Looking back, looking foward, Village Hall or Church Hall
Am writing this for people who are actively leave the mainstream 9-5 society and move into disrepute subcultures to live their lifes.
Issues of group organisation crop up reugally and are generally badly resolved leading to a consistent life sapping churning of bad will and trails of failed groups.
For most people directly in these subcultures this is not an important issue as the majority just dip in and out of this shifting social soup for them the mainstream is a easy fall-back. They are less likely to notice and by the time they do notice the churning of growth and decay, they are ready to leave back to the (dulling) safety of the mainstream. Rinse and repeat is a apt description of the passing of each short generation, and the a causation of alt-culture haveing a bad reputation in the mainstream.
Over the next few posts am hoping to have a look at a few different groups am involved in that are at different stages of “crises”. Lets look at two concepts from the 19-20th century first:
Small groups of a less radical nature tend to use one of these organising structures for their spaces (the wikipedia links need filling out)
A village hall, is a non commercial space for community events that is a open space for for all the social/political/cultural activity a community holds in common. Its a “neutral” space for groups to build community cohesion. It will generally be run by a elected community of members of an active and open local group.
A church hall will share many of the same uses and structures but will have a tendency to be more narrowly focused in the areas the church has negative attitude. Ie. a Catholic church would probably not host a meeting of groups supporting abortion issues, more conservative churches would not host the young socialists or the anerakist black flag legal support etc they may have issues with other religions usesing the space. In general the would be “moralistic and idealogical” restrictions on the open use of the community space that would highlight some parts of the commnerty and disadvantage others. The final arbiter would probably be a the head of the local management committy reporting to the vicar would would be sacturned by the church hiracky.
The recsion we have overlapping Village Halls and Church Halls in most villages should be obvious for these two short paragraphs. In the 20th century both of these older institutions were supplemented by a third more modern institution that directly replaced the church focus and expanded on the role of the village hall in larger urban arrears.
The community centres grow out of the spread of ideas about social justice and the value of couture in the middle of the 20th century.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_centre (this link is more filled out and worth a read)
In the late 20th century these areas were then degraded by commercialisation, their community empowerment focus becoming lost (must pay way).
They also suffered from the suffocation of bureaucratisation with was a produced of mid 20th century thinking and organising.
We have 3 of the more traditinal mainstream approaches to a “space for the community” with the “romanisations of the past” thinking we are currently rebooting older ideas, the idea of a village hall is coming back (and in more conservative circles church halls are being re-introduced). Its good to think for a moment that they were products of their time and place and will need rebooting in a form that is appropriate for the different 21st century thinking/society we live in today.
Outline of 20 years ups and downs of grassroots activism in the UK
The flowering of the indymedia networks, followed by the first years of climatecamp were the high points of activist culture. The end of climate camp was the low point of activist culture, after this the drift to NGO and fashion was wide and dissipating.
Occupy was a break in activist culture, it was the first mass “internet first” on the ground manifestation that happened disconnected to the past of activism because of the use of dotcom tools as prime organising space. The old couture has been discredited by the failings of climate camp, the new dotcom tools had been celebrated and used well by Ukuncut etal. Were Ukuncut was a reboot of old climate camp crew, Occupy was a project of the #failbook generation in all its wide reflective madness.
Were are we now? The old left is rebooting with a broken mix of the blairite right and the Stalinist/toxic left both pulling at the radical liberal centre. Alt media content is being rebooted but the network it needs to build, to stop its drift to NGO burn out is missing. The right is ideologically bankrupt and visibly grasping, but stronger than ever.
The working of the 21st century is potentially different to the workings of the 20th century the are groups, networks and individuals that embody this and a larger group/individuals who fight for the past century working practices. In activism currently we are full of the biter taste of occupy and NGO worshipping of dotcoms and careerism.
The “sertentys of the 20th century” are grasped in our frail and trembling hands, the first stage of a “network” reboot is to let go of these “sertentlys” one constructive path to this is to fill in the gaping activist memory hole by looking at what works and what dose not. The lost and flailing progressive alt needs foundations bridging this gap to build on.
The IS NO SHORT TERMISAM HERE but the is speed and nimbleness, plenty of fun, creative motivated building to be done. Many of the foundation problems can be built in parallel as a “network” so it can happen faster than most can imagine.
“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.”
The 4 opens
The 4 opens:
Open data – is the basic truth of the project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_data with out this it cannot work.
Open source – as in “free software” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software this keeps development healthy by increasing interconnectedness and bringing in serendipity. The Open licences are the “lock” that keep the first two in place, what we have ain’t perfect but they expand the area of “trust” that the project needs to work, creative commons would be the start here.
Open “industrial” standards – this is a little understand but core open, its what the open internet and WWW are built from. Here is an outline https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_standard
Open process – this is the most “nebulous” part, examples of the work flow would be wikis and activity streams. The project is built on linking trust networks so open process is the “glue” that binds the links together. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process
Q&A of the OMN autumn 2015
A DRAFT (copy and paest of a chat useing realmedia as an example)
this needs a edit for sense, but my back ach dusent alow this so out it goes
We need an Executive summery of why visionontv failed.
- we didn’t de-brand fast anufe
- we went nimble anufe to be relaverent.
its going to be a struggle to reboot grassroots media with out highlighting both of these
its fine for brands to be "periphery"
the is no excuse for lack of nimbleness.
We built generations of p2p tech against the flow of failbook and its activist NGO takeup.
Now - we can only aggregate YouTube videos
yes but that's ok, in the interim, As our tools are broken
If we could spread the realmedia WP install up this would be easer to explain the p2p side of OMN
With out working tools - we can only build proxy sites to hold space.
Youtube play's list are one
Q. The question is: what can people do NOW
Its a chicken and egg - we have to use the tools we have while making clear the tools we need.
Yes YT embeds are a tool we have – Q. but they should not be attached to the 1400 video account of a particular media project
A. Get embeds from the visionOntv noid of the OMN with an explanation why is far from perfect.
Q. it looks like we're doing it to promote our work?
OK this is interesting
we're not, but that's what it looks like
need to avoid the whole branding thing for this
in terms of the interface, what's the difference between an embedder (of an aggregator) and an aggregator - is it a completely different UI or a different use of the same UI
Q2: If I as an aggregator like RealMedia's agregation, it would be natural to merge the two - or why don't I just add to RealMedia's? In other words, isn't there a desirable and natural tendency towards centralisation?
Other way up - as an aggregator, I like RealMedia's aggregation, minus their videos about endangered animals, so I take those tags out, and become a subset
Then I add a few tags which I think are missing, creating a new and I think better aggregator
but Real Media has a publicity budget, so no one knows about mine....
etc etc etc
Yep to last one, you can create a new aggregated but each stage in the line adds a delay. So Realmedia embeds will update before your one.
