Politics, paper, print: reflections on the book history of the Mao era

For historians of the book, the case of modern China offers much to challenge and embellish prevailing narratives of the field. The Mao era was a particularly extraordinary period, when one of the world’s most populous and powerful states turned its attention to the dissemination of print on an unprecedented scale. In this talk, Dr Wills – whose career bridges the academic and rare books worlds – explores some of the many facets of modern Chinese book history, stressing elements that transcend polarized interpretations of socio-cultural history during the Cold War.

Speaker: Dr Matt Wills (Peter Harrington Rare Books)

Interesting event, to see history in paper.

#Oxford

‘The Arkenstone and the Ring: wilful objects in Tolkien’s The Hobbit’

A series of seminars to commemorate the death of J. R. R. Tolkien, to be held in 2023/2024 in the University of Oxford. The talks present an introduction and further background to Tolkien’s life, work, and legacy. They have an academic approach, but they are also aimed at those who have read Tolkien’s work but are interested in gaining a bit more insight into his life, career, and writings.

Week 1 – 19 January (MERTON COLLEGE T.S. ELIOT LECTURE THEATRE)
Mark Atherton (University of Oxford)
The Arkenstone and the Ring: wilful objects in Tolkien’s The Hobbit’

Draft

Wilful objects in the Tolkien’s work, thinking about embedded AI in ten years, and mobile phone now. This world could become like Tolkien world after the #climatechaos claps in 50 years.

Dwarfs are the geeks, control #geekproblem

Elves are the #fashernistas, appearance, humanists

The humans are the Oxford union, power politics

The hobbits? – the wholly greens

Orcs? –

#Oxford

A cobra effect in a greening world: can Earth scientists find the antivenin?

The planned energy transition signed by world’s nations in the Paris agreement sets the target to phase out fossil fuels by mid-century. This “green reset” requires a build-up of fossil fuel-free energy capacities (in production, end-use, and storage) which will entail on an unprecedented demand in mineral resources. While the Earth crust hosts such resource in sufficient quantities, I will highlight the key bottlenecks in bringing these metals to the market and show that the target cannot be met in the allocated timeframe. Finally, I will explore the way earth scientists can cushion the commodity race until nations decide on and implement a better plan.

Very good event highlighting the hard facts and the needed actions to keep our current way of life and consumption. The issue of mining in the green transition – like most of the current #deathcult we are fucked on this one.

What was only lightly touched on at the event was that the change we need is social, let’s look at a group that have made this change over the last ten years. Boaters, they have shifted 90% from fossil fuels to solar to generative living power on boats. They have also shifted their behaver to using power during the middle of the day rather than in the evening. We should study this to find a way of rolling this “social/technological” change to other groups as examples to push this to wider society.

At the event in the room, the divide between social and science based thinking is strong in Oxford, tin the room the people look and behave very differently, his block’s meany basic conversations that are needed in the current mess.

#Oxford

The mess we make with our blind behaviour

Most visible activism is the tension between fluffy and spiky, this debate is what pushes affective progressive change and challenge, dogmas of either side of this is the blocking of the possibility of the need of change. Our default behaver is to block this debate, in this we are actively blocking the desired and needed change and challenge.

We have to focus on activism. How to change things and how to make us better at changing things, both are valid and needed for any real change to happen.

This is an ongoing mess that we need to compost. To do composting you need tools, as much of our lives are online in part we need web tools https://unite.openworlds.info/explore/repos are examples of such #4opens “shovels” to use for this needed composting.

Panel discussion: ‘Post-COP28 debrief: Does the agreement go far enough?’

COP28 closed with an agreement, that for the first time in three decades, includes oil and gas. But what does the agreement mean in real terms? And is keeping the global temperature limit of 1.5°C within reach. Join us as our panel of academics share their thoughts after attending COP28 and look forward to what it means for COP29 and the world over the coming years.

Panel:

Professor Myles Allen, Director, Oxford Net Zero
Dr Abrar Chaudhury, Senior Associate, Oxford Net Zero
Professor Benito Müller, Managing Director, Oxford Climate Policy (Chair)
Professor Nicola Ranger, Senior Fellow, Oxford Martin Programme on Net Zero Regulation and Policy
Professor Mette Morsing, Director, Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment

This talk is in conjunction with Oxford Net Zero and Oxford Climate Research Network.

