Time to Ground Public Funding: Why We Should Invest in Energy, Not Billionaire Space Races

In the last year, the typical taxpayer spent more on #SpaceX — a company owned by one of the richest men in history — than on programs for energy efficiency and renewable energy. It’s time to reverse this. The way governments allocate public funds says everything about their priorities — and right now, those priorities are dangerously skewed.

Let’s look at the subsidies with SpaceX vs. Renewable Energy: A distorted allocation of public wealth. SpaceX, owned by Elon Musk, one of the wealthiest people ever to live, has received billions in public funding. While innovation in space technology might be exciting, it’s worth asking: Why are taxpayers subsidizing a billionaire’s rocket dreams while the planet burns?

Meanwhile, energy efficiency and renewable energy programs, critical for addressing the climate emergency, are underfunded and deprioritized. These programs offer immediate, tangible benefits for emissions reduction, energy security, and public health, yet they receive a fraction of the financial support funnelled into private space ventures.

Wealth disparity & public investment is now about funding the nasty few while communities struggle. The fact that public funds prop up Musk’s space empire reflects a deep structural rot: wealth inequality baked into public policy. Why should a man with more wealth than some nations receive massive state support while local renewable projects, energy transition initiatives, and community-based sustainability efforts scramble for scraps? Public money should serve the public good, not inflate the wealth of billionaires chasing sci-fi fantasies while entire regions face climate-driven collapse.

Energy transition, is a basic funding shift for survival. Redirecting funding from private space exploration to energy efficiency and renewable energy is a moral and practical necessity. The #climatecrisis is here and accelerating, and every dollar spent propping up a vanity space race is a dollar stolen from the fight for a liveable planet. Investing in solar, wind, community microgrids, and conservation programs. Lower emissions to build resilient local economies, reduced energy poverty by job creation in sustainable industries. The payoff is immediate and lasting. A rocket launch might inspire wonder for a day, but a robust renewable grid can sustain generations.

Government spending & climate accountability, this is a political choice, not an inevitability. Governments choose to fund SpaceX over solar panels, rockets over wind farms, the nasty few over marginalized communities. To balance this mess, we need to demand better transparency in public funding decisions, people-first policy prioritizing climate justice, accountability for politicians who choose corporate welfare over planetary survival.

The path forward is in reclaiming public funds for public good. We don’t need more billionaire space escapism, we urgently need a grounded, radical shift in spending that reflects the urgent needs of humanity and the planet. That means, massive public investment in renewable infrastructure, decentralized energy solutions owned by communities, not corporations, research and development in climate tech, not just space tech, global cooperation on sustainability, not competition for interplanetary dominance.

The future isn’t in the stars, it’s right here, on Earth. And if we don’t fight for it, no amount of rocket launches will save us. Let’s defund billionaire fantasies and invest in life. #KISS a liveable planet is worth infinitely more than footprints on Mars.

#OMN #4opens #climatechaos #deathcult #NothingNew #EnergyTransition #PublicFunding #TaxTheRich

The Rise and Fall of Grassroots #openweb Activism in the UK

Grassroots activism has undergone significant ups and downs over the past four decades, particularly within digital communication and organizing. This post provides an overview of the challenges and successes experienced by grassroots activists during this time period, focusing on the evolution of the #openweb and its eventual decline. It explores the ideological underpinnings of internet projects, the impact of funding and #mainstreaming efforts, and the shifting dynamics between open and closed systems. By examining these trends, we can better understand the complex interplay between technology, ideology, and activism.

To escape our silo thinking

The rise of the open internet, was a surge of enthusiasm for #4opens and decentralized communication paths. Projects like early #indymedia, blogging platforms, wikis, and peer-to-peer networks flourished, driven by an ethos of democratization and empowerment. These offered people and grassroots movements opportunities to connect, collaborate, and mobilize on a global scale. The ideology of the #openweb, rooted in #4opens principles, captured the imaginations of many activists seeking to challenge established power structures.

Why did the #openweb flower and die over the last 30 years

However, alongside the growth of #openweb projects, there were also significant challenges and tensions. The influx of funding from state, foundation, and #NGO sources brought both opportunities and risks. While funding provided vital resources for development and expansion, it also introduced pressures to conform to #mainstreaming norms and intrenched #geekproblem agendas. Additionally, as open internet projects gained popularity, they became susceptible to co-option and manipulation by corporate interests seeking to capitalize on the growing community interest.

We face a digital cliff the open internet may be over

The fall of the openweb, despite early successes, the internet eventually faced a decline, marked by the erosion of its ideological foundations and the resurgence of closed, centralized platforms, the #dotcons. One factor in this decline was the failure of many openweb projects to align with the dominant ideology of the web itself. The pushing of non-native common sense. While some projects embraced trust-based anarchism and decentralized governance, others veered towards more hierarchical and exclusionary paths.

Outline of 20 years ups and downs of grassroots activism in the UK

The rise of a new generation of technologists and entrepreneurs, shaped by #neoliberal ideologies of individualism and competition, led to a merging of open and closed paths. This shift towards closed platforms, controlled by a handful of corporate giants, undermined the diversity and resilience of the “native” openweb. The very chaos that once protected the openweb from vertical integration and monopolization was replaced by a homogenized landscape dominated by a few #dotcons.

Challenges and opportunities, in the face of these challenges, grassroots activists grapple with the complexities of a landscape that is hostile to their values and principles. The siloed nature of many media projects are a barrier to collective action and solidarity, limiting their impact and longevity. However, there are also opportunities for resistance and resilience, through the cultivation of networks based on mutual aid and cooperation like the #OMN

Conclusion, the trajectory of grassroots activism in the UK over the past four decades reflects the broader shifts and tensions within the #mainstreaming path. The rise and fall of the openweb mirrors the struggles of activists to carve out spaces for dissent and resistance in corporatized and surveilled environments. By using the #4opens to examining the ideological underpinnings of internet projects and exploring alternative paths in organizing, activists work towards reclaiming the path of a more open and decentralized future.

