A native path out of the mess people make on the #openweb

The Open Governance Body (#OGB) describes a permissionless process/structure that is open and allows the group that forms using the tools to decide who is a part of the group or not. This process can divide into a web of connecting instances of governance as a natural human process of group formation. The #OGB emphasizes that there is no exclusion and always diversity, making it a natural fit for the #fediverse.

The #OGB also shows that if people are stupid and focused on individualism, each governance instance will have one member and no power. To gain power, people have to work together, which is built into the code. The #OGB emphasizes that hoarding power is limited, and it flows through the community, energizing and solidifying the community and building horizontal power to challenge/change vertical power.

The #OGB focus is on the importance of keeping things simple (#KISS) and that some people will try to push for existing power structures before democracy. However, as the process is permissionless, it is not possible to stop them from doing this. The #OGB emphasizes the need to do better, and that being native to the #fediverse is a big help in this regard.

The #OGB emphasizes the importance of recognizing where power comes from in the context of the #fediverse. The fediverse operates differently from corporations, governments, courts, and police, and it is important to think and build with this difference rather than trying to drag the fediverse back to the #mainstreaming path.

The #OGB builds from the #fediverse works because it is different, and it is easy to forget this important thing when #mainstreaming agendas grab and hold. The #OGB suggests that the missing question in almost all conversations is “who are we empowering,” and emphasizes the need to do better in alt-tech.

The #OGB notes that there are problems in alt-tech and suggests that starting with the #4opens would remove 90% of the mess, revealing the real potential for good outcomes. The #OGB highlights that doing better in alt-tech would involve using shovels to make compost and planting seeds of the world we want to see.

The #OGB describes the process scaffolding for the governance body as a default effect, where the decisions on how things work will be up to the members of the body. The power of the governance body is only the power of default, and the #OGB is about removing all hard default choices and building in a small number of KISS tools, then letting the body members work out themselves how to use them.

The #OGB uses the example of #Couchsurfing, where the website redesign removed the #DIY tools active Couchsurfers had used to self-organize, leading to disappointment among members. The #OGB argues that letting members make their own process, open vs. closed, is necessary to overcome the #geekproblem and have hope for alt-tech.

The #OGB builds governance with the way, rules, norms, and actions are structured, sustained, regulated, and held accountable. this is to mediate that the #Fediverse currently has a “herding cats” governance, denoting a futile attempt to control or organize a class of entities that are inherently uncontrollable.

The #OGB codebase is not just a tool for the #Fediverse, but it can be used to democratically run any structures that have stakeholders.

The #OGB provides an example of how the codebase can be used to run a local street market, with each stallholder as a stakeholder, people who shop at the market as users, and the local council, events company, and shop owner’s association as affiliate groups. The #OGB approach and codebase will scale sideways, with street markets governed city-wide, and each of the markets becoming a stakeholder, users as users, and city-wide orgs and groups as affiliate groups.

The #OGB shaping of the “body” comes from a long history/experience of horizontal activism, where “those who do the work have more say.” https://www.noisebridge.net/wiki/Do-ocracy

The #OGB pushes that the bulk of the voice comes from those who run the #Fediverse, the people who run/support the instances. The people who build the tools also get a say, as do support orgs and events, and the users who will be spread widely get a say, but their power is diluted by the much larger numbers involved.

This working practice comes from 30 years of building from The Tyranny of Structureless tick box list https://unite.openworlds.info/Open-Media-Network/openwebgovernancebody/wiki/03.-The-Tyranny-of-Stucturelessness That code being quite “anti-human” is an interesting challenge, and it’s important to figure out how to get the humane “mess” in a coding process that is based on being “exact” and in control #OGB

The #OGB project is grounded in lived experience, and it’s a way out of this mess. We cannot keep using traditional institutions. We have to stop the #techcurn if we are going to use #openweb tech for social/ecological change/challenge, and we need to think about this now.

The #OGB project is about developing better ways of having “trust” based conversations and “trust” based “governance” in the #openweb. The project is built from hundreds of years of on the ground organizing that has shaped every “freedom” we enjoy and is done in a #KISS approach. The #OGB is a #fedivers native way of working, NOT a #mainstreaming way, and it comes from directly working, setting up, and solving recurring problems at hundreds of direct action protest camps.

The #OGB focus on what we know works, as at the moment, almost nothing works for social good. The #OGB project is what is needed, a voluntary cooperative and collaborative alliance that is native to the #fediverse.

