Who’s responsible #Climatechaos?

The CEO of a large oil company made a statement about climate change, suggesting that consumers are to blame for the slow progress in addressing the issue. According to him, the companies have the technology to produce lower-carbon fuels, but consumers are unwilling to pay the premium for these greener alternatives. He argued that consumer choices, driven by price sensitivity, are hindering the adoption of cleaner energy solutions. Criticizing activists and society at large, claiming that their exclusion of the fossil fuel industry from the climate change dialogue is counterproductive. He believes that the industry has the potential to contribute significantly to climate solutions, but is being sidelined by activist-driven narratives.

In this market logic perspective, in the principles of the free market, corporations innovate and consumers drive demand, it’s up to consumers to “vote with their dollars” and choose sustainable products, thereby incentivizing companies to invest in and produce greener options.

However, this viewpoint has sparked a backlash and if you think about it as the problem of our current “common sense”, it is useful to look at this logic as akin to a drug lord blaming society for drug problems, highlighting the evil in the shifting responsibility from producers to consumers. The argument assumes that consumer choices alone is the driving force for systemic change, ignoring the influence and responsibility of corporations (capitalism) in driving fossil fuel dependency. Remember that a significant portion of global greenhouse gas emissions can be traced to a handful of companies. A 2017 study revealed that just 100 companies are responsible for 71% of global emissions since 1988. This highlights the disproportionate impact that corporations have on the environment, underscoring the need for systemic change rather than the #fashernista pushed ideas of individual consumer “choice”.

Shifting the blame onto consumers, is diverting responsibility for climate change and the disasterus role that fossil fuel companies play in this mess. This #mainstreaming narrative misleads by pushing that meaningful climate action is unattainable without consumer-driven solutions, a dangerous assertion in the social and environmental mess we face.

The #traditionalmedia portrays oil companies as rational actors operating within the bounds of market logic, while the activists are depicted as radical outliers. This agenda reinforces the status quo and diminishes the urgency of the need for change and challenge. In the political arena, climate change takes a backseat to concerns like the economy and healthcare. Even as climate awareness grows, it remains challenging to prioritize it in main streaming political discourse and policymaking.

This on the surface is simply “common sense” but lifting the lid, and you find a darker and conspiratorial story about the ascent of #neoliberalism and its pervasive influence. Neoliberalism, that this #CEO is speaking, is about advocating for the primacy of free markets, deregulation, and globalization, is deeply ingrained in modern political and economic thought. Originating from the ideas of thinkers such as Friedrich Hayek, this neoliberalism path has undergone a transformation and expansion, and now profoundly shaping policies and ideologies across the globe.

The term “neoliberal” was coined in 1938 and gained prominence with the publication of Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom in 1944. Hayek’s argument that individual self-interest is the only safeguard against tyranny found a receptive audience among the ultra-rich, who were portrayed as heroic figures resisting governmental overreach. The Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) influence extended to the US, where he established the Atlas Network, an umbrella organization that encompasses over 450 think tanks, including groups like the Cato Institute and the Heritage Foundation. These organizations, many of which operate as charities, do not disclose their donors, allowing them to exert opaque influence on shaping policy and public opinion.

Over the next three decades, a network of academics, journalists, and business people emerged, refining and promoting the ideology. Wealthy individuals and corporations funded lobby groups that presented themselves as impartial research institutes, further embedding neoliberal principles into the political mainstream. While initially having little impact on the social democratic postwar consensus, these ideas later inspired conservative political leaders like Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, who lead, neoliberalism’s major breakthrough in the 1970s, during the economic turmoil caused by the oil crisis and the decline of Keynesianism. Governments, seeking new economic models, turned to neoliberal solutions. As Milton Friedman, a prominent neoliberal economist, noted, “when the time came, we were ready … and we could step right in.” The resulting policies of tax cuts, weakening of trade unions, privatization and outsourcing of public services, and widespread market deregulation lead directly to the mess we are in today.

