Tag: mainstreaming

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.

Mess making is a breakdown in communication – ideas please

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 every day “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.”

——————————————————————-

Continuing the discussion from Can This Platform Survive? Governance Challenges for the Fediverse 2:

Dear @hamishcampbell,

although we already had this discussion several times, you keep posting external links to your website every time you have an opportunity to do so, which is quite a lot, since you are very attentive to responding to any new topic with such links.

What it achieves is that your posts rarely bring anything to the conversation and rather look out of place, and barely get any response. Do you realize that all these links have rel="nofollow" attached to them, which means no search engine will index them in relation to this site?

I’m reacting to this specific message because you, being in Oxford, could have made a much better contribution by summarizing the findings of this paper rather than waving your opinion as a pretext to add two more links to your site.

Should I resort to simply unlinking all such references to it so you have an incentive to bring more useful comments? You have been warned repeatedly that your posting style feels spammy, and I would not like to have to kick you out, because when you want you can make interesting contributions. But most of the time, I feel that it’s a waste of time.

What do others think?

  • Use the mute feature on this user
  • Flag posts as spam
  • Unlink openworlds.info
  • Leave Hamish alone

——————————————————-

#ragecircle the assumption this is spamming is troubling, and we likely need to look at this assumption? What would be the mod process to start this?

Linking is how ideas are addressed on the openweb

UPDATE: to be clear, this is a mod question here, please can the mods address it, thanks.

————————————————————————

This conversation is getting beyond silly, here is what Is Link Spam: Definition and Types of Link Spamming – Kontely link spamming is.

It SHOULD be obvious the post is not doing any of these things.

I would like the current mods, on this open and community driven forum, to stop this please.

And I ask, repeat (and the risk of this being seen as SPAM) for the 3ed time, can we get some process put in place to mediate mod behaver, thanks.

I think this space is increasingly lacking Legitimacy (political) – Wikipedia it was the subject of the post in question. This is a difference of social/tech path of me and the two mods, not some something to be pushed out of view, thanks.

Please stop this.

https://socialhub.activitypub.rocks/t/can-this-platform-survive-governance-challenges-for-the-fediverse/3727/6?u=hamishcampbell

This mess making from our mods is bringing the lack of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy_(political) in this “community site” into view. This is the subject of the original post

I call the subject post #mainstreaming to describe that it’s a reflective post of the chatting classes, not to say this has no value, just it’s not “native” to the grassroots internet some of us want to build.

Then link this to my personal experience, I have 20 years of dealing with this of mess making in #openweb tech/funding so have a lot to say on this PS. this link is not SPAMMING take note, it’s a weblink so you can fallow it to find out more about what I am talking about, if you are interested in clicking on the link.

Next link to the about page of a project that directly addresses the issue the original post is about, with context. I post a link rather than simply copy and past the intro, as this is how the #WWW is supposed to work.

Then I describe how we can fight affectively to push the grassroots “native” internet some of us would like to see, and link to a tool that can be used to affect the needed change. Native to the WWW people can click on the link if interested.

Finally, there is a bit of a spike in the tail, that yes is indirectly pointing at our mods and an inclination on this forum. Take NOTE this is done in a polite way without naming names, so no issue with the CVP etc.

Ok, I understand you don’t like this aproch, this has been made clear the last few years, what exactly is wrong with these posts mods #KISS

Best not to go down this path

I have been in Oxford for the last month, attending university talks and seminars on subjects of interest. And I am seeing the normal issues of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mannerism this is an “art” way of expressing the issue but it’s a good description of much inward looking thinking. Their answers when questioned on this are https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Panglossianism#English in that, It’s not as bad as you think, “am more positive” etc.

This is an issue with the current #geekproblem and much #mainstreaming thinking in the era of #climatechaos

The mess we are likely to make over the next ten years. Best not to go down this path.



Why the Russian constitution matters: the dark arts of constitutional law

Professor Partlett’s forthcoming book challenges the conventional view that Russia’s Constitution is a sham. It will show instead that this constitution is a critical foundation of Russian authoritarianism today that carries important broader lessons for the world.