The thinking is that we need to put a stop to the #techchurn as we have piles of #techshit already to compost, that #nothingnew is a hashtag for this.

It’s not the goal of the #OGB project to create an organization that tells everyone what protocols and standards to use in the #fediverse. The #OGB project is about developing better ways of having good “trust” based conversations and “trust” based “governance” in the #openweb

To sum up, the current working models of “governance” in open-source projects are monarchy, aristocracy and oligarchy. This is the rock star developer, the coders and the funders. It should be obverse to anyone that 99.99% of people are missing from this feudalistic ideal of “governance”.

Democracy is the basic foundation of our shared modernity.

WHY DO WE PUT UP WITH THIS MESS IN TECH?

Let’s take a different path, please #OGB

Q. that is an optimistic projection

A. I have no illusion that the normal shitty behaver of fucking people over and being a prat will happen, but the codebase is designed to mediate this crap behaver for better outcomes 🙂

#OGB “permissionless” is an important word that needs some thought. The body is made up of three different, balanced groups: stakeholders, users, and affiliate stakeholders. Anybody can become a stakeholder by setting up and running an active instance, and users are self-explanatory. That affiliate stakeholders are a little more complex and are treated differently, and it’s up to the body itself to decide if they play an active and useful role.

That nothing in this is top-down, elitist, discriminatory, or undemocratic, and it’s #KISS and looks safe to the “normal world” while being native to the #fediverse and its roots. All the coding is #4opens, based on #activertypub.

With #OGB, it’s important not to get lost in the #processgeeks and their dogmatic love of #formalconsensus, as that’s a dead end and has been for the 30 years of activism and coding tech. It’s important to keep the #OGB both #KISS and human, understandable. The #OGB is native “governance” and federates in the same way as the projects it “governs”. That this approach is counterintuitive to mainstream ideas and “common sense,” but that’s not necessarily a bad thing.

This approach has worked to some extent, as seen in the “#Fediverse” as a living example, working to scale small to bigger. There will be lots of “smoke,” and help is needed to keep the project clear of this mess. We have to overcome our #stupidindividualism to have a hope of a better world.

#OGB To remind you that the need for “governance” came out of a practical problem where the #activitypub community is made up of “cats” who were doing seminars outreach to powerful #EU Eurocrats on why they should be interested in #activertypub. #OGB is designed to be messy and not tidy, and it’s a “governance” of a disorganization, not a traditional power structure. “governance” can cooperate with more formal models of governance like traditional cooperatives.

The #OMN Modding Process

The #OMN instances have been running for the last 5 years with an open modding process.

Users can become mods after being around for a bit.

The modding process is based on a clear #KISS project statement, with a “don’t be a dick” rider on the end.

If an account is drive-by SPAM/obtusely a troll/right wing, it is removed as the #OMN is a progressive radical media project.

If a normal user or unsure, a warning is given first, followed by a discussion as long as it is polite. If the user continues to break the statement/act like a dick, they are kicked out.

Escalating silencing is not found to be worthwhile for good outcomes.

If the user repeats being a dick/breaking the statement, they are banned. A rough mod consensus is reached before banning if they are a USER rather than a drive-by.

Users can appeal to the mods, who may or may not listen. They are free to set up an account elsewhere on the #Fediverse.

Conclusion: The #OMN example shows how modding can work in a horizontal/federated network, based on clear principles and open processes.

Modeing horizontalists federated networks

We get round the mods as kings by being open for users to become mods after they have been around for a bit.

My over all thoughts/process on modding in a horizontal/federated network, how we work at the 5 instance #OMN

A clear #KISS project statement, with a “don’t be a dick” rider on the end.

If they are drive by SPAM/obtusely a troll/right wing just remove the account, the #OMN is a progressive radical media project.

If a normal user or unshore. Then warn first, discuss second as long as polite, kick on next clear braking of statement/being a dick – BUT do not BAN

you can use the escalating silencing etc, but we have not found this worth wile for good outcomes.

They are free to rejoin, if this continues, discuss if useful, when/if they repeat being a dick/brake statement then BAN (if they are a USER rather than just a drive by we get a ruff mod consensus before doing this)

They can appeal to the mods, who might or might not listen – they are free to set up an account else were on the #Fediverse.

Archiveing the “commons” the #makeinghistorys project.

