Tech governance projects miss the mark because they fail to engage with the real needs and experiences of grassroots activists and community building. This disconnect stems from the entrenched dynamics of the #geekproblem, which prioritize control and certainty over messy collaboration and understanding.
The problem is exacerbated by the detachment of the “professional” #NGO crew, who lack meaningful connections to the communities they aim to serve. Instead of prioritizing the messy, uncertain realities of grassroots activism, they focus on advancing their careers and adhering to predetermined pathways the #geeproblem provide.
If these projects were to pause and genuinely consult with those who have dedicated themselves to grassroots community building for years, they would quickly realize the futility of their efforts. The essence of effective governance lies in embracing uncertainty, fostering messy collaboration, and adapting to the diverse needs and aspirations of real lived communities.
Ultimately, until tech governance initiatives shift their focus from control to collaboration and from career advancement to genuine impact, they will continue to fail their intended goals. It’s time to break free from the confines of the #geekproblem and the trappings of professionalization, and truly engage with the messy, vibrant reality of grassroots activism #OGB
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.
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 spending a little time 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 and real power 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 communities, to add them to there profit margins.
The fall of the openweb, despite early successes was not inevitable, 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 native ideology of the web itself. The pushing of non-native common sense, was damage. 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” open web. The very chaos that once protected the #openweb from vertical integration and monopolization was replaced by a homogenized landscape dominated by a few #dotcons we live in today.
So what are the current 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 like the Fediverse based on mutual aid and cooperation.
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 can work towards reclaiming the path of a more open and decentralized future if they focus better.
St John’s Cinema Club and the TORCH African Languages, Literatures and Cultures Network are excited to welcome Senegalese online television series screenwriter, director and producer Kalista Sy.
The event will start with a brief introduction by Dr Estrella Sendra (Department of Culture, Media and Creative Industries at King’s College London), followed by the screening of the first episode of the series Maîtresse d’un homme marié (Mistress of a Married Man) and a discussion with the filmmaker. Khadidiatou Sy, known as Kalista Sy, is a Senegalese screenwriter, director and producer, who became famous in Africa and beyond following the success of her first series, Maîtresse d’un homme marié (Mistress of a Married Man), known as MDHM. MDHM is the first Senegalese women-led television series where women are placed at the very centre of the narrative. The series, first released on 25 January 2019, and broadcasted online via YouTube, became viral, with over 5 million viewers per episode, and being compared to Sex and the City in international media. In 2019, following the international success of MDHM, Kalista Sy made it to the BBC’s list of the 100 most inspiring and influential women from around the world.
———————————–
The trubbles of middle class African life, dressed in postmodern feminism. A Women’s view of plastic black consumerism.
It’s the #deathcult playing out in the current mess, dressed in western ideas of social norms. It’s not that the life and experiences are not real, it is that the culture they push, and it’s assuming are the problem that I am talking about. The videos try and mediate a “better” path within this #mainstreaming “common sense”.
The is no #lifecult in this TV, the reflection of mess makes more mess. The ideology of the era, the filmmaker says I am the radical, the feminist, people look to me.
The filmmakers are funded by product placement, this is thought out the videos, part of the middle class assumptions and binding to the subject. “People buy their identity” the brands push this into the film’s. This is a #NGO path being pushed throughout Africa. This is the “sex in the city” world view translated to local “common sense” in this it is pushing liberal norms.
One question, “very middle class, is this represented as aspiration. She says this look and aspiration is “normal” there, bueity is their strength. Mental health and sexuality to grow the couching and Therapy industries.
A question of the capitalism of the production, the root story is a reaction agenst male repression, seed money from the husband, then support from the women, it is run at a local level, now it is “sponsored” to tell the stores of the people who pay the bills, this is the sustaining push.
It ends in heroic liberalism, and individualism fighting the good fight, by pushing western #mainstreaming
The #fediverse, promises decentralized social networking and democratic governance, stands as a light of hope for a native #openweb. However, as it navigates the terrain of politics, technology, and human behaviour, it faces challenges that threaten to undermine its #4opens civic potential. In this post, we delve into these challenges and explore potential pathways to realize the promise of the #fediverse.
