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.
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
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 ideas inspired 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 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.
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.
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 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.
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 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.
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. 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 networks to inform and mobilize the people around key issues.
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.
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 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.
“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?”
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 #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.
Centralization of Power: The dominant platforms in the #dotcons era are #closedweb, 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 control 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 spaces based on 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. 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
#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.
The #4opens: For Progressive Society and Tech Change
The #4opens offers guiding principles for testing, evaluating, and promoting progressive social and tech projects. With these principles, people and communities prioritise paths of openness, collaboration, and the social good. The #4opens can be used to drive meaningful change:
Open Data
Open data is the foundation of transparency and accountability in technology and social initiatives. By making data freely accessible, shareable, and reusable, projects foster innovation and collaboration. Enable democratic decision-making by access to critical information. Promote public oversight of systems and institutions.
Examples: open data to track government spending and expose corruption. Monitoring environmental pollution to drive policy change. Analysing social trends to inform public planning and advocacy.
Open data provides the raw materials for progress by empowering communities to act on information.
Open Source
Open source. #FOSS software is the backbone of a healthy, collaborative tech ecosystem. By making source code accessible and encouraging collective development, open source, accelerates innovation by allowing everyone to improve and adapt tools. Reduces reliance on corporate monopolies and proprietary software. Empowers communities to build tools tailored to their needs.
Examples: Social platforms that challenge the dominance of tech giants, built with open source tools. Privacy-focused apps and decentralised networks. Grassroots initiatives creating bespoke solutions for their communities.
Open source means that technology can remain a public good, not a corporate commodity.
Open Standards
Open “industrial” standards are vital for interoperability and compatibility between diverse technologies. By avoiding lock-in with common protocols, projects promote diversity and prevent monopolistic practices, enable seamless communication across systems.
Examples: Peer-to-peer networks built on open communication protocols. Decentralised social media platforms like those in the #Fediverse that follow open standards like #ActivityPub. Open file formats that ensure data longevity and accessibility.
Open standards create the technical foundation for decentralisation and collaboration.
Open Process
Open process is about transparent participatory decision-making that guides the development and governance of projects. By involving stakeholders at every stage, grows trust and accountability within communities, encourage collective ownership and investment in outcomes to take democratic paths based on consensus and inclusivity.
Examples: Community-led platforms addressing social justice issues. Open governance models that empower stakeholders to make decisions. Participatory planning prioritises collective well-being over individual profit.
Open processes ensure that projects align with the values of the communities they serve.
Advancing the #4opens is more than philosophy, it’s a practical roadmap for driving progressive social and technological change. To make the #4opens actionable, we need to develop tools for evaluation and accountability. Evaluating “Nativeness”, the #4opens serve as criteria to assess how well a project aligns with the principles of the openweb. Ratings and Badges based on adherence to the #4opens criteria, allowing projects to showcase their commitment to openness. Online registries, public directories of #4opens-compliant projects to make it easy for people to discover and support them. These mechanisms make it clear which initiatives genuinely embrace openness and which, need to do better or, fall short.
Conclusion, the #4opens isn’t just about technology; it’s about values. It’s a framework for the tools and systems we build to reflect our commitment to transparency, collaboration, and collective progress. By adopting the #4opens, we take a simple step toward creating a decentralised, open, and people-centred internet that empowers people.
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.
In our ever-evolving digital spheres, governance is often left behind, struggling to catch up with the pace of technology and social change. Among the many attempts to tackle this problem, there’s one that stands out for #KISS innovative and participatory approach: the Open Governance Body (#OGB). This grassroots, federated project is more than another tech experiment; it’s a historical blueprint for any future of human-scale governance.
The Flawed Systems of Old
Let’s face it-governance, as we know it, is very 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 disasters’ 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 experienced thinkers and activists who understand that, progressive social change has always sprung from the bottom up. They’ve taken the federated solution 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 processs have 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 the too often #blocking 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 more social 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 simply 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 instil 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 past 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.
Tools for 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?
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.
