Tag: indymedia

Rebooting Indymedia: Restoring the OpenWeb and Grassroots Technology

This site is about, looking at the past and future of “native” grassroots media. In the last three decades, the digital landscape has undergone dramatic changes. I have witnessed its evolution firsthand, working in radical media and engaging with grassroots technology. But this journey hasn’t been without its challenges and setbacks.

The Dawn of the OpenWeb

The early years of the #openweb were a golden age, a time when the power of connectivity and innovation was shared and wielded by people rather than confined to corporate silos, built at a human scale, with real conversations and decisions made not by algorithms or profit-driven entities, but by human beings.

However, those pioneering days of the openweb seem distant now. The landscape rapidly shifted, favouring echo chambers over open forums, transforming the working participatory digital spaces into commercialized pockets designed to commodify our data and society

The Rise and Fall of .Coms

The term #dotcons, inspired by the .com boom, exposes the underlying deceit in this new era of the internet. Companies emerged with the aim of capitalizing on our online presence, turning every click and keystroke into a financial opportunity. Social media platforms like #Facebook -aptly dubbed #Failbook and others have become disasters for both our personal mental health and social construct.

The Encryptionist Agenda

In response to the corporatization of the web, alternative technology, especially within radical grassroots movements, began to focus heavily on encryption. Yet this #encryptionist agenda, instead of growing a true alternative, led us to a dead end. An example #Indymedia, which once stood as a beacon of open, participatory journalism, eventually succumbed to this closed technology approach.

The Plight of Progressive Technology

#Fashionista politics – those which blindly follow trends without questioning the underlying systems – have dominated the progressive tech landscape, often embracing the very platforms that stand contrary to open standards. The ideals that spurred movements and created spaces for change have been eroded, leaving us in a technological quagmire that stifles creativity and any real progress.

Rebuilding from the Roots

Despite these challenges, hope remains for a resurgence of grassroots media. By revisiting the core principles that made #Indymedia a force in its early days, we can steer the movement back on course.

A Simple Federated Network

I consider Oxford IMC, which I co-founded, as a blueprint for this revival. Through a network of trust-based content sharing, we create a federated model that allows information to flow freely yet responsibly.

Think of it as a series of nodes: activist news websites, Mastodon instances, peertube channels, and local blogs, all interlinked by trust and moderated collaboration, governed by a simple yet effective set of controls – including link subscribe, moderate/trusted flow, and rollback functions to maintain the integrity of our content.

Trust First, Moderate Later

By focusing on trust-first networking, where content flows are based on established relationships, we not only streamline communication but also protect against the pitfalls of a closed, controlled web. This approach allows for open, decentralized storytelling, with an organic curation system that respects the diversity and autonomy of each node.

Reclaiming and Reshaping Security

Recognizing the need for secure communication without sacrificing openness, the reboot incorporates both bridges to other #4opens network publishing and guidelines for pseudo-anonymous contributions through Tor.

These measures provide a balanced approach, enabling activists to share their stories without fear of repercussion while maintaining a spirit of openness and community-driven journalism.

Foundations of the Reboot

Central to this reboot are the #PGA hallmarks and the #4opens – open data, open source, open standards, and open process. This framework, informed by the lessons from #Indymedia’s past, will ensure that we do not repeat the same mistakes.

Moreover, by adopting federated databases and leveraging tags and flows of news objects, this network will function as a vibrant, resilient web of news, accessible at different levels and capable of adapting to the ever-changing demands of radical grassroots journalism.

Be Part of the Open Media Reboot

I invite you to join us as we embark on this journey to reclaim our digital commons. If you share the vision for an open, grassroots-powered web, visit http://unite.openworlds.info and contribute your expertise. With a commitment to the #4opens and a collaborative spirit, we can usher in a new era of the Fediverse centred on truth, empowerment, and community.

This is more than a project, it’s a movement. Let’s create a network that stands as a testament to our collective power, one that honors our past achievements while forging a future that lives up to our highest aspirations. Let’s make history, again.

The open web is not just a concept; it’s our birthright. Together, let’s bring it back to life.

This post is a call to action. It’s a bid to revive the original spirit of #Indymedia and extend a hand to those willing to contribute to the future of open, grassroots media.

