Tag: blocking

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

A conversation on the #geekproblem

A. We compost the current tech shitpile by #4opens to weed out 90% of the crap so as a first step we only have to work through the 10% then we are trying projects like #OGB and #OMN to work base on trust links to sift this last down to 1% then it’s human to human scale where we can build links/community’s out wider.

I think we have a good first step, if we can move the projects past the current #blocking​

Q. I think you need to breakdown what needs to be done and what you’d like to be done into small chunks to get past some of the blocking.

Especially if you want tech hours on it, at the moment.

Because there are folks there looking for a project to contribute to, but they aren’t always sure how to contribute.

A. Not how protest camps or squats, or hippy gathering happens. They are grassroots #DIY were people “just know” what to do because it has to be done to create the “world” around them.

Here you are describing the #geekproblem as a path out of the “problem” am addressing. Protest camps, squats and hippy gatherings all happen in the “real world” and are made by “real people” so “geeks” could/need to do all of them gives you an idea where the “problem” is 🙂

Q. Possibly even put the bite sized chunks into a toot and make it an appeal for help. Because yes we do have issues in the tech community with ignoring the negativity but sometimes folks will make grabby hands for the chance to do something positive, even a tiny thing to move a project forward.

A. have been working on this for 20 years, we can’t “solve” this problem from “inside” the problem. Change/change is needed from meany people to shift the #blocking culture. Am one voice, it requires a community, yes the are tools #4opens #OGB #OMN etc are useful. If the chicken and egg “problem” can be mediated.

“All code is ideology solidified into action – most contemporary code is capitalism”

You and your wider community can take the #4opens and judge codeing projects, thus discard 90% of them. The remaining 10% will have obvious holes that then people can focus on, examples are the projects I push. By doing this, building up and widening our “culture” we can focus on the 1% that is really important. From this we change the world as default, and likely our nature. Of course, it’s not this simple and challenge/change can easily be negative. It’s this or #deathcult

Q. OK, so consider that some geeks may not see how they can contribute, it could be background, it could be they haven’t had much of an opportunity to interact with the real world of protest.

We need to open the door both ways. Not just make tech more accessible to folks outside tech, but to figure out how to open the door so that techies can start to learn how they can help.

I think it’s a bit like pebbles on a mountain, small steps then we can build on that and make larger momentum.

A. metaphors are the precursor of action, what is needed is a group of people to take action – this is how every protest camp, squat or hippy gathering starts.

We have the metaphors, we have some actions (#4opens process is easy) what we are lacking is groups of people.

We have a soft social problem, NOT a hard codeing problem.

Urgency is always here, the spiky hashtags are there to find these groups. Use them or lose them.

Q. I think that’s something you can build on.

A. “not how protest camps or squats, or hippy gathering happens. They are grassroots #DIY where people “just know” what to do because it has to be done to create the “world” around them.”

The is a boring circal, The is a “I” “you” issue that surprisingly happens less in the above world. On the web in the context of meany of the people I am talking to, I call this #stupidindividualism this hashtag expresses the boring circal.

We can persuade people to our point of view, but it does take energy to do so. Most people don’t come up against life endangering adversity, so it’s hard for them to see the issue. We are still wired to see immediate danger rather than what could be seen as existential danger to life.

A. its a cultural problem, how are cultures created is maybe usefully to look at.

How to do affective change/challenge this is a long history of this visionon.tv

Q. Most folks don’t fall foul of laws etc, because they are never put in a position to be. But when you end up at the edges, that’s when you see the harm. For example, I had a very nieve idea about the UK and the EU and the Union. I’m now at the edges as I’m a 3rd country national in France.

Yet I still have an immense amount of privilege. Refugees are harmed way more by the edges of society and law than I am. But mainstream folks see people at the edges as a threat.

It’s the same with environmental and social protests, people in the mainstream don’t get why the edges harm.

Basic stuff – use it or lose it #OMN

The #hashtags are from a “prospective” thus push rejection from people outside that perspective

The verticals are unthinking in their hierarchies, which turns the “value” of horizontals into a negative thing. Meanwhile, the horizontals despise the “power” plays of the verticals and take every measure to block their outcomes.