Its also based on trust - which you gain by doing.
Why trust a site that is slow and dues not add anything
The can be a badging syteam
I am adding stuff - taking away dross IMHO and adding content
Our site has 233 embeds, imports 124 feeds and exports 23 feeds etc
why don't we have mother ship that any aggregator has access to?
The new site will have lots of low numbers.
But the same content, 10-20 min to a few hours later.
Q. so the first and biggest always wins?
Only if the put huge amounts of real value into tageing and moderating.
Which had s work. With out that a smaller sight will be faster and better.
why wouldn't i want to better use my time by helping RealMedia's or mother ship's aggregation rather than creating my own?
You can - the is a tendency to specialise thus the will always be a better site than general news sites if you are pashernate (and peopulr who put the work into aggregation will be pashernste)
So Realmedia will likely stay a nich site for its subject - I can't read it for example.
but why don't people build their aggregation inside another aggregator?
The OMN has a "market" mechanism of checks and balances built in. Will be very hard to stop geeks "improving" these out...
If the aggregate allows it users (embeds) to retage with no or fast moderation then you can build a aggreater inside an aggreater. Just like we can post our stuff to failbook and theurtube.
If your passionate build your own.
The is a server/bandwidth/moderation cost for every RSS feed you add.
Q. archive.org has a centre - how is OMN different from that plus some aggregation tols?
so it's about shared cost
And trust and shared passion - the whole is bigger than the parts.
Its a leep for the verticals... Thus the resistance.
Like the open internet
"a leap for the verticals" - Im clearly trying to establish "a leap into what exactly?"
(btw i find realmedia's content incredibly dull as well!) but i was hyposthetising
ok im going to assume for now that this can't be explained
This n the 4 opens...
Which is the opens that the regional internet was built on
Portals are pre web.
Pre web is a failed strategy...
no one is thinking pre-web
Q. ok the data soup - stuff gets in there by api?
so it's add your stuff, and get the ability to filter out other peoples'
ok the aggregator closest to source is best....
closest to the general soup
Have been thinking about this
People think the is a centre yo the OMN that will look after things. The is none.
You are Completely responsible for who you link to and the data. The is no centre to take care of you or this.
The is massive redundant linking and data storage.
The is roll-back if things go wrong
You can put a feed on moderation if you aren't sure. But this will increase your workload and slow your updates so better to be sure.
Its a trust network.
Trust and risk are yours. The is no centre to meditate this trust
If you can't build trust then you will have a uphill struggle making aggregation work for your media project.
This is the hard jump for verticals.
Imperfection - is. Roll back in a complete failer or retag for a miss step.
Things happen you react to them. Rather than you reside first before things happen.
Its the original IMC of publish then moderate.
Of courses "verticals" can still use it, but they will be slow and plodding.
Just put everything on "moderation" and don't trust.
Or if your sensible a mixture of the two.
A good site will link well and let the data flow. Tweaking here or their. Unlinking if trust is broken and not addressed.
I find it hard to understand the verticality view point thus dearly directly address it.
Hope the helps, interesting for me to glimps the vertical view
To recap verticals can and will play a roll in the OMN but the exciting sites will be the ones that let the data flow through good linking based on trust.
The latency of layers of aggregation will push sites to specialise in subject - the best sites will be a group of trusting focused sites that each specialise.
Feeding a trusted middle site.
Top sites are easy to build but very hard to add value.
Bottom subject sites are harder to build and add a lot of value.
Easy to add value.
The latency is important as its the driving force to link to the site closed to the bottom you can trust
You can have a easy to site that has perfect content but is late to update.
Or you can have a fast updating middle site on a subject.
I would look more at middle sites
My mum would look at a top site.
So to recap the skill in running an aggreater is to link as close to the bottom as you can trust. For you core news feeds then maybe get tag based feeds off middle sites to widen your coverage into full news feed.
A valence of building trust/handling/moderation.
Archive.org is a top down categorisation of knowledge in a signal place. The is little flow.
It has no need for trust
Its an archive not a news site.
Do you rember the crap conversations we had about the hive website were they got rid if the network and whent vsck to a signal site. That's archive.org were is the value of a network, its hard for verticals to see.
On the subject of the OMN YouTube account - somebody would be responsible.
Q. With your top, middle and bottom sites, you're implying a topography, which can be drawn as a graphic, presumably
It's a hierarchy, without value attached to different ranks - hmmm
Yep the value is nebulous, just like the original internet nobody thought it would work because it had NI identity, no security and was completely based on open trust
Much like early indymedia
You could explain the projecting a way that verticals will understand. With moderation though out ect.
No centre/nobody responsible/built on trust
Its a good idea that's needed and will likely work well
Its hard to understand that the OMN is just open standards... Everything eles is up to the users/producers. The OMN dose/is nothing.
The outcome is a framework for linking, taging and outreach.
The framework is just structure, no content.
Q. so where is the content soup?
Yes it shapes how people cooperate. It Push greed and selfishness to the edges as much as it can
Q. what does?
The framework bounded by the 4 opens.
Its stored across hundreds of sites around the work, its backed up in many university's, archives and on your local hard rive if you wont it.
World (thousand, hundreds of thousands) and some one in this will keep a surviving backup. Thus nobody is responsible to do it. Though they can and will because that us what some people do
Couldn't be simpler
Has complex outcomes though...
Just like the internet.
Torrents already do this to an extent. But as the content is mostly stolen nobody keeps it.
Thus is fades.
This is of courses the text content and meta data. The video/audio/images
Would be more complex, a bit more "centralised" but still completely diy.
Can boot strap by yseing wikicomns and aracive.org so can be put to back of mind for s year or two.
Because storing lots of text in a database is easy. Big media needs more work.
Not impossible but hard to boot up the project and deal with it in the same diy way.
So aggregation is text and meta data. Media is still stored on original servers. Can build sine simplistic caching in to keep it running and scaling at boot up as needed.
That become a issue if we are very successful, nice problem to have.
Media storage of video/audio/images are left "more centralised" in partner silos - wikicomes/archive. Just to start otherwise we gave bug technical issues of scaling at the front end.
Keep it KISS
For example archive can seed torrents so can be the bases if torrent streaming. But that's later. Just use youtuve vimio embeds to kuckstat. Don't make people jump to meany hoop to soon. And all thus stuff can run in parreral anyway.
OMN is much less centralised than torrents. But we keep media in cirpurate silies and friendly NGOs to help boot up.
In that the media will be more "centralised" than torrents
Can do torrents at the same time but s distraction for me.
