The Battle for the Internet: Open vs. Closed

Since its creation, the internet and World Wide Web have been shaped by two competing and overlapping paths:

The #OpenWeb

Rooted in the DNA of internet code and culture, we see the web as a platform for collaboration, sharing, and the free exchange of information. Built for use in a world where information is abundant and free, embodying the ethos of “free as in free beer.”

The #OpenWeb emphasizes the #4opens: open source, open data, open standards, and open process. It walks the path of creativity and collective creation, and is closely associated with “native geek culture” alongside radical/anarchist libertarian thinking. Social interactions are visible, promoting accountability and collective decision-making. Examples include public forums, open-source projects, and community assemblies.

The #ClosedWeb

On the other side, we have the approach of companies like Microsoft under Bill Gates and late-stage Google, that focus on the monetization and commercial viability of the internet. This vision is fixated on control for profitability, and the economics of running online platforms in a world based on artificial scarcity

The #ClosedWeb pushes interactions to private, monetized paths with the illusion of privacy and confidentiality are necessary. This approach seeks to lock down information and interactions, creating walled gardens that can be controlled and monetized.

The Internet’s “native” Potential

The inherent democratization and egalitarianism of the internet allow people to create and share content. However, this ideal clashes with commercial interests that push for control to monetize user data and interactions.

From the #OpenWeb perspective:

Interconnectedness: Technology reflects human values and structures.
Empowerment: The internet empowers people to distribute their work, share ideas, and bypass traditional power politics gatekeepers.
Education and Information: The web transforms education and information access, linking vast resources to walking the path to a different society.

From the #ClosedWeb perspective, the dominant emotion is fear:

Fear of sustainability: Concerns about how to maintain and profit from online platforms.
Fear of losing control: Worries about people having too much freedom, undermining business models and #mainstreaming dogmas.

The Battleground for Openness

The #OpenWeb remains a battleground between the paths of openness and the pushing of fear. While it has democratized content creation and access, the economic models sustaining this ecosystem are often a toxic mess. This tension shapes society both online and offline, creating a complex and messy landscape to find a sustainable path.

The #GeekProblem

One barrier to addressing these issues is the #GeekProblem. On the web, those with technical expertise and control over resources bypass democratic processes and accountability, leading to a kind of “feudalism.” This problem is equally present in grassroots #FOSS (Free and Open Source Software) communities and corporate #dotcons (dot-com companies), as both share the same #geekproblem mindsets regarding control and authority.

A part of the #openweb path involves re-evaluating the relationship between control, wealth, power, and social change in both technology and wider society. Currently, we lack clear ways to discuss the “problem” in geek culture, making it difficult to mediate the #closedweb problem. This is a growing problem, as groups who succeed in a capitalism are the worst equipped to solve the problems that the system creates.

The struggle between these visions is ongoing. For the #openweb to thrive, there must be a concerted effort to address the underlying issues of control and power within both the open and closed paths. By acknowledging and working on these problems, we maintain the internet’s potential as a force for democratization, creativity, and the needed social change.

Please “don’t be a prat” about this, thanks.

Open vs Closed in Tech

Open Systems: Emphasize transparency, inclusiveness, and shared power. Social interactions in open systems are visible, allowing for accountability and collective decision-making. Examples include public forums, open-source projects, and community assemblies.

Closed Systems: Reserved for private interactions, where privacy and confidentiality are necessary. Examples include personal conversations, private messages, and some business dealings.

The real fear of Closed Systems

Isolation and Control: Closed systems isolate people and groups, enabling power to exert disproportionate influence without any meaningful oversight. This leads to abuses of power, lack of accountability, and the perpetuation of harmful practices.

Stifling Innovation and Collaboration: When information and resources are locked away, collaboration is harder, and serendipity to build the trust for horizontal working suffers. Open systems encourage the sharing of ideas and collective problem-solving, driving trust and humane creativity.

Historical examples

Diaspora vs. RSS Networks:

Diaspora: Promoted as a closed network, provide a privacy-focused alternative to Facebook. However, its closed nature limited its adoption and integration with existing #openweb web ecosystems.

