Most people are parasites in our current #mainstreaming society, this is non contrivsal view in the era of the #deathcult
Examples:
Lets look for a moment at our tech world, if we are generous 90% of people on the #openweb are parasite on this culture and tech space.
Maybe 9% are “native” but could do better and the native 1% left are fractured. You can use a social tool like the #4opens to make this visible with little effort if you care.
This space is made of social tech, and at its core is #4opens culture, people and community.
If you are not genuse, its more like 99% and fractions of the 1% left over. Lets be truthful and try and bump this up to the genuruse view please.
Pushing defederation from #meta is not wrong in sentiment, the #dotcons are vile and cons. But is wrong from a practical sense, the #Fediverse and #ActivityPub are #openweb based on #4opens you do not have technical tools for stopping the #dotcons as the data in the end is in the open, unencrypted, in the database, in #RSS and in open flows.
These people are fighting for the #closedweb on a “native” #openweb platform. This makes no sense at all, incoherences everywhere, the is a lot of this mess over the last 40 years.
Grassroots activism has undergone significant ups and downs over the past four decades, particularly within the realm of digital communication and organizing. This essay seeks to provide an overview of the challenges and successes experienced by grassroots activists during this time period, focusing on the evolution of the open internet and its eventual decline. It explores the ideological underpinnings of internet projects, the impact of funding and #mainstreaming efforts, and the shifting dynamics between open and closed systems. By examining these trends, we can better understand the complex interplay between technology, ideology, and activism in the digital age.
The Rise of the Open Internet: In the early days of the internet, there was a surge of enthusiasm for #4opens and decentralized communication platforms. Projects like early #indymedia, blogging platforms, wikis, and peer-to-peer networks flourished, driven by an ethos of democratization and empowerment. These offered people and grassroots movements unprecedented opportunities to connect, collaborate, and mobilize on a global scale. The ideology of the #openweb, rooted in principles of decentralization, transparency, and freedom, captured the imaginations of many activists seeking to challenge established power structures.
However, alongside the growth of #openweb projects, there were also significant challenges and tensions. The influx of funding from state, foundation, and #NGO sources brought both opportunities and risks. While funding provided vital resources for development and expansion, it also introduced pressures to conform to #mainstreaming norms and intrenched #geekproblem agendas. Additionally, as open internet projects gained popularity, they became susceptible to co-option and manipulation by corporate interests seeking to capitalize on the growing community interest.
The Fall of the Openweb: Despite early successes, the open internet eventually faced a decline, marked by the erosion of its ideological foundations and the resurgence of closed, centralized platforms, the #dotcons. One key factor in this decline was the failure of many openweb projects to align with the dominant ideology of the web itself. The pushing of non-native common sense. While some projects embraced the principles of trust-based anarchism and decentralized governance, others veered towards more hierarchical and exclusionary models.
The rise of a new generation of technologists and entrepreneurs, shaped by #neoliberal ideologies of individualism and competition, led to a merging of open and closed systems. This shift towards closed platforms, controlled by a handful of corporate giants, undermined the diversity and resilience of the openweb. The very chaos that once protected the openweb from vertical integration and monopolization was replaced by a homogenized landscape dominated by a few dominant #dotcons.
Challenges and Opportunities: In the face of these challenges, grassroots activists must grapple with the complexities of navigating a digital landscape that is increasingly hostile to their values and principles. The siloed nature of many media projects presents a barrier to collective action and solidarity, limiting their impact and longevity. However, there are also opportunities for resistance and resilience, through the cultivation of networks based on mutual aid and cooperation like the #OMN
Conclusion: The trajectory of grassroots activism in the UK over the past four decades reflects the broader shifts and tensions within the digital realm. The rise and fall of the openweb mirror the struggles of activists to carve out spaces for dissent and resistance in an increasingly corporatized and surveilled environment. By critically using the #4opens, examining the ideological underpinnings of internet projects and exploring alternative models of organizing, activists can work towards reclaiming the promise of a truly open and decentralized digital future.
Post-modernism: Over the last four decades, post-modernism has pushed subjectivity and the rejection of universal truths. While it aimed to deconstruct grand narratives and challenge power structures, it has led to a fragmented world-views where reality is ignored, and truth is relative. This has challenged the building of coherent social movements and addressing systemic issues effectively.
Neo-liberalism emphasis on deregulation, privatization, and market-driven policies, has exacerbated income inequality, weakened labour rights, and commodified social services. It has prioritized profit over people, leading to financial crises, environmental degradation, and the erosion of social safety nets. The relentless pursuit of economic growth has come at the expense of social justice, environmental sustainability, and democratic values.
Identity politics: While this has played a role in raising awareness about marginalized groups’ struggles and experiences, it has also fostered divisions within leftist movements. The focus on individual identities leads to a fragmentation of collective action, as different groups prioritize their interests over broader solidarity. Identity politics has been co-opted by #mainstreaming institutions to tokenize diversity without addressing systemic inequalities.
OMN project: To counter the negative impacts of post-modernism and neo-liberalism and identity politics, the OMN project prioritizes collective action and solidarity more than individuals. By acknowledging the interconnectedness of systemic oppression and capitalism, the project resists co-optation by the ruling class and promote deeper understandings of social justice issues. Critical discourse of identity politics within leftist movements will strengthen the commitment to #4opens values.
While post-modernism and neoliberalism contribute to societal challenges, the #OMN project navigates these issues by prioritizing collective action, resisting co-optation, and promoting critical discourse around identity politics and systemic oppression.
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 #4opens 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.
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 #4opens 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.
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 #4opens 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 #4opens 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.
In an era dominated by centralized #dotcons platforms and gatekeepers, the #openweb represents a beacon of hope for progressive society. Rooted in the #4opens 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”.
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 #4opens strategies can be employed:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 #4opens stakeholders.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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 #4opens 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.
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.
