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.

Who gets to decide what this place is? How are we being represented

“An important distinction is slowly being uncovered about the definition of the term “#Fediverse.” Who is it that gets to decide what this place is? How are we being represented?”

https://mastodon.social/deck/@fdrc_ff@www.foxyhole.io/112435833670527639

The lack of discussion about the nature of the space the #fediverse occupies raises questions about representation and identity within this #openweb “native” network.

Ownership by Communities: The fediverse offers a way to build the internet by communities, in contrast to centralized #dotcons social networks that prioritize monetization over community well-being. By decentralizing governance, the fediverse empowers people to take control of their online spaces and relationships.
Audience and Adoption: The fediverse is valuable for those who are hostile and disillusioned with monetized social networks and seek ways to connect with real change/challenge comunertys. While some are eager to explore alternatives, others face limitations or challenges in transitioning to the fediverse. Nonetheless, the slow growth of communities within the fediverse is essential for building a strong “native” foundation for decentralized networking.
Governance and Community: A key distinction of the fediverse lies in its shared governance model, where people have a say in how their communities are shaped. This contrasts with centralized social networks, where governance decisions are made by a central authority that does not align with community interests. People are drawn to the fediverse for its emphasis on inclusivity and people’s agency, allowing individuals and social groups to express themselves without fear of censorship or coercion.
Coexistence with Centralized Networks: The fediverse does not require people to opt out of centralized social networks entirely. Instead, people can maintain connections on both networks while stepping to decentralized networking. This allows people to become familiar with the fediverse’s culture and its advantages.
Website Design and Accessibility: With the foundational #4opens principles of the fediverse defined, the focus shifts to website design that reflects these values. Accessibility, both in terms of physical access and cultural understanding, is prioritized to ensure that the platform is inclusive and user-friendly, in sharp contrast to too much of the bad #UX history of #FOSS coding.

The fediverse represents a shift towards community-driven, decentralized networking, offering an alternative to #dotcons. By prioritizing people’s and community agency, inclusivity, and accessibility, the fediverse creates spaces where people can connect and express themselves. Let’s reboot the #openweb as a start, we could try calling this #web1.5

On the subject of activism, “don’t be a prat” is a good start.

Some aspects of the geekproblem

The #geekproblem refers to the challenges and limitations that arise from the dominance of a particular “problem” geek culture within the technology industry and #FOSS movements. This culture is characterized by a strong emphasis on technical expertise, at the expense of social, ethical, and democratic considerations. The geek culture prioritize technical solutions and innovations over social implications, which leads to problems in the development and deployment of #openweb technology.

Here are some aspects of this geekproblem:

Technical Bias: Geek “problem” culture tends to favour technical solutions to problems without considering the broader social context or implications. This results in the development of technologies that are inhuman, inaccessible, exclusionary, and often harmful.
Meritocracy: Geek”problem” culture often operates on the principle of meritocracy, where individuals are valued based on their technical skills and knowledge. This leads to the ignoring of voices and perspectives from non-technical backgrounds, contributing to a lack of diversity and inclusivity and functionality in #FOSS projects.
Lack of Empathy: The geek “problem” culture’s focus on technical excellence leads to a lack of empathy for users who are not as technically proficient. This results in user interfaces and experiences that are difficult to understand or navigate for non-technical people, further exacerbating digital divides and inequalities and use of #FOSS code.
Resistance to Change: Geek “problem” culture can be resistant to change, particularly when it comes to questioning established technical norms or practices. This resistance can hinder progress in addressing social, ethical, and environmental challenges that require broader systemic changes beyond technical solutions.
Power Dynamics: The dominance of geek “problem” culture creates power imbalances within the tech industry, where certain individuals or groups hold disproportionate influence over decision-making processes. This results in the prioritization of technical interests over broader social or ethical concerns.

Overall, the #geekproblem highlights the need for holistic approach to technology development based on the #4opens social, ethical, and democratic dimensions alongside technical considerations. Addressing the geekproblem requires challenging social structures and promoting diversity, empathy, and democratic decision-making within the development and #FOSS communertys.

The mess we made with the dotcons

The #dotcons are designed for greed and selfishness, everything about them feeds this and in turn feeds off this negative path. This is coded deep into them, they cannot be fixed, and we cannot reboot alternatives to this by simply copying them in #FOSS as we have done too much in the #Fediverse.

The rebooting of the #openweb is the path we have taken, this copying worked well for the first step, for the next step we need to move past this, simply copying of the current #mainstreaming mess. The next step needs to be more “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 first step not hatred.

To understand why let’s look at the #dotcons mess, an example, is the devolution of #Twitter from a neoliberal space to one with growing fascist tendencies under Elon Musk’s, this is a stark reminder of the pitfalls of unchecked corporate #dotcons and the susceptibility of these platforms to authoritarian control.

