The Battle for the Internet: Open vs. Closed

Since its creation, the internet and World Wide Web have been shaped by two competing and overlapping paths:

The #OpenWeb

Rooted in the DNA of internet code and culture, we see the web as a platform for collaboration, sharing, and the free exchange of information. Built for use in a world where information is abundant and free, embodying the ethos of “free as in free beer.”

The #OpenWeb emphasizes the #4opens: open source, open data, open standards, and open process. It walks the path of creativity and collective creation, and is closely associated with “native geek culture” alongside radical/anarchist libertarian thinking. Social interactions are visible, promoting accountability and collective decision-making. Examples include public forums, open-source projects, and community assemblies.

The #ClosedWeb

On the other side, we have the approach of companies like Microsoft under Bill Gates and late-stage Google, that focus on the monetization and commercial viability of the internet. This vision is fixated on control for profitability, and the economics of running online platforms in a world based on artificial scarcity

The #ClosedWeb pushes interactions to private, monetized paths with the illusion of privacy and confidentiality are necessary. This approach seeks to lock down information and interactions, creating walled gardens that can be controlled and monetized.

The Internet’s “native” Potential

The inherent democratization and egalitarianism of the internet allow people to create and share content. However, this ideal clashes with commercial interests that push for control to monetize user data and interactions.

From the #OpenWeb perspective:

Interconnectedness: Technology reflects human values and structures.
Empowerment: The internet empowers people to distribute their work, share ideas, and bypass traditional power politics gatekeepers.
Education and Information: The web transforms education and information access, linking vast resources to walking the path to a different society.

From the #ClosedWeb perspective, the dominant emotion is fear:

Fear of sustainability: Concerns about how to maintain and profit from online platforms.
Fear of losing control: Worries about people having too much freedom, undermining business models and #mainstreaming dogmas.

The Battleground for Openness

The #OpenWeb remains a battleground between the paths of openness and the pushing of fear. While it has democratized content creation and access, the economic models sustaining this ecosystem are often a toxic mess. This tension shapes society both online and offline, creating a complex and messy landscape to find a sustainable path.

The #GeekProblem

One barrier to addressing these issues is the #GeekProblem. On the web, those with technical expertise and control over resources bypass democratic processes and accountability, leading to a kind of “feudalism.” This problem is equally present in grassroots #FOSS (Free and Open Source Software) communities and corporate #dotcons (dot-com companies), as both share the same #geekproblem mindsets regarding control and authority.

A part of the #openweb path involves re-evaluating the relationship between control, wealth, power, and social change in both technology and wider society. Currently, we lack clear ways to discuss the “problem” in geek culture, making it difficult to mediate the #closedweb problem. This is a growing problem, as groups who succeed in a capitalism are the worst equipped to solve the problems that the system creates.

The struggle between these visions is ongoing. For the #openweb to thrive, there must be a concerted effort to address the underlying issues of control and power within both the open and closed paths. By acknowledging and working on these problems, we maintain the internet’s potential as a force for democratization, creativity, and the needed social change.

Please “don’t be a prat” about this, thanks.

Tension, Open and Closed Web

From its very minority creation, the spreading internet and World Wide Web has been shaped by two competing, often overlapping visions:

The collaborative, #openweb: Rooted in #DNA of post apocalyptical internet code and culture, this vision is of a network for collaboration, sharing, and free exchange of information. Built for use in a world of abundance of information, free as in free beer. Emphasizes #4opens, creativity, and collective creation, associated with “native geek culture” and what can be understood as radical/anarchist libertarian thinking.

The commercial, #closedweb: The approach of companies like Microsoft under Bill Gates, and late stage google, focuses on monetization and commercial viability of the internet. Fixated on fear of sustainability, profitability, and the economics of running online platforms in a scarcity based world.

The Internet inherent democratization and egalitarianism allows everyone to create and share content. However, this ideal clashes with the pushing of commercial control, to monetize user data and interactions. This #open path empowers people to distribute their work, share ideas, and bypass traditional gatekeepers. The web transforms education and information access to synthesizing vast resources needed for a different view of society. From the #closedweb prospective, you have fear, simply fear.

