The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund play an obnoxious role in world economy, and an intrusive one in politics. This is a brief post to explain where they came from, how they function, and why many see them as a direct threat to the independence and the progress of the poorer nations.

I’m not the expert by any means, I just took the time to look into it. That, and I was offered a helping hand from my Mancunian friend Lizzie Walmsley.

The Making

Both the World Bank as well as the IMF were founded at the Bretton Woods Conference in 1944 with the intention of stabilizing the world economy and offering money and help to the countries that need it, in the form of loans. Many argue that the organizations’ intentions were largely genuine to develop poorer countries in particular, and help the world economy in general.

The Bretton Woods conference of 1944

In order for a country to join the World Bank, it needs to gain shares and therefore become a shareholder with a corresponding vote on decisions made. More importantly, you need to join and be accepted by the IMF. So even though they are separate entities, they practically function as one. It’s an unwritten agreement to avoid disagreement.

Up until 1967 the World Bank wasn’t easy on handing out loans – there was a bit of a rigid system that really limited the flow. After that, however, it started taking the form that we know of today; easy loans, but with strings attached. That is when fit really started to hit the shan.

The Setup

There are 187 members who are shareholders. The voting right is equal to the share, which could be understood. However, you can’t actually just decide to increase your share – each country is allocated how much of a say it gets depending on its economic size.

Meeting to 'solve' a financial crisis

As you’d expect, the US alone has over 15% of the shares, which is practically a veto. If the US votes against a decision, so do many of its ‘friends’ and it is almost impossible for the vote to pass. Japan has 6.8%, followed by China, who for the longest time was overlooked, but recently managed to prove it’s worth its current 4.4%.

If that’s not enough, the World Bank’s president is always an American, ‘recommended’ by the White House. In contrast, the IMF’s presidency is always granted to a European. So the US government dictates who will become the World Bank’s president, while at the same time holding the biggest share and vote.

Looking back at each of the World Bank’s presidents, you will find that there is almost always a clear conflict of interest. And the US government is well aware of that and in fact makes the appointment accordingly. In 1968, Robert McNamara become president of the World Bank and remained at the post for 13 years.

McNamara is a perfect example of the corruption plaguing the institutions; he was a World War II officer who was hired as a Business Executive at Ford and worked his way up until he became the first president from outside the Ford family in 1960. Weeks later, he was appointed as the Secretary of Defense in the Kennedy administration. During his 8 years at the White House, McNamara was the man behind many of the strategic decisions in regards to the Cuban Missile Crises and the Vietnam War.

Sure enough, McNamara become the president of the World Bank from 1968 all the way to 1981. During his time he refused to offer loans to countries that were not considered allies by the US, like Iran, and in fact focused the loans on military dictatorships that did not represent the people. Examples include Argentina, Chile and the Philippines – the officials made a significant cut, and the people were left to bail the country out of its loan.

The IMF

Political Economist Susan George explains the World Bank, the IMF and the WTO:

Click here to view the embedded video.

Here is an excerpt from an interview with Noam Chomsky in which he explains the function of the IMF, in relation to the World Bank, eloquently, as always:

The IMF is not the World Bank, but it’s closely related. The IMF’s former U.S. executive director Karin Lissakers accurately described the Fund as the credit community’s enforcer. The IMF is very anti-capitalist. For example, suppose I lend you money. And I know that you’re a risky borrower, so I insist on a high-interest rate. Now, suppose that you can’t pay me back. In a capitalist system, it’s my problem. I made a risky loan. I got a lot of profit from the interest. You defaulted. It’s my problem.

That’s now what the IMF is about. What the IMF is saying, to put it in personal terms, is that your friends and neighbors have to pay off the loan. They didn’t borrow the money, but they have to pay it back. And my friends and neighbors have to pay me to make sure that I don’t lose any money. That’s essentially what the IMF is.

He went on to mention how Argentina, under military dictatorship, took loans and eventually defaulted. As a result, the loans were repaid by the workers and peasants.

Perhaps not all programs are harmful to the citizens of the governments that take them on. It could be argued that the World Bank, together with the IMF, has chipped in with its fair of achievements. Overall, however, the grass is not so green.

The problem

Click here to view the embedded video.

The main issue is the contradicting function of the World Bank and the IMF. On the one hand, their job is a political one, where they are responsible for funding projects and policies’ implementation to help reduce poverty worldwide. On the other, however, they represent money from the different countries that are looking to give out loans and benefit from the interest. Further corruption aside, this formula is bound to fail – banks will always look for their own interest, and it won’t matter who pays them.

