Categories
Non classé

Funding tech outside the shadow of the #deathcult

The is a compleat lack of funding for the community (non #mainstreaming) side of tech, I have put in more than ten funding applications over the last few years to all the openweb funding flows.

And the answer, if the is one, is always the same, some of the replies:

” This kind of effort is very hard to seek grants for – which holds for the vast majority of
FOSS efforts, to be sure, but for things this high up in the stack even
*more.” *

“I don’t have an obvious candidate for you to go to either”

The issue is that this is actually a LIE, the funders do fund the subjects we are applying for, just they ONLY fund the shadow of the #deathcult because they do not understand anything outside this. Or if they do understand, they are to afried of their funding flows drying up if they did fund anything outside this shadow.

“What the times are and how they are changing is different from every perspective. And so is utility. Not every project can be equally successful from everyone’s point of view. From our vantage point the process we deliver seems to work better than the vast majority of other processes (there are many tens of billions spent less frugality and with no impact at all within the same EC frameworks, I’m sure you’ll agree). Future history will have to prove the approach right or wrong,”

So good advice is nice, change challenge is better, ideas please for change challenge of this funding mess.

Or this openweb reboot is going to be absorbed by the #mainstreaming, not a bad thing, but it’s NOT the project meany of have been working on #KISS

“Obviously, we are always eager to haul in new projects – so do send projects you deem worthy our way.”

Ten funding applications latter, it’s a problem, I think we need both being nice and not being nice, and we need these together to break this LIE in funding. On https://socialhub.activitypub.rocks/ we have fucked this path over the last few years – the spiky fluffy debate has not been respected. This holding the “debate” in place is the secret of all working/affective activism, hint, hint. And we are doing activism in this openweb reboot, I understand the majority of people like to deny this, but this denying makes these people prats and the problem not the solution

#KISS ps. there is the word “stupid” in this hashtag, in this am not calling any individual stupid so please don’t take this as pointing at YOU personally I am talking about social groups, stupid #mainstreaming fearful groups.

#NLnet #NGI #ngizero #summerofprotocols #investinopen #RIPENCC
Categories
Non classé

Revisiting the ActivityPub foundation idea

There are a few views on this, the “common sense” #NGO path, an example Presenting Fedi Foundation: Empowerment for SocialHub community 1

And the more “nativist” openweb path What would a fediverse “governance” body look like?

And then we have the #geekproblem path, which has been pushing the fep process the last 2 years, but I think they are avoiding the politics of actually touching this issue. Fair enough.

If the “native” openweb crew don’t move past their frackterd “left” mess issues then I think in the end the #NGO path will be imposed, It’s simply what happens, the is a long history to this.

The argument between structure and lack of structure is often a strawman. For example, the ogb project, that came out of the #EU outreach has a lot of structure Open-Media-Network/openwebgovernancebody: ON STANDBY due to waiting for funding – (OGB) This is a space for working through Governance of horizontal projects – using #KISS online tools. – openwebgovernancebody – Open Media Network BUT it is “nativist” rather than the hard structure that #NGO “foundation” people think of structure, it’s interesting when people can’t see this, it’s a kind of blindness, hard subject to talk.

Obviously anything that works has lots of structure, the more important question is about the visibility and “native” democracy of this structure. This is a hard argument/talk to have, and we do keep failing on this, what to do? Ideas please.

——————————–

It’s interesting that formal coops almost never work in reality, if they do work they tend to become shadows of the #deathcult

In contrast, activist agonising works, often badly. But over all, activist organising is more successful at being an Alt than formal coops, there is a long unspoken history to back this up.

BUT our #mainstreaming always talks about formal coops, if they talk about alts at all, because they can ONLY see this shadow of the #deathcult

Activist organising is always fighting the #deathcult, so it rarely functions as this shadow. The #NGO world is always this shadow.

OK I admit with the right/left mess, this is more of a mess to be composted.