God these people are #deathcult worshipping at the Martin school Oxford event, the room is full of the green great and good, I wonder how meany are not worshipping?

“Sack all the panel and then evict the building occupations” comes to mind as a path/spark out of this mess, likely more chance of working than these people staying as the gatekeepers to the change that is needed.

This thinking is reinforced during the businessmen presentation. Nothing on the subject, he is vile. Academic finance is next, all the speakers start nice and move onto there pointless subject then end vile, this is the nature of #mainstreaming people in the room.

In the era of #climatechaos they are insane, most Tories, some blinded liberals, it’s the Oxford mess, ideas please?

#Oxford

If you do not change your behaviour: preventive repression in Lithuania under Soviet rule

Who is targeted by preventive repression and why? In the Soviet Union, the KGB applied a form of low-intensity preventive policing called prophylactic. Citizens found to be engaging in politically and socially disruptive misdemeanors were invited to discuss their behaviour and to receive a warning. Using novel data from Soviet-occupied Lithuania in the late 1950s and the 1970s, this talk explores the profile and behaviours of the citizens who became subjects of interest to the KGB.

——————————–

Archives -we dont know what we have.

We need to add metadata.

KGB in Lithuania political prophylactics

Is the exact same process as the oxford police in the political graffiti scene in the turn of this century.

All the KGB strategies were also done as common sense policing here in Oxford.

One is written down and ideological and the other is “our” common sense. We are blind to this, would help if people noticed.

#Oxford

Who is the change and challenge we need?

#Deathcult dilemma, over the past 40 years, #mainstreaming society has been driven by a choice between the “nice” and “nasty” facets of a #deathcult, with fear often pushing people towards the latter. This has led to catastrophic consequences, over the next ten years millions of deaths and billions of people displaced. With our society’s focus narrowed to daily worship of the #deathcult or the so-called “nasty progressive” secret worshippers. This duality has trapped us in a cycle of destructive choices, undermining genuine progress and sustainable paths.

Grassroots Solutions, we need to compost this mess, transforming it into fertile ground for sustainable alternatives. Two key tools for this transformation are fluffy and spiky, this post is about the first, we have #4opens in tech and #XR (Extinction Rebellion) in society.

The #4opens: A Shovel for Tech, the principles can act as a shovel to break through the tech-related obstacles: Open Source: Ensure all software used and developed is open source, promoting transparency and collaboration. Open Data: Make all data openly accessible to foster accountability and shared knowledge. Open Standards: Adhere to open standards to ensure interoperability and inclusivity. Open Processes: Implement open processes to enable community participation and democratic decision-making.

A #fluffy path in Society, Extinction Rebellion provide a simple and actionable path for societal change: Non-Violent Direct Action: Use peaceful civil disobedience to draw attention to climate crises and force governmental action. Mobilizing Communities: Engage and organize local communities to participate in climate action, building a broad-based movement. Demanding Systemic Change: Advocate for systemic changes that address the root causes of climate chaos, including economic and political reforms. Promoting Sustainability: Foster a culture of sustainability and resilience in everyday life, encouraging practices that reduce ecological impact.

These give space for a simple “fluffy” call to action. You’re taking these paths as part of the grassroots movement, are crucial in this transformation. You can contribute: Educate and Advocate: Spread awareness about the #4opens and the principles of Extinction Rebellion. Host workshops, create educational content, and engage in public speaking. Participate and Organize: Join or form local XR groups, participate in actions, and organize community events. Use the #4opens to develop and support open, collaborative tech projects. Collaborate and Network: Build networks with other grassroots organizations, tech activists, and climate action groups. Share resources, knowledge, and strategies. Innovate and Implement: Develop innovative solutions based on the #4opens and implement them in real-world #OMN projects. Pilot sustainable practices and technologies within your community.

In conclusion, the chose between the nice and nasty facets of the #deathcult has led us to the brink of disaster. However, by adopting and promoting the #4opens in tech and the #fluffy path of Extinction Rebellion in society, we can compost this mess and pave a different path for a more sustainable, just, and resilient future. Your #DIY effect is the key to making this happen.

