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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 – 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.
The #geekproblem is about the challenges and limitations that grow from the dominance of a particular “problem” geek culture in technology industry’s and #FOSS movements. This is characterized by a strong emphasis on technical expertise, at the expense of social, ethical, and democratic considerations. The geek culture pushes technical solutions and innovations over social paths, leading to problems in the development and deployment of #openweb technology.
Technical Bias: Geek “problem” culture favours technical solutions to problems without considering the broader social context or implications. This results in the development of technologies that are inhuman, inaccessible, exclusionary, and often harmful.
Meritocracy: Geek”problem” culture operates on the principle of meritocracy, where individuals are valued based on their technical skills and knowledge. This leads to the ignoring of voices and perspectives from non-technical backgrounds, contributing to a lack of diversity and inclusivity and functionality in #FOSS projects.
Lack of Empathy: The geek “problem” culture’s focus on technical excellence leads to a lack of empathy for people who are not as technically proficient. This results in user interfaces and experiences that are difficult to understand or navigate for non-technical people, further pushing digital divides and inequalities in the use of #FOSS code.
Resistance to Change: Geek “problem” culture is resistant to change, particularly when it comes to questioning established technical norms or practices. This resistance hinders progress in addressing social, ethical, and environmental challenges which require broader systemic changes beyond technical solutions.
Power Dynamics: The dominance of geek “problem” culture creates power imbalances within the tech industry, where certain individuals or groups hold disproportionate influence over decision-making processes. This results in the prioritization of technical interests over broader social or ethical concerns.
Overall, the #geekproblem highlights the need for a holistic approach to technology development based on the #4opens social, ethical, and democratic dimensions alongside technical considerations. Addressing the geekproblem requires challenging current social structures and promoting diversity, empathy, and more democratic decision-making within the development and #FOSS communities.
The 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
The is occasional discussion surrounding the classification of different versions of the #web, such as #Web01, #Web02, #Web03, #Web04, or #Web05, this is not merely an academic exercise but an aspect of understanding the evolving nature of the digital landscape. However, the proliferation of these hashtags leads to confusion and contribute to the spread of fear, uncertainty, and doubt (#FUD) among users, people and communities.
In response to this confusion, proofer to use the hashtags #openweb and #closedweb which offer a clear and concise way to delineate between platforms that embrace openness, transparency, and community control (#openweb) and those that prioritize proprietary technology, centralized control, and lack transparency (#closedweb). By using these hashtags, we foster a better understanding of the ideological and technical underpinnings of different web platforms and paths.
Projects like #indymediaback and #OMN exemplify grassroots efforts to promote decentralized, community-controlled media and communication platforms. These initiatives can become vital in challenging the dominance of large corporations in shaping the digital paths and in offer an inclusive, diverse, and community-controlled approach to technology development.
At the heart of this discussion lies the #geekproblem, which highlights the tendency among technologically people to prioritize technical solutions without considering their broader social implications or the needs of ordinary people. By recognizing the #geekproblem, we begin to address the inherent biases and limitations of tech-centric paths to problem-solving and can then move to advocating for solutions that are inclusive and community-driven.
The solution to this “problem” lies in developing social tech that transcends the #geekproblem and focuses on the needs and perspectives of communities. This needs a diverse group of people in the development and decision-making process and promoting open-source code, open standards, open governance, and open data in technology development. By embracing this #KISS path and principles, we create a more equitable, transparent, and collaborative #4opens ecosystem.
However, this requires overcoming challenges, including the resistance of the status quo and the fear of change. By actively using the #4opens to judge projects, we challenge the prevailing narrative, call out pointless technologies, and compost the #techshit that contributes to the perpetuation of harmful social dynamics.
Moreover, it is essential to recognize that the struggle for a more sustainable future is inherently political. The dominance of large corporations and the perpetuation of #neoliberal ideologies pose significant barriers to any progress. Therefore, it is imperative to mobilize collective action and advocate for policies and initiatives that prioritize, balance the needs and well-being of communities over these profit-driven interests. Without this, the progressive tech dev will fall on barren ground.
