Year: 2024

State Funding of #FOSS and Open Source: Is it a Good Idea or a Bad Idea?

The questioning over state funding of Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) and open-source initiatives revolves around invisible ideological debates about benefits and drawbacks. Let’s look at this from a few specific examples: #NLnet, #NGI, and the European Union (#EU), to understanding the implications and effectiveness of this funding path.

  • The #NLnet Foundation is a notable example of an organization that provides funding to open-source projects. Supported by private and public funds, including significant contributions from the #EU, NLnet focuses on promoting a free, open, and secure internet.
  • The #NGI initiative, funded by the #EU, aims to shape the development of the internet of tomorrow. By supporting a range of open-source projects, NGI tries to foster innovation, privacy, and security. It emphasizes human-concentric technology, ensuring that the future internet respects humanistic values and needs.
  • The #EU has been a significant proponent of FOSS, providing funding through programs such as Horizon 2020 and Horizon Europe. The EU’s supports digital sovereignty, reduce dependency on non-European technologies through promoting open standards.

The is some democratization as these state-funded FOSS projects ensure software is accessible to wider groups, thus reducing the digital divide. For instance, NGI-funded projects are supposed to focus on inclusivity and user empowerment. At best, this transparency brings public overview to these processes.

There are some economic benefits and cost savings in using and supporting FOSS instead of expensive proprietary software. Funding initiatives like NGI stimulate innovation by allowing developers to build upon existing open-source projects, fostering a collaborative environment. Though, there are unspoken issues of sustainability in a pure capitalist path, thus the question of balance in state funding.

Open-source software allows for independent security audits, reducing the risk of vulnerabilities. The EU’s investment in secure communication tools underlines this advantage. Reducing reliance on a few large proprietaries #dotcons software vendors enhances national security and control. The EU’s support for open-source projects aims to bolster humanistic digital sovereignty.

For example, #NLnet’s diverse (though #geekproblem) funding portfolio highlights this limited community-driven development. The collaboration between public institutions, the private sector, and community contributors helps #NGI projects bring together diverse stakeholders to work on common goals. #FOSS projects thrive on community contributions, leading to continuous improvement and support and thus in theory community needs, though due to the dogmatic #geekproblem this is currently failing.

Funding Continuity: Projects become dependent on government funding, which currently is not stable or continuous. For example, sudden policy shifts in the EU affect long-term project sustainability. Without a sustainable funding, FOSS projects struggle with long-term maintenance and support.

Most #FOSS projects are too idiosyncratic to meet quality #UX standards. Thus, the current #geekproblem dominated process means that state funding inadvertently support meany unusable and thus pointless, subpar projects. Effective diversity and oversight of these mechanisms are crucial to mitigate this failing path.

Government involvement leads to bureaucracy, slowing down and ossifying development cycles, currently we do not work though this path well, The balance between oversight, diversity and agility is critical. With the #EU path this is a huge problem leading to almost all the current funding bring poured down the drain.

For #mainstreaming capitalism the issue of “Market Distortion”, the idea of competition raises the issue of state funding distorting “market” dogmas to disadvantage private companies and startups that don’t receive government support. For instance, EU funding can overshadow smaller #dotcons, capitalist thinking sees this as a risk that government-backed projects might stifle innovation by shaping the market landscape.

Political and ideological biases influence which projects receive funding, this is currently pushing a #blocking of the needed “native” #openweb path. How to move past this to ensuring diversity and “impartiality” in funding decisions need real work. How can we shift this “common sense” focus that government priorities do not align with the wider needs of the #openweb community and end-users. Aligning funding priorities with community needs is needed to address this concern, how can we make this happen with funding like #NLnet and #NGI?

To sum up, #NLnet are doing some good work, but this is focused on feeding the #geekproblem and building #fashionista careers, evern then on balance they do a better job than most. Then the wider #NGI funding is going into the #dotcons and #NGO mess, thus being poured directly down the drain. Over all, it’s fantastic that the #EU is funding the #openweb even if it is doing it very badly by funding very little that is native or useful.

