The Evolution of SocialHub

“the crew gathered around #SocialHub worked remarkably well for a while, organising good gathering, conferences and very useful outreach of #ActivityPub to the #EU that seeded much of the current #mainstreaming. But yes, it was always small and under utilised due to the strong forces of #stupidindividalisam that we need to balance. Ideas?“

From grassroots origins, #SocialHub emerged as a community-driven platform, rooted in the #openweb principles, focusing on the interplay of technology and “native” social paths. Its initial success lay in its collaborative ethos, free from mainstream interference. This promising start has since failed, due to lack of core consensuses and the active #blocking of any process to mediate this mess making.

Current challenges are from the influx of non-native perspectives, The twitter migrants and rapid #Fediverse expansion has diluted what was left of the original focus. Then in reaction to this the has been a retreat to tech paths over the social paths. This shift toward technical priorities has marginalized the social aspects that initially defined the community, this is a mirroring broader #geekproblem struggles that are core to the original failing.

What actually works is always grassroots messiness and constructive processes, that is messy in a good way, authentic, grassroots movements are inherently untidy, this ordered/chaos is where real social value is born. Attempts to overly structure or mainstream these paths risks losing their soul. Lifestyleism, and fragmented tribalism, distract from meaningful change. These behaviours breed from #stupidindividualism, a core product of the #deathcult culture that undermines collective action. There is a role for activism, based on learning from history to avoid repeating mistakes. This can lead to wider social engagement, and an embrace of messiness to counteract the stifling tendencies of rigid mainstreaming and isolated tech focus.

The metaphor of “shovels” is useful to turn the current pile of social and technical “shit” into compost is apt. Grassroots communities nurture a healthier ecosystem that balances tech and social. The imbalance favouring tech over social must be addressed. Reinvigorating the core social crew with a focus on community-oriented discussions and actions can restore equilibrium.

For this, it can be useful to challenge neoliberal narratives, use the #openweb/#closedweb framework to critique and dismantle neoliberal “common sense”. Highlight how these ideologies breed the individualistic and exploitative tendencies that undermine collective progress. The need for vigilance against co-option and the importance of nurturing the messy authenticity of grassroots movements. The path forward requires not just shovelling but planting seeds of collaboration, transparency, and collective action. By embracing the chaos and keeping the focus on social value, the #openweb can flourish as a genuine alternative to the #closedweb.

#KISS

Corporate presence in the Fediverse?

The announcement from the #SocialWebFoundation is a corporate vision rather than something native, grassroots or revolutionary. Describing people as “users” who follow “influencers and brands” is a social mess, the commercialized, top-down paths that clash with the #4opens of collaboration, activism, and mutual aid path we build. On its current path this is a delusional dream from corporate America trying to coopt the #4opens network we built from community, solidarity and radical change. On the #mainstreaming #NGO current path this is not the kind of project to engage with or be a part of building, we do not won’t a space dominated by brands and influencers, it isn’t the future anyone actually wants or needs.

On mainstream paths, there is an unspoken disconnect between “volunteerism”, philanthropy, and “entrepreneurship” in the paths #opensource and decentralized tech people take. In #FOSS when people contribute their time and skills, there’s an assumption that their work is for the public good, but many are actually hoping for recognition or a way to generate financial stability. It’s not a contradiction to expect support for work that holds social value, though when this manifests as “entrepreneurship” we see the #deathcult path, underlining expectation for funding and sustainability. This is a hard path to tread and stay “native” to the #openweb

This ties into the mess with philanthropy and funding. For initiatives to gain traction and financial support, they need a compelling story, but many in the #FOSS and #fediverse communities struggle with this social storytelling part. They underestimate how few people aligned with their “native” vision, and how difficult it is to convey, outreach, the non-mainstream paths to a broader audience and the people who hold the money. The concept of “sustainability” for organizations becomes convoluted, with an overemphasis on replicating “common sense” venture capital models. It’s a mess that philanthropic groups have significant resources but fail in distributing them meaningfully, focusing instead on mimicking pointless tech startup mess. This is very likely a problem with #SocialWebFoundation path, the question is how to mediate this, for better outcomes.

