Tag: dotcons

Post-Modernism Influence on Social Movements

Leaving the fig leave of dead philosophies covering #liberalism and #neoliberalism, gives cover to continue ideological works, this mess masks and hides insidious agendas. By removing these fig leaves, we can see, understand and dismantle the mechanisms of power they obscure.

I have talked about this, a lot, let’s try one more time. The lingering #zombie of post-modernism and its influence on social movements and #mainstreaming anti-ideological “common sense”, despite being very much dead in most intellectual circles, continues to exert ongoing influence on thought. This lingering specter is not only academic debate but a tangible and invisible force that shapes ideologies, policies, and actions. Understanding the ramifications of post-modernism is a path to addressing the current societal mess and dismantling the layers of deception that obscure the nature of #liberalism and #neoliberalism.

The legacy of post-modernism, emerged in the mid-20th century as a reaction against the certainties and grand narratives of the progressive modernism with the denial of objective truths, embracing relativism, and deconstructing power and knowledge. While this philosophical approach did provide insights and can be used to challenge oppressive systems, with its embrace and twining with the #neoliberalism of the last 40 years it pushed a lot of the current mess, of pervasive skepticism and cynicism that undermined the path of collective action and coherence in social movements.

  • The Perils of Post-Modernist Relativism. Erosion of Truth: Post-modernism’s insistence on the relativity of truth has eroded the foundation of factual discourse. In a world where all narratives are equally valid, distinguishing between reality and fiction becomes opaque, creating fertile ground for misinformation and manipulation, as any attempt to assert objective truth is met with suspicion and relativistic counterarguments. This is the mess of our use of the #dotcons
  • Fragmentation of Social Movements: By emphasizing the multiplicity of perspectives and identities, post-modernism pushes the current fragmentation of social movements. While recognizing diverse voices is important, the lack of unifying visions leads to disjointed efforts that fail to achieve any substantial change. This fragmentation makes it possible for entrenched powers to maintain the status quo, as there is no cohesive opposition to challenge and change them. The mess we work in.
  • Depoliticization and Inaction: The post-modern emphasis on discourse and representation over material conditions and collective action leads to depoliticization. When activism becomes #fashionista shouting primarily about language and symbols rather than tangible change, it loses any efficacy. This shift from praxis to performative results in social movements that are about virtue signalling and status games rather than achieving concrete goals. The mess we are in today.
  • Liberalism has been a Fig Leaf for Imperialism: Liberalism, with its emphasis on individual freedoms and democratic values, serves as a fig leaf for imperialism. This is evident in foreign policies that justify interventionist actions in the name of spreading democracy and human rights. However, these interventions serve geopolitical and economic interests rather than the purported liberal ideals, leading to the exploitation and destabilization of other nations. The mess our apathy pushes over others.
  • Neo-Liberalism’s Economic Fig Leaf: Neo-liberalism uses economic theory as a fig leaf to conceal a conservative agenda that prioritizes corporate power and wealth accumulation over social welfare. Policies promoted under the cover of economic efficiency result in austerity measures, deregulation, and privatization, which harms the working class and marginalized communities while enriching the few. The mess we push over ourselves.

To move beyond the mess created by the undead philosophies which hides behind the fig leaves of liberalism and neoliberalism, we need a renewed commitment to social truth, solidarity, and collective action.

  • Reasserting Objective Truths: While acknowledging the complexity of reality, we must reclaim the importance of objective truths and evidence-based discourse. This involves resisting relativism and combating misinformation through critical thinking and basic media literacy. We need tools, shovels for this composting #OMN
  • Building Lose Unified Movements: Social movements need some unity without erasing diversity. This requires finding common ground and shared goals that can unite different groups in the pursuit of systemic change. Solidarity should be the cornerstone, enabling coordinated efforts that can actually challenge entrenched powers. We need federated p2p tools for this #OGB
  • Focusing on Material Conditions: Activism prioritizes material conditions and tangible outcomes over performative gestures. This means addressing economic inequality, environmental degradation, and social injustices through concrete policies and actions rather than symbolic acts. We need media for activism #indymediaback to build meaningful action.
  • Exposing and Dismantling Fig Leaves: By examining the fig leaves of liberalism and neo-liberalism, we can expose the motivations behind these ideologies and advocate for #grassroots alternatives that prioritize human well-being and ecological sustainability over #mainstreaming corporate profits and imperial ambitions. #makeinghistory is a #KISS tool for this.

The philosophy of post-modernism, despite its intellectual demise, continues to shape our “common sense” contemporary thought and social movements. To navigate this mess, we must compost the relativism and fragmentation it has pushed. By reasserting “objective” truths, building unifying movements, focusing on material conditions, and exposing ideological fig leaves, we can walk the path for a just, equitable, and sustainable future. It’s this simple, please try not to push prat down this path, thanks.

