The current move in #blocking of the #dotcons moving to the #openweb is not a real solution, it’s like we are putting our heads in the sand. We need to understand that our “native” projects are #4opens thus anyone, including the #dotcons can be a part of the #openweb in this it’s a good thing they are moving back to this space.
Feel free to block them, but pushing this path as a solution is both naive and self-defeating. We need to do better and build a healthy culture and a diverstay of tools, it’s always a fight, hiding in a cave wins no wars, and we are in a war.
Issues within the #Fediverse community regarding the handling of problematic behaviour or interactions on the platform. A breakdown of some points:
Problem with Blocking: That simply blocking users or instances (such as the #dotcons) is not an effective long-term solution to fostering a healthy and diverse community within the Fediverse. Blocking is “putting your head in the sand,” ignoring or isolating problematic elements doesn’t resolve underlying issues.
Advocating for Openness: Emphasizes that the Fediverse should remain true to its principles of openness (#4opens), which allow anyone, including controversial entities like the #dotcons, to participate. This openness is a positive aspect of the #openweb.
Building a Healthy Culture: Rather than relying on blocking, we need to advocate for actively building a healthy culture within the #Fediverse. This involves nurturing diversity of tools and fostering a community where constructive engagement and dialogue can thrive.
Need for Engagement and Solutions: The importance of proactive engagement and problem-solving. We need to warn against passivity (“hiding in a cave”) and encourages efforts to address challenges head-on to create a stronger and more resilient ecosystem.
Overall, a call for constructive action within the #Fediverse community, moving beyond simple blocking measures and focusing on building a robust and inclusive path that aligns with core values of openness and diversity. With an emphasis on proactive engagement, collective responsibility, and continuous improvement to create a healthier online and offline environment.
Pushing defederation from #meta is not wrong in sentiment, the #dotcons are vile and cons. But is wrong from a practical sense. The #Fediverse and #ActivityPub are #openweb based on #4opens, this is a space where you do not have technical tools for stopping the #dotcons from taking the data, as the data in the end is in the open, unencrypted, in the database, in #RSS and in open flows.
The people who push the idea of closed are fighting for the #closedweb on a “native” #openweb platform. This makes no sense at all, incoherences everywhere, a lot of mess over the last 40 years that we need to compost.
There are likely good, useful motivation for unfederating from the #dotcons let’s be motivated by them please.
Grassroots activism has undergone significant ups and downs over the past four decades, particularly within digital communication and organizing. This post provides an overview of the challenges and successes experienced by grassroots activists during this time period, focusing on the evolution of the #openweb and its eventual decline. It explores the ideological underpinnings of internet projects, the impact of funding and #mainstreaming efforts, and the shifting dynamics between open and closed systems. By examining these trends, we can better understand the complex interplay between technology, ideology, and activism.
The rise of the open internet, was a surge of enthusiasm for #4opens and decentralized communication paths. Projects like early #indymedia, blogging platforms, wikis, and peer-to-peer networks flourished, driven by an ethos of democratization and empowerment. These offered people and grassroots movements opportunities to connect, collaborate, and mobilize on a global scale. The ideology of the #openweb, rooted in #4opens principles, captured the imaginations of many activists seeking to challenge established power structures.
However, alongside the growth of #openweb projects, there were also significant challenges and tensions. The influx of funding from state, foundation, and #NGO sources brought both opportunities and risks. While funding provided vital resources for development and expansion, it also introduced pressures to conform to #mainstreaming norms and intrenched #geekproblem agendas. Additionally, as open internet projects gained popularity, they became susceptible to co-option and manipulation by corporate interests seeking to capitalize on the growing community interest.
The fall of the openweb, despite early successes, the internet eventually faced a decline, marked by the erosion of its ideological foundations and the resurgence of closed, centralized platforms, the #dotcons. One factor in this decline was the failure of many openweb projects to align with the dominant ideology of the web itself. The pushing of non-native common sense. While some projects embraced trust-based anarchism and decentralized governance, others veered towards more hierarchical and exclusionary paths.
The rise of a new generation of technologists and entrepreneurs, shaped by #neoliberal ideologies of individualism and competition, led to a merging of open and closed paths. This shift towards closed platforms, controlled by a handful of corporate giants, undermined the diversity and resilience of the “native” openweb. The very chaos that once protected the openweb from vertical integration and monopolization was replaced by a homogenized landscape dominated by a few #dotcons.