The #openweb remains a battleground between these feelings, of openness and the pushing of fear. While it has worked to democratized content creation and access, the existing economic models to sustain this ecosystem are a toxic mess. The ongoing tension shapes society both online and offline, yes it’s a mess.

Why we so often can’t see or do much about this mess is that our #geekproblem have disproportionate control over resources and decisions. This leads to blinded “#feudalism” that bypass democratic processes and accountability. This is equally a “problem” in grassroots #FOSS and corporate #dotcons, as they share the same mindset.

A part of the #openweb is a move to re-evaluate the relationship between “control”, wealth, power, and social change. But currently we have no clear way to talk about this issue from the limited, narrow “problem” in geek culture. So have little way to mediate the #closedweb of the groups who “succeed” in capitalist #mainstreaming, who are actually the worst equipped to solve the problems that the system creates.

UPDATE https://www.theregister.com/2024/10/25/opinion_open_washing/ this is playing out here.

We need to compost the current culture of lying

Why We Can’t Enjoy life

There is a #mainstreaming story that progressives are incapable of enjoying anything and are easily offended, wildly over-analytical, snobby, pretentious, and injecting politics into everything. There is some truth to this, many left-leaning people would admit, reluctantly, that we can be pretty crap and insufferable at times. But it’s important to see the difference between the self-critical view leftists have of themselves not being able to enjoy anything and the propagandist one coming from the right or centre of politics.

Rage Against the System

The right-wing shouts at us that left #fahernistas can’t enjoy anything because they are soft, overthink things and are easily offended, “woke”. They forget that it’s not only a weakness, but more often inarticulate rage and anger, a rage towards an insufferable world people just can’t swallow and accept. Anger that builds up with every minute people have to spend pretending everything’s all right.

Anger, in reality, comes bursting out at the worst or most absurd of times. But think for a moment, it’s not the anger that is the problem. The anger is fine; it’s more that it is often misplaced. Many young, progressive learning, anti-status quo people are just that: angry, confused, and thus lost. Rightfully angry, confused, and lost, but with a social created, unfortunate, lack of vision on when and where to channel this anger.

The Curse of Awareness

So why do leftists find it so hard to enjoy things?

The News: The way #mainstreaming news works is you pick a tribe and only watch what the people from your tribe show on the #dotcons and TV. You foam at the mouth with a pitchfork in hand, go online with a burning touch to shout and complain about either the illiterate rednecks or the college graduate cross-dressing paedophiles. From the grassroots activist sidelines, this seems equally weird and entertaining because we don’t currently have a news cycle backing anyone like us. Our understanding of how privately owned media works makes most news indigestible. No matter how “objective” this tries to be, when news is a business, it will never cross certain boundaries. Boundaries like questioning the system or pitching an alternative to the status quo.
National Identity: We might be proud of our heritage and culture, but #class consciousness makes us understand that we have far more in common with workers of all nations than we do with the #rulingclass of our own country. Patriotism without class consciousness feels wrong and is wrong. We cringe at hyper-patriotic empty gestures because we understand that 9 out of 10 times, if we get sent to the front line in the next war, we’ll be shooting other working-class comrades while the sons of our presidents sit comfortably on a far away beach.
Self-Help and New Age Philosophy: These are the two deep fake philosophies out there. The self-help military-industrial complex implies that everything can be solved if you figure out the puzzle which is the world economy and use a special cheat code to get yourself out of any mess. The latter idea, quasi-spiritual enlightenment, pitches internalizing the world and creating a world of your “own” as a coping mechanism. We can’t enjoy either of these because they are commodified beyond recognition and based on an unrealistic #stupidindividualism that we can and should handle everything on our own.
Our Jobs: We struggle to enjoy our jobs because we understand that at the end of the day, we’re being exploited. No matter what industry or position, your boss does not pay you even close to how much you make them. This fact makes all the talk of purpose, family, and a cause sound like pathetic, childish gesturing.
Mindless Consumption: We can’t fully enjoy consumerism because we know that the high of a purchase is followed by the hangover realization that we’re still as lost as we were before. The lie that we can find purpose in mindless consumption is the greatest epidemic of our time.

