#Fediverse how can we do better

#Fediverse how can we do better at this https://socialhub.activitypub.rocks/t/the-process-platform-isnt-working/3923/6

The current move in #blocking of the #dotcons moving to the #openweb is not a real solution, it’s like we are putting our heads in the sand. We need to understand that our “native” projects are #4opens thus anyone, including the #dotcons can be a part of the #openweb in this it’s a good thing they are moving back to this space.

Feel free to block them, but pushing this path as a solution is both naive and self-defeating. We need to do better and build a healthy culture and a diverstay of tools, it’s always a fight, hiding in a cave wins no wars, and we are in a war.

Issues within the #Fediverse community regarding the handling of problematic behaviour or interactions on the platform. A breakdown of some points:

Problem with Blocking: That simply blocking users or instances (such as the #dotcons) is not an effective long-term solution to fostering a healthy and diverse community within the Fediverse. Blocking is “putting your head in the sand,” ignoring or isolating problematic elements doesn’t resolve underlying issues.
Advocating for Openness: Emphasizes that the Fediverse should remain true to its principles of openness (#4opens), which allow anyone, including controversial entities like the #dotcons, to participate. This openness is a positive aspect of the #openweb.
Building a Healthy Culture: Rather than relying on blocking, we need to advocate for actively building a healthy culture within the #Fediverse. This involves nurturing diversity of tools and fostering a community where constructive engagement and dialogue can thrive.
Need for Engagement and Solutions: The importance of proactive engagement and problem-solving. We need to warn against passivity (“hiding in a cave”) and encourages efforts to address challenges head-on to create a stronger and more resilient ecosystem.

Overall, a call for constructive action within the #Fediverse community, moving beyond simple blocking measures and focusing on building a robust and inclusive path that aligns with core values of openness and diversity. With an emphasis on proactive engagement, collective responsibility, and continuous improvement to create a healthier online and offline environment.

humm needs more… what do you think?

Current messy thinking

Pushing defederation from #meta is not wrong in sentiment, the #dotcons are vile and cons. But is wrong from a practical sense. The #Fediverse and #ActivityPub are #openweb based on #4opens, this is a space where you do not have technical tools for stopping the #dotcons from taking the data, as the data in the end is in the open, unencrypted, in the database, in #RSS and in open flows.

The people who push the idea of closed are fighting for the #closedweb on a “native” #openweb platform. This makes no sense at all, incoherences everywhere, a lot of mess over the last 40 years that we need to compost.

There are likely good, useful motivation for unfederating from the #dotcons let’s be motivated by them please.

Who is making the shovel #OMN

The Rise and Fall of Grassroots #openweb Activism in the UK

Grassroots activism has undergone significant ups and downs over the past four decades, particularly within digital communication and organizing. This post provides an overview of the challenges and successes experienced by grassroots activists during this time period, focusing on the evolution of the #openweb and its eventual decline. It explores the ideological underpinnings of internet projects, the impact of funding and #mainstreaming efforts, and the shifting dynamics between open and closed systems. By examining these trends, we can better understand the complex interplay between technology, ideology, and activism.

To escape our silo thinking

The rise of the open internet, was a surge of enthusiasm for #4opens and decentralized communication paths. Projects like early #indymedia, blogging platforms, wikis, and peer-to-peer networks flourished, driven by an ethos of democratization and empowerment. These offered people and grassroots movements opportunities to connect, collaborate, and mobilize on a global scale. The ideology of the #openweb, rooted in #4opens principles, captured the imaginations of many activists seeking to challenge established power structures.

Why did the #openweb flower and die over the last 30 years

However, alongside the growth of #openweb projects, there were also significant challenges and tensions. The influx of funding from state, foundation, and #NGO sources brought both opportunities and risks. While funding provided vital resources for development and expansion, it also introduced pressures to conform to #mainstreaming norms and intrenched #geekproblem agendas. Additionally, as open internet projects gained popularity, they became susceptible to co-option and manipulation by corporate interests seeking to capitalize on the growing community interest.

