By working together and finding working solutions, we can build a more sustainable, inclusive, and equitable #openweb for all

The #SocialHub and the #fediverse do not have to conform to traditional hierarchies and power structures. Instead, they have the potential to create new models of governance and organization that empower communities and promote social change. To achieve this, it is important to resist the urge to impose liberal “common sense” solutions that align with existing power structures, and instead use social code to build a new kind of society that is native to the #fediverse and #openweb

#OGB project involves developing a more decentralized and autonomous model of governance, where control is distributed among community members rather than being centralized in the hands of a few individuals and organizations. This can be achieved by leveraging existing open-source technologies and building on existing #fediverse infrastructure.

It is important to find a balance between structure and flexibility in an organization. A rigid, inflexible structure stifles creativity and innovation, while too much chaos can lead to confusion and inefficiency. By building in a level of messiness and embracing change and unpredictability, organizations can become more adaptive and resilient. Additionally, involving community members in decision-making and allowing them to shape their digital spaces creates a sense of belonging and empowerment, leading to more effective and sustainable outcomes.

By working together and finding working solutions, we can build a more sustainable, inclusive, and equitable #openweb for all.

The #OGB has 3 subjects to talk about. 1) tradition of working activist grassroots organizing 2) the use of technological federation, ActivityPub and the Fediverse traditions to scale. 3) original thinking, bringing these together for grassroots #openweb producer governance, this part needs lots of input.

Then is the #offtopic threads from #mainstreming dogmas and “common sense”. I try to keep this separate, as it’s mostly not relevant, and always quickly turns to trolling, sadly.

Working on outreach text for the #OGB I would have much of the process and text defined by the template, only the functions hardcoded as sliding open/closed. IE. the code is a tool, the template a culture.

All bound by the #4opens and #PGA of course.

This good path is partly why our text is a mess… Not a bad thing if we have “good will” a real source of pain if we do not. We do not.

Project link https://unite.openworlds.info/Open-Media-Network/openwebgovernancebody

A news project for the fediverse

#Indymedia is a decentralized network of independent media outlets that aims to provide a platform for grassroots and alternative perspectives on news and current events. It operates on a decentralized model, with each local or regional outlet being run by an editorial collective who are responsible for moderating content and coordinating with other outlets in the network.

The newswire on each site is open to submissions from citizen journalists and focuses on providing context-rich, on-the-ground reporting. The feature column is written by the editorial collective, who select stories from the newswire and provide additional analysis or commentary.

The network also coordinates with other progressive, #PGA and #4opens projects within the #fediverse. The goal of #Indymedia is to provide a platform for alternative and marginalized voices and to promote decentralized, autonomous organizing and media production.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txCLtKpDwNE

#indymediaback

The #OMN is about creating horizontal scaling of social power

The #OMN approach is to focus on building practical tools and solutions that are grounded in real-world experience and that can be adopted by grassroots activists and communities. The goal is to empower groups to take control of their own media and communication channels, and to build a decentralized and autonomous network that is not controlled by any centralized authority or organization.
 
The #4opens (Open Source, Open Data, Open process, Open “industrial” standards ) are a key part of this approach, providing a framework for building transparent, accountable, and inclusive systems that are accessible. The OMN emphasizes the importance of using existing tools and technologies, rather than trying to reinvent the wheel or impose new solutions that likely will not be practical or effective.
 
The #OMN is horizontal scaling of social power, a modern take on the classic principles of grassroots activism, and creating a new space for collaboration and cooperation among activists, communities, and organizations.

What is the #OGB

The process is meant to be messy, and there are no set laws or statutes, but instead a growing body of mythos and traditions that people can reference when making decisions. The model also includes the power of recall for both “The Voices” and “The Body” to ensure accountability and maintain trust within the community.

The structure is designed to be flexible, allowing for the redefining of variables and options to suit the specific needs of the community. The lifespan of “The Voices” is flexible, currently with options of 1 year or a rolling 6 month term, and members of “The Groups” can come from “The Body” and the original proposer of the proposal.

#OGB The proposed governance model is based on a combination of traditional grassroots activism and the fediverse experience of federation as a tool for horizontal scaling of social power. It focuses on “sortation” and “core consent” as means to achieve decision making and power distribution, and utilizes the concepts of “The Body”, “The Groups”, and “The Voices” to facilitate the process.

The specific process used to achieve core consent will be determined by the group or community using the tools and variables provided by the codebase.