————————————–

Current examples in the UK would be the coop supermarket, which got Tesco people in to make it profitable and has soviet design sense and staffing. And the coop bank, which is so bureaucratic as to be pretty much unusable. we have banked with them a number of times. On the positive side you had the co-op hollfood shops in the 1970’s which metamorphosed into the much less good health shops in the 1990’s. Just to touch on a few. Housing coops have an interesting history, quite a few stories to tell on these.

Don’t take me wrong, i like coops, but I don’t like #fahernistas pushing them over things where we other forms of organising will likely work better. Diversity is good, just don’t dogmatically push crap that then needs to be composted, we have enough shit to shovel without this thanks.

Categories
Non classé

Rebooting the #openweb

Most people are parasites in our current #mainstreaming society, this is non contrivsal view in the era of the #deathcult

Examples:

Lets look for a moment at our tech world, if we are generous 90% of people on the #openweb are parasite on this culture and tech space.

Maybe 9% are “native” but could do better and the native 1% left are fractured. You can use a social tool like the to make this visible with little effort if you care.

This space is made of social tech, and at its core is culture, people and community.

If you are not genuse, its more like 99% and fractions of the 1% left over. Lets be truthful and try and bump this up to the genuruse view please.

Categories
Non classé

A term the liberals can understand, in this it is limited to a narrow point of view

#enshittification is a pop term for a social/tech problem

I have been using the #dotcons for the last 20 years to express the same idea.

The whole 30-year tech ecosystem is designed to CON you (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scam) for profit #dotcom (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot-com_company)

They inclosed the #openweb and we (our liberals) went along with this mess.

And with “#enshittification” they are still going along with this mess.

A critique of the term “#enshittification“

* Obscuring Responsibility: The critique, using terms like “enshittification” obscures the true root causes of the issue. Instead of attributing problems solely to a general decline in quality, the focus should be on identifying specific actors and factors responsible for this decline.

* Profit Motive and Diverging Interests: The critique argues that behind the concept of “enshittification” lies the profit motive inherent in capitalist systems. There’s a divergence of interests between product users (consumers) and product owners (corporations), where decisions are driven by maximizing profits rather than improving user experiences.

* Lack of Accountability: By simplifying issues like “enshittification,” there’s a risk of absolving those responsible for making harmful decisions. The critique should emphasize the need to hold accountable the individuals and entities that prioritize profit over societal well-being.

* Liberal Perspective and Tech Ecosystem: The discussion needs to extend to the role of liberalism and the tech ecosystem in perpetuating these problems. We need to criticize how the #openweb was enclosed and co-opted by the #dotcom industry, with complicity from liberal circles.

* Call to Action: The #dotcons, critique is a call to action against those who exploit technology for profit without regard for societal consequences. It condemns the manipulation and exploitation within the tech industry and urges a more critical approach to understanding and addressing these issues.

In summary, we need to challenge the use of “common sense” terms like “enshittification” to describe complex societal problems, advocating instead for a deeper examination of the profit-driven motives and systemic inequalities that underlie deteriorating online quality and community experiences. #dotcons highlights the importance of accountability and critical analysis in addressing the harmful impacts of technology and capitalism on society.

Categories
Non classé

Taxpayer spent more on SpaceX

In the last year, the typical taxpayer spent more on SpaceX — a company owned by one of the richest men in history — than on energy efficiency and renewable energy programs.
It’s time to reverse that.

Government allocation of taxpayer funds.

