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 #4opens ecosystem.

However, taking this path 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 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.

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 #4opens “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.

The new and old #openweb 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

Q. Where would you put #dat or #ssb and in general the #p2p post-web tools?

#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.

‘The Arkenstone and the Ring: wilful objects in Tolkien’s The Hobbit’

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 (MERTON COLLEGE T.S. ELIOT LECTURE THEATRE)
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.

Dwarfs are the geeks, control #geekproblem

Elves are the #fashernistas, appearance, humanists

The humans are the Oxford union, power politics

The hobbits? – the wholly greens

Orcs? –

#Oxford

Best not to go down this path

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.

This is an issue with the current #geekproblem and much #mainstreaming thinking in the era of #climatechaos

The mess we are likely to make over the next ten years. Best not to go down this path.

Talking about #hashtags

We need to think of a serendipity view of how #hashtags work and how our coder kings implement them (#feudalism). Not saying this is a good aproch… i don’t know… but spelling hashtags “wrong” makes their use in categorization and sorting work differently. Might be worth thinking if this could add value or is purely negative? This depends on different views on federation and ideas of a universal truth or messy “truths”. Composting thought on this.

In the #OMN coding project, currently offline (unite.openworlds.info) we add word grouping flows, so you can say one hashtag is the same as another, ie. you can group different “meanings” to build category flows. This makes misspelled hashtags functional, and our current coding broken from the #OMN point of view.

It’s not implemented, is a speck projects so can’t test this. Over the last year I have put 5 #FOSS funding applications in to try and get this built, 3 turned down so far 2 more to be turned down (cross fingers and toes not) soon. Our #AP #openweb reboot is being destroyed by our #fahernistas and #geekproblem nothing new here, but we do need to do better.

That’s what we set out to fix 20 years ago, with the #OMN still digging, but my shovel has no handeal nor a head… says the man on his knees hands covered in shit… composting worthwhile however you do it, I could not make this shit up… but we keep making more #techshit

Projects that need to work to help #reboot the #openweb

The #OGB is important to develop better ways of having “trust” based conversations and “trust” based “governance” in the #openweb. It is built on years of on-the-ground organizing and emphasizes the need for voluntary cooperation and collaboration. The project recognizes the problems in alternative tech, starting with the #4opens to remove complexity to building governance structures that are native to the #fediverse. The #OGB address the limitations of #mainstreaming approaches.

The #OMN (Open Media Network), is a decentralized network of media sites that share content and promote independent media. It aims to provide an alternative to mainstream media by creating a network of interconnected sites that prioritize openness, collaboration, and decentralization.

The #OMN project emphasizes the importance of grassroots community-driven media, where people and groups can create and share their own content. It seeks to challenge the dominance of #mainstreaming media and promote a more equitable and just society.

The project has been running for over ten years and operates with an #openprocess. Users can become mods after being involved for a certain period of time. The modding process is based on a clear project statement and encourages a respectful and inclusive community.

The #OMN project is closely related to the #visionontv project, which is a grassroots media project that creates and distributes independent video content. The two projects share similar values and goals in promoting alternative media and challenging mainstream narratives.

The #indymediaback project is a reboot of the original #Indymedia project, which was a decentralized, grassroots media network that emerged in the late 1990s and early 2000s. The project aims to learn from the mistakes and challenges faced by the original Indymedia, particularly the split between the #fashernitas and #geekproblem factions.

The focus of the #indymediaback reboot is to return to the path of the #fashernista, which emphasizes open media and decentralized structures, rather than control and centralization. The project aims to build an open media network (#OMN) that promotes direct democracy, open publishing, and anti-authoritarianism.

The reboot also acknowledges the risk of another split within the community, particularly if some members push for a control/encryptionist path. The challenge is to find a way to navigate this without succumbing to tribalism and power politics.

The #indymediaback project recognizes the importance of hashtags and semantic web technologies, which were not core to the original Indymedia project. Tags and metadata are being used to help organize and categorize content.

Overall, the #indymediaback project aims to revive the spirit of open media and grassroots activism, while learning from past mistakes and embracing new technologies and approaches.

