#mainstreaming is obviously a #deathcult we do need to keep saying this

#mainstreaming is obviously a #deathcult we do need to keep saying this.

There are well document alt’s that I push with every use of the hashtags #OGB #OMN #4opens etc. The problem we way too often face is people wanking liberal “common sense” in the era of the #deathcult so need to make this point forcefully.

For our liberals (of every type) this comes across as toxic positively if they can see the positive side at all. When they don’t I call this #BLOCKING and often get blocked for doing so 😉

Compost and shit comes to mind, shit is good compost, so this is NOT actually a negative statement, it’s part of the story, in radical grassroots direct action you need to go through trying meany people to build a affinity group that makes a difference.

hamishcampbell.com/2022/09/19/

People who PUSH “solutions” while they are obviously bowed down eyes on the ground to the #deathcult are pushing problems, not solutions.

This is not an obvious statement to our “liberals” thus they way to often PUSH “solutions” over real working alternatives. #BLOCKING and adding to the social mess and #techshit we need to compost.

No matter how “nice” they are as individuals, their, perhaps well intended, work is a problem adding to the mess.

I should not need to talk about this, but lets as few people I know understand these obverse points:

* Liberals talk about individuals, they talk about personal actions and personal responsibility. This is how you tell you are talking to a liberal.

* socialists, anarchists and leftists talk about social groups, community actions, social change and challenge. This is how you tell you are talking to a radical progressive.

So try judging people you are talking about to get a better idea who is #BLOCKING and who has the possibility of doing anything useful.

#OGB #OMN #4opens are grassroots paths.

lets talk about the hashtag story

The #hashtags cover technology and society from a progressive view and are very simple:

#deathcult = neoliberalism

#fashernista = fashion in relation to social political relations

#openweb = the original ideals of the WWW and internet culture

#closedweb = is the pre internet computer networks and the post #openweb networks, the #dotcons grow.

#4opens = the workings of FSF and open-source development with the addition of transparent process.

#encryptionists = all solutions need more encryption, this is often unthinking technological fascism.

#dotcons = the transition to for profit internet, and the social con this embodies.

#geekproblem = an old discussion on freewill and determinism, also a cultural movement, think of “two cultures” as a path to start to understand this.

#techshit = is a part of the composting metaphor, shit as a core, important, part of the ecological waist (social) cycle.

#techchurn = the technological outcome of the #geekproblem

#nothingnew = a polemical way of slowing and reversing #techcurn in a non-dogmatic way.

#OMN = open media network

#indymediaback = rebooting the dead altmedia project that was in its time the size of the #traditionalmedia on the #openweb

#OGB = open governance body

#BLOCKING = refusing to look/everting eyes/eyes closed

——————————

They are also complex and interlocking, telling a wide story and world-view, and showing a path out of our current mess.

#deathcult is relevant because of #XR forcing us to look the truth of ecological and social decay in the eye, good to ground this in real historical experiences, think of the Irish Potato and Bengal famine.

#fahernista is about consumer capitalism, looked at as social illness.

#openweb is about building code for anachronism rather than capitalism

#dotcons are feeding social illness, we cannot keep building this sickness, the step away metaphor is a positive path away from this.

#closedweb is a form of technological slavery, we often choose.

#4opens is a tool that can be used to guide us on to the better humane path and, it gives us the power to JUDGE and thus decide, it is POWER.

#geekproblem is a group of people lost in darkness, blinded to humane light, they inbreed monsters in code #techcurn #techshit

The #geekproblem hashtag is not simply negative, it’s taking obvious “problem” out of “geek”.

The problem is obvious look at #failbook and Google both “geek” projects of domination/control, and yes you are right it’s geek culture shaped by capital in both cases.

What does #openweb geek culture look like? Looking back at early #couchsurfing and #indymedia you have healthy non “problem” examples. Look at both projects late in their decline we have strong examples of the “problem”.

#techcurn the world is full of meto projects, everyone has the same ideas, few if anyone links.

#nothingnew is a question, do we need this codeing project.

#techshit is when people do not ask this question and build it anyway agen and agen

#encryptionists are in the end way too often about artificial scarcity (web03), this is not actually needed. To be clear this is a minority need for this technology, but as a limited use case not as a dominant way of thinking, codeing. #encryptionists is about the feeling of total control that encryption gives the #geekproblem this is key because all good progressive society are based on trust, which is about giving up this desire. The problem in geek is the problem of socialization… a known geek issue 🙂 in itself is fine, am not judging. BUT this is embedded in code that shapes society, it becomes a “problem”. Good to think a bit more on this one. With power comes responsibility.

