Tribes and Bridges

I don’t have many triggers, and I’m rarely offended. Scratch that: I have many triggers and I’m constantly offended. But, I have realized that these triggers all come from the same type of offense: tribal mentality.

The "me vs them" philosophy where every group is on an island and because they are not with us, they are against us. It exasperates me to no end when a black-or-white way of thinking forces people into rounding up or down their own ideology to whatever fits into their overly simplistic, divisive nature.

A prime example, and the reason I’m writing this now, is the US election. Now that it is over, a half of their population is befuddled while the other is celebrating.

I’ll try to make sense of both sides, and to do this I’d like you to meet David Wong. He, among other things, is the executive editor for Cracked. I normally don’t care much for the website outside of its humor, but two of his pieces really caught my eye. Especially since he presents the case for both sides, beautifully. He’s definitely in my "favorite authors” list just for this.

So let’s begin. I’ll start with the left’s side: socially liberal, economy federally-controlling,, progressive, etc. As of this writing, the left is bordering on depression, thinking “I thought we were better than this.” Its main problem towards Trump is he’s bigoted, racist, sexist, xenophobic, homophobic, etc.

David has made their case quite clearly of why racism and discrimination in general is still a thing, even having elected a black president and legalizing same-sex marriage. Yes, a white heterosexual male may not have ever discriminated against a black person, may never have diminished the opinion of a female or treated her as anything else than a human being, and may have never thought less or treated badly anybody based on their sexuality. Why is he still labeled as being privileged?

Because, as David points out, we can’t consider ourselves as just a group of individuals living in the present. We are a community that interacts with one another, and the reason that I’m here, writing this, in the present, is because of all the persons that have come before me. Yes, I don’t own a slave. Yes, I treat my wife with the utmost respect and with the love she deserves. Yes, I don’t discriminate. That doesn’t mean that I’m not reaping the rewards of the hideous things my ancestors have done to get me where I am right now.

If I walk down the street at night, I do feel fear of what could happen to me. But that’s nothing in comparison to what a woman feels in those circumstances. My fear is based on being mugged. Her fear is based on being raped. Big. Fucking. Difference.

The reason why I have the wonderful job that I have right now is, in great part, for the hard work that I’ve done over the years. Work that was of better quality than others and, thus, I could say that I earned this job through my own merits. But, another great part of the reason I got it is because I was fortunate enough to have parents that supported me financially to get the education I needed to let my hard work flourish. And my parents were fortunate enough to have parents that sacrificed themselves to provide a better life than they had. I stand in the shoulder of giants; I’m part of the history that is currently unfolding. To believe that I’ve done everything on my own and that I owe nothing to anybody, is being oblivious to reality. To this effect, to think that I’m not privileged over somebody because I have it the same as them because of equality of opportunity is the same as thinking that I was born out of nothing. There’s precedence; none of us have it the same.

However, there has been a misunderstanding when this point comes up: “being blamed for something” is very different as “being responsible to fix it”. Yes, I did not provoke the dreadful economic circumstances, as well as the social conflicts, that resulted in the social-economic differences between ethnicities and genders. Yes, I cannot be blamed for the sins of my forefathers. But, we are a group, and we are ALL responsible to fix this, including me. And since I am in a position of privilege, like it or not, I have more power to do something about it.

So, yeah, racism, sexism, homophobia, and their respective discrimination are still there. They may be there at a much lesser degree than centuries ago, than decades ago, but they are still there, and something must be done about it: if you know somebody doesn’t like an specific word, avoid it in their presence, but also talk about why is that word offensive; if you know women don’t feel safe in an environment, get in there and see what you can do to make it feel safer; if you see a person being left out of a group gathering, go talk to that person. Things like these may produce better circumstances for the person that are going to stand in our shoulders.

[Take a breath.]

Ok... time for the right’s side: social and fiscal conservative, market-dependent economy, etc. Right now they’re celebrating, but how? What is it that turned them on to that creep?

David made their case in another piece. Lets get something out of the way first: I am in no way condoning the words and feelings that Trump has stated; and in no way am I saying that people that agree with him in those terms do not exist. They do, unfortunately, and it’s sickening. The reports these past few days of the repulsive things carried out by that fraction of the population that has now decided to come out of their racist, xenophobic closet have been nothing short of horrifying.