What can you do https://opencollective.com/open-media-network

A Critique of “fluffy” Leftist and Progressive #AI Paths

In our conversations on #AI there is a copyright trap, pushed in the #mainstreaming, the #fashionista conversation around protecting producers and cultural industries are growing hysterical. Some policymakers and activists are pushing for shielding creators from the very real threats posed by these new technologies. However, in their haste to act, leftist and progressive crew are advocating for the use of copyright law as a defensive path. This approach is a mess and fraught with contradictions and risks, a real “Copyright Trap”.

The Copyright Trap is the “common sense” belief that copyright law can be used as a tool to support and protect producers of our culture. This path is problematic:

  • Feudal Nature of Copyright: Copyright, along with patents and trademarks, is a form of intellectual property that comes from feudal rights. It grants semi-eternal rents to those who did not contribute to the production of the work, much like the way land was historically controlled by a few powerful lords.
  • Restriction of the Commons: Copyright takes works out of the public domain and locks them into walled gardens, thus restricting the commons. These runs counter to the principles of access and communal sharing that activists and progressives champion.
  • Injustice to Future Creators: By extending and expanding copyright protections, we make it harder for future producers to build upon the shoulders of giants. This stifles creativity, trapping future generations in a cycle of restricted access and limited freedom.

The mess underpin the current debates around AI and copyright:

  • “If Value, Then (Property) Right” Fallacy: This is the ideological belief that if something has value, it must be protected as property. This ignores the complex ways in which value is created and shared, particularly through communal and collaborative efforts, that do not fit into property rights dogma.
  • Unauthorized Copying as Inherently Wrongful: The idea that copying is wrong ignores the realities of how culture and knowledge developed through imitation, adaptation, and remixing. This perspective is particularly ill-suited to the #openweb era, where information is shared and transformed.
  • The Starving Artist Trope: This trope is resurrected to justify the expansion of copyright protections, suggesting that without such protections, artists will starve. This story fails to address the systemic issues that actually lead to the impoverishment of producers, such as inequitable distribution of wealth and the monopolistic practices in the #dotcons.

Using copyright as a weapon against AI companies is counterproductive and hypocritical for those who advocate for the rights of authors, creators, and intellectual workers:

  • Counter to Progressive Values: Copyright as it stands is a tool of capital that entrenches inequality and restricts access to knowledge and culture. Using it to protect producers from #AI companies simply reinforces a system that many leftists and progressives have long criticized.
  • Locking Up the Commons: Stronger copyright protections, risk enclosing the cultural commons, making it difficult for producers to share content freely to be built upon.
  • Hindering change and challenge: Stricter copyright laws stifle social activism, as new producers find it harder to access and build on existing works. This is detrimental in an era where collaborative and iterative creation is key to technological and cultural progress.

Alternative Approaches, to effectively address the risks and harms posed by generative AI, we need to move past the “copyright trap” and look towards more appropriate “native” paths:

  • Promote Open Access and Open Source: Encourage the use of open access and open source licenses and traditions that allow for the free sharing and modification of works. This helps knowledge and culture remain accessible for social use.
  • Equitable Funding Models: Develop new models for supporting creators that do not rely on restrictive copyright laws. This could include systems of public funding, grants, and cooperative ownership that ensure people are fairly compensated for their work without repressively restricting access.
  • Regulation of #AI Companies: Rather than using copyright as a blunt instrument, on the vertical path, we can regulate AI companies directly. This includes measures to ensure transparency, accountability, and fair compensation for the use of creative works.

The call to use copyright law to protect producers from the threats of #AI is not a useful path for leftist and progressive movements. Instead of reinforcing a flawed and restrictive system, we need to seek “native” paths that align with our values. By doing so, we build a future where both humane creativity and resulting technology can thrive in balance, and not just #techchun the current mess.

Why #AI is more #techshit

The Mess, Delusion Folly and Hysteria

It should be obvious to most of us that we’re moving through an era of mass delusion, unbridled folly, and unrestrained hysteria, with the old facts and reason’s forgotten amidst the building #climatechaos of social and ecological breakdown. We are in this mess due to the embrace of the #dotcons, the spread of misinformation and the decline of rational discourse that has now reached alarming levels. Social media platforms, echo chambers, and the proliferation of fake news have created a fertile ground for delusion to thrive. Conspiracy theories abound, gaining traction despite being thoroughly debunked. From anti-vaccine movements to flat Earth theories, unscientific beliefs flourish in the absence of #KISS skepticism.

“We’re living in an age of mass delusion, unbridled folly, unrestrained hysteria. Facts & reason have slipped down the back of the sofa and been forgotten. Our descendants (should there be any) will look back on this time the way we look back on our ergot-infected ancestors who arrested chickens on suspicion of using dark magic and believed wombs could wander around women’s bodies.” https://kolektiva.social/deck/@Richard_Littler@mastodon.social

The rise of these delusions is not only a result of ignorance, rather the outcome of our embracing of #postmodern and #neoliberalism that has been pushed over us for the last 40 years. This has lead to distrust in institutions, polarization, and the commodification of attention, all contributing to an environment where sensationalism overshadows substance. The erosion of shared reality undermines the foundation of democratic society, making it difficult to address catastrophic challenges such as #climatechaos or basic things like public health crises, and social inequality.

