Tag: geekproblem

A conversation that circles

Too often I find my self 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 technological landscapes these “solutions” are often supposed to be addressing.

The first prioritize pragmatic immediate problem-solving, expressing a preference for concrete solutions to specific issues rather than what they see as abstract or philosophical discussions. They are dismissive of broader social critiques, such as the thinking that contemporary code is influenced by capitalist structures and the easy “solution” is likely actually the problem.

The second argues that technological problems are inherently intertwined with social factors. That understanding the human and social dimensions of technology is essential for effective problem-solving in this path. And that avoiding this is a problem, likely a #geekproblem

Overall, this conversation touches upon the complex relationship between technology and society, highlighting differing perspectives on how to approach and address challenges in these paths. We need to move action past this mess making to make more change and challenge real.

https://opencollective.com/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 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.

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 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 seeks to provide 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 in the digital age.

To escape our silo thinking

The Rise of the Open Internet: In the early days of the internet, there was a surge of enthusiasm for and decentralized communication platforms. 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 unprecedented opportunities to connect, collaborate, and mobilize on a global scale. The ideology of the #openweb, rooted in principles of decentralization, transparency, and freedom, 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 open internet eventually faced a decline, marked by the erosion of its ideological foundations and the resurgence of closed, centralized platforms, the #dotcons. One key 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 the principles of trust-based anarchism and decentralized governance, others veered towards more hierarchical and exclusionary models.

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 systems. This shift towards closed platforms, controlled by a handful of corporate giants, undermined the diversity and resilience of the 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 navigating 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 digital 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 critically using the , 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 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 , 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 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 ?”. 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 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.

Some aspects of the geekproblem

The #geekproblem refers to the challenges and limitations that arise from the dominance of a particular “problem” geek culture within the technology industry and #FOSS movements. This culture is characterized by a strong emphasis on technical expertise, at the expense of social, ethical, and democratic considerations. The geek culture prioritize technical solutions and innovations over social implications, which leads to problems in the development and deployment of #openweb technology.

Here are some aspects of this geekproblem:

  1. Technical Bias: Geek “problem” culture tends to favour 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.
  2. Meritocracy: Geek”problem” culture often 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.
  3. Lack of Empathy: The geek “problem” culture’s focus on technical excellence leads to a lack of empathy for users 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 exacerbating digital divides and inequalities and use of #FOSS code.
  4. Resistance to Change: Geek “problem” culture can be resistant to change, particularly when it comes to questioning established technical norms or practices. This resistance can hinder progress in addressing social, ethical, and environmental challenges that require broader systemic changes beyond technical solutions.
  5. 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 holistic approach to technology development based on the social, ethical, and democratic dimensions alongside technical considerations. Addressing the geekproblem requires challenging social structures and promoting diversity, empathy, and democratic decision-making within the development and #FOSS communertys.

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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.

We can work together?

The in occasional discussion surrounding the classification of different versions of the #web, such as #Web01, #Web02, #Web03, #Web04, or #Web05, 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 communerties.

In response to this confusion, the hashtags #openweb and #closedweb 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 can foster a better understanding of the ideological and technical underpinnings of different web platforms.

Projects like #indymediaback and #OMN exemplify grassroots efforts to promote decentralized, community-controlled media and communication platforms. These initiatives are vital in challenging the dominance of large corporations in shaping the digital landscape and in advocating for 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 inclined 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 advocate 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 entails involving 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 these principles, we can create a more equitable, transparent, and collaborative ecosystem.

However, taking this path requires overcoming challenges, including the resistance of the status quo and the fear of change. By actively using the 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 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 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.

Let’s try harder, please.

A pragmatic approach to #openweb security

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 “trust” based securit.

The #geekproblem is a part of our collective #deathcult

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.