Conclusion, state funding for FOSS and open-source initiatives, in our examples #NLnet, #NGI, and the #EU, has potential for creating real change and challenge, but this path presents both opportunities and challenges. When implemented thoughtfully, it can foster “native” paths, innovation, reduce costs, and enhance community and security to challenge the current worshipping of the #deathcults by our widespread use of the #dotcons. The question is the will and understanding to balancing this path to ensures that state funding positively contributes to the FOSS ecosystem, driving forward a free, open digital future or just leads to the capitalistic criticism of waste and distortion? At best and at worst, we see some real change and a lot of poring funding down the drain to feed some #geekproblem and build the careers of a few #fashernistas

The is much to compost in the current mess, can we get funding for shovels please #OMN

Addressing the #geekproblem

A river that needs crossing political and tech – On the political side, there is arrogance and ignorance, on the geek side there is naivety and over complexity. All code is ideology solidified into action – most contemporary code is capitalism, this is hardly a surprise if you think about this for a moment. Yes you can try and act on any ideology on top of this code, but the outcome and assumptions are preprogramed… cant find any good links on this…

As a useful path, we need to look at technology from the social prospective to have any hope of the needed change and challenge. With this view, on one hand, it’s interesting to look at how data and metadata serve as the social glue binding society together. And on the other, how our contemporary #deathcult worship—championing separation and anonymization through privacy and security efforts coded by the #geekproblem—undermines this needed social cohesion.

If you are a part of this #geekproblem then it is worth taking a step back to consider how our current coding practices shaped by society and liberalism affect both society and ecology in this blind worship. This “common sense” dogmatic liberalise leads us toward corporate “socialism”, which is the path to fascism, where the laws and norms are tailored to benefit a select few at the top of the shit pile we live in. Consequently, this data and metadata privatization, pushes us down the path to a disturbing shift towards “National Socialism” that then becomes the #mainstreaming.

The #KISS path to address this #geekproblem is to #stepaway from this cycle and code outside the confines of #mainstreaming liberalism without going down the fascism path.

To achieve meaningful change, we must examine technology from a social perspective. On one hand, data and metadata act as the social glue binding society. On the other, our obsession with privacy and security—driven by the #geekproblem—undermines this cohesion.

If you’re part of the #geekproblem, consider how our coding practices, influenced by liberalism, affect society and ecology. This “common sense” liberalism leads to corporate “socialism,” benefiting a select few and paving the way to fascism, with laws favouring the rich. Privatizing data and metadata pushes us towards a disturbing shift to “National Socialism” #mainstreaming.

The #KISS approach to this issue is to step away from this cycle, coding outside mainstream liberalism without veering towards fascism.

This is on this subject

Who’s responsible #Climatechaos?

The CEO of a large oil company made a statement about climate change, suggesting that consumers are to blame for the slow progress in addressing the issue. According to him, the companies have the technology to produce lower-carbon fuels, but consumers are unwilling to pay the premium for these greener alternatives. He argued that consumer choices, driven by price sensitivity, are hindering the adoption of cleaner energy solutions. Criticizing activists and society at large, claiming that their exclusion of the fossil fuel industry from the climate change dialogue is counterproductive. He believes that the industry has the potential to contribute significantly to climate solutions, but is being sidelined by activist-driven narratives.

In this market logic perspective, in the principles of the free market, corporations innovate and consumers drive demand, it’s up to consumers to “vote with their dollars” and choose sustainable products, thereby incentivizing companies to invest in and produce greener options.

However, this viewpoint has sparked a backlash and if you think about it as the problem of our current “common sense”, it is useful to look at this logic as akin to a drug lord blaming society for drug problems, highlighting the evil in the shifting responsibility from producers to consumers. The argument assumes that consumer choices alone is the driving force for systemic change, ignoring the influence and responsibility of corporations (capitalism) in driving fossil fuel dependency. Remember that a significant portion of global greenhouse gas emissions can be traced to a handful of companies. A 2017 study revealed that just 100 companies are responsible for 71% of global emissions since 1988. This highlights the disproportionate impact that corporations have on the environment, underscoring the need for systemic change rather than the #fashernista pushed ideas of individual consumer “choice”.

Shifting the blame onto consumers, is diverting responsibility for climate change and the disasterus role that fossil fuel companies play in this mess. This #mainstreaming narrative misleads by pushing that meaningful climate action is unattainable without consumer-driven solutions, a dangerous assertion in the social and environmental mess we face.

The #traditionalmedia portrays oil companies as rational actors operating within the bounds of market logic, while the activists are depicted as radical outliers. This agenda reinforces the status quo and diminishes the urgency of the need for change and challenge. In the political arena, climate change takes a backseat to concerns like the economy and healthcare. Even as climate awareness grows, it remains challenging to prioritize it in main streaming political discourse and policymaking.

This on the surface is simply “common sense” but lifting the lid, and you find a darker and conspiratorial story about the ascent of #neoliberalism and its pervasive influence. Neoliberalism, that this #CEO is speaking, is about advocating for the primacy of free markets, deregulation, and globalization, is deeply ingrained in modern political and economic thought. Originating from the ideas of thinkers such as Friedrich Hayek, this neoliberalism path has undergone a transformation and expansion, and now profoundly shaping policies and ideologies across the globe.