Another problem is what could be seen like a bit of an orientalist approach to initiating projects. When a loan is pitched out, the conditions applied do not take into account the local needs and tend to be a recipe for failure. It is like success is measured by how the West would rate it.

Moreover, the idea of a loan for a development project is to eventually deem itself useless. In other words, a successful project is one that becomes sustainable for the country and allows them to pay back the loan, and move forward independently from there. Naturally, however, if poorer countries refrain from taking loans, that would defeat the purpose behind making profit out of loan interests. Ultimately, decision-making banks will want the clients coming back and asking for more loans.

Interestingly, in response to the Volcker report (pdf) which aimed at shedding light at corruption issues plaguing the organizations’ programs, World Bank president Robert Zoellic admitted:

The Volcker report makes clear the serious challenges ahead in overcoming the cancer of corruption in operations supported by the Bank, and it offers constructive recommendations. Now it will be up to all of us to move forward, as part of our on-going commitment to address this vital issue.

They’re not even trying to hide it.

But why would countries put up with this injustice? First of all, the majority of poor countries who suffer the most from the World Bank and the IMF are actually under dictatorships. Therefore, the decision makers in fact look at the cash they’ll slip in their pockets, and not what the rest of the country will have to repay. More importantly, being left out of the World Trade Organization would seriously hinder any country’s chances of growth.

The WTO put together the 10 ‘benefits’ of being a member. If you read between the lines, you’ll see how it’s a nice and dandy way of saying: privatization of as much as possible, and the reduction of production costs on the large corporations (regardless of environmental damage and  exploitation of labor). Despite the harm, abstaining would backfire more than giving in. In essence, you’re left with no choice but to take part.

Not only that, but even if a country’s economy grows, the percentage of the poor rises. And in fact, in most cases, the World Bank and IMF leave the countries in ruins way worse than how they started.

Michael Parenti put it nicely in an article he wrote in which he revealed the threat of the IMF:

The IMF imposes a “structural adjustment program” (SAP), requiring debtor countries to grant tax breaks to the transnational corporations, reduce wages, and make no attempt to protect local enterprises from foreign imports and foreign takeovers. The debtor nations are pressured to privatize their economies, selling at scandalously low prices their state-owned mines, railroads, and utilities to private corporations.

Some Examples – The Asian Economic Crisis

The following is an excerpt from the breath-taking documentary by Adam Curtis, All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace. This segment in particular takes does an impressive job of summarizing the IMF’s involvement in the Asian economic crisis.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Looking Ahead

The World Bank and the IMF are not entirely harmful, but for the vast majority of human beings across the globe, they cause a lot more harm than anything else. A lot more.

In fact, the only groups benefiting are a few bankers, corrupt politicians, and multi-national business owners. Everyone else, from regular consumers, to employees, and sustainable communities worldwide, pay the real cost.

This needs to stop. And doing so is not as hard as one might think. For starters, spreading awareness about these bad boys is rather straight-forward since the web is glowing with material on the issue in different forms. Building on that, citizens of real democracies should maintain pressure on their representatives to avoid taking part in this dirty game.

The Greek showed us inspirational courage that might have not paid off, but it has still applied notable pressure that would make the next ‘democratic’ government think twice before getting itself involved. Spain and Italy are next to find themselves in an economic crisis and will be pressured into asking for loans that will deepen their problems. However, I’m personally optimistic that their people will take the Greeks’ courage to the next level and succeed in preventing their governments in enforcing imperialism.

Click here to view the embedded video.

As for the rest of us, our fight for the revolution is not over, and our struggle continues. With victory we will become independent, and justice will prevail. Perhaps our governments are under the illusion that they can get away with just about anything, but little do they know that sooner or later, we, the people, will win.

While the imperialists enjoy watching their hidden bank accounts’ growing digits, we are holding out for the sheer enjoyment of the revolutionary last laugh.

One hand? When did this happen? I might’ve missed the memo.

We Egyptians can get rather emotional with topics we feel strongly about. Who can deny that it is qualities such as sheer passion that can lead to revolutions happening? It is impossible to push for any change if hope and optimism do not make up the driving force in your struggle. It is easy to give up the walk if you lack vision of the bright and shiny light at the end of the tunnel.

The negative aspect of such positivity is eventual naivety. Many Egyptians believe in a mythical yet mutually beneficial relationship between us, the people, and the Egyptian military. One that is lead by the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, and followed by the people who can trust them blindly. The repeated encounter with innocent arguments made in favor of our fatherly military is frustrating, to say the least. The following are the five lamest arguments that I’ve had to put up with, and why I think they’re completely unfounded.