In the ruins of the Soviet Union, President Boris Yeltsin—with the full backing of the West—dabbled in the ‘dark arts’ of constitutional law by centralising vast constitutional power in the office of the president in the 1993 Russian Constitution. This presidential centralisation was justified as necessary to ensure stability while being limited by extensive constitutional rights guarantees. President Vladimir Putin has since disregarded these rights provisions and fully exploited this centralised authority to rebuild Russian authoritarianism.

The Russian experience helps us better understand the dark arts of constitutional law, an understudied practice in which written constitutions are used to build a centralised state. This practice is grounded on a long normative tradition—dating back to Thomas Hobbes—arguing that centralisation is the best way to overcome civil war and achieve the common good. This practice underpins the rise of authoritarian populism around the world today. It also is increasingly infiltrating established democracies, posing a critical internal threat to democratic governance.

William Partlett is an Associate Professor at Melbourne Law School. He writes and teaches in the field of public law.

It’s interestingly academic, look at paper power and how the west “missed” the Russian centralisation with Putin.

Brought in 1993 by Yeltsin (well more like his burocrats) and used later.

The Q&A reveals #mainstreaming and likely #dogma. This is a gathering of “our” technocrats talking about their “technocrats”. “Sadly” some of the west pushed this mess “we trust him”

Does the mess create the mess or the mess create the mess is an under text of the event is as far as the technocrats get.

The leading liberal, agency is to ask people in power to change.

#Oxford

Economics and National Security – The audience for this was the servants of power, good to understand what they are thinking

Going to this event to see what the #mainstreaming think about the upcoming political changes to economic is about.It was interesting, but the only agency was asking the servants of power to do make the needed change. This has been the same ansear for the last 5 seminars i have attended in Oxford. It is not agency at all. We have had 40 years of hardcore class war and the is no easy path out of this. The audience for this was the servants of power, good to understand what they are thinking.

Economics and National Security

There is a resurgence in interest in economic statecraft and economic security. This is against a backdrop in which, over the last thirty or so years, economics has been regarded as above and beyond national control and best left untouched by governments; and national security has been lionised for its performance and practice, rather than its impact. What are the connections between the economy and national security, and how might we begin to raise a new generation of security practitioners with the skills to operate in this re-emerging field?Dr Jason Shepherd is the Senior Director for Strategy at Thomson Reuters Special Services International. He joined Thomson Reuters in 2021 after a twenty-three-year career in the UK national security community, during which he contributed to interoperability both between the FVEY partners and the UK agencies and government departments.A graduate of Cambridge, his PhD in Molecular Genetics was awarded by the University of Edinburgh, but it was his experience of the Executive Master’s in Public Policy at LSE that convinced him of the importance of the economy and political institutions to national security. An influential member of the 2020 Integrated Review team, he continues to champion technical innovation and excellence in the pursuit of public good, and is a proponent of public-private partnership in security and intelligence. He is an advocate, and whenever possible practitioner, of systems thinking and systems engineering.

#Oxford

Best to start from #KISS the left is based on trust and open culture.

Best to start from #KISS the left is based on trust and open culture. Moving away from this the left has destroyed itself over the last 40 years.

* The #fashernista embracing of postmodernism
* The soft left embrace of the “common sense” of neoliberalism

Combined, these have undermined the foundations the left is built on. This leaves people helpless to compost the current mess, as our shovel for piling the #mainstreaming have no head, nor a handle.

Of course, the is also an older horizontal and vertical split that divided the left in the 20th centenary. This is not the subject at hand, we need to compost the current mess before we can look at this older mess.

Thoughts on my 3ed Oxford seminar

Most academy is about building consensus on how to name things. Am at a Oxford seminar on Deepfakes & Disinformation (Cassidy Bereskin) which is doing this, maybe discourse after, let’s see.

The events are status games, to establish a place in #mainstreaming hierarchy with the subject they are working on. There is little if any time spent talking about the issues outside this, is this actually dealing with the mess we face?

At the end the was more of the same, this is an actual “academic” problem, ideas please?

#Oxford