The #OMN are building this into the archiving nodes (see the #makinghistory project https://unite.openworlds.info/Open-Media-Network/MakingHistory) you can then choose to archive hashtags, and you can get a “lossy” view of what is backed up across the network you can see, so you can choose what to focus on your archiving then we rely on “institutions like liberys, arcive.org, university’s etc to back this up in more structured ways. We just do the messy part, 🙂 so agen is a balance with no right path.

Messy is like good enough for most people, and good to have traditional institutions as a backup to this backup. Remember, all our data is #4opens so nothing is private. Privacy is done #p2p decrypted else’s where the best we offer is sudo anonymity through tor.

You can get a “lossy” view of what is backed up across the network you can see, so you can choose what to focus on your archiving. An archiving node is simply a normal node with a different template #KISS simplicity is where the value is.

This is central to the #OMN as it builds meany subject hubs, as you can’t scale storing everything. So a federated natural outcome, anyone can run one. When your database gets too full, you look at your “lossy/local network view of what is backed up and start throwing stuff away. If you are nice you though away stuff that has wide distribution of backup if you are nasty to throw away stuff only you have.

#OGB is a projects that grew from #socialhub

#SocialHub is a community-driven space that seeks to promote #activertypub, working with new models of governance and organization that empower communities. It is part of the larger #fediverse, which is a network of decentralized social media platforms that do not conform to traditional hierarchies and power structures.

The #OGB project, which is come from #SocialHub, aims to develop a more decentralized and autonomous model of governance by leveraging open-source technologies and building on existing fediverse infrastructure. The project seeks to find a balance between structure and flexibility, with a focus on involving community members in decision-making and empowering them to “natively” shape their digital spaces.

The project is guided by the principles of the #4opens, which emphasize openness, transparency, and inclusivity. However, there is a need to resist the urge to impose traditional liberal solutions and instead embrace original thinking that is native to the #fediverse and #openweb.

The project is still in development and seeks coding input to build this community best practice grassroots producer governance model to help focus on sustainable, inclusive, and equitable. Lets keep project focus on separating off-topic threads, discussions from mainstream dogmas and “common sense” to prevent trolling and maintain focus.

The project is available on Open Media Network’s repository on Gitea https://unite.openworlds.info/Open-Media-Network/openwebgovernancebody, and a remainder we like to focus on #KISS online tools to facilitate horizontal governance.

Talking about trust and power in networks

A. on the subject of “security” we have a #open policy of not trusting ANY client server security at all, so this should only be done #4opens as far as possible and having limited trust in #p2p security, even though we use this, because of the insecurity of the underlighting syteams it runs on, mostly old outdated phones, built as blobs by #dotcons this simple approach gets round much of the current thinking of technical “security” ie. the is almost non at a normal use level and little real security at the paranoid level as you will be talking to the normal level so there security will fail even if yours is solid. good to keep this in mind 🙂

The #OMN is all about people messing around with each others data 😉 but yes we need good basic security, (sudo anomumus) accounts, public audit trails (openprocess) everywhere. we will need digital hashes/cigs for media items etc. but the data it self just sloshes around and gets hacked at and added to. its a commons, the rules are social based on trust flows, they are not mostly hard coded or encrypted. but we add a smidgen of hardcoding and decryption ONLY were its needed. So 90% trust flows, 5% social norms, 4% hardcoded, 1% encryption is my thinking.

A. Data has the value the instance itself is transitory, and yes the instance is needed and stores the data but if it vanishes it has little impact on the value (the data), we build this into the network.

Q. am talking about the machines

A. We won’t the instance to stay up and be secure, BUT we build the network, so it keeps working when they are hacked and poisend by bad actors.

Q. Yes, but that doesn’t mean we make things easy for bad actors

A. Yes, the code and instances have to be secure, but the network flows, and the data soup have to keep working when the individual instances are hacked and poised, no security is fool prof and the #OMN is focused on building trust so is inherently more open to fools, we build with this in mind. We are building a #KISS semantic internet of data/flows. For example the idea of rollback as a core security model rather than more traditional hard (control) security is a good fit, due to the #4opens approach, the missing few days of data will (mostly) rollback into the instance so the cost of being hacked/trust failed is less of a block to being open and (social) trusting to bring in actors/sysadmins/moderates etc. On the tin, we are clear that our network is a trust based “lossy” network.