You know the rules: this is my opinion (which I’m entitled to), and I never claimed to be an expert on the subject matter.

1. The army protected our revolution

   Even if I were to listen to such an argument, why don’t we see how the families of the martyrs of the camel attacks feel about this? Or those who were killed on the Friday of Anger when military vehicles were providing the interior forces with ammunition?

   Throughout the Tahrir days, I witnessed dozens of dead bodies being pulled out of the crowds because our beloved army was kind enough to let thousands of armed thugs attack us at Tahrir square from all angles. In fact, not only did the army disappear when the lives of hundreds (if not thousands) were at risk, they somehow developed the cold-heartedness to have two officers on top of one of the residential buildings facing the museum shoot photographs while both sides were fighting to the death.

   A sequel to this point tends to argue that we should be thankful to the army for not shooting at us. Have are standards become so low, that we appreciate the fact that our own army did not opt to open fire against us and forcing us to become like Libya? Is avoiding a genocide an attractive quality of a government body nowadays? It’s not clear if that is due to innocence, ignorance, or just being sad, but judging from the sense of pride of many towards the army’s protection of our revolution, I’d say it’s all three.

2. The army is not accustomed to dealing with civilians. The personnel are trained for combat in the desert

   How many training courses on ‘civilian interaction’ do you need to not use the museum as a torture camp? What human skills are required to stop you from throwing your own citizens behind bars on no legal basis? There is absolutely no excuse to detaining those who speak their mind. And I never though I needed to say this, but there is no justification to torture.

   While it might be true that, in theory, the army officers and soldiers are trained to hold guard at the borders and be prepared for combat, it is really not that difficult to avoid humiliating, imprisoning and torturing the people they’re supposedly here to protect.

3. Even if we were to get rid of Tantawi and the rest at the SCAF, how could we replace them?

   The last time I was being hammered this ‘argument’, we were building up to the downfall of Mubarak. Just like it was overwhelmingly ignorant as well as offensive to all potential replacements then, it is the same to think so towards the army now. And if overthrowing a totalitarian dictator of 30 years was not impossible, and didn’t cause complete anarchy and mayhem, why would replacing the SCAF do so?

   Let’s not forget that we’ve started a historical revolution. We should not settle for anything less than what we deserve. The mindset of taking the current corrupt regime for granted is backwards at a time when we’re progressively looking towards the future.

4. We cannot overthrow the army, the uprising has to be from within

   For some odd reason, many believe that even though we’re going through a revolution and claiming some of our basic rights, with regards to the army, there are rules to follow. We were never given permission to take the streets and put up a fight against hundreds of thousands of police forces and thugs, but we did it. It was the right thing to do. However there’s this mysterious notion that to change the military, we have to sit back and wait for a handful of courageous soldiers to overtake the system, and then hope they act in the most beneficial way for us. Otherwise, it’s illegal…or something.

   I don’t know about you, but I’m not willing to let the revolution fail just because there’s an apparent protocol to how change should happen in the army. If they’re not good enough to represent us, we’ll take the streets and object until our demands are met.

5. The army ‘s job is to protect the borders in the best way it sees fit. We’re not in a position to tell them what to do

   This is the knockout argument that ends any conversation on any sort of intellectual level. How could you possibly answer to that? Game over.

   It is truly sad how the army has been able to indoctrinate us over the years to believe that they are a separate entity to the government, completely independent from the government and the people. They know what to do, and when. They understand their responsibilities and are working on them.

   Sorry to break the news to you, but that is complete falsehood. The army’s existence is purely to serve the people. This is OUR country, WE tell them what to do, and it is up to US to make the decisions. We have demands and their job is to meet them with their technical knowledge. We don’t need to be education experts, or healthcare gurus to demand from the government and the ministries to provide us with basic education and healthcare. We do not need to be military strategists and war heroes to ask the army to protect us, to oppose a war, or to join one. We choose the government that we think best represents us, and we hold them accountable if they don’t yield favorable results. The army is no exception.

One hand my ass.

This is our revolution, and if the SCAF doesn’t straighten itself up, it will have to put up with the people that tossed over its former employers, the civilization that is only at the beginning of its road, the revolutionaries that redefined victory.

After numerous occasions of declining pitches for projects in the name of morality (the last of which has caused more of a backlash than normal), I was inspired by my friend Rowan el Shimi to put together this blog post through which I can comprehensively explain why I refuse to work with the majority of potential clients; what the reasoning behind it is, and why I end up favoring work with certain clients over others.

