Tag: 4opens

Time to Ground Public Funding: Why We Should Invest in Energy, Not Billionaire Space Races

In the last year, the typical taxpayer spent more on #SpaceX — a company owned by one of the richest men in history — than on programs for energy efficiency and renewable energy. It’s time to reverse this. The way governments allocate public funds says everything about their priorities — and right now, those priorities are dangerously skewed.

Let’s look at the subsidies with SpaceX vs. Renewable Energy: A distorted allocation of public wealth. SpaceX, owned by Elon Musk, one of the wealthiest people ever to live, has received billions in public funding. While innovation in space technology might be exciting, it’s worth asking: Why are taxpayers subsidizing a billionaire’s rocket dreams while the planet burns?

Meanwhile, energy efficiency and renewable energy programs, critical for addressing the climate emergency, are underfunded and deprioritized. These programs offer immediate, tangible benefits for emissions reduction, energy security, and public health, yet they receive a fraction of the financial support funnelled into private space ventures.

Wealth disparity & public investment is now about funding the nasty few while communities struggle. The fact that public funds prop up Musk’s space empire reflects a deep structural rot: wealth inequality baked into public policy. Why should a man with more wealth than some nations receive massive state support while local renewable projects, energy transition initiatives, and community-based sustainability efforts scramble for scraps? Public money should serve the public good, not inflate the wealth of billionaires chasing sci-fi fantasies while entire regions face climate-driven collapse.

Energy transition, is a basic funding shift for survival. Redirecting funding from private space exploration to energy efficiency and renewable energy is a moral and practical necessity. The #climatecrisis is here and accelerating, and every dollar spent propping up a vanity space race is a dollar stolen from the fight for a liveable planet. Investing in solar, wind, community microgrids, and conservation programs. Lower emissions to build resilient local economies, reduced energy poverty by job creation in sustainable industries. The payoff is immediate and lasting. A rocket launch might inspire wonder for a day, but a robust renewable grid can sustain generations.

Government spending & climate accountability, this is a political choice, not an inevitability. Governments choose to fund SpaceX over solar panels, rockets over wind farms, the nasty few over marginalized communities. To balance this mess, we need to demand better transparency in public funding decisions, people-first policy prioritizing climate justice, accountability for politicians who choose corporate welfare over planetary survival.

The path forward is in reclaiming public funds for public good. We don’t need more billionaire space escapism, we urgently need a grounded, radical shift in spending that reflects the urgent needs of humanity and the planet. That means, massive public investment in renewable infrastructure, decentralized energy solutions owned by communities, not corporations, research and development in climate tech, not just space tech, global cooperation on sustainability, not competition for interplanetary dominance.

The future isn’t in the stars, it’s right here, on Earth. And if we don’t fight for it, no amount of rocket launches will save us. Let’s defund billionaire fantasies and invest in life. #KISS a liveable planet is worth infinitely more than footprints on Mars.

#OMN #climatechaos #deathcult #NothingNew #EnergyTransition #PublicFunding #TaxTheRich

#Fediverse how can we do better

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

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

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

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

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

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

humm needs more… what do you think?

Current messy thinking

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

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

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

Who is making the shovel #OMN

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

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

To escape our silo thinking

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

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

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

We face a digital cliff the open internet may be over

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

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

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

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

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

#KISS

Building trust in the #openweb

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Criticism of Post-modernism and Neo-liberalism

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

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

indymedia back

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

Historical Significance:

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

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

Counterbalance to Mainstream Media:

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

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

Grassroots Activism:

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

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

Media Democracy and Freedom of Expression:

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

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

Resistance to Corporate Control and Surveillance:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The development of ActivityPub was a collaborative effort

The history of #ActivityPub and the #fediverse is a journey marked by innovation, collaboration, and the ever-present struggle between open and closed systems. To understand this history, lets delve into the origins of ActivityPub and its evolution within the context of the broader #openweb movement.

ActivityPub emerged as a response to the limitations of existing social media protocols, particularly OStatus, which lacked support for privacy and limited conversations. While OStatus paved the way for decentralized social networking, its shortcomings spurred the development of more robust and flexible alternatives.

The early drafts of ActivityPub, originally known as ActivityPump, laid the groundwork for a protocol that could support a wide range of social interactions while maintaining interoperability between different platforms. ActivityPump utilized JSON as a serialization format, making it easier to work with compared to the XML-based OStatus.

The shift from ActivityStreams 1.0 to ActivityPump was driven by the need for a more modern and developer-friendly protocol. ActivityPump incorporated elements of ActivityStreams 2.0 and introduced the concept of server-to-server communication, paving the way for federation across different instances.

The development of ActivityPub was a collaborative effort involving various stakeholders within the openweb community. While some early implementations, such as GNU-social and Pump.io, served as predecessors to ActivityPub, it was Mastodon that played a pivotal role in popularizing the protocol.

Mastodon’s decision to adopt ActivityPub as its primary communication protocol marked a significant milestone in the history of the #Fediverse. As Mastodon gained traction and attracted a growing user base, other platforms followed suit, further solidifying ActivityPub as the de facto standard for decentralized social networking.

However, the journey of ActivityPub and the #Fediverse has not been without challenges. The rise of proprietary interests and the temptation to centralize control pose ongoing threats to the open and decentralized nature of the platform. As the Fediverse grows, it becomes increasingly susceptible to commercial capture and manipulation.

