What is the #openweb

A fresh look at this path. The #openweb is a decentralized, people-centric internet that contrasts sharply with the centralized #closedweb being pushed by major #dotcons platforms. The openweb is founded on principles of openness, transparency, and community empowerment, it is not just about technology, but also about fostering a different kind of social relationship online, one that is rooted in collaboration, diversity, and mutual aid.

Core Principles:

Decentralization: Unlike the centralized structure of the pre Internet silos and current app based dotcons paths, where a few companies control vast swathes of our space, the openweb promotes a distributed architecture where no single entity has overarching control, it’s a “commons” for all of us.
The openweb is built that people and communities have more control their data, metadate and online experiences. It rejects the practice of data extraction and surveillance that is prevalent on the current corporate platforms.
Transparency and Openness, the openweb embraces openness in all its forms—open source software, open standards, open data, and open processes. This transparency ensures that technology is accountable and accessible, fostering trust based on the #4opens which is a simple core path we need to take.
Community and collaboration, the current openweb reboot is about people coming together to create, share, and collaborate. It moves away from the competitive, profit-driven nature of the dotcons and towards a more cooperative, community-oriented approach where diverse voices can contribute and be heard.
Interoperability is core to this space, this means “native” tools and protocols that allow different systems to communicate and work together, reducing dependence on any one company or technology stack.
Resistance to mainstreaming and #deathcult mentality, it needs strong resistants to the push towards #mainstreaming and the #deathcult mentality to mediate the relentless profit-seeking and homogenization. To hold to the path of celebrating diversity, alternative thinking, and radical approaches to building online communities.

What the #openweb is not

Not a copy of the #dotcons, while some openweb projects have attempted to replicate the features of the major platforms (like Facebook or Twitter) in open-source form, the openweb vision goes further. To create something fundamentally different, not just a #FOSS (Free and Open Source Software) version of existing corporate models.
Not a walled garden, the #openweb opposes the concept of walled gardens, closed environments that limit people expression and force them to live within controlled ecosystems. It promotes open standards and protocols that allow people to move freely, based on trust, to connect across different spaces.

How can you become a part of this and contribute to building the #openweb

Support and use Open-Source Tools, contribute, what you can, to open-source alternatives that respect people.
Promote interoperable solutions by advocate for tools and technologies that work together seamlessly. Encourage developers to use open standards to ensure their software can communicate across different networks.
Educate and advocate by raise awareness about the problems with the current #dotcons path and the benefits of a decentralized, people controlled web. Share knowledge and resources to help more people transition too good #UX openweb alternatives.
Build community led networks, this need to focus on developing code that prioritize community needs and values over profit. Encourage collaborative governance models where people and communities have a say in how platforms are run and developed.
Experiment with new networks, to look beyond simply copying existing platforms and think creatively about what a genuinely #4opens people centred internet could look like. Explore new forms of social interaction, data sharing, and content creation that are native to this path.

The #openweb path is about “composting the mess” created by the #dotcons, taking what is broken or harmful in our current digital environment and transforming it into something healthy and sustainable. This means acknowledging the flaws in the current system and actively working to build something better. This path is a tool for empowerment, creativity, and connection, rather than exploitation and control, are you ready to pick up the shovel and start composting the mess? The path is here, and it’s open to to people willing to take part in this humanistic adventure in social technology.

Linking on the #OpenWeb: Why It Matters

If you are interested in outreaching this #openweb reboot on the #dotcons to bring more people in, there is a group on Reddit for this outreach https://www.reddit.com/r/openweb/ had to set up a new group as the post doing this are being removed from other subject groups, yes it’s a mess, but outreach to hand hold people stepping away from the #dotcons matters, thanks for your help in this path.

Mediating the prat’ish behaviour and #deathcult mentality

When alternatives bridge to #mainstreaming in our #openweb movement and the broader #dotcons landscape, we find ourselves confronting a troubling dynamic—a rise in prat’ish behaviour, characterized by ego-driven conflict, divisiveness, and resistance to meaningful change, this threatens to undermine the real progress we urgently need.

