Tag: OMN

Categories
Uncategorized

The solution to the #geekproblem

One of the ways the world of technology is in a mess is due to the problem with institution’s limited funding of the social side of #openweb. Unfortunately, much of the funding that is given ends up feeding parasitic NGOs, which does little to nothing to solve the problems. The existing funding for functional coding also contributes to the #geekproblem by not pushing anything outside the basics. It’s up to people with shovels to clean up this mess, but the question remains – who funds them?

Technology has become an important part of our daily lives. We rely on the internet for everything from communication and entertainment to work and education. However, despite the many benefits that technology offers, there is a growing problem in the industry. Many of the software programs that we rely on are failing because they are built on the wrong foundation.

The #geekproblem software that dominates the tech industry today is built on a foundation of “control”. Developers focus on creating systems that regulate the user’s experience, from how they access information to how they interact with others. However, what many fail to realize is that good societies are built on a foundation of “trust”. When we trust the people and institutions around us, we are more likely to cooperate and work together on common goals.

Unfortunately, the current commercial approach to technology development is leading to piles of #techshit. People don’t trust these #dotcons programs, and they don’t trust the people who create them. This lack of trust can lead to a breakdown in society, that is accelerating the break-down of our environment

The problem is compounded by the fact that the tech industry struggles to communicate this simple understanding to the wider public. Developers are so focused on narrow #geekproblem agenda, technical jargon and complex systems that they often struggle to explain their ideas to others.

One way to address this problem is to fund the social side of tech. By focusing on the human aspects of technology, we can create programs that are not only technically sound, but also easy to use and trustworthy. We need to bridge the gap between the technical and social aspects of tech and create a more holistic approach to technology development.

However, there are very few institutions that fund the social side of #openweb tech. Many of these institutions focus support on parasitic #NGOs that don’t understand the technical side of things and are not interested in building trust. If we continue down this path, we will only feed the #techshit pile.

To make a difference, we need to fund the social side of tech in a way that supports both technical expertise and social understanding. We need to create programs that are not only technically sound but also easy to use and trustworthy. We need to invest in initiatives like the #OMN and that promote communication, cooperation, and trust within the tech industry.

Ultimately, the solution to the #geekproblem is to realize that good societies are built on trust, not control. We need to build technology that reflects this reality and invest in the social side of tech. By doing so, we can ensure that technology continues to serve us and not the other way around.

Categories
Uncategorized

Keep building a better world, one link, one line of code at a time.

Once upon a time, in a world dominated by the #dotcons, closed-source technology and centralized decision-making, a small group of passionate activists and developers came together to reboot an old way of building technology. They believed that technology should serve the needs of people, not just the interests of big corporations and governments. They called themselves the community.

The community believed that openness and trust were the keys to creating technology that served the needs of people. They codified the existing #FOSS, open-source working practices as a process called the , which consisted of four #KISS principles: open data, open source, open “industrial” standards, and open process. They believed that by embracing these principles, they could create technology that was more transparent, collaborative, and decentralized.

The first principle of the was open data. The community believed that data should be freely available to everyone, so that anyone could use it to build new tools and uses. They created a platform #OMN where people could share data openly and collaborate on projects together.

The second principle of the was the #mainstreaming idea of open source. The community believed that software should be free and open for anyone to use, modify, and distribute. They created a library of open-source software that anyone could use to build new tools and services.

The third principle of the was open “industrial” standards. This principle was a little more complex, but it basically meant that technology should be built using open, standardized protocols that anyone could use. This would ensure that technology was interoperable and that people could easily switch between different tools and services.

The fourth and final principle of the was open process. This principle was perhaps the most important of all. The community believed that technology should be developed using transparent, collaborative processes that anyone could participate in. They organized on a platform https://unite.openworlds.info/ where people could share ideas, collaborate on projects, and make decisions together.

Over time, the community grew and expanded. They built new tools and services that were based on the principles of openness and trust. They created a vibrant ecosystem of developers, designers, and users who worked together to create technology that served the needs of people, not just the interests of big corporations and governments.

And so the community continued to grow and evolve, creating a more healthy vision for technology. They knew that their work was just the start, they were determined to keep pushing forward, to keep building a better world, one link, one line of code at a time.

Categories
Uncategorized

Liberal trolls – are often not WHO they think they are

DRAFT to be edited

http://hamishcampbell.com/2023/02/14/archiving-the-openweb-in-a-personal-way/

http://hamishcampbell.com/2023/02/12/thinking-about-why-openweb-projects-fail/

It’s hard to get a thried out of mastodon, hopeful this is in the right order and not missing bits. As usually, if you would like to be anonymous with no linking please say so, thanks.

Made a blog post, if you reply your text might be added to this if you don’t tell me not to 🙂

We are talking about this blog post http://hamishcampbell.com/2023/02/12/thinking-about-why-openweb-projects-fail/ I sent to the people I had archived the conversation as a seed for a blog post, the guys jump in with limited good faith.

@bob Note that my posts are CC-BY-NC. If you’re quoting me, then you need attribution, otherwise it looks like your own work.

The blog is to take transitory content “a toot” and make it more long-lasting and link it into a flow of social memory. I would love a codebase that had this built into its #UX Now, if someone made code to automate credit and archiving work just as well, I would be happy to use it.

@elplatt yes, in general it’s good practice to quote or block quote and attribute. Right now, it’s not clear who said what

I don’t tend to do “good practice” as I do this #DIY and don’t get paid for my time. I have two ways to “anonymize” text, if I keep the flow then I take the names out and put Q. and A. as the voices, if it’s out of the flow I just put “from the #openweb” this makes it quick and simple to archive things I value without jumping though impossible conversations each time. If people won’t credit and ask, I add it, it’s the polite thing to do.