The term “neoliberal” was coined in 1938 and gained prominence with the publication of Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom in 1944. Hayek’s argument that individual self-interest is the only safeguard against tyranny found a receptive audience among the ultra-rich, who were portrayed as heroic figures resisting governmental overreach. The Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) influence extended to the US, where he established the Atlas Network, an umbrella organization that encompasses over 450 think tanks, including groups like the Cato Institute and the Heritage Foundation. These organizations, many of which operate as charities, do not disclose their donors, allowing them to exert opaque influence on shaping policy and public opinion.

Over the next three decades, a network of academics, journalists, and business people emerged, refining and promoting the ideology. Wealthy individuals and corporations funded lobby groups that presented themselves as impartial research institutes, further embedding neoliberal principles into the political mainstream. While initially having little impact on the social democratic postwar consensus, these ideas later inspired conservative political leaders like Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, who lead, neoliberalism’s major breakthrough in the 1970s, during the economic turmoil caused by the oil crisis and the decline of Keynesianism. Governments, seeking new economic models, turned to neoliberal solutions. As Milton Friedman, a prominent neoliberal economist, noted, “when the time came, we were ready … and we could step right in.” The resulting policies of tax cuts, weakening of trade unions, privatization and outsourcing of public services, and widespread market deregulation lead directly to the mess we are in today.

We are feeling the consequences of 40 years of the neoliberal era in the growing extreme economic disparities. In the United States, the wealthiest 1% own a third of the nation’s wealth. This shift to neoliberalism failed to deliver on its promise of robust economic growth, over the past 40 years, global growth has been slower compared to the postwar period. Instead, we have seen the rise of oligarchs who have reshaped capitalism to serve their interests, through mechanisms like offshore tax havens and political influence. Despite failure, the ideology remains a dominant force in shaping contemporary political and economic paths.

Over the next 20 years, the oil and gas push the impact of #climatechaos that will kill millions of people and displace billions. The rise of this #deathcult illustrates the profound impact that a coordinated network of ideologically driven institutions and individuals can have on global policy and economic systems. We should learn from this, activists and grassroots movements are needed to push for more aggressive climate action, aspesherly when their efforts are met with resistance and dismissal. This resistance balances the fossil fuel industry’s substantial influence on politics and media. Fossil fuel, alongside most major corporations, spend millions on lobbying and advertising to protect their interests. The climate crisis demands urgent and radical action, to balance this pushing of mess, while individual choices play a small role, placing the burden solely on this as the oil CEO does is adding to the mess and a distraction from the path we need to take.

This post was inspired by the reviews of George Monbiot new book https://www.monbiot.com

Indymedia based on the #OMN framework?

Understanding the need for rebooting #Indymedia. The #Indymedia network, once a vibrant platform for decentralized grassroots media, succumbed to internal and external tensions. Before rebooting, we should look at the factors that contributed to its decline so we can take a working path to a successful revival that avoids past pitfalls.

Reasons for the decline of #Indymedia and progressive altmedia in general: Internal Conflicts: Tribalism and Power Politics: Internal strife and power struggles fractured the unity of the network. Diverse Views on Direction: Differing opinions on the project’s goals and methods led to fragmentation. External Pressures: Political and Legal Challenges: Government surveillance and legal actions against activists and platforms. Technological Changes: Rapid evolution in technology and social media outpaced the network’s adaptability. Sustainability is a challenge to maintaining operational and financial sustainability.
Centralization vs. Decentralization, this tensions was damaging between maintaining decentralized structures and the need for some level of organizational coherence.

The #IndymediaBack project to revitalize the #Indymedia network, focusing on the principles that initially made it a powerful force in grassroots media: trust based publishing, doocemocracy, and anti-authoritarianism. By learning from past mistakes and leveraging modern technologies, the project recreates resilient and effective media platforms.

The Role of #OMN (Open Media Network) Framework: The #OMN is central to the reboot strategy, it emphasizes openness, collaboration, and decentralization, ensuring that the revived network adheres to its foundational principles while addressing previous shortcomings.

Objectives of the Reboot, Re-establish Open Publishing: Reinforce the commitment to grassroots publishing where anyone can contribute, ensuring diverse voices are heard. Strengthen Decentralized Structures: Focus on decentralized organization to prevent power concentration and promote local autonomy. Implement Modern Standards: Integrate modern technological standards like #activertypub to enhance functionality and user experience. Avoid Past Mistakes: Actively work to prevent tribalism and power politics through clear governance structures and messy consensus decision-making. Promoting sustainability by develop sustainable models for financial and operational support to ensure long-term viability.