We face a digital cliff the open internet may be over

The fall of the openweb, despite early successes, the internet eventually faced a decline, marked by the erosion of its ideological foundations and the resurgence of closed, centralized platforms, the #dotcons. One factor in this decline was the failure of many openweb projects to align with the dominant ideology of the web itself. The pushing of non-native common sense. While some projects embraced trust-based anarchism and decentralized governance, others veered towards more hierarchical and exclusionary paths.

Outline of 20 years ups and downs of grassroots activism in the UK

The rise of a new generation of technologists and entrepreneurs, shaped by #neoliberal ideologies of individualism and competition, led to a merging of open and closed paths. This shift towards closed platforms, controlled by a handful of corporate giants, undermined the diversity and resilience of the “native” openweb. The very chaos that once protected the openweb from vertical integration and monopolization was replaced by a homogenized landscape dominated by a few #dotcons.

Challenges and opportunities, in the face of these challenges, grassroots activists grapple with the complexities of a landscape that is hostile to their values and principles. The siloed nature of many media projects are a barrier to collective action and solidarity, limiting their impact and longevity. However, there are also opportunities for resistance and resilience, through the cultivation of networks based on mutual aid and cooperation like the #OMN

Conclusion, the trajectory of grassroots activism in the UK over the past four decades reflects the broader shifts and tensions within the #mainstreaming path. The rise and fall of the openweb mirrors the struggles of activists to carve out spaces for dissent and resistance in corporatized and surveilled environments. By using the #4opens to examining the ideological underpinnings of internet projects and exploring alternative paths in organizing, activists work towards reclaiming the path of a more open and decentralized future.

#KISS

Building trust in the #openweb

The #openweb is a framework for human-centric, decentralized technologies built on transparency and collaboration. Its success hinges on trust, and as a slogan suggests, “Technology’s job is to hold the trust in place.” This concept is woven into the #OMN and #OGB initiatives, which emphasize community-driven decision-making and adherence to the #4opens principles.

#OGB and consensus, decisions are valid when a wide group of engaged participants achieves consensus. This safeguards against the normal invisible authoritarian control, single individual find it hard to dominate because the collective create and validate the decisions. Trust groups, not individuals, are the seat of power, ensuring better decision-making and accountability.

The role of #4opens, open process, open data, open licences, and open standards—acts as “gatekeepers” for technological decisions. #Openprocess ensures inclusivity and transparency, blocking decisions that don’t involve public participation. #Opendata guarantees that shared information is accessible, reducing the potential for siloed control. #Openlicenses prevent restrictive ownership that could undermine collaboration. #Openstandards resist fragmentation and force adherence to balance collaborative practices and individual paths. This “soft, swishy” approach avoids rigid authoritarian structures while maintaining #KISS robust, “enforceable” values.

let’s look at challenges and strategies for #OMN combatting #mainstreaming “common sense” practices that erode grassroots values. By build strong defaults into projects and hardcode the #4opens principles to keep them central. To make this happen, let’s try and stay polite and inclusive during outreach, avoiding burnout and adding mess through conflict.

Dealing with #fahernistas and trust issues, a significant challenge arises from people and groups who appear trustworthy due to their #mainstreaming tactics but ultimately undermine the values of the #openweb. Coders and contributors need to align with #KISS social change goals, ensuring a grassroots and horizontal approach to development, this is basic.

To do this, we need to work on sustainability efforts by avoid overloading projects with unnecessary features, “How does this fit into the #4opens?”. One path is to balance “friction” as a positive filter for misguided additions, while maintaining a welcoming environment for constructive collaboration.

Building a future beyond the #geekproblem, the “problem” originates from early open-source projects that #block the social dimensions of their technologies. By integrating the #4opens and prioritizing trust networks, the #openweb can (re)evolve into a human value network rather than a technological dead-end.

The #deathcult feeding off the decay of the #openweb perpetuates centralized and exploitative systems. All our activism is about, focusing on planting seeds for a grassroots rebirth, #nothingnew is a starting point, returning focus on modernist principles—clear goals, collective action, and systemic solutions—provides a foundation to grow #somethingnew.

