Categories
Non classé

Building Trust in the Openweb and the Fediverse

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

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

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

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

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

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

Categories
Non classé

Branding, addressing this issue

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

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

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

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

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

Categories
Non classé

The mess we have made in tech

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

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

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

Categories
Non classé

The mess we made with the dotcons

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Categories
Non classé

Navigating the Dynamics of Alt-Projects: A Practical Exploration

The landscape of alternative projects, or alt-projects, is a dynamic and ever-evolving space where people with diverse motivations and backgrounds converge to pursue shared goals. Over the course of more than a 20 years of direct involvement in meany alt-groups, I’ve observed recurring patterns and dynamics that shape the trajectory of these projects. In this post from 2007, I aim to provide insight into these dynamics and offer a framework for understanding the roles of different participants at various stages of an alt-project’s development.

Firstly, it’s useful to define the key terms used to think about (categorize) participants in alt-projects:

1. Getting Things Done People: These individuals are driven by a desire to see tangible results and are focused on action rather than process. While they are instrumental in initiating projects, they may eventually transition to other roles as projects progress.

2. Working People: Often overlooked, these individuals form the backbone of any alt-project, contributing tirelessly to its execution and maintenance. Despite their significant contributions, they may receive minimal recognition for their efforts.

3. Bureaucrats: In a positive sense, bureaucrats are individuals skilled in creating and navigating structures within alt-projects. They play a crucial role in sustaining the project, but may inadvertently perpetuate dysfunction when influenced by other groups.

4. Theorists: These individuals bring a theoretical perspective to alt-projects, often challenging/pushing conventional wisdom and advocating for alternative approaches. However, they may struggle to find their voice within consensus decision-making processes, leading to marginalization.

5. Life Stylists: Emerging from the periphery of alt-projects, life stylists are drawn to successful initiatives but lack a clear commitment to sustained involvement. While some may integrate into other roles, others contribute to a burgeoning lifestyle aspect within the project.

The evolution of an alt-project unfolds across several stages:

1. Initiation: Driven by “getting things done” people, projects begin with a burst of energy and enthusiasm.

2. Expansion: As projects grow, a mix of working people and bureaucrats join the effort, providing stability and structure.

3. Specialization: With the project’s scope widening, “getting things done” people branch out into parallel initiatives, placing greater responsibility on working people and bureaucrats.

4. Consolidation: Burnout among initial instigators leads to a shift in focus towards sustaining the project, with bureaucrats and working people assuming central roles.

5. Peak and Decline: At its zenith, the project faces the dual challenges of maintaining momentum while grappling with internal dynamics. Lifestyle groups emerge, exerting influence and potentially alienating new participants.

6. Reactivation Attempts: Recognizing signs of decay, a coalition of remaining “getting things done” people and long-standing bureaucrats seeks to revitalize the project. However, debates among theorists and lifestyle groups often stall progress.

7. Renewal Efforts: Gathering to address project stagnation, participants confront the challenges of consensus decision-making. Despite goodwill, the exclusion of key voices perpetuates underlying issues.

This cyclical process underscores the inherent complexities of alt-projects and the importance of practical action in sustaining engagement. As burnout and disillusionment set in, parallel initiatives may emerge, drawing in fresh energy and redirecting the focus of participants. Ultimately, understanding these dynamics empowers people to make informed decisions about their involvement in alt-projects, contributing to a more sustainable and inclusive activist landscape.

Thoughts on alt organising from 2007
Categories
Non classé

A positive view of Postmodernism in tech

In the mess of the last 40 years, this is a positive from the negative. In the context of projects of the #OMN (Open Media Network), #OGB (Open Governance Body), #indymediaback, and #makinghistory, postmodernism/modernism influences the approach to media, governance, and historical narratives in several key ways:

  1. Distributed and Decentralized Media: Postmodernism challenges the idea of centralized control over media and information. Projects like #OMN and #indymediaback embrace a decentralized model where content creation and distribution are open to communertys, rather than controlled by a select few. This approach reflects postmodern skepticism towards grand narratives and authority, allowing for diverse voices and perspectives to be heard.
  2. Open Governance: Postmodernism’s emphasis on skepticism towards authority and power structures informs the approach to governance in projects like #OGB. Instead of traditional hierarchical structures, open governance boards advocate for transparency, inclusivity, and participatory decision-making processes. This reflects a postmodern rejection of centralized authority in favour of distributed forms of power.
  3. Alternative Historical Narratives: Postmodernism challenges dominant historical narratives and encourages the exploration of alternative perspectives and counter-histories. Projects like #makinghistory aim to democratize the production of historical knowledge by allowing communities to share their own stories and experiences. This approach recognizes the subjective nature of historical interpretation and emphasizes the importance of diverse voices in shaping our understanding of the past.
  4. Emphasis on Multiplicity and Pluralism: Postmodernism rejects the idea of a single, objective truth in favour of multiplicity and plurality of perspectives. Projects like #OMN, #OGB, #indymediaback, and #makinghistory embrace this diversity by providing platforms for a wide range of voices and viewpoints. Rather than privileging one perspective over others, these projects aim to foster dialogue and exchange between different communities and individuals.

