Tag: diy

A project outline for the OGB

Project description

The Open Governance Body (#OGB) project is a set of software tools that encode a governance model structured on traditional grassroots activism.
Further, the OGB – for which the code base is named – is a decentralized and democratic system for “governance” of any collective/community consisting of (generally speaking) #1 – Producers and #2 -Consumers.

The #Fediverse is used as the example herein.

To explore and develop better ways of having trust-based conversations and governance within the #openweb. To utilize comprehensive experience gained through greater than 5 years active, “on-the-ground” organization of instances within the #Fediverse as a technological toolkit for horizontal scaling of social
power.

The #OGB is a #Fediverse native process of working that emphasizes voluntary cooperation and collaboration with a standard #KISS approach.
The #OGB prioritizes focus on sortition and “messy consensus” in order to achieve decision-making and equitable power distribution.

The project is not about creating a single organization that dictates what protocols and standards to use within the #Fediverse. #OGB is about developing better processes for healthy, trust-based conversations and forging governance
accessible and equitable to all

Project results

Developing/creating a framework to demonstrate improved ways for “trust” based dialogue/conversation and “trust” based governance within the #openweb.
Building a true cooperative, a collaborative alliance that is native to the #Fediverse and #openweb.

Emphasizing the importance of recognizing where power originates in the context of the #Fediverse and #openweb.

Developing/creating improved technological tools as a solution to problems arising through social organization enabling problem-solving in a native #openweb manner.

Removing current hard coded defaults by providing an alternative standardized set of #KISS framework tools to empower active body members a space to utilise said tools deeply and to begin proficient instruction of their use.

Developing/creating a permission-less structure that is open to and for all. One which enables the active group through organic process, a framework of tools to decide who is a part of their group/groups.

Emphasizing that there is no exclusion and that there will always be diversity, making it an organic piece for the #Fediverse.

Building governance where the “way”, “rules”, “norms” and “actions” are structured, sustained, regulated, and held with accountability

Benefits to the Community

There are challenges and conflicts that arise within grassroots organisation or #DIY governance. In developing/creating a #KISS standard such as the #OGB framework to address said problems, we will enable a more true democratic and equitable process that benefits any and all involved.

Through empowering a more diverse scope of voices, decision-making is made more collectively. These tools utilize a greater range of voice, preventing polarization from smaller groups using perhaps limited perspectives and or values.

Additionally, through a strong ethical foundation, decision-making is ensured a more progressive development. With a focus on the primary needs of the community as a whole, rather than individuals or polarized groups.

As a social coding project, the #OGB is neither a traditional top down distribution of power or project derived of a normal #mainstreaming agenda. Rather, it is a bottom-up grassroots empowerment for sharing of knowledge and power. An example of what is found in many of the 20th century social movements,
movements responsible for the birth of what is said to be today’s best current progressive mainstream.

Through the #OGB project the “we” will facilitate the forming, communication and governance.

Timeline and important milestones

Upon securing foundation funding, negotiations for immediate ICT services will begin with respected clients for future partnership to cement project longevity and sustainability.
As described above within the KPI outline, the progression of timelines is a basic and #KISS standard
project operation where in all tasks/tiers are realistically achievable to ensure project success.
The following is an initial outline – it can be extended when possible:
9 months to Alpha testing with #Fediverse
12 months to Beta testing with #Fediverse
12 months to Beta testing with offline communities
24 months to public launch

Key Performance Indicators

Tier 1 – Source code development from base developers and progressive training through the scaling of
outreach servers through the use of MOOC LMS training platforms.
Beginner – Test Community… Local Distribution – Flea Market,Sunday Market – APP Progressive Code
9 months to Alpha testing within Fediverse
12 months to Beta testing within Fediverse
Tier 2 – Test Community… #Fediverse – Web Code
Page 4 of 8
Intermediate – Test Community… Local Distribution – Boating Community,Hiking Community – APP
Progressive Code
Tier 3 – Progressive Web App
12 months to Beta testing with offline communities
24 months to public launch
Tier 4 – The below distributions are escalations through our developed outreach scheme.
Advanced – Test Community… Local Distribution – Schools/classrooms

Project publicity

Utilizing the recent promotion of approximately 10 million people encompassing 1 million active Twitter migration users to #Mastodon to further bring awareness.