The 10-Year Gap: The decade-long gap between the initial promise of open standards like RSS and their reinvention (e.g., ActivityPub) underscores the challenges of maintaining momentum and community support for open systems. This gap is a huge-lost opportunity.

RSS and ActivityPub: Open standards, facilitate interoperability and decentralized communication. The resurgence of interest in these technologies (e.g., ActivityPub) highlights the value of open systems to building trust based networks.

Ideological Perspectives

Conservatism: Emphasizes stability, tradition, and supports hierarchical structures. In the context of the #openweb, conservatives argue for maintaining closed systems to preserve order and control.

Liberalism: Advocates for individual freedoms and freespeech ideals. Liberals support open communication systems as they align with values, but have a need for closed systems to facilitate the capitalist economics they so love.

Anarchism: Promotes the dismantling of hierarchical structures and champions radical #4opens with decentralization. Anarchists advocate for fully open systems, minimizing any form of “hard” centralized control.

Questions to Consider

Balancing Openness and Privacy: How can we design systems that maximize openness while respecting some privacy and confidentiality?

Sustaining Open Systems: What mechanisms can ensure the longevity and resilience of open systems, preventing them from being overshadowed by closed, proprietary alternatives?

Addressing the #GeekProblem: How can we engage technologists and developers in conversations about the sociopolitical implications of their work, encouraging a commitment to the open path?

Navigating Ideological Differences: How can we bridge ideological gaps to create a shared vision for the #openweb, recognizing the diverse motivations and concerns of different political and social groups?

The discussion about open versus closed is not only technical but rooted in sociopolitical ideologies and ideas of human nature. By understanding these perspectives and implications, we can advocate for the #openweb, to build up this vibrant, inclusive, and innovative space. This needs a thoughtful consideration of historical contexts, current challenges, and future possibilities, always with an eye toward preserving the #4opens that make our internet beneficial for society, not just the few greedy monsters that are destroying what we value, life.

How can we have this conversation without the normal “prat behaver” is a hard path to find.

#mainstreaming counter-cultures

The #mainstreaming of counter-cultures, like the #openweb, #Fediverse, and #Mastodon, touch on issues in openweb culture and the needed community sustainability. It should come as no surprise that we need both action and community to hold together the culture, values and integrity of these digital spaces.

Normalization and Dilution of Values: As counter-cultures like the openweb and Fediverse gain #mainstreaming acceptance, the values and ethos that created these spaces and technology they are based on get diluted, this is the normal. The key community-driven, decentralized, and open-source principles are pushed over by commercial interests and mainstream norms.

Sustaining Cultural Integrity: The challenge lies in maintaining the native culture of these spaces while expanding their reach. The inclusion of diverse voices and broader participation is essential for growth, but it needs to be balanced with the preservation of #4opens foundational path for the value to have the maximum impact that we need.

Different Perspectives: The interpretation of #mainstreaming as good, bad, or indifferent varies depending on political and ideological perspectives. For some, mainstream acceptance represents success and broader impact. For others, it signals a loss of autonomy and a clear steeping away from the original path.

Critical Stance: it should be obvious that #mainstreaming without holding the original #4opens and #DIY ethos in place is a bad path. There is growing need for vigilance and action to safeguard these spaces from being co-opted and over commercialized.

Participation: Engaging “natively” in discussions on platforms like SocialHub is a path. This participation helps in shaping the future of these open’ish spaces and ensuring they remain relevant and on mission.

DIY : The #DIY (Do It Yourself) is fundamental to the #openweb and #Fediverse. Emphasizing community control, self-reliance, and collaborative development. Promoting and practising this ethos to resist “common sense” #mainstreaming pressures is needed.

Mobilization: Encouraging wide community involvement is essential. Whether it’s through developing new features, creating content, or moderating discussions, contributions sustain the “native” ecosystem, it is at best a “gift economy” path.

The #mainstreaming of counter-cultures of the #openweb, #Fediverse, and #Mastodon is filled with challenges as well as opportunities. With native participation, a strong commitment to #DIY principles, and a collective effort to preserve this native culture, it is possible to sustain and grow these spaces without losing their original path of cultural integrity.

You can find out much more about my thinking on https://hamishcampbell.com, and please try “not to be a prat” thanks.

