The Cost of Living Crisis: Corporate Greed and Political Corruption

That the cost of living crisis stems from corporate greed and political corruption is a useful perspective to challenge #mainstreaming narratives. Economic hardships faced by people and communerties are not inevitable or natural, rather the result of deliberate actions by powerful agendas.

“Remember, anyone trying to blame our cost of living crisis on anything other than grotesque corporate greed & political corruption are themselves grotesquely greedy & corrupt.” (from ClimateDad)

Corporate Greed

Profit Maximization: Corporations prioritize profit maximization above all else, at the expense of workers, consumers, and the environment. This drive leads to the current mess of wage suppression, price gouging, and cutting corners on safety and quality.
Market Manipulation: Large corporations engage in anti-competitive practices to dominate markets, stifling competition and innovation. This leads to higher prices and reduced choices for people.
Tax Evasion: By exploiting tax loopholes and offshore tax havens, corporations significantly reduce their tax burdens. This deprives governments of essential revenue needed to fund public services and infrastructure, shifting the financial burden onto ordinary people.
Environmental Exploitation: Corporations engage in environmentally destructive practices to cut costs and increase profits. The long-term environmental degradation leads to increased costs for communities and governments in terms of health care, disaster relief, and restoration efforts.

Political Corruption

Lobbying and Influence: Corporations and wealthy individuals use their financial resources to influence political decisions through lobbying and campaign contributions. This result in policies that favour the wealthy and powerful, rather than the general populace.
Regulatory Capture: Regulatory agencies tasked with overseeing industries become dominated by the industries they are supposed to regulate. This leads to weak enforcement of laws and regulations, allowing corporate malfeasance to go unchecked.
Public Policy: Corruption leads to policies that prioritize the interests of the few over the needs of the many. Examples include tax cuts for the wealthy, deregulation, and austerity measures that disproportionately affect low- and middle-income people.
Lack of Accountability: Corrupt politicians and officials face little to no accountability for their actions, leading to a cycle of corruption and mismanagement that perpetuates economic inequality and social injustice.

The Combined Effect

Economic Inequality: The combination of corporate greed and political corruption builds economic inequality. As wealth and power become concentrated in the hands of a few, the majority of people struggle to afford necessities like housing, healthcare, and education.
Erosion of Public Services: Reduced tax revenues and public spending cuts leads to the erosion of essential public services. This affects the most vulnerable members of society, increasing their cost of living and reducing their quality of life.
Social Unrest: Widespread economic hardship and injustice lead to social unrest, as people become increasingly frustrated with their inability to achieve a decent standard of living. This at best manifest in protests, strikes, and more #DIY forms of resistance.
Health and Well-being: The stress and insecurity of economic hardship has severe impacts on physical and mental health, further entrenching poverty and making it difficult for people to see or act coherently.

Conclusion

Corporate greed and political corruption are the drivers of the cost of living crisis, we need to say this clearly to challenge people to look beyond surface-level explanations and examine the systemic abuse and issues on this current path. Addressing these root causes requires a fundamental change to challenge the current #deathcult worship, an effort for transparency, accountability, and fairness in both the corporate and political spheres.

Good to keep this simple, #KISS

Caring in a culture that disregards human well-being requires resistance to dominant values

I have come to think that care for people requires a high degree of resistance to the culture around us, simply because that culture is dedicated to values that have no concern for people. A tension in society: the disconnect between cultural values and genuine care for people. Actually caring for people requires a strong resistance to prevailing cultural norms that prioritize profit, “efficiency”, and superficial success over human well-being. This resistance is needed to overcome the last 40 years of #postmodern, #neoliberalism that undermines basic humanism.

