Non classé

The mess we keep making of #FOSS governance

It’s disheartening to see a community platform like Trustroots facing challenges with governance, leading to issues and tensions among its contributors and here This situation mess underscores the importance of establishing healthy governance practices within community-driven projects to ensure their long-term sustainability and effectiveness.

The case of Trustroots alongside the earlier issue of CouchSurfing serves as a cautionary tale about the pitfalls of traditional vertical #FOSS foundation/ #NGO models for open-source projects. These models may initially foster collaboration and innovation but become susceptible to internal conflicts and power struggles over time.

The #OGB (Open Governance Body) suggests an alternative approach rooted in a more grassroot and inclusive ethos. By embracing “producer” sortation, decentralized decision-making and community-led initiatives, projects like #OGB aim to avoid the pitfalls associated with hierarchical governance structures

Overall, examining case studies like Trustroots and CouchSurfing offer insights into the complexities of managing community platforms and the importance of fostering transparent, inclusive, and participatory governance processes to sustain healthy and thriving communities.

We can’t keep making this same mess.

Non classé

Who gets to decide what this place is? How are we being represented

“An important distinction is slowly being uncovered about the definition of the term “fediverse.” Who is it that gets to decide what this place is? How are we being represented?”

The lack of discussion about the definition of the term #fediverse raises questions about representation and identity within this #openweb “native” network.

  1. Ownership by Communities: The fediverse offers a way to build the internet by communities, in contrast to centralized #dotcons social networks that prioritize monetization over community well-being. By decentralizing governance (#OGB), the fediverse empowers people to take control of their online spaces and relationships.
  2. Audience and Adoption: The fediverse is valuable for those who are hostile and disillusioned with monetized social networks and seek ways to connect with real change/challenge comunertys. While some are eager to explore alternatives, others face limitations or challenges in transitioning to the fediverse. Nonetheless, the slow growth of communities within the fediverse is essential for building a strong “native” foundation for decentralized networking.
  3. Governance and Community: A key distinction of the fediverse lies in its shared governance model, where people have a say in how their communities are governed. This contrasts with centralized social networks, where governance decisions are made by a central authority does not align with community interests. People are drawn to the fediverse for its emphasis on inclusivity and people agency, allowing individuals and social groups to express themselves without fear of censorship or coercion.
  4. Coexistence with Centralized Networks: The fediverse does not require people to opt out of centralized social networks entirely. Instead, people can maintain connections on both platforms while stepping to decentralized networking. This allows people to become familiar with the fediverse’s culture and its advantages.
  5. Website Design and Accessibility: With the foundational principles of the fediverse defined, the focus shifts to website design that reflects these values. Accessibility, both in terms of physical access and cultural understanding, is prioritized to ensure that the platform is inclusive and user-friendly in contrast to much of the history of #FOSS coding.

In summary, the fediverse represents a shift towards community-driven, decentralized networking, offering an alternative to #dotcons. By prioritizing peoples and communertys agency, inclusivity, and accessibility, the fediverse creates spaces where people can connect and express themselves freely.

Non classé

Composting the Mess: Transforming Society through Collective Action

In the intricate tapestry of human interaction, the worst parts of people and society manifest as destructive feedback loops. Whether fueled by greed, fear, or power dynamics, this cycle perpetuates our current culture of brokenness and decay.

To break free from this destructive cycle, we must embrace a paradigm shift towards normalizing the best parts of people and society. By cultivating trust, hope, and collaboration, we can create a fertile ground for growth and transformation.

At the heart of this shift lies the contrast between capitalism and alternative paths like socialism and anarchy. Capitalism, with its emphasis on greed and fear, thrives on control and power that perpetuate societal fractures. In contrast, at there best socialism and anarchy offer pathways rooted in trust and hope, to nurture the best aspects of human nature and society.

Capitalism’s foundation in the worst aspects of human behaviour pushes inequality and division, thus stifling collective progress. In contrast, socialism and anarchy offer frameworks that prioritize equity, solidarity, and cooperation, providing fertile soil for societal flourishing.

As communertys wielding shovels of collective action, we have the power to compost the mess that plagues our societies. By coming together to cultivate a culture of transparency, flows, and mutual aid, we can transform the landscape of human interaction with projects like the #OMN #OGB and #makeinghistory

This act of composting requires patience, dedication, and a willingness to confront the roots of systemic problems. It involves breaking down the “non-native” barriers that divide to nourishing the soil of our communities with the seeds of change.

