People, community, the long struggle between the #openweb and #dotcons

This is a mess that has been clear to see for 20 years, but people keep falling into the same traps instead of stepping off the cycle of control. We had something, we lost it, and we are still refusing to face why.

Let’s use #Failbook as a practical example of a monster that devours our dreams, fifteen years ago, the writing was already on the wall, #failbook and the #dotcons would eat everything. It wasn’t some grand conspiracy, just basic power and control dynamics. People knew this. They saw the cage being built around them, yet walked in willingly. Why? Because in the small picture, it was “easier” to stay inside than to step outside. They thought they were users, but they were being used. Every attempt to “fix” #failbook, the endless ethical tech debates, the “kinder, fairer” alternatives, the #NGO-funded projects promising “a better social network”, misses the core issue: You don’t fix a monster. You stop feeding it and walk away.

This is where the religious metaphor fits, people don’t want atheism (the #openweb), they just want a nicer god (ethical #dotcons). They still kneel before centralized power, just hoping for a softer whip. We need to stop worshipping the digital feudal lords and start building something else entirely. One path is to reboot the original #openweb

To do this we need some social history: The #openweb was murdered, and no one faced the consequences, we need a truth and reconciliation process for what happened to the #openweb. Why? Because people refuse to learn from history, and that means they keep making the same mistakes. Look at the waves of migration from open to closed over the last two decades:

The rise of blogs and open publishing (2000s) → The pull into social media walled gardens (2010s)
The rise of the federated web (2000s, early 2010s) → The collapse into corporate-owned silos (late 2010s, 2020s)
The rebirth of the Fediverse (Mastodon, PeerTube, Lemmy, etc.) → Now being co-opted by NGOs and #mainstreaming interests

Each time, the excuse is different, but the result is the same, we hand over power, they take control, we lose everything. Until we face the fact that we let this happen, that we were complicit, this cycle won’t stop. Every time we fail to call it what it is, the blood-letting/stains keep coming back.

The problem with #NGO and Co-op models, people love to push the same “solutions” that failed before. Pushing a voluntary project into a hard “not-for-profit” structure kills it, this happened again and again. Look at #indymedia. It worked because it was messy, decentralized, built from the ground up. Run by volunteers, not controlled by a central authority. Rooted in the activist base, not an #NGO-funded agenda. Then came the push to “formalize” it, and what happened?

Funding fights, bureaucracy, infighting.
Projects being hijacked or forced into rigid structures.
Most of the co-op/NGO media projects collapsed.

There is nothing wrong with people building not-for-profit media, but stop forcing voluntary activism into structures that will kill it. The old mistakes aren’t new solutions. They are just mistakes waiting to happen again.

The #OMN and the need for diversity of strategies, the #OMN is built on a simple idea, diversity of strategies is strength. We need:

Commercial models where they work.
Not-for-profit structures where they make sense.
Voluntary activism as the foundation.

Then the basic #4opens of them linking to each other. What we don’t need is people using their own narrow worldview as a #BLOCK on other approaches in the guise of “helping”. This happens all the time, with the #NGO crowd that wants everything formalized, structured, and professionalized, they see grassroots messiness as a problem. The geeks want everything to be purely about the tech, ignoring the social and political realities. The politicos want everything to align with their ideology, even when that means excluding actual working solutions. These proxy fights kill the meany projects before they even start.

The solution is not ideological purity, it’s pragmatic diversity. If we want to break the cycle, we need to stop repeating the same mistakes, stop blocking each other, link and start building with what we have #KISS

One path to this, that needs support https://opencollective.com/open-media-network

The light in this is the #Fediverse, otherwise the last decade in tech has been a complete dead end. We’ve watched the same old mistakes play out, layering more “solutions” onto the #geekproblem without ever questioning the foundation. Instead of building trust, we’ve been sold “security” wrapped in fear, reinforcing the same toxic cycles that keep us locked in place.

The #OMN projects build from the #Fediverse and #openweb reboot to break from this. They are about real empowerment, shifting power by growing trust rather than control. If we keep repeating the same mistakes, we’re just feeding the #deathcult, accelerating the collapse. The #fashernista and #encryptionist obsessions, instead of opening paths to change, have become blind alleyways leading to catastrophe. We need to step back, reassess, and build differently, before the coming decades bring suffering on a scale we’ve barely begun to grasp.

Fear, hope, and #climatechaos

The path we are on, climate change, mainstream politics, and fear reveals a troubling pattern: in times of crisis, like #climatechaos, mainstream politics instinctively shifts to the right. It’s essential to understand the underlying role of fear in pushing this drift.

Fear is a powerful political motivator. Right-wing ideologies thrive on it, whether the fear stems from economic instability, cultural change, or national security threats. In the current path of accelerating climate breakdown, fears of environmental collapse, mass migration, and resource scarcity intensify are creating fertile ground for reactionary politics to grow.