Now we also need to look at the “spiky” path, very different but likely still needed.

In the era of #climatechaos of the last 40 years #mainstreaming we have had a choice of the nice or nasty #deathcult most people in fear have chosen the nasty, we are going to pay the price for this choice over the next 20 years, With millions of deaths and billions of people displaced.

This mess we have made has narrowed our daily worship to actually the #deathcult or nasty “progressive” secrets worshippers.

In the grassroots we need to compost this mess #4opens is a shovel for this in tech, #XR an easy pail path in society. You are the only people who can or will do this.

Working with the #mainstreaming to compost the current mess.

#mainstreaming people are always limited in their options, the is a strong pushing for them to see other people from their #neoliberlism and #postmodernism, these 40 years of “common sense” is mess making. Their behaviour tends to be vile when this “common sense” is challenged, trying to get them to work in or even see alt views. Our “native” mission is mediating this vile behaviour for better outcomes.

If you prod them too hard, they retreat into their shells like snails

Now, where is my shovel?

A lot of current #mainstreaming arguments that are treated as left and right are actually not. They are arguments between modernism and postmodernism. This is a mess that the postmodernists have pushed over the last 40 years.

We need tools for composting this mess, shovels come to mind. But it’s hard to grasp a shovel on your knees with no handle and no head… so we are currently dealing with the shit with our hands, yes it’s messy.

We have people who are dogmatic, careerist and secretly worshipping the #deathcult as the #mainstreaming voices of much of the #Fediverse, this is ALWAYS a problem in activism and #FOSS is activism if it’s anything at all.

This is an issue that needs active mediation, and yes this will create mess and bad feelings, this is how you can tell you are doing the right thing and being useful… phwww… work.

Now, where is my shovel?

Navigating Grassroots Evolution in Tech Communities: Challenges and Paths

The landscape of technological evolution often traverses a spectrum between grassroots innovation and mainstream integration. Within this spectrum walks #Socialhub, a space that was born as a grassroots alternative—a bastion of the activertypub reboot’s integrity within its “native” framework. This trajectory from its inception in #activertypub is a distinctive approach in the technological path.

The emergence of the #openweb reboot unfolded serendipitously during the #WC3 proceedings. In an atypical scenario where mainstream stakeholders were absent, the reins of definition were firmly grasped by an alternative cohort, paving an advantageous, albeit less conventional, path for the #openweb community’s progression.

Initially, Socialhub thrived as a nurturing ground for a vibrant community, exemplified by the impactful outreach endeavors to the EU within the Fediverse. However, recent years have introduced complexities. The influx of people lacking a ‘native’ #openweb perspective has precipitated a divergence from the community’s original focus, largely due to the significant influence of Twitter immigrants and Fediverse expansion. This shift presents both challenges and opportunities, marking a departure from the initial vision towards a less intricate and diverse community.

Notably, a pronounced shift towards the technical aspects has eclipsed the attention to its social dimensions, critical for a functional alt, with a reduction in the core social-oriented crew and an influx of technically inclined new members. This transition mirrors the WC3 process reboot, necessitating a delicate, respectful balance of responsibilities between the two facets.

The delineation between a community-driven space and a platform steered by a specific technical viewpoint and agenda has become increasingly visible. This deviation from the original ethos poses challenges, signalling a transition from happenstance to intentionality, necessitating a more democratic approach to reconcile these shifts.

Grassroots initiatives inherently embody a level of messiness that distinguishes their authenticity. Constructive feedback and improvement strategies are pivotal in the “native” FEP process, while the underlying ideas in this are commendable, the outcomes remain questionable, requiring refinement in the process. Volatile yet essential debates to fortify the FEP’s legitimacy, particularly in the unspoken political sphere. Proposals for procedural enhancements aimed at bolstering legitimacy within the FEP necessitate a non-technical, social explanation of proposed changes and their wider implications.

The absence of broader social context and buy-in inhibits legitimacy, necessitating a proactive approach by the community to elucidate and democratize these processes. Currently entrenched as ‘black boxes’, both the FEP and the W3C demand transparency and community involvement to garner support and avoid being ignored sidelined by #mainstreaming dev.

