In the coming era of #climatechaos the problem of #mainstreaming thinking and people will become a MUCH bigger issue that we need to mediate. The “common sense” they often bring is the #deathcult a strong problem we do need to do something with, the #NGO crew and “activists” who worship this cult.
There is also the issue that needs mediating of the parasitic activists who push #fahernista paths in the grassroots movements. These guys are BAD friends, there are a lot of them. They are “native” being a part of the tribe, in this it’s a question of balance to take a good path.
The case of Trustroots alongside the earlier issue of #CouchSurfing are a cautionary tale about the pitfalls of traditional feudalistic #FOSS foundation/ #NGO models for open-source projects. These models may initially foster collaboration and innovation, but easily become susceptible to internal conflicts and power struggles over time.
The #OGB (Open Governance Body) is an alternative approach rooted in a grassroot and inclusive history and ethos. By embracing “producer” sortation, decentralized decision-making and community-led initiatives, projects like #OGB aim to avoid the pitfalls associated with hierarchical governance structures https://hamishcampbell.com/?s=OGB
Examining case studies like Trustroots and CouchSurfing offer insights into the complexities, and outcomes, of managing community platforms and the importance of fostering #4opens transparent, inclusive, and participatory governance to sustain healthy and thriving communities.
Too often, I find myself in conversations that revolve around the intersection of technology and social issues, with one view emphasizing the importance of practical solutions to real-world problems, while the other highlights the underlying social dynamics that shape the technological landscapes these so-called “solutions” are often supposed to address.
On one side, there are those who prioritize pragmatic, immediate problem-solving. They want concrete fixes for specific issues and are often impatient with broader discussions around ethics, power structures, and social impact. For example, they might advocate for encrypted communication platforms as a straightforward defence against surveillance, without considering how these tools unintentionally foster isolated, fragmented communities, or how the #encryptionist mindset reinforce the individualism that makes collective action harder.
This mindset tends to dismiss systemic critiques, like the argument that contemporary code is shaped by capitalist structures that inherently promote profit over people. Think of how open-source projects get co-opted by corporations (#dotcons) to reduce costs while extracting free labour from developers. The “easy fix” of simply licensing code as open might seem like a solution, but without addressing the exploitative dynamics, it to often end up reinforcing the problems they think they are solving.
On the other side, you have those who argue that technological problems are inherently social problems. They believe you can’t build meaningful tech without addressing the human dynamics that shape its development and use. For example, decentralized social media platforms like #Mastodon or #PeerTube are built to resist the control of big tech monopolies, but if the culture within these platforms mirrors the same paths and thinking of the orgional #dotcons, then the tech itself fails to be a strongly alternative. The #geekproblem shows up here when developers dismiss social considerations as irrelevant or secondary to technical design, leading to platforms that are hostile to non-technical users and communities with different values.
Take the example of the Fediverse: while it offers a more open, decentralized alternative to Twitter or YouTube, many instances end up replicating the same patterns of gatekeeping and fragmentation. Without intentional social processes and governance, like the kind explored in projects like the #OGB (Open Governance Body), the tech alone isn’t enough to shift the power dynamics at all.
To sum up, this ongoing conversation highlights the complex relationship between technology and society. We need to move beyond the constant back-and-forth between quick-fix pragmatism and endless critique, and instead build projects, process and practices that balance immediate action with a deeper understanding of social paths. It’s not about rejecting practical solutions, but about recognizing that real change, that posses real challenge, comes from embedding social responsibility, collective governance, and human-centred design into every layer of the technology we create.
The path requires both shovels and soil, practical tools to dig through the mess, and rich compost from decades of social struggles to nourish truly transformative alternatives. It’s time to break this cycle of mess-making and start growing tech that serves communities, not just individual “users” or feeding back into #dotcons interests.
A breakdown of the #OMN hashtags and how they are typically used as a social change and challenge project that we need:
#dotcons: This hashtag refers to corporate centralized platforms, such as social media networks, that prioritize profit and control over users, data and content. It’s often used in discussions about the negative effects of centralization on the internet and the importance of decentralization.
#fashernista: This hashtag combines “fashion” and “lifestyle” and is used to criticize trends or behaviours that promote #mainstreaming unthinking consumerist paths, behaver and ideas in popular and counter culture.
#stupidindividualism: This hashtag critiques the current use of the ideology of individualism, which prioritizes individual gain and ignores collective well-being. It’s often used to highlight the negative effects of prioritizing individual interests over those of society as a whole.
#neoliberalism: Neoliberalism is an economic and political ideology that emphasizes free-market capitalism, deregulation, privatization, and limited government intervention. This hashtag is used in discussions about the effects of neoliberal policies on society, such as income inequality and the erosion of public services.
