Change and challenge group dynamics

#fashernistas are unconscious of the dynamics of “in and out groups” that split the workings of the social change movements. Let’s look at this in our #fediverse. Firstly why? The need for feelings of importance, that feeds the need for control and exclusivity behaviour, that then stifles diversity of thought and hampers meaningful change and challenge. This is at the core of #blocking.

In group members push to feel they are accepted and seen as part of the core community, out-group members are then excluded and marginalized, feeding feelings of alienation. This need for control and exclusivity power dynamics with in-group members shapes who hold power and influence within the community, thus shaping the norms and values. This failed diversity is a sterile environment where only limited viewpoints are accepted, on this path the is no if any community growth.

The negative impact on the #fediverse leads to a stifling diversity and echo chambers where only similar, and dysfunctional views are shared. This #blocking of “native” diversity, increases conflict us vs them mentality, reducing cooperation. Making the out-group feel marginalized and excluded, reducing their participation and contribution.

How to mitigate this mess? Start by inclusivity and diversity, encourage open discussions and actively seek diverse viewpoints. When the invertible splintering starts to happen, do not keep pushing the #blocking that feeds this blinded exclusionary behaviour. A healthy active balance is needed for change and challenge for building the empathy and understanding of different perspectives, respecting dialogue and criticism is a healthy path. When we can only take the path of #blocking the community is failing and so is the core project, look at the #fediverse and the last few years on https://socialhub.activitypub.rocks/ as an example of this fail.

To make this work, initiate collaborative projects that require input from a diverse group of members. Build mentorship programs into every path of these projects, pass on experience, guide and support. Be careful of #fahernistas hiding behind the burocracy of “Safe Space’s” mess making, they are the problem and have little to do with solutions or “safety”. In #openweb tools, use moderation to promote diverse content and prevent exclusionary behaviour, implement redundant feedback mechanisms to allow communities to report and address this themselves.

In the #fediverse, the “in and out group” dynamics constantly need to be mediate so our “common sense” #fashernistas behaver is not blindly pushed over the real diversity of healthy spaces. Our communities are “native” #4opens, diverse, and resilient, the path that fosters the change and challenge we so obviously need for a working #openweb reboot.

Maybe I need to say this clearer?

ActivityPub and Mastodon from a #closedweb prospective

A #closedweb Critique

Design for Abuse: The #AP protocol is vulnerable to abuse, particularly in terms of Distributed Denial of Service (#DDOS) attacks.
Push-Based Model: The push-based notification model leads to overloading servers, especially when a popular account generates a large amount of activity.
Harassment Concerns: There is a perceived inadequacy in control issues to address the worry of harassment, with issues like the inability to disable replies not being implemented.
Need for Defensive Model: A #geekproblem call for abandoning the working “native” #openweb path and push a “native” #closedweb path, with a complete overhaul of the protocol to incorporate defensive measures from the outset.

The Critique

From an #openweb and #4opens perspective, the critique highlights a different mindset that is clearly incompatible with the current path. But yes, there are questions about the balance between openness and security. Let’s not get lost in the #geekproblem and look at them:

Design for Abuse

Critique: The assertion that the protocol is designed for abuse is an overstatement, but it highlights genuine vulnerabilities. The open “trust” based nature of #ActivityPub and the #Fediverse, promotes decentralization and federation, but can indeed be exploited by malicious actors, people do brake “trust”. Transparency in code is crucial. Vulnerabilities should be openly discussed and addressed through community collaboration, most can be fixed by social norms rather than hardcoding. Data sharing is core, there should be as little as possible “private data” to abuse. Protocols should work with slow revisions to improved community feedback. Decision-making processes around security, should be based on social rather than coding, #openprocess is a core part of this.

Push-Based Model

Critique : The push-based model can indeed lead to server overloads. Popular accounts generating a lot of traffic can unintentionally cause DDOS-like situations. This is a normal lossy part of the “native” #openweb, we should work on this. Implementing caching strategies and lossy notification systems should be developed and tested within the community. Efficient data handling techniques should balance ease of hosting and speed of application, with ease of hosting first. Exploring hybrid models (push/pull) with RSS backup can lead to more resilient protocols use. Real time is less important than the app keeps working. Part of this is about ensuring that changes to the protocol are hard and slow, with debate and consensus.

