Open vs Closed in Tech

Open Systems: Emphasize transparency, inclusiveness, and shared power. Social interactions in open systems are visible, allowing for accountability and collective decision-making. Examples include public forums, open-source projects, and community assemblies.

Closed Systems: Reserved for private interactions, where privacy and confidentiality are necessary. Examples include personal conversations, private messages, and some business dealings.

The real fear of Closed Systems

Isolation and Control: Closed systems isolate people and groups, enabling power to exert disproportionate influence without any meaningful oversight. This leads to abuses of power, lack of accountability, and the perpetuation of harmful practices.

Stifling Innovation and Collaboration: When information and resources are locked away, collaboration is harder, and serendipity to build the trust for horizontal working suffers. Open systems encourage the sharing of ideas and collective problem-solving, driving trust and humane creativity.

Historical examples

Diaspora vs. RSS Networks:

Diaspora: Promoted as a closed network, provide a privacy-focused alternative to Facebook. However, its closed nature limited its adoption and integration with existing #openweb web ecosystems.

The 10-Year Gap: The decade-long gap between the initial promise of open standards like RSS and their reinvention (e.g., ActivityPub) underscores the challenges of maintaining momentum and community support for open systems. This gap is a huge-lost opportunity.

RSS and ActivityPub: Open standards, facilitate interoperability and decentralized communication. The resurgence of interest in these technologies (e.g., ActivityPub) highlights the value of open systems to building trust based networks.

Ideological Perspectives

Conservatism: Emphasizes stability, tradition, and supports hierarchical structures. In the context of the #openweb, conservatives argue for maintaining closed systems to preserve order and control.

Liberalism: Advocates for individual freedoms and freespeech ideals. Liberals support open communication systems as they align with values, but have a need for closed systems to facilitate the capitalist economics they so love.

Anarchism: Promotes the dismantling of hierarchical structures and champions radical #4opens with decentralization. Anarchists advocate for fully open systems, minimizing any form of “hard” centralized control.

Questions to Consider

Balancing Openness and Privacy: How can we design systems that maximize openness while respecting some privacy and confidentiality?

Sustaining Open Systems: What mechanisms can ensure the longevity and resilience of open systems, preventing them from being overshadowed by closed, proprietary alternatives?

Addressing the #GeekProblem: How can we engage technologists and developers in conversations about the sociopolitical implications of their work, encouraging a commitment to the open path?

Navigating Ideological Differences: How can we bridge ideological gaps to create a shared vision for the #openweb, recognizing the diverse motivations and concerns of different political and social groups?

The discussion about open versus closed is not only technical but rooted in sociopolitical ideologies and ideas of human nature. By understanding these perspectives and implications, we can advocate for the #openweb, to build up this vibrant, inclusive, and innovative space. This needs a thoughtful consideration of historical contexts, current challenges, and future possibilities, always with an eye toward preserving the #4opens that make our internet beneficial for society, not just the few greedy monsters that are destroying what we value, life.

How can we have this conversation without the normal “prat behaver” is a hard path to find.

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

A tech story

In the #openweb of digital innovation, there is a culture revered for its ingenuity and technical prowess – the hackers of old. Yet, beneath the surface of their achievements lays a problem, one that has led to the downfall of many social tech endeavours: the #geekproblem.

In the early days, hackers were pioneers, pushing the boundaries of what was possible, though as their influence grew, so too did the imbalance within their communities. The projects that thrived, that embodied the principles of openness and collaboration (#4opens), were not only the work of these geeks, but wider diverse affinity groups where social leadership was core.

The projects that flourished had strong social guidance, with the geeks playing one part in the larger diversity. This was a healthy dynamic, with different perspectives and different skills, complemented each other to further common social goals.

However, over time tragedy grew when the geeks seized control of the foundations and the #fashernistas, with their penchant for superficial trends, hijacked the facade. With the geeks at the helm and the fashionistas dictating the direction, the once vibrant projects slowly over time withered and died.

