A Critique of “fluffy” Leftist and Progressive #AI Paths

In our conversations on #AI there is a copyright trap, pushed in the #mainstreaming, the #fashionista conversation around protecting producers and cultural industries are growing hysterical. Some policymakers and activists are pushing for shielding creators from the very real threats posed by these new technologies. However, in their haste to act, leftist and progressive crew are advocating for the use of copyright law as a defensive path. This approach is a mess and fraught with contradictions and risks, a real “Copyright Trap”.

The Copyright Trap is the “common sense” belief that copyright law can be used as a tool to support and protect producers of our culture. This path is problematic:

Feudal Nature of Copyright: Copyright, along with patents and trademarks, is a form of intellectual property that comes from feudal rights. It grants semi-eternal rents to those who did not contribute to the production of the work, much like the way land was historically controlled by a few powerful lords.
Restriction of the Commons: Copyright takes works out of the public domain and locks them into walled gardens, thus restricting the commons. These runs counter to the principles of #4opens access and communal sharing that activists and progressives champion.
Injustice to Future Creators: By extending and expanding copyright protections, we make it harder for future producers to build upon the shoulders of giants. This stifles creativity, trapping future generations in a cycle of restricted access and limited freedom.

The mess underpin the current debates around AI and copyright:

“If Value, Then (Property) Right” Fallacy: This is the ideological belief that if something has value, it must be protected as property. This ignores the complex ways in which value is created and shared, particularly through communal and collaborative efforts, that do not fit into property rights dogma.
Unauthorized Copying as Inherently Wrongful: The idea that copying is wrong ignores the realities of how culture and knowledge developed through imitation, adaptation, and remixing. This perspective is particularly ill-suited to the #openweb era, where information is shared and transformed.
The Starving Artist Trope: This trope is resurrected to justify the expansion of copyright protections, suggesting that without such protections, artists will starve. This story fails to address the systemic issues that actually lead to the impoverishment of producers, such as inequitable distribution of wealth and the monopolistic practices in the #dotcons.

Using copyright as a weapon against AI companies is counterproductive and hypocritical for those who advocate for the rights of authors, creators, and intellectual workers:

Counter to Progressive Values: Copyright as it stands is a tool of capital that entrenches inequality and restricts access to knowledge and culture. Using it to protect producers from #AI companies simply reinforces a system that many leftists and progressives have long criticized.
Locking Up the Commons: Stronger copyright protections, risk enclosing the cultural commons, making it difficult for producers to share content freely to be built upon.
Hindering change and challenge: Stricter copyright laws stifle social activism, as new producers find it harder to access and build on existing works. This is detrimental in an era where collaborative and iterative creation is key to technological and cultural progress.

Alternative Approaches, to effectively address the risks and harms posed by generative AI, we need to move past the “copyright trap” and look towards more appropriate “native” paths:

Promote #4opens Open Access and Open Source: Encourage the use of open access and open source licenses and traditions that allow for the free sharing and modification of works. This helps knowledge and culture remain accessible for social use.
Equitable Funding Models: Develop new models for supporting creators that do not rely on restrictive copyright laws. This could include systems of public funding, grants, and cooperative ownership that ensure people are fairly compensated for their work without repressively restricting access.
Regulation of #AI Companies: Rather than using copyright as a blunt instrument, on the vertical path, we can regulate AI companies directly. This includes measures to ensure transparency, accountability, and fair compensation for the use of creative works.

The call to use copyright law to protect producers from the threats of #AI is not a useful path for leftist and progressive movements. Instead of reinforcing a flawed and restrictive system, we need to seek “native” #4opens paths that align with our values. By doing so, we build a future where both humane creativity and resulting technology can thrive in balance, and not just #techchun the current mess.

Why #AI is more #techshit

Centrism: The Extremist Ideology

Centrism is the #mainstreaming path meany people take, as it is seen as a rational and moderate stance, that presents itself as a balance of reasonableness in the mess of the polarized world. A closer examination reveals that this “moderate” ideology has extremist implications, particularly in its support of economic inequality and environmental degradation. In the era of #climatechaos and social break down, we need to see the extremist position it is.

The economic extremism of #centrism, at its core supports the status quo, includes the worship of the #deathcult, “common sense” #neoliberalism, with the widespread existence of billionaires and super billionaires. This extreme concentration of wealth among a tiny fraction of the population has far-reaching consequences for economic inequality. The wealth is not only a passive accumulation; it actively siphons resources from the broader populace. The immense financial power translates into influence over political processes, economic policies, and social norms, that creates the current cycle where the rich get richer, and the rest struggle to keep up.

Centrism’s reluctance to challenge this dynamic effectively endorses it. By advocating for incremental change and compromise, and actively opposing more radical reforms. The centrism stance is, not neutral, it is complicit in the current mess that “benefits” the nasty few, wealthy at the expense of the majority. This passive acceptance of economic inequality is easy to see as the extremism it is, as defacto supports of structures that are fundamentally unjust and unsustainable.

Environmental inaction and the climate crisis: centrism’s approach to environmental issues is deeply problematic. In the face of a rapidly escalating #climatechaos, centrists advocate for moderate, incremental measures. While these steps may seem reasonable, they are woefully inadequate given the scale and urgency of the problem. The scientific consensus is clear: drastic and immediate action is necessary to mitigate the worst effects of climate change.

