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.

Composting the mess with the #OMN

The growth of technology has revolutionized the way we live, work, and communicate. However, as we dive deeper into the digital age, we are confronted with the alarming consequences of our reliance on these technologies. The links shed light on the issue of “digital” waste and its detrimental impact on the environment.

Gerry McGovern’s article “World Wide Waste” delves into the staggering amount of energy consumed by digital technologies, from data centres to our personal devices. He emphasizes the urgent need to address this issue and advocates for more sustainable practices. https://gerrymcgovern.com/world-wide-waste/

Similarly, the research conducted by Loughborough University’s Volume project highlights the environmental consequences of digital waste in terms of energy consumption and carbon emissions. The article underscores the importance of adopting eco-friendly approaches to digital design and usage. https://volume.lboro.ac.uk/digital-waste-polluting-the-planet/

Furthermore, the conversation around “dark data” and its contribution to environmental degradation further underscores the need for digital decarbonization. The Guardian’s report on the hidden costs of Ireland’s data centre boom shows the environmental toll of data storage and processing facilities, urging for greater accountability and regulation in the industry. https://theconversation.com/dark-data-is-killing-the-planet-we-need-digital-decarbonisation-190423

In response to these concerns, initiatives like Digital Decarb are a #NGO path to promote sustainable practices in the digital sphere, advocating for reduced energy consumption and carbon emissions. https://digitaldecarb.org/

Let’s look at a real alternative path

In contrast to the prevailing trend of digital overconsumption and waste, the #OMN (Open Media Networking) project presents a refreshing approach to digital technology. Unlike platforms driven by personalization and distraction, #OMN prioritizes community engagement and meaningful interaction. Its core mission revolves around building tools for communal use rather than individual gratification.

This ethos stands in contrast to the #mainstreaming of social tech, which at its core prioritizes personalization and profit over community well-being. By focusing on politics as inherently human rather than as a commodity, #OMN empowers people to reclaim control over their (digital) lives and take a path of genuine connections within their communities and wider society.

However, effectively communicating this message to #mainstreaming audiences is a challenge. The prevailing narrative around digital technology overlooks its environmental and social impact, instead emphasizing convenience and innovation. Breaking through this requires not just words, but tangible actions and demonstrations of the #OMN’s principles in practice.

In essence, #OMN, along with initiatives like #4opens and #OGB, serve as tools for social change, enabling communities to shape their digital environments according to “native” #openweb values and needs. Through collaborative efforts and grassroots activism, we can and need to challenge the status quo. Ultimately, the journey towards digital sustainability requires a collective commitment to reimagining the role of technology in our lives and prioritizing the well-being and communities above all else. The #OMN project invites people to join this endeavour, not just through words, but through meaningful action and collaboration. Together, we can harness the power of technology for the good.

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

Digital waste – shouting into the void

Interesting links on “digital” waste https://gerrymcgovern.com/world-wide-waste/
https://volume.lboro.ac.uk/digital-waste-polluting-the-planet/
https://theconversation.com/dark-data-is-killing-the-planet-we-need-digital-decarbonisation-190423
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/feb/15/power-grab-hidden-costs-of-ireland-datacentre-boom
https://digitaldecarb.org/

This is true. With the #OMN we are building tools for use, not for distraction, shouting into the void is not the project. Community, talking to community, is the core mission. The “personal” is not a part of our core project.

This is alien to #mainstreaming common sense in social tech. Politics as human not as other, we need the tools and the use to build the everyday of our lives #DIY

How to actually communicate this to the #mainstreaming is the challenge that is very hard to bridge. This is actually impossible, so agen our plan is to build it and communicate by doing, not by just talking.

We are looking for a crew to build and do,” talking” is the tool to create this crew #DIY it’s not the tool itself for change and challenge.

#OMN #4opens #OGB #makinghistory are shovels (tools) for social use.

Funding Application: Building the Open Media Network

Funding Application: Building the Open Media Network

Project Overview: The Open Media Network (#OMN) is an innovative project aiming to construct a trust-based, human-moderated, and decentralized database shared across multiple peers, encompassing both peer-to-peer (p2p) and server-based architecture. OMN is centred around the #4opens principles, emphasizing openness, transparency, collaboration, and decentralized control. The project’s primary focus in using technology to empower human networks and foster community-driven content curation and dissemination.

Key Functions: OMN boasts five primary functions:

Publish: Users can easily publish various types of content, including text, images, and links, to a stream of objects.
Subscribe: Users have the ability to subscribe to streams of objects from people, organizations, pages, groups, hashtags, and more, enabling custom content flows.
Moderate: The platform integrates moderation tools from the #Fediverse, allowing users to express their preferences (e.g., like/dislike) on streams or objects, as well as provide comments.
Rollback: Users, admins can remove untrusted historical content from their flow or instance database by publishing flow/source/tag, ensuring the integrity of the content.
Edit: Users have the flexibility to edit the metadata of objects and streams across various sites, instances, or apps where they have login credentials.