Harassment Concerns

Critique : The constant talking about harassment tools and features such as disabling replies is a concern. Yes open networks are just that open, it’s the social norms of federation that make them a safe space, we need to build up our communes of trust. Developing robust moderation tools and anti-harassment features should balance with building strong social instances, who in the end do the work, be very careful of #closedweb paths in coding these features. Socialise data on harassment patterns helps to improve trust based moderation tools. The stories we tell and the way we work for moderation and anti-abuse measures should be developed collaboratively. Including diverse voices in the social decision-making process for instances is crucial.

Need for Defensive Model

Critique: Starting with a defensive model is the wrong path. Many security and abuse issues can be mitigated with a trust-first approach. A good culture should be built into the core from the beginning, with active community involvement. Developing norms of behaver through community consensus helps build a more resilient system.

Conclusion

The #closedweb path tries to raise points about vulnerabilities and shortcomings of the current #ActivityPub and #Mastodon implementations. From an #openweb and #4opens perspective, the solution lies not in suggesting we abandon the native path and implemented protocol but in addressing these issues through open, collaborative, and transparent social processes. By leveraging the strengths of the #4opens framework, the community can work to create resilient, and user-friendly networks that are already on the successful native #openweb path.

Security and trust are a part of the fluffy/spiky debate in activism

As dissent and protest are increasingly criminalized, it’s important for protesters and activists to protect themselves – to the degree possible – from surveillance. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (#EFF) offers a guide for surveillance defence. It’s useful to read this even if you aren’t a protester, because the right wing (and sadly, some of the left) are increasingly willing to trample on trust building in activism. Let’s hope for the best, but good to understand the possible bad outcomes.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/06/surveillance-defense-campus-protests

While the EFF’s guidance is useful, it’s important to acknowledge that the level of organized paranoia required for this to be effective is overwhelming and damaging to “trust” based activism. So It’s key to strike a balance, which, yes, is a lived challenge. It’s best to focus on the “fluffy spiky” debate—ensuring that spiky, direct activism uses this guide to inform their actions without dictating to more #mainstreaming and outreach “fluffy” activism.

The concept of #4opens (open data, open source, open standards, and open process) is integral in building trust, which is how and why these grassroots #DIY protests and movements can be effective. It is crucial for sustaining impactful activism.

By maintaining a balance between necessary security measures and open, inclusive activism, we can continue to protect our rights while promoting a more a “native” and importantly affective path to build an equitable society.

Feudalism, #FOSS native governance?

Interesting to see this metaphor take off

#Feudalism, in Free and Open Source Software (#FOSS) governance, is not inherently native but is often found due to structural and cultural factors inside the development communities.

Feudalism in FOSS

Hierarchy and Control: In FOSS projects, a small group of core maintainers or a single benevolent dictator (often the project’s founder) holds power over decision-making processes. This creates a hierarchical structure where decision-making authority is concentrated.
Dependency on Maintainers: Contributors depend on the core maintainers to merge their contributions and resolve issues. This dependency creates a power dynamic where the maintainers like courtiers have control over the project’s direction and priorities.
Gatekeeping: Core maintainers act as gatekeepers, deciding which contributions are accepted and which are not. This leads to favouritism and exclusion, reminiscent of feudal lords controlling access to resources and opportunities.

Why?

Volunteer Nature of Contributions: Since contributors are volunteers, there is no structure to ensure equal participation or accountability. Core maintainers emerge “naturally” based on their sustained contributions and expertise.
Meritocracy Ideals: FOSS communities value meritocracy, people gain influence based on their contributions. However, this leads to entrenched power structures, as those who have contributed the most or the longest hold sway, sometimes stifling new contributors’ voices.
Resource Scarcity: Many #FOSS projects operate with limited resources, leading to a concentration of control among those who dedicate the most time and effort. This result in a few individuals having outsized influence.