#KISS

Building trust in the #openweb

The #openweb is a framework for human-centric, decentralized technologies built on transparency and collaboration. Its success hinges on trust, and as a slogan suggests, “Technology’s job is to hold the trust in place.” This concept is woven into the #OMN and #OGB initiatives, which emphasize community-driven decision-making and adherence to the #4opens principles.

#OGB and consensus, decisions are valid when a wide group of engaged participants achieves consensus. This safeguards against the normal invisible authoritarian control, single individual find it hard to dominate because the collective create and validate the decisions. Trust groups, not individuals, are the seat of power, ensuring better decision-making and accountability.

The role of #4opens, open process, open data, open licences, and open standards—acts as “gatekeepers” for technological decisions. #Openprocess ensures inclusivity and transparency, blocking decisions that don’t involve public participation. #Opendata guarantees that shared information is accessible, reducing the potential for siloed control. #Openlicenses prevent restrictive ownership that could undermine collaboration. #Openstandards resist fragmentation and force adherence to balance collaborative practices and individual paths. This “soft, swishy” approach avoids rigid authoritarian structures while maintaining #KISS robust, “enforceable” values.

let’s look at challenges and strategies for #OMN combatting #mainstreaming “common sense” practices that erode grassroots values. By build strong defaults into projects and hardcode the #4opens principles to keep them central. To make this happen, let’s try and stay polite and inclusive during outreach, avoiding burnout and adding mess through conflict.

Dealing with #fahernistas and trust issues, a significant challenge arises from people and groups who appear trustworthy due to their #mainstreaming tactics but ultimately undermine the values of the #openweb. Coders and contributors need to align with #KISS social change goals, ensuring a grassroots and horizontal approach to development, this is basic.

To do this, we need to work on sustainability efforts by avoid overloading projects with unnecessary features, “How does this fit into the #4opens?”. One path is to balance “friction” as a positive filter for misguided additions, while maintaining a welcoming environment for constructive collaboration.

Building a future beyond the #geekproblem, the “problem” originates from early open-source projects that #block the social dimensions of their technologies. By integrating the #4opens and prioritizing trust networks, the #openweb can (re)evolve into a human value network rather than a technological dead-end.

The #deathcult feeding off the decay of the #openweb perpetuates centralized and exploitative systems. All our activism is about, focusing on planting seeds for a grassroots rebirth, #nothingnew is a starting point, returning focus on modernist principles—clear goals, collective action, and systemic solutions—provides a foundation to grow #somethingnew.

The #openweb vs. #closedweb debate is not new, but it remains a critical narrative. By holding technology accountable to trust and community values, we create tools that empower rather than exploit. The #OMN and #OGB projects embody this path.

For those interested in coding for change, visit the OMN wiki and join the effort to make this vision a reality, please. Or you can donate some funding here if you don’t feel confident with tech path.

Building Trust in the Openweb and the Fediverse

In the landscape of the #openweb and the emerging #Fediverse, trust is the currency that binds meaningful interactions and collaborations. Yet, amidst the cacophony of voices and divergent perspectives, building trust can feel like navigating a minefield. In this post, we’ll explore the importance of trust in the #openweb and the Fediverse, examine the challenges to building trust, and propose strategies to foster a culture of trust within these communities.

Trust is the bedrock upon which communities thrive, enabling people to engage in meaningful exchanges, share resources, and collaborate on common goals. In the decentralized ecosystem of diverse voices converge and interact, trust becomes more essential. Unlike centralized #dotcons platforms, where trust is bestowed upon a single authority, the “native” openweb relies on distributed networks of trust relationships between people and communities.

However, despite the inherent value of trust, the landscape of is fraught with challenges that hinder this cultivation. One of the primary obstacles is the prevalence of #blocking and resistance to new ideas or approaches. While blocking may be necessary in certain circumstances, such as to protect against harmful actors or preserve the integrity of a community, it can also impede constructive dialogue and collaboration. Without trust, with too much #blocking communities become fragmented and isolated.

To address these challenges and foster a culture of trust, several #4opens strategies can be employed:

Transparency: Transparency is key to building trust within communities. Open and honest communication about intentions, decisions, and actions fosters a sense of accountability and reliability. Projects and peoples should strive to be transparent in their operations, sharing information openly and engaging in dialogue with stakeholders.
Inclusivity: Inclusive communities are more likely to cultivate trust among their members. By seeking out diverse perspectives and voices, and creating spaces where people feel welcome and valued, communities can foster a sense of belonging and trust. Inclusivity also involves addressing power imbalances and amplifying silent voices.
Consistency: Consistency in actions and behaviour is essential for building trust over time. Communities should strive to uphold their commitments, follow through on promises, and maintain integrity in their interactions. Consistency breeds reliability and reliability breeds trust.
Empathy: Empathy is the foundation of trust in human relationships. By empathizing with the experiences and perspectives of others, communities can build mutual understanding and respect. Empathy involves active listening, acknowledging the feelings and concerns of others, and responding with compassion and kindness.
Collaboration: Collaboration fosters trust by creating opportunities for people to work together towards common goals. By engaging in collaborative projects, sharing resources, and supporting each other’s efforts, communities can build bonds of trust and solidarity.

In conclusion, trust is the cornerstone of a thriving #openweb and the building of the #fediverse community. We need to create environments where trust flourishes, enabling people to engage in meaningful interactions and collaborations. Remember that trust is not a destination but a journey—one that requires ongoing effort, dialogue, and commitment from all #4opens stakeholders.