Where you can still run the #OMN as a hard control based secure network if you wont BUT it will not scale to the social change/challenge if this second option is the only one, this is the current #geekproblem we need to work our way out of. The first path of trust based “lossy” is where the real horizontal “power” comes from.

Q. We sometimes need to think/talk about “security”.

A. I can only repeat I don’t have a solution to this, but I have a path to one, make the user facing “trust” based then from this, “trust” them to fix the next “problem” the #geekproblem of the hardcoded #feudalism of all our networks and code. Or in other words head in sand and pray someone else will fix it, am bussey 😉

On the #OMN projects maybe we need to list what needs to be secure: the account, the activity feed, the data credit might be more but can’t think of much else off the top of my head. And yes to secure the account the instance has to be secure, to secure the activity feed the flows need to be secure, to secure the credit the likely needs to be some hashing done on the media objects.
We likely end up back close to the place we started, but we come to this from a very different place, if that makes sense. This path we take matters.

Examples, peertube and OMN

An example of how to do media with #AP https://visionon.tv/videos/local?sort=-trending&c=false&s=3 the content (video objects) comes in by federation https://visionon.tv/videos/recently-added trust links. Sadly the are no moderation link flows, I asked them to add this, but they have not done this yet. You can subscribe to any user account/channels etc as an AP actor, then each object (video) can have a AP native comment thread, likely as posts and reply’s. So it’s a pile of data objects (videos) feed by (trusted) flows. These objects and flows are native to the Fediverse, where you can share and interact with them. This approach is based on white listed ie trusted flows only to create the shared database.

Interestingly you can choose in the admin to share hosting as the streaming is done p2p, so each instance can manually choose to host video seeds for other instances.
The is technically a good example of what we want to build, BUT socially it’s a disaster, being too fixated on copying YouTube and the #dotcons. Currently, almost nobody sees content or interacts with it on the wider Fediverse.

Just about all the current Fediverse projects work fine as source flows and to a limited extent as comments/discushern. The #OMN want to build code that is #4opens social web native, based on historical working models, the is quite a bit of thinking needed on how to technically implement these, but the social side is well thought through and mostly documented #nothingnew. We are building code for trust groups this is obvuse and #KISS BUT it is strongly agenst much current thinking. Thus we get a lot of back pushing from people as we are pushing “open” as power for social change/challenge to the mess where many people are trying to hide from the current mess by pulling on the clock of “closed” to feel safe.

In this, feeling safe is not our project 🙂

Keep building a better world, one link, one line of code at a time

Once upon a time, in a world dominated by the #dotcons, closed-source technology and centralized decision-making, a small group of passionate activists and developers came together to reboot an old way of building technology. They believed that technology should serve the needs of people, not just the interests of big corporations and governments. They called themselves the #4opens community.

The #4opens community believed that openness and trust were the keys to creating technology that served the needs of people. They codified the existing #FOSS, open-source working practices as a process called the #4opens, which consisted of four #KISS principles: open data, open source, open “industrial” standards, and open process. They believed that by embracing these principles, they could create technology that was more transparent, collaborative, and decentralized.

The first principle of the #4opens was open data. The #4opens community believed that data should be freely available to everyone, so that anyone could use it to build new tools and uses. They created a platform #OMN where people could share data openly and collaborate on projects together.

The second principle of the #4opens was the #mainstreaming idea of #opensource. The #4opens community believed that software should be free and open for anyone to use, modify, and distribute. They created a library of #FOSS software that people and community can use to build new tools and services.

The third principle of the #4opens is open “industrial” standards. This principle was a little more complex, but it basically meant that technology should be built using open, standardized protocols that anyone could use. This would ensure that technology was interoperable and that people could easily switch between different tools and services.

The fourth and final principle of the #4opens was open process. This principle was perhaps the most important of all. The #4opens community believed that technology should be developed using transparent, collaborative processes that anyone could participate in. They organized on a platform https://unite.openworlds.info/ where people could share ideas, collaborate on projects, and make decisions together.

Over time, the #4opens community grew and expanded. They built new tools and services that were based on the principles of openness and trust. They created a vibrant ecosystem of developers, designers, and users who worked together to create technology that served the needs of people, not just the interests of big corporations and governments.

And so the #4opens community continued to grow and evolve, creating a more healthy vision for technology. They knew that their work was just the start, they were determined to keep pushing forward, to keep building a better world, one link, one line of code at a time.

