new post: Why is our society so segregated?

also small fixes for free software post

2 files changed, 27 insertions, 5 deletions

diff --git a/content/why_free_software.rst b/content/why_free_software.rst
index 09d31b5..16ca529 100644
--- a/content/why_free_software.rst
+++ b/content/why_free_software.rst
@@ -1,5 +1,6 @@
 :title: Why I use free software and why it's important to me
 :date: 2016-08-14 20:20
+:modified: 2016-08-16 15:25
 :tags: free software, security, privacy, sustainability, education
 :category: General
 :author: Wolfgang Wiedmeyer
@@ -18,14 +19,11 @@ Free software is the future. There are thousands of free software developers aro
 Security and privacy
 ####################
 
-Real security and privacy is only possible with free software. Free software is the prerequisite to have security and privacy in our computing. Only free software can be fully vetted by anybody. Security researchers can independently audit the software and share their results. Everybody can work on improving the software and make it more trustworthy. And the users can ensure themselves that the software they are running is actually doing what it's supposed to be doing. Features that harm the users won't survive in free software. Someone will get rid of them and the users will start to use the version of the software that has these antifeatures removed.
+Real security and privacy is only possible with free software. Free software is the prerequisite to have security and privacy in our computing. Only free software can be fully vetted by anybody. Security researchers can independently audit the software and share their results. Everybody can work on improving the software and make it more trustworthy. And the users can ensure themselves that the software they are running is actually doing what it's supposed to be doing. Developers of nonfree software often solely rely on security by obscurity. They think that if they hide the source code to the software or in general information on the inner workings of the software, then nobody can find vulnerabilities or backdoors in the software. This behavior is comparable to children who cover their eyes and think they are invisible. People still have a lot of ways to identify security issues in the software and steal your data or listen in on your laptop's microphone. Features that harm the users won't survive in free software. Someone will get rid of them and the users will start to use the version of the software that has these antifeatures removed.
 
 You don't have to be a software developer or a security expert. Alongside the free software developer community comes a huge community of very nice people that will help you with numerous tutorials and documentation. You will most certainly also find someone who answers your questions directly. Even if you have no interest in any of the technical details, you will find plenty of support to use your computer securely and retain your privacy.
 
 My understanding of privacy is that I can decide what information I share with whom. My goal is not to run around as a huge question mark, my goal is to be in control of my own data and in the greater sense of my own destiny. Only free software has the possibility to guarantee you this control in the digital age of computers. Even if you don't value your own security or privacy for whatever reason, you should acknowledge the need of others. If someone asks you for a private conversation, you will probably step aside, lower you voice and listen to what the other one has to say. The same goes for mail exchange, the chat software you use with your friends or the online service you use to exchange files with others. If some of your peers care for their privacy or security, then you should respect that. It won't hurt you to do something to increase the level of your privacy and security, at least for the sake of others.
-
-.. Developers of nonfree software often solely rely on security by obscurity. They think that if they hide the source code to the software or in general information on the inner workings of the software, then nobody can find vulnerabilities or backdoors in the software. This behavior is comparable to children who cover their eyes and think they are invisible. People still have a lot of ways to identify security issues in the software and steal your data or listen in on your laptop's microphone. Consider the following analogy: You want to buy a safe to keep your most valuable belongings secured. 
-.. analogy not very fitting
    
 There is a technological area where I especially want to see the use of free software: medical devices. If my well-being depends on the well-functioning of a device like a pacemaker or a operational tool of a surgeon, then I want to have a look at the source code that runs on that device. I want to show the source code to experts and they should be able to tell me if the software works correctly. If there is a way to update the software on the device and if the software running on the device needs to be improved, then I should have the right to let someone do the update. Companies that produce medical devices should be held to the highest possible standards of quality assurance. Publishing the software for the medical devices as free software should be a prerequisite of the quality assurance. We can't solely trust the companies because the interests of the customers is not always aligned with the business interests of the companies. If source code is not published under a free software licence because certain persons in charge think that this may decrease their revenue, then the well-being of the patient is neglected for the sole possibility that someone gets more money.
 