# Introduction
– Hamish Campbell’s background in grassroots and radical media
– The open web’s early potential for alternative media

# The Failure of Alternative Media
– Rise of big tech like Facebook led to closed and monopolized systems
– Encryptionist agenda went nowhere over the past decade
– Climate crisis shows need for societal alternatives

# The Open Media Network
– Explaining the decentralized federated network model
– Trusted flows of content based on open standards

# Rebooting Indymedia
– Rebuilding the local community news site with focus areas
– Approaches for enabling secure anonymous publishing

# Why Indymedia Failed
– Early successes but internal disputes over openness
– Problems with incompatible customized systems
– Control desires led to user-hostile encryption

# Lessons Learned
– Open standards critical for networks
– Loose flexible processes over rigid bureaucracy
– Explicitly embedding the “four opens” philosophy

# Project Overview
– Building a web of trusted news flows
– Agnostic decentralized network via protocols like ActivityPub
– Get involved to help create alternative media

An Old Video

 

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.

The #IndymediaBack project is an initiative aimed at reviving the #Indymedia project

The #IndymediaBack project is an initiative aimed at reviving the #Indymedia project, a decentralized grassroots media network that emerged in the late 1990s and early 2000s. The project was founded on the principles of open publishing, direct democracy, and anti-authoritarianism. This very powerful project was ripped apart from internal and external tensions and forces. The #IndymediaBack project aims to reboot the project before the split happened, around 2008, with a focus on the #fashernista path of the splinter groups. This path emphasizes #openmedia and decentralized structures, rather than control and centralization. The project aims to learn from the mistakes of the past and avoid the same tribalism and power politics that led to the decline of the original project. The project is based on the principles of openness, collaboration, and decentralization, and aims to provide an alternative to mainstream media by creating and distributing independent media content.

A draft funding application – OGB

Requesting funding for the Open Governance Body (#OGB) project. Which is being developed by the Open Media Network (#OMN). The OMN is a collective that builds and hosts #4opens standards-based socio-political software. Our mission is to provide communities with the tools they need to organize, communicate, and make decisions.

The #OGB project is a grassroots initiative that seeks to empower communities by giving them a stronger voice in decision-making. We believe that traditional social coding projects that are based on a top-down approach to power are not effective. Our approach is different. We are developing a bottom-up solution that is based on the principles of sharing power and collective decision-making.

Our team has years of experience in grassroots social tech projects. We have been directly involved with #UnderCurrents, #indymedia, #VisionOnTV, #LondonBoating, among others, and have a firm grasp of what does and does not work within organizing both social and technological communities. We have also worked on UN and World Bank projects in West Africa and have decided to manage them through community/scrum, rather than formal methods.

We are seeking funding in the amount of $50,000. This funding will be used to pay four people to work on the project at a fixed rate of ten thousand euros for 9-12 months of work. The bulk of the work will be programming and implementation details. The remaining ten thousand will be used for servers, expenses, outreach work, extensive testing, and basic project upkeep.

A Look at Existing Projects

It is important to note that foundation funding agendas can have a negative effect on the agendas of #openweb projects. A brief look at some existing projects highlights this issue. For example, decidim.org, which is an NGO process similar to loomio.org, Formal processes can be a bad tool for “herding cats” in social challenge or activist groups. And has been imposed numerous times in activism but has always failed.

After reviewing loomio.org, it is clear that the same ideas and workflows were pushed onto #climatecamp, #indymedia, and #occupy. In the first two cases, it ossified the projects, and in the last case, it was a mess. The #processgeeks behind these projects have not changed, and their projects are a bad fit for life and a terrible fit for the fediverse and activism. However, they may work for some NGOs and more formal cooperative organizing.

It is important to note the differences between formal and informal governance structures. Both use “consensus,” but the Open Governance Body is more like a do-ocracy than a formal governance structure.

