I’ve written a guide for new users on how to understand the vitrol that rabid zealots spew in Linux communities ^[2]

Those problems are all very easy to see…but these articles deal with only the tangible problems in these areas.  What are the reasons these problems exist?  Is it because of one or two individuals?  Is it mob mentality?  Are people just waking up on the wrong side of the bed?  I don’t think these reasons get down to the core of what the real problem is…the hidden problem…of zealots in the Linux community.

The Hidden Problem

The hidden problem is Narcissism…people think that what they have to say about a given subject makes the most sense and is 100% correct (or at least more correct than others’ POV) and it’s one that is hard for people to talk about…because anyone that writes or blogs has to be a little bit narcissistic.  People don’t like talking about problems they’re guilty of.  I know I am guilty of it…and I’m still going to talk about it.

With social networking riding a tidal wave right now, the era of the narcissist moves on, unhindered, on the interwebs.  Subscribe to my twitter feed…what I have to says in 140 characters or less is a MUST READ!  My facebook page will keep you updated on EVERY little thing I decide to post unless you edit me out of your news feed.  Sites cater to the egocentric tendencies of anyone plugged in.  So what happens when you get a bunch of narcissists together sharing a common goal?  “My distribution is THE BEST out there and no other point of view matters!”  That’s right, you get zealotry in the purest form.

This has slowly begun leaking into Linux communities during the past few years as Linux is tried out by more and more people and becomes more available to people who aren’t technologically advanced.  Bottom line is, more people are trying Linux now than ever before.  This makes the user pool larger and more diverse.  Where there are more people though, there are more narcissists…and birds of a feather flock together.

Take narcissism with a twist of mob mentality and the powder keg in Linux communities is set to blow.  The zealots seethe and team about in forums, IRC, and on blogs across the internet looking for a place to show how right they are and how wrong the person posting information is.

Oh, I admit it…I have a narcissist streak in me…I want people to read this blog.  I want people to follow me on twitter.  I want people to pay attention to what I say…it’s part of being a blogger…but I don’t think that my distribution of choice is any better than yours.  In fact, I know it’s not.  Just like my car isn’t any better than the one you drive and my clothes are so last year and aren’t as good as yours.  I offset my narcissism with realism…I understand that what I think isn’t the only point of view out there…I don’t think I’m 100% right all the time.

I also don’t go out on the web and try to find others who think my view is the best view and then try to push my egocentric viewpoint to others.  I don’t create a community of zombie thinkers who all believe my viewpoint is the best out there.  I’m not forming any mobs for my mentality.  I’m not flocking together with birds of a feather.  I’m a part time ego-narcissist I guess.

The first step is admitting that you have a problem.  The second step is having some good old fashioned manners, respect for others, and above all…tolerance and realism.

Solution to the Problem

When you’re standing in line at a bank, would you cut in front of someone in the line?   Most likely you wouldn’t.  Personal conflict is something we as humans avoid most of the time.  So, why is it when you’re driving you don’t mind cutting someone off and do it regularly?  It’s because the personal aspect of that motion has been replaced into an impersonal one…the car becomes a protection from that personal conflict that would happen if you had done the same thing in a bank line.

To fix the problem this presents on the web and in Linux communities, think about others (not yourself) and in doing so, become less narcissistic.  Apply this thinking to commenting and blogging and facebooking and tweeting.  Imagine that you are face to face with people saying the things you’re typing.  If you wouldn’t say things like that in a face to face situation, don’t say them.  Remember that tolerance of other viewpoints makes you a better person…AND smarter.  How?  Albert Einstein is largely considered one of the smartest humans to ever walk the earth.  He often gathered with other intelligent people to debate and discuss various topics that interested him.  In doing so, he caused those he debated with “to sharpen and refine their understanding of the philosophical and scientific implications of their own theory.”  Remember that everyone does NOT have to share your viewpoint…what works for you may not work for them.

Lastly, no one cares if you sat down in your office or are eating a peanut butter sandwich.  We subscribe to feeds and twitter accounts for meat and potatoes posts…not 1 liners that tell us you’re in the bathroom of a bakery on 96th street.  So, you zealots out there…you know who you are…take this opportunity to reflect on yourself (your favorite subject) and try to replace your narcissism with realism, tolerance, and good old fashioned manners.

And no I don’t think any zealots will be converted by this post…it’s more of a rant than anything else…and rants are one of the reasons why I have a blog   Well that and because what I say is more important than anyone else and my viewpoint is 100% correct 100% of the time of course.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Zealots and Narcissism originally appeared on Yet Another Linux Blog on December 21, 2009.

“FUD can be used to offhandedly ‘smear’ criticism or legitimate debate, even in cases where the allegations are without merit or are merely implied; this tactic is often used in cases where the initial publicity surrounding claims of FUD is likely to vastly overshadow any subsequent retraction. Such an arbitrary usage is a general type of logical fallacy known as Ad hominem circumstantial“

It is my opinion that this application of logical fallacy has replaced the actual definition of FUD in today’s society.  Today, people who see opinions and ideals other than their own gaining a public voice will immediately sling accusations of FUD toward the source…more often than not attacking the person or public voice that publishes them.  The gradual dilution of the actual meaning of FUD is part of the great divide that is prevalent in today’s online world.