In conclusion, the use of hashtags such as #openweb, #closedweb, and #4opens serves as powerful tools for organizing and mobilizing grassroots efforts to challenge the status quo. By embracing these hashtags and the values they represent, we work towards a future where technology serves the interests of the many rather than the few.
The Universal Mandate of SSL: A Critique from the #openweb path.
In the digital landscape, the ubiquitous presence of #SSL encryption, while undoubtedly enhancing security, raises questions about its compatibility with the ethos of the open web. The story around SSL overlooks its ideological underpinnings and the broader implications of its forced adoption. This article challenge the hegemony of SSL by highlighting limitations and proposing a more nuanced approach to internet security.
At the heart of the issue lies the distinction between the #openweb and the #closedweb, represented respectively by the ethos of accessibility and decentralization, and the closed-off, centralized web. While SSL undoubtedly offers security benefits, its imposition on all online interactions reflects not only technical considerations but also ideological stances. The insistence on universal SSL usage is symptomatic of what we term the #geekproblem—an inclination among technologically inclined people to prioritize technical solutions without consideration of their broader societal implications or the needs of ordinary people.
The universal mandate of SSL, championed by tech giants like Google, not only introduces complexities and barriers for ordinary people but also contributes to the unthinking centralization of internet infrastructure. Let’s Encrypt, an American #NGO and a dominant SSL certification authority, epitomizes this centralization, posing a significant risk of a single point of failure. If compromised, Let’s Encrypt could undermine the security of countless websites and services, highlighting the dangers of relying on centralized authorities for internet security.
Moreover, the imposition of SSL as a default requirement creates hurdles for community-run platforms and DIY enthusiasts seeking to establish their presence on the #openweb. The technical intricacies involved in obtaining, installing, and maintaining SSL certificates can be daunting for non-experts, leading to barriers to entry and discouraging participation in the vibrant ecosystem of the #openweb.
Critically examining the motivations behind the push for universal SSL adoption reveals a fear-based path rooted in a conservative ideology of control. By framing SSL as a tool to be judiciously used rather than universally mandated, we can challenge the prevailing story surrounding internet security and advocate for a more balanced and pragmatic approach.
In conclusion, the universal mandate of SSL represents not only a technical solution to security, but also an ideological stance that warrants examination. By advocating for a more balanced and user-friendly approach rooted in the principles of the #openweb, we foster a digital path that empowers communities, fosters innovation, and safeguards social freedoms. It’s time to rethink projects like universal SSL and embrace a more inclusive and decentralized vision of #4opens “trust” based securit.
There is a value miss match that is a core part of the #geekproblem and its relationship to “normal” society. One side prioritises the tech, the other the social, they then ignore each other. Both suffer and become pointless, or likely die out as a species in the era of #climatechaos. Build a bridge or be pointless, or more likely dead in the long term. #OMN#indymediaback#makeinghistory#OGB are bridges.
The recognition and resolution of the value mismatch between technology and society are crucial for addressing pressing global challenges such as #climatechaos. The #geekproblem encapsulates this divide, where one side prioritizes technological development while the other prioritizes social considerations. However, both perspectives are essential for meaningful progress. By building bridges between technology and society, initiatives like #OMN, #indymediaback, and #OGB serve as vital connectors that facilitate collaboration and mutual understanding. These projects recognize that addressing complex issues requires interdisciplinary approaches that integrate technological innovation. By bridging the gap between technology and society, these initiatives pave the way for holistic solutions that can effectively tackle the challenges of our time, ultimately contributing to a more sustainable and equitable future. Failure to build such bridges risks rendering both perspectives ineffective or irrelevant, potentially leading to dire consequences for humanity in the long term. Therefore, the importance of initiatives like #OMN, #indymediaback, and #OGB cannot be overstated, as they play a role in bridging the gap between technology and society and advancing collective efforts towards a better future.
#P2P projects keep failing socially because adoption is tiny. The #Fediverse succeeds socially because it keeps social #UX familiar. The path forward is a half-step strategy: bridge #fediverse + #p2p in real, usable ways until decentralised clients are socially relevant.
We need: Bridges & killer apps, seamless UX that makes federated + p2p content feel like one stream. A server that reads from both channels without making the user care about protocols.
