Since the beginning of the social media revolution, many of us have been hearing and talking a lot about collaboration – and some organizations have actually been doing it.

Now, there’s another term we’re beginning to hear more about, “The Fourth Industrial Revolution”. World Economic Forum founder and Executive Chairman, Klaus Schwab, described it this way in his Jan. 2016 blog post, The Fourth Industrial Revolution: What it is and how to respond:

“The First Industrial Revolution used water and steam power to mechanize production. The Second used electric power to create mass production. The Third used electronics and information technology to automate production. Now a Fourth Industrial Revolution is building on the Third, the digital revolution that has been occurring since the middle of the last century. It is characterized by a fusion of technologies that is blurring the lines between the physical, digital, and biological spheres.”

The fact that when I Googled “Fourth Industrial Revolution”, every link on the first results page referenced Schwab’s book The Fourth Industrial Revolution, may indicate that the same thing is happening with this revolution as the first three: it is being embraced and fuelled by competition-based capitalism. However, I would argue that in order for the fourth revolution to succeed – and for humanity to survive – we must change our economic system so this revolution is fuelled more by collaboration than competition.

Schwab appears to think that if we keep the current system and just make good choices, everything will be OK. However, with our current competitive system, this revolution may be the last to deliver good things to a few in the short term, with the unfortunate side effect of ending humanity in the long term.

Good things and bad are already happening. How you see them depends on your perspective. For example, Schwab’s view of the power of social media may give some insights into both Barack Obama and Donald Trump’s election victories:

“Discontent can…be fuelled by the pervasiveness of digital technologies and the dynamics of information sharing typified by social media…In an ideal world, these interactions would provide an opportunity for cross-cultural understanding and cohesion. However, they can also create and propagate unrealistic expectations as to what constitutes success for an individual or a group, as well as offer opportunities for extreme ideas and ideologies to spread.” Obama and Trump may be the first of many “social media presidents” who use online tools to skirt the mainstream media and reach millions of supporters, all too willing to accept their message uncritically.

Schwab recognizes the positive impact technologies like smart phones have had on our lives but is also concerned about the negative impact:

“Sometimes I wonder whether the…integration of technology in our lives could diminish some of our quintessential human capacities, such as compassion and cooperation. Our relationship with our smartphones is a case in point. Constant connection may deprive us of one of life’s most important assets: the time to pause, reflect, and engage in meaningful conversation.”

That’s the bad stuff. The new revolution is, of course, already delivering incredible things for some people and has the potential to deliver much more. Author, Bernard Marr describes some of the potential in his April 2016 post, Why Everyone Must Get Ready For The 4th Industrial Revolution:

“These technologies have great potential to continue to connect billions more people to the web, drastically improve the efficiency of business and organizations and help regenerate the natural environment through better asset management, potentially even undoing all the damage previous industrial revolutions have caused.”

Schwab would no doubt agree with Marr’s overly optimistic view – especially since his book, The Fourth Industrial Revolution, is Marr’s main source. Clearly, they both believe that if we just make the right choices, it will all be good. As Schwab says:

“Neither technology nor the disruption that comes with it is a…force over which humans have no control. All of us are responsible for guiding its evolution, in the decisions we make on a daily basis as citizens, consumers, and investors…We need to shape a future that works for all of us by putting people first and empowering them.”

Again, the problem is that Schwab doesn’t see the need for a fundamental change in our competition-based economic system for this to happen. That kind of thinking will lead to us losing the ultimate competition – humanity vs the planet – as problems like climate change can only be solved by collaborating.

Not convinced? Maybe the Harvard Business Review can change your mind. Two HBR articles, Collaborate with Your Competitors – and Win and Collaboration is the New Competition back up my argument. The problem is that not enough companies seems to have read them as the first article is from 1989…

Luckily, the fair trade and coop movements have listened and are challenging the dominant economic systems by working more collaboratively with each other and operating in ways that empower their employees and suppliers from developing countries.

The Fourth Industrial Revolution must be accompanied by an economic revolution. If not, and it’s dominated by companies only collaborating internally while still aggressively competing against each other to grow and satisfy shareholders, none of us will win – or survive.


The title of this post is meant to catch your attention but, despite the exaggeration, it may not be far off.

My argument is that people should talk more with people different from them in real life and less with people like them on line. If they don’t, things like Trump happen – and that could get people killed.

