The term #openweb refers to an internet ecosystem characterized by decentralized, interoperable, and community-driven platforms and protocols. It emphasizes #4opens principles of openness, inclusivity, and user control over data and online experiences. The “openweb” contrasts with the #dotcons centralized and proprietary nature, the mainstream internet platforms, thus offering an alternative vision for the future of the internet, and the society this shapes.
Meanwhile, #Fediverse refers to a specific decentralized social networking ecosystem built on interoperable protocols (#ActivityPub), allowing people on different platforms to interact and share content seamlessly. It encompasses a variety of codebases such as #Mastodon, #PeerTube, and #Pixelfed, offering alternatives to centralized social media giants like #Twitter, #YouTube, and #Instagram.
#web1.5 is a more technical term used in geeky conversations, this can be useful as a buffer to the #ecryptionist mess that talks about #web3
Talking about the fediverse can be hard, for broader, #mainstreaming audiences, simply using #mastodon can be sufficient, as Mastodon is one of the most well-known platforms within the Fediverse. This term may resonate more with individuals who are less familiar with the technical nuances of decentralized web architectures but are interested in exploring alternative social media platforms.
The choice of terminology depends on the context and audience. Whether you’re engaging in technical discussions with the “tribe” or introducing newcomers to decentralized internet paths, using the appropriate term can help facilitate understanding and communication.
Tribalism can make this harder than it needs to be, “don’t be a prat” comes to mind.
I am currently working in the realm of activist family archiving, where the clash between #mainstreaming and alternative approaches to history preservation becomes very apparent. In the big picture, while smaller, more agile organizations embrace the concept of living history, encompassing the entirety of family narratives and experiences, larger national institutions prioritize selective pieces of history that fit within their established narratives.
For smaller organizations, history is dynamic and ever-evolving, reflecting the lived experiences and diverse perspectives of individuals and families. These organizations recognize the value of preserving the “context”of histories, from the everyday to the extraordinary, as a means of capturing the richness and complexity of human life.
On the other hand, larger national institutions tend to favour a more static and curated approach to history, focusing on specific events or narratives that align with their predetermined agendas. This approach results in the omission or marginalization of certain voices and experiences, reinforcing established power structures and perpetuating a narrow understanding of history.
The tension between these two approaches highlights the broader struggle for control over historical narratives and the importance of preserving diverse paths within the historical record. By embracing living history and pushing for the inclusion of more counter #mainstreaming voices, archiving organizations can play a role in challenging #mainstreaming narratives and promoting a more inclusive and representative understanding of the past, and thus helping more to play a role in shaping the future.
In the family archiving, we are starting to feel the limitations of #mainstreaming “history”. The smaller, more nimble organizations will take the entire history. In this, history is something to be created, living history. The larger, more national organizations only want the tiny parts that fill insignificant holes in their existing liberal narrative of history. In this history is establishment and fixed, This is dead history.
We do need to look t things differently, for example the #darkweb is in our poisoned self that has fermented for the last 40 years. It’s the algorithms of manipulation, and the #geekproblem unthinking pushiness of this fermentation. The #dotcons are the shiny surfaces of this mess. And the #openweb the seedlings to grow community to step on the path away from this.
We have turned our backs on this metaphor the last few years, can we now turn back before we are consumed by the #dotcons the shiny surfaces of #mainstreaming mess
———————————————
let’s try, in the metaphorical landscape of the #openweb reboot, the concept of the #darkweb represents the darker aspects of our digital existence that emerged over the past four decades. It encompasses the algorithms of manipulation that fuel online platforms, the unthinking pushiness of the #geekproblem culture, and the shiny surfaces of centralized platforms (#dotcons) that dominate our online experiences.
The #darkweb symbolizes the poisoned self that has fermented within our digital spaces, perpetuating societal division, misinformation, and exploitation. It reflects the consequences of prioritizing profit and power over community and collective well-being.
In contrast, the #openweb represents a path towards renewal and regeneration. It embodies the seedlings of community and collaboration, offering an alternative vision for how we engage with technology and each other online. The #openweb encourages #4opens decentralization, transparency, and participatory governance, fostering a digital ecosystem that prioritizes the needs and interests of people.
In our #fedivers based #web1.5 reboot, there is #mainstreaming mess pushing, a collective turning away from the #openweb metaphor, as centralized platforms continue to exert their influence and dominance.
We are attracted to be consumed by the allure of shiny surfaces and instant gratification offered by #dotcons, we risk losing sight of the values and principles that underpin this #openweb path.