Then nuttyness starts – from @elplatt I’d prefer not to be associated with plagiarism. Please remove my content. Thanks.

It says from the #openweb in BOLD, so it’s not plagiarism (Plagiarism is the fraudulent representation of another person’s language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions as one’s own original work.) . But happy to remove stuff if people don’t won’t it archived. (I updated the blog post to add bob as he asked to be, then move the FROM THE OPENWEB under bob. Have a look and tell me what you won’t http://hamishcampbell.com/2023/02/12/thinking-about-why-openweb-projects-fail/

whaw that is bad behaver: @elplatt #GreatjusticeNet has blocked campaign.openworlds.info for plagiarizing fediverse content [IMAGE] lie about someone then block their instance.

Q. Interesting to think about, if this was an argument, should I keep the stuff online or remove it if asked? What’s the good path for this?

@bob Friendly reminder to always credit people for their work. Avoid making it look as if you wrote something, which you didn’t. This is really just courtesy, or treating people with care. Saying “this came from the internet” isn’t sufficient. There can also be cases where people request to remain anonymous, but that is typically rare.

That is way too much work is the problem, in grassroots activism the are to meany borderline nutters, so my work practice is a reflection of this. Good to remember all #OMN projects are CC licence and not for profit, so with this understanding its best just to hold the nuttiness and talk as a first step. People to people, not law/rights/property etc 🙂

@bob Well, in the case of plagiarism this isn’t really a law thing it’s just an act of courtesy to say who quotes originate from. (we get a bit lost here as it’s nothing to do with plagiarism, it is about a liberal troll) Ripping people off is what BigTech does. We need to be better, and treat people well. (its not about ripping people off it is about a liberal troll)

Nobody is doing plagiarism, nobody is stealing. Nobody is ripping anyone off, we are talking in good faith, I hope. Best to put bad words and judgments to one side https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagiarism it is not, now what else is the issue?

To @bob you are missing the point of what we/am talking about, and pushing a liberal private property view agenst a “commons” view.

Now this does bring up the issue of licence, my instance is the same as bobs CC-BY-NC so in theory I have the right to reuse content without asking as my blog is also CC-BY-NC, but I am polite and go a stage further if I am unshore if a person wants to be linked I initially publish post with “from the #openweb” post the URL to get feedback.

@bob This isn’t a stage further. It’s the BY part of the CC license. It doesn’t necessarily require links, but some indication of who the content is by.

Morally, you would be in most cases wrong to push this, but legally you are right. Now comes the issue of me making this into a blog post. I need to quote him in the post, but it would likely increase the bad feeling if I did this with name and LINK, under CC-BY-NC I have the right to use his post, he can’t say NO but morlay should I name and shame him or just leave the mess as an anonymous example of working practice?

@bob Under CC-BY-NC I have the right to use his post, but not without attribution.

I can see no copyright notice https://greatjustice.net/about But his personal sight is https://elplatt.com/ CC so let’s assume for now. Added the link though it feels like trolling, very happy to remove it

For the blog post, would likely need to look at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use as am pretty sure at this stage he would say no text, but the is no story without the text, and he has already given me the right to use the text under CC-BY-NC if I link to him, the instance blocking and CC licencing cross site is icing on the cake.

NEED TO CHECK THIS

Thinking more about this, I likely did not need to have this conversation at all, as a journalist criticizing a “work” is a clear case of fair use. I anonymize the text so that I can freely reinterpret it, which is what the archives are for, and labaled (FROM THE OPENWEB) to stop people thinking it was my work TICK then it’s just a working document and a good example of a clash of Liberal ideas.

The CC side of the conversation is not wrong, it’s just NOT what my actions are based on, OK, this makes more sense. This conversation is ltraly a liberal troll storm in a tea cup, that’s what happens if you talk to people about archiving 🙂

This is based on the idea that this is a working document (which all my blog posts are, they get updated and reused all the time) So it’s not an act of publishing (which in this case it was not as I was still drafting, asking if people wonted attribution)

But would be when I mythically called it finished… round in circals in the world. The second story on the post is more finished, the text there is changed/transformed, so from the #openweb is OK.

hamishcampbell.com/2023/02/12/

 

 

Categories
Uncategorized

This was the thinking of the #OMN project ten years ago

This was the thinking of the #OMN project ten years ago: The proposed project is to reboot basic web tools and turn existing silos and portals into a network where data flows between different sites. The technology used will be #RSS and its lesser-known counterparts, allowing sites to link to each other and content to appear on multiple sites. The project aims to provide an alternative to the #dotcons and to serve alternative grassroots media by creating open tools and processes. The project will start with the addition of a sidebar to existing sites and the building of new aggregating sites with overviews on subjects. The long-term goal is to expand into other networks.

Categories
Uncategorized

Talking about grassroots media as a step away from the current #techshit

Hamish Campbell, a veteran in radical media for the past 30 years, discusses the failure of current technology and mainstream culture. He highlights how the #dotcon boom commodified our data, resulting in closed technology silos like #Facebook and #Instagram that capture our attention and data for their own profit. Campbell argues that alternative technology built around an #encryptionist agenda has gone nowhere and that the world is dominated by these tech giants. He argues for the importance of the #openweb, which was born open but is dying closed over the last 20 years, and advocates for rebooting grassroots media as a solution. Campbell uses the Oxford #IMC as an example of how a simple federated network can work by sharing content, using trusted link flows, and allowing content to be moderated or rolled back. He believes that the beauty of the #openweb is based on free flowing links, unlike the #closedweb of our current dominating technology. Campbell concludes that the #OMN project is more important for what it does not do than for what it does, and highlights the need to take small steps towards a solution by rebooting grassroots media as a example project.