 

My indymedia story

#Indymedia was a decentralized, grassroots media network that emerged in the late 1990s and early 2000s. It was founded on the principles of open publishing, direct democracy, and anti-authoritarianism. The project eventually experienced a split in the UK, with one side, the #fashernista, building an aggregating site and the other #geekproblem building a centralized silo. The split was supposedly over technical disagreements, but was driven by doctrinal and tribal disputes. The decision-making process, like much activism at the time grew to rely on #formalconsensus, become ossified and unfixable, so no decisions could be made to mediate this.

outline of the #reboot project

The split was ultimately driven by a focus on control on both sides. The two sides were more interested in their own tribal agendas than in working together to build a diverse and #4opens #OMN. The silo eventually built an aggregating site, with RSS feeds, but in a very controlling way. The stress was always on control as “security” and this ultimately led to the decline of the #Indymedia project. The #dotcons took over the space, and the project became irrelevant.

I was working on the project, the person working in the middle, saying “don’t be a prat” as each side tore and tore and tore I continued in the grassroots, saying that the culture is the key and that the value is in open media network, not control. The split in Indymedia was a shit show, but we can learn from it in the reboot of the project.

The plan now is to reboot the project before the split happened, around 2008 with a focus on the #fashernitas path of the two splinter groups. This path emphasizes openmedia and decentralized structures, rather than control and centralization. However, with the reboot there is still a very real risk that some members of the community will push for a control/#encryptionist path, which could lead to another split in focus. The challenge is to find a way to walk this path without succumbing to the same tribalism and power politics that led to the decline of the original project.

The use of hashtags and semantic web technologies did not exist at the time. Tags and metadata were not core to the start original Indymedia project, but they were later being added as a way to help organize and categorize content, the idea of building a structure with #RSS feeds was being discussed and enacted.

At the time, Interestingly, the silo path recognized that their approach was wrong and came back to aggregation, with moderated control of RSS flows. This is reflected in the #OMN’s choice of “trusted flow” and “moderated flow.” We are building both sides of the split of the original project and yes, criticizing the fashernista path a little, which only had trust, which would not likely work in today’s world. It’s important we do not make this decision for people. We let them decide and build both. The key is to avoid building pointless messes and to resist the #mainstreaming urge to make a mess. We are not #mainstreaming, and we must not be prats about this.

Looking at what happened to the web after this time, the last ten years of tech history, the grassroots silo path went on to build #Diaspora, while the grassroots #fashernista path went on to build the #Fediverse. However, despite these developments, there was still no news based open media network being built yet. This led to the creation of the #OMN project and the current #indymediaback reboot path.

Unfortunately, in today’s world of liberation “cats” due to the last 20 years of worship of the #deathcult, nobody sees any value in the “open” part of the #OMN. Everyone is still fixated on the silo path of control, we have to work against this #mainstreaming blindness. Over the last 20 years, the #mainstreaming as a whole took the silo/encryptionst path of the Indymedia split. Contemporary social media took #fahernista side of the #open path, the #dotcons, took the ideas and sold us back a facsimile of this that they could control, such as #Facebook and other algorithms based #dotcons

To make the reboot work , we have to tiptoe around the legacy of #Indymedia, focus on rebooting the project in its 2008 state, where the social process were still working. The silos’ path still controls the old domains, they took as a part of the ripping apart. We are building something that looks like the fashernista path they fought against, so we need to build two projects in one: control and trust. We need to get the domains back in use, which would be a huge boost to the #reboot project. At the same time, we need to build trust with everyone else, as this is the power of open. It’s complicated, but everyone wants it back. However, the history is challenging, and the two sides are still fighting: Fediverse vs. silos as we see this old mess today.

Why do people keep doing pointless self harm – news aggregation

There are hundreds (over the last 20 years likely thousands) of news, aggregation sites. It’s a common #dotcons model to enclose the “commons” people see free content and think I can capture that. The problem is news content looks like it’s free, but that’s because it’s “free” to spread, but it’s VERY expensive in human (and thus money) to produce the content. This side is never addressed in these failed tech projects.

We currently have #traditionalmedia all round the world pushing to be paid for aggregation and even search of their “product”. At #OMN and #indymediaback, we get round these issues as we add “value” by the #DIY labour of the meany people involved in the shared “commons” space. We are producing rather than “stealing” in the #mainstreaming view.

It’s normal that the top-down news aggregators are seen as parasites, and the bootem up aggregators as adding value. For a few years of #indymedia growth, #traditionalmedia was using #indymedia as a “news” source, this shaped the #mainstreaming agenda, adding value to both paths.

When the #openweb we were building was ripped apart by internal and external pressers and agenders, the #DIY value was captured by the #dotcons such as #Facebook and later #Twitter (when it left it’s open’ish path).