#OGB “Core consent” refers to a level of agreement or acceptance reached by a group or community on a particular proposal or action. It is not a specific process or method, but rather a general principle that guides decision-making within the group. In the context of The Body, it may be achieved through a variety of methods such as voting, threshold, or other forms of consensus-building.

#OGB Community and the tradition of recall and dilution. The voices are representatives of the body, but ultimately it is the body who holds the power and makes the decisions. It is a delicate balance that is built on trust and tradition, and it is meant to be messy and not a traditional power structure. It is a “native” approach that is designed to work within the decentralized and disorganized nature of the fediverse community.

The groups and voices have the power to make decisions, but they need to work together to build consensus and make effective decisions. The model also acknowledges the challenges of dealing with a disorganized group of individuals and the importance of building a body of mythos and traditions to guide decision-making.

The proposed governance model is designed to be messy and non-hierarchical. It is meant to work with the fediverse’s decentralized structure, and it is built on a long history of grassroots activism. It is not a traditional power structure, and it relies on consensus and recall processes rather than laws or statutes.

#OGB It’s important to keep in mind that this system is built on trust and collaboration, and relies on the stakeholders being engaged and willing to work together towards a common goal. The lack of a formal sense-checking step is intended to encourage decentralized decision-making and empower individuals and groups to take ownership of their own actions and decisions. The recall and dilution mechanisms provide a way for the community to self-regulate and course-correct if necessary.

#OGB The Voices have limited terms and can be replaced by the body, so their power is not permanent. Additionally, the groups and other voices serve as checks and balances on the power of the Voices. This is built into the governance model to ensure that power is distributed and not concentrated in one group or individual.

Messiness: The proposed system embraces the messiness of real-world governance and is designed to work within it, rather than trying to impose a false sense of order. It is built on the principle that power should be distributed horizontally and that decisions should be made through consensus-building and compromise.

#OGB issues:

Prioritization: The proposal system allows for prioritization by allowing the governing body to decide which proposals to take action on and which to ignore.

Spam: The use of standard moderation tools and community flagging systems would help to address the issue of spam.

Centralization: The proposed system takes into account the potential for centralization and addresses it by encouraging participation and giving power to those who actively contribute to the community.

In summary, the governance model being proposed is based on a long history of grassroots activism and federation as a tool for horizontal scaling of social power. The approach focuses on sortation and taking power out of “power politics” by creating a modern take on classic social movement practices. The goal is to work with, not against, this history and avoid the pitfalls of “process geeks” coming in and damaging the movement.

I want to see if there are individuals here who have the skills and interest in helping to build the tools and processes needed for the #OGB project, and if so, to explore potential collaborations and partnerships. I also want to raise awareness and understanding of the project and the issues it addresses, and to gather feedback and input from a diverse group of people. Ultimately, my goal is to bring together a group to build this #OMN

This can be achieved by building bridges and fostering communication between different perspectives, rather than trying to control the outcome. The key is to find a balance between different approaches and allow for diversity of tactics in different situations.

It is important to understand that whatever process or governance structure is used, it needs to work in the messy reality of human interactions. We need to recognize that the need for control is often a barrier to finding solutions, and instead focus on building structures and tools that allow us to navigate the mess and make decisions collectively.

It is a way to empower the community and decentralize power, giving a voice to those who actively contribute and care for the fediverse. By keeping the system simple and easy to understand, it allows for more participation and creativity from users, rather than relying on a small group of individuals or organizations to make decisions. The focus is on the collective and community-driven decision making, rather than hierarchy and bureaucracy #OGB

The goal should be to create a system that is inclusive and that promotes participation, rather than one that is complex and exclusionary. The key is to strike a balance between simplicity and effectiveness, and to focus on the overall goal of empowering the community to govern itself.

It is important to keep the #OGB governance system simple and easy to understand for all stakeholders, as this allows for more participation and engagement. The focus should be on empowering the users and creating a decentralized system that allows for more voices to be heard and for the community to self-govern.

#OGB The lottery system would also help to distribute power more evenly among instances, as it would ensure that smaller and less popular instances have an equal chance of having a representative chosen.

Additionally, the use of human flagging as a way to address potential abuse of the system would also help to ensure that larger and more influential instances do not dominate the decision-making process.

The system would rely on a combination of automatic checks and human moderation to ensure fairness and accountability, while also recognizing the limitations of formal processes and the importance of trust and collaboration. The emphasis is on keeping the system simple, flexible and adaptable to the unique needs and culture of the fediverse community.

