This "Access Denied" message that usually occurs when attempting to access a file or folder without proper permissions is as mundane as a red light.
Between being annoyed or frustrated, I'd say that most people experience a flash of irritation until a resolution is found or one doesn't just bother about it anymore and moves on to something else.
Like a blip, it disappears into the background noise of daily digital friction.
But if one really wants to be granted access to whatever may be on the other side by some form of necessity, then prepare to expend time and effort finding workarounds.
What decides which route is taken on any given encounter with these barriers?
Of course, generally curious people will fall into the latter category without any form of necessity on their part.
For me, it's the process of troubleshooting what the problem may be and eventually finding a solution or not that's far more interesting than whatever may be on the other side of that locked door.
On a broader sense, being denied access from certain opportunities because one doesn't meet certain criteria is less interesting as a process to solve and much more frustrating to experience in real time.
Part of the frustration, at least for me, is framing it in a way that someone, somewhere, decided what I can and cannot reach.
Like some shadow entity designed these systems with parameters that decides who gets in, who stays out, and sometimes also, who never even knows the door exists.
It's trivial on further thought about this framing despite elements of truth potentially being present in it. Also, it's more nuanced than playing victim on my part and villain on the designer of these systems. What if it's for my own good?
Protective barriers and exploitative gatekeeping can look identical from the outside.
Lack of knowledge isn't always the real barrier, and since both concentrate power in the hands of those who control access, assuming good intentions becomes difficult.
I think ballpark as a general rule, the difference could be found in intent and outcome and those aren't always visible to the person standing outside the gate. Tough call to make from the outside looking in.
What makes access criteria legitimate versus arbitrary? Is it legitimate that certain jobs require specific degrees, or is that just credentialism protecting existing power structures?
When financial institutions deny access to certain investment vehicles for "unaccredited investors," is that paternalism or protection?
In a nuance world, both can be true. I would love to believe the gatekeepers always have our best interests at heart, but experience says otherwise though.
Intention doesn't entirely dictate outcomes. There are other variables at play, always.
Arguably, people who encounter barriers and think "I wonder what's behind that" rather than "I need what's behind that" are often the people who eventually redesign the systems via knowing through trial and error where the gates are, how they work, and crucially, why they might be unnecessary, poorly designed, or ripe for disruption.
Inherently, I don't think curiousity is bad but it's not favoured by systems that benefit from compliance.
Against the opportunities that aren't available to us based on matters of criteria, one may need to build alternative paths.
Or better yet, just create your own door.
Thanks for reading!! Share your thoughts below on the comments.