Since FUD has changed a bit from being pointed at businesses to individuals…is there an updated definition?  Not really.  The term FUD has become a cop-out…an easy way to just dismiss what a person is saying without having to actually debate it.  FUD may need an updated definition but since it doesn’t have one, we have to fall back on the one provided.

So as stated earlier; FUD is a term used to show the disinformation, or the spreading of false information in order to deceive. Remember that the person has to have intent to deceive others with false info…not just false info…otherwise, they’re just misinformed or less thorough on their facts.  Hopefully, discussing the proper definition of this term will educate those that misuse it.

“If knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance that we can solve them.”

Note:  This article was published previously and updated for repost.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

What is FUD? originally appeared on Yet Another Linux Blog on September 11, 2008.

1. Child Ownership
2. Low Ages
3. Saturation
4. Connection
5. Free and Open Source

It’s important to quote what is under #5 above:

The child with an XO is not just a passive consumer of knowledge,
but an active participant in a learning community. As the children grow and pursue new ideas, the software, content, resources, and tools should be able to grow with them. The very global nature of OLPC demands that growth be driven locally, in large part by the children themselves. Each child with an XO can leverage the learning of every other child. They teach each other, share ideas, and through the social nature of the interface, support each other’s intellectual growth. Children are learners and teachers.

There is no inherent external dependency in being able to localize software into their language, fix the software to remove bugs, and repurpose the software to fit their needs. Nor is there any restriction in regard to redistribution; OLPC cannot know and should not control how the tools we create will be re-purposed in the future.

A world of great software and content is necessary to make this project succeed, both open and proprietary. Children need to be able to choose from all of it. In our context of learning where knowledge must be appropriated in order to be used, it is most appropriate for knowledge to be free. Further, every child has something to contribute; we need a free and open framework that supports and encourages the very
basic human need to express.

Give me a free and open environment and I will learn and teach with joy.

No longer is it about empowering a generation of children from poorer nations and letting them learn with the ability to help improve the platform they operate on…what it’s now about:

“‘The OLPC mission is a great endeavor, but the mission is to get the technology in the hands of as many children as possible. Whether that technology is from one operating system or another, one piece of hardware or another, or supplied or supported by one consulting company or another doesn’t matter. It’s about getting it into kids’ hands. Anything that is contrary to that objective, and limits that objective, is against what the program stands for.’”

…just like a fun toy right? <sarcasm>Let’s drop Nintendo DS gaming systems into their hands…laptops, laptops, laptops…that’s what it is about…because we’re all about getting the technology to the kids. </sarcasm> We’re not about empowering them to learn about computers, networks, and software. We’re not about them learning on a system where there are no limits. As RMS states, “Teaching children to use a proprietary (non-free) system such as Windows does not make the world a better place, because it
puts them under the power of the system’s developer.” That developer is Microsoft.

Congratulations go to Microsoft for bringing proprietary lockin to millions of kids worldwide who will no longer be able to take pride in their own contributions the the core OS, who will no longer feel community ownership, and who will no longer be the sole operator of their own open source software based XO.

Our children our the future and what we aren’t teaching them with closed source software is just as important as what we ARE teaching them.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

OLPC Mission Has Changed originally appeared on Yet Another Linux Blog on May 2, 2008.

There are two labels that can be applied to these stances…promotion or activism. A majority of the people who love and support Open Source software are promoters. They’re the ones that always put in a plug for their distro during tech conversations or tell their co-workers excitedly why they don’t have viruses. The others are activists who lobby congress (like lobby4linux.com), sue for GPL violations, and take an active role in the proliferation of Open Source. Both of these stances and labels are needed in Open Source and to proliferate Open Source. But just like the old saying, “too much of a good thing can kill you” so can too much activism or promotion inside Open Source.

It’s my experience that there are more of the promotionists than the activists. Of course, activists are needed with Open Source as well. They’re the informed individuals that debate the GPLv2 and v3 until they’re blue in the face…they’re the ones that force GPL compliance on those not observing that license. They ARE needed. It’s the extreme fringes of both promotionists and activists that we don’t need. When someone goes over the top and over-promotes something…their promotion becomes counterproductive because of over saturation. The same is true for activism…no one wants to hear about how wrong they are for using X or not installing X.

So which group would be worse? It’s really up in the air. Over saturation means that (when people hear about Linux after a promotionist has filled their ears to the brim with how great it is) a person will more than likely ignore something with Linux or not consider it when it would be worthwhile to them. On the contrary, activists may distract new advocates and new users by focusing them not on promotion of using Open Source but rather, debating on Libre vs. Non-Libre or whatever their argument might be (as Libre vs. Non-Libre is not the only area that has activists vs. promotionists). Remember, we’re speaking of the rabidly fanatical end aka fringes of the spectrum…not generalizing here. People can be rabid on the promotion side of things too…it’s important to note that when you’re on the extreme side of either, you’re counterproductive to the proliferation of open source software.

We can see this debate beginning in Ubuntu. Many people are not happy with the direction Ubuntu is going with the inclusion of proprietary drivers. Of course, instead of respecting the stance that opposing opinions have…some in the community are VERY vocal and very inflamatory about it…which is sad because Ubuntu is a fantastic distro with a fantastic community. Seeing things like this happen inside a community isn’t fun and it isn’t entertaining. In fact, it can be quite scary to see rifts building in a community…for any reason.