History offers examples of mass hysteria and folly that parallel our current predicament. The ergot-induced hallucinations of the Middle Ages, led to bizarre and irrational behaviour, are strikingly similar to the modern phenomenon of mass delusion. During the Salem witch trials, fear and superstition overpowered reason, leading to the persecution of innocent people. Similarly, the belief in “wandering wombs” reflects how unscientific ideas can dominate medical understanding and treatment.

These historical episodes remind us that human societies are vulnerable to waves of irrationality. They illustrate how fear, ignorance, and social dynamics create paths where absurd beliefs take hold. Importantly, they also highlight paths that exacerbating or mitigating these delusions. In the past, religious and political leaders fueled hysteria for their gain, much like our #mainstreaming crew that exploit misinformation for power and profit.

The role of technology in amplifying delusion, our embraces of the #dotcons age has magnified the impact of mass delusion. Algorithms designed to maximize engagement prioritize sensational and polarizing content, creating echo chambers that reinforce #mainstreaming mess, to amplify misinformation. The speed and reach of social media allow falsehoods to spread rapidly, outpacing efforts to debunk them. This environment fosters a culture where emotional appeals and confirmation bias trump evidence and any attempt at rationality.

The consequences of mass delusion are far-reaching and catastrophic. In the realm of public health, vaccine misinformation has led to the resurgence of preventable diseases. Climate change denial hampers efforts to address one of the most pressing existential threats facing humanity. Political polarization, fueled by misinformation, erodes trust in basic democracy and undermines our hard won social stability.

On a more personal level, individuals caught in the web of delusion suffer from cognitive dissonance, living in a reality disconnected from the social facts. This not only affects their decision-making, but also strains relationships and fosters an environment of suspicion and hostility. The cumulative effect is a mess where fear and mistrust easily push over cooperation and mutual understanding.

Addressing the age of mass delusion requires a multifaceted approach. Education systems must prioritize critical thinking and media literacy, equipping people with the tools to discern facts from fictions. We need to build institutions and networks like the #OMN, particularly in media and technology, to take some responsibility for curbing the spread of misinformation and promoting more reliable and truthful sources of information. Encouraging open dialogue can help bridge divides and rebuild trust in shared reality. The are a path to this to not only challenging falsehoods but also providing compelling narratives that resonate with people’s values and emotions. By creating a social environment that rewards paths of truth and reasonableness, we can push back at the tide of delusion and hysteria.

Our age of delusion, folly, and hysteria mirrors historical periods of irrationality and superstition. The erosion of shared social norms and reasonableness poses obverse risks to public health, democracy, and social cohesion. The path forward is clear, use the and tools like the #OMN to reclaim our commitment to truth and foster meany societies that value evidence and critical thinking #KISS

How can we get people not to be prats about this path, ideas, please?

Talking #openweb or #Fediverse, I have to talk about #Mastodon

Let’s look at this “#branding” issue. The tech world is changing as there is a #reboot of the #openweb happening, yes a lot of people don’t see this, so worth talking about a bit. If you are interested in this subject, every day you likely hear another big player joining the #fediverse. What does that mean? It is not complex, there is a chance you are already on this path, if you are on #dotcons sites like #meta #Threads or #WordPress etc.

It’s actually something we already know about, a network of websites that interact with each other through a shared protocol, just like #email has worked for the last 50 years. The term #Fediverse is a mash-up of two words: federate and universe. To federate means to form an alliance, so the Fediverse is an alliance of websites or apps that federate content with each other. It’s a federated universe, a part of the #openweb we all grew up on if we are over our teenage years.

This network is decentralized, meaning no #dotcons controls it, people and communities have control over their information, news and data flows. While most are run by communities and individuals, a few are run by corporations. Some may have thousands of users, while others have just a few.

Each of these websites has their own myths and traditions to shape their local feeds, but people on one site can easily interact with people on another site because they’re using the same protocol, an open-source tool that connects websites into a “native” #openweb global network. How Does It Work? The protocol is called #ActivityPub, which you might’ve heard of because it powers apps like Mastodon. But it also powers #Peertube, #Pixelfed, #Lemmy, and our own #OMN etc, and even the #dotcons are sharing this space, with #meta’s #Threads. It’s extremely popular. When you publish a post on your website, it gets federated to all the people who follow you on other websites that are based on this protocol. They can like, share, or comment on your posts. That’s the path of federation and what the #openweb is about https://fediverse.party/en/miscellaneous/

The process that governs the culture of this path is simple in abstract, If the website admins notice a ton of spam coming from another website, they can either block that individual user or they can block that whole website. If that server is sending too much spam, it’s a problematic server. You can defederate from that server so you’re no longer hit with spam until they clean up their act. This is a horizontal path of how moderation works on this path, it works as an individual and as a community.