Strategies for rebooting #Indymedia. Adopt #NothingNew Policy: Stick to the original workflows and processes while updating them to meet modern standards, maintaining the core ethos of the original project. Build Affinity Groups: Form working groups to tackle specific issues and develop consensus on the path forward. Emphasize : Adhere to the principles of open source, open data, open standards, and open processes to ensure transparency and inclusivity.

Expected Outcomes, resilient and Inclusive Network: A decentralized, open platform that is resilient to internal and external pressures. Diverse and Vibrant Media Content: A rich tapestry of media content reflecting a wide range of perspectives and voices. Sustainable Operations: A model that supports ongoing financial and operational sustainability. Community-Driven Governance: A network governed by messy consensus, ensuring that it remains true to its grassroots origins.

In conclusion, #Indymediaback using the #OMN framework is a strategic move to revive a vital platform for grassroots media. By understanding the reasons for past failures and leveraging modern technologies and methodologies, the #IndymediaBack project builds a sustainable, decentralized, #FOSS and inclusive media network. This reboot is not only about restoring what was lost, but about building a resilient network that can adapt to future challenges while staying true to its founding principles.

Bad conversations in #FOSS and tech

A lot of our public discourse has reached the stage where it might be worth thinking about it as a mental health issue, and that after the “common sense” worshipping of the #deathcult for 40 years, this becomes escalating hard to mediate. This post is about a summing up of this thread https://www.reddit.com/r/foss/comments/1e5vhif/crisis_of_governance_in_foss_medieval_politics/ on Reddit where I posted the text of one of a blog posts on #FOSS and the need to move away from medieval governance.

The is very little if any constructive dialogue, instead we have #blocking, simply ignoring, participants selectively address certain points while neglecting others. This creates an incomplete dialogue and fails to engage with the actual scope of the argument. Example: If someone ignores the historical context and current challenges within FOSS governance structures, they miss why the proposed changes are necessary. Belittling involves dismissing or undermining arguments or concerns, which shuts down dialogue and discourage participation. Example: Dismissing the discussion of governance in FOSS as “unreadable” or “spammy” without engaging with the substance or argument. Nitpicking, focusing on minor details and errors rather than engaging with the main points, derails the conversation and prevent meaningful discussion. Example: focusing on correcting typos or minor factual errors without addressing the argument for the need for governance changes in FOSS projects. StrawMan, misrepresenting the argument to make it easier to attack, distorts the discussion and leads to unproductive debate. Example: Suggesting that advocating for more structured governance in FOSS is equivalent to demanding strict corporate-like control, which misrepresents the argument for more democratic and community-driven governance.

Reasons for these messy behaviours: Ideological Differences: People have strong beliefs about what is “common sense” and react defensively to suggestions that change/challenge this. This misunderstanding grows the lack of understanding of the historical context and the specifics of the proposed changes that feedbacks misinformed critiques that that keeps building resistance to change. Yes, change is uncomfortable, and people resist it by dismissing or undermining new paths, ideas please? Communication Style: The style of communication can be off-putting and confusing for in and out groups, leading to reactions that focus on form rather than addressing any substance.

Why this matters: There is a crisis of governance in #FOSS, Aristocratic Hierarchies and Monarchical Leadership pushes the concentration of power among a few maintainers and leaders, this lowers community building and buy in. Medieval Governance structures are medieval political systems, It’s obviously unfit for the modern world, let’s look at why we have this mess: #Neoliberal individualism and its failures, #stupidindividualism breeds the focus on individualism, which undermines collaboration and community-driven efforts in FOSS. This fixation with market-driven development rather than community needs result on one hand in less innovative and user-friendly software, and on the other in #dotcons control and exploitation. Feeding the #techchurn and #geekproblem insular and exclusionary culture.

Addressing issues of ignoring, belittling, nitpicking, and straw man arguments push back productive dialogue. Solutions to this current path, democratizing decision-making, the path of transparent and inclusive governance models like the #OGB to build community-concentric approaches, like #indymediaback and #makeinghistory. To make this work, let’s try shifting to focus on to community needs over individuals ambition and market demands. Cultivate an inclusive culture that values diverse perspectives and considers different social, cultural, and economic paths.