Challenges and opportunities, in the face of these challenges, grassroots activists grapple with the complexities of a landscape that is hostile to their values and principles. The siloed nature of many media projects are a barrier to collective action and solidarity, limiting their impact and longevity. However, there are also opportunities for resistance and resilience, through the cultivation of networks based on mutual aid and cooperation like the #OMN
Conclusion, the trajectory of grassroots activism in the UK over the past four decades reflects the broader shifts and tensions within the #mainstreaming path. The rise and fall of the openweb mirrors the struggles of activists to carve out spaces for dissent and resistance in corporatized and surveilled environments. By using the #4opens to examining the ideological underpinnings of internet projects and exploring alternative paths in organizing, activists work towards reclaiming the path of a more open and decentralized future.
One thing that is missing from much of the unthinking #mainstreaming outreach and expansion is that the history of #ActivityPub and the #Fediverse is a grassroots collaboration, and an ongoing struggle between open and closed paths. To understand this history, we need to explore the origins of ActivityPub and its evolution within the broader #openweb movement.
ActivityPub emerged as a response to the limitations of early social media protocols like #OStatus, which powered platforms such as #StatusNet (later GNU-social). While OStatus enabled some level of federation, it lacked robust privacy features and limited conversation dynamics. This pushed developers to seek alternatives that could better support native social interactions.
The early drafts of ActivityPub, initially called #ActivityPump, were an ambitious attempt to build a flexible protocol supporting rich, decentralized communication. In tech OStatus, used XML, ActivityPump adopted JSON, a more modern, lightweight, and developer-friendly format. This shift made it easier for platforms to adopt and extend the protocol.
The transition to ActivityPub, the move from ActivityStreams 1.0 to ActivityStreams 2.0, and ultimately to ActivityPub, reflected the need for a more comprehensive standard. ActivityPub introduced server-to-server communication, enabling platforms to share activities, like posts and follows, across different instances. This innovation laid the foundation for true federation, where separate platforms could interact seamlessly.
Key projects helped shape this evolution. Pump.io, created by #EvanProdromou (the developer behind StatusNet), was an early experiment with ActivityStreams, though it never achieved widespread adoption. But these experiments were stepping stones that informed the development.
Next is the role of #Mastodon and the rise of the #Fediverse, Eugen Rochko’s decision to implement ActivityPub as Mastodon’s primary protocol catalyzed the growth of the Fediverse. Mastodon offered a #openweb “native” but familiar Twitter-like experience with federation baked in, its rise attracted a wave of people disillusioned by #dotcons social media.
As Mastodon grew, other platforms joined the ecosystem, #PeerTube for video, #Pixelfed for images, #WriteFreely for blogging, and meany more. Each new platform enriched the Fediverse and reinforced the strength of the decentralized path.
There are challenges to openness, despite its successes, this journey of rebooting the #openweb with ActivityPub and the Fediverse hasn’t been without friction:
Commercial Capture: As the Fediverse gained traction, larger players began exploring it. #Threads’ integration with ActivityPub, for instance, raises concerns about whether the #dotcons might dilute the Fediverse’s grassroots ethos.
Technical Complexity: Implementing ActivityPub isn’t straightforward. the pushing of features like HTTP signatures for verifying interactions introduce technical hurdles that can create compatibility issues between platforms.
Centralization Drift: Even within the Fediverse, centralizing tendencies continue. Mastodon’s continuing dominance has concentrated influence, raising questions about how to prevent decentralized paths from replicating the “common sense” patterns of the #dotcons.
There is a constant need for guarding this open future, in which we need to balance the outreaching to the #mainstreaming with caring and supporting the native grassroots that created the value in the first place.
Looking forward, the future of ActivityPub and the Fediverse hinges on collective action. We need to resist the “common sense” commercial co-option from both friends and enemies to expand into building tools that make decentralized tech more accessible #OMN
The promise of the #Fediverse isn’t simply technological, it’s cultural and political. It’s about reclaiming the internet as public commons, where communities thrive on their own terms. On this path, by staying rooted in collaboration and community care, we ensure the Fediverse remains a beacon of hope in increasingly enclosed digital paths.
The growing influence of NGOs in social activism raises concerns, particularly in an online landscape dominated by centralized #dotcons platforms and gatekeepers. In contrast, the #openweb, rooted in the #4opens principles of decentralization, open standards, and inclusivity, represents a genuine path for progressive social change.
However, the rise of NGO-driven slacktivism exposes the limitations of centralized activism. While petitions and social media campaigns can raise awareness, they lack sincerity and fail to drive real change. This culture of low-effort engagement stands in stark contrast to the openweb’s ethos, where people have the autonomy to participate, create, and take meaningful action without the constraints of gatekeepers.
A key concern is that NGOs, despite claiming to serve communities, to often end up promoting their own interests and priorities. This marginalizes “native” voices and disempower grassroots movements. As attention shifts towards the #Fediverse, it is crucial to safeguard against NGO-style centralization and ensure that power remains distributed across diverse communities.