Composting the Last 40 Years of Social Sh*t: Understanding Political Motivations and Embracing Openness and Trust

In today’s world, it’s common to feel overwhelmed by the barrage of information, opinions, and ideas flooding our #dotcons social media feeds and news outlets. From political debates to social issues, it is a challenging to navigate through the noise and understand what’s really happening.

A way to cut through the clutter to gain a better understanding of the political landscape is by using a metaphorical shovel to compost the last 40 years of social sh*t. By digging deep and examining the roots of political motivations, we can understand the forces driving the right and left wings of politics.

Firstly, understand that the right-wing is motivated by fear and the desire for control. Whether it’s fear of losing power, fear of change, or fear of the unknown, the right prioritize maintaining the status quo over progress and innovation. This translates into policies that restrict individual liberties, limit access to healthcare and education, and perpetuate systemic inequality.

On the other hand, the left-wing is motivated by trust and openness. Rather than relying on fear and control, the left prioritizes transparency, collaboration, and inclusivity. This leads to policies that prioritize social welfare, protect human rights, and promote equality and justice.

However, it’s not just politics that require an openness and trust-based approach. In the tech world, the #4opens framework provides a similar role in promoting transparency, collaboration, and decentralized decision-making. By embracing the principles of the #4opens:

* Open data – is the basic part of a project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_data with out this open they cannot work.
* Open source – as in “free software” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software this keeps development healthy by increasing interconnectedness and bringing in serendipity. The Open licences are the “lock” that keep the first two in place, what we have ain’t perfect but they do expand the area of “trust” that a project needs to work, creative commons is a start here.
* Open “industrial” standards – this is a little understand but core open, its what the open internet and WWW are built from. Here is an outline https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_standard
* Open process – this is the most “nebulous” part, examples of the work flow would be wikis and activity streams. Projects are built on linking trust networks so open process is the “glue” that binds the links together. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process

#4opens helps ensure that technology is used for the benefit of “us”, rather than “them”. But, as with any tool or framework, #4opens and left-wing politics can only work if people are willing to pick them up and use them. This means taking a #DIY (do-it-yourself) approach to politics and technology and embracing the power of the communertys to create change.

Tilling the fertile soil of hope requires a commitment to openness, transparency, and collaboration, but it also requires simplicity. Keeping things simple, or #KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid), helps to prevent people from getting bogged down in complexity or becoming trolls on social media. By focusing on a simple but powerful vision of openness, trust, and collaboration, we can work towards creating a more ecological, just and equitable world.

In conclusion, composting the last 40 years of social sh*t requires a willingness to dig deep and examine the roots of political motivations. By understanding the fear-based approach of the right and the trust-based approach of the left, we can better navigate the political landscape. Embracing openness and trust-based #4opens working helps to ensure that technology is used for the benefit of all, while keeping things simple can prevent us from getting bogged down in complexity or becoming trolls. It’s up to each and every one of us to pick up the shovel and start tilling the fertile soil of hope.

Thinking about why #openweb projects fail.

Many #openweb projects have failed over the years, and there are reasons, first is the challenge of sustaining a project that is built on open-source principles and relies on community involvement and collaboration. In capitalism, without a clear and consistent funding model, it can be difficult to keep projects going over the long term.

Another factor is the competition from proprietary technology that is always better funded and more easily accessible to the public. This can create a challenging environment for open-source projects that struggle to keep up with the pushing of “innovation” in the tech industry.

There are also ideological differences between different groups within the open-source community that leads to conflicts and disagreements over the direction of projects. This can result in splintering and fragmentation of the community, making it difficult to achieve a shared goal.

Non “standard” #UX is a big issue as well, nice to make something you like, but better to do something the user community likes.

From @bob@epicyon.libreserver.org Irreconcilable musical differences, someone in charge of donations taking it to Vegas, becoming a parent or getting a new job, burnout, unrealistic expectations based on hegemonic BigTech systems, illness, an excess of technical debt and trolling can all result in failures of open source projects.

Most projects are one or two people with occasional driveby patches. Projects with more volunteers than that are rare exceptions. Most maintainers are not people on six-figure salaries going on slides at Google. Usually they are barely making rent.

Another factor is that often accessibility is not as good as it could be. The big companies can dedicate a department to just ensuring accessibility meets a minimum standard, but open source projects often don’t have the knowledge and are regularly criticized for accessibility problems.