In summary, the proposed #OGB aims to distribute power among as many people as possible within the fediverse, by delegating specific tasks and responsibilities to individuals selected through democratic procedures, with the goal of preventing monopoly of power and promoting decision-making through consultation.

The approach is to empower people to take ownership of their governance, rather than providing them with pre-determined solutions. The goal is to create a flexible, adaptable system that can be adapted to the specific needs of different communities and organizations. Trust and collaboration are key elements, as well as a willingness to experiment and iterate. Overall, the main emphasis is on building a governance system that is grounded in the culture and realities of the community it serves.

The #OGB project is meant to reflect the practical, on-the-ground reality of horizontal activism and the fediverse culture. It is not based on idealistic or theoretical models, but on the lived experience of the community.

The development of the project would involve a production/coding team, funding, and testing with a real user base.

The process would involve a lottery system for selecting members, with checks for instance activity and human involvement. The goal is to mediate the shifting of power from the .01% to the 99.9% of the fediverse, and the approach is designed to scale horizontally for use in other democratic structures such as local street markets. The body would be moderated through flagging and standard fediverse moderation tools.

The proposed representative body for the fediverse would be a democratic structure that allows for the delegation of specific authority to specific individuals for specific tasks through democratic procedures. The body would be composed of stakeholders (instances), users, and affiliates, with a focus on distribution of authority among many people and rotation of tasks among individuals #OGB

In summary, the proposed #OGB allows for any user to submit a proposal which will be visible on the activity stream of the governing body. The body can then decide to take action on the proposal by passing it to a group or forming a new group to work on it. Prioritization of proposals will be handled by the body and the groups, with SPAM being dealt with by flagging and standard moderation tools.

It is important to note that the #OGB is designed to distribute power and decision-making among a diverse group of stakeholders, including instances, users, and affiliates. This can help to mitigate the risk of any one group or individual having too much power and influence over the fediverse.

Additionally, the use of sortition and flagging mechanisms can help to ensure that the voices of the community are heard and that bad actors are held accountable.

If people start to game the system, the solution is to get more people involved, which will dilute the problem. The lottery will shift bad groups out if fresh people of goodwill join. If a user has multiple accounts, it is up to them to resign some of them, so new stakeholders can be chosen.

However, this will be up to the group, as it is tradition. The default will be set, but it’s open to change.

The #OGB system that will allow multiple accounts from a single user to be included in the lottery for selection of representatives for the Body (OGB), as long as they are active and human. The idea is to keep the system simple and easy to code by relying on flagging for blatant abuse, rather than hard-coding restrictions.

When an instance registers, it would appear on the OGB’s activity feed, giving members time to flag or discuss it if needed. Overall, it is important to keep the system as simple as possible and easy to code.

#OGB The key idea is to empower instances to decide who speaks on their behalf, and to moderate as much power downwards to federate responsibility.

The proposed system includes automatic checks, such as whether the instance is online and has been used recently, and whether single-user instances should be counted. There would also be an option for user/stakeholder flagging to question if an instance belongs, based on terms of service.

The challenges of using formal processes, such as those used by #NGO‘s and cooperatives, in #openweb and activism projects. These types of processes can be a bad fit for the fediverse and activism, as they tend to be too rigid and not suited to the decentralized and dynamic nature of these communities.

Existing projects and resources that may be relevant to governance: Loomio, Decidim, Noisebridge, and Sociocracy. Tend to be based on formal consensuses, a bad fit for messy unstructured groups.

The system incorporates principles, such as the use of sortition to select stakeholders, users, and affiliate stakeholders, the use of a “Security Group” to detect bad actors, and “recall” process to remove individuals who do not align with the goals of the fediverse.

The system includes an option to aid/onboard new roles by having an overlap with the old roll-holder where they share the role and the use of tradition and workflow to mediate the “Allocation of tasks along rational criteria”.

“Tyranny of Structurelessness,” helps designing democratic and effective decision-making structures. By delegating specific authority to specific individuals for specific tasks, requiring accountability, distributing authority among as many people as possible, rotating tasks, allocating tasks based on rational criteria, and providing equal access to resources and information, the group can ensure that power is not concentrated in the hands of a few individuals #OGB

The #OGB achieves this by limiting the number of stakeholders and users by lottery, for example, 100 stakeholders and 100 users. This would be matched by a smaller number of affiliate, providing a balance of perspectives and interests.

It’s important to note that the number of members in the body can change depending on the situation, the admin group should be able to adjust the pool size depending on the requirement to try different approaches to see what works

The #OGB is representative of the fediverse as a whole, with stakeholders (instance operators), users, and affiliate stakeholders all playing a role in decision-making.