We are feeling the consequences of 40 years of the neoliberal era in the growing extreme economic disparities. In the United States, the wealthiest 1% own a third of the nation’s wealth. This shift to neoliberalism failed to deliver on its promise of robust economic growth, over the past 40 years, global growth has been slower compared to the postwar period. Instead, we have seen the rise of oligarchs who have reshaped capitalism to serve their interests, through mechanisms like offshore tax havens and political influence. Despite failure, the ideology remains a dominant force in shaping contemporary political and economic paths.

Over the next 20 years, the oil and gas push the impact of #climatechaos that will kill millions of people and displace billions. The rise of this #deathcult illustrates the profound impact that a coordinated network of ideologically driven institutions and individuals can have on global policy and economic systems. We should learn from this, activists and grassroots movements are needed to push for more aggressive climate action, aspesherly when their efforts are met with resistance and dismissal. This resistance balances the fossil fuel industry’s substantial influence on politics and media. Fossil fuel, alongside most major corporations, spend millions on lobbying and advertising to protect their interests. The climate crisis demands urgent and radical action, to balance this pushing of mess, while individual choices play a small role, placing the burden solely on this as the oil CEO does is adding to the mess and a distraction from the path we need to take.

This post was inspired by the reviews of George Monbiot new book https://www.monbiot.com

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 #4opens 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

The mess we have made #mainstreaming postmodernism

A complex philosophical and cultural movement of the mid to late 20th century. At its core is a rejection of objective values and beliefs, scepticism towards the idea of absolute truth, and a distrust of grand narratives. Let’s have a brief look at this and Noam Chomsky view of why this movement is still pushing the intellectual and societal “mess” we try to live in.

Rejection of Absolute Truth: #Postmodernism challenges the idea that there is a simple truth. Instead, it posits that truths are only, subjective, and socially constructed.

Rejection of Grand Narratives: Postmodernists are critical of overarching narratives or ideologies that help to explain large-scale historical, social, and cultural phenomena. Arguing, these narratives suppress alternative perspectives and reinforce power structures.

Critique of Power Relations: Central to postmodernism is the analysis of how power operates within society. Postmodernists highlight how power is unevenly distributed and shapes people’s identities, experiences, and world-views.

Deconstruction: This involves taking apart and examining all the underlying assumptions, ideas, and frameworks that constitute texts, ideas, and social practices. To push the inherent contradictions and power dynamics within them into view.

Chomsky’s Critique of Postmodernism:

Obscurantism and Inaccessibility: Chomsky argues that postmodernist writing is overly complex and obscure, making it inaccessible to the public and academics. That this complexity serves to alienate and insulate postmodernist thinkers from actual activism and practical engagement.

Lack of Concrete Action: Postmodernism allows people to adopt a radical stance without engaging in meaningful action. That the focus on abstract theorizing detracts from any real-world activism and change to challenge the #mainstreaming mess.

Creation of an Academic Power Structure: Chomsky asserts that postmodernism created its own academic power structure, where material rewards, prestigious positions and conference opportunities are given to those who adhere to its complex and impenetrable discourse. Thus diffusing real voices of change and challenge.

Contradictory and Trivial Claims: Chomsky criticizes postmodernists for making contradictory statements dressed in complex language to appear profound. That many postmodern claims mix trivial truths with outright absurdities, diluting knowledge and understanding.

Detrimental Impact on Third World Countries: We need to highlight the negative impact of postmodernism in developing countries, where intellectuals who could have contributed to meaningful social and political change are instead drawn into the abstract and irrelevant debates inside the postmodernism mess.

A #fashernista look at this mess, do you think it’s helpful spreading this #dotcons fodder?

Postmodernism’s rejection of universal truths and grand narratives leads to intellectual fragmentation. Without a common framework, discourse become fragmented, making it difficult to build consensus or coherent strategies for social change. The complexity and elitism of postmodernist thought erode public trust in intellectuals and academics. When scholars are disconnected from everyday concerns, their influence and credibility diminish. Postmodernism’s emphasis on the subjective nature of truth leads to cultural relativism, where all viewpoints are seen as equally valid. This undermines efforts to address injustices and challenge harmful practices. The focus on deconstruction and critique leads to a paralysis of action. If all truths and structures are seen as flawed, it becomes impossible to mobilize collective action or propose constructive solutions.

