A bit of history – visionontv

The Radical VisionOntv project has a rich and varied history spanning over a 15 years. Here’s a timeline highlighting some key milestones and achievements:

Inception: The project began over 15 years ago with a vision to create an alternative media platform that prioritized grassroots reporting and activism over mainstream narratives. It initially focused on utilizing RSS and peer-to-peer technologies to distribute video content widely.
Mainstream Social Networks: Despite the project’s focus on alternative media, it has also gained significant traction on mainstreaming #dotcons. With over 32 million video views across nine video streaming sites, including Undercurrents and Blip, VisionOntv has demonstrated its ability to reach diverse audiences.
Original Content Production: VisionOntv has produced over 1000 original video reports and studio shows, covering a wide range of topics and events in support of campaigning groups. This includes coverage of tech events, climate camps, and legal campaigns.
Training Workshops: The project has conducted nearly 100 free training workshops on grassroots video journalism, empowering people to become citizen journalists and contribute to the alternative media landscape.
Live Streaming: VisionOntv has facilitated live-streaming at conferences and events, providing real-time coverage and amplifying the voices of activists and organizers.
Technological Innovation: The project has been at the forefront of technological innovation, experimenting with solar-powered live edit TV shows at climate camps and embracing alternative hosting solutions to avoid reliance on mainstream platforms.
Community Engagement: VisionOntv has actively supported local campaigns, legal battles, and land reclamation efforts, amplifying the voices of marginalized communities and highlighting issues that are often overlooked by #mainstreaming media.
Partnerships and Collaborations: The project has collaborated with a diverse range of organizations and initiatives.

Through its commitment to openness, grassroots activism, and technological innovation, the Radical #VisionOntv project has made significant contributions to the alternative media landscape, empowering communities, challenging mainstream narratives, and fostering dialogue and collaboration across diverse social movements.

The problem of fashionistas in activism

#fashionistas” typically describes individuals or groups who adopt trends or ideologies in activism, for the sake of appearance or to align themselves with what is currently popular or socially acceptable. In the realm of activism, this phenomenon often manifests in the behaviour of NGOs and advocacy organizations who prioritize “chasing the buzzword” over meaningful action.

The problem with “fashionistas” in activism, particularly among NGOs, is multifaceted:

* Superficial Engagement: NGOs adopt trendy causes or issues without any understanding or committing to them. This results in superficial engagement with complex social problems, leading to tokenistic gestures rather than substantive change.

* Lack of Authenticity: When prioritize appearing progressive or aligned with popular movements without commitment to the cause, it undermines trust and authenticity within the community.

* Mainstreaming: prioritize activism that is palatable to #mainstreaming audiences and funders, sacrificing radical or grassroots voices in the process. This mainstreaming tendency dilutes the effectiveness of activism and reinforces existing power structures.

* Misaligned Priorities: By chasing buzzwords or trends #fahernistas divert resources and attention away from pressing issues that are less visible or popular but more important. This can perpetuate injustice and inequality in actavist communities.

* Reactive Rather Than Proactive: #Fashionista activism is reactive, responding to the latest trend or crisis rather than addressing systemic issues in a sustained and strategic manner. This approach leads to short-term gains but fails to create lasting change.

* Rectonery: Adopting trends without a commitment to the underlying values or principles leads to performative activism or “rectonery” – actions that serve to maintain the status quo rather than challenging oppressive systems.

To address the problems associated with fashionista activism, it’s essential for NGOs and advocacy organizations to prioritize authenticity, long-term commitment, and meaningful engagement with the communities they are a part of. This involves centering the voices of active grassroots groups, challenging #mainstreaming narratives, and pursuing strategies that address root causes rather than superficial symptoms. By doing so, activists can work towards creating genuine, transformative change and challenge rather than simply following the latest trend.