The demise of the #openweb was not a sudden event, this slow and steady decline was orchestrated by those who valued personal agendas and status over collective progress. The geeks, blinded by their technical prowess, failed to recognize the importance of social partnerships, while the fashionistas, eager to climb the ladder of #mainstreaming success, sold out the principles they once claimed to champion.

And so, the legacy of the #openweb was tarnished, its promise of democratized access and decentralized trust, betrayed by those who prioritized their own blinded interests over the “native” common good. Yet, amidst this wreckage, a glimmer of hope remains – a reminder that progressive tech lies not in the hands of the few, but in the collective efforts of all who dare to dream of a better, more humanist world. Let’s try not to make the same mistakes with our current #web1.5 reboot in the #Fediverse, please.

To avoid repeating this mess we need to mediate the tragic reality that within our #fashionista circles, there exists a pervasive sense of hopelessness, a destructive force that accompanies their every endeavour. Their relentless pursuit of trends and their blind devotion to the #deathcult have left a trail of destruction in their wake.

We need to actually use the #4opens project, as a beacon of hope amidst this chaos, a reminder that there is another way forward. Not doing this is leading us on the path to failure, contributing to the ever-growing piles of #techshit.

There’s much to be learned from this cycle of destruction and renewal. It’s time to embrace the lessons of the past and walk a better path, one guided not by the whims of #fashionistas or the allure of the #deathcult please.

#4opens

Encryptionists we do need to talk about Governance in tech

The crypto mess talking about governance https://medium.com/@lawrencelundy/no-such-thing-as-decentralised-governance-2a6c6f97382f Lawrence Lundy-Bryan’s perspective on decentralized governance is a reminder that while we aspire to decentralization to break free from oppressive authorities, we should recognize the need for some form of governance. Keep in mind, the key is to establish a type of “central” authority that is accessible and allows for direct participation in governance.

The”native” #openweb based #OGB project discussed in https://hamishcampbell.com/?s=OGB is an exemplary model of federated grassroots governance, which comes from this process https://socialhub.activitypub.rocks/t/working-and-thinking-on-native-openweb-aproches-to-governance/2898 and this fallow up https://socialhub.activitypub.rocks/t/working-and-thinking-on-native-openweb-aproches-to-governance/2898

This is a project that comes from proven practices, an effective path for countless activist groups worldwide over centuries. This approach, outlined in detail, offers a balanced perspective, ensuring acceptance across ideological spectrums. Overcoming initial resistance from both narrow-minded liberals and dogmatic #geekproblem factions is essential to overcome for implementing this approach.

The #OGB (Open Governance Body) is a balanced approach, appealing to a wide range of groups and serving as a bridge between diverse perspectives. Overcoming resistance and gaining acceptance of projects like the #OGB is a proven path to advancing grassroots tech and activism effectively in the era of #climatechaos

“don’t be a prat” comes to mind.

Marx on Nature Conference

10:30 am-11:30 am: Alex Colas (Birkbeck):

Marx, Capitalism and Maritime Temporalities

11:30 am-12:30 pm: Gareth Dale (Brunel): Marx, Growth Ideology, and Degrowth

12:30-14:00: lunch break

14:00-15:00: Nick Stevenson (Nottingham): Democratic Socialism, Degrowth and the Commons: Raymond Williams, Marxism, and the Anthropocene

15:00-16:00: Martin Crook (UWE Bristol): Marx and the Ecocide – Genocide Nexus

16:00-16:30: coffee break

16:30-17:30: Esther Leslie (Birkbeck):

Marx between Fire Theft and Theft for Fire: On Land

(and Everything Else) as Social Product

17:30-18:00: Conclusions by the organisers Laura Langone (Oxford/Verona) and Bernhard Malkmus (Oxford)

This event is organised by Dr Laura Langone, Visiting Marie Skłodowska-Curie Postdoctoral Researcher at the University of Oxford’s Sub-Faculty of German and funded through Dr Langone’s MSCA FUNDS

NOTES from – Marx and nature

Surface time of capitalism, discipline and exchange, exploitation. This is always a revolutionary time.