Based on the statistics of a population of over ten million accounts and more than 9,000 instances, it would be difficult for a body of that size to make decisions efficiently. A smaller representative body would be more manageable and better able to make decisions quickly and effectively.

The use of sortition to select voices, and the ability for other body members to flag bad voices, provides a way to detect and address any individuals or groups that may be acting against the best interests of the fediverse.

Additionally, the use of basic security checks to detect sock puppets and spammers, and the ability to “recall” flagged accounts, helps to ensure that the governance body is representative.

The #OGB has several mechanisms in place to mitigate the risks of capture by special interests or bad actors.

By allowing all members of the body to participate in the formation of groups and the formation of agreements, the system is designed to dilute the power of any one group or individual.

The consensus of voices, minus one, is what makes an agreement the “voice of the Fediverse” ensuring that the agreements reached by the body are truly representative of the fediverse as a whole.

Groups are formed around issues that receive a level of support from members of the body, agreements are reached through group discussions and consensus-building. Voices, which are a subset of stakeholders, have the power to both initiate groups and enact agreements reached by groups.

The number of voices is dynamic and would depend on the number of stakeholders, but a small number, such as 3-5, would be ideal to ensure that the system is nimble and responsive to the needs of the fediverse.

The power of the voice in this proposed #OGB system is distributed among different groups and individuals. Proposals come from anyone with an ActivityPub account, giving all users the opportunity to shape the direction of the fediverse.

It should be noted that the idea of sortition and open governance is not new, it is a way of governance that has been used in some ancient Greek city-states and it’s been proposed in modern times as well. However, it’s implementation in the #Fediverse could be a new and exciting way of ensuring decentralized and democratic governance.

Additionally, allowing stakeholders who were not selected by the lottery to still submit proposals for group decisions would ensure that the input and perspectives of all stakeholders are considered.

The workflow described is a way to ensure that the Open Governance Body i#OGB s representative of the fediverse as a whole, by giving all users the opportunity to participate in the decision-making process.

By allowing users to opt-in to becoming stakeholders, and then using sortition to select a representative sample of users to serve as members of the body, the system would be designed to ensure that the voices of all members of the fediverse are heard.

The use of sortition to select users to be part of the body would ensure a random and representative sample of the user base. And the dynamic balance of stakeholders and users would provide a check on the power of any one group.

The Affiliate Stakeholders would bring additional expertise and perspectives to the table and their members would have to be ratified by the Body to ensure that they align with the goals of the fediverse.

However, it should be noted implementation will be complex #OGB

An Open Governance Body #OGB, would be a decentralized and democratic system for governing the fediverse. The three groups of stakeholders, users, and affiliate stakeholders would provide a balance of perspectives and interests, with stakeholders representing the people running instances, users representing the people using the instances, and affiliate stakeholders representing other organizations and groups within the fediverse.

The Witches Cauldron: Making History

The Witches Cauldron: #MakingHistory is an open activist archive project that aims to create a data commons based on the #4opens framework and motivated by the PGA hallmarks. The project is about creating a metadata-enriched digital collection of items hosted on a redundant and federated network of hosts and servers around the world, starting with hosting the majority of the added content on the Internet Archive (archive.org). The project is open to anyone who wants to be a part of the federated network and will be built using the tools of the Open Media Network (OMN) and the KISS principle to facilitate DIY working. The project emphasizes on the importance of simplicity and human scale, and reject solutions that move away from the core KISS and DIY ethos. The Resistance Exhibition is the UK flow of data for this project, and the outcome of the project is to create an open collection of original material from across European countries as a first step, uploaded and stored in an open distributed repository.

Make stronger the openweb family – #4opens

The #4opens is a framework for evaluating technology projects that are based on open data, open source, open standards, and open process.

* Open data refers to the availability of data to the public, free of charge and without any restriction on its use. This is considered a basic requirement for a project to be considered open.

* Open source refers to software that is free to use, modify, and distribute. This promotes healthy development and increases interconnectedness, bringing in serendipity. Open licenses are used to ensure the project remains open and free to use.

* Open standards refer to technical standards that are open to the public and are not controlled by any one organization. This is essential for the open internet and the World Wide Web, and allows for interoperability between different systems.

* Open process refers to the transparency and openness of the project’s decision-making and development process. This can include the use of wikis and activity streams, and is considered a “glue” that binds together the trust networks that make up a project.

