Categories
Non classé

indymedia back

Bringing back the #Indymedia project is essential for several reasons, rooted in its historical significance, its potential for grassroots activism, and the need for independent media platforms. Here’s why we need to revive and support the Indymedia project:

Historical Significance:

Indymedia played a pivotal role in the early 2000s as a decentralized network of independent media collectives. It provided a platform for activists, journalists, and citizens to share news, reports, and perspectives outside of mainstream media channels.

The principles of equality, decentralization, and local autonomy upon which Indymedia was founded are still relevant today. Reviving Indymedia would uphold these principles and continue the legacy of alternative media movements.

Counterbalance to Mainstream Media:

In an era of increasing media consolidation and corporate influence over information dissemination, independent media platforms like Indymedia are crucial for providing alternative narratives and perspectives.

Reviving Indymedia would create a counterbalance to #mainstreaming media narratives, offering diverse viewpoints, grassroots reporting, and coverage of marginalized communities and issues.

Grassroots Activism:

Indymedia empowered grassroots activists and community organizers by providing them with a platform to amplify their voices and share their stories. By reviving Indymedia, we can reinvigorate grassroots activism and support community-driven initiatives.

The principles of non-hierarchical organization and consensus decision-making embedded within Indymedia’s ethos serve as a model for participatory democracy and collective action in the digital age.

Media Democracy and Freedom of Expression:

Indymedia embodies the principles of media democracy and freedom of expression by promoting exchange of information, transparency, and accessibility.

Reviving Indymedia would contribute to the democratization of media production and distribution, empowering people and communities to create and share content on their own terms.

Resistance to Corporate Control and Surveillance:

In an era of pervasive corporate surveillance and control over online platforms, Indymedia offers an alternative that prioritizes privacy, autonomy, and community ownership.

By reviving Indymedia, we can resist corporate dominance over the digital public sphere and create spaces where rights and autonomy are respected.

Combatting Nihilism in Tech: The tech industry often prioritizes individualistic implementations and profit-driven models over community-focused initiatives. By rebooting Indymedia, we can challenge this nihilistic approach to technology and instead prioritize community building, collaboration, and collective ownership of media platforms.

Preserving Digital Commons: Indymedia operated on principles of openness, decentralization, and non-hierarchical organization, creating a digital commons where diverse voices could thrive. Rebooting Indymedia allows us to preserve and expand this digital commons, providing an alternative to corporate-controlled media landscapes dominated by profit motives and commercial interests.

Building Trust-Based Networks: Indymedia was built on principles of trust, collaboration, and solidarity among activists and media practitioners. By rebooting Indymedia, we can rebuild these trust-based networks and strengthen connections within and across communities, fostering solidarity in the struggle for social justice and media democracy.

Adapting to Changing Technologies: The original Indymedia project faced challenges and limitations due to technological constraints of its time. By rebooting Indymedia, we can leverage advances in technology to create more user-friendly interfaces, mobile-responsive designs, and robust backend systems that better serve the needs of modern activists and citizen journalists.

In summary, reviving the Indymedia project is not just about resurrecting a historical artifact but reclaiming a vision of media activism, grassroots empowerment, and alternative narratives. It’s about challenging the status quo, amplifying marginalized voices, and building a more democratic and inclusive media ecosystem.

Coding this #indymediaback https://unite.openworlds.info/indymedia

Categories
Non classé

The development of ActivityPub was a collaborative effort

The history of #ActivityPub and the #fediverse is a fascinating journey marked by innovation, collaboration, and the ever-present struggle between open and closed systems. To understand this history, we must delve into the origins of ActivityPub and its evolution within the context of the broader #openweb movement.

ActivityPub emerged as a response to the limitations of existing social media protocols, particularly OStatus, which lacked support for privacy and limited conversations. While OStatus paved the way for decentralized social networking, its shortcomings spurred the development of more robust and flexible alternatives.

The early drafts of ActivityPub, originally known as ActivityPump, laid the groundwork for a protocol that could support a wide range of social interactions while maintaining interoperability between different platforms. ActivityPump utilized JSON as a serialization format, making it easier to work with compared to the XML-based OStatus.