The time of labour

Deep time, geographic, sea trade roots have lasted thousands of years, with a few new ones the big canals and coming up through the melting ice.

Eastry’s, brackish water, delves into queer humanitarians.

Environmental time meeting the human time of #climatechaos industrialisation, the ghrate accelerations, profits and tax. We do not yet live on the high sea.

Ships are never far from land when at sea, a confined and highracical workspace. Your life world is the same as your work world. Seafarer are pricernares of logistics on boats.

Next speaker

The inventured of economic growth in socialist thinking, Stalin pushed this, catchup and overtake the west. An organisation that become economised, over politics, state capitalism. Technocratic.

———————————————————

I come from an academic background, but I would call my self now a more Organic intellectual

This often invokes fear in academics. Our fear of this kind of knowledge is very modern, we live in fear filled times.

* live on a boat in the “commons” of the waterways, one of the last parts of Europe that have this pre-modern vagrant life.

* But work in technology, where techno fetishism is endemic amongst what I call the #geekproblem

– In the nortical terms the captain and crew, as was sead earlier a master and slave relationship is core to this thinking with the coder as master and the computer as slave – us the users, digital surfs – our role is to fill the information flows with “content” to facilitate harvests data and attention for control of the (#geekproblem) masters and profit of the capitalists.

These people, who increasingly run and control large parts of our lives, are very hard to talk to, it’s my job to do this, and I find it increasingly difficult to cross this tech/social divide.

In technology this is taking us back to pre-modern social relationship of feudalism.

How would Max think of these issues?

—————————–

Boat life – I moor to university land on water controlled by a government agency EU that used to be enforced by the local counceal – they are in dispute on who has responsibility to nobody is taking control, so I live outside the laws in tempery “commons” this a lot of this on the waterways.

———————

Growth ideology was invented in the 17^th century

———————-

Willions an English eco-socialist, radicalising the UK labour movement, self-management tradition

post-modernism raises its head as in everything is socially constructed in modern sociology. Inherent materialism rejects this path.

Rejecting the Green New Deal as a pro capitalist path.

The politics of place, European Union and Brexit rejecting globalisation

Worry about the legacy of Marxism

In the margarines the is a real issue of scale and for social change we need to scale up.

A British socialist vs a communist approach.

————————–

The #OGB is a balance approach, so no dogmatic group will except it. If a small group of people implemented the #OGB the majority of groups would expect it as it bridges the groups. We have to get this past this initial blocking of the dogmatists.

—————————-

neo-liberalism of climate change

Lemkin the annihilation of a group – genocide – the end of a social group.

Imperialism is a form of genocide, the imperative to expand.

Eco- criminogenic of capitalism

The human race is the indigigumes people and neoliberal capitalism is pushing genocide over them in the next 100 years. Capitalism might continue without the bulk of current humanity.

In Australia only modes of production that are useful to the capitalist state are keeps all the rest are exterminated, by bureaucracy or more forceful means. Exclusion from the means of production.

Extreme energy – is going to push the mess into every corner – driving #climatechaos

————————

The event was interesting, but had its moments of sectarianism and had thinking about the issues based on Marx, but no path to take or much of a sniff of a path out of the current mess.

———-

The small genocide of the boater community is a small example

The neoliberal pushing of #climatechaos will genocide large parts of humanity over the next 50 years in the service of an idealogical that might survive this mess, but our cultures and meany of our peoples will not.

Sheep devouring men – the clearances. Indiganalerty.

—————–

Marx and nature,

Plant has a natural and an industrial meaning.

Unattractive work, the factory syteam of labour separating human labour from their selves, alienated labour.

The Irish famine, sol exhaustion, British imperialism in Ireland.

