Anarchy and Science

If the world needed more proof that rational thinking is off the menu when concerning humans, we now have a so-called anarchist group attacking science. Bombs, shootings and sabotage, with one single goal: to stop science destroying our lives once and for all.

If you didn’t get it, you’re not alone. I’m still trying to understand the whole issue, but the more I read, the more I’m sure it’s just humanity reaching record levels of stupidity. Again.


First of all, the actions don’t make sense in the realms of anarchy. For ages, anarchism has been a non-violent banner. The anarchist is not tame, but a pacifist. Anarchists fight for freedom of everything, mainly from violence and oppression. Since every state, no matter controlled by whom, is oppressive, anarchists fight the very existence of any central form of coercion.

Bakunin once wrote:

“But the people will feel no better if the stick with which they are being beaten is labeled ‘the people’s stick’.” (Statism and Anarchy [1873])

This clearly means governments that base their choice on the people, such as democracies. For an anarchist, a democracy is as bad as dictatorship, as even in its purest form, it imposes the will of the average citizen onto the majority of the population. (If you thought it was the other way around, you clearly don’t understand democracy!).

In essence, anarchy is all about a long and non-violent migration to the total lack of central government, leaving the people (organised in local communities) to decide what’s best for themselves. If that works or not on a global level, I don’t know. But two key words pop out: non-violent and lack of central power.


In Peter Kropotkin’s own words:

Anarchism is a world-concept based upon a mechanical explanation of all phenomena, embracing the whole of Nature–that is, including in it the life of human societies and their economic, political, and moral problems. Its method of investigation is that of the exact natural sciences, by which every scientific conclusion must be verified. Its aim is to construct a synthetic philosophy comprehending in one generalization all the phenomena of Nature–and therefore also the life of societies (…) [source]

Thus anarchy, as science, is the art of finding the best answer by an iterative and non-violent method, without centralised powers dictating what the answer should be, but finding the answers by experimentation and verification, where everyone should come to the same conclusions.

Science has no central power and doesn’t provide support to any government or controlling body. There isn’t any scientist or organization in the world, nor ever has, that can dictate what scientists believe or can prove. The scientific method is the most democratic method of all, where every one can repeat the same experiments and reach the same results, otherwise the hypothesis is plain wrong, and there is nothing anyone can do to force it to be true.

Science has been used by governments to impose lifestyles, borders and general ignorance, yes. Science has been used to develop unfathomably powerful bombs, yes. And used over and over again to control and dominate countries and continents, yes. But that was never a merit of science, but of governments. Every major blame on science is, actually, the people. Describing how science has made our lives better, would be boring and redundant.

The blame?

If some scientists are idiots, it doesn’t mean the whole science is. If governments abuse of the power, and science provide that power, it doesn’t mean science is to blame, but governments. If some bishops should burn in hell, it doesn’t mean religion is to blame, but what people make of it. The climate change fiasco, the US national health program criticisms and the whole “God Particle” boom in recent religious people has shown that people are still complete ignorants and prejudicial when evaluating external information.

Pen and paper have been much more harmful to the world than science, and over a much longer period. Pride and honour have wiped out entire civilizations for millennia, well before science was such embedded in our culture. Barons, kings and presidents don’t need science to destroy our lives, but it just happen to be available.

So, science and anarchy have two major points in common: non-violence and the lack of centralised government. Why on Earth would an anarchist group gratuitously attack scientists? Because they are not anarchists, they are just idiots. I truly hope this is an isolated incident. If anarchists of the world lose their minds like these ones, the only hope for humanity (in the long term) will be lost, and there will be no return.

Further reading:
Anarchy Archives
Anarchist science policy

In the future…

In the future, people will be able to project three-dimensional films using holograms. These holograms could be placed among us, rather than at a stage, to give us a much better sense of reality and emotions than it is possible on a theatre or cinema.

When this technique gets common place, it’ll be possible to use it in the classroom. Actors would re-enact events in history, and children will be able to live the moment, rather than just listening to stories. The teachers, then, will have a much more fundamental role in teaching. They will comment on what’s happening, rather than merely serve as a narrator.

Holographic teaching has numerous advantages. Seeing the streets of London in 1666 on fire, running for your life is much more vivid than just chalk traces on a blackboard. Seeing Jews suffering on German camps, being a Jew on a German camp (minus the physical harm, of course), gives us a much better tool to avoid this in the future, and to do it to other people.

In the future, children will be able to live the credit crunch, the Syrian civil war, how the international community helped, and provoked, several conflicts in the Middle East and Africa. How people in the poorest parts of this world live without clean water or food, and how their parents die of unimaginable diseases and it falls on them the responsibility of raising a family, by the age of 4.