#deathcult: This hashtag is used metaphorically to describe neoliberal ideologies that prioritize profit and power over human well-being, environmental sustainability and social justice. It’s frequently associated with critiques of #climatechaos capitalism, consumerism, and imperialism, its the mess we live in today.
#NGO: This stands for “Non-Governmental Organization” and refers to non-profit organizations that operate independently of government control. This hashtag is used in discussions #mainstreaming roles of NGOs and people who think like NGO’s in not being brave enough to address social, environmental, and humanitarian issues.
And on the positive side:
#openweb: This hashtag celebrates the principles of openness, decentralization, and inclusivity on the internet. It’s often used in discussions about the importance of preserving and promoting a “native” open and accessible web for everyone. This is #web01
#4opens: This hashtag is used to promote transparency, collaboration, and community-driven development in software and technology projects. It should be used to JUDGE projects.
Each of these hashtags serves as a shorthand for broader discussions and concepts, allowing people to participate in and contribute to conversations around these topics on the #openweb and inside the #dotcons it’s about linking.
The #dotcons are about ideological control (advertising) of information for profit, #TikTok is likely one of the most advanced on this path.
Whether to ban TikTok is part of the #mainstreaming mess and significant within the wider context of the move back to the #openweb
Some considerations:
Impact on Ideological Control: TikTok, like other #dotcons social media platforms, shapes public discourse and pushes #neoliberal and #stupidindividualism ideological agenda and control. Banning #TikTok could disrupt the control exerted by centralized platforms over the flow of information and content moderation policies. However, it’s essential to consider whether banning TikTok is the most effective way to address concerns about ideological control, as users will mostly simply migrate to other #dotcons with the same issues.
Privacy and Data Control: TikTok faces scrutiny over its data practices and ties to the Chinese government, raising concerns about privacy and data security. This is a normal issue with any state bound #dotcons. Banning TikTok might address these concerns by limiting the collection and dissemination of user data to the replacement state, the USA. However, it’s important to explore alternative measures, such as regulatory oversight and #4opens requirements, to protect user data without resorting to a ban.
Innovation and Competition: Banning TikTok could stifle innovation and competition in the #dotcons, limiting the diversity of #techshit platforms available to users. This has implications for content creators, influencers, and businesses that rely on TikTok for outreach and monetizable engagement. Instead of a ban, maybe fostering competition and growing alternative, decentralized platforms (like the #Fediverse) would promote innovation and diversity in the social media ecosystem in a better way?
Freedom of Expression: Banning TikTok raises concerns about freedom of expression, as it restricts digital surfs ability to share content and engage with others slaves on the platform. While TikTok faces criticism for its content moderation practices, outright banning the platform may not be an appropriate solution. Instead, data portability and interoperability as combined efforts would address harmful content and promote healthy online discourse, thus focus on regulatory measures and community-driven initiatives rather than a ban.
Broader Societal Implications: Banning TikTok could have broader societal implications, particularly for younger generations who are active users of the platform. It’s important to consider the social and cultural significance of TikTok as a platform for #fashernista creativity, self-expression, and community-building. Efforts to mitigate potential harms associated with TikTok should prioritize education, digital literacy, and awareness-raising initiatives of real alternatives rather than simply national propaganda agender.
In conclusion, whether to ban TikTok involves weighing concerns about ideological control, interoperability, privacy, innovation, freedom of expression, and wider social implications. While banning TikTok may address some of these concerns, alternative approaches, such as #4opens, regulatory oversight, #openweb competition promotion, and community-driven initiatives, would likely ensure a more balanced and effective response.
“An important distinction is slowly being uncovered about the definition of the term “#Fediverse.” Who is it that gets to decide what this place is? How are we being represented?”
The lack of discussion about the nature of the space the #fediverse occupies raises questions about representation and identity within this #openweb “native” network.
Ownership by Communities: The fediverse offers a way to build the internet by communities, in contrast to centralized #dotcons social networks that prioritize monetization over community well-being. By decentralizing governance, the fediverse empowers people to take control of their online spaces and relationships.
Audience and Adoption: The fediverse is valuable for those who are hostile and disillusioned with monetized social networks and seek ways to connect with real change/challenge comunertys. While some are eager to explore alternatives, others face limitations or challenges in transitioning to the fediverse. Nonetheless, the slow growth of communities within the fediverse is essential for building a strong “native” foundation for decentralized networking.
Governance and Community: A key distinction of the fediverse lies in its shared governance model, where people have a say in how their communities are shaped. This contrasts with centralized social networks, where governance decisions are made by a central authority that does not align with community interests. People are drawn to the fediverse for its emphasis on inclusivity and people’s agency, allowing individuals and social groups to express themselves without fear of censorship or coercion.
Coexistence with Centralized Networks: The fediverse does not require people to opt out of centralized social networks entirely. Instead, people can maintain connections on both networks while stepping to decentralized networking. This allows people to become familiar with the fediverse’s culture and its advantages.