Like email, when the first thing you do is pick a username that’s available on that website. To do this, find a site that fits your interest, pick a username that’s available on that server. Your Fediverse handle is going to look like an email address: It’s going to be username@server, for example info@hamishcampbell.com for this blog’s #ActivityPub feed.

When I talk to people about the #openweb or mention the #Fediverse, I have to talk about #Mastodon for them to get an understanding on the subject, this is a non-native issue, thus the need for this blog post to try and fix this blindness. While Mastodon is a decentralized microblogging platform similar to Twitter. If you’re looking for a Twitter alternative, this is probably the one you’ve heard of. It’s one of the largest applications on the Fediverse. But Mastodon is not the Fediverse https://fediverse.observer/map look wider there are meany interesting projects.

Solidarity in the era of #stupidindividualism

In the current #sociopolitical landscape, building comradeship and solidarity is needed more than ever. However, the structures of capital and cultural norms are #blocking this path, promoting division and individualism that makes us all more “stupid”. How can we foster a community where #KISS class consciousness thrives?

This solidarity and comradeship are meaningful resistance against #deathcult capitalist structures. A first step is bridging vertical and horizontal structures in a healthy ongoing fluffy/spiky debate. This helps move past the current fragility of class consciousness, to strengthen this path we need to examine how the “petit bourgeoisie” and cultural industries deflect and pre-empt discussions about class.

Exclusion and division pushes the tendency to condemn and abuse, to mediate this mess is to create a culture where disagreement occur without exclusion. Addressing class does not mean downgrading the importance of many other issues like race and gender, all struggles are interconnected.

To make this work, it is important to critique the “stupid” path of individualism, the focus on individual behaviour over structural critique undermines collective action. Let’s clearly look at the ideology of individualism propagated by the ruling class and its impact on solidarity. A structural critique is the path to challenge capitalist ideologies, to take this path we need to mediate the tendency to individualize and privatize issues. How do we shift the focus from individual behaviour to structural analysis in public discourse and activism?

Revitalizing class consciousness is a way to push back fear and insecurity spread by the #deathcult. It should be easy to see that capital has subdued organized labour and co-opt the discourse of the left. Thus, the need for a renewed focus on class consciousness and mediating the left path, out of being mired in moralizing individualism and devoid of class analysis, which serves capital’s interests rather than challenging it. To do this, we need to move past the pursuit of #fashionista “bourgeois” recognition and its limitations.

The #dotcons social media is enemy terrain, a trap set by communicative capitalism. Yes, we maybe can strategically use and abuse this mess to move people back to the #openweb which is the “native” path. Remember, the goal is not to simply be an “activist”, we need tools from our own community to grow and use like the #OMN, to aid in the growth and transformation of the working class and on the ground organizing. This is the difference between performative activism and genuine class struggle.

Please, let’s shift the balance of focus from individualism to collective action and solidarity. Let’s stop our prat ish behaver on this. https://opencollective.com/open-media-network

State Funding of #FOSS and Open Source: Is it a Good Idea or a Bad Idea?

The questioning over state funding of Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) and open-source initiatives revolves around invisible ideological debates about benefits and drawbacks. Let’s look at this from a few specific examples: #NLnet, #NGI, and the European Union (#EU), to understanding the implications and effectiveness of this funding path.

  • The #NLnet Foundation is a notable example of an organization that provides funding to open-source projects. Supported by private and public funds, including significant contributions from the #EU, NLnet focuses on promoting a free, open, and secure internet.
  • The #NGI initiative, funded by the #EU, aims to shape the development of the internet of tomorrow. By supporting a range of open-source projects, NGI tries to foster innovation, privacy, and security. It emphasizes human-concentric technology, ensuring that the future internet respects humanistic values and needs.
  • The #EU has been a significant proponent of FOSS, providing funding through programs such as Horizon 2020 and Horizon Europe. The EU’s supports digital sovereignty, reduce dependency on non-European technologies through promoting open standards.

The is some democratization as these state-funded FOSS projects ensure software is accessible to wider groups, thus reducing the digital divide. For instance, NGI-funded projects are supposed to focus on inclusivity and user empowerment. At best, this transparency brings public overview to these processes.

There are some economic benefits and cost savings in using and supporting FOSS instead of expensive proprietary software. Funding initiatives like NGI stimulate innovation by allowing developers to build upon existing open-source projects, fostering a collaborative environment. Though, there are unspoken issues of sustainability in a pure capitalist path, thus the question of balance in state funding.

Open-source software allows for independent security audits, reducing the risk of vulnerabilities. The EU’s investment in secure communication tools underlines this advantage. Reducing reliance on a few large proprietaries #dotcons software vendors enhances national security and control. The EU’s support for open-source projects aims to bolster humanistic digital sovereignty.