@@ -33,7 +31,7 @@ Our devices are getting more and more powerful. And the need for security actual
 
 But smartphones are not the end. We are more and more entering the reality of the buzzword of nightmares: the internet of things. Why not connect everything to the internet? At some point in the future, almost every car will have some sort of remote control. There's a real possibility that you will buy a robot for your parents that will help them in the household when they get older. So the thread of being passively watched, listened to or tracked will be extended by the thread of being actively physically harmed. There are already numerous reports of the lack of software security in cars and security researchers were able to remotely control cars. I don't want to live in a world where some madman can sit on his bed, sip on a cup of coffee and occasionally crash my car or choke my parents to death with the robot I bought for them. With free software, we can be able so see what functionality the devices have, how its security can be improved or more simple: We would be able disable a certain functionality like remote control if it's just ridiculous to have that functionality in the first place.
 
-Our world and our society is not getting improved by people who say that everything is alright. People who call out the issues at hand and nag us about them are doing the first step to change something for the better. Actually doing something about our problems is the next step. Activists are doing all of this. Whistleblowers provide us with the information. Investigative journalists research the issues. All of these groups highly depend on free software as their daily tools. Free software makes it possible for them to evade surveillance of authoritarian or corrupt governments. For some of them, security or privacy issues in the software they use can cost them their lives. I see the striving for more transparency and the opposition to censorship as one of biggest tasks of our generation. If we all use free software, then it would be really difficult for the evil organizations to even single out the activists or whistleblowers among us. But doctors and lawyer should demand free software, too. How should they be able to guarantee the privacy of their clients otherwise?
+Our world and our society is not getting improved by people who say that everything is alright. People who call out the issues at hand and nag us about them are doing the first step to change something for the better. Actually doing something about our problems is the next step. Activists are doing all of this. Whistleblowers provide us with the information. Investigative journalists research the issues. All of these groups highly depend on free software as their daily tools. Free software makes it possible for them to evade surveillance of authoritarian or corrupt governments. For some of them, security or privacy issues in the software they use can cost them their lives. I see the striving for more transparency and the opposition to censorship as one of the biggest tasks of our generation. If we all use free software, then it would be really difficult for the evil organizations to even single out the activists or whistleblowers among us. But doctors and lawyers should demand free software, too. How should they be able to guarantee the privacy of their clients otherwise?
 