Overall, postmodernism shapes the philosophy and approach of these projects by challenging traditional notions of authority, truth, and history. By embracing decentralization, openness, and plurality, they seek to empower communities, promote inclusivity, and challenge dominant narratives in media, governance, and historical discourse.

The negative history of this movement and its role in the current #deathcult

The negative aspects of postmodernism, particularly when intertwined with #neoliberalism, have had detrimental effects on society, including influencing projects like #OMN, #OGB, #indymediaback, and #makinghistory. Here’s how:

  1. Fragmentation and Atomization: Postmodernism’s emphasis on deconstruction and skepticism towards grand narratives has contributed to the fragmentation of society. Instead of fostering solidarity and collective action, it has led to atomization, where individuals prioritize their own experiences and perspectives over communal goals. In projects like #OMN and #OGB, this fragmentation can hinder effective collaboration and decision-making, as individuals may prioritize their personal interests over the common good.
  2. Relativism and Truth Decay: Postmodernism’s rejection of objective truth has paved the way for widespread relativism, where all beliefs and perspectives are considered equally valid. While diversity of thought is important, this extreme relativism can lead to a breakdown in shared understanding and consensus. In the context of #indymediaback and #makinghistory, this can result in the proliferation of competing narratives and a lack of accountability for factual accuracy, undermining efforts to construct a progressive cohesive historical record or media landscape.
  3. Crisis of Authority and Expertise: Postmodernism’s skepticism towards authority and expertise has eroded trust in social institutions and grassroots experts, leading to a crisis of legitimacy. In the absence of trusted sources of information, conspiracy theories, misinformation, and disinformation thrive, further contributing to societal polarization and distrust. In projects like #OMN and #indymediaback, this crisis of authority can undermine efforts to establish credible media platforms or governance structures, as participants may question the legitimacy of leadership or expertise.
  4. Commodification of Identity: Postmodernism’s focus on individual identity and difference has been co-opted by neoliberal capitalism to commodify identity and diversity. In this neoliberal/postmodern paradigm, diversity and inclusivity are reduced to marketable commodities, used to sell products and services rather than challenge systemic inequalities. In projects like #OGB and #makinghistory, this commodification of identity can undermine efforts to address structural oppression and promote genuine social justice, as diversity and inclusivity become mere branding (lifestyle) exercises rather than catalysts for systemic change.

Overall, the negative aspects of postmodernism, exacerbated by its alignment with neoliberal ideology, have contributed to societal disintegration, truth decay, erosion of trust, and the commodification of identity. In the context of projects like #OMN, #OGB, #indymediaback, and #makinghistory, these dynamics hinder efforts to foster genuine collaboration, construct meaningful historical narratives, and promote social justice. Recognizing and addressing these negative influences is crucial for building more equitable, inclusive, and sustainable societies.

We need to bridge the balance between these stresses.

Categories
Non classé

We can work towards a future

The discussion surrounding the classification of different versions of the web, such as #Web01, #Web02, #Web03, #Web04, or #Web05, is not merely an academic exercise but an aspect of understanding the evolving nature of the digital landscape. However, the proliferation of these hashtags can lead to confusion and contribute to the spread of fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD) among users.

In response to this confusion, the hashtags #openweb and #closedweb offer a clear and concise way to delineate between platforms that embrace openness, transparency, and community control (#openweb) and those that prioritize proprietary technology, centralized control, and lack transparency (#closedweb). By using these hashtags, we can foster a better understanding of the ideological and technical underpinnings of different web platforms.

Projects like #indymediaback and #OMN exemplify grassroots efforts to promote decentralized, community-controlled media and communication platforms. These initiatives are vital in challenging the dominance of large corporations in shaping the digital landscape and in advocating for a more inclusive, diverse, and community-controlled approach to technology development.

At the heart of this discussion lies the #geekproblem, which refers to the tendency among technologically inclined people to prioritize technical solutions without considering their broader societal implications or the needs of ordinary people. By recognizing the #geekproblem, we can begin to address the inherent biases and limitations of tech-centric approaches to problem-solving and advocate for solutions that are more inclusive and community-driven.