At the heart of the fediverse lies the tension between its potential benefits and the risks of subversion by commercial interests and structural dysfunction. Commercial capture, driven by the allure of proprietary features and enhanced user experiences, poses a threat to the “open and decentralized nature of the fediverse native culture”. The current shift from distributed funding models to centralized and #NGO ones exacerbates this challenge, leading to a concentration of power and influence in the hands of a few people and entities. To counter this trend, developers, producers, institutions, and users can collectively work to uphold the #4opens principles of interoperability and openness.
Structural dysfunction, characterized by a lack of native governance approaches and a reliance on #DIY moderators and self-funded instances, poses another challenge. Without a “native” structure for governance, the fediverse risks succumbing to governance failures and reputational assaults. To address these issues, there is a pressing need to develop democratic governance structures (like the #OGB) that empower people and ensure accountability and transparency at every level of decision-making.
The fediverse is more than just a technical system; it is also a political structure. As such, it requires a nuanced understanding of the socio-political dynamics that shape its development and governance. Techno-Romanticism, which elevates simplistic views of technological progress and overlooks the labour and networks that underpin it, poses a threat to the fediverse’s sustainability. By fostering a culture of critical engagement and social action, we can mitigate this, to ensure that the Fediverse remains a space for civic discourse and collective action.
In summing up, nurturing the potential of the Fediverse requires a multifaceted approach that transcends technical considerations and delves deep into the socio-political paths. By addressing issues of commercial capture, governance dysfunction, and techno-Romanticism, we pave the way for a native inclusive, democratic, and sustainable Fediverse as an #openweb native network.
The influence of NGOs in social activism raises real concerns, particularly within an online landscape still dominated by centralised #dotcons platforms and gatekeepers. In contrast, the #openweb – rooted in the #4opens principles of decentralisation, open standards, and inclusivity – represents a more genuine path for progressive social change.
However, the rise of #NGO driven “slacktivism” exposes the limits of centralised activism. While petitions and social media campaigns can raise awareness, they lack depth and rarely drive meaningful change. This culture of low-effort engagement stands in stark contrast to the #openweb ethos, where people have the autonomy to participate, create, and take direct action without the constraints of gatekeepers.
A key concern is that NGOs, despite claiming to serve communities, often end up promoting their own interests and priorities. This marginalises “native” voices and disempower grassroots movements. As attention shifts back towards the #openweb, it becomes crucial to guard against this kind of NGO-style centralisation and ensure that power remains distributed across diverse communities.
To resist co-option, we need to hold onto its decentralised, community-grown structures. Building trust, collaboration, and maintaining native culture to keeping mediating spaces free from both corporate and institutional capture.
In conclusion, the #openweb and the #Fediverse are vital tools for grassroots activism and collective action. By resisting centralisation and embracing the #4opens, we help ensure these spaces remain progressive, participatory, and free.
This is something we to often make a mess about, branding on the #openweb and #fediverse touches on both technical and social thinking:
Barrier to Community Adoption: Strong branding in #openweb codebases is a barrier for communities to adopt and customize the technology for their collective use. It limits the ability for different communities and groups to collaborate and share resources.
Centralization of Power: Project branding centralizes power in the hands of developers and funders, rather than the communities that are using and running the instances. This leads to decision-making processes that do not represent the diverse needs and perspectives of users.
Stifling Innovation: A focus on project branding stifles innovation and creativity within the #fediverse. Communities can feel constrained by the predefined branding and unable to express their identities and values through their #openweb spaces they build.
Inequality in Representation: Branding perpetuates inequalities in representation within the #openweb ecosystem. Communities that lack the resources and technical skills to customize branding feel marginalized and excluded from #geekproblem and #mainstreaming discussions and initiatives.
Resistance to Change: Strong project branding creates resistance to change within the community. People become accustomed to the existing branding and are thus reluctant to embrace new ideas and alternative approaches that challenge this often ossified status quo.
So what can we do address these challenges, it’s important to shift the focus from strong project branding to instance branding as this empowers communities to make their own #openweb spaces for collaboration and collective action. This involves:
Rethinking the traditional #NGO concept of branding to finding ways to communicate the values and mission of projects without relying on dominating #mainstreaming branding.