This idea is based on computers and storage getting cheaper each year so people can host big databases. This is what's happening.
Thinking. The most underplayed part of the OMN is the 4 opens...
The rest is just KISS RSS aggregation
Q. How do you stop porn appearing on your site. You link to a site you trustvnot to put porn on your site
Hard sell... But visionOntv has and real media have both proven it can be done etc.
How to re-boot grassroots media to help to re-boot the open web to create real social change
We need to get our current dispurate and weak activist sites to link to each other, then get NGO's to do the same. Then push out news river embeds to more mainstream sites to expand the network.
This project needs to be run as a non-branded open network based on open social and technical standereds.
The social side is based on linking flows of information.
Of course you can and should be all of the above, but to aid expansion and growth this is not insisted on.
The first two paths are easey, the last more complex:
* Producers, this is any web site that puts out an RSS feed, this is most sites on the internet [tick]
* Aggregates are slightly more complex as they will need custom codeing, this all ready exists in a basic form for Drupal and Wordpress and the miro project. [needs work]
As the production side is already solved and the consumers side is relatively trivial this only leaves the Aggreaters as a steep path to take. We have a small budget to kick this off and is technically feasible.
The second part needed is actually the more complex one, how to get groups and individuals to implement open cooperative working practices. The issues that have to be bypassed/addressed/ignored:
* Geek culture is infeactured with encryption and fake technical privacy, this is fading with the victory of failbook and its fellow dotcoms and the disintegration and fading into obscurity of the geek privacy projects. But this will comeback and bite at the OMN as it grows out and builds the basic open tech. So we have to harden the project against this agenda by codeing the opens into the foundations of the project.
* The Trots and the Authoritarian tendency left jumping on the band wagon, this is solved in the same way as the geek problem as they actually share the same pathology of the 20th century illusion of control.
* NGO's this is solved by moving to fast for them to react, if we get bogged down this might become an issue of co-option. Keep moving fast.
To sum up build soled open foundations and keep moving fast.
How would the project look/feel
The open web and the sites that make it up would look much like they look today.
But the OMN project would socialise linking and sharing to create a network out of all the small disparate bits that make up the remains of this fading open web.
Production and consumption sites would gain a sidebar containing realtime updating links to “tag” based rivers of relevant content.
Aggregating sites would contain rivers of subject based content that they would sive and add value to be re-tageing. And creating meta articles linking to original sources. The feeds that production and consumption sites display would come from one of these aggreating sites.
The network would grow out organicly based on subject:
* a aggregating site could only handeal so many feeds before the human moderates are overwlemed this would lead to specialisation and a hirakey of subject aggreaters that would organicly mirror the existing real social interest groups.
* we would end up with specialisation, and a shifting network of overlapping bottom, middle and top sites which would all find ordnances and drive traffic back to the producing sites that feed the network.
* bottom sites would aggregate mostly original producer sites, middle sites would aggregate a mixture of original sites and tags from subject based bootem sites, finally the top sites would aggregate tag based feeds from the middle sites.
How would this look to the “users”
* It would be much easer for “normal” users to find relevant content on subjects that they are interested in, they would be introduced back to the open web by links on #failbook and #juduceserche engine. This growth of traffic would re-energise peoples websites and inspire the upgrading of meny moribund website projects and a move away from current hegemonic dotcom aggregation of #failbook and its siblings.
How would it affect “producers”
* publish ones and your content appears on 100's of sites driving traffic and commenting back to your blog/website and away from #failbook atel. The open web is being straggled by the pay to view throttling on these copurte silos, its a no brainier to move to escape this now. With the increased trafic you can put energy into upgrading your existen website to make it more relevant, the OMN would be active in providing the open tools and plug ins to make this happen.
What would this look like from tech prospective:
KISS open industrial standards based on trust and redundant data roll-back back functions to Handel the breakdown of trust that will happen some times.
RSS will be used as a database object exchange format, a tagging taxonermy will be used to shift and create the flows of these objects. Subscribing to tag based RSS feeds will be the bases of the trust network.
Open databases will hold duplicate meta data linking back to the original source of the RSS object.
RSS feed aggregation would be base on trusted, strate through or moderated ie adding to a moderation cue in the aggregating sites.
3 months to build the seed aggreaters and basic javescript embeds/plugins
6 months to build out the seed networks
9 months to major launch
12 months to being a real alternative and play a role in saving the open web.
Food for thinking:
If you think this sounds oldfaserned you would be right it is, its the basics that needs to happen to creat a pool of metadate enhanced media objects. What happens after this? for ideas will add some links:
A world to win
A world to win
The possibility of building a better more just world is far away.
We have no alternatives to offer to the hegemonic neo-liberalisam.
Over the last 20 years we have a decay of left thinking and action.
From the 20th century hierarchical “stop the war”
To the 21st century anarchy of “climate camp”
The open internet which gave birth to the World Wide Web has fallen into the dotcom silos and locked in app echo systems of Apple and Failbook.
Our political institutions have been captured by corporations (Monbiot)
The left is little but shadow puppets playing on a cardboard stage, while Climate Change in hand with rampant neo liberal inequality are burning all that we ones held dear.
A world to win?
The are many of overlapping tributary’s to the wide river of sustainability and justice, the river is there for us to see.
The open internet is still their for a while longer and we have the tools to use it, just not the wile and co-operation to move anywhere.
Our “democraticish” political institutions are still in place (though leaning with decay)
Climate change is going to wash around the world, initially we in the rich west will be less affected than the rest of the world, this gives us a privileged place to affect the outcome of this wave of disruption and devastation. We will have power to challenge the outcome.
Moving to decentralised renewable power is inevitable (no matter what the neo-liberal fools do) this will mediate the eco-transformation climatechange brings.
The problem of the chattering classes in activism
All the quotes are from Oscar Wild.
“If you pretend to be good, the world takes you very seriously. If you pretend to be bad, it doesn't. Such is the astounding stupidity of optimism.” LADY WINDERMERE'S FAN
The chattering classes are a problem, they are a clear and present block on social change, they colonise successful grassroots movements. They take up dominant mind share and spend all of the institutional funding on pointless fashion/NGO projects.
Middle class privilege and education dulled by post-modernist “thinking” combine to make their voices loud and persuasive in the blandness of surtatety. They smother the creative sparks in the dampness of their passions, mind space is watered to a diluteness that kills the thinking of movements, the slightest change is dampened and reversed.
“Arguments are extremely vulgar, for everybody in good society holds exactly the same opinions.”
THE REMARKABLE ROCKET
The chattering classes while being generally lovely people are a problem for the very needed possibility of an alternative to our current society. And its hard to right or talk about this issue with out seaming petty.
“Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their life a mimicry, their passions a quotation.” DE PROFUNDIS
What is to be done? Think the can be overlapping strategy’s to address this, one would be small affinity groups working on different project based on common standereds so they interact and build on each other. The other would be the old left postative discrimination – though this it self is often “captured”. Ideas please?
“Never speak disrespectfully of Society, Algernon. Only people who can't get into it do that.”
THE IMPORTANCE OF BEING EARNEST
Worthwhile grassroots “openspace” projects
The are two current worthwhile grassroots “openspace” projects am involved with. Both have a lot of potential but both are more likely to fail for obverses and avoidable reasons. Lets look at both in turn:
The Hive Dalston is an interesting hybrid project crossing the activist and corporate divide. Its a legal social centre using temporally empty buildings to build community projects. It came out of a long history of doing the same thing by squatting the same sought of buildings.
The Village Butty is a the shifting of an existing boater infrastructure from an individual to the wider community to make it sustainable. Its a village hall for the longest/friendlies village in the world, the London canals.
Why are the both more likely fail on their current course?
The Hive is a balances between the top down of the corporate worlds and the bottom up of the activist/community world. This could/needs to be healthy, currently it is not, the corporate world view is pushing over the community, thus pushing the community out of the space... currently its an echoing shallow space. With out the community having “ownership” in all its messiness the space will/is drifting into barren NGO land. And in the medium/long term NGO's need funding to subsist, with out funding burn out and failer is not far away.
The Village Butty is initially a more hopeful project. The issue it faces is the libertarian nature of the boater community, its hard to bring and hold boaters together to make anything permanent, its by its nature a shifting/money poor community. The nice couple who have take on on this task and starting to show the strain, lots of talk of support and mostly transient action is a course for burn out. In their crowed funding they are reaching out to the boaters themselves, were instead they need to reach out the wider mainstream community who “romanticizes” boaters. This “outside” demographic easily has the money to support the project were the cash poor boaters them selves do not.
So to recap my thoughts, both projects could/can save themselves from “burn out” by shifting structure/outreach. I will go and have a chat to them both and see what happens.
Being a Pirate - the CC'ers life
There are two keys to being a CCer
1) Don’t take the piss
2) Be a pirate
That’s about it, now they can overlap, let's look at examples of both:
Don’t take the piss.
* Move every 14 days, not hard, and if you can't regularly keep to this then you probably aren’t cut out for life of a CCer, time to think about getting a flat or a mooring if you can afford it.
* Clean up after yourself, your mum isn’t in your boat, thank god, not taking the piss comes down to you, so clean it up.
* Noise, you're up for a rave good on you pirate, but don’t take the piss by doing it in the middle of built up suburbia near lots of moored up boats who aren’t invited.
* Help your mates, the pirate code is mates rates.
* Don’t be a boss with a machete, a can of special brew, it's not friendly it's not wise.
* Am not sure were this goes "Don't tell me how to live my life."
Be a pirate.
* Fuck the system, fuck the bureaucracy, fuck the police, though sometimes smiles and giles are the pirate way, good to keep balancing this.
* We all love pirate moorings, make good use of them and spread the word of mouth.
* Invite all your neighbours to parties, we all love parties.
* Build you boat under a bridge, it's what they are for
* Pirates are horizontal, the captain gets voted in, remember this.
There are more but that’s enough to get on with.
* Renting you boat out is a fine balance between being a pirate and taking the piss. Going away for 6 months to India, sure be a pirate and rent it out. Have a huge brodbeam or a flotilla of 3 boats permanently rented on the open tow-path/wintermooring is taking the piss. The open tow-path is a commons that belongs to us all, don’t enclose it for private gain.
* Bridge hopping in a popular spot, if you need to for a while no problem, be a pirate. If you do this all year you are taking the piss and endangering all our lifestyles by pushing the enforcement agenda.
*Yarr! Be a pirate-recycle wood for fuel. Don't take the piss by burning it in front of people's homes.
* and a few more to come....
Where is our media?
Climate camp is a example of the transition from alternative media to social media. At the beginning of the Climate Change Movement Indymedia was declining. At the first two camps there was a healthy Indymedia centre providing internet, sustainable power and computers
There's always a stress between alternative media and outreach to traditional media. They're in competition and to a certain extent they ignored each other at climate camp. But for social change it is important for the two to go hand-in-hand. The outreach to traditional media should support the production of alternative media and alternative media should feed the best of its production into traditional media to amplify its voice. At climate camp there was only lip service to this happening, in reality the two groups split apart quite soon. Originally the groups were supposed to share the same physical space, but this did not last.
The agenda of traditional media outreach was about the shmoozing of traditional journalists.* Whereas alternative media was bogged down in providing real services in a field which to an extent is always dysfunctional. Like oil and water without a conscious emulsifier to hold them together they separated and throughout the life of climate camp the two never really came together. This happened to a certain extent because radical activists, and I use the word “radical” with "" marks, were prejudiced against people who do what is perceived as soft works such as media production. This is part of activist lifestyle. The spikey/floppy debate.
For a time activist/traditional media outreach ploughed separate paths both playing a role. With the growth of blogging and then most importantly social media - Twitter and Facebook. A new group of NGO focused careerists** championed this initially successful new tool. The traditional media crew ignored social media***, mirroring the attitude of traditional media to social media at those times. The more naive alternative media embraced social media as an effective tool for social change. The realistic alternative media reluctantly embraced it as another form of media outreach, a form of outreach that bypassed the gatekeepers of traditional media.
The growth of social media impacted grassroots alternative media in catastrophic ways. The software NGO careerists**** championed social media and for the naive alternative media people this was the panacea, the future, the one way to gain a voice. Interestingly the traditional media outreach initially saw social media as a threat but they soon with reluctance embraced it. The few remaining radical alt media people struggled to work wih declining relevance, their tools ageing and disintegrating. With the problems of geek culture they had no way to compete with traditional media or the new social media.
Social media took over activist media. Traditional media still had a role as the traditional media belatedly embraced social media and learnt how to use it.
As I highlighted my other article the problem of geek culture damaged radical alternative media. The failure of traditional media outreach to complement activist media led to radical activist media being sidelined. The growth of individualistic blogging while temporarily bolstering individual voices inevitably led to a decline of of our cultural voice. The final blow the wholesale embracing of social media pushed by the NGO careerists.*****
In all these failures we have come full circle to where we started with a dominant hegemonic gatekeeper media world. If we are to rebuild an open media we have to learn from these mistakes and make sure that we do not continue to repeat them.
Lessons to learn
* Work out how to overcome the limitations of geek culture for activist media. Open is the solution here.