What you can do

In the last few years there have been events and gatherings in the US, Portugal, and Madrid, discussing the possibility of #rebooting #Indymedia. The current history of Indymedia has been primarily written by academics and is very Americanized, so there is a need to retell the stories and provide a wider perspective. To successfully reboot Indymedia, I think it needs to return to its open and serendipitous roots, rather than the bureaucratic and closed structure it became. Fortunately, most of the technical tools needed for a decentralized and federated system, such as ActivityPub and Scuttlebutt, already exist. To maintain its radical grassroots philosophy, the principles should be used to ensure openness and accessibility. To get involved, one can search for #indymediaback or “reboot Indymedia” and find useful links #OMN

Categories
Uncategorized

A simple view of the #OMN project

The Open Media Network (#OMN) is a unique project that focuses on building trust-based human networks using technology. The network allows users to publish, subscribe, moderate, rollback, and edit content on various sites they have a login on.

For a single user, the process begins with publishing content and adding metadata such as tags. If someone subscribes to the user, they receive the published content and can even add new tags to it.

If the user comes across interesting content, they can choose to subscribe to that person, organization, tag, or site. If they’re not sure about the content or its source, they can put it on moderation, which means it will only appear on their private news feed. If they trust the content and its source, they can let it through, and it will appear on their public news feed.

However, if the source breaks their trust, the user can rollback their content to a time before they started spamming. The new content will only appear on their private news feed, but they can still choose to let individual pieces through if they wish.

In summary, the #OMN allows users to control and manage the content they receive and ensures that it comes from trusted sources

Categories
Uncategorized

A look at the recent history of radical grassroots activism

#ClimateCamp was a radical grassroots direct action movement to directly challenge #climatechoas and raise awareness about climate change and advocate for solutions to mitigate its effects. The movement was made up of a loosely organized network of activists who used a diversity of tactics to achieve their goals. Climate Camps were established in many countries. The movement reached its peak in the late 2000s and early 2010s and had a significant impact on public debate and government policy.

#Protestcamps are gatherings of activists who set up temporary camps in public spaces in order to bring attention to a cause or issue. The goal of these camps is to create a direct action space where people come together, discuss and demonstrate. The camps may range from #fluffy peaceful gatherings to more #spiky disruptive and confrontational events, depending on the nature of the issue protested and the diversity of tactics of the activists involved. Some well-known examples of protest camps include #Occupy, #ClimateCamp

#CriticalMass a decentralized activism movement started in 1992. The movement is centred around a monthly direct action bike ride where participants gather to raise awareness about car culture.
The idea behind Critical Mass is to reclaim public space for cyclists and to assert the right of cyclists to use the roads. The rides are often a festive and celebratory event. The Critical Mass movement has since spread to cities around the world, with similar events taking place in many cities.

Using #openweb tools like #RSS and #ActivityPub has several benefits in the context of direct action and grassroots politics.
Decentralization: RSS and ActivityPub are decentralized technologies that are not controlled by any single entity, making them resistant to censorship and control.
Interoperability: By using open standards like ActivityPub, organizations and individuals can communicate and share content with each other, regardless of the platform they use.
Transparency: The use of #openweb tools can increase transparency and accountability in the political process, allowing for greater public scrutiny and engagement.
Ownership: By using #opensource tools, individuals and organizations can own and control their data, rather than relying on proprietary services controlled by corporations.
Accessibility: By using open web technologies, information can be more easily accessible to those who are marginalized or excluded from the mainstream, enabling more inclusive and equitable participation in the political process.

Direct action and grassroots politics are important tools for effecting social change. Direct action refers to forms of activism that seeks to achieve a goal directly, without intermediaries, often through disruptive or confrontational means. Direct action can include strikes, sit-ins, blockades, and other forms of resistance.
Grassroots politics refers to a political movement or approach that is bottom-up, rather than top-down, meaning it seeks to empower citizens to take action on political issues, rather than relying on traditional power structures such as political parties or government. Grassroots politics aims to give a voice to marginalized or underrepresented communities, and to create change from the ground up.
Together, direct action and grassroots politics offer a way for people to engage in the political process and to bring about change in a democratic and inclusive way. By taking action outside of traditional political channels, activists and communities bring about change on issues that they care about.

#Fediverse is a #openweb decentralized social network ecosystem consisting of independent, user-run servers that are all compatible with each other. This allows for a more open and democratic internet experience, as users can choose to participate in a variety of online communities without relying on any single centralized platform.
The Fediverse is seen as a more privacy-friendly alternative to the #dotcons this is a working “white lie” based on thinking.

#XR “Extinction Rebellion,” is a global social movement that uses nonviolent civil disobedience to protest against the failure of governments to take action on the climate and ecological crisis. The movement seeks to disrupt the status quo and force political leaders to take immediate action to address the crisis. The movement was founded in the UK in 2018 and has since spread to other countries around the world, with a focus on large-scale protests and acts of civil disobedience.

#XR is a protest movement, some people classify XR as a #spiky radical protest movement due to its tactics and goals, but others consider it more liberal because of its commitment to #fluffy nonviolence. Ultimately, the classification of XR as radical or liberal depends on individuals looking at the problem, it’s a debate.