The #openweb vs. #closedweb debate is not new, but it remains a critical narrative. By holding technology accountable to trust and community values, we create tools that empower rather than exploit. The #OMN and #OGB projects embody this path.

For those interested in coding for change, visit the OMN wiki and join the effort to make this vision a reality, please. Or you can donate some funding here if you don’t feel confident with tech path.

Criticism of Post-modernism and Neo-liberalism

Post-modernism: Over the last four decades, post-modernism pushed subjectivity and the rejection of universal truths. While it aimed to deconstruct grand narratives and challenge power structures, it has led to a fragmented world-views where reality is ignored, and truth is relative. This has challenged the building of coherent social movements and addressing systemic issues effectively.
Neo-liberalism emphasis on deregulation, privatization, and market-driven policies, has exacerbated income inequality, weakened labour rights, and commodified social services. It prioritized profit over people, leading to financial crises, environmental degradation, and the erosion of social safety nets. The relentless pursuit of economic growth come at the expense of social justice, environmental sustainability, and democratic values.
Identity politics: While this played a role in raising awareness about marginalized groups’ struggles and experiences, it has also fostered divisions within leftist movements. The focus on individual identities leads to a fragmentation of collective action, as different groups prioritize their interests over broader solidarity. Identity politics has been co-opted by #mainstreaming institutions to tokenize diversity without addressing systemic inequalities.
OMN project: To counter the negative impacts of post-modernism and neo-liberalism and identity politics, the OMN project prioritizes collective action and solidarity more than individuals. By acknowledging the interconnectedness of systemic oppression and capitalism, the project resists co-optation by the ruling class and promote deeper understandings of social justice issues. Critical discourse on identity politics within leftist movements will strengthen the commitment to #4opens values.

While post-modernism and neoliberalism contribute to societal challenges, the #OMN project navigates these issues by prioritizing collective action, resisting co-optation, and promoting discourse around identity politics and the path of systemic oppression.

indymedia back

Bringing back the #Indymedia project is essential for several reasons, rooted in its historical significance, its potential for grassroots activism, and the need for independent media platforms. Why we need to revive and support the Indymedia project:

Historical Significance:

Indymedia played a pivotal role in the early 2000s as a decentralized network of independent media collectives. It provided a platform for activists, journalists, and citizens to share news, reports, and perspectives outside of mainstream media channels.

The principles of equality, decentralization, and local autonomy upon which Indymedia was founded are still relevant today. Reviving Indymedia would uphold these principles and continue the legacy of alternative media movements.

Counterbalance to Mainstream Media:

In an era of increasing media consolidation and corporate influence over information dissemination, independent media platforms like Indymedia are crucial for providing alternative narratives and perspectives.

Reviving Indymedia would create a counterbalance to #mainstreaming media narratives, offering diverse viewpoints, grassroots reporting, and coverage of marginalized communities and issues.

Grassroots Activism:

Indymedia empowered grassroots activists and community organizers by providing them with a platform to amplify their voices and share their stories. By reviving Indymedia, we can reinvigorate grassroots activism and support community-driven initiatives.

The principles of non-hierarchical organization and consensus decision-making embedded within Indymedia’s ethos serve as a model for participatory democracy and collective action in the digital age.

Media Democracy and Freedom of Expression:

Indymedia embodies the principles of media democracy and freedom of expression by promoting #4opens exchange of information, transparency, and accessibility.

Reviving Indymedia would contribute to the democratization of media production and distribution, empowering people and communities to create and share content on their own terms.

Resistance to Corporate Control and Surveillance:

In an era of pervasive corporate surveillance and control over online platforms, Indymedia offers an alternative that prioritizes privacy, autonomy, and community ownership.

By reviving Indymedia, we can resist corporate dominance over the digital public sphere and create spaces where rights and autonomy are respected.

Combatting Nihilism in Tech: The tech industry prioritizes individualistic implementations and profit-driven models over community-focused initiatives. By rebooting Indymedia, we can challenge this nihilistic approach to technology and instead prioritize community building, collaboration, and collective ownership of media platforms.