  • SpaceX Expenditure vs. Energy Programs: The amount of taxpayer money directed towards #SpaceX, a private aerospace company owned by Elon Musk, as opposed to investments in energy efficiency and renewable energy programs.
  • Wealth Disparity and Public Investment: Elon Musk as “one of the richest men in history” underscores wealth inequality and whether public funds should heavily subsidize ventures by extremely wealthy people.
  • Prioritizing Energy Transition: Redirecting funding towards energy efficiency and renewable energy programs is essential for addressing #climatechaos, reducing dependence on fossil fuels, and promoting sustainability.
  • Government Funding Choices: A challenge to governments to reassess their spending priorities, shifting focus from private ventures in space exploration towards initiatives that benefit environmental sustainability and public welfare.
  • Impact on Climate Change: Energy efficiency and renewable energy have a more immediate and tangible impact on reducing greenhouse gas emissions and mitigating the effects of climate change compared to funding private space exploration.
  • Public Policy and Accountability: we need to challenge public policy and accountability in terms of how taxpayer money is allocated and whether it reflects the priorities and values of society as a whole.

Overall, a more thoughtful and strategic approach to government spending, with an emphasis on addressing pressing environmental challenges through targeted investments in energy efficiency and renewable technologies. Broader discussions about the role of public investment in shaping a sustainable and equitable future.

Categories
Non classé

#Fediverse How can we do better

#Fediverse How can we do better at this https://socialhub.activitypub.rocks/t/the-process-platform-isnt-working/3923/6

#blocking is not the solution, its like putting head in sand. Our projects are #4opens thus anyone, including the #dotcons can be a part of the #openweb in this it’s a good thing they are moving back to this space.

Feel free to block them, but pushing this path as a solution would be both naive and self-defeating. We need to do better and build a healthy culture and a diverstay of tools, it’s always a fight, hiding in a cave wins no wars.

Issue within the #Fediverse community regarding the handling of problematic behavior or interactions on the platform. A breakdown of the key points:

  1. Problem with Blocking: That simply blocking users or instances (such as the #dotcons) is not an effective long-term solution to fostering a healthy and diverse community within the Fediverse. Blocking is “putting your head in the sand,” implying that ignoring or isolating problematic elements doesn’t resolve underlying issues.
  2. Advocating for Openness: Emphasizes that the Fediverse should remain true to its principles of openness (#4opens), which allow anyone, including controversial entities like the #dotcons, to participate. This openness is a positive aspect of the #openweb.
  3. Building a Healthy Culture: Rather than relying on blocking, we need to advocate for actively building a healthy culture within the Fediverse. This involves nurturing diversity of tools and fostering a community where constructive engagement and dialogue can thrive.
  4. Need for Engagement and Solutions: The importance of proactive engagement and problem-solving. we need to warn against passivity (“hiding in a cave”) and encourages efforts to address challenges head-on to create a stronger and more resilient ecosystem.

Overall, a call for constructive action within the Fediverse community, moving beyond simple blocking measures and focusing on building a robust and inclusive platform that aligns with its core values of openness and diversity. With an emphasis on proactive engagement, collective responsibility, and continuous improvement to create a healthier online and offline environment.

Categories
Non classé

Algorithms of War: The Use of AI in Armed Conflict



Joel H. Rosenthal (Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs), Janina Dill (University of Oxford), Professor Ciaran Martin (Blavatnik School of Government, Oxford), Tom Simpson (Blavatnik School of Government), Brianna Rosen (Blavatnik School of Government, University of Oxford)

Algorithms of war

Arriving early, the panel and audience are ugly broken people, priests and worshippers of the #deathcult

Near the start the young and energetic start to flood in, eager and chatty yet to be broken by service of the dark side of #mainstreaming

The ritual of making killing “humane” and “responsible”, ticking the boxes on this new use of technology in war, repression and death.

Touching on the “privatisation” that this technology pushes to shift traditional military command.

The exeptabl rate of collateral damage 15 to 1 in the case of the IDF Gaza conflict

Introducing human “friction” into the process, the means to the end, is the question. Public confidence and trust is key to this shift, policy is in part about this process.

The establishment policy response to AI in war, this is already live, so these people are catching up. They are at the stage of “definition” in this academic flow.

The issue agen is that none of this technology actually works, we wasted ten years on blockchain and cryptocurrency, this had little value and a lot of harm, we are now going to spend ten years on #AI and yes this will affect society, but is the anything positive in this? Or another wasted ten years of #fashernista thinking, in this case death.