Please note that this is a blog post where I express my opinion. I don’t ask you to agree, and I don’t claim to carry the truth that has been extracted from reliable sources. In fact, I don’t care what you think about what I have to say.

Introduction

As a professional (regardless of the field), I have a bit of influence, and every decision I make counts. I’m responsible for my actions, and should stick  to the set of principles that I believe in, and follow them to lead by example. Between capitalist greed, extreme poverty, corruption favoring corporations handling millions with billions of people worldwide struggling to survive, and the lack of resources to sustain our lifestyle, we find ourselves at a horrendous state.

As Annie Leonard illustrates in her outstanding short documentary The Story of Stuff, the materials economy is set up so that we are constantly exploiting our limited resources in an ever-accelerating rate. Resources that will inevitably run out:

Click here to view the embedded video.

Relevant points from the documentary:

• Natural resources are limited, and will run out very soon
• Rich countries are using disproportionally more resources than poorer counterparts
• Externalizing costs means that the products we buy have been paid for by natural resources and labor
• Our consumption levels are absurd, and they desperately needs to be reduced
• Marketing contributes to perceived obsolescence by indoctrinating the public into believing that we are not good enough, and that we need to shop to improve

Therefore, I try to avoid contributing to any entity that is responsible for products that push us deeper into the materials’ crisis. Even though I’m part of the hypocrisy myself for consuming and destroying resources from all parts of the globe (thanks to my laptop, cell phone, meat, clothes, etc.), I choose not to promote it for others to follow.

For example, I am capable of carrying out social media campaigns as well as design platforms to persuade the young audience that it is ‘cool’ to purchase a certain brand of candy. In fact, I can work hard to make that brand outdo its competition, and boast an image that many of the target audience would strive to associate themselves with. But I would never want to do that. Any product that is not essential and is harmful to our well-being is a no-no in my book, and I would never agree to work with its manufacturers, producers, distributors or sellers.

Needless to say, it is almost impossible to even consider a multinational company looking to extract resources from Egypt and send it back to Geneva and New York.

An ever bigger issue for me is exploitation of labor. The fact that there are people who work tirelessly in terrible conditions and barely make enough money to survive just so that a chosen few can continue with their lifestyles, is depressing.

Exploitation

Exploitation is broadly defined as utilizing something to benefit from it, and/or the selfish utilization of a resource as a means to an end. Many consider the term only suitable for large corporations such as Apple, where factory workers have to go through such unbearable conditions, that many commit suicide, and nothing’s improving. However, sweatshops are examples of extreme exploitation, because resources (both natural and labor) are constantly exploited, everywhere.

As Karl Marx has pointed out, exploitation is the difference between the profit generated to the owner of the business, and the compensation to the worker for his or her effort, in the form of wage. In fact, in his book, Capital, Marx came up with the precise formula to measure the percentage and the quantity of the exploitation, summarized in the following:

“The rate of surplus-value is therefore an exact expression for the degree of exploitation of labour-power by capital, or of the labourer by the capitalist”

Which brings me to a pivotal point in my book: If you are making profit, you are exploiting. There is no such thing as generating profits without the exploitation of natural and, especially, labor resources. If you’re a business, your aim is to make money, and this means making the most out of your employees, and paying them the least. You could be paying them higher salaries than your competitors, but it would still be exploiting, otherwise you wouldn’t make profit to sustain yourself and would go out of business.

Providing jobs; improving lives.

The basic worker

In Egypt, an ‘office boy’ (a male dedicated to doing some cleaning, providing drinks, and running basic errands) typically makes between 500 and 700 LE a month, and is usually the first to arrive, and the last to leave. He refers to everyone as Sir (and wouldn’t dare receive equal treatment), and has to put up with potentially being told off (and sometimes yelled it) without answering back (or else he could be thrown out). The average employer would feel a form of self-fulfillment for providing a job to someone who’s under-qualified. In fact, by paying him slightly more and being friendly, he or she could be considered a philanthropist!

The following are misconceptions that come as a bi-product:

1. The office boy is being offered a job, which is something he should appreciate
   Not if his salary is not enough to feed himself, let alone his family
2. At least he’s being offered a job, as opposed to nothing at all
   That may be true, but that doesn’t mean his weakened position is not taken advantage of. Otherwise he’d be deemed unaffordable
3. If he’s not happy, he could leave
   Far from true, especially given how 40% of Egyptians are on or below the poverty line, and many are unemployed and desperate
4. He is receiving more than what many would pay him
   The might be true, but his value is determined  in a market that is entirely based on exploiting resources and making money. His value is not based on his output. When you are about to offer him a salary, why not think how he contributes to the income, and compensate him accordingly? Why do you use his market options (or lack of) as an indication, as opposed to his output?