This tension between grassroots movements, the expectations of funding, and the structural constraints of both the tech and non-profit paths. An example of this is the #NLnet and #EU tech funding fits this conversation of how philanthropy and volunteerism fail to mix due to flawed execution and basic storytelling problems on all sides.

More of my thinking on this https://hamishcampbell.com/?s=funding It’s hard to find a path to mediate, especially with the growing corporate presence in our #openweb spaces like the Fediverse. Ideas please?

UPDATE: its very #mainstreaming As the open social web grows, a new nonprofit looks to expand the ‘fediverse’ | TechCrunch

Some quotes from my prier work:

“Power only understands power, so, we might need something that looks like “power” without all the power politics that involves… this is bluesky thinking to this end. If #activertypub is taken up by the #dotcons this WILL BE IMPOSED ON US anyway.”

“its trying to think outside this traditional path, so we think BEFORE we inevitably go down it this kinda crap path.”

“As I said here in the end this will be IMPOSED as a governance model dressed in “community clothes” if we do not build something else with dancing elephants and paper planes.”

“Our current working models of “governance” in open-source projects are Monarchy (the dictator for life), Aristocracy (the devs), oligarchy (the NGO, funders) and finally way out on the edge Democracy (the users).” This above is a move from current feudalism to NGO, the funders.

“…all the existing power structures BEFORE Democracy. As we are “permissionless” we can’t stop them from doing this. We just have to do better, and being native to the fedivers is a big help here.”

“Power… in the Fediverse path comes from different places than a corporation, a government, courts, police etc. we need to think and build with this difference and NOT try and drag the Fediverse back to the normal path. REMEMBER, the Fediverse works BECAUSE it’s different. It’s easy to forget this important thing when #mainstreaming agender, grab and hold.”

#OGB “It’s the correct word Governance – Wikipedia “Governance is the way rules, norms and actions are structured, sustained, regulated and held accountable”

“Yep, the liberal foundation model will be forced onto us if the Fediverse is taken up buy large Burocratic orgs like the #EU and yes there will be a fig leaf of “democracy” placed over the self-selecting oligarchy that will be put into place by “power politics” that this path embeds. Yes this path is the default outcome.”

Likely more…

Peoples views:

https://flamedfury.com/posts/a-social-web

https://bix.blog/posts/holy-hell-the-social-web-did-not-begin-in-2008

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41644267

https://lemmy.world/post/20160202

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

Why do we still worship the #DeathCult? As we stand on the precipice of onrushing #climatechaos and spreading social break down, it should be clear that much of the world remains on the path of what we usefully call the DeathCult—a term to describe the pervasive, destructive ideology that prioritizes power, wealth, and control over human life and our collective survival. The worship of this cult can clearly be seen in the #mainstreaming response that is less concerned with averting disaster and more focused on maintaining the status quo at any cost.

The west’s climate-catastrophe plan, the strategies being employed by the few in power to mediate the escalating #climatecrisis reveals a dark and cynical world-view. Rather than addressing the root causes of environmental destruction, the current plan involves:

Silencing and Jailing Dissenters: Across the globe, activists, whistleblowers, and truth-tellers are increasingly targeted by governments. The criminalization of protest, the surveillance of dissidents, and the erosion of civil liberties are all used to silence the few people who challenge the current path. By removing voices of opposition, the nasty few hopes to stifle the more apathetic meany that might threaten their current power and wealth.
Impoverishing and Brainwashing the Masses: Economic inequality is not a by-product of the current system; it is a deliberate strategy. By keeping the majority of people in a state of economic insecurity, the few ruling class maintain control. At the same time, mass media and it “invisible” propaganda shape public understanding and motivation to divert attention away from real critical issues, to reinforce the #consumerist story’s that support the current mess.
Imposing Forever Wars and Prison-Camp Epidemics: The endless cycle of wars, coupled with the spread of diseases exacerbated by poor living conditions, serves a dual purpose. It destabilizes regions, making them easier to control, while also reducing populations that might otherwise resist. The situation in Gaza, where millions are trapped in what is essentially an open-air prison, is a stark example of what this could look like when the brutal strategy is used on us as #climatecrises spread floods of migration.