Children won’t be listeners, any more, they’ll live the moment, feel the pain, and learn that this is not acceptable, under any circumstances, for any living bean: Humans, animals, aliens.

However, you don’t have to wait for that glorious future to fix society. If things continue how they are, it is very likely that this future will never come to pass. If there is one constant in human history is the force of self-destruction. The more humans we have (we passed the 7bi barrier long ago), the stronger this force is.

There are several ways any of us can help save the world. The single most important you can do is to teach your children that ruthless selfish behaviour is not accepted, that the ends don’t justify the means, and that people deserve freedom to live and think for their own. Other things involve going to the most affected areas and work to revamp those cultures (not just bring food and water), help re-structure their governments (on their own terms) and work with your own government to stop invasive manoeuvres and third-party destructions for their own benefits.

A simple start is to help Avaaz. They do most of the bureaucracy, they go into the countries, they empower people, they turn rogue legislations around and, more importantly, they warn you before it’s too late.

Signing to their mailing list will give you a much better view of the world. You don’t have to donate money to help, just by signing the petitions, showing you care, is already a good start. The best part is that they will always ask you what’s the next step. How much effort they have to spend on this or that, and how much (and which) technology they have to develop to help their – our – cause.

I’m following Avaaz for a few years now, probably since its foundation, and I have to say that, not only they surpassed my expectations on what they could do with the world, but also on clarity, openness and use of technology and resources. They’re not a charity, they’re an activist group, and a very good one at that. If you were looking for something to support to help change the world, Avaaz is a great start.

Post-SOPA-protest, what’s on?

So, the day has ended and we’ve seen many protests around the world. Did it help? Well, a bit, but don’t hold your breath right now.

European citizens are still being sued by the American government and being extradited to the US because their sites had links to copyrighted material. So, in a way, what SOPA and PIPA stands for is already reality, but it takes the US government a lot of effort and money to do so. With SOPA and PIPA, enyone in the world could end up in Guantanamo Bay, as easy as any American.

While I welcome the protest, and feel that Americans did a good job converting 30 more senators to their cause (it was 5, now it’s 35), it’s far from enough. I think people still haven’t realised that this is not an American issue. Just like American copyright laws have bankrupted creativity around the world (think Mickey Mouse effect) and the American patent system has destroyed technological advancement (patent trolls, et al), SOPA and PIPA will spread throughout the world and be the icing on their cake.

The people that are so desperate to preserve their profits by breaking the rest of the world are the people that already have more than anyone. Last year, Viacom’s CEO had a 50mi raise in his salary. Not a bonus, mind you, a raise. To protect those people’s profits, we’re letting them destroy the entire world, stop technological advancements (that don’t give profits to them) and kill all the artists in the process.

If you, like me, are outside of the US, please make sure your government stops short of bending to the US government, as they always do. Europe, and particularly UK and France, has been America’s puppet for far too long. The US is not the only country in the world, and nowadays, it’s not even the most important one. We need to change the world to multi-polar and promote countries like China, Russia, Brazil, India. Not that I like any of them, but we must not put all our coins into one crazy country, we need more crazy countries to re-balance the world.

Now, for some of the protests

Apart from the obvious Wikipedia, Google, WordPress, there were some others I’ve seen that are worth mentioning.

It was not just that, some people actually went on to the streets (NY and SF) and it seems most senators’ phones and websites went dead for the traffic. It’s working, but this is not the end, nor this is just about copyright. This is about freedom of thought, freedom to share, freedom to be a human being. Stopping SOPA/PIPA is just the first step, we need to undo most of what the media/war/oil/tobacco industry has done for the past 80 years, unless you like dictatorships, of course.

Dad, what is war?

There’s this little girl on the hotel’s lobby. She seems very smart, but at odds with one of the popular magazines she’s reading. It looks like one of those low-quality magazines that people publish for children, assuming they’re dumb and can’t take a bit of logic. This one seems to be about history, mostly relating facts to simple conclusions and trying to get started the child’s imagination on what would be like hundreds of years ago.

I’m only waiting for them to get my room ready, so anything to pass the time is game, and watching the puzzled face of that little girl looking at a picture of what looks like a war scene is, at least, entertaining. Her dad is busy with some details of his bill, so she refrains from interrupting him, but enough is enough, I can see that she must ask what that is. And so she does.

“Dad, what is war?”. A bit puzzled with the numbers still floating in his mind and having to cope with such an unexpected question, he stops for a moment. “I, uh… war is… er, like… why do you ask?”. The little girl flips the magazine without letting it go, so her dad can read, and look at him with those big reflecting eyes, demanding a fair answer.