Website Design and Accessibility: With the foundational #4opens principles of the fediverse defined, the focus shifts to website design that reflects these values. Accessibility, both in terms of physical access and cultural understanding, is prioritized to ensure that the platform is inclusive and user-friendly, in sharp contrast to too much of the bad #UX history of #FOSS coding.
The fediverse represents a shift towards community-driven, decentralized networking, offering an alternative to #dotcons. By prioritizing people’s and community agency, inclusivity, and accessibility, the fediverse creates spaces where people can connect and express themselves. Let’s reboot the #openweb as a start, we could try calling this #web1.5
On the subject of activism, “don’t be a prat” is a good start.
Thalia and Ian Campbell have been #makinghistory throughout their life’s, by collecting an amazing collection of posters that we have divided into categories below:
#Branding in the #Fediverse raises considerations about effectively communicate the identity and values of a decentralized network while preserving its diverse and inclusive core.
* Purpose of Branding: Branding serves different purposes for different organizations within the Fediverse. It is a way to assert control and ownership over the platform/network, but it can also be used to communicate identity and values to people and potential adopters.
* Instance Branding vs. Project Branding: Shifting the focus from project branding to instance branding give’s more control to the communities using and running the instances. This decentralized approach allows for customization and fosters inclusivity within the Fediverse.
* Impact of Strong Branding: Strong branding by developers and platforms overshadows the diversity of instances and communities within the Fediverse. It limits collaboration and customization, threatening the very decentralization that is at the centre of the path.
* Scale of Branding: Branding is used at different scales within the Fediverse, from single instances to suppliers of federated services. While branding can facilitate onboarding and accessibility, it may also pose a threat to decentralization if single entities gain dominating influence over the network.
* Balancing Accessibility and Freedom: Visual identities play a crucial role in guiding new people to the Fediverse and communicating its values. However, a strong branding presence may restrict the freedom of expression of instances and communities. It’s important to balance accessibility and freedom when designing branding solutions.
* Community Acceptance: New branding solutions should be organically accepted by the majority of communities within the Fediverse. The current logos are tolerated because they communicate an idea without imposing a single identity or viewpoint. New branding should aim to achieve the same balance to build “native” community acceptance.
The #fediverse, is “native” to the #openweb balancing accessibility with the preservation of diversity and expression. Branding solutions should be community-driven and strive to represent the #4opens collective identity and values of the network. We should be VERY questioning of ONLY strong code base branding as a path to grow this #4opens space.
We need to reboot #KISS by shaping technology to empower people and building to their needs as a core to create an inclusive and democratic digital path. We need technology that prioritizes people and community customization first:
User-Centric Design: Technology should be designed with the people in mind, focusing on usability, accessibility, and flexibility. This means involving people in the design process and incorporating their feedback to create technology that meets real needs, process and preferences.
Open Source and Open Standards: Embracing #4opens principles promotes transparency, interoperability, and people’s control. By making source code freely available and adhering to open standards, developers empower people to modify and customize the technology they are building according to wider social requirements.
Decentralization: Moving away from centralized platforms and embracing decentralized architectures fosters community and resilience in the social digital networks. Decentralized technologies empower people to have control over their digital lives and communities, stepping away from reliance on large corporations.
Education and Empowerment: Educating people about technology and creating tools and resources to shape and customize to their needs is essential. By fostering digital literacy, people can understand and thus take control of their digital experiences, to create a more informed and engaged user base.
Community Engagement: Engaging with communities and building collaboration and thus co-creation leads to the development of technology that reflects the diverse needs and perspectives of people. By building inclusive and participatory processes, developers can ensure that technology serves the interests of the community.
In the context of the #Fediverse and #openweb reboot, prioritizing these helps to steer the development of technology towards a community-centric and empowering direction of real world use. By stepping away from the #dotcons tech that pre-shapes people’s behaviour to grow a more participatory and inclusive path, we build a digital ecosystem that serves the needs of people.
The #OMN (Open Media Network) is composting in tech, it is a process of recycling and repurposing digital resources and technologies in a sustainable and environmentally conscious manner. As composting in agriculture involves breaking down organic matter into nutrient-rich soil, composting in tech involves reusing and repurposing digital assets and technologies to create new value and reduce waste.
* Reuse of Code: Instead of reinventing the wheel, developers should reuse existing code and software components to build new applications and platforms. This approach reduces duplication of effort and promotes community and efficiency in software development.
* Repurposing Digital Content: With media and content creation, composting in tech involves repurposing existing digital content (such as articles, videos, or podcasts) to create new linking content and derivative works. This practice helps extend the lifespan of digital assets and reduce the need for constant creation of “new” generic content.
* Open Source and Collaboration: Embracing #4opens principles and collaborative development models is a form of composting in tech. By sharing code, knowledge, and resources openly, developers collectively improve and build upon existing technologies, growing innovation and sustainability in the tech ecosystem.