To resist coaptation, the Fediverse must uphold its decentralized, community-grown structure. Building trust, collaboration, and maintaining its native core will be essential in keeping the space free from corporate and institutional control.
In conclusion, the openweb and the Fediverse are critical tools for grassroots activism and collective action. By resisting centralization and embracing the #4opens, we can ensure that these spaces remain truly progressive, participatory, and free.
In our shared landscape of the #openweb and the emerging #Fediverse, trust is the currency that binds meaningful interactions and collaborations. Yet, amidst the cacophony of voices and divergent perspectives, building trust can feel like navigating a minefield. In this post, we’ll explore the importance of trust, examine the challenges to building trust, and propose strategies to grow a culture of trust within these communities.
Trust is the soil upon which communities thrive, enabling people to engage in meaningful exchanges, share resources, and collaborate on common goals. In the decentralized ecosystem of diverse voices, converging and interacting, trust becomes more essential. Unlike centralized #dotcons platforms, where trust is bestowed upon a single authority, the “native” openweb relies on distributed networks of trust between people and communities.
However, despite the inherent value of this trust, the native path is fraught with challenges that hinder any lasting cultivation. One of the obstacles is the prevalence of #blocking and resistance to new ideas and approaches, this hinders. While blocking may be necessary in certain circumstances, to protect against harmful actors and preserve the integrity of a community, it can also impede constructive dialogue and collaboration. Without trust, too much #blocking can lead communities to become fragmented and isolated.
What can we do?
Transparency: Transparency is key to building trust within communities. Open and honest communication about intentions, decisions, and actions grows a sense of accountability and reliability. Projects and peoples need to strive to be transparent in their paths, sharing information openly and engaging in dialogue with different stakeholders.
Inclusivity: Inclusive communities are more likely to cultivate trust among their members. In this we need to seek out diverse perspectives and voices, and creating spaces where people feel welcome and valued, communities foster a sense of belonging. Inclusivity also involves addressing power imbalances and amplifying silent voices.
Consistency: Consistency in actions and behaviour is needed for building trust over time. Communities need to strive to uphold commitments, follow through on promises, and maintain integrity in interactions. Consistency breeds reliability, and reliability breeds trust.
Empathy: Empathy is the foundation of trust in human relationships. By empathizing with the experiences and perspectives of others, communities build mutual understanding and respect. Empathy involves active listening, acknowledging the feelings and concerns of others, and responding with compassion and kindness.
Collaboration: By creating opportunities for people to work together towards common goals, and engaging in collaborative projects, sharing resources, to support each other’s efforts, communities build bonds of trust and solidarity.
Trust is the cornerstone of any thriving #openweb path and the building of the wider #fediverse community. We need to create environments where trust flourishes, enabling people to engage in meaningful interactions and collaborations. Remember that trust is not a destination but a journey, one that requires ongoing effort, and commitment from all #4opens stakeholders.
The last 40 years of technological development (from open to closed) and its impact on society, coupled with the growing urgency of addressing #climatechange, highlight the need to fundamentally shift the way we approach technology back to open.
Key points:
Environmental Impact: The rapid growth of technology over the past few decades has come with a significant environmental cost. From the production and disposal of electronic devices to the energy consumption of data centres and digital infrastructure, the tech industry has contributed to greenhouse gas emissions, resource depletion, and environmental degradation. As we face the reality of #climatechaos, there’s a pressing need to develop and adopt technologies that minimize harm to the planet.
Social Inequality: While technology has the potential to connect people and empower communities, our embrace of the #dotcons has exacerbated social inequalities. Access to digital technologies, information, and opportunities, widening the gap between the privileged and marginalized. Moreover, #dotcons tech platforms are criticized for perpetuating discrimination, bias, and exclusion, further entrenching systemic injustices. Addressing these issues requires building “native” #openweb technology that prioritizes equity, inclusivity, and social justice.
Corporate Control and Surveillance: The dominance of large tech corporations raises concerns about corporate power. These companies wield immense influence over digital ecosystems, shaping the flow of information, controlling social access to platforms, and monetizing people’s data and metadata. To counteract corporate control and protect the #openweb, there’s a need for decentralized, community-driven alternatives.
Innovation and Collaboration: The current paradigm of technological development prioritizes profit-driven innovation over basic social and environmental responsibility. This mindset stifles collaboration, stifles open innovation, and limits collective problem-solving. To address complex challenges like #climatechange, we need to foster a #4opens culture of collaboration, knowledge sharing, and open-source development. By democratizing access to technology and promoting participatory design processes, we harness the collective intelligence and creativity of communities.