A scrypt for the #OGB video

[Background music playing]

Narrator: In a world dominated by #mainstreaming narratives and centralized control, there is a project that dares to think differently. Introducing the #OGB project, an initiative focused on developing trust-based conversations and governance in the #openweb.

[Visual of people engaging in conversations and collaborating]

Narrator: The OGB project is built upon years of on-the-ground organizing, shaped by long expirence of on the ground organization and a Keep It Simple and Sustainable (KISS) approach. To kick this off lets look at it as a native way of working within the #Fediverse, a decentralized social media network.

[Visual of Fediverse logo]

Narrator: The goal of the OGB project is not to dictate protocols and standards to the Fediverse, but rather to create voluntary cooperative and collaborative alliances. It aims to overcome the challenges faced by existing social platforms and build a platform that truly serves social good.

[Visual of diverse group of people working together]

Narrator: The OGB project believes in the power of self-organization and user-driven processes. It draws inspiration from the example of Couchsurfing, where a redesign that removed DIY tools led to disappointment among members. The OGB project advocates for letting members shape their own processes, in the #4opens path, to overcome the #geekproblem and foster hope for alternative technology to shape society.

[Visual of people using DIY tools]

Narrator: Governance is a key focus of the OGB project. It aims to build governance structures that are accountable, sustainable, and inclusive. The current governance of the Fediverse can at best be described as “herding cats,” but the OGB project seeks to change that by providing a sortation based framework for effective governance.

[Visual of people discussing and making decisions]

Narrator: The OGB codebase is not limited to the Fediverse; it can be used to democratically run any structure with stakeholders. For example, it can be applied to govern a local street market, with stallholders, shoppers, and affiliated groups all having a say in decision-making.

[Visual of a street market]

Narrator: The OGB project recognizes the unique power dynamics within the Fediverse and aims to build upon its differences rather than conforming to mainstreaming agendas. It emphasizes the need to empower people to do better in alternative technology and socierty.

[Visual of people breaking free from chains]

Narrator: The OGB project acknowledges that there are problems in alt-tech but believes that starting with the #4Opens principles can remove much of the mess and unlock the true potential for positive outcomes.

[Visual of 4 Opens principles]

Narrator: Ultimately, the OGB project is about challenging the status quo, questioning the mainstreaming narratives, and from this pushing to creating a more equitable and just society. It invites those who can think outside the box and are willing to challenge mainstreaming to join this movement.

[Visual of people joining hands]

Narrator: The OGB project is a call to action, a call to build a better future for the openweb.

[Visual fades out]

[Background music fades out]

The signal to noise issue of our #geekproblem

#Mastodon and the wider #fedivers are native #openweb project based on the #4opens people who try to “harden” and “secure” these are completely missing where the value is at.

They are spreading #FUD and endangering real activists acting this way.

Media is “open” using #ActivertyPub.

Anything that is not media should use encrypted p2p chat, there are many mature #FOSS projects for this.

At the moment as the #Fediverse is a #OMN based on the #4opens you have very low barrier to running or even developing an instance, this is where the value is.

Adding security generally makes a HUGE barrier to Dev and #DIY running an instance.

The #geekproblem has no idea of the damage they do when pushing their “common sense”. This creates a signal-to-noise issue that has been blocking alt for 20 years.

Signal to noise on the #FBI seazing a database of a fediverse instance

https://kolektiva.social/@admin/110637031574056150

The #Fediverse is all #4opens so should not be used for anything that should be P2P encrypted. It’s important to keep this clear to users by not focused on the fig leaf of “hardening” security as the is non. It’s a very successful #OMN open media network, and it’s value lies in this.

Peoples pushing this are often not seeing the point that it’s designed #4opens this is why it works.

Both paths have value, but they are different.

And the push a different project (#closedweb) which is fine. But not a #OMN maybe they would be better off working on bridges as companion projects.

Good to think about this mess they talk about as it is not solved by more tech, we already have most of what we need.

* Open media is #4opens based on trust, the current ActivityPub is a relatively #KISS good example of this.

