A “native” path to composting the tech mess lies in understanding and addressing the underlying issues. A breakdown of a social tech path:
Explore Relevant #OMN Hashtags: Look into hashtags like #geekproblem and #fashernista to find discussions and insights that address the problems you’re facing. These hashtags can provide valuable perspectives and solutions if you use them based on collective experience.
Investigate OGB: Check out the URL https://hamishcampbell.com/outreaching-the-ogb-what-is-the-project/ with #OGB (Open Governance Body) to access project descriptions and learn about initiatives aimed at addressing the challenges you are encountering. While the coding site may be temporarily down, the project descriptions can still offer valuable insights.
Understand the 4opens: Familiarize yourself with the concept of #4opens, which serves as a framework for addressing many of the issues present in the tech ecosystem. The 4opens provide principles for building more open, transparent, and inclusive digital platforms.
By delving into these #OMN resources and frameworks, you gain a deeper understanding of the issues and discover pathways toward solutions. Collaborating with others who share goals and values amplifies the impact of efforts in improving the tech landscape.
The case of Trustroots alongside the earlier issue of #CouchSurfing are a cautionary tale about the pitfalls of traditional feudalistic #FOSS foundation/ #NGO models for open-source projects. These models may initially foster collaboration and innovation, but easily become susceptible to internal conflicts and power struggles over time.
The #OGB (Open Governance Body) is an alternative approach rooted in a grassroot and inclusive history and ethos. By embracing “producer” sortation, decentralized decision-making and community-led initiatives, projects like #OGB aim to avoid the pitfalls associated with hierarchical governance structures https://hamishcampbell.com/?s=OGB
Examining case studies like Trustroots and CouchSurfing offer insights into the complexities, and outcomes, of managing community platforms and the importance of fostering #4opens transparent, inclusive, and participatory governance to sustain healthy and thriving communities.
The #dotcons are about ideological control (advertising) of information for profit, #TikTok is likely one of the most advanced on this path.
Whether to ban TikTok is part of the #mainstreaming mess and significant within the wider context of the move back to the #openweb
Some considerations:
Impact on Ideological Control: TikTok, like other #dotcons social media platforms, shapes public discourse and pushes #neoliberal and #stupidindividualism ideological agenda and control. Banning #TikTok could disrupt the control exerted by centralized platforms over the flow of information and content moderation policies. However, it’s essential to consider whether banning TikTok is the most effective way to address concerns about ideological control, as users will mostly simply migrate to other #dotcons with the same issues.
Privacy and Data Control: TikTok faces scrutiny over its data practices and ties to the Chinese government, raising concerns about privacy and data security. This is a normal issue with any state bound #dotcons. Banning TikTok might address these concerns by limiting the collection and dissemination of user data to the replacement state, the USA. However, it’s important to explore alternative measures, such as regulatory oversight and #4opens requirements, to protect user data without resorting to a ban.
Innovation and Competition: Banning TikTok could stifle innovation and competition in the #dotcons, limiting the diversity of #techshit platforms available to users. This has implications for content creators, influencers, and businesses that rely on TikTok for outreach and monetizable engagement. Instead of a ban, maybe fostering competition and growing alternative, decentralized platforms (like the #Fediverse) would promote innovation and diversity in the social media ecosystem in a better way?
Freedom of Expression: Banning TikTok raises concerns about freedom of expression, as it restricts digital surfs ability to share content and engage with others slaves on the platform. While TikTok faces criticism for its content moderation practices, outright banning the platform may not be an appropriate solution. Instead, data portability and interoperability as combined efforts would address harmful content and promote healthy online discourse, thus focus on regulatory measures and community-driven initiatives rather than a ban.
Broader Societal Implications: Banning TikTok could have broader societal implications, particularly for younger generations who are active users of the platform. It’s important to consider the social and cultural significance of TikTok as a platform for #fashernista creativity, self-expression, and community-building. Efforts to mitigate potential harms associated with TikTok should prioritize education, digital literacy, and awareness-raising initiatives of real alternatives rather than simply national propaganda agender.