Tension, Open and Closed Web

From its creation, the spreading internet and World Wide Web have been shaped by two competing, often overlapping visions:

The collaborative, #openweb: Rooted in #DNA of internet code and culture, this vision is of a network for collaboration, sharing, and free exchange of information. Built for use in a world of abundance of information, free as in free beer. Emphasizes #4opens, creativity, and collective creation, associated with “native geek culture” and radical/anarchist libertarian thinking.

The commercial, #closedweb: The approach of companies like Microsoft under Bill Gates, and late stage google, focuses on monetization and commercial viability of the internet. Fixated on fear of sustainability, profitability, and the economics of running online platforms in a scarcity based world.

The Internet inherent democratization and egalitarianism allows everyone to create and share content. However, this ideal clashes with the pushing of commercial control, to monetize user data and interactions. This #open path empowers people to distribute their work, share ideas, and bypass traditional gatekeepers. The web transforms education and information access to synthesizing vast resources needed for a different view of society. From the #closedweb prospective, you have fear, simply fear.

The #openweb remains a battleground between these feelings, of openness and the pushing of fear. While it has worked to democratized content creation and access, the existing economic models to sustain this ecosystem are a toxic mess. The ongoing tension shapes society both online and offline, yes it’s a mess.

Why we so often can’t see or do much about this mess is that our #geekproblem have disproportionate control over resources and decisions. This leads to blinded “feudalism” that bypass democratic processes and accountability. This is equally a “problem” in grassroots #FOSS and corporate #dotcons, as they share the same mindset.

A part of the #openweb is a move to re-evaluate the relationship between “control”, wealth, power, and social change. But currently we have no clear way to talk about this issue from the “problem” in geek culture. So then have little way to mediate the #closedweb of the groups who “succeed” in capitalist #mainstreaming, who are the worst equipped to solve the problems that the system creates.

UPDATE https://www.theregister.com/2024/10/25/opinion_open_washing/ this is playing out here.

We need to compost the current culture of lying

Faults of former socialist experiments

Building a different economic system in one country with hard opposition is a steep path to climb. We can learn a lot from the interesting mess left by past attempts

Competition with the West: The #USSR’s framing itself as a direct competitor to American capitalism, rather than a unique system, led to perceptions of being outclassed in some areas. This competitive stance with vastly different starting points made the USSR seem inadequate in some respects.
Military Overspending: Excessive focus on military parity with the U.S. detracted from the USSR’s ability to improve civilian life and scientific progress. This allocation of resources, driven by historical security concerns and international threats, was necessary but ultimately detrimental.
Lack of Economic Diversity: Smaller socialist countries, and even some Soviet republics, had undiversified economies, relying heavily on single burocratic industries or resources. This lack of diversity made these nations vulnerable to economic instability and dependent on larger, dogmatic socialist allies.
Inadequate Light Industry: The focus on heavy industry over light industry led to shortages and lower quality in consumer goods. This affected the everyday satisfaction of citizens, due to the availability of personal and household items being limited.
Limited Democratic Participation: While socialist nations like the USSR had forms of proletarian democracy, there was still significant room for improvement in workplace democracy and political participation. The burocratic centralization and rubber-stamping within the system lead to ossification and hindered any real democratic engagement.
Restrictions on Cultural Expression: Over time, the USSR shifted from promoting local cultures to a subtle #russification process, causing cultural homogenization and dissatisfaction among non-Russian ethnic groups. Similar repressive policies existed in other socialist states like Albania.
Deportations: The forced relocation of ethnic groups during World War II was a severe and unnecessary measure. While intended to prevent collaboration with the enemy, these actions fermented long-term harm and discontent.
Purges: The purges in the USSR, aimed at eliminating a fifth column, were based on social paranoia and a flawed assessment, this led to widespread fear and instability. The failure to initially prevent the formation of such internal threats was a significant oversight.
Limitations of Planning: Early economic planning in the USSR was hampered by the lack of advanced computational tools, limiting the complexity and effectiveness of this planing. Despite the advent of computers, the potential of democratic #4opens planning systems was not realized.
Profit Reorientation: Transitioning enterprises to a profit-based system under Khrushchev led to a shift in priorities that confused socialist principles. This move fostered a capitalist mindset and contributed to the growing inefficiencies and corruption.
Ossification of Party Leadership: The “power politics” of the ageing leadership within the Soviet government stifled innovation and responsiveness. More horizontals, younger, more dynamic paths were needed to maintain the vitality and adaptability of this socialist experiment.
The Comintern: The centralized and bureaucratised coordination of international socialist movements by the Comintern had its drawbacks, such as imposing strategies that were not suitable for all member nations. A more horizontal and flexible approach could have mitigated these issues.
Over-Bureaucratization: Bureaucracy and ossification within socialist states led to inefficiencies and resistance to change. Healthy grassroots #DIY culture could have streamlined administrative structures and reducing redundant positions that would have improved governance and responsiveness.
Sovietization of Socialist Experience: The replication of burocratic Soviet methods in other socialist countries led to inappropriate policies and practices. Each nation needed to critically assess and adapt strategies to their unique contexts.