A. what is happening with protocols:
* The #nostr crew are the children of #web3 mess, they are a bit reformed, let’s see. * Then the #BlueSky are the reformed children of the #dotcons * The #fediverse is the child of the #openweb * #dat is a child of the #geekproblem if it is reformed or not, you can maybe tell me? * #SSB was a wild child, now sickly/lonely with the #fashionable kids gathering round #nostr * #p2p was the poster child of the era of the #openweb it was caught in the quicksand of legal issues, the shadow that was left was eclipsed by “free to use” #dotcons Now finds it hard to come back due to mobile devices not having an IP address, thus most people not actually able to use p2p reliably.
Q. ssb has technical shortcomings. It cant sparsely replicate data and verify it. It needs to download all data ever created by a user to verify, which makes it infeasible for many use cases. The main underlying data format is also hard to fix and leads to performance bottlenecks. The main founder moved on and it seems most ssb people are also looking for a new home. dat’s time has not yet started as it approached things from a much more fundamental perspective. The initial vision was “git for any kind of data”, which means “version control for any kind of data” (peer to peer). The stack only now reached maturity to build proper tools on top of it. You have the dat-ecosystem with 2-3 dozen projects. You have the holepunch/pears project which built a phenomenal “never on a server” desktop/mobile p2p video conferencing messenger with built in file sharing. The app works flawless on mobile and is called https://keet.io Also https://dat-ecosystem.org just now released it’s new website. The https://pears.com runtime will be live in 5 days from now on the 14th of February for anyone to start hacking on p2p apps and some time later, the plan is to integrate it into the dat-ecosystem website, so anyone can start using p2p from within dat-cosystem page (which is an open source static website anyone can fork to get to the same) …no back ends required. pears 🍐will only start working on the 14th of february. You can set a reminder. The revolution starts then 🙂
A. will have a look, there are a few new #p2p projects reaching use at mo – the issue is none of them link to each other and likely thus non inter-op. This is the #geekproblem
Q. I don’t think there are any mature projects out there other than dat and ipfs. The former made by open source devs, self funded with a bit of help from public funding bodies, while the latter is the poster child of venture capitalists and got gazillions from investors. It’s the “big tech” of p2p. Then you have a few less general purpose p2p projects which popped into existence in the last few years, but both dat and ipfs go back all the way to 2013 and it takes a lot to get things smooth and stable and support all use cases and get enough critical adoption and nodes to make the p2p network work. That is why dat-ecosystem has a lot of existing projects that work and why it is reliable to build on top of it. I do think the new more recent p2p projects in research state might become mature as well, but it will easily take them a few more years. Many of those newer projects have people working on them part time only or focus on really special use cases and only time will tell if their approaches will bring something new to the table or not. 2024 will definitely be the year of dat, especially after February 14th, when pears.com goes live. This has been years in the making. What started 2013 as (git for data) will now finally become it’s own independent p2p runtime. Goodbye nodejs & co. …and soon goodbye github & npm 🙂
A. https://holepunch.to/ its a very sparse website with no company info or #4opens process – it looks and feels like meany #dotcons if these projects do not link to each other or inter-op then they will fail like the hundreds I have seen fail over the last 20 years of this mess making. it’s a problem we can’t keep doing this shit, but we do. #4opens is a shovel to help compost this, can you do a write-up for these projects please.
Q. dat-ecosystem is a 501c3 It’s Code for Science and Society And it is https://opencollective.com/dat And it is governed by a Manifesto. It is all on the website next to the “Info” button in the upper left corner. If you mean pears.com ….that will change on February 14th I didn’t mention holepunch. Holepunch is just one of the many dat-ecosystem projects. It is special, because one of the core developers of dat started it after he got a lot of funding and is currently maintaining many of the important code that powers dat and the dat-ecosystem projects. But it doesn’t matter too much. The stack is open source under MIT and Apache 2.0 License for anyone to use. If holepunch would ever decide to stop maintaining the stack (which we do not think), dat-ecosystem can find other maintainers.