Project Scope: The back-end infrastructure of OMN serves as the foundation for constructing a #DIY, trust-based, grassroots semantic web. The technology, affectionately referred to as the #WitchesCauldron, is designed to facilitate decentralized publishing, content aggregation, curation, and distribution while prioritizing user trust and community building. The front-end applications of OMN are diverse and adaptable, ranging from regional/city/subject-based #indymedia sites to distributed archiving projects like #makeinghistory.

Funding Needs: To realize the vision of the Open Media Network, we require funding support to cover essential expenses such as:

Development: Hiring skilled developers to build and refine the back-end infrastructure and associated tools, ensuring robustness, stability, and interoperability.
Moderation Tools: Integrating advanced moderation tools from the Fediverse to enhance user experience and promote healthy content flows.
Community Engagement: Facilitating community outreach and engagement efforts to onboard users, gather feedback, and foster a vibrant and inclusive user community.
Infrastructure: Investing in server infrastructure and maintenance to support the decentralized nature of the OMN platform and ensure reliable performance as the project rolls out.
Documentation and Training: Creating comprehensive documentation and providing training resources to empower people to effectively navigate and utilize the OMN network.

Impact: By supporting the Open Media Network, funders will contribute to the development of a groundbreaking platform that empowers people to take control of their lives and digital experiences, participate in meaningful content creation and curation, and build vibrant and resilient grassroots communities. OMN aims to democratize access to information and facilitate decentralized communication, fostering a more #4opens, transparent, and equitable digital ecosystem.

Conclusion: The Open Media Network represents a real opportunity to revolutionize content distribution and community engagement in the digital age. With your support, we can bring this visionary project to life, empowering people and communities to reclaim power over their online experiences and build a more inclusive, democratic, and sustainable people based future. Join us in building the future of media and communication with the Open Media Network.

Thank you for considering our funding application.

Outreach text for the #4opens

The #4opens: For Progressive Society and Tech Change

The #4opens offers guiding principles for testing, evaluating, and promoting progressive social and tech projects. By adhering to these principles, people and communities prioritise paths of openness, collaboration, and the social good. The #4opens can be used to drive meaningful change:

Open Data

Open data is the foundation of transparency and accountability in technology and social initiatives. By making data freely accessible, shareable, and reusable by anyone, projects can, foster innovation and collaboration across sectors. Enable democratic decision-making by ensuring access to critical information. Promote public oversight of systems and institutions.

Examples: open data to track government spending and expose corruption. Monitoring environmental pollution to drive policy change. Analysing social trends to inform public planning and advocacy.

Open data provides the raw materials for progress by empowering communities to act on information.

Open Source

Open source software is the backbone of a healthy, collaborative tech ecosystem. By making source code accessible and encouraging collective development, open source, accelerates innovation by allowing anyone to improve or adapt tools. Reduces reliance on corporate monopolies and proprietary software. Empowers communities to build tools tailored to their needs.

Examples: Social platforms that challenge the dominance of tech giants, built with open source tools. Privacy-focused apps and decentralised networks. Grassroots initiatives creating bespoke solutions for their communities.

Open source means that technology can remain a public good, not a corporate commodity.

Open Standards

Open “industrial” standards are vital for ensuring interoperability and compatibility between diverse technologies. By avoiding vendor lock-in and embracing common protocols, projects can promote diversity and prevent monopolistic practices, enable seamless communication across systems.

Examples: Peer-to-peer networks built on open communication protocols. Decentralised social media platforms like those in the #Fediverse that follow open standards like #ActivityPub. Open file formats that ensure data longevity and accessibility.

Open standards create the technical foundation for decentralisation and collaboration.

Open Process

Open process refers to transparent and participatory decision-making that guides the development and governance of projects. By involving stakeholders at every stage, open processes, foster trust and accountability within communities, encourage collective ownership and investment in outcomes to take democratic paths based on consensus and inclusivity.

Examples: Community-led platforms addressing social justice issues. Open governance models that empower stakeholders to make key decisions. Participatory planning that prioritises collective well-being over individual profit.

Open processes ensure that projects align with the values of the communities they serve.