The Price of Seeing Clearly

The main takeaway of all these examples is simple: the progressive activist understands that in the current system, whether it’s mindless shopping, new chauvinism, job unfulfillment, or quasi-philosophy, there is a struggle between our wants to see the world and constant manipulation steering us away from this. This awareness is why life feels so miserable. Yes, we see the Zombies behind the masks of the puppets, and it’s hard to enjoy the show when you know it’s death dancing behind the #mainstreaming illusion.

Q. “WHAT ABOUT HUMAN NATURE?” That simple question posits an even simpler view of human consciousness and decision-making. It says man is flawed—through his greed, jealousy, and selfishness—and that as such, he would destroy and corrupt any system which doesn’t utilize those very flaws. The way capitalism, for example, does with greed, by throwing us in the gladiatorial arena, or to be more realistic, a children’s sandbox, of the free market—where the greediest win. Yes, it’s a mess.

We worshipped a #deathcult for 40 years

We need to understand that our shared #mainstreaming for the last 40 years has been built on the path of #neoliberalism a political and economic ideology that advocates for minimal state intervention in the economy, emphasizing free markets, deregulation, privatization, and a reduction in government spending on social programs. This path emerged as a dominant force in the late 20th century, particularly from the 1980s onwards, under the influence of #MargaretThatcher in the UK and #RonaldReagan in the US.

Historical Context

We can find the seed of this mess, after World War II, many European countries adopted social democratic policies, influenced by the pressure of strong socialist movements and the existence of socialist states like the #USSR, these provided extensive social benefits, full employment, free healthcare, and education. To avoid the very real potential of revolutions and maintain stability, European nations implemented social welfare programs internally while still externally engaging in exploitative economic practices in their former colonies.

Emergence of Neoliberalism

By the 1980s, the capitalist system faced renewed crises, including economic recessions, a decline in profitability. In response, the old fundamentalism of #classicliberalism renamed as #neoliberal pushed for a drastic reduction in government intervention and social spending. This shift was driven by the #nastyfew belief that previous social democratic concessions (the social safety net put in place due to the threat of communism) were no longer sustainable or needed and were now ONLY hindering economic growth and profit margins.

Definition and Principles

Neoliberalism is a set of policies and ideas focused on:

Deregulation: Removing government regulations to allow businesses total freedom in how they exploit people and the environment.
Privatization: Transferring public services, commons, and assets to the private sector.
Reduced Public Spending: Cutting redistributive government expenditures on social programs like welfare, healthcare, and education.
Tax Cuts: Lowering taxes for corporations and the wealthy to encourage renewed “investment” and extractive economic growth.
Free Markets: Promoting the idea that the #nastyfew defined markets are the most “efficient” way to allocate resources and solve social “problems”.

Ideological Dogma

Neoliberalism “common sense” asserts that the “free” market, left alone, will “naturally” regulate itself and provide the best outcomes for society. This belief extends to all areas of life, including education, healthcare, and social services, which they push should be subjected to market forces rather than people driven democratic, community or working people’s control.

Consequences

Social and Economic Impact

Increased Inequality: Neoliberal policies lead to growing income and wealth disparities as the rich benefit from tax cuts and deregulation while social safety nets are dismantled for the poor.
Reduced Worker Protections: Labour unions and pro-labour legislation are weakened, leading to lower wages and worse working conditions.
Privatization of Public Services: Essential services like healthcare and education become more expensive and less accessible to the poor.
Environmental Degradation: Deregulation leads to pollution and environmental harm as companies prioritize profit over sustainability. A urgent current example: We have pushed #climatechaos hard with this mess.

Global Impact

IMF and World Bank Policies: Developing countries are subjected to structural adjustment programs by international financial institutions, which require them to implement neoliberal policies in exchange for loans. This leads to severe social and economic hardship in the developing world.
Exploitation of Developing Countries: This leads to global inequalities by maintaining exploitative relationships between wealthy and poorer nations.

