Tag: FOSS

Understanding Anarchism


This one rings true https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/bob-black-anarchism-and-other-impediments-to-anarchy “If there were no anarchists, the state would have had to invent them. We know that on several occasions it has done just that. We need anarchists unencumbered by anarchism. Then, and only then, we can begin to get serious about fomenting anarchy. “

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

We do need to talk about useful tools we are underusing. Hashtags are ubiquitous online, at best they categorize content to find and join conversations on topics. The problem with current #fashernista 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 is about the occurrence of events by chance, this provides a beneficially fresh perspective on hashtag use. By implementing hashtags in a way that fosters unexpected connections and discoveries, it transforms how they function as social tools. Yes, 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 path.

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 path values diversity and decentralization, allowing for meany perspectives to coexist. This aligns with the concept of serendipity, where the focus is on connections and discoveries rather than rigid categorization.

This is the value in the OMN, which 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. But the OMN project faces significant challenges in securing funding and overcoming “common sense” 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 paths.

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 horizontal path of the World Wide Web.
  • #closedweb: The pre- and post-open web internet dominated by for-profit control.
  • #4opens: Principles of transparency, collaboration, and sharing in open-source, #FOSS 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 whether new projects are needed or if existing ones should be improved.
  • #OMN and #indymediaback: Rebooting the altmedia projects on the #openweb.
  • #OGB: Open governance and the power of community lead decision-making.

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

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 to the path, but is often found due to structural and cultural factors inside the development communities.

Feudalism in FOSS

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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?

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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

  1. 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.
  2. 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.

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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, cultural factors generally lead to feudal-like power dynamics. Addressing these issues requires conscious effort to promote full #4opens transparency, accountability, and inclusivity within the community. Adopting balanced governance models and practices, like the #OGB, allow projects to mitigate the risks of feudalism and ensure a healthier development environment.

A wider picture of this mess

The Battle for the Internet: Open vs. Closed

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

The #OpenWeb

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

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

The #ClosedWeb

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

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

The Internet’s “native” Potential

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

From the #OpenWeb perspective:

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

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

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

The Battleground for Openness

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

The #GeekProblem

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

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

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

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

Tension, Open and Closed Web

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

The collaborative, #openweb: Rooted in #DNA of post apocalyptical internet code and culture, this vision is of a network for collaboration, sharing, and free exchange of information. Built for use in a world of abundance of information, free as in free beer. Emphasizes #4opens, creativity, and collective creation, associated with “native geek culture” and what can be understood as radical/anarchist libertarian thinking.

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

The Internet inherent democratization and egalitarianism allows everyone to create and share content. However, this ideal clashes with the pushing of commercial control, to monetize user data and interactions. This #open path empowers people to distribute their work, share ideas, and bypass traditional gatekeepers. The web transforms education and information access to synthesizing vast resources needed for a different view of society. From the #closedweb prospective, you have fear, simply fear.

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

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

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

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

We need to compost the current culture of lying

The Fediverse is “native” to Anarchism

Anarchism is a part of #FOSS governance, it is a political philosophy and social movement that shaped the foundations of the internet and #openweb on a path to move from centralized power to decentralized, self-government. This was a strong part of #web01 and a strong part of why it worked so well. So this space embodies #anarchism which 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.

This has a long and varied history, with roots in liberalism and socialism.

Anarchism in Action

  1. 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.
  2. Acting as If Free: Anarchism is about behaving as though one is already free, practising this directly.
  3. 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:

  1. Individual Freedom and Autonomy: Anarchism values individual freedom and autonomy, arguing that centralized systems of power limit personal liberty.
  2. 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.
  3. Direct Democracy and Grassroots Participation: Anarchism is associated with a strong commitment to direct democracy and grassroots participation in decision-making.
  4. Challenging Oppressive Systems: Anarchist ideas inspired many social movements to challenge and dismantle oppressive systems and hierarchies.

Arguments Against Anarchism

Critics of anarchism raise concerns:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. Practical Implementation: Critics argue that anarchism is too 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.

One thing, we do need to understand is that 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 like this. Though, as critics, argue this path is not easy or without its problems.

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

Let’s look a bit deeper, 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.

  1. 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.
  2. 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 paths, 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, authority and domination have been accepted as legitimate by those who are subordinated. This acceptance flows from 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.

We need to make this obvious that 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. Understanding, 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. Transparency and Accountability: Promoting transparency and accountability within EU institutions to ensuring that decision-making processes are open, inclusive, and accountable to the people. This involves pushing for #4opens in policymaking, access to information, and mechanisms for holding people and policymakers accountable for their actions.
  4. 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.
  5. Coalition Building: Building coalitions and alliances among diverse spiky and fluffy stakeholders amplify voices and increase collective influence on EU. By forging partnerships across wide sectors, groups and organizations leverage their collective strengths and resources to drive the needed systemic change.
  6. 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 networks to inform and mobilize the people around key issues.
  7. Participatory Governance: Promoting participatory governance within the EU enhances peoples engagement and democratic decision-making. This includes establishing networks like the #OGB for public participation, citizen assemblies, and deliberative processes for people to contribute to policy development and decision-making.
  8. International Collaboration: Collaborating with international partners, organizations, and networks to amplify efforts to drive change within the EU. By sharing “native” practices, 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 needed 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.