The solution to this problem lies in developing social tech that transcends the #geekproblem and focuses on the needs and perspectives of the community. This entails involving a diverse group of people in the development and decision-making process and promoting open-source code, open standards, open governance, and open data in technology development. By embracing these principles, we can create a more equitable, transparent, and collaborative digital ecosystem.

However, achieving this vision requires overcoming challenges, including the resistance of the status quo and the fear of change. By actively using the #4opens—open participation, decentralization, transparency, and interoperability—we can challenge the prevailing narrative, call out pointless technologies, and compost the #techshit that contributes to the perpetuation of harmful social dynamics.

Moreover, it is essential to recognize that the struggle for a more equitable and sustainable future is inherently political. The dominance of large corporations and the perpetuation of #neoliberal ideologies pose significant barriers to progress. Therefore, it is imperative to mobilize collective action and advocate for policies and initiatives that prioritize the needs and well-being of communities over profit-driven interests.

In conclusion, the use of hashtags such as #openweb, #closedweb, and serves as a powerful tool for organizing and mobilizing grassroots efforts to challenge the status quo. By embracing these hashtags and the values they represent, we can work towards a future where technology serves the interests of the many rather than the few.

Categories
Non classé

A balanced and pragmatic approach to native #openweb security

Challenging the Universal Mandate of SSL: A Critique from the #OpenWeb

In the digital landscape, the ubiquitous presence of #SSL encryption, while undoubtedly enhancing security, raises questions about its compatibility with the ethos of the #OpenWeb. The prevailing narrative around SSL often overlooks its ideological underpinnings and the broader implications of its universal adoption. This article aims to challenge the hegemony of SSL by highlighting its limitations and proposing a more nuanced approach to internet security rooted in the principles of accessibility, decentralization, and community empowerment.

At the heart of the issue lies the distinction between the #OpenWeb and the #ClosedWeb, represented respectively by the ethos of accessibility and decentralization, and the closed-off, centralized nature web. While SSL undoubtedly offers security benefits, its imposition on all online interactions reflects not only technical considerations but also ideological stances. The insistence on universal SSL usage is symptomatic of what we term the #GeekProblem—an inclination among technologically inclined people to prioritize technical solutions without consideration of their broader societal implications or the needs of ordinary people.

The universal mandate of SSL, championed by tech giants like Google, not only introduces complexities and barriers for ordinary users but also contributes to the centralization of internet infrastructure. Let’s Encrypt, an American NGO and a dominant SSL certification authority, epitomizes this centralization, posing a significant risk of a single point of failure. If compromised, Let’s Encrypt could undermine the security of countless websites and services, highlighting the dangers of relying on centralized authorities for internet security.

Moreover, the imposition of SSL as a default requirement creates hurdles for community-run platforms and DIY enthusiasts seeking to establish their presence on the #OpenWeb. The technical intricacies involved in obtaining, installing, and maintaining SSL certificates can be daunting for non-experts, leading to barriers to entry and discouraging participation in the vibrant ecosystem of the #OpenWeb.

Critically examining the motivations behind the push for universal SSL adoption reveals a fear-based agenda rooted in a conservative ideology of control. By framing SSL as a tool to be judiciously used rather than universally mandated, challenges the prevailing narrative surrounding internet security and advocate for a more balanced and pragmatic approach. Embracing the principles—open participation, decentralization, transparency, and interoperability—offers a pathway to internet security that prioritizes accessibility, decentralization, and community autonomy.

In conclusion, the universal mandate of SSL represents not only a technical solution to security but also an ideological stance that warrants critical examination. By advocating for a more balanced and user-friendly approach rooted in the principles of the #OpenWeb, we can foster a digital landscape that empowers communities, fosters innovation, and safeguards social freedoms. It’s time to rethink the role of SSL in the #OpenWeb and embrace a more inclusive and decentralized vision of internet “trust” based security.

Categories
Uncategorized

Historically, mainstream politics has exhibited a tendency to shift towards the right during times of crisis

The intersection of climate change, #mainstreaming politics, and fear is a complex and multifaceted phenomenon that influences societal attitudes and policies. Historically, mainstream politics has exhibited a tendency to shift towards the right during times of crisis, and the looming specter of #climatechaos is following this trend. In this context, it is essential to recognize the pivotal role that fear plays in driving right-wing politics and shaping public discourse.