At the heart of this issue is the 40 years of #deathcult mentality—a mindset defined by #neoliberal values, the relentless pursuit of profit, and a shallow adherence to the mess of the current status quo. This mentality permeates not just the big tech giants, but also, unfortunately, seeps into our own #4opens movements, like the #fediverse, when we become entangled in reproducing their “common sense” paths.

The #deathcult is a useful metaphor to use, representing a blind adherence to systems that are actively destroying our planet, eroding our communities, and undermining our humanistic values. When we speak of current #mainstreaming as a killer problem, we are talking about this neoliberalism, and that while this is not a part of our culture, it feeds into it. It’s not only a problem with “them”—the dotcons—but is also reflected within our movements. Even in the openweb and #fediverse, spaces built to resist such values, we see tendencies toward this #mainstreaming creeping in, the huge influxes of liberals, bring the replications of patterns of hierarchy, exclusion, and competition, even as they claim to oppose them.

We need practical steps to mediate this and move to a constructive path:

Embrace radical honesty and reflection, we need to start with radical honesty about our own roles in perpetuating the problems we face. Are we unconsciously replicating the patterns of the #dotcons? Are we engaging in excluding grassroots native paths by that prioritize ego over community? Reflecting on these questions is crucial.
Promote transparent and open dialogue by creating spaces both online and offline for open and honest communication, like the #OMN. We need to move away from secretive, behind-the-scenes decisions and instead encourage a culture of transparency where disagreements are aired constructively. Use the #4opens (Open Data, Open Source, Open Standards, and Open Process) as guiding principles helps us pick better tools for this.
Encourage diversity of thought and approach, let’s challenge the #mainstreaming impulse by embracing a diversity of thought and approaches. Different strategies and solutions flourish, even if they seem unconventional or counter to prevailing norms. On the progressive path, encourage people to experiment, fail, and try again without fear of ridicule or exclusion.
Use shovels and compost as metaphors for action, instead of shovelling dirt on each other’s efforts, we need to shovel it into the compost heap—taking what doesn’t work or what has failed and turning it into fertile ground for new growth. This means consciously choosing to see conflict and disagreement as opportunities for transformation rather than threats.
Reject the #deathcult mentality, that is deeply ingrained but not unchangeable. Reject the idea that we must always be in competition, that progress is a zero-sum game, or that only the fittest deserve to survive. Instead, let’s balance cooperation, mutual aid, and community over profit, power, and exclusion.
Build real alternatives, not only #FOSS copies, many of our attempts to build alternatives have, so far, merely replicated the models of the #dotcons. It’s time to balance this copying of systems we oppose and instead start to create native alternatives, there are meany good histories we can build from, an example #indymediaback is more truly embodied in the principles we value.

Composting this mess, we need a way to mediate the prat’ish behavior and the pervasive #deathcult mentality. We cannot afford to be the ones saying, “Now is not the time.” To those who say this, I say: Get off your knees, lift your head, and look at the mess we have made. It’s time to confront this problem head-on and work hard to compost it.

If we are to get anywhere with the messy #openweb reboot we need to be nice when calling prats, prats, do it a lot, but try and keep this #fluffy

UPDATE: this is a difficult path, will use this space to LINK to the problem resources:

https://fediverse-governance.github.io/images/fediverse-governance.pdf this report is focused on #NGO #fashernista and to a lesser extent #geekproblm, the is useful information from this limited view path.

https://infrastructureinsights.fund the outreach text on this is nice, but look at who makes up the Review Board and you see the funding at best is poured down the drain, and, at worst, will misshape the #openweb native path.

And meany more, to help post links in comment for me to add and comment on, thanks.

Humanistic adventures in social technology

The #dotcons are designed for greed and selfishness, everything about them feeds this and in turn feeds off this. This is coded into them and thus cannot be simply fixed, the problem we need to look at now is that we cannot reboot alternatives by simply copying them in #FOSS as we have done so far in the #Fediverse. This worked well for the first step, for the next step we need to move past simply copying the current #mainstreaming mess. The next step needs to be “native” to the #4opens path that we have started down. Let’s thank the people who copied, give them the gifts of statues and security, they did us all a service, they deserve thanks for this not hatred.

