The #dotcons share an ideology

There is a tech ideology that masks corporate power, and this view of #mainstreaming Cyber libertarianism is a bizarre ideological mishmash, a combination of hippie flower power, economic neoliberalism, and a heavy dose of technological determinism. It’s the credo of Silicon Valley, so much so that for years it was known as the “Californian Ideology.” this “thinking” shapes the tech bros and their billionaire overlords, who for the last ten years have push #cryptocurrencys and now claim that technologies like #AI hold the key to solving all human problems and offers “endless opportunities” for wealth, power, and pleasure. Naturally, anything that stands in the way of this vision, government regulation, public oversight, and most importantly collective action, must be swept aside. For meany years, this sounded like a progress path to some, but it’s riddled with obvious contradictions and dangers.

Many of the problems we face are inherently political, requiring systemic solutions that involving collective governance. Yet, the CEOs, executives, and vulture capitalists would rather you believe that the solutions lie in the “free-market”, that is then conveniently funnelled through their platforms and products. This serves their interests in maintaining power and wealth while pushing aside meaningful public accountability and any possible of an alternative.

This fusion of #geekproblem libertarian engineers and anti-government #fahernistas gave rise to the foundational myths of cyber libertarianism: that technology empowers individuals to create a better world. In the 1990, cyber libertarianism become the dominant ideology in Silicon Valley. Yet, as this ideology flourished, it should have been clear that its vision of “freedom” was fundamentally flawed.

The rhetoric of #techbrow cyber libertarianism claims to be about freedom—freedom from government oversight, freedom of speech, and freedom to innovate. But in practice, this freedom is selective. It serves the powerful and nasty few while ignoring or exploiting the vast majority. This omission is central to cyber libertarianism. By focusing exclusively on the dangers of government tyranny, it ignores how corporations can wield just as much, if not more, power over people. This isn’t an accident—it’s the entire point. Silicon Valley’s billionaires don’t want less power for themselves; they want less oversight from governments and the public.

Neoliberalism becomes the new normal to justify policies that benefit the nasty rich. This path of our current #dotcons oligarchs is no accident. The vague anti-government ethos provides the perfect cover for neoliberal policies. By dressing up deregulation, tax cuts for the wealthy, and the dismantling of public services in the language of “freedom,” both tech billionaires and neoliberal politicians can push their agendas without ever addressing the systemic issues of capitalism, inequality and exploitation.

The Musk empire is a prime example, while he rails against government interference, he eagerly accepts billions in subsidies, pushes for deregulation that benefits his companies, and weaponises his platforms to amplify far-right ideologies. Since taking over Twitter, Musk has turned it into a haven for white supremacists and conspiracy theorists, throttled links to media outlets he dislikes, and boosted his own tweets to ensure maximum visibility.

This is the logical conclusion of the path we have all walked down with our embrace of the #dotcons. By rejecting democratic oversight and embracing a narrow, individualistic definition of freedom, we have consolidates power in the hands of the few wealthy, nasty #techbrows and their acolytes. For all the rhetoric about empowering individuals, this path has always been about protecting the privileges of the nasty few.

We see in the USA this Silicon Valley influence growing. Now more than ever, it’s crucial to challenge these paths and step away from the #dotcons these inadequate and nasty people control. We need to understand that freedom isn’t about the absence of government oversight, it’s about creating a humanistic society where power is accountable, resources are shared more equitably, and everyone has the opportunity to grow. The spreading fascism hiding behind Cyber libertarianism offers none of this, Instead, it offers us a neo feudalism, tech kings, knights and priests who claim to liberate us while consolidating their control. It’s time to see through the shiny algorithm driven façade and make the effort and focus to build something better. With the native #openweb reboot we have the tools to do this, with #OMN there is a different technological path we can take.

The #fashernistas and #geekproblem interact to work in unintentional tandem

In part, the current challenges faced by the #openweb and grassroots reboot movements can be traced back to two cultural and structural problems: the influence of #fashernistas and the deeply ingrained #geekproblem. Both of these contribute to active blocking of meaningful change, hindering the progress needed for an openweb reboot. To walk this “native” landscape effectively, it’s needed to understand these barriers and how they block change and challenge.