Criticism and Opposition

Critics show that neoliberalism prioritizes the interests of the wealthy and corporations at the expense of the environment, working class and the poor. Undermining democracy by concentrating economic and political power in the hands of a few, leading to increased social unrest and current right-wing shift and resulting political and environmental instability.

https://youtu.be/cIYfiRyPi3o?si=OMniobLE_rgCsOAg This video was removed from the #dotcons

Conclusion

It’s very simple, the people pushing #neoliberalism, lied about economic efficiency and growth and the associated significant social costs, including increased inequality, reduced public welfare, and environmental degradation. Their focus on market solutions for all problems disregards the realities of social and economic life, leading to widespread criticism and calls for alternative approaches that prioritize real change and challenge.

In the era of #climatechaos, this shift to Neoliberalism has obviously been a #deathcult that sadly continues to shape our “common sense” and has been central to our lives for the last 40 years.

We can’t keep going down the path, you can find different paths here https://opencollective.com/open-media-network

The West’s Climate-Catastrophe is “native” to the mess we are in

A Positive View Of Current Trends

The challenges of today: #climatechaos, inequality, and the social impacts of #dotcons technology are a creating a very nasty social mess. However, there is a some potential for a positive transformation if we push the power of #openweb and #4opens technology and align it with progressive and radical “native” grassroots politics.

Addressing Climate Change with Technology and Revolutionary change

Renewable Energy: Solar, wind, and other renewable energy sources are becoming more than cost-effective and widespread. With strong political will, we can transition to a carbon-neutral economy. By reducing consumption and shifting this energy balance, we take a step to mitigating some of the effects of climate change.
Climate Resilience: Investment in both physical and social climate resilience infrastructure, flood defences and mediation, sustainable agriculture. This will shape and can protect vulnerable communities and ecosystems as we weather this transition. On the digital side, federation is a big step towards more #p2p native infrastructure, which will help to mediate the failing of our overly centralise #dotcons world.

Leveraging Automation for Social Good

Reducing Work Hours: Automation reduces the need for human labour, allowing for shorter work weeks and more leisure time without reducing productivity. This leads to improved quality of life and wider social and mental health benefits.
Universal Basic Income: #UBI provides a financial base for building sustainable alternatives, ensuring that wider groups benefits from increased productivity and technological advancements, rather than the normal #nastyfew.

Ensuring Equitable Access to Resources and Services

Universal Basic Services: By providing free and universal access to essential services such as healthcare, education, housing, and public transport, we create a more equitable society where people has the opportunity to thrive and build social good.
Socialized Finance: Redirecting financial resources from speculative markets to socially beneficial projects ensures that investments are made in areas that improve public well-being and infrastructure.

Fostering a Culture of Innovation and Inclusion

Inclusive Policy Making: Ensuring that marginalized communities have a voice in policymaking leads to more equitable and just outcomes. Participatory democracy and community-led tech initiatives like the #OGB drive inclusive development and the needed social challenge to become the change we need.
Education and Retraining: As the job paths shift, providing education and retraining opportunities helps people transition to new roles, ensuring that fewer people are left behind.

Utilizing Technology for Global Collaboration and Problem-Solving

Global Cooperation: Harnessing #4opens technology for international collaboration can address global challenges more effectively. Federated platforms for knowledge sharing and linking joint initiatives leads to real solutions for climate change, health, and economic development.
Data for Good: Using #openweb and #4opens data, metadata analytics to address social issues leads to more effective public planing, policies and resource allocation.

Conclusion: A vision of hope, in tech

There is a potential for a positive future when we combine technological innovation with radical progressive politics and a commitment to social equity. By addressing #climatechange, leveraging automation, ensuring food security, and providing universal access to essential services, we build a wider world of opportunity and basic justice.

This vision needs us to reimagine our current paths to prioritize humanistic well-being over profit. With the right policies and collective action, we can turn today’s challenges into opportunities for basic survival and a better global society.

You can support a technological project https://opencollective.com/open-media-network it’s a small step.

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

A conversation that circles

Too often, I find myself in conversations that revolve around the intersection of technology and social issues, with one view emphasizing the importance of practical solutions to real-world problems, while the other highlights the underlying social dynamics that shape the technological landscapes these so-called “solutions” are often supposed to address.