Artificial intelligence (#AI) into warfare raises ethical, practical, and strategic considerations.

Technological Advancements and Warfare: The use of AI in war introduces new algorithms and technologies that potentially reshape military strategies and tactics. AI is used for tasks like autonomous targeting, decision-making, or logistics optimization.

Ethical Concerns: ethical dilemmas associated with AI-driven warfare. Making killing more “humane” and “responsible” through technological advancements, can lead to a perception of sanitizing violence.

Privatization of Military Command: The shift towards AI in warfare leads to a privatization of military functions, as technology companies play a role in developing and implementing AI systems.

Collateral Damage and Public Perception: Collateral damage ratios like 15 to 1 raises questions about the acceptability of casualties in conflicts where AI is employed. Public confidence and trust in AI-driven warfare become critical issues.

Policy and Governance: Establishing policies and regulations around AI in warfare is crucial. Defining the roles of humans in decision-making processes involving AI and ensuring accountability for actions taken by autonomous systems.

Challenges and Risks: The effectiveness of AI technology in warfare draws parallels with previous tech trends like blockchain and cryptocurrency. There’s concern that investing heavily in AI for military purposes will yield little value while causing harm.

Broader Societal Impact: Using AI in warfare will have broader societal implications beyond the battlefield. It will influence public attitudes towards technology, privacy concerns, and the militarization of AI in civilian contexts.

Balance of Innovation and Responsibility: Whether the pursuit of AI in warfare represents progress or merely another trend driven by superficial or misguided thinking #fashernista thinking with potentially dire consequences.

In summary, the integration of AI into warfare demands ethical, legal, and societal implications. The goal should be to leverage technological advancements responsibly, ensuring that human values and principles guide the development and deployment of AI systems in any contexts.

Categories
Non classé

Current messy thinking

Pushing defederation from #meta is not wrong in sentiment, the #dotcons are vile and cons. But is wrong from a practical sense, the #Fediverse and #ActivityPub are #openweb based on you do not have technical tools for stopping the #dotcons as the data in the end is in the open, unencrypted, in the database, in #RSS and in open flows.

These people are fighting for the #closedweb on a “native” #openweb platform. This makes no sense at all, incoherences everywhere, the is a lot of this mess over the last 40 years.

Categories
Non classé

Why worry about fashionistas in activism

The problem of #fashionistas in activism within activist circles is the priority of style and appearance over substance and meaningful action. These people are more concerned with projecting a certain image or brand of activism rather than engaging in genuine effect for social change. The phenomenon of #fashionistas in activism manifests in various ways and poses challenges to the efficacy and integrity of grassroots movements. Some aspects of this:

  1. Superficiality over Substance: Fashionistas prioritize surface-level aesthetics and trends over substantive analysis and action. They focus more on creating a visually appealing image of activism, such as through trendy protest attire or social media posts, rather than engaging in deep-rooted grassroots activism that addresses systemic issues.
  2. Performative Activism: Fashionistas engage in performative activism, where their actions are more about signalling commitment to a cause rather than making contributions. Participating in protests or events primarily for photo opportunities or social media validation, rather than working towards tangible change.
  3. Exclusionary Practices: The emphasis on fashion and style in activism creates barriers to participation for people who do not conform to slavish aesthetic norms. This marginalize people from diverse backgrounds, experiences, and identities who do not fit into the narrow standards set by fashionistas within the movement.
  4. Distraction from Core Issues: When activism becomes focused on appearances and trends, it detracts from the issues and objectives of the movement. Attention and resources are diverted to superficial aspects of activism, rather than towards addressing the root causes of injustice and inequality.
  5. Reinforcement of Consumer Culture: The influence of fashionistas reinforce consumerist attitudes and behaviours within activist circles. This involve promoting consumer-driven solutions to social problems or aligning activism with commercial brands and products, rather than challenging the structures of capitalism and exploitation.
  6. Dilution of Message and Impact: Activism that prioritizes style over substance risks diluting the movement’s message and impact. When the emphasis is placed on spectacle and aesthetics, the underlying principles and goals of the movement become obscured or watered down, leading to reduced effectiveness in achieving meaningful change.