The fashernistas and their echo chambers, the term refers to a subset of people who are highly engaged in performative discussions, centred on trending topics and social posturing without substantive engagement in grassroots real world problem-solving. While they are adept at identifying and amplifying transient issues, their conversations stay within insular bubbles. This creates a cycle where attention and focus are pulled toward repetitive discourse that never leads to any outcomes.

This taking up space with little and most often no follow-through is detrimental. Fashernistas thrive in spaces where the appearance of awareness is valued over the hard, real, messy action that is needed. In this #manstraming bubble, dialogue is focused on social capital—who knows what, who said what—rather than collaborative problem-solving. The result? The conversation around the openweb becomes cluttered, attention splinters, and meaningful action is overshadowed by a constant churn of noise.

The role of #fahernistas in blocking change is their ability to dominate platforms and narratives. This domination becomes active blocking when their presence leaves little room for discussions rooted in genuine collaboration and open progress. They inadvertently (or sometimes deliberately) creates environments where the needed ideas and radical challenges to the status quo struggle to gain traction, let along attention. If the openweb is to flourish, this culture of self-referential chatter needs to be mediated.

What can we do with our fashernistas?

The #geekproblem is a different barrier, which is the cultural divide within tech communities that leans heavily toward deterministic, technical solutions at the expense of accessible, inclusive approaches. The geekproblem manifests when developers and technologists become gatekeepers, framing issues in ways that reinforce their control, preserving existing narrow structures rather than opening them up for collective problem-solving.

For example, in the #openweb and #fediverse projects, the drive for good #UX runs parallel to an implicit exclusivity of bad UX dressed in “privacy”, “security”, “safety” etc. Technical jargon, complex onboarding processes, and a lack of user-friendly interfaces are a barrier to entry and community building. This exclusivity prevents the broader range of participants from engaging meaningfully, turning potentially revolutionary spaces into “specialized” silos, that reinforce this very #blindness.

#fashernistas and #geekproblem interact and often work in unintentional tandem. While the former distracts and fractures attention with endless (pointless, narrow and repeating) discourse, the latter locks down practical pathways for change through gatekeeping and technological insularity. The result is a failing “native” path, where critical mass, and the needed community, fails to grow—one part is too busy talking, and the other is too busy coding in isolation. The broader culture of the #openweb suffers as a consequence, making the needed change far more difficult to achieve than it needs to be.

The solution lies in finding a balance that mediates between the superficiality of fashernistas and the closed nature of the geekproblem. This involves, promoting diverse voices, so that the #openweb aren’t monopolized by any tiny group. Building bridges between projects and communities, to facilitate communication between technical experts and those involved in creating actionable steps that align with #4opens paths we need to take. Developing a culture that values tangible outcomes and collaborative input over performative dialogue and gatekeeping. Amplifying onboarding, by making entry points into #opentech accessible, so people outside traditional tech ghettoes can contribute meaningfully.

The #geekproblem might kill meany of us, mediating it matters

The path we need for the openweb, is more than only technological solutions; it needs a culture shift. Both fashernistas and those contributing to the geekproblem need to recognize their roles and adjust their approaches, for the #openweb to thrive. The has been to meany years of pratish behaver in the paths we need, it’s pastime for #KISS focus. The current moment presents a fresh opportunity for change. With the fediverse and platforms like mastodon growing exponentially, there is a path to free the native spirit of the internet as a collaborative, #openspace with trust, transparency, and action as core motivators. Let’s try and make this work, and not squandered it by letting the voices of the few block the work we need to do.

Ideas please?

The Activist History of the Web: Lessons we can learn

Over the last few decades, the web’s evolution has been shaped by competing ideals. Early on, we witnessed the shift from the “better” #closedweb corporate controlled paths to an #openweb #DIY explosion—a time when collaborative, decentralized approaches thrived. #Mainstreaming efforts to recapture this #4opens spirit failed for years, but eventually, corporate-driven dot-coms platforms captured the majority of people. Activist voices were muffled as #dotcons pushed mainstream interests, pulling away the community-driven power the web once enabled. This phase was a bait-and-switch operation, leading to surveillance capitalism and making it harder to stand up for collective, public-first internet paths.