Advancing the #4opens is more than philosophy, it’s a practical roadmap for driving progressive social and technological change. To make the #4opens actionable, we develop tools for evaluation and accountability. Evaluating “Nativeness”, the #4opens serve as criteria to assess how well a project aligns with the principles of the openweb. Ratings and Badges based on adherence to the #4opens criteria, allowing projects to showcase their commitment to openness. Centralised Registries, public directories of #4opens-compliant projects to make it easy for people to discover and support them. These mechanisms make it clear which initiatives genuinely embrace openness and which, neeed to do better or fall short.

Conclusion, the #4opens isn’t just about technology; it’s about values. It’s a framework for the tools and systems we build to reflect our commitment to transparency, collaboration, and collective progress. By adopting the #4opens, we take a simple step toward creating a decentralised, open, and people-centred internet that empowers people.

Let’s build a grounded future.

The right-wing are taking the tools, traditions and the myths of the left wing

The phenomenon of the right-wing appropriating the tools, traditions, and mythos of the left wing is a complex and multifaceted issue. This strategic attempt by conservative forces to reshape the political and cultural landscape by co-opting symbols, narratives, and strategies traditionally associated with progressive movements. It poses a significant challenge for the left, as it risks diluting the effectiveness of progressive ideas and undermining efforts to achieve social and political change.

To effectively mediate this repurposing and ensure a better-balanced outcome, the left must engage in strategic and proactive measures. Here are some tools and approaches to considered:

Reclaiming Narratives: The left must actively reclaim and assert control over its narratives, symbols, and values. This involves articulating a clear and compelling vision for social justice, equality, and solidarity, and consistently communicating it through various channels, including media, art, and grassroots organizing.
Counter-Messaging: In response to the right-wing’s appropriation of progressive rhetoric, the left should develop counter-messaging strategies that expose the contradictions and falsehoods inherent in conservative narratives. This will involve fact-checking, debunking misinformation, and highlighting the real-world consequences of right-wing policies and agendas.
Cultural Production: The left can leverage the power of cultural production—such as music, film, literature, and visual art—to promote progressive values and inspire social change. By creating and amplifying cultural works that reflect the diversity, resilience, and aspirations of communities, the left can challenge the hegemony of right-wing cultural narratives.
Community Organizing: Grassroots community organizing remains a potent tool for social and political transformation. The left should prioritize building strong, inclusive, and resilient communities that are capable of mobilizing for collective change and challenge. This involves fostering solidarity, building alliances across diverse constituencies, and empowering left voices.
Policy Advocacy: The left must continue to advocate for progressive policies and reforms that address systemic inequalities and promote social justice. This includes campaigning for issues such as economic redistribution, healthcare access, environmental protection, racial justice, and LGBTQ+ issues. By advancing concrete policy solutions, the left demonstrates its commitment to improving the material conditions of real world communities.
Critical Engagement: Finally, the left should engage in critical dialogue and reflection on its own internal dynamics, strategies, and blind spots. This involves interrogating power relations within progressive movements, addressing issues of privilege and exclusion, and fostering a #4opens culture of accountability and self-critique. By continuously evolving and adapting to changing political realities, the left can remain relevant and resilient in the face of right-wing co-optation.

In conclusion, navigating the challenges posed by right-wing appropriation requires a proactive approach that combines strategic communication, cultural production, community organizing, policy advocacy, and critical engagement. By reclaiming its narratives, values, and agency, the left can effectively mediate the repurposing of its tools and traditions, ultimately contributing to the change we need in the era of #climatechaos and worship of the #deathcult of the right.

Funding Application: MakingHistory – Archiving the Open Media Network

Project Overview: MakingHistory is an initiative within the Open Media Network (#OMN) aimed at preserving and archiving digital content shared across the network. It operates on the same principles and workflow as the renowned Indymedia project but utilizes a different template to organize and categorize content. The primary objective of MakingHistory is to ensure that valuable digital content shared within the OMN ecosystem (and wider #openweb) is preserved for posterity, fostering transparency, accountability, and the democratization of information.

Project Objectives:

Develop and implement a tagging function within the OMN platform to facilitate the archiving process.
Establish archiving nodes within the OMN network to serve as repositories for tagged content.
Enable users to choose specific hashtags for archiving, providing a customizable and decentralized approach to content preservation.
Provide users with a “lossy” view of archived content across the network, allowing them to prioritize which content to focus on archiving.
Foster collaboration with institutions such as libraries, archive.org, and universities to ensure the long-term preservation of archived content in structured formats.
Maintain adherence to the principles of the #4opens, ensuring that all archived content remains openly accessible and transparent.