It’s imperative that when you hear extreme activists or promotionists shouting at the top of their lungs about all things this or that, that you remember where they are coming from. They’re members of the same community you are. They’re also people that make Open Source software tick. They’re programmers and coders, users and designers just like you. So instead of slamming them and verbally slapping them, take the time to remember that we’re all using Open Source and we all like it…and we all wouldn’t mind seeing Open Source push to the farthest corners of the earth…in other words, just remember that we have more in common with each other than we have not in common.

Likewise, those of you that are on the fringes of the activists and promotionists…remember that people are reacting to what you say and do…not who you are. Don’t let it get personal Hopefully, we can all even things out for each other and fill the holes that are needed in the community.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Activism and Promotion originally appeared on Yet Another Linux Blog on December 20, 2006.

The problem is that two Ubuntu contributors asked for Cipherfunk.org to comply with the GPL by removing cost associated with distribution of source code. This is harmless in itself and applauded by many in the community. However, it’s not the why they did it that is wrong…it’s the HOW they did it. How they did it is by first informing the Cipherfunk.org that it was wrong to charge $$ for the source, and second by touting various sections of the GPL where they believed Cipherfunk was in violation. Why is this wrong? Let’s examine things a bit.

The big stink everyone brought up is not that Cipherfunk WASN’T distributing the source code…but that Cipherfunk WAS CHARGING for the source code which they believed was in violation. However, having seen this same case (where Warren Woodford and MEPIS distribute their sourced code for a cost) I know for a fact that the GPL allows one to do this. But let’s take a look at the GPL shall we?

Does the GPL allow me to charge a fee for downloading the program from my site?

Yes. You can charge any fee you wish for distributing a copy of the program. If you distribute binaries by download, you must provide equivalent access to download the source–therefore, the fee to download source may not be greater than the fee to download the binary.

We can see here that if you provide the program at a charge, you can’t charge more for the source and that you may also charge a fee to download if the fee is not greater than the cost of downloading the binary. So, what did Cipherfunk do that got people up in arms? They required a donation before downloading the source. From Cipherfunk.org:

Well, the GNU General Public Licence states — as part of Section 3) of the licence that I must provide source code on request for no more than the cost of physically performing the distribution.Given that the host this box is on actually costs me $110.95AUD every thirty (30) days to run, $9.90, as nice as that is — still will cost me over $100 AUD to distribute the code at all.

Now, I consider (in this technologically advanced day and age) that ‘the internet’ is an acceptable way of distributing software for public use, so effectively, my request to get people to help me pay for hosting — seemed quite rational to me, but apparently, some people don’t share my view — and I wouldn’t want to put anyone out.

I consider the whole thing a disappointment. I don’t like threats, but I am especially concerned at the number of people who grabbed the code, without even saying thankyou for my efforts.

It wasn’t as if i’d asked anyone to cure cancer, find me a job, or pay off my debts — what I did say was effectively “help me pay for hosting this for you or help me advertise my other website (in a rather cut-throat market), thanks. and, as i’m obligated to — you’ll get the sources, binaries and even some support from me, until Canonical can upstream these fixes.

So what actually happened? Was there a GPL violation? Not at all. Requiring a donation that is less than the cost of bandwidth to provide the source is allowed IAW the GPL. So the finger pointing…what did it accomplish? Other than making those who point the fingers look like idiots, not much. I guess it could have caused a rift in the Linux community as well…though effects like this are often hard to calculate.

What could have happened in this case? The contributors COULD have tried to get these patches integrated into the source tree at Ubuntu OR they could have taken the time to find out why the source code wasn’t being distributed for free by simply asking. Instead, the send robotic ‘you-are-wrong’ emails like this.

Hi,

I've noticed that you're providing kernel binaries at
http://64.71.152.24/dapper-binaries/ . As I'm sure you're aware, the
kernel is released under the terms of the GNU General Public License v2.
Under section (3) of the license, when distributing derivitives of this
code you are obliged to either

a) accompany it with the source code, or
b) provide a written offer to provide the source code on request for no
more than the cost of physically performing the distribution

Currently you are doing neither of these, and as a result are breaching
the license of the code. As one of the copyright holders of the code, I
would request that you conform to your obligations under the license.

This is not required for the X driver, as it is not released under the
GPL.

Thanks,
--
Matthew Garrett | mxxx9@sxxf.uxxm.org

What does this email tell us? First, it tells us that the person writing it believes they are immediatley correct. It assumes that the person being written to is completely wrong. It also offers no assistance to correct said issue, instead opting for a “fix these two things immediately” tone.

Instead, accusations flew and the Linux for Human Beings can now be seen as Linux for Slapping Human Beings that help fix its problems in the face. That’s right, 5 bugs could have been squashed in one swoop yet instead of approaching this in a manner of one developer/contributor to another (i.e. “hey, I see you’ve developed a patch for this problem…can I see how you did this by looking at your source code? Oh, you’re having problems distributing your source code due to bandwidth and are charging for it? Ok, let me see if I can find any help for you or possibly get a mirror”) they approached the situation as a superior approaches a subordinate. To me, this is silly. This guy at Cipherfunk was helping, not hindering. What should have happened was to help him distribute the code by providing mirrors, more bandwidth, etc. Instead, they’ve distanced themselves from an obviously talented person and left a bitter taste in his mouth.