The shift from ActivityStreams 1.0 to ActivityPump was driven by the need for a more modern and developer-friendly protocol. ActivityPump incorporated elements of ActivityStreams 2.0 and introduced the concept of server-to-server communication, paving the way for true federation across different instances.

The development of ActivityPub was a collaborative effort involving various stakeholders within the openweb community. While some early implementations, such as GNU-social and Pump.io, served as predecessors to ActivityPub, it was Mastodon that played a pivotal role in popularizing the protocol.

Mastodon’s decision to adopt ActivityPub as its primary communication protocol marked a significant milestone in the history of the fediverse. As Mastodon gained traction and attracted a growing user base, other platforms followed suit, further solidifying ActivityPub as the de facto standard for decentralized social networking.

However, the journey of ActivityPub and the fediverse has not been without its challenges. The rise of proprietary interests and the temptation to centralize control pose ongoing threats to the open and decentralized nature of the platform. As the fediverse continues to grow, it becomes increasingly susceptible to commercial capture and manipulation.

Moreover, the complexity of implementing ActivityPub, particularly concerning signatures and authentication, has led to compatibility issues and interoperability challenges. While efforts have been made to address these issues, they remain a point of contention within the community.

Despite these challenges, the fediverse remains a testament to the power of grassroots innovation and collective action. It embodies the principles of openness, decentralization, and user empowerment that have long been cherished by advocates of the openweb.

Looking ahead, the future of ActivityPub and the fediverse depends on our ability to navigate the ever-changing landscape of technology, politics, and society. By remaining vigilant against commercial interests, fostering collaboration, and prioritizing people and community , we can ensure that the promise of the fediverse continues to thrive.

Categories
Non classé

Nurturing the True Potential of the Fediverse: A Socio-Political Roadmap

The #fediverse, with its promise of decentralized social networking and democratic governance, stands as a beacon of hope for a native #openweb However, as it navigates the complex terrain of politics, technology, and human behavior, it faces challenges that threaten to undermine its civic potential. In this post, we will delve into these challenges and explore potential pathways forward to realize the true promise of the #fediverse.

At the heart of the fediverse lies the tension between its potential benefits and the risks of subversion by commercial interests or structural dysfunction. Commercial capture, driven by the allure of proprietary features and enhanced user experiences, poses a threat to the “open and decentralized nature of the fediverse native culture”. The shift from distributed funding models to centralized and #NGO ones exacerbates this challenge, leading to a concentration of power and influence in the hands of a few entities. To counter this trend, developers, producers, institutions, and users must collectively work to uphold the principles of interoperability and openness, ensuring that the fediverse remains a vibrant and diverse ecosystem.

Structural dysfunction, characterized by a lack of native governance approaches and a reliance on #DIY moderators and self-funded instances, poses another challenge. Without a “native” structure for governance, the fediverse risks succumbing to governance failures and reputational assaults. To address these issues, there is a pressing need to develop democratic governance structures that empower people and ensure accountability and transparency at every level of decision-making.

The fediverse is more than just a technical system; it is also a political structure. As such, it requires a nuanced understanding of the socio-political dynamics that shape its development and governance. Techno-Romanticism, which elevates simplistic views of technological progress and overlooks the labor and networks that underpin it, poses a significant threat to the fediverse’s ethos of inclusivity and sustainability. By fostering a culture of critical engagement and social action, we can mitigate the influence of techno-Romanticism and ensure that the fediverse remains a space for civic discourse and collective action.

In conclusion, nurturing the true potential of the fediverse requires a multifaceted approach that transcends technical considerations and delves deep into the socio-political fabric. By addressing issues of commercial capture, governance dysfunction, and techno-Romanticism, we can pave the way for a more inclusive, democratic, and sustainable fediverse. It is only through collective action and ongoing dialogue that we can realize the transformative potential of this decentralized network.

Categories
Non classé

All code is ideology solidified into action

The statement is a critical perspective on the intersection of politics and technology, suggesting that both domains suffer from their own shortcomings when it comes to addressing complex societal issues.