From the #openweb

(https://elplatt.com/) happy to remove this link if asked

The main challenges I’ve experienced in projects I’ve been a part of:
* Tendency for potential contributors to start new projects from scratch
* Lack of communication within the user community and between users and maintainers
* Contributions driven by prestige or excitement, prioritizing new features over maintenance
* Lack of funding

It’s a good list, maybe we need a post writing up covering them all.

(This is why I work #KISS whaw that is bad behaver, lie about someone then blocked their instance. #GreatjusticeNet has blocked campaign.openworlds.info for plagiarizing fediverse content. In this post, it says “From the #openweb” in BOLD, so clearly it’s not plagiarism. But happy to remove stuff if people don’t won’t it archived)

Over the years, many #openweb projects have failed due to various reasons. The first challenge is to sustain a project that is built on open-source principles and relies on community involvement and collaboration. In a capitalist society, without a clear and consistent funding model, it becomes difficult to keep the project going over the long term.

Another factor is the competition from proprietary technology that is better funded and more easily accessible to the public. This creates a challenging environment for open-source projects that struggle to keep up with the “innovation” pushed by the tech industry.

Ideological differences within the open-source community leads to conflicts and disagreements over project direction, resulting in splintering and fragmentation of the community, making it challenging to achieve shared goals.

Non-standard #UX is also a significant issue, as it’s better to create something the user community likes than something just the developer likes.

Some ideas on this from the #openweb, irreconcilable musical differences, individuals in charge of donations taking it to Vegas, becoming a parent, getting a new job, burnout, unrealistic expectations based on hegemonic BigTech systems, illness, an excess of technical debt, and trolling can all result in open-source project failures.

Most projects have only one or two people, with occasional drive-by patches. Projects with more volunteers are rare exceptions, and maintainers are typically not people on six-figure salaries going on slides at Google. Usually, they barely make rent.

To sum up, the main challenges experienced in the projects that the author has been a part of include the tendency for potential contributors to start new projects from scratch, lack of communication within the user community and between users and maintainers, contributions driven by prestige or excitement, prioritizing new features over maintenance, and lack of funding.

Additionally, accessibility is often not as good as it could be, as big companies can dedicate a department to ensure accessibility meets a minimum standard, but open-source projects often lack the knowledge and are regularly criticized for accessibility problems.

In conclusion, a post covering all these challenges would be useful.

If you can’t understand ideology, you generally cannot “think”

Thinking about #Ideology plays a role in shaping society as it provides a framework for understanding the world and determining values, beliefs, and principles that guide behaviour and decision-making. By understanding a society’s #mainstreaming ideologies, we can better understand its political, social, and cultural institutions, as well as the motivations behind various actions and decisions.

For example, a society’s unspoken political ideology influences the formation of political parties, the structure of government, and the laws and policies that are enacted. Social ideologies shape the relationships between different groups in society, such as the roles and expectations of men and women, the treatment of minorities, and the distribution of resources. Cultural ideologies shape our beliefs about beauty, art, and morality, as well as the way in which history is interpreted and remembered.

#KISS, understanding the idea of ideology is important because it is insight into the underlying beliefs, values, and motivations that drive human behaviour and shape the society we live in. It helps us to make sense of the world around us and make informed decisions about the future we would like.

Please share this #openweb project widly thanks

The #OGB is focused on decentralized and autonomous models of governance for the #fediverse and #openweb groups. It aims to resist the imposition of traditional top down power structures and promote social change and challenge by involving community members in decision-making and empowering them to shape their “producer” communities.

The project will leverage existing open-source technologies and the #fediverse infrastructure, and will balance structure and flexibility to promote creativity, innovation, and sustainability. The project has three main subjects of discussion: 1) the tradition of working activist grassroots organizing, 2) the use of technological federation and ActivityPub, and 3) original thinking for grassroots #openweb producer governance. The project is bound by the #4opens and #PGA principles and will be conducted using #KISS online tools.

#ActivityPub is a protocol for decentralized social networking that is based on #openweb standards. It provides client and server APIs for creating, exchanging, and receiving content, as well as notifications and other activities. The protocol uses the #ActivityStreams vocabulary and defines key concepts such as Actors (profiles), Objects (content), Inbox, and Outbox to facilitate communication and interaction between users in a decentralized network.