Tag: geekproblem

Control in Tech Culture

The 20th century was marked by significant technological and scientific advancements, alongside violent conflicts. As we move through the 21st century, the nature of these conflicts is shifting. The struggle is increasingly between humanity and nature, with dire consequences if we continue down our current path. Environmental degradation and climate change are no longer side effects, but central challenges that must be addressed. We need to find paths to move off the current paths, there are assumptions that are #blocking this needed move, one is in technology and its assumptions.

This #geekproblem has been inherited from past era’s in our computer architectures and the broader tech culture that has an ingrained concept of control. This control, hardcoded into systems and frameworks, poses an unspoken problem within many geek paths. Addressing this issue is crucial for understanding the broader implications and possibilities of grassroots #openweb tech activism as a path out of the current social and technical mess.

The Control paradigm in tech, from the foundations of computing, control has been a central theme. Systems are designed to operate under strict protocols, ensuring reliability, security, and efficiency. This paradigm, while effective in technological contexts, is inadvertently extend into social dynamics within tech communities. Control in tech is not just about managing systems; it also shapes interactions, hierarchies, and decision-making processes.

Unconscious participation in control structures, in tech communities, is unconsciously embedded in social groups that perpetuate this control paradigm. It’s essential to recognize that this isn’t a personal failing but a reflection of broader cultural trends. The challenge lies in identifying and addressing these unconscious patterns to foster more open, collaborative, and equitable environments.

The Keep It Simple, Stupid (#KISS) principle is a valuable tool for analysing generalist issues within our shared cultures. By simplifying complex problems, we can better understand the dynamics at play and develop more effective solutions. Applying the KISS principle to tech activism helps to demystify the control paradigm and its impact on our communities.

This blog is dedicated to exploring alternative paths that we can take to address these issues. By grassroots #openweb tech activism to mitigate the destructive patterns of control and build more sustainable and equitable paths. To promote decentralized technologies to empower people and communities, reducing reliance on centralized control structures.

#4opens emphasizes the importance of open-source software, to encourages collaboration, transparency, and shared ownership and community building. We need to fostering strong, inclusive communities that prioritize collective well-being over hierarchical control. We need to shift to environmental stewardship and ecological consciousness in our tech development and usage, recognizing the interconnectedness of human and environmental health in the tools we use.

This path requires a fundamental shift in how we approach technology and control. By embracing the #openweb and grassroots activism, we can create resilient, inclusive, and sustainable technological systems. This is not just a technical challenge but a cultural and ethical one.

#OMN #indymediaback #OGB #makeinghistory #visionontv #4opens

Communities and People are the #Openweb

The #Fediverse, short for Federated Universe, is a part of the #openweb made of human connections through #4opens computer networks. At best, its value is not a collection of software packages, much more about the flows of human community that build relationships across diverse groups and regions. Imagine the Fediverse as a web of communities, each represented as a node. These nodes are not defined by the software they use, but by the people and groups that form them:

  • Affinity Groups in Activism: communities of action and social movements
  • Local Governments: Municipalities using the Fediverse to communicate with residents, share public announcements, and gather feedback.
  • Universities: Academic institutions fostering collaboration among students, faculty, and researchers, enabling the sharing of resources and knowledge.
  • Families: Family members staying connected, sharing updates, photos, and maintaining family bonds regardless of geographical distances.
  • Friend Groups: Friends interacting and sharing moments in a private, ad-free space, organizing events, and maintaining their social ties.
  • Companies: Businesses collaborating internally and with their customers, providing customer support, and sharing company news.
  • Interests: People and communities expressing themselves, sharing their thoughts, hobbies, and connecting with like-minded individuals around the world.

These communities interact seamlessly across the #openweb, regardless of the specific codebase they grow in. Yes it’s important to understand the good #UX of the software that makes these connections possible plays a part, and that each of these nodes use a common protocol, #ActivityPub, to communicate, forming the backbone of “native” #openweb flows. This #4opens interoperability allows people on one codebase to interact with users on another, creating a unified, yet decentralized, social network.

“The Fediverse isn’t about connecting software packages. It’s about connecting communities and people. If you make a Fediverse explainer, try to show some real communities as the nodes in the network, rather than using software packages and their logos. Companies, local governments, universities, families, friend groups, individuals. You can explain what software makes those networks possible in your next slide.” https://mastodon.social/deck/@evan@cosocial.ca/112847724644046695

Though, what meany in our #fashernista and #geekproblem paths miss is this thrives because of the human element. It’s about the people who use these platforms to connect, share, and build spaces that reflect their values and needs. It’s the people and the communities of use that make this real, let’s talk about them #KISS

We have an undeclared #stupidindividualism battle pushing to destroy this in numerous ways, we do need to push this back, while holding out a hand to bring people over. Yes it a step, don’t be scared.