Yet, an intriguing shift to a counter path is underway: the fading fear of socialism among the western bourgeoisie. For decades, socialism was the boogeyman used to justify capitalism’s worst excesses. But as socialist ideas gain legitimacy, especially among younger generations, that fear diminishes. This shift cracks open space to challenge and thus change the right’s dominance and revive radical real alternatives.

This opening offers a brief flowering of hope. By balancing collective, community-driven projects and advocating for systemic change, we can push back against the politics of fear. Movements like #OMN, #OGB, and #indymediaback are seeds of this potential, growing resilience, equity, and sustainability outside the #mainstreaming mess driving spectacle.

However, hope can be a dwindling resource. Every moment lost to inaction feeds the cycle of despair, reinforcing the right’s grip on public imagination. The urgency of #climatechaos means we can’t afford to waste time or the pointless distractions that #mainstreaming common sense pushes over us.

This struggle is a balance between fear and hope. Fear is the tool of the #deathcult, but hope lives in grassroots action. The future depends on whether we push fear to suffocate change or seize this fleeting opening to build something real — from the compost of what’s been lost all ready.

Best not to one of the prats, who #block this path, thanks.

Signal-to-noise is a hard conversation

Signal-to-noise is a hard conversation to have. In our #postmodern world, the very idea of common agreement on what constitutes signal or noise feels elusive, even when it’s often obvious to the community.

The undermining of shared narratives fractured our sense of collective reality. In the absence of common ground, every perspective risks becoming its own echo chamber, amplifying what it values as signal while dismissing conflicting views as noise. This dynamic plays out in countless social and political spaces, shaping how movements grow or fracture.

Take the #climatecrisis: for decades, scientists have raised alarms, presenting real evidence of human-driven climate change. To the scientific community, this is pure signal — an urgent call to action. Yet, in the polluted information ecosystem of #dotcons social media, this signal is drowned out by noise: conspiracy theories, corporate disinformation, and nihilistic fatalism. The noise isn’t random; it’s cultivated to create doubt, intentionally distorting the clarity of the signal.

In activist communities, the tension between signal and noise surfaces as the #fluffy vs #spiky debate. The push for kindness and inclusivity (#fluffy) is valuable, but when weaponized to silence critique and #block hard conversations, it becomes noise that stifles necessary friction. Conversely, sharp, uncompromising confrontation (#spiky) can cut through noise to deliver a clear message, but this is too easy to #block, by “common sense” dogmatism and can also all too easily tip into performative aggression and endless infighting, it drowns the original signal in static.

The same dynamic unfolds in the political sphere. Movements like Black Lives Matter or Palestinian solidarity campaigns face relentless attempts to distort their message. The core signal, calls for justice, equality, and liberation, gets obscured by deliberate noise: fearmongering narratives, tokenizing gestures from corporations, or bad-faith actors hijacking discussions to sow division.

Yet, communities often have an intuitive sense of what is and isn’t noise. They might not always agree on the edges, but collective experience and shared values act as a compass. The challenge lies in cultivating enough trust to navigate that together, to hold space for disagreement without succumbing to the paralysis of endless debate or the allure of easy scapegoats.

In the end, the conversation itself is part of the signal. The flows of discussion, the messiness of negotiating meaning, and the work of collective sense-making, all of this generates the compost from which new understandings can grow. But that only works if we resist the temptation to #block, dismiss, or isolate ourselves entirely.

The goal isn’t to eliminate noise (an impossible task) but to build resilient communities that can amplify signal through the static. Because in a world where everything is contested, the most powerful act is to keep listening, keep speaking, and keep tending the roots of shared meaning.

#KISS

NOTE, we failed on this here

Building trust in the #openweb

The #openweb is a framework for human-centric, decentralized technologies built on transparency and collaboration. Its success hinges on trust, and as a slogan suggests, “Technology’s job is to hold the trust in place.” This concept is woven into the #OMN and #OGB initiatives, which emphasize community-driven decision-making and adherence to the #4opens principles.

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

The role of #4opens, open process, open data, open licences, and open standards—acts as “gatekeepers” for technological decisions. #Openprocess ensures inclusivity and transparency, blocking decisions that don’t involve public participation. #Opendata guarantees that shared information is accessible, reducing the potential for siloed control. #Openlicenses prevent restrictive ownership that could undermine collaboration. #Openstandards resist fragmentation and force adherence to balance collaborative practices and individual paths. This “soft, swishy” approach avoids rigid authoritarian structures while maintaining #KISS robust, “enforceable” values.

let’s look at challenges and strategies for #OMN combatting #mainstreaming “common sense” practices that erode grassroots values. By build strong defaults into projects and hardcode the #4opens principles to keep them central. To make this happen, let’s try and stay polite and inclusive during outreach, avoiding burnout and adding mess through conflict.

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

To do this, we need to work on sustainability efforts by avoid overloading projects with unnecessary features, “How does this fit into the #4opens?”. One path is to balance “friction” as a positive filter for misguided additions, while maintaining a welcoming environment for constructive collaboration.