Without proactive measures rooted in activism and learning from historical effective activism, this cycle of ignorance towards these processes will persist. Therein lies the importance of integrating wider social buy-in, understanding the social implications of technical changes, and engaging in transparent, #4opens processes—key tenets for the evolution and legitimacy of tech communities like Socialhub in the digital age.

To note for people who are not familer with this way of looking at the world, the ansear to the question is always more alt grassroots vs less mainstreaming, of course this is always a balance so best not to get into a #ragecircle on this mess making.

#Socialhub originated as a grassroots alternative space specifically designed to maintain the integrity of the activertypub reboot within its inherent framework. Initially stemming from #activertypub itself, the forum embarked on this trajectory. The emergence of the current #openweb reboot was more serendipitous than deliberate. Amidst the #WC3 proceedings, the absence of the typical mainstream participants allowed our alternative cohort to drive and solidify the definition through this “native” #4opens technological pathway an uncommon yet advantageous route for our community to follow.

Socialhub fostered a genuine and thriving community. The pinnacle of this community’s strength was witnessed during the outreach efforts to the EU within the Fediverse. However, recent years have brought challenges; the influx of individuals without a “native” #openweb view has led to a divergence from the spaces initial focus, primarily due to the significant impact of Twitter immigrants and the expansion of the Fediverse. This is good and bad, we have moved a long way from where we started, and have to make the best of this more messy community.

Over the last year we have had a (strong dogmatic) shift to the tech side of activertypub working and away from the social side that is needed for making a working #openweb reboot. In the forum we have had a reduction of the core crew, and an influx of the tech focused new members, this is likely a mirror in the expansion and the rebooting of the WC3 process and the two have a balancing act of responsibility.

“To use the forum, you must agree to these terms with Petites Singularités, the company that runs the forum.” This has become more visible and the owner has a point of view and agenda, this is actually not a space for/by “community” in the sense it was originally sold… shifting from “serendipitous to deliberate” the solution to this shift/issue is likely not easy and involves democracy in some form.

Grassroots are always messy, that’s how you can judge if It’s grassroots or NOT 🙂

Let’s try some constructive comments on this to improve the fep process.

What we have here is a classic activism 3 steps forward 3 steps back process, this is a recurring issue.

The ideas behind this are good, the outcome is questionable, and the process still needs work.

There is a current undeclared fight in the FEP → W3C email list, that is likely unresolvable which is a fine example of the fluffy spiky debate, the only good outcome from my prospective and likely socialhub is making the fep more Legitimacy (political) this is a post with ideas for process to help that happen.

To be a valid fep they should have a non-technical (social) explanation on why it’s needed and what are the social implications of this purely technical change.

As we are NOT only talking about technical points here, most are based on social ideas and have social outcomes for social networking. We need this wider buy in to make this process legitimate.

This process is simple and can be started by the original poster, then carried on by the wider community to build buy in and legitimacy.

Currently, both the fep and the W3C are too many black boxes to have any path to build buy in, thus are being ignored defacto.

This will likely continue without some basic activism as outlined above, the is much to learn from this long history of affective activism.

What is Socialhub – in the activertypub world

The emergence of the current #openweb reboot was more serendipitous than deliberate. Amidst the #WC3 proceedings, the absence of the typical mainstream participants allowed our alternative cohort to drive and solidify the definition through this “native” technological pathway—an uncommon yet advantageous route for our community to follow.

Socialhub fostered a genuine and thriving community. The pinnacle of this community’s strength was witnessed during the outreach efforts to the EU within the Fediverse. However, recent years have brought challenges; the influx of individuals without a “native” #openweb view has led to a divergence from our initial focus, primarily due to the significant impact of Twitter immigrants and the expansion of the Fediverse. This is good and bad, we have moved a long way from where we started, and have to make the best of this more messy communerty.

Over the last year we have had a (strong dogmatic) shift to the tech side of activertypub working and away from the social side that is needed for making a working #openweb reboot. In the codebase we have had a reduction of the core crew, and an influx of the tech focused new members, this is likely a mirror of the rebooting of the WC3 process and the two have had a rocky balancing act of responsibility.