This is the messy path we are walking down to the very real possibility of 21st century global fascism as a failed “solution” to the mess these people are spreading. The combination of repression, economic control, and orchestrated chaos can easily amount to the spread of global fascism, where the primary goal is the preservation of power for a nasty few. The psychopaths who design and implement this care for little beyond their own dominance—not even the future of their children, who will inherit a world on the path of collapse.

Most of these architects of destruction are older men who will likely die in comfort, shielded from the consequences of their actions. Their callous disregard for human life is a normal outcome of “success” of the priests of the #deathcult. If you care to take a moment to look it can be seen in meany #fashionista philosophies like “#longtermism,” which argue that even if billions perish in the coming climate catastrophe, we shouldn’t be too concerned, as the long-term survival of humanity (as they define it) is all that matters.

The DeathCult is a metaphor for #neoliberalisam which worships success in grabbing power above all else. It views the world as a zero-sum game, where the suffering of the many is justified by the comfort and security of the few. Over the last 40 years this ideology has been deeply entrenched in the institutions of the West, from organizations like the #EU, #WTO etc to national governments and corporations, and it is perpetuated by those who benefit from the existing mess. They have no plan or ideas to change this path, even our liberals are talking about this https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-08-11/joseph-stiglitz-the-road-to-freedom-neoliberalism-fascism/104210670

We need to take a different path to breaking free from the DeathCult, to overcome this grim reality, we must first recognize the insidious influence of neoliberalism on our lives and societies for the last 40 years. Understanding its tactics and objectives allows us to resist its “common sense” pull and work towards creating a world that values humanistic paths over simplistic power and profit.

The is a urgent need for a paradigm shift, we are at a crossroads. The choices we make now will determine the future of humanity and our existence on this planet. It is imperative that we reject the nihilism of the #DeathCult and instead embrace different paradigms—one’s that prioritizes #KISS social justice, environmental stewardship, and genuine democracy. This shift won’t come easily, social change is hard, but it is needed if we are to mediate the worst consequences of #climatechaos.

By recognizing, and change, challenging the paths that keep us locked in this destructive cycle, we can start to dismantle the structures of power that push inequality and environmental degradation. The time for action is yesterday, now is a start, before it’s too late.

PLEASE don’t be a prat about this, you can help us shift paths here https://opencollective.com/open-media-network

This post was inspired by this article https://mastodon.social/deck/@DrALJONES/111462675685824404

The Seven Stages of climate denial:

1. It’s not real
2. It’s not us
3. It’s not that bad
4. We have time
5. It’s too expensive to fix
6. Here’s a fake solution
7. It’s too late: you should have warned us earlier

Trolls use all of these stages to deny reality of #climatechange

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 #4opens 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

Slogan for #openweb: “Technology’s job is to hold the trust in place”

Definitions can be loose; making things overly rigid is a #Geekproblem that fosters conflict.
This is why the #4opens is about interpretation and judgment. The #Fediverse is a vibrant and active #openweb project, currently one of the healthiest “native” parts of this path.

Some “native” examples we are working on:

Principles for #OGB (Open Governance Body) Consensus and Engagement: Decisions are valid only if a wide range of people are involved, ensuring that the collective is the consensus. This prevents any single individual from overpowering the group. Power resides in trust groups, which likely use their influence positively. This #KISS is needed to maintain trust that ensures better outcomes.

Solving technology problems with trust and #4opens: These principles provide a flexible and resilient approach to technological challenges. To repeat, the key role of technology is to maintain trust. To do this, let’s focus on the social path, an example of this would be #PGA (People’s Global Action), that keeping this as a checkpoint helps block #mainstreaming attempts and maintain polite engagement.