For example, #NLnet’s diverse (though #geekproblem) funding portfolio highlights this limited community-driven development. The collaboration between public institutions, the private sector, and community contributors helps #NGI projects bring together diverse stakeholders to work on common goals. #FOSS projects thrive on community contributions, leading to continuous improvement and support and thus in theory community needs, though due to the dogmatic #geekproblem this is currently failing.

Funding Continuity: Projects become dependent on government funding, which currently is not stable or continuous. For example, sudden policy shifts in the EU affect long-term project sustainability. Without a sustainable funding, FOSS projects struggle with long-term maintenance and support.

Most #FOSS projects are too idiosyncratic to meet quality #UX standards. Thus, the current #geekproblem dominated process means that state funding inadvertently support meany unusable and thus pointless, subpar projects. Effective diversity and oversight of these mechanisms are crucial to mitigate this failing path.

Government involvement leads to bureaucracy, slowing down and ossifying development cycles, currently we do not work though this path well, The balance between oversight, diversity and agility is critical. With the #EU path this is a huge problem leading to almost all the current funding bring poured down the drain.

For #mainstreaming capitalism the issue of “Market Distortion”, the idea of competition raises the issue of state funding distorting “market” dogmas to disadvantage private companies and startups that don’t receive government support. For instance, EU funding can overshadow smaller #dotcons, capitalist thinking sees this as a risk that government-backed projects might stifle innovation by shaping the market landscape.

Political and ideological biases influence which projects receive funding, this is currently pushing a #blocking of the needed “native” #openweb path. How to move past this to ensuring diversity and “impartiality” in funding decisions need real work. How can we shift this “common sense” focus that government priorities do not align with the wider needs of the #openweb community and end-users. Aligning funding priorities with community needs is needed to address this concern, how can we make this happen with funding like #NLnet and #NGI?

To sum up, #NLnet are doing some good work, but this is focused on feeding the #geekproblem and building #fashionista careers, evern then on balance they do a better job than most. Then the wider #NGI funding is going into the #dotcons and #NGO mess, thus being poured directly down the drain. Over all, it’s fantastic that the #EU is funding the #openweb even if it is doing it very badly by funding very little that is native or useful.

Conclusion, state funding for FOSS and open-source initiatives, in our examples #NLnet, #NGI, and the #EU, has potential for creating real change and challenge, but this path presents both opportunities and challenges. When implemented thoughtfully, it can foster “native” paths, innovation, reduce costs, and enhance community and security to challenge the current worshipping of the #deathcults by our widespread use of the #dotcons. The question is the will and understanding to balancing this path to ensures that state funding positively contributes to the FOSS ecosystem, driving forward a free, open digital future or just leads to the capitalistic criticism of waste and distortion? At best and at worst, we see some real change and a lot of poring funding down the drain to feed some #geekproblem and build the careers of a few #fashernistas

The is much to compost in the current mess, can we get funding for shovels please #OMN

Bad conversations in #FOSS and tech

A lot of our public discourse has reached the stage where it might be worth thinking about it as a mental health issue, and that after the “common sense” worshipping of the #deathcult for 40 years, this becomes escalating hard to mediate. This post is about a summing up of this thread https://www.reddit.com/r/foss/comments/1e5vhif/crisis_of_governance_in_foss_medieval_politics/ on Reddit where I posted the text of one of a blog posts on #FOSS and the need to move away from medieval governance.

The is very little if any constructive dialogue, instead we have #blocking, simply ignoring, participants selectively address certain points while neglecting others. This creates an incomplete dialogue and fails to engage with the actual scope of the argument. Example: If someone ignores the historical context and current challenges within FOSS governance structures, they miss why the proposed changes are necessary. Belittling involves dismissing or undermining arguments or concerns, which shuts down dialogue and discourage participation. Example: Dismissing the discussion of governance in FOSS as “unreadable” or “spammy” without engaging with the substance or argument. Nitpicking, focusing on minor details and errors rather than engaging with the main points, derails the conversation and prevent meaningful discussion. Example: focusing on correcting typos or minor factual errors without addressing the argument for the need for governance changes in FOSS projects. StrawMan, misrepresenting the argument to make it easier to attack, distorts the discussion and leads to unproductive debate. Example: Suggesting that advocating for more structured governance in FOSS is equivalent to demanding strict corporate-like control, which misrepresents the argument for more democratic and community-driven governance.

Reasons for these messy behaviours: Ideological Differences: People have strong beliefs about what is “common sense” and react defensively to suggestions that change/challenge this. This misunderstanding grows the lack of understanding of the historical context and the specifics of the proposed changes that feedbacks misinformed critiques that that keeps building resistance to change. Yes, change is uncomfortable, and people resist it by dismissing or undermining new paths, ideas please? Communication Style: The style of communication can be off-putting and confusing for in and out groups, leading to reactions that focus on form rather than addressing any substance.