What can we learn from this? We can learn patience instead of immediate accusation and finger pointing. We can learn that swatting at hands that help you is something you might not want to do. We can learn that a little bit of research can go a long way. And we can learn what not to do in a Linux community by trying to stay away from the mob mentality that developed in the Ubuntu and Linux community around Cipherfunks’ patch release and subsequent news posting.

Sometimes, I’m embarrassed of my fellow Linux users/devs/contributors. I sure hope Paul Drain, aka Cipherfunk.org’s webmaster, doesn’t stop contributing to Ubuntu. A little investigation and understanding can go a long way. I hope Ubuntu patches this fiasco up quickly and those two contributors who wrongly pointed fingers apologize for being ignorant so we can get back to the way things were.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Cipherfunk.org, the GPL, and Ubuntu Contributors originally appeared on Yet Another Linux Blog on August 25, 2006.

Often, it’s attitudes, egos, and intelligence that make this gap between users’ perspective even wider. What’s interesting about all of this philosophy and debate is that it is more prolific now than it was 10 years ago. Why? Well, more users of course! Linux and open source are enjoying a very large following currently. Add more users to the fray and you’re bound to get more perspective…for the good things and the bad.

Working with users at work who don’t even know how to place clipart in their MS Word docs (I sub in for helpdesk since we’re a smaller state agency) got me thinking the other day. Where does the new user fit in with this philosophy and debate? How are we to get their perspective across to programmers, developers, application hackers, and designers? The more I thought about it, the more I realized that Linux has arrived at a point unprecedented in history…when a Linux desktop is usable and productive. As Uncle Ben said in Spiderman 2, “with great power comes great responsibility”. I feel the community is being irresponsible on this…and yes, it is all about perspective. So please read on…let’s see if we can change your perspective a bit and close the gap between new users and advanced users.

The thing that gets to me is that we have new users…users coming from Windows XP where most everything ‘just works’ or is a few clicks away from just working. When these users come over to Linux we sit there and expect them to dig right in and not expect everything to ‘just work’? How is it that we do that? How do we expect them to come from an environment where most stuff just works to one where things don’t always ‘just work’ without complaining? I for one find anyone who looks at new users in this light a detriment to Linux and Open Source Software in general. It’s people that share this perspective (that a new user shouldn’t be complaining because a) it’s easier now to use Linux than it was when I learned it b) they haven’t read the man pages/manual yet c) they haven’t searched the forums or wiki or whatever) that cause users to make comments and adopt attitudes similar to this person.

We also expect them to immediately respect FLOSS/FOSS and buy into the philisophical debate right away. They should want to use FLOSS/FOSS because it is free and it works right? I don’t think so. They should want to use FLOSS/FOSS because they’re using it. Confused? Well, the simple fact of the matter is that they’re trying FLOSS/FOSS…so they know it is free and that it somewhat works otherwise they’d have dropped it before it even got off the ground. They want to use it because they’re using it…and we shouldn’t expect them to buy into all of our open source philosophy or purist/elitist ideas. We shouldn’t expect them to feel immersed in the ideas of FLOSS/FOSS without first giving them the opportunity to feel a part of the community. They can’t hop up on our purist box and look at the world from our Libre perspective without first arriving there on their own accord. We must first teach them to walk before they can run.

Yet this is precisely what we do. We try to pigeonhole new users, advanced users, Linux, and just about anything we can categorize into tidy little categories that we can stereotype and apply label to. We try to force the new Linux user to immediately conform to FLOSS/FOSS philosophy and try to force them to adopt our ideals…mainly by chastizing them in forums, mailing lists, and newsgroups.

I know I’m addressing an issue or issues that have been spoken of before:

1. Linux Snobs: Real Barriers to Entry
2. Eric Raymond and the RTFM Jerks
3. Free Open Source Support: The Bad and the Good

Really though, these issues didn’t touch on perspectives and how they can attract or drive away users. Think about this for a second. New features are dead. The more functions and features an operating system gets doesn’t matter anymore. XGL? Who cares? Bells, Whistles? Only if it is an Oscar Mayer Wiener Whistle and a tinkerbell. All in all, features have ceased to be the driving force in consumer electronics. Now begins the age of usability. Quickly go over to this page and read the article

…it hits the nail right on the head.

So, what are we to do? Well, with change in landscape (i.e., technological landscape) comes change in perspective. Why? Because it is inevitable. One cannot have a change in one’s current landscape and not have perspective changed. This being said, we need to STOP nonsensical forced methods to get users to ascribe to one philosophy/distro/package manager/window manager/idea and begin to look at things with usability-eyes instead of feature-happy ones. It’s not that hard…one just has to have the same understanding for perspective that one has for code. I know most Linux users can do it because it is far less complicated than port forwarding, IPTABLES, and getting Cron to run jobs. It’s just far less convenient for us to change.

