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.

The Rise and Fall of Grassroots #openweb Activism in the UK

Grassroots activism has undergone significant ups and downs over the past four decades, particularly within digital communication and organizing. This post provides an overview of the challenges and successes experienced by grassroots activists during this time period, focusing on the evolution of the #openweb and its eventual decline. It explores the ideological underpinnings of internet projects, the impact of funding and #mainstreaming efforts, and the shifting dynamics between open and closed systems. By examining these trends, we can better understand the complex interplay between technology, ideology, and activism.

To escape our silo thinking

The rise of the open internet, was a surge of enthusiasm for #4opens and decentralized communication paths. Projects like early #indymedia, blogging platforms, wikis, and peer-to-peer networks flourished, driven by an ethos of democratization and empowerment. These offered people and grassroots movements opportunities to connect, collaborate, and mobilize on a global scale. The ideology of the #openweb, rooted in #4opens principles, captured the imaginations of many activists seeking to challenge established power structures.

Why did the #openweb flower and die over the last 30 years

However, alongside the growth of #openweb projects, there were also significant challenges and tensions. The influx of funding from state, foundation, and #NGO sources brought both opportunities and risks. While funding provided vital resources for development and expansion, it also introduced pressures to conform to #mainstreaming norms and intrenched #geekproblem agendas. Additionally, as open internet projects gained popularity, they became susceptible to co-option and manipulation by corporate interests seeking to capitalize on the growing community interest.

We face a digital cliff the open internet may be over

The fall of the openweb, despite early successes, the internet eventually faced a decline, marked by the erosion of its ideological foundations and the resurgence of closed, centralized platforms, the #dotcons. One factor in this decline was the failure of many openweb projects to align with the dominant ideology of the web itself. The pushing of non-native common sense. While some projects embraced trust-based anarchism and decentralized governance, others veered towards more hierarchical and exclusionary paths.

Outline of 20 years ups and downs of grassroots activism in the UK

The rise of a new generation of technologists and entrepreneurs, shaped by #neoliberal ideologies of individualism and competition, led to a merging of open and closed paths. This shift towards closed platforms, controlled by a handful of corporate giants, undermined the diversity and resilience of the “native” openweb. The very chaos that once protected the openweb from vertical integration and monopolization was replaced by a homogenized landscape dominated by a few #dotcons.

Challenges and opportunities, in the face of these challenges, grassroots activists grapple with the complexities of a landscape that is hostile to their values and principles. The siloed nature of many media projects are a barrier to collective action and solidarity, limiting their impact and longevity. However, there are also opportunities for resistance and resilience, through the cultivation of networks based on mutual aid and cooperation like the #OMN

Conclusion, the trajectory of grassroots activism in the UK over the past four decades reflects the broader shifts and tensions within the #mainstreaming path. The rise and fall of the openweb mirrors the struggles of activists to carve out spaces for dissent and resistance in corporatized and surveilled environments. By using the #4opens to examining the ideological underpinnings of internet projects and exploring alternative paths in organizing, activists work towards reclaiming the path of a more open and decentralized future.

#KISS

Building trust in the #openweb

The #openweb is a framework for human-centric, decentralized technologies built on transparency and collaboration. Its success hinges on trust, and as a slogan suggests, “Technology’s job is to hold the trust in place.” This concept is woven into the #OMN and #OGB initiatives, which emphasize community-driven decision-making and adherence to the #4opens principles.

#OGB and consensus, decisions are valid when a wide group of engaged participants achieves consensus. This safeguards against the normal invisible authoritarian control, single individual find it hard to dominate because the collective create and validate the decisions. Trust groups, not individuals, are the seat of power, ensuring better decision-making and accountability.

The role of #4opens, open process, open data, open licences, and open standards—acts as “gatekeepers” for technological decisions. #Openprocess ensures inclusivity and transparency, blocking decisions that don’t involve public participation. #Opendata guarantees that shared information is accessible, reducing the potential for siloed control. #Openlicenses prevent restrictive ownership that could undermine collaboration. #Openstandards resist fragmentation and force adherence to balance collaborative practices and individual paths. This “soft, swishy” approach avoids rigid authoritarian structures while maintaining #KISS robust, “enforceable” values.

let’s look at challenges and strategies for #OMN combatting #mainstreaming “common sense” practices that erode grassroots values. By build strong defaults into projects and hardcode the #4opens principles to keep them central. To make this happen, let’s try and stay polite and inclusive during outreach, avoiding burnout and adding mess through conflict.

Dealing with #fahernistas and trust issues, a significant challenge arises from people and groups who appear trustworthy due to their #mainstreaming tactics but ultimately undermine the values of the #openweb. Coders and contributors need to align with #KISS social change goals, ensuring a grassroots and horizontal approach to development, this is basic.