The #4opens framework is intended to help judge the value of alternative or grassroots technology projects, and ensure that they are truly open and have the trust networks required for success.

The #4opens framework includes a badge system to recognize projects that meet certain levels of openness. Projects that meet two or more of the opens criteria can earn a bronze badge, those that meet three criteria can earn a silver badge, and those that meet all four criteria can earn a gold badge. This badge system is intended to help promote and recognize projects that are truly open and contribute to the openweb ecosystem. The solidarity between the projects that have the same level of openness is a good way to share knowledge, experience and make stronger the openweb family.

Thinking outreach of the hashtag story

Classification of different versions of the web (such as #Web1, #Web2, #Web3, #Web4, or #Web5) can be a source of confusion and FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt).

The hashtags #openweb and #closedweb provide a clear way to describe and understand the different types of web platforms. The #openweb refers to platforms that are open-source, community-controlled, and promote transparency, the #closedweb to platforms that are proprietary, controlled by a few large companies and lack transparency.

Projects like #indymediaback and #OMN are examples of grassroots of social tech. These projects are focused on promoting decentralized, community-controlled media and communication platforms.

It’s time to compost the normal #techshit, and to focus on developing social tech that is more inclusive, diverse, and community-controlled. This will require a change in the way we think about technology, and a shift away from the current dominant paradigm.

The solution to this problem is to develop social tech that steps away from the #geekproblem and focuses on the needs and perspectives of the community. This can be achieved by involving a diverse group of people in the development and decision-making process, and by promoting open-source code, open standards, open governance, and open data in technology development.

The #geekproblem is a social tech problem that refers to the negative impacts that technology can have on society when it is developed and controlled by a small group of people with limited perspectives and values. It is important to recognize that the #geekproblem is not only a technical issue but also a social issue.

It’s important to remember that fear can be a barrier for change, but by actively using the we can call out pointless things, call out the #deathcult and compost the #techshit, we can actively work towards a more sustainable future.

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

It’s important to lift your head and look, lift your shovel, dig and plant. By actively using the and composting the #techshit, we can actively work towards a more sustainable future.

Living in fear is a common response to the challenges of the era of #climatechaos, when many people are on their knees worshipping the #deathcult. However, it is important to call out pointless things as pointless and actively use the as a tool to compost the #techshit that is contributing to these challenges.

The problem is that the nice moral majority, our liberal friends, have not accepted that the system they try to push is broken. It’s pastime for change, and holding onto our current system is not helping. Their “common sense” is the problem we need to be fighting, as well as the far right.

We must come together as a united force to address the real issues and challenges facing society, rather than spending time fighting among ourselves.

The left fail is spending too much time fighting inside the left over this balance, instead of focusing on the real issues and challenges. #BLOCKING #stupidindividualism and worshipping the #deathcult all push this fight, and it’s important not to be a “PRAT” (i.e. a person who behaves in a foolish or unthinking way) on this subject.

The “left mess” we are in refers to the challenges and divisions within the left-leaning political spectrum. The idea that on the “fluffy” left, we must be “nice” to get people involved in social change, and on the “spiky” left, we need to be nasty to be effective in social change, both have some truth to it. It is important to find a balance between the two approaches in order to be effective in bringing about social change.

Group use of hashtags as an organizing tool. This can help to bring attention to issues, promote collaboration, and increase the visibility of alternative perspectives on technology and society.

Overall, these ideas are meant to challenge the status quo, promote ethical considerations in technology development, and increase transparency, accountability, and collaboration in the tech industry.

Pushing simple #KISS ideas like #openweb vs #closedweb and as a powerful way to judge and compost #techcrap to mediate the #techchurn. This can help to promote open-source code, open standards, open governance, and open data in technology development.

To work with this, some ideas include:

Naming the current “common sense” as worshipping the #deathcult and making #mainstreaming uncomfortable. This can help to bring attention to the negative impact of neoliberalism on society and the importance of addressing it.

#stupidindividualism is a term that refers to the idea that people prioritize personal gain over the well-being of others and the community. It is often associated with the last 40 years of neoliberalism and a part of the liberal 20th century consensus. It is a strong #BLOCK that prevents people from recognizing and addressing the negative impact of their actions on society.

One way to address this challenge is to promote grassroots, DIY producer governance through the use of the #OGB hashtag and project. This can help to ensure that the development of the fediverse is guided by ethical considerations and that it is focused on the needs of the producers and the community.

It’s important to note that it’s not always possible to avoid mess and challenges.