This vertical path has much to tell us if we are interested in taking a more horizontal path. Let’s try not to simply repeat this history, “don’t be a prat” comes to mind on taking this path.

This post was inspired by this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDSZRkhynXU worth a watch and informed from this https://www.reddit.com/r/socialism/comments/1eb8hby/what_can_we_learn_from_the_actual_history_of/ its needs some more updating, comments please.

A Positive View Of Current Trends

The challenges of today: #climatechaos, inequality, and the social impacts of #dotcons technology are a creating a very nasty social mess. However, there is a some potential for a positive transformation if we push the power of #openweb and #4opens technology and align it with progressive and radical “native” grassroots politics.

Addressing Climate Change with Technology and Revolutionary change

Renewable Energy: Solar, wind, and other renewable energy sources are becoming more than cost-effective and widespread. With strong political will, we can transition to a carbon-neutral economy. By reducing consumption and shifting this energy balance, we take a step to mitigating some of the effects of climate change.
Climate Resilience: Investment in both physical and social climate resilience infrastructure, flood defences and mediation, sustainable agriculture. This will shape and can protect vulnerable communities and ecosystems as we weather this transition. On the digital side, federation is a big step towards more #p2p native infrastructure, which will help to mediate the failing of our overly centralise #dotcons world.

Leveraging Automation for Social Good

Reducing Work Hours: Automation reduces the need for human labour, allowing for shorter work weeks and more leisure time without reducing productivity. This leads to improved quality of life and wider social and mental health benefits.
Universal Basic Income: #UBI provides a financial base for building sustainable alternatives, ensuring that wider groups benefits from increased productivity and technological advancements, rather than the normal nasty few.

Ensuring Equitable Access to Resources and Services

Universal Basic Services: By providing free and universal access to essential services such as healthcare, education, housing, and public transport, we create a more equitable society where people has the opportunity to thrive and build social good.
Socialized Finance: Redirecting financial resources from speculative markets to socially beneficial projects ensures that investments are made in areas that improve public well-being and infrastructure.

Fostering a Culture of Innovation and Inclusion

Inclusive Policy Making: Ensuring that marginalized communities have a voice in policymaking leads to more equitable and just outcomes. Participatory democracy and community-led tech initiatives like the #OGB drive inclusive development and the needed social change.
Education and Retraining: As the job paths shift, providing education and retraining opportunities helps people transition to new roles, ensuring that fewer people are left behind.

Utilizing Technology for Global Collaboration and Problem-Solving

Global Cooperation: Harnessing #4opens digital technology for international collaboration to address global challenges effectively. Federated platforms for knowledge sharing and joint initiatives leads to real solutions for climate change, health, and economic development.
Data for Good: Using #openweb and #4opens data analytics to address social issues leads to more effective public planing, policies and resource allocation.

Conclusion: A Vision of Hope, In Tech

There is a potential for a positive future when we combine technological innovation with radical progressive politics and a commitment to social equity. By addressing #climatechange, leveraging automation, ensuring food security, and providing universal access to essential services, we build a wider world of opportunity and basic justice.