“don’t be a prat” is basic #KISS

We can work together?

The is occasional discussion surrounding the classification of different versions of the #web, such as #Web01, #Web02, #Web03, #Web04, or #Web05, this is not merely an academic exercise but an aspect of understanding the evolving nature of the digital landscape. However, the proliferation of these hashtags leads to confusion and contribute to the spread of fear, uncertainty, and doubt (#FUD) among users, people and communities.

In response to this confusion, proofer to use the hashtags #openweb and #closedweb which offer a clear and concise way to delineate between platforms that embrace openness, transparency, and community control (#openweb) and those that prioritize proprietary technology, centralized control, and lack transparency (#closedweb). By using these hashtags, we foster a better understanding of the ideological and technical underpinnings of different web platforms and paths.

Projects like #indymediaback and #OMN exemplify grassroots efforts to promote decentralized, community-controlled media and communication platforms. These initiatives can become vital in challenging the dominance of large corporations in shaping the digital paths and in offer an inclusive, diverse, and community-controlled approach to technology development.

At the heart of this discussion lies the #geekproblem, which highlights the tendency among technologically people to prioritize technical solutions without considering their broader social implications or the needs of ordinary people. By recognizing the #geekproblem, we begin to address the inherent biases and limitations of tech-centric paths to problem-solving and can then move to advocating for solutions that are inclusive and community-driven.

The solution to this “problem” lies in developing social tech that transcends the #geekproblem and focuses on the needs and perspectives of communities. This needs a diverse group of people in the development and decision-making process and promoting open-source code, open standards, open governance, and open data in technology development. By embracing this #KISS path and principles, we create a more equitable, transparent, and collaborative #4opens ecosystem.

However, this requires overcoming challenges, including the resistance of the status quo and the fear of change. By actively using the #4opens to judge projects, we challenge the prevailing narrative, call out pointless technologies, and compost the #techshit that contributes to the perpetuation of harmful social dynamics.

Moreover, it is essential to recognize that the struggle for a more sustainable future is inherently political. The dominance of large corporations and the perpetuation of #neoliberal ideologies pose significant barriers to any progress. Therefore, it is imperative to mobilize collective action and advocate for policies and initiatives that prioritize, balance the needs and well-being of communities over these profit-driven interests. Without this, the progressive tech dev will fall on barren ground.

In conclusion, the use of hashtags such as #openweb, #closedweb, and #4opens serves as powerful tools for organizing and mobilizing grassroots efforts to challenge the status quo. By embracing these hashtags and the values they represent, we work towards a future where technology serves the interests of the many rather than the few.

Let’s try harder, please.

The #4opens provides a useful lens to evaluate and assess technology projects

The path we need to take in technology is social, rooted in the recognition that technology, at its core, is a tool created and used by humans to address social needs and challenges. While technological advancements have the potential to bring about benefits and progress, they also have the capacity to perpetuate existing inequalities, exacerbate social divides, and undermine democratic paths.

The #4opens framework provides a useful lens through which to evaluate and assess technology projects, particularly in the #openweb and #dotcons. By emphasizing openness, transparency, collaboration, and decentralization, the #4opens offer a set of guiding principles that prioritize social utility and collective benefit over corporate profit and (stupid) individual gain.

Why the social dimension of technology is crucial:

* Empowerment: Technology has the power to empower people and communities by providing access to information, resources, and opportunities. By focusing on the social utility of technology, we ensure that it is designed and deployed in ways that promote inclusivity, participation, and empowerment to balance the current push for control.

* Equity and Justice: In a world characterized by systemic inequalities, technology is either reinforcing existing power structures or serve as a tool for challenging and transforming them. By centring social considerations in tech development, we can work towards growing more equitable and just societies.

* Community Building: Technology has the potential to foster connections, collaboration, and community-building on a global scale. By prioritizing social utility, we can harness technology to strengthen social bonds, facilitate dialogue, and mobilize collective action around #KISS shared goals and values.

* Sustainability: In an era of environmental crisis and resource depletion, it is essential to consider the social and environmental impacts of technology. By prioritizing sustainability and social responsibility in tech design and deployment, we can work towards systems and solutions that are environmentally sound and socially responsible.

The social dimension of technology is a balance, because it determines how technology is designed, deployed, and used to address social needs and challenges. By embracing principles, we can ensure that technology serves the collective good and contributes to building a more sustainable future we need.

#4opens is a step to this path.

Can This Platform Survive? Governance Challenges

A paper on the Fediverse by Thomas Struett, American University – School of Communication, Aram Sinnreich, American University – School of Communication, Patricia Aufderheide, American University – School of Communication, Rob Gehl, York University.

Interesting #mainstreaming look, that bypasses the grassroots it’s actually talking about, this is a common issue with academic writing, am at Oxford this winter so have everyday “organic” expirence of this.

For governance, we have a widely discussed project on that it is “native” to address all the issues outline in the article Open-Media-Network/openwebgovernancebody: ON STANDBY due to waiting for funding – (OGB) This is a space for working through Governance of horizontal projects – using #KISS online tools. – openwebgovernancebody – Open Media Network 4

Then for fighting the capture we have an “organic” path the #4opens if used is a strong defence Home – 4opens – Open Media Network

So to sum up, what we need is for “us” the collective to get up from our knees and become the change we would like to see. This is actually not a hard thing to do “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed, citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.”

Let’s look at this PDF:

This thread and our failing in general in “governance” is to do with the fluffy and spiky debate, or much more obviously the failing of this debate to actually be held in place.

“Potential benefits of the fediverse are at risk of being subverted, either by commercial
competitors or through structural dysfunction.”

Dealing with both commercial and structural dysfunction here.