Perspective is as perspective does. Changing perspectives is one way to solve a problem…so when a new user comes SHOUTING INTO A FORUM…try a little less crass behavior and a little more understanding. Try stepping down off your horse and viewing things from their perspective. Perhaps then the gap will close and Linux will mature…not just in code but in attitude as well.

Devnet

Related posts:

1. Zealots and Narcissism Many times in my journeys of distribution hopping, I’ve run...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Perspective is as Perspective Does originally appeared on Yet Another Linux Blog on July 20, 2006.

When these users posted articles about this phenomenon, those articles are either deleted, the users are banned (Submitted & Banned Pics), or the story is buried (despite having 164 diggs at the time of this writing…not on the front page). There is even reports of users submitting an article who haven’t submitted before only to have another user who is ‘popular’ get the story posted despite posting it later. Digg.com is supposed to have a duplicate url system in place preventing this…

Now digg.com can do whatever they want with their website. In fact, they can bully all the other websites they want to. However, they can’t build their community on a Democratic, Users-vote-for-the-story-and-our-editors-don’t model and then just drop it. They need to follow their own TOS (terms of service) to maintain their credibility or recant that part of the TOS and release an updated TOS. As of this writing, Digg insists that its content is driven by the users. With the information collected in this article, it seems that something is rank in the state of Diggmark. You decide.

For your perusal, I’ve collected all the links I can find with information on this issue. Please comment if you’ve found alternative links and I will update these as the comments come in. Please note that I belive Forevergeek.com was the first to post on this…they are listed at #1. Also please note many of the comments in these articles…users are pretty livid about this…and there is no response from digg.com yet.

1. Digg Corrupted: Editor’s Playground, not User-Driven Website
2. The Story that Got Deleted – The digg story that went pewf!
3. Kevin Rose abusing Digg – links to google group tracking this story
4. Suspicious Digging
5. Google Blogoscoped – more on the google group
6. Digg Corrupted – a digg.com user attempts to hold digg accountable
7. Digg Abused? – Newsvine article on this
8. Digg Army – Binary Bonsai
9. Digg, not democracy after all – Yugatech Blog Post
10. The J Spot
11. Corruption. The House of the Digg Elite
12. The Trouble with DIGG
13. Growing Censorship Concerns at Digg – Just got slashdotted!
14. Digg Army: Right in Line – More from Forevergeek
15. 146 diggs, 57 comments, 6 hours and no frontpage at digg
16. Non Response from Digg.com – Forevergeek
17. Digg.com Explanation? – Kevin Responds? Sort of…
18. BoingBoing’s Take On This
19. The Guardian Picks Up the Story…
20. The Inquirer Hops On
21. Sitepoint Diggs in their Claws
22. Boyhazard.net Blog
23. Splasho’s Blog…Update on Digg
24. Three Reasons Why Digg is a Crock! – Zdnet Blogs
25. MonkeyBites Blog
26. BlogCritics – A Must Read
27. Thomas Hawkes Digital Connection – He has the most dugg story of all time…
28. Odeo Podcast on the Subject
29. ForeverGeek Comments Further
30. Zippity Doo Dah – A Statistical Analysis of Digging Corruption? You Decide…
31. CEO of Weblogs.inc – The Digg Backlash
32. More from Techno Pinoy
33. DuncanRiley.com chimes in
34. Is Digg Rigging its Diggs? – a Tech Writer from Toronto adds two cents
35. Businesspundit
36. Kellegous.com Speaks of Digg
37. ProBlogger – Digg Deception
38. Newsome Blog
39. RealTechNews
40. Silicon Valley Sleuth – Social Websites have a Social Responsibility
41. Basement.org
42. Search Engine Guide – is digg working with their own shovel?
43. Publishing 2.0
44. SuperGeekBlog – The Social Corruption of Digg
45. Student-Rant Blog – Interesting Statistics on Editor Posting
46. Virtual Thought
47. CNET Podcast on the subject
48. FG-DIGG Issue on TWiT @ Forever Geek
49. 

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

The Dirt on Suspicious Digging at Digg.com… originally appeared on Yet Another Linux Blog on April 21, 2006.

What constitutes private property? Is it a piece of land that no one has access to? Do you post a sign up that keeps people at bay? Or is it intangible as well…perhaps private intellectual property; some algorithm written on one line in a multi-million code line piece of software. Many have ideas on what constitutes a privacy and private property. For instance, social security numbers or credit card numbers are always considered private…they’re not given out to people or organizations without the consent of the holder of said numbers/cards. However, don’t be so sure that your information is safe.

As companies increase their business with technology, their information collection engine revs up and begins to go into overdrive. What sites do our visitors go to? What product would they be more likely to buy? What have been their last 10 purchases and would they like to see a product similar to it? This information collected is only on the outskirts of the real information such as SSN or Credit Card numbers but just the same it is information about you and about your habits.

Imagine this alternative look at information collection for a second. You get up one morning and open up your blinds…it’s a beautiful day. You slap on some clothes and begin to get ready for whatever it is you might do that day. You lay out a backpack and begin to get your things together…perhaps an ipod goes in with some ear buds…a pair of comfortable shoes in case you decide to go walking…a water bottle in case you get thirsty. Whatever you might need for a day out at a shopping mall or just plain out. Now picture a guy standing at your window where you drew your blinds snapping pictures of what you’re putting into your bag and writing down notes.