Building and maintaining projects needs strong social defaults and hardcoding #4opens. Consistency, keep the #4opens principles at the forefront to prevent dilution during outreach. Building tech from the grassroots level, horizontally, avoids #mainstreaming “common sense” which always leads to burnout and friction. While outreach is essential, the core principles should not be compromised. Focus on community and consensus to ensure broad engagement to maintain trust and effective governance.

These guidelines provide a structured approach to developing and maintaining technology projects that are open, transparent, and community-driven. By emphasizing trust and the #4opens principles, we create a resilient and sustainable path for technological and social change and challenge that is so needed in the era of #climatechaos.

#NGI #NLnet #EU

The European Union: A “spiky” view

As a first step, it’s enlightening to look at the origins of the EU, in post-World War II. The US emerged relatively unscathed and wealthy, where much of the rest of the western world was in ruins. For the USA action was needed to maintain allies and markets against the growing Soviet “threat”, the solution was to clear the “rubble” to push back at this “threat”, the Marshall Plan, pumping over $15 billion into rebuilding European capitalism, to create an anti-Soviet, anti-communist capitalist bloc in Western and Southern Europe.

Rebuilding European Imperialism: With the Marshall Plan, Western and Southern Europe rebuilt capitalism, leading to the formation of cartels, trusts, and syndicates. The European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), established in 1951, was a precursor to the EU, created to regulate coal and steel industries across borders for maximum profits. This was a monopolist capitalist path, not a progressive internationalist path. This expanded into the European Economic Community (EEC), established in 1957

The Anti-Democratic #EU: The EU, established by the Maastricht Treaty in 1992, institutionalizes #neoliberal economic policies that make it impossible for member states to transition towards socialism. These treaties enforce a fundamentalist free market economy, prohibiting state aid, public monopolies, and nationalizations.

It’s important to see the #EU as a product of the “Cold War” rather than only as the progressive force it paints itself as. It should be obvious that this temple to the #deathcult leads “naturally” to privatization and profit maximization and undermining public services and workers’ rights, that creates the messy world we live in today. For balance, there is a “fluffy” side to this https://hamishcampbell.com/tag/eu/

Yes, it’s a mess, ideas please?

#EU bureaucracy in tech funding

Tackling the challenges of bureaucracy and #mainstreaming inertia. We need to try and jump the hurdles within tech communities with for example the current pouring down the drain of tech funding provided by #NGI (Next Generation Internet). It is an obvious path we need to get right soon:

Addressing bureaucratic inertia (and native corruption) in the EU tech funding:

Leverage small wins pilot projects: we need to get some funding to shift to real alternatives, Implement small-scale pilot projects that demonstrate benefits and serve as proof of concepts. These projects gradually shift perspectives and encourage larger scale initiatives. Advocate for incremental changes rather than radical shifts, which are more palatable to bureaucratic institutions.
Engage stakeholders in collaborative platforms, we need to rejuvenate the moribund https://socialhub.activitypub.rocks/ to build agen the collaborative space where policymakers, activists, industry experts, and community members discuss, co-create, and refine initiatives.
Storytelling and communication narrative building to craft compelling narratives, using the existing hashtag seeds to highlight the human and societal benefits of proposed changes. Use storytelling to make abstract concepts tangible and relatable.

Mediate the #geekproblem in our tech communities:

Resource allocation funding initiatives: Seek funding from diverse sources, including grants, crowdfunding, alongside the #EU institutional funding. Use this to invest in skill development to bridge gaps within the community and foster the “native” #openweb path.
Encourage collaboration across different prospectives to bring fresh paths to push solutions. Knowledge sharing, use the #4opens to clear meaningful paths to move outside the current clutter. Create platforms for sharing this knowledge, run workshops, webinars, and hackathons, to facilitate “native” learning and collaboration.
Promote open practices that encourage contributions from a wide range of participants, not just the core tech-savvy individuals. Experimentation Spaces: Create spaces for experimentation where failures are seen as learning opportunities rather than setbacks.

