First one is https://bsky.app/profile/hamishcampbell.bsky.social after a few months of it opening I have 2 followers and have found very few interesting people. Have done 80 posts, so this one is a BUST so far.
Second one is https://www.threads.net/@boatingeurope which we are trying for posting #boatingeurope life. This #dotcons has an algorithm to auto fallow people, so there are 169 followers and fallowing 210 people. A lot of posts, but little interaction or engagement, few if any interesting people. In summery not working and a obvious a bait and switch #dotcons so a dead end path to use for the #openweb
The intertwining of #postmodernist social thinking and #neoliberal economic ideology over the past four decades has laid the groundwork for the turbulent state of contemporary politics and the social chaos evident in our digital ecosystems (#dotcons)
This marriage of ideologies led to a fracturing of societal values and a narrowing of ideological divides, resulting in the polarization and dysfunction we witness in both right and left-wing politics. In the realm of technology, this has manifested in the proliferation of centralized platforms and the erosion of community.
For forty years, we’ve marched down this dark path, “unwittingly” shaping our current “human nature” through our collective choices and actions. Now, as we confront the existential threats posed by #climatechaos and ecological degradation, we must reckon with the consequences of our past decisions.
The next four decades will undoubtedly be marked by hardship, suffering, and loss as we grapple with the consequences of our actions. We must acknowledge our role in shaping this grim reality and take responsibility for charting a new course forward.
It’s time to reject the poisoned philosophies and economic doctrines that have brought us to this precipice. We must reclaim agency over our collective future and commit to a path of social healing, reconciliation, and renewal.
Acknowledging our complicity in creating this mess is the first step towards redemption. It’s time to embrace the power of #openweb collective action and solidarity, working together to build a more just, equitable, and sustainable world for generations to come.
It’s important not to just see this social thinking as simply an individualistic moral judgment, this would be using the current mess to judge the current mess. This is a hopeless path to walk down, and would only lead to the pushing of more mess. Please try not to take this path, thanks.
And am not saying that these ways of thinking are not working as intended, they obviously are. Postmodernism has been used to disintegrate social norms that bind society together, it has done this. Neoliberalism has been used to divide the rich and the poor, it has done this. The moral judgment is not in the effectiveness of these paths but in our choice of path.
Together, social disintegration has lubricated the pushing of the divide between the rich and the poor to the extremes that are growing today. It’s important not to simple see this as a moral judgment, as it’s a natural outcome of the path we have chosen to walk over the last 40 years, the moral judgment is the on the path we have chosen.
Tech governance projects miss the mark because they fail to engage with the real needs and experiences of grassroots activists and community building. This disconnect stems from the entrenched dynamics of the #geekproblem, which prioritize control and certainty over messy collaboration and understanding.
The problem is exacerbated by the detachment of the “professional” #NGO crew, who lack meaningful connections to the communities they aim to serve. Instead of prioritizing the messy, uncertain realities of grassroots activism, they focus on advancing their careers and adhering to predetermined pathways the #geeproblem provide.
If these projects were to pause and genuinely consult with those who have dedicated themselves to grassroots community building for years, they would quickly realize the futility of their efforts. The essence of effective governance lies in embracing uncertainty, fostering messy collaboration, and adapting to the diverse needs and aspirations of real lived communities.
Ultimately, until tech governance initiatives shift their focus from control to collaboration and from career advancement to genuine impact, they will continue to fail their intended goals. It’s time to break free from the confines of the #geekproblem and the trappings of professionalization, and truly engage with the messy, vibrant reality of grassroots activism.
In the tapestry of human interaction, the worst threads of people and #society manifest as destructive feedback loops. Whether fuelled by greed, fear, or power dynamics, this cycle weaves our current culture of brokenness and decay.
To break from this destructive cycle, we need to embrace a paradigm shift, normalizing the best parts of people and society. By cultivating trust, hope, and collaboration, we create a fertile ground for growth and transformation.