Project Benefits:

Preservation of Digital Heritage: MakingHistory ensures that valuable digital content shared within the OMN ecosystem is preserved for future generations, safeguarding our collective digital heritage.
Democratization of Information: By enabling users to archive content based on their interests and priorities, MakingHistory fosters a decentralized approach to information preservation, democratizing access to knowledge.
Transparency and Accountability: MakingHistory promotes transparency and accountability by archiving content in an open and accessible manner, allowing for greater scrutiny and oversight.
Collaboration and Engagement: MakingHistory encourages collaboration with institutions and individuals interested in preserving digital content, fostering a sense of community and engagement within the OMN network.
Scalability and Sustainability: The federated nature of MakingHistory allows for scalability and sustainability, as anyone can run an archiving node within the OMN network, ensuring redundancy and resilience.

Budget Breakdown:

Development of Tagging Function: $10,000
Establishment of Archiving Nodes: $15,000
Outreach and Collaboration: $5,000
Maintenance and Support: $7,000
Contingency: $3,000

Total Budget: $40,000

Timeline:

Development and Implementation of Tagging Function: 3 months
Establishment of Archiving Nodes: 6 months
Outreach and Collaboration: Ongoing
Maintenance and Support: Ongoing

Conclusion: MakingHistory is a critical initiative within the Open Media Network, dedicated to preserving and archiving digital content in a decentralized and transparent manner. With your support, we can ensure that valuable digital content is safeguarded for future generations, fostering transparency, accountability, and the democratization of information. Together, let’s make history by preserving our digital heritage for generations to come. Thank you for considering our funding application.

Rebooting Indymedia: Restoring the OpenWeb and Grassroots Technology

Hamish Campbell, looking at the past and future of “native” grassroots media.

In the last three decades, the digital landscape has undergone dramatic changes. I have witnessed its evolution firsthand, working in radical media and engaging with grassroots technology. But this journey hasn’t been without its challenges and setbacks.

The Dawn of the OpenWeb

The early years of the #openweb were a golden age. It was a time when the power of connectivity and innovation was shared and wielded by people rather than confined to corporate silos. This openweb we cherished was built at a human scale, with real conversations and decisions made not by algorithms or profit-driven entities, but by human beings with a vision for a decentralized and inclusive digital space.

However, those pioneering days of the openweb seem distant now. The landscape rapidly shifted, favoring echo chambers over open forums, transforming the dream of a participatory digital spaces into commercialized pockets designed to commodify our data and society

The Rise and Fall of .Coms

The term #dotcons, inspired by the .com boom, exposes the underlying deceit in this new era of the internet. Companies emerged with the aim of capitalizing on our online presence, turning every click and keystroke into a financial opportunity. Social media platforms like #Facebook—aptly dubbed #Failbook and others have become disasters for both our personal mental health and societal construct.

The Encryptionist Agenda

In response to the corporatization of the web, alternative technology, especially within radical grassroots movements, began to focus heavily on encryption. Yet this #encryptionist agenda, instead of fostering a true alternative, led us to a dead end. #Indymedia, which once stood as a beacon of open, participatory journalism, eventually succumbed to this closed technology approach.

The Plight of Progressive Technology

#Fashionista politics—those which blindly follow trends without questioning the underlying systems—have dominated the progressive tech landscape, often embracing the very platforms that stand contrary to open standards. The ideals that spurred movements and created spaces for change have been eroded, leaving us in a technological quagmire that stifles creativity and real progress.

Rebuilding from the Roots

Despite these challenges, hope remains for a resurgence of grassroots media. By revisiting the core principles that made #Indymedia a force in its early days, we can steer the movement back on course.

A Simple Federated Network

I consider Oxford IMC, which I co-founded, as a blueprint for this revival. Through a network of trust-based content sharing, we can create a federated model that allows information to flow freely yet responsibly.

Think of it as a series of nodes: activist news websites, Mastodon instances, peertube channels, and local blogs, all interlinked by trust and moderated collaboration, governed by a simple yet effective set of controls—including link subscribe, moderate/trusted flow, and rollback functions to maintain the integrity of our content.

Trust First, Moderate Later

By focusing on trust-first networking, where content flows are based on established relationships, we not only streamline communication but also protect against the pitfalls of a closed, controlled web. This approach allows for open, decentralized storytelling, with an organic curation system that respects the diversity and autonomy of each node.

Reclaiming and Reshaping Security

Recognizing the need for secure communication without sacrificing openness, the reboot incorporates both bridges to other #4opens network publishing and guidelines for pseudo-anonymous contributions through Tor.

These measures provide a balanced approach, enabling activists to share their stories without fear of repercussion while maintaining a spirit of openness and community-driven journalism.

Foundations of the Reboot

Central to this reboot are the #PGA hallmarks and the #4opens—open data, open source, open standards, and open process. This framework, informed by the lessons from #Indymedia’s past, will ensure that we do not repeat the same mistakes.