By endorsing minimal and gradual responses, centrism effectively delays meaningful action. This not only fails to address the environmental crisis but also exacerbates it. The longer significant action is postponed, the more severe the consequences will be for the planet and future generations. In this, centrism’s support for the status quo is not a neutral position but a deeply destructive one. It aligns with a form of nihilism, where the impending environmental catastrophe is met with complacency and inaction.

The nihilistic push of centrism, with the failed path of addressing pressing economic and environmental issues, reflects a broader nihilistic path. Nihilism, the belief that life lacks meaning or purpose, is characterized by apathy and inaction. When centrism advocates for minimal changes in the face of profound challenges, it embraces this nihilistic outlook, a resignation to the current state of affairs, despite its clear inadequacies. This nihilism is particularly evident in centrism’s response to social issues. While centrists acknowledge problems such as poverty, inequality, and climate change, their proposed solutions lack the urgency and scope needed to effect real change. By prioritizing stability and gradualism over justice and sustainability, centrism contributes to a sense of hopelessness and futility.

With the need for radical change, it is clear that centrism is not the moderate or rational stance it purports to be. Its support for the status quo, in both economic and environmental terms, reveals a deeply flawed ideology. To address the urgent challenges facing society, we must move beyond centrism and embrace more radical approaches that prioritize a different “common sense”. What we call this is up in the air but, economic reforms such as wealth redistribution, progressive taxation, and corporate regulation are necessary to tackle inequality. Similarly, bold environmental policies, including a rapid transition to renewable energy, stringent emissions targets, and conservation efforts, are essential to combat the #climatecrisis. These measures may seem radical, but they are proportionate responses to the severity of the problems we face.

The extremist ideology of #centrism, with its innate reluctance to challenge the status quo, pushes injustice and exacerbates the #climatecrisis. We are far down this deeply destructive path, that is increasingly simple nihilism. Ideas please to try to mediate this all to common crap and prat’ish behaver please.

The Mess, Delusion Folly and Hysteria

It should be obvious to most of us that we’re moving through an era of mass delusion, unbridled folly, and unrestrained hysteria, with the old facts and reason’s forgotten amidst the building #climatechaos of social and ecological breakdown. We are in this mess due to the embrace of the #dotcons, the spread of misinformation and the decline of rational discourse that has now reached alarming levels. Social media platforms, echo chambers, and the proliferation of fake news have created a fertile ground for delusion to thrive. Conspiracy theories abound, gaining traction despite being thoroughly debunked. From anti-vaccine movements to flat Earth theories, unscientific beliefs flourish in the absence of #KISS skepticism.

“We’re living in an age of mass delusion, unbridled folly, unrestrained hysteria. Facts & reason have slipped down the back of the sofa and been forgotten. Our descendants (should there be any) will look back on this time the way we look back on our ergot-infected ancestors who arrested chickens on suspicion of using dark magic and believed wombs could wander around women’s bodies.” https://kolektiva.social/deck/@Richard_Littler@mastodon.social

The rise of these delusions is not only a result of ignorance, rather the outcome of our embracing of #postmodern and #neoliberalism that has been pushed over us for the last 40 years. This has lead to distrust in institutions, polarization, and the commodification of attention, all contributing to an environment where sensationalism overshadows substance. The erosion of shared reality undermines the foundation of democratic society, making it difficult to address catastrophic challenges such as #climatechaos or basic things like public health crises, and social inequality.

History offers examples of mass hysteria and folly that parallel our current predicament. The ergot-induced hallucinations of the Middle Ages, led to bizarre and irrational behaviour, are strikingly similar to the modern phenomenon of mass delusion. During the Salem witch trials, fear and superstition overpowered reason, leading to the persecution of innocent people. Similarly, the belief in “wandering wombs” reflects how unscientific ideas can dominate medical understanding and treatment.

These historical episodes remind us that human societies are vulnerable to waves of irrationality. They illustrate how fear, ignorance, and social dynamics create paths where absurd beliefs take hold. Importantly, they also highlight paths that exacerbating or mitigating these delusions. In the past, religious and political leaders fueled hysteria for their gain, much like our #mainstreaming crew that exploit misinformation for power and profit.

The role of technology in amplifying delusion, our embraces of the #dotcons age has magnified the impact of mass delusion. Algorithms designed to maximize engagement prioritize sensational and polarizing content, creating echo chambers that reinforce #mainstreaming mess, to amplify misinformation. The speed and reach of social media allow falsehoods to spread rapidly, outpacing efforts to debunk them. This environment fosters a culture where emotional appeals and confirmation bias trump evidence and any attempt at rationality.

The consequences of mass delusion are far-reaching and catastrophic. In the realm of public health, vaccine misinformation has led to the resurgence of preventable diseases. Climate change denial hampers efforts to address one of the most pressing existential threats facing humanity. Political polarization, fueled by misinformation, erodes trust in basic democracy and undermines our hard won social stability.

On a more personal level, individuals caught in the web of delusion suffer from cognitive dissonance, living in a reality disconnected from the social facts. This not only affects their decision-making, but also strains relationships and fosters an environment of suspicion and hostility. The cumulative effect is a mess where fear and mistrust easily push over cooperation and mutual understanding.