We need to get this 20-year-old project back online, please help

VisionOnTV is a historical and important activist video project, and supporting it through funding can have a impact on the activist community and the history and change challenge in broader society:

Amplifying Marginalized Voices: VisionOnTV provides a platform for marginalized voices and grassroots activists to share their stories, perspectives, and struggles. By amplifying these voices, the project helps to challenge dominant narratives and promote inclusive and diverse media. Funding VisionOnTV enables the continued production and dissemination of content that may not find space in #mainstreaming media outlets.
Documenting Social Movements: VisionOnTV plays a real role in documenting social movements, protests, and activism from around the world. Through its video coverage, the project captures important moments of resistance, solidarity, and social change, preserving them for future generations. Funding VisionOnTV supports the ongoing documentation of grassroots movements and ensures that their stories are heard and remembered.
Fostering Media Literacy: VisionOnTV contributes to media literacy by providing alternative perspectives and critical analysis of mainstream media coverage. By offering people and communities access to independent and alternative media content, the project encourages critical thinking and engagement with complex social issues. Funding VisionOnTV enables the creation of educational resources and programming that promote media literacy and empower viewers to become informed citizens.
Building Solidarity Networks: VisionOnTV facilitates connections and solidarity networks among activists and social movements. Bridging different struggles and communities, fostering collaboration and mutual support. Funding VisionOnTV supports the development of networking tools and initiatives that strengthen solidarity across geographical and ideological boundaries.
Advancing Social Justice: VisionOnTV contributes to the advancement of social justice by raising awareness about pressing issues such as inequality, environmental destruction, racism, and human rights abuses. By highlighting the voices of those most affected by systemic injustices, the project mobilizes support for positive change and collective action. Funding VisionOnTV empowers activists to continue their historical work for social justice through the power of video storytelling.

In summary, funding #VisionOnTV is a strategic investment in the advancement of activism, social justice, and media democracy. By supporting this project, funders can help to amplify voices, document social movements, foster media literacy, build solidarity networks, and advance the cause of social justice around the world.

Good faith in activism

It’s interesting to think about the idea of good and bad faith when dealing with people in change and challenge interactions. If you spend time in life doing activism, this will be an ongoing, unpleasant reacuringing relationship. When pushing aside, back, #mainstreaming there will be a lot of bad faith coming at you, your good faith is the best and likely only defence.

Funding Application: Governance with the Open Governance Body (#OGB)

Introduction: The Open Governance Body (#OGB) represents a beacon of hope in the evolving digital world, where governance lags behind technological advancements and societal changes. In a landscape cluttered with flawed systems and ineffective #mainstreaming politics, the OGB offers an innovative and participatory approach to governance—a blueprint for the future of human-scale decision-making.

Problem Statement: Traditional governance models, whether in the realm of Free/Open Source (#FOSS) software or mainstream politics, suffer from inherent flaws. They either struggle with scalability or are too rigid to adapt to local contexts. The feudalistic hierarchy embedded in FOSS governance structures is ill-suited for the digital age. The need for a more effective, scalable, and adaptive governance model has never been more apparent.

Solution: The #OGB emerges at the intersection of grassroots activism and federated technology. Leveraging the proven framework of ActivityPub—a decentralized protocol powering platforms like Mastodon—the OGB creates a platform for organic activist governance. Through a blend of federated technology and grassroots activism, the OGB introduces a simple yet powerful platform based on sortation, ensuring the distribution of roles and responsibilities and fostering efficient decision-making processes.

Proof of Concept: The success of the OGB is not theoretical; it comes from field-testing with promising results. Collaborations with the European Union demonstrate the versatility of ActivityPub and the #Fediverse, showcasing the potential for real-world impact. The OGB’s ability to empower communities to self-govern, bypassing cumbersome bureaucracy, is a testament to its potential to revolutionize governance at all levels.

Vision: Imagine a bustling local street market governed by its community members—stallholders, shoppers, and local service providers—all having a say in decision-making processes. The OGB facilitates such self-governance through a permissionless rollout, allowing people to set up a governance community with ease. A sortation algorithm orchestrates decision-making, naturally encouraging more stakeholders to participate and fostering a sense of ownership and collaboration.

Scalability and Adaptability: The OGB’s impact extends beyond local markets; it embodies scalability and adaptability. Just as the #fediverse has grown organically over the years, the OGB can proliferate across societal facets, weaving a tapestry of self-governance that transcends traditional fixed boundaries.