Moreover, by adopting federated databases and leveraging tags and flows of news objects, this network will function as a vibrant, resilient web of news, accessible at different levels and capable of adapting to the ever-changing demands of radical grassroots journalism.

Be Part of the Open Media Reboot

I invite you to join us as we embark on this journey to reclaim our digital commons. If you share the vision for an open, grassroots-powered web, visit http://unite.openworlds.info and contribute your expertise. With a commitment to the #4opens and a collaborative spirit, we can usher in a new era of the fediverse centered on truth, empowerment, and community.

This is more than a project—it’s a movement. Let’s create a network that stands as a testament to our collective power, one that honors our past achievements while forging a future that lives up to our highest aspirations. Let’s make history, again.

The open web is not just a concept; it’s our birthright. Together, let’s bring it back to life.

This blog post is a call to action. It’s a bid to revive the original spirit of #Indymedia and extend a hand to those willing to contribute to the future of open, grassroots media.

# Introduction
– Hamish Campbell’s background in grassroots and radical media
– The open web’s early potential for alternative media

# The Failure of Alternative Media
– Rise of big tech like Facebook led to closed and monopolized systems
– Encryptionist agenda went nowhere over the past decade
– Climate crisis shows need for societal alternatives

# The Open Media Network
– Explaining the decentralized federated network model
– Trusted flows of content based on open standards

# Rebooting Indymedia
– Rebuilding the local community news site with focus areas
– Approaches for enabling secure anonymous publishing

# Why Indymedia Failed
– Early successes but internal disputes over openness
– Problems with incompatible customized systems
– Control desires led to user-hostile encryption

# Lessons Learned
– Open standards critical for networks
– Loose flexible processes over rigid bureaucracy
– Explicitly embedding the “four opens” philosophy

# Project Overview
– Building a web of trusted news flows
– Agnostic decentralized network via protocols like ActivityPub
– Get involved to help create alternative media

A Old Video

Who is the change and challenge we need?

#Deathcult dilemma, over the past 40 years, #mainstreaming society has been driven by a choice between the “nice” and “nasty” facets of a #deathcult, with fear often pushing people towards the latter. This has led to catastrophic consequences, over the next ten years millions of deaths and billions of people displaced. With our society’s focus narrowed to daily worship of the #deathcult or the so-called “nasty progressive” secret worshippers. This duality has trapped us in a cycle of destructive choices, undermining genuine progress and sustainable paths.

Grassroots Solutions, we need to compost this mess, transforming it into fertile ground for sustainable alternatives. Two key tools for this transformation are fluffy and spiky, this post is about the first, we have #4opens in tech and #XR (Extinction Rebellion) in society.

The #4opens: A Shovel for Tech, the principles can act as a shovel to break through the tech-related obstacles: Open Source: Ensure all software used and developed is open source, promoting transparency and collaboration. Open Data: Make all data openly accessible to foster accountability and shared knowledge. Open Standards: Adhere to open standards to ensure interoperability and inclusivity. Open Processes: Implement open processes to enable community participation and democratic decision-making.

A #fluffy path in Society, Extinction Rebellion provide a simple and actionable path for societal change: Non-Violent Direct Action: Use peaceful civil disobedience to draw attention to climate crises and force governmental action. Mobilizing Communities: Engage and organize local communities to participate in climate action, building a broad-based movement. Demanding Systemic Change: Advocate for systemic changes that address the root causes of climate chaos, including economic and political reforms. Promoting Sustainability: Foster a culture of sustainability and resilience in everyday life, encouraging practices that reduce ecological impact.

These give space for a simple “fluffy” call to action. You’re taking these paths as part of the grassroots movement, are crucial in this transformation. You can contribute: Educate and Advocate: Spread awareness about the #4opens and the principles of Extinction Rebellion. Host workshops, create educational content, and engage in public speaking. Participate and Organize: Join or form local XR groups, participate in actions, and organize community events. Use the #4opens to develop and support open, collaborative tech projects. Collaborate and Network: Build networks with other grassroots organizations, tech activists, and climate action groups. Share resources, knowledge, and strategies. Innovate and Implement: Develop innovative solutions based on the #4opens and implement them in real-world #OMN projects. Pilot sustainable practices and technologies within your community.

In conclusion, the chose between the nice and nasty facets of the #deathcult has led us to the brink of disaster. However, by adopting and promoting the #4opens in tech and the #fluffy path of Extinction Rebellion in society, we can compost this mess and pave a different path for a more sustainable, just, and resilient future. Your #DIY effect is the key to making this happen.

Now we also need to look at the “spiky” path, very different but likely still needed.