Bridging the Gap Between EU Bureaucracy and Tech Communities:

Dialogue and advocacy: Establish regular dialogues between tech communities and EU policymakers to discuss challenges, share insights, and co-develop solutions. Use projects like the #OGB to build up tech ambassadors and liaisons who can effectively communicate this divide.
Develop joint projects where tech communities and EU bodies work together on common goals, such as digital transformation, data commons, and open internet standards. Learn from the “native” hackerspace movement to create innovation hubs that serve as collaborative spaces for tech communities and policymakers to experiment with new ideas and technologies.

In conclusion, the journey to shift meaningful initiatives within the #EU and overcome the #geekproblem in tech communities involves activism leveraging small wins, engaging wider stakeholders, using community advocacy, and fostering inclusive and collaborative #openweb environments. These are a path to build the power of community to shift the resources of bureaucratic institutions while overcoming internal #geekproblem challenges, ultimately driving the positive and impactful change that is so obviously needed to reboot the #openweb

#NLNET #NGIzero

A European Future

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

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

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

The European Union: A “spiky” view

#NGI #NLNET

#climatechaos requires a radical approach

The Seven Stages of climate denial:

1. It’s not real
2. It’s not us
3. It’s not that bad
4. We have time
5. It’s too expensive to fix
6. Here’s a fake solution
7. It’s too late: you should have warned us earlier

Trolls use all of these stages to deny the reality of #climatechange

With this in mind, it’s worth looking at the climate crisis and its broader implications for liberals:

Understanding the Crisis

Climate Change Impacts:
- Primary Effects: The direct environmental impacts such as floods, storms, and droughts, species loss.
- Secondary Effects: These encompass the broader impacts like social breakdown, mass migration, fiscal crises, and conflicts and wars.

Soft Problem: Infrastructure Response

To address the primary effects of climate change, we need to:

Invest in Resilient Infrastructure:
- Develop, diversify and upgrade infrastructure to withstand extreme weather events.
- Implement sustainable urban planning and disaster preparedness programs.
Promote Environmental Stewardship:
- Encourage policies that protect natural ecosystems and biodiversity.
- Support renewable down scaling with energy sources and totally end reliance on fossil fuels.

Hard Problem: State Stability and Security

Addressing the secondary effects involves:

Economic and Social Policies:
- Develop political and economic policies that buffer against fiscal crises caused by climate change.
- Strengthen social safety nets to support communities impacted by environmental changes.
Global Cooperation:
- Foster international collaboration to facilitate the mass migration and sharing of resources.
- Support global peacekeeping efforts to hold justice in place and prevent conflicts exacerbated by climate stressors.

Accountability and Legal Action

Prosecuting individuals and groups for their direct roles in the climate crisis involves several considerations:

Legal Frameworks:
- Establish clear legal standards for environmental crimes and corporate responsibility.
- Develop international agreements to hold entities accountable for environmental damage.
Ethical Considerations:
- Ensure that legal actions are grounded in social justice and fairness.
- Avoid simple scapegoating and ensure that those prosecuted are responsible for significant harm.
Focus on Prevention:
- Prioritize measures that prevent future harm alongside punitive actions for though who are found responsible.
- Promote corporate and governmental accountability through regulations and incentives for sustainable practices and well as impotently building real alternatives.

Moving Forward

To effectively address the #climatecrisis and its security implications, a wide approach is needed:

Promote Public Awareness and Engagement:
- Educate the public on the causes and effects of #climatechange.
- Encourage community involvement in real sustainability initiatives.
Policy and Governance:
- Advocate for robust climate policies at national and international levels.
- Ensure that climate action is integrated into broader progressive security and economic strategies.
Innovation and Adaptation:
- Invest in research and development of soft and hard technologies for climate mitigation and adaptation.
- Encourage the needed adaptive practices in agriculture, industry, and urban development.
Ethical Leadership:
- Foster community leadership outside the current #mainstreaming agendas, that prioritize long-term sustainability and ethical governance.
- Promote #4opens transparency and accountability in society and climate-related decision-making.