* The politics of media. We need to make sure that there is emulsifier in place between radical grassroots media and traditional media outreach. To achieve this the social movements need to rein in and refocus the traditional media message. Media production IS “spikey” and core to activism.
* Radical grassroots media is always incompatible with NGO careerists.****** We need to build in strong enough foundations so that our architecture cannot be subverted by these privileged people. This is for their good and our good.
Conclusion, the most difficult part of successful radical grassroots media is social, cultural and political. In this it's essential that it is not technologically led. Actually technology is the easiest part of radical media. The tools and standards that we need always already exist. What is missing is the willingness and the common-sense to use what we have.
Alt-geek culture is broken – discuss
The basis of any new media is the technology it is mediated by. In the case of newspapers this is the printing press, and for radio and TV it is access to the transmission spectrum. The open internet changed this media which was based on a world of vertical analogue scarcity. As the accessing technology improved, it created a radically horizontal digital media space.
This was intently filled with (naive in a good sensece) alt-media such as the Indymedia project (IMC). In this post I am looking at how this was killed off by internal geek/process dogmatism at the same time as its space was colonised by new/mainstream such as blogging and social media. We are now coming full circle to where we started with closed client/server, algorithm-determined, gatekeeper, for-profit networks dominating media production and consumption. The corporate gatekeeping venture capital drivern (and invisible ideology) algorithm is the new printing press/broadcast spectrum that we started the century with.
What part did radical geeks play in this?
Let's look at the successful global indymedia project, which was based on open publishing and open process through a centralised server. Before this the radical video project undercurrents, while not so open, was again based on a technical hub. They had the only free digital editing suite for production of grassroots video, thus anyone wanting to produces radical content was funnelled though this grassroots gatekeeper. With IMC, it was publishing to their server.
The indymedia network was setup in the very avant-gardist open model that was to dominate the internet for a time. Like undercurrents it succceeded because of its technical centralisation – the server was the ONLY place citizen journalist content could be published without hard technical knowledge. This monopoly was later lost to the growth of individualistic blogging platforms and later corporate social media. But what I want to argue here is that it died before this due to internal pressures.
Indymedia was set up on the open, open, open, open, pseud-anonymous model.
* Open source (free software)
* Open publishing (post-publishing moderation)
* Open licence content (non commercial re-use)
* Open process (everything was organised on public e-mail lists, meetings)
* Pseudo-anonymous (you didn’t have to provide an e-mail address or a real name)
Let's look as some of the pragmatism that allowed the project to take off:
* The project was initially pragmatic about open source as it used the closed realmedia video streaming codec and servers. But the core project was committed to the free software path where technically possible.
* Open publishing was the basis of the project, things could only be hidden (not removed) because they broke a broad public editorial guideline. Evern then they were added to a background page so were still public. In this the process was naïvely open.
* Open licence stayed with the project to the end.
* Open process was gradually abandoned, a clique formed then fought and split, this was the main reason the project ossified and could not adapt to keep its relevance in the changing world of blogs and social media.
* (Pseudo) anonymity was part of the abandonment of open process and led down many of the technical dead ends that finally killed the relevance of the project to most users.
Lets look at this final one in more depth
Firstly, it's important to realise that any attempt at anonymous publishing in a client server relationship even at its most restrictive and paranoid would only produce pseudo anonymity. ie. you might be able to hide from your mates and your employer but you cannot hide from the “powers that be” if they are interested in subverting your server and its internet connection – the internet is inherently naïvely open, its built that way, this is why it works. The recent Snowdon leaks highlight this to the wider public.
- the integrity of the ISP and hosting was always based on trusting a tiny anonymous minority of geeks
- the physical security of the server could never be fully guarranteed.
- as the project process closed the identity of these core geeks became tenuous/invisible.
In activism just as the man driving the white van repeatedly turned out to be the police/corporate spy, the invisible server admin is the obvious opening for the same role – not saying this is what existed, just trying to highlight how you cannot build a network based on this closed client server infrastructure/culture that IMC became. Given the open nature of the internet, it became dangerous to push IMC as an anonymous project.
There were four fatal blocks:
- the repeated blocks and failure and delay of decentralisation of the servers to the regions.
- the blocks on aggregation, then the closed subculture aggregation that final happened as a parallel project
- the focusing on encrypted web hosting and self-signed certificates put a block on new non-technical users
- the failed security of not login IP address locally on the server as a limited security fig leaf. They could simply be logged on the ISP/open web instead.
The first two were social/cultural blocks.
The last two were technical/social blocks.
These, together with a shrinking of the core group, led to the project becoming irrelevant in the face of the growth of more openly accessible blogging and then social media.
Let's get positive and suggest some ways the IMC project could have flourished and still be a dominant grassroots project:
* The base level of the project should have actively decentralised as the technology matured to make this feasible. Every town needed its own server.
* Then regional aggregation using RSS would make this grassroots media presentable as outreach media.
* A national aggregation site could then have compete directly with declining traditional media outlets.
* Recognising that the IMC project was pseudo-anonymous at best, IMC could have built a parallel encrypted peer-to-peer gateway app/network to feed into this to provide true(ish) anonymity for publishers to this ongoing open media project.
* The decentralisation would have been a force to keep the process open by feeding though new people/energy – this would have naturally balanced the activist clique forming/closing in the centre.
* As blogging became popular and matured these could have been “ethically” aggregated into the network to build a truly federated global open media network such as http://openworlds.info is working to be.
* Social networking could have been added as an organic part of this fluruashing federated network.
If this had happened, it's not too much to say that the internet would have been a different place to where it is now. The IMC project highlights some of the failures of activist/geek culture. If we are to (re)build the open web we need to learn from this and move on.
(find photo of indymedia sheffield masked up photo)
This is sadly not a metaphor for an open media project
It should be obvus to most peopule now that even the most paranoid centralised closed internet is only pseudo-anonymous at best. We need to learn how to live with "open" to build the world we want to see. And our geeks fighting for closed are actually a problem for us, just as much as "them".
Lets look for a moment at “sanity” in grassroots terms
The are a lot of “insane” people in activism and counter-culture, its what makes it exciting, dynamic and affective. However with everything its a question of balance, lets look at how a movement stagnates, fails or growes and blossems.
A short off the top of head list
NGO'ists push limited bureaucratic thinking over everything, they get into bed with anything that can be shaped to their mind set and is fashionably fundable. They take up mind space and squander resources. The vast majority of “institutional” money goes into this.
Encryptionists – service the paranoid fuckists, they have a strong tendencies to reduce usability and create dangerous fantasises of security and anonymity. The are a lot of these as this has been a dominate way of thinking for the last 5-10 years.