Why #AI is more #techshit

The #stupidindividualism of the Silicon Valley’s ideology, around tech-driven libertarianism and as our chattering classes say “hyper-individualism”, is spreading social mess and #techshit, we need shovels to compost. It’s now clear that these anti #mainstreaming ‘solutions’ create more problems than they attempt to solve, particularly in terms of social breakdown and environmental damage. The utopian nightmares of tech billionaires collapse under the weight of on rushing real-world challenges. This should make visible to more of us the #geekproblem, the limits of technocratic fixes. The lies under the once-promised technological mediated future of freedom and innovation has been shown to be control and chaos, this should make it obvious that we need to take different paths away from the Silicon Valley’s delusion.

A podcast from of our weak liberals on the subject of #AI https://flex.acast.com/audio.guim.co.uk/2024/07/15-61610-gnl.sci.20240715.eb.ai_climate.mp3 a #mainstreaming view of the mess we are making on this path. The big issue is not the actual “nature” of AI, though that is not without issues. What I am covering here is that #AI is reinforcing existing power structures and socioeconomic realities, #neoliberal ideology and historical bias. This is driven by the goals of enhancing efficiency, reducing costs, and maximizing profits by increased surveillance, this in itself should raise ethical concerns about privacy and freedoms, that the #geekproblem so often justifies under the guise of security.

We need to think about this: AI systems trained on data from the past 40 years are inherently biased by the socio-political context of that period, perpetuating what are now outdated and obsolete beliefs. This historical bias locks in narrow ideological paths, particularly those associated with #neoliberalism and our 40 years worshipping at this #deathcult. This is not only a problem with AI, its a wider issue, we continue to prioritize economic growth over social and environmental paths, with the resent election victory in the UK, the Labour Party’s is pushing the normal #mainstreaming established during the #Thatcher era, in this we see past ideologies continue to shape current #mainstreaming political paths, the tech simply reinforces this.

It’s hard to know what path to take with this mess. Ethical frameworks like the and regulatory oversight to guide the responsible use of AI might help. By addressing the current mess and challenges, we might be able to work towards an AI path that reflects diverse perspectives and serves a more common good rather than reinforcing narrow #deathcult litany and hard right ideological paths this grows, which is the current default path. Recognizing and addressing the challenges in AI development is the first step towards the change we need to challenge, us, to compost this social mess and heaps of #techshit we have created, that shapes us.

A Critique of “fluffy” Leftist and Progressive #AI Paths

UPDATE: An academic talking about this has just come out https://arxiv.org/pdf/2410.18417

Communication barriers, lead to a lack of awareness

The #fashernista-driven path pushes aside grassroots and #openweb movements due to misalignment agendas. The #fashernists are driven by #mainstreaming agendas that end up co-opt grassroots initiatives, then systematizing them in ways that dilute their “original native” paths, intent and value. This mess leads to #techchurn and a continuous cycle of superficial innovation that does nothing to address real issues at all.

This #blocking of communication leads to a lack of awareness of people involved in these movements, understanding of the history and principles underlying the #KISS grassroots and #openweb paths. With the #fediverse, decentralization is a core principle, though it often leads to difficulties in coordination and collective decision-making. This in hand with the “common sense” #mainstreaming people resistances to adopting new models of governance and cooperation like the #OGB pushes the current mess and #techcurn mess we live in.

Proposed solutions to this path, build and support authentic projects, like the #OMN and #OGB etc. To foster collaborative governance and inclusive decision-making, start with small-scale pilot projects to demonstrate the effectiveness of collaborative governance and build “test” decentralized development. Then use these projects (with federation) as models for larger initiatives, rinse and repeat, it’s a #KISS path. This leads to the cultivation of a community of resilience and nurtures infrastructure that is robust and adaptable, capable of withstanding pressures and disruptions.

Part of this path needs to challenge #mainstreaming narratives with alternative progressive media (#indymediaback) providing a counter-story, pushing this feedback loop to highlight successes and innovations within the grassroots and #openweb movements.

Also using the as a path to encourage critical engagement with #geekproblem and #dotcons projects, questioning their alignment with grassroots values and pushing for accountability and transparency to move people off these paths.

Let’s start embracing the composting of #techshit to turn the current mess into fertile ground for new #openweb growth and innovation. Let’s pick up our shovels and building the change and challenge that is so obviously needed, and please try not to be a prat, thanks.

“The work of the anarchist is above all a work of critique. The anarchist goes, sowing revolt against that which oppresses, obstructs, opposes itself to the free expansion of the individual being.”
— Emile Armand

Crisis of Governance in FOSS: Medieval Politics and Neoliberal Failures

Silicon Valley influence is significant, the concentration of power and resources among a few #dotcons raises issues about democracy, equity, and control. With this in mind, we need a strong push and for meany people a fundamental rethink and restructuring of how we approach technology, governance, and real community building.

