Tag: KISS

Change and challange to compost the piles of techshit

Anyone interested in doing a sexy site for the #4opens think people need “official” look and feel to make use of this powerful tool to fight the #techshit #techcurn and help to reboot the #openweb

Basically we need this on a nicely designed page with a bit of polish on the text unite.openworlds.info/Open-Med

Then link back to the wiki for full humane use space.

4opensOpen Media Network

This is needed as a “common sense” existing path out of pointless #techchurn to give our lost #fahernistas something real to work for/to/on.

The #4opens is simply the foundation of open-source development “socialized” for change/challenge.

We need this to escape the #techshit

Q. I think we need a 5th open: #openAccess. If you have the #4opens, but the project is jailed in the #walledGarden of #gitlab.com (which blocks some people from participation), the 4 opens are hindered by reduced/suppressed participation. E.g. some people cannot (or will not) file bug reports. So, can we get #5opens?

A. The #4opens is only designed to deal with 95% of the #techshit the rest is open to our creativity. Am interested in a #4opens review of GitHub

What we are likely to find is that GitHub is still inside the world of open source development, this is both good and bad, good in the sense of Microsoft moving away from its closed source roots, bad in the sense that they are doing it in the attempt to co-opt and extinguish.

The #4opens are not a way of keeping them out, but they are a way of mediating and stopping the extinguish bit when used as a tool to aggressively block that move.

It would help to think about society rather than individuals – for diversity as a healthy path. As long as they have opendata and open “Industrial” standards, you can move your work in and out… Openprocess makes easier as the documentation can be created to help people do this.

The open licence keeps you in control of your work, while promoting social use

Am interested in how #openacess adds over the other #4opens as I think you end up with “open access” from the outcome of the first 4 can we think about this?

Was thinking about this when reading other tweets and the #4opens gives you open access already, so we don’t need a 5th open #KISS

Good to have a chance to think these things though, thanks for the question.

ideas to work with

#stupidindividualism a full ideology with the last 40 years of #neoliberalism and a part of the liberal 20th century consensus. So it’s a strong #BLOCK

Some ideas:

* Every day, naming of the current “common sense” as worshipping the #deathcult is both true and useful in making #mainstreming uncomfortable.

* The pushing of simple #KISS ideas like #openweb vs #closedweb and #4opens as a POWERFUL way to JUDGE and compost #techcrap to mediate the #techchurn

* Group use of hashtags is the organizing tool.

FUD is strong in tech

Q. Who creates a non-crypto-based Web-version calculator that has the complex algebra to determine if we deal with #Web1, #Web2, #Web3, #Web4 or #Web5?

Or let’s keep things simple and go with #Web0

A. This stuff is now #FUD so best to start to ignore it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty,_and_doubt

Just keep it #KISS and use #openweb and #closedweb as this is a good descriptive and a check on the #geekproblem

A final hashtag to make this relevant #nothingnew

A conversation on trust/control in social technology

Q. In a nutshell, my manifesto could be “form your own little communities and federate them”

A. What would be the “common” understanding/agreements/standards that would bridge these communities, or would it Only be code, if only code what standards?

Q. Federation just depends upon the willingness to do so. The code is just the plumbing which makes it happen. And I think nearly all fediverse federation is opt-out, so that you are federating by default but can opt-out (block) if you want to.

A. Interesting to look at #peertube backend for a opt-in federated model, this aproch is the social/technical model for the social/tech of the #OMN project. That is building a human network first, technology is to support and mediate the very strong #geekproblem that is #blocking the human change/challenge we need #KISS

Q. Opt-in is ok if you are trying to build a small federation or an institution with different departments (eg a federation of libraries with particular rules and membership criteria).
I don’t think the fediverse would have been as successful if it had been opt-in from the beginning, though.

A. The #peertube network is an working example of this opt-in for content sharing. Think commenting is opt-out. It’s not got any “social” UX for this, which is why its kinda limited at mo… it suffers from the #geekproblem like just about all coding projects so worth looking at/using but its not core #OMN

Q. The problem with peertube was that the way it was federated initially was pretty bad, and the large majority of the videos being posted were not self-made and were just copyright violations, inviting legal takedowns. Initially, they also didn’t have enough moderation capability to combat disinformation and spam.
Often developers are expecting a twee world in which everyone is nice, but this is never the case for social networks. That expectation has a lot to do with the socio-economic position of commercial software development and its demographic homogeneity.