After switching his mind quickly yo cope with the upside-down writings and the glare from the sun outside on the screen, her dad finally tries to answer. “Well, honey. War is when people get angry and fight.” That was really amazing, because you could clearly see how fast her mind was pattern-matching in all her reactions. The involuntary contraction of her neck, the slight tilt of her head and the eyes going back and forth looking at nothing in particular. About a second later, she concluded. “Oh, I see, like you and mum?”

At this time the father wasn’t listening any more, and just issued the standard “uh-huh”. It was clear as filtered air that, in the next seconds, lots of memories of her family would be unequivocally associated with war, and at a later stage (if she ever became a historian), she would have to deal with that. It seems silly for me to interfere, but learning is an emergent behaviour, and she could have other unpredictable side-effects that would ruin her life for a number of reasons.

I looked around and there was no sign of the hotel staff bringing me my key, so I put my reservation aside and dived in. “Hello, little girl. How is your magazine?”. She looked at me in a slight panic, but my smiling face is anything but threatening. She looked at her dad, than at me. Her dad didn’t seem particularly worried, so she relaxed and continued the conversation.

“This is a magazine about the dark ages. I’ve learned dark ages at school and that people used to fight a lot, but I’ve never seen pictures of a real war before.” I said, “Well, these pictures are very old and bi-dimensional, it’s hard to see anything in them. Besides, they were usually taken by one or the other side, so you never knew how bad things really were other than what people told in the news or left in the pictures.”

She still seemd a bit confused, and not because of the quality of the pictures, I have to say. “I imagine how angry these people had to be to come to this…”. There was my cue. “You see, this has nothing to do with being angry… Your mum and dad will never go to war for disagreeing, because war is not about anyone’s feelings, really”.

Nevertheless, she seemed very resolute in her fantasy of mum and dad waging wars. “When they got separated, my mum said she was going to kill dad if he ever showed up again…”. But I was not going to give up, “That doesn’t mean it’s war. She was just angry and I’m sure she won’t kill anyone.”

By that time, my keys had arrived and I was ready to leave, but the little girls’ eyes weren’t stable enough for me to leave. Not just yet. “I don’t get it. If people were not mad, why did they fight?”. I could not hold my urge to elaborate… so I did.

“You see, back in the 21st century, people used to be a lot less rational than today. They used to call the early days as ‘dark ages’, only that those days were a lot less dark than – what we call today – the dark ages. People had a very blurry view of what science is or can do, and religion was still a strong player in worlds business.”

“Not only that, but people also had a very limited point of view. They thought only about their own profit and even then, only their short term profit – think about a month or so, no more – so they were always taking rapid-firing short-sighted decisions. For instance, they would wage wars in the – then, called middle east – area to control the oil production, even decades after realising fossil fuels weren’t good at all. Even mother China would wage wars with our neighbours because of their political agenda…” “Not mother China! We’d never do that!” I was taken aback a bit for her reaction, but continued nevertheless… “Hundreds of years ago, dear, everyone did that, even mother China.”

She was puzzled. Maybe I was making it worse, which was another reason to continue…

“Let’s go back a bit. When science was still at its early stages, there were some fundamental questions that people couldn’t answer, like ‘where do we come from’ and ‘why are we here'” “But that’s non-sense!” “Yes, yes, calm down, we’re talking about back then, remember?” “Oh, yes, sorry.” “Those questions, however irrelevant to the universe, were fundamental to even the most prodigious scientists of that era. It was not all bad, since most of the discoveries of that time came from trying to find the ultimate truth.”

“Religion is that stuff about the universe being created, right?” “Exactly, there is a deity that is more powerful than us and have created us. Somewhat like man and ants, we could do whatever we wanted with them…” “but we didn’t create the ants!” “Yes, I was, uh, trying to come up with an analogy, sorry. You see, that’s one of the reasons why it failed over the time, people ran out of stupid analogies and science took care of the rest. With time, we stopped asking stupid questions as well, so the long sought answers about the universe died out and, well, came the age of enlightenment.”

“What does that have to do with war?” “Oh, yes, war. So, ever since the stone age, most wars were waged for religious reasons. It may not make a lot of sense now, but different people had different religions, and they could not accept that other people could believe in a different deity, or even in the same deity, with slightly different rules. That has led to a lot of controversy, and due to the lack of diplomacy, wars.”

“However, after a while, people realised that religion was not just a matter of belief, it was a powerful weapon. If you could make people believe in what you want – that you are in direct communication with such deity, for instance – you would recruit every single man that believes in that deity to your cause. With time, when money came into scene, that was the most powerful way to acquire money. Later on, when religion started to fail, people had to create different fears, such as their own safety. That’s when terrorism came to scene, but again, that had strong religious roots.”