The first step away from the current mess is to recreate the “commons” to bring the value back from the #dotcons capture, this should be more possible now as we are building from the #Fediverse where this has already happened. What we do with this recreated “commons” is up to meany different groups/people, but let’s hold the #4opens and #PGA strongly in place to stop “common sense” enclosing attempts, which are constant pointless damage we need to work around.

To sum up, a key part of the #OMN is to recreate the data “commons” then it’s up to meany other groups to find useful things to do with this free to use non-commercial value. And yes lots of people will see the stupid path of enclosing this to capture the value for themselves, this is damage.

In capitalism, any non-owned value is seen as an opportunity to capture, enclosed and profit from. This is why we have copyleft licences in code, which is visibly failing and why we extend this to the #4opens to fail less 😉

This all comes down to the question of what we value. And for meany people, this is a blindness.

The Genoa #G8 Summit protest

The Genoa #G8 Summit protest, which took place from July 18 to July 22, 2001, was a significant event in the history of modern protest movements. The protest drew an estimated 200,000 demonstrators from all over the world, who came together to block the event and voice their concerns about the power and influence of the #deathcult in the G8 countries.

The G8 Summit, which brings together the world’s eight most powerful countries, is a controversial event that has long been the target of protest movements. Critics of the G8 argue that it is an undemocratic institution that seeks to set the rules for the world at large, without real accountability to the people it purports to serve.

The protesters who gathered in Genoa were determined to block the event and make their voices heard, and they were met with an extremely violent and heavy-handed response from the Italian police. Dozens of protesters were hospitalized, more were taken into custody after night raids on two schools housing sleeping #NGO activists and #indymedia journalists.

The treatment of those who were taken into custody was barbaric. Protesters were beaten, sexually assaulted, and denied access to medical treatment. Many of those who were held in custody were subjected to psychological torture, including sleep deprivation and solitary confinement. Despite the brutality of the police response, the protesters remained resolute, Seeing the G8 Summit as a symbol of everything that is wrong with the world.

The Italian government was later brought to trial in the European Court of Human Rights, where it was found guilty of violating the human rights. The court ruled that the police response to the protest was excessive.

The carnival was a reminder that resistance is possible

The Carnival Against Capital was a global day of protest that took place on Friday, June 18th, 1999. It was a response to the 25th G8 Summit, which was being held in Cologne, Germany at the time. The carnival was organized as an international day of action to protest against the capitalist system and the role of the G8 in maintaining it. The event was also known as #J18, and it was inspired by previous protests such as the Stop the City protests in the 1980s, Peoples’ Global Action (#PGA), and the Global Street Party (#RTS)

The main rallying cry for the Carnival Against Capital was “Our Resistance is as Transnational as Capital.” This was a call to action for people around the world to come together and resist the global capitalist system. The event was organized by a loose coalition of groups and organizations who shared a common goal of fighting against capitalism and its impact on people’s lives.

In London, a spoof newspaper was produced to promote the event, alongside other publicity. On the day itself, the carnival started with a Critical Mass bike ride, which saw cyclists taking to the streets to highlight the problems of car culture and promote alternative forms of transport. This was followed by an action by the Campaign Against Arms Trade, which aimed to draw attention to the role of the arms trade in perpetuating war and conflict.

Later in the day, a large march converged on the London International Financial Futures Exchange for a street party. The exchange was chosen as a symbolic target because it represented the heart of the global financial system. The street party was a festive and creative event, featuring music, dancing, and street theatre. It was also an opportunity for people to express their anger and frustration at the system that was causing them harm.

The Carnival Against Capital was not just limited to London. There were protests in over 40 cities around the world, including Barcelona, Montevideo, Port Harcourt, and San Francisco. Using then new technology, the protests were reported on the internet by independent media activists from London and Sydney, in a step towards the #Indymedia network. This was a significant development in the history of protest movements, as it allowed activists to bypass the mainstream media and communicate directly with each other and the wider public.

The legacy of the Carnival Against Capital lives on today. It was a powerful moment in the history of the anti-globalization movement and showed that ordinary people could come together to challenge the #mainstreaming globalist thinking. The event inspired many people to become involved in activism and to work towards a fairer and more just world. The carnival was a reminder that resistance is possible, and that another world is not only desirable but also achievable.