If you are to expand this example to a larger scale, it soon becomes clear the amount of exploitation involved in large corporations that recruit thousands. For that reason, I refuse to work with clients that boast a roster of thousands of employees making minimal wages, while the owners are packing millions.

Making money

Generally speaking, I’m not at all fond of corporations that work on investments and business consultancies. The idea that a company’s sole purpose is to strategically aid other companies in making money, and benefit itself in the process, is despicable. As if exploitation isn’t enough as it is, consultancies attempt to reduce costs and boost income to make even more cash, and shove the exploitation to extreme levels.

Here’s a short clip from an interview with Noam Chomsky where he talks about self-destructive capitalism, and slave labor.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Sadly, we are indoctrinated to believe the following:

1. There is a bottomless pool of money out there to make
   Obviously not. It’s surprising how many can be so naive so as to believe that there’s unlimited resources to fight for. The current approach to resource usage is anything but sustainable
2. We can all be wealthy
   Impossible. With today’s capitalist society, money is made via exploitation. You need someone with the capital, and workers to be exploited
3. Anyone can be rich
   Not everyone. And in a country like Egypt, hardly anyone can grow beyond his or her predetermined socioeconomic background. Even if a person from a lower income background was given equal opportunity, he or she would only be able to become wealthy at the expense of the limited resources, i.e. at the expense of counterparts striving for the same
4. It is normal for there to be rich and poor
   Now it is, but it doesn’t have to be. While a small elite of Egyptians own cars (regardless of the make), have had the opportunity to travel abroad, eat meat everyday, and have enough clothes to dispose of, the huge majority struggle to survive till the end of the month. That is not fair, and it should not remain that way

The capitalism pyramid: the capitalist tradition

Therefore, there’s no such thing as a ‘pure’ business that benefits the world more than it harms the people and resources. That is the way it will remain until the revolution takes place and everyone gets direct access to resources that are subsequently allocated fairly. However, until we reach that stage, we are still part of the system and need to make money.

Conclusion

I choose to work with companies that carry out minimal exploitation. Whenever I’m in for a pitch for any web design and/or social media project, I ask myself the following questions:

1. Does the client make profit?
   If yes, then what resources are they exploiting, and to what extent? If not, then where do they get the money from (sometimes worse than profit-driven companies)?
2. How many employees are there? How many partners are there?
   A school of 4 partners collaborating and doing everything between them is almost a dream come true. A company with hundreds on the pay roll is not (regardless of the nature of their business)
3. What benefits does the client bring?
   Providing jobs is certainly not one of them. But perhaps they educate, or promote culture, or aid the art movement, or help empower people by connecting them across space and time to bypass mainstream media – there are numerous possibilities
4. Is the exploitation little enough to be mostly made-up for by the benefits?
   Some industries will never make it altogether; such as equity, investment, insurance, business consultancies, stock brokers, etc. Others are in pole position to overcome the hurdle, such as renewable energy, academic and cultural institutions, open-source projects, etc.
5. Would Ali Azmy approve?
   Could save you from all the above!

If the client fails to qualify, then I turn down the project take it on myself to specify why. While I have been advised to avoid such confrontation and just excuse myself without hopping on the soap box, I insist on being blunt. Firstly, I do not enjoy lying and I’m not very good at it. More importantly, I have thought long and hard to build my principles, and I feel it is my responsibility to to stick to them and promote them. I would like to think that by doing so, I’m making this world a better place. Otherwise, I’m just dust in the wind, another brick on the wall, and yet another exploiting consumerist that talks a lot, and doesn’t do squat.

The world won’t change for the better if we turn a blind eye on pressing issues like social injustice and poverty. Change takes place when we actually do something about it. That’s how revolutions happen, and I plan to be a part of it.

Panda cheese came out with a successful advertising campaign that consists of about five commercials. The videos are on YouTube and have already received a couple of million views combined in a matter of a few days. In fact, they were handed awards from Cannes Lions.