Grassroots are always messy, that’s how you can judge if It’s grassroots or not 🙂

Can This Platform Survive? Governance Challenges

A paper on the Fediverse by Thomas Struett, American University – School of Communication, Aram Sinnreich, American University – School of Communication, Patricia Aufderheide, American University – School of Communication, Rob Gehl, York University.

Interesting #mainstreaming look, that bypasses the grassroots it’s actually talking about, this is a common issue with academic writing, am at Oxford this winter so have everyday “organic” expirence of this.

For governance, we have a widely discussed project on this forum that is “native” to address all the issues outline in the article Open-Media-Network/openwebgovernancebody: ON STANDBY due to waiting for funding – (OGB) This is a space for working through Governance of horizontal projects – using #KISS online tools. – openwebgovernancebody – Open Media Network 4

Then for fighting the capture we have an “organic” path the #4opens if used is a strong defence Home – 4opens – Open Media Network

So to sum up, what we need is for “us” the collective to get up from our knees and become the change we would like to see. This is actually not a hard thing to do “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed, citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.”

Let’s look at this PDF:

This thread and our failing in general in “governance” is to do with the fluffy and spiky debate, or much more obviously the failing of this debate to actually be held in place.

“Potential benefits of the fediverse are at risk of being subverted, either by commercial
competitors or through structural dysfunction.”

Dealing with both commercial and structural dysfunction here.

Commercial – funding has shifted from distributed to centralized over the last few years, this is driving core dysfunctions – interesting and useful subject to discus.

Structural – we have not moved anywhere towards “native” governance approaches, this is building crises Legitimacy (political) – Wikipedia

“hold promise as human-scale, democratically-run platforms for civil discourse within and between these groups of users.”

We aspire to this, but with no democracy in any formal or informal sense. And secondly we lack “groups of users” as the coding being copies of #dotcons are strongly “individualized” which pushed our #mainstreaming “common sense” over this openweb “native” space.

“challenges inherent to distributed governance, commercial platform capture, inclusive
access, moderation at scale, reputational assaults by commercial competitors, and the tacitly
neoliberal techno-Romanticism familiar from previous digital innovations. ”

The is a long working (activist) history of mediating these problems that we are ignoring here. A first step to addressing this is the fluffy spiky debate being held in place #KISS

“Developers, entrepreneurs, institutions, and users of these technologies
must also work collectively and proactively to help the fediverse avoid these historical threats
and maximize its civic potential.”

This is the bit we need to talk more about, as it’s key to not fucking up agen.

“However, the fediverse is more than a technical system; it is also a political structure (Mansoux
& Roscam Abbing, 2020). ”

On this currently, we are seeing Legitimacy (political) – Wikipedia failing.

“the structure of platform governance and moderation is both reflective of and integral to the
functioning of democratic processes in digital networks, and much of the proverbial “devil in the
details” comes down to arcane and obscure questions about transparency, control, and
information flow at any given chokepoint or sociotechnical layer.”

This is why link to the #4opens, and it’s use to judge if a project or group are “native” or not – to make transparent in groups and most impotently OUT-GROUPS. A technical/social membrane, as this quote say “devil in the details”

“1. Distributed governance failures
Previous decentralized social platforms have sometimes failed to deliver on their civic potential
because of challenges emerging from the governance process: the norms, institutions, and
technologies that determine who gets to say what to whom, under which circumstances,”

This is the subject of responses to this thried, illustrating the issues, so think of it as the spiky in the fluffy spiky debate. Notice, we are currently failing to hold this debate in place.

“it introduces other risks that must be addressed and mitigated, including new threats such as accountability and liability crises, forking… Corporate actors may also exploit these challenges, by posing themselves as solutions to distributed governance frictions (Marshall, 2006).”

This is likely in part one of the underling issues we are not talking about here.

“Examples of distributed platforms falling prey to these governance challenges in the past are
legion”

We have much to learn and address on this, I talk about this a lot as it’s a key subject we need to move away from “common sense” approaches. Yes this is seen as spiky, but it’s needed, let’s hold this debate open please.