The continuance of our work within #SocialHub will continue to build on the origins of #OGB Promoting publicity through the building “governance” through #ActivityPub

Why you

We would like to reboot the #openweb and the way we communicate, interact and govern as a whole.
We know what works socially… grassroots movements
We know what works technologically… #Fediverse
We are the people developing the symbiosis for all to utilise for our futures

Activities that will benefit

FOSS and open-source frameworks are facing a continual social challenge of balancing their grassroots paradigm within corporate parameters. #OGB aims to develop/create a set of tools to encourage and aide balance.

The efforts of the #Fediverse community have been successful in shifting the EU closer through our outreach to promoting a more humane internet. #Mastodon and technologies like #ActivityPub have become important players in the EU’s initiatives for a more inclusive and equitable online environment.
The huge growth of Mastodon, one of the most popular social networking platforms in the #Fediverse, due to the #Twitter migration attracted a large and diverse, vibrant community of users from across the EU and
the world. This growth helped to validate the importance of decentralized internet and its potential to shape a more humane world by relieving the community of hosting burdens so we can focus on collective
governance and the formation of a collective governing body for decentralized efforts

Greater cooperation and collaboration between the different communities involved in developing #openweb protocols

The state of various #openweb protocols, such as #Bluesky, #Nostr, and #ActivityPub, and the challenges they face in terms of interoperability and communication between their different communities. I am advocating for a grassroots #DIY culture that focuses on building bridges between these protocols, rather than contributing to the “messiness” of the ongoing discussions.

All of these protocols are #4opens and #openweb native, which is a positive development, but their different cultures create difficulties in communication.

The UX (user experience) of these protocols is less of an issue now than it has been in the past, and that the #Fediverse is doing well in this regard. We will need new work on moderation thinking in anticipation of the “data soup” that is coming, with potential for information overload and the need for effective moderation strategies.

A bridge to #Nostr already exists (#Mostr), we need efforts to be made to create similar bridges for other protocols, such as #Bluesky.

Greater cooperation and collaboration between the different communities involved in developing #openweb protocols, in order to create a more cohesive and effective ecosystem.

A native path out of the mess people make on the #openweb

The Open Governance Body (#OGB) describes a permissionless process/structure that is open and allows the group that forms using the tools to decide who is a part of the group or not. This process can divide into a web of connecting instances of governance as a natural human process of group formation. The #OGB emphasizes that there is no exclusion and always diversity, making it a natural fit for the #fediverse.

The #OGB also shows that if people are stupid and focused on individualism, each governance instance will have one member and no power. To gain power, people have to work together, which is built into the code. The #OGB emphasizes that hoarding power is limited, and it flows through the community, energizing and solidifying the community and building horizontal power to challenge/change vertical power.

The #OGB focus is on the importance of keeping things simple (#KISS) and that some people will try to push for existing power structures before democracy. However, as the process is permissionless, it is not possible to stop them from doing this. The #OGB emphasizes the need to do better, and that being native to the #fediverse is a big help in this regard.

The #OGB emphasizes the importance of recognizing where power comes from in the context of the #fediverse. The fediverse operates differently from corporations, governments, courts, and police, and it is important to think and build with this difference rather than trying to drag the fediverse back to the #mainstreaming path.

The #OGB builds from the #fediverse works because it is different, and it is easy to forget this important thing when #mainstreaming agendas grab and hold. The #OGB suggests that the missing question in almost all conversations is “who are we empowering,” and emphasizes the need to do better in alt-tech.

The #OGB notes that there are problems in alt-tech and suggests that starting with the #4opens would remove 90% of the mess, revealing the real potential for good outcomes. The #OGB highlights that doing better in alt-tech would involve using shovels to make compost and planting seeds of the world we want to see.

The #OGB describes the process scaffolding for the governance body as a default effect, where the decisions on how things work will be up to the members of the body. The power of the governance body is only the power of default, and the #OGB is about removing all hard default choices and building in a small number of KISS tools, then letting the body members work out themselves how to use them.