Traditional media panderers have there uses for a companion, but soon start to misshape the movement to mainstream agenda’s – hard not to have this outcome.
Horizontal dotcom'sts try to use our movement to jump start their dotcom, fine if its built with the 4 opens, if its not then distraction if failur and disaster if people use it – so bad outcome both ways.
Insecure and nasty lifestyles are endemic and are attracted like fly's to any successful grassroots project and they are feed by the felandering of the Traditional media panderist – this can easily tip into being a movement death spiral.
Hidden careerist are good for movement building as tend to be the competent ones, but start to drift to NGO and media philanders to build their careerer rather than the grassroots movement.
Paranoid fuckwists are the bedroock of most grassroots campines and in small doses help hold things together, get to many of them in places of responsibility and you have out of control infighting.
Dogmatic liberals are lovely people, but a strong force for blocking sustainable alternatives, its imposable to meditate the breakdowns with a few of these at the core of any counter-culture.
Now for a corresponding “good” list of activist “insanity's”
On this subject it helps to be a bit "mad" to stay in grassroot movement for any leaghnth of time
The hand's off NGO's the is a long (hidden) history of healthy NGO/atavism synergy
The user focused KISS per2per'ists are working on the uphill project of (re)booting the open web.
Traditional media outreach'sts are promoting grassroots media and technology by linking it into traditional media narratives to build the world rather than misshape it.
Horizontal dotcom's are working on “open” federated sustainability rather than closed client server “solutions”
Lifestyles are though opening up in the campaigning lifestyle flow and learning to let go and build healthy connected lives.
Open careerist, are bootstrapping the campaign while bootstrapping themselves, they take the open energy like a trosion horse into the belly of the traditional beast. Some one has to do this...
Secure organising crew is everyone job to keep it carm and focus, and help out with the very real “offline” security and communication that activism needs.
Liberal liberals the calm and the balance of “common sense” that’s needed to keep things from going horribly wrong.
Activism is a dynamic and crazy place full of “insane” people doing fantastic things, its a balancing act to hold it all together, to much of the top and not anufe off the bottom and it quickly slides into something few people wont to be involved in – then disappears with little trace.
Citizenfour – hiding behind Oscar
Here is my persional review of a good film to watch (DRAFT)
Its a feel good movie about brave people changing the world, and they are and they do. But its not a movie about the world changing.
The film reinforces my view that strong digital privacy like DRM in music, software and books is “broken” just like the 20th century copyright world. We as a culture need to get over this and move on. Many people knew this already. It's simple logic and lived experience to know that anything digital is open to copying and passing on. Your communication/identity is digital, so it's “open”.
The Snowden leeks, and the film about them, is important for the pre-digital majority who did/do not understand this, the head-in-the-ground worldview. The issue for me is that the film does not actually communicate the nature of open. It's probably why it won the Oscar, in that it allows people's heads not to move, which like many things in the modern world is a dangerous denial of reality we live in.
We need to pull our heads out of the sand and learn to live in the open, because that is where we are and where we will continue to be. Think for a moment: all the state spying, and power, goes out the window, when WE have the “open” knowledge and connections to self-organise. You as an indiviual can only hide from your friends, no matter how you try, and by doing this you're empowering your enemies and disempowering your friends. This film won an Oscar because it lets a whole generation of people keep looking the other way. They don’t have to turn to look at “open”.
For the technically curious, on the end credits it give a list of privacy tech that lots of people know are broken. Just takes a “google” search:
* The tor project – is not secure http://www.infosecurity-magazine.com/news/tor-is-not-as-safe-as-you-may-think/
* Tails – uses Tor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tails_%28operating_system%29
* Debian/linux is nice, and being open source could be more secure, maybe, who actually knows?
* Off-the-record messaging – being p2p security might work, but equally vulnerable to screen/key logging etc.
* GNU privacy guard – being p2p can work https://vimeo.com/56881481
* Truecrypt – failed in a public way, like most open projects nobody knows if its secure or not http://www.enterprisenetworkingplanet.com/netsecur/opinion-truecrypt-the-nsa-and-the-myth-of-open-source-security.html
* Securedrop is you guessed it based on our “friend” Tor
Traditional media loves them because they don’t make traditional media think (no head turning involved). Yes, with P2P encryption you can get a limited privacy, anonymity is more vapours, and actually the film knows this, but it isn’t the message, if it was it wouldn’t be Oscar material.
Grassroots media - Building affinity
In the last few posts I have looked at a failed organising strategy realmedia gathering, outlined a positive way out of this failer, the focused unconfrunce. But for wider understanding I think the content so far is lacking some background, lets look at an old post http://hamishcampbell.com/en/home/-/blogs/the-21st-centery here I outline how we ACTURLY organise alternatives rather than how we pretend/think/do, this is important for a good outcome.
Grassroots as it's very nature is small, we grow from this smallness like grass, savannah and wide plans, we have loots of entwined grass's making up the whole. From this distributed and federated ecosystem we compete with the monolithic traditional corporate media.
The link above highlights the ways we organise, only 3 have rarely good outcomes:
Open affinity group
Opaque affinity group
Invisible affinity group
The top is the best, the bottom for its limitations still works, the top is the hardiest to hold in place, the middle the longest lived, the bottom the easy fast/transitory root to social change.
With this understanding in mind, how are the all important affinity groups formed?
The Laboratory of Insurrectionary Imagination http://www.labofii.net/ spend most of their time forming such groups
Good squats form them, most successful direct action grows them like weeds.
The can come from workshops like LOII which lead to direct action, or from repeated direct actions. They can come from long term working relationships, affinity springs from people interacting around and in places of action, try to do something together and you will know who you have affinity with.
How would we use this knowledge to kick start the (re)growth of alt-media?
* We don’t organises speaker events with top down platform speakers – this is deadening.
* We don’t organise passive workshops were knowledge is thought one to many.
You seed events, with questions and processes then grow DIY
What we do do is get people to do practical things together were ever possible, most useful outcome happen from chopping vegetables in the kitchen than at a big hall event.
We have go rounds at the beginning, middle and end of every workshop were feasible. This is to bring confidence, but most impotently to allow each other to hear each's voice/sense and sensibility repeatedly over the weekend.
The practical workshops are were the afererty is formed into connections then networks.
Cross fertilisation is needed for grassroots growth this like pixie dust can be liberally sprinkled by thouse who have an art (hart) for it over the weekend.
The weekend will plant seeds, some will grow some will fall on fallow ground, the ones that sprout should be watered with publiserty, conections and funding.
The event should be rinesed and repeted in different areas/diffrent groupings and lifestyes etc.