This list only touches on the meanings and subjects.

Next question, what is the story and world-view that these #hashtags embody?

Using the power of #4opens

The #4opens has many useful roles, one that needs highlighting now is grassroots tech projects being pushed aside by obviously parasite #NGO and #fashernista tech projects that grow from them.

Over the last 20 years, in my in-depth expirence this happens in every case

The open process makes visible this #techshit so we can compost it at source.

Use the #4opens in all your grassroots tech please.

Change and challange to compost the piles of techshit

Anyone interested in doing a sexy site for the #4opens think people need “official” look and feel to make use of this powerful tool to fight the #techshit #techcurn and help to reboot the #openweb

Basically we need this on a nicely designed page with a bit of polish on the text unite.openworlds.info/Open-Med

Then link back to the wiki for full humane use space.

4opensOpen Media Network

This is needed as a “common sense” existing path out of pointless #techchurn to give our lost #fahernistas something real to work for/to/on.

The #4opens is simply the foundation of open-source development “socialized” for change/challenge.

We need this to escape the #techshit

Q. I think we need a 5th open: #openAccess. If you have the #4opens, but the project is jailed in the #walledGarden of #gitlab.com (which blocks some people from participation), the 4 opens are hindered by reduced/suppressed participation. E.g. some people cannot (or will not) file bug reports. So, can we get #5opens?

A. The #4opens is only designed to deal with 95% of the #techshit the rest is open to our creativity. Am interested in a #4opens review of GitHub

What we are likely to find is that GitHub is still inside the world of open source development, this is both good and bad, good in the sense of Microsoft moving away from its closed source roots, bad in the sense that they are doing it in the attempt to co-opt and extinguish.

The #4opens are not a way of keeping them out, but they are a way of mediating and stopping the extinguish bit when used as a tool to aggressively block that move.

It would help to think about society rather than individuals – for diversity as a healthy path. As long as they have opendata and open “Industrial” standards, you can move your work in and out… Openprocess makes easier as the documentation can be created to help people do this.

The open licence keeps you in control of your work, while promoting social use

Am interested in how #openacess adds over the other #4opens as I think you end up with “open access” from the outcome of the first 4 can we think about this?

Was thinking about this when reading other tweets and the #4opens gives you open access already, so we don’t need a 5th open #KISS

Good to have a chance to think these things though, thanks for the question.

Liveing in fear – compost the #techshit – planting seeds of hope

We need to call pointless things pointless in the era of #climatechaos when most people are on their knees worshipping the #deathcult

If you feel fear at this idea, then your head is bowed, #fashernistas get off your knees and call pointless things out. Actively use the #4opens as a shovel, there are piles of #techshit that needs to be composted. In the era of #climatechaos most people are on their knees worshipping the #deathcult

All thinking is critique, if you aren’t looking at faults, you are likely not looking at the thing at all. Don’t be afraid, use the #4opens take up gardening the compost to plant the seeds of hope in the era of #climatechaos

Lift your head and look, lift your shovel, dig and plant.

 

Talking about hope and dispair in tech

Q. A lot of evil stuff happens via the cyberweb, no doubt. But I would encourage anyone who still knows how it works not to give up on it. Instead, try to work around the BS and design systems which are resilient to adversaries. As conditions of life get harder and the oligarchy turns the screws we need channels of dissident communication, even if they are no longer mainstream ones. Even retro stuff may go under the radar.

A. This is a social tech problem, a #geekproblem and the solution is social tech that steps away from the #geekproblem we cant just keep doing the same #techshit it’s time for composting #indymediaback #OMN are example of this that are currently blocked.

Q. As far as I could understand from what you said, what would then be exactly the social related problem to solve ? Are you referring to the way spying agencies like the CIA that is dominating the hacktivist scene, are creating “trends” on how to be safe online, which have most of the time no true impact regarding the possibilities of such agencies to continue spying and having social control? So you mean it’s a matter of being good at creating counter propaganda to cancel

A. You are describing the problems, then adding a layer of self-destruction to the problem, that’s not helpful. The #openweb has been “destroyed” by some forces you name. But we have also played a role in destroying it ourselves in refection to the real problems you highlight. We have little power over the first and more power over the second. It’s hopeful to think about this #geekproblem

Q. The #openweb wasn’t destroyed exactly. If you look at the numbers of websites over time, the open web is still there, but what happened is that almost all of the attention got captured by a small number of enormous corporate sites. The corporate sites made themselves critical conduits for search and discovery of news and views, such that the notion of “web surfing” has become almost obsolete. Google search increasingly won’t show much of the open web, because it’s not within the targeted ads business model.