On one side, there are those who prioritize pragmatic, immediate problem-solving. They want concrete fixes for specific issues and are often impatient with broader discussions around ethics, power structures, and social impact. For example, they might advocate for encrypted communication platforms as a straightforward defence against surveillance, without considering how these tools unintentionally foster isolated, fragmented communities, or how the #encryptionist mindset reinforce the individualism that makes collective action harder.

This mindset tends to dismiss systemic critiques, like the argument that contemporary code is shaped by capitalist structures that inherently promote profit over people. Think of how open-source projects get co-opted by corporations (#dotcons) to reduce costs while extracting free labour from developers. The “easy fix” of simply licensing code as open might seem like a solution, but without addressing the exploitative dynamics, it to often end up reinforcing the problems they think they are solving.

On the other side, you have those who argue that technological problems are inherently social problems. They believe you can’t build meaningful tech without addressing the human dynamics that shape its development and use. For example, decentralized social media platforms like #Mastodon or #PeerTube are built to resist the control of big tech monopolies, but if the culture within these platforms mirrors the same paths and thinking of the orgional #dotcons, then the tech itself fails to be a strongly alternative. The #geekproblem shows up here when developers dismiss social considerations as irrelevant or secondary to technical design, leading to platforms that are hostile to non-technical users and communities with different values.

Take the example of the Fediverse: while it offers a more open, decentralized alternative to Twitter or YouTube, many instances end up replicating the same patterns of gatekeeping and fragmentation. Without intentional social processes and governance, like the kind explored in projects like the #OGB (Open Governance Body), the tech alone isn’t enough to shift the power dynamics at all.

To sum up, this ongoing conversation highlights the complex relationship between technology and society. We need to move beyond the constant back-and-forth between quick-fix pragmatism and endless critique, and instead build projects, process and practices that balance immediate action with a deeper understanding of social paths. It’s not about rejecting practical solutions, but about recognizing that real change, that posses real challenge, comes from embedding social responsibility, collective governance, and human-centred design into every layer of the technology we create.

The path requires both shovels and soil, practical tools to dig through the mess, and rich compost from decades of social struggles to nourish truly transformative alternatives. It’s time to break this cycle of mess-making and start growing tech that serves communities, not just individual “users” or feeding back into #dotcons interests.

If this resonates, let’s build together. 🌱

Open Media Network

Reminder about the hashtag family

A breakdown of the #OMN hashtags and how they are typically used as a social change and challenge project that we need:

#dotcons: This hashtag refers to corporate centralized platforms, such as social media networks, that prioritize profit and control over users, data and content. It’s often used in discussions about the negative effects of centralization on the internet and the importance of decentralization.
#fashernista: This hashtag combines “fashion” and “lifestyle” and is used to criticize trends or behaviours that promote #mainstreaming unthinking consumerist paths, behaver and ideas in popular and counter culture.
#stupidindividualism: This hashtag critiques the current use of the ideology of individualism, which prioritizes individual gain and ignores collective well-being. It’s often used to highlight the negative effects of prioritizing individual interests over those of society as a whole.
#neoliberalism: Neoliberalism is an economic and political ideology that emphasizes free-market capitalism, deregulation, privatization, and limited government intervention. This hashtag is used in discussions about the effects of neoliberal policies on society, such as income inequality and the erosion of public services.
#deathcult: This hashtag is used metaphorically to describe neoliberal ideologies that prioritize profit and power over human well-being, environmental sustainability and social justice. It’s frequently associated with critiques of #climatechaos capitalism, consumerism, and imperialism, its the mess we live in today.
#NGO: This stands for “Non-Governmental Organization” and refers to non-profit organizations that operate independently of government control. This hashtag is used in discussions #mainstreaming roles of NGOs and people who think like NGO’s in not being brave enough to address social, environmental, and humanitarian issues.

And on the positive side:

#openweb: This hashtag celebrates the principles of openness, decentralization, and inclusivity on the internet. It’s often used in discussions about the importance of preserving and promoting a “native” open and accessible web for everyone. This is #web01
#4opens: This hashtag is used to promote transparency, collaboration, and community-driven development in software and technology projects. It should be used to JUDGE projects.

