Indymedia based on the #OMN framework?

Understanding the need for rebooting #Indymedia. The #Indymedia network, once a vibrant platform for decentralized grassroots media, succumbed to internal and external tensions. Before rebooting, we should look at the factors that contributed to its decline so we can take a working path to a successful revival that avoids past pitfalls.

Reasons for the decline of #Indymedia and progressive altmedia in general: Internal Conflicts: Tribalism and Power Politics: Internal strife and power struggles fractured the unity of the network. Diverse Views on Direction: Differing opinions on the project’s goals and methods led to fragmentation. External Pressures: Political and Legal Challenges: Government surveillance and legal actions against activists and platforms. Technological Changes: Rapid evolution in technology and social media outpaced the network’s adaptability. Sustainability is a challenge to maintaining operational and financial sustainability.
Centralization vs. Decentralization, this tensions was damaging between maintaining decentralized structures and the need for some level of organizational coherence.

The #IndymediaBack project to revitalize the #Indymedia network, focusing on the principles that initially made it a powerful force in grassroots media: trust based publishing, doocemocracy, and anti-authoritarianism. By learning from past mistakes and leveraging modern technologies, the project recreates resilient and effective media platforms.

The Role of #OMN (Open Media Network) Framework: The #OMN is central to the reboot strategy, it emphasizes openness, collaboration, and decentralization, ensuring that the revived network adheres to its foundational principles while addressing previous shortcomings.

Objectives of the Reboot, Re-establish Open Publishing: Reinforce the commitment to grassroots publishing where anyone can contribute, ensuring diverse voices are heard. Strengthen Decentralized Structures: Focus on decentralized organization to prevent power concentration and promote local autonomy. Implement Modern Standards: Integrate modern technological standards like #activertypub to enhance functionality and user experience. Avoid Past Mistakes: Actively work to prevent tribalism and power politics through clear governance structures and messy consensus decision-making. Promoting sustainability by develop sustainable models for financial and operational support to ensure long-term viability.

Strategies for rebooting #Indymedia. Adopt #NothingNew Policy: Stick to the original workflows and processes while updating them to meet modern standards, maintaining the core ethos of the original project. Build Affinity Groups: Form working groups to tackle specific issues and develop consensus on the path forward. Emphasize #4Opens: Adhere to the principles of open source, open data, open standards, and open processes to ensure transparency and inclusivity.

Expected Outcomes, resilient and Inclusive Network: A decentralized, open platform that is resilient to internal and external pressures. Diverse and Vibrant Media Content: A rich tapestry of media content reflecting a wide range of perspectives and voices. Sustainable Operations: A model that supports ongoing financial and operational sustainability. Community-Driven Governance: A network governed by messy consensus, ensuring that it remains true to its grassroots origins.

In conclusion, #Indymediaback using the #OMN framework is a strategic move to revive a vital platform for grassroots media. By understanding the reasons for past failures and leveraging modern technologies and methodologies, the #IndymediaBack project builds a sustainable, decentralized, #FOSS and inclusive media network. This reboot is not only about restoring what was lost, but about building a resilient network that can adapt to future challenges while staying true to its founding principles.

Bad conversations in #FOSS and tech

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

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

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

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

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

Crisis of Governance in FOSS: Medieval Politics and Neoliberal Failures

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

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

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

Neoliberal Individualism and Its Failures

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

The #techshit and #geekproblem

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

Moving Towards Modern Governance

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

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

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

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

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

Grassroots in Tech Communities: Challenges and Paths

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

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

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

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

Some projects that are designed to mediate these issues

The Open-Media-Network (#OMN) and its associated projects, such as the Open Web Governance Body (#OGB) and the #4opens framework, represent grassroots efforts to address these challenges. These initiatives aim to create a more democratic and inclusive “trust” based internet by emphasizing transparency, open governance, and community-driven development.