A. think the resion they did not do good moderation was a question of priorates, we have endemic BAD history for most of our tech, good to keep this in mind.
There are two paths out of the mess you touch on, one is social, one is hard tech. Agen we have only BAD history of thinking about this, good to keep this in mind.
The #geekproblem that writes this bad history is #BLOCK ing the social technology we need, good to think about this.

#OMN #KISS #OPENWEB notice the last hashtag, we DO NOT NEED more #closedweb if we have any hope of mediating the #geekproblem for tech/social progressive outcomes that we so urgently need.

Q. And opt-in is kinda closed. “Your name’s not down, you’re not coming in”. That sort of thing. Exclusivity isn’t really going to move the needle on anything, though.

A. This reply is a #geekproblem view of the thinking.
Good to look at a social view, all society are based on #TRUST and healthy society have more reliance on trust and unhealthy society more reliance on “hard” process/structure.
There are academic bases to this, a sadly right-wing view https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_trust_and_low_trust_societies
The #geekproblem fails in building “good trust” based society, it’s an endemic failing of our tech/thinking.
TRUSTLESS is the #geekproblem good to think about this when coding social/technology.
We need to build tech social networks that “fail” so that human beings can fix this “failing” based on TRUST and from this build a real progressive society.

Q. I don’t advocate trustless. You can’t prove trust merely by doing some complicated blockchain math. Trust is earned, or broken, by people. Not by machines.
Also, vaguely related to #chatcontrol. The EU is going to lose a lot of trust by trying to do policing-by-algorithm. The algorithm approach is a sort of abuse of trust.

A. the #OMN is this project: “We need to build tech social networks that “fail” so that human beings can fix this “failing” based on TRUST and from this build a real progressive society.”
No geeks/technologist are building this, let alone thinking like this. The #geekproblem we need to mediate for any outcome.

Leave the #EU to one side on this, as they are well hopeless on social technology, though some of them are looking (with blindfolds on)

Q. I’ve been around the block enough to have seen many online communities fail. I think you have some experience of that also.
When communities fail, there can be a lot of bad outcomes, and sometimes it’s actually fatal. Social networks are a lifeline for a lot of people and when the network fails so do its members.
This isn’t even about narrowly technical failures. Social engineering attacks such as the ones of the last few years can cause enough aggravation and fear that people just lose trust and quit.
So when building this type of software, we need to be mindful of the potential consequences, and not design failure into the system. People’s social lives are not a demolition derby for the entertainment of others.

A. it’s normal, that you are finding it difficult to see the point am talking about. All humane relationships fail It’s what makes us human, the #geekproblem trying to fix this is taking away our humanity. You see this in both mainstream #dotcons like #failbook, and you also see it in all ALT_TECH it’s a (social) systematic problem.
Build stuff that is messy, human. Please DON’T TRY AND FIX problems created by the problem you are trying to fix is basic. Take the #geekproblem blindfold off is a good step.

Reading this book would help https://archive.org/stream/in.ernet.dli.2015.101521/2015.101521.The-Sciological-Imagination_djvu.txt

How to fix the damage to the #openweb from the influx of #mainstreaming funding

The issue around funding and its impact on grassroots and radical projects. The balance between maintaining integrity and openness while navigating external funding is a difficult one. The #4opens provide a guiding framework, but the challenge remains to implement these in ways that avoid the corruption and failure which is normal for the #NGO funding models.

Running projects on minimal funding forces a degree of focus and prioritization that can be beneficial, but, it also comes with limitations. Trust-based models, like those from the direct action movement in the 1990s, show that alternative funding approaches can work, but they require strong social structures, trust, and transparency.

Finding ways to mediate this tension between the potential of funding and the risks it brings is key. What do people think of a more formalized version of those trust-based funding models, could they work today within the #openweb or #OMN?