Reconnect with Our Social Roots

The path through technology, society, and environmental crises is a challenge that most people find difficult to find, let alone walk. This is why I have been building “sign posts” in a #hashtag story for the last 20 years, hashtags such as #geekproblem, #KISS, #4opens, and #deathcult etc. These are metaphors that highlight our technological thinking and represent issues and philosophies that make visible the paths of technological advancements and social cohesion. By using these “signs” and path, people can better understand the need to move from individualistic and technocentric working to collective and sustainable social practices.

The #geekproblem has the tendency of technologists and enthusiasts to focus excessively on technical solutions, neglecting the social and human aspects of these paths. Technologists struggle to comprehend the simplicity of #KISS path to overcome the tunnel vision where technical fixes are panaceas, side lining the importance of social dynamics and community engagement. The #4opens framework—open data, open source, open standards, and open process—offers a counterbalance by providing a structure that promotes transparency and collaboration. However, this does not inherently solve issues; it simply creates a space for people to engage and address problems collectively.

A significant barrier to overcoming the #geekproblem and embracing more holistic approaches is the pervasive culture of #deathcult worship. This is a metaphorical for the last 40 years of #neoliberalism, a term that describes the idolization of technological progress and capitalist efficiency at the expense of environmental sustainability and social well-being. Many people and groups, consciously or unconsciously, worship this path, prioritizing short-term gains and #fashionista “marvels” over sustainability and human connections.

The worship of this #deathcult is destructive because it undermines broader societal issues, it pushes the culture of #stupidindividualism with blinded competition, making it challenging to discuss and address anything outside the #mainstreaming agenda. This focus diverts attention from the collective action needed for #KISS tackling complex problems like #climatechaos and resulting social break down.

In this metaphor, composting represents the process of breaking down and re-evaluating our technological and social practices. It requires a willingness to let go of dysfunctional and harmful paradigms and to create fertile ground for new seeds or sustainable and humane approaches. This fertile soil, enriched by lessons learned and experiences gained, can nurture the sprigs of humanity through the on rushing era of #climatechaos.

To move beyond this destructive worship and technocentric mindset, we need to recognize and reject the blinded pushing of technology and efficiency as easy goals. This involves a critical examination of our values and the systems we support, using the #4opens to composting the piles of #techshit accumulated over the past decade’s symbolizes a necessary shift from merely accumulating technological advancements to reflecting on their impact and repurposing them for good.

Pickup your #OMN shovel and get to work:

  • Balance Individualism: Embrace collective action and community engagement. Recognize that social problems cannot be solved by technical solutions alone.
  • Promote the #4opens: Encourage transparency, collaboration, and openness in all endeavours. Use these principles to create spaces where people can engage and address issues together.
  • Critique the #Deathcult: Actively challenge the idolization of blinded technological progress and capitalist efficiency. Advocate for sustainable and socially responsible practices.
  • Compost and Rebuild: Reflect on past practices, learn from mistakes, and repurpose technology to support long-term sustainability and human well-being.
  • Nurture Humanity: Focus on building strong, resilient communities that can withstand and adapt to the challenges of the #climatechaos era.

The journey to overcoming the #geekproblem and moving away from #deathcult worship is needed, it’s past the time to pick up your shovels and make compost on this.

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

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

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

  • The #NLnet Foundation is a notable example of an organization that provides funding to open-source projects. Supported by private and public funds, including significant contributions from the #EU, NLnet focuses on promoting a free, open, and secure internet.
  • The #NGI initiative, funded by the #EU, aims to shape the development of the internet of tomorrow. By supporting a range of open-source projects, NGI tries to foster innovation, privacy, and security. It emphasizes human-concentric technology, ensuring that the future internet respects humanistic values and needs.
  • The #EU has been a significant proponent of FOSS, providing funding through programs such as Horizon 2020 and Horizon Europe. The EU’s supports digital sovereignty, reduce dependency on non-European technologies through promoting open standards.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Addressing the #geekproblem

A river that needs crossing political and tech – On the political side, there is arrogance and ignorance, on the geek side there is naivety and over complexity. All code is ideology solidified into action – most contemporary code is capitalism, this is hardly a surprise if you think about this for a moment. Yes you can try and act on any ideology on top of this code, but the outcome and assumptions are preprogramed… cant find any good links on this…

As a useful path, we need to look at technology from the social prospective to have any hope of the needed change and challenge. With this view, on one hand, it’s interesting to look at how data and metadata serve as the social glue binding society together. And on the other, how our contemporary #deathcult worship—championing separation and anonymization through privacy and security efforts coded by the #geekproblem—undermines this needed social cohesion.