At the heart of this shift lies the contrast between #capitalism and alternative paths like socialism and #anarchy. Capitalism, with its emphasis on greed and fear, thrives on control and power that perpetuate societal fractures. In contrast, at their best socialism and anarchy offer pathways rooted in trust and hope, to nurture the best aspects of human nature and society.
Capitalism’s foundation in the worst of human behaviour pushes inequality and division, thus stifling collective progress. In contrast, socialism and anarchy offer frameworks that prioritize equity, solidarity, and cooperation, providing fertile soil for societal flourishing.
As communerties wielding shovels of collective action, we have the power to compost the mess that withers our societies. By coming together to cultivate a #4opens culture of transparency, flows, and mutual aid, we can transform the landscape of human interaction with projects like the #OMN#OGB and #makeinghistory
This act of composting requires patience, dedication, and a willingness to confront the roots of systemic problems. It involves breaking down the “non-native” barriers that divide to nourishing the soil of our communities with the seeds of change.
In the face of adversity, let’s stand united in our commitment to composting the mess that is breaking us and our societies. Together, we can cultivate a future rooted in the best parts of humanity, where empathy, cooperation, and collective well-being build our path.
In the ongoing discourse surrounding #openweb and its relation to failing technologies like #web3 and #blockchain, a critical question emerges: why do we readily accept solutions without first defining the problem at hand?
“… it’s not secure, it’s not safe, it’s not reliable, it’s not trustworthy, it’s not even decentralized, it’s not anonymous, it’s helping destroy the planet. I haven’t found one positive use for blockchain. It has nothing that couldn’t be done better without it.”
—Bruce Schneier, *Bruce Schneier on the Crypto/Blockchain Disaster
The allure of decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs) and blockchain technology for the last ten years has overshadowed the necessity of understanding the fundamental issues within our communities. Instead of exploring how we want to govern, decide, and interact within our communities, we find ourselves seduced by the promises of #DAO pitches.
The core of the matter lies in the conflation of culture with technology. Every time a DAO or blockchain solution is proposed, the culture and organization of communities become intertwined with the #geekproblem tools being offered. This bundling tactic obscures the essence of the technology and stifles meaningful discourse. By presenting technology as a fait accompli, we are robbed of the opportunity to critically assess its implications.
In the realm of the #openweb, technology is envisioned as a manifestation of communal decisions and conscious choices. It is the crystallization of community values, traditions, and needs. Where blockchain and DAOs represent an antithesis to this vision. They dictate choices rather than empower communities to determine their own paths.
One of the most concerning aspects of blockchain technology is its enforced financialization within communities. The implementation of ledger systems and tokens mirrors the #dotcons capitalist market traditions, where wealth equates to power. In stark contrast to the principles of “native” gift economies and communalism, blockchain perpetuates a system where those with the most resources wield influence.
In this, even in #mainstreaming dialogue, these ten years of blinded move to blockchain threatens to undermine centuries of liberal evolution by replacing established legal systems with #web3 engineers acting as arbiters of justice. This shift from #mainstreaming transparent and “equitable” legal frameworks to opaque and centralized technological solutions is deeply troubling.
As proponents of #4opens ideals, we should question the last ten years narrative of blockchain’s and DAOs. We must resist the allure of #geekproblem technological solutions that obscure the essence of community governance and autonomy. Instead, let’s engage in meaningful dialogue, grounded in clear understanding of the problems we address and the values we hold to forge a “native” #openweb path.
We now face another wasted ten years of #AI hype with the same issues and agender. We have to stop feeding this mess.
There is a complete failure of funding for the community (non #mainstreaming) side of tech, I have put in more than ten funding applications over the last few years to all the openweb funding flows.
And the answer, if the is one, is always the same, some of the replies:
” This kind of effort is very hard to seek grants for – which holds for the vast majority of FOSS efforts, to be sure, but for things this high up in the stack even more.”