Addressing the age of mass delusion requires a multifaceted approach. Education systems must prioritize critical thinking and media literacy, equipping people with the tools to discern facts from fictions. We need to build institutions and networks like the #OMN, particularly in media and technology, to take some responsibility for curbing the spread of misinformation and promoting more reliable and truthful sources of information. Encouraging open dialogue can help bridge divides and rebuild trust in shared reality. The #4opens are a path to this to not only challenging falsehoods but also providing compelling narratives that resonate with people’s values and emotions. By creating a social environment that rewards paths of truth and reasonableness, we can push back at the tide of delusion and hysteria.

Our age of delusion, folly, and hysteria mirrors historical periods of irrationality and superstition. The erosion of shared social norms and reasonableness poses obverse risks to public health, democracy, and social cohesion. The path forward is clear, use the #4opens and tools like the #OMN to reclaim our commitment to truth and foster meany societies that value evidence and critical thinking #KISS

How can we get people not to be prats about this path, ideas, please?

Reconnect with Our Social Roots

The path through technology, society, and environmental crises is a challenge that most people find difficult to find, let alone walk. This is why I have been building “sign posts” in a #hashtag story for the last 20 years, hashtags such as #geekproblem, #KISS, #4opens, and #deathcult etc. These are metaphors that highlight our technological thinking and represent issues and philosophies that make visible the paths of technological advancements and social cohesion. By using these “signs” and path, people can better understand the need to move from individualistic and technocentric working to collective and sustainable social practices.

The #geekproblem has the tendency of technologists and enthusiasts to focus excessively on technical solutions, neglecting the social and human aspects of these paths. Technologists struggle to comprehend the simplicity of #KISS path to overcome the tunnel vision where technical fixes are panaceas, side lining the importance of social dynamics and community engagement. The #4opens framework—open data, open source, open standards, and open process—offers a counterbalance by providing a structure that promotes transparency and collaboration. However, this does not inherently solve issues; it simply creates a space for people to engage and address problems collectively.

A significant barrier to overcoming the #geekproblem and embracing more holistic approaches is the pervasive culture of #deathcult worship. This is a metaphorical for the last 40 years of #neoliberalism, a term that describes the idolization of technological progress and capitalist efficiency at the expense of environmental sustainability and social well-being. Many people and groups, consciously or unconsciously, worship this path, prioritizing short-term gains and #fashionista “marvels” over sustainability and human connections.

The worship of this #deathcult is destructive because it undermines broader societal issues, it pushes the culture of #stupidindividualism with blinded competition, making it challenging to discuss and address anything outside the #mainstreaming agenda. This focus diverts attention from the collective action needed for #KISS tackling complex problems like #climatechaos and resulting social break down.

In this metaphor, composting represents the process of breaking down and re-evaluating our technological and social practices. It requires a willingness to let go of dysfunctional and harmful paradigms and to create fertile ground for new seeds or sustainable and humane approaches. This fertile soil, enriched by lessons learned and experiences gained, can nurture the sprigs of humanity through the on rushing era of #climatechaos.

To move beyond this destructive worship and technocentric mindset, we need to recognize and reject the blinded pushing of technology and efficiency as easy goals. This involves a critical examination of our values and the systems we support, using the #4opens to composting the piles of #techshit accumulated over the past decade’s symbolizes a necessary shift from merely accumulating technological advancements to reflecting on their impact and repurposing them for good.

Pickup your #OMN shovel and get to work:

Balance Individualism: Embrace collective action and community engagement. Recognize that social problems cannot be solved by technical solutions alone.
Promote the #4opens: Encourage transparency, collaboration, and openness in all endeavours. Use these principles to create spaces where people can engage and address issues together.
Critique the #Deathcult: Actively challenge the idolization of blinded technological progress and capitalist efficiency. Advocate for sustainable and socially responsible practices.
Compost and Rebuild: Reflect on past practices, learn from mistakes, and repurpose technology to support long-term sustainability and human well-being.
Nurture Humanity: Focus on building strong, resilient communities that can withstand and adapt to the challenges of the #climatechaos era.

The journey to overcoming the #geekproblem and moving away from #deathcult worship is needed, it’s past the time to pick up your shovels and make compost on this.

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

The Path Beyond #Neoliberalism

With the onrushing impact of current climate and systemic crises, it becomes realistic to see that #neoliberalism, free-market orthodoxy and the pushing of minimal state intervention, is fundamentally an inadequate path that is ill-equipped to address #climatechaos and social challenges we face. This failure means a radical shift in perspective and approach is going to happen, with this we might need to shift our “common sense” to being something like “Revolutionary Realism.”

The current #mainstreaming of false promises of #Neoliberalism over the last 40 years has pushed the fundamentalist free market path as the engine of prosperity, wealth and efficiency. However, since the 2008 financial crisis, these promises have increasingly rung hollow. The empirical evidence, rising inequality, decreasing life expectancy, and environmental degradation, exposes the limitations and failures of this economic orthodoxy.