In conclusion, whether to ban TikTok involves weighing concerns about ideological control, interoperability, privacy, innovation, freedom of expression, and wider social implications. While banning TikTok may address some of these concerns, alternative approaches, such as #4opens, regulatory oversight, #openweb competition promotion, and community-driven initiatives, would likely ensure a more balanced and effective response.
“An important distinction is slowly being uncovered about the definition of the term “#Fediverse.” Who is it that gets to decide what this place is? How are we being represented?”
The lack of discussion about the nature of the space the #fediverse occupies raises questions about representation and identity within this #openweb “native” network.
Ownership by Communities: The fediverse offers a way to build the internet by communities, in contrast to centralized #dotcons social networks that prioritize monetization over community well-being. By decentralizing governance, the fediverse empowers people to take control of their online spaces and relationships.
Audience and Adoption: The fediverse is valuable for those who are hostile and disillusioned with monetized social networks and seek ways to connect with real change/challenge comunertys. While some are eager to explore alternatives, others face limitations or challenges in transitioning to the fediverse. Nonetheless, the slow growth of communities within the fediverse is essential for building a strong “native” foundation for decentralized networking.
Governance and Community: A key distinction of the fediverse lies in its shared governance model, where people have a say in how their communities are shaped. This contrasts with centralized social networks, where governance decisions are made by a central authority that does not align with community interests. People are drawn to the fediverse for its emphasis on inclusivity and people’s agency, allowing individuals and social groups to express themselves without fear of censorship or coercion.
Coexistence with Centralized Networks: The fediverse does not require people to opt out of centralized social networks entirely. Instead, people can maintain connections on both networks while stepping to decentralized networking. This allows people to become familiar with the fediverse’s culture and its advantages.
Website Design and Accessibility: With the foundational #4opens principles of the fediverse defined, the focus shifts to website design that reflects these values. Accessibility, both in terms of physical access and cultural understanding, is prioritized to ensure that the platform is inclusive and user-friendly, in sharp contrast to too much of the bad #UX history of #FOSS coding.
The fediverse represents a shift towards community-driven, decentralized networking, offering an alternative to #dotcons. By prioritizing people’s and community agency, inclusivity, and accessibility, the fediverse creates spaces where people can connect and express themselves. Let’s reboot the #openweb as a start, we could try calling this #web1.5
On the subject of activism, “don’t be a prat” is a good start.
#Branding in the #Fediverse raises considerations about effectively communicate the identity and values of a decentralized network while preserving its diverse and inclusive core.
* Purpose of Branding: Branding serves different purposes for different organizations within the Fediverse. It is a way to assert control and ownership over the platform/network, but it can also be used to communicate identity and values to people and potential adopters.
* Instance Branding vs. Project Branding: Shifting the focus from project branding to instance branding give’s more control to the communities using and running the instances. This decentralized approach allows for customization and fosters inclusivity within the Fediverse.
* Impact of Strong Branding: Strong branding by developers and platforms overshadows the diversity of instances and communities within the Fediverse. It limits collaboration and customization, threatening the very decentralization that is at the centre of the path.
* Scale of Branding: Branding is used at different scales within the Fediverse, from single instances to suppliers of federated services. While branding can facilitate onboarding and accessibility, it may also pose a threat to decentralization if single entities gain dominating influence over the network.
* Balancing Accessibility and Freedom: Visual identities play a crucial role in guiding new people to the Fediverse and communicating its values. However, a strong branding presence may restrict the freedom of expression of instances and communities. It’s important to balance accessibility and freedom when designing branding solutions.
* Community Acceptance: New branding solutions should be organically accepted by the majority of communities within the Fediverse. The current logos are tolerated because they communicate an idea without imposing a single identity or viewpoint. New branding should aim to achieve the same balance to build “native” community acceptance.
The #fediverse, is “native” to the #openweb balancing accessibility with the preservation of diversity and expression. Branding solutions should be community-driven and strive to represent the #4opens collective identity and values of the network. We should be VERY questioning of ONLY strong code base branding as a path to grow this #4opens space.