In the era of #climatechaos of the last 40 years #mainstreaming we have had a choice of the nice or nasty #deathcult most people in fear have chosen the nasty, we are going to pay the price for this choice over the next 20 years, With millions of deaths and billions of people displaced.

This mess we have made has narrowed our daily worship to actually the #deathcult or nasty “progressive” secrets worshippers.

In the grassroots we need to compost this mess #4opens is a shovel for this in tech, #XR an easy pail path in society. You are the only people who can or will do this.

Navigating Grassroots Evolution in Tech Communities: Challenges and Paths

The landscape of technological evolution often traverses a spectrum between grassroots innovation and mainstream integration. Within this spectrum walks #Socialhub, a space that was born as a grassroots alternative—a bastion of the activertypub reboot’s integrity within its “native” framework. This trajectory from its inception in #activertypub is a distinctive approach in the technological path.

The emergence of the #openweb reboot unfolded serendipitously during the #WC3 proceedings. In an atypical scenario where mainstream stakeholders were absent, the reins of definition were firmly grasped by an alternative cohort, paving an advantageous, albeit less conventional, path for the #openweb community’s progression.

Initially, Socialhub thrived as a nurturing ground for a vibrant community, exemplified by the impactful outreach endeavors to the EU within the Fediverse. However, recent years have introduced complexities. The influx of people lacking a ‘native’ #openweb perspective has precipitated a divergence from the community’s original focus, largely due to the significant influence of Twitter immigrants and Fediverse expansion. This shift presents both challenges and opportunities, marking a departure from the initial vision towards a less intricate and diverse community.

Notably, a pronounced shift towards the technical aspects has eclipsed the attention to its social dimensions, critical for a functional alt, with a reduction in the core social-oriented crew and an influx of technically inclined new members. This transition mirrors the WC3 process reboot, necessitating a delicate, respectful balance of responsibilities between the two facets.

The delineation between a community-driven space and a platform steered by a specific technical viewpoint and agenda has become increasingly visible. This deviation from the original ethos poses challenges, signalling a transition from happenstance to intentionality, necessitating a more democratic approach to reconcile these shifts.

Grassroots initiatives inherently embody a level of messiness that distinguishes their authenticity. Constructive feedback and improvement strategies are pivotal in the “native” FEP process, while the underlying ideas in this are commendable, the outcomes remain questionable, requiring refinement in the process. Volatile yet essential debates to fortify the FEP’s legitimacy, particularly in the unspoken political sphere. Proposals for procedural enhancements aimed at bolstering legitimacy within the FEP necessitate a non-technical, social explanation of proposed changes and their wider implications.

The absence of broader social context and buy-in inhibits legitimacy, necessitating a proactive approach by the community to elucidate and democratize these processes. Currently entrenched as ‘black boxes’, both the FEP and the W3C demand transparency and community involvement to garner support and avoid being ignored sidelined by #mainstreaming dev.

Without proactive measures rooted in activism and learning from historical effective activism, this cycle of ignorance towards these processes will persist. Therein lies the importance of integrating wider social buy-in, understanding the social implications of technical changes, and engaging in transparent, #4opens processes—key tenets for the evolution and legitimacy of tech communities like Socialhub in the digital age.

To note for people who are not familer with this way of looking at the world, the ansear to the question is always more alt grassroots vs less mainstreaming, of course this is always a balance so best not to get into a #ragecircle on this mess making.

#Socialhub originated as a grassroots alternative space specifically designed to maintain the integrity of the activertypub reboot within its inherent framework. Initially stemming from #activertypub itself, the forum embarked on this trajectory. The emergence of the current #openweb reboot was more serendipitous than deliberate. Amidst the #WC3 proceedings, the absence of the typical mainstream participants allowed our alternative cohort to drive and solidify the definition through this “native” #4opens technological pathway an uncommon yet advantageous route for our community to follow.

Socialhub fostered a genuine and thriving community. The pinnacle of this community’s strength was witnessed during the outreach efforts to the EU within the Fediverse. However, recent years have brought challenges; the influx of individuals without a “native” #openweb view has led to a divergence from the spaces initial focus, primarily due to the significant impact of Twitter immigrants and the expansion of the Fediverse. This is good and bad, we have moved a long way from where we started, and have to make the best of this more messy community.

Over the last year we have had a (strong dogmatic) shift to the tech side of activertypub working and away from the social side that is needed for making a working #openweb reboot. In the forum we have had a reduction of the core crew, and an influx of the tech focused new members, this is likely a mirror in the expansion and the rebooting of the WC3 process and the two have a balancing act of responsibility.

“To use the forum, you must agree to these terms with Petites Singularités, the company that runs the forum.” This has become more visible and the owner has a point of view and agenda, this is actually not a space for/by “community” in the sense it was originally sold… shifting from “serendipitous to deliberate” the solution to this shift/issue is likely not easy and involves democracy in some form.

