A breakdown of the #OMN hashtags and how they are typically used as a social change and challenge project that we need:
#dotcons: This hashtag refers to corporate centralized platforms, such as social media networks, that prioritize profit and control over users, data and content. It’s often used in discussions about the negative effects of centralization on the internet and the importance of decentralization.
#fashernista: This hashtag combines “fashion” and “lifestyle” and is used to criticize trends or behaviours that promote #mainstreaming unthinking consumerist paths, behaver and ideas in popular and counter culture.
#stupidindividualism: This hashtag critiques the current use of the ideology of individualism, which prioritizes individual gain and ignores collective well-being. It’s often used to highlight the negative effects of prioritizing individual interests over those of society as a whole.
#neoliberalism: Neoliberalism is an economic and political ideology that emphasizes free-market capitalism, deregulation, privatization, and limited government intervention. This hashtag is used in discussions about the effects of neoliberal policies on society, such as income inequality and the erosion of public services.
#deathcult: This hashtag is used metaphorically to describe neoliberal ideologies that prioritize profit and power over human well-being, environmental sustainability and social justice. It’s frequently associated with critiques of #climatechaos capitalism, consumerism, and imperialism, its the mess we live in today.
#NGO: This stands for “Non-Governmental Organization” and refers to non-profit organizations that operate independently of government control. This hashtag is used in discussions #mainstreaming roles of NGOs and people who think like NGO’s in not being brave enough to address social, environmental, and humanitarian issues.
And on the positive side:
#openweb: This hashtag celebrates the principles of openness, decentralization, and inclusivity on the internet. It’s often used in discussions about the importance of preserving and promoting a “native” open and accessible web for everyone. This is #web01
#4opens: This hashtag is used to promote transparency, collaboration, and community-driven development in software and technology projects. It should be used to JUDGE projects.
Each of these hashtags serves as a shorthand for broader discussions and concepts, allowing people to participate in and contribute to conversations around these topics on the #openweb and inside the #dotcons it’s about linking.
We need to reboot #KISS by shaping technology to empower people and building to their needs to create any inclusive and democratic digital path. We need technology that prioritizes people and community customization first:
User-Centric Design: Technology should be designed with the people in mind, focusing on usability, accessibility, and flexibility. This means involving people in the design process and incorporating their feedback to create technology that meets real needs, process and preferences.
Open Source and Open Standards: Embracing #4opens principles promotes transparency, interoperability, and people’s control. By making source code freely available and adhering to open standards, developers empower people to modify and customize the technology they are building according to wider social requirements.
Decentralization: Moving away from centralized platforms and embracing decentralized architectures fosters community and resilience in the social digital networks. Decentralized technologies empower people to have control over their digital lives and communities, stepping away from reliance on large corporations.
Education and Empowerment: Educating people about technology and creating tools and resources to shape and customize to their needs is essential. By fostering digital literacy, people can understand and thus take control of their digital experiences, to create a more informed and engaged user base.
Community Engagement: Engaging with communities and building collaboration and thus co-creation leads to the development of technology that reflects the diverse needs and perspectives of people. By building inclusive and participatory processes, developers can ensure that technology serves the interests of the community.
In the context of the #Fediverse and #openweb reboot, prioritizing these helps to steer the development of technology towards a community-centric and empowering direction of real world use. By stepping away from the #dotcons tech that pre-shapes people’s behaviour to grow a more participatory and inclusive path, we build a digital ecosystem that serves the needs of people.
There is a complete failure of funding for the community (non #mainstreaming) side of tech, I have put in more than ten funding applications over the last few years to all the openweb funding flows.
And the answer, if the is one, is always the same, some of the replies:
” This kind of effort is very hard to seek grants for – which holds for the vast majority of FOSS efforts, to be sure, but for things this high up in the stack even more.”
“I don’t have an obvious candidate for you to go to either”
The issue is that this is actually a LIE, the funders do fund the subjects we are applying for, just they ONLY fund the shadow of the #deathcult because they do not understand anything outside this. Or if they do understand, they are to afried of their funding flows drying up if they did fund anything outside this shadow.
“What the times are and how they are changing is different from every perspective. And so is utility. Not every project can be equally successful from everyone’s point of view. From our vantage point the process we deliver seems to work better than the vast majority of other processes (there are many tens of billions spent less frugality and with no impact at all within the same EC frameworks, I’m sure you’ll agree). Future history will have to prove the approach right or wrong,”
So good advice is nice, change challenge is better, ideas please for change challenge of this funding mess.
Or this openweb reboot is going to be absorbed by the #mainstreaming, not a bad thing, but it’s NOT the project meany of have been working on #KISS
“Obviously, we are always eager to haul in new projects – so do send projects you deem worthy our way.”
Ten funding applications latter, it’s a problem, I think we need both being nice and not being nice, and we need these together to break this LIE in funding.
On https://socialhub.activitypub.rocks/ we have fucked this path over the last few years – the spiky fluffy debate has not been respected. This holding the “debate” in place is the secret of all working/affective activism, hint, hint. And we are doing activism in this openweb reboot, I understand the majority of people like to deny this, but this denying makes these people prats and the problem not the solution, let’s politicly tell them this.