Addressing the #climatecrisis requires a radical and balanced approach that combines immediate action with long-term planning, prominent legal accountability with widened ethical governance, and national efforts with wider global cooperation. By focusing on these areas, we can try to work towards a sustainable future.

For a #mainstreaming view of this https://www.cbsnews.com/news/pope-francis-urges-action-on-climate-change-its-a-road-to-death/

On this subject: The #EU Eurocracy are hopelessly incompetent on progressive social and tech issues – it’s our job to help them be less incompetent as best we can. The other, native path is more dangerous, to get rid of them, the dangers with this is the right-wing will take their place. This applies to changing most #mainstreaming institutions and people, so we are left with challenge as a safe path.

Revisiting the ActivityPub foundation idea

There are a few views on this issue, the “common sense” #NGO path, an example Presenting Fedi Foundation: Empowerment for SocialHub community 1

And the more “nativist” openweb path What would a fediverse “governance” body look like?

And then we have the #geekproblem path, which has been pushing the fep process the last 2 years, but I think they are avoiding the politics of actually touching this issue. Fair enough.

If the “native” openweb crew don’t move past their “left” mess issues then I think in the end the #NGO path will be imposed, It’s simply what happens, there is a long history of this outcome

The argument between structure and lack of structure is often a strawman. For example, the ogb project, that came out of the #EU outreach has a lot of structure Open-Media-Network/openwebgovernancebody: ON STANDBY due to waiting for funding – (OGB) This is a space for working through Governance of horizontal projects – using #KISS online tools. – openwebgovernancebody – Open Media Network BUT it is SOFT “nativist” rather than the HARD structure of the #NGO “foundation” people think of as structure, it’s interesting when people can’t see this, it’s a kind of blindness, and a hard subject to talk about.

Obviously anything that works has lots of structure, the more important question is about the visibility and “native” democracy of this structure. This is a hard argument/talk to have, and we do keep failing on this, what to do? Ideas please.

It’s interesting that formal coops almost never work in reality, and when/if they do work they tend to become shadows of the #deathcult

In contrast, activist aganising works, often badly. But over all, activist organising is more successful at being an Alt than formal coops, there is a long unspoken history to back this up.

BUT our #mainstreaming always talks about formal coops, if they talk about alts at all, because they can ONLY see this shadow of the #deathcult

Activist organising is always fighting the #deathcult, so it rarely functions as this shadow. The #NGO world is always this shadow.

OK I admit with the right/left mess, this is more of a mess to be composted, ideas please 🙂

————————————–

Current examples in the UK would be the coop supermarket, which got Tesco people in to make it profitable and has soviet design sense and staffing. And the coop bank, which is so bureaucratic as to be pretty much unusable. We have banked with them a number of times. On the positive side you had the co-op wholefood shops in the 1970’s which metamorphosed into the much more #deathcult health shops in the 1990’s. Just to touch on a few. Housing coops have an interesting history, quite a few stories to tell on these.

Don’t take me wrong, I like coops, but I don’t like #fahernistas pushing them over things where we have other forms of organising which likely work better. Diversity is good, just don’t dogmatically push crap that then needs to be composted, we have enough shit to shovel without this thanks.

As ever, “don’t be a prat” is the watch word.

The mission of the NGI is to re-imagine and re-engineer the Internet

We ask that #NGI use “native” approaches and tools at future #openweb events

“The mission of the NGI is to re-imagine and re-engineer the Internet… Committed to open source (both hardware and software) and open data… Build an Internet of Trust, empowering end-users… the concept of the Digital Commons, which is particularly crucial for Europe, as it fosters equitable access to information… the transition to the future internet…”

We ask that #NGI use at future openweb events:

FOSS video streaming solution

Simple open tools for audiences chat, one to meany and one to one

A open to edit shared doc (for links and notes) for the online participants to use, for each session.

