W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-credentials@w3.org > February 2016

App Centric vs. Company Centric Vs. Human Centric

From: Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2016 09:19:14 +0000
Message-ID: <CAM1Sok199shBDZ=xa5DV5a7h+bSvmyF=FnFOhQU0C0t4ZtTCNQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: W3C Credentials Community Group <public-credentials@w3.org>
Considering the issues around how to build something that supports humans
more than companies, who by incorporation have particular mandates,
requirements and purpose;

I feel it must be noted; that one way or another, the world is human

An easy way to examine this concept is the plurality of apps that exist for
any particular purpose; say, dating apps, social media, contracting,
collaboration, cooperative development or CRM systems.

Who is it that requires the money to maintain a healthy level of existence?
Do companies need food?  Shelter?  or purpose...

We know the way many 'apps' are developed, they are not centred upon the
needs of the individual. in far too many circumstances people do good work,
and are then treated worse than slaves.

The age of slavery required the person who owned and benefited from the
slaves; to provide housing and other basic needs in-order for the slaves to
survive.  For some reason corporate agents believe and act in a manner that
does not even meet this basic consideration. Furthermore they expect, and
design protections in-order to ensure they're capacity to do so, does not
impact their financial accountability or business modelling.  in many cases
these acts are carried via technologies that ensure no ledger of acts by
agents is available for court, or other legal consideration.  The name
often provided to this idea is the 'boys club'.

To suggest one company or another will successfully store and co-ordinate,
a monopoly role in the means of existence as an opportunity for humans is
simply wrong. our means of technology, being RDBMS systems, have led an
accelerated path of development in a minuscule time-period, when related to
the development of humanity itself and certainly, the role our species
plays on all known organic life; yet, i find it abhorred that people judge
their role as employed agents to pursue a case that diminishes basic rights
of others for profit and personal stability. it is not that those who play
that role do not care for their family, it is that the game is not
developed sufficiently as to ensure they do not have nightmares nor engage
in a life that exemplifies the damaging opportunities power can be
purported upon others.

Whether it be the mechanics of the sex industry, the issues pertained
within the health industry, or the benefit those have from the capacity to
lie about qualifications, experience and past-works in-order to get the
job, that others in-consequence, do not have...

we are beyond the age of nepotism, this is presented very well by the
capacities of the few, where the affairs of the most powerful become
laundered by activists.

Humans are responsible for these decisions; and technologies such as
Credentials, can identify them.  Alternatives are BlockChain based, which
are likely to only make the problem worse.  It doesn't matter how much
energy we mine to throw at the right for elite to break law, whether that
be in text or by moral compass, we must make a path to evolution or
extinction; and credentials is making a an effort towards better things,
not lesser things.

this should not mean a few US browser companies should rule the world.  nor
should it mean their agents demand extinction as an alternative.

If we are to make a decision, as contributors to standards that provide
humans apparatus in which to benefit our world, we've got to take very
seriously the decisions being made here;

the idea that humans are of lesser value, in effect - "cheap energy", is
divisive, and a-moral.

In my path of life, i deal with many abhorrent issues. Yet in most cases,
these works are unpaid.  this in-turn provides a social-valuation of my
existence which says in effect, if i act for a company to plunder others, i
am a more valuable human being.

on what basis?

How is healthcare applied to the adult child who's mother supported her
into the sex industry as a child?

How are medicines that may cure disease supported above and beyond the
revenue gains made by selling drugs that deal with symptoms.

when you get your blood tested; are you being treated for the disease? or
the symptom?

To Block the idea of verified claims that are human centric?  Provides
means for a judge to evaluate, on the merits of the statements made by
humans what they've done, and what their problem is about the outcome?
in-turn.  that judges us worse than the billions of people who can benefit
from the creation of work that materially results in human progress...

We've got to get the realities of life on the table. whatever it may be, to
suggest your capacity to lead others into a fantasy for your benefit, by
way of your manipulative control, is a breach of human rights in very
fundamental ways.

lets not be mistaken about the consequences here...

This is a very forceful email, yet i am very concerned.  We have not solved
the problems yet, and i fear that 'the game' (as opposed to that of
prostitution...) may in-effect put the role of A.I, and the companies that
control it, ahead of 'right to life' for all organic life.

I also fear that the age where those who by work, furnish rights to humans
as is defined by law, may be made meaningless unless humans are able to
establish facts of life.

I appreciate many have benefited throughout a period where this
functionality has not been made available, yet at what cost?

The W3C has a fiduciary responsibility to develop these works.  it is that
simple. Whether that be via  the creation of a vehicle that is capable of
doing so, or whether it is able to gain support from its stakeholders on
their fiduciary basis; the ability for people to make claims about matters
that impact them, their humanity, their lives; is not simply a 'service
orientated' architectural decision.

grow up.

We need to define a solution and we do not have a limitless amount of time.

I hope the undertaking of this group is taken with all seriousness and
regardless of employment role or insular mandates; we seek a method to
support the role of organic life beyond that of the imagined entities for
which we depend upon.

Our money is worthless.  It only denotes out means, as human entities, to
collaborate, coordinate and value human effort.  this is the baseline that
has always driven economy.

Please don't break it more than it is already broken.  please do not use
your 'patents' to put our world in any more peril than it already is in.
We may not pay for it in our lifetime, but payment is always consequential.
  Whether that be how our children see the world, or otherwise, it is
always our responsibility as adults to make decisions our children, and
their children, were unable to at the time.

So, in the interests of living things.  Lets make something that supports
living things.

Humans making verifiable claims is ancient.  we are beyond the use of rings
and wax, but the concept is not redundant.

The objective here, IMHO, is to lower the energy cost.

For those who have meaningfully contributed, i very much thank you.  I
sincerely believe this work has merit and i have not found, world-wide, any
better methodologies, options or opportunities.  Yet, as is always the case
regardless of method; we will always depend upon humans.

The rest are simply inventions.

Received on Monday, 15 February 2016 09:19:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 11 July 2018 21:19:27 UTC