However, it is arguably similar to how to some members of the black community reacted towards white folks when Obama was elected: “Now you sit in the back of the bus”, “Guess what cracker? I can kill you and nobody can stop me”, etc. The defense back then is the same as now: yes, these people do exist and they do this because of they live in their own fucked-up version of the world, but this was not the reason why the majority voted for him. In fact, many of the defenses I’ve heard from Trump supporters have been mostly in disagreement of his offenses, but that they’re willing to overlook them in the face of what he symbolizes for them: an outsider.

In this moment I want to remind you of what I mentioned in the left’s side of the argument: it is up to ALL of us to fix this. What is there to fix in this mostly white mentality? That, right there: being white is normally considered being privileged, however, in all of my leftist argument I never mentioned that I was privileged for being white. I’m Mexican, I’m brown as fuck. But I’m privileged in relation to others in my country. The mentality that just because somebody is white they can be automatically labeled as privileged, is just as ignorant as not acknowledging one’s own privilege.

Privilege is a complex thing. Yes, race has a lot to do with it (specially in the USA), but it also depends on where you live, who your parents were and how they were economically, access to healthcare and education, social stigmas, etc. Rounding it down to just “being white” is by definition being racist.

Many of the persons that voted for Trump live in small rural towns that are normally ignored by left-leaning governments. And when I say “ignored”, I mean given the economical middle finger... repeatedly. Manufacturing jobs are the soul of their economy, which are shipped internationally without hesitation by progressives. And, worse yet, these jobs are of companies controlled by corporations which, in turn, lobby the hell out of the government. When this is done time and time again, from both sides of the aisle, it presents a picture of the established government as not caring about them at all.

But here comes Trump, a person that presumes to not have those ties. “He doesn’t have any political experience” is a selling point. “Y’all can go fuck yourselves and shove your political correctness up your ass” is a battle cry. He gave them the opportunity for them to point out to the left their own hypocrisy: a group of people that has been tortured by censorship is now censoring people. When the left has this list of words we can’t say, I can’t help feel reminded of George Carlin's “10 words you can’t say on the radio” bit which ridiculed the right for doing exactly the same thing.

However, saying things out of comic relief, and actually meaning them is two very different things. To this effect, I turn to what David Wong wrote, since I can’t put it better myself:

"But Trump is objectively a piece of shit!" you say. "He insults people, he objectifies women, and cheats whenever possible! And he's not an everyman; he's a smarmy, arrogant billionaire!” Wait, are you talking about Donald Trump or Tony Stark?"

David goes on with the analogy with Dr. House and Walter White. Yes, they’re fictitious, but his point is still correct. An asshole is less of an asshole if he’s on my side… if he’s on my tribe. Hell, bring in the real-life left-leaning millionaire talk show hosts that are really offensive to the right (bashing on religion, fat-shaming conservative politicians, calling Sarah Palin a bitch, etc.), but the left doesn’t care: they are hitmen doing wet work for their side. A clear example that comes to mind is Bill Maher: he reeks of islamophobia but he still has a job (even after his 9/11 debacle) because his followers choose to ignore that about him. Or, as Wong remind me, David Letterman’s sex scandals: I love the guy and I had completely forgotten about them. Why? Because I agree with him politically. In fact, I remember pretty clearly the left rolling their eyes every time “Lewinsky” was uttered during the Clinton years. I rolled my eyes with them because in that moment I mostly cared that he was taking the US in what I thought was the right path for both the US and Mexico (big selling point for me).

So that is what Trump is for these rural white Americans: a savior in dire economic circumstances, packaged in an orange bigoted box with a sexist bow. But mainly, they have labelled him as their savior, because (to paraphrase David Wong) they believe: he doesn’t care about the rules, he is the one who will get shit done.

[I hope you’re all still with me.]

Blanket labelling all the persons that voted for Trump as racist and sexist is being as discriminatory and ignorant as a person that does not acknowledge their own privilege. The left has repeatedly asked the right to understand their plight, to walk a mile in their shoes, and understand the hurt and emotional turmoil history has brought upon them. Its time for the left to teach by example.

This is not a black-and-white world. Rounding up or down is too simplistic for a species that came out of the caves millennia ago. We have no need for tribes anymore. We are not our own enemy. To be tolerant of intolerance is the first step in getting rid of it because it forms the foundation of the bridges between our islands.

Be the better human being and reach out for understanding even if its difficult. Be a better human being. Be like David Wong… (hahaha, sorry, couldn’t help myself).