This is a #4opens basic path for people to people internet based on trust, for a European #openweb

“When it comes to important ideas that can help improve our society, there really are no boundaries. The challenge is to turn those opportunities into reality. Great ideas just come, but they are gone in a breeze as well. Let’s make good use of them.”

The quotes are from https://ngiforum2023.eu/ , https://www.ngi.eu/ and https://nlnet.nl/ lets together ask/help the #EU to be more openweb native.

———————-
The mission of the NGI is to re-imagine and re-engineer the Internet… Committed to open source (both hardware and software) and open data… Build an Internet of Trust, empowering end-users… the concept of the Digital Commons, which is particularly crucial for Europe, as it fosters equitable access to information… the transition to the future internet…

We ask that #NGI use at online events:

* FOSS video streaming solution
* Simple open tools for audiences chat, one to many and one to one
* A open to edit shared doc (for links and notes) for the online participants to use, for each session.

This is a #4opens basic path for people to people internet based on trust, for a European #openweb

NGI Zero open source funding talks about the @sovtechfund

NGI Zero open source funding
The @sovtechfund is offering grants to people who contribute to a sustainable open source ecosystem. Grants go up to €300,000 per application and cover three main topics:

1. Improve FOSS Developer Tooling
2. Securing FOSS Software Production
3. FOSS Infrastructure Documentation

With this program, the Sovereign Tech Fund seeks to stimulate an open digital infrastructure: fundamental technologies that enable the creation of other software.

https://sovereigntechfund.de/en/challenges/ #opensource
Three Challenges to Contribute Back to Open Source

UPDATE Looks like people are also arguing this point https://shared-digital.eu/statement/

We are pouring public funding down the drain agen, these criteria are feeding the #geekproblem not actually trying to take the “problem” out of our geek paths. The people who PUSH this agenda are the problem – please POINT at them and talk about this mess, thanks.

Can we get a link to the people making the agenda, thanks, will try polite conversation #4opens

I worked with the guy who used to be behind the #NGIzero account, we did good stuff with the #EU outreach.

The replacement, I have no idea who they are and getting #blocking

This is a #4opens fail.

In all these toots am talking past “people” to talk about things/social/groups and not directly to individuals, they are second in all these conversations. This is the place where social value lives. The problem is, we don’t have hardly any of this… which is the subject am talking about.

#blocking is not seeing this, addressing this, the is a lot of blocking going on 😉

Am happy to talk to “individuals” as a first step.

Pouring money down the drain, because the majority of the problems in the #Fediverse and the #openweb are social not technical – if they only fund technical parts of this culture they are feeding the “problem” and this problem is going to pour the resources down the drain.

I understand this is a hard conversation to have, we have to try.

First step is #4opens, WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE PUSHING MESS while doing “good”, step into the light please #openprocess

Ignoring this basic #openprocess is #blocking, this is why conversations are done in public #4opens

yes, I understand the fear this creates and the desire to #block, but this then makes the #4opens fail more visible if people wont to use this for the needed change and challenge if they don’t yes it’s more noise what are you signal or noise 🙂

Signal vs Nose.

I find #mainstreaming people to be actually mad and increasingly bad. When do we get more #4opens people pushing change challenge in these #openweb spaces, please?

Am increasingly seeing this #blocking as a culture of fear, or more real as a culture of fear pushed as power politics.

Am thinking meany people will be confused and likely mix signal with noise on this subject.

Who are the bad people, the powerless pushing the #4opens on the #openweb or the powerful Burocrats worshipping the #deathcult while protecting these thin careers in the #mainstreaming

If you find yourself agenst the first and defending the second, then you are the problem.

This makes your behaver noise, and what you do very likely to be more #techshit to compost.

I wonder if people understand what activism is on the #openweb any more?

You talk to people to explane why they are doing WRONG, and at the same time you push them as HARD as you can to change their wrong behaver.

This works best with the #fluffy #spiky debate as a core part of this process.

People who keep saying “why can’t we all get along”, and “wouldent it go better if we were nice to each other” and the PROBLEM blocking the activism from having the needed affect…