The #OGB uses the example of #Couchsurfing, where the website redesign removed the #DIY tools active Couchsurfers had used to self-organize, leading to disappointment among members. The #OGB argues that letting members make their own process, open vs. closed, is necessary to overcome the #geekproblem and have hope for alt-tech.

The #OGB builds governance with the way, rules, norms, and actions are structured, sustained, regulated, and held accountable. this is to mediate that the #Fediverse currently has a “herding cats” governance, denoting a futile attempt to control or organize a class of entities that are inherently uncontrollable.

The #OGB codebase is not just a tool for the #Fediverse, but it can be used to democratically run any structures that have stakeholders.

The #OGB provides an example of how the codebase can be used to run a local street market, with each stallholder as a stakeholder, people who shop at the market as users, and the local council, events company, and shop owner’s association as affiliate groups. The #OGB approach and codebase will scale sideways, with street markets governed city-wide, and each of the markets becoming a stakeholder, users as users, and city-wide orgs and groups as affiliate groups.

The #OGB shaping of the “body” comes from a long history/experience of horizontal activism, where “those who do the work have more say.” noisebridge.net/wiki/Do-ocracy

The #OGB pushes that the bulk of the voice comes from those who run the #Fediverse, the people who run/support the instances. The people who build the tools also get a say, as do support orgs and events, and the users who will be spread widely get a say, but their power is diluted by the much larger numbers involved.

This working practice comes from 30 years of building from The Tyranny of Structureless tick box list https://unite.openworlds.info/Open-Media-Network/openwebgovernancebody/wiki/03.-The-Tyranny-of-Stucturelessness That code being quite “anti-human” is an interesting challenge, and it’s important to figure out how to get the humane “mess” in a coding process that is based on being “exact” and in control #OGB

The #OGB project is grounded in lived experience, and it’s a way out of this mess. We cannot keep using traditional institutions. We have to stop the #techcurn if we are going to use #openweb tech for social/ecological change/challenge, and we need to think about this now.

The #OGB project is about developing better ways of having “trust” based conversations and “trust” based “governance” in the #openweb. The project is built from hundreds of years of on the ground organizing that has shaped every “freedom” we enjoy and is done in a #KISS approach. The #OGB is a #fedivers native way of working, NOT a #mainstreaming way, and it comes from directly working, setting up, and solving recurring problems at hundreds of direct action protest camps.

The #OGB focus on what we know works, as at the moment, almost nothing works for social good. The #OGB project is what is needed, a voluntary cooperative and collaborative alliance that is native to the #fediverse.

The thinking is that we need to put a stop to the #techchurn as we have piles of #techshit already to compost, that #nothingnew is a hashtag for this.

It’s not the goal of the #OGB project to create an organization that tells everyone what protocols and standards to use in the #fediverse. The #OGB project is about developing better ways of having good “trust” based conversations and “trust” based “governance” in the #openweb

To sum up, the current working models of “governance” in open-source projects are monarchy, aristocracy and oligarchy. This is the rock star developer, the coders and the funders. It should be obverse to anyone that 99.99% of people are missing from this feudalistic ideal of “governance”.

Democracy is the basic foundation of our shared modernity.

WHY DO WE PUT UP WITH THIS MESS IN TECH?

Let’s take a different path, please #OGB

Q. that is an optimistic projection

A. I have no illusion that the normal shitty behaver of fucking people over and being a prat will happen, but the codebase is designed to mediate this crap behaver for better outcomes 🙂

#OGB “permissionless” is an important word that needs some thought. The body is made up of three different, balanced groups: stakeholders, users, and affiliate stakeholders. Anybody can become a stakeholder by setting up and running an active instance, and users are self-explanatory. That affiliate stakeholders are a little more complex and are treated differently, and it’s up to the body itself to decide if they play an active and useful role.

That nothing in this is top-down, elitist, discriminatory, or undemocratic, and it’s #KISS and looks safe to the “normal world” while being native to the #fediverse and its roots. All the coding is #4opens, based on #activertypub.