#KISS PS. there is the word “stupid” in this hashtag, in this am not calling any individual stupid, so please don’t take this as pointing at YOU personally I am talking about social groups, stupid #mainstreaming fearful groups.
And then we have the #geekproblem path, which has been pushing the fep process the last 2 years, but I think they are avoiding the politics of actually touching this issue. Fair enough.
If the “native” openweb crew don’t move past their “left” mess issues then I think in the end the #NGO path will be imposed, It’s simply what happens, there is a long history of this outcome
Obviously anything that works has lots of structure, the more important question is about the visibility and “native” democracy of this structure. This is a hard argument/talk to have, and we do keep failing on this, what to do? Ideas please.
It’s interesting that formal coops almost never work in reality, and when/if they do work they tend to become shadows of the #deathcult
In contrast, activist aganising works, often badly. But over all, activist organising is more successful at being an Alt than formal coops, there is a long unspoken history to back this up.
BUT our #mainstreaming always talks about formal coops, if they talk about alts at all, because they can ONLY see this shadow of the #deathcult
Activist organising is always fighting the #deathcult, so it rarely functions as this shadow. The #NGO world is always this shadow.
OK I admit with the right/left mess, this is more of a mess to be composted, ideas please 🙂
————————————–
Current examples in the UK would be the coop supermarket, which got Tesco people in to make it profitable and has soviet design sense and staffing. And the coop bank, which is so bureaucratic as to be pretty much unusable. We have banked with them a number of times. On the positive side you had the co-op wholefood shops in the 1970’s which metamorphosed into the much more #deathcult health shops in the 1990’s. Just to touch on a few. Housing coops have an interesting history, quite a few stories to tell on these.
Don’t take me wrong, I like coops, but I don’t like #fahernistas pushing them over things where we have other forms of organising which likely work better. Diversity is good, just don’t dogmatically push crap that then needs to be composted, we have enough shit to shovel without this thanks.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“All code is ideology solidified into action – most contemporary code is capitalism, this is hardly a surprise if you think about this for a moment. Yes you can try and act on any ideology on top of this code, but the outcome and assumptions are preprogrammed… cant find any good links on this…“
The statement is a perspective on the interweaving of politics and technology, and that too often both suffer from their own shortcomings when it comes to addressing any real complex social issues.
Political Arrogance and Ignorance: This is about political actors exhibiting overconfidence and a lack of understanding when it comes to technological matters. Politicians and policymakers make decisions about technology without comprehending its implications and limitations, leading to ineffective and often harmful or simply dysfunctional policies. Arrogance in this context manifest as an assumption of authority without expertise or consideration of diverse perspectives.
Geek Naivety and Over-Complexity: On the other hand, this is about the tendency of technologists and developers (“geeks”) to approach problems with a narrow focus on technical solutions. The term “naivety” is about the lack of awareness or understanding of broader social, political, and ethical implications of their work. Additionally, the emphasis on over-complexity refers to the unnecessarily intricate or convoluted technological systems, which hinder accessibility and usability for non-technical users.
Code as Ideology: This concept posits that all code, as the foundation of technological systems, embodies underlying ideological assumptions and values. In contemporary society, where capitalism is the dominant economic system, the code produced serves capitalist interests and reinforces capitalist structures. Thus, technological solutions are not neutral, they reflect and perpetuate the ideologies of the society in which they are created.
Preprogrammed Outcomes and Assumptions: The assertion here is that the ideological underpinnings of code shape its outcomes and assumptions, predisposing technological solutions to align with certain interests and agendas. While it is possible to layer additional ideologies on top of existing code, the fundamental framework and biases of the code itself remain unchanged, shaping and influencing the range of possible outcomes.
Overall, the statement is about the need for a more nuanced and critical approach to the balancing of politics and technology, that recognizes the inherent ideological nature of code and works on the hard to shift biases embedded within technological systems. The problem we face, need to compost, is the endemic #geekproblem prat’ish behaviour that blocks this #KISS needed balancing.
In our shared 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, examine the challenges to building trust, and propose strategies to grow a culture of trust within these communities.
Trust is the soil 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, converging and interacting, 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 between people and communities.
However, despite the inherent value of this trust, the native path is fraught with challenges that hinder any lasting cultivation. One of the obstacles is the prevalence of #blocking and resistance to new ideas and approaches, this hinders. While blocking may be necessary in certain circumstances, to protect against harmful actors and preserve the integrity of a community, it can also impede constructive dialogue and collaboration. Without trust, too much #blocking can lead communities to become fragmented and isolated.
What can we do?
Transparency: Transparency is key to building trust within communities. Open and honest communication about intentions, decisions, and actions grows a sense of accountability and reliability. Projects and peoples need to strive to be transparent in their paths, sharing information openly and engaging in dialogue with different stakeholders.
Inclusivity: Inclusive communities are more likely to cultivate trust among their members. In this we need to seek out diverse perspectives and voices, and creating spaces where people feel welcome and valued, communities foster a sense of belonging. Inclusivity also involves addressing power imbalances and amplifying silent voices.