Addressing the problem of fashionistas in activism requires a commitment to centring authenticity, inclusivity, and meaningful action within grassroots movements. This involves a culture of critical reflection, accountability, and solidarity. By prioritizing substance over style, activists work to building resilient, impactful, and inclusive movements to challenge systems of power and oppression.

Categories
Non classé

The Rise and Fall of Grassroots Activism in the UK: A 40-Year Retrospective on the Openweb

Grassroots activism has undergone significant ups and downs over the past four decades, particularly within the realm of digital communication and organizing. This essay seeks to provide an overview of the challenges and successes experienced by grassroots activists during this time period, focusing on the evolution of the open internet and its eventual decline. It explores the ideological underpinnings of internet projects, the impact of funding and #mainstreaming efforts, and the shifting dynamics between open and closed systems. By examining these trends, we can better understand the complex interplay between technology, ideology, and activism in the digital age.

To escape our silo thinking

The Rise of the Open Internet: In the early days of the internet, there was a surge of enthusiasm for and decentralized communication platforms. Projects like early #indymedia, blogging platforms, wikis, and peer-to-peer networks flourished, driven by an ethos of democratization and empowerment. These offered people and grassroots movements unprecedented opportunities to connect, collaborate, and mobilize on a global scale. The ideology of the #openweb, rooted in principles of decentralization, transparency, and freedom, captured the imaginations of many activists seeking to challenge established power structures.

Why did the open web flower and die over the last 30 years

However, alongside the growth of #openweb projects, there were also significant challenges and tensions. The influx of funding from state, foundation, and #NGO sources brought both opportunities and risks. While funding provided vital resources for development and expansion, it also introduced pressures to conform to #mainstreaming norms and intrenched #geekproblem agendas. Additionally, as open internet projects gained popularity, they became susceptible to co-option and manipulation by corporate interests seeking to capitalize on the growing community interest.

We face a digital cliff the open internet may be over

The Fall of the Openweb: Despite early successes, the open internet eventually faced a decline, marked by the erosion of its ideological foundations and the resurgence of closed, centralized platforms, the #dotcons. One key factor in this decline was the failure of many openweb projects to align with the dominant ideology of the web itself. The pushing of non-native common sense. While some projects embraced the principles of trust-based anarchism and decentralized governance, others veered towards more hierarchical and exclusionary models.

Outline of 20 years ups and downs of grassroots activism in the UK

The rise of a new generation of technologists and entrepreneurs, shaped by #neoliberal ideologies of individualism and competition, led to a merging of open and closed systems. This shift towards closed platforms, controlled by a handful of corporate giants, undermined the diversity and resilience of the openweb. The very chaos that once protected the openweb from vertical integration and monopolization was replaced by a homogenized landscape dominated by a few dominant #dotcons.

Challenges and Opportunities: In the face of these challenges, grassroots activists must grapple with the complexities of navigating a digital landscape that is increasingly hostile to their values and principles. The siloed nature of many media projects presents a barrier to collective action and solidarity, limiting their impact and longevity. However, there are also opportunities for resistance and resilience, through the cultivation of networks based on mutual aid and cooperation like the #OMN

Conclusion: The trajectory of grassroots activism in the UK over the past four decades reflects the broader shifts and tensions within the digital realm. The rise and fall of the openweb mirror the struggles of activists to carve out spaces for dissent and resistance in an increasingly corporatized and surveilled environment. By critically using the , examining the ideological underpinnings of internet projects and exploring alternative models of organizing, activists can work towards reclaiming the promise of a truly open and decentralized digital future.