The challenge now is to rekindle our commitment to the #openweb and reclaim its promise of community, empowerment, and connection. It requires a collective effort to resist the pull of centralized platforms and reassert the importance of human community.
The #openweb reboot metaphor is a reminder of the ongoing struggle to shape the future of the internet in a way that aligns with our humanist values and aspirations. It calls upon us to confront the darkness of the #darkweb within ourselves and embrace the potential for renewal and transformation offered by the #openweb.
What do we have here, Hamish Campbell’s blog covers a range of topics related to technology, activism, social justice, boatlife and the #openweb. As an activist, Hamish provides insightful commentary and analysis on issues like digital rights, decentralized technology, media activism, climate change, and more.
Feel free to subscribe to Hamish Campbell’s blog for
Thought-provoking content: Hamish’s blog offers thought-provoking insights and perspectives on contemporary issues in technology and activism. Whether it’s discussing the impact of social media on society or exploring alternatives to #mainstreaming platforms, his posts stimulate critical thinking and inspire discussion.
Expertise in digital activism: With years of experience in digital activism and media production, Hamish brings a wealth of knowledge to his blog. His insights into the intersection of technology and activism provide valuable guidance for people and organizations looking to make a positive impact in the digital sphere.
Openweb advocacy: Hamish is a passionate advocate for the #openweb and #decentralized technology. His blog delves into topics such as the importance of preserving net neutrality, the dangers of centralization in online platforms, and the potential of decentralized alternatives to empower people and protect digital empowerment.
Diversity of topics: From technical discussions about peer-to-peer networks and the mess of blockchain technology to reflections on the state of contemporary grassroots politics and society, subscribers can expect to find engaging content that spans multiple disciplines and interests.
Overall, subscribing to Hamish Campbell’s blog provides readers with a unique opportunity to stay informed about important issues in #technology, #activism, and social justice, while also gaining valuable insights from an experienced and knowledgeable voice in the field.
In the ongoing discourse surrounding #openweb and its relation to failing technologies like #web3 and #blockchain, a critical question emerges: why do we readily accept solutions without first defining the problem at hand?
“… it’s not secure, it’s not safe, it’s not reliable, it’s not trustworthy, it’s not even decentralized, it’s not anonymous, it’s helping destroy the planet. I haven’t found one positive use for blockchain. It has nothing that couldn’t be done better without it.”
—Bruce Schneier, *Bruce Schneier on the Crypto/Blockchain Disaster
The allure of decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs) and blockchain technology for the last ten years has overshadowed the necessity of understanding the fundamental issues within our communities. Instead of exploring how we want to govern, decide, and interact within our communities, we find ourselves seduced by the promises of #DAO pitches.
The core of the matter lies in the conflation of culture with technology. Every time a DAO or blockchain solution is proposed, the culture and organization of communities become intertwined with the #geekproblem tools being offered. This bundling tactic obscures the essence of the technology and stifles meaningful discourse. By presenting technology as a fait accompli, we are robbed of the opportunity to critically assess its implications.
In the realm of the #openweb, technology is envisioned as a manifestation of communal decisions and conscious choices. It is the crystallization of community values, traditions, and needs. Where blockchain and DAOs represent an antithesis to this vision. They dictate choices rather than empower communities to determine their own paths.
One of the most concerning aspects of blockchain technology is its enforced financialization within communities. The implementation of ledger systems and tokens mirrors the #dotcons capitalist market traditions, where wealth equates to power. In stark contrast to the principles of “native” gift economies and communalism, blockchain perpetuates a system where those with the most resources wield influence.
In this, even in #mainstreaming dialogue, these ten years of blinded move to blockchain threatens to undermine centuries of liberal evolution by replacing established legal systems with #web3 engineers acting as arbiters of justice. This shift from #mainstreaming transparent and “equitable” legal frameworks to opaque and centralized technological solutions is deeply troubling.
As proponents of #4opens ideals, we should question the last ten years narrative of blockchain’s and DAOs. We must resist the allure of #geekproblem technological solutions that obscure the essence of community governance and autonomy. Instead, let’s engage in meaningful dialogue, grounded in clear understanding of the problems we address and the values we hold to forge a “native” #openweb path.
We now face another wasted ten years of #AI hype with the same issues and agender. We have to stop feeding this mess.
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.
Most people are parasites in our current #mainstreaming society, this is non-controversial view in the era of the #deathcult
Some examples:
Let’s look for a moment at our tech world, if we are generous 90% of people on the #openweb are parasites on this culture and tech space.