A. they are the owners of https://keet.io always look for ownership in #dotcons 🙂 a few of the ones I have been looking at over the last few years https://www.eff.org/deep…/2023/12/meet-spritely-and-veilid and the was a another one funded by NLNET they recently whent live, but can’t find the link. None of them link or interop, not even bridges. This is the #geekproblem
Q. Spritely is a great project. It embraces the ocap security model (Object Capabilities). It does apply it in lisp/scheme, which is a great fit with GNU Guix. Their foundation is led by Randy Farmer. Randy Farmer co-created Habitat with Chip Morningstar (an MMORPG) in the 1980s. Chip Morningstar works with Mark Miller (Mentor of Christine Lemmer Webber). Their project is called “Agoric”, which is a blockchain projcet funded by Salesforce. They have their own Token and build a “Market Place”. They as well work with ocap security model (but in JavaScript). The JavaScript ocap version is what is known as SES and Endojs. They regularly talk to make sure things are interoperable. Ocap security is also what dat-ecosystem is embracing to pair it with peer to peer and bring it to the post-web. A version of the web not dominated anymore by big tech and big standard bodies.
#Veilid is a young and interesting project as well with a focus on anonymity over performance. This is a great use case that needs support, but dat was always about performance and any size of data and anonymity and privacy at all costs. I’m not saying that is an unimportant use case, but there are plenty of solutions for extreme cases where anonymity and privacy are at utmost importance. What is vastly more important imho is to have a p2p technology able to replace mainstream big tech services such as youtube, facebook, instagram, tiktok, google & co. because it won’t help us if we have a special niche technology that cant actually tackle big tech and surveillance capitalism but gives people some way to hide from it. …we need it too, but we also need a foundation on which to actually outcompete big tech imho.
Keet is a closed source peer to peer messenger & video conferencing app (might be open source in the future) and it is built on top of the dat stack. The dat stack is very modular and in it’s core consists of a few main modules. – hypercore, hyprebee & hyperdrive – hyperdht & hyperswarm – autobase Those modules are maintained by holepunch, an organisation started by one of the core dat developers afte rreceiving a lot of funding to develop keet and now the pear runtime, which will be open source and public under https://pears.com after February 14th 2024 (Valentine’s Day ❤) Keet itself is one of many apps, all part of the dat-ecosystem. Most projects are open source, but not all, but they are all built on top of the MIT/Apache licenses p2p stack, which started as `dat` in 2013 and matured many years ago. The stack is battle tested and really works. Of course – we all want everything open source and one day we might find a model, but if some closed source apps help bring in funding, it benefits the open source core. Basically, you can think of “keet” as some fancy UI/UX on top of the open source software stack. Now sure – would be sweet if the UI/UX was open source as well, but then again, it’s not essential and until we transition into fully automated luxury Communism or whatever else works, something pays the bills and enables the open source core to be maintained 🙂 At least it works without any “Cloud Landlords”. No servers, never on a server. No more cloud lords, a.k.a. Big Tech or #dotcons
A. The best we have currently is #ActivityPub DIY federated – this is community based (but fails in code to actually be this) which in meany ways is complemtery to #p2p based approaches – they are better together and if the can bridge or interop this is MUCH better, the #OMN is native to this.
Q. Yes. dat is very low level. It would be cool to see somebody implement an activity pub based tool on top of it. One dat-ecosystem project did it for nostr, but no activity pub yet. I’m personally more interested into a desktop, terminal, version controlled data and software packages. “Social” tools are just one type of tools to built on top of the more fundamental p2p network and p2p system infrastructure. I do think dat is good for laying these foundations, but “social” tools are a layer that dat as a stack will probably never focus on, but instead dat-ecosystem projects will hopefully take on that challenge 🙂
A. Some people are community based federated (the start of this conversation) others are individual, the #p2p world you talk about. This is not a fight they are both valid. As you say what we don’t won’t is more #dotcons 🙂 Good conversation on the state of #p2p I used to be much more involved in this side, but it failed with the move to #dotcons so got re-engaged when ActivityPub came alone the rebooting of web 1.5 😉 are you happy for me to copy this to my blog, can credit you or just use AQ anonymous format?