 
 Sustainability, education and research
diff --git a/content/why_segregated_society.rst b/content/why_segregated_society.rst
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..ce61ebc
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/why_segregated_society.rst
@@ -0,0 +1,24 @@
+:title: Why is our society so segregated?
+:date: 2016-08-16 23:12
+:tags: society, segregation, Internet, politics, press
+:category: General
+:author: Wolfgang Wiedmeyer
+:status: published
+
+It's 2016 and not much seems to have changed over the last decades when looking at the big picture. Very few people are getting richer and richer while the rest has less and less. There are many violent conflicts around the world. People are divided by religion, race, line of descent and social standing. People don't even understand the concerns of others and often, political discussions cannot even be started because one side already feels offended when the other side disagrees with them. I had thought that further improvements to our political systems, a free press and the Internet would change a lot for the better, so we as a society could work together on deciding what issues matter most and get rid of them one after the other. But there are many negative developments that slow down the process and they could even invert a lot of positive change.
+
+I blame a lot on the bad political elite we currently have almost everywhere. Most people are not even interested in politics anymore and they don't see themselves represented. They rather spend they spare time with various distractions. I consider the biggest achievement of chancellor Merkel that now a whole young generation in Germany is completely disenchanted with politics. If people are going to vote, they are not passionately casting their vote for their favorite candidate but for the candidate that will probably cause less damage than the others. The politicians in power won't change anything about this because this is exactly how they want it. A disinterested population is the best population for a ruling party in a democracy and they can do what they want: either nothing or that what the currently highest bidder wants. However, they should bring the population together and cause progress.
+
+Take a look at the United States presidential elections: Among the American population of over 300 million people, the electoral system of the two biggest parties managed to designate two of the worst possible candidates: a gabbling populist and the personification of corruption. One candidate represents a dangerous group of people that is fueled by hate, distrust in the political elite and that believes that all their problems can be solved by oversimplified solutions at the cost of others. The other candidate represents the status quo, a small group of people in Washington that is busy meeting lobbyists all day, that won't be prosecuted of any crime they commit and that discusses the next violent regime change in their cozy think tank conference rooms. But the real scandal about the presidential election are not these two ambassadors of the apocalypse, but that most Americans don't know that there are more than two candidates running for president. This is due to the media that is not reporting on them.
+
+And this brings us to the next issue. You may think that a free press gives our politicians a hard time and informs us in a neutral way about relevant issues. This may be true in many cases and there are many talented and passionate journalists out there working hard for all of us. But the press cannot be completely neutral or objective. The selection of issues to report about already intentionally or unintentionally pushes a certain agenda. If a newspaper doesn't report on an event, then this event never happened to the readers of the newspaper. Then there are various conflicts of interests if many newspapers and publishing houses are owned by rich and influential individuals or families. Furthermore, bringing the news first seems to be most important nowadays, so the quality of the reporting is often low and newspapers are more or less copying the same article from one of the few news agencies. All of this makes it hard to get different perspectives about the same issue and to form an informed opinion.
+
+There is another amplifying development: The mainstream media is more and more filling the void that religion has left in our secular world. It is important to stick to a certain message. The message should be short and broadcast by everybody in the same way, so we all have something to believe in and don't have to worry about the real complexity of the problems we are facing. Facts are not that important anymore and are ignored if they don't fit the narrative. Whoever is casting doubt at the current narrative, is called a conspiracy theorist, even if she or he is not even proposing a theory. This is in no way different than the propaganda during the cold war. The "shooting the messenger" principle is also used frequently. Let's attack the bearer of the information if we don't like what he is telling us. Among others, Wikileaks published a huge amount of emails that shows corruption among the leaders of the Democratic Party and collusion with the Clinton campaign. The media rather speculates about the possibility that the data was originally obtained by people that work for Putin. Edward Snowden showed us widespread surveillance and illegal activity of the NSA and others. Let's rather talk about the theory that Snowden is an agent working for Putin. By the way, this childish Putin blaming also leads to less detailed reporting about issues inside and outside Russia that are caused by president Putin because he is already established as the personified evil.
+
+This behavior of the media boosts the societal segregation. Everyone that keeps in line will have difficulties to form their own opinion due to lack of details and perspectives. Furthermore, she or he is encouraged to not worry and do something about our problems because there are already good people working on solving them. Everyone who comes to different conclusions and wants a discussion is alienated by the hostility. This leads to the many forms of radicalization we see today. People are breaking out of the bubble. But instead of trying to get a more complete world view, they seek a new bubble where everyone has their opinion and detests everyone else that doesn't have their opinion. They are just following the path of least resistance.
+
+I had hoped that the Internet would change something about this. In fact, the group of the well informed seems greater than ever and investigative journalists have numerous sources. Activists have it much easier to organize themselves. But it's also easier than ever to find someone that confirms the craziest claims and biggest lies. Sources are either not checked at all or in a very sloppy way. If someone we know and trust shares a story on social media, then it has to be true and we don't need to read more than the headline. So while the internet fosters knowledge and communication, it also helps to gather people in their own little radical groups and pushes us more apart. Maybe the Internet is just too complex or it still costs too much effort to do proper research on current topics?
+
+Maybe people need to be taught how to do the research itself and handle the vast amounts of different sources we have today. For sure, lack of time plays a role, too. Besides all the working and self-optimizing we have to do, there are not much time and mental resources left to follow up on what is going on. More political influence for everyone in the sense of direct democracy may also improve the situation, but only if everyone is well educated on the issues and seeks discourse. Otherwise, it will probably lead to more uninformed decisions, more frequent policy changes and more harm to everyone.
+
+I'm not sure what exactly needs to be done. There are obvious more causes than politics and media. The situation is complex and I cannot come up with a simple solution that can be broadcast as a short message.