#oxford

Understanding #OMN and the #GeekProblem

One thing I do on this site is to use the #OMN hashtag story to address the challenges and opportunities in the tech world, particularly in mediating the #geekproblem, this involves leveraging the power of storytelling, community engagement, and strategic advocacy as pats to compost the mess we find our selves in.

In the #geekproblem, there are two distinct paths. One path leads to the geeks who won’t code for changing human nature; they are consumed by the #deathcult, kneeling in reverence to it. The other path leads to those who stand tall, observing the world and crafting tools to compost the #techshit created by the first group. The rest are useless #blocking, whinging or both.

A structured approach to take this path:

Understanding #OMN and the #GeekProblem

#OMN (Open Media Network): This represents a vision and workable path to an open, decentralized media network that empowers people and communities by giving them control over content creation and distribution.
The GeekProblem: This refers to the social and cultural issues within the tech community, such as elitism, lack of diversity, and communication barriers between technologists and the broader public. Rooted in the need for control.

Steps to Use #OMN for Change

Define the Narrative:
- Craft a compelling story around #OMN that highlights the #4opens potential to democratize media, enhance transparency, and grow collaboration.
- Emphasize how #OMN can be used to mediate the #geekproblem by creating more inclusive and accessible technology environments.
Engage the Community:
- Use the hashtag #OMN to build a community around the progressive tech vision. Encourage contributions from diverse people, including those who have been marginalized in the tech world.
- Host online discussions, webinars, and collaborative projects to foster a sense of belonging and shared purpose.
Highlight Success Stories:
- Showcase examples of successful #OMN implementations and how they can have positive social impacts on communities.
- Share stories of people and groups who have mediated the #geekproblem by adopting open, inclusive practices.
Create Educational Content:
- Develop and distribute resources that explain the principles of #OMN and how they can be applied to solve real-world problems.
- Offer tutorials, case studies, and best practices to help people understand and implement #OMN concepts.
Promote Open Dialogue:
- Facilitate discussions about the challenges within the tech community, using #OMN as a framework for finding solutions.
- Encourage honest conversations about elitism, diversity, and inclusivity, and how these issues can be addressed through open networks.
Advocate for Policy Changes:
- Work with policymakers and industry leaders to promote policies that support #4opens and decentralized media paths and networks.
- Advocate for regulations that encourage more transparency, user control, and ethical practices in the tech industry.
Collaborate with Organizations:
- Partner with organizations that share the vision of #OMN and inclusive tech culture.
- Leverage these partnerships to amplify the message and reach a wider audience.
Measure and Share Impact:
- Collect feedback and data on the impact of #OMN initiatives and share these findings with the community.
- Use this data to refine strategies and demonstrate the tangible benefits of adopting the #OMN approach.

Mediation Strategies for the #GeekProblem

Foster Inclusivity:
- Create spaces where non-technical people feel welcome and valued in tech discussions.
- Encourage mentorship programs to help bridge the gap between experienced technologists and newcomers.
Promote Diversity: Support initiatives that aim to increase diversity in tech education and employment.
Enhance Communication:
- Develop tools and platforms within the #OMN framework that facilitate clear and accessible communication, like #indymediaback
- Encourage technologists to use plain language and avoid jargon when interacting with broader audiences.
Address Elitism:
- Challenge the culture of elitism by promoting values of #CC collaboration and shared learning.
- Recognize and reward contributions that enhance the community rather than individual prestige.

By this strategic using the #OMN hashtag story, the wider tech community can mediate the #geekproblem and push the meaningful change we need. This approach fosters a more inclusive, collaborative, and open tech culture, benefiting both the #mainstreaming and Alt-society.