The Mess

Profit Over People: Our current worship of the #deathcult within capitalist societies, prioritizes profit driven consumerism above all else. Companies and institutions exploit labour, cut costs at the expense of safety and well-being, and focus on short-term gains rather than any long-term sustainability, or even basic survival.
Superficial Success Metrics: Societal success is measured by wealth, status, and material possessions, rather than by well-being, happiness, community health or basic ecological function. This leads to widespread neglect of where value actually lie.
Individualism Over Community: Our dominating “common sense” culture emphasize individual achievement and self-reliance, at the expense of communal support and cooperation. This erodes social bonds and leave individuals isolated and unsupported.

Resistance

Ethical Imperative: Caring for people is an ethical obligation that at best makes us challenge and resist cultural norms that dehumanize or exploit people. It involves advocating for fairness, justice, compassion, and prioritizes a living environment.
Mental and Emotional Health: The pressures of conforming to the #deathcult culture which values productivity and success over well-being leads to mental health issues such as anxiety, depression, and burnout. Joining together to resist these pressures is essential for maintaining mental and emotional health.
Social and Environmental Justice: Resistance is necessary to address systemic inequalities and injustices that are pushed by the dominant culture. To stop the degradation of our ecology, both human and inhuman.

Making Resistance Happen

Advocacy and Activism: Engaging in #NGO advocacy and #spiky activism to promote and push policies and practices that build human well-being over profit. This includes strong ecological policies, supporting labour rights, affordable healthcare, sustainability, and education etc.
Community Building: Fostering real, supportive communities of mutual aid, solidarity, and collective well-being. This involves creating open non-commercial spaces where people can come together, share resources, and support one another.
Alternative Value Systems: Promoting and practising alternative systems that emphasize care, empathy, and interdependence. This can be through #spiky #DIY activism culture, like squatting, protest camps or more lifestyle #fluffy choices, such as minimalism or voluntary simplicity, and through supporting businesses and organizations that prioritize ethical practices in the #dotcons.
Personal Practices: This is a harder path to make meaningful of implementing personal practices that resist cultural pressures, such as mindfulness, self-care, and setting boundaries to protect one’s mental and emotional health. This path can be a problem, as it in part feeds the #stupidindividualism that feeds the very problems in the first place. Encouraging others to do the same can, maybe, help create a ripple effect of resistance and care.

What should you do?

Caring for people in a culture that disregards human well-being requires a conscious and active resistance to dominant values. By advocating for social justice, building supportive #DIY communities, promoting alternative value systems like the #OMN, and maybe practising personal care, we can create a more compassionate, sustainable society. This resistance is not only a needed path, but also a moral imperative. What are you doing today?

More on this https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/collective-intelligence-calls-for-sharing-rewards-from-innovation-for-the-common-good-by-mariana-mazzucato-2024-08

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

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

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

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

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

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

#mainstreaming counter-cultures

The #mainstreaming of counter-cultures, like the #openweb, #Fediverse, and #Mastodon, touch on issues in openweb culture and the needed community sustainability. It should come as no surprise that we need both action and community to hold together the culture, values and integrity of these digital spaces.

Normalization and Dilution of Values: As counter-cultures like the openweb and Fediverse gain #mainstreaming acceptance, the values and ethos that created these spaces and technology they are based on get diluted, this is the normal. The key community-driven, decentralized, and open-source principles are pushed over by commercial interests and mainstream norms.

Sustaining Cultural Integrity: The challenge lies in maintaining the native culture of these spaces while expanding their reach. The inclusion of diverse voices and broader participation is essential for growth, but it needs to be balanced with the preservation of #4opens foundational path for the value to have the maximum impact that we need.

Different Perspectives: The interpretation of #mainstreaming as good, bad, or indifferent varies depending on political and ideological perspectives. For some, mainstream acceptance represents success and broader impact. For others, it signals a loss of autonomy and a clear steeping away from the original path.

Critical Stance: it should be obvious that #mainstreaming without holding the original #4opens and #DIY ethos in place is a bad path. There is growing need for vigilance and action to safeguard these spaces from being co-opted and over commercialized.

Participation: Engaging “natively” in discussions on platforms like SocialHub is a path. This participation helps in shaping the future of these open’ish spaces and ensuring they remain relevant and on mission.