From our turn of the century Alt globalization movement, we have Mark Fisher’s concept of “capitalist realism”, which describes the pervasive belief that capitalism is the only viable economic system. This helps us to see that the invisible dogma has fostered a sense of fatalism, particularly on the left, where a resignation to critique and protest has replaced active efforts to envision and construct alternatives. This defeatism perpetuates the status quo, as it undermines belief in the possibility of systemic change.

There is a need for revolutionary paths in the imminent collapse of capitalism, contrary to the notion that capitalism is indestructible, we are witnessing its destabilization under the weight of its inherent contradictions and the accelerating climate mess. This realization should be pushing a shift from capitalist realism to revolutionary realism, to acknowledging the inevitability of capitalism’s decline and the necessity of preparing for what comes next.

The climate crisis is a catalyst, a primary driver of this transformation, from droughts affecting global trade to natural disasters disrupting economies, the environmental impacts of #climatechaos are compounding the systemic vulnerabilities. These disruptions necessitate a move towards a different way of organizing economic systems, this could be a controlled and planned economic system or more a balance of grassroots federated democracy.

State control of the economy is one path, historically, state intervention has proven effective in times of crisis, as seen during World War II and the COVID-19 pandemic. State control of the economy does not inherently mean totalitarianism; it can involve a balanced approach, with both top-down planning and bottom-up participation.

Effective planning is a path we might need to take, for managing resources and ensuring equitable distribution. This could involve simplifying economic processes, such as reducing the variety of consumer goods and localizing production to reduce dependency on international trade. Digital #4opens technology can enhance this planning by providing real-time #opendata and facilitating more responsive governance based on metadata as the signal to guide the economic and social flows.

Democratic Participation is a path to avoid the pitfalls of authoritarianism, any new system must incorporate democratic mechanisms, such as #OGB path of building the power of citizens’ assemblies, to legitimize state actions and ensure accountability. This grassroots participatory approach mitigates the risk of corruption and foster a sense of collective responsibility.

Practical steps for transition are free basics and maybe rationing if it’s needed. A key element of a new system would be the socialization of essential services, healthcare, housing, and food production, to ensure that everyone’s basic needs are met. Rationing of luxuries and non-essential goods can help to push some sustainability and equity on this mediation path.

Encouraging worker participation in decision-making using projects like the #OGB and perhaps supporting small businesses, as a social democratic path out of the current #mainstreaming, can humanize the economy and maintain a degree of market diversity to push the needed transition. This hybrid approach blends state control with “entrepreneurial” social freedom, making the path through the coming mess by balancing efficiency with innovation to shift our dogmatic illiberal common sense.

But fundamentally we need a cultural shift towards valuing sustainability, community, and collective well-being over the #stupidindividualism of hyper consumerism. This can be promoted through, empowering #DIY education, radical media (#indymediaback), and grassroots movements. There is a long history of this (#makinghistory) which we need to remind our selves about.

The transition from current #mainstreaming to a more sustainable and equitable system requires revolutionary realism, a pragmatic recognition of the imminent collapse of the current system and a proactive approach to growing its successor. This might involve embracing state control, and or fostering grassroots democratic participation, to push the cultural shift towards sustainability and collective well-being. Can we navigate the complexities of this transition to take the path to building a more resilient and just society is the most important question for our time?

State Funding of #FOSS and Open Source: Is it a Good Idea or a Bad Idea?

The questioning over state funding of Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) and open-source initiatives revolves around invisible ideological debates about benefits and drawbacks. Let’s look at this from a few specific examples: #NLnet, #NGI, and the European Union (#EU), to understanding the implications and effectiveness of this funding path.

The #NLnet Foundation is a notable example of an organization that provides funding to open-source projects. Supported by private and public funds, including significant contributions from the #EU, NLnet focuses on promoting a free, open, and secure internet.

The #NGI initiative, funded by the #EU, aims to shape the development of the internet of tomorrow. By supporting a range of open-source projects, NGI tries to foster innovation, privacy, and security. It emphasizes human-concentric technology, ensuring that the future internet respects humanistic values and needs.
The #EU has been a significant proponent of FOSS, providing funding through programs such as Horizon 2020 and Horizon Europe. The EU’s supports digital sovereignty, reduce dependency on non-European technologies through promoting open standards.

The is some democratization as these state-funded FOSS projects ensure software is accessible to wider groups, thus reducing the digital divide. For instance, NGI-funded projects are supposed to focus on inclusivity and user empowerment. At best, this transparency brings public overview to these processes.

There are some economic benefits and cost savings in using and supporting FOSS instead of expensive proprietary software. Funding initiatives like NGI stimulate innovation by allowing developers to build upon existing open-source projects, fostering a collaborative environment. Though, there are unspoken issues of sustainability in a pure capitalist path, thus the question of balance in state funding.

Open-source software allows for independent security audits, reducing the risk of vulnerabilities. The EU’s investment in secure communication tools underlines this advantage. Reducing reliance on a few large proprietaries #dotcons software vendors enhances national security and control. The EU’s support for open-source projects aims to bolster humanistic digital sovereignty.

For example, #NLnet’s diverse (though #geekproblem) funding portfolio highlights this limited community-driven development. The collaboration between public institutions, the private sector, and community contributors helps #NGI projects bring together diverse stakeholders to work on common goals. #FOSS projects thrive on community contributions, leading to continuous improvement and support and thus in theory community needs, though due to the dogmatic #geekproblem this is currently failing.

