W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-credentials@w3.org > June 2017

subjectivity

From: Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2017 10:05:57 +0000
Message-ID: <CAM1Sok3pTR9BFGhSTmr=NhjUrmBMs0715fdfQifYaAmJosJNnQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: W3C Credentials Community Group <public-credentials@w3.org>
The issues about the use of internet technology is certainly subjective.

Many would say that it makes us 'more connected'.  Indeed that the
underlying purpose in the creation of the world wide web as to make
available documents has been fulfilled (often via wikipedia).

But to say that criminal activity that causes harm in various levels of
severity should be enabled by way of internet technology; and that the
victims of such acts when known by way of the medium to be illegal is a
quality that is to be (secretly) protected...

that is wrong, in no uncertain way.

<rant>
Whilst the US economic structure in no-small way attributes its income to
ICT and pharmaceuticals; the series impacts of those RDF describe impacts
is important and something the worlds humans need to be involved in
defining a solution to resolve, beyond the tooling of war.

the fragmented development of society in this way is certainly challenging;
the tech, that lives in secret bunkers and how far into the distant future
of things that can be taken off the shelf; who knows...

but to revoke the pursuit of 'personhood' in the social means to improve
its definition and utility for organic life on this planet pursuant to
international human rights doctrine.

That's not ok, and it's certainly not sustainable.  Whilst acknowledging
far too many issues already; in the awareness i do not know the extent of
it.

I am deeply concerned; and at present, i have little faith W3C is the
appropriate place in which to fix it; in addition to the consideration,
that Web Foundation, and the web science directorship community are
ill-equipped to handle the problems by themselves; to an order of magnitude
of significant loss to the advancement of our 'natural world' due to
competitive forces embodied within such forms of institution and related
stakeholders; that shows at the outset,

the advancement of RWW related works have not occurred within W3C but
rather via MIT.  That those works are severely under resourced and that
even the inventors of internet and the tooling that changes our humanity;
now seek means, in which in an under-funded manner, they seek personally to
solve a problem - that too many say, is not of their operational concern.

it's not a problem they can work on whilst providing food and shelter for
their children; whilst others who rely upon the 'facts' created by a flawed
system, define wars and the means of health and welfare for our natural
world.

I have faith that 'sense' and 'meaning' will be distilled by way of our
'A.I.' works as to provide sense in the face of history, in a manner that's
beyond death or the monthly payment cycle of subscription to our
communications medium for existence via a 'web'; yet, i am frustrated and
very upset about what i witness in the choices of others as we define
methods in which to bind more organic life to this medium as an apparatus
akin to the lung; for socioeconomic existence in our world, and the regard
those systems have for truth over convenient fiction.

i didn't pull together the kit to play with a BBS as a kid; because, i felt
my developed expertise would lead to such forms of ethical decisions in the
aspiration of a dignified and enjoyable circumstance of life; or indeed,
with retrospect, the types of decisions it is sought i consider to have
been wrong, as others before me took my work in the interests of knowingly
exploiting others for financial gains regardless of the impacts upon me or
others; or indeed,

the fact that still; i do not use my technical skills to pursue a common
course of action that by way of technical aptitude - subject to respect for
law, dignity, kindness and hope; that regardless of how technology can be
used; we collectively and collaboratively seek to use it, for the good of
the people.

</rant>

we are making decisions about the future of humanity.  I hope you can
provide those ethical decisions to your children and their communities in a
way that you believe to have communicated the best; of what it is, to be
human.

In summary; i think, W3C is the wrong place to have these discussions; it
simply, by way of membership systems, doesn't actually care (regardless of
the back-channel conversations that actually don't mean anything in
history). I am therefore working on alternatives in which W3C will likely
be made less relevent and appropriated to deliver what it is told to do.

Much like kids who do the wrong thing; who fail to attend to the needs of
its stakeholders...

I feel like i've hit enough brick walls to 'give-up' and accept, regardless
of the future of browsers in HMDs that relate to 'naturalised
interfaces'...  The work here will be tools and despite incredible efforts,
incredible structures and amazing people.  It's the wrong place to have a
debate about the future of existence as has been produce through the advent
of internet/www; it's great for employees, but not so good for those who
were otherwise vulnerable.

In my very strong view; the term Webizen - pertains to the founder (which
is in present form more complex than most consider) and his means in which
to train a 'virtuoso' to progress the web in a way he believed it should go.

If you want to solve this problem; i think you need to define the
definition of a new term, and i think Webizen is the best possible term
available.

I think it is as important to the stakeholders of that term; as it is to
those who seek to work on it, to ensure it's a good term.

Tim.h.
Received on Thursday, 1 June 2017 10:06:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 11 July 2018 21:19:38 UTC