Shaping technology to empower people and building to their needs is core to create an inclusive and democratic digital environment. We need technology that prioritizes people and customization first:
User-Centric Design: Technology should be designed with the people in mind, focusing on usability, accessibility, and flexibility. This means involving people in the design process and incorporating their feedback to create technology meets real needs, process and preferences.
Open Source and Open Standards: Embracing #4opens principles promotes transparency, interoperability, and people’s control. By making source code freely available and adhering to open standards, developers empower people to modify and customize the technology they are building according to wider social requirements.
Decentralization: Moving away from centralized platforms and embracing decentralized architectures fosters community and resilience in the digital ecosystem. Decentralized technologies empower people to have control over their digital lives and communities, stepping away from reliance on large corporations and promoting a more democratic online environment.
Education and Empowerment: Educating people about technology and creating tools and resources to shape and customize to their needs is essential. By fostering digital literacy, people can understand and thus take control of their digital experiences, to create a more informed and engaged user base.
Community Engagement: Engaging with communities and building collaboration and thus co-creation leads to the development of technology that reflects the diverse needs and perspectives of people. By building inclusive and participatory processes, developers can ensure that technology serves the interests of the community.
In the context of the #Fediverse and #openweb reboot, prioritizing these principles helps to steer the development of technology towards a more community-centric and empowering direction of real use. By stepping away from the #dotcons tech that pre-shapes people’s behaviour and embracing a more participatory and inclusive approach, we build a digital ecosystem that serves the needs of people.
The #OMN (Open Media Network) is composting in tech, it is a process of recycling and repurposing digital resources and technologies in a sustainable and environmentally conscious manner. As composting in agriculture involves breaking down organic matter into nutrient-rich soil, composting in tech involves reusing and repurposing digital assets and technologies to create new value and reduce waste.
* Reuse of Code: Instead of reinventing the wheel, developers should reuse existing code and software components to build new applications and platforms. This approach reduces duplication of effort and promotes community and efficiency in software development.
* Repurposing Digital Content: With media and content creation, composting in tech involves repurposing existing digital content (such as articles, videos, or podcasts) to create new linking content and derivative works. This practice helps extend the lifespan of digital assets and reduce the need for constant creation of “new” generic content.
* Open Source and Collaboration: Embracing #4opens principles and collaborative development models is a form of composting in tech. By sharing code, knowledge, and resources openly, developers collectively improve and build upon existing technologies, growing innovation and sustainability in the tech ecosystem.
* Circular Economy in Tech: Composting in tech aligns with the principles of a circular economy, where resources are used, reused, and recycled to minimize waste and maximize use. By applying this concept to digital technologies, #OMN promotes a sustainable approach to tech development and consumption.
“Composting in tech” reflects a mindset of sustainability, resourcefulness, and responsible stewardship of digital resources within the #openweb, it’s a path we need to take.
The mess we need to compost:
* Arrogance and Ignorance: In alternative and grassroots movements, there is a recurring problem where people displaying arrogance and ignorance. This hinders progress and collaboration within these movements. At a time when there’s a growing need for successful examples to inspire larger, more #mainstreaming alternative and progressive movements. Addressing these issues becomes important.
* Challenge of “Stupid” Individualism: #Stupidindividualism refers to the pervasive influence of individualistic thinking promoted by #neoliberal ideology. This mindset undermines collective action and makes it difficult to build alternative tech and social projects that prioritize community over individual gain.
* Vertical vs. Horizontal Structures: Hierarchical thinking (“vertical”) disrupts egalitarian structures (“horizontal”) within movements. This disruption contributes to a cycle of destruction and rebuilding, making it challenging to maintain momentum and achieve lasting change that is needed.
* Affective Direct Action: This type of activism emphasizes emotional engagement and personal connection to issues. This experience underscores the cyclical nature of social and political challenges and highlights the importance of addressing underlying issues for meaningful and lasting change.
* Capitalism as the Root Problem: The solution, involves stepping away from capitalist structures. This requires a combination of strategies, including non-violent resistance and, in some cases, revolutionary action.