Funding Continuity: Projects become dependent on government funding, which currently is not stable or continuous. For example, sudden policy shifts in the EU affect long-term project sustainability. Without a sustainable funding, FOSS projects struggle with long-term maintenance and support.

Most #FOSS projects are too idiosyncratic to meet quality #UX standards. Thus, the current #geekproblem dominated process means that state funding inadvertently support meany unusable and thus pointless, subpar projects. Effective diversity and oversight of these mechanisms are crucial to mitigate this failing path.

Government involvement leads to bureaucracy, slowing down and ossifying development cycles, currently we do not work though this path well, The balance between oversight, diversity and agility is critical. With the #EU path this is a huge problem leading to almost all the current funding bring poured down the drain.

For #mainstreaming capitalism the issue of “Market Distortion”, the idea of competition raises the issue of state funding distorting “market” dogmas to disadvantage private companies and startups that don’t receive government support. For instance, EU funding can overshadow smaller #dotcons, capitalist thinking sees this as a risk that government-backed projects might stifle innovation by shaping the market landscape.

Political and ideological biases influence which projects receive funding, this is currently pushing a #blocking of the needed “native” #openweb path. How to move past this to ensuring diversity and “impartiality” in funding decisions need real work. How can we shift this “common sense” focus that government priorities do not align with the wider needs of the #openweb community and end-users. Aligning funding priorities with community needs is needed to address this concern, how can we make this happen with funding like #NLnet and #NGI?

To sum up, #NLnet are doing some good work, but this is focused on feeding the #geekproblem and building #fashionista careers, evern then on balance they do a better job than most. Then the wider #NGI funding is going into the #dotcons and #NGO mess, thus being poured directly down the drain. Over all, it’s fantastic that the #EU is funding the #openweb even if it is doing it very badly by funding very little that is native or useful.

Conclusion, state funding for FOSS and open-source initiatives, in our examples #NLnet, #NGI, and the #EU, has potential for creating real change and challenge, but this path presents both opportunities and challenges. When implemented thoughtfully, it can foster “native” paths, innovation, reduce costs, and enhance community and security to challenge the current worshipping of the #deathcults by our widespread use of the #dotcons. The question is the will and understanding to balancing this path to ensures that state funding positively contributes to the #4opens FOSS ecosystem, driving forward a free, open digital future or just leads to the capitalistic criticism of waste and distortion? At best and at worst, we see some real change and a lot of poring funding down the drain to feed some #geekproblem and build the careers of a few #fashernistas

The is much to compost in the current mess, can we get funding for shovels please #OMN

Addressing the #geekproblem

A river that needs crossing political and tech – On the political side, there is arrogance and ignorance, on the geek side there is naivety and over complexity. All code is ideology solidified into action – most contemporary code is capitalism, this is hardly a surprise if you think about this for a moment. Yes you can try and act on any ideology on top of this code, but the outcome and assumptions are preprogramed… cant find any good links on this…

As a useful path, we need to look at technology from the social prospective to have any hope of the needed change and challenge. With this view, on one hand, it’s interesting to look at how data and metadata serve as the social glue binding society together. And on the other, how our contemporary #deathcult worship—championing separation and anonymization through privacy and security efforts coded by the #geekproblem—undermines this needed social cohesion.

If you are a part of this #geekproblem then it is worth taking a step back to consider how our current coding practices shaped by society and liberalism affect both society and ecology in this blind worship. This “common sense” dogmatic path leads us toward corporate “socialism”, which is the path to fascism, where the laws and norms are tailored to benefit a select few at the top of the shit pile we live in. Consequently, this data and metadata privatization, pushes us down the path to a disturbing shift towards “National Socialism” that then becomes the #mainstreaming.

The #KISS path to address this #geekproblem is to #stepaway from this cycle and code outside the confines of #mainstreaming liberalism without going down the fascism path.

To achieve meaningful change, we must examine technology from a social perspective. On one hand, data and metadata act as the social glue binding society. On the other, our obsession with privacy and security—driven by the #geekproblem—undermines this cohesion.

If you’re part of the #geekproblem, consider how our coding practices, influenced by liberalism, affect society and ecology. This “common sense” liberalism leads to corporate “socialism,” benefiting a select few and paving the way to fascism, with laws favouring the rich. Privatizing data and metadata pushes us towards a disturbing shift to “National Socialism” #mainstreaming.

The #KISS approach to this issue is to step away from this cycle, coding outside mainstream liberalism without veering towards fascism.

This is on this subject

Who’s responsible #Climatechaos?

The CEO of a large oil company made a statement about climate change, suggesting that consumers are to blame for the slow progress in addressing the issue. According to him, the companies have the technology to produce lower-carbon fuels, but consumers are unwilling to pay the premium for these greener alternatives. He argued that consumer choices, driven by price sensitivity, are hindering the adoption of cleaner energy solutions. Criticizing activists and society at large, claiming that their exclusion of the fossil fuel industry from the climate change dialogue is counterproductive. He believes that the industry has the potential to contribute significantly to climate solutions, but is being sidelined by activist-driven narratives.