The open-source and free software communities, despite their progressive foundations, are marred by outdated governance structures that are at base medieval aristocracy and monarchy. This, compounded by the problematic mediation attempts through #neoliberal individualism, results in a stagnation of innovation and collaboration that highlights the #geekproblem within these communities.

Medieval governance in modern tech, aristocratic hierarchies are in most open-source projects, decision-making power is concentrated in the hands of a few “maintainers” or “core developers.” These individuals hold their positions for long periods, leading to a de facto aristocracy, with the same people in control and influencing the paths of projects big and small. Monarchical leadership is core to meany projects, led by charismatic leaders whose word becomes law. This monarch-like leadership stifle dissent and discourage fresh contributors, as the project revolves around the vision and whims of a single individual, the #fediverse application is an example with #Mastodon.

Neoliberal Individualism and Its Failures

#StupidIndividualism is a part of #neoliberalism, which promotes a form of individualism emphasizesing self-interest and competition over collaboration and community. This mindset infiltrates open-source communities, leading to fragmented efforts and a lack of cohesive or even any vision. This “common sense” market-driven development infects many open-source projects that are pushed by market demands rather than community needs. This results in software that prioritizes profitability over usability and innovation.

The #techshit and #geekproblem

  • #techshit, a term that reflects the use of #dotcons and #FOSS which proliferates with poorly designed, unmaintained, and redundant software projects that clutter the open-source paths.
  • #geekproblem, refers to the insular and exclusionary culture within tech communities. It includes issues like poor communication, lack of diversity, and a focus on technical prowess over collaborative skills.

Moving Towards Modern Governance

Democratizing Decision-Making: Shifting from aristocratic and monarchical structures to more democratic governance models can help. This includes implementing transparent decision-making processes, rotating leadership roles, and ensuring that all voices are heard.

Community-Centric Approaches: Prioritizing community needs over individual ambitions or market demands leads to more sustainable and impactful projects. This involves active engagement with users and contributors to understand their needs and incorporate their feedback.

Embracing Diversity: Cultivating an inclusive culture that values diverse perspectives address the #geekproblem. This means actively working to include underrepresented groups in tech and fostering a collaborative rather than competitive environment.

Holistic thinking: Moving beyond the neoliberal framework requires a holistic approach to mediation that considers social, cultural, and economic factors. This includes spaces for dialogue, conflict resolution mechanisms, and support systems for contributors.

Conclusion, to move forward, they must shed the medieval political structures and #neoliberal individualism to make space to embracing democratic governance, community-centric approaches, diversity, and holistic mediation, communities can mediate the #techshit and #geekproblem, paving the way for a more collaborative and native #openweb.

Grassroots in Tech Communities: Challenges and Paths

The discussions surrounding grassroots movements within tech communities intersects with broader social themes, such as #neoliberalism and #postmodernism. These ideologies shape what is considered “common sense” and can create real barriers to introducing alternative viewpoints and practices. Within this context, progressive grassroots initiatives aim to counteract these dominant paradigms, but they frequently face challenges both from within and outside their communities.

The concept of #mainstreaming refers to the process where dominant ideologies and practices become the accepted norm, marginalizing alternative perspectives. This current mainstreaming is driven by the forces of neoliberalism, emphasizes market-driven solutions and (stupid) individualism, and (zombie) postmodernism, that foster a sense of scepticism and relativism. Together, these forces create a “common sense” that is actively hostile to grassroots progressive initiatives.

Let’s look at a few of the “surface issue” faced by Grassroots Movements:

  • Perception of Spam: As highlighted in #socialhub experiences, grassroots advocates face accusations of spamming when they consistently share links and resources to support #KISS arguments. This perception can stem from a misunderstanding of the intent behind sharing information, which is to provide context and facilitate basic understanding.
  • Resistance to Alternative Views: When #mainstreaming ideas are challenged, the response is often, hostile, defensive or dismissive. This resistance is rooted in cognitive dissonance and the threat to personal and collective identities that alternative viewpoints pose.
  • Governance Issues: Effective governance within tech communities is crucial for fostering inclusivity and legitimacy. However, governance processes become contentious, particularly when there are differing visions for the community’s direction and priorities. This is a problem with much of the #feudalism in #FOSS thinking.

Some projects that are designed to mediate these issues

  • The Open-Media-Network (#OMN) and its associated projects, such as the Open Web Governance Body (#OGB) and the framework, represent grassroots efforts to address these challenges. These initiatives aim to create a more democratic and inclusive “trust” based internet by emphasizing transparency, open governance, and community-driven development.
  • Open Web Governance Body (#OGB): Project focuses on creating governance structures for horizontal projects using simple online tools. By promoting open and inclusive governance, the OGB mitigates the issues caused by #mainstreaming and ensure that grassroots voices are heard and valued.
  • The Framework: Advocates for open data, open source, open standards, and open processes. By adhering to these principles, grassroots movements can create robust defences against co-optation and maintain their autonomy and integrity.