Open Web Governance Body (#OGB): Project focuses on creating governance structures for horizontal projects using simple online tools. By promoting open and inclusive governance, the OGB mitigates the issues caused by #mainstreaming and ensure that grassroots voices are heard and valued.
The #4opens Framework: Advocates for open data, open source, open standards, and open processes. By adhering to these principles, grassroots movements can create robust defences against co-optation and maintain their autonomy and integrity.

What can you do to help:

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

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

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

Understanding Anarchism

As I said before, anarchism is the most “native” philosophy for the #openweb, a #FOSS network free from hierarchical structures and state authority, based on self-management, voluntary cooperation, and mutual aid. With this in mind, let’s look at what anarchist think:

Clement Duval “Anarchy is the negation of all authority” anarchism’s core principle of rejecting all forms of imposed authority, advocating for self-governance.

Kevin Carson: “The outcome of this vote will, at best, slow down the rate at which the American government gravitates towards plutocracy, police statism and global corporate Empire.” The inefficacy of electoral politics in curbing the drift towards oligarchy and authoritarianism, underlining the need for systemic change.

Ravachol “Anarchy is the obliteration of property.” the critique of private property as a source of inequality and exploitation.

Marius Jacob: “In order to destroy an effect, you must first destroy the cause. If there is theft it is only because there is abundance on one hand and famine on the other; because everything only belongs to some.” that social ills like theft stem from economic inequality and that true justice requires communal ownership and sharing of resources.

Murray Bookchin: “An anarchist society, far from being a remote ideal, has become a precondition for the practice of ecological principles.” that sustainable ecological practices are incompatible with hierarchical and capitalist systems.

Lucy Parsons: “The struggle for liberty is too great and the few steps we have gained have been won at too great a sacrifice, for the great mass of the people of this 20th century to consent to turn over to any political party the management of our social and industrial affairs.” warns against the dangers of political parties co-opting social movements, advocating for direct action and grassroots organizing instead.

Max Stirner: “The Revolution aimed at new arrangements; insurrection leads us no longer to let ourselves be arranged, but to arrange ourselves.” distinguishes between revolution and insurrection, emphasizing self-organization over top-down restructuring.

Voltaire: “It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.” the timeless observation underscores the risks of dissent in an unjust system, the anarchist critique of state repression.

Rudolf Rocker: “Dictatorship, the most extreme form of tyranny, can never lead to social liberation.” that true freedom cannot be achieved through authoritarian means, highlighting the importance of democratic and decentralized approaches.

Camillo Berneri: “Whereas we anarchists desire the extinction of the state through the social revolution and the constitution of an autonomist federal order, the Leninists desire the destruction of the bourgeois state and moreover the conquest of the state by the ‘proletariat.'” contrasts anarchist and Leninist strategies, advocating for a stateless society rather than the mere transfer of state power.

William Godwin: “If there be such a thing as truth, it must infallibly be struck out by the collision of mind with mind.” stresses the importance of free exchange of ideas in discovering truth, reflecting the anarchist value of intellectual freedom.

Errico Malatesta: “Anarchism was born in a moral revolt against social injustice.” emphasizes the ethical foundation of anarchism, rooted in opposition to systemic injustice and exploitation.

Emile Henry: “The influence that theoretical anarchists pretend to wield over the revolutionary movement is nil. Today the field is open to action, without weakness or retreat.” underscores the importance of direct action over theoretical discourse in advancing revolutionary goals.

Albert Libertad: “Those that envision the goal from the first steps, those that want the certitude of reaching it before walking, never arrive.” revolutionary change requires taking risks and proceeding without absolute certainty of success.

George Carlin: “The politicians are put there to give you the idea that you have freedom of choice. You don’t. You have no choice. You have owners. They own you.” anarchist views on the illusion of democracy under capitalist systems, where real power lies with the elite.

Anselme Bellagarrigue: “Anarchy is order; government is civil war.” contrasts the natural order of anarchism with the inherent conflict and coercion within governmental systems.

Rudolf Rocker: “The growth of technology at the expense of human personality, and especially the fatalistic submission with which the great majority surrender to this condition, is the reason why the desire for freedom is less alive among men today and has with many of them given place completely to a desire for economic security.” critiques the dehumanizing effects of technological advancement and the resulting loss of a collective yearning for freedom.