The whole organic network is then held together by a the 4 open on the web. Do not fall into the trap of failbook at this point.
This is the first time I have seen tredtional media talking about this http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2015/01/26/why-do-managers-hate-agile/
Organise the 21st Century
Lets look at how we acturly organise.
Garssroots alternative streams (and mainstream river with more complexity) can be split into a number of streams
* The horizontals
* The verticals
In the horizontals the organising is actually pretty opaque – lets look at the tributary’s
Organic consensus – this is rare and generally fleeting, a working example is the rainbow gathering, generally as the project settles into place organic consensus is replace with one of the bellow organising strategys. The organic nature comes form shared myths and traditions.
Bureaucratic consensus – common but this tends to be only a surface layer obscuring the actual working practices which would be one of the others. It leads to ossification, see late climate camp process as an example of this. A current project is looking likely the “edge fund”.
Opaque affinity group – the is a group of people who are doing it but you don’t know how or how to take on a role. A lot of alternative are actually run like this, middle/late climatecamp is an example.
Invisible affinity group – the thing just appears as if by magic – lovely as far as it takes you. Given time this will burn out and morph into one of the other forms. Early Climatecamp is a good example of this as is early Indymedia
Open affinity group – the is hope in this hard to sustain one an example would be the tech group at Balcoby anty fracking camp. These are hard/tiring to keep open “naturally” falling into a different strategy.
Then the verticals are more in the open
Democratic centralism (SWP etc) top down and corrupt, good for the nasty crew at the centre that can last a long time by draining new blood from the alternative. Big noise and little effect.
Bureaucratic democracy (NUJ) good as far as it goes but endless meetings and heavy use of cross subsidy to sustain the sluggish process, problematically reactionary dues to glacial adaptation to changes around it.
Career Hierarchy – most trade unions and the labour party, conservative and sluggish, can be captured by functioning opaque/invisible affinity groups and then used for their own ends – an example the new labour project.
Generally the way things are on the river surface bears little relation to the undercurrents bellow the surface. Almost all organising that achieves social change is by opaque or invisible affinity groups. The more permanent static alt infrastructure is Democratic centralism or Bureaucratic democracy. The parts that merge into the mainstream river are career Hierarchy.
We live in turbulent times, enjoy your ride on the choppy river.
What would an open media network (OMN) look like?
Lets do some grounded/blue sky thinking ;)
The internet has been (unbelievably) successful because its libertarian/anacist open/trust peer to peer network with very light centre and governances. How do we (re)build an grassroots-media to flourish in the 21st century remains of this open web?
What would an open media network (OMN) look like?
Ps. this actually already exists in part in the visionOntv project.
Peer to peer is the long term goal, but the whole internet is now largely based on client server and alt-geeks love control, so let's take a half first step from this spot.
We need to activate the already existing client/server federated scalable human aggregation content network.
* Based on RSS (98% implemented)
* Based on current CMS's (90% implemented)
* Second tier embed option for legacy sites (80% implemented)
* Constructed with the 4 opens.
1) Content producers are all the current sites – they have to put out a RSS feed of content (98% do all ready)
2) Second level - subject/region/ideology aggregation are run by small groups and individuals. These can be based on current CMS's with RSS aggregation modules (50% implemented)
3) Top site takes feeds from the subject aggregation. Same CMS as second sites.
Producers/subject (1,2) can take embeds for (3) etc. to help to bootstrap the network tech.
Thus the content is published at the bottom and make its way up to wide distribution on the top sites.
Important to realise that NOBODY is in control of the network and it is completely open to setting up nodes at different levels. It is governed by the 4 opens and a light bit of agreed "set-in-stone" process.
In this set-up we have a horizontal media where everyone is in charge of their publishing, and the different communities organically create their own content flow. Some sites will be highly linked and aggregated and some will be ignored, the whole network will organically split into streams and tributaries of data/content flows. These can and will become communities. If one fails it will be replaced organically with another, the best will rise and the worst will fall, they will criss-cross and settle into a multitude of flows.
The whole network will be based on duplicated synchronised meta-data – the source will reside at the publishing site. Davie Winar has done work on how this is achieved (we can implement some caching into the network to deal with scaling issues when needed).
SPAM is dealt with by trust, as each site makes a decision to trust the sites it links to, If you let spam into your network, people will drop YOU. A data roll-back can be implemented for removing SPAM flows that get though this trust network.
The friction (delay/server load) of the RSS object aggregation is actually a feature driving content consumption to close to the bottom. Each server can have traffic light flags for load, add too many feeds and it goes into the red, drop feeds and it goes orange to healthy green. This accelerates the diversity of aggregation sites – if you don’t wont to be an aggregate you just take embeds from a site you trust.
The top sites are easy to create but slower/hard to add value to, this drives the creation of second(2) sites to build out the wider network.
The successful top sites will grow to compete with the failing traditional media. The health of the network will be at the second level sites that feed the top sites. The content will come from the bottom, rejuvenating blogging and community websites. The closed dotcom's such as Facebook and Twitter lock them selves out of content production by not supporting RSS – they become declining dumb pipes for OMN distribution.
As the OMN takes off we can create peer to peer encrypted object flows to move this away from the client server paradigm to make the network more robust against disruption by states and corporations.
The outcome is a distributed data internet of flows. Like the internet itself, it will simply flow round damage/censorship and is open to all.
Hope you found this useful
Rainbow gatherings - where we are
40 years of one of the most active and largest non-organisation's in the world. A modern working example of traditional nomadic life an sustainable example the world can be different.
Its important NOT to get caught up in talk about the big picture of what a Rainbow Gathering is, as its a Rainbow of many colouers, a gathering of the tribes, each brings its own myths, traditions and sadly sometimes "rules". The man (and it uselessly is a man) dressed in “sacred robes” proclaiming this or that is rainbow, should be acknowledged by a sigh, it's human to smile and walk away to get a cup of tea, taking the person next to you as well. That’s the rainbow way they have facilitated a rainbow connection ;)
Rainbow is a traditional society.
This is an important statement, because a rainbow gathering only happens if we come together motivated by the myths of Rainbow and enact the traditions of Rainbow. Its a misguide not to do this otherwise its just another festival, not a Rainbow Gathering.
It is “Babylon” energy to ask “how can we do this better”, instead you should ask “how dose the Rainbow do this”. The is a Rainbow humility here, a touching the earth. The gatherings have good working traditions that cover almost every thing that happens at a Gathering. And they are traditions built and tested though time and experience – they are what makes a Rainbow Gathering.
New “ideas/newways” destroy traditional society’s all around the world. In traditional society good change is slow and organic. This new/improved rainbow “Babylon” energy is surging through the European gatherings the last few years. Its is probably a USA issue as well.