Let’s have a deeper look at this mess, the dotcons—centralized platforms like Facebook, Google, and Twitter—are built on principles of greed, selfishness, and the relentless pursuit of profit. These platforms thrive by exploiting people’s data, feeding addictive behaviours, and amplifying divisions. Their design is rooted in extracting value from people and communities while feeding the addiction, giving back only enough to keep people in their flow, this extraction is hard coded in their architecture. With this knolage we can understand that they cannot be “fixed” by merely tweaking their features or policies. The problem is systemic, and attempts to create alternatives by simply copying their models in Free and Open Source Software (#FOSS) falls short of addressing this.

We collectively need to breaking free from the dotcons, this is already well underway, through initiatives like the Fediverse, which attempt to decentralize control and return power to the users. While this is a commendable effort and important, it’s still largely a replication of existing social media structures with a different governance model. To create a sustainable and humanistic alternative, we must go beyond imitation. We need to build “native” to the values embodied in the #4opens: open data, open source, open standards, and open processes.

Designing for community, unlike the dotcons, which encourage individualism and competition, new networks to balance this need to prioritize community and collective action. Features that encourage collaboration, mutual aid, and the sharing of resources, rather than self-promotion and accumulation of followers or likes. Embracing the #4opens guides every aspect of this technological path and coding development, to ensures that the platforms remain transparent, accountable, and adaptable, rather than fallback in to being driven by profit motives and the resulting feeding of “common sense” #stupidindividualism

There are meany ways out of this mess, one is that rather than simply copying the features of the dotcons, we can learn from different paths, histories, for example what works in the unsung world of grassroots activism. This has been a central path to the of liberalism over the 20th century, these traditions won all our social rights we now take for granted, though yes, we do need better “songs” on this path to motivate people.

This means avoiding venture capital funding, the same profit-driven dynamics that plague the dotcons. Instead, we should explore, affinity group and more formal cooperative ownership models, crowdfunding, and other forms of collective investment. When moving out from the current path, it’s important to recognize the pioneers in the reboot of our networks, to acknowledge and thank those who have worked hard to replicate the dotcons in FOSS, in the #Fediverse. These efforts have laid the groundwork for the #openweb and demonstrated that alternatives are possible. They deserve recognition and security for their contributions, as they have provided a needed first step in this journey.

After thanking these people and groups, we need crews to move forward the humanistic adventure in social technology who remember our history to act collaboratively. It’s not just about building new #FOSS tools, but about remembering the “native” ethos of online interaction—that prioritizes human well-being over corporate profit, and collective empowerment over simple individual gain.

The #OMN (Open Media Network) is a path that embody these principles and history to create a decentralized network of open media to empower people and communities. This journey will not be easy, but it is necessary. Who will join in this adventure? This is not fully mapped out, the is creative space to grow from the history of what has worked for the last few hundred years.

We need real alternative to the last 20 years of toxic #dotcons culture and capture https://opencollective.com/open-media-network

Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution

Bogged down in negative criticism, let’s focus on building something better

The mess we made with our addiction to #dotcons social media over the last 20 years means we need to look at the broader implications of how we interact with these platforms if we are to step away from this mess. Yes, criticism is a first step, a second step is seeding #openweb alternatives, then to stride away from this mess, we need to foster a culture of positive, constructive engagement to build grassroots communities of action. This means not only criticizing the current mess, but actively working towards creating and promoting alternatives. By using our “spades” to dig into the issues and “composting” the negativity, we can cultivate a healthier humanistic social tech ecosystem where communities can thrive independently of corporate and state control.

The shovel and compost metaphor is a useful “organic” path on this, the “shovel” represents the tools we need to dig into and dismantle the current #dotcons structures. Where “composting” symbolize the process of breaking down these negative aspects (#stupidindividualism) and using them to cultivate something healthier and more sustainable. These simple metaphors encourage people to actively become a part of positive change by putting their energy into building and promoting openweb alternatives, rather than continuing to engage in the negative cycles perpetuated by #mainstreaming platforms and paths.

Positive engagement on the #openweb, instead of only criticizing inside the dotcons, is an effective path to promote and use alternatives. For this to work we not only need #FOSS copies like we have now in the #fediverse but real working alternatives as outlined by the #OMN (this so obviously needs devs and funding). We need tangible and the ground steps and resources, so people feel empowered to make the switch from closed, corporate-controlled platforms to open, grassroots ones.