Preserving Digital Commons: Indymedia operated on principles of openness, decentralization, and non-hierarchical organization, creating digital commons where diverse voices could thrive. Rebooting Indymedia allows us to preserve and expand this digital commons, providing an alternative to corporate-controlled media landscapes dominated by profit motives and commercial interests.

Building Trust-Based Networks: Indymedia was built on principles of trust, collaboration, and solidarity among activists and media practitioners. By rebooting Indymedia, we can rebuild these trust-based networks and strengthen connections within and across communities, fostering solidarity in the struggle for social justice and media democracy.

Adapting to Changing Technologies: The original Indymedia project faced challenges and limitations due to technological constraints of its time. By rebooting Indymedia, we can leverage advances in technology to create more user-friendly interfaces, mobile-responsive designs, and robust backend systems that better serve the needs of modern activists and citizen journalists.

In summary, reviving the Indymedia project is not just about resurrecting a historical artifact but reclaiming a vision of media activism, grassroots empowerment, and alternative narratives. It’s about challenging the status quo, amplifying grassroots voices, and building a democratic and inclusive media ecosystem.

Coding this #indymediaback https://unite.openworlds.info/indymedia

Nurturing the Potential of the Fediverse: A Socio-Political Roadmap

The #fediverse, promises decentralized social networking and democratic governance, stands as a light of hope for a native #openweb. However, as it navigates the terrain of politics, technology, and human behaviour, it faces challenges that threaten to undermine its #4opens civic potential. In this post, we delve into these challenges and explore potential pathways to realize the promise of the #fediverse.

At the heart of the fediverse lies the tension between its potential benefits and the risks of subversion by commercial interests and structural dysfunction. Commercial capture, driven by the allure of proprietary features and enhanced user experiences, poses a threat to the “open and decentralized nature of the fediverse native culture”. The current shift from distributed funding models to centralized and #NGO ones exacerbates this challenge, leading to a concentration of power and influence in the hands of a few people and entities. To counter this trend, developers, producers, institutions, and users can collectively work to uphold the #4opens principles of interoperability and openness.

Structural dysfunction, characterized by a lack of native governance approaches and a reliance on #DIY moderators and self-funded instances, poses another challenge. Without a “native” structure for governance, the fediverse risks succumbing to governance failures and reputational assaults. To address these issues, there is a pressing need to develop democratic governance structures (like the #OGB) that empower people and ensure accountability and transparency at every level of decision-making.

The fediverse is more than just a technical system; it is also a political structure. As such, it requires a nuanced understanding of the socio-political dynamics that shape its development and governance. Techno-Romanticism, which elevates simplistic views of technological progress and overlooks the labour and networks that underpin it, poses a threat to the fediverse’s sustainability. By fostering a culture of critical engagement and social action, we can mitigate this, to ensure that the Fediverse remains a space for civic discourse and collective action.

In summing up, nurturing the potential of the Fediverse requires a multifaceted approach that transcends technical considerations and delves deep into the socio-political paths. By addressing issues of commercial capture, governance dysfunction, and techno-Romanticism, we pave the way for a native inclusive, democratic, and sustainable Fediverse as an #openweb native network.

The influence of NGOs in social activism raises concerns

The growing influence of NGOs in social activism raises concerns, particularly in an online landscape dominated by centralized #dotcons platforms and gatekeepers. In contrast, the #openweb, rooted in the #4opens principles of decentralization, open standards, and inclusivity, represents a genuine path for progressive social change.

However, the rise of NGO-driven slacktivism exposes the limitations of centralized activism. While petitions and social media campaigns can raise awareness, they lack sincerity and fail to drive real change. This culture of low-effort engagement stands in stark contrast to the openweb’s ethos, where people have the autonomy to participate, create, and take meaningful action without the constraints of gatekeepers.

A key concern is that NGOs, despite claiming to serve communities, to often end up promoting their own interests and priorities. This marginalizes “native” voices and disempower grassroots movements. As attention shifts towards the #Fediverse, it is crucial to safeguard against NGO-style centralization and ensure that power remains distributed across diverse communities.