As for talking in person, Justin Trudeau and Barack Obama seem to both agree. Trudeau just launched a cross country series of town halls where he is answering Canadians’ unvetted questions – including some tough and emotional ones. In his final speech as President, Obama talked about how divisive the election was, and said, “If you’re tired of arguing with people on the Internet, try talking to them in real life.” The problem is that it seems people aren’t even arguing enough – on or off the internet. Too many of us are just reading things that reinforce our current world view – without caring whether they’re true.

An example was the story about anti-Trump forces supposedly  bussing in protesters for a demonstration in Austin, Texas shortly after Trump’s election. Even Donald Trump tweeted it. The problem is that it was completely false. The New York Times reported that Eric Tucker, a 35-year-old owner of an Austin,  Texas based marketing company, took pictures of some some buses he saw in downtown Austin because he found the buses unusual. When he later heard about the protests, he assumed they were connected and twèeted: “Anti-Trump protestors in Austin today are not as organic as they seem. Here are the busses they came in. #fakeprotests” He later realized he was wrong and that the buses had nothing to do with the protest. However, his tweeted correction got lost in the flood of right-wing shares of the original falsehood. The story was now “post truth”.

Young Quebec activists also think getting people talking is key to helping Quebec realize its full potential. “Faut qu’on se parle” or “we need to talk” is an initiative to get Quebecers talking to each other about solutions to major challenges facing the province.

It was started by nine mostly young, mostly white Quebecers including student activist leader Gabriel Nadeau-Dubois. In fall 2016, they held a series of public consultations and “kitchen assemblies” where they met with fellow Quebecers to hear their concerns about, and solutions for, their province. The demand for the kitchen assemblies, where members of the core group met people in a host’s house, quickly outstripped the availability. They were all booked within a week. (They’re all completed now and the group is working on a report on the results.)

One of the big questions for Canada right now is, could lots of people sharing fake facts and not talking to each other help someone like Trump get elected in Canada?

One of the main challenges to answering this question is knowing just how many people in Canada feel things similar to what made nearly 1 in 5 Americans vote for a guy who bragged about sexually assaulting women. Polls won’t tell us because very few Canadians would truthfully answer the required questions – and no one would pay pollsters to ask them. These would be questions like: “Do you feel like immigrants are taking jobs from Canadians?”, “Do you think terrorists pose a threat on Canadian soil?” or “If Donald Trump were able to run for Prime Minister today, would you vote for him?”

Without solid data – or the ability to get it – we must glean what we can from anecdotal evidence. Some indication can be seen in the comments on the Yahoo News story about Justin Trudeau appointing Somali Canadian, Ahmed Hussen, as Immigration Minister. Here are two examples:”Appointing a terrorist to bring in more terrorists.” “This douche bag will open the gates of ISIS and they will pour in here like maggots.” There was not one positive comment out of about 30 when I looked.

Before the results of the US election, it would have been easy to dismiss these commentors as fringe, especially in Canada. But now, the big question is: just how many Canadians feel this way? We may not know for sure until the next election unless Canadians start talking to one another now.

Having returned from Brazil, I thought I would revisit my July 8 post, 5 Tech Things That Will Keep My Family Safe during the Rio Olympics to report on how the tools actually performed.

Google Translate – we’d heard that not many people speak English in Brazil and that was certainly the case in the parts of Rio and Salvador we visited. So, despite some drawbacks, Google Translate became an essential tool. We used it on my wife’s iPhone, turning on the data function only when we needed it. It worked great for short conversations like asking where things were in the grocery store. However, more in depth chats were challenging when using the audio feature instead of text as people tended to speak in long paragraphs, which would come out as gibberish. (My most used line was, “You-have-to-say-one-sentence-at-a-time.”) So, for times like that we used…

Whatsapp – Once when Google Translate failed us in our attempt to communicate with a guy sent to fix our air conditioner, he suggested using Whatsapp to call our Airb&b host to translate. It worked perfectly, despite our host living in Washington, DC. In fact, we used Whatsapp exclusively communicate with both our hosts because it’s free.

Uber – We’d been told to use Uber because it was cheaper than taxis but we ended up using it for more important reasons. In a country where few people speak English and we don’t speak Portuguese, Uber removed the need to haggle over money since it’s all automatically paid by credit card. We also didn’t have to explain where we were going as our drivers’ GPS took care of that. Lastly, we didn’t have to depend on knowing a taxi company telephone number or hoping an empty one came by when we needed it because we could request one on our phone.