Conclusion: Postmodernism has dug itself deep into contemporary thought, people don’t see any more the creating of its own establishment norms and power structures, but it’s still there pushing much of the current mess. This has pushed intellectual insularity, a lack of practical engagement, and a strong tendency to obscurantism, building, the current “messy” blocking of meaningful activism and clear discourse.

Serendipity and #Hashtags

Hashtags are ubiquitous online, at best they categorize content to find and join conversations on topics. The problem with current hashtag usage is they reinforce individualism over collective action. This is an issue of neoliberal “common sense” and the domination of #dotcons, prioritizing profit rather than change and challenge.

Serendipity, the occurrence of events by chance, beneficially offer a fresh perspective on hashtag usage. Implementing hashtags in a way that fosters unexpected connections and discoveries transforms how they function as social tools. Misspelled hashtags result in fragmented conversations, making it difficult for people to engage in coherent discussions. However, embracing these variations also leads to a more inclusive and dynamic categorization system. By allowing for misspelled hashtags to be recognized and grouped with their counterparts, we create a more robust and forgiving serendipity system.

In a federated system like the #Fediverse, and what is envisioned for the Open Media Network (#OMN), there is a tension between universal truths and messy, subjective truths. A federated system values diversity and decentralization, allowing for meany perspectives to coexist. This approach aligns with the concept of serendipity, where the focus is on connections and discoveries rather than rigid categorization. The OMN address these issues by implementing word grouping flows, where different spellings or variations of hashtags can be grouped together to build cohesive category flows. This approach makes misspelled hashtags functional, thus addressing some of the fragmentation caused by individualistic usage.

The OMN project faces significant challenges in securing funding and overcoming internal and external obstacles. The difficulty in obtaining #FOSS funding highlights the broader issue of support for projects that prioritize open, decentralized, and community-focused approaches.

The use of hashtags is a progressive and critical perspective on technology and society. Think about neoliberalism (#deathcult) and consumer capitalism (#fashernista), promoting the ideals of the open web (#openweb) against the for-profit internet (#closedweb #dotcons). The interlocking hashtags tells a story that advocates, transparency, collaboration, and sharing in open-source development (#4opens).

Example Meanings:

#deathcult: Neoliberalism and its detrimental social and ecological impacts.
#fashernista: The trivialization of serious issues through consumerism and fashion.
#openweb: The original ideals of the World Wide Web.
#closedweb: The pre- and post-open web internet dominated by for-profit motives.
#4opens: Principles of transparency, collaboration, and sharing in open-source development.
#geekproblem: The cultural issues within the tech community, a strong tendency towards control and determinism.
#techshit and #techchurn: The negative consequences of constant new technological projects that fail to address any social issues.
#nothingnew: The question of whether new projects are needed or if existing ones should be improved.
#OMN and #indymediaback: Rebooting the altmedia projects on the open web.
#OGB: Open governance and the power of community decision-making.

For hashtags to be effective tools for social change, we need to shift from individualistic to collectivist. This requires systems that accommodate human error and diversity of expression, while maintaining coherence and building community. The #OMN project is a promising approach by grouping variations of hashtags, but it faces significant challenges in implementation and support.

Let’s embrace a serendipitous view of hashtag to enrich conversations in the era of the #deathcult.

A tech story

In the #openweb of digital innovation, there is a culture revered for its ingenuity and technical prowess – the hackers of old. Yet, beneath the surface of their achievements lays a problem, one that has led to the downfall of many endeavours: the #geekproblem.

In the early days, hackers were pioneers, pushing the boundaries of what was possible, though as their influence grew, so too did the imbalance within their communities. The projects that thrived, that embodied the principles of openness and collaboration (#4opens), were not only the work of these geeks, but wider diverse affinity groups where social leadership was core.

The projects that flourished had strong social guidance, with the geeks playing one part in the larger diversity. A healthy dynamic, with different perspectives and different skills, complemented each other to further common social goals.

However, over time tragedy grew when the geeks seized control of the foundations and the #fashernistas, with their penchant for superficial trends, hijacked the facade. With the geeks at the helm and the fashernistas dictating the direction, the once vibrant projects slowly over time withered and died.