DIY : The #DIY (Do It Yourself) is fundamental to the #openweb and #Fediverse. Emphasizing community control, self-reliance, and collaborative development. Promoting and practising this ethos to resist “common sense” #mainstreaming pressures is needed.

Mobilization: Encouraging wide community involvement is essential. Whether it’s through developing new features, creating content, or moderating discussions, contributions sustain the “native” ecosystem, it is at best a “gift economy” path.

The #mainstreaming of counter-cultures of the #openweb, #Fediverse, and #Mastodon is filled with challenges as well as opportunities. With native participation, a strong commitment to #DIY principles, and a collective effort to preserve this native culture, it is possible to sustain and grow these spaces without losing their original path of cultural integrity.

You can find out much more about my thinking on http://hamishcampbell.com, and please try “not to be a prat” thanks.

The Fediverse is “native” to Anarchism

Anarchism is a part of #FOSS governance, it is a political philosophy and social movement that shaped the foundations of the internet and #openweb on a path to move from centralized power to decentralized, self-government. This was a strong part of #web01 and a strong part of why it worked so well. So this space embodies #anarchism which believe that society and technology can be organized to build freedom, equality, and cooperation

What is Anarchism?

There are forms of anarchism, some well-known:

Anarcho-Communism: Advocates for the abolition of private property and the establishment of a classless, stateless society based on communal ownership and cooperation.
Anarcho-Syndicalism: Seeks to abolish the wage system and replace it with a system of workers’ self-management and direct democracy.
Individualist Anarchism: Emphasizes the importance of individual freedom and autonomy, and is associated with the writings of figures like Emma Goldman and Max Stirner.

This has a long and varied history, with roots in liberalism and socialism.

Anarchism in Action

Direct Action: Anarchism emphasizes direct action over traditional protest. Instead of petitioning authorities to make changes, anarchists take matters into their own hands. For example, if a community lacks drinking water, anarchists would dig a well themselves rather than petitioning the government.
Acting as If Free: Anarchism is about behaving as though one is already free, practising this directly.
Democracy Without Government: Anarchism can be seen as democracy without the state, where people collectively make decisions without hierarchical structures. It is based on self-organization, voluntary association, and mutual aid.

History of Anarchism

Some old dead figures and movements include:

The French Revolution: Inspired many early anarchists with ideas of liberty, equality, and fraternity.
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon: The first self-proclaimed anarchist, wrote the influential work What is Property? In 1840.
Mikhail Bakunin: A Russian revolutionary, was a key figure in the anarchist movement of the late 19th century.
Emma Goldman: An American feminist, anarchist, was a prominent in the early 20th century.

Arguments for Anarchism

Supporters of anarchism emphasize:

Individual Freedom and Autonomy: Anarchism values individual freedom and autonomy, arguing that centralized systems of power limit personal liberty.
Equality and Cooperation: Anarchism promotes equality and cooperation among people, envisioning a society where resources are shared, and the needs of all members are met.
Direct Democracy and Grassroots Participation: Anarchism is associated with a strong commitment to direct democracy and grassroots participation in decision-making.
Challenging Oppressive Systems: Anarchist ideas inspired many social movements to challenge and dismantle oppressive systems and hierarchies.

Arguments Against Anarchism

Critics of anarchism raise concerns:

Unrealistic or Utopian: Critics argue anarchism is unrealistic or utopian, calling for the abolition of centralized power, many believe are necessary for maintaining order and protecting people’s rights.
Overemphasis on Individual Freedom: Some forms of anarchism, such as individualist anarchism, are criticized for placing emphasis on individual freedom and autonomy at the expense of community and collective action.
Association with Violence: Anarchism has been associated with violence and extremism, particularly in the form of bombings and assassinations carried out by anarchist individuals or small groups.
Practical Implementation: Critics argue that anarchism is too hard to put into practice, as it calls for the overhaul of existing political and economic systems, which is a steep path to walk and difficult to achieve in the “real” world.