On the spiky path, we URGENTLY need to change the instinct in the #geekproblem to close most communication tools with encryption, with the strong focus on privacy. For media, on balance, this is a very unhelpful path to take, but yes, there is a small role for closed, the path is in better balance. The “native” openweb idea is that some communication needs to be private and encrypted (20% closed), the majority of it should be open and accessible (80% open) to foster the communal #4opens path. By closing down communication to one to one or small groups using encryption, we are feeding the problem of #stupidIndividualism. This problem behaviour focuses on individualistic, self-serving actions that reinforce the problems’ by reflection of the current mess, we only see this path. When we take this closed path, we have no room for encouraging social constructive dialogue. Simply put, striking the right balance between open and closed communication is essential for the “native” path to building a resilient openweb.

On the fluffy #fashionista side, we need to balance the paths from performative activism, of using sarcasm that mostly fuels the system people aim to critique. Sarcasm and comedy on the dotcons has been a staple of fluffy online activism for the last 20 years. The Issue with this is that sarcasm and comedy are focused to criticize and ridicule inside the very dotcons platforms that control our personal communication and communities. While this might feel like a way to resist or subvert these platforms, it disastrously drives engagement and feeds the data algorithms that sustain them, and are focued on controlling us and our movements. Engaging in this kind of humour provides temporary relief and a transient sense of camaraderie, but it actually is only reinforcing the power of these platforms by driving more traffic and interaction. The better strategy is to disengage and move toward alternative #openweb platforms. Instead of feeding into this #dotcons cycle, the goal should be to step away from these platforms and take collective action to build and support openweb alternatives #KISS

Final thought, instead of only getting bogged down in negative criticism, the focus needs to be on building something better. A simple step is to support a path with real history https://opencollective.com/open-media-network

The victimhood narrative needs composting

The #openweb – Escaping the Grip of the Algorithm

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

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

The #NLnet Foundation is a notable example of an organization that provides funding to open-source projects. Supported by private and public funds, including significant contributions from the #EU, NLnet focuses on promoting a free, open, and secure internet.

The #NGI initiative, funded by the #EU, aims to shape the development of the internet of tomorrow. By supporting a range of open-source projects, NGI tries to foster innovation, privacy, and security. It emphasizes human-concentric technology, ensuring that the future internet respects humanistic values and needs.
The #EU has been a significant proponent of FOSS, providing funding through programs such as Horizon 2020 and Horizon Europe. The EU’s supports digital sovereignty, reduce dependency on non-European technologies through promoting open standards.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion, state funding for FOSS and open-source initiatives, in our examples #NLnet, #NGI, and the #EU, has potential for creating real change and challenge, but this path presents both opportunities and challenges. When implemented thoughtfully, it can foster “native” paths, innovation, reduce costs, and enhance community and security to challenge the current worshipping of the #deathcults by our widespread use of the #dotcons. The question is the will and understanding to balancing this path to ensures that state funding positively contributes to the #4opens FOSS ecosystem, driving forward a free, open digital future or just leads to the capitalistic criticism of waste and distortion? At best and at worst, we see some real change and a lot of poring funding down the drain to feed some #geekproblem and build the careers of a few #fashernistas

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

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 and with the globe hegemony of the #dotcons every where, 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 the core 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, led by “charismatic” leaders whose word becomes law. This monarch-like leadership stifle dissent and discourage fresh contributors, as the projects revolves around the vision and whims of a single individual, in the #fediverse an example is the #Mastodon codebase.

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 open-source projects that are pushed by market demands rather than community needs. The results are software that prioritizes “control”over usability and any innovation.

The #techshit and #geekproblem

#techshit, a term that reflects the use of #dotcons and #FOSS which proliferates, 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 can help. This includes implementing transparent decision-making processes, rotating leadership roles, and widerning voices that are heard.

Community-Centric Approaches: Prioritizing community needs over individual ambitions and 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 wider 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, we need to shed the medieval political structures and #neoliberal individualism to make space to embracing democratic governance, community-centric paths, diversity so that 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, 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.

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