Talking about grassroots media as a step away from the current #techshit

Hamish Campbell on the #openweb and rebooting indymedia

Hamish Campbell, a veteran of radical media for more than 30 years, argues that mainstream technology and culture are failing us. The rise of the #dotcon platforms has commodified our lives: closed silos like #Facebook and #Instagram harvest our attention and data, locking us into systems that serve profit, not people.

Attempts to build alternatives around an #encryptionist agenda have gone nowhere. As a result, the tech giants dominate. For Campbell, the answer lies in the #openweb – once born open, but now slowly suffocated over the past two decades. His solution is to reboot grassroots media.

Drawing on the example of Oxford #IMC, Campbell shows how a simple federated network can thrive: content is shared through trusted link flows, moderation happens collectively, and mistakes can be rolled back. Unlike the #closedweb, the beauty of the #openweb is its free-flowing links, its openness to serendipity and collaboration.

For Campbell, the #OMN project is most powerful not for what it does, but for what it refuses to do: it rejects capture, centralisation, and gatekeeping. Change begins with small, practical steps, rebooting grassroots media as a living example.

What You Can Do

In recent years, events in the US, Portugal, and Madrid have explored the idea of #rebooting #Indymedia. So far, the history of Indymedia has been told mainly by academics, often through a narrow, American lens. To truly revive it, we need to retell those stories more widely, and more honestly.

A successful reboot means returning to Indymedia’s open and serendipitous roots, not the bureaucratic, closed structures it later became. The good news is that most of the technical tools we need already exist, from federated protocols like ActivityPub to peer-to-peer networks like dat.

To keep its radical, grassroots character intact, any reboot must follow the #4opens: open data, open process, open access, and open source. These principles ensure transparency, accessibility, and trust.

If you want to get involved, search for #indymediaback or “reboot Indymedia” to find links, projects, and discussions around the #OMN.

We used to have heathy alt culture

#Indymedia was a global network of independently-operated media outlets that provide an alternative to #mainstreaming media and promote participatory and decentralized journalism. The network was founded in 1999 to cover events and provide a platform for activists, community groups and journalists to share their perspectives and experiences.

#Indymedia consisted of hundreds of websites and local collectives, each with their own focus and editorial policies, but all sharing radical #4opens and PGA hall marks working.

Over the years, the Indymedia network faced challenges, including censorship, legal pressure, and technical issues, but it remained an important and influential platform for independent media until its decline in the late 2000s and early 2010s.

A news project for the fediverse

#Indymedia is a decentralized network of independent media outlets that aims to provide a platform for grassroots and alternative perspectives on news and current events. It operates on a decentralized model, with each local or regional outlet being run by an editorial collective who are responsible for moderating content and coordinating with other outlets in the network.

The newswire on each site is open to submissions from citizen journalists and focuses on providing context-rich, on-the-ground reporting. The feature column is written by the editorial collective, who select stories from the newswire and provide additional analysis or commentary.

The network also coordinates with other progressive, #PGA and #4opens projects within the #fediverse. The goal of #Indymedia is to provide a platform for alternative and marginalized voices and to promote decentralized, autonomous organizing and media production.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txCLtKpDwNE

#indymediaback

Thinking outreach of the hashtag story

Classification of different versions of the web (such as #Web1, #Web2, #Web3, #Web4, or #Web5) can be a source of confusion and FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt).

The hashtags #openweb and #closedweb provide a clear way to describe and understand the different types of web platforms. The #openweb refers to platforms that are open-source, community-controlled, and promote transparency, the #closedweb to platforms that are proprietary, controlled by a few large companies and lack transparency.

Projects like #indymediaback and #OMN are examples of grassroots of social tech. These projects are focused on promoting decentralized, community-controlled media and communication platforms.

It’s time to compost the normal #techshit, and to focus on developing social tech that is more inclusive, diverse, and community-controlled. This will require a change in the way we think about technology, and a shift away from the current dominant paradigm.

The solution to this problem is to develop social tech that steps away from the #geekproblem and focuses on the needs and perspectives of the community. This can be achieved by involving a diverse group of people in the development and decision-making process, and by promoting open-source code, open standards, open governance, and open data in technology development.