“Not all platform governance is alike. Though corporate platforms emulate traditional media
structures by centralizing power (Napoli & Caplan, 2017), the fediverse has a more distributed
governance structure. This decentralization is not just an aspect of the underlying software but also a core tenet of the governance philosophy of the fediverse itself.”

This is a subject I talk about a lot and have been working on for the last few years with the ogb as a “native” approache. In general, these “native” approaches are still being #blocked by #mainstreaming “common sense” approaches. This needs to change if the openweb reboot is not to wither and die.

“Benjamin Mako Hill (2018) describes this corporate capture of OSS projects as “strategic closedness.””

This is in easy view with a lot of our tech and fashionable crew pushing #closedweb ideas as “common sense” verse “native” openweb approaches. This is a problem with no obverse solutions, the #4opens project is one way to mediate this insolvable/unspoken issue that is everywhere in our dev crew.

“2. Commercial capture
Another challenge that has undermined the health and strength of previous decentralized or
open platforms is commercial capture. Proprietary, value-added features that enhance the user
experience are used to bring more users onto the platform, ”

We currently have few tools to push this back, our strongest tool is likely our “culture” but this itself is fractured, full of infighting and unspoken. Speaking this out load while creating tension is likely nessersery for any good outcome. Hiding from this is #fail

“This means that only a continuing commitment to interoperability by developers, and not merely the existence of an open technological standard, can ensure an open ecosystem within the fediverse.”

It’s social/political NOT a technical problem, so our current fixation on ONLY tech and avoidance of the social/political is a easy to see and act on #fail

“Eternal September is not that new users simply need to be taught the social norms of the space they are joining, but that norms policing is a form of gatekeeping that can exclude new and more diverse users from joining.”

This is both true and a #fashernista problem, we need a better path, this should be easy, it’s not.

“it is important to critique calls for technological approaches to user-friendliness, which are often couched in rhetoric of democratization of technology, while simultaneously undermining decentralized
power relations… making the platform easier to join and use,
while also limiting users’ agency to make choices about the underlying infrastructure that will
best foster their communities”

We are going to see this from every side for and agenst, we need a balances’ path through this mess, we are not currently talking about this path, we need to.

“the fediverse currently relies on the goodwill of countless volunteer moderators and self-funded instances, this goodwill can’t last indefinitely, and a workable approach to funding and compensation has yet to emerge.”

This one is a can of worms, the current “best” solution is to keep instances small and voluntary run, our ongoing disagreements on this path is likely to continue to do damage… one path out of this is legitimate “governance”.

“The reputational anti-halo is already cropping up in discourse about the fediverse and Mastodon, which have been tainted by their uses among the “alt-right” (Makuch, 2019) and for child abuse (Thiel & DiResta, 2023).”

This comes down to voice and power, as “libertarian cats” we have little of either… it’s a bad path to stay on, what path would be better and more “native” is a good question to talk about.

“techno-Romanticism works to obscure the labor, networks, and institutions that are key to supporting technological development while elevating the simplistic view of the great men of history… the fediverse is particularly vulnerable to techno-Romanticism”

This is an endemic issue, and most people are chasing the tech equivalent of the American dream that they will become the top dev… this is not a native approach to the openweb, but it’s currently a dominating view. This is mess making.

“Technical language and the assumption of baseline technical expertise may also present unintended obstacles to adoption. Conversely, the fediverse also faces the threat that the rhetoric of “user friendliness” will justify the curtailing of user agency, or re-centralization of the network… messy, and continuous practice of maintaining a healthy and inclusive space for civic discourse…

Techno-Romantism’s utopian discourse poses a threat to the fediverse because it distracts from the importance of social action in the development of technology… discussion about how to
identify them and limit their impact, is a critical step toward reaching those civic and
technosocial goals together.”

In conclusion, the roadmap for the fediverse’s future must transcend the confines of technicality and delve deep into the socio-political fabric. Holding the fluffy-spiky debate firm, nurturing ‘native’ approaches, mitigating commercial capture, addressing governance challenges, and fostering a culture of inclusivity and sustainability—these constitute the keystones for nurturing the true potential of the fediverse.