We start with the assumption that 90-100% of funding on this subject is simply pored down the drain, most of it into pointless NGO projects and #fashernista individuals “careers”. The best #openweb funders I have found recently https://nlnet.nl/ who have money from NGI Zero which is from the EU

https://unite.openworlds.info/Open-Media-Network/4opens/wiki/Funding-of-openweb-projects

To fix some of these issues:

* https://unite.openworlds.info/Open-Media-Network/openwebgovernancebody/wiki/Online-governance- openweb tech from the perspective of a radical, grassroots, social technologist this is distilled into a codebase, as a “permissionless” roll-out of frameworks for social groups to form and see/govern themselves. https://unite.openworlds.info/Open-Media-Network/openwebgovernancebody/wiki/Statements-of-support

* https://unite.openworlds.info/Open-Media-Network/openwebgovernancebody/wiki/Statements-of-support Its easy to see that the #dotcons can not be fixed. The #fashionistas who keep flocking to new “ethical-ish” ones are a problem, not a solution. The #4opens are a simple way to judge the value of an “alt/grassroots” tech project. We need to bring this into our funding agenda.

* https://unite.openworlds.info/Open-Media-Network/Open-Media-Network/wiki Simple #OMN is a standards based political software framework to build #KISS and #4opens grassroots semantic web of trust links and flows. We do this by outlining a human understandable workflow and then building apps for real-world use. We are agnostic on the underling technology and programming as long as it is #4opens based.

Influx of EU funding into the Fediverse – all together push through, the HARD block crumbles

Getting a good outcome is hard… And this current influx of EU funding risks doing more damage than good to the health of the #Fediverse, if it continues along its present agenda. Yes, the #Fediverse already has its own lifestyle-driven mess, but we can try to mediate the damage driven by funding first. If we succeed there, maybe the lifestyle drift can self-mediate in time.

Aiming for a better outcome, what we’re looking for is social change and challenge with less mess. This page looks at some of the best funding we’ve found http://unite.openworlds.info/Open-Media-Network/4opens/wiki/Funding-of-openweb-projects Not an attack, but opening a conversation on an obvious issue.

We can also look at funding that is being completely wasted, but that’s likely outside our influence. Lets keeping it positive (When We Can), I like to keep things positive… if possible.
But let’s be honest — a lot of people are BLOCKING, and that’s going to cause fire and a LOT of smoke. This is what real social change/challenge looks like: murky. Focus on #KISS — Keep It Simple — to see through the smoke.

Transparency matters, it’s hard to imagine how you can do a left-wing project without showing your workings:

  • Open/Trust = left
  • Fear/Control = right

That’s the core framing this page is about.

#Dotcons & poisoned agenda, Yep, the whole #dotcons side of the EU funding agenda is poison.
It only feeds the mess. And as I’ve pointed out before, most funding ends up poured straight down the drain. Sadly, that’s the default outcome.

#IndymediaBack – Learning the right lessons, one thing to keep in mind: I think we (the #Indymedia crew) learned the wrong lesson from the repression and state raids. We pushed fear/control as the solution, and this added to the #closedweb mess. But as the #Fediverse now shows, the path should have been open/trust — That’s the #openweb path we abandoned. That split ripped Indymedia apart, and we’ve been stuck in the #dotcons mess ever since.

Simplicity as Strategy, when making judgments, keep it #KISS — Simplicity is what cuts through the mess. Shovels and compost, is the #OMN approach.

Trauma, Repression & Healing, Yes, trauma is real. That’s why I lean into basic ways of looking at these things. From there, it’s up to people to build up, DIY style — a real grassroots approach.

Practical approaches, watch the film:

I made this for the legal support crew of a major campaign. The repression was ongoing and intense — But the healing came through mass participation, like walking calmly through police stop and search zones. That likely helped to mediate a lot of growing trauma.

Final thought: #Openweb – all together push through, the HARD block crumbles. We’ve got work to do. Let’s keep it grounded, open, and as clear as we can through the murk.

Really good questions, let’s try and address some issues.

The need for “governance” came out of a practical problem, the #activitypub community is made up of “cats” you know the slogan “herding cats” we were doing seminars outreach to powerful EU Eurocrats on why they should be interested in #activertypub and interesting they really are interested. We had no voice, only “cats” with everyone pushing their own tiny projects, it was a lot of work and stress, but we got the presentations done.

Back to the questions. A lot of the issues you are outlining are actually covered outside what is normally though of as process – It’s designed to be messy, it’s not designed to be tidy. Let’s illustrate this by answering each point.

Yep, they do, but they are subject to “recall”, and gain a lot from working with the “groups” the voices only get TOTAL power with consensus -1 which is a hard thing to acheave without the first working to building consensus through the body and groups and other voices.

You are right the is no sense checking in the formal sense, but remember the is no hard power, people only have to do things if they want to, its “governance” of a disorganization not a traditional power structer. if people get too “nutty” the is the power of “recall” if the body becomes to nutty the is the power of “dilution” more people can join the body.