One of the challenges of the fediverse is that it is decentralized and lacks a centralized governance structure, making it difficult to coordinate and get things done. This can be seen as both a good thing and a bad thing, as it allows for a lot of creativity and innovation, but also makes it difficult to achieve goals and create a consistent user experience.

The #fediverse is a network of independently operated servers that communicate with each other using open protocols. It is often considered an “accidental” reboot of the #openweb, as it emerged organically as a response to the centralized nature of social media platforms, which are dominated by the #dotcons

While the is not a way of keeping large corporations out of the open-source development, it can be used as a tool to mediate and prevent any attempts to extinguish the open source community by promoting transparency, accountability, and collaboration. By using , developers, users and community members can have a better understanding of the motivations and intentions of the corporation and can act accordingly.

The is a powerful tool for promoting open-source code, open standards, open governance, and open data in technology development. It can help to ensure that the development of technology is guided by ethical considerations and that it is focused on the needs of the users and the community, rather than the profits and control of a few large companies.

Additionally, the website could include links to the wiki for more in-depth information and resources, as well as a section for community engagement and discussion. This could be a valuable tool in the fight against #techshit #techcurn and a powerful way to reboot the #openweb movement..

The website could feature a clean and modern design, with a focus on easy navigation and clear, concise information about the . The text could be polished to make it easy for people of all skill levels to understand. You can use the existing wiki page unite.openworlds.info/Open-Med as a starting point and add more information and resources to it.

Creating a visually appealing and user-friendly website for the could be a powerful tool in promoting the use of open-source code, open standards, open governance, and open data in grassroots tech projects. This website could serve as a central hub for information and resources on the , and it could be designed to make it easy for people to understand and adopt the principles of the in their own projects.

The hashtag story is a way of using different hashtags to paint a picture of the current state of the world and the paths that can be taken to address the issues at hand. It involves defining each hashtag and how it relates to the larger narrative. Here is an example of a hashtag story:

#fahernista is about consumer capitalism and the negative impact it has on society, treating it as a social illness.

More hamishcampbell.com/2023/01/12/

The is a powerful tool to be used in grassroots tech projects to promote open-source code, open standards, open governance, and open data. It can help to ensure that the development of technology is guided by ethical considerations, and that it is focused on the needs of the community, rather than the #dotcons.

There is hope in this situation, as it is possible to take the “stupid” away from “individualism” and to embrace a more balanced and responsible form of individualism. This would involve recognizing the importance of community and the well-being of others, and taking actions that promote the well-being of society and ecology as a whole.

It is a path that may not be easy, but it is essential for creating a more equitable and sustainable society.

The hashtag #stupidindividualism is used as a critique of this form of individualism, and highlights the negative consequences it can have on society. It suggests that this form of individualism is not only detrimental to society, but also to the individuals who embrace it.

The concept of “stupid individualism” refers to a form of individualism that prioritizes personal gain and self-interest over the well-being of others and the community. It is often associated with the post-modern and neoliberal times we live in, where people are encouraged to prioritize their own needs and wants over the needs of others and ecology/society as a whole. This can lead to a lack of empathy, cooperation, and social responsibility.

The human condition does include a desire or need for blindness, as it is often easier to conform to the status quo and ignore the negative consequences of our actions, rather than to challenge them. Throughout history, there have been moments of rebellion and enlightenment, where individuals and groups have challenged the dominant social thinking and pushed for change.

The hashtags suggest that often people find meaning and build their lives in the twilight, constantly pushing away glints of light that might illuminate too strongly the social squalor and everyday cruelty that is hidden away from them in the shadows. They are blind to the negative consequences of capitalism, choose to ignore them in order to preserve their way of life.

People shape their own history and create their own reality, but they do so within the constraints of the existing social and historical conditions. People are not free to make history as they please, but are limited by the circumstances that are already in place and have been inherited from the past.

The theme is expressed by the hashtags, people are shaped by the dominant social thinking of capitalism to conform to the expectations of society, even when it is detrimental to their well-being

It’s important to remember that people are not passive recipients of social structures and institutions, and can actively shape their own consciousness and the world around them. By becoming aware of the mechanisms that shape their thoughts and beliefs, and by actively challenging the dominant social thinking, people can create a more equitable and sustainable society.

This creates a dynamic where people feel compelled to conform to the dominant social thinking, even when it is detrimental to their well-being, in order to avoid punishment and to gain reward. It can be difficult for people to break away from this dynamic and to challenge the #mainstreaming agenda because they fear the consequences of not conforming.