Building a future beyond the #geekproblem, the “problem” originates from early open-source projects that #block the social dimensions of their technologies. By integrating the #4opens and prioritizing trust networks, the #openweb can (re)evolve into a human value network rather than a technological dead-end.

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

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

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

NGI Zero open source funding talks about the @sovtechfund

NGI Zero open source funding
The @sovtechfund is offering grants to people who contribute to a sustainable open source ecosystem. Grants go up to €300,000 per application and cover three main topics:

1. Improve FOSS Developer Tooling
2. Securing FOSS Software Production
3. FOSS Infrastructure Documentation

With this program, the Sovereign Tech Fund seeks to stimulate an open digital infrastructure: fundamental technologies that enable the creation of other software.

https://sovereigntechfund.de/en/challenges/ #opensource
Three Challenges to Contribute Back to Open Source

UPDATE Looks like people are also arguing this point https://shared-digital.eu/statement/

We are pouring public funding down the drain agen, these criteria are feeding the #geekproblem not actually trying to take the “problem” out of our geek paths. The people who PUSH this agenda are the problem – please POINT at them and talk about this mess, thanks.

Can we get a link to the people making the agenda, thanks, will try polite conversation #4opens

I worked with the guy who used to be behind the #NGIzero account, we did good stuff with the #EU outreach.

The replacement, I have no idea who they are and getting #blocking

This is a #4opens fail.

In all these toots am talking past “people” to talk about things/social/groups and not directly to individuals, they are second in all these conversations. This is the place where social value lives. The problem is, we don’t have hardly any of this… which is the subject am talking about.

#blocking is not seeing this, addressing this, the is a lot of blocking going on 😉

Am happy to talk to “individuals” as a first step.

Pouring money down the drain, because the majority of the problems in the #Fediverse and the #openweb are social not technical – if they only fund technical parts of this culture they are feeding the “problem” and this problem is going to pour the resources down the drain.

I understand this is a hard conversation to have, we have to try.

First step is #4opens, WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE PUSHING MESS while doing “good”, step into the light please #openprocess

Ignoring this basic #openprocess is #blocking, this is why conversations are done in public #4opens

yes, I understand the fear this creates and the desire to #block, but this then makes the #4opens fail more visible if people wont to use this for the needed change and challenge if they don’t yes it’s more noise what are you signal or noise 🙂

Signal vs Nose.

I find #mainstreaming people to be actually mad and increasingly bad. When do we get more #4opens people pushing change challenge in these #openweb spaces, please?

Am increasingly seeing this #blocking as a culture of fear, or more real as a culture of fear pushed as power politics.

Am thinking meany people will be confused and likely mix signal with noise on this subject.

Who are the bad people, the powerless pushing the #4opens on the #openweb or the powerful Burocrats worshipping the #deathcult while protecting these thin careers in the #mainstreaming

If you find yourself agenst the first and defending the second, then you are the problem.

This makes your behaver noise, and what you do very likely to be more #techshit to compost.

I wonder if people understand what activism is on the #openweb any more?

You talk to people to explane why they are doing WRONG, and at the same time you push them as HARD as you can to change their wrong behaver.

This works best with the #fluffy #spiky debate as a core part of this process.

People who keep saying “why can’t we all get along”, and “wouldent it go better if we were nice to each other” and the PROBLEM blocking the activism from having the needed affect…

You are making a mess of social technology

From my prospective, a lot of people are being prats on social/technology. This should be obvuse statement, but it’s not. If you think about this we can take two paths, the first is to #block this, obviously making more pratish behaver. The second is to ask questions and grow, thus reducing pratish behaver. In this era of #stupidindividualism which path do you think people take, and yes they ARE oftern being prats on this 😉 Get off your knees comes to mind, and please be less of a prat.

The last 40 years of worshipping the #deathcult (#neoliberalism salted with #postmodernism poisoned our communities by making individualism toxic. I am all for freedom, that people can be stupid if they want to be, but I keep using my freedom to tell them that this is often pratish behaver that is toxic and self-destructive. It’s up to them if they want to act on this communication, and yes, the #stupidindividualism thing to do is to #block this communication.

In this, it’s up to YOU to get off your knees, to stop worshipping the #deathcult (neoliberalism salted with postmodernism) and to look up to see you are making a mess of social technology.

Thinking outreach of the hashtag story

Classification of different versions of the web (such as #Web1, #Web2, #Web3, #Web4, or #Web5) can be a source of confusion and FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt).

The hashtags #openweb and #closedweb provide a clear way to describe and understand the different types of web platforms. The #openweb refers to platforms that are open-source, community-controlled, and promote transparency, the #closedweb to platforms that are proprietary, controlled by a few large companies and lack transparency.

Projects like #indymediaback and #OMN are examples of grassroots of social tech. These projects are focused on promoting decentralized, community-controlled media and communication platforms.