The groups don’t have to talk to anyone, though will work better when they do, the voices can be involved or not worked better when they are – good to remember the “cats” at the beginning on this one.

The is no statute and no laws as this is “governance” with equation marks – there will be a growing body of mythos and traditions that people can call on when making decisions. There are no police or courts, nobody has to do anything – “cats”.

The body has negative power over the voices, it can recall them, which is the same as not signing off on their actions. The problem we are trying to solve is focus in a anarchistic/libertarian movement – how to talk to traditional burocraceys while still talking/being relevant to ourselves. The is a level of trust involved which is held in place by the #4opens

That’s a good question, that is not defined. It’s important to look at the codebase here, everything we talk about is the “default” the actual codebase can redefine just about every variable, it’s a set of tools for horazonatlish “governance” It’s up to the body to decide everything on how to use these tools if they change the default.

We have the traditional voting modals, we have a threshold etc.

The body can be restricted in size by fixing the first variable in this case it would be the instances/stakeholders or can be left to grow organically this is up to the body itself.

The group is made up of anybody in the body who needs to be a part of it – in this everything is a mirror of the same process #KISS You ask a hard question about “outside” experts/original submitter which i don’t have an easy solution to – so we would add it as an option that can be turned on or off.

They serve the same as the body, currently have two options 1 year, half every 6 month rolling to facilitate hand holding or easy/simple one year.

Due to the sortation and work load you will likely have a high turn over of new body members, the “recalling” will add to this as there are a lot of “nutters” sortation will bring up fresh people for the body to work :wink: this is a good thing as “trust” is built from this.

The voices are “trusted” to be a voice of the fedivers for their term, if they are not “trusted” they will be recalled to the body, and if they are nutters they will be recalled out of the body and a new member added ect.

Yep decisions can be made at different levels, on the image the thickness of the arrow coming out (with the blunt end) is the strength of that voice.

The group says it shite, and then move on, if the group keeps pushing shit then the voices ignore this group and in the end the body likely recalls it and replaces it with a new group – this is up to the body/voices.

Yes, sadly some good decisions that are not popular inside/outside the body/groups will be ignored we are still self “governing” cats the is no getting away from this.

Yep, based on the #4opens so everything is done with activertypub in open process, its a trust based network, if people won’t privacy then they can resign/not sign up from public governance and work through people who are happy to do open process.

Whistleblowering is a case for media not “governance” so is dealt with in this sister project Home – Open-Media-Network – Gitea: Open Media Network

Thank you for the interesting questions.

Q&A on outreaching the fluffy/spiky debate to the fluffys

Have been working with bridging this often hostile divide for more than 30 years in hundreds of campaigns on the ground and online. The best outcome you can hope for is “diversity of tactics/strategy”

It’s a miracle when the two sides can hold this bridge in place, the effect of this miracle is more powerful outcome for both agenders BUT the longer this bridge is held in place the stronger the internal and outside forces push to demolish it – it falls, have never seen a bridge hold for the whole campaign.

The #mainstreaming agender always supports the #fluffy aproch and pushes down the #spiky aproch so its less a question of right/wrong more a question of holding the balance agenst this #mainstreaming pushing. The balance is where maximum power lies. So yes in this forum, and in general, the “spiky” aproch has more “power” than the fluffy aproch simple because its is repressed by the mainstream and meany of the “common sense” fluffy crew.

The “debate” is in this case is a metaphor for action, it’s important to keep both approaches working and hold a bridge in place, so people can cross and communicate between them.

In tech outreach work using the hashtag #geekproblem to highlight the “need for control” that is a clear block and not a solution to the very human mess we are in. We need to build structers/code where we “lose” control of our current #mainstreaming agenders and take “control” by building bridges and holding these human bridges in place, so we can choose different paths.

The project for “governance” i brought here in the first post is a “spiky” aproch to this outcome FAQ link

Yep, best to build tools/process from “lived expirence”. We are swimming in a river of social shit with the #mainstreaming of neo-liberalism and postmodernism that is the bases of “thinking”. Thou these ideology died years ago, the zombies of both are still eating our social brains.