The demise of the #openweb was not a sudden event, this slow and steady decline was orchestrated by those who valued personal agendas and status over collective progress. The geeks, blinded by their technical prowess, failed to recognize the importance of social partnerships, while the fashernistas, eager to climb the ladder of #mainstreaming success, sold out the principles they once claimed to champion.

And so, the legacy of the #openweb was tarnished, its promise of democratized access and decentralized trust, betrayed by those who prioritized their own blinded interests over the “native” common good. Yet, amidst this wreckage, a glimmer of hope remains – a reminder that progress lies not in the hands of the few, but in the collective efforts of all who dare to dream of a better world. Let’s try not to make the same mistakes with our #web1.5 reboot in the #Fediverse, please.

———————————————-

To avoid repeating this mess we need to mediate the tragic reality that within our #fashernista circles, there exists a pervasive sense of hopelessness, a destructive force that accompanies their every endeavour. Their relentless pursuit of trends and their blind devotion to the #deathcult have left a trail of destruction in their wake.

We need to actually use the #4opens project, as a beacon of hope amidst this chaos, a reminder that there is another way forward. Not doing this is leading us on the path to failure, contributing to the ever-growing piles of #techshit.

There’s much to be learned from this cycle of destruction and renewal. It’s time to embrace the lessons of the past and walk a better path, one guided not by the whims of #fashionistas or the allure of the #deathcult please.

#4opens

OMN – improving the tech landscape

A “native” path to composting the tech mess lies in understanding and addressing the underlying issues. A breakdown of a social tech path:

Explore Relevant #OMN Hashtags: Look into hashtags like #geekproblem and #fashernista to find discussions and insights that address the problems you’re facing. These hashtags can provide valuable perspectives and solutions if you use them based on collective experience.
Investigate OGB: Check out the URL https://hamishcampbell.com/outreaching-the-ogb-what-is-the-project/ with #OGB (Open Governance Body) to access project descriptions and learn about initiatives aimed at addressing the challenges you are encountering. While the coding site may be temporarily down, the project descriptions can still offer valuable insights.
Understand the 4opens: Familiarize yourself with the concept of #4opens, which serves as a framework for addressing many of the issues present in the tech ecosystem. The 4opens provide principles for building more open, transparent, and inclusive digital platforms.

By delving into these #OMN resources and frameworks, you gain a deeper understanding of the issues and discover pathways toward solutions. Collaborating with others who share goals and values amplifies the impact of efforts in improving the tech landscape.

And please “don’t be a prat” thanks.

Reminder about the hashtag family

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

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

And on the positive side:

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

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

#KISS

Should we ban TikTok

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

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

Some considerations:

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

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

We need to move past these illogical gatekeepers.

Algorithms of War: The Use of AI in Armed Conflict

Joel H. Rosenthal (Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs), Janina Dill (University of Oxford), Professor Ciaran Martin (Blavatnik School of Government, Oxford), Tom Simpson (Blavatnik School of Government), Brianna Rosen (Blavatnik School of Government, University of Oxford)

Algorithms of war

Arriving early, the panel and audience are ugly broken people, priests and worshippers of the #deathcult

Near the start the young and energetic start to flood in, eager and chatty yet to be broken by service of the dark side of #mainstreaming

The ritual of making killing “humane” and “responsible”, ticking the boxes on this new use of technology in war, repression and death.

Touching on the “privatisation” that this technology pushes to shift traditional military command.

The exeptabl rate of collateral damage 15 to 1 in the case of the IDF Gaza conflict

Introducing human “friction” into the process, the means to the end, is the question. Public confidence and trust is key to this shift, policy is in part about this process.

The establishment policy response to AI in war, this is already live, so these people are catching up. They are at the stage of “definition” in this academic flow.

The issue agen is that none of this technology actually works, we wasted ten years on blockchain and cryptocurrency, this had little value and a lot of harm, we are now going to spend ten years on #AI and yes this will affect society, but is the anything positive in this? Or another wasted ten years of #fashernista thinking, in this case death.

Artificial intelligence (#AI) into warfare raises ethical, practical, and strategic considerations.