One aspect is the complicity of #neoliberal actors in pushing the rise of fascism. #Neoliberalism, with its emphasis on deregulation and market-driven solutions, pushes for the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a few. This concentration eventually leads to the erosion of democratic norms and the rise of authoritarianism, as seen in the case of Twitter’s transformation. Thus, the intertwining of neoliberalism and fascism underscores the need for vigilance in combating both economic inequality and the erosion of “native” #openweb democratic projects we try and build and sustain.

Moreover, the reaction of neoliberal peoples “common sense” to the shift towards fascism on the #dotcons like Twitter is instructive. Despite the platform’s descent into authoritarianism, many #mainstreaming users continue to engage with it, clinging to nostalgia for its earlier, more liberal incarnation. This phenomenon highlights the tendency of #mainstreaming to adapt to life under oppressive regimes, often out of a desire for self-preservation or a misguided sense of normalcy. It serves as a sobering reminder of the dangers of complacency and the importance of resisting authoritarianism, aspesherly in its early stages.

In essence, the transformation of Twitter from a neoliberal to a fascist space underscores the interconnectedness of economic and political systems and the need for collective action to safeguard “native” #openweb democratic values and the paths we take. By recognizing the warning signs of authoritarianism and refusing to acquiesce to its normalization, people can prevent the erosion of the #openweb

The #dotcons and #closedweb of the last 20 years have clear problems:

Centralization of Power: The dominant platforms in the #dotcons era and #closedweb are centralized, controlled by a handful of corporations.
Monopolistic Practices: The dominance of a few major players led to monopolistic practices that stifled “native” #openweb culture. These monopolies limit people choice and hindered the development of alternative paths that could offer more diverse and community-centric life.
Surveillance Capitalism: The #dotcons relies on business models built around surveillance capitalism, where data and metadata is harvested, monetized, and exploited for targeted advertising and social purposes without consent and transparency. This exploitation of people’s data undermines “society” and creates significant ethical concerns.
Filter Bubbles and Echo Chambers: The algorithms employed in the #dotcons are designed to prioritize content based on user engagement metrics, leading to the formation of filter bubbles and echo chambers. These push people to beliefs and preferences that limit exposure to diverse perspectives and contributing to growing and entrenching polarization and disinformation.
Erosion of Public Discourse: The rise of social media in the #dotcons facilitated the spread of misinformation, hate, and extremist right ideologies. These platforms prioritized engagement and virality over the quality and accuracy of content, leading to the erosion of public discourse and trust.
Data Concerns: The collection and exploitation of user data by #dotcons raised significant concerns. People have limited to no control over their social data and metadata.
Digital Divide: Access to the internet and digital technologies remained unevenly distributed during the #closedweb era, exacerbating social and economic inequalities. Marginalized communities, faced barriers to access our #openweb reboot, limiting their ability to participate in our native paths and thus the wider digital economy and society we need to build.

To sum up, the dominance of centralized platforms, surveillance capitalism, algorithmic biases, erosion of social norms, and inequalities have been some of the most pressing issues associated with the #dotcons and #closedweb over the last two decades. Addressing this requires concerted efforts to promote decentralization, #4opens and “native” #openweb infrastructure and culture. You can help with this by working on projects like #OMN #OGB #makinghistory and #indymediaback

This post is a reaction https://mastodon.ar.al/@aral/112098724636424845

Please donate here is you can https://opencollective.com/open-media-network to make this path happen.

The problem with #openweb funding and the tools people use

#NGO Internet funding organizations often use #closedweb tools despite their stated commitment to openness and the Digital Commons. Some of these reasons highlight the contradictions:

* Familiarity and Convenience: Funding organizations and their staff are accustomed to using closed tools due to their prevalence in the industry. This is a non “native” aproch that seems natural to them.

* Security Concerns: Closed tools are perceived as more secure, especially when dealing with sensitive information and financial transactions. Funding organizations prioritize security over openness.

* Vendor Lock-In: Closed tools come bundled with proprietary services and platforms, leading to vendor lock-in. Once an organization becomes reliant on a particular closed tool, switching to open alternatives can be challenging and costly.

* Perceived Reliability: Closed tools are associated with established companies or brands who focues on a story of reliability and stability. Funding organizations feel more confident entrusting their operations to these tools, especially if they lack experience with open alternatives.

* Lack of Awareness: Despite their commitment to openness, funding organizations may not be aware of the availability or benefits of open tools. They may simply default to using closed tools out of habit or lack of knowledge about alternative options.

However, advocating for the use of open tools, such as #FOSS video streaming solutions and open collaboration platforms, aligns with the principles of openness and transparency promoted by funding organizations like #NGI. By encouraging the adoption of open tools at events and in everyday operations, organizations can demonstrate their commitment to fostering a more inclusive, accessible, and equitable #openweb.