In this market logic perspective, in the principles of the free market, corporations innovate and consumers drive demand, it’s up to consumers to “vote with their dollars” and choose sustainable products, thereby incentivizing companies to invest in and produce greener options.

However, this viewpoint has sparked a backlash and if you think about it as the problem of our current “common sense”, it is useful to look at this logic as akin to a drug lord blaming society for drug problems, highlighting the evil in the shifting responsibility from producers to consumers. The argument assumes that consumer choices alone is the driving force for systemic change, ignoring the influence and responsibility of corporations (capitalism) in driving fossil fuel dependency. Remember that a significant portion of global greenhouse gas emissions can be traced to a handful of companies. A 2017 study revealed that just 100 companies are responsible for 71% of global emissions since 1988. This highlights the disproportionate impact that corporations have on the environment, underscoring the need for systemic change rather than the #fashernista pushed ideas of individual consumer “choice”.

Shifting the blame onto consumers, is diverting responsibility for climate change and the disasters’ role that fossil fuel companies play in this mess. This #mainstreaming narrative misleads by pushing that meaningful climate action is unattainable without consumer-driven solutions, a dangerous assertion in the social and environmental mess we face.

The #traditionalmedia portrays oil companies as rational actors operating within the bounds of market logic, while the activists are depicted as radical outliers. This agenda reinforces the status quo and diminishes the urgency of the need for change and challenge. In the political arena, climate change takes a backseat to concerns like the economy and healthcare. Even as climate awareness grows, it remains challenging to prioritize it in main streaming political discourse and policymaking.

This on the surface is simply “common sense” but lifting the lid, and you find a darker and conspiratorial story about the ascent of #neoliberalism and its pervasive influence. Neoliberalism, that this #CEO is speaking, is about advocating for the primacy of free markets, deregulation, and globalization, is deeply ingrained in modern political and economic thought. Originating from the ideas of thinkers such as Friedrich Hayek, this neoliberalism path has undergone a transformation and expansion, and now profoundly shaping policies and ideologies across the globe.

The term “neoliberal” was coined in 1938 and gained prominence with the publication of Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom in 1944. Hayek’s argument that individual self-interest is the only safeguard against tyranny found a receptive audience among the ultra-rich, who were portrayed as heroic figures resisting governmental overreach. The Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) influence extended to the US, where he established the Atlas Network, an umbrella organization that encompasses over 450 think tanks, including groups like the Cato Institute and the Heritage Foundation. These organizations, many of which operate as charities, do not disclose their donors, allowing them to exert opaque influence on shaping policy and public opinion.

Over the next three decades, a network of academics, journalists, and business people emerged, refining and promoting the ideology. Wealthy individuals and corporations funded lobby groups that presented themselves as impartial research institutes, further embedding neoliberal principles into the political mainstream. While initially having little impact on the social democratic postwar consensus, these ideas later inspired conservative political leaders like Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, who lead, neoliberalism’s major breakthrough in the 1970s, during the economic turmoil caused by the oil crisis and the decline of Keynesianism. Governments, seeking new economic models, turned to neoliberal solutions. As Milton Friedman, a prominent neoliberal economist, noted, “when the time came, we were ready … and we could step right in.” The resulting policies of tax cuts, weakening of trade unions, privatization and outsourcing of public services, and widespread market deregulation lead directly to the mess we are in today.

We are feeling the consequences of 40 years of the neoliberal era in the growing extreme economic disparities. In the United States, the wealthiest 1% own a third of the nation’s wealth. This shift to neoliberalism failed to deliver on its promise of robust economic growth, over the past 40 years, global growth has been slower compared to the postwar period. Instead, we have seen the rise of oligarchs who have reshaped capitalism to serve their interests, through mechanisms like offshore tax havens and political influence. Despite failure, the ideology remains a dominant force in shaping contemporary political and economic paths.

A green #mainstreaming look at a path out of this

Over the next 20 years, the oil and gas push the impact of #climatechaos that will kill millions of people and displace billions. The rise of this #deathcult illustrates the profound impact that a coordinated network of ideologically driven institutions and individuals can have on global policy and economic systems. We should learn from this, activists and grassroots movements are needed to push for more aggressive climate action, aspesherly when their efforts are met with resistance and dismissal. This resistance balances the fossil fuel industry’s substantial influence on politics and media. Fossil fuel, alongside most major corporations, spend millions on lobbying and advertising to protect their interests. The climate crisis demands urgent and radical action, to balance this pushing of mess, while individual choices play a small role, placing the burden solely on this as the oil CEO does is adding to the mess and a distraction from the path we need to take.

This post was inspired by the reviews of George Monbiot new book https://www.monbiot.com

#cop, a look at #mainstreaming mess

Why the pushing of #AI is more #techshit

The #stupidindividualism of the Silicon Valley’s ideology, around tech-driven libertarianism and as our chattering classes say “hyper-individualism”, is spreading social mess and #techshit, we need shovels to compost. It’s now clear that these anti #mainstreaming ‘solutions’ create more problems than they attempt to solve, particularly in terms of social breakdown and environmental damage. The utopian nightmares of tech billionaires collapse under the weight of on rushing real-world challenges. This should make visible to more of us the #geekproblem, the limits of technocratic fixes. The lies under the once-promised technological mediated future of freedom and innovation has been shown to be control and chaos, this should make it obvious that we need to take different paths away from the Silicon Valley’s delusion.