The world, however, is one of balance. Both perspectives have roles and shifting values depending on the problems we collectively need to address.

For those pushing #BLOCKING — a few sips to quench your thirst:

The conversations sparked by these flows are what truly matter. Grassroots structures grow from this collective perspective, feeding into shared social knowledge. The #hashtags act as a net, gathering working groups ready to embrace change and challenge.

In the end, all change and challenge are practical. People who only talk without action are naturally carried to the side streams, mingling until they either join the flow of practical work or fade away.

Yes, in your arrogance, you might call this arrogance — and from a different perspective, you might be right… but still blind. If you’re from the same perspective, I’d say nuts and nutters are only useful as part of a balanced diet. Maybe meditate on that before cracking more nuts. (I’m still refining that metaphor.)

If you enjoy playing games, you can spot the word magic in the #hashtags. If you’re more practical, you can translate them into traditional definitions — for example, #deathcult = neoliberalism, #dotcons = the boom-and-bust cycles of the dotcom era, #fashernista = someone fashionable in any subject. It’s not complex at this level.

The complexity lies in the perspective that weaves these elements into a coherent story. Yes, this storytelling could be seen as arrogance — if you choose to view it that way. But that judgment itself makes you a “nut” from the very perspective you critique.

Circles, magic, nets, outcomes — #OMN

Influx of EU funding into the Fediverse

#Openweb – all together push through, the HARD block crumbles.

Getting a good outcome is hard… feeling this influx of EU funding is going to do damage and little good to the #Fediverse health if it keeps funding as its current agenda.

Though the Fediverse is drifting from its own lifestyle mess…

Let’s try and mediate the funding driven damage.

Then lifestyle driven damage can mediate its self.

Looking for a better social change/challenge outcome and less mess 🙂

unite.openworlds.info/Open-Med looking at the best funding I have found… not attacking them, opening a conversation on a OBVIOUS issue.

We can also look at the funding that is 100% poured down the drain, but we likely have little influence there.

I like to keep it positive, if possible, BUT a lot of people are #BLOCKING which will create some fire and LOTS of smoke, It’s what social change/challenge looks like… murky…

Focus on #KISS to see through the smoke.

Hard to see how you can do a left wing project without showing the workings

open/trust – left

We fall to easily into

fear/control – right

It’s what the page is about.

Yep, the whole #dotcons side of the EU funding agenda is poison and only feeds the mess.

As I highlight, just about all funding is poured strait down the drain, it’s the normal outcome.

#indymediaback one thing to keep in mind, I think we/indymedia crew learned the wrong lesson from these raids/repression.

We pushed fear/control as a solution, which added to the mess #closedweb

As the #Fediverse shows, open/trust was the path we should have taken #openweb

This ripped the #indymedia project apart, leaving us in this #dotcons mess.

When making judgments, let’s be #KISS, to see through the mess.

Shovels and compost #OMN

Yep, trauma is an issue, why I use basic ways of looking at these things. Then it’s up to the people to build up from this simplicity DIY, a grassroots aproch.

 

Practical approaches visionon.tv/w/nw2pRyvj1vfjx1u4 a film i made for the legal support crew of a big campaign. The repression was ongoing and strong. The healing was the mass walking through the police stop and search – this likely mediated a lot of growing trauma…

#Openweb – all together push through, the HARD block crumbles.

Practical approaches, a film I made for the legal support crew of a big campaign. The repression was ongoing and strong. The healing was the mass walking through the police stop and search – this likely mediated a lot of growing trauma…

#Openweb – all together push through, the HARD block crumbles.

Lets rate funding for openweb projects

Can use different ideas, am starting with left/right. If you would like to use a different agenda please open a new page and go for it.

We start with the assumption that 90-100% of funding on this subject is simply pored down the drain, most of it into pointless NGO projects and #fashernista individuals “careers” in this first look am using very basic definitions.

  • Right-wing is motivated by Fear/control
  • Left-wing is motivated by Trust/open
  • Center – liberal/social democracy agenda
  • NGO – pointlessness, nobody uses it.