It’s time to compost the normal #techshit, and to focus on developing social tech that is more inclusive, diverse, and community-controlled. This will require a change in the way we think about technology, and a shift away from the current dominant paradigm.

The solution to this problem is to develop social tech that steps away from the #geekproblem and focuses on the needs and perspectives of the community. This can be achieved by involving a diverse group of people in the development and decision-making process, and by promoting open-source code, open standards, open governance, and open data in technology development.

The #geekproblem is a social tech problem that refers to the negative impacts that technology can have on society when it is developed and controlled by a small group of people with limited perspectives and values. It is important to recognize that the #geekproblem is not only a technical issue but also a social issue.

It’s important to remember that fear can be a barrier for change, but by actively using the #4opens we can call out pointless things, call out the #deathcult and compost the #techshit, we can actively work towards a more sustainable future.

It’s important to remember that all thinking is critique and if you aren’t looking at the faults, you are likely not looking at the thing at all. Don’t be afraid, use the #4opens, take up gardening the compost, and plant the seeds of hope in the era of #climatechaos.

It’s important to lift your head and look, lift your shovel, dig and plant. By actively using the #4opens and composting the #techshit, we can actively work towards a more sustainable future.

Living in fear is a common response to the challenges of the era of #climatechaos, when many people are on their knees worshipping the #deathcult. However, it is important to call out pointless things as pointless and actively use the #4opens as a tool to compost the #techshit that is contributing to these challenges.

The problem is that the nice moral majority, our liberal friends, have not accepted that the system they try to push is broken. It’s pastime for change, and holding onto our current system is not helping. Their “common sense” is the problem we need to be fighting, as well as the far right.

We must come together as a united force to address the real issues and challenges facing society, rather than spending time fighting among ourselves.

The left fail is spending too much time fighting inside the left over this balance, instead of focusing on the real issues and challenges. #BLOCKING #stupidindividualism and worshipping the #deathcult all push this fight, and it’s important not to be a “PRAT” (i.e. a person who behaves in a foolish or unthinking way) on this subject.

The “left mess” we are in refers to the challenges and divisions within the left-leaning political spectrum. The idea that on the “fluffy” left, we must be “nice” to get people involved in social change, and on the “spiky” left, we need to be nasty to be effective in social change, both have some truth to it. It is important to find a balance between the two approaches in order to be effective in bringing about social change.

Group use of hashtags as an organizing tool. This can help to bring attention to issues, promote collaboration, and increase the visibility of alternative perspectives on technology and society.

Overall, these ideas are meant to challenge the status quo, promote ethical considerations in technology development, and increase transparency, accountability, and collaboration in the tech industry.

Pushing simple #KISS ideas like #openweb vs #closedweb and #4opens as a powerful way to judge and compost #techcrap to mediate the #techchurn. This can help to promote open-source code, open standards, open governance, and open data in technology development.

To work with this, some ideas include:

Naming the current “common sense” as worshipping the #deathcult and making #mainstreaming uncomfortable. This can help to bring attention to the negative impact of neoliberalism on society and the importance of addressing it.

#stupidindividualism is a term that refers to the idea that people prioritize personal gain over the well-being of others and the community. It is often associated with the last 40 years of neoliberalism and a part of the liberal 20th century consensus. It is a strong #BLOCK that prevents people from recognizing and addressing the negative impact of their actions on society.

One way to address this challenge is to promote grassroots, DIY producer governance through the use of the #OGB hashtag and project. This can help to ensure that the development of the fediverse is guided by ethical considerations and that it is focused on the needs of the producers and the community.

It’s important to note that it’s not always possible to avoid mess and challenges.

One of the challenges of the fediverse is that it is decentralized and lacks a centralized governance structure, making it difficult to coordinate and get things done. This can be seen as both a good thing and a bad thing, as it allows for a lot of creativity and innovation, but also makes it difficult to achieve goals and create a consistent user experience.

The #fediverse is a network of independently operated servers that communicate with each other using open protocols. It is often considered an “accidental” reboot of the #openweb, as it emerged organically as a response to the centralized nature of social media platforms, which are dominated by the #dotcons

While the #4opens is not a way of keeping large corporations out of the open-source development, it can be used as a tool to mediate and prevent any attempts to extinguish the open source community by promoting transparency, accountability, and collaboration. By using #4opens, developers, users and community members can have a better understanding of the motivations and intentions of the corporation and can act accordingly.

The #4opens is a powerful tool for promoting open-source code, open standards, open governance, and open data in technology development. It can help to ensure that the development of technology is guided by ethical considerations and that it is focused on the needs of the users and the community, rather than the profits and control of a few large companies.

Additionally, the website could include links to the wiki for more in-depth information and resources, as well as a section for community engagement and discussion. This could be a valuable tool in the fight against #techshit #techcurn and a powerful way to reboot the #openweb movement..