  1. Political Arrogance and Ignorance: This refers to the tendency of political actors to exhibit overconfidence and a lack of understanding when it comes to technological matters. Politicians and policymakers may make decisions about technology without comprehending its implications and limitations, leading to ineffective or harmful policies. Arrogance in this context manifest as an assumption of authority without expertise or consideration of diverse perspectives.
  2. Geek Naivety and Over-Complexity: On the other hand, this highlights the tendency of technologists and developers (“geeks”) to approach problems with a narrow focus on technical solutions. The term “naivety” suggests a lack of awareness or understanding of broader social, political, and ethical implications of their work. Additionally, the emphasis on over-complexity refers to the tendency to create unnecessarily intricate or convoluted technological systems, which hinder accessibility and usability for non-technical users.
  3. Code as Ideology: This concept posits that all code, as the foundation of technological systems, embodies underlying ideological assumptions and values. In the context of contemporary society, where capitalism is the dominant economic system, the code produced serves capitalist interests and reinforces capitalist structures. This implies that technological solutions are not neutral, they reflect and perpetuate the ideologies of the society in which they are created.
  4. Preprogrammed Outcomes and Assumptions: The assertion here is that the ideological underpinnings of code shape its outcomes and assumptions, predisposing technological solutions to align with certain interests or agendas. While it is possible to layer additional ideologies on top of existing code, the fundamental framework and biases of the code itself remain unchanged, influencing the range of possible outcomes.

Overall, the statement underscores the need for a more nuanced and critical approach to the intersection of politics and technology, one that recognizes the inherent ideological nature of code and seeks to address the limitations and biases embedded within technological systems.

Categories
Non classé

Some aspects of the geekproblem

The #geekproblem refers to the challenges and limitations that arise from the dominance of a particular “problem” geek culture within the technology industry and #FOSS. This culture is characterized by a strong emphasis on technical expertise, at the expense of social, ethical, and democratic considerations. The geek culture prioritize technical solutions and innovations over social implications, which leads to problems in the development and deployment of #openweb technology.

Here are some aspects of this geekproblem:

  1. Technical Bias: Geek “problem” culture tends to favour technical solutions to problems without considering the broader social context or implications. This results in the development of technologies that are inhuman, inaccessible, exclusionary, and often harmful.
  2. Meritocracy: Geek”problem” culture often operates on the principle of meritocracy, where individuals are valued based on their technical skills and knowledge. This leads to the ignoring of voices and perspectives from non-technical backgrounds, contributing to a lack of diversity and inclusivity and functionality in #FOSS projects.
  3. Lack of Empathy: The geek “problem” culture’s focus on technical excellence leads to a lack of empathy for users who are not as technically proficient. This results in user interfaces and experiences that are difficult to understand or navigate for non-technical people, further exacerbating digital divides and inequalities and use of #FOSS code.
  4. Resistance to Change: Geek “problem” culture can be resistant to change, particularly when it comes to questioning established technical norms or practices. This resistance can hinder progress in addressing social, ethical, and environmental challenges that require broader systemic changes beyond technical solutions.
  5. Power Dynamics: The dominance of geek “problem” culture creates power imbalances within the tech industry, where certain individuals or groups hold disproportionate influence over decision-making processes. This results in the prioritization of technical interests over broader social or ethical concerns.

Overall, the #geekproblem highlights the need for a more holistic and inclusive approach to technology development that considers social, ethical, and democratic dimensions alongside technical considerations. Addressing the geekproblem requires challenging social structures and promoting diversity, empathy, and democratic decision-making within the development and #FOSS communertys.

Categories
Non classé

The influence of NGOs in social activism raises concerns

In an era dominated by centralized #dotcons platforms and gatekeepers, the #openweb represents a beacon of hope for progressive society. Rooted in the principles of decentralization, open standards, and inclusivity, the openweb fosters a culture of freedom, collaboration, and innovation.

In contrast, the rise of #NGO #slacktivism and the influence of NGOs highlight the limitations of centralized approaches to social activism and advocacy. As attention shifts towards the #Fediverse, it is crucial to maintain the integrity of the openweb and safeguard against co-optation and centralization.