You guys experienced it here, when I came to this well “fluffy” space I was met with a well “spiky” reception. The more dogmatic liberals can often be VERY spiky were the #fahernista radicals are generally kinda “fluffy” in their actual outcomes. Lifting the lid and look at the actions, don’t take what people say at face value, to see the fluffy/spiky debate in action, by lifting this lid you start to build a bridge…

Putting and holding this bridge in place is the start of power for social change/challenge.

I came here because you guys have useful skills to help build the tools we need Online governance – openwebgovernancebody – Gitea: Open Media Network

Misunderstanding – Out reaching the #OMN #openweb projects.

I start to understand the misunderstanding, blocking many of the people outreaching the #OMN. It’s a DIY project there is the assumption that people will see the need and fill in the missing bits. The “missing bits” have a function, to be filled in otherwise we would be pushing clean non-messy #dotcons world view which is a very different project.

Maybe this is hard to see, but we would be doing something utterly pointless if it is not messy. So people pushing clean are not helping, rather they are #BLOCKING

Must stress the utterly pointless here, as people have done slick/controlled alts many times over the last 30 years and in the medium term this has always proven to be pointless.

It’s a world view problem that’s going to kill us, well lots of us.

Quote https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARiaiyHrijw

Meany people reply to outreach by telling the #dotcons story as if it were common sense… where the outreach is telling DIY, so communication is missing/past each other.

The #OMN is offering tools, people are generally looking for shiny toys a different world view. From the DIY prospective shiny toys are just rubbish to add to the landfill were tools you can build a new world if you are motivated and have care and focus.

To put this bluntly, its #DIY or death as #XR says in the streets. Hope this #KISS aproch helps to build a bridge – up to you guys to hold this bridge in place.

#OMN projects are tools for YOU to change/challenge the world we live/die in.

Talking to the burocractic coop crew

A. I find it interesting, and revealing, that nobody here actually talked about what the thried was about Online governance – openwebgovernancebody – Gitea: Open Media Network 1

If you can look outside your world view… We are doing a funding proposal to do the simple well tested project/workflow (which we know dues not scale) and roll it out trying federation to scale. We know this works to extent , look at the “Fediverse ” as a living example of this approach working to scale small to bigger.

Yes there will be lots of “smoke” and we could do with some help keeping the project clear of this.

Q. Apologies, I hope this didn’t seem like a personal attack. As a middle-aged white guy, I was using it as an example of something I see a lot and am trying to figure out how to solve, that’s all :slight_smile:

A. Nothing personal, more am talking about a systematic problem of a class/groups of people, as you say likely “middle-aged white men” who find it impossible to see things have value, even though the is a deep and long history they likely no little about. It’s a kinda poverty in thinking and care that is endemic in late era #deathcult

” Distilled, grassroots, radical governance is a good fit for the fediverse.

This working practice comes from 30 years of building from The Tyranny of Structureless tick box list.

Social change groups have worked in this way to challenge and change power structures on the ground. Some examples of Social change groups: from squats, protest camps, climate camps; to indymedia, Reclaim the Streets; to XR and even Occupy.
Rainbow Gatherings are a working example of this grassroots governance. They have been going on for 50 years and the core is still based on the founding traditions which came from the Vietnam War – not the hippy dippy origins that people talk about.

From the perspective of a radical, grassroots, social technologist this is distilled into a codebase, as a “permissionless” roll-out of frameworks for social groups to form and see/govern themselves.”

Remember the project comes from the lived expirence of a culture, as all the best one do. In this culture Sociocracy would be the hippy siting round the fire saying why don’t we all just get on love is the answer as the crusty pisses on the garden he planted and the party people ignore the washing up rotor he put up and everyone else just gets on with the jobs they are interested in.

Life is messy, life should be messy, these “hippies” are of limited utility in the culture am modelling “governance” on the ground should be ruff and ready, built of doing and trust from this doing., people have to work out how to get on with others and make tools work for a useful outcome, we don’t hand them “solutions” we DON’T do tech fixes.

Yes maybe, but it does not come from this, you can look at it as a co-operative anarchist idea of human nature put into code – coops can kinda be this in a much more burocracy focused way than am outlining.

Making a edge to a community means you need legalistic policing to enforce this edge. We recognize that as a problem and like the fediverse we ignore this as incompatible with our world view – in the setup we outline its simply not needed, this is “native” to the fediverse.

We ignore this issue in a creative and usefully way, if you won’t a voice setup and run an instance, then you should have a voice as you are running and caring for a part of the fediverse. You will maybe notice the is a positive feedback loop here.