PS. Thanks to Cin Ceja for posting one of David Wong's articles on her feed. I hadn’t read him until now, and it was the seed for this entire post.


It’s been a while, I know. This type of absence is perfect evidence of the turmoil that has become my mind since last we spoke. But, frankly, I don’t want you to think I’m apologizing, I’m just acknowledging, and that’s a damn good first step.

I’m even struggling to write something right now, even though I do this all the time for work. And this struggle is unfortunate, since: first, it is rooted in me not wanting to fall in the typical, cliché blog post about anxiety; and, second, I’m still caring about your opinion, a typical, cliché collateral feeling of anxiety. Meaning that I’m still not there yet, and I’m beginning to feel that I never will.

Don’t get me wrong, this is not a post about me putting up a white flag and surrendering. This is not me giving up on getting better. On the contrary, this is me realizing something that I enjoy seeing somebody else realizing in literary fiction and have always thought of not needing to realize it myself: the concept of peace.

I’m not talking about the fantasy concept of peace that aims to have everything rosy and fine (ugh, how I loathe that word) between two enemies "just because". I’m talking about the realistic concept of peace in which both enemies approach each other and, even though they disagree with each other, have come to terms with the fact that they need each other to survive, so they might as well share the world in peace. They have come to realize that the destruction of one, is the destruction of both.

Anxiety, for me, is a monster that is lurking under my bed, whispering endless thoughts of self-disappointment, what-could-have-been’s, and what-can-happen’s. It’s despicable, disgusting, and tempting to destroy.

But... I can’t live without it. I couldn’t have lived without it. Those thoughts come with a sensational collateral plus: they make me better at what I do. The what-could-have-been’s are lessons to be learned; the what-can-happen’s are plans to be carried out and designed to avoid future what-could-have-been’s; and self-disappointment is a good incentive for avoiding them.

I want peace with it, the realistic one. I want to reach down under my bed and offer it cake, because we need each other to survive, so we might as well share it in the process. And I know this is a long haul; I’m not here stating that I’m okay. I’m here saying that I may never be and that I’m starting to be okay with that. That monster is me and it wants to be loved as much as I do. To want to destroy it is to want to destroy me. To avoid having those thoughts or feeling down when I do have them, is like I’m apologizing to myself for being me.

I’m not here to apologize to myself for what I am, I’m just acknowledging myself, and that’s a damn good first step.

Righty Tighty, Lefty Loosey

Recently, a study was published that provided a link between right-wing ideology and cognitive ability. Actually, it provided a negative link, meaning: if a kid is showing signs of low intelligence, there is a high chance he'll adopt prejudicial attitudes later in life. The authors tested this theory with two highly representative data sets of decades-long sessions of sampling. There's little I could argue over their methodology. You can find the full study here:

However, what I could argue is that this study is being misrepresented, and that what is thought of as being "right-wing" is usually wrong. And I do this because I've seen this study being used in social media as a flag-pole sign of how Democrats and members of the PRD-Morena Mexican parties are smarter than Republicans and well, whoever is not a member of PRD-Morena (PRI and PAN basically). It tickles me how this study, which shows prejudice as a sign of low intelligence, is used to prejudice people by other people thinking that they are being smart by doing so.

First off, the authors themselves state (note 1, page 193) that "We focused on social-cultural conservatism rather than economic conservatism, given that the former is more clearly related to prejudice (Jost et al., 2003; Van Hiel et al., 2010)." And what they mean by "right-wing ideology" is one that is "characterized by resistance to change and the promotion of intergroup inequalities" (page 188). This means, that they are not linking to any right-wing economic ideologies or political ones, only social ones. When framed like this, the study actually provides a pretty obvious conclusion: idiots like things to not change. Meaning: prejudice implies an absence of intent to grow intellectually (usually provided by greater diversity of opinions) which is itself a strong sign of a low cognitive ability. So, yeah, duh.

Every time I talk to a person that is against homosexuality or a minority coming in and taking his job, they rarely provide a logical, well-thought out argument. It's usually more of a sentimental one; one that comes from the gut, instead of the head. And I get it. These topics are usually ones that are too close to their feelings/identity: homophobes are such usually because of their parents teachings, so being fine with homosexuality is a slap in the face to their ancestors; nobody is born racist, but our brain is very good in fooling itself in finding patterns where there aren't any, and seeing a couple black muggers or Hispanic gangs is enough for prejudice to set in, specially when they live next to you.