Going to start with the best #openweb funders I have found recently https://nlnet.nl/ who have money from NGI Zero which is from the EU

LINK https://unite.openworlds.info/Open-Media-Network/4opens/wiki/Funding-of-openweb-projects

This is DIY feel free to add to this draft, just add your view as Right/Left/Center/NGO before the project and if it’s different to the other view’s maybe add a short text why in brackets.

Thinking

The world has shifted hard to the right in the last 10 years, it has dragged the “left” in reaction to this move. The is little what you would traditionally call left.

What is left is in “reaction” to the right, thus is reaction/conservatism, which is a right agenda.

There is a bind/blind/blocking here that we have to work to overcome.

This thread is shovel and composting.

Q. For example, they’ve labelled Disroot as right-wing. Why? Because in their opinion all encryption stuff is motivated by fear/control, which are the tools of the right wing, so it must be right-wing… :/

A. This should be obvious – Disroot is about “Fear/control” yes you can say you are doing this for left agenda which is obviously true. BUT the “motivation” is right wing and not left wing which is what am looking at, it’s based on “Fear/control”

Q. “we want encryption since it guarantees certain freedoms/rights, like the right to communicate privately.”

A. Fear leading to the need for control – this is an obvious right-wing path. Not saying it’s a bad thing in the shit heap we live in 🙂 What would a leftwing path, based on open/trust look like?

Q. But it’s got nothing to do with the right wing. Just because you want to keep all projects in several categories doesn’t justify labeling Disroot, a team of dedicated people who work very hard to provide others with privacy-respecting services, as Right-wing…

A. We are looking at these projects from basic *political* viewpoints in this meany, encryption projects are about “conserving” a right or #blocking a problem. These are both negative conservative agenda.

This might be counterintuitive but have a look at political philosophy
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left%E2%

“Generally, the left-wing is characterized by an emphasis on “ideas such as freedom, equality, fraternity, rights, progress, reform and internationalism” while the right-wing is characterized by an emphasis on “notions such as authority, hierarchy, order, duty, tradition, reaction and nationalism”

It’s interesting to look at the world in different ways.

End thoughts

Am hoping that people are starting to see that there are almost no left-wing tech funding, yes the is funding using right-wing agendas to push back at right-wing problems. BUT actual projects funded to push left-wing agenda are rare.

Of course there is a huge amount of NGO #pouring money down the drain, this is normal. Here am looking at the BEST progressive tech funding I can find, they do good work, so it’s not an attack please.

Misunderstanding – Out reaching the #OMN #openweb projects.

I start to understand the misunderstanding, blocking many of the people outreaching the #OMN. It’s a DIY project there is the assumption that people will see the need and fill in the missing bits. The “missing bits” have a function, to be filled in otherwise we would be pushing clean non-messy #dotcons world view which is a very different project.

Maybe this is hard to see, but we would be doing something utterly pointless if it is not messy. So people pushing clean are not helping, rather they are #BLOCKING

Must stress the utterly pointless here, as people have done slick/controlled alts many times over the last 30 years and in the medium term this has always proven to be pointless.

It’s a world view problem that’s going to kill us, well lots of us.

Quote https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARiaiyHrijw

Meany people reply to outreach by telling the #dotcons story as if it were common sense… where the outreach is telling DIY, so communication is missing/past each other.

The #OMN is offering tools, people are generally looking for shiny toys a different world view. From the DIY prospective shiny toys are just rubbish to add to the landfill were tools you can build a new world if you are motivated and have care and focus.

To put this bluntly, its #DIY or death as #XR says in the streets. Hope this #KISS aproch helps to build a bridge – up to you guys to hold this bridge in place.

#OMN projects are tools for YOU to change/challenge the world we live/die in.

Why alt grassroots media fail

Published Date 9/17/17 9:59 AM

Stupid individualism and the visionOntv CJ video templates.

Our templates for video journalism are designed to simplify and empower normal people to make coherent video news reports using the tools they already have. They are successful at this if people fallow the template’s – it says this at the end of most of them. The issue that creates failure is a standard one for the possibility of an alternative “#stupidindividualism”.

Our shared western society is based on a hegemonic false sense of individualism, where the reality is largely faceless bland conformity thinly covered by a surface of lifestyle fashion. This is the bases of consumer capitalism, our “wealth” is built on. The current world view atomises any possibility of building an alternative and shows up as a #blocking in most attempts to build one. The disparity of wealth on the surface and poverty of the underlying human condition (some more hippy types would call this “spirit”) is striking to many thinking and feeling people.