A podcast from of our weak liberals on the subject of #AI https://flex.acast.com/audio.guim.co.uk/2024/07/15-61610-gnl.sci.20240715.eb.ai_climate.mp3 a #mainstreaming view of the mess we are making on this path. The big issue is not the actual “nature” of AI, though that is not without issues. What I am covering here is that #AI is reinforcing existing power structures and socioeconomic realities, #neoliberal ideology and historical bias. This is driven by the goals of enhancing efficiency, reducing costs, and maximizing profits by increased surveillance, this in itself should raise ethical concerns about privacy and freedoms, that the #geekproblem so often justifies under the guise of security.

We need to think about this: AI systems trained on data from the past 40 years are inherently biased by the socio-political context of that period, perpetuating what are now outdated and obsolete beliefs. This historical bias locks in narrow ideological paths, particularly those associated with #neoliberalism and our 40 years worshipping at this #deathcult. This is not only a problem with AI, its a wider issue, we continue to prioritize economic growth over social and environmental paths, with the resent election victory in the UK, the Labour Party’s is pushing the normal #mainstreaming established during the #Thatcher era, in this we see past ideologies continue to shape current #mainstreaming political paths, the tech simply reinforces this.

It’s hard to know what path to take with this mess. Ethical frameworks like the #4opens and regulatory oversight to guide the responsible use of AI might help. By addressing the current mess and challenges, we might be able to work towards an AI path that reflects diverse perspectives and serves a more common good rather than reinforcing narrow #deathcult litany and hard right ideological paths this grows, which is the current default path. Recognizing and addressing the challenges in AI development is the first step towards the change we need to challenge, us, to compost this social mess and heaps of #techshit we have created, that shapes us.

A Critique of “fluffy” Leftist and Progressive #AI Paths

UPDATE: An academic talking about this has just come out https://arxiv.org/pdf/2410.18417

Keeping communication barriers in place, leads to a lack of awareness

This is a core problem of #fashernista driven paths, pushing aside grassroots and #openweb movements, due to misalignment agendas. The #fashernists are driven by #mainstreaming agendas that end up co-opt grassroots projects, then pushing systematizing them in ways that dilute their “original native” paths, intent and value. This mess making leads to #techchurn and a continuous cycle of superficial innovation that does nothing to address real needed issues at all.

This resulting #blocking of communication leads to a lack of awareness in people involved in these movements, limited understanding of the history and principles underlying the #KISS grassroots and #openweb paths. With the #fediverse, decentralization is a core principle, though it often leads to difficulties in coordination and collective decision-making. This in hand with the “common sense” #mainstreaming people’s resistances to adopting new models of governance and cooperation like the #OGB pushes the current social mess and #techcurn mess we live in.

There are proposed solutions to this, build and support authentic projects, like the #OMN and #OGB etc. To grow collaborative governance and inclusive decision-making, start with small-scale pilot projects to demonstrate the effectiveness of collaborative governance to “test” decentralized development. Then use these projects (with federation) as models for larger initiatives, rinse and repeat, it’s a #KISS path, which leads to the cultivation of a community of resilience and nurtures infrastructure that is robust and adaptable, capable of withstanding the normal pressures and disruptions.

Part of this path is the need to challenge #mainstreaming narratives with alternative progressive media (#indymediaback) providing a counter-story, then pushing this feedback loop to highlight successes and innovations within the grassroots and #openweb movements.

Also using the #4opens as a key to encourage critical engagement with #geekproblem and #dotcons projects, questioning their alignment with grassroots values and thus pushing for accountability and transparency to really move people off these paths.

Let’s start embracing the composting of #techshit to turn the current stinking mess into fertile ground for new #openweb growth and innovation. Let’s pick up our shovels to build the change and challenge, that is so obviously needed, and please try not to be a prat, thanks.

“The work of the anarchist is above all a work of critique. The anarchist goes, sowing revolt against that which oppresses, obstructs, opposes itself to the free expansion of the individual being.”
— Emile Armand

Grassroots in Tech Communities: Challenges and Paths

The discussions surrounding grassroots movements within tech communities should be entwined with social themes, such as #neoliberalism and #postmodernism. As these ideologies shape what is considered “common sense” and create real barriers to introducing alternative viewpoints and practices that we need. Within this conversation, progressive grassroots initiatives need to counteract these dominant paradigms, but instead they frequently face challenges both from within and outside their communities.

The concept of #mainstreaming refers to the process where dominant ideologies and practices become the accepted norm, marginalizing alternative perspectives. This current mainstreaming is driven by the forces of neoliberalism, emphasizes market-driven solutions and (stupid) individualism, and (zombie) postmodernism, that both foster a sense of scepticism and relativism. Together, these forces create a “common sense” that is actively hostile to grassroots progressive initiatives.