You can support this here https://opencollective.com/open-media-network

OMN – improving the tech landscape

A “native” path to composting the tech mess lies in understanding and addressing the underlying issues. A breakdown of a social tech path:

Explore Relevant #OMN Hashtags: Look into hashtags like #geekproblem and #fashernista to find discussions and insights that address the problems you’re facing. These hashtags can provide valuable perspectives and solutions if you use them based on collective experience.
Investigate OGB: Check out the URL https://hamishcampbell.com/outreaching-the-ogb-what-is-the-project/ with #OGB (Open Governance Body) to access project descriptions and learn about initiatives aimed at addressing the challenges you are encountering. While the coding site may be temporarily down, the project descriptions can still offer valuable insights.
Understand the 4opens: Familiarize yourself with the concept of #4opens, which serves as a framework for addressing many of the issues present in the tech ecosystem. The 4opens provide principles for building more open, transparent, and inclusive digital platforms.

By delving into these #OMN resources and frameworks, you gain a deeper understanding of the issues and discover pathways toward solutions. Collaborating with others who share goals and values amplifies the impact of efforts in improving the tech landscape.

And please “don’t be a prat” thanks.

A conversation that circles

Too often, I find myself in conversations that revolve around the intersection of technology and social issues, with one view emphasizing the importance of practical solutions to real-world problems, while the other highlights the underlying social dynamics that shape the technological landscapes these so-called “solutions” are often supposed to address.

On one side, there are those who prioritize pragmatic, immediate problem-solving. They want concrete fixes for specific issues and are often impatient with broader discussions around ethics, power structures, and social impact. For example, they might advocate for encrypted communication platforms as a straightforward defence against surveillance, without considering how these tools unintentionally foster isolated, fragmented communities, or how the #encryptionist mindset reinforce the individualism that makes collective action harder.

This mindset tends to dismiss systemic critiques, like the argument that contemporary code is shaped by capitalist structures that inherently promote profit over people. Think of how open-source projects get co-opted by corporations (#dotcons) to reduce costs while extracting free labour from developers. The “easy fix” of simply licensing code as open might seem like a solution, but without addressing the exploitative dynamics, it to often end up reinforcing the problems they think they are solving.

On the other side, you have those who argue that technological problems are inherently social problems. They believe you can’t build meaningful tech without addressing the human dynamics that shape its development and use. For example, decentralized social media platforms like #Mastodon or #PeerTube are built to resist the control of big tech monopolies, but if the culture within these platforms mirrors the same paths and thinking of the orgional #dotcons, then the tech itself fails to be a strongly alternative. The #geekproblem shows up here when developers dismiss social considerations as irrelevant or secondary to technical design, leading to platforms that are hostile to non-technical users and communities with different values.

Take the example of the Fediverse: while it offers a more open, decentralized alternative to Twitter or YouTube, many instances end up replicating the same patterns of gatekeeping and fragmentation. Without intentional social processes and governance, like the kind explored in projects like the #OGB (Open Governance Body), the tech alone isn’t enough to shift the power dynamics at all.

To sum up, this ongoing conversation highlights the complex relationship between technology and society. We need to move beyond the constant back-and-forth between quick-fix pragmatism and endless critique, and instead build projects, process and practices that balance immediate action with a deeper understanding of social paths. It’s not about rejecting practical solutions, but about recognizing that real change, that posses real challenge, comes from embedding social responsibility, collective governance, and human-centred design into every layer of the technology we create.

The path requires both shovels and soil, practical tools to dig through the mess, and rich compost from decades of social struggles to nourish truly transformative alternatives. It’s time to break this cycle of mess-making and start growing tech that serves communities, not just individual “users” or feeding back into #dotcons interests.

If this resonates, let’s build together. 🌱

Open Media Network

In the #openweb reboot, metaphors are a strong path

We do need to look t things differently, for example the #darkweb is in our poisoned self that has fermented for the last 40 years. It’s the algorithms of manipulation, and the #geekproblem unthinking pushiness of this fermentation. The #dotcons are the shiny surfaces of this mess. And the #openweb the seedlings to grow community to step on the path away from this.