  1. Ownership by Communities: The Fediverse offers a way to build the internet by and for communities, in contrast to centralized #dotcons social networks that push monetization over community well-being. By decentralizing governance, the Fediverse empowers people to take control of their online spaces and relationships.
  2. 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. Nonetheless, the slow growth of communities is essential for digging and building a strong “native” foundation for #openweb decentralized networking.
  3. Governance and Community: A key distinction in 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 in any meaningful way with community interests. People are drawn to the alt path for its emphasis on inclusivity and agency, allowing both individuals and social groups to express themselves without fear of censorship or out group coercion.
  4. 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 away to decentralized networking. This allows people to become familiar with the #openweb culture and its advantages.
  5. Website Design and Accessibility: With the foundational #4opens principles, the focus shifts to website design that reflects these values. Accessibility, both in terms of physical access and cultural understanding, need to become prioritized to ensure that the platform is both inclusive and user-friendly, in sharp contrast to too much of the bad #UX history of existing #FOSS coding.

The Fediverse represents a shift towards community-driven, decentralized networking, offering an alternative to #dotcons. It prioritizes people’s and community agency, inclusivity, and accessibility, to create spaces to connect and express difference and similarity.

Let’s reboot the #openweb as a start, we can try calling this #web1.5

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

#NGIFORUM
#NGIFORUM2025
#NGIFORUM25
#Fediforum

etc

Some parts of the geekproblem

The #geekproblem is about the challenges and limitations that grow from the dominance of a particular “problem” geek culture in technology industry’s and #FOSS movements. This is characterized by a strong emphasis on technical expertise, at the expense of social, ethical, and democratic considerations. The geek culture pushes technical solutions and innovations over social paths, leading to problems in the development and deployment of #openweb technology.

Aspects of this #geekproblem:

  1. Technical Bias: Geek “problem” culture favours 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.
  2. Meritocracy: Geek”problem” culture 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.
  3. Lack of Empathy: The geek “problem” culture’s focus on technical excellence leads to a lack of empathy for people 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 pushing digital divides and inequalities in the use of #FOSS code.
  4. Resistance to Change: Geek “problem” culture is resistant to change, particularly when it comes to questioning established technical norms or practices. This resistance hinders progress in addressing social, ethical, and environmental challenges which require broader systemic changes beyond technical solutions.
  5. 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 a holistic approach to technology development based on the #4opens social, ethical, and democratic dimensions alongside technical considerations. Addressing the geekproblem requires challenging current social structures and promoting diversity, empathy, and more democratic decision-making within the development and #FOSS communities.

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 it. This negative path is hard-coded deep into their architecture. They cannot be fixed.

The rebooting of the #openweb is the path we have taken. Copying worked well for the first step — it let us get moving. But for the next step, we need to move past the simple replication of the current #mainstreaming mess. We cannot reboot alternatives by simply copying them in #FOSS, as we have too often done in the #Fediverse.

The next step needs to be more native to the #4opens path we have started down. Let’s thank the people who copied. Let’s give them statues and security – they did us all a service. They deserve gratitude for this first step, not hatred. But we cannot stop there.

The mess of the #dotcons. Take the example of Twitter’s devolution. What began as a #neoliberal platform – deregulated, market-driven, profit-focused – has slid into a space with growing fascist tendencies under Elon Musk. This is not an accident. It’s a stark reminder of the pitfalls of unchecked corporate #dotcons and their susceptibility to authoritarian capture.

Neoliberalism, with its emphasis on deregulation and market “solutions,” inevitably concentrates wealth and power into the hands of a few. That concentration erodes democratic norms and opens the door to authoritarianism. Twitter is just one case. The intertwining of neoliberalism and fascism underscores why we need vigilance: not only against economic inequality, but also against the erosion of the native #openweb projects we struggle to build and sustain.

The trap of nostalgia, in the reaction of neoliberal “common sense” to Twitter’s fascist turn is instructive. Despite the platform’s descent, many #mainstreaming users still engage with it, clinging to nostalgia for its earlier, more liberal incarnation. This highlights the tendency of #mainstreaming to adapt to life under oppressive regimes, out of self-preservation, habit, or a misguided sense of normalcy. It is a sobering reminder of the dangers of complacency and the urgency of resisting authoritarianism, especially in its early stages.

The lesson for the #openweb can be found in this transformation of Twitter from neoliberalism to fascism, which shows the interconnectedness of economic and political systems. It underlines the need for collective action to safeguard native #openweb values. By recognizing the warning signs of authoritarianism and refusing to normalize its spread, we can prevent the erosion of the commons we are trying to grow.

The next stage of the reboot cannot be a mirror of the #dotcons. It must be different, open, grounded, messy, and alive.

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

  1. Centralization of Power: The dominant platforms in the #dotcons era are #closedweb, centralized, controlled by a handful of corporations.
  2. 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.
  3. 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 control without consent and transparency. This exploitation of people’s data undermines “society” and creates significant ethical concerns.
  4. 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.
  5. 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 spaces based on trust.
  6. 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.
  7. Digital Divide: Access to the internet and digital technologies remained unevenly distributed during the #closedweb era, exacerbating social and economic inequalities. Due to resource constraints, 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. Balancing this requires continuing 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

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

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

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