This vision needs us to reimagine our current paths to prioritize humanistic well-being over profit. With the right policies and collective action, we can turn today’s challenges into opportunities for basic survival and a better global society.

You can support a technological project https://opencollective.com/open-media-network its a small step.

Why We Need the Open Media Network (#OMN)

The Challenge of Mainstream Media

#Mainstreaming media is dominated by establishment interests that have perfected the art of propaganda. This media landscape is highly effective at brainwashing the public, making it difficult to foster a social and political change and challenge. Without altering this media ecology, progressive movements stand little chance against the overwhelming influence of #traditionalmedia.

#openweb “native” progressive media plays a crucial role in countering this propaganda. It empowers people by amplifying their voices and holding those in power accountable.

The Necessity of Alternative Media

Independent Reporting: Progressive media platforms operate without the influence of corporate forces, advertisements, or outside money. This independence allows them to challenge the prevailing narratives and offer alternative perspectives.
Amplifying Voices: These #openweb platforms provide a space for voices that are ignored or suppressed by mainstream media. This inclusivity is vital for a healthy democratic discourse.
Fighting Misinformation: By breaking the media narrative that fosters fear and conflict, progressive media helps to create a more informed and engaged public.
Empowering Movements: For progressive movements to succeed, they need a media infrastructure that supports their goals. Progressive media acts as a crucial pillar in this infrastructure, offering the tools, networking and platforms necessary for advocacy and change.

The Role of the Open Media Network (OMN)

The Open Media Network (#OMN) is essential for building a new media ecosystem that supports progressive change. Here’s why:

Decentralized Control: OMN aims to create a decentralized media network, reducing the control of media oligopolies and increasing the diversity of voices and perspectives.
Community-Driven: OMN empowers communities to produce and share their content, fostering a democratic and participatory media landscape.
Transparency and Accountability: By adhering to #4opens principles like open data, open source, and open processes, OMN ensures transparency and accountability in media production and distribution.
Sustainability: OMN can provide a sustainable model for progressive media by leveraging community support and funding mechanisms. This financial independence is crucial for maintaining editorial integrity.

The current media environment is heavily skewed towards establishment interests, making it difficult for progressive movements to gain any traction. Progressive #openweb media outlets are crucial in challenging this status quo by offering independent, accountable, and inclusive reporting. The Open Media Network (OMN) is pushes to building a, decentralized media ecosystem that empowers communities and fosters genuine democratic discourse. Supporting these initiatives is vital for the success of progressive movements worldwide.

https://opencollective.com/open-media-network

By embracing projects like the #OGB people have a chance to shape decisions

The current state of our political systems, particularly the electoral process, raises fundamental questions about the nature of democracy and representation. The problem is the system is designed to maintain the supremacy of the powerful, perpetuating conflicts and minimizing real democratic engagement.

Elections, rather than fostering democracy, exacerbate divisions and repeatedly fail to address critical issues. Parties capitalize on trivial matters, manipulate voters, and converge on worshipping of the #deathcult with policies that benefit commercial interests.

Historically, elections have been chosen as a means to exclude the majority from meaningful involvement in power, reflecting a distrust of democracy by the powerful. The UK’s political model, shaped in the 18th century, survived the introduction of universal suffrage largely intact, maintaining a system where elected representatives are disconnected from the interests and needs of the real people.

Despite alternatives such as participatory democracy, popular assemblies, and sortition (random selection like the #OGB), powerful, and everyday interests stifle their implementation. These alternative social technology models prioritize #4opens community involvement, deliberation, and consensus-building over the spectacle of elections.

Participatory democracy, when well-designed, has proven effective in addressing complex and divisive issues. Citizens’ assemblies and constitutional conventions have successfully tackled issues such as equal marriage, abortion, and climate policy, where elected representatives have struggled. This in a native, messy form is how all activism is organised.

The next step needs to build up grassroots democracy with a project like the #OGB to supplement, push aside and then replace traditional parliamentary chambers. Such a system would ensure that decisions are made by a representative sample of society, rather than by career politicians shaped by money and lobbying.

In conclusion, by embracing participatory democracy, we can create a system where everyone has a chance to shape the decisions that affect their lives. You can find more information on the #OGB project https://opencollective.com/open-media-network/projects/openwebgovernancebody and support this on the link.