However, I find it disappointingly ironic that while waiving this study as a flag against prejudice, they are in fact acting on a prejudice: right-wingers are dumb and left-wingers are smart. And they're doing so with an incomplete understanding of what being "right-wing" or "left-wing" means.

Being "right-wing" or "left-wing" is a many-sided dice, with different meanings depending on the context. Yes, socially speaking, "right-wingers" are usually those that are uncomfortable with change and, thus, discourage minority acceptance. However, economically speaking, a "right-winger" prefers the free market to provide solutions to problems, instead of having a centralized institution that regulates and oversees everything, such as the government, the preferred tool for good of the "left-winger". Politically speaking, the "right-winger" prefers a small government, charging few taxes, and letting the communities decide the solutions to their local problems, while the "left-winger" sees taxes as kind of social service, in which one nation implies one community, all governed by the same laws. Both have their pros and cons, but both have great minds behind them, which have been discussing for decades, even centuries. If one side was dumber than the other, shouldn't it have already won this economic/political argument?

In fact, I would submit that many of the economic/political philosophies of the "left-wing" PRD-Morena parties here in Mexico tend to be "right-wing": local indigenous communities with their own set of laws, lower taxes, and a small government with a small amount of power.

I would also submit that this study was used by a few, just a few "left-wingers" who liked being called smart by comparison, since it played right into their prejudicial mindset of "right-wingers" being homophobic, racist idiots. This wasn't about being smart or dumb, it was an us-versus-them issue. It wouldn't have mattered if the study would've concluded the opposite, I'm sure there would have been a few, just a few "right-wingers" using it to pour more gasoline into the flames of rivalry.

The irony is that I'm sure this few, just a few "left-wingers" didn't realize that they are part of a tribal battle in which it doesn't matter if you are right or not, you root for your team, and you boo everybody else. They didn't realize that they were behaving in the same manner the other side behaves for which they deservedly criticize them for. And, sadly, they didn't realize that by doing so, they were recursively casting themselves as dumb.

Reasoning with Bombs

He walked into the room. Both men were sitting, tied to their chairs, staring down each other. He sat down with both of them, glad that he taped shut their mouths. Religious army-types without guns talk as if their lives depend on it, even more so when it comes to justifying their actions.

In a brief flash, he realized that just having them both in the same room was an impressive feat in and of itself. Then he remembered the manner in which that meeting was arranged: violence may not be the best method, and shouldn’t be the first choice, but it always gets the job done. He reassured himself that he tried all the other peaceful, diplomatic alternatives, but these two almost seemed to like killing each other, and there’s no negotiating with that.

He looked down and took a deep breath:

“You may be wondering how you got here, but I won’t go into details. And, because I’ve been following you for a long while now, I know you, and I know what you’re thinking. So let me get a couple of points off my chest before we get started:”

“First, let me assure you that you are going to get out of this alive, so relax. In fact, it is imperative that both of you stay alive for both your sakes, but more on that in a minute.”

“Second, strip from yourselves the belief of superiority over me. You’re sitting right now where you are because of me and nobody right now suspects you’re missing, and they won’t for a couple of hours, so sit tight.”

“And, thirdly, you don’t know me; I’ve gone to great lengths to ensure that. Don't waste your precious amount of focus in planning how to get back at me. Even if it doesn't look it, my intent here is to help.”

A deep stare right in the middle of the room seems to jump over his guests philosophical division.

“So, lets start with the obvious topic: why are you here? And the answer is that I’m sick of your war. I'm sick of the death toll. And I’m specially sick of seeing people around the world needing to choose a side and justify your actions and follies, as if it were a bloody football match.”

“Your fight is not even new. All your rhetoric, your whining, and your misguided words of condemnation of the other side is not even original. They’re your ancestors’ words. You’re both historical pawns, and you’re pathetically proud of it. So, get this through your thick, reactionary skulls: I don’t care why you think you are correct. You are both wrong. Period.”

“What I do care about is that right now, at this moment, you’re both acting like petulant 5-year-olds, pointing to their mummies that the other one started it. Petulant little kids with bombs.”

