Tsikbal: from my perspective

Now we are in an turning point of history, one on which power can be redistributed in a way that it's most beneficial for the people. Not only that, we can actually take some of the power for ourselves so we can actually put to work where we need it the most. In many ways, modern technology is allowing democracy to expand to people to have more power on their hands. There is still some way to go before we have full democracy, yet each day people has more power on their hands in order to be more self sufficient. The power of government is getting more decentralized, with much of that power going to the people. If we want to have a more fair, and equal, society we need to be more active on this redistribution of power. Unless we act, so we can take some power on our hands, we'll lose a great chance to have a meaningful voice on the government or to be able the government itself. The government shouldn't be come from the people, it should be the people itself. In many...

The Internet, and the communication technologies that have come to run on it, have allowed to people be more empowered and have a better chance to do things without having to use traditional roads. We are able to do things for ourselves, and our communities, far more often than ever before. People are better able to form ways self government, by applying pressure to their government officials to really address their concerns or by making them change how they did things in order for government to actually work for the people. We are still a long way from making all the changes that need to be made to the different government systems to make them fit better the needs of their people. Yet, we are starting to make a impact on how they work and how they relate to us. Government are less able to ignore their people, or to dent the people's will for change. They have to start conceding what the people want, to a certain extent and not always as the people wanted them to. That...

The extent of how much standardization should reach can be quite foolish, since it seems that many want to standardize everything. By doing so, the point of standardization is lost and made void. While there are several things that benefit from being standardized, there are others that actually are not quite as receptive from being standardized. Standards are more of a common set of rules, that certain thing or actions should follow in order to be useful. Others have no such need, since they are going to be used in a way that it doesn't really matter if they don't play nice with others. Standardization is useful, but it has to be applied where is needed in order for it not to become just a headache. In most cases, the standards can be applied on a limited basis in a way where it add value because it makes sense to do so. It's foolish to want to standardize everything just for the sake of doing so. Just because in some areas standardization has done wonders, it ...

When a standard is made, specially one that is meant for general use, that may include any component that may require the payment of royalties it has failed from the onset. Any standard made to use by the general public needs to be made entirely free and open, so that it can be used by all on equal terms. The moment royalties are possible, the standard is discriminating against those who can't pay since it would make that standard unusable for them. If that standard is supposed to be used by as many people or organizations as possible, it should be intrinsically open so that it can be adopted as widely as possible without having to worry possible liability of having found to be infringing of a patent or intellectual property. The standard used to make everyone using it as a base, should come without any strings attached. The moment there is even a possibility that someone owns even a part of the standard, it defeats the main reason of having that standard. In many ways...

Knowledge shouldn't be allowed to be monopolized, and need to remain open to everyone. Access to knowledge needs to be considered a basic human right, since knowledge is vital to improve not only the quality of life of the individual. It's also a way to improve the quality of life of the communities, since it allows to improve almost every aspect of life, by giving better tools and understanding of how things work. Knowledge belongs to humanity at large, and we all should not only be allowed unrestricted access to any part of it that we need. We also need to be guaranteed the ability to modify it in order to make better use of it, and to share with others freely those improvements. People, and communities, are empowered by knowledge. They become more readily able to better cope with any problem that comes their way, and to learn from their mistakes. Knowledge gives people the freedom to take on life on their own, and thus depend less on outside help to solve problems. ...

There's no valid reason why any government to spy on its citizens, specially one that prides itself of the freedoms it gives them while trying to make other governments give those same freedoms to their citizens. It strikes me as ironic, that the US government has been doing just that. A government that prides itself about how many freedoms its citizens have, has in effect being breaching those freedoms by spying without a valid reason to do so. Even the reasoning behind it, that it's fighting terrorism, is not enough for people to accept losing its privacy over it. No government has any business spying on any person without proving that it was a probable cause to believe that the person is involved in some sort of illegal activity. Such process should be transparent, and open to scrutiny by the people. The moment it's done behind the public's back, there is something intrinsically wrong with it and should be repealed. The citizens have the right to know how th...

It's both, ironic and outrageous, that many companies try to lock users on their proprietary standards in the name of compatibility. If their standard is proprietary, any one who buys into it will be locked to use that company products. That's why we need to make sure that open standards are used by all companies. This way, we can rest assured that as users we'll not be locked the products and services of a particular company. It's about our freedom to choose whatever product we want to, without having to worry about if it will be compatible with other things we have or with the devices of our friends. Open standards are vital to keep our freedoms, and rights, as users. Since open standards allow for anyone to use them, without having to develop solutions all by themselves all over again. Not only that, by the very nature of how open standards are developed, it's a lot easier for improvements to the standard to be shared and reach a wider sector of users. ...

What's needed for people to be better equipped to use the volumes of information on the Internet, are the tools that helps them to discern good from bad information. In essence, there is a need to have a better education so people do that data processing on their on. If we want the Internet really reach it's full potential, one which benefits all of us, we need to give those tools to individuals. Information in itself isn't all that useful, there is a need to be able to know how to make sense out of it in order to make it so. The ability to make sense of the information that can be accessed on the Internet is something that should be a given, since it's needed to be able widen the horizons of people and improve their quality of life. All starts with the education received from early age, we need to teach children to be critical of all information they come upon. Accepting information without first digesting it, it's detrimental not only for the individual. ...