Our templates boil down more than 30 years of experience of awarded wining fast turn around video journalism to a A4 cartoon sheet. The instructions are clear and complete, if you fallow these, after a few attempts you will likely have mastered the bases of audiovisual story telling and from this point of basic mastery opens a whole world of creativity and real genuine “individualism” of the less stupid kind.

Over the last 10–20 years of teaching few actually get this far, and we know this because we have trained thousands of citizen journalist over hundreds of workshops at both undercurrents and visionOntv. Why? I would put into view my old friend/foe “#stupidindividualism” as the explanation (though would admit, the are technical challenges as well).

The impotence of the template is more in what it doesn’t say. The is much more information in the omissions, this is how it fits on a A4 with pictures. It distils what does work and explains this. And leaves out much that people do by default that dues not work.

Simply, people do not fallow the template, often they do not even pick them up and read them, they then go onto do what THEY think is video making, they do all the bits that the template purposely omits and very few of the bits in them, the result is almost always a disempowering mess. This is the same outcome with all groups we work with.

We live in an individualist society, where we are all “empowered individuals”. The problem is evident in that this is our empowerment is an almost all an illusion, we are all dis-empowered individuals with egos let loose on dispoling mode. We think we are empowered because everything around us that works is on bureaucratic autopilot, we don’t actually have to create anything original and lack the base skills to so when the rare option comes round.

Our templates are such a rear opportunity, if you can take your mind out of dispoleing mode and fallow the instructions – the first step and a rare hopeful sign for us as trainers is a budding CJ actually checking the steps on the paper template as they go through the filming.

This is an example of “stupid individualism” a block on many parts of building an alternative.

Some background http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_fetishism

The Role of #Blocking in Horizontal Projects: Mannequins Dancing to Barely Visible Strings

(DRAFT) In this post, I explore how #blocking hinders positive social change in horizontal projects. By #blocking, I mean various tactics: ignoring core issues, prioritizing everyday agendas to obscure systemic problems, and using significant issues to distract from necessary changes.

Understanding Outcome-Driven Horizontal Projects

Outcome-driven horizontal projects, such as Climate Camp, face sustainability challenges. A notable issue is the strong resistance to process change—this resistance, or #blocking, makes necessary changes harder, leading to vertical structures and eventual ossification. This results in rigid, non-functional structures incapable of adapting, ultimately breaking under pressure and failing to achieve horizontal processes.

Psychological Roots of #Blocking

At the core of #blocking is a psychological fear of losing perceived certainty, where individuals cling to a misguided sense of certainty and autonomy. I refer to this phenomenon as “#stupidindividualism,” to overcome this, we need to circumvent this “stupid individualism.”

Comparing Intentional Communities and Online Projects

Rainbow Gatherings manage to circumvent this #stupidindividualism by creating environments of enforced scarcity. In these intentional communities, participants are moved into a world where normal options are unavailable, necessitating change. The path of #Stupidindividualism becomes too dysfunctional to impede progress.

In contrast, online media projects like #visionontv lack this scarcity, allowing “stupid individualism” to thrive unchecked. This results in participants self-defining and dismissing critical points without engagement, perpetuating the issues.

Trust Networks as a Solution

“Trust networks” are essential in overcoming “stupid individualism.” With this understanding, I view the Climate Camp process more sympathetically. The “process people,” criticized for ossification, suffered alongside the wider camp. This issue reoccurs, and those pushing empty agendas are less to blame than the unaddressed systemic problems.

The Metaphor of Strings and Mannequins

It’s crucial to avoid personalizing the responsibility for this problem. Viewing ourselves as mannequins dancing to barely visible strings highlights the systemic nature of the issue. The circle we dance in isn’t right—we need a new circle with different strings, some more visible, to start a new dance.

Participants often feel tangled by the strings, trying to unravel them to create a new circle. It’s the strings, not the messengers, that block progress. Assistance in untangling and resetting the strings is needed—perhaps the messenger is trying to help. Try not to shoot.