To resist coaptation, the Fediverse must uphold its decentralized, community-grown structure. Building trust, collaboration, and maintaining its native core will be essential in keeping the space free from corporate and institutional control.

In conclusion, the openweb and the Fediverse are critical tools for grassroots activism and collective action. By resisting centralization and embracing the #4opens, we can ensure that these spaces remain truly progressive, participatory, and free.

The mess in tech

The last 40 years of technological development (from open to closed) and its impact on society, coupled with the growing urgency of addressing #climatechange, highlight the need to fundamentally shift the way we approach technology back to open.

Key points:

Environmental Impact: The rapid growth of technology over the past few decades has come with a significant environmental cost. From the production and disposal of electronic devices to the energy consumption of data centres and digital infrastructure, the tech industry has contributed to greenhouse gas emissions, resource depletion, and environmental degradation. As we face the reality of #climatechaos, there’s a pressing need to develop and adopt technologies that minimize harm to the planet.
Social Inequality: While technology has the potential to connect people and empower communities, our embrace of the #dotcons has exacerbated social inequalities. Access to digital technologies, information, and opportunities, widening the gap between the privileged and marginalized. Moreover, #dotcons tech platforms are criticized for perpetuating discrimination, bias, and exclusion, further entrenching systemic injustices. Addressing these issues requires building “native” #openweb technology that prioritizes equity, inclusivity, and social justice.
Corporate Control and Surveillance: The dominance of large tech corporations raises concerns about corporate power. These companies wield immense influence over digital ecosystems, shaping the flow of information, controlling social access to platforms, and monetizing people’s data and metadata. To counteract corporate control and protect the #openweb, there’s a need for decentralized, community-driven alternatives.
Innovation and Collaboration: The current paradigm of technological development prioritizes profit-driven innovation over basic social and environmental responsibility. This mindset stifles collaboration, stifles open innovation, and limits collective problem-solving. To address complex challenges like #climatechange, we need to foster a #4opens culture of collaboration, knowledge sharing, and open-source development. By democratizing access to technology and promoting participatory design processes, we harness the collective intelligence and creativity of communities.
Political and Cultural Shifts: The intersection of technology, politics, and culture shapes societal norms, values, and behaviours. Over the past years, we’ve seen a growing awareness of the political implications of technology, from concerns about online disinformation and algorithmic bias to debates over platform governance and digital rights. As grassroots movements like Extinction Rebellion (#XR) mobilize to address #climatechange, there’s an opportunity to leverage technology as a tool for social and environmental activism. By challenging mainstream narratives, engaging in grassroots #openweb organizing, and amplifying community based voices, we harness technology to advance progressive causes and catalyse the needed systemic change and challenge.

The disaster that is #climatechaos necessitate a radical reimagining of technology and its role. By building sustainability, equity, collaboration, and activism, we can push the resilient and inclusive #openweb future that serves people and the planet. And yes this shift challenges entrenched power, confronts corporate interests, so we will need to mobilize collective action to create this more sustainable world.

#focus is good.

The mess we made with the dotcons

The #dotcons are designed for greed and selfishness, everything about them feeds this and in turn feeds off this negative path. This is coded deep into them, they cannot be fixed, and we cannot reboot alternatives to this by simply copying them in #FOSS as we have done too much in the #Fediverse.

The rebooting of the #openweb is the path we have taken, this copying worked well for the first step, for the next step we need to move past this, simply copying of the current #mainstreaming mess. The next step needs to be more “native” to the #4opens path that we have started down. Let’s thank the people who copied, give them the gifts of statues and security, they did us all a service, they deserve thanks for this first step not hatred.

To understand why let’s look at the #dotcons mess, an example, is the devolution of #Twitter from a neoliberal space to one with growing fascist tendencies under Elon Musk’s, this is a stark reminder of the pitfalls of unchecked corporate #dotcons and the susceptibility of these platforms to authoritarian control.