Maybe 9% are “native” but could do better, and the native 1% left are fractured. You can use a social tool like the #4opens to make this visible with little effort if you care.
This space is made of social tech, and at its core is #4opens culture, people and community.
If you are not generous, it’s more like 99% and fractions of the 1% left over. Let’s be truthful and try and bump this up to the generous view, please.
Arriving early, the panel and audience are ugly broken people, priests and worshippers of the #deathcult
Near the start the young and energetic start to flood in, eager and chatty yet to be broken by service of the dark side of #mainstreaming
The ritual of making killing “humane” and “responsible”, ticking the boxes on this new use of technology in war, repression and death.
Touching on the “privatisation” that this technology pushes to shift traditional military command.
The exeptabl rate of collateral damage 15 to 1 in the case of the IDF Gaza conflict
Introducing human “friction” into the process, the means to the end, is the question. Public confidence and trust is key to this shift, policy is in part about this process.
The establishment policy response to AI in war, this is already live, so these people are catching up. They are at the stage of “definition” in this academic flow.
The issue agen is that none of this technology actually works, we wasted ten years on blockchain and cryptocurrency, this had little value and a lot of harm, we are now going to spend ten years on #AI and yes this will affect society, but is the anything positive in this? Or another wasted ten years of #fashernista thinking, in this case death.
Artificial intelligence (#AI) into warfare raises ethical, practical, and strategic considerations.
Technological Advancements and Warfare: The use of AI in war introduces new algorithms and technologies that potentially reshape military strategies and tactics. AI is used for tasks like autonomous targeting, decision-making, or logistics optimization.
Ethical Concerns: ethical dilemmas associated with AI-driven warfare. Making killing more “humane” and “responsible” through technological advancements, can lead to a perception of sanitizing violence.
Privatization of Military Command: The shift towards AI in warfare leads to a privatization of military functions, as technology companies play a role in developing and implementing AI systems.
Collateral Damage and Public Perception: Collateral damage ratios like 15 to 1 raises questions about the acceptability of casualties in conflicts where AI is employed. Public confidence and trust in AI-driven warfare become critical issues.
Policy and Governance: Establishing policies and regulations around AI in warfare is crucial. Defining the roles of humans in decision-making processes involving AI and ensuring accountability for actions taken by autonomous systems.
Challenges and Risks: The effectiveness of AI technology in warfare draws parallels with previous tech trends like blockchain and cryptocurrency. There’s concern that investing heavily in AI for military purposes will yield little value while causing harm.
Broader Societal Impact: Using AI in warfare will have broader societal implications beyond the battlefield. It will influence public attitudes towards technology, privacy concerns, and the militarization of AI in civilian contexts.
Balance of Innovation and Responsibility: Whether the pursuit of AI in warfare represents progress or merely another trend driven by superficial or misguided thinking #fashernista thinking with potentially dire consequences.
In summary, the integration of AI into warfare demands ethical, legal, and societal implications. The goal should be to leverage technological advancements responsibly, ensuring that human values and principles guide the development and deployment of AI systems in any contexts.
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.
Post-modernism: Over the last four decades, post-modernism pushed subjectivity and the rejection of universal truths. While it aimed to deconstruct grand narratives and challenge power structures, it has led to a fragmented world-views where reality is ignored, and truth is relative. This has challenged the building of coherent social movements and addressing systemic issues effectively.
Neo-liberalism emphasis on deregulation, privatization, and market-driven policies, has exacerbated income inequality, weakened labour rights, and commodified social services. It prioritized profit over people, leading to financial crises, environmental degradation, and the erosion of social safety nets. The relentless pursuit of economic growth come at the expense of social justice, environmental sustainability, and democratic values.
Identity politics: While this played a role in raising awareness about marginalized groups’ struggles and experiences, it has also fostered divisions within leftist movements. The focus on individual identities leads to a fragmentation of collective action, as different groups prioritize their interests over broader solidarity. Identity politics has been co-opted by #mainstreaming institutions to tokenize diversity without addressing systemic inequalities.
OMN project: To counter the negative impacts of post-modernism and neo-liberalism and identity politics, the OMN project prioritizes collective action and solidarity more than individuals. By acknowledging the interconnectedness of systemic oppression and capitalism, the project resists co-optation by the ruling class and promote deeper understandings of social justice issues. Critical discourse on identity politics within leftist movements will strengthen the commitment to #4opens values.
While post-modernism and neoliberalism contribute to societal challenges, the #OMN project navigates these issues by prioritizing collective action, resisting co-optation, and promoting discourse around identity politics and the path of systemic oppression.