At its core, the openweb embodies the ideals of a free and open internet, where people have the autonomy to participate and create without the interference of gatekeepers. This ethos stands in stark contrast to the culture of slacktivism, which prioritizes minimal effort and engagement over substantive action. While online petitions and social media campaigns can raise awareness, they should be criticized for lacking sincerity and efficacy in effecting real change. In contrast, the openweb empowers peoples to take meaningful action and engage in collective efforts without the constraints of centralized control.

However, the influence of NGOs in social activism raises concerns about power imbalances and agendas that are not align with the needs of “native” communities. By promoting their own interests and priorities, NGOs marginalizing the voices and agency of the communities they claim to serve. In contrast, the openweb provides a platform for grassroots organizing and bottom-up initiatives that prioritize community empowerment and self-determination.

As attention shifts towards the Fediverse, it is essential to maintain the decentralized nature of the openweb and guard against the concentration of power in the hands of a few individuals or entities. To counteract these risks, efforts must be made to promote diversity, decentralization, and community ownership.

Building trust within the Fediverse is essential for fostering a culture of collaboration and inclusivity. By prioritizing these principles, the Fediverse can maintain its integrity and resist co-optation by “non native” agendas.

In conclusion, the openweb plays a crucial role in advancing progressive values and empowering social change. By prioritizing decentralization, openness, and inclusivity, the Fediverse can serve as a platform for grassroots activism and collective action. However, it is essential to remain vigilant against #NGO co-optation and centralization, ensuring that the voices and needs of communities are prioritized and protected agenst this “common sense”.

Categories
Non classé

Building Trust in the Openweb and the Fediverse

In the vast landscape of the #openweb and the emerging #Fediverse, trust is the currency that underpins meaningful interactions and collaborations. Yet, amidst the cacophony of voices and divergent perspectives, building trust can feel like navigating a minefield. In this post, we’ll explore the importance of trust in the #openweb and the Fediverse, examine the challenges to building trust, and propose strategies to foster a culture of trust within these communities.

Trust is the bedrock upon which communities thrive, enabling people to engage in meaningful exchanges, share resources, and collaborate on common goals. In the decentralized ecosystem of diverse voices converge and interact, trust becomes more essential. Unlike centralized #dotcons platforms, where trust is bestowed upon a single authority, the “native” openweb relies on distributed networks of trust relationships between people and communities.

However, despite the inherent value of trust, the landscape of is fraught with challenges that hinder this cultivation. One of the primary obstacles is the prevalence of #blocking and resistance to new ideas or approaches. While blocking may be necessary in certain circumstances, such as to protect against harmful actors or preserve the integrity of a community, it can also impede constructive dialogue and collaboration. Without trust, communities become fragmented and isolated.

To address these challenges and foster a culture of trust several strategies can be employed:

  1. Transparency: Transparency is key to building trust within communities. Open and honest communication about intentions, decisions, and actions fosters a sense of accountability and reliability. Projects and individuals should strive to be transparent in their operations, sharing information openly and engaging in dialogue with stakeholders.
  2. Inclusivity: Inclusive communities are more likely to cultivate trust among their members. By seeking out diverse perspectives and voices, and creating spaces where people feel welcome and valued, communities can foster a sense of belonging and trust. Inclusivity also involves addressing power imbalances and amplifying silent voices.
  3. Consistency: Consistency in actions and behavior is essential for building trust over time. Communities should strive to uphold their commitments, follow through on promises, and maintain integrity in their interactions. Consistency breeds reliability and reliability breeds trust.
  4. Empathy: Empathy is the foundation of trust in human relationships. By empathizing with the experiences and perspectives of others, communities can build mutual understanding and respect. Empathy involves active listening, acknowledging the feelings and concerns of others, and responding with compassion and kindness.
  5. Collaboration: Collaboration fosters trust by creating opportunities for people to work together towards common goals. By engaging in collaborative projects, sharing resources, and supporting each other’s efforts, communities can build bonds of trust and solidarity.

In conclusion, trust is the cornerstone of a thriving #openweb and the building of the #fediverse community. By prioritizing transparency, inclusivity, consistency, empathy, and collaboration, communities can create environments where trust flourishes, enabling people to engage in meaningful interactions and collaborations. Remember that trust is not a destination but a journey—one that requires ongoing effort, dialogue, and commitment from all stakeholders.