People choose to be blind in our “sunlight” world. One possible reason is that people are often motivated by the desire for reward and the fear of punishment. Those who conform to the dominant social thinking and push the #mainstreaming agenda may be rewarded with social acceptance, material wealth, and status. On the other hand, those who challenge the mainstreaming agenda may be punished with social rejection, financial insecurity, and marginalization.

The hashtags tell a story that people are often blind to this obverse thinking and that they block challenges to their blindness by rejecting or ignoring alternative perspectives. This can be seen as a form of self-defense mechanism to protect their current way of thinking and to avoid the discomfort of change.

People’s thoughts and beliefs are not formed independently, but are shaped by the social structures and institutions in which they live.

This idea is in the themes of the hashtags , as they all talk about how people are shaped by the dominant social thinking of capitalism, and the control and manipulation of individuals by this dominant thinking.

The hashtags suggest that the way out of this sordid story is to step away from the constant pursuit of consumer goods and services, and to reject materialism and consumerism in favour of more meaningful and fulfilling pursuits. They advocate for a simpler and more sustainable way of life, where people are not controlled or manipulated for profit and where ethical considerations are at the forefront of the development of technology.

For open-source code, open standards, and open governance.

The hashtags express a desire for a more equitable and sustainable internet. They advocate for open-source code, open standards, and open governance.

The story and world-view that these hashtags embody is a critical examination of the current state of technology, and a call for a more equitable and sustainable future.

They are a reminder of the importance of considering the impact of technology on society and individuals, and the need for ethical and responsible innovation.

The #hashtags #fahernista, #openweb, #dotcons, , #geekproblem, #techcurn, #nothingnew, #techshit and #encryptionists, all embody a similar story and world-view, which is the critique of the negative impact of technology and its development on society. They all express a concern that the #mainstreaming current state of technology is not aligned with the values of fairness, openness, and sustainability, and that it is being driven by the profit motives.

#encryptionists prioritize the use of encryption, viewing it as a way to protect privacy and security online.

The problem is that they prioritize encryption over important principles such as trust, transparency, and collaboration. These are essential for a progressive society, the idea of giving up control and building trust among groups.

This issue is then embedded in the code and becomes a problem when it leads to the creation of technology that undermines trust and cooperation.

#techshit usually happens when people do not ask whether the project is necessary or brings new value, but instead build it anyway, repeatedly.

#nothingnew this term encourages developers and creators to consider if the project they are working on is truly innovative and necessary, or if it is just a replication of something that already exists. It also highlights the importance of evaluating the impact of new technologies and products on society, and encourages developers to consider the perspectives of different stakeholders before creating new products or services.

Looking at early examples of #couchsurfing and #indymedia, as healthy of #openweb culture, they built on the principles of sharing and collaboration, and they prioritized community building and connection over profit. However, as they grew in popularity and became more mainstream, they began to face challenges such as commercialization, privacy issues and other problems that led to the decline of the community spirit that once defined them. They are examples of the “problem” of openweb culture.

#failbook and Google are examples of large tech companies that are accused of using their dominance and control over technology to exploit users and undermine society. Both companies have faced criticism for their data collection and use practices.

#4opens refers to the four principles of open source, the essentials for creating a more equitable and sustainable internet. A tool that can guide us towards a better, more humane path, promoting transparency and collaboration. They give us the power to JUDGE the technology we use and the companies that provide it to decide whether they align with our values and interests. In this way, 4opens are a source of power for both individuals and communities to take back control of their digital lives.

This closed web is a form of “technological slavery” in which users are subjected to the control and manipulation of these companies, and that users choose to use these services due to lack of alternatives and /or because they are not aware of the implications of their choices.

The #closedweb refers to the World Wide Web that is dominated by large companies, often referred to as “#dotcons”, who control the flow of information and access to online services through the use of proprietary technology and closed systems. These companies often use their power to collect and monetize user data, and to shape online experiences in ways that prioritize their own interests.

#Dotcons is a term that refers to companies that dominate the internet, and the negative impact they have on society. They are seen as feeding into the social illness of capitalism, prioritizing profit over the well-being of users and society.

The step away metaphor is a positive path to move away from this negative impact, this may include promoting open web and decentralized platforms, supporting alternative models, and encouraging more ethical and responsible behaviour.

The fight for #open in the #EU is a power politics struggle between the need for openness and transparency in an organization that is often characterized by closed decision-making processes and lack of accountability. Some people within the EU are aware of the need for change and are taking steps to pretend to be more open, but they are not truly committed to it.