Commercial – funding has shifted from distributed to centralized over the last few years, this is driving core dysfunctions – interesting and useful subject to discus.

Structural – we have not moved anywhere towards “native” governance approaches, this is building crises Legitimacy (political) – Wikipedia

“hold promise as human-scale, democratically-run platforms for civil discourse within and between these groups of users.”

We aspire to this, but with no democracy in any formal or informal sense. And secondly we lack “groups of users” as the coding being copies of #dotcons are strongly “individualized” which pushed our #mainstreaming “common sense” over this openweb “native” space.

“challenges inherent to distributed governance, commercial platform capture, inclusive
access, moderation at scale, reputational assaults by commercial competitors, and the tacitly
neoliberal techno-Romanticism familiar from previous digital innovations. ”

The is a long working (activist) history of mediating these problems that we are ignoring here. A first step to addressing this is the fluffy spiky debate being held in place #KISS

“Developers, entrepreneurs, institutions, and users of these technologies
must also work collectively and proactively to help the fediverse avoid these historical threats
and maximize its civic potential.”

This is the bit we need to talk more about, as it’s key to not fucking up agen.

“However, the fediverse is more than a technical system; it is also a political structure (Mansoux
& Roscam Abbing, 2020). ”

On this currently, we are seeing Legitimacy (political) – Wikipedia failing.

“the structure of platform governance and moderation is both reflective of and integral to the
functioning of democratic processes in digital networks, and much of the proverbial “devil in the
details” comes down to arcane and obscure questions about transparency, control, and
information flow at any given chokepoint or sociotechnical layer.”

This is why link to the #4opens, and it’s use to judge if a project or group are “native” or not – to make transparent in groups and most impotently OUT-GROUPS. A technical/social membrane, as this quote say “devil in the details”

“1. Distributed governance failures
Previous decentralized social platforms have sometimes failed to deliver on their civic potential
because of challenges emerging from the governance process: the norms, institutions, and
technologies that determine who gets to say what to whom, under which circumstances,”

This is the subject of responses to this thried, illustrating the issues, so think of it as the spiky in the fluffy spiky debate. Notice, we are currently failing to hold this debate in place.

“it introduces other risks that must be addressed and mitigated, including new threats such as accountability and liability crises, forking… Corporate actors may also exploit these challenges, by posing themselves as solutions to distributed governance frictions (Marshall, 2006).”

This is likely in part one of the underling issues we are not talking about here.

“Examples of distributed platforms falling prey to these governance challenges in the past are
legion”

We have much to learn and address on this, I talk about this a lot as it’s a key subject we need to move away from “common sense” approaches. Yes this is seen as spiky, but it’s needed, let’s hold this debate open please.

“Not all platform governance is alike. Though corporate platforms emulate traditional media
structures by centralizing power (Napoli & Caplan, 2017), the fediverse has a more distributed
governance structure. This decentralization is not just an aspect of the underlying software but also a core tenet of the governance philosophy of the fediverse itself.”

This is a subject I talk about a lot and have been working on for the last few years with the ogb as a “native” approache. In general, these “native” approaches are still being #blocked by #mainstreaming “common sense” approaches. This needs to change if the openweb reboot is not to wither and die.

“Benjamin Mako Hill (2018) describes this corporate capture of OSS projects as “strategic closedness.””

This is in easy view with a lot of our tech and fashionable crew pushing #closedweb ideas as “common sense” verse “native” openweb approaches. This is a problem with no obverse solutions, the #4opens project is one way to mediate this insolvable/unspoken issue that is everywhere in our dev crew.

“2. Commercial capture
Another challenge that has undermined the health and strength of previous decentralized or
open platforms is commercial capture. Proprietary, value-added features that enhance the user
experience are used to bring more users onto the platform, ”

We currently have few tools to push this back, our strongest tool is likely our “culture” but this itself is fractured, full of infighting and unspoken. Speaking this out load while creating tension is likely nessersery for any good outcome. Hiding from this is #fail

“This means that only a continuing commitment to interoperability by developers, and not merely the existence of an open technological standard, can ensure an open ecosystem within the fediverse.”

It’s social/political NOT a technical problem, so our current fixation on ONLY tech and avoidance of the social/political is a easy to see and act on #fail

“Eternal September is not that new users simply need to be taught the social norms of the space they are joining, but that norms policing is a form of gatekeeping that can exclude new and more diverse users from joining.”

This is both true and a #fashernista problem, we need a better path, this should be easy, it’s not.

“it is important to critique calls for technological approaches to user-friendliness, which are often couched in rhetoric of democratization of technology, while simultaneously undermining decentralized
power relations… making the platform easier to join and use,
while also limiting users’ agency to make choices about the underlying infrastructure that will
best foster their communities”

We are going to see this from every side for and agenst, we need a balances’ path through this mess, we are not currently talking about this path, we need to.

“the fediverse currently relies on the goodwill of countless volunteer moderators and self-funded instances, this goodwill can’t last indefinitely, and a workable approach to funding and compensation has yet to emerge.”

This one is a can of worms, the current “best” solution is to keep instances small and voluntary run, our ongoing disagreements on this path is likely to continue to do damage… one path out of this is legitimate “governance”.

“The reputational anti-halo is already cropping up in discourse about the fediverse and Mastodon, which have been tainted by their uses among the “alt-right” (Makuch, 2019) and for child abuse (Thiel & DiResta, 2023).”

This comes down to voice and power, as “libertarian cats” we have little of either… it’s a bad path to stay on, what path would be better and more “native” is a good question to talk about.