Manifestations

Benevolent Dictator for Life (BDFL): Projects like Python had Guido van Rossum as a #BDFL, where his decisions are final. While this can lead to clear and consistent leadership, it also centralizes power.
Core Team Dominance: In projects like Linux, the core team led by Linus Torvalds has control over the kernel’s development. This centralized control lead to conflicts within the community, as seen in the controversies around code of conduct enforcement and inclusivity.

Balancing Feudalism.

Distributed Governance Models: Some FOSS projects adopt #NGO type democratic or federated governance models, such as Apache Software Foundation’s model, which emphasizes burocratic community-driven decision-making and a meritocratic process for becoming a committer or PMC member.
Transparency and Accountability: Increasing transparency in decision-making helps to hold maintainers accountable through open process and community oversight plays a role in helping mitigate feudal tendencies.
Community Practices: Promoting diversity and inclusivity helps balance power dynamics. Encouraging mentorship and lowering barriers to entry for contributors also helps distribute influence.

Conclusion

While feudalism is not inherent to #FOSS governance, structural and cultural factors lead to feudal-like power dynamics. Addressing these issues requires conscious effort to promote full #4opens transparency, accountability, and inclusivity within the community. Adopting balanced governance models and practices, like the #OGB, allow projects to mitigate the risks of feudalism and ensure a healthier development environment.

A wider picture of this mess

The Battle for the Internet: Open vs. Closed

Since its creation, the internet and World Wide Web have been shaped by two competing and overlapping paths:

The #OpenWeb

Rooted in the DNA of internet code and culture, we see the web as a platform for collaboration, sharing, and the free exchange of information. Built for use in a world where information is abundant and free, embodying the ethos of “free as in free beer.”

The #OpenWeb emphasizes the #4opens: open source, open data, open standards, and open process. It walks the path of creativity and collective creation, and is closely associated with “native geek culture” alongside radical/anarchist libertarian thinking. Social interactions are visible, promoting accountability and collective decision-making. Examples include public forums, open-source projects, and community assemblies.

The #ClosedWeb

On the other side, we have the approach of companies like Microsoft under Bill Gates and late-stage Google, that focus on the monetization and commercial viability of the internet. This vision is fixated on control for profitability, and the economics of running online platforms in a world based on artificial scarcity

The #ClosedWeb pushes interactions to private, monetized paths with the illusion of privacy and confidentiality are necessary. This approach seeks to lock down information and interactions, creating walled gardens that can be controlled and monetized.

The Internet’s “native” Potential

The inherent democratization and egalitarianism of the internet allow people to create and share content. However, this ideal clashes with commercial interests that push for control to monetize user data and interactions.

From the #OpenWeb perspective:

Interconnectedness: Technology reflects human values and structures.
Empowerment: The internet empowers people to distribute their work, share ideas, and bypass traditional power politics gatekeepers.
Education and Information: The web transforms education and information access, linking vast resources to walking the path to a different society.

From the #ClosedWeb perspective, the dominant emotion is fear:

Fear of sustainability: Concerns about how to maintain and profit from online platforms.
Fear of losing control: Worries about people having too much freedom, undermining business models and #mainstreaming dogmas.

The Battleground for Openness

The #OpenWeb remains a battleground between the paths of openness and the pushing of fear. While it has democratized content creation and access, the economic models sustaining this ecosystem are often a toxic mess. This tension shapes society both online and offline, creating a complex and messy landscape to find a sustainable path.

The #GeekProblem

One barrier to addressing these issues is the #GeekProblem. On the web, those with technical expertise and control over resources bypass democratic processes and accountability, leading to a kind of “feudalism.” This problem is equally present in grassroots #FOSS (Free and Open Source Software) communities and corporate #dotcons (dot-com companies), as both share the same #geekproblem mindsets regarding control and authority.

A part of the #openweb path involves re-evaluating the relationship between control, wealth, power, and social change in both technology and wider society. Currently, we lack clear ways to discuss the “problem” in geek culture, making it difficult to mediate the #closedweb problem. This is a growing problem, as groups who succeed in a capitalism are the worst equipped to solve the problems that the system creates.