Categories
Non classé

Branding, addressing this issue

The issue of branding in the #openweb and #fediverse is multifaceted and touches on both technical and social aspects. Here’s why addressing this issue is crucial:

  1. Barrier to Community Adoption: Strong branding in #openweb codebases creates a barrier for communities to adopt and customize the technology for their collective use. It limits the ability for different communities and groups to collaborate and share resources effectively.
  2. Centralization of Power: Project branding centralizes power in the hands of developers and funders, rather than empowering the communities that are using and running the instances. This can lead to decision-making processes that do not represent the diverse needs and perspectives of users.
  3. Stifling Innovation: A focus on project branding can stifle innovation and creativity within the #fediverse. Communities may feel constrained by the predefined branding and unable to express their identities and values through their #openweb spaces.
  4. Inequality in Representation: Branding can perpetuate inequalities in representation within the #openweb ecosystem. Communities that lack the resources or technical expertise to customize branding feel marginalized or excluded from #mainstreaming discussions and initiatives.
  5. Resistance to Change: Strong project branding also create resistance to change within the community. People become accustomed to the existing branding and are thus reluctant to embrace new ideas or alternative approaches that challenge this status quo.

To address these challenges, it’s important to shift the focus from project branding to instance branding and empower communities to make their own #openweb spaces for collaboration and collective action. This involves:

  • Rethinking the traditional concept of branding and finding ways to communicate the values and mission of projects without relying on dominant, project branding.
  • Creating better user experiences for community members to shape the look and feel of their spaces and actively participate in decision-making processes.
  • Encouraging open and honest dialogue about the role of branding in the #fediverse and its impact on community participation and representation.
  • Promoting a culture of responsible branding that prioritizes inclusivity, diversity, and empowerment of people and projects.

By adopting these principles and practices, we can create a decentralized ecosystem within the #openweb and #fediverse, where communities have greater power over their communerties and tools.

Categories
Non classé

The mess we have made in tech

The last 40 years of technological development and its impact on society, coupled with the growing urgency of addressing #climatechange, highlight the need to fundamentally change the way we approach technology. Here are some key points:

  1. Environmental Impact: The rapid growth of technology over the past few decades has come with a significant environmental cost. From the production and disposal of electronic devices to the energy consumption of data centers and digital infrastructure, the tech industry has contributed to greenhouse gas emissions, resource depletion, and environmental degradation. As we face the reality of #climatechaos, there’s a pressing need to develop and adopt technologies that minimize harm to the planet.
  2. Social Inequality: While technology has the potential to connect people and empower communities, our embrace of the #dotcons has exacerbated social inequalities. Access to digital technologies, information, and opportunities, widening the gap between the privileged and marginalized. Moreover, #dotcons tech platforms have been criticized for perpetuating discrimination, bias, and exclusion, further entrenching systemic injustices. Addressing these issues requires building “native” #openweb technology that prioritizes equity, inclusivity, and social justice.
  3. Corporate Control and Surveillance: The dominance of large tech corporations raised concerns about corporate power. These companies wield immense influence over digital ecosystems, shaping the flow of information, controlling social access to platforms, and monetizing people’s data and metadata. To counteract corporate control and protect the #openweb, there’s a need for decentralized, community-driven alternatives that prioritize people and community.
  4. Innovation and Collaboration: The current paradigm of technological development prioritizes profit-driven innovation over basic social and environmental responsibility. This mindset stifles collaboration, stifles open innovation, and limits the potential for collective problem-solving. To address complex challenges like #climatechange, we need to foster a culture of collaboration, knowledge sharing, and open-source development. By democratizing access to technology and promoting participatory design processes, we can harness the collective intelligence and creativity of diverse communities to drive positive change.
  5. Political and Cultural Shifts: The intersection of technology, politics, and culture shapes societal norms, values, and behaviours. Over the past few years, we’ve seen a growing awareness of the political implications of technology, from concerns about online disinformation and algorithmic bias to debates over platform governance and digital rights. As grassroots movements like Extinction Rebellion (#XR) mobilize to address #climatechange, there’s an opportunity to leverage technology as a tool for social and environmental activism. By challenging mainstream narratives, engaging in grassroots #openweb organizing, and amplifying community based voices, we can harness technology to advance progressive causes and catalyse the needed systemic change and challenge.