One thing, we do need to understand is that anarchism is at the heart of meany of our #openweb norms, its advantages and disadvantages depend strongly on assumptions and material conditions in the time and place where people try and enact it. The #openweb and #Fediverse with its strong flow of “trust” and “abundances” is a fertile place for “nativist” experiments like this. Though, as critics, argue this path is not easy or without its problems.

The #OMN is mediated “native” to this https://opencollective.com/open-media-network join us if you would like to try walking this path.

Let’s look a bit deeper, anarchism challenges forms of authority and domination. The idea, rooted in classical liberalism and Enlightenment principles, is any exercise of authority or power must justify its legitimacy. This burden of proof applies universally, whether within a family, a state, or global institutions. If authority cannot demonstrate its legitimacy, it should be dismantled.

The concept of legitimate authority is central to anarchism. Those in power must justify their actions and their right to hold power. If they cannot, their authority is considered illegitimate.

Personal Example: Imagine walking with a granddaughter who runs into the street. If you pull her back, that is an exercise of authority. However, this action must be justified as legitimate, perhaps by arguing that it was necessary to protect her from harm.
Broader Examples: The same principle applies in broader contexts. Men in patriarchal systems must justify their authority over women. Governments must justify their authority over citizens. Corporations must justify their control over workers.

In democratic paths, legitimacy is supposed to be maintained through public debate, interaction, and struggle. If these mechanisms fail, the legitimacy is in question. In totalitarian or authoritarian systems, legitimacy is non-existent because these systems do not allow challenges to authority. People in positions of authority internalize the belief that their power is legitimate. This internalization makes it difficult for them to recognize or acknowledge the need to justify authority.

Throughout history, authority and domination have been accepted as legitimate by those who are subordinated. This acceptance flows from a combination of indoctrination, socialization, and the internalization of prevailing values.

Slavery: Many slave societies were stable because slaves accepted their subordination as legitimate.
Feudalism: In feudal societies, people accepted their roles within the hierarchy as natural and proper.
Modern Employment: Today, many people accept the necessity of renting their labour to survive, a concept that was once seen as wage slavery.

We need to make this obvious that people challenging the legitimacy of authority leads to social struggles, revolutions, and sometimes significant change. Anarchists take this challenge seriously and push questioning the illegitimacy of authority through active resistance and the promotion of #DIY self-governing structures. Understanding, this path and philosophy has profound implications for how we build and work in technology and shapes our current #openweb reboot.

Please keep this path #KISS

More on this https://hamishcampbell.com/understanding-anarchism/

Toxic Positivity

Toxic Positivity is a strong #blocking force in most #mainstreaming this is true in both the context of career and life choices, about following “common sense” established paths deemed acceptable or successful by social norms. Where an anti-corporate stance emerges from the frustration with rigid corporate structures and the hollow promises of career advancement, with the fantasy of sheer dedication and hard work. That traditional jobs prioritize profit over people, should lead to a desire to break free from these confines is the criticism. we talk about here.

The Myth of the Temporarily Embarrassed Billionaire

Yes, this myth is stronger in the USA as an ideology that everyone has the potential to achieve immense wealth if they work hard enough. It is pushed as the belief that economic success is a result of individual effort, ignoring systemic inequalities and the role of luck, and that only a tiny minority will make it to this exploiting class. This mindset leads to frustration and disillusionment when success remains elusive despite the years of hard work.

The Commodification of Purpose

In the era of the #deathcult, capitalist societies, purpose and meaning are commodified, equating personal success with material wealth and career achievements. This leads to the dismissal of non-profitable passions and pursuits as hobbies, undermining the truer source of fulfilment in building more #DIY focused alternatives to the current mess. The pressure to conform to profitable career paths stifles humanism, leading to a deep malaise of dissatisfaction and unfulfilled potential.