Q. any way you want. I dont think p2p has failed. the p2p of the past was naive kids playing and it took a decade of adults and all the law enforcement they had at their disposal to bring it down and despite that torrents still run and even the piratebay continues to operate, although heavily censored. Back then it was a few devs and a majority of users. This time p2p is back and will enter mainstream open source developers after February 14th 2024 (5 days now). This empowers an entire generation and anyone who wants to dive into p2p to build any kind of tool. What was once hard and reserved to a few will be available to everyone. We might see another nodejs/npm movement. It loads a bit slow, but load this and check “all time” This is the largest open source ecosystem humanity has ever experienced. http://www.modulecounts.com/ And while npm/github have been hijacked by microsoft, we will claw it all back soon Btw. regarding Spritely and the backstory behind OCap, even though extremely technical in description, here is a summary of the work by Mark Miller et. al. https://erights.org/history/index.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_S._Miller > Miller has returned to this issue repeatedly since the Agoric Open Systems Papers from 1988 Mark Miller is Christine Lemmer Webbers Mentor. He works with Chip Morningstar (who with Randy Farmer did Habitat in the 80s) Randy Farmer is Executive Director of the Spritely Institute. Agoric is the Cosmos Framework based Blockchain now. https://agoric.com/team
A. Interesting to look back at all this stuff, reminds me I had dinner with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Nelson in Oxford 20 years ago, he was a little eccentric with a clip on digital recording device, every convention had to be record. good to catch up with history https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-t405_JAJA that is more relevant today.
Q. Yes – peer to peer is hard. Not as a user, it is actually easy enough, but as a developer. Building p2p is not taught anywhere and there aren’t online learning resources the same way you can learn how to set up your react app, etc… This will change after February 14th 2024 when the pears.com runtime is released. It is powered by the same p2p stack that developed with dat since 2013. If anyone of you is a developer or has friends who are, you are all invited to dip your toes into the dat water 😛 …and start a new p2p project and join the dat-ecosystem 🙂 It will get quite easy in 4 days from now and it will again get a lot easier in the coming weeks when more examples and docs are publishes and others build as well. The Storyline around Mark Miller, Randy Farmer & Chip Morningstar is totally separate from it, but it is also important, because it is what powers 1. the Spritely project and Christine Lemmer Webber 2. the Agoric Blockchain Project backed by Salesforce 3. the Ethereum Metamask Wallet and Co. It also influences the big standards bodies and I see it two fold. It’s a story about philosophy, values and vision driven by the specific people in it. It is also a story about “object capabilities” which is a powerful perspective on security and will enable and inform a lot of p2p interaction which without would require some sort of centralized servers, but with ocap can do it on it’s own p2p
A lightly edited conversation between Hamish Campbell (A) and Alexander Praetorius (Q)
The #nostr crew are the children of #web3 mess, they are a bit reformed, let’s see.
Then the #BlueSky are the reformed children of the #dotcons
The #fediverse is the child of the #openweb
Q. Where would you put #dat or #ssb and in general the #p2p post-web tools?
A.
#dat is a child of the #geekproblem if it is reformed or not, you can maybe tell me? #SSB was a wild child, now sickly/lonely with the #fahernable kids gathering round #nostr #p2p was the poster child of the era of the #openweb it was caught in the quicksand of legal issues, the shadow that was left was eclipsed by “free to use” #dotcons Now finds it hard to come back due to mobile devices not having an IP address, thus most people not actually able to use p2p reliably.
A series of seminars to commemorate the death of J. R. R. Tolkien, to be held in 2023/2024 in the University of Oxford. The talks present an introduction and further background to Tolkien’s life, work, and legacy. They have an academic approach, but they are also aimed at those who have read Tolkien’s work but are interested in gaining a bit more insight into his life, career, and writings.
Week 1 – 19 January (MERTONCOLLEGE T.S. ELIOTLECTURETHEATRE)
Mark Atherton (University of Oxford)
The Arkenstone and the Ring: wilful objects in Tolkien’s The Hobbit’
Draft
Wilful objects in the Tolkien’s work, thinking about embedded AI in ten years, and mobile phone now. This world could become like Tolkien world after the #climatechaos claps in 50 years.
I have been in Oxford for the last month, attending university talks and seminars on subjects of interest. And I am seeing the normal issues of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mannerism this is an “art” way of expressing the issue but it’s a good description of much inward looking thinking. Their answers when questioned on this are https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Panglossianism#English in that, It’s not as bad as you think, “am more positive” etc.