* Circular Economy in Tech: Composting in tech aligns with the principles of a circular economy, where resources are used, reused, and recycled to minimize waste and maximize use. By applying this concept to digital technologies, #OMN promotes a sustainable approach to tech development and consumption.
“Composting in tech” reflects a mindset of sustainability, resourcefulness, and responsible stewardship of digital resources within the #openweb, it’s a path we need to take.
The mess we need to compost:
* Arrogance and Ignorance: In alternative and grassroots movements, there is a recurring problem where people displaying arrogance and ignorance. This hinders progress and collaboration within these movements. At a time when there’s a growing need for successful examples to inspire larger, more #mainstreaming alternative and progressive movements. Addressing these issues becomes important.
* Challenge of “Stupid” Individualism: #Stupidindividualism refers to the pervasive influence of individualistic thinking promoted by #neoliberal ideology. This mindset undermines collective action and makes it difficult to build alternative tech and social projects that prioritize community over individual gain.
* Vertical vs. Horizontal Structures: Hierarchical thinking (“vertical”) disrupts egalitarian structures (“horizontal”) within movements. This disruption contributes to a cycle of destruction and rebuilding, making it challenging to maintain momentum and achieve lasting change that is needed.
* Affective Direct Action: This type of activism emphasizes emotional engagement and personal connection to issues. This experience underscores the cyclical nature of social and political challenges and highlights the importance of addressing underlying issues for meaningful and lasting change.
* Capitalism as the Root Problem: The solution, involves stepping away from capitalist structures. This requires a combination of strategies, including non-violent resistance and, in some cases, revolutionary action.
Addressing the challenges faced by alternative and grassroots movements requires collective action, strategic thinking, and a rejection of individualistic and hierarchical ideologies. It involves creating spaces where collaboration and community-driven solutions can thrive, ultimately working federating these to works towards a more equitable society.
The term #openweb refers to an internet ecosystem characterized by decentralized, interoperable, and community-driven platforms and protocols. It emphasizes #4opens principles of openness, inclusivity, and user control over data and online experiences. The “openweb” contrasts with the #dotcons centralized and proprietary nature, the mainstream internet platforms, thus offering an alternative vision for the future of the internet, and the society this shapes.
Meanwhile, #Fediverse refers to a specific decentralized social networking ecosystem built on interoperable protocols (#ActivityPub), allowing people on different platforms to interact and share content seamlessly. It encompasses a variety of codebases such as #Mastodon, #PeerTube, and #Pixelfed, offering alternatives to centralized social media giants like #Twitter, #YouTube, and #Instagram.
#web1.5 is a more technical term used in geeky conversations, this can be useful as a buffer to the #ecryptionist mess that talks about #web3
Talking about the fediverse can be hard, for broader, #mainstreaming audiences, simply using #mastodon can be sufficient, as Mastodon is one of the most well-known platforms within the Fediverse. This term may resonate more with individuals who are less familiar with the technical nuances of decentralized web architectures but are interested in exploring alternative social media platforms.
The choice of terminology depends on the context and audience. Whether you’re engaging in technical discussions with the “tribe” or introducing newcomers to decentralized internet paths, using the appropriate term can help facilitate understanding and communication.
Tribalism can make this harder than it needs to be, “don’t be a prat” comes to mind.
I am currently working in the realm of activist family archiving, where the clash between #mainstreaming and alternative approaches to history preservation becomes very apparent. In the big picture, while smaller, more agile organizations embrace the concept of living history, encompassing the entirety of family narratives and experiences, larger national institutions prioritize selective pieces of history that fit within their established narratives.
For smaller organizations, history is dynamic and ever-evolving, reflecting the lived experiences and diverse perspectives of individuals and families. These organizations recognize the value of preserving the “context”of histories, from the everyday to the extraordinary, as a means of capturing the richness and complexity of human life.
On the other hand, larger national institutions tend to favour a more static and curated approach to history, focusing on specific events or narratives that align with their predetermined agendas. This approach results in the omission or marginalization of certain voices and experiences, reinforcing established power structures and perpetuating a narrow understanding of history.
The tension between these two approaches highlights the broader struggle for control over historical narratives and the importance of preserving diverse paths within the historical record. By embracing living history and pushing for the inclusion of more counter #mainstreaming voices, archiving organizations can play a role in challenging #mainstreaming narratives and promoting a more inclusive and representative understanding of the past, and thus helping more to play a role in shaping the future.
In the family archiving, we are starting to feel the limitations of #mainstreaming “history”. The smaller, more nimble organizations will take the entire history. In this, history is something to be created, living history. The larger, more national organizations only want the tiny parts that fill insignificant holes in their existing liberal narrative of history. In this history is establishment and fixed, This is dead history.