Call to Action: The OGB is not only a project; it is a culmination of centuries of activism and social organizing techniques, combined with remarkable #openweb technological advancements. It offers a modern solution rooted in historical success—a rallying cry for those seeking real, lasting change through cooperative, human-centric paths. As we stand at the precipice of a new era, the OGB beckons us to embrace a future where technology enables democracy and human connection. It invites us to join a grassroots revolution, co-creating a governance model that aligns with our times and aspirations. With the OGB, progress doesn’t ask for permission—it extends an open invitation to innovate, participate, and effectuate change. Join the movement, and let’s shape a future where governance works for everyone.

Budget Justification: Funds are needed for technological infrastructure development, community outreach and engagement, research and development, and operational expenses. Detailed budget breakdown available upon request.

Conclusion: Thank you for considering the funding application for the Open Governance Body. Together, we need to usher in a new era of governance that empowers communities, fosters collaboration, and creates a more inclusive and equitable society. We can’t keep making the current mess.

https://opencollective.com/open-media-network

The Open Governance Body: Revolutionizing Governance with Grassroots Tech

In our ever-evolving digital world, governance is often left behind, struggling to catch up with the pace of technology and social change. Among the myriad of attempts to tackle this problem, there’s one that stands out for its innovative and participatory approach: the Open Governance Body (#OGB). This grassroots, federated project is more than just another tech experiment; it’s a blueprint for the future of human-scale governance.

The Flawed Systems of Old

Let’s face it—governance, as we know it, is 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 frequent 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 thinkers who understand that, progressive social change has always sprung from the bottom up. They’ve taken the federated solution framework 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 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 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 various societal 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 just 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 instill 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 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.

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?

Panel discussion: ‘Post-COP28 debrief: Does the agreement go far enough?’

COP28 closed with an agreement, that for the first time in three decades, includes oil and gas. But what does the agreement mean in real terms? And is keeping the global temperature limit of 1.5°C within reach. Join us as our panel of academics share their thoughts after attending COP28 and look forward to what it means for COP29 and the world over the coming years.

Panel:

Professor Myles Allen, Director, Oxford Net Zero
Dr Abrar Chaudhury, Senior Associate, Oxford Net Zero
Professor Benito Müller, Managing Director, Oxford Climate Policy (Chair)
Professor Nicola Ranger, Senior Fellow, Oxford Martin Programme on Net Zero Regulation and Policy
Professor Mette Morsing, Director, Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment

This talk is in conjunction with Oxford Net Zero and Oxford Climate Research Network.

God these people are #deathcult worshipping at the Martin school Oxford event, the room is full of the green great and good, I wonder how meany are not worshipping?

“Sack all the panel and then evict the building occupations” comes to mind as a path/spark out of this mess, likely more chance of working than these people staying as the gatekeepers to the change that is needed.

This thinking is reinforced during the businessmen presentation. Nothing on the subject, he is vile. Academic finance is next, all the speakers start nice and move onto there pointless subject then end vile, this is the nature of #mainstreaming people in the room.

In the era of #climatechaos they are insane, most Tories, some blinded liberals, it’s the Oxford mess, ideas please?

#Oxford

Who is the change and challenge we need?

#Deathcult dilemma, over the past 40 years, #mainstreaming society has been driven by a choice between the “nice” and “nasty” facets of a #deathcult, with fear often pushing people towards the latter. This has led to catastrophic consequences, over the next ten years millions of deaths and billions of people displaced. With our society’s focus narrowed to daily worship of the #deathcult or the so-called “nasty progressive” secret worshippers. This duality has trapped us in a cycle of destructive choices, undermining genuine progress and sustainable paths.

Grassroots Solutions, we need to compost this mess, transforming it into fertile ground for sustainable alternatives. Two key tools for this transformation are fluffy and spiky, this post is about the first, we have #4opens in tech and #XR (Extinction Rebellion) in society.

The #4opens: A Shovel for Tech, the principles can act as a shovel to break through the tech-related obstacles: Open Source: Ensure all software used and developed is open source, promoting transparency and collaboration. Open Data: Make all data openly accessible to foster accountability and shared knowledge. Open Standards: Adhere to open standards to ensure interoperability and inclusivity. Open Processes: Implement open processes to enable community participation and democratic decision-making.