Why this matters: There is a crisis of governance in #FOSS, Aristocratic Hierarchies and Monarchical Leadership pushes the concentration of power among a few maintainers and leaders, this lowers community building and buy in. Medieval Governance structures are medieval political systems, It’s obviously unfit for the modern world, let’s look at why we have this mess: #Neoliberal individualism and its failures, #stupidindividualism breeds the focus on individualism, which undermines collaboration and community-driven efforts in FOSS. This fixation with market-driven development rather than community needs result on one hand in less innovative and user-friendly software, and on the other in #dotcons control and exploitation. Feeding the #techchurn and #geekproblem insular and exclusionary culture.

Addressing issues of ignoring, belittling, nitpicking, and straw man arguments push back productive dialogue. Solutions to this current path, democratizing decision-making, the path of transparent and inclusive governance models like the #OGB to build community-concentric approaches, like #indymediaback and #makeinghistory. To make this work, let’s try shifting to focus on to community needs over individuals ambition and market demands. Cultivate an inclusive culture that values diverse perspectives and considers different social, cultural, and economic paths.

Communication barriers, lead to a lack of awareness

The #fashernista-driven path pushes aside grassroots and #openweb movements due to misalignment agendas. The #fashernists are driven by #mainstreaming agendas that end up co-opt grassroots initiatives, then systematizing them in ways that dilute their “original native” paths, intent and value. This mess leads to #techchurn and a continuous cycle of superficial innovation that does nothing to address real issues at all.

This #blocking of communication leads to a lack of awareness of people involved in these movements, understanding of the history and principles underlying the #KISS grassroots and #openweb paths. With the #fediverse, decentralization is a core principle, though it often leads to difficulties in coordination and collective decision-making. This in hand with the “common sense” #mainstreaming people resistances to adopting new models of governance and cooperation like the #OGB pushes the current mess and #techcurn mess we live in.

Proposed solutions to this path, build and support authentic projects, like the #OMN and #OGB etc. To foster collaborative governance and inclusive decision-making, start with small-scale pilot projects to demonstrate the effectiveness of collaborative governance and build “test” decentralized development. Then use these projects (with federation) as models for larger initiatives, rinse and repeat, it’s a #KISS path. This leads to the cultivation of a community of resilience and nurtures infrastructure that is robust and adaptable, capable of withstanding pressures and disruptions.

Part of this path needs to challenge #mainstreaming narratives with alternative progressive media (#indymediaback) providing a counter-story, pushing this feedback loop to highlight successes and innovations within the grassroots and #openweb movements.

Also using the as a path to encourage critical engagement with #geekproblem and #dotcons projects, questioning their alignment with grassroots values and pushing for accountability and transparency to move people off these paths.

Let’s start embracing the composting of #techshit to turn the current mess into fertile ground for new #openweb growth and innovation. Let’s pick up our shovels and building the change and challenge that is so obviously needed, and please try not to be a prat, thanks.

“The work of the anarchist is above all a work of critique. The anarchist goes, sowing revolt against that which oppresses, obstructs, opposes itself to the free expansion of the individual being.”
— Emile Armand

Crisis of Governance in FOSS: Medieval Politics and Neoliberal Failures

Silicon Valley influence is significant, the concentration of power and resources among a few #dotcons raises issues about democracy, equity, and control. With this in mind, we need a strong push and for meany people a fundamental rethink and restructuring of how we approach technology, governance, and real community building.

The open-source and free software communities, despite their progressive foundations, are marred by outdated governance structures that are at base medieval aristocracy and monarchy. This, compounded by the problematic mediation attempts through #neoliberal individualism, results in a stagnation of innovation and collaboration that highlights the #geekproblem within these communities.

Medieval governance in modern tech, aristocratic hierarchies are in most open-source projects, decision-making power is concentrated in the hands of a few “maintainers” or “core developers.” These individuals hold their positions for long periods, leading to a de facto aristocracy, with the same people in control and influencing the paths of projects big and small. Monarchical leadership is core to meany projects, led by charismatic leaders whose word becomes law. This monarch-like leadership stifle dissent and discourage fresh contributors, as the project revolves around the vision and whims of a single individual, the #fediverse application is an example with #Mastodon.

Neoliberal Individualism and Its Failures

#StupidIndividualism is a part of #neoliberalism, which promotes a form of individualism emphasizesing self-interest and competition over collaboration and community. This mindset infiltrates open-source communities, leading to fragmented efforts and a lack of cohesive or even any vision. This “common sense” market-driven development infects many open-source projects that are pushed by market demands rather than community needs. This results in software that prioritizes profitability over usability and innovation.

The #techshit and #geekproblem

  • #techshit, a term that reflects the use of #dotcons and #FOSS which proliferates with poorly designed, unmaintained, and redundant software projects that clutter the open-source paths.
  • #geekproblem, refers to the insular and exclusionary culture within tech communities. It includes issues like poor communication, lack of diversity, and a focus on technical prowess over collaborative skills.