Creating better user experiences for community members to shape the look and feel of their spaces and actively participate them in decision-making processes.
Encouraging open and honest dialogue about the role of branding in the #fediverse and its impact on community participation and representation.
Promoting a culture of responsible branding/templating that prioritizes inclusivity, diversity, and empowerment of people, communertys, not just projects.
By adopting principles and practices, for a decentralized ecosystem within the #openweb and #fediverse, where communities have power over their tools to nurture their community, it matters.
The Universal Mandate of SSL: A Critique from the #openweb path.
In the digital landscape, the ubiquitous presence of #SSL encryption, while undoubtedly enhancing security, raises questions about its compatibility with the ethos of the open web. The story around SSL overlooks its ideological underpinnings and the broader implications of its forced adoption. This article challenge the hegemony of SSL by highlighting limitations and proposing a more nuanced approach to internet security.
At the heart of the issue lies the distinction between the #openweb and the #closedweb, represented respectively by the ethos of accessibility and decentralization, and the closed-off, centralized web. While SSL undoubtedly offers security benefits, its imposition on all online interactions reflects not only technical considerations but also ideological stances. The insistence on universal SSL usage is symptomatic of what we term the #geekproblem—an inclination among technologically inclined people to prioritize technical solutions without consideration of their broader societal implications or the needs of ordinary people.
The universal mandate of SSL, championed by tech giants like Google, not only introduces complexities and barriers for ordinary people but also contributes to the unthinking centralization of internet infrastructure. Let’s Encrypt, an American #NGO and a dominant SSL certification authority, epitomizes this centralization, posing a significant risk of a single point of failure. If compromised, Let’s Encrypt could undermine the security of countless websites and services, highlighting the dangers of relying on centralized authorities for internet security.
Moreover, the imposition of SSL as a default requirement creates hurdles for community-run platforms and DIY enthusiasts seeking to establish their presence on the #openweb. The technical intricacies involved in obtaining, installing, and maintaining SSL certificates can be daunting for non-experts, leading to barriers to entry and discouraging participation in the vibrant ecosystem of the #openweb.
Critically examining the motivations behind the push for universal SSL adoption reveals a fear-based path rooted in a conservative ideology of control. By framing SSL as a tool to be judiciously used rather than universally mandated, we can challenge the prevailing story surrounding internet security and advocate for a more balanced and pragmatic approach.
In conclusion, the universal mandate of SSL represents not only a technical solution to security, but also an ideological stance that warrants examination. By advocating for a more balanced and user-friendly approach rooted in the principles of the #openweb, we foster a digital path that empowers communities, fosters innovation, and safeguards social freedoms. It’s time to rethink projects like universal SSL and embrace a more inclusive and decentralized vision of #4opens “trust” based securit.
The growth of technology has revolutionized the way we live, work, and communicate. However, as we dive deeper into the digital age, we are confronted with the alarming consequences of our reliance on these technologies. The links shed light on the issue of “digital” waste and its detrimental impact on the environment.
Gerry McGovern’s article “World Wide Waste” delves into the staggering amount of energy consumed by digital technologies, from data centres to our personal devices. He emphasizes the urgent need to address this issue and advocates for more sustainable practices. https://gerrymcgovern.com/world-wide-waste/
Similarly, the research conducted by Loughborough University’s Volume project highlights the environmental consequences of digital waste in terms of energy consumption and carbon emissions. The article underscores the importance of adopting eco-friendly approaches to digital design and usage. https://volume.lboro.ac.uk/digital-waste-polluting-the-planet/
Furthermore, the conversation around “dark data” and its contribution to environmental degradation further underscores the need for digital decarbonization. The Guardian’s report on the hidden costs of Ireland’s data centre boom shows the environmental toll of data storage and processing facilities, urging for greater accountability and regulation in the industry. https://theconversation.com/dark-data-is-killing-the-planet-we-need-digital-decarbonisation-190423
In response to these concerns, initiatives like Digital Decarb are a #NGO path to promote sustainable practices in the digital sphere, advocating for reduced energy consumption and carbon emissions. https://digitaldecarb.org/
Let’s look at a real alternative path
In contrast to the prevailing trend of digital overconsumption and waste, the #OMN (Open Media Networking) project presents a refreshing approach to digital technology. Unlike platforms driven by personalization and distraction, #OMN prioritizes community engagement and meaningful interaction. Its core mission revolves around building tools for communal use rather than individual gratification.