The Rejection of Toxic Positivity

In every part of life, toxic positivity is the relentless promotion of a positive outlook regardless of circumstances, a path that in the end is detrimental to personal and social health. It masks the social realities, preventing people from addressing any real issues and making the needed, meaningful changes. Simple fulfilment comes from creating one’s own social meaning and purpose, rather than blindly pursuing happiness or success defined by these “common sense” social norms.

The American Dream and Meritocracy

The belief in upward economic mobility is ingrained in American culture, with the dogma that hard work and intelligence guarantee success. This meritocratic path leads to the stigmatization of those who do not achieve financial success, attributing their lack of wealth to personal failings rather than more systemic issues. This creates a culture of blame and shame, over alternative paths, further entrenching people in deadened careers and lives.

The Realities of the Corporate Grind

The narrative of endless hard work leading to success is simply a lie. The corporate grind is monotonous and unfulfilling, in that people, sacrificing their dreams and passions for the promise of future rewards. Recognizing this, people can critically assess their career paths and seek fulfilment through means that align with their more humanistic aspirations.

Conclusion

The rejection of toxic positivity and the myth of the temporarily embarrassed billionaire is crucial for personal and social growth and meaning. By challenging these narratives, people can take paths that align with a more humanistic way, rather than conforming to #mainstreaming expectations. Embracing the philosophy of creating one’s own social meaning, leads to a more fulfilling and authentic life. Be human not a slave as the hippies say

Get Out of the Money Economy – Rediscover the Gift Economy

Faults of former socialist experiments

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

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

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

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

The Urgent Need for Climate Action

The mess we build when public’s attention is being deliberately diverted by those in power. They want us to focus on national borders and other divisive issues, preventing us from addressing the real crisis #climatechange. This distraction tactic is designed to benefit the #nastyfew who continue to profit from the destruction of our planet.

As we approach, another election, the insidious #deathcult ideologies offered by the main political parties have gutted life for the majority, while vile conmen exploit our ignorance and anger, distracting us with racism and hate. To hide the underlying economic warfare waged against us by predatory capitalism.

We are at the most perilous point in human history. Future generations, if they survive the coming decades, will look back and think us insane for not having climate scientists and progressive agenda leading our countries. Instead, we allow fossil fuel agendas to dictate our policies.

Figures like Farage are human smoke bombs, generating clouds of xenophobia and culture wars to hide the economic exploitation pushed by the capital that funds their campaigns. Farage’s vision of a future is filled with labour shortages, crumbling public services, and deepened social divisions.

The fight against climate change is fraught with challenges, from powerful economic interests to political distractions. However, the voices of activists, scientists, and concerned people highlight the urgent need for action.

By pushing #KISS core issues and building grassroots #DIY alternatives as seeds to prioritize the planet, we can try to mitigate/weather the worst impacts of this growing global crisis.

https://opencollective.com/open-media-network

A European Future

Changing the European Union (#EU) to be more competent and progressive on social and tech issues requires concerted effort and engagement from all the stakeholders, including activists, citizens, civil society organizations (#NGO), policymakers, and Eurocrats. I outline some #fluffy strategies for driving change within the EU:

Engagement and Advocacy: Citizens and civil society organizations can engage with EU institutions through advocacy efforts, lobbying, and participation in public consultations. By pushing concerns, proposing solutions, and advocating for progressive policies, grassroots movements can exert pressure on policymakers to prioritize social and tech issues.
Policy Innovation: Grassroots and “organic” experts in the fields of social and technology policy can develop and promote “innovative “native” policy proposals that address emerging challenges and needed change. This includes regulations that protect the #4opens paths, promote community, and foster #KISS technological innovation reasonably.
Transparency and Accountability: Promoting transparency and accountability within EU institutions to ensuring that decision-making processes are open, inclusive, and accountable to the people. This involves pushing for #4opens in policymaking, access to information, and mechanisms for holding people and policymakers accountable for their actions.
Capacity Building: Investing in capacity building initiatives enhances the knowledge and expertise of policymakers, civil servants, and “grassroots” stakeholders involved in shaping EU policies. This includes shifting funding, training, resources, and support to enable all stakeholders, focusing on the grassroots, to effectively engage with complex social and tech issues and develop evidence-based policy solutions.
Coalition Building: Building coalitions and alliances among diverse spiky and fluffy stakeholders amplify voices and increase collective influence on EU. By forging partnerships across wide sectors, groups and organizations leverage their collective strengths and resources to drive the needed systemic change.
Public Awareness and Education: Raising people’s awareness and educating citizens about social and #FOSS and #dotcons tech issues is essential for building progressive policies and initiatives. This includes conducting #DIY public campaigns, organizing #4opens educational events, and leveraging grassroots media and networks to inform and mobilize the people around key issues.
Participatory Governance: Promoting participatory governance within the EU enhances peoples engagement and democratic decision-making. This includes establishing networks like the #OGB for public participation, citizen assemblies, and deliberative processes for people to contribute to policy development and decision-making.
International Collaboration: Collaborating with international partners, organizations, and networks to amplify efforts to drive change within the EU. By sharing “native” practices, knowledge, and coordinating advocacy efforts at the international level, stakeholders strengthen their collective impact and influence the needed global policy agendas.

Overall, changing the EU to be more competent and progressive on social and tech issues requires a grassroots approach that involves activism, engagement, advocacy, policy innovation, transparency, capacity building, coalition building, public awareness, participatory governance, and international collaboration. By working together in active fluffy/spiky debate across sectors and borders, stakeholders can contribute to shaping the change and challenge needed to build an inclusive, equitable, and sustainable future within the EU and wider world in the era of #climatechaos

The European Union: A “spiky” view

#NGI #NLNET

Nurturing the Potential of the Fediverse: A Socio-Political Roadmap

The #fediverse, promises decentralized social networking and democratic governance, stands as a light of hope for a native #openweb. However, as it navigates the terrain of politics, technology, and human behaviour, it faces challenges that threaten to undermine its #4opens civic potential. In this post, we delve into these challenges and explore potential pathways to realize the promise of the #fediverse.

At the heart of the fediverse lies the tension between its potential benefits and the risks of subversion by commercial interests and structural dysfunction. Commercial capture, driven by the allure of proprietary features and enhanced user experiences, poses a threat to the “open and decentralized nature of the fediverse native culture”. The current shift from distributed funding models to centralized and #NGO ones exacerbates this challenge, leading to a concentration of power and influence in the hands of a few people and entities. To counter this trend, developers, producers, institutions, and users can collectively work to uphold the #4opens principles of interoperability and openness.

Structural dysfunction, characterized by a lack of native governance approaches and a reliance on #DIY moderators and self-funded instances, poses another challenge. Without a “native” structure for governance, the fediverse risks succumbing to governance failures and reputational assaults. To address these issues, there is a pressing need to develop democratic governance structures (like the #OGB) that empower people and ensure accountability and transparency at every level of decision-making.

The fediverse is more than just a technical system; it is also a political structure. As such, it requires a nuanced understanding of the socio-political dynamics that shape its development and governance. Techno-Romanticism, which elevates simplistic views of technological progress and overlooks the labour and networks that underpin it, poses a threat to the fediverse’s sustainability. By fostering a culture of critical engagement and social action, we can mitigate this, to ensure that the Fediverse remains a space for civic discourse and collective action.

In summing up, nurturing the potential of the Fediverse requires a multifaceted approach that transcends technical considerations and delves deep into the socio-political paths. By addressing issues of commercial capture, governance dysfunction, and techno-Romanticism, we pave the way for a native inclusive, democratic, and sustainable Fediverse as an #openweb native network.