Moving Towards Modern Governance

Democratizing Decision-Making: Shifting from aristocratic and monarchical structures to more democratic governance models can help. This includes implementing transparent decision-making processes, rotating leadership roles, and ensuring that all voices are heard.

Community-Centric Approaches: Prioritizing community needs over individual ambitions or market demands leads to more sustainable and impactful projects. This involves active engagement with users and contributors to understand their needs and incorporate their feedback.

Embracing Diversity: Cultivating an inclusive culture that values diverse perspectives address the #geekproblem. This means actively working to include underrepresented groups in tech and fostering a collaborative rather than competitive environment.

Holistic thinking: Moving beyond the neoliberal framework requires a holistic approach to mediation that considers social, cultural, and economic factors. This includes spaces for dialogue, conflict resolution mechanisms, and support systems for contributors.

Conclusion, to move forward, they must shed the medieval political structures and #neoliberal individualism to make space to embracing democratic governance, community-centric approaches, diversity, and holistic mediation, communities can mediate the #techshit and #geekproblem, paving the way for a more collaborative and native #openweb.

Grassroots in Tech Communities: Challenges and Paths

The discussions surrounding grassroots movements within tech communities intersects with broader social themes, such as #neoliberalism and #postmodernism. These ideologies shape what is considered “common sense” and can create real barriers to introducing alternative viewpoints and practices. Within this context, progressive grassroots initiatives aim to counteract these dominant paradigms, but they frequently face challenges both from within and outside their communities.

The concept of #mainstreaming refers to the process where dominant ideologies and practices become the accepted norm, marginalizing alternative perspectives. This current mainstreaming is driven by the forces of neoliberalism, emphasizes market-driven solutions and (stupid) individualism, and (zombie) postmodernism, that foster a sense of scepticism and relativism. Together, these forces create a “common sense” that is actively hostile to grassroots progressive initiatives.

Let’s look at a few of the “surface issue” faced by Grassroots Movements:

  • Perception of Spam: As highlighted in #socialhub experiences, grassroots advocates face accusations of spamming when they consistently share links and resources to support #KISS arguments. This perception can stem from a misunderstanding of the intent behind sharing information, which is to provide context and facilitate basic understanding.
  • Resistance to Alternative Views: When #mainstreaming ideas are challenged, the response is often, hostile, defensive or dismissive. This resistance is rooted in cognitive dissonance and the threat to personal and collective identities that alternative viewpoints pose.
  • Governance Issues: Effective governance within tech communities is crucial for fostering inclusivity and legitimacy. However, governance processes become contentious, particularly when there are differing visions for the community’s direction and priorities. This is a problem with much of the #feudalism in #FOSS thinking.

Some projects that are designed to mediate these issues

  • The Open-Media-Network (#OMN) and its associated projects, such as the Open Web Governance Body (#OGB) and the framework, represent grassroots efforts to address these challenges. These initiatives aim to create a more democratic and inclusive “trust” based internet by emphasizing transparency, open governance, and community-driven development.
  • Open Web Governance Body (#OGB): Project focuses on creating governance structures for horizontal projects using simple online tools. By promoting open and inclusive governance, the OGB mitigates the issues caused by #mainstreaming and ensure that grassroots voices are heard and valued.
  • The Framework: Advocates for open data, open source, open standards, and open processes. By adhering to these principles, grassroots movements can create robust defences against co-optation and maintain their autonomy and integrity.

What can you do to help:

  • Build Community and Solidarity: Strengthening ties within the community and fostering a sense of shared purpose to help counteract the fragmentation often caused by dominant ideologies.
  • Educate and Inform: Providing accessible and compelling information about the benefits of alternative viewpoints and practices to shift perceptions and reduce resistance.
  • Engage in Dialogue: Creating spaces for open and respectful dialogue can help bridge divides and foster mutual understanding.
  • Leverage Technology: Utilizing #openweb tools and platforms like the #OMN and wider #Fediverse empower grassroots movements to organize effectively and promote their message to escape the #dotcons echo chambers.

The struggle to establish and maintain grassroots movements within tech communities is ongoing and very messy. By understanding the dynamics of #mainstreaming and employing strategies to counteract its effects, these movements can create more inclusive and democratic spaces. The initiatives by the Open-Media-Network offer real grassroots frameworks and tools for achieving these goals, demonstrating that a small group of thoughtful, committed people can indeed change the world.

Become a part of this movement https://opencollective.com/open-media-network

Definitions, that might help

This is from the view of progressive, grassroots and Alt media in the UK:

Silo, definition: Closed data systems hoarding information. Impact: Data vanishes when projects end, diminishing the effectiveness of alternative media. Most alt/grassroots media projects are silos, capturing data without open licensing for reuse.

Portal, definition: Attempts to be the dominant site, locking users into their ecosystem. Impact: Builds projects that trap users, contrary to the #openweb’s logic. In alt/grassroots media, this resembles a one-party state approach of the 20th century.