This really saved us one day in Salvador when were playing pickup soccer with some kids in a park near a beach. We were about to start our second game when a boy about 15 years old named Rodrigo pulled us aside and said, “This part of Salvador gets unsafe at night and it’s about an hour from sunset so you and your family should leave now.” I pulled out the iPhone and six minutes later we Ubered off safely into the sunset.

Laptop – I was blogging the trip for and brought a MacBook to do it because I hate creating large content on touch screen keyboards. Also, blogging requires opening and switching between lots of windows which is way easier on a laptop than an iPad or phone. However, the laptop also served an unexpected purpose: being the place to dump pictures and videos from my phone. Without the laptop, my phone would have filled up the first day and I wouldn’t have been able to take any more pictures!

To SIM or not to SIM – our Rio host told me I could get data on my cell phone by buying a SIM card from a local Brazilian carrier and putting it in my phone. He said it would cost about $5 Canadian. As it turned out, we got along with just my wife’s phone being connected as we never separated and many of the places we visited had pretty good wifi. (Two notable exceptions were the Olympic stadiums (one for the athletics, the other for soccer). Both had paid wifi with long registration processes that didn’t work for any of us.

Out of curiosity, I bought a SIM card on the day we were leaving. It cost 10 Brazilian Reals or about $5 Canadian like he said. I popped it in my phone and I got a message asking me to enter the supplied PIN #. When I did so it said the PIN was invalid. That disappointment was, luckily, an exception on a trip where tech was mostly like a reliable friend.

One of the principles I developed late in life has to do with travel. I don’t want to be a “zoo” traveler where you just go and look at what people are doing in other countries, then leave. Instead, I want to teach my kids to always try to have a positive impact on the places they visit, no matter how small.

So, it is with that in mind that I asked one of our contacts in Brazil, who runs educational programs with kids in favelas, if there was anything we could bring that would help him out, or just put a smile on the kids’ faces. He said they can always use sports equipment.

And thus the idea of bringing soccer balls to the kids in the favelas was born.

Now, to be clear, by “kids” I mean Afro Brazilian kids. Not because I only want to bring balls to black kids but because all the kids in the program are Afro Brazilian as most people living in favelas are Afro Brazilian (about 70%).

That comes from Brazil’s unflattering and not well publicized history.

“Brazil was the last place in the Americas to give up slavery. It also imported more than 10 times as many slaves as the U.S. — some 4 million. That’s meant that more than 50 percent of the population is of African descent, but those numbers haven’t translated to opportunity.” (NPR “Expats find Brazil’s Reputation for Color Blindness Is Undone By Reality“).

So my middle class African Canadian sons will give soccer balls to their favela-dwelling Afro Brazilian brothers and sisters.  They won’t be able to communicate with words but will connect through the universal language of the beautiful game.

Which brings me to the whole point of this post: how we’re raising the money to buy 15 soccer balls.

I’ve never done online fundraising so I went to the obvious choice for advice: Google. The first non-sponsored link was from Mashable and was, of course, irresistable: Top 12 Online Fundraising Platforms for Donors and Non-profits. After a short read, I decided on Fundrazr mainly because it said it was associated with PayPal which I use. I figured anything even remotely associated with PayPal and Tesla founder, Elon Musk, had to be easy.

I wasn’t disappointed.

I registered, set up my campaign and sent my first email blast in under an hour. And it’s getting results even though I ignored the advice to create a video that would, supposedly, double my success rate. The website gives lots of similar tips on how to optimize your campaign. (I couldn’t find a mobile app but the website is mobile friendly and looks great on my Samsung S4 phone). After the first day of the campaign we had 5 of the 15 balls. Here’s the email Fundrazr made it very easy for me to create [from the “$0 raised” you can see this is an old pic ;-)]:

Soccer ball Fundrazr

My next test is to prove what I’ve said to everyone who has asked me, “How are you going to travel with 15 soccer balls?” …clearly assuming the balls would be fully inflated as they are sold in store. To this I say, “No problem. You can deflate them.”

I’m going to test this out this weekend and, if it fails, my idea may be temporarily deflated.

After the Rio Olympics, what’s the first thing you think of when you think of Brazil? I bet it’s the Zika virus.