The website could feature a clean and modern design, with a focus on easy navigation and clear, concise information about the #4opens. The text could be polished to make it easy for people of all skill levels to understand. You can use the existing wiki page https://unite.openworlds.info/Open-Media-Network/4opens/wiki as a starting point and add more information and resources to it.

Creating a visually appealing and user-friendly website for the #4opens could be a powerful tool in promoting the use of open-source code, open standards, open governance, and open data in grassroots tech projects. This website could serve as a central hub for information and resources on the #4opens, and it could be designed to make it easy for people to understand and adopt the principles of the #4opens in their own projects.

The hashtag story is a way of using different hashtags to paint a picture of the current state of the world and the paths that can be taken to address the issues at hand. It involves defining each hashtag and how it relates to the larger narrative. Here is an example of a hashtag story:

#fahernista is about consumer capitalism and the negative impact it has on society, treating it as a social illness.

More http://hamishcampbell.com/2023/01/12/the-hashtag-story-shows-the-current-state-of-the-world/

The #4opens is a powerful tool to be used in grassroots tech projects to promote open-source code, open standards, open governance, and open data. It can help to ensure that the development of technology is guided by ethical considerations, and that it is focused on the needs of the community, rather than the #dotcons.

There is hope in this situation, as it is possible to take the “stupid” away from “individualism” and to embrace a more balanced and responsible form of individualism. This would involve recognizing the importance of community and the well-being of others, and taking actions that promote the well-being of society and ecology as a whole.

It is a path that may not be easy, but it is essential for creating a more equitable and sustainable society.

The hashtag #stupidindividualism is used as a critique of this form of individualism, and highlights the negative consequences it can have on society. It suggests that this form of individualism is not only detrimental to society, but also to the individuals who embrace it.

The concept of “stupid individualism” refers to a form of individualism that prioritizes personal gain and self-interest over the well-being of others and the community. It is often associated with the post-modern and neoliberal times we live in, where people are encouraged to prioritize their own needs and wants over the needs of others and ecology/society as a whole. This can lead to a lack of empathy, cooperation, and social responsibility.

The human condition does include a desire or need for blindness, as it is often easier to conform to the status quo and ignore the negative consequences of our actions, rather than to challenge them. Throughout history, there have been moments of rebellion and enlightenment, where individuals and groups have challenged the dominant social thinking and pushed for change.

The hashtags suggest that often people find meaning and build their lives in the twilight, constantly pushing away glints of light that might illuminate too strongly the social squalor and everyday cruelty that is hidden away from them in the shadows. They are blind to the negative consequences of capitalism, choose to ignore them in order to preserve their way of life.

People shape their own history and create their own reality, but they do so within the constraints of the existing social and historical conditions. People are not free to make history as they please, but are limited by the circumstances that are already in place and have been inherited from the past.

The theme is expressed by the hashtags, people are shaped by the dominant social thinking of capitalism to conform to the expectations of society, even when it is detrimental to their well-being

It’s important to remember that people are not passive recipients of social structures and institutions, and can actively shape their own consciousness and the world around them. By becoming aware of the mechanisms that shape their thoughts and beliefs, and by actively challenging the dominant social thinking, people can create a more equitable and sustainable society.

This creates a dynamic where people feel compelled to conform to the dominant social thinking, even when it is detrimental to their well-being, in order to avoid punishment and to gain reward. It can be difficult for people to break away from this dynamic and to challenge the #mainstreaming agenda because they fear the consequences of not conforming.

People choose to be blind in our “sunlight” world. One possible reason is that people are often motivated by the desire for reward and the fear of punishment. Those who conform to the dominant social thinking and push the #mainstreaming agenda may be rewarded with social acceptance, material wealth, and status. On the other hand, those who challenge the mainstreaming agenda may be punished with social rejection, financial insecurity, and marginalization.

The hashtags tell a story that people are often blind to this obverse thinking and that they block challenges to their blindness by rejecting or ignoring alternative perspectives. This can be seen as a form of self-defense mechanism to protect their current way of thinking and to avoid the discomfort of change.

People’s thoughts and beliefs are not formed independently, but are shaped by the social structures and institutions in which they live.

This idea is in the themes of the hashtags , as they all talk about how people are shaped by the dominant social thinking of capitalism, and the control and manipulation of individuals by this dominant thinking.

The hashtags suggest that the way out of this sordid story is to step away from the constant pursuit of consumer goods and services, and to reject materialism and consumerism in favour of more meaningful and fulfilling pursuits. They advocate for a simpler and more sustainable way of life, where people are not controlled or manipulated for profit and where ethical considerations are at the forefront of the development of technology.

For open-source code, open standards, and open governance.

The hashtags express a desire for a more equitable and sustainable internet. They advocate for open-source code, open standards, and open governance.

The story and world-view that these hashtags embody is a critical examination of the current state of technology, and a call for a more equitable and sustainable future.

They are a reminder of the importance of considering the impact of technology on society and individuals, and the need for ethical and responsible innovation.

