More is actually more, not less

Almost 2500 years ago a phenomenon in the world happened in Athens, Greece.  The people of Athens decided that they wanted all the men in the town to participate in their own governance.   It was called, in English, a democracy, or a government by its populace.  It didn't last long in historical terms.  Rome decimated it a couple of hundred years later.  It would be 2000 years before that idea would resurface in the United States.  Attempts were made along the way like the government formed by the two tribes of the Angles and Saxons in England when they stopped feuding, and in 1215 when the Magna Carta was signed.  Whenever attempts were made in the world, people after that were better off.

Two popular books in 20th century America have chronicled what a nation is like when information is suppressed.  In both Fahrenheit 451 and Brave New World, books with the world's knowledge are no longer wanted or needed and have been burned.  Oppression of many people in these two books is apparent.  The point of the books is that whenever information is not freely available to people, they suffer at the hands of someone who is not a benefactor.

The Spanish Inquisition is a time in Medieval Europe noted for its extreme persecution of knowledge/information.  It is not a pretty period in history.  China, too, devolved into chaos at two times in their history between two strong empires in which knowledge had flourished.  So, the idea that information needs to be accessible to as many people as possible should be something the people of the world understand very well.  A great principle from history is that people's judgment is only as good as their information.

So, why is it still an anomaly when Zuckerberg declares that he wants his employees to have access to as much information as possible?  Below is Zuckerberg's guideline for his employees and new investors.  It's an anomaly.  

Be Open  

We believe that a more open world is a better world because people with more information can make better decisions and have a greater impact. That goes for running our company as well. We work hard to make sure everyone at Facebook has access to as much information as possible about every part of the company so they can make the best decisions and have the greatest impact.

A question is begged here.  Why is it, then, since history points out that good happens with information and bad happens in its absence, that oppression of information is still the order of the day?  All one has to do is to look to the system in place that keeps the nation's children from ages 6-18.  That system says to its children, "Here is what you need to know this year, and next year, and next, etc... This is how you do what you need to know.  Don't step out of established territory.  Sit down, shut up, look busy, turn in work, and we'll reward you for it."  It's the greatest straight-jacket approach around. No graduate school in the country is run this way.  And why not?  Because they know that a person has to try out information in experiments or in the field, gathering facts and coming to reasonable conclusions.  Heaven forbid that that method should be for graduate students only.  Kids 6 years old understand the beauty of the scientific method.  They know that this method is how knowledge is gathered. They would love to experiment and do field work to see how to distill and apply principles in all their subjects.  And how much would children learn if they knew how to discover and apply school content, then apply the principles to the interests they love so much?  Go Zuckerberg!  Access to information would lead to so much more in your industry and everywhere else you look just like your letter states. However, children also know that the current system doesn't really want them to discover and apply, performing at a level above mediocrity.  It is a system that encourages average (even their grading system uses this method) and following the path of least resistance.

  

The kids today are the children of the information age.  Denying access to information is to kill them, disadvantage them, force them onto an uneven playing field.  How many computers are in a classroom today? One for every ten kids?  And what happens if a student brings her/his own computer to class?  Can (s)he use it?  Of course not.  It would put the other children at a disadvantage  EXACTLY! So, conventional wisdom is to handicap all instead of applauding someone who might get a quantum leap ahead and perform well.  That person might think for herself/himself.  NO, No, no what a stir that would cause.  The current method of keeping a whole lot of people from flourishing is to deny them knowledge/information.  It's really the Spanish Inquisition with a palatable name so as not to make its taste too bitter.

Mark Zuckerberg, where are you finding people to work in your company?  They have to be few and far between!