One aspect is the complicity of #neoliberal actors in pushing the rise of fascism. #Neoliberalism, with its emphasis on deregulation and market-driven solutions, pushes for the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a few. This concentration eventually leads to the erosion of democratic norms and the rise of authoritarianism, as seen in the case of Twitter’s transformation. Thus, the intertwining of neoliberalism and fascism underscores the need for vigilance in combating both economic inequality and the erosion of “native” #openweb democratic projects we try and build and sustain.

Moreover, the reaction of neoliberal peoples “common sense” to the shift towards fascism on the #dotcons like Twitter is instructive. Despite the platform’s descent into authoritarianism, many #mainstreaming users continue to engage with it, clinging to nostalgia for its earlier, more liberal incarnation. This phenomenon highlights the tendency of #mainstreaming to adapt to life under oppressive regimes, often out of a desire for self-preservation or a misguided sense of normalcy. It serves as a sobering reminder of the dangers of complacency and the importance of resisting authoritarianism, aspesherly in its early stages.

In essence, the transformation of Twitter from a neoliberal to a fascist space underscores the interconnectedness of economic and political systems and the need for collective action to safeguard “native” #openweb democratic values and the paths we take. By recognizing the warning signs of authoritarianism and refusing to acquiesce to its normalization, people can prevent the erosion of the #openweb

The #dotcons and #closedweb of the last 20 years have clear problems:

Centralization of Power: The dominant platforms in the #dotcons era and #closedweb are centralized, controlled by a handful of corporations.
Monopolistic Practices: The dominance of a few major players led to monopolistic practices that stifled “native” #openweb culture. These monopolies limit people choice and hindered the development of alternative paths that could offer more diverse and community-centric life.
Surveillance Capitalism: The #dotcons relies on business models built around surveillance capitalism, where data and metadata is harvested, monetized, and exploited for targeted advertising and social purposes without consent and transparency. This exploitation of people’s data undermines “society” and creates significant ethical concerns.
Filter Bubbles and Echo Chambers: The algorithms employed in the #dotcons are designed to prioritize content based on user engagement metrics, leading to the formation of filter bubbles and echo chambers. These push people to beliefs and preferences that limit exposure to diverse perspectives and contributing to growing and entrenching polarization and disinformation.
Erosion of Public Discourse: The rise of social media in the #dotcons facilitated the spread of misinformation, hate, and extremist right ideologies. These platforms prioritized engagement and virality over the quality and accuracy of content, leading to the erosion of public discourse and trust.
Data Concerns: The collection and exploitation of user data by #dotcons raised significant concerns. People have limited to no control over their social data and metadata.
Digital Divide: Access to the internet and digital technologies remained unevenly distributed during the #closedweb era, exacerbating social and economic inequalities. Marginalized communities, faced barriers to access our #openweb reboot, limiting their ability to participate in our native paths and thus the wider digital economy and society we need to build.

To sum up, the dominance of centralized platforms, surveillance capitalism, algorithmic biases, erosion of social norms, and inequalities have been some of the most pressing issues associated with the #dotcons and #closedweb over the last two decades. Addressing this requires concerted efforts to promote decentralization, #4opens and “native” #openweb infrastructure and culture. You can help with this by working on projects like #OMN #OGB #makinghistory and #indymediaback

This post is a reaction https://mastodon.ar.al/@aral/112098724636424845

Please donate here is you can https://opencollective.com/open-media-network to make this path happen.

We can work together?

The is occasional discussion surrounding the classification of different versions of the #web, such as #Web01, #Web02, #Web03, #Web04, or #Web05, this is not merely an academic exercise but an aspect of understanding the evolving nature of the digital landscape. However, the proliferation of these hashtags leads to confusion and contribute to the spread of fear, uncertainty, and doubt (#FUD) among users, people and communities.

In response to this confusion, proofer to use the hashtags #openweb and #closedweb which offer a clear and concise way to delineate between platforms that embrace openness, transparency, and community control (#openweb) and those that prioritize proprietary technology, centralized control, and lack transparency (#closedweb). By using these hashtags, we foster a better understanding of the ideological and technical underpinnings of different web platforms and paths.