The struggle between these visions is ongoing. For the #openweb to thrive, there must be a concerted effort to address the underlying issues of control and power within both the open and closed paths. By acknowledging and working on these problems, we maintain the internet’s potential as a force for democratization, creativity, and the needed social change.

Please “don’t be a prat” about this, thanks.

Open vs Closed in Tech

Open Systems: Emphasize transparency, inclusiveness, and shared power. Social interactions in open systems are visible, allowing for accountability and collective decision-making. Examples include public forums, open-source projects, and community assemblies.

Closed Systems: Reserved for private interactions, where privacy and confidentiality are necessary. Examples include personal conversations, private messages, and some business dealings.

The real fear of Closed Systems

Isolation and Control: Closed systems isolate people and groups, enabling power to exert disproportionate influence without any meaningful oversight. This leads to abuses of power, lack of accountability, and the perpetuation of harmful practices.

Stifling Innovation and Collaboration: When information and resources are locked away, collaboration is harder, and serendipity to build the trust for horizontal working suffers. Open systems encourage the sharing of ideas and collective problem-solving, driving trust and humane creativity.

Historical examples

Diaspora vs. RSS Networks:

Diaspora: Promoted as a closed network, provide a privacy-focused alternative to Facebook. However, its closed nature limited its adoption and integration with existing #openweb web ecosystems.

The 10-Year Gap: The decade-long gap between the initial promise of open standards like RSS and their reinvention (e.g., ActivityPub) underscores the challenges of maintaining momentum and community support for open systems. This gap is a huge-lost opportunity.

RSS and ActivityPub: Open standards, facilitate interoperability and decentralized communication. The resurgence of interest in these technologies (e.g., ActivityPub) highlights the value of open systems to building trust based networks.

Ideological Perspectives

Conservatism: Emphasizes stability, tradition, and supports hierarchical structures. In the context of the #openweb, conservatives argue for maintaining closed systems to preserve order and control.

Liberalism: Advocates for individual freedoms and freespeech ideals. Liberals support open communication systems as they align with values, but have a need for closed systems to facilitate the capitalist economics they so love.

Anarchism: Promotes the dismantling of hierarchical structures and champions radical #4opens with decentralization. Anarchists advocate for fully open systems, minimizing any form of “hard” centralized control.

Questions to Consider

Balancing Openness and Privacy: How can we design systems that maximize openness while respecting some privacy and confidentiality?

Sustaining Open Systems: What mechanisms can ensure the longevity and resilience of open systems, preventing them from being overshadowed by closed, proprietary alternatives?

Addressing the #GeekProblem: How can we engage technologists and developers in conversations about the sociopolitical implications of their work, encouraging a commitment to the open path?

Navigating Ideological Differences: How can we bridge ideological gaps to create a shared vision for the #openweb, recognizing the diverse motivations and concerns of different political and social groups?

The discussion about open versus closed is not only technical but rooted in sociopolitical ideologies and ideas of human nature. By understanding these perspectives and implications, we can advocate for the #openweb, to build up this vibrant, inclusive, and innovative space. This needs a thoughtful consideration of historical contexts, current challenges, and future possibilities, always with an eye toward preserving the #4opens that make our internet beneficial for society, not just the few greedy monsters that are destroying what we value, life.

How can we have this conversation without the normal “prat behaver” is a hard path to find.

Faults of former socialist experiments

Building a different economic system in one country with hard opposition is a steep path to climb. We can learn a lot from the interesting mess left by past attempts