A European Future

Changing the European Union (#EU) to be more competent and progressive on social and tech issues requires concerted effort and engagement from all the stakeholders, including activists, citizens, civil society organizations (#NGO), policymakers, and Eurocrats. I outline some #fluffy strategies for driving change within the EU:

Engagement and Advocacy: Citizens and civil society organizations can engage with EU institutions through advocacy efforts, lobbying, and participation in public consultations. By pushing concerns, proposing solutions, and advocating for progressive policies, grassroots movements can exert pressure on policymakers to prioritize social and tech issues.
Policy Innovation: Grassroots and “organic” experts in the fields of social and technology policy can develop and promote “innovative “native” policy proposals that address emerging challenges and needed change. This includes regulations that protect the #4opens paths, promote community, and foster #KISS technological innovation reasonably.
Transparency and Accountability: Promoting transparency and accountability within EU institutions is core to ensuring that decision-making processes are open, inclusive, and accountable to the people. This involves pushing for #4opens transparency in policymaking, access to information, and mechanisms for holding people and policymakers accountable for their actions.
Capacity Building: Investing in capacity building initiatives enhances the knowledge and expertise of policymakers, civil servants, and “grassroots” stakeholders involved in shaping EU policies. This includes shifting funding, training, resources, and support to enable all stakeholders, focusing on the grassroots, to effectively engage with complex social and tech issues and develop evidence-based policy solutions.
Coalition Building: Building coalitions and alliances among diverse spiky and fluffy stakeholders amplify voices and increase collective influence on EU policies. By forging partnerships across wide sectors, groups and organizations leverage their collective strengths and resources to drive the needed systemic change.
Public Awareness and Education: Raising people’s awareness and educating citizens about social and #FOSS and #dotcons tech issues is essential for building progressive policies and initiatives. This includes conducting #DIY public campaigns, organizing #4opens educational events, and leveraging grassroots media and #4opens digital platforms to inform and mobilize the engaged people around key issues.
Participatory Governance: Promoting participatory governance mechanisms within the EU enhances peoples engagement and democratic decision-making. This includes establishing platforms like the #OGB for public participation, citizen assemblies, and deliberative processes that enable people to contribute to policy development and decision-making.
International Collaboration: Collaborating with international partners, organizations, and networks amplify efforts to drive change within the EU. By sharing “native” practices, sharing knowledge, and coordinating advocacy efforts at the international level, stakeholders strengthen their collective impact and influence the needed global policy agendas.

Overall, changing the EU to be more competent and progressive on social and tech issues requires a grassroots approach that involves activism, engagement, advocacy, policy innovation, transparency, capacity building, coalition building, public awareness, participatory governance, and international collaboration. By working together in active fluffy/spiky debate across sectors and borders, stakeholders can contribute to shaping the change and challenge to build an inclusive, equitable, and sustainable future within the EU and wider world in the era of #climatechaos

The European Union: A “spiky” view

#NGI #NLNET

A tech story

In the #openweb of digital innovation, there is a culture revered for its ingenuity and technical prowess – the hackers of old. Yet, beneath the surface of their achievements lays a problem, one that has led to the downfall of many endeavours: the #geekproblem.

In the early days, hackers were pioneers, pushing the boundaries of what was possible, though as their influence grew, so too did the imbalance within their communities. The projects that thrived, that embodied the principles of openness and collaboration (#4opens), were not only the work of these geeks, but wider diverse affinity groups where social leadership was core.

The projects that flourished had strong social guidance, with the geeks playing one part in the larger diversity. A healthy dynamic, with different perspectives and different skills, complemented each other to further common social goals.

However, over time tragedy grew when the geeks seized control of the foundations and the #fashernistas, with their penchant for superficial trends, hijacked the facade. With the geeks at the helm and the fashernistas dictating the direction, the once vibrant projects slowly over time withered and died.

The demise of the #openweb was not a sudden event, this slow and steady decline was orchestrated by those who valued personal agendas and status over collective progress. The geeks, blinded by their technical prowess, failed to recognize the importance of social partnerships, while the fashernistas, eager to climb the ladder of #mainstreaming success, sold out the principles they once claimed to champion.