And why wouldn’t they? The idea is courageous, some might even argue too bold (hence giving it even more value), and relatively unorthodox. They’re simply hilarious.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6iHCFiSqIw

All five ads back-to-back

The campaign was created by Advantage Marketing & Advertising (who are understandably ecstatic with the award). Not only has the campaign snow-balled before the general YouTube crowd, it was actually featured by one of the most influential YouTube celebrities of all time, Ray William Johnson.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFEOn-bw7JY

=3 reviews three viral videos, Panda’s ad is the last one

This is it! Egypt’s on the Social Media map! It’s refreshing, and indeed liberating, to see us break free from the self-imposed limits of lame, traditional marketing. It’s fantastic to conquer new territory, explore new terrains. It’s an inspiration to millions attempting to make it to the international scene.

Unfortunately, it has been brought to the attention of the social media enthusiasts in Egypt that there was a series of commercials that were released to the public as early as January of this year that consisted of many of the same elements that were showcased by the dairy producer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cr89xbl26g

You can watch the entire campaign by searching ‘Bruins Hockey Rules’ in YouTube

A coincidence? Possibly, but tough to swallow. Let’s recognize that besides the romantic music that kicks in as the crowd stares at the panda, the plot and storyboard are almost identical. Incidentally, the Bruins Hockey Rules campaign was not as viral (in terms of YouTube views, TV appearances is a different story).

If we were to assume that it was indeed very heavily influenced by the hockey team’s campaign, then it’s undoubtedly a heart-breaking drama. And it’s not solely about the ethics (or lack of) involved, it’s the crushing disappointment to many Egyptians and social media addicts throughout the entire Arab world that have long awaited the knight that would save the day, and be the change we want to see in our world. Why is it that, when we finally make it big, it has to be via borderline illegal approaches?

In all cases, let’s not take it all away from Panda and co. At least they were able to create a buzz, and perhaps spark enthusiasm to everyone around, inspiring them to express, produce, and share. Let it be but a bump on the road to web success.

In December 2008, tech giant Google unleashed the stable version of its browser, Chrome. Less then two years later, it has eaten up over 17% of the browser market share, growing at an unprecedented rate. It’s fast and light-weight, and boasts a sleek interface. The problem, however, is that the small advantages of the new browser, come at big costs.

Google is definitely 'cooler' than Microsoft

Chrome is widely known as a free and open-source browser. Unfortunately, that is far from an accurate depiction. A proper open-source project has to stick to some basic rules and principles, and Google have failed to do the following:

1. They never released the entire code, making it more like an iPhone OS type of exploitation than it is a collaborative project
2. Instead of starting from down up, it is Google’s name that comes first, then the ‘open-source’ browser project. It defeats the purpose of celebrating the beauty of coming together from different parts of the world to bring a tool we could all benefit from. Instead, we are left with a product that gives all the credit to a company that has been making billions of dollars by ripping off advertisers (and here’s partly why it’s hypocritical, and problematic)
3. In the open-source economy, the success of projects relies on collaboration, not competition. When we all work together, we can collectively benefit. Here’s a TED talk that does a good job illustrating the advantages and mechanisms of the open-source economy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgYE75gkzkM

Somewhat of a complicated lecture, but be patient, and it will all come together by the end of it

Most importantly: Google is determined to become the richest and most powerful entity on the planet, and its real competitor is not Microsoft, nor Apple, but the open-source movement. That is because instead of competing with equivalent companies, all driven by profits, it is up against a liberating movement that involves millions of people all working for the greater good. As a result, Google’s main objective with Chrome is to weaken the support behind Firefox, divide its people, diffuse the efforts, and hinder its growth.

Just as corrupt governments diffuse labor unions and rebellious groups by bribing and/or making lucrative offers, Google boasts a single, albeit solid, advantage: performance. That is the sole plus that can be made in Chrome’s defense. On the other hand, many forget about the following disadvantages in comparison to Firefox:

• Flexibility and customization is far superior in Firefox
• The massive list of add-ons available that provide a wide range of features via Mozilla make that of Chrome seem more like a joke
• HTML/CSS rendering bugs and inconsistencies in Chrome are a rare encounter in Firefox, making designers and developers work more to make their websites and applications appear properly on Google’s application

This does not mean, however, that there is something unethical about having two different open-source projects in the same industry – far from it. However, the services and functionality they offer must be different, and/or catering to different needs. Chrome is identical to Firefox in terms of who uses it and how.

While making the switch might seem appealing, let us not forget that it is a diminutive gain on the short run, and an enormous loss on the long one. Because soon, probably  by Firefox 4.0, the performance will be too close of a call. In the long term, though, we would be helping a company hiding many cockroaches behind the fridge become even more powerful and threatening, at the cost of the only movement that is seeking to benefit all of us, as well as bring the power to the people; the open-source.