The #geekproblem is a social tech problem that refers to the negative impacts that technology can have on society when it is developed and controlled by a small group of people with limited perspectives and values. It is important to recognize that the #geekproblem is not only a technical issue but also a social issue.

It’s important to remember that fear can be a barrier for change, but by actively using the we can call out pointless things, call out the #deathcult and compost the #techshit, we can actively work towards a more sustainable future.

It’s important to remember that all thinking is critique and if you aren’t looking at the faults, you are likely not looking at the thing at all. Don’t be afraid, use the , take up gardening the compost, and plant the seeds of hope in the era of #climatechaos.

It’s important to lift your head and look, lift your shovel, dig and plant. By actively using the and composting the #techshit, we can actively work towards a more sustainable future.

Living in fear is a common response to the challenges of the era of #climatechaos, when many people are on their knees worshipping the #deathcult. However, it is important to call out pointless things as pointless and actively use the as a tool to compost the #techshit that is contributing to these challenges.

The problem is that the nice moral majority, our liberal friends, have not accepted that the system they try to push is broken. It’s pastime for change, and holding onto our current system is not helping. Their “common sense” is the problem we need to be fighting, as well as the far right.

We must come together as a united force to address the real issues and challenges facing society, rather than spending time fighting among ourselves.

The left fail is spending too much time fighting inside the left over this balance, instead of focusing on the real issues and challenges. #BLOCKING #stupidindividualism and worshipping the #deathcult all push this fight, and it’s important not to be a “PRAT” (i.e. a person who behaves in a foolish or unthinking way) on this subject.

The “left mess” we are in refers to the challenges and divisions within the left-leaning political spectrum. The idea that on the “fluffy” left, we must be “nice” to get people involved in social change, and on the “spiky” left, we need to be nasty to be effective in social change, both have some truth to it. It is important to find a balance between the two approaches in order to be effective in bringing about social change.

Group use of hashtags as an organizing tool. This can help to bring attention to issues, promote collaboration, and increase the visibility of alternative perspectives on technology and society.

Overall, these ideas are meant to challenge the status quo, promote ethical considerations in technology development, and increase transparency, accountability, and collaboration in the tech industry.

Pushing simple #KISS ideas like #openweb vs #closedweb and as a powerful way to judge and compost #techcrap to mediate the #techchurn. This can help to promote open-source code, open standards, open governance, and open data in technology development.

To work with this, some ideas include:

Naming the current “common sense” as worshipping the #deathcult and making #mainstreaming uncomfortable. This can help to bring attention to the negative impact of neoliberalism on society and the importance of addressing it.

#stupidindividualism is a term that refers to the idea that people prioritize personal gain over the well-being of others and the community. It is often associated with the last 40 years of neoliberalism and a part of the liberal 20th century consensus. It is a strong #BLOCK that prevents people from recognizing and addressing the negative impact of their actions on society.

One way to address this challenge is to promote grassroots, DIY producer governance through the use of the #OGB hashtag and project. This can help to ensure that the development of the fediverse is guided by ethical considerations and that it is focused on the needs of the producers and the community.

It’s important to note that it’s not always possible to avoid mess and challenges.

One of the challenges of the fediverse is that it is decentralized and lacks a centralized governance structure, making it difficult to coordinate and get things done. This can be seen as both a good thing and a bad thing, as it allows for a lot of creativity and innovation, but also makes it difficult to achieve goals and create a consistent user experience.

The #fediverse is a network of independently operated servers that communicate with each other using open protocols. It is often considered an “accidental” reboot of the #openweb, as it emerged organically as a response to the centralized nature of social media platforms, which are dominated by the #dotcons

While the is not a way of keeping large corporations out of the open-source development, it can be used as a tool to mediate and prevent any attempts to extinguish the open source community by promoting transparency, accountability, and collaboration. By using , developers, users and community members can have a better understanding of the motivations and intentions of the corporation and can act accordingly.

The is a powerful tool for promoting open-source code, open standards, open governance, and open data in technology development. It can help to ensure that the development of technology is guided by ethical considerations and that it is focused on the needs of the users and the community, rather than the profits and control of a few large companies.