We have turned our backs on this metaphor the last few years, can we now turn back before we are consumed by the #dotcons the shiny surfaces of #mainstreaming mess

———————————————

let’s try, in the metaphorical landscape of the #openweb reboot, the concept of the #darkweb represents the darker aspects of our digital existence that emerged over the past four decades. It encompasses the algorithms of manipulation that fuel online platforms, the unthinking pushiness of the #geekproblem culture, and the shiny surfaces of centralized platforms (#dotcons) that dominate our online experiences.

The #darkweb symbolizes the poisoned self that has fermented within our digital spaces, perpetuating societal division, misinformation, and exploitation. It reflects the consequences of prioritizing profit and power over community and collective well-being.

In contrast, the #openweb represents a path towards renewal and regeneration. It embodies the seedlings of community and collaboration, offering an alternative vision for how we engage with technology and each other online. The #openweb encourages #4opens decentralization, transparency, and participatory governance, fostering a digital ecosystem that prioritizes the needs and interests of people.

In our #fedivers based #web1.5 reboot, there is #mainstreaming mess pushing, a collective turning away from the #openweb metaphor, as centralized platforms continue to exert their influence and dominance.

We are attracted to be consumed by the allure of shiny surfaces and instant gratification offered by #dotcons, we risk losing sight of the values and principles that underpin this #openweb path.

The challenge now is to rekindle our commitment to the #openweb and reclaim its promise of community, empowerment, and connection. It requires a collective effort to resist the pull of centralized platforms and reassert the importance of human community.

The #openweb reboot metaphor is a reminder of the ongoing struggle to shape the future of the internet in a way that aligns with our humanist values and aspirations. It calls upon us to confront the darkness of the #darkweb within ourselves and embrace the potential for renewal and transformation offered by the #openweb.

You can help support this here https://opencollective.com/open-media-network

Tech governance projects miss the mark

Tech governance projects miss the mark because they fail to engage with the real needs and experiences of grassroots activists and community building. This disconnect stems from the entrenched dynamics of the #geekproblem, which prioritize control and certainty over messy collaboration and understanding.

The problem is exacerbated by the detachment of the “professional” #NGO crew, who lack meaningful connections to the communities they aim to serve. Instead of prioritizing the messy, uncertain realities of grassroots activism, they focus on advancing their careers and adhering to predetermined pathways the #geeproblem provide.

If these projects were to pause and genuinely consult with those who have dedicated themselves to grassroots community building for years, they would quickly realize the futility of their efforts. The essence of effective governance lies in embracing uncertainty, fostering messy collaboration, and adapting to the diverse needs and aspirations of real lived communities.

Ultimately, until tech governance initiatives shift their focus from control to collaboration and from career advancement to genuine impact, they will continue to fail their intended goals. It’s time to break free from the confines of the #geekproblem and the trappings of professionalization, and truly engage with the messy, vibrant reality of grassroots activism #OGB

The Mess of Web3: Why #openweb natives question the Blockchain Narrative

In the ongoing discourse surrounding #openweb and its relation to failing technologies like #web3 and #blockchain, a critical question emerges: why do we readily accept solutions without first defining the problem at hand?

“… it’s not secure, it’s not safe, it’s not reliable, it’s not trustworthy, it’s not even decentralized, it’s not anonymous, it’s helping destroy the planet. I haven’t found one positive use for blockchain. It has nothing that couldn’t be done better without it.”

—Bruce Schneier, *Bruce Schneier on the Crypto/Blockchain Disaster

The allure of decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs) and blockchain technology for the last ten years has overshadowed the necessity of understanding the fundamental issues within our communities. Instead of exploring how we want to govern, decide, and interact within our communities, we find ourselves seduced by the promises of #DAO pitches.

The core of the matter lies in the conflation of culture with technology. Every time a DAO or blockchain solution is proposed, the culture and organization of communities become intertwined with the #geekproblem tools being offered. This bundling tactic obscures the essence of the technology and stifles meaningful discourse. By presenting technology as a fait accompli, we are robbed of the opportunity to critically assess its implications.