We need to advocate for a more open-web native approach within the EU and beyond, ensuring that the internet remains a digital common that empowers people and promotes trust, collaboration, and innovation.

https://socialhub.activitypub.rocks/t/we-ask-that-ngi-use-native-approaches-and-tools-at-future-openweb-events/3728

Please share this thanks

Funding Application: Governance with the Open Governance Body (#OGB)

Introduction: The Open Governance Body (#OGB) represents a beacon of hope in the evolving digital world, where governance lags behind technological advancements and societal changes. In a landscape cluttered with flawed systems and ineffective #mainstreaming politics, the OGB offers an innovative and participatory approach to governance—a blueprint for the future of human-scale decision-making.

Problem Statement: Traditional governance models, whether in the realm of Free/Open Source (#FOSS) software or mainstream politics, suffer from inherent flaws. They either struggle with scalability or are too rigid to adapt to local contexts. The feudalistic hierarchy embedded in FOSS governance structures is ill-suited for the digital age. The need for a more effective, scalable, and adaptive governance model has never been more apparent.

Solution: The #OGB emerges at the intersection of grassroots activism and federated technology. Leveraging the proven framework of ActivityPub—a decentralized protocol powering platforms like Mastodon—the OGB creates a platform for organic activist governance. Through a blend of federated technology and grassroots activism, the OGB introduces a simple yet powerful platform based on sortation, ensuring the distribution of roles and responsibilities and fostering efficient decision-making processes.

Proof of Concept: The success of the OGB is not theoretical; it comes from field-testing with promising results. Collaborations with the European Union demonstrate the versatility of ActivityPub and the #Fediverse, showcasing the potential for real-world impact. The OGB’s ability to empower communities to self-govern, bypassing cumbersome bureaucracy, is a testament to its potential to revolutionize governance at all levels.

Vision: Imagine a bustling local street market governed by its community members—stallholders, shoppers, and local service providers—all having a say in decision-making processes. The OGB facilitates such self-governance through a permissionless rollout, allowing people to set up a governance community with ease. A sortation algorithm orchestrates decision-making, naturally encouraging more stakeholders to participate and fostering a sense of ownership and collaboration.

Scalability and Adaptability: The OGB’s impact extends beyond local markets; it embodies scalability and adaptability. Just as the #fediverse has grown organically over the years, the OGB can proliferate across societal facets, weaving a tapestry of self-governance that transcends traditional fixed boundaries.

Call to Action: The OGB is not only a project; it is a culmination of centuries of activism and social organizing techniques, combined with remarkable #openweb technological advancements. It offers a modern solution rooted in historical success—a rallying cry for those seeking real, lasting change through cooperative, human-centric paths. As we stand at the precipice of a new era, the OGB beckons us to embrace a future where technology enables democracy and human connection. It invites us to join a grassroots revolution, co-creating a governance model that aligns with our times and aspirations. With the OGB, progress doesn’t ask for permission—it extends an open invitation to innovate, participate, and effectuate change. Join the movement, and let’s shape a future where governance works for everyone.

Budget Justification: Funds are needed for technological infrastructure development, community outreach and engagement, research and development, and operational expenses. Detailed budget breakdown available upon request.

Conclusion: Thank you for considering the funding application for the Open Governance Body. Together, we need to usher in a new era of governance that empowers communities, fosters collaboration, and creates a more inclusive and equitable society. We can’t keep making the current mess.

https://opencollective.com/open-media-network

The Open Governance Body: Revolutionizing Governance with Grassroots Tech

In our ever-evolving digital world, governance is often left behind, struggling to catch up with the pace of technology and social change. Among the myriad of attempts to tackle this problem, there’s one that stands out for its innovative and participatory approach: the Open Governance Body (#OGB). This grassroots, federated project is more than just another tech experiment; it’s a blueprint for the future of human-scale governance.

The Flawed Systems of Old

Let’s face it—governance, as we know it, is far from perfect. Our current systems are either too unwieldy for large-scale implementation or too limited for local contexts. Traditional Free/Open Source (#FOSS) governance models might be native to the tech world, but they’re entrenched in a medieval hierarchy, reminiscent of kings, nobles, and peasants. Who needs feudalism in the digital age?

#Mainstreaming politics, with its frequent ineffectuality in the face of #climatechaos, also demonstrates that we desperately need something that works—something innovatively rooted yet freely scalable.

Grassroots Activism Meets the Fediverse

Enter the #OGB, a robust fusion of proven federated technology and grassroots governance. It’s the brainchild of a diverse group of independent thinkers who understand that, progressive social change has always sprung from the bottom up. They’ve taken the federated solution framework of #ActivityPub (think decentralized social networks) and meshed it with organic activist governance.