Let’s look at a few of the “surface issue” faced by Grassroots Movements:

Perception of Spam: As highlighted in #socialhub experiences, grassroots advocates face accusations of spamming when they consistently share links and resources to support #KISS arguments. This perception can stem from a purposeful misunderstanding of the intent behind sharing information, which is actually to provide context and facilitate basic understanding.
Resistance to Alternative Views: When #mainstreaming ideas are challenged, the response is often, hostile, defensive and then dismissive. This resistance is rooted in cognitive dissonance and the threat to personal and collective identities that alternative viewpoints need to pose.
Governance Issues: Effective governance within tech communities is crucial for growing wider inclusivity and legitimacy. However, governance processes become contentious, particularly when there are differing visions for the community’s direction and priorities. This is a ongoing problem with much of the #feudalism in current #FOSS thinking.

Some projects designed to mediate these issues

The Open-Media-Network (#OMN) and its associated projects, such as the Open Governance Body (#OGB) and the #4opens framework, represent grassroots efforts to address these challenges. These aim to be more democratic and inclusive “trust” based paths for growing the native #openweb. They emphasize transparency, open governance, and community-driven development.

Open Web Governance Body (#OGB): Project is for creating governance structures for horizontal projects using simple online tools. By promoting open and inclusive governance, the OGB mitigates the issues caused by #mainstreaming and ensure that grassroots voices are heard and valued.
The #4opens Framework: Advocates for open data, open source, open standards, and open processes. By adhering to these principles, grassroots movements can grow robust defences against co-optation to maintain the path of autonomy and integrity.

What can you do to help:

Build Community and Solidarity: Strengthening ties within the communities by fostering a sense of shared purpose to help counteract the fragmentation often caused by dominant ideologies.
Educate and Inform: Providing accessible and compelling information about the benefits of alternative viewpoints and practices to shift perceptions and reduce resistance.
Engage in Dialogue: Creating spaces for open and respectful dialogue can help bridge divides and shift mutual understanding.
Leverage Technology: Utilizing #openweb tools and platforms like the #OMN and wider #Fediverse to empower grassroots movements to organize effectively and promote their message and escape the narrowing #dotcons echo chambers.

The struggle to establish and maintain grassroots movements within tech communities is ongoing and very messy. By understanding the dynamics of #mainstreaming and employing strategies to counteract this, movements can create more inclusive and democratic paths. The initiatives by the Open-Media-Network offer real grassroots frameworks and tools for achieving these goals, demonstrating that a small group of thoughtful, committed people can indeed change the world.

Become a part of this movement https://opencollective.com/open-media-network

The Hydrogen Path is #techchurn

Hydrogen is heralded by our conservative crew as a miracle fuel, offering a clean and carbon-free source of energy. By combining hydrogen with atmospheric oxygen, we produce water and energy, a blinded “perfect” solution for fantasy energy needs. However, hydrogen has drawbacks that make its large-scale adoption a #geekproblem dysfunctional fantasy.

Challenges with Hydrogen: Hydrogen needs to be stored under high pressure, requiring expensive infrastructure. It also degrades this infrastructure, the materials it contacts, in use, necessitating specialized storage solutions. Hydrogen is highly volatile and very prone to leaks. Its tendency to evaporate and explode make it difficult to manage safely for any #mainstreaming widespread use.

Energy Conversion Efficiency: The biggest issue with hydrogen is its inefficiency. Energy conversion processes inherently lose energy at each stage. Generating electricity, converting it to hydrogen, storing it, and then converting it back to electricity results in an efficiency of around 30-40%. This is a very bad ecological path to go down, as a significant portion of the original “green” energy is wasted.

Hydrogen as Energy Storage, Hydrogen is pushed as a solution to the intermittent nature of renewable energy sources like wind and solar power. By using excess renewable energy to produce hydrogen, it can be stored and later converted back to electricity when needed. However, the inefficiency of this process poses a major obstacle. The loss of energy at each conversion stage means that using hydrogen as a storage medium is far less efficient than direct use of the electricity generated. Changing lifestyle to reflect this shifting of energy supply is a much more sensible and sustainable path to take. The pushing of the economic feasibility of hydrogen energy storage is adding to the current mess.

Governmental Strategies and Investments, despite this mess, some countries, like the USA, the UK, and Germany, are pursuing hydrogen strategies. However, much of the progress remains theoretical, with plans significantly outstripping current capabilities. For instance, the International Energy Agency’s data shows a massive gap between existing hydrogen production capacity and future targets, with only a small fraction of these plans having secured funding.

Procrastination and Continued Fossil Fuel Use, one of the most #mainstreaming reason for the hydrogen push is procrastination. By planning to use hydrogen in new power plants, governments can appear to be moving towards greener energy solutions while continuing to rely on fossil fuels. Many of these new plants are designed to run on both hydrogen and natural gas, meaning that in the absence of sufficient hydrogen, they will continue to operate on gas. This approach allows for the continuation of fossil fuel use under the guise of transitioning to green energy.

Conclusion, the current push for hydrogen as an energy solution is adding to the current mess, it’s plagued by challenges and inefficiencies. While hydrogen has potential in specific applications, such as industrial processes, its role in large-scale energy storage and production is limited by practical and economic constraints. The hydrogen economy, in its present form, primarily serves as a way to justify the continued use of fossil fuels rather than an any genuine transition to cleaner energy.

Let us please stop with the lies, thanks.