Projects like #indymediaback and #OMN exemplify grassroots efforts to promote decentralized, community-controlled media and communication platforms. These initiatives can become vital in challenging the dominance of large corporations in shaping the digital paths and in offer an inclusive, diverse, and community-controlled approach to technology development.

At the heart of this discussion lies the #geekproblem, which highlights the tendency among technologically people to prioritize technical solutions without considering their broader social implications or the needs of ordinary people. By recognizing the #geekproblem, we begin to address the inherent biases and limitations of tech-centric paths to problem-solving and can then move to advocating for solutions that are inclusive and community-driven.

The solution to this “problem” lies in developing social tech that transcends the #geekproblem and focuses on the needs and perspectives of communities. This needs a diverse group of people in the development and decision-making process and promoting open-source code, open standards, open governance, and open data in technology development. By embracing this #KISS path and principles, we create a more equitable, transparent, and collaborative #4opens ecosystem.

However, this requires overcoming challenges, including the resistance of the status quo and the fear of change. By actively using the #4opens to judge projects, we challenge the prevailing narrative, call out pointless technologies, and compost the #techshit that contributes to the perpetuation of harmful social dynamics.

Moreover, it is essential to recognize that the struggle for a more sustainable future is inherently political. The dominance of large corporations and the perpetuation of #neoliberal ideologies pose significant barriers to any progress. Therefore, it is imperative to mobilize collective action and advocate for policies and initiatives that prioritize, balance the needs and well-being of communities over these profit-driven interests. Without this, the progressive tech dev will fall on barren ground.

In conclusion, the use of hashtags such as #openweb, #closedweb, and #4opens serves as powerful tools for organizing and mobilizing grassroots efforts to challenge the status quo. By embracing these hashtags and the values they represent, we work towards a future where technology serves the interests of the many rather than the few.

Let’s try harder, please.

A pragmatic approach to #openweb security

The Universal Mandate of SSL: A Critique from the #openweb path.

In the digital landscape, the ubiquitous presence of #SSL encryption, while undoubtedly enhancing security, raises questions about its compatibility with the ethos of the open web. The story around SSL overlooks its ideological underpinnings and the broader implications of its forced adoption. This article challenge the hegemony of SSL by highlighting limitations and proposing a more nuanced approach to internet security.

At the heart of the issue lies the distinction between the #openweb and the #closedweb, represented respectively by the ethos of accessibility and decentralization, and the closed-off, centralized web. While SSL undoubtedly offers security benefits, its imposition on all online interactions reflects not only technical considerations but also ideological stances. The insistence on universal SSL usage is symptomatic of what we term the #geekproblem—an inclination among technologically inclined people to prioritize technical solutions without consideration of their broader societal implications or the needs of ordinary people.

The universal mandate of SSL, championed by tech giants like Google, not only introduces complexities and barriers for ordinary people but also contributes to the unthinking centralization of internet infrastructure. Let’s Encrypt, an American #NGO and a dominant SSL certification authority, epitomizes this centralization, posing a significant risk of a single point of failure. If compromised, Let’s Encrypt could undermine the security of countless websites and services, highlighting the dangers of relying on centralized authorities for internet security.

Moreover, the imposition of SSL as a default requirement creates hurdles for community-run platforms and DIY enthusiasts seeking to establish their presence on the #openweb. The technical intricacies involved in obtaining, installing, and maintaining SSL certificates can be daunting for non-experts, leading to barriers to entry and discouraging participation in the vibrant ecosystem of the #openweb.

Critically examining the motivations behind the push for universal SSL adoption reveals a fear-based path rooted in a conservative ideology of control. By framing SSL as a tool to be judiciously used rather than universally mandated, we can challenge the prevailing story surrounding internet security and advocate for a more balanced and pragmatic approach.

In conclusion, the universal mandate of SSL represents not only a technical solution to security, but also an ideological stance that warrants examination. By advocating for a more balanced and user-friendly approach rooted in the principles of the #openweb, we foster a digital path that empowers communities, fosters innovation, and safeguards social freedoms. It’s time to rethink projects like universal SSL and embrace a more inclusive and decentralized vision of #4opens “trust” based securit.