It is possible that a small crack of #open might be enough to undermine the monolithic closed system, but the problem is that many people are willing to sell out #open in order to keep a bit of #closed. This means that the push for #open needs to be sharper and harder, with a more aggressive approach.

It is important to remember that #open has power over closed, just like light over darkness. By pushing for more openness and transparency, we can create a more democratic and accountable #eu

This might still require a stake and vampire level of PUSH, with a few blows of a mallet to drive the point home. We need to be aggressive, and not back down in the fight for #open in the EU.

The hashtag story shows the current state of the world

The hashtag story is a way of using different hashtags to paint a picture of the current state of the world and the paths that can be taken to address the issues at hand. It involves defining each hashtag and how it relates to the larger narrative. Here is an example of a hashtag story:

#fahernista is about consumer capitalism and the negative impact it has on society, treating it as a social illness.

#dotcons are feeding this social illness by promoting constant consumption and exploiting users for their data.

#closedweb represents the control and manipulation of individuals by dominant companies and the rise of technological slavery.

#openweb, on the other hand, is about building code for a more equitable and sustainable internet.

#4opens is a tool that can be used to guide us on a better and more humane path, giving us the power to judge and decide.

#geekproblem is a group of people lost in darkness, blinded to humane light, who inbreed monsters in code.

The use of #techcurn, #techshit and #nothingnew highlights the need to question the necessity of certain coding projects, and to stop building them if they do not serve a valuable purpose.

#encryptionists, when focused on artificial scarcity, are a roadblock to trust, a key element of any progressive society.

#stupidindividualism is the problem of socialization, where people prioritize personal gain over the well-being of others and the community.

The hashtag story shows the current state of the world, and the various issues that need to be addressed in order to create a more equitable and sustainable society. It also provides a glimpse of the possible paths that can be taken to address these issues and to create a brighter future for all.

Some Hashtags

The #nothingnew hashtag is a simple #KISS project of rejecting the “common sense” #neoliberalism and #postmodernism of the last 40 years to reboot social change/challenge from the original modernist path to then moving to build #somethingnew

The #geekproblem hashtag is a complex view of the other hashtags. In this, we need to take the “problem” out of “geek”. The need for CONTROL is a problem of balance in modernism. Mix in #deathcult worshipping and the power of technology over the last 40 years, and you understand the “problem”. This is not #KISS

The #deathcult hashtag is a #KISS direct metaphor for #neoliberalism which has been the “common sense” of the last 40 years of #mainstreaming

For an example of this, look at the use of “markets” at cop27 we are truly in a nasty mess due to our years of blind worship.

Nurturing community’s – tech is not going to do this

On the #fediverse, we need to work/think about the need to cross-link the subject instance.

As, the idea of as instance as a community is lightly built into the code of mastodon. So individuals and groups need to push this into existence, then add issues to the #ygithub mastodon tracker to try and get this into the code (hard job due to #feudalism as governance in #FOSS).

As a first step, we need to build flows between subject instances by individually fallowing people cross subject instance, to leak the content into timelines. Then encourage people to look at the global and local timelines, not just their personal timeline, which is likely pretty empty.

Nurturing community’s – the tech is not going to do this for us, is my thinking. This is a problem as community’s have the power for social change/challenge we need to get out of this mess.

I am asking people to try working round the poor “community” side of the hard coded ideas of community in mastodon.

technologies job is to hold the trust in place

Think that might be a good #openweb slogan, “technologies job is to hold the trust in place”

#OGB Decisions only count if a wide number of people engaged in them, because in the end it’s this group that will “enforce” the consensus. So one power mad nutter (quick, take the crown off) has little power to capture.

Only trust groups actually have “power” and as they are trust groups this power will likely be used better, a good outcome.

Trust and #4opens solve this hard technology problem in a soft, swishy way. So technology job is to hold the “trust” in place.

#OMN think there are ways to stop people burning the coding project down:

Ask how their feature fits into the #4opens

* Open process should block most

* Open data sum

* Open licence is obvious, so likely won’t block much

* Open “industrial” standards should block much of the let’s do it my way mess.

So if we keep focused on this, with the check on #PGA we should block much of the #mainstreaming and if very polite keep people in board.

This is hard work.

#OMN We build strong defaults and we hardcode in #4opens We keep these ideas at the front of the project, though people will want to push them to the back for outreach (#mainstreaming)

We need to build tech from grassroots, horizontal. Problem is, people will keep adding #mainstreaming common sense. This will course friction that will burn people out fast in tech.

Ideas for a better outcome #OMN