“So, war was about money, then?” “Exactly! Money and power, which invariably leads to more money (or power).” “Oh, that’s stupid! Everyone knows you get more if you cooperate than if you fight over something…” She was warming up and I’d lose my meeting but I wouldn’t stop now!

“Have you ever heard of John Nash?” “Hey, John Nash, I know him! Game theory, right?” “Well done!” I was really impressed, they normally learn that stuff at 10, but she was barely 7 years old. “There were some people a bit ahead of their time, like John Nash and Stephen Hawking, but they were few. Most of the prodigious scientists were all looking for the ultimate answer. And funny enough, for more than a century after John Nash, people still waged wars for money…”

She was looking down, and a bit sad… “My mum always say that I don’t listen and I only learn through pain… I guess this was their problem, wasn’t it?” “I think so” said I, resolute. “I think there’s yet another explanation that fits into Nash’s predictions. There were so many factors into why waging wars actually makes less profit than not, that people could not see it straight away. Whoever said that was taken as an anarchist, or an idiot – which at the time, was almost the same thing…” “What’s an anarchist?” That truly took me out of balance… I wasn’t prepared to elaborate on that. So I didn’t.

“Back to war… Nash’s idea, and that we all take for granted today, is that collaboration is far more stable and profitable than competition. I personally think that, what was really difficult for them to realise, was that competition is what made men evolve, but that’s also what made men stop evolving for millennia. Learning to collaborate was the single most important change in the world over the last three hundred years, and also what made our fauna and flora to go back to its original intent, and thanks to that, we still have our planet to live in.”

“Of course we do! Where else? Ha!” She was laughing seriously loud now. I believe a man of that age would not understand why, but I did.

My watch went crazy on the alarm, reminding me I had a meeting in 15 minutes, and I even hadn’t had a shower. That was my cue to leave, so just made some silly moves like pointing at the watch and smirking, and she got it straight away. Clever girl.

Privacy on Modern Societies

The concept of privacy is born from the antagonism between individuality and the desire to belong to a group. The instinctive drive to form groups – for protection, mating and warmth – is much older than the human race itself. It’s an instinct of almost every animal, and a successful characteristic or many plants and fungi. Individuality itself comes from pride and greed, two characteristics more specific to higher animals (such as felines, canines and primates).

Pack animals, like zebras, benefit a lot from being indistinguishable from each other (this is why they have stripes). Other animals, such as most felines, have leaders and there’s a succession line (much like royalty, but favouring physical strength). However, even on hierarchical species, the people is just the people, and they’re fine with it. Even on primates, you seldom see identification of one’s work or specific concerns with privacy. You can see them mimic privacy (if you beat them when doing something you wouldn’t do in public), but that’s Pavlov’s conditioning more than anything else.


However, group behaviour’s strengths and benefits if applied to the human race are quickly dismissed as communism.

There was a lot of group psychology in Marx’s political views (and a lot of Marxism in Pavlov’s ideas), hence, there was a strong rejection of any conditionalization of the people impose by the state or any strong enough body, on the capitalist side of the world.

The individual entrepreneurism of modern capitalism (as opposed to the original binary model from Adam Smith and co.), borne during the colonisation of America (no rules, no government), has been revamped by communism fears during the cold war, Cuba and now China.


As with any faith, the belief that individuality is the landmark of the human race brought its own problems.

First, individuality goes against most of other values we have as humans. My right to fart in a bloated bus goes against the respect I should have for others. My right to eat my pudding goes against the compassion I should have to spend the same amount for the mains of an impoverished child. My right to press the tooth-paste in the middle goes against my love for my wife.

Putting individuality higher than other important human values, such as respect, compassion and love, makes it a lot harder to live in societies. And given that we are now passing the 7 billion people, it’ll be a lot harder to be alone. But faith has no boundaries, nor logic. People were raised believing their individuality is more important than anything else and they die for it.

Biting the hand…

But life has it’s ways of being ironic, and deeply satisfying at it, for the bystanders. Extremely capitalist countries (like UK and US) have figured out long ago that such freedom cannot be. There is no society based on individuality (they’re antagonistic, after all). Worse still, a society that is purely based on individuality is a society without government. That, whose people have the right to do whatever they please. For this society to thrive, people would choose the right thing to do more often than not. That apolitical society has a name: anarchy. I don’t believe any government would like that!