“techno-Romanticism works to obscure the labor, networks, and institutions that are key to supporting technological development while elevating the simplistic view of the great men of history… the fediverse is particularly vulnerable to techno-Romanticism”

This is an endemic issue, and most people are chasing the tech equivalent of the American dream that they will become the top dev… this is not a native approach to the openweb, but it’s currently a dominating view. This is mess making.

“Technical language and the assumption of baseline technical expertise may also present unintended obstacles to adoption. Conversely, the fediverse also faces the threat that the rhetoric of “user friendliness” will justify the curtailing of user agency, or re-centralization of the network… messy, and continuous practice of maintaining a healthy and inclusive space for civic discourse…

Techno-Romantism’s utopian discourse poses a threat to the fediverse because it distracts from the importance of social action in the development of technology… discussion about how to
identify them and limit their impact, is a critical step toward reaching those civic and
technosocial goals together.”

In conclusion, the roadmap for the fediverse’s future must transcend the confines of technicality and delve deep into the socio-political fabric. Holding the fluffy-spiky debate firm, nurturing ‘native’ approaches, mitigating commercial capture, addressing governance challenges, and fostering a culture of inclusivity and sustainability—these constitute the keystones for nurturing the true potential of the fediverse.

Mess making is a breakdown in communication – ideas please

For governance, we have a widely discussed project on this forum that is “native” to address all the issues outline in the article Open-Media-Network/openwebgovernancebody: ON STANDBY due to waiting for funding – (OGB) This is a space for working through Governance of horizontal projects – using #KISS online tools. – openwebgovernancebody – Open Media Network 4

Then for fighting the capture we have an “organic” path the #4opens if used is a strong defence Home – 4opens – Open Media Network

——————————————————————-

Continuing the discussion from Can This Platform Survive? Governance Challenges for the Fediverse 2:

Dear @hamishcampbell,

although we already had this discussion several times, you keep posting external links to your website every time you have an opportunity to do so, which is quite a lot, since you are very attentive to responding to any new topic with such links.

What it achieves is that your posts rarely bring anything to the conversation and rather look out of place, and barely get any response. Do you realize that all these links have rel="nofollow" attached to them, which means no search engine will index them in relation to this site?

I’m reacting to this specific message because you, being in Oxford, could have made a much better contribution by summarizing the findings of this paper rather than waving your opinion as a pretext to add two more links to your site.

Should I resort to simply unlinking all such references to it so you have an incentive to bring more useful comments? You have been warned repeatedly that your posting style feels spammy, and I would not like to have to kick you out, because when you want you can make interesting contributions. But most of the time, I feel that it’s a waste of time.

What do others think?

Use the mute feature on this user
Flag posts as spam
Unlink openworlds.info
Leave Hamish alone

——————————————————-

#ragecircle the assumption this is spamming is troubling, and we likely need to look at this assumption? What would be the mod process to start this?

Linking is how ideas are addressed on the openweb

UPDATE: to be clear, this is a mod question here, please can the mods address it, thanks.

————————————————————————

This conversation is getting beyond silly, here is what Is Link Spam: Definition and Types of Link Spamming – Kontely link spamming is.

It SHOULD be obvious the post is not doing any of these things.

I would like the current mods, on this open and community driven forum, to stop this please.

And I ask, repeat (and the risk of this being seen as SPAM) for the 3ed time, can we get some process put in place to mediate mod behaver, thanks.

I think this space is increasingly lacking Legitimacy (political) – Wikipedia it was the subject of the post in question. This is a difference of social/tech path of me and the two mods, not some something to be pushed out of view, thanks.

Please stop this.

https://socialhub.activitypub.rocks/t/can-this-platform-survive-governance-challenges-for-the-fediverse/3727/6?u=hamishcampbell

This mess making from our mods is bringing the lack of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy_(political) in this “community site” into view. This is the subject of the original post

I call the subject post #mainstreaming to describe that it’s a reflective post of the chatting classes, not to say this has no value, just it’s not “native” to the grassroots internet some of us want to build.

Then link this to my personal experience, I have 20 years of dealing with this of mess making in #openweb tech/funding so have a lot to say on this PS. this link is not SPAMMING take note, it’s a weblink so you can fallow it to find out more about what I am talking about, if you are interested in clicking on the link.

Next link to the about page of a project that directly addresses the issue the original post is about, with context. I post a link rather than simply copy and past the intro, as this is how the #WWW is supposed to work.

Then I describe how we can fight affectively to push the grassroots “native” internet some of us would like to see, and link to a tool that can be used to affect the needed change. Native to the WWW people can click on the link if interested.

Finally, there is a bit of a spike in the tail, that yes is indirectly pointing at our mods and an inclination on this forum. Take NOTE this is done in a polite way without naming names, so no issue with the CVP etc.

Ok, I understand you don’t like this aproch, this has been made clear the last few years, what exactly is wrong with these posts mods #KISS

Best to start from #KISS the left is based on trust and open culture.

Best to start from #KISS the left is based on trust and open culture. Moving away from this the left has destroyed itself over the last 40 years.

* The #fashernista embracing of postmodernism
* The soft left embrace of the “common sense” of neoliberalism

Combined, these have undermined the foundations the left is built on. This leaves people helpless to compost the current mess, as our shovel for piling the #mainstreaming have no head, nor a handle.

Of course, the is also an older horizontal and vertical split that divided the left in the 20^th centenary. This is not the subject at hand, we need to compost the current mess before we can look at this older mess.

#OGB – what is the project

The purpose and vision for our #OGB project is to address challenges and conflicts that currently existwithin grassroots organizations and assist in the management of those that arise. By creating a tool set for’Do It Yourself’ (DIY) governance. We aim to develop a ‘Keep It Simple Stupid’ (#KISS) standard frameworkand process. This will become #OGB which can be used in future solutions, organically evolving throughtime.