This ethos stands in contrast to the #mainstreaming of social tech, which at its core prioritizes personalization and profit over community well-being. By focusing on politics as inherently human rather than as a commodity, #OMN empowers people to reclaim control over their (digital) lives and take a path of genuine connections within their communities and wider society.
However, effectively communicating this message to #mainstreaming audiences is a challenge. The prevailing narrative around digital technology overlooks its environmental and social impact, instead emphasizing convenience and innovation. Breaking through this requires not just words, but tangible actions and demonstrations of the #OMN’s principles in practice.
In essence, #OMN, along with initiatives like #4opens and #OGB, serve as tools for social change, enabling communities to shape their digital environments according to “native” #openweb values and needs. Through collaborative efforts and grassroots activism, we can and need to challenge the status quo. Ultimately, the journey towards digital sustainability requires a collective commitment to reimagining the role of technology in our lives and prioritizing the well-being and communities above all else. The #OMN project invites people to join this endeavour, not just through words, but through meaningful action and collaboration. Together, we can harness the power of technology for the good.
#NGO Internet funding organizations often use #closedweb tools despite their stated commitment to openness and the Digital Commons. Some of these reasons highlight the contradictions:
* Familiarity and Convenience: Funding organizations and their staff are accustomed to using closed tools due to their prevalence in the industry. This is a non “native” aproch that seems natural to them.
* Security Concerns: Closed tools are perceived as more secure, especially when dealing with sensitive information and financial transactions. Funding organizations prioritize security over openness.
* Vendor Lock-In: Closed tools come bundled with proprietary services and platforms, leading to vendor lock-in. Once an organization becomes reliant on a particular closed tool, switching to open alternatives can be challenging and costly.
* Perceived Reliability: Closed tools are associated with established companies or brands who focues on a story of reliability and stability. Funding organizations feel more confident entrusting their operations to these tools, especially if they lack experience with open alternatives.
* Lack of Awareness: Despite their commitment to openness, funding organizations may not be aware of the availability or benefits of open tools. They may simply default to using closed tools out of habit or lack of knowledge about alternative options.
However, advocating for the use of open tools, such as #FOSS video streaming solutions and open collaboration platforms, aligns with the principles of openness and transparency promoted by funding organizations like #NGI. By encouraging the adoption of open tools at events and in everyday operations, organizations can demonstrate their commitment to fostering a more inclusive, accessible, and equitable #openweb.
We need to advocate for a more open-web native approach within the EU and beyond, ensuring that the internet remains a digital common that empowers people and promotes trust, collaboration, and innovation.
There will be lots of VERY bad behaver from the every side in this #openweb reboot, let’s try and keep diversity of voices in place with #4opens process. Please don’t become a prat, as it’s easy to start, and it’s hard to stop, mess and more mess.
Prat ish behaver comes in waves, that matches the waves of #mainstreaming and the Alt reaction to them, this flotsam can make things messy so good to shovel and compost.
Our main #blocking in alts is from our blinded #postmodernists and the culture they have spread for the last ten years… this is very messy and will do damage. As this is a form of “common sense” it’s hard to compost.
We need fresh thinking on this mess.
On the #openweb us and them is simple, we have to define things then collectively fight as hard as we can to keep that definition #4opens#KISS
#openweb spaces, a lot of social suicidal behaver – people strive to destroy the #openweb by pushing non “native” #NGO structures and paths. It’s a hard thing to pushback on, it’s #mainstreaming “common sense” bad behaver and a VERY bad outcome, please try not to be this problem.
What #mastodon is doing now is going to lead to a lot of mess, duo to people squabbling. This might or might not be a level of mess that negates the vertical move to “simplicity” of a single codebase and a single instance. That would be a waste… and it was the king and his https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Favourite that are pushing this mess, good not to get confused about this part.
This is actually the same as the #NGO mess we see in #XR at the same time
As the righwing is failing, the mess is growing in the left…
