For a nuanced take on the #geekproblem, we need to highlight challenges and cultural dynamics in tech development. Standards as foundations, everything in tech is built upon layers of “open industrial standards,” which provide value and interoperability. Ignoring these foundations to create isolated systems is akin to “building sandcastles”—fragile and ephemeral. The process of defining standards, however, is itself flawed and sometimes exclusionary, reflecting broader social issues like tribalism or nationalism.
Tribalism in tech, manifests as innovation and community-building but can also create fragmentation, gatekeeping, and resistance to collaboration. Comparisons to nationalism suggest that, like nations, large #dotcons (e.g., Facebook, Google) exert power rivalling traditional states, creating their own “tribes” with significant social influence. Tribalism in tech isn’t inherently bad; it can build strong, purpose-driven communities. However, when it turns exclusionary and disconnected from real-world issues, it becomes counterproductive.
Critique of dotcons and deathcult, the dominance of for-profit platforms (#dotcons) and the neoliberal ideology (#deathcult) underpin much of the dysfunction in society, including within the tech world. Life “inside the dotcons” involves uncritical participation in harmful systems, perpetuating cycles of #stupidindividualism and environmental degradation (#climatechaos). Platforms like Facebook and Google exemplify prioritizing profit over public good. Moving away from this requires alternatives rooted in the #4opens: Open data, Open source, Open standards, Open processes. Projects like the #OMN exemplify this shift.
Mediating harm in tech development with the broader social and environmental impacts of technology, pushing against #stupidindividualism and toward collective, sustainable solutions. Much of the “blocking energy” comes from entrenched systems and social inertia rather than active conspiracies, though intent exists in places like #traditionalmedia. Developers have a responsibility to build systems that mediate harm and foster collective well-being. This means rejecting solutions that exacerbate individualism and embracing technologies that empower communities and address systemic issues like climatechaos.
The #geekproblem as dysfunction, the geekproblem reflects a 20th-century tribalism that fails to embrace the ethical, collaborative potential of the #openweb. Examples include failed projects like #Diaspora, which had technical merit but struggled due to cultural and governance issues. The dysfunction stems from a narrow focus on technical solutions without considering social or ethical dimensions. Bridging this gap requires integrating diverse perspectives into tech development, emphasizing simplicity and human-centric design.
We do need a call for change, addressing these challenges head-on, with ethical interventions rather than drawn-out or overly complex solutions. The geekproblem highlights the limitations of tech communities in balancing their technical expertise with broader social responsibility. Ultimately, the solution lies in rekindling the spirit of the openweb while actively composting the “shit heap” of the dotcons. One path is addressing the geekproblem, to shift tech culture toward collaboration, accountability, and sustainability, to create tools that serve people rather than profit.
Tag: diaspora
My indymedia story
#Indymedia was a decentralized, grassroots media network that emerged in the late 1990s and early 2000s. It was founded on the principles of open publishing, direct democracy, and anti-authoritarianism. The project eventually experienced a split in the UK, with one side, the #fashernista, building an aggregating site and the other #geekproblem building a centralized silo. The split was supposedly over technical disagreements, but was driven by doctrinal and tribal disputes. The decision-making process, like much activism at the time grew to rely on #formalconsensus, become ossified and unfixable, so no decisions could be made to mediate this.
The split was ultimately driven by a focus on control on both sides. The two sides were more interested in their own tribal agendas than in working together to build a diverse and #4opens #OMN. The silo eventually built an aggregating site, with RSS feeds, but in a very controlling way. The stress was always on control as “security” and this ultimately led to the decline of the #Indymedia project. The #dotcons took over the space, and the project became irrelevant.
I was working on the project, the person working in the middle, saying “don’t be a prat” as each side tore and tore and tore I continued in the grassroots, saying that the culture is the key and that the value is in open media network, not control. The split in Indymedia was a shit show, but we can learn from it in the reboot of the project.