#Dotcons, definition: For-profit data silos and pseudo-networked portals. Impact: Many alt media projects mimic #dotcons, aspiring to their closed models.

Link, definition: Fundamental to the #openweb, giving content value. Impact: The absence of linking in alt media reduces the content’s value.

#Activitypub, definition: is a protocol and open standard for decentralized networking, a tool for commons building. Impact: this is growing in use.

#RSS, definition: An open web standard that adds value through data sharing. Impact: RSS is underutilized in alt media, overshadowed by silo and portal models.

Geek Culture, definition: A subculture focused on control and technical solutions. Impact: Often closes open projects, contributing to the failure of alt media initiatives, ca use the hashtag #geekproblem

#Fashionista Culture, definition: An unthinking pursuit of innovation and conformity. Impact: Churns through alt/grassroots projects, preventing them from growing.

#NGO, definition: Bureaucratic entities consuming resources. Impact: Push agendas that overshadow grassroots initiatives, often invisibly counterproductive.

Network, definition: Both technical (wires, frequencies) and mutual aid (diversity of strategy).
Impact: Essential for alt media but underutilized.

, definition: Open source, open data, open standards, open process. Impact: Exemplified by projects like Wikipedia; foundational to just and effective media projects.

To sum, up, we are still in the process of moving away from the mess of most UK alt/grassroots media projects, who are focused on silos, on capturing data and users rather than linking and sharing to build commons. Emphasizing the and fostering a culture of linking and openness help’s to break this cycle and build a more interconnected and effective alternative media landscape.

This post is based off this https://hamishcampbell.com/looking-at-the-tech-and-organising-of-uk-alt-grassroots-media/

How you use the #4opens

The is a path to evaluate the value and openness of alternative or grassroots technology projects. A way to promote transparency, accessibility, and collaboration on the path to of alternatives to #mainstreaming, closed systems. It stands in contrast to #dotcons projects that hoard closed and monetize data. By adhering to these principles, projects offer value to people and the broader community, as opposed to extracting value.

While traditional open data initiatives focus primarily on making data accessible, the framework encompasses a more comprehensive approach to openness. This grassroots focus extends beyond just data to include source code, operations, and process. This is in contrast to traditional open data initiatives are associated with government or large institutional efforts. By including four distinct aspects of openness, the provide a holistic way to judge the value and transparency of a project. This contrasts with traditional initiatives that focus solely on data accessibility.

The strong emphasis on community participation and collaboration. The “Open Process” aspect goes beyond just sharing data or code, emphasizing transparency in how a project is run and managed. This is not typically a core component of traditional open data initiatives, and makes this a real alternative to corporate models. The framework is explicitly focused on judging the overall value and ethos of a project, rather than just its technical compliance with open data standards.

Collaborative development: With open source as a principle, grassroots projects benefit from collective efforts in improving and expanding their technology. This allows for faster innovation and problem-solving. Trust-building: Open process promote transparency in how projects are managed and run. This builds trust within the community and attracts more participants and supporters. Problem-solving focus: The framework encourages the development of tools and approaches that address real issues arising from social organization within #openweb communities, fostering practical solutions to grassroots challenges.

The serve as a simple yet effective way to #KISS judge the value and openness of grassroots tech projects. This helps both project creators and users assess the alignment of a project with open principles. By adhering to these principles, grassroots tech projects offer more value to people and the broader community, building the needed open, collaborative, and community-driven approach to technology development.

The framework fosters collaboration among grassroots tech projects

* Open Data: By making data freely accessible, projects share information, metadata and insights, enabling cross-project collaboration and innovation. This openness allows different initiatives to build upon each other’s work and avoid duplicating efforts
* Open Source: The emphasis on open source software encourages collaborative development across projects. By sharing code, grassroots initiatives leverage each other’s work, contribute improvements, and collectively advance their goals. This fosters a culture of shared knowledge and resources
* Open Standards: Adherence to open industrial standards promotes interoperability between different grassroots projects. This allows diverse systems to work together seamlessly, facilitating integration and collaboration across initiatives
* Open Process: This encourages transparency in project workflows and decision-making. By adopting open processes like wikis and activity streams, projects involve stakeholders in planning, development, and governance. This fosters trust, accountability, and collective ownership among collaborators

Community Involvement: The framework promotes community participation, allowing people interested to contribute to projects. This creates a broader collaborative ecosystem where diverse skills and perspectives are shared across initiatives. The provide a common set of principles for assessing grassroots tech projects. This shared framework allows projects to evaluate each other, identify collaborators, and build trust within the community. By positioning as alternatives to closed, corporate models, projects gravitate towards collaboration with like-minded initiatives. This fosters a supportive ecosystem of grassroots tech projects working towards similar goals. The openness promoted facilitates the sharing of best practices, lessons learned, and approaches across projects. This collective learning accelerates progress and problem-solving within the grassroots tech community.

The can be used to build a foundation of trust and shared values that enables diverse projects to work together towards common progressive paths.