Tag: liberal

The #mainstreaming is always filled with imperialism, we need to mediate this mess making

The imperialism visible in FediForum is a part of the broader critique of the culture surrounding it, that can help to highlight a core issue in the evolution of the openweb and grassroots activism: the tension between #mainstreaming (enclosure) and grassroots commons (open, decentralized commons paths).

The Cultural Divide, the culture around FediForum is #NGO and #liberal, #dotcons-friendly, a path that tends to centralize control and enclosure, even in discussions about decentralization. The use of #closedsource tools like Zoom and Eventbrite highlights this contradiction. This cultural divide is significant, grassroots communities, including those on SocialHub, reject participation in spaces dominated by tools and processes that contradict the values. While this isn’t necessarily about whether the individuals involved are “good or bad,” it’s crucial to acknowledge the cultural influence of #NGO and corporate models, that seek to enclose and professionalize what should remain a grassroots, commons-based path, we need to do this so as not to simply end up enclosing the commons in ignorant “common sense” paths. Now that’s a mouth twister 😉

Lack of a Bridge, suggests a commons-oriented solution—a bridge between these two cultural approaches through transparent linking and collaboration between different projects (e.g., FediForum and SocialHub) which would respect the decentralized nature of the #openweb. I personally talk to them about this at the first event, unfortunately, this advice was ignored, and the #NGO path continued, leading to the ideological exclusion of grassroots participants who have been building the Fediverse and the openweb for years at this paywalled event


The is useful to highlight what for meany people is an invisible, thus unimportant divide:

Applying the framework is a helpful way to assess the project’s alignment with the openweb’s foundational values. Here’s a quick DRAFT breakdown of how FediForum fares:

Open Data: They are somewhat open, using Creative Commons licenses and publishing event videos openly, but the paywall during the events limits input and participation, reducing the openness. Partial TICK.

Open Source: The CMS might be FOSS, but the reliance on closed-source platforms for the events themselves (Zoom, Eventbrite) contradicts the open-source ethos. Half TICK or none.

Open Industrial Standards: Limited to some RSS feeds, but the integration of proprietary platforms makes it hard to give full credit here. No TICK.

Open Process: Organizing is closed, with paywalled events, though the unconference format allows for more open discussions. However, the ideological closure to many grassroots participants remains. Half TICK.

At best, this makes FediForum a bronze project with significant room for improvement. At worst, it’s not aligned with the , thus the #openweb at all.

Moving Forward, what’s missing is a mediation space where these different paths can intersect without one side dominating the other. This space could look like the #OGB with each participant being an affiliate stakeholder https://unite.openworlds.info/Open-Media-Network/openwebgovernancebody

The path that keeps “commons” open is activism, which is about making it hard for these values to be ignored. In this case, we could start this by pushing for the adoption of simple steps like linking and transparency (#KISS). This can begin to rebuild bridges that better reflects the diverse contributions of all involved, without closing doors on those who helped build it in the first place.

Tension in contemporary politics

In the #liberal approach to politics and economic systems, they have an ambition to save the world, they champion progressive causes such as climate change mitigation, social justice, and human rights. Their strategy to mediate the current mess involves leveraging the existing political and economic systems to achieve these goals, believing that reforms lead to significant improvements without overthrowing the current structures.

We have “right” and “left” liberals, the right are blinded dogmatic worshippers of the #deathcult where the “left” uphold capitalist principles, regulated markets, private enterprise, and incremental reforms and are terrified of radical changes. At best, this creates a perception that they are trying to balance two inherently contradictory goals: preserving the status quo while also advocating for real progressive change.

Delusion or Pragmatism? Incremental Change vs. Radical Overhaul, for anyone with any sense, this balancing act is delusional because capitalism’s drive for profit and growth stands in opposition to the environmental sustainability and social equity that liberals say they seek. They do argue, with some merit, that incremental change within the system is more pragmatic and achievable in the short term, and that it can lay the groundwork for more substantial transformations in the future. Looking at historical precedents, significant social changes, such as civil rights advancements, labour protections, and environmental regulations, have come through gradual reforms rather than abrupt revolutions.