To do this, we need to work on sustainability efforts by avoid overloading projects with unnecessary features, “How does this fit into the #4opens?”. One path is to balance “friction” as a positive filter for misguided additions, while maintaining a welcoming environment for constructive collaboration.

Building a future beyond the #geekproblem, the “problem” originates from early open-source projects that #block the social dimensions of their technologies. By integrating the #4opens and prioritizing trust networks, the #openweb can (re)evolve into a human value network rather than a technological dead-end.

The #deathcult feeding off the decay of the #openweb perpetuates centralized and exploitative systems. All our activism is about, focusing on planting seeds for a grassroots rebirth, #nothingnew is a starting point, returning focus on modernist principles—clear goals, collective action, and systemic solutions—provides a foundation to grow #somethingnew.

The #openweb vs. #closedweb debate is not new, but it remains a critical narrative. By holding technology accountable to trust and community values, we create tools that empower rather than exploit. The #OMN and #OGB projects embody this path.

For those interested in coding for change, visit the OMN wiki and join the effort to make this vision a reality, please. Or you can donate some funding here if you don’t feel confident with tech path.

All code is ideology solidified into action

“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 preprogrammed… cant find any good links on this…“

The statement is a perspective on the interweaving of politics and technology, and that too often both suffer from their own shortcomings when it comes to addressing any real complex social issues.

Political Arrogance and Ignorance: This is about political actors exhibiting overconfidence and a lack of understanding when it comes to technological matters. Politicians and policymakers make decisions about technology without comprehending its implications and limitations, leading to ineffective and often harmful or simply dysfunctional policies. Arrogance in this context manifest as an assumption of authority without expertise or consideration of diverse perspectives.
Geek Naivety and Over-Complexity: On the other hand, this is about the tendency of technologists and developers (“geeks”) to approach problems with a narrow focus on technical solutions. The term “naivety” is about the lack of awareness or understanding of broader social, political, and ethical implications of their work. Additionally, the emphasis on over-complexity refers to the unnecessarily intricate or convoluted technological systems, which hinder accessibility and usability for non-technical users.
Code as Ideology: This concept posits that all code, as the foundation of technological systems, embodies underlying ideological assumptions and values. In contemporary society, where capitalism is the dominant economic system, the code produced serves capitalist interests and reinforces capitalist structures. Thus, technological solutions are not neutral, they reflect and perpetuate the ideologies of the society in which they are created.
Preprogrammed Outcomes and Assumptions: The assertion here is that the ideological underpinnings of code shape its outcomes and assumptions, predisposing technological solutions to align with certain interests and agendas. While it is possible to layer additional ideologies on top of existing code, the fundamental framework and biases of the code itself remain unchanged, shaping and influencing the range of possible outcomes.

Overall, the statement is about the need for a more nuanced and critical approach to the balancing of politics and technology, that recognizes the inherent ideological nature of code and works on the hard to shift biases embedded within technological systems. The problem we face, need to compost, is the endemic #geekproblem prat’ish behaviour that blocks this #KISS needed balancing.

Some parts of the geekproblem

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

Aspects of this #geekproblem:

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.

Branding, addressing this issue

The issue of branding in the #openweb and #fediverse is currently a mess that touches on both technical and social thinking. We need to address this:

Barrier to Community Adoption: Strong branding in #openweb codebases is a barrier for communities to adopt and customize the technology for their collective use. It limits the ability for different communities and groups to collaborate and share resources.
Centralization of Power: Project branding centralizes power in the hands of developers and funders, rather than the communities that are using and running the instances. This leads to decision-making processes that do not represent the diverse needs and perspectives of users.
Stifling Innovation: A focus on project branding stifles innovation and creativity within the #fediverse. Communities that can feel constrained by the predefined branding and unable to express their identities and values through their #openweb spaces.
Inequality in Representation: Branding perpetuates inequalities in representation within the #openweb ecosystem. Communities that lack the resources or technical expertise to customize branding feel marginalized or excluded from #geekproblem and #mainstreaming discussions and initiatives.
Resistance to Change: Strong project branding creates resistance to change within the community. People become accustomed to the existing branding and are thus reluctant to embrace new ideas or alternative approaches that challenge this often ossified status quo.

To address these challenges, it’s important to shift the focus from strong project branding to instance branding to empower communities to make their own #openweb spaces for collaboration and collective action. This involves:

Rethinking the traditional #NGO concept of branding and finding ways to communicate the values and mission of projects without relying on dominating #mainstreaming, project branding.
Creating better user experiences for community members to shape the look and feel of their spaces and actively participate in decision-making processes.
Encouraging open and honest dialogue about the role of branding in the #fediverse and its impact on community participation and representation.
Promoting a culture of responsible branding/templating that prioritizes inclusivity, diversity, and empowerment of people and projects.

By adopting these principles and practices, we can create a decentralized ecosystem within the #openweb and #fediverse, where communities have power over their tools to nurture their community, this is what matters

Please “do not be a prat” about this, thanks.