And so, the legacy of the #openweb was tarnished, its promise of democratized access and decentralized trust, betrayed by those who prioritized their own blinded interests over the “native” common good. Yet, amidst this wreckage, a glimmer of hope remains – a reminder that progress lies not in the hands of the few, but in the collective efforts of all who dare to dream of a better world. Let’s try not to make the same mistakes with our #web1.5 reboot in the #Fediverse, please.

———————————————-

To avoid repeating this mess we need to mediate the tragic reality that within our #fashernista circles, there exists a pervasive sense of hopelessness, a destructive force that accompanies their every endeavour. Their relentless pursuit of trends and their blind devotion to the #deathcult have left a trail of destruction in their wake.

We need to actually use the #4opens project, as a beacon of hope amidst this chaos, a reminder that there is another way forward. Not doing this is leading us on the path to failure, contributing to the ever-growing piles of #techshit.

There’s much to be learned from this cycle of destruction and renewal. It’s time to embrace the lessons of the past and walk a better path, one guided not by the whims of #fashionistas or the allure of the #deathcult please.

#4opens

Understanding #OMN and the #GeekProblem

Using the #OMN hashtag story to address the challenges and opportunities in the tech world, particularly in mediating the #geekproblem, involves leveraging the power of storytelling, community engagement, and strategic advocacy.

In the #geekproblem, there are two distinct paths. One path leads to the geeks who won’t code for changing human nature; they are consumed by the #deathcult, kneeling in reverence to it. The other path leads to those who stand tall, observing the world and crafting tools to compost the #techshit created by the first group.

A structured approach to take this path:

Understanding #OMN and the #GeekProblem

#OMN (Open Media Network): This represents a vision of an open, decentralized media network that empowers people and communities by giving them control over content creation and distribution.
The GeekProblem: This refers to the social and cultural issues within the tech community, such as elitism, lack of diversity, and communication barriers between technologists and the broader public. Rooted in the need for control.

Steps to Use #OMN for Change

Define the Narrative:
- Craft a compelling story around #OMN that highlights the #4opens potential to democratize media, enhance transparency, and foster collaboration.
- Emphasize how #OMN can mediate the #geekproblem by creating more inclusive and accessible technology environments.
Engage the Community:
- Use the hashtag #OMN to build a community around the progressive tech vision. Encourage contributions from diverse people, including those who have been marginalized in the tech world.
- Host online discussions, webinars, and collaborative projects to foster a sense of belonging and shared purpose.
Highlight Success Stories:
- Showcase examples of successful #OMN implementations and how they can have positive social impacts on communities.
- Share stories of people and groups who have mediated the #geekproblem by adopting open, inclusive practices.
Create Educational Content:
- Develop and distribute resources that explain the principles of #OMN and how they can be applied to solve real-world problems.
- Offer tutorials, case studies, and best practices to help people understand and implement #OMN concepts.
Promote Open Dialogue:
- Facilitate discussions about the challenges within the tech community, using #OMN as a framework for finding solutions.
- Encourage honest conversations about elitism, diversity, and inclusivity, and how these issues can be addressed through open networks.
Advocate for Policy Changes:
- Work with policymakers and industry leaders to promote policies that support #4opens and decentralized media networks.
- Advocate for regulations that encourage more transparency, user control, and ethical practices in the tech industry.
Collaborate with Organizations:
- Partner with organizations that share the vision of #OMN and inclusive tech culture.
- Leverage these partnerships to amplify the message and reach a wider audience.
Measure and Share Impact:
- Collect feedback and data on the impact of #OMN initiatives and share these findings with the community.
- Use this data to refine strategies and demonstrate the tangible benefits of adopting the #OMN approach.

Mediation Strategies for the #GeekProblem

Foster Inclusivity:
- Create spaces where non-technical people feel welcome and valued in tech discussions.
- Encourage mentorship programs to help bridge the gap between experienced technologists and newcomers.
Promote Diversity:Support initiatives that aim to increase diversity in tech education and employment.
Enhance Communication:
- Develop tools and platforms within the #OMN framework that facilitate clear and accessible communication like #indymediaback
- Encourage technologists to use plain language and avoid jargon when interacting with broader audiences.
Address Elitism:
- Challenge the culture of elitism by promoting values of #CC collaboration and shared learning.
- Recognize and reward contributions that enhance the community rather than individual prestige.