That would freak me out right away…but that is exactly what is happening to us online. We’re being studied and recorded every digital step we take. To me, this is definitely wrong…but to others, it is just normal. Odd how things can become normal after only a few years. Just the same, would you want someone standing over your every move in a certain area…recording everything you looked at, everything you touched or walked by…everything you might have expressed interest in? Probably not. This is the outskirts of the third digital divide.

The first digital divide was purely social-economic. It happened when countries that could afford the new fangled technology of the internet were spurring their economies with online purchases and online business. Countries that couldn’t afford to jump the bandwagon ended up eating its dust. This new digital divide though is political. This could be the third digital divide…it could be the fifth…it just depends on who you talk to.

Washington DC cannot protect its citizens’ rights currently. This division is so large that they (politicians) are lapsing behind to protect everyone’s right to privacy. Here in the U.S., we’re not alone. The other major internet using countries such as Britian and Australia are also lagging, though Australia is more proactive than many countries.

Yes, this digital divide is between citizens of countries and their governments. The governments bureaucratic red tape clogs up the arteries of technology like a 4 pound angus burger with mushrooms. Governments fail to see that they are playing catch up…or they don’t care. Should they? I believe so. After all, there are laws in place to protect citizens. There are enforcers of this law also in place to protect citizens. For order to prosper, there has to be respect for the authorities and the authoritative restrictions that the law places on the citizen. However, currently there is no respect because there is no law. Government is losing the ability to govern. In cyberspace, the only government that exists is a dot gov domain…and that’s just a static webpage.

What can we do? Nothing really. If one of us called our congressmen today, they wouldn’t know half of what we told them. Congressmen and Senators are normally technologically inferior to a box of hair. They’re out of touch with how citizens can use technology and how businesses use technology. Citizens wield little power in this struggle.

As the government fails its people and the ability to protect them, those with any clues whatsoever will flock to arenas that they have more control in. For instance, using software that promotes privacy (crapcleaner, firefox, and spybot S&D) and using software that they control (such as Linux and BSD). Little by little, citizen’s technological voice and concerns (as they become more familiar with their ability to control it) will become louder. It is then that politicians will be forced to deal with ‘that technology thing.’ For now, I believe we’re in a rut. Stuck. Call your politician to see what I’m talking about. Ask him/her what they feel about cookies and listen to them launch into a speech about oreos. Thanks for reading. I wait until they can come back with anything having to do with browsers…

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

The Digital Divide in D Major originally appeared on Yet Another Linux Blog on November 16, 2005.

In our last article on Groklaw.net, we went over one person’s experience as a groklaw user and content provider of that site. Of the points discussed, no one could argue that Mr. Petrofsky was unreasonable at any time, nor could one argue that he was at all unprofessional in his requests and his behavior. By examining the evidence presented in that article, one can infer that he was indeed deceived. Today, we’ll look into more possible examples of deception and censorship from the site where “open source principles are applied.” We’ll be chatting with an ex-moderator from Groklaw named Brenda Banks aka br3n who was removed as a moderator after expressing her opinion about certain matters at groklaw. After having her moderator status stripped from her, she then asked to be removed from the userlist based on her own moral compass. Read on for more on br3n.

Q: Please give the readers some background on yourself (any you feel is necessary)

br3n: I am a grandmother of 5 grandchildren, married 35+ years, nontechie type.

Q: Where did you get your start with technology?

br3n: I bought a computer in 98 with win 95 on it and it had the win 98 upgrade. I had a commodore 64 and commodore 128 many years ago, but never did anything other than print a few things like cards and banners. I started with linux in november 2001.

Q: Do you use GPL software? If so, what do you use?

br3n: Yes. I use mandrake 10.2

Q: What does the GPL mean to you?

br3n: it means that I can try to fix and control my own software to suit myself. I am not allowing any information out without my knowledge.

Q: What was your specific role at groklaw and how did you get your start there?

br3n: I was moderator. I gave PJ news links and helped with quote data base. I was so frightened when I first learned about the SCO vs IBM suit. I did constant news searches on SCO and found mettler’s site by a link from on slashdot. Mettler had a link to groklaw. I lurked for a while because I didnt feel I had anything to contribute to her [Pamela Jones from Groklaw aka PJ]. In fact then very few people posted at all. That was in either late May or early June. Then I got my nerve up to write her an email about one of her articles and we started corresponding. I would email news links to her with short summaries from the article that were the most important.

Q: What was the ultimate goal you hoped to achieve by being a contributor at groklaw?

br3n: I dont think I ever set out to do anything. I found something I could handle such as sending her the links for news articles and it helped her with her time since she was working. I also helped with the quote data base.

Q: How would you classify your time spent at groklaw? Fun? Informative? Horrible? Please explain.

br3n: I had a lot of fun but most from reading others comments.sometimes I feel sad that I was so blind to be willing to trust someone like that. I was horribly disappointed in the treatment dealt from PJ at groklaw for things that happened off site.