The press has come a long way in recent years in Egypt. In the early 90s, very few independent newspapers circulated, and many relied on the public three (Ahram, Akhbar, Goumhoreya) for news. It used to be a single, mainstream channel of communication that was easily monitored and controlled by the Egyptian authorities.

But times are a-changin.

A few months ago I wrote a post about a disgraceful cartoon published in Al Ahram right after the sectarian clashes in the south of the country. Traditional propaganda, it seems, is slowly but surely going extinct. However, just when you thought new strategies were being innovated and implemented, Al Ahram strikes back with catastrophic failure.

Following the first day of the peace negotiations in Sharm el Sheikh, the following image from the earlier meeting in Washington was made available to the public:

Obama leads the way?

Whether via computers, laptops, netbooks, cell phones or iPads, millions of people were immediately exposed to this photograph.

Back in the Ramses area of Cairo, a group of old men with mustaches huddled around a broken-down desk in a dusty room packed with record books dating back decades, decided that this is not the image the Egyptian authority would want to paint for the public – it would not be beneficial for the people to view the dictator of 30 years trail a group of the world’s leaders. This might ‘tarnish’ his reputation.

They gathered their wits, exploited the best Photoshop ‘engineer’ they could get their hands on, and made him work his magic:

Who's your daddy?

Subliminal! An absolute masterpiece. Suddenly, Hosny Mubarak becomes the leader of all good will and is single-handedly responsible for the end of the brutal occupation and human rights violations by the Israeli government.  He deserves six more years of rule come the ‘democratic elections’ of next year.

Unlike the cartoon characters a few months back, these photos were in every major newspaper’s website, and every activist’s blog before Mubarak had the chance to get his nightly medical diagnosis.

They say that when you ‘assume’, you make an ‘ass’ out of ‘u’ and the president. Here are the asses made by Al Ahram:

1. The peace talks are in any way significant
2. The Egyptian people love Hosny Mubarak and respect him, and will be shocked and devastated if they were told he is no longer the most important person in the region
3. After 30 years of corruption, poverty and human rights violations, the people will forgive the president because he is capable of taking a quick first step when walking down a hall with fellow leaders
4. No one has internet access, and no foreign news source (whether professional, or citizen/independent) is capable of follwing what is happening in peace talks
5. People are no longer interested in seeing floors in photos, and are satisfied with just carpets
6. It is normal for leaders to show up in photographs with Photoshop shadows around parts of their bodies, it’s how we all look nowadays
7. Traditional propaganda is static; if you have succeeded in manipulating the public with certain techniques, they will work forever and there’s no need to change them

The web connects people across space and time, it is the most successful tool in the history of humankind that has allowed the people to share knowledge and information. And we can do so directly, without relying on mainstream channels of communication, nor governments and authorities. While some of us are on social networks, smart phones, open-source projects, blogs and aggregators, others are convinced that the people are oblivious to the state of the real world, and will never find out. Ironically, it is the knowledgeable  people that are teaching the ignorant government.

We are the web, and no one can take that away from us.

The design aspect of this video is so impressive, it’s almost over-whelming. Make sure you focus on the actual message as well, and not just get carried away with the cool hand-drawn graphics

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc

I’d like to see where we can go from here. One thing’s for sure, and it’s that the open-source movement is a win-win situation for everyone, so it’s time we all got on board.

When non-profit organizations and foundations made the realization that, despite their limited budget and resources, they could reach their target audience effectively (all thanks to the web), their objectives suddenly became much more attainable. Carrying out the tasks of a given development program might be costly, but at least spreading awareness of the issue, and reaching out to volunteers and doners, has become significantly easier.

KnowMore.org is a community-driven wiki that aims at aggregating corporations and entities to a publicly-accessible database to raise awareness about human-rights violations. It does so by researching and finding the companies and multi-nationals that are responsible for “attacks on democracy, worker’s and human rights, fair trade, business ethics and the environment.” It’s a brilliant initiative that brings valuable information in a centralized location for everyone to benefit from.

Not only is KnowMore.org impressive because of the initiative and online presence, but also  because of the way in which they’ve exploited the web (no pun intended). First of all, the look and feel of the website puts it way ahead of the rest (including many corporate websites). Secondly, the fact that it’s very easy to use (spin off from the widespread Wikipedia) inevitably encourages anyone with interest in the field to take part and add to the extensive database.