An example of this
At the European gathering in Greece (2013) The gathering was “organised” by a group in darkness, it become the empty home of invisible individuals that make things happen. Were the Rainbow way is in the light of visible circles, transparency and foculisers not organisers.
The gathering happened but for some it had a emptiness, an example of the outcome of this was the poisoning of the water supply for the local village by the kitchen builders – many people could see what was happening but darkness surrounding manifesting the kitchen meant nobody could stop this from happening.
The solution to solve this is not by “improvements” but by remembering/honourer the Rainbow spirit manifested in its myths (care for nature and peoples) and its tradition, don’t build gray water pits/compasing near water supply’s.
How to solve this “new/improved/organising - Babylon” energy is to call a circle for kitchen, magic hat, water etc. the “invisible/shadow” individuals will likely not come into this light. This circle will generate ideas, connections and trust. The shadow/invisible individuals will likely come directly to you (the one who called the circle) as an individual (in the shadow's) – give them feedback and invite them to the next circle. When they come then their role can THEN be passed into the light. The power of circles is lost if not used so a hart song circle on water, wood kitchen etc. Might help to nurture this circle power before trying to fix the shadow workers. And as the gathering is just a big circle the spread of light will brining a grater shine to the whole rainbow.
The myth of care and the tradition of circles and openness sole most problems, have a shiny Rainbow and see you in the kitchen.
Where are we - an example of what works
An example of what works.
At Balcome the anti-fracking camp last summer we built a “visible affinity group” to do the power and tech for the camp. This was successful in providing working off grid energy for the camp of more than 200 people for 2 months.
However it wasn’t with out problems and did fail to build on this success when the time came to reproduce this open working model at the next camps over the winter.
How we made it work, a time line:
* Clear the space of the dysfunction by imposing open working practice's.
* This opens the space for functional working which has been excluded by the dysfunctional pushy minority.
* Open working practices nurtures talent and energy the space growers and blossoms, good shit happens.
* A tiny minority of seriously dysfunctional individuals will actively try and destroy this flowering, some emotional violence will inshuew in process of excluding them.
* The wider camp will become used to a working tech space and normality will settle back into place, at its best this is rinsed and repeated for each part of the camp.
* People will start to forget the open processes as artificial, constant vigilances is needed here to keep openness relevant and in place.
* As the camp is packed down a open meeting will bring this amnesia to the surface as everyone has an equal voice and the focus (affinity) that created the flowering will be trampled under the widening of the groups members.
In the horizontal alt the are only two successful working practices, most organising happens by “invisible affinity groups” climate camp and RTS are examples of this. Rarely “open affinity groups” are also successful, examples would be early Indymedia and this tech at Blacome.
Art, money and socierty - some notes
Went to a workshop at spacestudios on digital money and the arts. Here are my notes of the things I thought about/covered.
Forms of money
* LETS – works for liberals (the Brixton pound is a current example, at the meeting)
* Digital – works for the Geeks then Capital (bitcoin and its clones)
* Gift – works for the community (London boaters and the Rainbow Gathering are examples I give)
* £££ - works for the state and thus capital (what we have)
* Flatter – works for a practical digital utopia (other examples?)
The key point to get across is Don’t - repeat - use existing projects.
- Everybody has to re-create thus you have hundreds of implementations of the same limited fashionable idea and non of them are federate to each other, thus value is lost in the mess. Rinse repeat and move on. Both sad and bad.
The issue of arrogance - who is pushing out who, space is value.
Colonisation of alternatives – capital markets need to expand or die so the things we value are being consumed – gentrification is ripe and spreading is tentacles into every space.
The world used to be regulated
The fall of the soviet union and ripped up money confetti in the parks – the replacement of the old with new temporary currency – old money changing to new – you have to change the money to change society.
Artist reshaping the world, what is art what is tart. The “chattering classes” are they vampire or do they have value – articulates of exclusivity? Curating the conversation – the outcome?
Were douse value come from?
Example - The rainbow gathering – gift – global – everywhere – nomadic
Are you focused on community or on capital - making for self or community, abstract or use – within the art space or outside it – the use space.
Alienated from the establishment – the gate keepers
Attention is currency if we decentralise the current, hierarchy will crumble to an extent. Bravely independent – federated is a solution.
Have to fight against the colonisation of alternatives – capital markets need to expand or die so the things we value are being consumed – gentrification is ripe.
Stupid individualism and the possibility of an alternative
Stupid individualism and the visionOntv templates.
Our templates for video journalism are designed to radically simplify and empower normal people to make coherent video news pieces using the tools they largely already have. They are successful at this if people fallow the template's – it says this at the end of most of them.
The issue that creates failure is a standard one for the possibility of an alternative, I call it this “stupid individualism”.
The disparity of wealth on the surface and poverty of the underlying human condition (some would call this “spirit”) is striking to many thinking and feeling people. Our shared western society is based on a hegemonic faoles senses of individualism, were the reality is largely faceless conformity thinly vaneared by lifestyle fashion. This is the bases of consumer capitalism our “wealth” is built on. The statues que atomises any possibility of building an alternative and shows up in as a block in most attempts to build one.
Our templates boil down more than 30 years of experience of awarded wining fast turn around video journalism to a A4 cartoon sheet. The instructions are clear and complete, if you fallow these, after a few attempts you will likely have mastered the bases of audio visual story telling and from this point of mastery opens a whole world of creativity and real genuine individualism.
Very few actually get this far and we know this because we have trained thousands of citizen journalist over hundreds of workshops at both undercurrents and visionOntv. Why? I would put fowered my old friend/foe “stupid individualism” as the prime explanation (though would admit the are technical challenges as well).
The impotence of the template is more in what it doesn’t say, the is much more information in the omissions, this is how it fits on a A4 with pictures. It distils what does work and explains this.
People do not fallow the template, often they do not even pick it up and read it, they then go onto do what THEY think is video making, they do all the bits that the template purposely omits and very few of the bits in it, the result is almost always a dis empowering mess. This is the same thing with all groups we work with.
We live in an individualist society, were we are all “empowered individuals”. The problem is evident in that this is our empowerment is an illusion, we are all dis empowered individules with egos let lose on dispoling mode. We think we are empowered because everything around us that works is on bureaucratic auto pilot, we don’t actually have to create anything original and lack the base skills to so when the rare option comes round. Our templates are such a rear opportunity, if you can take your mind out of dispoleing mode and fallow the instructions – the first step and a rare hopeful sign for us as trainers is a budeing CJ actually checking the steps on the paper template as they go though the filming.
This “stupide individualisam” is a block on many parts of building an alternative.