Re: Announcing the 10-Year SSI Revision Project

pá 5. 12. 2025 v 18:24 odesílatel Michael Herman (Trusted Digital Web) <
mwherman@parallelspace.net> napsal:

> RE: By "lost", I didn't mean "I don't understand", I meant "I am out".
>
>
>
> I’m advocating that the SSI 2026 project start with a Phase 0 where we
> review the Lenses themselves (names and descriptions)  and come up with
> terms and wording that is more “friendly”…
>
>
>
> I’ve started a discussion (currently a monologue) here:
> https://github.com/RevisitingSSI/Community/discussions/29
>

Nice work. I have a sense there’s been a bit of concept drift over the
years. Perhaps a good starting point in a W3C group is to be very clear
about the distinction between an “identifier” and an “identity”.


>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Michael Herman
>
> Web 7.0 Foundation
>
>
>
> *From:* Jean F. Quéralt <JFQueralt@theiofoundation.org>
> *Sent:* Thursday, December 4, 2025 11:53 PM
> *To:* Christopher Allen <ChristopherA@lifewithalacrity.com>
> *Cc:* Credentials Community Group <public-credentials@w3.org>
> *Subject:* 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.*
>