Tag: 4opens

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:

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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:

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

Project Benefits:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. Transparency and Accountability: MakingHistory promotes transparency and accountability by archiving content in an open and accessible manner, allowing for greater scrutiny and oversight.
  4. 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.
  5. 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:

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

 

The mess we make with our blind behaviour

Most visible activism is the tension between fluffy and spiky, this debate is what pushes affective progressive change and challenge, dogmas of either side of this is the blocking of the possibility of the need of change. Our default behaver is to block this debate, in this we are actively blocking the desired and needed change and challenge.

We have to focus on activism. How to change things and how to make us better at changing things, both are valid and needed for any real change to happen.

This is an ongoing mess that we need to compost. To do composting you need tools, as much of our lives are online in part we need web tools https://unite.openworlds.info/explore/repos are examples of such #4opens “shovels” to use for this needed composting.

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.

The mission of the NGI is to re-imagine and re-engineer the Internet

We ask that #NGI use “native” approaches and tools at future #openweb events

“The mission of the NGI is to re-imagine and re-engineer the Internet… Committed to open source (both hardware and software) and open data… Build an Internet of Trust, empowering end-users… the concept of the Digital Commons, which is particularly crucial for Europe, as it fosters equitable access to information… the transition to the future internet…”

We ask that #NGI use at future openweb events:

FOSS video streaming solution

Simple open tools for audiences chat, one to meany and one to one

A open to edit shared doc (for links and notes) for the online participants to use, for each session.

This is a #4opens basic path for people to people internet based on trust, for a European #openweb

“When it comes to important ideas that can help improve our society, there really are no boundaries. The challenge is to turn those opportunities into reality. Great ideas just come, but they are gone in a breeze as well. Let’s make good use of them.”

The quotes are from https://ngiforum2023.eu/ , https://www.ngi.eu/ and https://nlnet.nl/ lets together ask/help the #EU to be more openweb native.

———————-
The mission of the NGI is to re-imagine and re-engineer the Internet… Committed to open source (both hardware and software) and open data… Build an Internet of Trust, empowering end-users… the concept of the Digital Commons, which is particularly crucial for Europe, as it fosters equitable access to information… the transition to the future internet…

We ask that #NGI use at online events:

* FOSS video streaming solution
* Simple open tools for audiences chat, one to many and one to one
* A open to edit shared doc (for links and notes) for the online participants to use, for each session.

This is a #4opens basic path for people to people internet based on trust, for a European #openweb

#OGB – what is the project

The purpose and vision for our #OGB project is to address challenges and conflicts that currently existwithin grassroots organizations and assist in the management of those that arise. By creating a tool set for’Do It Yourself’ (DIY) governance. We aim to develop a ‘Keep It Simple Stupid’ (#KISS) standard frameworkand process. This will become #OGB which can be used in future solutions, organically evolving throughtime.

Human organization and governance are inherently complex and messy. Standard approaches to solving such, tend to enforce rigid structure. Software built to facilitate this reflects such rigidity – attempting to force messy processesinto being ‘cleaner’, ‘neater’ and ‘tidier’ – and thus through such forced behaviour, inevitably fail their purpose. Existing means of decision making tend to lead to ill-fitting outcomes for the actual problems at hand. Too often led by the loudest voice rather than the most suitable solution. The #OGB serves a real need by addressing these problems. Problems identified through past projects and experiences. #OGB further draws on comprehensive experience gained from greater than five years of active involvement in hands-onorganization within #Mastodon instances and the wider #Fediverse. This experience provides valuable insight into the challenges and obstacles that arise in digital grassroots governance.The #OGB project aims to create a decentralized democratic system for grassroots governance, available for any collective or community, with a focus on producers and consumers. The #Fediverse is used as a test case.This project does not seek to create a single organization that dictates protocols or standards. Rather it enables the organiccreation of synthesis, where competing arguments are broached to formulate corrective procedure and proposals for implementation.The #OGB project emphasizes voluntary collaboration. It prioritizes sortition and ‘messy consensus’ to achieve decision-making and a more equitable power distribution.

The #OGB project is a set of software tools and processes that embody a grassroots activism-based governance model. We envision both an online and offline tool suite to fully embolden accessibility. Specifically, this project has the objective of preventing polarization within online communities whilst obtaining an understanding into how such effects amount. Polarization refers to the division and fragmentation of society into opposing groups with conflicting beliefsand values. Leading to breakdowns and disruptions in communication, increases in hostility, and an eventual lack of understanding between perspectives. The #OGB project aims to counteract polarization by promoting trust-based dialogue and governance within the #openweb.The project provides a framework for open and inclusive conversations, enabling people and groups to engage in meaningful dialogue within common ground and allowing the bridging of differences to be better understood. The project enables active body members to shape their own governance structures using tools that facilitate problem-solving and decision-making.