By strategically using the #OMN hashtag story, the tech community can mediate the #geekproblem and push meaningful change. This approach fosters a more inclusive, collaborative, and open tech culture, benefiting both the #mainstreaming and Alt-society.

You can support this here https://opencollective.com/open-media-network

#climatechaos requires a radical approach

The Seven Stages of climate denial:

1. It’s not real
2. It’s not us
3. It’s not that bad
4. We have time
5. It’s too expensive to fix
6. Here’s a fake solution
7. It’s too late: you should have warned us earlier

Trolls use all of these stages to deny the reality of #climatechange

With this in mind, it’s worth looking at the climate crisis and its broader implications for liberals:

Understanding the Crisis

Climate Change Impacts:
- Primary Effects: The direct environmental impacts such as floods, storms, and droughts, species loss.
- Secondary Effects: These encompass the broader impacts like social breakdown, mass migration, fiscal crises, and conflicts and wars.

Soft Problem: Infrastructure Response

To address the primary effects of climate change, we need to:

Invest in Resilient Infrastructure:
- Develop, diversify and upgrade infrastructure to withstand extreme weather events.
- Implement sustainable urban planning and disaster preparedness programs.
Promote Environmental Stewardship:
- Encourage policies that protect natural ecosystems and biodiversity.
- Support renewable down scaling with energy sources and totally end reliance on fossil fuels.

Hard Problem: State Stability and Security

Addressing the secondary effects involves:

Economic and Social Policies:
- Develop political and economic policies that buffer against fiscal crises caused by climate change.
- Strengthen social safety nets to support communities impacted by environmental changes.
Global Cooperation:
- Foster international collaboration to facilitate the mass migration and sharing of resources.
- Support global peacekeeping efforts to hold justice in place and prevent conflicts exacerbated by climate stressors.

Accountability and Legal Action

Prosecuting individuals and groups for their direct roles in the climate crisis involves several considerations:

Legal Frameworks:
- Establish clear legal standards for environmental crimes and corporate responsibility.
- Develop international agreements to hold entities accountable for environmental damage.
Ethical Considerations:
- Ensure that legal actions are grounded in social justice and fairness.
- Avoid simple scapegoating and ensure that those prosecuted are responsible for significant harm.
Focus on Prevention:
- Prioritize measures that prevent future harm alongside punitive actions for though who are found responsible.
- Promote corporate and governmental accountability through regulations and incentives for sustainable practices and well as impotently building real alternatives.

Moving Forward

To effectively address the #climatecrisis and its security implications, a wide approach is needed:

Promote Public Awareness and Engagement:
- Educate the public on the causes and effects of #climatechange.
- Encourage community involvement in real sustainability initiatives.
Policy and Governance:
- Advocate for robust climate policies at national and international levels.
- Ensure that climate action is integrated into broader progressive security and economic strategies.
Innovation and Adaptation:
- Invest in research and development of soft and hard technologies for climate mitigation and adaptation.
- Encourage the needed adaptive practices in agriculture, industry, and urban development.
Ethical Leadership:
- Foster community leadership outside the current #mainstreaming agendas, that prioritize long-term sustainability and ethical governance.
- Promote #4opens transparency and accountability in society and climate-related decision-making.

Addressing the #climatecrisis requires a radical and balanced approach that combines immediate action with long-term planning, prominent legal accountability with widened ethical governance, and national efforts with wider global cooperation. By focusing on these areas, we can try to work towards a sustainable future.

For a #mainstreaming view of this https://www.cbsnews.com/news/pope-francis-urges-action-on-climate-change-its-a-road-to-death/

On this subject: The #EU Eurocracy are hopelessly incompetent on progressive social and tech issues – it’s our job to help them be less incompetent as best we can. The other, native path is more dangerous, to get rid of them, the dangers with this is the right-wing will take their place. This applies to changing most #mainstreaming institutions and people, so we are left with challenge as a safe path.