“I don’t have an obvious candidate for you to go to either”
The issue is that this is actually a LIE, the funders do fund the subjects we are applying for, just they ONLY fund the shadow of the #deathcult because they do not understand anything outside this. Or if they do understand, they are to afried of their funding flows drying up if they did fund anything outside this shadow.
“What the times are and how they are changing is different from every perspective. And so is utility. Not every project can be equally successful from everyone’s point of view. From our vantage point the process we deliver seems to work better than the vast majority of other processes (there are many tens of billions spent less frugality and with no impact at all within the same EC frameworks, I’m sure you’ll agree). Future history will have to prove the approach right or wrong,”
So good advice is nice, change challenge is better, ideas please for change challenge of this funding mess.
Or this openweb reboot is going to be absorbed by the #mainstreaming, not a bad thing, but it’s NOT the project meany of have been working on #KISS
“Obviously, we are always eager to haul in new projects – so do send projects you deem worthy our way.”
Ten funding applications latter, it’s a problem, I think we need both being nice and not being nice, and we need these together to break this LIE in funding.
On https://socialhub.activitypub.rocks/ we have fucked this path over the last few years – the spiky fluffy debate has not been respected. This holding the “debate” in place is the secret of all working/affective activism, hint, hint. And we are doing activism in this openweb reboot, I understand the majority of people like to deny this, but this denying makes these people prats and the problem not the solution, let’s politicly tell them this.
#KISS PS. there is the word “stupid” in this hashtag, in this am not calling any individual stupid, so please don’t take this as pointing at YOU personally I am talking about social groups, stupid #mainstreaming fearful groups.
And then we have the #geekproblem path, which has been pushing the fep process the last 2 years, but I think they are avoiding the politics of actually touching this issue. Fair enough.
If the “native” openweb crew don’t move past their “left” mess issues then I think in the end the #NGO path will be imposed, It’s simply what happens, there is a long history of this outcome
Obviously anything that works has lots of structure, the more important question is about the visibility and “native” democracy of this structure. This is a hard argument/talk to have, and we do keep failing on this, what to do? Ideas please.
It’s interesting that formal coops almost never work in reality, and when/if they do work they tend to become shadows of the #deathcult
In contrast, activist aganising works, often badly. But over all, activist organising is more successful at being an Alt than formal coops, there is a long unspoken history to back this up.
BUT our #mainstreaming always talks about formal coops, if they talk about alts at all, because they can ONLY see this shadow of the #deathcult
Activist organising is always fighting the #deathcult, so it rarely functions as this shadow. The #NGO world is always this shadow.
OK I admit with the right/left mess, this is more of a mess to be composted, ideas please 🙂
————————————–
Current examples in the UK would be the coop supermarket, which got Tesco people in to make it profitable and has soviet design sense and staffing. And the coop bank, which is so bureaucratic as to be pretty much unusable. We have banked with them a number of times. On the positive side you had the co-op wholefood shops in the 1970’s which metamorphosed into the much more #deathcult health shops in the 1990’s. Just to touch on a few. Housing coops have an interesting history, quite a few stories to tell on these.
Don’t take me wrong, I like coops, but I don’t like #fahernistas pushing them over things where we have other forms of organising which likely work better. Diversity is good, just don’t dogmatically push crap that then needs to be composted, we have enough shit to shovel without this thanks.
Most people are parasites in our current #mainstreaming society, this is non-controversial view in the era of the #deathcult
Some examples:
Let’s look for a moment at our tech world, if we are generous 90% of people on the #openweb are parasites on this culture and tech space.
Maybe 9% are “native” but could do better, and the native 1% left are fractured. You can use a social tool like the #4opens to make this visible with little effort if you care.
This space is made of social tech, and at its core is #4opens culture, people and community.