The #OGB project brings added value and innovation. Leveraging decades of first-hand experience fromgrassroot organizations. In identifying and addressing systemic failures that often hinder social change initiatives. We highlight and recognize valuable knowledge and experiences obtained. Years of endurance should not go to waste, nor be repeated in the field of online governance and trust-based conversations, there are existing initiatives and developments that aim through formal consensus to address similar challenges. However, these initiative shave never worked beyond small expert groups online. Adversely hindering offline activist groups throughloss of inertia and ossification.What sets the #OGB project apart is our focus point. By emphazing learning from past experiences and incorporating these into the development solution, all valuable insights gained are not lost or forgotten. Scaffolding upon this knowledge, #OGB will overcome the common pitfalls and challenges that dilute effective governance and trust-based conversations.The #OGB focusses on building active trust based groups – people who get involved, solve and initiate change to go out and get things done. When a community communicates effectively and efficiently,decisions and right actions come naturally.

The #OGB project also distinguishes itself by emphasizing the importance of recognizing power dynamics within online communities. It acknowledges that the #Fediverse as a decentralized network, operates differently from traditional institutions and mainstream platforms. Instead of trying to conform to mainstreaming paths. The project seeks to embrace the unique characteristics of itself and build with focus having these differences clear in mind. The #OGB brings the #Fediverse notion of technological decentralization, moderation and horizontal scaling into the world of action, organization and governance. Results from #OGB processes may then feed backinto the #Fediverse anew.

The #OGB project aims to achieve several concrete and measurable outcomes:

1. Implementation of natural, horizontal governance: The project intends to establish agovernance structure that promotes horizontal decision-making and empowers a diverserange of voices. This can be measured by the number of participants involved in decision-making processes and the level of inclusivity achieved.

2. Prevention of polarization within groups: The #OGB project seeks to preventpolarization by facilitating constructive conversations and ensuring that decision-makingtakes into account a wide range of perspectives and values. The success of this outcomecan be measured by assessing the level of polarization within groups using the #OGB,KISS framework.

3. Ethical decision-making and progressive development: The project aims to prioritizeethical considerations and focus on the primary needs of people within the community as awhole.

The measure of success here would be the extent to which ethical principles are integrated into decision-making processes and the impact of these decisions on progressive development. The success of this outcome can be measured by the number of people and communities that actively install instances of the #OGB. The success of all of these outcomes will be measured through quantitative indicators such as the number of participants, levels of inclusiveness and adoption rates.

The #OGB project is relevant to a diverse range of people and groups who are interested in alternative technology, open governance, with the vision of creating a more equitable and just society.

Here are some examples of the people and groups that the project is relevant to:

1. Fediverse Users: The project is directly relevant to people and groups who are already part of the #Fediverse, including users of platforms like Mastodon, Pleroma, Peertube and Pixelfed. These users are likely to be interested in the project’s goals of trust-based conversations and governance within the #openweb.

2. Tech Activists: The project is relevant to tech activists who are passionate about promoting decentralized, open-source, and user-controlled technologies. These people can contribute their technical expertise, provide feedback, and help spread awareness about the project within their networks.

3. Social Justice Advocates: The project aligns with the interests of social justice advocates who are committed to creating a more equitable and just society. By involving these people, the project can benefit from their insights, experiences, and knowledge in addressing wider social issues.

To involve people and groups in the realization of the project, the #OGB project will adopt the following approaches:

1. Open Collaboration
2. Community Engagement:
3. Co-creation and Co-design

To effectively reach the target audience, the project can utilize various #openweb native networks, media,and channels.

Fediverse Platforms: The #OGB project can leverage existing platforms within the #Fediverse such as Peertube, Mastodon, Pleroma and Pixelfed. These platforms provide adecentralized and open alternative to mainstream social media, aligning with #OGB values.

Social Media: Utilizing mainstreaming social media platforms like Twitter, Facebook, or LinkedIn can help reach a wider audience beyond the #Fediverse. Sharing updates,announcements, and engaging in discussions can help raise awareness and attract individuals interested in alternative tech and governance.

Development Blog: Maintaining a dedicated blog for the #OGB project serves as a centralhub for information, updates, and resources. Futhermore through publications such as articles, case studies, and success stories to additionally aide understanding and help educate the greater public with an aim to engage a further audience.Online

Communities and Forums: Participating in relevant online communities such as #SocialHub and other forums or activist networks, to help connect with like-minded peoplewho may be interested in the project’s goals and principles.

Mailing Lists and Newsletters: Creating a mailing list or newsletter specifically for the #OGB project can allow for direct communication with interested individuals. Regular updates, project highlights, and opportunities for involvement can be shared via email.

Online Events and Webinars: Organizing online events, webinars, or live streams can provide opportunities for the project team to present their work, share and collaborate insights and engage in discussions with the target audience.