What can you do to help:

  • Build Community and Solidarity: Strengthening ties within the community and fostering a sense of shared purpose to help counteract the fragmentation often caused by dominant ideologies.
  • Educate and Inform: Providing accessible and compelling information about the benefits of alternative viewpoints and practices to shift perceptions and reduce resistance.
  • Engage in Dialogue: Creating spaces for open and respectful dialogue can help bridge divides and foster mutual understanding.
  • Leverage Technology: Utilizing #openweb tools and platforms like the #OMN and wider #Fediverse empower grassroots movements to organize effectively and promote their message to escape the #dotcons echo chambers.

The struggle to establish and maintain grassroots movements within tech communities is ongoing and very messy. By understanding the dynamics of #mainstreaming and employing strategies to counteract its effects, these movements can create more inclusive and democratic spaces. The initiatives by the Open-Media-Network offer real grassroots frameworks and tools for achieving these goals, demonstrating that a small group of thoughtful, committed people can indeed change the world.

Become a part of this movement https://opencollective.com/open-media-network

The mess of our “common sense” hard shift to the right – Ukraine

The ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine exacerbates the influence of far-right groups. The Russia narrative highlights the presence of far-right elements in Ukraine to justify its actions. However, this narrative is used politically rather than in any way sincerely addressing the issue. Western support for Ukraine, primarily aimed at countering Russian aggression, overlooks the rise of far-right groups, this creates a messy dynamic where far-right groups use the conflict to legitimize their actions.

The mess of Ukraine’s socio-political landscape is deeply intertwined with historical legacies, geopolitical tensions, and the resurgence of far-right movements. The far-right in Ukraine traces back to fascist movements such as the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) and its split factions, OUN-B (led by Stepan Bandera) and OUN-M (led by Andriy Melnyk). These groups were terrorist and collaborators with Nazi Germany during WWII. In the post-Soviet turmoil, the collapse of the Eastern Bloc, Ukraine, like many post-Soviet states, faced corruption, organized crime, and economic instability. This environment has been fertile ground for far-right ideologies’ growth.

The far-right in modern Ukraine gained significant influence, particularly since the #Euromaidan protests in 2014. Azov Battalion: Initially a paramilitary unit, has become a formal part of the Ukrainian National Guard, with its political wing, National Corps, active nationwide. Azov runs youth programs and community centres, blending patriotic education with far-right ideology. Right Sector: Another prominent far-right group, involved in paramilitary activities and political violence. It has substantial influence despite its relatively small size. Other Groups: Organizations like Centuria and Tradition and Order contribute to the far-right landscape, with Centuria focusing on militant training and Tradition and Order blending ultra-nationalism with Orthodox Christianity.

Political and Social Implications of the integration of the far right into state structures: Far-right groups like Azov have integrated into Ukrainian state structures, receiving state resources and influencing government policies. Youth Mobilization: These groups actively recruit and indoctrinate youth, creating a new generation aligned with their ideologies. Political Violence and Intimidation: Far-right groups regularly engage in political violence and intimidation, targeting minorities and political opponents.

Future Prospects, the entrenchment of far-right groups in Ukrainian politics and society poses significant risks: Without a any left-wing alternative or meaningful efforts to counteract far-right influence, the possibility of a fascist takeover in Ukraine increases. This feeds a dangerous precedent to inspire similar movements globally.

To address these issues, there needs to be a focus on democratic values, countering #fascist ideologies, and fostering political and social alternatives that prioritize humanistic paths. In the digital world, the principles of (open data, open source, open standards, and open processes), #OGB (Open Governance Body), and #OMN (Open Media Network) are designed to pay a role in mediating mess like this. They are designed to creating a transparent, inclusive, and resilient society. We should actually make technology like this work, you can help https://opencollective.com/open-media-network

The Hydrogen Path is #techchurn

Hydrogen is heralded by our conservative crew as a miracle fuel, offering a clean and carbon-free source of energy. By combining hydrogen with atmospheric oxygen, we produce water and energy, a blinded “perfect” solution for fantasy energy needs. However, hydrogen has drawbacks that make its large-scale adoption a #geekproblem dysfunctional fantasy.