Programming and ideology are different areas that intersect.
Ideology refers to a set of beliefs, values, and assumptions that shape an understanding of the world and people’s place in it. In the context of programming, ideology comes into play when a programmer brings their often #mainstreaming values and beliefs to the coding they write and the systems they build. You can see this in the copying of the #dtcons to build the #fediverse and how this is now shaping the #openweb

Discussing #postmodernism and the criticism to “isms”. The idea is that blindly following a particular ideology can make a person a “zombie” to limit the ability to think critically. The phrase #nothingnew is used to suggest that fresh thinking on old issues is needed, rather than blindly following existing dead #mainstreaming ideologies. The use of ad hominem arguments, which is a type of logical fallacy that attacks an individual rather than the argument they are making, is clearly #blocking

The #OMN is a project focused on linking alt/grassroots media. In the context of the need for a rebooted #openweb and avoiding the #blocking of this by #fashernista and #geekproblem agenda.

The #OpenWeb is the internet where information and content is accessible to all, regardless of their location, device or network, and can be shared, linked, and re-used without restrictions or barriers imposed by proprietary platforms, walled gardens, or monopolistic practices. It is based on and aims to provide a more inclusive, equitable, and participatory world.
The #OpenWeb is often contrasted with the #closedweb or “walled garden web”, where content and data are locked behind proprietary platforms, controlled by corporations or governments, and subject to limitations, restrictions, and surveillance. The #dotcons

Categories
Uncategorized

The #OMN is about creating horizontal scaling of social power

The #OMN approach is to focus on building practical tools and solutions that are grounded in real-world experience and that can be adopted by grassroots activists and communities. The goal is to empower individuals and groups to take control of their own media and communication channels, and to build a decentralized and autonomous network that is not controlled by any centralized authority or organization.
 
The (Open Source, Open Data, Open process, Open “industrial” standards ) are a key part of this approach, providing a framework for building transparent, accountable, and inclusive systems that are accessible to all. The OMN also emphasizes the importance of using existing tools and technologies, rather than trying to reinvent the wheel or impose new solutions that likely will not be practical or effective.
 
The #OMN is about creating horizontal scaling of social power. It is also about building a modern take on the classic principles of grassroots activism, and creating a new space for collaboration and cooperation among activists, communities, and organizations.
Categories
Uncategorized

What is the #OGB

The process is meant to be messy, and there are no set laws or statutes, but instead a growing body of mythos and traditions that people can reference when making decisions. The model also includes the power of recall for both “The Voices” and “The Body” to ensure accountability and maintain trust within the community.

The structure is designed to be flexible, allowing for the redefining of variables and options to suit the specific needs of the community. The lifespan of “The Voices” is flexible, currently with options of 1 year or a rolling 6 month term, and members of “The Groups” can come from “The Body” and the original proposer of the proposal.

#OGB The proposed governance model is based on a combination of traditional grassroots activism and the fediverse experience of federation as a tool for horizontal scaling of social power. It focuses on “sortation” and “core consent” as means to achieve decision making and power distribution, and utilizes the concepts of “The Body”, “The Groups”, and “The Voices” to facilitate the process.

The specific process used to achieve core consent will be determined by the group or community using the tools and variables provided by the codebase.

#OGB “Core consent” refers to a level of agreement or acceptance reached by a group or community on a particular proposal or action. It is not a specific process or method, but rather a general principle that guides decision-making within the group. In the context of The Body, it may be achieved through a variety of methods such as voting, threshold, or other forms of consensus-building.

#OGB Community and the tradition of recall and dilution. The voices are representatives of the body, but ultimately it is the body who holds the power and makes the decisions. It is a delicate balance that is built on trust and tradition, and it is meant to be messy and not a traditional power structure. It is a “native” approach that is designed to work within the decentralized and disorganized nature of the fediverse community.

The groups and voices have the power to make decisions, but they need to work together to build consensus and make effective decisions. The model also acknowledges the challenges of dealing with a disorganized group of individuals and the importance of building a body of mythos and traditions to guide decision-making.

The proposed governance model is designed to be messy and non-hierarchical. It is meant to work with the fediverse’s decentralized structure, and it is built on a long history of grassroots activism. It is not a traditional power structure, and it relies on consensus and recall processes rather than laws or statutes.

#OGB It’s important to keep in mind that this system is built on trust and collaboration, and relies on the stakeholders being engaged and willing to work together towards a common goal. The lack of a formal sense-checking step is intended to encourage decentralized decision-making and empower individuals and groups to take ownership of their own actions and decisions. The recall and dilution mechanisms provide a way for the community to self-regulate and course-correct if necessary.

#OGB The Voices have limited terms and can be replaced by the body, so their power is not permanent. Additionally, the groups and other voices serve as checks and balances on the power of the Voices. This is built into the governance model to ensure that power is distributed and not concentrated in one group or individual.

Messiness: The proposed system embraces the messiness of real-world governance and is designed to work within it, rather than trying to impose a false sense of order. It is built on the principle that power should be distributed horizontally and that decisions should be made through consensus-building and compromise.

#OGB issues:

Prioritization: The proposal system allows for prioritization by allowing the governing body to decide which proposals to take action on and which to ignore.

Spam: The use of standard moderation tools and community flagging systems would help to address the issue of spam.

Centralization: The proposed system takes into account the potential for centralization and addresses it by encouraging participation and giving power to those who actively contribute to the community.

In summary, the governance model being proposed is based on a long history of grassroots activism and federation as a tool for horizontal scaling of social power. The approach focuses on sortation and taking power out of “power politics” by creating a modern take on classic social movement practices. The goal is to work with, not against, this history and avoid the pitfalls of “process geeks” coming in and damaging the movement.

I want to see if there are individuals here who have the skills and interest in helping to build the tools and processes needed for the #OGB project, and if so, to explore potential collaborations and partnerships. I also want to raise awareness and understanding of the project and the issues it addresses, and to gather feedback and input from a diverse group of people. Ultimately, my goal is to bring together a group to build this #OMN

This can be achieved by building bridges and fostering communication between different perspectives, rather than trying to control the outcome. The key is to find a balance between different approaches and allow for diversity of tactics in different situations.