Banksy: “We can’t do anything to change the world until capitalism crumbles. In the meantime, we should all go shopping to console ourselves.” the ironic statement critiques consumerism as a coping mechanism in a capitalist society that resists meaningful change.

David Graeber: “‘Communist society’; in the sense of a society organized exclusively on that single principle — could never exist. But all social systems, even economic systems like capitalism, have always been built on top of a bedrock of actually-existing communism.” points out that communal and cooperative practices underpin all social systems, even those ostensibly opposed to communism.

Bruno Filippi: “Maybe I am crazy. But my madness is the most terrible rationality. I see further, I feel life more vividly.” reflection speaks to the deep, often radical awareness and sensitivity to social injustices that drive anarchist thought.

To sum up: Anarchism is native to a lot of people reading this as it challenges political and economic structures, advocating for a both online (#FOSS) and offline a society based on voluntary cooperation, mutual aid, and the abolition of hierarchical authority (though the is also strong feudalism in #FOSS). These quotes are a glimpse into the diverse and rich tradition. A window into the motivations, challenges, and aspirations of anarchist philosophy, emphasizing the importance of action, ethical resistance to injustice, and the push for genuine social freedom.

More on this https://hamishcampbell.com/the-fediverse-is-native-to-anarchism/

Quotes from @anarchistquotes

Serendipity and #Hashtags

Hashtags are ubiquitous online, 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 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 project 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.

Feudalism, #FOSS native governance?

Interesting to see this metaphor take off

#Feudalism, in Free and Open Source Software (#FOSS) governance, is not inherently native but is often found due to structural and cultural factors inside the development communities.

Feudalism in FOSS

Hierarchy and Control: In FOSS projects, a small group of core maintainers or a single benevolent dictator (often the project’s founder) holds power over decision-making processes. This creates a hierarchical structure where decision-making authority is concentrated.
Dependency on Maintainers: Contributors depend on the core maintainers to merge their contributions and resolve issues. This dependency creates a power dynamic where the maintainers like courtiers have control over the project’s direction and priorities.
Gatekeeping: Core maintainers act as gatekeepers, deciding which contributions are accepted and which are not. This leads to favouritism and exclusion, reminiscent of feudal lords controlling access to resources and opportunities.

Why?

Volunteer Nature of Contributions: Since contributors are volunteers, there is no structure to ensure equal participation or accountability. Core maintainers emerge “naturally” based on their sustained contributions and expertise.
Meritocracy Ideals: FOSS communities value meritocracy, people gain influence based on their contributions. However, this leads to entrenched power structures, as those who have contributed the most or the longest hold sway, sometimes stifling new contributors’ voices.
Resource Scarcity: Many #FOSS projects operate with limited resources, leading to a concentration of control among those who dedicate the most time and effort. This result in a few individuals having outsized influence.

Manifestations

Benevolent Dictator for Life (BDFL): Projects like Python had Guido van Rossum as a #BDFL, where his decisions are final. While this can lead to clear and consistent leadership, it also centralizes power.
Core Team Dominance: In projects like Linux, the core team led by Linus Torvalds has control over the kernel’s development. This centralized control lead to conflicts within the community, as seen in the controversies around code of conduct enforcement and inclusivity.

Balancing Feudalism.

Distributed Governance Models: Some FOSS projects adopt #NGO type democratic or federated governance models, such as Apache Software Foundation’s model, which emphasizes burocratic community-driven decision-making and a meritocratic process for becoming a committer or PMC member.
Transparency and Accountability: Increasing transparency in decision-making helps to hold maintainers accountable through open process and community oversight plays a role in helping mitigate feudal tendencies.
Community Practices: Promoting diversity and inclusivity helps balance power dynamics. Encouraging mentorship and lowering barriers to entry for contributors also helps distribute influence.

Conclusion

While feudalism is not inherent to #FOSS governance, structural and cultural factors lead to feudal-like power dynamics. Addressing these issues requires conscious effort to promote full #4opens transparency, accountability, and inclusivity within the community. Adopting balanced governance models and practices, like the #OGB, allow projects to mitigate the risks of feudalism and ensure a healthier development environment.