Addressing the challenges faced by alternative and grassroots movements requires collective action, strategic thinking, and a rejection of individualistic and hierarchical ideologies. It involves creating spaces where collaboration and community-driven solutions can thrive, ultimately working federating these to works towards a more equitable society.
The term #openweb refers to an internet ecosystem characterized by decentralized, interoperable, and community-driven platforms and protocols. It emphasizes #4opens principles of openness, inclusivity, and user control over data and online experiences. The “openweb” contrasts with the #dotcons centralized and proprietary nature, the mainstream internet platforms, thus offering an alternative vision for the future of the internet, and the society this shapes.
Meanwhile, #Fediverse refers to a specific decentralized social networking ecosystem built on interoperable protocols (#ActivityPub), allowing people on different platforms to interact and share content seamlessly. It encompasses a variety of codebases such as #Mastodon, #PeerTube, and #Pixelfed, offering alternatives to centralized social media giants like #Twitter, #YouTube, and #Instagram.
#web1.5 is a more technical term used in geeky conversations, this can be useful as a buffer to the #ecryptionist mess that talks about #web3
Talking about the fediverse can be hard, for broader, #mainstreaming audiences, simply using #mastodon can be sufficient, as Mastodon is one of the most well-known platforms within the Fediverse. This term may resonate more with individuals who are less familiar with the technical nuances of decentralized web architectures but are interested in exploring alternative social media platforms.
The choice of terminology depends on the context and audience. Whether you’re engaging in technical discussions with the “tribe” or introducing newcomers to decentralized internet paths, using the appropriate term can help facilitate understanding and communication.
Tribalism can make this harder than it needs to be, “don’t be a prat” comes to mind.
We do need to look t things differently, for example the #darkweb is in our poisoned self that has fermented for the last 40 years. It’s the algorithms of manipulation, and the #geekproblem unthinking pushiness of this fermentation. The #dotcons are the shiny surfaces of this mess. And the #openweb the seedlings to grow community to step on the path away from this.
We have turned our backs on this metaphor the last few years, can we now turn back before we are consumed by the #dotcons the shiny surfaces of #mainstreaming mess
———————————————
let’s try, in the metaphorical landscape of the #openweb reboot, the concept of the #darkweb represents the darker aspects of our digital existence that emerged over the past four decades. It encompasses the algorithms of manipulation that fuel online platforms, the unthinking pushiness of the #geekproblem culture, and the shiny surfaces of centralized platforms (#dotcons) that dominate our online experiences.
The #darkweb symbolizes the poisoned self that has fermented within our digital spaces, perpetuating societal division, misinformation, and exploitation. It reflects the consequences of prioritizing profit and power over community and collective well-being.
In contrast, the #openweb represents a path towards renewal and regeneration. It embodies the seedlings of community and collaboration, offering an alternative vision for how we engage with technology and each other online. The #openweb encourages #4opens decentralization, transparency, and participatory governance, fostering a digital ecosystem that prioritizes the needs and interests of people.
In our #fedivers based #web1.5 reboot, there is #mainstreaming mess pushing, a collective turning away from the #openweb metaphor, as centralized platforms continue to exert their influence and dominance.
We are attracted to be consumed by the allure of shiny surfaces and instant gratification offered by #dotcons, we risk losing sight of the values and principles that underpin this #openweb path.
The challenge now is to rekindle our commitment to the #openweb and reclaim its promise of community, empowerment, and connection. It requires a collective effort to resist the pull of centralized platforms and reassert the importance of human community.
The #openweb reboot metaphor is a reminder of the ongoing struggle to shape the future of the internet in a way that aligns with our humanist values and aspirations. It calls upon us to confront the darkness of the #darkweb within ourselves and embrace the potential for renewal and transformation offered by the #openweb.
In the tapestry of human interaction, the worst threads of people and #society manifest as destructive feedback loops. Whether fuelled by greed, fear, or power dynamics, this cycle weaves our current culture of brokenness and decay.
To break from this destructive cycle, we need to embrace a paradigm shift, normalizing the best parts of people and society. By cultivating trust, hope, and collaboration, we create a fertile ground for growth and transformation.