If you are a part of this #geekproblem then it is worth taking a step back to consider how our current coding practices shaped by society and liberalism affect both society and ecology in this blind worship. This “common sense” dogmatic path leads us toward corporate “socialism”, which is the path to fascism, where the laws and norms are tailored to benefit a select few at the top of the shit pile we live in. Consequently, this data and metadata privatization, pushes us down the path to a disturbing shift towards “National Socialism” that then becomes the #mainstreaming.

The #KISS path to address this #geekproblem is to #stepaway from this cycle and code outside the confines of #mainstreaming liberalism without going down the fascism path.

To achieve meaningful change, we must examine technology from a social perspective. On one hand, data and metadata act as the social glue binding society. On the other, our obsession with privacy and security—driven by the #geekproblem—undermines this cohesion.

If you’re part of the #geekproblem, consider how our coding practices, influenced by liberalism, affect society and ecology. This “common sense” liberalism leads to corporate “socialism,” benefiting a select few and paving the way to fascism, with laws favouring the rich. Privatizing data and metadata pushes us towards a disturbing shift to “National Socialism” #mainstreaming.

The #KISS approach to this issue is to step away from this cycle, coding outside mainstream liberalism without veering towards fascism.

This is on this subject

Indymedia based on the #OMN framework

The original #Indymedia network was a vibrant platform for decentralized grassroots media. It gave voice to those ignored by corporate media and built a culture of open publishing and collaboration. But over time it succumbed to both internal and external pressures.

Why reboot #Indymedia now? And how can we spread the understanding of why we need to do this. But, before we can revive the project, we need to face those failures honestly – and learn from them.

Why did Indymedia decline?

  • Internal conflicts – tribalism, ego, and power politics fractured unity.
  • Divergent visions – competing goals and methods led to fragmentation.
  • External pressures – surveillance, repression, and legal harassment weakened the network.
  • Technological change – rapid shifts in digital media outpaced Indymedia’s adaptability.
  • Sustainability problems – financial and operational support was always fragile.
  • Centralization vs. decentralization – endless tension between autonomy and coherence sapped energy.

These dynamics weren’t unique to Indymedia. They mirror the wider decline of radical alt-media in the face of #dotcons and the #deathcult of neoliberal “common sense.” So what is #IndymediaBack? It’s a project about rekindling what worked while composting what didn’t. It is rooted in the principles that once made Indymedia a powerful force:

  • Trust-based publishing
  • Do-ocracy
  • Anti-authoritarianism

But this time, we pair those values with modern tools and lessons learned.

The role of #OMN framework is central to this reboot. It brings with it:

  • Openness and collaboration
  • Decentralization by design

Objectives of the reboot:

  • Re-establish open publishing flows – grassroots publishing, ensuring diverse voices are heard.
  • Strengthen decentralized structures – prevent power concentration while empowering local autonomy.
  • Implement modern standards – adopt protocols like #ActivityPub to improve functionality and widen news flows.
  • Avoid past mistakes – use clear governance and messy consensus to counter tribalism and power politics.
  • Promote sustainability – develop financial and operational models that keep the network alive long-term.

Strategies for Revival:

  • Adopt a #NothingNew policy – stick to the original workflows and ethos, but update them to meet today’s realities.
  • Build affinity groups – working groups to tackle specific issues and reach consensus on direction.
  • Emphasize the #4opens – open source, open data, open standards, open processes — to guarantee transparency and inclusivity.

Expected Outcomes:

  • A resilient and inclusive network of sites – decentralized and open, able to withstand pressures from within and without.
  • Diverse, vibrant media content – a rich tapestry of perspectives beyond the mainstream.
  • Sustainable operations – financial and organizational resilience to endure over time.
  • Community-driven governance – messy consensus and grassroots decision-making, not top-down control.

Conclusion, this is not just about restoring what was lost. It is about composting the failures and growing something new, a living network that can adapt to future challenges while staying true to its radical, open, grassroots beginnings.

Thinking about news on the #fediverse

Bad conversations in #FOSS and tech

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

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

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

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

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

Why the pushing of #AI is more #techshit

The #stupidindividualism of the Silicon Valley’s ideology, around tech-driven libertarianism and as our chattering classes say “hyper-individualism”, is spreading social mess and #techshit, we need shovels to compost. It’s now clear that these anti #mainstreaming ‘solutions’ create more problems than they attempt to solve, particularly in terms of social breakdown and environmental damage. The utopian nightmares of tech billionaires collapse under the weight of on rushing real-world challenges. This should make visible to more of us the #geekproblem, the limits of technocratic fixes. The lies under the once-promised technological mediated future of freedom and innovation has been shown to be control and chaos, this should make it obvious that we need to take different paths away from the Silicon Valley’s delusion.