With #OGB, it’s important not to get lost in the #processgeeks and their dogmatic love of #formalconsensus, as that’s a dead end and has been for the 30 years of activism and coding tech. It’s important to keep the #OGB both #KISS and human, understandable. The #OGB is native “governance” and federates in the same way as the projects it “governs”. That this approach is counterintuitive to mainstream ideas and “common sense,” but that’s not necessarily a bad thing.

This approach has worked to some extent, as seen in the “#Fediverse” as a living example, working to scale small to bigger. There will be lots of “smoke,” and help is needed to keep the project clear of this mess. We have to overcome our #stupidindividualism to have a hope of a better world.

#OGB To remind you that the need for “governance” came out of a practical problem where the #activitypub community is made up of “cats” who were doing seminars outreach to powerful #EU Eurocrats on why they should be interested in #activertypub. #OGB is designed to be messy and not tidy, and it’s a “governance” of a disorganization, not a traditional power structure. “governance” can cooperate with more formal models of governance like traditional cooperatives.

The #geekproblem mess we make of #openweb funding

#NGIzero #NGI #EU It’s important to remember in #openweb tech that most funding is poured directly down the drain, all value comes from #DIY culture which is always underfunded. Would be a good idea to try to rebalance this mess. And yes, we are not talking about the #dotcons mess, that’s another subject 😉

The value we are all talking about, the #openweb #fediverse based on #activertypub is a very good example of this issue. The group that pushed through the speck only goes through the formal consensuses process because the #dotcons were not interested in owning the outcome as it had no “value” to them. The speck was done as unpaid, unfunded #DIY labour, this is where almost all value actually comes from when you lift the lid on the current mess.

The importance of #DIY culture and the underfunding of #openweb technologies. It is true that much of the value in openweb technologies comes from the grassroots efforts of individuals and communities who are passionate about creating and maintaining these tools. This can be seen in the case of the #fediverse, which was developed by a group of volunteers who were committed to creating a decentralized and open social networking platform.

At the same time, it is also important to recognize the role that funding can play in supporting the development of openweb technologies. While it is true that much of the value comes from DIY culture, funding can help to support and sustain this culture, providing resources and support to help communities. One initiative that is working to address this issue is #NGIZero, which is a program funded by the European Commission to support the development of #openweb technologies. Through this program, funding is provided to support projects that are focused on creating often #NGO focused decentralized and #geekproblem projects.

Overall, it is important to recognize the importance of DIY culture and grassroots efforts in the development of openweb culture and technologies. At the same time, we should also work to support these efforts through funding and other forms of support, in order to help ensure that these grassroots cultures and the technologies they build continue to thrive and evolve in the years to come.

Why do people keep doing pointless self harm – news aggreation

There are hundreds (over the last 20 years likely thousands) of news, aggregation sites. It’s a common #dotcons model to inclose the “commons” people see free content and think I can capture that. The problem is news content looks like it’s free, but that’s because it’s “free” to spread, but it’s VERY expensive in human (and thus money) to produce the content. This side is never addressed in these failed projects.

We currently have #traditionalmedia all round the world pushing to be paid for aggregation and even search of their “product”. At #OMN and #indymediaback, we get round these issues as we add “value” by the #DIY labour of the meany people involved in the shared “commons” space. We are producing rather than “stealing” in the #mainstreaming view.

It’s normal that the top-down news aggregators are seen as parasites, and the bootm up aggregators as adding value. For a few years of #indymedia growth, #traditionalmedia was using #indymedia as a “news” source, this shaped the #mainstreaming agenda, adding value to both paths.

When the #openweb we were building was ripped apart by internal and external pressers and agenders, the #DIY value was captured by the #dotcons such as #Facebook and later #twitter (when it left it’s open’ish path).

The first step away from the current mess is to recreate the “commons” to bring the value back from the #dotcons capture, this should be more possible now as we are building from the #Fediverse where this has already happened. What we do with this recreated “commons” is up to meany different groups/people, but let’s hold the #4opens and #PGA strongly in place to stop “common sense” enclosing attempts, which are constant pointless damage we need to work around.