A wider picture of this mess

The Battle for the Internet: Open vs. Closed

Since its creation, the internet and World Wide Web have been shaped by two competing and overlapping paths:

The #OpenWeb

Rooted in the DNA of internet code and culture, we see the web as a platform for collaboration, sharing, and the free exchange of information. Built for use in a world where information is abundant and free, embodying the ethos of “free as in free beer.”

The #OpenWeb emphasizes the #4opens: open source, open data, open standards, and open process. It walks the path of creativity and collective creation, and is closely associated with “native geek culture” alongside radical/anarchist libertarian thinking. Social interactions are visible, promoting accountability and collective decision-making. Examples include public forums, open-source projects, and community assemblies.

The #ClosedWeb

On the other side, we have the approach of companies like Microsoft under Bill Gates and late-stage Google, that focus on the monetization and commercial viability of the internet. This vision is fixated on control for profitability, and the economics of running online platforms in a world based on artificial scarcity

The #ClosedWeb pushes interactions to private, monetized paths with the illusion of privacy and confidentiality are necessary. This approach seeks to lock down information and interactions, creating walled gardens that can be controlled and monetized.

The Internet’s “native” Potential

The inherent democratization and egalitarianism of the internet allow people to create and share content. However, this ideal clashes with commercial interests that push for control to monetize user data and interactions.

From the #OpenWeb perspective:

Interconnectedness: Technology reflects human values and structures.
Empowerment: The internet empowers people to distribute their work, share ideas, and bypass traditional power politics gatekeepers.
Education and Information: The web transforms education and information access, linking vast resources to walking the path to a different society.

From the #ClosedWeb perspective, the dominant emotion is fear:

Fear of sustainability: Concerns about how to maintain and profit from online platforms.
Fear of losing control: Worries about people having too much freedom, undermining business models and #mainstreaming dogmas.

The Battleground for Openness

The #OpenWeb remains a battleground between the paths of openness and the pushing of fear. While it has democratized content creation and access, the economic models sustaining this ecosystem are often a toxic mess. This tension shapes society both online and offline, creating a complex and messy landscape to find a sustainable path.

The #GeekProblem

One barrier to addressing these issues is the #GeekProblem. On the web, those with technical expertise and control over resources bypass democratic processes and accountability, leading to a kind of “feudalism.” This problem is equally present in grassroots #FOSS (Free and Open Source Software) communities and corporate #dotcons (dot-com companies), as both share the same #geekproblem mindsets regarding control and authority.

A part of the #openweb path involves re-evaluating the relationship between control, wealth, power, and social change in both technology and wider society. Currently, we lack clear ways to discuss the “problem” in geek culture, making it difficult to mediate the #closedweb problem. This is a growing problem, as groups who succeed in a capitalism are the worst equipped to solve the problems that the system creates.

The struggle between these visions is ongoing. For the #openweb to thrive, there must be a concerted effort to address the underlying issues of control and power within both the open and closed paths. By acknowledging and working on these problems, we maintain the internet’s potential as a force for democratization, creativity, and the needed social change.

Please “don’t be a prat” about this, thanks.

Tension, Open and Closed Web

From its creation, the growing internet and World Wide Web has been shaped by two competing, often overlapping visions:

The Collaborative, #OpenWeb: Rooted in #DNA of internet code and culture, this vision is of a platform for collaboration, sharing, and free exchange of information. Built for use in a world of abundance of information, free as in free beer. Emphasizes #4opens, creativity, and collective creation, associated with “native geek culture” and radical/anarchist libertarian thinking.

The Commercial, #ClosedWeb: The approach of companies like Microsoft under Bill Gates, and late stage google, focuses on monetization and commercial viability of the internet. Fixated on fear of sustainability, profitability, and the economics of running online platforms in a scarcity based world.