Grassroots are always messy, that’s how you can judge if It’s grassroots or NOT 🙂

Let’s try some constructive comments on this to improve the fep process.

What we have here is a classic activism 3 steps forward 3 steps back process, this is a recurring issue.

The ideas behind this are good, the outcome is questionable, and the process still needs work.

There is a current undeclared fight in the FEP → W3C email list, that is likely unresolvable which is a fine example of the fluffy spiky debate, the only good outcome from my prospective and likely socialhub is making the fep more Legitimacy (political) this is a post with ideas for process to help that happen.

To be a valid fep they should have a non-technical (social) explanation on why it’s needed and what are the social implications of this purely technical change.

As we are NOT only talking about technical points here, most are based on social ideas and have social outcomes for social networking. We need this wider buy in to make this process legitimate.

This process is simple and can be started by the original poster, then carried on by the wider community to build buy in and legitimacy.

Currently, both the fep and the W3C are too many black boxes to have any path to build buy in, thus are being ignored defacto.

This will likely continue without some basic activism as outlined above, the is much to learn from this long history of affective activism.

Can This Platform Survive? Governance Challenges

A paper on the Fediverse by Thomas Struett, American University – School of Communication, Aram Sinnreich, American University – School of Communication, Patricia Aufderheide, American University – School of Communication, Rob Gehl, York University.

Interesting #mainstreaming look, that bypasses the grassroots it’s actually talking about, this is a common issue with academic writing, am at Oxford this winter so have everyday “organic” expirence of this.

For governance, we have a widely discussed project on this forum that is “native” to address all the issues outline in the article Open-Media-Network/openwebgovernancebody: ON STANDBY due to waiting for funding – (OGB) This is a space for working through Governance of horizontal projects – using #KISS online tools. – openwebgovernancebody – Open Media Network 4

Then for fighting the capture we have an “organic” path the #4opens if used is a strong defence Home – 4opens – Open Media Network

So to sum up, what we need is for “us” the collective to get up from our knees and become the change we would like to see. This is actually not a hard thing to do “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed, citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.”

Let’s look at this PDF:

This thread and our failing in general in “governance” is to do with the fluffy and spiky debate, or much more obviously the failing of this debate to actually be held in place.

“Potential benefits of the fediverse are at risk of being subverted, either by commercial
competitors or through structural dysfunction.”

Dealing with both commercial and structural dysfunction here.

Commercial – funding has shifted from distributed to centralized over the last few years, this is driving core dysfunctions – interesting and useful subject to discus.

Structural – we have not moved anywhere towards “native” governance approaches, this is building crises Legitimacy (political) – Wikipedia

“hold promise as human-scale, democratically-run platforms for civil discourse within and between these groups of users.”

We aspire to this, but with no democracy in any formal or informal sense. And secondly we lack “groups of users” as the coding being copies of #dotcons are strongly “individualized” which pushed our #mainstreaming “common sense” over this openweb “native” space.

“challenges inherent to distributed governance, commercial platform capture, inclusive
access, moderation at scale, reputational assaults by commercial competitors, and the tacitly
neoliberal techno-Romanticism familiar from previous digital innovations. ”

The is a long working (activist) history of mediating these problems that we are ignoring here. A first step to addressing this is the fluffy spiky debate being held in place #KISS

“Developers, entrepreneurs, institutions, and users of these technologies
must also work collectively and proactively to help the fediverse avoid these historical threats
and maximize its civic potential.”

This is the bit we need to talk more about, as it’s key to not fucking up agen.

“However, the fediverse is more than a technical system; it is also a political structure (Mansoux
& Roscam Abbing, 2020). ”

On this currently, we are seeing Legitimacy (political) – Wikipedia failing.

“the structure of platform governance and moderation is both reflective of and integral to the
functioning of democratic processes in digital networks, and much of the proverbial “devil in the
details” comes down to arcane and obscure questions about transparency, control, and
information flow at any given chokepoint or sociotechnical layer.”

This is why link to the #4opens, and it’s use to judge if a project or group are “native” or not – to make transparent in groups and most impotently OUT-GROUPS. A technical/social membrane, as this quote say “devil in the details”

“1. Distributed governance failures
Previous decentralized social platforms have sometimes failed to deliver on their civic potential
because of challenges emerging from the governance process: the norms, institutions, and
technologies that determine who gets to say what to whom, under which circumstances,”

This is the subject of responses to this thried, illustrating the issues, so think of it as the spiky in the fluffy spiky debate. Notice, we are currently failing to hold this debate in place.