“Never mind the deaths you both have caused in both sides. Never mind the idiotic interpretations you’ve made of your corresponding sacred texts to justify them. Never mind the never-ending spin, misinformation tactics, and baffling hypocrisy you’ve both employed to gain international support. Stupidities like spreading propaganda that condemns the spread of propaganda, being proud of having the ‘most humane army’, or blaming the other side of ‘war crimes’. Never mind that you are ignoring a very important fact: all wars are crimes.”

“Never mind any of that. The most infuriating part of all of this is that your own history, your own philosophies, your own religions, are holding the answer to all of this. It was right in front you and you have missed it all this time: YOU ARE THE SAME.”

“Both of you have felt the lives of being refugees. Both of you have religions that state, very clearly, that you should not murder. Both of you have solidified what really means to treat your neighbor as brother, and that family is everything. Both of you have struggled in exactly the same way.”

“The problem is that, you’re carrying too much generational baggage, and you actually believe it matters. It doesn’t. It really, really doesn’t. What does matter is that the more you shout at, and bomb, and kill people on the other side, the more weight you’re adding to what your children will need to carry. The course you both have chosen to walk together will only end until both of you kill each other.”

Shouting at both of them, spilling his soul onto the table.

“For the love of Jehovah and Allah, and for the sake of your children, just, please, stop!”

He stops briefly to gain his composure. A deep sigh of resignation softly exits his body. He nods, and continues.

“I would love to believe that this speech would be enough. But, like I said, I know you, and I know it won’t. There are no words to change the way you think, and that’s what makes all of this so difficult for me. Because you yourselves are like bombs.”

“Bombs that are fuelled by a deadly combination of pride, prejudice, stubbornness, and arrogance, with a short fuse that is always lighted time and time again by a misplaced sense of ancestral entitlement. You can’t talk to a bomb, you can’t reason with it, the only thing that is left to do with a bomb is to... to...”

His pause seemed infinite. He can’t finish that sentence. It’s too cruel. He bites his lip. He needs to continue.

“You see, the more you insist that the other should be obliterated, the more I wish that both of you were obliterated.”

His voice starts to crack. 

“And may God forgive me for saying this, but I’m right now wishing you both didn’t exist, because, well, simply, you are tearing away my faith in God.”

Standing up, fighting the urge to weep at what he was about to say:

“Because if God was truly infallible, He wouldn’t have created you. Any of you.”

Both stare at him, wide-eyed. Their eyes are filled with judgement of sacrilege.

“You are open books to me, and you don’t get to judge me. You are a couple of so called God’s Soldiers that are just following orders from petulant men. You, your existence, is the true blasphemy here. And, since neither of you are able to see that, you have convinced me that you are not worthy of doing God’s work. At least not the way you’re behaving right now.”

“A friend once told me that if you see something wrong with the world, it’s actually God telling you to fix it. So here’s my fix:”

He brings into view two brain scans. Both brain scans appear to not be of the same person, but both have a small dark section right in their cross-section. He hands one to one man, and hands another to the other.

“These are your brains, and I have arranged to put, inside each of them, a small warhead with the destructive power of a hand grenade. They are armed, and the firing mechanism is being fed by your own life support. Meaning, if you die, your head will blow up. However, both of these mechanisms are linked: if one blows up, so will the other.”

Both men look at each other, with stares of bafflement and shock.

“You have been living under the assumption that the world would be better off without the other. I’m taking that option away from you.”

He takes the tapes off of their mouths and unties them off their seats.

“Now you need to go and live your lives with the knowledge that for one to live, so does the other. Coincidentally, this was the truth all along. I hope unifying that truth with your favorite toy, helps it sink in.”

Shaken but satisfied, he steps back into the shadows while a door opens on the other side of the room, letting sunlight in. He does not witness that, at least for a moment, both men keep sitting down while their stares change, from a sense of mutual hatred, to something else.

“He said we still have a couple of hours.”

“Yeah. Lets talk.”

“We need some aspirin. My head is killing me.”

“Mine too.”

Two small, almost unidentifiable chuckles were carried outside the room by the dry wind of the Mediterranean Sea.