Additionally, the website could include links to the wiki for more in-depth information and resources, as well as a section for community engagement and discussion. This could be a valuable tool in the fight against #techshit #techcurn and a powerful way to reboot the #openweb movement..

The website could feature a clean and modern design, with a focus on easy navigation and clear, concise information about the . The text could be polished to make it easy for people of all skill levels to understand. You can use the existing wiki page unite.openworlds.info/Open-Med as a starting point and add more information and resources to it.

Creating a visually appealing and user-friendly website for the could be a powerful tool in promoting the use of open-source code, open standards, open governance, and open data in grassroots tech projects. This website could serve as a central hub for information and resources on the , and it could be designed to make it easy for people to understand and adopt the principles of the in their own projects.

The hashtag story is a way of using different hashtags to paint a picture of the current state of the world and the paths that can be taken to address the issues at hand. It involves defining each hashtag and how it relates to the larger narrative. Here is an example of a hashtag story:

#fahernista is about consumer capitalism and the negative impact it has on society, treating it as a social illness.

More hamishcampbell.com/2023/01/12/

The is a powerful tool to be used in grassroots tech projects to promote open-source code, open standards, open governance, and open data. It can help to ensure that the development of technology is guided by ethical considerations, and that it is focused on the needs of the community, rather than the #dotcons.

There is hope in this situation, as it is possible to take the “stupid” away from “individualism” and to embrace a more balanced and responsible form of individualism. This would involve recognizing the importance of community and the well-being of others, and taking actions that promote the well-being of society and ecology as a whole.

It is a path that may not be easy, but it is essential for creating a more equitable and sustainable society.

The hashtag #stupidindividualism is used as a critique of this form of individualism, and highlights the negative consequences it can have on society. It suggests that this form of individualism is not only detrimental to society, but also to the individuals who embrace it.

The concept of “stupid individualism” refers to a form of individualism that prioritizes personal gain and self-interest over the well-being of others and the community. It is often associated with the post-modern and neoliberal times we live in, where people are encouraged to prioritize their own needs and wants over the needs of others and ecology/society as a whole. This can lead to a lack of empathy, cooperation, and social responsibility.

The human condition does include a desire or need for blindness, as it is often easier to conform to the status quo and ignore the negative consequences of our actions, rather than to challenge them. Throughout history, there have been moments of rebellion and enlightenment, where individuals and groups have challenged the dominant social thinking and pushed for change.

The hashtags suggest that often people find meaning and build their lives in the twilight, constantly pushing away glints of light that might illuminate too strongly the social squalor and everyday cruelty that is hidden away from them in the shadows. They are blind to the negative consequences of capitalism, choose to ignore them in order to preserve their way of life.

People shape their own history and create their own reality, but they do so within the constraints of the existing social and historical conditions. People are not free to make history as they please, but are limited by the circumstances that are already in place and have been inherited from the past.

The theme is expressed by the hashtags, people are shaped by the dominant social thinking of capitalism to conform to the expectations of society, even when it is detrimental to their well-being

It’s important to remember that people are not passive recipients of social structures and institutions, and can actively shape their own consciousness and the world around them. By becoming aware of the mechanisms that shape their thoughts and beliefs, and by actively challenging the dominant social thinking, people can create a more equitable and sustainable society.

This creates a dynamic where people feel compelled to conform to the dominant social thinking, even when it is detrimental to their well-being, in order to avoid punishment and to gain reward. It can be difficult for people to break away from this dynamic and to challenge the #mainstreaming agenda because they fear the consequences of not conforming.

People choose to be blind in our “sunlight” world. One possible reason is that people are often motivated by the desire for reward and the fear of punishment. Those who conform to the dominant social thinking and push the #mainstreaming agenda may be rewarded with social acceptance, material wealth, and status. On the other hand, those who challenge the mainstreaming agenda may be punished with social rejection, financial insecurity, and marginalization.

The hashtags tell a story that people are often blind to this obverse thinking and that they block challenges to their blindness by rejecting or ignoring alternative perspectives. This can be seen as a form of self-defense mechanism to protect their current way of thinking and to avoid the discomfort of change.

People’s thoughts and beliefs are not formed independently, but are shaped by the social structures and institutions in which they live.

This idea is in the themes of the hashtags , as they all talk about how people are shaped by the dominant social thinking of capitalism, and the control and manipulation of individuals by this dominant thinking.