Moreover, the complexity of implementing ActivityPub, particularly concerning signatures and authentication, has led to compatibility issues and interoperability challenges. While efforts have been made to address these issues, they remain a point of contention within the community.

Despite these challenges, the Fediverse remains a testament to the power of grassroots innovation and collective action. It embodies the principles of openness, decentralization, and user empowerment that have long been cherished by advocates of the #openweb.

Looking ahead, the future of ActivityPub and the Fediverse depends on our ability to navigate the changing landscape of technology, politics, and society. By remaining strongly focused against commercial interests, fostering collaboration, and prioritizing people and community, we can keep in view that the promise of the Fediverse.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some aspects of the geekproblem

The #geekproblem refers to the challenges and limitations that arise from the dominance of a particular “problem” geek culture within the technology industry and #FOSS movements. This culture is characterized by a strong emphasis on technical expertise, at the expense of social, ethical, and democratic considerations. The geek culture prioritize technical solutions and innovations over social implications, which leads to problems in the development and deployment of #openweb technology.

Here are some aspects of this geekproblem:

  1. Technical Bias: Geek “problem” culture tends to favour technical solutions to problems without considering the broader social context or implications. This results in the development of technologies that are inhuman, inaccessible, exclusionary, and often harmful.
  2. Meritocracy: Geek”problem” culture often operates on the principle of meritocracy, where individuals are valued based on their technical skills and knowledge. This leads to the ignoring of voices and perspectives from non-technical backgrounds, contributing to a lack of diversity and inclusivity and functionality in #FOSS projects.
  3. Lack of Empathy: The geek “problem” culture’s focus on technical excellence leads to a lack of empathy for users who are not as technically proficient. This results in user interfaces and experiences that are difficult to understand or navigate for non-technical people, further exacerbating digital divides and inequalities and use of #FOSS code.
  4. Resistance to Change: Geek “problem” culture can be resistant to change, particularly when it comes to questioning established technical norms or practices. This resistance can hinder progress in addressing social, ethical, and environmental challenges that require broader systemic changes beyond technical solutions.
  5. Power Dynamics: The dominance of geek “problem” culture creates power imbalances within the tech industry, where certain individuals or groups hold disproportionate influence over decision-making processes. This results in the prioritization of technical interests over broader social or ethical concerns.

Overall, the #geekproblem highlights the need for holistic approach to technology development based on the social, ethical, and democratic dimensions alongside technical considerations. Addressing the geekproblem requires challenging social structures and promoting diversity, empathy, and democratic decision-making within the development and #FOSS communertys.

The influence of NGOs in social activism raises concerns

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

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

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

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

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

Building Trust in the Openweb and the Fediverse

In the landscape of the #openweb and the emerging #Fediverse, trust is the currency that binds meaningful interactions and collaborations. Yet, amidst the cacophony of voices and divergent perspectives, building trust can feel like navigating a minefield. In this post, we’ll explore the importance of trust in the #openweb and the Fediverse, examine the challenges to building trust, and propose strategies to foster a culture of trust within these communities.

Trust is the bedrock upon which communities thrive, enabling people to engage in meaningful exchanges, share resources, and collaborate on common goals. In the decentralized ecosystem of diverse voices converge and interact, trust becomes more essential. Unlike centralized #dotcons platforms, where trust is bestowed upon a single authority, the “native” openweb relies on distributed networks of trust relationships between people and communities.

However, despite the inherent value of trust, the landscape of is fraught with challenges that hinder this cultivation. One of the primary obstacles is the prevalence of #blocking and resistance to new ideas or approaches. While blocking may be necessary in certain circumstances, such as to protect against harmful actors or preserve the integrity of a community, it can also impede constructive dialogue and collaboration. Without trust, with too much #blocking communities become fragmented and isolated.

To address these challenges and foster a culture of trust, several strategies can be employed:

  1. Transparency: Transparency is key to building trust within communities. Open and honest communication about intentions, decisions, and actions fosters a sense of accountability and reliability. Projects and peoples should strive to be transparent in their operations, sharing information openly and engaging in dialogue with stakeholders.
  2. Inclusivity: Inclusive communities are more likely to cultivate trust among their members. By seeking out diverse perspectives and voices, and creating spaces where people feel welcome and valued, communities can foster a sense of belonging and trust. Inclusivity also involves addressing power imbalances and amplifying silent voices.
  3. Consistency: Consistency in actions and behaviour is essential for building trust over time. Communities should strive to uphold their commitments, follow through on promises, and maintain integrity in their interactions. Consistency breeds reliability and reliability breeds trust.
  4. Empathy: Empathy is the foundation of trust in human relationships. By empathizing with the experiences and perspectives of others, communities can build mutual understanding and respect. Empathy involves active listening, acknowledging the feelings and concerns of others, and responding with compassion and kindness.
  5. Collaboration: Collaboration fosters trust by creating opportunities for people to work together towards common goals. By engaging in collaborative projects, sharing resources, and supporting each other’s efforts, communities can build bonds of trust and solidarity.

In conclusion, trust is the cornerstone of a thriving #openweb and the building of the #fediverse community. We need to create environments where trust flourishes, enabling people to engage in meaningful interactions and collaborations. Remember that trust is not a destination but a journey—one that requires ongoing effort, dialogue, and commitment from all stakeholders.

“don’t be a prat” is basic #KISS