El PDF de donde me basé:

1) Página 29, en la sección de Neutralidad de las Redes:

“Para asegurar que estos beneficios se hagan una realidad, se requiere garantizar que los usuarios de los servicios puedan acceder a cualquier contenido, aplicación o servicio ofrecido por el concesionario de su red o por otros. En este orden de ideas, en la presente iniciativa se considera que LOS CONCESARIONARIOS NO DEBEN LIMITAR, DEGRADAR, RESTRINGIR O DISCRIMINAR EL ACCESO A CUALQUIER SERVICIO, sea provisto e su red o en otras, NI LIMITAR EL DERECHO DE LOS USUARIOS DEL SERVICIO DE INTERNET a incorporar o utilizar cualquier clase de instrumentos, dispositivos o aparatos que se conecten a su red, salvo que medie orden de autoridad competente por la existencia de algún ilícito o infracción administrativa o el propio usuario solicite la restricción.”

La parte de “salvo que medie orden de autoridad competente por la existencia de algún ilícito” es el estándar de seguridad a nivel internacional (en casos de pornografía infantil, hack ilegales, etc.). Y la “orden de autoridad” es básicamente una orden de cateo como parte de un caso legal. No lo pueden hacer cuando se les pegue la gana por razones comerciales, lo cual lo reafirman en la página 140, artículo 141:

"Los concesionarios con participación pública deberán sujetarse a principios de neutralidad a la competencia cuando sus fines sean comerciales."

2) Página 141, artículo 145, fracción II:

"Privacidad. Deberán preservar la privacidad de los usuarios y la seguridad de la red. Podrán bloquear el acceso a determinados contenidos, aplicaciones o servicios A PETICIÓN EXPRESA DEL USUARIO, cuando media orden de autoridad o sean contrarios a alguna normatividad."

Este artículo sólo habla de la privacidad de la información del usuario, no de servicios comerciales. Lo cual se reafirma en la página 142, artículo 146:

"Los concesionarios y los autorizados que presten el servicio de acceso a internet podrán hacer ofertas según las necesidades de los segmentos de mercado y clientes, DIFERENCIANDO ENTRE NIVELES DE CAPACIDAD, VELOCIDAD O CALIDAD."

Lo único que pueden diferenciar es en la calidad de conexión, que ya lo hacen con los paquetes de velocidad 5 MBs, 10 MBs, etc.

3) Lo único que veo extraño es en la página 158, artículo 197, fracción VII:

"Bloquear, inhibir, o anular de manera temporal las señales de telecomunicaciones en EVENTOS Y LUGARES CRÍTICOS PARA LA SEGURIDAD PÚBLICA Y NACIONAL a solicitud de las autoridades competentes."

Aquí la definición de “seguridad pública y nacional” no está bien definida. Según el Centro de Investigación y Seguridad Nacional (CISEN), y la Ley de Seguridad Nacional, define “seguridad nacional” como:

Las acciones destinadas de manera inmediata y directa a mantener la integridad, estabilidad y permanencia del Estado Mexicano que conlleven a:

a) Proteger al país frente a riesgos y amenazas.
b) Preservar la soberanía, independencia, territorio y la unidad de la federación.
c) Mantener el orden constitucional y fortalecer las instituciones democráticas de gobierno.
d) Defender al país frente a otros Estados o sujetos de derecho internacional.
Preservar el régimen democrático fundado en el desarrollo social, económico y político.

Esto me suena a problemas mayormente internacionales, a excepción del punto C, que podría interpretarse como problemas internos.

La CISEN expresa como parte de las amenazas las siguientes actividades:

“Espionaje, sabotaje, terrorismo (incluyendo actividades de financiamiento), REBELION, traición a la patria, genocidio, tráfico ilegal de materiales nucleares, de armas químicas, biológicas y convencionales de destrucción masiva, y actos en contra de la seguridad de la aviación y la navegación marítima.”

Por lo tanto, vale, este último punto si tiene mérito explorar y proponer una modificación al artículo 197, fracción VII a algo como:

“Bloquear, inhibir, o anular de manera temporal las señales de telecomunicaciones en EVENTOS Y LUGARES CRÍTICOS PARA LA SEGURIDAD PÚBLICA Y NACIONAL a solicitud de las autoridades competentes, sólo en casos de amenaza internacional y nunca en casos que inhiban al derecho a la protesta social.”

Si esto es lo que se quiere protestar, me uno, mientras que no estén protestando por algo que no está ahí: siento que las campañas en las redes sociales tienen que realmente leer la reforma y no brincar automáticamente al lado negativo sólo porque viene del gobierno. Ni siquiera Estados Unidos tiene considerado poner Neutralidad de la Red como parte de sus leyes, cuando esta reforma esta explícitamente haciéndolo.