Tag: 4opens

indymedia back

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

Historical Significance:

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

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

Counterbalance to Mainstream Media:

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

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

Grassroots Activism:

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

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

Media Democracy and Freedom of Expression:

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

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

Resistance to Corporate Control and Surveillance:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 #4opens 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 #4opens principles of decentralization, open standards, and inclusivity, represents a genuine path for progressive social change.

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

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

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

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

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 #4opens 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 #4opens stakeholders.

“don’t be a prat” is basic #KISS

The mess in tech

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

Key points:

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

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

#focus is good.

The mess we made with the dotcons

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We can work together?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let’s try harder, please.

A pragmatic approach to #openweb security

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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:

  1. Publish: Users can easily publish various types of content, including text, images, and links, to a stream of objects.
  2. Subscribe: Users have the ability to subscribe to streams of objects from people, organizations, pages, groups, hashtags, and more, enabling custom content flows.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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:

  1. Development: Hiring skilled developers to build and refine the back-end infrastructure and associated tools, ensuring robustness, stability, and interoperability.
  2. Moderation Tools: Integrating advanced moderation tools from the Fediverse to enhance user experience and promote healthy content flows.
  3. Community Engagement: Facilitating community outreach and engagement efforts to onboard users, gather feedback, and foster a vibrant and inclusive user community.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.