A key aspect here is that this decline wasn’t caused by isolated figures but by broader, recurring social forces, like #fahernistas and the #geekproblem, who fell into patterns of adopting dominant narratives by failing to recognize the alt values of “native” open tech paths. As this happened, the #NGO world came in with “nice funding,” which subtly aligned activist tech initiatives with liberal, watered-down approaches. This pushed and promoted co-option over the power of change. The result was tech stagnation, with communities gradually losing their voice and control, the mess we were in 5 years ago.

The current openweb revival is due to protocols like #ActivityPub, coinciding with the rise of #web03, which was about re-implements #closedweb paths. This presents both a challenge and an opportunity, especially as the rotting of dotcons reveals the hollowness of centralization. While this #reboot has potential, it’s often bogged down by the same forces that hindered past movements. The #fahernistas focus on transient tech trends and individualistic coding projects that ignore the power of collective working, and the #web03 uncritical push of #encryption as a solution without a broader social strategy results in mountains of #techshit.

What works? Building from simple foundations: As digital activists and #DIY tech communities try to reboot the web, it’s essential to start with simplicity: #KISS principles (Keep It Simple, Stupid) offer a practical foundation. Instead of complex, flashy approaches, this mindset prioritizes clarity, accessibility, and collective agency. Each simple, intentional step creates a more durable basis to counter #mainstreaming forces.

What do we need: Self-organization tools within community are needed to reshape the path. Hashtags, for instance, have devolved into self-branding tools (fashernista), whereas they originally provided decentralized organizing power. Reclaiming these tools for grassroots purposes helps bring DIY activism to the forefront and build cohesive networks across digital paths.

What needs balance: The #VC poison of “nice funding” and #NGO co-option, are the big challenges facing the #openweb movement. Often, well-intentioned tech initiatives accept NGO money to sustain themselves, but this financial support is not neutral. The NGO world, embedded in liberal agendas, steers projects toward safe, palatable solutions that appeal to funders rather than fostering the radical shifts needed for real change. This sugar-coated poison draws tech initiatives away from their roots and into a cycle of compromise, weakening the collective power that grassroots projects depend on.

What can we do? As we look at ways to reignite a meaningful openweb, these lessons from history are crucial. Without seeing these patterns, we are repeating the same mistakes and allowing corporate and liberal to dictate the paths we take to build our shared digital commons. How we actually make this work is not obverse, but the current #fedivers reboot is a seed that is in the ground and growing.

I use the #4opens as a tool to do this as it’s simply #foss development with #openprocess added on, a useful tool to get past what people say their projects are about. And what they are actually about https://unite.openworlds.info/Open-Media-Network/4opens we need tools like this to compost the piles of #techshit people keep creating, if we are to have soil to grow tech seeds of hope, like #Activertypub

The path is simple, who is coming down it with me and meany others?

Change and challenge group dynamics

#fashernistas are unconscious of the dynamics of “in and out groups” that split the workings of the social change movements. Let’s look at this in our #fediverse. Firstly why? The need for feelings of importance, that feeds the need for control and exclusivity behaviour, that then stifles diversity of thought and hampers meaningful change and challenge. This is at the core of #blocking.

In group members push to feel they are accepted and seen as part of the core community, out-group members are then excluded and marginalized, feeding feelings of alienation. This need for control and exclusivity power dynamics with in-group members shapes who hold power and influence within the community, thus shaping the norms and values. This failed diversity is a sterile environment where only limited viewpoints are accepted, on this path the is no if any community growth.

The negative impact on the #fediverse leads to a stifling diversity and echo chambers where only similar, and dysfunctional views are shared. This #blocking of “native” diversity, increases conflict us vs them mentality, reducing cooperation. Making the out-group feel marginalized and excluded, reducing their participation and contribution.

How to mitigate this mess? Start by inclusivity and diversity, encourage open discussions and actively seek diverse viewpoints. When the invertible splintering starts to happen, do not keep pushing the #blocking that feeds this blinded exclusionary behaviour. A healthy active balance is needed for change and challenge for building the empathy and understanding of different perspectives, respecting dialogue and criticism is a healthy path. When we can only take the path of #blocking the community is failing and so is the core project, look at the #fediverse and the last few years on https://socialhub.activitypub.rocks/ as an example of this fail.