A #fluffy path in Society, Extinction Rebellion provide a simple and actionable path for societal change: Non-Violent Direct Action: Use peaceful civil disobedience to draw attention to climate crises and force governmental action. Mobilizing Communities: Engage and organize local communities to participate in climate action, building a broad-based movement. Demanding Systemic Change: Advocate for systemic changes that address the root causes of climate chaos, including economic and political reforms. Promoting Sustainability: Foster a culture of sustainability and resilience in everyday life, encouraging practices that reduce ecological impact.

These give space for a simple “fluffy” call to action. You’re taking these paths as part of the grassroots movement, are crucial in this transformation. You can contribute: Educate and Advocate: Spread awareness about the #4opens and the principles of Extinction Rebellion. Host workshops, create educational content, and engage in public speaking. Participate and Organize: Join or form local XR groups, participate in actions, and organize community events. Use the #4opens to develop and support open, collaborative tech projects. Collaborate and Network: Build networks with other grassroots organizations, tech activists, and climate action groups. Share resources, knowledge, and strategies. Innovate and Implement: Develop innovative solutions based on the #4opens and implement them in real-world #OMN projects. Pilot sustainable practices and technologies within your community.

In conclusion, the chose between the nice and nasty facets of the #deathcult has led us to the brink of disaster. However, by adopting and promoting the #4opens in tech and the #fluffy path of Extinction Rebellion in society, we can compost this mess and pave a different path for a more sustainable, just, and resilient future. Your #DIY effect is the key to making this happen.

Now we also need to look at the “spiky” path, very different but likely still needed.

In the era of #climatechaos of the last 40 years #mainstreaming we have had a choice of the nice or nasty #deathcult most people in fear have chosen the nasty, we are going to pay the price for this choice over the next 20 years, With millions of deaths and billions of people displaced.

This mess we have made has narrowed our daily worship to actually the #deathcult or nasty “progressive” secrets worshippers.

In the grassroots we need to compost this mess #4opens is a shovel for this in tech, #XR an easy pail path in society. You are the only people who can or will do this.

Working with the #mainstreaming to compost the current mess.

#mainstreaming people are always limited in their options, the is a strong pushing for them to see other people from their #neoliberlism and #postmodernism, these 40 years of “common sense” is mess making. Their behaviour tends to be vile when this “common sense” is challenged, trying to get them to work in or even see alt views. Our “native” mission is mediating this vile behaviour for better outcomes.

If you prod them too hard, they retreat into their shells like snails

Now, where is my shovel?

A lot of current #mainstreaming arguments that are treated as left and right are actually not. They are arguments between modernism and postmodernism. This is a mess that the postmodernists have pushed over the last 40 years.

We need tools for composting this mess, shovels come to mind. But it’s hard to grasp a shovel on your knees with no handle and no head… so we are currently dealing with the shit with our hands, yes it’s messy.

We have people who are dogmatic, careerist and secretly worshipping the #deathcult as the #mainstreaming voices of much of the #Fediverse, this is ALWAYS a problem in activism and #FOSS is activism if it’s anything at all.

This is an issue that needs active mediation, and yes this will create mess and bad feelings, this is how you can tell you are doing the right thing and being useful… phwww… work.

Now, where is my shovel?

Navigating Grassroots Evolution in Tech Communities: Challenges and Paths

The landscape of technological evolution often traverses a spectrum between grassroots innovation and mainstream integration. Within this spectrum walks #Socialhub, a space that was born as a grassroots alternative—a bastion of the activertypub reboot’s integrity within its “native” framework. This trajectory from its inception in #activertypub is a distinctive approach in the technological path.

The emergence of the #openweb reboot unfolded serendipitously during the #WC3 proceedings. In an atypical scenario where mainstream stakeholders were absent, the reins of definition were firmly grasped by an alternative cohort, paving an advantageous, albeit less conventional, path for the #openweb community’s progression.

Initially, Socialhub thrived as a nurturing ground for a vibrant community, exemplified by the impactful outreach endeavors to the EU within the Fediverse. However, recent years have introduced complexities. The influx of people lacking a ‘native’ #openweb perspective has precipitated a divergence from the community’s original focus, largely due to the significant influence of Twitter immigrants and Fediverse expansion. This shift presents both challenges and opportunities, marking a departure from the initial vision towards a less intricate and diverse community.

Notably, a pronounced shift towards the technical aspects has eclipsed the attention to its social dimensions, critical for a functional alt, with a reduction in the core social-oriented crew and an influx of technically inclined new members. This transition mirrors the WC3 process reboot, necessitating a delicate, respectful balance of responsibilities between the two facets.