Political and Cultural Shifts: The intersection of technology, politics, and culture shapes societal norms, values, and behaviours. Over the past years, we’ve seen a growing awareness of the political implications of technology, from concerns about online disinformation and algorithmic bias to debates over platform governance and digital rights. As grassroots movements like Extinction Rebellion (#XR) mobilize to address #climatechange, there’s an opportunity to leverage technology as a tool for social and environmental activism. By challenging mainstream narratives, engaging in grassroots #openweb organizing, and amplifying community based voices, we harness technology to advance progressive causes and catalyse the needed systemic change and challenge.
The disaster that is #climatechaos necessitate a radical reimagining of technology and its role. By building sustainability, equity, collaboration, and activism, we can push the resilient and inclusive #openweb future that serves people and the planet. And yes this shift challenges entrenched power, confronts corporate interests, so we will need to mobilize collective action to create this more sustainable world.
The #dotcons are designed for greed and selfishness. Everything about them feeds this and, in turn, feeds off it. This negative path is hard-coded deep into their architecture. They cannot be fixed.
The rebooting of the #openweb is the path we have taken. Copying worked well for the first step — it let us get moving. But for the next step, we need to move past the simple replication of the current #mainstreaming mess. We cannot reboot alternatives by simply copying them in #FOSS, as we have too often done in the #Fediverse.
The next step needs to be more native to the #4opens path we have started down. Let’s thank the people who copied. Let’s give them statues and security – they did us all a service. They deserve gratitude for this first step, not hatred. But we cannot stop there.
The mess of the #dotcons. Take the example of Twitter’s devolution. What began as a #neoliberal platform – deregulated, market-driven, profit-focused – has slid into a space with growing fascist tendencies under Elon Musk. This is not an accident. It’s a stark reminder of the pitfalls of unchecked corporate #dotcons and their susceptibility to authoritarian capture.
Neoliberalism, with its emphasis on deregulation and market “solutions,” inevitably concentrates wealth and power into the hands of a few. That concentration erodes democratic norms and opens the door to authoritarianism. Twitter is just one case. The intertwining of neoliberalism and fascism underscores why we need vigilance: not only against economic inequality, but also against the erosion of the native #openweb projects we struggle to build and sustain.
The trap of nostalgia, in the reaction of neoliberal “common sense” to Twitter’s fascist turn is instructive. Despite the platform’s descent, many #mainstreaming users still engage with it, clinging to nostalgia for its earlier, more liberal incarnation. This highlights the tendency of #mainstreaming to adapt to life under oppressive regimes, out of self-preservation, habit, or a misguided sense of normalcy. It is a sobering reminder of the dangers of complacency and the urgency of resisting authoritarianism, especially in its early stages.
The lesson for the #openweb can be found in this transformation of Twitter from neoliberalism to fascism, which shows the interconnectedness of economic and political systems. It underlines the need for collective action to safeguard native #openweb values. By recognizing the warning signs of authoritarianism and refusing to normalize its spread, we can prevent the erosion of the commons we are trying to grow.
The next stage of the reboot cannot be a mirror of the #dotcons. It must be different, open, grounded, messy, and alive.
Centralization of Power: The dominant platforms in the #dotcons era are #closedweb, centralized, controlled by a handful of corporations.
Monopolistic Practices: The dominance of a few major players led to monopolistic practices that stifled “native” #openweb culture. These monopolies limit people choice and hindered the development of alternative paths that could offer more diverse and community-centric life.
Surveillance Capitalism: The #dotcons relies on business models built around surveillance capitalism, where data and metadata is harvested, monetized, and exploited for targeted advertising and social control without consent and transparency. This exploitation of people’s data undermines “society” and creates significant ethical concerns.
Filter Bubbles and Echo Chambers: The algorithms employed in the #dotcons are designed to prioritize content based on user engagement metrics, leading to the formation of filter bubbles and echo chambers. These push people to beliefs and preferences that limit exposure to diverse perspectives and contributing to growing and entrenching polarization and disinformation.
Erosion of Public Discourse: The rise of social media in the #dotcons facilitated the spread of misinformation, hate, and extremist right ideologies. These platforms prioritized engagement and virality over the quality and accuracy of content, leading to the erosion of public spaces based on trust.
Data Concerns: The collection and exploitation of user data by #dotcons raised significant concerns. People have limited to no control over their social data and metadata.
Digital Divide: Access to the internet and digital technologies remained unevenly distributed during the #closedweb era, exacerbating social and economic inequalities. Due to resource constraints, marginalized communities, faced barriers to access our #openweb reboot, limiting their ability to participate in our native paths and thus the wider digital economy and society we need to build.