To make this work, initiate collaborative projects that require input from a diverse group of members. Build mentorship programs into every path of these projects, pass on experience, guide and support. Be careful of #fahernistas hiding behind the burocracy of “Safe Space’s” mess making, they are the problem and have little to do with solutions or “safety”. In #openweb tools, use moderation to promote diverse content and prevent exclusionary behaviour, implement redundant feedback mechanisms to allow communities to report and address this themselves.

In the #fediverse, the “in and out group” dynamics constantly need to be mediate so our “common sense” #fashernistas behaver is not blindly pushed over the real diversity of healthy spaces. Our communities are “native” #4opens, diverse, and resilient, the path that fosters the change and challenge we so obviously need for a working #openweb reboot.

Maybe I need to say this clearer?

#TED – A Community of Delusions

For millennials lost after the mess of 9/11, the wars, economic upheaval, digital division, and social atomization, #TED was an appealing #mainstreaming alternate vision—of a society where ideas had currency, and a wider group of people could identify with the intellectual vanguard. This vision was delusion, but it easily overtook the norms of drift and disconnection in our failed alternative culture.

To have been young and thoughtful in the late 2000s was to be a citizen of TED nation – a community of dreamers more than doers, united by a common creed: that ideas matter, that inspiration is power, that the future belongs to those who can capture imaginations. This naivety was an easy path to take for the children of the #deathcult. TED’s prominence shaped the aspirations of a generation, it shaped how we thought about ourselves. This #stupidindividualism pushed the blinding possibility: you, too, could have an idea worth spreading. You, too, could be special.

TED defined the poverty of the blinded intellectual spirit of an era, a profoundly millennial idea: that we are each of us main characters and have an individual calling and a mission to “change the world” in some vaguely indefinable generally pointless way. And while the reality fell well short of the rhetoric, the animating spirit was strong and likely sincere for most people.

The priests of the #deathcult pushed #TED as class war, it was not a youthful indiscretion of a generation—a rite of passage on the road to hard-earned intellectual growth. Rather, it was a smoke and mirror mess pushed by a “progressive” #fahernistas class. In the post TED world we are back to where we were 20 years ago, the messy reality of class war, unfriendly and unwelcoming.

#MillennialZeitgeist #IdeasWorthSpreading #TEDTalks #Dotcons #Intellectualpoverty #liberal #mainstreaming

PS. it’s interesting to remember that #TED tried to be #openweb native at the start, they only turned to #dotcons when that path was abandoned by our #fashionistas and lead to the mess we are in today, what a mess.

Capitalism is the logic of the #dotcons

Let’s look at capitalism through the lens of #dotcons (a term that plays on “dot-coms” with a critical twist).

Commercialization of the Internet: Capitalism drives the commercialization of the #openweb and internet, where profit motives override basic humanist considerations such as community, autonomy, privacy and basic democratic values. The term “#dotcons” is a critique of how the internet has been taken by commercial interests, turning it into a marketplace to push aside its “native” public good.
Exploitation of people: Capitalist digital platforms exploit users’ data and metadata and attention for profit. Companies like Facebook, Google, and Amazon collect vast amounts of personal data to sell targeted advertising and shape public behaver.
Monopolization and Centralization: Capitalism tends to create monopolies or oligopolies, as the most evil companies buy out competitors and dominate markets. Today, a few large companies control significant portions of the market, stifling competition and ending innovation.
Surveillance Capitalism: The #fahernistas term Surveillance Capitalism coined by Shoshana Zuboff describes an economic system centred around the commodification of personal data to use to manipulate behaviour and generate profits, reinforcing capitalist dynamics.
Erasing the Public: Capitalist logic erodes the public sphere by pushing profitable content over informative or educational material. Algorithms designed to maximize engagement promote sensationalist and emotionally charged content, contributing to misinformation and polarization. This diminishing of the commons is a detrimental path of capitalism on digital discourse.
Short-termism and Innovation Stagnation: In pursuit of immediate profits, capitalist enterprises prioritize short-term gains over humanistic paths, long-term innovation and ecological sustainability. A focus on quick, lucrative projects rather than any groundbreaking or socially beneficial innovations.
Digital Divide: Capitalism exacerbate inequalities, including the digital divide. Access to technology and the internet is dictated by market forces, leaving disadvantaged communities behind.