In the face of adversity, let’s stand united in our commitment to composting the mess that is breaking us and our societies. Together, we can cultivate a future rooted in the best parts of humanity, where empathy, cooperation, and collective well-being build our path.

Non classé

The Mess of Web3: Why #openweb natives should Question the Blockchain Narrative

In the ongoing discourse surrounding #openweb and its relation to failing technologies like #web3 and #blockchain, a critical question emerges: why do we readily accept solutions without first defining the problem at hand?

The allure of decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs) and blockchain technology for the last ten years has overshadowed the necessity of understanding the fundamental issues within our communities. Instead of exploring how we want to govern, decide, and interact within our communities, we find ourselves seduced by the promises of #DAO pitches.

The core of the matter lies in the conflation of culture with technology. Every time a DAO or blockchain solution is proposed, the culture and organization of communities become intertwined with the #geekproblem tools being offered. This bundling tactic obscures the essence of the technology and stifles meaningful discourse. By presenting technology as a fait accompli, we are robbed of the opportunity to critically assess its implications.

In the realm of the #openweb, technology is envisioned as a manifestation of communal decisions and conscious choices. It is the crystallization of community values, traditions, and needs. Where blockchain and DAOs represent an antithesis to this vision. They dictate choices rather than empower communities to determine their own paths.

One of the most concerning aspects of blockchain technology is its enforced financialization within communities. The implementation of ledger systems and tokens mirrors the #dotcons capitalist market traditions, where wealth equates to power. In stark contrast to the principles of “native” gift economies and communalism, blockchain perpetuates a system where those with the most resources wield influence.

In this, even in #mainstreaming dialogue, these ten years of blinded move’s to blockchain threatens to undermine centuries of liberal evolution by replacing established legal systems with #web3 engineers acting as arbiters of justice. This shift from #mainstreaming transparent and “equitable” legal frameworks to opaque and centralized technological solutions is deeply troubling.

As proponents of ideals, it is imperative that we question the last ten years narrative of blockchain’s and DAOs. We must resist the allure of #geekproblem technological solutions that obscure the essence of community governance and autonomy. Instead, let us engage in meaningful dialogue, grounded in a clear understanding of the problems we seek to address and the values we hold dear. Only then can we truly forge a “native” #openweb path towards a more equitable and sustainable future.

We now face another waited ten years of #AI hype with the same issues and agenders. We have to stop creating this mess.

#OGB #OMN #makeinghistory

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

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.


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.


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.

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.

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.

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.

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.


Digital waste – shouting into the void

Interesting links on “digital” waste

This is true. With the #OMN we are building tools for use, not for distraction, shouting into the void is not the project. Community, talking to community, is the core mission. The “personal” is not a part of our core project.

This is alien to #mainstreaming common sense in social tech. Politics as human not as other, we need the tools and the use to build the everyday of our lives #DIY

How to actually communicate this to the #mainstreaming is the challenge that is  very hard to bridge. This is actually impossible, so agen our plan is to build it and communicate by doing, not by just talking.

We are looking for a crew to build and do,” talking” is the tool to create this crew #DIY it’s not the tool itself for change and challenge.

#OMN #OGB #makinghistory are shovels (tools) for social use.


The #geekproblem is a part of our collective #deathcult

There is a value miss match that is a core part of the #geekproblem and its relationship to “normal” society .

One side prioritises the tech, the other the social, they then ignore each other. Both suffer and become pointless, or likely die out as a species in the era of #climatechaos.

Build a bridge or be pointless, or more likely dead in the long term.

#OMN #indymediaback #makeinghistory #OGB are bridges.

The recognition and resolution of the value mismatch between technology and society are crucial for addressing pressing global challenges such as #climatechaos. The #geekproblem encapsulates this divide, where one side prioritizes technological development while the other prioritizes social considerations. However, both perspectives are essential for meaningful progress. By building bridges between technology and society, initiatives like #OMN, #indymediaback, and #OGB serve as vital connectors that facilitate collaboration and mutual understanding. These projects recognize that addressing complex issues requires interdisciplinary approaches that integrate technological innovation. By bridging the gap between technology and society, these initiatives pave the way for holistic solutions that can effectively tackle the challenges of our time, ultimately contributing to a more sustainable and equitable future. Failure to build such bridges risks rendering both perspectives ineffective or irrelevant, potentially leading to dire consequences for humanity in the long term. Therefore, the importance of initiatives like #OMN, #indymediaback, and #OGB cannot be overstated, as they play a crucial role in bridging the gap between technology and society and advancing collective efforts towards a better future.