If you believe the media reports, you’d think there are swarms of Zika laden mosquitos roaming the streets of Rio looking for pregnant women to feast on. And if you’re not a pregnant woman you’d still be nervous.

Well, what if I told you that no one has screens on their windows in Rio? Oh, and there are no mosquitos now anyway because it’s  winter. And, even if it was summer, there’s almost no chance of getting Zika in the city…

Well, that’s what our Brazilian contacts in Rio are telling us (two independent contacts).

Could this be part of the reason why study after study shows people trust “people like them” more than the media? And why the mainstream media continues to struggle? (Maybe if they stop blaming the Internet and return to the good old days of reporting actual facts, people might give them another try).

Now I’m starting to question the other big stories coming out of Brazil via mainstream media, like the shitty water story. This literally means “water full of shit” because Rio pumps its raw sewage into the water like many places do. However, on this one, one of our contacts confirmed that the bay next to where we’re staying in a part of Rio called Flamengo, is one of the places mentioned in the shitty water stories and he says, “You don’t want that water to even touch your skin.”

So, it seems the media got that one right.

It’s said that travel is one of the best forms of education. I agree and that’s part of the reason I’m taking my family to the Rio Olympics.

However, travel brings with it risks that most classroom education does not: the chance of personal injury. This is especially true in Rio. From the Zika virus to violent daytime muggings (see “Security”) to advanced cyber crime, there are many ways to get hurt in Rio – physically or financially. Add to this, the fact that an African American contact from Brooklyn, now living in Rio, says the treatment and status of blacks in Brazil is worse than in the US, and you’ve got a place where we’ll have to watch our black behinds.

So what does all this have to do with social ed? Well, it turns out that doing what we normally do when we travel internationally – putting our phones in Airplane mode the whole trip to avoid unintentional roaming fees – won’t work in Brazil. Here’s why:


Wazup Whatsapp? We’ve been told the best way to communicate in Rio is with the super popular, free instant messaging app, Whatsapp. We’ve already been using it to get invaluable intel from our contacts there in text, photo, audio and video form.

Desculpa. Nós não falam Português! We don’t speak Portuguese and most Brazilians don’t speak English (in fact, 3/4 of Brazilians are functionally illiterate according to our Rio contact). However, there will be no little phrase book with dog eared pages for us. We’ll use Google Translate! We’ll type in our question then show the translation on our phone to the person we’re asking – or play them the audio if they can’t read. (We’ll have to be as discreet as possible with this as showing our phones off in public is likely to attract banditos).


Ubertouristos – We’re staying a little ways outside Rio because it’s cheaper – and we thought: no problem, we’ll just rent a car. Well, it is a problem. Our contact strongly advised against it saying that, in all the years he’s been in Rio, he’s rented a car twice – and they were two of the most stressful things he has ever done in his life. He told us to use Uber instead. So, Uber it is, right from when we arrive.


To Air is Human – We’ll be using Airb&b for the first time and our phones will be the main way we connect with our hosts, whether it’s with Whatsapp, the Airb&b app, or just regular old email and phone calls.

So, I have one more thing to add to our Brazil “To Buy” list: cell phone covers that make our phones look as ugly as possible.

Today, as I went to Google something, I was met with the Google Doodle below. It honours Emmy Noether who, I learned with one click, “was an influential German mathematician known for her groundbreaking contributions to abstract algebra and theoretical physics.”

Google doodle Emmy Noether.

So like millions of others today, I learned about another great white, European contribution to modern Western society. More broadly, I had the idea that white, Europeans are accomplished and valuable, reinforced.

This got me thinking about the digital divide and how few Doodles, if any, I’ve ever seen about non-white folks.

To check my assumption, I typed a query under Ms. Noether and found I wasn’t the only one thinking about this.

A February 2014, MailOnline article, Are Google’s doodles racist and sexist? discussed the campaign by the women’s group Spark to get Google to diversify its Doodles.

The team analysed Google Doodles from 2010-2013, and found that Google celebrated 445 individuals on its various homepages throughout the world. Nine were women of color, 54 were white women, 82 were men of color, and 275 were white men.

It called for Google to include all races and genders in its Doodles, “demanding that Google make a concerted effort to change such a blatant imbalance.”

“Google Doodles may seem lighthearted, especially when accompanied by quirky games and animation, but in reality they have emerged as a new manifestation of who we value as a society, a sign of who “matters.” Just like statues, stamps, and national holidays, you know that if someone is featured on Google’s homepage, they’ve done something important.”