Technological Advancements and Warfare: The use of AI in war introduces new algorithms and technologies that potentially reshape military strategies and tactics. AI is used for tasks like autonomous targeting, decision-making, or logistics optimization.

Ethical Concerns: ethical dilemmas associated with AI-driven warfare. Making killing more “humane” and “responsible” through technological advancements, can lead to a perception of sanitizing violence.

Privatization of Military Command: The shift towards AI in warfare leads to a privatization of military functions, as technology companies play a role in developing and implementing AI systems.

Collateral Damage and Public Perception: Collateral damage ratios like 15 to 1 raises questions about the acceptability of casualties in conflicts where AI is employed. Public confidence and trust in AI-driven warfare become critical issues.

Policy and Governance: Establishing policies and regulations around AI in warfare is crucial. Defining the roles of humans in decision-making processes involving AI and ensuring accountability for actions taken by autonomous systems.

Challenges and Risks: The effectiveness of AI technology in warfare draws parallels with previous tech trends like blockchain and cryptocurrency. There’s concern that investing heavily in AI for military purposes will yield little value while causing harm.

Broader Societal Impact: Using AI in warfare will have broader societal implications beyond the battlefield. It will influence public attitudes towards technology, privacy concerns, and the militarization of AI in civilian contexts.

Balance of Innovation and Responsibility: Whether the pursuit of AI in warfare represents progress or merely another trend driven by superficial or misguided thinking #fashernista thinking with potentially dire consequences.

In summary, the integration of AI into warfare demands ethical, legal, and societal implications. The goal should be to leverage technological advancements responsibly, ensuring that human values and principles guide the development and deployment of AI systems in any contexts.

#Oxford

Can This Platform Survive? Governance Challenges

A paper on the Fediverse by Thomas Struett, American University – School of Communication, Aram Sinnreich, American University – School of Communication, Patricia Aufderheide, American University – School of Communication, Rob Gehl, York University.

Interesting #mainstreaming look, that bypasses the grassroots it’s actually talking about, this is a common issue with academic writing, am at Oxford this winter so have everyday “organic” expirence of this.

For governance, we have a widely discussed project on this forum that is “native” to address all the issues outline in the article 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 4

Then for fighting the capture we have an “organic” path the #4opens if used is a strong defence Home – 4opens – Open Media Network

So to sum up, what we need is for “us” the collective to get up from our knees and become the change we would like to see. This is actually not a hard thing to do “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed, citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.”

Let’s look at this PDF:

This thread and our failing in general in “governance” is to do with the fluffy and spiky debate, or much more obviously the failing of this debate to actually be held in place.

“Potential benefits of the fediverse are at risk of being subverted, either by commercial
competitors or through structural dysfunction.”

Dealing with both commercial and structural dysfunction here.

Commercial – funding has shifted from distributed to centralized over the last few years, this is driving core dysfunctions – interesting and useful subject to discus.

Structural – we have not moved anywhere towards “native” governance approaches, this is building crises Legitimacy (political) – Wikipedia

“hold promise as human-scale, democratically-run platforms for civil discourse within and between these groups of users.”

We aspire to this, but with no democracy in any formal or informal sense. And secondly we lack “groups of users” as the coding being copies of #dotcons are strongly “individualized” which pushed our #mainstreaming “common sense” over this openweb “native” space.

“challenges inherent to distributed governance, commercial platform capture, inclusive
access, moderation at scale, reputational assaults by commercial competitors, and the tacitly
neoliberal techno-Romanticism familiar from previous digital innovations. ”

The is a long working (activist) history of mediating these problems that we are ignoring here. A first step to addressing this is the fluffy spiky debate being held in place #KISS

“Developers, entrepreneurs, institutions, and users of these technologies
must also work collectively and proactively to help the fediverse avoid these historical threats
and maximize its civic potential.”

This is the bit we need to talk more about, as it’s key to not fucking up agen.

“However, the fediverse is more than a technical system; it is also a political structure (Mansoux
& Roscam Abbing, 2020). ”

On this currently, we are seeing Legitimacy (political) – Wikipedia failing.