It is important to understand that whatever process or governance structure is used, it needs to work in the messy reality of human interactions. We need to recognize that the need for control is often a barrier to finding solutions, and instead focus on building structures and tools that allow us to navigate the mess and make decisions collectively.

It is a way to empower the community and decentralize power, giving a voice to those who actively contribute and care for the fediverse. By keeping the system simple and easy to understand, it allows for more participation and creativity from users, rather than relying on a small group of individuals or organizations to make decisions. The focus is on the collective and community-driven decision making, rather than hierarchy and bureaucracy #OGB

The goal should be to create a system that is inclusive and that promotes participation, rather than one that is complex and exclusionary. The key is to strike a balance between simplicity and effectiveness, and to focus on the overall goal of empowering the community to govern itself.

It is important to keep the #OGB governance system simple and easy to understand for all stakeholders, as this allows for more participation and engagement. The focus should be on empowering the users and creating a decentralized system that allows for more voices to be heard and for the community to self-govern.

#OGB The lottery system would also help to distribute power more evenly among instances, as it would ensure that smaller and less popular instances have an equal chance of having a representative chosen.

Additionally, the use of human flagging as a way to address potential abuse of the system would also help to ensure that larger and more influential instances do not dominate the decision-making process.

The system would rely on a combination of automatic checks and human moderation to ensure fairness and accountability, while also recognizing the limitations of formal processes and the importance of trust and collaboration. The emphasis is on keeping the system simple, flexible and adaptable to the unique needs and culture of the fediverse community.

In summary, the proposed #OGB aims to distribute power among as many people as possible within the fediverse, by delegating specific tasks and responsibilities to individuals selected through democratic procedures, with the goal of preventing monopoly of power and promoting decision-making through consultation.

The approach is to empower people to take ownership of their governance, rather than providing them with pre-determined solutions. The goal is to create a flexible, adaptable system that can be adapted to the specific needs of different communities and organizations. Trust and collaboration are key elements, as well as a willingness to experiment and iterate. Overall, the main emphasis is on building a governance system that is grounded in the culture and realities of the community it serves.

The #OGB project is meant to reflect the practical, on-the-ground reality of horizontal activism and the fediverse culture. It is not based on idealistic or theoretical models, but on the lived experience of the community.

The development of the project would involve a production/coding team, funding, and testing with a real user base.

The process would involve a lottery system for selecting members, with checks for instance activity and human involvement. The goal is to mediate the shifting of power from the .01% to the 99.9% of the fediverse, and the approach is designed to scale horizontally for use in other democratic structures such as local street markets. The body would be moderated through flagging and standard fediverse moderation tools.

The proposed representative body for the fediverse would be a democratic structure that allows for the delegation of specific authority to specific individuals for specific tasks through democratic procedures. The body would be composed of stakeholders (instances), users, and affiliates, with a focus on distribution of authority among many people and rotation of tasks among individuals #OGB

In summary, the proposed #OGB allows for any user to submit a proposal which will be visible on the activity stream of the governing body. The body can then decide to take action on the proposal by passing it to a group or forming a new group to work on it. Prioritization of proposals will be handled by the body and the groups, with SPAM being dealt with by flagging and standard moderation tools.

It is important to note that the #OGB is designed to distribute power and decision-making among a diverse group of stakeholders, including instances, users, and affiliates. This can help to mitigate the risk of any one group or individual having too much power and influence over the fediverse.

Additionally, the use of sortition and flagging mechanisms can help to ensure that the voices of the community are heard and that bad actors are held accountable.

If people start to game the system, the solution is to get more people involved, which will dilute the problem. The lottery will shift bad groups out if fresh people of goodwill join. If a user has multiple accounts, it is up to them to resign some of them, so new stakeholders can be chosen.

However, this will be up to the group, as it is tradition. The default will be set, but it’s open to change.

The #OGB system that will allow multiple accounts from a single user to be included in the lottery for selection of representatives for the Body (OGB), as long as they are active and human. The idea is to keep the system simple and easy to code by relying on flagging for blatant abuse, rather than hard-coding restrictions.

When an instance registers, it would appear on the OGB’s activity feed, giving members time to flag or discuss it if needed. Overall, it is important to keep the system as simple as possible and easy to code.

#OGB The key idea is to empower instances to decide who speaks on their behalf, and to moderate as much power downwards to federate responsibility.

The proposed system includes automatic checks, such as whether the instance is online and has been used recently, and whether single-user instances should be counted. There would also be an option for user/stakeholder flagging to question if an instance belongs, based on terms of service.

The challenges of using formal processes, such as those used by #NGO‘s and cooperatives, in #openweb and activism projects. These types of processes can be a bad fit for the fediverse and activism, as they tend to be too rigid and not suited to the decentralized and dynamic nature of these communities.

Existing projects and resources that may be relevant to governance: Loomio, Decidim, Noisebridge, and Sociocracy. Tend to be based on formal consensuses, a bad fit for messy unstructured groups.

The system incorporates principles, such as the use of sortition to select stakeholders, users, and affiliate stakeholders, the use of a “Security Group” to detect bad actors, and “recall” process to remove individuals who do not align with the goals of the fediverse.

The system includes an option to aid/onboard new roles by having an overlap with the old roll-holder where they share the role and the use of tradition and workflow to mediate the “Allocation of tasks along rational criteria”.