In summary, “capitalism is the logic of the #dotcons” shows how capitalist paths have shaped the #openweb into a landscape to prioritize profit over public good, leading to the current mess of exploitation, centralization, surveillance, and inequality.

We have made a mess of the #openweb, we can’t keep being “prats about this” please, let’s try something different #OMN

Why We Can’t Enjoy life

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

Rage Against the System

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

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

The Curse of Awareness

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

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

The Price of Seeing Clearly

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

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

Activist History: A Balanced Approach

Activist history is often marred in sectarianism. This fragmentation means that often the most contentious and least effective voices dominate the narrative, overshadowing the efforts of those who were diligently work on the ground.

Addressing the Challenges

To tell the story of activist history accurately and fairly, we need to work to overcome the following challenges:

Sectarianism and Ideological Divisions: Recognize and address the ideological differences that have historically divided movements. While acknowledging these differences, it is important to focus on the common goals and achievements of all the activists.
Visibility of Voices: Ensure that the voices of those who are/were actively engaged in the work are heard. Often, these individuals are too busy with their activism to document their contributions, resulting in a skewed historical record contributed by the academics and #fahernistas who do have the time.
Comprehensive Documentation: Create a balanced and inclusive archive that captures the diversity of experiences and contributions within the movement. This includes documenting the perspectives of those who were on the frontlines, as well as those who played supporting roles.

Strategies for a Balanced Historical Record

Inclusive Archiving: Encourage all activists, regardless of their role or prominence, to contribute to the archive. This can be facilitated through workshops and training sessions on how to document and share their experiences.
Oral Histories and Podcasts: Record oral histories and podcasts with activists who may not have had the time or resources to document their contributions. These recordings can provide valuable first-hand accounts and insights into the movement.
Decentralized Storytelling: Allow multiple narratives to coexist within the archive. By decentralizing the storytelling process, we can ensure that no single faction or ideology dominates the historical record.
Focus on Issues: Highlight the issues and achievements rather than the personalities within the movement. This helps to shift the focus from individual egos to the collective goals and successes of the movement.
Community Involvement: Involve the community in the archiving process. By engaging a diverse group of people in the documentation effort, we can capture a more holistic and representative history.

By addressing the challenges of sectarianism and ensuring the inclusion of diverse voices, #MakingHistory can create a rich and balanced archive that accurately reflects the efforts and achievements of past and present activists.

We have a #OMN tech project for this https://opencollective.com/open-media-network/projects/makinghistory

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.

Building trust in the #openweb

The #openweb is a framework for human-centric, decentralized technologies built on transparency and collaboration. Its success hinges on trust, and as a slogan suggests, “Technology’s job is to hold the trust in place.” This concept is woven into the #OMN and #OGB initiatives, which emphasize community-driven decision-making and adherence to the #4opens principles.

#OGB and consensus, decisions are valid when a wide group of engaged participants achieves consensus. This safeguards against the normal invisible authoritarian control, single individual find it hard to dominate because the collective create and validate the decisions. Trust groups, not individuals, are the seat of power, ensuring better decision-making and accountability.

The role of #4opens, open process, open data, open licences, and open standards—acts as “gatekeepers” for technological decisions. #Openprocess ensures inclusivity and transparency, blocking decisions that don’t involve public participation. #Opendata guarantees that shared information is accessible, reducing the potential for siloed control. #Openlicenses prevent restrictive ownership that could undermine collaboration. #Openstandards resist fragmentation and force adherence to balance collaborative practices and individual paths. This “soft, swishy” approach avoids rigid authoritarian structures while maintaining #KISS robust, “enforceable” values.

let’s look at challenges and strategies for #OMN combatting #mainstreaming “common sense” practices that erode grassroots values. By build strong defaults into projects and hardcode the #4opens principles to keep them central. To make this happen, let’s try and stay polite and inclusive during outreach, avoiding burnout and adding mess through conflict.

Dealing with #fahernistas and trust issues, a significant challenge arises from people and groups who appear trustworthy due to their #mainstreaming tactics but ultimately undermine the values of the #openweb. Coders and contributors need to align with #KISS social change goals, ensuring a grassroots and horizontal approach to development, this is basic.