Each of these hashtags serves as a shorthand for broader discussions and concepts, allowing people to participate in and contribute to conversations around these topics on the #openweb and inside the #dotcons it’s about linking.

#KISS

Should we ban TikTok

The #dotcons are about ideological control (advertising) of information for profit, #TikTok is likely one of the most advanced on this path.

Whether to ban TikTok is part of the #mainstreaming mess and significant within the wider context of the move back to the #openweb

Some considerations:

Impact on Ideological Control: TikTok, like other #dotcons social media platforms, shapes public discourse and pushes #neoliberal and #stupidindividualism ideological agenda and control. Banning #TikTok could disrupt the control exerted by centralized platforms over the flow of information and content moderation policies. However, it’s essential to consider whether banning TikTok is the most effective way to address concerns about ideological control, as users will mostly simply migrate to other #dotcons with the same issues.
Privacy and Data Control: TikTok faces scrutiny over its data practices and ties to the Chinese government, raising concerns about privacy and data security. This is a normal issue with any state bound #dotcons. Banning TikTok might address these concerns by limiting the collection and dissemination of user data to the replacement state, the USA. However, it’s important to explore alternative measures, such as regulatory oversight and #4opens requirements, to protect user data without resorting to a ban.
Innovation and Competition: Banning TikTok could stifle innovation and competition in the #dotcons, limiting the diversity of #techshit platforms available to users. This has implications for content creators, influencers, and businesses that rely on TikTok for outreach and monetizable engagement. Instead of a ban, maybe fostering competition and growing alternative, decentralized platforms (like the #Fediverse) would promote innovation and diversity in the social media ecosystem in a better way?
Freedom of Expression: Banning TikTok raises concerns about freedom of expression, as it restricts digital surfs ability to share content and engage with others slaves on the platform. While TikTok faces criticism for its content moderation practices, outright banning the platform may not be an appropriate solution. Instead, data portability and interoperability as combined efforts would address harmful content and promote healthy online discourse, thus focus on regulatory measures and community-driven initiatives rather than a ban.
Broader Societal Implications: Banning TikTok could have broader societal implications, particularly for younger generations who are active users of the platform. It’s important to consider the social and cultural significance of TikTok as a platform for #fashernista creativity, self-expression, and community-building. Efforts to mitigate potential harms associated with TikTok should prioritize education, digital literacy, and awareness-raising initiatives of real alternatives rather than simply national propaganda agender.

In conclusion, whether to ban TikTok involves weighing concerns about ideological control, interoperability, privacy, innovation, freedom of expression, and wider social implications. While banning TikTok may address some of these concerns, alternative approaches, such as #4opens, regulatory oversight, #openweb competition promotion, and community-driven initiatives, would likely ensure a more balanced and effective response.

We need to move past these illogical gatekeepers.

Who gets to decide what this place is? How are we being represented

“An important distinction is slowly being uncovered about the definition of the term “#Fediverse.” Who is it that gets to decide what this place is? How are we being represented?”

https://mastodon.social/deck/@fdrc_ff@www.foxyhole.io/112435833670527639

The lack of discussion about the nature of the space the #fediverse occupies raises questions about representation and identity within this #openweb “native” network.

Ownership by Communities: The Fediverse offers a way to build the internet by and for communities, in contrast to centralized #dotcons social networks that push monetization over community well-being. By decentralizing governance, the Fediverse empowers people to take control of their online spaces and relationships.
Audience and Adoption: The Fediverse is valuable for those who are hostile and disillusioned with monetized social networks and seek ways to connect with real change/challenge comunertys. While some are eager to explore alternatives, others face limitations or challenges in transitioning. Nonetheless, the slow growth of communities is essential for digging and building a strong “native” foundation for #openweb decentralized networking.
Governance and Community: A key distinction in the Fediverse lies in its shared governance model, where people have a say in how their communities are shaped. This contrasts with centralized social networks, where governance decisions are made by a central authority that does not align in any meaningful way with community interests. People are drawn to the alt path for its emphasis on inclusivity and agency, allowing both individuals and social groups to express themselves without fear of censorship or out group coercion.
Coexistence with Centralized Networks: The Fediverse does not require people to opt out of centralized social networks entirely. Instead, people can maintain connections on both networks while stepping away to decentralized networking. This allows people to become familiar with the #openweb culture and its advantages.
Website Design and Accessibility: With the foundational #4opens principles, the focus shifts to website design that reflects these values. Accessibility, both in terms of physical access and cultural understanding, need to become prioritized to ensure that the platform is both inclusive and user-friendly, in sharp contrast to too much of the bad #UX history of existing #FOSS coding.