We already tick all those boxes.

#KISS and human has MUCH MORE POWER than complexity, if people can’t understand the tools they cannot use them in creative and human ways – mess is good.

The project is more IMPORTANT for what it does not do than for what it does.

Some questions answered on fediverse “governance”

An important word that needs some thought is “permissionless”

The body is made up of three different, balanced groups:

  1. Stakeholders – the people who do the work, who run/mod the fediverse
  2. Users – the people who use the tools/services, who use the fediverse
  3. The Affiliate Stakeholders – the people who commit time to support the work of the fediverse

This is a very broken web we live in so let’s clarify issues. The names can change, they are placeholders

Anybody can become a stakeholder, in the case of the fediverse this is setting up and running an active instance – could use mastohost for the less technical to do this or a home hosted instance on a old laptop.

If’s simple if a user wont to become a stakeholder setup and mod an instance.

Users are self-explanatory, they buy in but don’t have time or focuses or inclination to run a part of the fedivers.

The Affiliate Stakeholders are a little more complex and are thus treated differently, it’s up to the body itself to decide if the play a active and useful role.

Nothing in this is top down, nothing is this elitist, nothing in this is discriminatory, nothing in this is undemocratic. Its #KISS and looks safe to the “normal world” while at the same time being native to the fediverse and its roots.

All the coding is #4opens and based on #activertypub

We need a grant to make this happen who is helping to write the grant app.

Undated text Online governance – openwebgovernancebody – Gitea: Open Media Network

The geekproblem – humanity’s and science

Coding projects that come from the humanity’s general fail as they are not technically coherent and build out from abstract ideas without real relevance to lived humanity, they are too disconnected to become relevant to communertys of use.

Coding from science tend to fail because they are inhuman, and are built for mashions. They serve abstract ideas based on numbers and thus can reach only tiny numbers of people and can build no outreach social groups of use being irrelevant to “real/normal” people.

Coding from life has a better chance of success BUT only if balanced with a science based discipline and some academic rigour of  soiled social thinking

Let’s look at examples:

Knight News challenge was captured by academics and thus has produced a slew of irrelevant projects – the money and focus was poured down the drain.

Diaspora was a pure geekproblem project so found few humans to use it, the resources were poured down the drain.

Mastodon came from a computer scientist but is a human project based on an existing need/use with competent technical agender. It worked and outreached to normal-ish people. Mastodon for filled an existing human need. Thus has real social change/challenge action and potential – we should/need to learn from this.

What has worked for the fedivers to overcome the geekproblem is the copying of existing #dotcons as #openweb tools. This copying has mediated the gap between the humanities and the sciences by taking existing (bad) human technological relationships and building copy’s in the (good) openweb. In clear contrast peoples attempt to build both #geekproblem and academic #NGO tools has (obviously) failed in the fedivers.

We need to build out from this good/bad relationship and nurture the good and push down the bad – while avoiding the pointless ghettos of both geekproblem and academic dogma being pushed by captured funding agenders.

It’s an interesting challenge to have movement on/in. Current foundation funding agenders have been captured by academics on one side and the geekproblem on the other. Capital (#dotcons) funding agenders are dominating and pushing for aristocratic anti-humanistic outcomes and theological neo-liberal group think.

We need to step out of these #mainstreaming flows to push up the good and push down the bad. We are working to do this at the #OMN we’re trying to bring our lived experience (this is always were the value is) to rethink and re-emergence solutions to the old 4 estates thinking:

* The clergy – while being structurally irrelevant are still are at the core of the social condition – belief.

* The nobility – are a dangerous force for social destruction by control and play a bad role at every level, our #dotcons leaders are the new “nobility”.

* And the commoners – are all of us, we need to see this more, our best/worst governance is democratic – we need to embed this is all our social technology.

* The media – is the tools of social control and the path to social liberation we need to chose where we put our power and our intervention in media.

At the OMN we are practical working on the last two – while fighting for humanism is the first and fighting trench warfare agenst the second. In the end it’s a simple path made complex by the forces we are fighting agenst.

The answer is always #KISS the power is always human, the tools #4opens

#nothingnew  an old story we are still working through https://theconversation.com/humanities-and-science-collaboration-isnt-well-understood-but-letting-off-steam-is-not-the-answer-92146 today, it’s a good stage to have this conversation in/about #openweb technology.