Digital waste – shouting into the void

Interesting links on “digital” waste https://gerrymcgovern.com/world-wide-waste/
https://volume.lboro.ac.uk/digital-waste-polluting-the-planet/
https://theconversation.com/dark-data-is-killing-the-planet-we-need-digital-decarbonisation-190423
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/feb/15/power-grab-hidden-costs-of-ireland-datacentre-boom
https://digitaldecarb.org/

This is true. With the #OMN we are building tools for use, not for distraction, shouting into the void is not the project. Community, talking to community, is the core mission. The “personal” is not a part of our core project.

This is alien to #mainstreaming common sense in social tech. Politics as human not as other, we need the tools and the use to build the everyday of our lives #DIY

How to actually communicate this to the #mainstreaming is the challenge that is very hard to bridge. This is actually impossible, so agen our plan is to build it and communicate by doing, not by just talking.

We are looking for a crew to build and do,” talking” is the tool to create this crew #DIY it’s not the tool itself for change and challenge.

#OMN #4opens #OGB #makinghistory are shovels (tools) for social use.

Funding Application: Building the Open Media Network

Funding Application: Building the Open Media Network

Project Overview: The Open Media Network (#OMN) is an innovative project aiming to construct a trust-based, human-moderated, and decentralized database shared across multiple peers, encompassing both peer-to-peer (p2p) and server-based architecture. OMN is centred around the #4opens principles, emphasizing openness, transparency, collaboration, and decentralized control. The project’s primary focus in using technology to empower human networks and foster community-driven content curation and dissemination.

Key Functions: OMN boasts five primary functions:

Publish: Users can easily publish various types of content, including text, images, and links, to a stream of objects.
Subscribe: Users have the ability to subscribe to streams of objects from people, organizations, pages, groups, hashtags, and more, enabling custom content flows.
Moderate: The platform integrates moderation tools from the #Fediverse, allowing users to express their preferences (e.g., like/dislike) on streams or objects, as well as provide comments.
Rollback: Users, admins can remove untrusted historical content from their flow or instance database by publishing flow/source/tag, ensuring the integrity of the content.
Edit: Users have the flexibility to edit the metadata of objects and streams across various sites, instances, or apps where they have login credentials.

Project Scope: The back-end infrastructure of OMN serves as the foundation for constructing a #DIY, trust-based, grassroots semantic web. The technology, affectionately referred to as the #WitchesCauldron, is designed to facilitate decentralized publishing, content aggregation, curation, and distribution while prioritizing user trust and community building. The front-end applications of OMN are diverse and adaptable, ranging from regional/city/subject-based #indymedia sites to distributed archiving projects like #makeinghistory.

Funding Needs: To realize the vision of the Open Media Network, we require funding support to cover essential expenses such as:

Development: Hiring skilled developers to build and refine the back-end infrastructure and associated tools, ensuring robustness, stability, and interoperability.
Moderation Tools: Integrating advanced moderation tools from the Fediverse to enhance user experience and promote healthy content flows.
Community Engagement: Facilitating community outreach and engagement efforts to onboard users, gather feedback, and foster a vibrant and inclusive user community.
Infrastructure: Investing in server infrastructure and maintenance to support the decentralized nature of the OMN platform and ensure reliable performance as the project rolls out.
Documentation and Training: Creating comprehensive documentation and providing training resources to empower people to effectively navigate and utilize the OMN network.

Impact: By supporting the Open Media Network, funders will contribute to the development of a groundbreaking platform that empowers people to take control of their lives and digital experiences, participate in meaningful content creation and curation, and build vibrant and resilient grassroots communities. OMN aims to democratize access to information and facilitate decentralized communication, fostering a more #4opens, transparent, and equitable digital ecosystem.

Conclusion: The Open Media Network represents a real opportunity to revolutionize content distribution and community engagement in the digital age. With your support, we can bring this visionary project to life, empowering people and communities to reclaim power over their online experiences and build a more inclusive, democratic, and sustainable people based future. Join us in building the future of media and communication with the Open Media Network.

Thank you for considering our funding application.