Human organization and governance are inherently complex and messy. Standard approaches to solving such, tend to enforce rigid structure. Software built to facilitate this reflects such rigidity – attempting to force messy processesinto being ‘cleaner’, ‘neater’ and ‘tidier’ – and thus through such forced behaviour, inevitably fail their purpose. Existing means of decision making tend to lead to ill-fitting outcomes for the actual problems at hand. Too often led by the loudest voice rather than the most suitable solution. The #OGB serves a real need by addressing these problems. Problems identified through past projects and experiences. #OGB further draws on comprehensive experience gained from greater than five years of active involvement in hands-onorganization within #Mastodon instances and the wider #Fediverse. This experience provides valuable insight into the challenges and obstacles that arise in digital grassroots governance.The #OGB project aims to create a decentralized democratic system for grassroots governance, available for any collective or community, with a focus on producers and consumers. The #Fediverse is used as a test case.This project does not seek to create a single organization that dictates protocols or standards. Rather it enables the organiccreation of synthesis, where competing arguments are broached to formulate corrective procedure and proposals for implementation.The #OGB project emphasizes voluntary collaboration. It prioritizes sortition and ‘messy consensus’ to achieve decision-making and a more equitable power distribution.

The #OGB project is a set of software tools and processes that embody a grassroots activism-based governance model. We envision both an online and offline tool suite to fully embolden accessibility. Specifically, this project has the objective of preventing polarization within online communities whilst obtaining an understanding into how such effects amount. Polarization refers to the division and fragmentation of society into opposing groups with conflicting beliefsand values. Leading to breakdowns and disruptions in communication, increases in hostility, and an eventual lack of understanding between perspectives. The #OGB project aims to counteract polarization by promoting trust-based dialogue and governance within the #openweb.The project provides a framework for open and inclusive conversations, enabling people and groups to engage in meaningful dialogue within common ground and allowing the bridging of differences to be better understood. The project enables active body members to shape their own governance structures using tools that facilitate problem-solving and decision-making.

The #OGB project brings added value and innovation. Leveraging decades of first-hand experience fromgrassroot organizations. In identifying and addressing systemic failures that often hinder social change initiatives. We highlight and recognize valuable knowledge and experiences obtained. Years of endurance should not go to waste, nor be repeated in the field of online governance and trust-based conversations, there are existing initiatives and developments that aim through formal consensus to address similar challenges. However, these initiative shave never worked beyond small expert groups online. Adversely hindering offline activist groups throughloss of inertia and ossification.What sets the #OGB project apart is our focus point. By emphazing learning from past experiences and incorporating these into the development solution, all valuable insights gained are not lost or forgotten. Scaffolding upon this knowledge, #OGB will overcome the common pitfalls and challenges that dilute effective governance and trust-based conversations.The #OGB focusses on building active trust based groups – people who get involved, solve and initiate change to go out and get things done. When a community communicates effectively and efficiently,decisions and right actions come naturally.

The #OGB project also distinguishes itself by emphasizing the importance of recognizing power dynamics within online communities. It acknowledges that the #Fediverse as a decentralized network, operates differently from traditional institutions and mainstream platforms. Instead of trying to conform to mainstreaming paths. The project seeks to embrace the unique characteristics of itself and build with focus having these differences clear in mind. The #OGB brings the #Fediverse notion of technological decentralization, moderation and horizontal scaling into the world of action, organization and governance. Results from #OGB processes may then feed backinto the #Fediverse anew.

The #OGB project aims to achieve several concrete and measurable outcomes:

1. Implementation of natural, horizontal governance: The project intends to establish agovernance structure that promotes horizontal decision-making and empowers a diverserange of voices. This can be measured by the number of participants involved in decision-making processes and the level of inclusivity achieved.

2. Prevention of polarization within groups: The #OGB project seeks to preventpolarization by facilitating constructive conversations and ensuring that decision-makingtakes into account a wide range of perspectives and values. The success of this outcomecan be measured by assessing the level of polarization within groups using the #OGB,KISS framework.

3. Ethical decision-making and progressive development: The project aims to prioritizeethical considerations and focus on the primary needs of people within the community as awhole.

The measure of success here would be the extent to which ethical principles are integrated into decision-making processes and the impact of these decisions on progressive development. The success of this outcome can be measured by the number of people and communities that actively install instances of the #OGB. The success of all of these outcomes will be measured through quantitative indicators such as the number of participants, levels of inclusiveness and adoption rates.

The #OGB project is relevant to a diverse range of people and groups who are interested in alternative technology, open governance, with the vision of creating a more equitable and just society.

Here are some examples of the people and groups that the project is relevant to:

1. Fediverse Users: The project is directly relevant to people and groups who are already part of the #Fediverse, including users of platforms like Mastodon, Pleroma, Peertube and Pixelfed. These users are likely to be interested in the project’s goals of trust-based conversations and governance within the #openweb.

2. Tech Activists: The project is relevant to tech activists who are passionate about promoting decentralized, open-source, and user-controlled technologies. These people can contribute their technical expertise, provide feedback, and help spread awareness about the project within their networks.

3. Social Justice Advocates: The project aligns with the interests of social justice advocates who are committed to creating a more equitable and just society. By involving these people, the project can benefit from their insights, experiences, and knowledge in addressing wider social issues.

To involve people and groups in the realization of the project, the #OGB project will adopt the following approaches:

1. Open Collaboration
2. Community Engagement:
3. Co-creation and Co-design

To effectively reach the target audience, the project can utilize various #openweb native networks, media,and channels.

Fediverse Platforms: The #OGB project can leverage existing platforms within the #Fediverse such as Peertube, Mastodon, Pleroma and Pixelfed. These platforms provide adecentralized and open alternative to mainstream social media, aligning with #OGB values.