“Tyranny of Structurelessness,” helps designing democratic and effective decision-making structures. By delegating specific authority to specific individuals for specific tasks, requiring accountability, distributing authority among as many people as possible, rotating tasks, allocating tasks based on rational criteria, and providing equal access to resources and information, the group can ensure that power is not concentrated in the hands of a few individuals #OGB

The #OGB achieves this by limiting the number of stakeholders and users by lottery, for example, 100 stakeholders and 100 users. This would be matched by a smaller number of affiliate, providing a balance of perspectives and interests.

It’s important to note that the number of members in the body can change depending on the situation, the admin group should be able to adjust the pool size depending on the requirement to try different approaches to see what works

The #OGB is representative of the fediverse as a whole, with stakeholders (instance operators), users, and affiliate stakeholders all playing a role in decision-making.

Based on the statistics of a population of over ten million accounts and more than 9,000 instances, it would be difficult for a body of that size to make decisions efficiently. A smaller representative body would be more manageable and better able to make decisions quickly and effectively.

The use of sortition to select voices, and the ability for other body members to flag bad voices, provides a way to detect and address any individuals or groups that may be acting against the best interests of the fediverse.

Additionally, the use of basic security checks to detect sock puppets and spammers, and the ability to “recall” flagged accounts, helps to ensure that the governance body is representative.

The #OGB has several mechanisms in place to mitigate the risks of capture by special interests or bad actors.

By allowing all members of the body to participate in the formation of groups and the formation of agreements, the system is designed to dilute the power of any one group or individual.

The consensus of voices, minus one, is what makes an agreement the “voice of the Fediverse” ensuring that the agreements reached by the body are truly representative of the fediverse as a whole.

Groups are formed around issues that receive a level of support from members of the body, agreements are reached through group discussions and consensus-building. Voices, which are a subset of stakeholders, have the power to both initiate groups and enact agreements reached by groups.

The number of voices is dynamic and would depend on the number of stakeholders, but a small number, such as 3-5, would be ideal to ensure that the system is nimble and responsive to the needs of the fediverse.

The power of the voice in this proposed #OGB system is distributed among different groups and individuals. Proposals come from anyone with an ActivityPub account, giving all users the opportunity to shape the direction of the fediverse.

It should be noted that the idea of sortition and open governance is not new, it is a way of governance that has been used in some ancient Greek city-states and it’s been proposed in modern times as well. However, it’s implementation in the #Fediverse could be a new and exciting way of ensuring decentralized and democratic governance.

Additionally, allowing stakeholders who were not selected by the lottery to still submit proposals for group decisions would ensure that the input and perspectives of all stakeholders are considered.

The workflow described is a way to ensure that the Open Governance Body i#OGB s representative of the fediverse as a whole, by giving all users the opportunity to participate in the decision-making process.

By allowing users to opt-in to becoming stakeholders, and then using sortition to select a representative sample of users to serve as members of the body, the system would be designed to ensure that the voices of all members of the fediverse are heard.

The use of sortition to select users to be part of the body would ensure a random and representative sample of the user base. And the dynamic balance of stakeholders and users would provide a check on the power of any one group.

The Affiliate Stakeholders would bring additional expertise and perspectives to the table and their members would have to be ratified by the Body to ensure that they align with the goals of the fediverse.

However, it should be noted implementation will be complex #OGB

An Open Governance Body #OGB, would be a decentralized and democratic system for governing the fediverse. The three groups of stakeholders, users, and affiliate stakeholders would provide a balance of perspectives and interests, with stakeholders representing the people running instances, users representing the people using the instances, and affiliate stakeholders representing other organizations and groups within the fediverse.

Categories
Uncategorized

Thinking outreach of the hashtag story

Classification of different versions of the web (such as #Web1, #Web2, #Web3, #Web4, or #Web5) can be a source of confusion and FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt).

The hashtags #openweb and #closedweb provide a clear way to describe and understand the different types of web platforms. The #openweb refers to platforms that are open-source, community-controlled, and promote transparency, the #closedweb to platforms that are proprietary, controlled by a few large companies and lack transparency.

Projects like #indymediaback and #OMN are examples of grassroots of social tech. These projects are focused on promoting decentralized, community-controlled media and communication platforms.

It’s time to compost the normal #techshit, and to focus on developing social tech that is more inclusive, diverse, and community-controlled. This will require a change in the way we think about technology, and a shift away from the current dominant paradigm.

The solution to this problem is to develop social tech that steps away from the #geekproblem and focuses on the needs and perspectives of the community. This can be achieved by involving a diverse group of people in the development and decision-making process, and by promoting open-source code, open standards, open governance, and open data in technology development.

The #geekproblem is a social tech problem that refers to the negative impacts that technology can have on society when it is developed and controlled by a small group of people with limited perspectives and values. It is important to recognize that the #geekproblem is not only a technical issue but also a social issue.

It’s important to remember that fear can be a barrier for change, but by actively using the we can call out pointless things, call out the #deathcult and compost the #techshit, we can actively work towards a more sustainable future.

It’s important to remember that all thinking is critique and if you aren’t looking at the faults, you are likely not looking at the thing at all. Don’t be afraid, use the , take up gardening the compost, and plant the seeds of hope in the era of #climatechaos.

It’s important to lift your head and look, lift your shovel, dig and plant. By actively using the and composting the #techshit, we can actively work towards a more sustainable future.

Living in fear is a common response to the challenges of the era of #climatechaos, when many people are on their knees worshipping the #deathcult. However, it is important to call out pointless things as pointless and actively use the as a tool to compost the #techshit that is contributing to these challenges.

The problem is that the nice moral majority, our liberal friends, have not accepted that the system they try to push is broken. It’s pastime for change, and holding onto our current system is not helping. Their “common sense” is the problem we need to be fighting, as well as the far right.

We must come together as a united force to address the real issues and challenges facing society, rather than spending time fighting among ourselves.