To sum up, a key part of the #OMN is to recreate the data “commons” then it’s up to meany other groups to find useful things to do with this free to use non-commercial value. And yes lots of people will see the stupid path of enclosing this to capture the value for themselves, this is damage.

In capitalism, any non-owned value is seen as an opportunity to capture, enclosed and profit from. This is why we have copyleft licences in code, which is visibly failing and why we extend this to the #4opens to fail less 😉

This all comes down to the question of what we value. And for meany people, this is a blindness.

Thinking through composting the #techshit


The #openweb has many benefits, though it will not always be the right tool for all situations, there is a lot of mature tech available for privacy and control. The desire to mix these technologies comes from #mainstreaming liberalisms desire for social media to be private, rather than inherently public.

The decentralized #openweb and encrypted chat are obviously separate and should coexist without reproducing the mistakes of centralized #dotcons social media. Focusing on the #4opens and leaving hard privacy for individuals and groups in peer-to-peer encrypted chat is the “native” path.

Thinking through composting the #techshit. In our era of dead ideologies like post-modernism and neoliberalism, we need to build “bounded” projects that have clear boundaries, such as #4opens and #PGA, to keep us focused and resist #mainstreaming liberalism and right-wing ideologies. This helps us create a shared space of practice and direction for politics and technology. While “branding” can be powerful, caution is needed to not creating a sense of dogmatic tribalism in these movements #OMN

Good horizontalists understand theory comes from practice, and the basis of this is #DIY – working practice to build theory. Starting from theory lead’s to a dizzy mess that results in more #techshit to compost or academic wank. Instead. Building from grassroots DIY practices, such as #OMN, #Indymediaback, and #OGB, and then using theory from these practices.

We need to emphasize the importance of focus on the #openweb. Engage with this flow to practice activism and to avoid pushing mess.

Theory and practice in activism

Meany #fashernistas have a troubling view of theory and practice. All good horizontalists understand that they come from practice. At the basis of this is #DIY that is working through practice to build theory.

To start from theory go ground and round and round then try and put this into practice, ends in a dizzy mess. When this mess is imposed as a solution we obviously get more #techshit to compost or academic wank to clean up.

We are building from what works #grassroots #DIY with #OMN #indymediaback #OGB based on theory from practices.

Good to engage with this flow to practice activism. Please try not to push mess our way, focus is important.

Composting the Last 40 Years of Social Sh*t: Understanding Political Motivations and Embracing Openness and Trust

In today’s world, it’s common to feel overwhelmed by the barrage of information, opinions, and ideas flooding our #dotcons social media feeds and news outlets. From political debates to social issues, it is a challenging to navigate through the noise and understand what’s really happening.

A way to cut through the clutter to gain a better understanding of the political landscape is by using a metaphorical shovel to compost the last 40 years of social sh*t. By digging deep and examining the roots of political motivations, we can understand the forces driving the right and left wings of politics.

Firstly, understand that the right-wing is motivated by fear and the desire for control. Whether it’s fear of losing power, fear of change, or fear of the unknown, the right prioritize maintaining the status quo over progress and innovation. This translates into policies that restrict individual liberties, limit access to healthcare and education, and perpetuate systemic inequality.

On the other hand, the left-wing is motivated by trust and openness. Rather than relying on fear and control, the left prioritizes transparency, collaboration, and inclusivity. This leads to policies that prioritize social welfare, protect human rights, and promote equality and justice.

However, it’s not just politics that require an openness and trust-based approach. In the tech world, the #4opens framework provides a similar role in promoting transparency, collaboration, and decentralized decision-making. By embracing the principles of the #4opens:

* Open data – is the basic part of a project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_data with out this open they cannot work.
* Open source – as in “free software” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software this keeps development healthy by increasing interconnectedness and bringing in serendipity. The Open licences are the “lock” that keep the first two in place, what we have ain’t perfect but they do expand the area of “trust” that a project needs to work, creative commons is a start here.
* Open “industrial” standards – this is a little understand but core open, its what the open internet and WWW are built from. Here is an outline https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_standard
* Open process – this is the most “nebulous” part, examples of the work flow would be wikis and activity streams. Projects are built on linking trust networks so open process is the “glue” that binds the links together. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process

#4opens helps ensure that technology is used for the benefit of “us”, rather than “them”. But, as with any tool or framework, #4opens and left-wing politics can only work if people are willing to pick them up and use them. This means taking a #DIY (do-it-yourself) approach to politics and technology and embracing the power of the communertys to create change.