The hashtags suggest that the way out of this sordid story is to step away from the constant pursuit of consumer goods and services, and to reject materialism and consumerism in favour of more meaningful and fulfilling pursuits. They advocate for a simpler and more sustainable way of life, where people are not controlled or manipulated for profit and where ethical considerations are at the forefront of the development of technology.

For open-source code, open standards, and open governance.

The hashtags express a desire for a more equitable and sustainable internet. They advocate for open-source code, open standards, and open governance.

The story and world-view that these hashtags embody is a critical examination of the current state of technology, and a call for a more equitable and sustainable future.

They are a reminder of the importance of considering the impact of technology on society and individuals, and the need for ethical and responsible innovation.

The #hashtags #fahernista, #openweb, #dotcons, , #geekproblem, #techcurn, #nothingnew, #techshit and #encryptionists, all embody a similar story and world-view, which is the critique of the negative impact of technology and its development on society. They all express a concern that the #mainstreaming current state of technology is not aligned with the values of fairness, openness, and sustainability, and that it is being driven by the profit motives.

#encryptionists prioritize the use of encryption, viewing it as a way to protect privacy and security online.

The problem is that they prioritize encryption over important principles such as trust, transparency, and collaboration. These are essential for a progressive society, the idea of giving up control and building trust among groups.

This issue is then embedded in the code and becomes a problem when it leads to the creation of technology that undermines trust and cooperation.

#techshit usually happens when people do not ask whether the project is necessary or brings new value, but instead build it anyway, repeatedly.

#nothingnew this term encourages developers and creators to consider if the project they are working on is truly innovative and necessary, or if it is just a replication of something that already exists. It also highlights the importance of evaluating the impact of new technologies and products on society, and encourages developers to consider the perspectives of different stakeholders before creating new products or services.

Looking at early examples of #couchsurfing and #indymedia, as healthy of #openweb culture, they built on the principles of sharing and collaboration, and they prioritized community building and connection over profit. However, as they grew in popularity and became more mainstream, they began to face challenges such as commercialization, privacy issues and other problems that led to the decline of the community spirit that once defined them. They are examples of the “problem” of openweb culture.

#failbook and Google are examples of large tech companies that are accused of using their dominance and control over technology to exploit users and undermine society. Both companies have faced criticism for their data collection and use practices.

#4opens refers to the four principles of open source, the essentials for creating a more equitable and sustainable internet. A tool that can guide us towards a better, more humane path, promoting transparency and collaboration. They give us the power to JUDGE the technology we use and the companies that provide it to decide whether they align with our values and interests. In this way, 4opens are a source of power for both individuals and communities to take back control of their digital lives.

This closed web is a form of “technological slavery” in which users are subjected to the control and manipulation of these companies, and that users choose to use these services due to lack of alternatives and /or because they are not aware of the implications of their choices.

The #closedweb refers to the World Wide Web that is dominated by large companies, often referred to as “#dotcons”, who control the flow of information and access to online services through the use of proprietary technology and closed systems. These companies often use their power to collect and monetize user data, and to shape online experiences in ways that prioritize their own interests.

#Dotcons is a term that refers to companies that dominate the internet, and the negative impact they have on society. They are seen as feeding into the social illness of capitalism, prioritizing profit over the well-being of users and society.

The step away metaphor is a positive path to move away from this negative impact, this may include promoting open web and decentralized platforms, supporting alternative models, and encouraging more ethical and responsible behaviour.

The fight for #open in the #EU is a power politics struggle between the need for openness and transparency in an organization that is often characterized by closed decision-making processes and lack of accountability. Some people within the EU are aware of the need for change and are taking steps to pretend to be more open, but they are not truly committed to it.

It is possible that a small crack of #open might be enough to undermine the monolithic closed system, but the problem is that many people are willing to sell out #open in order to keep a bit of #closed. This means that the push for #open needs to be sharper and harder, with a more aggressive approach.

It is important to remember that #open has power over closed, just like light over darkness. By pushing for more openness and transparency, we can create a more democratic and accountable #eu

This might still require a stake and vampire level of PUSH, with a few blows of a mallet to drive the point home. We need to be aggressive, and not back down in the fight for #open in the EU.