Competition with the West: The #USSR’s framing itself as a direct competitor to American capitalism, rather than a unique system, led to perceptions of being outclassed in some areas. This competitive stance with vastly different starting points made the USSR seem inadequate in some respects.
Military Overspending: Excessive focus on military parity with the U.S. detracted from the USSR’s ability to improve civilian life and scientific progress. This allocation of resources, driven by historical security concerns and international threats, was necessary but ultimately detrimental.
Lack of Economic Diversity: Smaller socialist countries, and even some Soviet republics, had undiversified economies, relying heavily on single burocratic industries or resources. This lack of diversity made these nations vulnerable to economic instability and dependent on larger, dogmatic socialist allies.
Inadequate Light Industry: The focus on heavy industry over light industry led to shortages and lower quality in consumer goods. This affected the everyday satisfaction of citizens, due to the availability of personal and household items being limited.
Limited Democratic Participation: While socialist nations like the USSR had forms of proletarian democracy, there was still significant room for improvement in workplace democracy and political participation. The burocratic centralization and rubber-stamping within the system lead to ossification and hindered any real democratic engagement.
Restrictions on Cultural Expression: Over time, the USSR shifted from promoting local cultures to a subtle #russification process, causing cultural homogenization and dissatisfaction among non-Russian ethnic groups. Similar repressive policies existed in other socialist states like Albania.
Deportations: The forced relocation of ethnic groups during World War II was a severe and unnecessary measure. While intended to prevent collaboration with the enemy, these actions fermented long-term harm and discontent.
Purges: The purges in the USSR, aimed at eliminating a fifth column, were based on social paranoia and a flawed assessment, this led to widespread fear and instability. The failure to initially prevent the formation of such internal threats was a significant oversight.
Limitations of Planning: Early economic planning in the USSR was hampered by the lack of advanced computational tools, limiting the complexity and effectiveness of this planing. Despite the advent of computers, the potential of democratic #4opens planning systems was not realized.
Profit Reorientation: Transitioning enterprises to a profit-based system under Khrushchev led to a shift in priorities that confused socialist principles. This move fostered a capitalist mindset and contributed to the growing inefficiencies and corruption.
Ossification of Party Leadership: The “power politics” of the ageing leadership within the Soviet government stifled innovation and responsiveness. More horizontals, younger, more dynamic paths were needed to maintain the vitality and adaptability of this socialist experiment.
The Comintern: The centralized and bureaucratised coordination of international socialist movements by the Comintern had its drawbacks, such as imposing strategies that were not suitable for all member nations. A more horizontal and flexible approach could have mitigated these issues.
Over-Bureaucratization: Bureaucracy and ossification within socialist states led to inefficiencies and resistance to change. Healthy grassroots #DIY culture could have streamlined administrative structures and reducing redundant positions that would have improved governance and responsiveness.
Sovietization of Socialist Experience: The replication of burocratic Soviet methods in other socialist countries led to inappropriate policies and practices. Each nation needed to critically assess and adapt strategies to their unique contexts.

This vertical path has much to tell us if we are interested in taking a more horizontal path. Let’s try not to simply repeat this history, “don’t be a prat” comes to mind on taking this path.

This post was inspired by this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDSZRkhynXU worth a watch and informed from this https://www.reddit.com/r/socialism/comments/1eb8hby/what_can_we_learn_from_the_actual_history_of/ its needs some more updating, comments please.

By embracing projects like the #OGB people have a chance to shape decisions

The current state of our political systems, particularly the electoral process, raises fundamental questions about the nature of democracy and representation. The problem is the system is designed to maintain the supremacy of the powerful, perpetuating conflicts and minimizing real democratic engagement.

Elections, rather than fostering democracy, exacerbate divisions and repeatedly fail to address critical issues. Parties capitalize on trivial matters, manipulate voters, and converge on worshipping of the #deathcult with policies that benefit commercial interests.

Historically, elections have been chosen as a means to exclude the majority from meaningful involvement in power, reflecting a distrust of democracy by the powerful. The UK’s political model, shaped in the 18th century, survived the introduction of universal suffrage largely intact, maintaining a system where elected representatives are disconnected from the interests and needs of the real people.

Despite alternatives such as participatory democracy, popular assemblies, and sortition (random selection like the #OGB), powerful, and everyday interests stifle their implementation. These alternative social technology models prioritize #4opens community involvement, deliberation, and consensus-building over the spectacle of elections.

Participatory democracy, when well-designed, has proven effective in addressing complex and divisive issues. Citizens’ assemblies and constitutional conventions have successfully tackled issues such as equal marriage, abortion, and climate policy, where elected representatives have struggled. This in a native, messy form is how all activism is organised.