To sum up, the dominance of centralized platforms, surveillance capitalism, algorithmic biases, erosion of social norms, and inequalities have been some of the most pressing issues associated with the #dotcons and #closedweb over the last two decades. Balancing this requires continuing efforts to promote decentralization, #4opens and “native” #openweb infrastructure and culture. You can help with this by working on projects like #OMN#OGB#makinghistory and #indymediaback
Funding application for the #OMN (Open Media Networking) project, an innovative initiative to revolutionize the landscape of media and communication. The project address the limitations and challenges posed by centralized social networks by developing an interconnected network that empowers people, fosters innovation, and promotes openness and decentralization.
What do you think about/Have you heard about project X? We are always interested in learning about other projects that aim to address similar challenges in the media landscape. Collaboration and cooperation are crucial in achieving the collective goal of creating a better internet and society.
Who are your competitors? While established networks like Facebook, Youtube, and Twitter are perceived as competitors, we view them as irrelevant, techshit to be composted. Cooperation partners are other decentralization efforts such as #ActivityPub etc. are also projects we aim to reach compatibility with.
How will you attract your first users? We plan to attract our first crew through various strategies, including leveraging the advantages of our system, collaborating with “content creators” and “influencers”, fostering change and linking, through leveraging our network of contacts.
Which programming language do you use? Our team has primarily engaged with the XXXX framework. However, we plan to explore existing open-source solutions in social networking to ensure compatibility with various technologies.
Who are potential users? Potential users of #OMN include social activists, frustrated users overwhelmed with managing multiple accounts, power users seeking greater control over their online presence, content creators and journalists, users with specific needs, decentralization enthusiasts, and anyone interested in an alternative to centralized networks.
How does #OMN make the internet more awesome?#OMN empowers people by offering them the freedom to choose their networks and applications freely, fostering fairness, promoting independent media, fostering creativity, and enhancing the peoples experience.
What are you building? We are building a new media experience that allows people to interact with different networks and applications seamlessly, offering greater flexibility and control over their society and local communertys.
Why do you want to bring micropayments to social media? Microgifts are essential for supporting community creators and networks, empowering people to support those they trust and enjoy with minimal effort.
What are the goals of #OMN? The goals of #OMN are to empower people and communertys, foster effectiveness in competition to #mainstreaming “common sense”, promote independent media, and enhance change and challenge in the communication space.
What does success look like? Success for #OMN includes the development of a working prototype, collaboration with various networks and applications, and widespread adoption of the #openweb “native” #OMN protocol and working practices as an internet/social standard.
What are the key deliverables of the prototyping phase? The key deliverables of the prototyping phase include the development of the #OMN#p2p client, User self-hosting, and Networks & Network Server prototypes, along with detailed documentation for developers and communertys.
Who will do the work? Our team, consisting of dedicated people committed to the vision of the #openweb, will primarily handle the work. With funding available, we plan to expand the team to expedite the prototyping phase.
What needs to be done now? We need funding support to commence the development of the prototype and advance the #OMN project to the next stage. This includes development, coordination, collaboration, and public outreach efforts.
How are you licensing any software or documentation you produce? We intend to make all our software openly available, encouraging collaboration and innovation in the open-source community.
How do you communicate publicly about your work? We communicate publicly through various channels, including videos, direct outreach to journalists and content creators, and engagement on media platforms like Mastodon and the #dotcons.
What do you hope to learn during the project? Throughout the project, we hope to learn about community project coordination, software collaboration, public outreach, software technologies, and other relevant fields, ultimately contributing to peoples growth and success.
What happens to #OMN if it does not get funded? If #OMN does not receive funding, we will continue our efforts to raise awareness and support for the project, confident in its value and potential impact on the communication landscape.
Thank you for considering our funding application for the #OMN project. We are excited about the opportunity to bring this “native” #openweb vision to life and look forward to the possibility of collaborating with you.
The Radical VisionOntv project has a rich and varied history spanning over a 15 years. Here’s a timeline highlighting some key milestones and achievements:
Inception: The project began over 15 years ago with a vision to create an alternative media platform that prioritized grassroots reporting and activism over mainstream narratives. It initially focused on utilizing RSS and peer-to-peer technologies to distribute video content widely.
Mainstream Social Networks: Despite the project’s focus on alternative media, it has also gained significant traction on mainstreaming #dotcons. With over 32 million video views across nine video streaming sites, including Undercurrents and Blip, VisionOntv has demonstrated its ability to reach diverse audiences.
Original Content Production: VisionOntv has produced over 1000 original video reports and studio shows, covering a wide range of topics and events in support of campaigning groups. This includes coverage of tech events, climate camps, and legal campaigns.