Social Media: Utilizing mainstreaming social media platforms like Twitter, Facebook, or LinkedIn can help reach a wider audience beyond the #Fediverse. Sharing updates,announcements, and engaging in discussions can help raise awareness and attract individuals interested in alternative tech and governance.

Development Blog: Maintaining a dedicated blog for the #OGB project serves as a centralhub for information, updates, and resources. Futhermore through publications such as articles, case studies, and success stories to additionally aide understanding and help educate the greater public with an aim to engage a further audience.Online

Communities and Forums: Participating in relevant online communities such as #SocialHub and other forums or activist networks, to help connect with like-minded peoplewho may be interested in the project’s goals and principles.

Mailing Lists and Newsletters: Creating a mailing list or newsletter specifically for the #OGB project can allow for direct communication with interested individuals. Regular updates, project highlights, and opportunities for involvement can be shared via email.

Online Events and Webinars: Organizing online events, webinars, or live streams can provide opportunities for the project team to present their work, share and collaborate insights and engage in discussions with the target audience.

The #OGB project will actively seek ongoing funding. However, once the project reaches a stable state, it envisions a cycle of funding through donations. This funding will be distributed among the project’s foundations and further research and development projects. The project is creating a multi-tier structure where the development stages of each tier will progress sequentially. This implies that as one tier completesits development stage, the next tier will begin. This approach aligns with competent program managementcycles and indicates a plan for the project’s continued development and sustainability beyond the periodcovered by the requested grant.

The #OGB is fundamentally rooted to the open sharing of knowledge and results, including all source codedeveloped as part of it.The #OGB intends to provide valuable outcomes including innovative approaches for governance, trust-based conversations, and democratic decision-making processes within the #openweb and the greaterworld.The code base is not specific to the #Fediverse but can be applied to any community with stakeholders,both on and offline.The project is committed to the #4opens principles, which advocate for openness, transparency, andaccessibility in technology.

1. Open data : refers to the availability of data to the public, free of charge and without anyrestriction on its use. This is considered a basic requirement for a project to be consideredopen.

2. Open source : software that is free to use, modify, and distribute. This promotes healthydevelopment and increases interconnectedness, allowing for serendipity. Open licensesare used to ensure the project remains open and free to use.

3. Open standards : technical standards that are open to the public and are not controlled byany one organization. This is essential for the open internet and the World Wide Web, andallows for interoperability between different systems.

4. Open process : transparency and openness of the project’s decision-making anddevelopment process. This can include the use of #Wiki’s and activity streams, and isconsidered a ‘glue’ that binds together the trust based networks that make up a project.

The #Fediverse has developed good technology and social norms around disability and minority groups.The intention is to incorporate these principles into our code base for #OGB project. The aim is to have strong documentation that focuses on consensus building and horizontal processes, which will promoteworking diversity among people with different abilities. The project plans to prioritize the development ofcomprehensive documentation for further use within instructional design as an aide for education and training. These principles are the core process of the project. This indicates a commitment to inclusiveness and accessibility within the #OGB project. The #OGB code and documentation is to be designed with accessibility as a first-class citizen, being compatible across everything we currently utilize with existing norms. Screen readers are a perfect goal toset our mind to.

Team Founder – Hamish Campbell: Hamish has 30 years of experience in building and running grassroots socialtech projects. He has been involved with projects such as Undercurrents, Visionontv, and the #OMN. Currently he is working on multiple projects within the SocialHub community, including outreach of ActivityPub to the European Union. Hamish has a strong understanding of what works and what doesn’t inboth social and technological contexts.

Founder/Lead Programmer – Saunders: Saunders is an experienced software engineer with expertise in C++, Python, and other programming languages. He has been responsible for managing the Linux-based #OMN servers for the past 5 years. Having a foundation in permaculture design and training, his programming skills have been utilized within grassroots social aid projects across several continents.

Project Manager – Nicholas Matheson: Nicholas has more than 20 years experience in project management, initially focusing within the hotel/tourism and hospitality sector in Australia/New Zealand. Hebegan consulting in China following the Beijing Olympics. Pursuing training and development workshopsacross the sector and the creation/assistance of importation logistics following client’s recommendations.

Privacy – As stated within the ‘Security’ section the project emphasizes a clear separation between personal and public communication. Being a #4opens project with an #openprocess at its core, we will not be handling private data outside of passwords. Additionally, the project plans to support pseudo-anonymous accounts via Tor usage. These accounts will operate on a trust-based system similar to any other account within the project. This approach highlights the project’s commitment to transparency and privacy while providing options for users to engage with the platform in a way that aligns with their chosen preferences.

The #OGB project will involve activities that contribute to the intended outcome of developing improved ways for trust-based dialogue, governance, and problem-solving within the #openweb. These activities include:

1. Developing a Framework: The project aims to create a framework that demonstrates improved ways for trust-based dialogue and governance within the #openweb. This framework will provide guidelines and principles for fostering open and inclusive conversations, decision-making processes, and governance structures.

2. Building Cooperative Alliances: The project seeks to establish a true cooperative andcollaborative alliance that is native to the #Fediverse and #openweb. These alliances will bring together people and groups who share a common vision of promoting trust,openness, and decentralization within online spaces.

3. Recognizing Power Dynamics: The project emphasizes the importance of recognizing where power originates in the context of the #Fediverse and #openweb. By understanding power dynamics, the project aims to challenge and change vertical power structures,promoting more equitable and democratic forms of governance.

4. Developing Technological Tools: The project aims to develop improved technologicaltools that address problems arising from social organization within the #openweb. These tools will enable problem-solving in a native grassroots activist manner, empowering people and groups to navigate and shape their online and offline experiences.