The #OGB project will actively seek ongoing funding. However, once the project reaches a stable state, it envisions a cycle of funding through donations. This funding will be distributed among the project’s foundations and further research and development projects. The project is creating a multi-tier structure where the development stages of each tier will progress sequentially. This implies that as one tier completesits development stage, the next tier will begin. This approach aligns with competent program managementcycles and indicates a plan for the project’s continued development and sustainability beyond the periodcovered by the requested grant.

The #OGB is fundamentally rooted to the open sharing of knowledge and results, including all source codedeveloped as part of it.The #OGB intends to provide valuable outcomes including innovative approaches for governance, trust-based conversations, and democratic decision-making processes within the #openweb and the greaterworld.The code base is not specific to the #Fediverse but can be applied to any community with stakeholders,both on and offline.The project is committed to the #4opens principles, which advocate for openness, transparency, andaccessibility in technology.

1. Open data : refers to the availability of data to the public, free of charge and without anyrestriction on its use. This is considered a basic requirement for a project to be consideredopen.

2. Open source : software that is free to use, modify, and distribute. This promotes healthydevelopment and increases interconnectedness, allowing for serendipity. Open licensesare used to ensure the project remains open and free to use.

3. Open standards : technical standards that are open to the public and are not controlled byany one organization. This is essential for the open internet and the World Wide Web, andallows for interoperability between different systems.

4. Open process : transparency and openness of the project’s decision-making anddevelopment process. This can include the use of #Wiki’s and activity streams, and isconsidered a ‘glue’ that binds together the trust based networks that make up a project.

The #Fediverse has developed good technology and social norms around disability and minority groups.The intention is to incorporate these principles into our code base for #OGB project. The aim is to have strong documentation that focuses on consensus building and horizontal processes, which will promoteworking diversity among people with different abilities. The project plans to prioritize the development ofcomprehensive documentation for further use within instructional design as an aide for education and training. These principles are the core process of the project. This indicates a commitment to inclusiveness and accessibility within the #OGB project. The #OGB code and documentation is to be designed with accessibility as a first-class citizen, being compatible across everything we currently utilize with existing norms. Screen readers are a perfect goal toset our mind to.

Team Founder – Hamish Campbell: Hamish has 30 years of experience in building and running grassroots socialtech projects. He has been involved with projects such as Undercurrents, Visionontv, and the #OMN. Currently he is working on multiple projects within the SocialHub community, including outreach of ActivityPub to the European Union. Hamish has a strong understanding of what works and what doesn’t inboth social and technological contexts.

Founder/Lead Programmer – Saunders: Saunders is an experienced software engineer with expertise in C++, Python, and other programming languages. He has been responsible for managing the Linux-based #OMN servers for the past 5 years. Having a foundation in permaculture design and training, his programming skills have been utilized within grassroots social aid projects across several continents.

Project Manager – Nicholas Matheson: Nicholas has more than 20 years experience in project management, initially focusing within the hotel/tourism and hospitality sector in Australia/New Zealand. Hebegan consulting in China following the Beijing Olympics. Pursuing training and development workshopsacross the sector and the creation/assistance of importation logistics following client’s recommendations.

Privacy – As stated within the ‘Security’ section the project emphasizes a clear separation between personal and public communication. Being a #4opens project with an #openprocess at its core, we will not be handling private data outside of passwords. Additionally, the project plans to support pseudo-anonymous accounts via Tor usage. These accounts will operate on a trust-based system similar to any other account within the project. This approach highlights the project’s commitment to transparency and privacy while providing options for users to engage with the platform in a way that aligns with their chosen preferences.

The #OGB project will involve activities that contribute to the intended outcome of developing improved ways for trust-based dialogue, governance, and problem-solving within the #openweb. These activities include:

1. Developing a Framework: The project aims to create a framework that demonstrates improved ways for trust-based dialogue and governance within the #openweb. This framework will provide guidelines and principles for fostering open and inclusive conversations, decision-making processes, and governance structures.

2. Building Cooperative Alliances: The project seeks to establish a true cooperative andcollaborative alliance that is native to the #Fediverse and #openweb. These alliances will bring together people and groups who share a common vision of promoting trust,openness, and decentralization within online spaces.

3. Recognizing Power Dynamics: The project emphasizes the importance of recognizing where power originates in the context of the #Fediverse and #openweb. By understanding power dynamics, the project aims to challenge and change vertical power structures,promoting more equitable and democratic forms of governance.

4. Developing Technological Tools: The project aims to develop improved technologicaltools that address problems arising from social organization within the #openweb. These tools will enable problem-solving in a native grassroots activist manner, empowering people and groups to navigate and shape their online and offline experiences.

5. Removing Hard Coded Defaults: The project seeks to remove current hard-coded defaults by providing a standardized set of KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid) tools. These tools will empower active body members to utilize them deeply and instruct others on their use,enabling more flexible governance structures.

6. Permission-less Structure: The project aims to create a permission-less structure allowing the active groups to decide who is a part of their group or groups, promoting inclusivity.