Tilling the fertile soil of hope requires a commitment to openness, transparency, and collaboration, but it also requires simplicity. Keeping things simple, or #KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid), helps to prevent people from getting bogged down in complexity or becoming trolls on social media. By focusing on a simple but powerful vision of openness, trust, and collaboration, we can work towards creating a more ecological, just and equitable world.

In conclusion, composting the last 40 years of social sh*t requires a willingness to dig deep and examine the roots of political motivations. By understanding the fear-based approach of the right and the trust-based approach of the left, we can better navigate the political landscape. Embracing openness and trust-based #4opens working helps to ensure that technology is used for the benefit of all, while keeping things simple can prevent us from getting bogged down in complexity or becoming trolls. It’s up to each and every one of us to pick up the shovel and start tilling the fertile soil of hope.

Liberal trolls – are often not WHO they think they are

DRAFT to be edited

http://hamishcampbell.com/2023/02/14/archiving-the-openweb-in-a-personal-way/

http://hamishcampbell.com/2023/02/12/thinking-about-why-openweb-projects-fail/

It’s hard to get a thried out of mastodon, hopeful this is in the right order and not missing bits. As usually, if you would like to be anonymous with no linking please say so, thanks.

Made a blog post, if you reply your text might be added to this if you don’t tell me not to 🙂

We are talking about this blog post http://hamishcampbell.com/2023/02/12/thinking-about-why-openweb-projects-fail/ I sent to the people I had archived the conversation as a seed for a blog post, the guys jump in with limited good faith.

@bob Note that my posts are CC-BY-NC. If you’re quoting me, then you need attribution, otherwise it looks like your own work.

The blog is to take transitory content “a toot” and make it more long-lasting and link it into a flow of social memory. I would love a codebase that had this built into its #UX Now, if someone made code to automate credit and archiving work just as well, I would be happy to use it.

@elplatt yes, in general it’s good practice to quote or block quote and attribute. Right now, it’s not clear who said what

I don’t tend to do “good practice” as I do this #DIY and don’t get paid for my time. I have two ways to “anonymize” text, if I keep the flow then I take the names out and put Q. and A. as the voices, if it’s out of the flow I just put “from the #openweb” this makes it quick and simple to archive things I value without jumping though impossible conversations each time. If people won’t credit and ask, I add it, it’s the polite thing to do.

Then nuttyness starts – from @elplatt I’d prefer not to be associated with plagiarism. Please remove my content. Thanks.

It says from the #openweb in BOLD, so it’s not plagiarism (Plagiarism is the fraudulent representation of another person’s language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions as one’s own original work.) . But happy to remove stuff if people don’t won’t it archived. (I updated the blog post to add bob as he asked to be, then move the FROM THE OPENWEB under bob. Have a look and tell me what you won’t http://hamishcampbell.com/2023/02/12/thinking-about-why-openweb-projects-fail/

whaw that is bad behaver: @elplatt #GreatjusticeNet has blocked campaign.openworlds.info for plagiarizing fediverse content [IMAGE] lie about someone then block their instance.

Q. Interesting to think about, if this was an argument, should I keep the stuff online or remove it if asked? What’s the good path for this?

@bob Friendly reminder to always credit people for their work. Avoid making it look as if you wrote something, which you didn’t. This is really just courtesy, or treating people with care. Saying “this came from the internet” isn’t sufficient. There can also be cases where people request to remain anonymous, but that is typically rare.