The left fail is spending too much time fighting inside the left over this balance, instead of focusing on the real issues and challenges. #BLOCKING #stupidindividualism and worshipping the #deathcult all push this fight, and it’s important not to be a “PRAT” (i.e. a person who behaves in a foolish or unthinking way) on this subject.

The “left mess” we are in refers to the challenges and divisions within the left-leaning political spectrum. The idea that on the “fluffy” left, we must be “nice” to get people involved in social change, and on the “spiky” left, we need to be nasty to be effective in social change, both have some truth to it. It is important to find a balance between the two approaches in order to be effective in bringing about social change.

Group use of hashtags as an organizing tool. This can help to bring attention to issues, promote collaboration, and increase the visibility of alternative perspectives on technology and society.

Overall, these ideas are meant to challenge the status quo, promote ethical considerations in technology development, and increase transparency, accountability, and collaboration in the tech industry.

Pushing simple #KISS ideas like #openweb vs #closedweb and as a powerful way to judge and compost #techcrap to mediate the #techchurn. This can help to promote open-source code, open standards, open governance, and open data in technology development.

To work with this, some ideas include:

Naming the current “common sense” as worshipping the #deathcult and making #mainstreaming uncomfortable. This can help to bring attention to the negative impact of neoliberalism on society and the importance of addressing it.

#stupidindividualism is a term that refers to the idea that people prioritize personal gain over the well-being of others and the community. It is often associated with the last 40 years of neoliberalism and a part of the liberal 20th century consensus. It is a strong #BLOCK that prevents people from recognizing and addressing the negative impact of their actions on society.

One way to address this challenge is to promote grassroots, DIY producer governance through the use of the #OGB hashtag and project. This can help to ensure that the development of the fediverse is guided by ethical considerations and that it is focused on the needs of the producers and the community.

It’s important to note that it’s not always possible to avoid mess and challenges.

One of the challenges of the fediverse is that it is decentralized and lacks a centralized governance structure, making it difficult to coordinate and get things done. This can be seen as both a good thing and a bad thing, as it allows for a lot of creativity and innovation, but also makes it difficult to achieve goals and create a consistent user experience.

The #fediverse is a network of independently operated servers that communicate with each other using open protocols. It is often considered an “accidental” reboot of the #openweb, as it emerged organically as a response to the centralized nature of social media platforms, which are dominated by the #dotcons

While the is not a way of keeping large corporations out of the open-source development, it can be used as a tool to mediate and prevent any attempts to extinguish the open source community by promoting transparency, accountability, and collaboration. By using , developers, users and community members can have a better understanding of the motivations and intentions of the corporation and can act accordingly.

The is a powerful tool for promoting open-source code, open standards, open governance, and open data in technology development. It can help to ensure that the development of technology is guided by ethical considerations and that it is focused on the needs of the users and the community, rather than the profits and control of a few large companies.

Additionally, the website could include links to the wiki for more in-depth information and resources, as well as a section for community engagement and discussion. This could be a valuable tool in the fight against #techshit #techcurn and a powerful way to reboot the #openweb movement..

The website could feature a clean and modern design, with a focus on easy navigation and clear, concise information about the . The text could be polished to make it easy for people of all skill levels to understand. You can use the existing wiki page unite.openworlds.info/Open-Med as a starting point and add more information and resources to it.

Creating a visually appealing and user-friendly website for the could be a powerful tool in promoting the use of open-source code, open standards, open governance, and open data in grassroots tech projects. This website could serve as a central hub for information and resources on the , and it could be designed to make it easy for people to understand and adopt the principles of the in their own projects.

The hashtag story is a way of using different hashtags to paint a picture of the current state of the world and the paths that can be taken to address the issues at hand. It involves defining each hashtag and how it relates to the larger narrative. Here is an example of a hashtag story:

#fahernista is about consumer capitalism and the negative impact it has on society, treating it as a social illness.

More hamishcampbell.com/2023/01/12/

The is a powerful tool to be used in grassroots tech projects to promote open-source code, open standards, open governance, and open data. It can help to ensure that the development of technology is guided by ethical considerations, and that it is focused on the needs of the community, rather than the #dotcons.

There is hope in this situation, as it is possible to take the “stupid” away from “individualism” and to embrace a more balanced and responsible form of individualism. This would involve recognizing the importance of community and the well-being of others, and taking actions that promote the well-being of society and ecology as a whole.

It is a path that may not be easy, but it is essential for creating a more equitable and sustainable society.

The hashtag #stupidindividualism is used as a critique of this form of individualism, and highlights the negative consequences it can have on society. It suggests that this form of individualism is not only detrimental to society, but also to the individuals who embrace it.

The concept of “stupid individualism” refers to a form of individualism that prioritizes personal gain and self-interest over the well-being of others and the community. It is often associated with the post-modern and neoliberal times we live in, where people are encouraged to prioritize their own needs and wants over the needs of others and ecology/society as a whole. This can lead to a lack of empathy, cooperation, and social responsibility.

The human condition does include a desire or need for blindness, as it is often easier to conform to the status quo and ignore the negative consequences of our actions, rather than to challenge them. Throughout history, there have been moments of rebellion and enlightenment, where individuals and groups have challenged the dominant social thinking and pushed for change.

The hashtags suggest that often people find meaning and build their lives in the twilight, constantly pushing away glints of light that might illuminate too strongly the social squalor and everyday cruelty that is hidden away from them in the shadows. They are blind to the negative consequences of capitalism, choose to ignore them in order to preserve their way of life.

People shape their own history and create their own reality, but they do so within the constraints of the existing social and historical conditions. People are not free to make history as they please, but are limited by the circumstances that are already in place and have been inherited from the past.