The next step needs to build up grassroots democracy with a project like the #OGB to supplement, push aside and then replace traditional parliamentary chambers. Such a system would ensure that decisions are made by a representative sample of society, rather than by career politicians shaped by money and lobbying.

In conclusion, by embracing participatory democracy, we can create a system where everyone has a chance to shape the decisions that affect their lives. You can find more information on the #OGB project https://opencollective.com/open-media-network/projects/openwebgovernancebody and support this on the link.

OMN – improving the tech landscape

A “native” path to composting the tech mess lies in understanding and addressing the underlying issues. A breakdown of a social tech path:

Explore Relevant #OMN Hashtags: Look into hashtags like #geekproblem and #fashernista to find discussions and insights that address the problems you’re facing. These hashtags can provide valuable perspectives and solutions if you use them based on collective experience.
Investigate OGB: Check out the URL https://hamishcampbell.com/outreaching-the-ogb-what-is-the-project/ with #OGB (Open Governance Body) to access project descriptions and learn about initiatives aimed at addressing the challenges you are encountering. While the coding site may be temporarily down, the project descriptions can still offer valuable insights.
Understand the 4opens: Familiarize yourself with the concept of #4opens, which serves as a framework for addressing many of the issues present in the tech ecosystem. The 4opens provide principles for building more open, transparent, and inclusive digital platforms.

By delving into these #OMN resources and frameworks, you gain a deeper understanding of the issues and discover pathways toward solutions. Collaborating with others who share goals and values amplifies the impact of efforts in improving the tech landscape.

And please “don’t be a prat” thanks.

The mess we keep making of #FOSS governance

It’s disheartening to see a community platform like #Trustroots https://trustroots.org facing challenges with governance, with issues and tensions among its contributors https://github.com/trustroots-community/trustrots/issues?q= and here https://trustroots.community/ This situation is messy and underscores the importance of establishing healthy governance practices within community-driven projects to ensure their long-term sustainability and effectiveness.

The case of Trustroots alongside the earlier issue of #CouchSurfing are a cautionary tale about the pitfalls of traditional feudalistic #FOSS foundation/ #NGO models for open-source projects. These models may initially foster collaboration and innovation, but easily become susceptible to internal conflicts and power struggles over time.

The #OGB (Open Governance Body) is an alternative approach rooted in a grassroot and inclusive history and ethos. By embracing “producer” sortation, decentralized decision-making and community-led initiatives, projects like #OGB aim to avoid the pitfalls associated with hierarchical governance structures https://hamishcampbell.com/?s=OGB

Examining case studies like Trustroots and CouchSurfing offer insights into the complexities, and outcomes, of managing community platforms and the importance of fostering #4opens transparent, inclusive, and participatory governance to sustain healthy and thriving communities.

We can’t keep making this same mess.

Should we ban TikTok

The #dotcons are about ideological control (advertising) of information for profit, #TikTok is likely one of the most advanced on this path.

Whether to ban TikTok is part of the #mainstreaming mess and significant within the wider context of the move back to the #openweb

Some considerations:

Impact on Ideological Control: TikTok, like other #dotcons social media platforms, shapes public discourse and pushes #neoliberal and #stupidindividualism ideological agenda and control. Banning #TikTok could disrupt the control exerted by centralized platforms over the flow of information and content moderation policies. However, it’s essential to consider whether banning TikTok is the most effective way to address concerns about ideological control, as users will mostly simply migrate to other #dotcons with the same issues.
Privacy and Data Control: TikTok faces scrutiny over its data practices and ties to the Chinese government, raising concerns about privacy and data security. This is a normal issue with any state bound #dotcons. Banning TikTok might address these concerns by limiting the collection and dissemination of user data to the replacement state, the USA. However, it’s important to explore alternative measures, such as regulatory oversight and #4opens requirements, to protect user data without resorting to a ban.
Innovation and Competition: Banning TikTok could stifle innovation and competition in the #dotcons, limiting the diversity of #techshit platforms available to users. This has implications for content creators, influencers, and businesses that rely on TikTok for outreach and monetizable engagement. Instead of a ban, maybe fostering competition and growing alternative, decentralized platforms (like the #Fediverse) would promote innovation and diversity in the social media ecosystem in a better way?
Freedom of Expression: Banning TikTok raises concerns about freedom of expression, as it restricts digital surfs ability to share content and engage with others slaves on the platform. While TikTok faces criticism for its content moderation practices, outright banning the platform may not be an appropriate solution. Instead, data portability and interoperability as combined efforts would address harmful content and promote healthy online discourse, thus focus on regulatory measures and community-driven initiatives rather than a ban.
Broader Societal Implications: Banning TikTok could have broader societal implications, particularly for younger generations who are active users of the platform. It’s important to consider the social and cultural significance of TikTok as a platform for #fashernista creativity, self-expression, and community-building. Efforts to mitigate potential harms associated with TikTok should prioritize education, digital literacy, and awareness-raising initiatives of real alternatives rather than simply national propaganda agender.