“the structure of platform governance and moderation is both reflective of and integral to the
functioning of democratic processes in digital networks, and much of the proverbial “devil in the
details” comes down to arcane and obscure questions about transparency, control, and
information flow at any given chokepoint or sociotechnical layer.”

This is why link to the #4opens, and it’s use to judge if a project or group are “native” or not – to make transparent in groups and most impotently OUT-GROUPS. A technical/social membrane, as this quote say “devil in the details”

“1. Distributed governance failures
Previous decentralized social platforms have sometimes failed to deliver on their civic potential
because of challenges emerging from the governance process: the norms, institutions, and
technologies that determine who gets to say what to whom, under which circumstances,”

This is the subject of responses to this thried, illustrating the issues, so think of it as the spiky in the fluffy spiky debate. Notice, we are currently failing to hold this debate in place.

“it introduces other risks that must be addressed and mitigated, including new threats such as accountability and liability crises, forking… Corporate actors may also exploit these challenges, by posing themselves as solutions to distributed governance frictions (Marshall, 2006).”

This is likely in part one of the underling issues we are not talking about here.

“Examples of distributed platforms falling prey to these governance challenges in the past are
legion”

We have much to learn and address on this, I talk about this a lot as it’s a key subject we need to move away from “common sense” approaches. Yes this is seen as spiky, but it’s needed, let’s hold this debate open please.

“Not all platform governance is alike. Though corporate platforms emulate traditional media
structures by centralizing power (Napoli & Caplan, 2017), the fediverse has a more distributed
governance structure. This decentralization is not just an aspect of the underlying software but also a core tenet of the governance philosophy of the fediverse itself.”

This is a subject I talk about a lot and have been working on for the last few years with the ogb as a “native” approache. In general, these “native” approaches are still being #blocked by #mainstreaming “common sense” approaches. This needs to change if the openweb reboot is not to wither and die.

“Benjamin Mako Hill (2018) describes this corporate capture of OSS projects as “strategic closedness.””

This is in easy view with a lot of our tech and fashionable crew pushing #closedweb ideas as “common sense” verse “native” openweb approaches. This is a problem with no obverse solutions, the #4opens project is one way to mediate this insolvable/unspoken issue that is everywhere in our dev crew.

“2. Commercial capture
Another challenge that has undermined the health and strength of previous decentralized or
open platforms is commercial capture. Proprietary, value-added features that enhance the user
experience are used to bring more users onto the platform, ”

We currently have few tools to push this back, our strongest tool is likely our “culture” but this itself is fractured, full of infighting and unspoken. Speaking this out load while creating tension is likely nessersery for any good outcome. Hiding from this is #fail

“This means that only a continuing commitment to interoperability by developers, and not merely the existence of an open technological standard, can ensure an open ecosystem within the fediverse.”

It’s social/political NOT a technical problem, so our current fixation on ONLY tech and avoidance of the social/political is a easy to see and act on #fail

“Eternal September is not that new users simply need to be taught the social norms of the space they are joining, but that norms policing is a form of gatekeeping that can exclude new and more diverse users from joining.”

This is both true and a #fashernista problem, we need a better path, this should be easy, it’s not.

“it is important to critique calls for technological approaches to user-friendliness, which are often couched in rhetoric of democratization of technology, while simultaneously undermining decentralized
power relations… making the platform easier to join and use,
while also limiting users’ agency to make choices about the underlying infrastructure that will
best foster their communities”

We are going to see this from every side for and agenst, we need a balances’ path through this mess, we are not currently talking about this path, we need to.

“the fediverse currently relies on the goodwill of countless volunteer moderators and self-funded instances, this goodwill can’t last indefinitely, and a workable approach to funding and compensation has yet to emerge.”

This one is a can of worms, the current “best” solution is to keep instances small and voluntary run, our ongoing disagreements on this path is likely to continue to do damage… one path out of this is legitimate “governance”.

“The reputational anti-halo is already cropping up in discourse about the fediverse and Mastodon, which have been tainted by their uses among the “alt-right” (Makuch, 2019) and for child abuse (Thiel & DiResta, 2023).”