Challenges with Hydrogen: Hydrogen needs to be stored under high pressure, requiring expensive infrastructure. It also degrades this infrastructure, the materials it contacts, in use, necessitating specialized storage solutions. Hydrogen is highly volatile and very prone to leaks. Its tendency to evaporate and explode make it difficult to manage safely for any #mainstreaming widespread use.

Energy Conversion Efficiency: The biggest issue with hydrogen is its inefficiency. Energy conversion processes inherently lose energy at each stage. Generating electricity, converting it to hydrogen, storing it, and then converting it back to electricity results in an efficiency of around 30-40%. This is a very bad ecological path to go down, as a significant portion of the original “green” energy is wasted.

Hydrogen as Energy Storage, Hydrogen is pushed as a solution to the intermittent nature of renewable energy sources like wind and solar power. By using excess renewable energy to produce hydrogen, it can be stored and later converted back to electricity when needed. However, the inefficiency of this process poses a major obstacle. The loss of energy at each conversion stage means that using hydrogen as a storage medium is far less efficient than direct use of the electricity generated. Changing lifestyle to reflect this shifting of energy supply is a much more sensible and sustainable path to take. The pushing of the economic feasibility of hydrogen energy storage is adding to the current mess.

Governmental Strategies and Investments, despite this mess, some countries, like the USA, the UK, and Germany, are pursuing hydrogen strategies. However, much of the progress remains theoretical, with plans significantly outstripping current capabilities. For instance, the International Energy Agency’s data shows a massive gap between existing hydrogen production capacity and future targets, with only a small fraction of these plans having secured funding.

Procrastination and Continued Fossil Fuel Use, one of the most #mainstreaming reason for the hydrogen push is procrastination. By planning to use hydrogen in new power plants, governments can appear to be moving towards greener energy solutions while continuing to rely on fossil fuels. Many of these new plants are designed to run on both hydrogen and natural gas, meaning that in the absence of sufficient hydrogen, they will continue to operate on gas. This approach allows for the continuation of fossil fuel use under the guise of transitioning to green energy.

Conclusion, the current push for hydrogen as an energy solution is adding to the current mess, it’s plagued by challenges and inefficiencies. While hydrogen has potential in specific applications, such as industrial processes, its role in large-scale energy storage and production is limited by practical and economic constraints. The hydrogen economy, in its present form, primarily serves as a way to justify the continued use of fossil fuels rather than an any genuine transition to cleaner energy.

Let us please stop with the lies, thanks.

Beyond Consumerism: Building Trust Through Openness and Action

This pervasive influence of ideology and consumerism in modern society, illustrating how even well-intentioned actions can be co-opted by the systems they aim to resist. It emphasizes the need for genuine, systemic change rather than superficial actions that offer a false sense of contribution.

The problem we need to mediate is everyday consumer choices are framed as meaningful activism, which dilutes real efforts for change. This creates a sense of complacency and false satisfaction, preventing any real systemic challenges that are so obviously needed.

Historical Parallels, the analogy of medieval serfs accepting their lot illustrates how people historically and presently conflate social structures with natural order. Today’s complacency is like the acceptance of feudal systems.

Commodification of values, modern advertising and consumer culture commodify values and identities, making it hard to distinguish genuine activism from consumerist pseudo-activism. This commodification extends to political and social movements, diluting their impact and sincerity.

Real activism requires more than symbolic acts; it demands substantial engagement and thus sacrifice. The #mainstreaming system is designed to neutralize and commodify this dissent, making it difficult for genuine movements to maintain any integrity.

Necessity for radical change, fluffy incremental changes and consumer choices are insufficient to address any deep-rooted systemic issues. A more radical “spiky” collective approach is necessary to challenge and transform the status quo.

Applying These Insights to #OMN projects: Encourage deeper, more meaningful participation from members, beyond just consumer choices or symbolic actions. Promote activities that foster real community building, skill sharing, and collective action.

Maintain ideological integrity, consistently foreground the principles (Open Process, Open Data, Open Licence, Open Standards) to ensure basic transparency and accountability. Resist the pressure to dilute these principles for broader appeal and convenience.

Educate and raise awareness, use the #OMN platforms to educate about the pitfalls of commodified activism and the importance of genuine systemic change. Highlight historical and contemporary examples of successful radical movements to inspire and inform the crew and wider social groups.

Core to the #OMN is facilitating and support collective actions that address systemic issues, rather than just individualistic or consumer-oriented solutions. Resist commodification, be vigilant against the commodification of the movement that overshadows the core mission. Foster a culture of scepticism towards consumerist solutions and emphasize grassroots, community-driven approaches.

Slogan for #OMN “Beyond Consumerism: Building Trust Through and Action”