The #hashtags #fahernista, #openweb, #dotcons, #4opens, #geekproblem, #techcurn, #nothingnew, #techshit and #encryptionists, all embody a similar story and world-view, which is the critique of the negative impact of technology and its development on society. They all express a concern that the #mainstreaming current state of technology is not aligned with the values of fairness, openness, and sustainability, and that it is being driven by the profit motives.

#encryptionists prioritize the use of encryption, viewing it as a way to protect privacy and security online.

The problem is that they prioritize encryption over important principles such as trust, transparency, and collaboration. These are essential for a progressive society, the idea of giving up control and building trust among groups.

This issue is then embedded in the code and becomes a problem when it leads to the creation of technology that undermines trust and cooperation.

#techshit usually happens when people do not ask whether the project is necessary or brings new value, but instead build it anyway, repeatedly.

#nothingnew this term encourages developers and creators to consider if the project they are working on is truly innovative and necessary, or if it is just a replication of something that already exists. It also highlights the importance of evaluating the impact of new technologies and products on society, and encourages developers to consider the perspectives of different stakeholders before creating new products or services.

Looking at early examples of #couchsurfing and #indymedia, as healthy of #openweb culture, they built on the principles of sharing and collaboration, and they prioritized community building and connection over profit. However, as they grew in popularity and became more mainstream, they began to face challenges such as commercialization, privacy issues and other problems that led to the decline of the community spirit that once defined them. They are examples of the “problem” of openweb culture.

#failbook and Google are examples of large tech companies that are accused of using their dominance and control over technology to exploit users and undermine society. Both companies have faced criticism for their data collection and use practices.

#4opens refers to the four principles of open source, the essentials for creating a more equitable and sustainable internet. A tool that can guide us towards a better, more humane path, promoting transparency and collaboration. They give us the power to JUDGE the technology we use and the companies that provide it to decide whether they align with our values and interests. In this way, 4opens are a source of power for both individuals and communities to take back control of their digital lives.

This closed web is a form of “technological slavery” in which users are subjected to the control and manipulation of these companies, and that users choose to use these services due to lack of alternatives and /or because they are not aware of the implications of their choices.

The #closedweb refers to the World Wide Web that is dominated by large companies, often referred to as “#dotcons”, who control the flow of information and access to online services through the use of proprietary technology and closed systems. These companies often use their power to collect and monetize user data, and to shape online experiences in ways that prioritize their own interests.

#Dotcons is a term that refers to companies that dominate the internet, and the negative impact they have on society. They are seen as feeding into the social illness of capitalism, prioritizing profit over the well-being of users and society.

The step away metaphor is a positive path to move away from this negative impact, this may include promoting open web and decentralized platforms, supporting alternative models, and encouraging more ethical and responsible behaviour.

The fight for #open in the #EU is a power politics struggle between the need for openness and transparency in an organization that is often characterized by closed decision-making processes and lack of accountability. Some people within the EU are aware of the need for change and are taking steps to pretend to be more open, but they are not truly committed to it.

It is possible that a small crack of #open might be enough to undermine the monolithic closed system, but the problem is that many people are willing to sell out #open in order to keep a bit of #closed. This means that the push for #open needs to be sharper and harder, with a more aggressive approach.

It is important to remember that #open has power over closed, just like light over darkness. By pushing for more openness and transparency, we can create a more democratic and accountable #eu

This might still require a stake and vampire level of PUSH, with a few blows of a mallet to drive the point home. We need to be aggressive, and not back down in the fight for #open in the EU.

A conversation on trust and tech with #OMN projects

Remember the #fedivers is built like this, no geek in their right minds would do this, yet we use it every day

All our existing code is based on #feudalism master (admin) surf (user) this is why it is defenceless vs capitalism (#dotcons)

There have been attempts to build democratic code, early #wikis, think #indymedia

#geekproblem “common sense” shifted them back into feudalism.

We have a hard #BLOCK on democratic code, if you want to change/challenge then this blocking needs to be removed.

The #OMN is a project for this, it’s an uphill battle to bring democracy into our coding.

This is the media project (text needs a update” https://unite.openworlds.info/Open-Media-Network/Open-Media-Network/wiki OFFLINE

Governance for horizontals to talk to “vertical power” https://unite.openworlds.info/Open-Media-Network/openwebgovernancebody/wiki/01.-Online-Governance OFFLINE

And a video for you https://visionon.tv/w/jqTdss1qrdk4yEZi OFFLINE

We get into the details, of the #OMN you would get Boleyn tag changes on import, so you can auto translate guardian issued tags and add your own tags with both rules and manually.

These tags would flow out of your instances and could flow back to the guardian if you trusted each other.

The idea is to turn news stories/videos into “commons” objects with rich flowing metadata… done in a #KISS way based on trust/moderated link/flows

RSS bring in the legacy objects #activitypub is the main transport protocol.