5. Removing Hard Coded Defaults: The project seeks to remove current hard-coded defaults by providing a standardized set of KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid) tools. These tools will empower active body members to utilize them deeply and instruct others on their use,enabling more flexible governance structures.

6. Permission-less Structure: The project aims to create a permission-less structure allowing the active groups to decide who is a part of their group or groups, promoting inclusivity.

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?

A project outline for the OGB

Project description

The Open Governance Body (#OGB) project is a set of software tools that encode a governance model structured on traditional grassroots activism.
Further, the OGB – for which the code base is named – is a decentralized and democratic system for “governance” of any collective/community consisting of (generally speaking) #1 – Producers and #2 -Consumers.

The #Fediverse is used as the example herein.

To explore and develop better ways of having trust-based conversations and governance within the #openweb. To utilize comprehensive experience gained through greater than 5 years active, “on-the-ground” organization of instances within the #Fediverse as a technological toolkit for horizontal scaling of social
power.

The #OGB is a #Fediverse native process of working that emphasizes voluntary cooperation and collaboration with a standard #KISS approach.
The #OGB prioritizes focus on sortition and “messy consensus” in order to achieve decision-making and equitable power distribution.

The project is not about creating a single organization that dictates what protocols and standards to use within the #Fediverse. #OGB is about developing better processes for healthy, trust-based conversations and forging governance
accessible and equitable to all

Project results

Developing/creating a framework to demonstrate improved ways for “trust” based dialogue/conversation and “trust” based governance within the #openweb.
Building a true cooperative, a collaborative alliance that is native to the #Fediverse and #openweb.

Emphasizing the importance of recognizing where power originates in the context of the #Fediverse and #openweb.

Developing/creating improved technological tools as a solution to problems arising through social organization enabling problem-solving in a native #openweb manner.

Removing current hard coded defaults by providing an alternative standardized set of #KISS framework tools to empower active body members a space to utilise said tools deeply and to begin proficient instruction of their use.

Developing/creating a permission-less structure that is open to and for all. One which enables the active group through organic process, a framework of tools to decide who is a part of their group/groups.

Emphasizing that there is no exclusion and that there will always be diversity, making it an organic piece for the #Fediverse.

Building governance where the “way”, “rules”, “norms” and “actions” are structured, sustained, regulated, and held with accountability

Benefits to the Community

There are challenges and conflicts that arise within grassroots organisation or #DIY governance. In developing/creating a #KISS standard such as the #OGB framework to address said problems, we will enable a more true democratic and equitable process that benefits any and all involved.

Through empowering a more diverse scope of voices, decision-making is made more collectively. These tools utilize a greater range of voice, preventing polarization from smaller groups using perhaps limited perspectives and or values.

Additionally, through a strong ethical foundation, decision-making is ensured a more progressive development. With a focus on the primary needs of the community as a whole, rather than individuals or polarized groups.

As a social coding project, the #OGB is neither a traditional top down distribution of power or project derived of a normal #mainstreaming agenda. Rather, it is a bottom-up grassroots empowerment for sharing of knowledge and power. An example of what is found in many of the 20th century social movements,
movements responsible for the birth of what is said to be today’s best current progressive mainstream.

Through the #OGB project the “we” will facilitate the forming, communication and governance.

Timeline and important milestones

Upon securing foundation funding, negotiations for immediate ICT services will begin with respected clients for future partnership to cement project longevity and sustainability.
As described above within the KPI outline, the progression of timelines is a basic and #KISS standard
project operation where in all tasks/tiers are realistically achievable to ensure project success.
The following is an initial outline – it can be extended when possible:
9 months to Alpha testing with #Fediverse
12 months to Beta testing with #Fediverse
12 months to Beta testing with offline communities
24 months to public launch

Key Performance Indicators

Tier 1 – Source code development from base developers and progressive training through the scaling of
outreach servers through the use of MOOC LMS training platforms.
Beginner – Test Community… Local Distribution – Flea Market,Sunday Market – APP Progressive Code
9 months to Alpha testing within Fediverse
12 months to Beta testing within Fediverse
Tier 2 – Test Community… #Fediverse – Web Code
Page 4 of 8
Intermediate – Test Community… Local Distribution – Boating Community,Hiking Community – APP
Progressive Code
Tier 3 – Progressive Web App
12 months to Beta testing with offline communities
24 months to public launch
Tier 4 – The below distributions are escalations through our developed outreach scheme.
Advanced – Test Community… Local Distribution – Schools/classrooms

Project publicity

Utilizing the recent promotion of approximately 10 million people encompassing 1 million active Twitter migration users to #Mastodon to further bring awareness.

The continuance of our work within #SocialHub will continue to build on the origins of #OGB Promoting publicity through the building “governance” through #ActivityPub

Why you

We would like to reboot the #openweb and the way we communicate, interact and govern as a whole.
We know what works socially… grassroots movements
We know what works technologically… #Fediverse
We are the people developing the symbiosis for all to utilise for our futures

Activities that will benefit

FOSS and open-source frameworks are facing a continual social challenge of balancing their grassroots paradigm within corporate parameters. #OGB aims to develop/create a set of tools to encourage and aide balance.

The efforts of the #Fediverse community have been successful in shifting the EU closer through our outreach to promoting a more humane internet. #Mastodon and technologies like #ActivityPub have become important players in the EU’s initiatives for a more inclusive and equitable online environment.
The huge growth of Mastodon, one of the most popular social networking platforms in the #Fediverse, due to the #Twitter migration attracted a large and diverse, vibrant community of users from across the EU and
the world. This growth helped to validate the importance of decentralized internet and its potential to shape a more humane world by relieving the community of hosting burdens so we can focus on collective
governance and the formation of a collective governing body for decentralized efforts