In summary, the challenges posed by #climatechaos necessitate a radical reimagining of technology and its role in society. By prioritizing sustainability, equity, collaboration, and activism, we can build a resilient and inclusive #openweb future that serves the needs of people and the planet. This shift requires challenging entrenched power dynamics, confronting corporate interests, and mobilizing collective action to create a more just and sustainable world.

Categories
Non classé

The mess we made with the dotcons

An example of this is the evolution of the #dotcons #Twitter from a neoliberal space to one with fascist tendencies under Elon Musk’s serves as a stark reminder of the pitfalls of unchecked corporate power and the susceptibility of #dotcons platforms to authoritarian control. Also, there are broader lessons in the behaviour of people within these systems.

One key takeaway is the complicity of #neoliberal actors in facilitating the rise of fascism. #Neoliberalism, with its emphasis on deregulation and market-driven solutions, pushes for the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a few. This concentration eventually leads to the erosion of democratic norms and the rise of authoritarianism, as seen in the case of Twitter’s transformation. Thus, the intertwining of neoliberalism and fascism underscores the need for vigilance in combating both economic inequality and the erosion of “native” #openweb democratic projects.

Moreover, the reaction of neoliberal peoples “common sense” to the shift towards fascism on the #dotcons like Twitter is instructive. Despite the platform’s descent into authoritarianism, many #mainstreaming users continue to engage with it, clinging to nostalgia for its earlier, more liberal incarnation. This phenomenon highlights the tendency of #mainstreaming to adapt to life under oppressive regimes, often out of a desire for self-preservation or a misguided sense of normalcy. It serves as a sobering reminder of the dangers of complacency and the importance of resisting authoritarianism, aspesherly in its early stages.

In essence, the transformation of Twitter from a neoliberal to a fascist space underscores the interconnectedness of economic and political systems and the need for collective action to safeguard “native” #openweb democratic values. By recognizing the warning signs of authoritarianism and refusing to acquiesce to its normalization, people can help prevent the further erosion of the #openweb

The #dotcons and #closedweb of the last 20 years have been characterized by significant problems:

  1. Centralization of Power: The dominant platforms in the #dotcons era and #closedweb are centralized, controlled by a handful of corporations.
  2. Monopolistic Practices: The dominance of a few major players in the #dotcons led to monopolistic practices that stifled “native” #openweb culture. These monopolies limited people choice and hindered the development of alternative platforms that could offer more diverse and community-centric life.
  3. Surveillance Capitalism: The #dotcons relies on business models built around surveillance capitalism, where data and metadata is harvested, monetized, and exploited for targeted advertising and social purposes without consent and transparency. This exploitation of user data undermined “society” and created significant ethical concerns.
  4. Filter Bubbles and Echo Chambers: The algorithms employed by #dotcons are designed to prioritize content based on user engagement metrics, leading to the formation of filter bubbles and echo chambers. These algorithms push people to beliefs and preferences that limit exposure to diverse perspectives and contributing to polarization and disinformation.
  5. Erosion of Public Discourse: The rise of social media platforms in the #dotcons facilitated the spread of misinformation, hate speech, and extremist ideologies. These platforms prioritized engagement and virality over the quality and accuracy of content, leading to the erosion of public discourse and trust in media.
  6. Data Concerns: The collection and exploitation of user data by #dotcons raised significant #closeddata concerns. People have limited control over their social data and metadata.
  7. Digital Divide: Access to the internet and digital technologies remained unevenly distributed during the #closedweb era, exacerbating social and economic inequalities. Marginalized communities, faced barriers to access the #openweb, limiting their ability to participate in the digital economy and society.

Overall, the dominance of centralized platforms, surveillance capitalism, algorithmic biases, erosion of social norms, and inequalities have been some of the most pressing issues associated with the #dotcons and #closedweb over the last two decades. Addressing these challenges requires concerted efforts to promote decentralization, and “native” #openweb infrastructure and thinking and working on projects like #OMN #OGB #makinghistory and #indymediaback

This post is a reaction https://mastodon.ar.al/@aral/112098724636424845