It’s the news part of the #fediverse, our first implementation of this would be #indmediaback

The idea is to decenter the server, the data is in a soup that flows… #activertypub is two-way this is need to build the horizontal network, so the soup does not ONLY flow one way.

Nobody is in charge, no slaves, no masters. Only trusted or moderated flows. It needs to be two-way, though you are right people being human meany will be one way. BUT we are not building it that way 🙂

RSS brings the legacy in, and it’s a simple display format for embeds and passive news feeds etc.

I think people find the “nobody is in charge” bit a very hard thing to understand, even though we have built meany networks/social groups on this idea, and still do.

In the realm of tech, I call this #blocking the #geekproblem and to get anywhere we need to take the “problem” outa “geek” or we are left with the mess (in a bad way)

#KISS

A sordid story of fear and punishment, and a path to walk away from this

“It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness.”

People are shaped by the “dominant social thinking” this should not be a radical thing to say as its obverses. People survive by deigning this, blinded to this obverse thinking. To stay blind, they #BLOCK challenges to their blindness.

Why do people choose to be blind in our sunlight world? There is a circle here, people who push #mainstreaming agenda are “reworded” and those who push agenst are “punished”. The desire to be blinded, to live bowed down and prostrate eyes turned to the darkness come from this simple reword and punishment that binds together the current social mess we sadly think is normal.

“(Men) make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past.”

People find meaning and build their lives in the twilight, constantly pushing away glints of light that might illuminant too strongly the social squallier and everyday cruelty there #mainstreaming has pushed out into the shadows away from them, to hide just out of the light.

The human condition has always embedded this desire/need for blindness, yes, sometimes we have rebelled, the era of the enlightenment, some fractions of the 20th century are examples, most times and most people have conformed, we have strong confirmatory today.

This is expressed in different ways in different times, in the post-modern and dogmatic liberal times we live in I find #stupidindividualism to be descriptive, a shard of light to blind the averted eyes, if people take the time to acclimatize to the gloom this illuminates they might find themselves and there “community” a path out of this mess.

The is hope here, you can take the “stupid” away from “individualism” a simple idea, though a not easy path to take #OMN

ideas to work with

#stupidindividualism a full ideology with the last 40 years of #neoliberalism and a part of the liberal 20th century consensus. So it’s a strong #BLOCK

Some ideas:

* Every day, naming of the current “common sense” as worshipping the #deathcult is both true and useful in making #mainstreming uncomfortable.

* The pushing of simple #KISS ideas like #openweb vs #closedweb and #4opens as a POWERFUL way to JUDGE and compost #techcrap to mediate the #techchurn

* Group use of hashtags is the organizing tool.

A conversation on trust/control in social technology

Q. In a nutshell, my manifesto could be “form your own little communities and federate them”

A. What would be the “common” understanding/agreements/standards that would bridge these communities, or would it Only be code, if only code what standards?

Q. Federation just depends upon the willingness to do so. The code is just the plumbing which makes it happen. And I think nearly all fediverse federation is opt-out, so that you are federating by default but can opt-out (block) if you want to.

A. Interesting to look at #peertube backend for a opt-in federated model, this aproch is the social/technical model for the social/tech of the #OMN project. That is building a human network first, technology is to support and mediate the very strong #geekproblem that is #blocking the human change/challenge we need #KISS

Q. Opt-in is ok if you are trying to build a small federation or an institution with different departments (eg a federation of libraries with particular rules and membership criteria).
I don’t think the fediverse would have been as successful if it had been opt-in from the beginning, though.

A. The #peertube network is an working example of this opt-in for content sharing. Think commenting is opt-out. It’s not got any “social” UX for this, which is why its kinda limited at mo… it suffers from the #geekproblem like just about all coding projects so worth looking at/using but its not core #OMN

Q. The problem with peertube was that the way it was federated initially was pretty bad, and the large majority of the videos being posted were not self-made and were just copyright violations, inviting legal takedowns. Initially, they also didn’t have enough moderation capability to combat disinformation and spam.
Often developers are expecting a twee world in which everyone is nice, but this is never the case for social networks. That expectation has a lot to do with the socio-economic position of commercial software development and its demographic homogeneity.

A. think the resion they did not do good moderation was a question of priorates, we have endemic BAD history for most of our tech, good to keep this in mind.
There are two paths out of the mess you touch on, one is social, one is hard tech. Agen we have only BAD history of thinking about this, good to keep this in mind.
The #geekproblem that writes this bad history is #BLOCK ing the social technology we need, good to think about this.

#OMN #KISS #OPENWEB notice the last hashtag, we DO NOT NEED more #closedweb if we have any hope of mediating the #geekproblem for tech/social progressive outcomes that we so urgently need.

Q. And opt-in is kinda closed. “Your name’s not down, you’re not coming in”. That sort of thing. Exclusivity isn’t really going to move the needle on anything, though.