A podcast from of our weak liberals on the subject of #AI https://flex.acast.com/audio.guim.co.uk/2024/07/15-61610-gnl.sci.20240715.eb.ai_climate.mp3 a #mainstreaming view of the mess we are making on this path. The big issue is not the actual “nature” of AI, though that is not without issues. What I am covering here is that #AI is reinforcing existing power structures and socioeconomic realities, #neoliberal ideology and historical bias. This is driven by the goals of enhancing efficiency, reducing costs, and maximizing profits by increased surveillance, this in itself should raise ethical concerns about privacy and freedoms, that the #geekproblem so often justifies under the guise of security.

We need to think about this: AI systems trained on data from the past 40 years are inherently biased by the socio-political context of that period, perpetuating what are now outdated and obsolete beliefs. This historical bias locks in narrow ideological paths, particularly those associated with #neoliberalism and our 40 years worshipping at this #deathcult. This is not only a problem with AI, its a wider issue, we continue to prioritize economic growth over social and environmental paths, with the resent election victory in the UK, the Labour Party’s is pushing the normal #mainstreaming established during the #Thatcher era, in this we see past ideologies continue to shape current #mainstreaming political paths, the tech simply reinforces this.

It’s hard to know what path to take with this mess. Ethical frameworks like the #4opens and regulatory oversight to guide the responsible use of AI might help. By addressing the current mess and challenges, we might be able to work towards an AI path that reflects diverse perspectives and serves a more common good rather than reinforcing narrow #deathcult litany and hard right ideological paths this grows, which is the current default path. Recognizing and addressing the challenges in AI development is the first step towards the change we need to challenge, us, to compost this social mess and heaps of #techshit we have created, that shapes us.

A Critique of “fluffy” Leftist and Progressive #AI Paths

UPDATE: An academic talking about this has just come out https://arxiv.org/pdf/2410.18417

Keeping communication barriers in place, leads to a lack of awareness

This is a core problem of #fashernista driven paths, pushing aside grassroots and #openweb movements, due to misalignment agendas. The #fashernists are driven by #mainstreaming agendas that end up co-opt grassroots projects, then pushing systematizing them in ways that dilute their “original native” paths, intent and value. This mess making leads to #techchurn and a continuous cycle of superficial innovation that does nothing to address real needed issues at all.

This resulting #blocking of communication leads to a lack of awareness in people involved in these movements, limited understanding of the history and principles underlying the #KISS grassroots and #openweb paths. With the #fediverse, decentralization is a core principle, though it often leads to difficulties in coordination and collective decision-making. This in hand with the “common sense” #mainstreaming people’s resistances to adopting new models of governance and cooperation like the #OGB pushes the current social mess and #techcurn mess we live in.

There are proposed solutions to this, build and support authentic projects, like the #OMN and #OGB etc. To grow collaborative governance and inclusive decision-making, start with small-scale pilot projects to demonstrate the effectiveness of collaborative governance to “test” decentralized development. Then use these projects (with federation) as models for larger initiatives, rinse and repeat, it’s a #KISS path, which leads to the cultivation of a community of resilience and nurtures infrastructure that is robust and adaptable, capable of withstanding the normal pressures and disruptions.

Part of this path is the need to challenge #mainstreaming narratives with alternative progressive media (#indymediaback) providing a counter-story, then pushing this feedback loop to highlight successes and innovations within the grassroots and #openweb movements.

Also using the #4opens as a key to encourage critical engagement with #geekproblem and #dotcons projects, questioning their alignment with grassroots values and thus pushing for accountability and transparency to really move people off these paths.

Let’s start embracing the composting of #techshit to turn the current stinking mess into fertile ground for new #openweb growth and innovation. Let’s pick up our shovels to build the change and challenge, that is so obviously needed, and please try not to be a prat, thanks.

“The work of the anarchist is above all a work of critique. The anarchist goes, sowing revolt against that which oppresses, obstructs, opposes itself to the free expansion of the individual being.”
— Emile Armand

Crisis of Governance in FOSS: Medieval Politics and Neoliberal Failures

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

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

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

Neoliberal Individualism and Its Failures

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

The #techshit and #geekproblem

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

Moving Towards Modern Governance

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

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

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

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

Conclusion, to move forward, we need to shed the medieval political structures and #neoliberal individualism to make space to embracing democratic governance, community-centric paths, diversity so that communities can mediate the #techshit and #geekproblem, paving the way for a more collaborative and native #openweb.