To control people without telling them they’re being controlled, you have to resort to subversive techniques, extensively described in Orwell’s 1984. For centuries, both sides of the Atlantic have resorted to such measures, but today, no country is more Orwellian than the US.

Countries in Latin America or old USSR are failed nations (in the ayes of the American Government), where people know how bad it is and, well, live with it.

West European countries have, to a certain extent, succeeded in creating a more stable, if somewhat socialist, government. People still have their own liberties, but the government is strong and has it’s strong hand (NHS, public schools, social security, etc.). While they could do much better on many things, people know the failures and, well, live with it.

But the US is a special case. And the critical elements in the country’s history of the aggressive capitalism (internally and externally), individualism and greed, is biting the hand that fed it. For decades now, the government is increasing the grip on people’s freedoms, while increasing the liberty of major industries such as media, software, pharmaceutical, weapons on its grip of the government. After all, the recent breakdowns (like the one in 1929) of Enron, the Internet bubble and now the housing market and the financial crisis are signs that capitalism still has a lot to go wrong if unrestrained.

And still, the government gives more power to those same companies every year. The social reform Obama promised is yet to be seen, the technology-savvy campaign he did turned out on a technology-moron government, failing to understand basic concepts of day-to-day life that most Americans already know for ages. And since the US has such a power on the world’s economy, they’re spreading their chaos to Europe, as they did with Latin America for centuries (ever since Monroe Doctrine).

Recent court battles in EU for copyright infringements, the three-strike laws (rushed in by puppy Sarkozy even before the US) and all the prosecutions over Europe regarding software (Microsoft) and stupid hardware patents (Samsung vs. Apple), shows that stupidity took over the world, for good.


After the recording industry successfully convincing underpaid musicians that they were being robbed by piracy, and the successful creation of the the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, making legal things such as DRM (and illegal to have the right of privacy), and crippling their own patent system with useless patents (giving birth to a whole new industry, called patent trolls), the US government now is superseding itself by creating the Stop Online Piracy Act, the new idiocy that goes beyond any idiot boundaries any human being has ever gone.

The US government has consistently and strongly reminding us, the rest of the world, of countries like China, where people don’t have the right to freely access the internet (due to the Big Firewall of China), and how much better is the freedom that capitalist countries give you. That freedom, ultimately linked to individuality and the greed to make more money that your peers, is what makes the American capitalism thrive. But every action, every argument has been destroying this dream, for more than a decade already.

Of course, as with any decent Orwellian government, they don’t tell you your freedoms are being displaced. And people that do say that, like Richard Stallman, are tagged as crazy lunatics, in spite of what GNU has done for society in the last 30 years. Anyway, the government’s arguments are, actually, promoting freedom. The freedom for the companies to make pornographic profits at the expense of the population’s freedom.

We, the people

But the people is not fooled. Recent movements to occupy Wall Street and the increasing mention that capitalism is failing in the alternative media (blogs, independent media channels, etc.) are clear indications that the nation’s mindset is changing.

A recent survey has shown that 75% of the Americans disagree with the outrageous fines (or any fine at all) for copyright infringement. Actually, most of them are knowingly infringing copyright themselves.

So, how does this happen? From a nation that valued their individuality and community to a nation of filthy pirates that don’t give a dime about other people’s property? Well, nothing has actually happened. To the people, I mean. But two things have, indeed, happened to the government.

First, the notion of property, individuality and respect, that were never meant individually, are now showing its colour. Second, the greed in which people were bred made them respect so much their individuality that other people’s profit is not as important as their own comfort. While this is the driving factor behind the population fight against the failed patent and copyright system (a fight that I do support), it’s for the wrong reasons.


My view is that the patent system, copyright, the media industry, the firewall of China, etc. fail on a basic respect level. Not only individualism, mas also the sense of society and community. Respect is by far more important than individualism or community. It’s a concept that, when applied correctly, can derive communities that do respect your right to individuality and privacy, at the same time that it stops abuse short of damaging others.

Respect is not perfect, nor equal to everyone. There are always those that abuse of the system and people will get hurt, or killed, before the community can do anything about it. But isn’t it true to every kind of community? Do you really believe that SOPA will stop piracy more than harm loyal customers? Did DRM? Did DMCA? Did the Terrorism Act really stopped more terrorists than it locked up regular air travellers?

All those solutions were direct infringements of privacy, the right to defend yourself (ex. Guantanamo Bay and patent trolls), the right to share and give away (DRM), the right to use your property where and how it’s meant to be used (DRM). Now, the US is also losing the right to use the Internet. And don’t think that this is staying within their borders… it’s most definitely not!

Expect Cameron and Sarkozy to be adhering to that idea sooner than the Americans do…