“it introduces other risks that must be addressed and mitigated, including new threats such as accountability and liability crises, forking… Corporate actors may also exploit these challenges, by posing themselves as solutions to distributed governance frictions (Marshall, 2006).”

This is likely in part one of the underling issues we are not talking about here.

“Examples of distributed platforms falling prey to these governance challenges in the past are
legion”

We have much to learn and address on this, I talk about this a lot as it’s a key subject we need to move away from “common sense” approaches. Yes this is seen as spiky, but it’s needed, let’s hold this debate open please.

“Not all platform governance is alike. Though corporate platforms emulate traditional media
structures by centralizing power (Napoli & Caplan, 2017), the fediverse has a more distributed
governance structure. This decentralization is not just an aspect of the underlying software but also a core tenet of the governance philosophy of the fediverse itself.”

This is a subject I talk about a lot and have been working on for the last few years with the ogb as a “native” approache. In general, these “native” approaches are still being #blocked by #mainstreaming “common sense” approaches. This needs to change if the openweb reboot is not to wither and die.

“Benjamin Mako Hill (2018) describes this corporate capture of OSS projects as “strategic closedness.””

This is in easy view with a lot of our tech and fashionable crew pushing #closedweb ideas as “common sense” verse “native” openweb approaches. This is a problem with no obverse solutions, the #4opens project is one way to mediate this insolvable/unspoken issue that is everywhere in our dev crew.

“2. Commercial capture
Another challenge that has undermined the health and strength of previous decentralized or
open platforms is commercial capture. Proprietary, value-added features that enhance the user
experience are used to bring more users onto the platform, ”

We currently have few tools to push this back, our strongest tool is likely our “culture” but this itself is fractured, full of infighting and unspoken. Speaking this out load while creating tension is likely nessersery for any good outcome. Hiding from this is #fail

“This means that only a continuing commitment to interoperability by developers, and not merely the existence of an open technological standard, can ensure an open ecosystem within the fediverse.”

It’s social/political NOT a technical problem, so our current fixation on ONLY tech and avoidance of the social/political is a easy to see and act on #fail

“Eternal September is not that new users simply need to be taught the social norms of the space they are joining, but that norms policing is a form of gatekeeping that can exclude new and more diverse users from joining.”

This is both true and a #fashernista problem, we need a better path, this should be easy, it’s not.

“it is important to critique calls for technological approaches to user-friendliness, which are often couched in rhetoric of democratization of technology, while simultaneously undermining decentralized
power relations… making the platform easier to join and use,
while also limiting users’ agency to make choices about the underlying infrastructure that will
best foster their communities”

We are going to see this from every side for and agenst, we need a balances’ path through this mess, we are not currently talking about this path, we need to.

“the fediverse currently relies on the goodwill of countless volunteer moderators and self-funded instances, this goodwill can’t last indefinitely, and a workable approach to funding and compensation has yet to emerge.”

This one is a can of worms, the current “best” solution is to keep instances small and voluntary run, our ongoing disagreements on this path is likely to continue to do damage… one path out of this is legitimate “governance”.

“The reputational anti-halo is already cropping up in discourse about the fediverse and Mastodon, which have been tainted by their uses among the “alt-right” (Makuch, 2019) and for child abuse (Thiel & DiResta, 2023).”

This comes down to voice and power, as “libertarian cats” we have little of either… it’s a bad path to stay on, what path would be better and more “native” is a good question to talk about.

“techno-Romanticism works to obscure the labor, networks, and institutions that are key to supporting technological development while elevating the simplistic view of the great men of history… the fediverse is particularly vulnerable to techno-Romanticism”

This is an endemic issue, and most people are chasing the tech equivalent of the American dream that they will become the top dev… this is not a native approach to the openweb, but it’s currently a dominating view. This is mess making.

“Technical language and the assumption of baseline technical expertise may also present unintended obstacles to adoption. Conversely, the fediverse also faces the threat that the rhetoric of “user friendliness” will justify the curtailing of user agency, or re-centralization of the network… messy, and continuous practice of maintaining a healthy and inclusive space for civic discourse…

Techno-Romantism’s utopian discourse poses a threat to the fediverse because it distracts from the importance of social action in the development of technology… discussion about how to
identify them and limit their impact, is a critical step toward reaching those civic and
technosocial goals together.”

In conclusion, the roadmap for the fediverse’s future must transcend the confines of technicality and delve deep into the socio-political fabric. Holding the fluffy-spiky debate firm, nurturing ‘native’ approaches, mitigating commercial capture, addressing governance challenges, and fostering a culture of inclusivity and sustainability—these constitute the keystones for nurturing the true potential of the fediverse.