That is way too much work is the problem, in grassroots activism the are to meany borderline nutters, so my work practice is a reflection of this. Good to remember all #OMN projects are #4opens CC licence and not for profit, so with this understanding its best just to hold the nuttiness and talk as a first step. People to people, not law/rights/property etc 🙂

@bob Well, in the case of plagiarism this isn’t really a law thing it’s just an act of courtesy to say who quotes originate from. (we get a bit lost here as it’s nothing to do with plagiarism, it is about a liberal troll) Ripping people off is what BigTech does. We need to be better, and treat people well. (its not about ripping people off it is about a liberal troll)

Nobody is doing plagiarism, nobody is stealing. Nobody is ripping anyone off, we are talking in good faith, I hope. Best to put bad words and judgments to one side https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagiarism it is not, now what else is the issue?

To @bob you are missing the point of what we/am talking about, and pushing a liberal private property view agenst a #4opens “commons” view.

Now this does bring up the issue of licence, my instance is the same as bobs CC-BY-NC so in theory I have the right to reuse content without asking as my blog is also CC-BY-NC, but I am polite and go a stage further if I am unshore if a person wants to be linked I initially publish post with “from the #openweb” post the URL to get feedback.

@bob This isn’t a stage further. It’s the BY part of the CC license. It doesn’t necessarily require links, but some indication of who the content is by.

Morally, you would be in most cases wrong to push this, but legally you are right. Now comes the issue of me making this into a blog post. I need to quote him in the post, but it would likely increase the bad feeling if I did this with name and LINK, under CC-BY-NC I have the right to use his post, he can’t say NO but morlay should I name and shame him or just leave the mess as an anonymous example of working practice?

@bob Under CC-BY-NC I have the right to use his post, but not without attribution.

I can see no copyright notice https://greatjustice.net/about But his personal sight is https://elplatt.com/ CC so let’s assume for now. Added the link though it feels like trolling, very happy to remove it

For the blog post, would likely need to look at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use as am pretty sure at this stage he would say no text, but the is no story without the text, and he has already given me the right to use the text under CC-BY-NC if I link to him, the instance blocking and CC licencing cross site is icing on the cake.

NEED TO CHECK THIS

Thinking more about this, I likely did not need to have this conversation at all, as a journalist criticizing a “work” is a clear case of fair use. I anonymize the text so that I can freely reinterpret it, which is what the archives are for, and labaled (FROM THE OPENWEB) to stop people thinking it was my work TICK then it’s just a working document and a good example of a clash of Liberal ideas.

The CC side of the conversation is not wrong, it’s just NOT what my actions are based on, OK, this makes more sense. This conversation is ltraly a liberal troll storm in a tea cup, that’s what happens if you talk to people about archiving 🙂

This is based on the idea that this is a working document (which all my blog posts are, they get updated and reused all the time) So it’s not an act of publishing (which in this case it was not as I was still drafting, asking if people wonted attribution)

But would be when I mythically called it finished… round in circals in the world. The second story on the post is more finished, the text there is changed/transformed, so from the #openweb is OK.

hamishcampbell.com/2023/02/12/

 

 

Archiving the #openweb in a personal way

I spend a bit of time copying conversations off transient communication, microblogging, #failbook, chat etc. and archive this on my blog. I don’t tend to do “good practice” in this as I do it #DIY and don’t get paid for my time 🙂

I have two ways to “anonymize” text, if I keep the flow then I take the names out and put Q. and A. as the voices, if it’s out of the flow I just put “from the #openweb” this makes it quick and simple to archive things of value without jumping though impossible conversations each time. If people won’t credit and ask, I add it, it’s the polite thing to do.

Now if someone made code to automate credit and archiving work just as well, I would be happy to use it 🙂

History of copyleft activist grassroots video distribution

Hamish Campbell, the founder of #VisiononTV, began his journey into copyleft video through his project called #RoughCuts. In a recent interview, Campbell shared how RoughCuts started as one of the first copyleft video projects that encoded activist video in MPEG-1 format, an early standard format for video. He would burn CDs with an hour of different films and create a user interface using HTML to make it easy for people to watch them on their computers.

The CDs were sold for five pounds each, the project was designed to be a sustainable #DIY media distribution platform. People were encouraged to buy the CD, copy it, and give it away for free, and the revenue generated from the CD sales would help fund national screening tours, pay for travel expenses and equipment repair.