Now, although I like Spark’s goal, I have a different reason to offer Google why they should take action: because the world needs all the diversity it can get to deal with the challenges facing it. We need people to think broadly about solutions to today’s complex problems. However, if Google reinforces the idea that only people who look like Emmy Noether and Albert Einstein are the sources of valuable insights, they are limiting the abilities of people, including their own employees, to think out of the white box.

I use Hootsuite to manage Twitter because I can create columns that only have the tweets I want to see. This week I created a column with only tweets using the #digitaldivide hashtag. I found some amazing stuff I’d like to share. But first, I’d like to point out that I found all this amazing stuff because people took the time, and had the awareness, to do take one simple, powerful action: tag it (in this case using #digitaldivide). Tagging enables us all to collaborate globally to help organize the ever-increasing volume of information. This is an incredibly important role because it makes it easier for search engines like Google to find stuff. And finding stuff on the net is like finding a needle in a haystack – with one key difference: the haystack grows exponentially each day. So tagging helps makes things findable. However, the flip side – that untagged information is harder to find – is just as important. What affects what gets tagged? Clearly, information that’s more interesting to people inclined to tag will rise to the surface. This raises the questions: who tags content, how many people, how often and what?

Facebook: still a walled garden?

I post most of my content to my blog, Twitter and Facebook but I only tag things in the first two because, as far as I can tell, Google still doesn’t take everything on Facebook into account for its search results. This means that massive amounts of data that are untagged or on Facebook remain buried under the other stuff unless you’re looking really hard – or searching within Facebook.

I told two friends to tag, and they told two friends, and so on and so on… 

We need a global tagging awareness campaign to get more people helping to organize all that content out there. But this raises the question: which tags should you use?

A quick Google search surprisingly (to me at least) didn’t turn up a site that let you search by keyword for popular hashtags associated with a particular subject. If there’s one out there, please let me know about it.

So with that intro out of the way, let me share some of the great stuff I found thanks to some great taggers out there:

A Liter of Light – helps people in developing countries light their homes and save money by teaching them how to make cheap, powerful light bulbs with just chlorine, water and discarded plastic water bottles.

Embrace – provides low cost, baby warmer to mothers in developing countries to help way more babies live to see the light of day – and their mothers’ smiles.

Black Girls Code – teaches black girls in San Francisco the power of coding.

Braille smart phone for blind people – designer and filmmaker, Sumit Dagar, created an amazing phone with a changeable braille surface.

Happy tagging. :-)


I took my first Uber ride last weekend and am now an Uber convert.

My conversion started with the ease with which I installed the Uber app and signed up for the service on my phone while on a bus ride home from Toronto. It continued when the app opened a Google map showing nearby Uber cars, in real time, that looked like a cross between the morning traffic report and Harry Potter’s Marauder’s Map. Next was how easy it was to request a driver and the app giving me his picture, car model/make and license plate to find him outside the bus station. The fact he turned up less than five minutes after I requested a lift was great but that was topped by him telling me my trip was free because I was a first time user.

At the end of the trip he asked me to rate him using the app and told me he would do the same for me. He said if they get three bad ratings Uber kicks them out. In response to my comment about security concerns with Uber, he said that all potential drivers in Canada had to pass a global RCMP, criminal record check. This is backed up by Uber’s site that says their safety system in the US “includes a three-step criminal background screening for the U.S. — with county, federal and multi-state checks that go back as far as the law allows — and ongoing reviews of drivers’ motor vehicle records throughout their time on Uber.”

And that’s just what I liked about my trip.

I admit being biased towards Uber because it’s a disrupter. It’s disrupting the established taxi industry that has needed a shake up for a long time. Uber disrupts the model that has taxi monopolies charging drivers large up front licensing, and monthly, fees regardless of how much money they make (the last cabbie I asked paid the company $800/month). Uber’s barrier to entry is much lower. Uber drivers are self-employed and pay Uber a 20% commission on what they make. (At least this is what I found out from Google. I couldn’t find this info on Uber’s site and got no answer from the normally speedy replying Ottawa Community Manager when I asked).