The Internet inherent democratization and egalitarianism allows everyone to create and share content. However, this ideal clashes with the pushing of commercial control, to monetize user data and interactions. From the #openweb prospective: Interconnectedness, technology, reflects human values and social structures. The internet empowers people to distribute their work, share ideas, and bypass traditional gatekeepers. The web transforms education and information access to synthesizing vast resources needed for a different view of society.

From the #closedweb prospective, you have fear, simply fear.

The #openweb remains a battleground between these feelings, of openness and the pushing of fear. While it has worked to democratized content creation and access, the existing economic models to sustain this ecosystem are a toxic mess. The ongoing tension shapes society both online and offline, yes it’s a mess.

Why we so often can’t see or do much about this mess, our #geekproblem have disproportionate control over societal resources and decisions, with this blinded “feudalism” bypassing democratic processes and accountability. This is equally a “problem” in grassroots #FOSS and corporate #dotcons, as they share the same mindset.

A part of the #openweb path is a move to re-evaluate in technology and wider society on the relationship between “control”, wealth, power, and social change. But currently we have no clear way to talk about this issue from the “problem” in geek culture. So have little way to mediate the #closedweb problem of the groups who “succeed” in a capitalist being the worst equipped to solve the problems that the system creates.

UPDATE https://www.theregister.com/2024/10/25/opinion_open_washing/ this is playing out here.

We need to compost the current culture of lying

The Fediverse is “native” to Anarchism

Anarchism is a part of #FOSS governance, a political philosophy and social movement that shaped the foundations of the internet and #openweb to move from centralized power to decentralized, self-governing paths. This was a strong part of #web01 and a strong part of why it worked so well. #Anarchists believe that society and technology can be organized to build freedom, equality, and cooperation

What is Anarchism?

There are forms of anarchism, some well-known:

Anarcho-Communism: Advocates for the abolition of private property and the establishment of a classless, stateless society based on communal ownership and cooperation.
Anarcho-Syndicalism: Seeks to abolish the wage system and replace it with a system of workers’ self-management and direct democracy.
Individualist Anarchism: Emphasizes the importance of individual freedom and autonomy, and is associated with the writings of figures like Emma Goldman and Max Stirner.

A long and varied history, with roots in liberalism and socialism.

Anarchism in Action

Direct Action: Anarchism emphasizes direct action over traditional protest. Instead of petitioning authorities to make changes, anarchists take matters into their own hands. For example, if a community lacks drinking water, anarchists would dig a well themselves rather than petitioning the government.
Acting as If Free: Anarchism is about behaving as though one is already free, practising this directly.
Democracy Without Government: Anarchism can be seen as democracy without the state, where people collectively make decisions without hierarchical structures. It is based on self-organization, voluntary association, and mutual aid.

History of Anarchism

Some old dead figures and movements include:

The French Revolution: Inspired many early anarchists with ideas of liberty, equality, and fraternity.
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon: The first self-proclaimed anarchist, wrote the influential work What is Property? in 1840.
Mikhail Bakunin: A Russian revolutionary, was a key figure in the anarchist movement of the late 19th century.
Emma Goldman: An American feminist, anarchist, was a prominent in the early 20th century.

Arguments for Anarchism

Supporters of anarchism emphasize:

Individual Freedom and Autonomy: Anarchism values individual freedom and autonomy, arguing that centralized systems of power limit personal liberty.
Equality and Cooperation: Anarchism promotes equality and cooperation among people, envisioning a society where resources are shared, and the needs of all members are met.
Direct Democracy and Grassroots Participation: Anarchism is associated with a strong commitment to direct democracy and grassroots participation in decision-making.
Challenging Oppressive Systems: Anarchist ideasinspired many social movements to challenge and dismantle oppressive systems and hierarchies.