What this blog keeps asking is the liberal #mainstreaming path fit for purpose any more, after 40 years of worshipping a #deathcult, might we actually require radical changes? The onrushing #climatechaos and hard shifts to the right, makes questioning this path the new building #mainstreming. We do need to question whether the current political and economic systems address pressing global issues effectively or at all. If not, more radical solutions need to be considered.

Back to the fluffy liberals. While maintaining the strengths of liberal democracy—such as civil liberties and political freedoms—it is worthwhile exploring and experimenting with alternative economic models that prioritize ecological sustainability and social equity more explicitly. This is in part what the current #openweb reboot is about.

Constructive dialogue about this between our “left” liberals and more radical progressives needs to lead to innovative solutions that draw on the basic humanistic strengths. While the liberal approach is contradictory, in its fluffier “left” path it represents a pragmatic effort to navigate the complexities of modern society. Whether this approach is sufficient to address our global challenges is a question that deserves ongoing discussion and active critical examination. This is at the heart of the fluffy/spiky debate.

#TED – A Community of Delusions

For millennials lost after the mess of 9/11, the wars, economic upheaval, digital division, and social atomization, #TED was an appealing #mainstreaming alternate vision—of a society where ideas had currency, and a wider group of people could identify with the intellectual vanguard. This vision was delusion, but it easily overtook the norms of drift and disconnection in our failed alternative culture.

To have been young and thoughtful in the late 2000s was to be a citizen of TED nation – a community of dreamers more than doers, united by a common creed: that ideas matter, that inspiration is power, that the future belongs to those who can capture imaginations. This naivety was an easy path to take for the children of the #deathcult. TED’s prominence shaped the aspirations of a generation, it shaped how we thought about ourselves. This #stupidindividualism pushed the blinding possibility: you, too, could have an idea worth spreading. You, too, could be special.

TED defined the poverty of the blinded intellectual spirit of an era, a profoundly millennial idea: that we are each of us main characters and have an individual calling and a mission to “change the world” in some vaguely indefinable generally pointless way. And while the reality fell well short of the rhetoric, the animating spirit was strong and likely sincere for most people.

The priests of the #deathcult pushed #TED as class war, it was not a youthful indiscretion of a generation—a rite of passage on the road to hard-earned intellectual growth. Rather, it was a smoke and mirror mess pushed by a “progressive” #fahernistas class. In the post TED world we are back to where we were 20 years ago, the messy reality of class war, unfriendly and unwelcoming.

#MillennialZeitgeist #IdeasWorthSpreading #TEDTalks #Dotcons #Intellectualpoverty #liberal #mainstreaming

PS. it’s interesting to remember that #TED tried to be #openweb native at the start, they only turned to #dotcons when that path was abandoned by our #fashionistas and lead to the mess we are in today, what a mess.

Should we do something that is native to the Fediverse, and what would this look like?

The #Fediverse is #anarchism this is likely the best description of the community.
A represents the Greek anarkhia (‘without ruler/authority’), and the circle can be read as the letter O , standing for order or organization.
We currently have a Herding cats governance in the Fediverse and the projects that make it up
An idiom denoting a futile attempt to control or organize a class of entities which are inherently uncontrollable
This was very evident in the outreach to the #EU project.
We have the A but we do not have the O – we are asking what would the O look like in a online social tech project?
The #liberal #foundation model will be forced onto us if the Fediverse is taken up buy large #Burocratic orgs like the #EU and yes the will be a figleaf of “democracy” placed over the self-selecting oligarchy that will be put into place by “power politics” that this path embeds.
This path is the default outcome.
Should we do something that is native to the Fediverse, and what would this look like?

Q. how can someone “take up” the fediverse while it’s based on free software and open protocols like #activitypub, that are available to everyone and cannot be taken up by anyone?

A. Microsoft used to be very good at “taking up” open source projects. Google is VERY good at doing this… I think this is a part of the crises in #FSF foundation currently. When a big institution brings money and resources into an underfunded project it takes power and shapes the agender.

Q. Platform cooperatives, owned and run by users. Coupling this with netcommons. I am trying to launch PoC in ****

A. This is a path. My experience of this path is problematic and have repeatedly seen “process geeks” kill social movements by ossification of process, without any idea of the damage they are actually doing.

The whole tech co-op movement smells like this issue. But I don’t know anufe about this to make a judgment so kinda put the movement to one side for now.

Looking for places where it works on the ground is always a good thing. Examples please.