Reflection and Call to Action

In this post, I attempt to untangle a string, acknowledging that the Climate Camp process wasn’t as bad as I once thought. What string will you untangle? Avoiding “stupid individualism” is crucial, yet we increasingly become ensnared by it on all sides.

The danger lies in discussing parallel things and thinking along parallel, divergent lines. “Stupid individualism” is strong and active—the more we struggle, the more entangled we become, diminishing hope for a new dance. Dance, as a metaphor for process, and strings, as a metaphor for the human sense of belonging necessary for societal cohesion, illustrate this struggle.

Conclusion

Does this end well? Historically, it hasn’t, but approaching the problem from different angles might yield different results this time. Therefore, I avoid personal responsibility, seeing us as mannequins dancing in a circle, twitching to barely visible strings. The current circle isn’t right—we need a new circle with different strings, some more visible, and to start a new dance.

The role of #blocking in horizontal projects

Published Date 12/16/11 6:00 PM

Mannequins dancing to barely visible strings (DRAFT)

This is an attempt to understand how blocking is used to stop/slow positive social change. By #blocking I mean many things, refusing to address core issues, pushing everyday agenda’s to hide more systematic issues, and confusingly using big issues to distracts and fog everyday needed changes.

Outcome-driven horizontal projects are hard to sustain. I understand #climatecamp process #ossification better now – there is a strong blocking to process change – the continuing pushing of the needed change is blocked thus the change gets harder (more vertical) until it ossifies and becomes non-functional strong enough to break the block (thus breaking the horizontal process it is trying to achieve). End up with a broken structure that cannot move or change.

So the issue is “blocking” which largely is a psychological fear of losing non-existent certainty – ie. the false consciousness (cf Marx) of capitalism – Thus the moniker “#stupidindividualism”. The root out of this is to work a way round this “stupid individualism”.

Rainbow Gatherings manage this – by forcing scarcity, in #visionontv we don’t have this option, in Rainbow you are moved into a world where all the normal options are simply are not there – thus change HAS TO HAPPEN – it’s an intentional community. “Stupid individualism” simply becomes too dysfunctional in this situation to stop change. This is at the heart of rainbow process. In our situation, on the internet, in media there is no scarcity, so “stupid individualism” reigns supreme and unstoppable.

An issue is that many people will self-define what I am saying at this point – BUT will not engage with it – The writer is being a “stupid individual” and this would be the case if the writer was not actively engaged in a real social project.

“Trust networks” are the solution to “stupid individualism”. With this understanding, I have a more sympathetic view of climatecamp process. The derided “process people” suffered from ossification as much as the wider camp. And I am arguing that this is a re-occurring issue, so the individual who were left pushing an empty agenda are less at fault than the systematic issues that they haven’t addressed.

It’s important NOT to take personal responsibility for this, as the is a dead end block in using this as a solution to this problem. Maybe more useful to seeing us as mannequins dancing in a circle, twitching to barely visible strings. And the circle we are in – is not the right one. We need a new circle with some different strings (some of them more visible) and to start a new dance.

The blocks: what participants feel are the tangling of strings, the process they are trying to unravel so as to make a new circle to dance in. We are all attached to strings, so get untangling. It’s the strings, NOT the messenger, that stops you. Help is needed trying to untangle and re-set some strings, perhaps the messenger is trying to help? Try not to shoot

In this post, I attempt to untangle a string (#climatecamp process wasn’t as bad as I thought it was). Which string are you going to untangle? “Stupid individualism” is the trap we have to avoid, but we are getting more and more snared in it – on all sides.

The danger is that we are talking about parallel things and more tragically – thinking along parallel divergent lines – “stupid individualism” is strong and kicking and the more we kick, the more entangle we become – leaving little hope of a new dance – by the way dance is a metaphor for process and strings are a metaphor for the very human senses of belonging that we need for society to hold together.

Does it end well, I wonder – it never has in the past, but one can keep coming at a problem from different angles. Maybe this time it might. Thus, am NOT taking any personal responsibility – just seeing us as mannequins dancing in a circle twitching to barely visible strings. And the circle we are in – is not the right one. We need a new circle with some different strings (some of them more visible) and start a new dance.