This comes down to voice and power, as “libertarian cats” we have little of either… it’s a bad path to stay on, what path would be better and more “native” is a good question to talk about.

“techno-Romanticism works to obscure the labor, networks, and institutions that are key to supporting technological development while elevating the simplistic view of the great men of history… the fediverse is particularly vulnerable to techno-Romanticism”

This is an endemic issue, and most people are chasing the tech equivalent of the American dream that they will become the top dev… this is not a native approach to the openweb, but it’s currently a dominating view. This is mess making.

“Technical language and the assumption of baseline technical expertise may also present unintended obstacles to adoption. Conversely, the fediverse also faces the threat that the rhetoric of “user friendliness” will justify the curtailing of user agency, or re-centralization of the network… messy, and continuous practice of maintaining a healthy and inclusive space for civic discourse…

Techno-Romantism’s utopian discourse poses a threat to the fediverse because it distracts from the importance of social action in the development of technology… discussion about how to
identify them and limit their impact, is a critical step toward reaching those civic and
technosocial goals together.”

In conclusion, the roadmap for the fediverse’s future must transcend the confines of technicality and delve deep into the socio-political fabric. Holding the fluffy-spiky debate firm, nurturing ‘native’ approaches, mitigating commercial capture, addressing governance challenges, and fostering a culture of inclusivity and sustainability—these constitute the keystones for nurturing the true potential of the fediverse.

Best to start from #KISS the left is based on trust and open culture.

Best to start from #KISS the left is based on trust and open culture. Moving away from this the left has destroyed itself over the last 40 years.

* The #fashernista embracing of postmodernism
* The soft left embrace of the “common sense” of neoliberalism

Combined, these have undermined the foundations the left is built on. This leaves people helpless to compost the current mess, as our shovel for piling the #mainstreaming have no head, nor a handle.

Of course, the is also an older horizontal and vertical split that divided the left in the 20^th centenary. This is not the subject at hand, we need to compost the current mess before we can look at this older mess.

Projects that need to work to help #reboot the #openweb

The #OGB is important to develop better ways of having “trust” based conversations and “trust” based “governance” in the #openweb. It is built on years of on-the-ground organizing and emphasizes the need for voluntary cooperation and collaboration. The project recognizes the problems in alternative tech, starting with the #4opens to remove complexity to building governance structures that are native to the #fediverse. The #OGB address the limitations of #mainstreaming approaches.

The #OMN (Open Media Network), is a decentralized network of media sites that share content and promote independent media. It aims to provide an alternative to mainstream media by creating a network of interconnected sites that prioritize openness, collaboration, and decentralization.

The #OMN project emphasizes the importance of grassroots community-driven media, where people and groups can create and share their own content. It seeks to challenge the dominance of #mainstreaming media and promote a more equitable and just society.

The project has been running for over ten years and operates with an #openprocess. Users can become mods after being involved for a certain period of time. The modding process is based on a clear project statement and encourages a respectful and inclusive community.

The #OMN project is closely related to the #visionontv project, which is a grassroots media project that creates and distributes independent video content. The two projects share similar values and goals in promoting alternative media and challenging mainstream narratives.

The #indymediaback project is a reboot of the original #Indymedia project, which was a decentralized, grassroots media network that emerged in the late 1990s and early 2000s. The project aims to learn from the mistakes and challenges faced by the original Indymedia, particularly the split between the #fashernitas and #geekproblem factions.

The focus of the #indymediaback reboot is to return to the path of the #fashernista, which emphasizes open media and decentralized structures, rather than control and centralization. The project aims to build an open media network (#OMN) that promotes direct democracy, open publishing, and anti-authoritarianism.

The reboot also acknowledges the risk of another split within the community, particularly if some members push for a control/encryptionist path. The challenge is to find a way to navigate this without succumbing to tribalism and power politics.

The #indymediaback project recognizes the importance of hashtags and semantic web technologies, which were not core to the original Indymedia project. Tags and metadata are being used to help organize and categorize content.

Overall, the #indymediaback project aims to revive the spirit of open media and grassroots activism, while learning from past mistakes and embracing new technologies and approaches.