In conclusion, whether to ban TikTok involves weighing concerns about ideological control, interoperability, privacy, innovation, freedom of expression, and wider social implications. While banning TikTok may address some of these concerns, alternative approaches, such as #4opens, regulatory oversight, #openweb competition promotion, and community-driven initiatives, would likely ensure a more balanced and effective response.

We need to move past these illogical gatekeepers.

Composting in tech

The #OMN (Open Media Network) is composting in tech, it is a process of recycling and repurposing digital resources and technologies in a sustainable and environmentally conscious manner. As composting in agriculture involves breaking down organic matter into nutrient-rich soil, composting in tech involves reusing and repurposing digital assets and technologies to create new value and reduce waste.

* Reuse of Code: Instead of reinventing the wheel, developers should reuse existing code and software components to build new applications and platforms. This approach reduces duplication of effort and promotes community and efficiency in software development.

* Repurposing Digital Content: With media and content creation, composting in tech involves repurposing existing digital content (such as articles, videos, or podcasts) to create new linking content and derivative works. This practice helps extend the lifespan of digital assets and reduce the need for constant creation of “new” generic content.

* Open Source and Collaboration: Embracing #4opens principles and collaborative development models is a form of composting in tech. By sharing code, knowledge, and resources openly, developers collectively improve and build upon existing technologies, growing innovation and sustainability in the tech ecosystem.

* Circular Economy in Tech: Composting in tech aligns with the principles of a circular economy, where resources are used, reused, and recycled to minimize waste and maximize use. By applying this concept to digital technologies, #OMN promotes a sustainable approach to tech development and consumption.

“Composting in tech” reflects a mindset of sustainability, resourcefulness, and responsible stewardship of digital resources within the #openweb, it’s a path we need to take.

The mess we need to compost:

* Arrogance and Ignorance: In alternative and grassroots movements, there is a recurring problem where people displaying arrogance and ignorance. This hinders progress and collaboration within these movements. At a time when there’s a growing need for successful examples to inspire larger, more #mainstreaming alternative and progressive movements. Addressing these issues becomes important.

* Challenge of “Stupid” Individualism: #Stupidindividualism refers to the pervasive influence of individualistic thinking promoted by #neoliberal ideology. This mindset undermines collective action and makes it difficult to build alternative tech and social projects that prioritize community over individual gain.

* Vertical vs. Horizontal Structures: Hierarchical thinking (“vertical”) disrupts egalitarian structures (“horizontal”) within movements. This disruption contributes to a cycle of destruction and rebuilding, making it challenging to maintain momentum and achieve lasting change that is needed.

* Affective Direct Action: This type of activism emphasizes emotional engagement and personal connection to issues. This experience underscores the cyclical nature of social and political challenges and highlights the importance of addressing underlying issues for meaningful and lasting change.

* Capitalism as the Root Problem: The solution, involves stepping away from capitalist structures. This requires a combination of strategies, including non-violent resistance and, in some cases, revolutionary action.

Addressing the challenges faced by alternative and grassroots movements requires collective action, strategic thinking, and a rejection of individualistic and hierarchical ideologies. It involves creating spaces where collaboration and community-driven solutions can thrive, ultimately working federating these to works towards a more equitable society.