Training Workshops: The project has conducted nearly 100 free training workshops on grassroots video journalism, empowering people to become citizen journalists and contribute to the alternative media landscape.
Live Streaming: VisionOntv has facilitated live-streaming at conferences and events, providing real-time coverage and amplifying the voices of activists and organizers.
Technological Innovation: The project has been at the forefront of technological innovation, experimenting with solar-powered live edit TV shows at climate camps and embracing alternative hosting solutions to avoid reliance on mainstream platforms.
Community Engagement: VisionOntv has actively supported local campaigns, legal battles, and land reclamation efforts, amplifying the voices of marginalized communities and highlighting issues that are often overlooked by #mainstreaming media.
Partnerships and Collaborations: The project has collaborated with a diverse range of organizations and initiatives.
Through its commitment to openness, grassroots activism, and technological innovation, the Radical #VisionOntv project has made significant contributions to the alternative media landscape, empowering communities, challenging mainstream narratives, and fostering dialogue and collaboration across diverse social movements.
The path we need to take in technology is social, rooted in the recognition that technology, at its core, is a tool created and used by humans to address social needs and challenges. While technological advancements have the potential to bring about benefits and progress, they also have the capacity to perpetuate existing inequalities, exacerbate social divides, and undermine democratic paths.
The #4opens framework provides a useful lens through which to evaluate and assess technology projects, particularly in the #openweb and #dotcons. By emphasizing openness, transparency, collaboration, and decentralization, the #4opens offer a set of guiding principles that prioritize social utility and collective benefit over corporate profit and (stupid) individual gain.
Why the social dimension of technology is crucial:
* Empowerment: Technology has the power to empower people and communities by providing access to information, resources, and opportunities. By focusing on the social utility of technology, we ensure that it is designed and deployed in ways that promote inclusivity, participation, and empowerment to balance the current push for control.
* Equity and Justice: In a world characterized by systemic inequalities, technology is either reinforcing existing power structures or serve as a tool for challenging and transforming them. By centring social considerations in tech development, we can work towards growing more equitable and just societies.
* Community Building: Technology has the potential to foster connections, collaboration, and community-building on a global scale. By prioritizing social utility, we can harness technology to strengthen social bonds, facilitate dialogue, and mobilize collective action around #KISS shared goals and values.
* Sustainability: In an era of environmental crisis and resource depletion, it is essential to consider the social and environmental impacts of technology. By prioritizing sustainability and social responsibility in tech design and deployment, we can work towards systems and solutions that are environmentally sound and socially responsible.
The social dimension of technology is a balance, because it determines how technology is designed, deployed, and used to address social needs and challenges. By embracing principles, we can ensure that technology serves the collective good and contributes to building a more sustainable future we need.
#P2P projects keep failing socially because adoption is tiny. The #Fediverse succeeds socially because it keeps social #UX familiar. The path forward is a half-step strategy: bridge #fediverse + #p2p in real, usable ways until decentralised clients are socially relevant.
We need: Bridges & killer apps, seamless UX that makes federated + p2p content feel like one stream. A server that reads from both channels without making the user care about protocols.
A. what is happening with protocols:
* The #nostr crew are the children of #web3 mess, they are a bit reformed, let’s see. * Then the #BlueSky are the reformed children of the #dotcons * The #fediverse is the child of the #openweb * #dat is a child of the #geekproblem if it is reformed or not, you can maybe tell me? * #SSB was a wild child, now sickly/lonely with the #fashionable kids gathering round #nostr * #p2p was the poster child of the era of the #openweb it was caught in the quicksand of legal issues, the shadow that was left was eclipsed by “free to use” #dotcons Now finds it hard to come back due to mobile devices not having an IP address, thus most people not actually able to use p2p reliably.