The Hydrogen Path is #techchurn

Hydrogen is heralded by our conservative crew as a miracle fuel, offering a clean and carbon-free source of energy. By combining hydrogen with atmospheric oxygen, we produce water and energy, a blinded “perfect” solution for fantasy energy needs. However, hydrogen has drawbacks that make its large-scale adoption a #geekproblem dysfunctional fantasy.

Challenges with Hydrogen: Hydrogen needs to be stored under high pressure, requiring expensive infrastructure. It also degrades this infrastructure, the materials it contacts, in use, necessitating specialized storage solutions. Hydrogen is highly volatile and very prone to leaks. Its tendency to evaporate and explode make it difficult to manage safely for any #mainstreaming widespread use.

Energy Conversion Efficiency: The biggest issue with hydrogen is its inefficiency. Energy conversion processes inherently lose energy at each stage. Generating electricity, converting it to hydrogen, storing it, and then converting it back to electricity results in an efficiency of around 30-40%. This is a very bad ecological path to go down, as a significant portion of the original “green” energy is wasted.

Hydrogen as Energy Storage, Hydrogen is pushed as a solution to the intermittent nature of renewable energy sources like wind and solar power. By using excess renewable energy to produce hydrogen, it can be stored and later converted back to electricity when needed. However, the inefficiency of this process poses a major obstacle. The loss of energy at each conversion stage means that using hydrogen as a storage medium is far less efficient than direct use of the electricity generated. Changing lifestyle to reflect this shifting of energy supply is a much more sensible and sustainable path to take. The pushing of the economic feasibility of hydrogen energy storage is adding to the current mess.

Governmental Strategies and Investments, despite this mess, some countries, like the USA, the UK, and Germany, are pursuing hydrogen strategies. However, much of the progress remains theoretical, with plans significantly outstripping current capabilities. For instance, the International Energy Agency’s data shows a massive gap between existing hydrogen production capacity and future targets, with only a small fraction of these plans having secured funding.

Procrastination and Continued Fossil Fuel Use, one of the most #mainstreaming reason for the hydrogen push is procrastination. By planning to use hydrogen in new power plants, governments can appear to be moving towards greener energy solutions while continuing to rely on fossil fuels. Many of these new plants are designed to run on both hydrogen and natural gas, meaning that in the absence of sufficient hydrogen, they will continue to operate on gas. This approach allows for the continuation of fossil fuel use under the guise of transitioning to green energy.

Conclusion, the current push for hydrogen as an energy solution is adding to the current mess, it’s plagued by challenges and inefficiencies. While hydrogen has potential in specific applications, such as industrial processes, its role in large-scale energy storage and production is limited by practical and economic constraints. The hydrogen economy, in its present form, primarily serves as a way to justify the continued use of fossil fuels rather than an any genuine transition to cleaner energy.

Let us please stop with the lies, thanks.

Slogan for #openweb: “Technology’s job is to hold the trust in place”

Definitions can be loose; making things overly rigid is a #Geekproblem that fosters conflict.
This is why the #4opens is about interpretation and judgment. The #Fediverse is a vibrant and active #openweb project, currently one of the healthiest “native” parts of this path.

Some “native” examples we are working on:

Principles for #OGB (Open Governance Body) Consensus and Engagement: Decisions are valid only if a wide range of people are involved, ensuring that the collective is the consensus. This prevents any single individual from overpowering the group. Power resides in trust groups, which likely use their influence positively. This #KISS is needed to maintain trust that ensures better outcomes.

Solving technology problems with trust and #4opens: These principles provide a flexible and resilient approach to technological challenges. To repeat, the key role of technology is to maintain trust. To do this, let’s focus on the social path, an example of this would be #PGA (People’s Global Action), that keeping this as a checkpoint helps block #mainstreaming attempts and maintain polite engagement.

Building and maintaining projects needs strong social defaults and hardcoding #4opens. Consistency, keep the #4opens principles at the forefront to prevent dilution during outreach. Building tech from the grassroots level, horizontally, avoids #mainstreaming “common sense” which always leads to burnout and friction. While outreach is essential, the core principles should not be compromised. Focus on community and consensus to ensure broad engagement to maintain trust and effective governance.

These guidelines provide a structured approach to developing and maintaining technology projects that are open, transparent, and community-driven. By emphasizing trust and the #4opens principles, we create a resilient and sustainable path for technological and social change and challenge that is so needed in the era of #climatechaos.

#NGI #NLnet #EU