A. yes my point, the #openweb is under a thin veneer of corporate crap. The #fedivers is a tiny break out of this that seceded because it was “accidentally” anti #geekproblem we need to be hardcore anti #geekproblem is the is to be HOPE 🙂

Q. The success of the fediverse did have a very large element of luck to it. Before 2017 it was doing very badly, and I remember unsuccessfully trying to persuade people to try GNU Social instead of going on Facebook. Even people who hated Facebook were reluctant to try the fediverse. Also my interpretation is that ActivityPub was originally a corporate idea but that the corporates lost interest, leaving its development to a few remaining grassroots activists. If the corporates had stayed that ActivityPub would probably be something quite different.

A. Yep, gave me hope, though it’s failing now – we have to stop fucking up this grassroots tech. A start is #4opens talking about the #geekproblem and using these to start composting #techshit

Q. The fediverse isn’t failing as such, but is becoming an established technology and so is no longer shiny or something which a clueless tech journalist would want to breathlessly scribble about as a new phenomena. Like XMPP and other previous protocols it is getting into the “plateau of productivity” where it mostly “just works”. There are complaints about lack of spec development, and some of those are justified. But ActivityPub doesn’t need to do all the things, it only needs to do one job well – that of being a social network protocol.

A. yes, it’s not failing in its own terms. But it is not heading to success in the bigger picture of being a alt to the #dotcons I should know being involved for the last few years outreaching it to the #mainstreaming that understands it has a #closedweb problem. The #EU outreach is interesting in this and likely also going to fail in the wider mission. It’s hard to push #openweb in a era controlled by #stupidindividualism and capitalism/alt diesper.

Q. It depends on what the EU’s wider mission is, but I expect that it’s not really a grassroots type of mission anyway. Whatever the machinations or motives of the EU, we do need to maintain a viable space for people who actively don’t want to be stuck in the corporate hellscape. And we shouldn’t assume that the EU will continuously bankroll some projects.

A. At the #EU it’s a power politics fight between the need for #open in a organization that is all about #closed people know they need to change but are only brave to pretend to do this. Am interested if a little crack of #open might be enough to undermine the monolith. Problem is everyone is up for selling out #open to grab a bit of #closed so only weak #open PUSH is all we have, needs to be sharper and harder push. Think stake and vampire level of PUSH with a few blows of a mallet to drive the point home. #open has power over closed, just like light over darkness.

Stepping away from our tech mess – you need to compost it


It’s good that people try not to push pointless tech projects… And the majority of new tech projects are obviously pointless. To get an idea of what to push do a #4opens review and publish this, let’s build a community of useful tech together. We need to do better.

#techchurn has made so much #techshit over the last 10 years. There are piles of #mainstreaming and alt tech that needs to be composted to grow a more humane world. Focus on what we CAN change and what we do have directing (social) power over, our mess.

From a grassroots prospective, we don’t have alternatives as they have been devoured and turned into shit by #NGO #fashernistas and social #deathcult worshipping (40 years of neoliberalism)

Thus, your/our lack of motivation, in my lifetime there were meany anarchist/ecological/socialist alternatives which kinda worked in imperfect ways.

Let’s use federated #4opens tech to reboot these from before they were killed and eaten by this mess, and innovate om this.

#4opens #OMN #indymediaback

Feeding a vampire class of #fashernistas for 20 years

When people do not understand/respect the value in keeping the fluffy/spiky debate in place you end up like this the-crypto-syllabus.com/france This is the problem, not the solution.

Worth a read to see the issue of feeding off the state and the VC poison that shapes the #fashernista ploughing over grassroots by the #deathcult These people are adding to the #techshit and shifting the focus to pointlessness, I have seen no good outcomes from their work.

But they were “our” people at one time, our old friends in activism took the heathy internal stresses that were braking projects like #indymedia to feed a #fashernista vampire class, to built careers feeding on and draining grassroots corpus for 20 years.

It’s not a good look, but people like these are the gatekeepers you talk to when you talk to “power” #indymediaback

What do we think of aristocracy and monarch in codeing?

The current open-source/free software world is based on medieval political ideas of aristocracy and monarch, this is OBVIOUSLY useless in the modern world.

Our failed mediation of this with the #stupidindividualism of neoliberalism pushes the current piles of steaming #techshit and touches on the #geekproblem

Bluesky thinking of a “governance” body of the fedivers

“A resource arrangement that works in practice can work in theory”

What exists already?