Q. ssb has technical shortcomings. It cant sparsely replicate data and verify it. It needs to download all data ever created by a user to verify, which makes it infeasible for many use cases. The main underlying data format is also hard to fix and leads to performance bottlenecks. The main founder moved on and it seems most ssb people are also looking for a new home. dat’s time has not yet started as it approached things from a much more fundamental perspective. The initial vision was “git for any kind of data”, which means “version control for any kind of data” (peer to peer). The stack only now reached maturity to build proper tools on top of it. You have the dat-ecosystem with 2-3 dozen projects. You have the holepunch/pears project which built a phenomenal “never on a server” desktop/mobile p2p video conferencing messenger with built in file sharing. The app works flawless on mobile and is called https://keet.io Also https://dat-ecosystem.org just now released it’s new website. The https://pears.com runtime will be live in 5 days from now on the 14th of February for anyone to start hacking on p2p apps and some time later, the plan is to integrate it into the dat-ecosystem website, so anyone can start using p2p from within dat-cosystem page (which is an open source static website anyone can fork to get to the same) …no back ends required. pears 🍐will only start working on the 14th of february. You can set a reminder. The revolution starts then 🙂
A. will have a look, there are a few new #p2p projects reaching use at mo – the issue is none of them link to each other and likely thus non inter-op. This is the #geekproblem
Q. I don’t think there are any mature projects out there other than dat and ipfs. The former made by open source devs, self funded with a bit of help from public funding bodies, while the latter is the poster child of venture capitalists and got gazillions from investors. It’s the “big tech” of p2p. Then you have a few less general purpose p2p projects which popped into existence in the last few years, but both dat and ipfs go back all the way to 2013 and it takes a lot to get things smooth and stable and support all use cases and get enough critical adoption and nodes to make the p2p network work. That is why dat-ecosystem has a lot of existing projects that work and why it is reliable to build on top of it. I do think the new more recent p2p projects in research state might become mature as well, but it will easily take them a few more years. Many of those newer projects have people working on them part time only or focus on really special use cases and only time will tell if their approaches will bring something new to the table or not. 2024 will definitely be the year of dat, especially after February 14th, when pears.com goes live. This has been years in the making. What started 2013 as (git for data) will now finally become it’s own independent p2p runtime. Goodbye nodejs & co. …and soon goodbye github & npm 🙂
A. https://holepunch.to/ its a very sparse website with no company info or #4opens process – it looks and feels like meany #dotcons if these projects do not link to each other or inter-op then they will fail like the hundreds I have seen fail over the last 20 years of this mess making. it’s a problem we can’t keep doing this shit, but we do. #4opens is a shovel to help compost this, can you do a write-up for these projects please.
Q. dat-ecosystem is a 501c3 It’s Code for Science and Society And it is https://opencollective.com/dat And it is governed by a Manifesto. It is all on the website next to the “Info” button in the upper left corner. If you mean pears.com ….that will change on February 14th I didn’t mention holepunch. Holepunch is just one of the many dat-ecosystem projects. It is special, because one of the core developers of dat started it after he got a lot of funding and is currently maintaining many of the important code that powers dat and the dat-ecosystem projects. But it doesn’t matter too much. The stack is open source under MIT and Apache 2.0 License for anyone to use. If holepunch would ever decide to stop maintaining the stack (which we do not think), dat-ecosystem can find other maintainers.
A. they are the owners of https://keet.io always look for ownership in #dotcons 🙂 a few of the ones I have been looking at over the last few years https://www.eff.org/deep…/2023/12/meet-spritely-and-veilid and the was a another one funded by NLNET they recently whent live, but can’t find the link. None of them link or interop, not even bridges. This is the #geekproblem
Q. Spritely is a great project. It embraces the ocap security model (Object Capabilities). It does apply it in lisp/scheme, which is a great fit with GNU Guix. Their foundation is led by Randy Farmer. Randy Farmer co-created Habitat with Chip Morningstar (an MMORPG) in the 1980s. Chip Morningstar works with Mark Miller (Mentor of Christine Lemmer Webber). Their project is called “Agoric”, which is a blockchain projcet funded by Salesforce. They have their own Token and build a “Market Place”. They as well work with ocap security model (but in JavaScript). The JavaScript ocap version is what is known as SES and Endojs. They regularly talk to make sure things are interoperable. Ocap security is also what dat-ecosystem is embracing to pair it with peer to peer and bring it to the post-web. A version of the web not dominated anymore by big tech and big standard bodies.
#Veilid is a young and interesting project as well with a focus on anonymity over performance. This is a great use case that needs support, but dat was always about performance and any size of data and anonymity and privacy at all costs. I’m not saying that is an unimportant use case, but there are plenty of solutions for extreme cases where anonymity and privacy are at utmost importance. What is vastly more important imho is to have a p2p technology able to replace mainstream big tech services such as youtube, facebook, instagram, tiktok, google & co. because it won’t help us if we have a special niche technology that cant actually tackle big tech and surveillance capitalism but gives people some way to hide from it. …we need it too, but we also need a foundation on which to actually outcompete big tech imho.