* Privacy is encrypted p2p chat, which there are meany good #UX mature #FOSS projects you can find

The change we need is social, getting people to use the different approaches for different needs, this is surprisingly difficult.

Bridges while dangerous are needed here, it’s good to talk about this in the sense of “security”.

https://newdesigncongress.org/en/pub/this-is-fine

This text reads like a vanguards path, based on #mainstreaming reading and narrow #geekproblem thinking. It’s missing the paths that hold value in #4opens horizontal activist paths we are building. But yes, we are getting lost in the growing #fediverse and the wider spread of #openweb reboot diversity projects.

What it does highlight is the need for social and political thinking is needed, the is value there.

It’s hard to stress how “nave” meany devs on the #fediverse

#openweb #4opens is about building human trust, hard security is a very slightly overlapping but easy to see different path for building non “trust” based connections.

Some surprisingly hard to build bridges might help with this ongoing mess.

Can you see any of this feedback?

NGI Zero open source funding talks about the @sovtechfund

NGI Zero open source funding
The @sovtechfund is offering grants to people who contribute to a sustainable open source ecosystem. Grants go up to €300,000 per application and cover three main topics:

1. Improve FOSS Developer Tooling
2. Securing FOSS Software Production
3. FOSS Infrastructure Documentation

With this program, the Sovereign Tech Fund seeks to stimulate an open digital infrastructure: fundamental technologies that enable the creation of other software.

https://sovereigntechfund.de/en/challenges/ #opensource
Three Challenges to Contribute Back to Open Source

UPDATE Looks like people are also arguing this point https://shared-digital.eu/statement/

We are pouring public funding down the drain agen, these criteria are feeding the #geekproblem not actually trying to take the “problem” out of our geek paths. The people who PUSH this agenda are the problem – please POINT at them and talk about this mess, thanks.

Can we get a link to the people making the agenda, thanks, will try polite conversation #4opens

I worked with the guy who used to be behind the #NGIzero account, we did good stuff with the #EU outreach.

The replacement, I have no idea who they are and getting #blocking

This is a #4opens fail.

In all these toots am talking past “people” to talk about things/social/groups and not directly to individuals, they are second in all these conversations. This is the place where social value lives. The problem is, we don’t have hardly any of this… which is the subject am talking about.

#blocking is not seeing this, addressing this, the is a lot of blocking going on 😉

Am happy to talk to “individuals” as a first step.

Pouring money down the drain, because the majority of the problems in the #Fediverse and the #openweb are social not technical – if they only fund technical parts of this culture they are feeding the “problem” and this problem is going to pour the resources down the drain.

I understand this is a hard conversation to have, we have to try.

First step is #4opens, WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE PUSHING MESS while doing “good”, step into the light please #openprocess

Ignoring this basic #openprocess is #blocking, this is why conversations are done in public #4opens

yes, I understand the fear this creates and the desire to #block, but this then makes the #4opens fail more visible if people wont to use this for the needed change and challenge if they don’t yes it’s more noise what are you signal or noise 🙂

Signal vs Nose.

I find #mainstreaming people to be actually mad and increasingly bad. When do we get more #4opens people pushing change challenge in these #openweb spaces, please?

Am increasingly seeing this #blocking as a culture of fear, or more real as a culture of fear pushed as power politics.

Am thinking meany people will be confused and likely mix signal with noise on this subject.

Who are the bad people, the powerless pushing the #4opens on the #openweb or the powerful Burocrats worshipping the #deathcult while protecting these thin careers in the #mainstreaming

If you find yourself agenst the first and defending the second, then you are the problem.

This makes your behaver noise, and what you do very likely to be more #techshit to compost.

I wonder if people understand what activism is on the #openweb any more?

You talk to people to explane why they are doing WRONG, and at the same time you push them as HARD as you can to change their wrong behaver.

This works best with the #fluffy #spiky debate as a core part of this process.

People who keep saying “why can’t we all get along”, and “wouldent it go better if we were nice to each other” and the PROBLEM blocking the activism from having the needed affect…