Q: When (if at all) did you notice things starting to go awry at groklaw?

br3n: My first alarms/questions arose when the announcement came out that PJ was working at OSRM, then came the 283 patent infringement possibilities announced around the same time. Then when jgabriel [another Groklaw user] had his account deleted there was no way to ignore things anymore. This was when I tested PJ by email asking about his deletion and posting mild criticism of her on yahoo [The Yahoo SCO finance boards]. She never answered the email about him and she then removed moderation powers from me without correspondance. I felt that was the answer I would have to accept and that she would keep ignoring what she doesnt want to answer. Deleting his [jgabriel's] account and making all his posts anon, was just the most terrible/disrespectful thing I thought I had ever heard of.

Continued Interview with br3n:

Q: What specifically do you feel was the cause of these things?

br3n: For myself the OSRM issue (Groklaw editor joins OSRM) was a total turnaround from what I had understood her position to be before this point. She had blasted HP and Sun for their indemnity offers and then decides to go off with this one.

Q: What would it take for these problems to be resolved or have they been resolved?

br3n: Well, I have to answer that with a question: How do you trust someone when they have never admitted any wrong doing or admitted making any mistakes or even offering reasons for their mistaken/wrong actions?

Q: Now that some time has passed since these incidents occurred and you have had time to reflect on them, has your opinion changed?

br3n: No,in fact I feel stronger than ever that leaving groklaw was a right decision.

Q: Take a look at this list of names: Harlan, JohnGabriel, mck9, Thad Beier, h@ns, mjpieters, warmcat, al_petrofsky, Wally Bass, Rushing, thebean, walterbyrd, R. Wheelwright, JimK, talks_to_birds, harlanc, Maat, SCO_DNR. All of these members were at one time locked out and/or deleted due to reasons unknown and unsaid. Do you recognize any of these names (EDITOR’S NOTE: They’ve all been removed/deleted/censored at one time from groklaw since Nov 2004)?

br3n: harlan= I heard about him missing from other boards but don’t remember from groklaw. He was a big contributor but I have no personal knowledge of him. Harlanc is same person I believe.

john gabriel = was a more familiar name to me. I was watching closely when he was deleted. He had nothing on groklaw [in form of content] that would provide a reason for deletion. I was watching that closely. He had posted criticism on the yahoo SCOX board and I believe this is why he was deleted.

mck9= I don’t recognize this handle.

Thad Beier = is still a member isnt he?

h@ns = I thought he was still a member also.

mjpieters= nick is familiar but no details.

warmcat = Was deleted around the same time as al petrofsky because of the same tape of the court hearing that al was deleted for.

al_petrofsky = Was deleted due to the posting of the url to a tape of a hearing in court regarding SCO. He had written permission from the court to make it publically available and was deleted from groklaw without warning. Al Petrofsky [being censored/deleted/deceived] was not for good reason in my opinion. He had permission from the court for the recording and he believed he was in the right. I also think he was in the right.
Wally Bass = I recognize the nick and I believe he was deleted because he had a different opinion of the facts.
Rushing= I belive he was also named heimdal…

thebean = dont remember the nick

walterbyrd = still has an account i think

R. Wheelwright = dont recall the nick

mikey = had written an application for downloading groklaw content for use when he was traveling. He called it glsucks since it “sucked” down groklaw content onto his computer. Let’s just say that groklaw/PJ’s reaction to that leave little suspicion on why he lost his account.

JimK = dont recall the nick

talks_to_birds = is same as infosecgroupie on yahoo scox board also Maat = I don’t have any recollection of any problems from groklaw with this nick but after the fact heard of some.

tomas had had his account locked and his gpg key removed and all but his first name altered under the account info. No way for anyone to even email him. His account was reinstated if he gave permission for the alteration (something in his signature about his comments being creative common license or something) to stay, but am not sure that he ever gave that and think he is locked out of his account now…but I’m not 100% sure.

Q: Can you think of any names I’ve left out of my list?

br3n: How about colonel_zen (colzen), nono, spanishinquisition, and flimbag? I’m sure there are others.

Moderator no more, grandmother still…br3n tells an interesting story. At the core, it’s an open source story that many of us have experienced. It’s a story of how one person begins to make a difference and becomes a part of something bigger than themselves. They learn from it. They become better people by learning. Soon, the movement gains momentum. It develops its own conciousness in a way due to the vast number of people that it attracts. When someone doesn’t agree with the direction its going or what is being said, they are silenced.

It does seem odd that so many people have found themselves ostracized from a site dedicated to support open source. In the early days of the GPL and open source, supporters were open and welcomed constructive criticism. Nowadays, mob rule has begun to take a foot hold. If one’s opinion does not follow that of the general sentiment of persons that post/chat at a certain site…they find themselves censored or silenced at said site. Groklaw is not the only practitioner of this form of censorship…there are many other sites across the web that find time to block comments that aren’t vulgar, but rather, do not agree with what site visitors and supports would agree with.

It is clear from the examples contained in this category; GreatDivide and Groklaw, that censorship and deception have become the ways of the web. People can post anonymously on the web and not have to worry about repercussions of what they say…afterall, they’re not face to face with that person so what do they care?

I often think of this anonymity and have found that the best way to relate to it is through an illustration. Imagine for a minute that you are driving in your car. You accidentally cut off the driver in front of you when you make a turn and he/she lays on the horn. They drive right up to your rear bumper and tailgate you for the next few miles and then you turn off at your turn and never see that person again.