Fear operates as a potent motivator in shaping political attitudes and policies, particularly within the realm of right-wing ideologies. Whether it manifests as apprehension over economic instability, cultural change, or national security threats, fear serves as fertile ground for the proliferation of right-wing narratives. In the context of climatechaos, this fear is further amplified by concerns surrounding environmental degradation, natural disasters, migration, and resource scarcity. Such apprehensions provide a breeding ground for the flourishing of right-wing ideologies, which cynically capitalize on these anxieties to promote their agenda.

However, amidst this landscape of fear, a counterpoint emerges: the waning fear of socialism among the Western bourgeoisie. Traditionally, socialism has been met with suspicion and trepidation by capitalist classes, serving as a perceived threat to the status quo of capitalism. Yet, as socialist ideals gain traction and legitimacy in mainstream discourse, particularly among younger generations, the fear of socialism begins to diminish. This shifting dynamic challenges the hegemony of right-wing politics and offers a glimmer of hope for progressive change.

Indeed, this shift presents an opportunity for hope. By embracing socialist principles and advocating for progressive policies, there is potential to counteract the politics of fear perpetuated by the right. However, this window of opportunity for hope is rapidly narrowing in the face of escalating #climatechaos. The urgency of the climate crisis demands immediate action, and the failure to seize this opportunity through mainstream inaction only serves to exacerbate the cycle of fear and despair.

In essence, the delicate balance between fear and hope profoundly shapes political narratives and responses to climate change. While fear may dominate #mainstreaming politics in the short term, there remains a potential for collective action and progressive change. Initiatives such as the Open Media Network (#OMN), #OGB, #indymediaback, and #makeinghistory exemplify efforts to challenge the status quo and chart a course towards a future grounded in resilience, equity, and sustainability. It is imperative that we capitalize on this potential and confront the climate crisis head-on, fostering a society that prioritizes collective well-being and environmental stewardship.

Categories
Uncategorized

Composting the mess with the #OMN

The proliferation of technology has revolutionized the way we live, work, and communicate. However, as we dive deeper into the digital age, we are increasingly confronted with the alarming consequences of our reliance on these technologies. The links shed light on the issue of “digital” waste and its detrimental impact on the environment.

Gerry McGovern’s article “World Wide Waste” delves into the staggering amount of energy consumed by digital technologies, from data centres to our personal devices. He emphasizes the urgent need to address this issue and advocates for more sustainable practices in the digital realm. https://gerrymcgovern.com/world-wide-waste/

Similarly, the research conducted by Loughborough University’s Volume project highlights the environmental consequences of digital waste, particularly in terms of energy consumption and carbon emissions. The article underscores the importance of adopting eco-friendly approaches to digital design and usage. https://volume.lboro.ac.uk/digital-waste-polluting-the-planet/

Furthermore, the conversation around “dark data” and its contribution to environmental degradation further underscores the need for digital decarbonization. The Guardian’s report on the hidden costs of Ireland’s data center boom reveals the environmental toll of data storage and processing facilities, urging for greater accountability and regulation in the industry.  https://theconversation.com/dark-data-is-killing-the-planet-we-need-digital-decarbonisation-190423

In response to these pressing concerns, initiatives like Digital Decarb aim to promote sustainable practices in the digital sphere, advocating for reduced energy consumption and carbon emissions. https://digitaldecarb.org/

In contrast to the prevailing trend of digital overconsumption and waste, the #OMN (Open Media Networking) project presents a refreshing approach to digital technology. Unlike platforms driven by personalization and distraction, #OMN prioritizes community engagement and meaningful interaction. Its core mission revolves around building tools for communal use rather than individual gratification.

This ethos stands in stark contrast to the #mainstreaming of social tech, which at its core prioritizes personalization and profit over community well-being. By focusing on politics as inherently human rather than as a commodity, #OMN seeks to empower people to reclaim control over their (digital) lives and foster genuine connections within their communities and wider society.

However, effectively communicating this message to mainstream audiences remains a challenge. The prevailing narrative around digital technology often overlooks its environmental and social impact, instead emphasizing convenience and innovation. Breaking through this mindset requires not just words, but tangible actions and demonstrations of the #OMN’s principles in practice.

In essence, #OMN, along with initiatives like and #OGB, serve as tools for social change, enabling communities to shape their digital environments according to “native #openweb values and needs. Through collaborative efforts and grassroots activism, we can challenge the status quo and build a sustainable and equitable future.

Ultimately, the journey towards digital sustainability requires a collective commitment to reimagining the role of technology in our lives and prioritizing the well-being of our planet and communities above all else. The #OMN project invites people to join this endeavour, not just through words, but through meaningful action and collaboration. Together, we can harness the power of technology for the greater good and pave the way for a more inclusive and sustainable online and offline world.