The is a pretty sorted #activitypub crew, then some organizing sites/forums, the yearly conference. MOST importantly some “kings”, “princes” a bit of a tech/influencer aristocracy who currently hold much of the “power”.

Where do we go from here?

On online “governing body” to be a VOICE for the #fedivers – all done #4opens in social code:

For background on this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition

We have a yearly voting/consensus (online) body made up of “stakeholders”

Who are the bulk stakeholders-representatives:

  • One voice one instance – if you run an instance you get a vote – put the URL in as long as it’s online last year your vote counts.
  • The is then an equal/matching number of votes based on a “user” lottery – have to opt in by adding your account name. This is refreshed every year.

Then we have other more “affiliate” stakeholders that have to be “ratified” through the body

  • Codebases – could be factored by installed based on instance registered above. Over a basic threshold and the body agrees.
  • fedivers events – any group that regularly runs events gets a “stakeholder” vote based on them doing it last year. If the body agrees to this.
  • fedivers support organizations get a vote if the body agrees to this.
  • activitypub standards crew – get votes through all the rest and can have a vote as a  founding fedivers org.

Groups and individuals could get more than one vote – which is fine.

This would give us

A representative “stakeholder” body that could accept proposals and make decisions.

How would the body work?

#techshit all ready has way to much LOOK at ME look AT me. I don’t like competitive elections as the shit float to the top

Let’s do a LOTTERY- from these “voters” that makes up the body a lottery decides 3-5 as #spokespeople then leave um to get on with it. There is a tick box to opt out of being in the “spokespeople” lottery, so you have too wont to do the extra work if you don’t want to, its opt out rather than opt in – this is important.

They have the power to speak for the body and thus the #fedivers and can make policy decisions on consensus minus one process. Or put policy directly to the body to be voted (majority vote) on by the stakeholders.  (of course they would be subject to recall/impeachment if they fuckup too much, say proposal and 2/3 vote of the body)

Levels of “voice” anyone with an #activertpub account can put in a public proposal to be voted on by the stakeholders – if it jumps that hoop then it can be edited/pushed by an open group of stakeholders though a semiformal #4opens online process to jump to an agreement. Agreements are acted on by the “spokespeople” up to them to take these ideas forward? If non are interested better luck next year with your agender and new spokes people.

Q. what dose digital online Community “democracy” look like

If it does not have elephants running around throwing paper planes it’s likely the wrong structure.

NOTE: of course these alt-ideas have been tried in the offline world, and they generally DO NOT work. But this is no reason to go down the dead end of “liberal” foundation governances that also does not work. People are trying these ideas in Citizens’ assemblies so no issue not to try them online.

Lotteries take the “power” out of power politics… likely worth an experiment.

Compost and shovels are needed.

The power of the voice

  1. User proposals are excepted by anyone who has an activertypub account- just an idea – this can become a group.
  2. User groups – a part of the process, these come from ideas getting a level of support of the stakeholders.
  3. User agreements come out of groups these can then be enacted by the spokes people if they are interested.
  4. Spokes people can start groups to reach agreements and can enact agreements.
  5. Consensus of spokes people (-1) makes agreements body wide.

What are the risks:

* need basic security and checks – to see if an instance still exists and is real. If a member account is actively posting or a pulpit – all of this can be done with flagging some of them by code some by people – flags stuff goes to the “security group”

* Groups can be captured by agenders – being open to all stakeholder members mediates this – we solve swamping by having a dynamic short non-voting time based on the number of new members in the group.

* Bad group of spokes people, it’s a lottery, it’s up to the groups to influence and as a last resort “impeach” if one goes a new one is chosen by lottery.

* The actual number of spokes people are dynamic depending on the number of stakeholders but between 3-5 is likely a good number.

UPDATE

  • The body is made up of stakeholder one for each instance – you wont a voice you run an instance and register it. This is clearly the voice of the #Fediverse as they are the people running it.
  • This is then balanced dynamically by the same number of “users” who are interested in the process, they are chosen by lottery from the registered accounts. Your choice to register or not your account as a possable stakeholder.

On registration the is a box you can untick if you do NOT do this then you are in the lottery to get “governing positions” Sortition – Wikipedia for a background on why this path.

Only people who want to be part of the governing body AND play an active role are enrolled in the lottery.

You second point “common voice” comes from the working groups, agen are made up of ONLY people who are interested in playing a role.

“serving the humans trying to communicate.” we get out of the way and let the humans work it out – we provide structer for the groups, we don’t define the groups.