The Fediverse represents a shift towards community-driven, decentralized networking, offering an alternative to #dotcons. It prioritizes people’s and community agency, inclusivity, and accessibility, to create spaces to connect and express difference and similarity.

Let’s reboot the #openweb as a start, we can try calling this #web1.5

On the subject of activism, “don’t be a prat” is a good start.

#NGIFORUM
#NGIFORUM2025
#NGIFORUM25
#Fediforum

etc

Development of technology in a community-centric direction

We need to reboot #KISS by shaping technology to empower people and building to their needs to create any inclusive and democratic digital path. We need technology that prioritizes people and community customization first:

User-Centric Design: Technology should be designed with the people in mind, focusing on usability, accessibility, and flexibility. This means involving people in the design process and incorporating their feedback to create technology that meets real needs, process and preferences.
Open Source and Open Standards: Embracing #4opens principles promotes transparency, interoperability, and people’s control. By making source code freely available and adhering to open standards, developers empower people to modify and customize the technology they are building according to wider social requirements.
Decentralization: Moving away from centralized platforms and embracing decentralized architectures fosters community and resilience in the social digital networks. Decentralized technologies empower people to have control over their digital lives and communities, stepping away from reliance on large corporations.
Education and Empowerment: Educating people about technology and creating tools and resources to shape and customize to their needs is essential. By fostering digital literacy, people can understand and thus take control of their digital experiences, to create a more informed and engaged user base.
Community Engagement: Engaging with communities and building collaboration and thus co-creation leads to the development of technology that reflects the diverse needs and perspectives of people. By building inclusive and participatory processes, developers can ensure that technology serves the interests of the community.

In the context of the #Fediverse and #openweb reboot, prioritizing these helps to steer the development of technology towards a community-centric and empowering direction of real world use. By stepping away from the #dotcons tech that pre-shapes people’s behaviour to grow a more participatory and inclusive path, we build a digital ecosystem that serves the needs of people.

#KISS is a good start on this path.

What names to use?

The term #openweb describes a social/tech ecosystem for the internet rooted in decentralization, interoperability, and community-driven values. It embodies the #4opens – open data, open source, open standards, and open process. This stands in contrast to the #closedweb of the #dotcons, whose platforms are centralized and proprietary, and the broader #mainstreaming of the internet, which has a strong tendency to replicate closed, corporate models. The #openweb offers a fundamentally different vision for the future, both for the web and the society it shapes.

In this landscape, the #Fediverse is an example of decentralized networking. Built on the protocol #ActivityPub, it enables people and communities across different platforms to interact seamlessly. Codebases like #Mastodon, #PeerTube, and #Pixelfed serve as alternatives to corporate platforms, Twitter, YouTube, and Instagram, offering a more ethical, people-centric path for people to walk.

For more technical or geeky conversations, the term #web1.5 is useful. It acts as a buffer against the confusion and hype of #web3 and the #encryptionist obsession with blockchain-driven solutions that miss the social dimension.

When communicating with broader or more mainstream people, talking about the Fediverse can be tricky. In many cases, simply saying “Mastodon” is enough. As the most recognizable platform in the Fediverse, it serves as a useful gateway for those unfamiliar with decentralized technologies, yet curious to explore alternatives to Big Tech.

Ultimately, terminology should match context and audience. Whether you’re deep in conversation with fellow geeks or introducing someone new to decentralized spaces, choosing the right term can make all the difference in clarity and accessibility.

Of course, tribalism within these communities can sometimes make things harder than necessary. A gentle reminder applies here: don’t be a prat. Shared understanding matters more than gatekeeping.