A. This reply is a #geekproblem view of the thinking.
Good to look at a social view, all society are based on #TRUST and healthy society have more reliance on trust and unhealthy society more reliance on “hard” process/structure.
There are academic bases to this, a sadly right-wing view https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_trust_and_low_trust_societies
The #geekproblem fails in building “good trust” based society, it’s an endemic failing of our tech/thinking.
TRUSTLESS is the #geekproblem good to think about this when coding social/technology.
We need to build tech social networks that “fail” so that human beings can fix this “failing” based on TRUST and from this build a real progressive society.

Q. I don’t advocate trustless. You can’t prove trust merely by doing some complicated blockchain math. Trust is earned, or broken, by people. Not by machines.
Also, vaguely related to #chatcontrol. The EU is going to lose a lot of trust by trying to do policing-by-algorithm. The algorithm approach is a sort of abuse of trust.

A. the #OMN is this project: “We need to build tech social networks that “fail” so that human beings can fix this “failing” based on TRUST and from this build a real progressive society.”
No geeks/technologist are building this, let alone thinking like this. The #geekproblem we need to mediate for any outcome.

Leave the #EU to one side on this, as they are well hopeless on social technology, though some of them are looking (with blindfolds on)

Q. I’ve been around the block enough to have seen many online communities fail. I think you have some experience of that also.
When communities fail, there can be a lot of bad outcomes, and sometimes it’s actually fatal. Social networks are a lifeline for a lot of people and when the network fails so do its members.
This isn’t even about narrowly technical failures. Social engineering attacks such as the ones of the last few years can cause enough aggravation and fear that people just lose trust and quit.
So when building this type of software, we need to be mindful of the potential consequences, and not design failure into the system. People’s social lives are not a demolition derby for the entertainment of others.

A. it’s normal, that you are finding it difficult to see the point am talking about. All humane relationships fail It’s what makes us human, the #geekproblem trying to fix this is taking away our humanity. You see this in both mainstream #dotcons like #failbook, and you also see it in all ALT_TECH it’s a (social) systematic problem.
Build stuff that is messy, human. Please DON’T TRY AND FIX problems created by the problem you are trying to fix is basic. Take the #geekproblem blindfold off is a good step.

Reading this book would help https://archive.org/stream/in.ernet.dli.2015.101521/2015.101521.The-Sciological-Imagination_djvu.txt

Report back on #XR peertube/youtube video posting experiment

Report back on peertube/youtube video posting experiment. #XR video posted only to peertube got 18 views in 48 hours. Video posted only to youtube got 26 views in 24 hours so far. Both videos were nice fluffy #XR shared widely in meany #dotcons groups with 1-10k subscribers so in theory to 20-50k people based on “simple” subscription count.

Posted to peertube

Posted to youtube

Let’s look back for a moment. Last year posting similar video you #youtube would have received 100-250 views

10 years ago 2000-4000 views would be normal.

Thoughts on this the #dotcons algorithm affectively #BLOCK straight grassroots video reports – only by shaping your media to #SEO games can you get any views in the #dotcons. This behaviour has shifted popular radical messages/media makers to #deathcult agenders to have any hope of achieving personal “success” and will continue to malform our media if there is no working alternatives for them to use.

I think our “digital addictions” explains the failure of the videos to organically spread inside the #dotcons with views not being feed by the algorithms which prefers #clickbate and people have been trained to push #clickbate so no longer see the need to push straight content – “vanilla” radical grassroots content does not feed their digital addictions or the hole mainstream culture leaves inside us all.

On one hand, if we keep going down the #dotcons path our media will become more and more malformed to #deathcult agender simply to get views and attention. on the other “straight” grassroots coverage will be affectively BLOCKED.

A note here for the #fashionistas “Gaming” the algorithms is just SEO under a new path. Let’s worship the “cargo cult” mentality and not a helpful comment/reply please have a think on this point.

For the last 10 years I have been pushing anti-algorithm content to amplify the exclusion affect. Looking at these numbers I think we are starting to get peek exclusion as our visionontv youtube channel has 7k subscribers so to get only 26 views in 24 hours is notable bad, just on this subscribe base not to mention the #failbook groups embed postings etc.

Talking about the #deathcult is not advertising friendly no matter how fluffy some of your content is 🙂

To conclude. Two points for #openweb media we need to remove “advertising friendly” as criteria. Second we need to actively detox people from their digital addictions. We do the first one, but we have no real plan/implementation/ideas on the second.

The #OMN has PGA and #4opens as concrete foundations, so we have firm ground to build the second needed part down the line.

Yes. Lots of #NGO’sh people will want to add “common sense” #dotcons ideas and process to #openweb projects as they take off. There will be a pile of shit shovelling need to get past this “common sense” issue. We need good shovels #OMN

The reason we are building out the wide #OMN network to provide a space for our messages and to make compost out of our current shit pile;)

UPDATE: the youtube video got to 42 views in 2 days the peertube stayed at 19 views both are very poor numbers but the #openweb one is growing and the #dotcons one visible declining which is positive.