That’s not all. They’ve actually taken it to the next level by offering a Firefox add-on called KnowMore Extension. What this does is bring up a notification underneath the toolbar of Firefox whenever you are visiting a website of a company that has violated human rights one way or the other. And in order to avoid being what opposition would rush to claim generic, or over-generalizing, they actually indicate the exact rights that have been violated, as well as providing the link to learn more about the illegal activities of that particular company.

KnowMore.org notification bar

It’s like having the community do all of the work for you while you’re browsing.

There are many organizations and non profit entities out there that are striving to make this world a better place. KnowMore.org is like many of them in principle, but far more effective in practice. That is because they have managed to reduce their costs by making the entire platform online, engaged with visitors via the attractive interface and the easy, familiar wiki system, and reached out to many more via the effective Firefox plugin.

If you are part of an NGO or a social development initiative, then the standards set by KnowMore.org should be your immediate goal. That is partly why our beautiful web is power to the people.

As brutal and corrupt as many governments can be nowadays, some are oblivious to the fact that the Web empowers the people beyond control. Dictators like Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, Teodoro Obiang of Equatorial Guinea, and Hosny Mubarak of Egypt might like to think that they rule with an iron fist that is virtually impossible to dismantle. While that is certainly close to the truth, little do they know that their technological incompetence and their underestimation of the power of the web is a potentially serious threat.

Egypt, for example, has opened up the press freedom over the past decade, which has encouraged a number of independent newspapers to take the stage. That, along with the exponential technological advancements that the world as a whole has experienced, has left the government thinking that perhaps it has bitten off more than it can chew. In the 80s, the three main papers were all governmental, and any story shared between the three, regardless of it authenticity, become true to the masses. Not only that, but propaganda posters and cartoons were highly effective.

Now the times are-a-changing.

After the horrific sectarian clashes in the south of Egypt, the entire Egyptian blogosphere was talking. Twitter was on fire. Facebook was flooded. And the blogs discussing the issue were scattered all over. That is when Al Ahram, Egypt’s main government-run newspaper, decided to weather the storm. Besides the fact that their website, when it actually works, looks like cow manure reshaped to fit within a computer screen, their approach was older than the president himself:

The ridiculous propaganda cartoon by Al Ahram

The “illustration”, which seems to have been scribbled and slapped together by a six year-old with mental illness, depicts the happy Egyptians together celebrating peace and prosperity. A Muslim coming out of a minaret shouts out simultaneously with his Christian counterpart standing on a church tower, “our shared enemy is the devil.” If that’s not enough, the “doves” in between are carrying hearts back and forth to imply unconditional love exchanged by all the peoples. The worst part of it all is that it’s not a joke – Al Ahram genuinely thought they would indirectly fool the crowds into believing that the all is well at the land of the Pyramids.

20 years ago, the cartoon could’ve stood a chance. Now, it could only make matters worse. The main reason being that with access to unlimited and uncensored information between the different people across space and time, old school propaganda has become ineffective. People no longer fall for the idealizing images of brutal dictators, nor photographs of happy citizens enjoying life. Not only does it need to be far more sophisticated, it also needs to be significantly more convincing. After all, there’s a lot of competition, and the web is anyone’s to create and share.

Dictators with over a quarter of a century under their belt might feel safe, but few have hopped on the fast-track trail of the internet and are therefore are not in as much control as they would like to think. For that reason, along with education, health care and infrastructure, internet access should be one of the aspects in the developement of over-exploited nations. Since effective communication is key to any change, the web is absolutely crucial in connecting the people and giving them the power they need to gain equality and justice.

The web has been, and will always be, power to the people – nothing can take that away from it.

Love’em or hate’em, we must not take anything away from Google’s creativity and innovation. One of the latest of which establishing an unprecedented approach to social development via the one and only: the World Wide Web. Project 10 to the 100 is a $10 million grant that Google will be handing to the chosen project related to development anywhere across the globe. After accepting applications and stacking over 150,000 applicants’ hopes and dreams with ideas on different projects, Google narrowed down the candidates to the finalists where only one will rise as the winner of the generous grant from the Californian giants.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUf1zxjR_Qw

How is the candidate chosen? This is where the community of the web comes in, and Google have cleverly taken advantage: Your vote. Every person can go on the website, read about every project, and then vote of whichever he or she has most faith in. Accordingly, the search engine pioneers will shell out a big tenner and make the project a reality. Not only have they used the web to announce their grant and facilitate communication with the different candidates, they have taken it a step further by allowing the true owners of the internet, the users, to use their power and indicate where the money will be heading. Yet another example of the immense power of the web, and how it can play a vital part in every single field across the planet. The trick is to give people the power they deserve, and Google, in this particular case, have done precisely that.