SocialHub though an interesting tool has strong tech aristocracy which is not surprising as this is how almost all open source project run – the fedivers is something different which is why we do so badly at governance. Let’s continue to use the SocialHub for #activertypub organizing and possibly governance though it has no tools that I have found for the governance.

The money is a subject up for discusern, am just using https://opencollective.com as example.

Help would be needed to do the proposal and #UX

UPDATE

The work flow would be:

Sign up for the site, then don’t untick the box for “do work” if you become a “stakeholder” every time a position opens the lottery picks a stakeholder to fill it if it is you and you would like to do the job – get to it. If you do not wont the job then resign and the lottery will pick a new person.

If you are not picked by the lottery for a job opening the is still a meany things you can do as a stakeholder in the groups. If you are not picked as a stakeholder you can still put ideas for the stakeholders to make into group decisions.

The outcome is something much more representative of the #Fediverse than we can currently think about let alone implement.

The is #nothingnew in this idea or implementation, some examples from Wikipedia

Examples

  • Law court juries are formed through sortition in some countries, such as the United States and United Kingdom.
  • Citizens’ assemblies have been used to provide input to policy makers. In 2004, a randomly selected group of citizens in British Columbia convened to propose a new electoral system. This Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform was repeated three years later in Ontario’s citizens’ assembly. However, neither assembly’s recommendations reached the required thresholds for implementation in subsequent referendums.
  • MASS LBP, a Canadian company inspired by the work of the Citizens’ Assemblies on Electoral Reform, has pioneered the use of Citizens’ Reference Panels for addressing a range of policy issues for public sector clients. The Reference Panels use civic lotteries, a modern form of sortition, to randomly select citizen-representatives from the general public.
  • Democracy In Practice, an international organization dedicated to democratic innovation, experimentation and capacity-building, has implemented sortition in schools in Bolivia, replacing student government elections with lotteries.[23]
  • Danish Consensus conferences give ordinary citizens a chance to make their voices heard in debates on public policy. The selection of citizens is not perfectly random, but still aims to be representative.
  • The South Australian Constitutional Convention was a deliberative opinion poll created to consider changes to the state constitution.
  • Private organizations can also use sortition. For example, the Samaritan Ministries health plan sometimes uses a panel of 13 randomly selected members to resolve disputes, which sometimes leads to policy changes.[24]
  • The Amish use sortition applied to a slate of nominees when they select their community leaders. In their process, formal members of the community each register a single private nomination, and candidates with a minimum threshold of nominations then stand for the random selection that follows.[25]
  • Citizens’ Initiative Review at Healthy Democracy uses a sortition based panel of citizen voters to review and comment on ballot initiative measures in the United States. The selection process utilizes random and stratified sampling techniques to create a representative 24-person panel which deliberates in order to evaluate the measure in question.[26]
  • The environmental group Extinction Rebellion has as one of its goals the introduction of a Citizens’ assembly that is given legislative power to make decisions about climate and ecological justice.[1]
  • Following the 1978 Meghalaya Legislative Assembly election, due to disagreements amongst the parties of the governing coalition, the Chief Minister’s position was chosen by drawing lots.[27]

“blue sky thinking”

UPDATE

Some stats

population ~ 4.152.753 accounts

active users ~ 1.192.023people

servers > 6.828 instances

Let’s be optimistic and say half the instances signed up that would be over 3000 instances stakeholders and thus 3000 user stakeholders for a total of 6000 and a number from affiliate groups. This number is likely too much, so we can put a limit to 100 chosen by lottery from the stakeholders instances, this is then matched by 100 from the user stakeholders for 200 stakeholders + 5-10 affiliates it’s up to the admin group to choice the right number to build a working community, if you don’t have enough good workers open the pool up if the is to much dicushern close the pool down, try different approaches.

UPDATE

Looking at this in conversation it becomes clear it is a 3 way split of stakolder groups: instances/users/builders&supporters with the last group in big groups could be the size of the others so just to higlight they would be treted in exactly the same way if they are over the number of the body then they would be chosen by lottery just like the others.

 

External discuern

https://socialhub.activitypub.rocks/t/organizing-for-socialhub-community-empowerment/1529

https://socialhub.activitypub.rocks/t/what-would-a-fediverse-governance-body-look-like/1497/2

UPDATE

https://gnu.tools

Now that is serendipity timeing.

This looks like a tech/process based attempt at grassroots governance. Must say straight out, in my expirence, I have seen many process lead models like this, and they have NEVER worked.

Though it is always a good thing to try iteration. And good to contrast this to the humane/serendipity based aproch that we have been working on at the #omn

I like it.