Uber also has one, very good goal that gets little media attention: being an alternative to owning a car at all. In a June 2014 CNBC article, Uber CEO Travis Kalanick said, “If you can make the economics work so that it’s actually more economical to push a button and get a ride than it is to own a car, then a lot of people are going to do it.” Lastly, Uber is also having another good, probably unintentional, impact. A study co-commissioned by the US branch of Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) and Uber credited the ride dispatching app with helping reduce impaired driving in that country.

With all that goodness, what’s wrong with Uber? Not their marketing. That’s for sure.

When I opened my phone after my ride, I had an email from Uber’s Ottawa Community Manager congratulating me on my first Uber ride and adding:

We’d love for you to help us spread the word about Uber! Below is your custom Uber invite code. Each friend that signs up with your code will receive CA$20 off their first Uber ride. For each person you refer that takes a ride, we’ll add CA$20 in Uber credit to your account. It’s the ultimate Uber win-win, and there’s no limit to how much credit you can earn.

I had already been singing Uber’s praises on Facebook before I got this note so sharing it was a no brainer. What was interesting was the response I got when I did.

One commenter said she didn’t use Uber because, unlike many taxi drivers, Uber drivers aren’t unionized. She said many taxi drivers are racialized immigrants and the union helps protects them. This got me thinking… I said she had a point and shared that my Uber guy was a brown-skinned accountant making extra cash on the side as a self-employed Uber driver. As for taxi drivers being unionized, that seems necessary as 100% of the ones I’ve spoken with don’t have good things to say about the near monopolies they work for. Uber is 5 years old and worth $18.2 billion and I haven’t heard anything about the company abusing the power it has over its self-employed drivers. In fact, when the company cuts fares in January, it guaranteed it wouldn’t affect driver’s salaries. The company has been accused of questionable tactics in its fight against competitor, Lyft, but that’s more of a capitalism problem than an Uber problem. 

The one issue I do have is the confusingly named “Request uberX” button” used to request a ride. After checking Uber’s website I found out that UberX is used to request a regular car while UberBlack gets you a professional chauffeur.

Uber and other disrupters are here to stay so the only real question is: are you coming along for the ride?

[Update: March 7, 2015. For a great Uber critique, see Irene Jansen’s post “Uber Xploitation?“]

One of the many parental lectures I give my kids has to do with defining terms.
(I often think of just giving each of my lectures a number so when the kids are doing something out of line, I can just yell, “Lecture # 59 A!”, but that’s for another post). In this lecture, I tell them communication is a two way street. And I’m not talking just since the advent of fancy, interactive social media. I’m talking since the dawn of time. Communication is two way because it requires a sender and a receiver. And since the sender can’t open his or her head to let the receiver peer in, they have to use the next best thing to get their point across: symbols. Those symbols might be cave drawings or Morse code or smoke signals – or language. The thing is, the symbols aren’t the thing – whether the thing is an idea or a cat. The symbols are a representation of the thing – and everyone can have very different ideas of what the symbols mean. Now, if everyone understood this, things would be better. But the problem is that too many people think everyone has the same idea of what symbols mean and it doesn’t occur to them to question this assumption. This is a particular problem with complex terms like “the digital divide”. If you ask 10 people what it means, you’ll probably get 10 different answers.
So who’s right?
Googling the term yields this definition first:
The Digital Divide is the gulf between those who have ready access to the internet and computers and those who don’t.
Seems simple enough – until you start asking some basic questions:
* What is “ready access”? Does that mean having a smart phone or having access to a computer at your local library?
* What kind of “computers”? Desktops or laptops? PC’s or smart phones? Are video game consoles computers?
* What is “ready access to the internet“? Is that access to private WiFi you or someone else pays for or public access? Is that high speed? Does it mean not having external barriers to access, like not being able to afford internet access or living somewhere where it’s not available, or internal barriers like lack of education?

When you start considering the complexity it becomes clear that the term “digital divide” may be too black and white. It’s more like a digital spectrum – or spectrums – with different groups,  or members, falling somewhere along them. For example, ask most North Americans which side of the digital divide Africa is on and 99% will say “the wrong side”. Yet Africa has one of the highest rates of mobile penetration in the world – and growing.
Or ask kids from the West Bank, brought up on images of the wired West, what side the US is on and they’re bound to say “the right side”. Yet kids in inner city schools struggle along with 10-year old desktops while kids in rich ones are downloading the latest iPad app.

We need to talk about digital spectrums and get more people closer to the good end of more of them. Our future on this planet depends on it.