Keet is a closed source peer to peer messenger & video conferencing app (might be open source in the future) and it is built on top of the dat stack. The dat stack is very modular and in it’s core consists of a few main modules. – hypercore, hyprebee & hyperdrive – hyperdht & hyperswarm – autobase Those modules are maintained by holepunch, an organisation started by one of the core dat developers afte rreceiving a lot of funding to develop keet and now the pear runtime, which will be open source and public under https://pears.com after February 14th 2024 (Valentine’s Day ❤) Keet itself is one of many apps, all part of the dat-ecosystem. Most projects are open source, but not all, but they are all built on top of the MIT/Apache licenses p2p stack, which started as `dat` in 2013 and matured many years ago. The stack is battle tested and really works. Of course – we all want everything open source and one day we might find a model, but if some closed source apps help bring in funding, it benefits the open source core. Basically, you can think of “keet” as some fancy UI/UX on top of the open source software stack. Now sure – would be sweet if the UI/UX was open source as well, but then again, it’s not essential and until we transition into fully automated luxury Communism or whatever else works, something pays the bills and enables the open source core to be maintained 🙂 At least it works without any “Cloud Landlords”. No servers, never on a server. No more cloud lords, a.k.a. Big Tech or #dotcons
A. The best we have currently is #ActivityPub DIY federated – this is community based (but fails in code to actually be this) which in meany ways is complemtery to #p2p based approaches – they are better together and if the can bridge or interop this is MUCH better, the #OMN is native to this.
Q. Yes. dat is very low level. It would be cool to see somebody implement an activity pub based tool on top of it. One dat-ecosystem project did it for nostr, but no activity pub yet. I’m personally more interested into a desktop, terminal, version controlled data and software packages. “Social” tools are just one type of tools to built on top of the more fundamental p2p network and p2p system infrastructure. I do think dat is good for laying these foundations, but “social” tools are a layer that dat as a stack will probably never focus on, but instead dat-ecosystem projects will hopefully take on that challenge 🙂
A. Some people are community based federated (the start of this conversation) others are individual, the #p2p world you talk about. This is not a fight they are both valid. As you say what we don’t won’t is more #dotcons 🙂 Good conversation on the state of #p2p I used to be much more involved in this side, but it failed with the move to #dotcons so got re-engaged when ActivityPub came alone the rebooting of web 1.5 😉 are you happy for me to copy this to my blog, can credit you or just use AQ anonymous format?
Q. any way you want. I dont think p2p has failed. the p2p of the past was naive kids playing and it took a decade of adults and all the law enforcement they had at their disposal to bring it down and despite that torrents still run and even the piratebay continues to operate, although heavily censored. Back then it was a few devs and a majority of users. This time p2p is back and will enter mainstream open source developers after February 14th 2024 (5 days now). This empowers an entire generation and anyone who wants to dive into p2p to build any kind of tool. What was once hard and reserved to a few will be available to everyone. We might see another nodejs/npm movement. It loads a bit slow, but load this and check “all time” This is the largest open source ecosystem humanity has ever experienced. http://www.modulecounts.com/ And while npm/github have been hijacked by microsoft, we will claw it all back soon Btw. regarding Spritely and the backstory behind OCap, even though extremely technical in description, here is a summary of the work by Mark Miller et. al. https://erights.org/history/index.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_S._Miller > Miller has returned to this issue repeatedly since the Agoric Open Systems Papers from 1988 Mark Miller is Christine Lemmer Webbers Mentor. He works with Chip Morningstar (who with Randy Farmer did Habitat in the 80s) Randy Farmer is Executive Director of the Spritely Institute. Agoric is the Cosmos Framework based Blockchain now. https://agoric.com/team
A. Interesting to look back at all this stuff, reminds me I had dinner with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Nelson in Oxford 20 years ago, he was a little eccentric with a clip on digital recording device, every convention had to be record. good to catch up with history https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-t405_JAJA that is more relevant today.
Q. Yes – peer to peer is hard. Not as a user, it is actually easy enough, but as a developer. Building p2p is not taught anywhere and there aren’t online learning resources the same way you can learn how to set up your react app, etc… This will change after February 14th 2024 when the pears.com runtime is released. It is powered by the same p2p stack that developed with dat since 2013. If anyone of you is a developer or has friends who are, you are all invited to dip your toes into the dat water 😛 …and start a new p2p project and join the dat-ecosystem 🙂 It will get quite easy in 4 days from now and it will again get a lot easier in the coming weeks when more examples and docs are publishes and others build as well. The Storyline around Mark Miller, Randy Farmer & Chip Morningstar is totally separate from it, but it is also important, because it is what powers 1. the Spritely project and Christine Lemmer Webber 2. the Agoric Blockchain Project backed by Salesforce 3. the Ethereum Metamask Wallet and Co. It also influences the big standards bodies and I see it two fold. It’s a story about philosophy, values and vision driven by the specific people in it. It is also a story about “object capabilities” which is a powerful perspective on security and will enable and inform a lot of p2p interaction which without would require some sort of centralized servers, but with ocap can do it on it’s own p2p
A lightly edited conversation between Hamish Campbell (A) and Alexander Praetorius (Q)
