Re: Announcing the 10-Year SSI Revision Project

Hi Christopher.

By "lost", I didn't mean "I don't understand", I meant "I am out".
Without getting into neverending arguments, I'll say the following:


> > **Generative Identity & Ubuntu philosophy**
>
>
Too many words with too many red flag terms that focus on "lens" (we used
to call it approach until the language stormtroopers paid a visit) and more
than complementing a possible initial "individualistic approach" with a
"relational approach" seems to be erasing the former in benefit of the
latter. Groups don't exist without individuals. Identity starts with the
individual or you don't need identity at all. Only then comes the
social/practical layer.


> > Feminist Identity
>

"Identity" is not "feminine". In any form or shape. That's politics &
ideology talk.
Identity is a component of every single individual, regardless of sex.
Attempting to play "a feminist lens" to technology is opening the
floodgates to political and ideological possession.
Especially of an ideology that, despite the anecdotal "experiences" my
reply will certainly be the target of, is hellbent on hating men.

Any technology that is bent/influenced/shaped/"transformed" by ANY ideology
that isn't grounded on simple, non-agenda aligned principles is doomed and
I would not recommend to touch it with a 25 foot pole.

"Feminism" is not "egalitarianism". It's in the name.


> > Decolonial theory
>

Any "critique" (> Critical Theories) towards "technology being too
Westerner" is, to the very least, laughable.
One irremediable consequence of inventing something is that
1) You name it
2) You get to decide how it originally works... because you invented it for
yourself.

Do I need to make the point with Arabic numerals, really?

All of this self-flagellation over "who invented what and how it *ahem
dominates the paradigm" is utter nonsense: The global world is an open
market and if anyone would have had a better way to do the Internet they
would have competed and get it done. It's funny I hear, not a single time,
complains about how China is building their own thing (literally) while
day-in day-out the West needs to be whipped for the very technologies that
have taken out poverty so many millions of people worldwide.

On the other hand, "Decolonial Theories" (see also Critical Immigration
Theory) is just another component of a global mentality hellbent in taking
down the West for the sake of envy.
That's just what it is and it's past bed time to call it what it really is.
Again, China conveniently left out when it's by far the most active agent
in technology and pretty much any other area of life (hello South China
sea?) that is trying to take over (colonize, yes how fitting it's never
applied to them) as many layers of the tech  stack as humanly possible.

I also have to say that it's not because something is "indigenous" that it
magically becomes better.
What is better IS better. And that's measured by effectiveness, not by
magical thinking.

"Global South" is an insult, like many other terms designed to generate a
sense of victimization instead of encouraging people to get their arse
ignited and get shit done.
The 1984 Language Brigade has been doubling hours coming up with terms such
as "Silent Majority" to hammer indigestible and revenge-wet-dreams-filled
ideas.
Paraphrasing Dave Chappelle: "because that's what they do, they make up
words to win arguments".

So yes... anything appealing to "decolonial" stuff can't be taken seriously.



> > Legal personhood guarantees
>

I feel there's another confusion/conflation here:
I don't need to prove that I exists and that I am who I claim to be (or
that I have assigned a given capacity) UNLESS I need to fulfill a
compliance verification (of any kind).
No one cares about who I am until I need to go vote.


>
> My hope is to ensure that the 2026 Principles leave no ambiguity here: the
> first principle is **not** about digital shadows or identifiers, but about
> the inherent dignity and existence of human beings.
>
>
I find it ironic that "dignity" is a concern when we area asked to revisit
these concepts under precepts that definitely do not respect nor dignify so
many people falling outside of the "lenses" of "feminism" and "decolonial
theories". Especially when my own point of view is going to be met with
disdain, vitriol and subsequent consequences (or do you think that won't be
the case, really?).
That kind of "dignity"?


I hope this helps address your questions. If you have more, I encourage you
> to bring them to the public discussion area on GitHub:
> https://github.com/RevisitingSSI/Community/discussions or to join the
> private Signal chat group.
>
>
I am confused.
I received the invitation to participate in this list so I am  replying
through it.
I do not feel any interest in joining other channels since I don't feel
compelled to join this work.




Best regards,
[image: company-logo]
Jean F. Quéralt
Founder & CEO
The IO Foundation
+60 108 04 84 63
JFQueralt@theiofoundation.org <https://server.utags.co/dPYRRzLq>
TheIOFoundation.org <https://server.utags.co/UQhyvZjQ>




> —Christopher Allen
>

-- 
**DISCLAIMER**
*The content of this message, which may contain personal or 
sensitive data, is confidential. If you have received it by mistake, please 
inform the sender by replying to the email and then permanently delete the 
message, including any attachments. It is forbidden to copy, forward or in 
any way reveal the content of this message to anyone. The integrity and 
security of this email cannot be guaranteed over the Internet and, 
therefore, the sender will not be held liable for any damage caused by the 
message.*