As the technology of the web advanced, people could watch videos online at a reasonable quality, which made the CDs obsolete. Hamish took a break from RoughCuts until the technology caught up a year or two later, and he started VisiononTV, a webTV project distribution platform for on-the-ground screenings. People could watch the videos on the web, but the primary focus was on taking the content offline and showing it on big screens to an audience in the same room.

Hamish Campbell’s RoughCuts project was a pioneering effort in the field of copyleft video, which paved the way for his later project, VisiononTV. His approach of creating sustainable DIY media distribution platforms continues to inspire and influence media activists around the world.

A interview with Hamish Campbell on grassroots media and tech

Interviewer: Can you tell us about your project #RoughCuts and how it started?

Hamish Campbell: Before I did #VisiononTV, I started a project called RoughCuts, which was offline copyleft video. It was one of the first copyleft projects with video, encode in the MPEG-1 an early standard format for video, about VHS quality video. You could fit an hour on a cheap CD. I would burn these CDs with different films, and an interface to the front of it using an HTML page, so you put the CD in your computer, and this web page would pop up with a list of all the films with a bit of information and a link to play the film. Then I would copy these in a CD burner. I’d go around the country doing screenings and I would sell the CDs for five pounds if people wonted to support the project.

Interviewer: How did you fund national screening tours for Rough Cuts?

Hamish Campbell: I funded national screening tours by selling these CDs, which were available for free if people wanted to copy them. So, I said, buy the CD, then go home, and copy it and give it all to your friends. It was a take-it-away-and-distribute-it-yourself project. It was sustainable DIY media distribution, so the person who was doing it could be sustained and could actually make a little bit of money to travel around and pay the expenses, repair cameras, etc.

Interviewer: How did the technology change of the web impact RoughCuts?

Hamish Campbell: The technology of the web moved on, so people actually could put video on the web and watch it on the web in reasonable quality. So then, why buy a CD? Why have a physical medium? It became an obsolete project. So then I kind of stopped doing that for a while, but then a year or two later, the web technology caught up, and it was really easy to do web video. So I thought, let’s do a webTV project distribution project for on the ground screenings, so people can watch on the web, but what it’s really about is taking it off the web and showing it on a big screen to a bunch of people in the same room. That’s how #VisiononTV came about.

 

Talking about the #indymediaback project

Q. A few comments on your excellent video.

Your page layout is driven by desktop. Nowadays, people think mobile first.

The rollback: an interesting idea.

A. Yep it’s the #nothingnew part of the project, the original IMC was ripped apart buy internal arguments and bad process, so we are rebooting the project before this happened so making minimal changes outa the box of UX and process, the needed changes can then come FROM “consensus” of the fresh crew running the rebooted instances.

The mobile expirence is swipe sideways to each of the menu items as columns. This is a reasonable compromise, as the original project had no mobile interface.

This is an example https://indymedia.hs2rebellion.earth/users/news you have to click past the SSL error to see the site, on mobile a single column interface, but the swiping is not implemented, so you have to click on the menu at the top. This test site is a RSS/AP aggregator #indymediaback

Q. Well, that is interesting. Seeing something is so much more impressive than just a video. What is the software platform? What web server are you using?
It is pretty easy to do https.
Is anyone actually using the software?

A. sadly, the 2-year working project was killed off by covid just as we were going to start the outreach at protest camps. The codebase is now abandoned, was based on epycion, but dev on this folk is now stopped/blocked.

What we had is a good expirence though, Imagen if the swiping worked. The RSS and AP side works for input, the AP output does not work, none of the tagging was implemented on these rollout test sites, we are still running 3 but needs a committed crew to restart #indymediaback

Was 6 months work for 3 people to put this working code together #DIY and a wider collective to do the work on the text and process to bring the original #indymeda back in the spirit of #nothingnew but the stress of dev and covid broke this as we were getting close to test rollout, been dormant since then.

We need to chose a new codebase and find a coding crew, most of the hard work is done, all the existing design, process and outreach text is in place to push this out agen as the “news” part of the #fediverse

But its another year of nonpaid #openweb work… phwww… fighting agenst the pointlessness of the #mainstreaming is a hard sell, even though it’s blatantly and obviously needed.