The delineation between a community-driven space and a platform steered by a specific technical viewpoint and agenda has become increasingly visible. This deviation from the original ethos poses challenges, signalling a transition from happenstance to intentionality, necessitating a more democratic approach to reconcile these shifts.

Grassroots initiatives inherently embody a level of messiness that distinguishes their authenticity. Constructive feedback and improvement strategies are pivotal in the “native” FEP process, while the underlying ideas in this are commendable, the outcomes remain questionable, requiring refinement in the process. Volatile yet essential debates to fortify the FEP’s legitimacy, particularly in the unspoken political sphere. Proposals for procedural enhancements aimed at bolstering legitimacy within the FEP necessitate a non-technical, social explanation of proposed changes and their wider implications.

The absence of broader social context and buy-in inhibits legitimacy, necessitating a proactive approach by the community to elucidate and democratize these processes. Currently entrenched as ‘black boxes’, both the FEP and the W3C demand transparency and community involvement to garner support and avoid being ignored sidelined by #mainstreaming dev.

Without proactive measures rooted in activism and learning from historical effective activism, this cycle of ignorance towards these processes will persist. Therein lies the importance of integrating wider social buy-in, understanding the social implications of technical changes, and engaging in transparent, #4opens processes—key tenets for the evolution and legitimacy of tech communities like Socialhub in the digital age.

To note for people who are not familer with this way of looking at the world, the ansear to the question is always more alt grassroots vs less mainstreaming, of course this is always a balance so best not to get into a #ragecircle on this mess making.

#Socialhub originated as a grassroots alternative space specifically designed to maintain the integrity of the activertypub reboot within its inherent framework. Initially stemming from #activertypub itself, the forum embarked on this trajectory. The emergence of the current #openweb reboot was more serendipitous than deliberate. Amidst the #WC3 proceedings, the absence of the typical mainstream participants allowed our alternative cohort to drive and solidify the definition through this “native” #4opens technological pathway an uncommon yet advantageous route for our community to follow.

Socialhub fostered a genuine and thriving community. The pinnacle of this community’s strength was witnessed during the outreach efforts to the EU within the Fediverse. However, recent years have brought challenges; the influx of individuals without a “native” #openweb view has led to a divergence from the spaces initial focus, primarily due to the significant impact of Twitter immigrants and the expansion of the Fediverse. This is good and bad, we have moved a long way from where we started, and have to make the best of this more messy community.

Over the last year we have had a (strong dogmatic) shift to the tech side of activertypub working and away from the social side that is needed for making a working #openweb reboot. In the forum we have had a reduction of the core crew, and an influx of the tech focused new members, this is likely a mirror in the expansion and the rebooting of the WC3 process and the two have a balancing act of responsibility.

“To use the forum, you must agree to these terms with Petites Singularités, the company that runs the forum.” This has become more visible and the owner has a point of view and agenda, this is actually not a space for/by “community” in the sense it was originally sold… shifting from “serendipitous to deliberate” the solution to this shift/issue is likely not easy and involves democracy in some form.

Grassroots are always messy, that’s how you can judge if It’s grassroots or NOT 🙂

Let’s try some constructive comments on this to improve the fep process.

What we have here is a classic activism 3 steps forward 3 steps back process, this is a recurring issue.

The ideas behind this are good, the outcome is questionable, and the process still needs work.

There is a current undeclared fight in the FEP → W3C email list, that is likely unresolvable which is a fine example of the fluffy spiky debate, the only good outcome from my prospective and likely socialhub is making the fep more Legitimacy (political) this is a post with ideas for process to help that happen.

To be a valid fep they should have a non-technical (social) explanation on why it’s needed and what are the social implications of this purely technical change.

As we are NOT only talking about technical points here, most are based on social ideas and have social outcomes for social networking. We need this wider buy in to make this process legitimate.

This process is simple and can be started by the original poster, then carried on by the wider community to build buy in and legitimacy.

Currently, both the fep and the W3C are too many black boxes to have any path to build buy in, thus are being ignored defacto.

This will likely continue without some basic activism as outlined above, the is much to learn from this long history of affective activism.

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 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

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.