At the heart of this shift lies the contrast between #capitalism and alternative paths like socialism and #anarchy. Capitalism, with its emphasis on greed and fear, thrives on control and power that perpetuate societal fractures. In contrast, at their best socialism and anarchy offer pathways rooted in trust and hope, to nurture the best aspects of human nature and society.
Capitalism’s foundation in the worst of human behaviour pushes inequality and division, thus stifling collective progress. In contrast, socialism and anarchy offer frameworks that prioritize equity, solidarity, and cooperation, providing fertile soil for societal flourishing.
As communerties wielding shovels of collective action, we have the power to compost the mess that withers our societies. By coming together to cultivate a #4opens culture of transparency, flows, and mutual aid, we can transform the landscape of human interaction with projects like the #OMN#OGB and #makeinghistory
This act of composting requires patience, dedication, and a willingness to confront the roots of systemic problems. It involves breaking down the “non-native” barriers that divide to nourishing the soil of our communities with the seeds of change.
In the face of adversity, let’s stand united in our commitment to composting the mess that is breaking us and our societies. Together, we can cultivate a future rooted in the best parts of humanity, where empathy, cooperation, and collective well-being build our path.
In the ongoing discourse surrounding #openweb and its relation to failing technologies like #web3 and #blockchain, a critical question emerges: why do we readily accept solutions without first defining the problem at hand?
“… it’s not secure, it’s not safe, it’s not reliable, it’s not trustworthy, it’s not even decentralized, it’s not anonymous, it’s helping destroy the planet. I haven’t found one positive use for blockchain. It has nothing that couldn’t be done better without it.”
—Bruce Schneier, *Bruce Schneier on the Crypto/Blockchain Disaster
The allure of decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs) and blockchain technology for the last ten years has overshadowed the necessity of understanding the fundamental issues within our communities. Instead of exploring how we want to govern, decide, and interact within our communities, we find ourselves seduced by the promises of #DAO pitches.
The core of the matter lies in the conflation of culture with technology. Every time a DAO or blockchain solution is proposed, the culture and organization of communities become intertwined with the #geekproblem tools being offered. This bundling tactic obscures the essence of the technology and stifles meaningful discourse. By presenting technology as a fait accompli, we are robbed of the opportunity to critically assess its implications.
In the realm of the #openweb, technology is envisioned as a manifestation of communal decisions and conscious choices. It is the crystallization of community values, traditions, and needs. Where blockchain and DAOs represent an antithesis to this vision. They dictate choices rather than empower communities to determine their own paths.
One of the most concerning aspects of blockchain technology is its enforced financialization within communities. The implementation of ledger systems and tokens mirrors the #dotcons capitalist market traditions, where wealth equates to power. In stark contrast to the principles of “native” gift economies and communalism, blockchain perpetuates a system where those with the most resources wield influence.
In this, even in #mainstreaming dialogue, these ten years of blinded move to blockchain threatens to undermine centuries of liberal evolution by replacing established legal systems with #web3 engineers acting as arbiters of justice. This shift from #mainstreaming transparent and “equitable” legal frameworks to opaque and centralized technological solutions is deeply troubling.
As proponents of #4opens ideals, we should question the last ten years narrative of blockchain’s and DAOs. We must resist the allure of #geekproblem technological solutions that obscure the essence of community governance and autonomy. Instead, let’s engage in meaningful dialogue, grounded in clear understanding of the problems we address and the values we hold to forge a “native” #openweb path.
We now face another wasted ten years of #AI hype with the same issues and agender. We have to stop feeding this mess.
Most people are parasites in our current #mainstreaming society, this is non-controversial view in the era of the #deathcult
Some examples:
Let’s look for a moment at our tech world, if we are generous 90% of people on the #openweb are parasites on this culture and tech space.
Maybe 9% are “native” but could do better, and the native 1% left are fractured. You can use a social tool like the #4opens to make this visible with little effort if you care.
This space is made of social tech, and at its core is #4opens culture, people and community.
If you are not generous, it’s more like 99% and fractions of the 1% left over. Let’s be truthful and try and bump this up to the generous view, please.