This blend gave birth to a surprisingly simple yet powerful platform based on sortation, where roles and responsibilities are distributed fairly, fostering efficient decision-making.

A Tale of European Success

The potential of #OGB is more than just theoretical talk—it’s been field-tested with promising results. Our band of “libertarian cats” successfully outreached to the European Union, showcasing the versatility of ActivityPub and the #fediverse. Presentations and collaborations with EU bureaucrats catalysed the setup of project outline, a prescient move that looked like wisdom personified post-Twitter’s dramatic downturn.

Market Dynamics—A Hypothetical Utopia

Think of a bustling local street market—a microcosm of society with stallholders, shoppers, and various stakeholders like organizers, trash collectors, and local law enforcement. The #OGB can empower such a community to self-govern in harmony, thereby bypassing cumbersome bureaucracy.

It’s a permissionless rollout—meaning, creating a governance community is as easy as setting up an instance, generating a QR code, and inviting market participants to jump on board with a simple app installation. From there, a sortation algorithm orchestrates the decision-making process, naturally enticing more stakeholders to participate.

From Small Markets to Society at Large

This isn’t just about one market. The beauty of #OGB is its inherent scalability and adaptability. Just as the #fediverse has grown organically over the years, OGB can proliferate from one market to others, weaving a tapestry of self-governance that could very well encompass various societal facets.

“We know the grassroots process of organizing works. We’ve seen the federated model scale times over. Combine them, and we have a DIY governance culture that could revolutionize society.”

A History of Activism, A Future of Change

The Open Governance Body is not just a project; it is the culmination of centuries of activism and social organizing techniques, proven time and again. Combined with the remarkable technological advancements of the fediverse, OGB embodies a modern solution rooted in historical success. It’s a rallying cry for those seeking to instill real, lasting change in the world through cooperative, human-centric means.

The future of governance looks brighter with initiatives like OGB. Unlike the faltering structures of old, this endeavor promises to usher in an era where technology enables democracy and human connection, not control and division. It’s time to embrace the open governance body, roll up our sleeves, and be a part of the grassroots revolution.

Remember, progress doesn’t ask for permission—it is an open invitation to innovate, participate and effectuate change. Join the OGB movement, and let’s co-create a governance model that befits our times and aspirations.

Outreach:

1. Have you heard about #OGB? It’s breaking boundaries in web governance through grassroots activism & federated tech! Get ready to govern your own communities with human-scale solutions that actually work.

2. Exciting news: The federation of #ActivityPub proves we can scale horizontally and spark real change! Combined with grassroots governance, we’re onto a new chapter of progressive social shifts. Let’s build this together!

3. Picture this: A street market governed organically by its community via #OGB. Stallholders, customers, and local services all have a say. Ready to revolutionize the way we collaborate and manage shared spaces?

4. Do you want an active role in shaping your community? With #OGB permissionless roll-outs, anyone can start making impactful decisions. Let’s grow this movement, producers by producer group, instance by instance!

5. Imagine a system where your voice directly influences your surroundings. #OGB is blending hundreds of years of activist governance with the scalable power of the #fediverse. Let’s make self-governance the norm!

6. We’re planting seeds for a #DIY grassroots culture to flourish across society with #OGB. No permission needed, just the desire for change and collaboration. Who’s ready to be part of this empowering journey?

Now, where is my shovel?

A lot of current #mainstreaming arguments that are treated as left and right are actually not. They are arguments between modernism and postmodernism. This is a mess that the postmodernists have pushed over the last 40 years.

We need tools for composting this mess, shovels come to mind. But it’s hard to grasp a shovel on your knees with no handle and no head… so we are currently dealing with the shit with our hands, yes it’s messy.

We have people who are dogmatic, careerist and secretly worshipping the #deathcult as the #mainstreaming voices of much of the #Fediverse, this is ALWAYS a problem in activism and #FOSS is activism if it’s anything at all.

This is an issue that needs active mediation, and yes this will create mess and bad feelings, this is how you can tell you are doing the right thing and being useful… phwww… work.

Now, where is my shovel?

Talking about #hashtags

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

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

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

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

The signal to noise issue of our #geekproblem

#Mastodon and the wider #fedivers are native #openweb project based on the #4opens people who try to “harden” and “secure” these are completely missing where the value is at.

They are spreading #FUD and endangering real activists acting this way.

Media is “open” using #ActivertyPub.

Anything that is not media should use encrypted p2p chat, there are many mature #FOSS projects for this.

At the moment as the #Fediverse is a #OMN based on the #4opens you have very low barrier to running or even developing an instance, this is where the value is.

Adding security generally makes a HUGE barrier to Dev and #DIY running an instance.

The #geekproblem has no idea of the damage they do when pushing their “common sense”. This creates a signal-to-noise issue that has been blocking alt for 20 years.