In the realm of the #openweb, technology is envisioned as a manifestation of communal decisions and conscious choices. It is the crystallization of community values, traditions, and needs. Where blockchain and DAOs represent an antithesis to this vision. They dictate choices rather than empower communities to determine their own paths.

One of the most concerning aspects of blockchain technology is its enforced financialization within communities. The implementation of ledger systems and tokens mirrors the #dotcons capitalist market traditions, where wealth equates to power. In stark contrast to the principles of “native” gift economies and communalism, blockchain perpetuates a system where those with the most resources wield influence.

In this, even in #mainstreaming dialogue, these ten years of blinded move to blockchain threatens to undermine centuries of liberal evolution by replacing established legal systems with #web3 engineers acting as arbiters of justice. This shift from #mainstreaming transparent and “equitable” legal frameworks to opaque and centralized technological solutions is deeply troubling.

As proponents of #4opens ideals, we should question the last ten years narrative of blockchain’s and DAOs. We must resist the allure of #geekproblem technological solutions that obscure the essence of community governance and autonomy. Instead, let’s engage in meaningful dialogue, grounded in clear understanding of the problems we address and the values we hold to forge a “native” #openweb path.

We now face another wasted ten years of #AI hype with the same issues and agender. We have to stop feeding this mess.

#OGB #OMN #makeinghistory

A fresh look at #openweb history

Revisiting the ActivityPub foundation idea

There are a few views on this issue, the “common sense” #NGO path, an example Presenting Fedi Foundation: Empowerment for SocialHub community 1

And the more “nativist” openweb path What would a fediverse “governance” body look like?

And then we have the #geekproblem path, which has been pushing the fep process the last 2 years, but I think they are avoiding the politics of actually touching this issue. Fair enough.

If the “native” openweb crew don’t move past their “left” mess issues then I think in the end the #NGO path will be imposed, It’s simply what happens, there is a long history of this outcome

The argument between structure and lack of structure is often a strawman. For example, the ogb project, that came out of the #EU outreach has a lot of structure Open-Media-Network/openwebgovernancebody: ON STANDBY due to waiting for funding – (OGB) This is a space for working through Governance of horizontal projects – using #KISS online tools. – openwebgovernancebody – Open Media Network BUT it is SOFT “nativist” rather than the HARD structure of the #NGO “foundation” people think of as structure, it’s interesting when people can’t see this, it’s a kind of blindness, and a hard subject to talk about.

Obviously anything that works has lots of structure, the more important question is about the visibility and “native” democracy of this structure. This is a hard argument/talk to have, and we do keep failing on this, what to do? Ideas please.

It’s interesting that formal coops almost never work in reality, and when/if they do work they tend to become shadows of the #deathcult

In contrast, activist aganising works, often badly. But over all, activist organising is more successful at being an Alt than formal coops, there is a long unspoken history to back this up.

BUT our #mainstreaming always talks about formal coops, if they talk about alts at all, because they can ONLY see this shadow of the #deathcult

Activist organising is always fighting the #deathcult, so it rarely functions as this shadow. The #NGO world is always this shadow.

OK I admit with the right/left mess, this is more of a mess to be composted, ideas please 🙂

————————————–

Current examples in the UK would be the coop supermarket, which got Tesco people in to make it profitable and has soviet design sense and staffing. And the coop bank, which is so bureaucratic as to be pretty much unusable. We have banked with them a number of times. On the positive side you had the co-op wholefood shops in the 1970’s which metamorphosed into the much more #deathcult health shops in the 1990’s. Just to touch on a few. Housing coops have an interesting history, quite a few stories to tell on these.

Don’t take me wrong, I like coops, but I don’t like #fahernistas pushing them over things where we have other forms of organising which likely work better. Diversity is good, just don’t dogmatically push crap that then needs to be composted, we have enough shit to shovel without this thanks.

As ever, “don’t be a prat” is the watch word.