Now imagine that you are standing in line at the bank. You accidentally reach across a persons face standing in line behind you. Does this mean that the person is now going to stand a few inches behind you, tailgating you for the rest of the time spent in the line? Not likely. This is because it is personal…and confrontation is something most people shy away from. The web has become the vehicle on the information superhighway and it has brought all the anonymity of driving a car along with it.

Have we found the answer? Is it this unwillingness to deal with people that is the causal factor for many deleted accounts at groklaw? Or is it mob rule that has taken hold…a “it’s my way or the highway” mentality? We may never know. When asked to comment on this article, no response was illicited from groklaw.net NOR Pamela Jones. Perhaps I’ll need to work on my google rank before I’m deemed worthy enough to respond to.

“It is in the nature of tyranny to deride the will of the people as the voice of the mob, and to denounce the cry for freedom as the roar of anarchy.” William Safire

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Disagreements + Groklaw = Deletion? originally appeared on Yet Another Linux Blog on March 22, 2005.

Some of you may be familiar with Groklaw…and some of you might not. For those of you that aren’t, Groklaw is a site started up to chronicle SCO vs. TheWorld but it has morphed into a little bit more by adding MS into the mix along with some other companies. The site has some great information for those seeking it and it is powered by Geeklog which makes the format nice on the eyes, easy to navigate, and open source powered.

While Groklaw isn’t a direct open source project…according to the Second?article on their Mission Statement, open source principles are applied. This makes a powerful ally to FOSS, Linux, and the OSI. Or does it? Is Groklaw actually speaking out the corners of its proverbial mouth? At least this one user thinks so.

Al Petrofsky is the owner/operator of scofacts.org which is a site dedicated to the systematic documentation of all information on the SCO case. I had a chance to trade a few emails with Mr. Petrofsky in order to get his take on why he feels his comments at groklaw was censored from public view. He believes that the main argument that groklaw had against his comments was over copyright issues of recordings (audio/visual) that he posted.? He also argues that these copyright issues were bogus because he provides written authorization and release notices for each of his sources. As Mr. Petrofsky found, his posts were made only viewable to himself and erased from public view as opposed to outright deletion. It also seems that Mr. Petrofsky wasn’t the only one that reported this phenomenon either. Al attempted to contact both Pamela Jones and Mathfox, two POC’s for groklaw. He did receive responses that you can view in his email traffic with PJ at groklaw, which he vouches for; “The six emails on that page were really sent or received by me, and the eight groklaw pages were really retrieved from groklaw. (I think the fact that I’m publishing that page at a website registered to me already constitutes a representation, no less official than this one, that the evidence there is not manufactured.)”

Mr. Petrofsky isn’t irritated about the fact that a site admin or owner had a problem with his post. What gets his proverbial goat is that he discovered groklaw was making comments (of which their comments page states, “Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments”) posted by users visible only to the users themselves. Everyone else at the site isn’t able to see the posts.

Is this a case of deception versus rejection? Would an outright rejection or deletion of the comment be a better way to go? It seems that this would be a valid avenue to go even if you were unsure about the content of the comment. If you delete the comment in question, then inform the submitting party that their comment was deleted for X reason, the person could provide validity, reasons, license, and sources for their comment(s).

Would a ‘self-moderated comment’ style of submission OR outright deletion of the comments in question be a better avenue instead of deception? It is my opinion that it would. Mr. Petrofsky shares this opinion, “I have no problem with a newspaper editor or blog writer accepting submissions from letter writers or web visitors and choosing to publish some and discard others”…”However, groklaw has attempted to prevent that last part [rejecting submissions/content] from happening by deceiving the one person who would normally notice a stupid post-rejection decision and might tell other people about it. I find that outrageous, especially from a site that states its goal is “devotion to the truth.”

Besides Al Petrofsky, there are at least 2 other verified groklaw members who have experienced the same “post is invisible to all but me” phenomenon (note: Geeklog also has a setting for this in its latest version) I have also contacted a group of about 5 others that have first hand knowledge and experience with both Mr. Petrofsky’s situation as well as others in which these cases apply. The question that begs to be asked is, what is going on at groklaw? Wouldn’t outright deletion be a better avenue to go? While I have not officially contacted Pamela Jones from groklaw, rest assured that it will be done within the next few days. (Editors note: Still no word back from PJ as of 8 Feb 05).

Interestingly enough, if you go over to groklaw’s search page and enter al_petrofsky (Mr. Petrofsky’s username) and you won’t find him. I believe that Mr. Petrofsky’s account has been deleted but I have not officially confirmed this information. A quick look to his userID at groklaw (1098 ) redirects us back to the front page so it seems as though the account has been deleted. Both uid 1099 and 1097 are valid…but 1098 is gone. Whether this was Mr. Petrofsky’s doing or from groklaw action has yet to be seen.

To show what Mr. Petrofsky “perceived as” deception and misdirection, look at the following saved threads from groklaw (saved threads that had comments viewable only to Mr. Petrofsky…taken from groklaw immediately when he noticed his posts weren’t visible) mirrored at scofacts.org:

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Groklaw and Censorship? originally appeared on Yet Another Linux Blog on January 26, 2005.