Consistency: Consistency in actions and behaviour is needed for building trust over time. Communities need to strive to uphold commitments, follow through on promises, and maintain integrity in 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 build mutual understanding and respect. Empathy involves active listening, acknowledging the feelings and concerns of others, and responding with compassion and kindness.
Collaboration: By creating opportunities for people to work together towards common goals, and engaging in collaborative projects, sharing resources, to support each other’s efforts, communities build bonds of trust and solidarity.
Trust is the cornerstone of any thriving #openweb path and the building of the wider #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, and commitment from all #4opens stakeholders.
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.
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.
In our ever-evolving digital spheres, governance is often left behind, struggling to catch up with the pace of technology and social change. Among the many attempts to tackle this problem, there’s one that stands out for #KISS innovative and participatory approach: the Open Governance Body (#OGB). This grassroots, federated project is more than another tech experiment; it’s a historical blueprint for any future of human-scale governance.
The Flawed Systems of Old
Let’s face it-governance, as we know it, is very far from perfect. Our current systems are either too unwieldy for large-scale implementation or too limited for local contexts. Traditional Free/Open Source (#FOSS) governance models might be native to the tech world, but they’re entrenched in a medieval hierarchy, reminiscent of kings, nobles, and peasants. Who needs feudalism in the digital age?
#Mainstreaming politics, with its disasters’ ineffectuality in the face of #climatechaos, also demonstrates that we desperately need something that works – something innovatively rooted yet freely scalable.
Grassroots Activism Meets the Fediverse
Enter the #OGB, a robust fusion of proven federated technology and grassroots governance. It’s the brainchild of a diverse group of independent experienced thinkers and activists who understand that, progressive social change has always sprung from the bottom up. They’ve taken the federated solution of #ActivityPub (think decentralized social networks) and meshed it with organic activist governance.
This blend gave birth to a surprisingly simple yet powerful platform based on sortation, where roles and responsibilities are distributed fairly, fostering efficient decision-making.
A Tale of European Success
The potential of #OGB is more than just theoretical talk – it’s processs have been field-tested with promising results. Our band of “libertarian cats” successfully outreached to the European Union, showcasing the versatility of ActivityPub and the #fediverse. Presentations and collaborations with EU bureaucrats catalysed the setup of project outline, a prescient move that looked like wisdom personified post-Twitter’s dramatic downturn.
Market Dynamics – A Hypothetical Utopia
Think of a bustling local street market, a microcosm of society with stallholders, shoppers, and various stakeholders like organizers, trash collectors, and local law enforcement. The #OGB can empower such a community to self-govern in harmony, thereby bypassing the too often #blocking cumbersome bureaucracy.
It’s a permissionless rollout – meaning, creating a governance community is as easy as setting up an instance, generating a QR code, and inviting market participants to jump on board with a simple app installation. From there, a sortation algorithm orchestrates the decision-making process, naturally enticing more stakeholders to participate.
From Small Markets to Society at Large
This isn’t just about one market. The beauty of #OGB is its inherent scalability and adaptability. Just as the #fediverse has grown organically over the years, OGB can proliferate from one market to others, weaving a tapestry of self-governance that could very well encompass more social facets.
“We know the grassroots process of organizing works. We’ve seen the federated model scale times over. Combine them, and we have a DIY governance culture that could revolutionize society.”
A History of Activism, A Future of Change
The Open Governance Body is not simply a project; it is the culmination of centuries of activism and social organizing techniques, proven time and again. Combined with the remarkable technological advancements of the Fediverse, OGB embodies a modern solution rooted in historical success. It’s a rallying cry for those seeking to instil real, lasting change in the world through cooperative, human-centric means.
The future of governance looks brighter with initiatives like OGB. Unlike the faltering structures of old, this endeavor promises to usher in an era where technology enables democracy and human connection, not control and division. It’s past time to embrace the open governance body, roll up our sleeves, and be a part of the grassroots revolution.
Remember, progress doesn’t ask for permission – it is an open invitation to innovate, participate and effectuate change. Join the OGB movement, and let’s co-create a governance model that befits our times and aspirations.
Tools for outreach:
1. Have you heard about #OGB? It’s breaking boundaries in web governance through grassroots activism & federated tech! Get ready to govern your own communities with human-scale solutions that actually work.
2. Exciting news: The federation of #ActivityPub proves we can scale horizontally and spark real change! Combined with grassroots governance, we’re onto a new chapter of progressive social shifts. Let’s build this together!
3. Picture this: A street market governed organically by its community via #OGB. Stallholders, customers, and local services all have a say. Ready to revolutionize the way we collaborate and manage shared spaces?
4. Do you want an active role in shaping your community? With #OGB permissionless roll-outs, anyone can start making impactful decisions. Let’s grow this movement, producers by producer group, instance by instance!
5. Imagine a system where your voice directly influences your surroundings. #OGB is blending hundreds of years of activist governance with the scalable power of the #fediverse. Let’s make self-governance the norm!
6. We’re planting seeds for a #DIY grassroots culture to flourish across society with #OGB. No permission needed, just the desire for change and collaboration. Who’s ready to be part of this empowering journey?