If you are not generous, it’s more like 99% and fractions of the 1% left over. Let’s be truthful and try and bump this up to the generous view, please.
let’s look at this through one example. The term #enshittification coined by https://mastodon.social/@pluralistic@mamot.fr is a pop term for a very real social/tech problem. I have been using the term #dotcons for the last 20 years to express this same idea and feel this is a better hashtag, but that’s just my view, you can see the thinking for this latter.
* Obscuring Responsibility: Using terms like “enshittification” obscures the true root causes of the issue. Instead of attributing problems solely to a general decline in quality, the focus should be on identifying specific actors and factors responsible for this decline.
* Profit Motive and Diverging Interests: Behind the concept of “enshittification” lies the profit motive inherent in capitalist systems. There’s a divergence of interests between product users (consumers) and product owners (corporations), where decisions are driven by maximizing profits rather than improving user experiences.
* Lack of Accountability: By simplifying issues like “enshittification,” there’s a risk of absolving those responsible for making harmful decisions. The critique should emphasize the need to hold accountable the individuals and entities that prioritize profit over societal well-being.
* Liberal Perspective and Tech Ecosystem: The discussion needs to extend to the role of liberalism and the resulting tech ecosystem in perpetuating these problems. We need to criticize how the #openweb was enclosed and co-opted by the #dotcom industry, with complicity from #fashionista liberal circles.
* Call to Action: The #dotcons, critique is a call to action against those who exploit technology for profit without regard for societal consequences. It condemns the manipulation and exploitation within the tech industry and urges a more critical approach to understanding and addressing these issues.
In summary, we need to challenge the use of “common sense” terms like “#enshittification” to describe complex societal problems, advocating instead for a deeper examination of the profit-driven motives and systemic inequalities that underlie deteriorating online quality and community experiences. #dotcons highlights the importance of accountability and critical view in addressing the harmful impacts of technology in the hands of capitalism on society.
Our liberals need to think about this, if they can think, best not to be a prat about this please.
In the last year, the typical taxpayer spent more on SpaceX — a company owned by one of the richest men in history — than on energy efficiency and renewable energy programs. It’s time to reverse this.
Government allocation of taxpayer funds.
SpaceX Expenditure vs. Energy Programs: The amount of taxpayer money directed towards #SpaceX, a private aerospace company owned by Elon Musk, as opposed to investments in energy efficiency and renewable energy programs.
Wealth Disparity and Public Investment: Elon Musk as “one of the richest men in history” underscores wealth inequality and whether public funds should heavily subsidize ventures by extremely wealthy people.
Prioritizing Energy Transition: Redirecting funding towards energy efficiency and renewable energy programs is essential for addressing #climatechaos, reducing dependence on fossil fuels, and promoting sustainability.
Government Funding Choices: A challenge to governments to reassess their spending priorities, shifting focus from private ventures in space exploration towards initiatives that benefit environmental sustainability and public welfare.
Impact on Climate Change: Energy efficiency and renewable energy have a more immediate and tangible impact on reducing greenhouse gas emissions and mitigating the effects of climate change compared to funding private space exploration.
Public Policy and Accountability: we need to challenge public policy and accountability in terms of how taxpayer money is allocated and whether it reflects the priorities and values of society as a whole.
A more thoughtful and strategic approach to government spending, with an emphasis on addressing pressing environmental challenges through targeted investments in social energy efficiency and renewable technologies. Broader discussions about the role of public investment in shaping a sustainable future.
The current move to #blocking of the #dotcons moving to the #openweb is not a real solution, it’s like we are putting our heads in the sand. We need to understand that our “native” projects are #4opens thus anyone, including the #dotcons can be a part of the #openweb in this it’s a good thing they are moving back to this space.
Feel free to block them, but pushing this path as a solution is both naive and self-defeating. We need to do better and build a healthy culture and a diverstay of tools, it’s always a fight, hiding in a cave wins no wars, and we are in a war.