Arguments Against Anarchism

Critics of anarchism raise concerns:

Unrealistic or Utopian: Critics argue anarchism is unrealistic or utopian, calling for the abolition of centralized power, many believe are necessary for maintaining order and protecting people’s rights.
Overemphasis on Individual Freedom: Some forms of anarchism, such as individualist anarchism, are criticized for placing emphasis on individual freedom and autonomy at the expense of community and collective action.
Association with Violence: Anarchism has been associated with violence and extremism, particularly in the form of bombings and assassinations carried out by anarchist individuals or small groups.
Practical Implementation: Critics argue that anarchism is to hard to put into practice, as it calls for the overhaul of existing political and economic systems, which is a steep path to walk and difficult to achieve in the “real” world.

Anarchism is at the heart of meany of our #openweb norms, its advantages and disadvantages depend strongly on assumptions and material conditions in the time and place where people try and enact it. The #openweb and #Fediverse with its strong flow of “trust” and “abundances” is a fertile place for “nativist” experiments. Though, as critics, argue this path is not easy or without its problems.

The #OMN is mediated “native” https://opencollective.com/open-media-network join us if you would like to try walking this path.

Anarchism challenges forms of authority and domination. The idea, rooted in classical liberalism and Enlightenment principles, is any exercise of authority or power must justify its legitimacy. This burden of proof applies universally, whether within a family, a state, or global institutions. If authority cannot demonstrate its legitimacy, it should be dismantled.

The concept of legitimate authority is central to anarchism. Those in power must justify their actions and their right to hold power. If they cannot, their authority is considered illegitimate.

Personal Example: Imagine walking with a granddaughter who runs into the street. If you pull her back, that is an exercise of authority. However, this action must be justified as legitimate, perhaps by arguing that it was necessary to protect her from harm.
Broader Examples: The same principle applies in broader contexts. Men in patriarchal systems must justify their authority over women. Governments must justify their authority over citizens. Corporations must justify their control over workers.

In democratic systems, legitimacy is supposed to be maintained through public debate, interaction, and struggle. If these mechanisms fail, the legitimacy is in question. In totalitarian or authoritarian systems, legitimacy is non-existent because these systems do not allow challenges to authority. People in positions of authority internalize the belief that their power is legitimate. This internalization makes it difficult for them to recognize or acknowledge the need to justify authority.

Throughout history, systems of authority and domination have been accepted as legitimate by those who are subordinated. This acceptance is due to a combination of indoctrination, socialization, and the internalization of prevailing values.

Slavery: Many slave societies were stable because slaves accepted their subordination as legitimate.
Feudalism: In feudal societies, people accepted their roles within the hierarchy as natural and proper.
Modern Employment: Today, many people accept the necessity of renting their labour to survive, a concept that was once seen as wage slavery.

People challenging the legitimacy of authority leads to social struggles, revolutions, and sometimes significant change. Anarchists take this challenge seriously and push questioning the illegitimacy of authority through active resistance and the promotion of #DIY self-governing structures. This path and philosophy has profound implications for how we build and work in technology and shapes our current #openweb reboot.

Please keep this path #KISS

More on this https://hamishcampbell.com/understanding-anarchism/

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

The mess we keep making of #FOSS governance

It’s disheartening to see a community platform like #Trustroots https://trustroots.org facing challenges with governance, with issues and tensions among its contributors https://github.com/trustroots-community/trustrots/issues?q= and here https://trustroots.community/ This situation is messy and underscores the importance of establishing healthy governance practices within community-driven projects to ensure their long-term sustainability and effectiveness.

The case of Trustroots alongside the earlier issue of #CouchSurfing are a cautionary tale about the pitfalls of traditional feudalistic #FOSS foundation/ #NGO models for open-source projects. These models may initially foster collaboration and innovation, but easily become susceptible to internal conflicts and power struggles over time.

The #OGB (Open Governance Body) is an alternative approach rooted in a grassroot and inclusive history and ethos. By embracing “producer” sortation, decentralized decision-making and community-led initiatives, projects like #OGB aim to avoid the pitfalls associated with hierarchical governance structures https://hamishcampbell.com/?s=OGB

Examining case studies like Trustroots and CouchSurfing offer insights into the complexities, and outcomes, of managing community platforms and the importance of fostering #4opens transparent, inclusive, and participatory governance to sustain healthy and thriving communities.

We can’t keep making this same mess.