The theme is expressed by the hashtags, people are shaped by the dominant social thinking of capitalism to conform to the expectations of society, even when it is detrimental to their well-being

It’s important to remember that people are not passive recipients of social structures and institutions, and can actively shape their own consciousness and the world around them. By becoming aware of the mechanisms that shape their thoughts and beliefs, and by actively challenging the dominant social thinking, people can create a more equitable and sustainable society.

This creates a dynamic where people feel compelled to conform to the dominant social thinking, even when it is detrimental to their well-being, in order to avoid punishment and to gain reward. It can be difficult for people to break away from this dynamic and to challenge the #mainstreaming agenda because they fear the consequences of not conforming.

People choose to be blind in our “sunlight” world. One possible reason is that people are often motivated by the desire for reward and the fear of punishment. Those who conform to the dominant social thinking and push the #mainstreaming agenda may be rewarded with social acceptance, material wealth, and status. On the other hand, those who challenge the mainstreaming agenda may be punished with social rejection, financial insecurity, and marginalization.

The hashtags tell a story that people are often blind to this obverse thinking and that they block challenges to their blindness by rejecting or ignoring alternative perspectives. This can be seen as a form of self-defense mechanism to protect their current way of thinking and to avoid the discomfort of change.

People’s thoughts and beliefs are not formed independently, but are shaped by the social structures and institutions in which they live.

This idea is in the themes of the hashtags , as they all talk about how people are shaped by the dominant social thinking of capitalism, and the control and manipulation of individuals by this dominant thinking.

The hashtags suggest that the way out of this sordid story is to step away from the constant pursuit of consumer goods and services, and to reject materialism and consumerism in favour of more meaningful and fulfilling pursuits. They advocate for a simpler and more sustainable way of life, where people are not controlled or manipulated for profit and where ethical considerations are at the forefront of the development of technology.

For open-source code, open standards, and open governance.

The hashtags express a desire for a more equitable and sustainable internet. They advocate for open-source code, open standards, and open governance.

The story and world-view that these hashtags embody is a critical examination of the current state of technology, and a call for a more equitable and sustainable future.

They are a reminder of the importance of considering the impact of technology on society and individuals, and the need for ethical and responsible innovation.

The #hashtags #fahernista, #openweb, #dotcons, , #geekproblem, #techcurn, #nothingnew, #techshit and #encryptionists, all embody a similar story and world-view, which is the critique of the negative impact of technology and its development on society. They all express a concern that the #mainstreaming current state of technology is not aligned with the values of fairness, openness, and sustainability, and that it is being driven by the profit motives.

#encryptionists prioritize the use of encryption, viewing it as a way to protect privacy and security online.

The problem is that they prioritize encryption over important principles such as trust, transparency, and collaboration. These are essential for a progressive society, the idea of giving up control and building trust among groups.

This issue is then embedded in the code and becomes a problem when it leads to the creation of technology that undermines trust and cooperation.

#techshit usually happens when people do not ask whether the project is necessary or brings new value, but instead build it anyway, repeatedly.

#nothingnew this term encourages developers and creators to consider if the project they are working on is truly innovative and necessary, or if it is just a replication of something that already exists. It also highlights the importance of evaluating the impact of new technologies and products on society, and encourages developers to consider the perspectives of different stakeholders before creating new products or services.

Looking at early examples of #couchsurfing and #indymedia, as healthy of #openweb culture, they built on the principles of sharing and collaboration, and they prioritized community building and connection over profit. However, as they grew in popularity and became more mainstream, they began to face challenges such as commercialization, privacy issues and other problems that led to the decline of the community spirit that once defined them. They are examples of the “problem” of openweb culture.

#failbook and Google are examples of large tech companies that are accused of using their dominance and control over technology to exploit users and undermine society. Both companies have faced criticism for their data collection and use practices.

refers to the four principles of open source, the essentials for creating a more equitable and sustainable internet. A tool that can guide us towards a better, more humane path, promoting transparency and collaboration. They give us the power to JUDGE the technology we use and the companies that provide it to decide whether they align with our values and interests. In this way, 4opens are a source of power for both individuals and communities to take back control of their digital lives.

This closed web is a form of “technological slavery” in which users are subjected to the control and manipulation of these companies, and that users choose to use these services due to lack of alternatives and /or because they are not aware of the implications of their choices.

The #closedweb refers to the World Wide Web that is dominated by large companies, often referred to as “#dotcons”, who control the flow of information and access to online services through the use of proprietary technology and closed systems. These companies often use their power to collect and monetize user data, and to shape online experiences in ways that prioritize their own interests.

#Dotcons is a term that refers to companies that dominate the internet, and the negative impact they have on society. They are seen as feeding into the social illness of capitalism, prioritizing profit over the well-being of users and society.

The step away metaphor is a positive path to move away from this negative impact, this may include promoting open web and decentralized platforms, supporting alternative models, and encouraging more ethical and responsible behaviour.

The fight for #open in the #EU is a power politics struggle between the need for openness and transparency in an organization that is often characterized by closed decision-making processes and lack of accountability. Some people within the EU are aware of the need for change and are taking steps to pretend to be more open, but they are not truly committed to it.

It is possible that a small crack of #open might be enough to undermine the monolithic closed system, but the problem is that many people are willing to sell out #open in order to keep a bit of #closed. This means that the push for #open needs to be sharper and harder, with a more aggressive approach.

It is important to remember that #open has power over closed, just like light over darkness. By pushing for more openness and transparency, we can create a more democratic and accountable #eu

This might still require a stake and vampire level of PUSH, with a few blows of a mallet to drive the point home. We need to be aggressive, and not back down in the fight for #open in the EU.