Issue within the #Fediverse community regarding the handling of problematic behaviour or interactions on the platform. A breakdown of the key points:
Problem with Blocking: That simply blocking users or instances (such as the #dotcons) is not an effective long-term solution to fostering a healthy and diverse community within the Fediverse. Blocking is “putting your head in the sand,” ignoring or isolating problematic elements doesn’t resolve underlying issues.
Advocating for Openness: Emphasizes that the Fediverse should remain true to its principles of openness (#4opens), which allow anyone, including controversial entities like the #dotcons, to participate. This openness is a positive aspect of the #openweb.
Building a Healthy Culture: Rather than relying on blocking, we need to advocate for actively building a healthy culture within the #Fediverse. This involves nurturing diversity of tools and fostering a community where constructive engagement and dialogue can thrive.
Need for Engagement and Solutions: The importance of proactive engagement and problem-solving. We need to warn against passivity (“hiding in a cave”) and encourages efforts to address challenges head-on to create a stronger and more resilient ecosystem.
Overall, a call for constructive action within the #Fediverse community, moving beyond simple blocking measures and focusing on building a robust and inclusive path that aligns with core values of openness and diversity. With an emphasis on proactive engagement, collective responsibility, and continuous improvement to create a healthier online and offline environment.
Arriving early, the panel and audience are ugly broken people, priests and worshippers of the #deathcult
Near the start the young and energetic start to flood in, eager and chatty yet to be broken by service of the dark side of #mainstreaming
The ritual of making killing “humane” and “responsible”, ticking the boxes on this new use of technology in war, repression and death.
Touching on the “privatisation” that this technology pushes to shift traditional military command.
The exeptabl rate of collateral damage 15 to 1 in the case of the IDF Gaza conflict
Introducing human “friction” into the process, the means to the end, is the question. Public confidence and trust is key to this shift, policy is in part about this process.
The establishment policy response to AI in war, this is already live, so these people are catching up. They are at the stage of “definition” in this academic flow.
The issue agen is that none of this technology actually works, we wasted ten years on blockchain and cryptocurrency, this had little value and a lot of harm, we are now going to spend ten years on #AI and yes this will affect society, but is the anything positive in this? Or another wasted ten years of #fashernista thinking, in this case death.
Artificial intelligence (#AI) into warfare raises ethical, practical, and strategic considerations.
Technological Advancements and Warfare: The use of AI in war introduces new algorithms and technologies that potentially reshape military strategies and tactics. AI is used for tasks like autonomous targeting, decision-making, or logistics optimization.
Ethical Concerns: ethical dilemmas associated with AI-driven warfare. Making killing more “humane” and “responsible” through technological advancements, can lead to a perception of sanitizing violence.
Privatization of Military Command: The shift towards AI in warfare leads to a privatization of military functions, as technology companies play a role in developing and implementing AI systems.
Collateral Damage and Public Perception: Collateral damage ratios like 15 to 1 raises questions about the acceptability of casualties in conflicts where AI is employed. Public confidence and trust in AI-driven warfare become critical issues.
Policy and Governance: Establishing policies and regulations around AI in warfare is crucial. Defining the roles of humans in decision-making processes involving AI and ensuring accountability for actions taken by autonomous systems.
Challenges and Risks: The effectiveness of AI technology in warfare draws parallels with previous tech trends like blockchain and cryptocurrency. There’s concern that investing heavily in AI for military purposes will yield little value while causing harm.
Broader Societal Impact: Using AI in warfare will have broader societal implications beyond the battlefield. It will influence public attitudes towards technology, privacy concerns, and the militarization of AI in civilian contexts.
Balance of Innovation and Responsibility: Whether the pursuit of AI in warfare represents progress or merely another trend driven by superficial or misguided thinking #fashernista thinking with potentially dire consequences.
In summary, the integration of AI into warfare demands ethical, legal, and societal implications. The goal should be to leverage technological advancements responsibly, ensuring that human values and principles guide the development and deployment of AI systems in any contexts.