To do this, we need to work on sustainability efforts by avoid overloading projects with unnecessary features, “How does this fit into the #4opens?”. One path is to balance “friction” as a positive filter for misguided additions, while maintaining a welcoming environment for constructive collaboration.

Building a future beyond the #geekproblem, the “problem” originates from early open-source projects that #block the social dimensions of their technologies. By integrating the #4opens and prioritizing trust networks, the #openweb can (re)evolve into a human value network rather than a technological dead-end.

The #deathcult feeding off the decay of the #openweb perpetuates centralized and exploitative systems. All our activism is about, focusing on planting seeds for a grassroots rebirth, #nothingnew is a starting point, returning focus on modernist principles—clear goals, collective action, and systemic solutions—provides a foundation to grow #somethingnew.

The #openweb vs. #closedweb debate is not new, but it remains a critical narrative. By holding technology accountable to trust and community values, we create tools that empower rather than exploit. The #OMN and #OGB projects embody this path.

For those interested in coding for change, visit the OMN wiki and join the effort to make this vision a reality, please. Or you can donate some funding here if you don’t feel confident with tech path.

The problem of fashionistas in activism

#fashionistas” typically describes individuals or groups who adopt trends or ideologies in activism, for the sake of appearance or to align themselves with what is currently popular or socially acceptable. In the realm of activism, this phenomenon often manifests in the behaviour of NGOs and advocacy organizations who prioritize “chasing the buzzword” over meaningful action.

The problem with “fashionistas” in activism, particularly among NGOs, is multifaceted:

* Superficial Engagement: NGOs adopt trendy causes or issues without any understanding or committing to them. This results in superficial engagement with complex social problems, leading to tokenistic gestures rather than substantive change.

* Lack of Authenticity: When prioritize appearing progressive or aligned with popular movements without commitment to the cause, it undermines trust and authenticity within the community.

* Mainstreaming: prioritize activism that is palatable to #mainstreaming audiences and funders, sacrificing radical or grassroots voices in the process. This mainstreaming tendency dilutes the effectiveness of activism and reinforces existing power structures.

* Misaligned Priorities: By chasing buzzwords or trends #fahernistas divert resources and attention away from pressing issues that are less visible or popular but more important. This can perpetuate injustice and inequality in actavist communities.

* Reactive Rather Than Proactive: #Fashionista activism is reactive, responding to the latest trend or crisis rather than addressing systemic issues in a sustained and strategic manner. This approach leads to short-term gains but fails to create lasting change.

* Rectonery: Adopting trends without a commitment to the underlying values or principles leads to performative activism or “rectonery” – actions that serve to maintain the status quo rather than challenging oppressive systems.

To address the problems associated with fashionista activism, it’s essential for NGOs and advocacy organizations to prioritize authenticity, long-term commitment, and meaningful engagement with the communities they are a part of. This involves centering the voices of active grassroots groups, challenging #mainstreaming narratives, and pursuing strategies that address root causes rather than superficial symptoms. By doing so, activists can work towards creating genuine, transformative change and challenge rather than simply following the latest trend.

Talking about #hashtags

We need to think of a serendipity view of how #hashtags work and how our coder kings implement them (#feudalism). Not saying this is a good aproch… i don’t know… but spelling hashtags “wrong” makes their use in categorization and sorting work differently. Might be worth thinking if this could add value or is purely negative? This depends on different views on federation and ideas of a universal truth or messy “truths”. Composting thought on this.

In the #OMN coding project, currently offline (unite.openworlds.info) we add word grouping flows, so you can say one hashtag is the same as another, ie. you can group different “meanings” to build category flows. This makes misspelled hashtags functional, and our current coding broken from the #OMN point of view.

It’s not implemented, is a speck projects so can’t test this. Over the last year I have put 5 #FOSS funding applications in to try and get this built, 3 turned down so far 2 more to be turned down (cross fingers and toes not) soon. Our #AP #openweb reboot is being destroyed by our #fahernistas and #geekproblem nothing new here, but we do need to do better.

That’s what we set out to fix 20 years ago, with the #OMN still digging, but my shovel has no handeal nor a head… says the man on his knees hands covered in shit… composting worthwhile however you do it, I could not make this shit up… but we keep making more #techshit