The plan now is to reboot the project before the split happened, around 2008 with a focus on the #fashernitas path of the two splinter groups. This path emphasizes openmedia and decentralized structures, rather than control and centralization. However, with the reboot there is still a very real risk that some members of the community will push for a control/#encryptionist path, which could lead to another split in focus. The challenge is to find a way to walk this path without succumbing to the same tribalism and power politics that led to the decline of the original project.
The use of hashtags and semantic web technologies did not exist at the time. Tags and metadata were not core to the start original Indymedia project, but they were later being added as a way to help organize and categorize content, the idea of building a structure with #RSS feeds was being discussed and enacted.
At the time, Interestingly, the silo path recognized that their approach was wrong and came back to aggregation, with moderated control of RSS flows. This is reflected in the #OMN’s choice of “trusted flow” and “moderated flow.” We are building both sides of the split of the original project and yes, criticizing the fashernista path a little, which only had trust, which would not likely work in today’s world. It’s important we do not make this decision for people. We let them decide and build both. The key is to avoid building pointless messes and to resist the #mainstreaming urge to make a mess. We are not #mainstreaming, and we must not be prats about this.
Looking at what happened to the web after this time, the last ten years of tech history, the grassroots silo path went on to build #Diaspora, while the grassroots #fashernista path went on to build the #Fediverse. However, despite these developments, there was still no news based open media network being built yet. This led to the creation of the #OMN project and the current #indymediaback reboot path.
Unfortunately, in today’s world of liberation “cats” due to the last 20 years of worship of the #deathcult, nobody sees any value in the “open” part of the #OMN. Everyone is still fixated on the silo path of control, we have to work against this #mainstreaming blindness. Over the last 20 years, the #mainstreaming as a whole took the silo/encryptionst path of the Indymedia split. Contemporary social media took #fahernista side of the #open path, the #dotcons, took the ideas and sold us back a facsimile of this that they could control, such as #Facebook and other algorithms based #dotcons
To make the reboot work , we have to tiptoe around the legacy of #Indymedia, focus on rebooting the project in its 2008 state, where the social process were still working. The silos’ path still controls the old domains, they took as a part of the ripping apart. We are building something that looks like the fashernista path they fought against, so we need to build two projects in one: control and trust. We need to get the domains back in use, which would be a huge boost to the #reboot project. At the same time, we need to build trust with everyone else, as this is the power of open. It’s complicated, but everyone wants it back. However, the history is challenging, and the two sides are still fighting: Fediverse vs. silos as we see this old mess today.
An example of the #geekproblem
An example of the #geekproblem
Everything we do is built on “standards” though we do have a problem of the defining bodies.
Some people like building sandcastles, it is what you are doing if you just make shit up in tech.
Actually this is fantasy as ANYTHING you are already building is already on top of a whole pile of standards.
I think people are expressing tribalism and not talking tech in practical sense at all.
What do you think?
“open industrial standards” nebulous and problematic things, but everything in tech is built on top of a pile of them, It’s where the value is.
Nationalism is a nablus thing as well, and its where the violence is.
Tribalism can be beautiful, it can also be a problem.
Some #dotcons are bigger than nations, so maybe it’s a good metaphor?
The geek “problem” is a 20th century dysfunctional part of a tribe that is damaging to us all, think #climatechaos think #failbook think #diaspora
Talking about real issues I have been fighting for 20 years… The #stupidindividualism that treats this as personal is what am sadly talking about much of the time.
Yes, it becomes a boring circle, but it’s always about the importance of the #geekproblem as a block on the change/challenge that we need #XR
I wrote this in 2005 what has changed:
“Its going slow but we are getting there… One of the main problems seams to be a dysfunctional idea of a division of labour – ie. Every one seams to think I should do everything – as I am pretty useless at many things its no wonder it is going so slow… If you wona see something miracles happen you gota wave year arms around a bit and mutter some arcane words… Go on you can do something… Just look at the blog page to see what”
Http://HamishCampbell.com