Tag: NGO

The Open Media Network (#OMN) is a set of tools to empower communities

People find it hard to understand the “unique” selling point of the #OMN beyond the tech, which is “common sense”. And this is, drum roll, reveal, that people and content are data objects in the “commons” by default and only private/owed by exception. This is the basic #KISS “unique” selling point of the #OMN there we are, I said it was simple.

It’s interesting with all the talk about the project over the last ten years this was never talked about. This is a direct result of the agenda blocking of the #geekproblem, #fashernista agenda and #NGO control mess. We never actually get to the bits that matter as we are so fussed talking about the bits that don’t matter, the ones the groups above push. This is a mess that we urgently need to compost.

The Open Media Network (OMN) is a set of tools to empower YOU to change and challenge the world we live (and die) in. The OMN is about opening up the flow of information and breaking down the silos that keep data locked in walled gardens. It’s an “anything in and anything out” network, operating through mediated trust database/flows that puts power back into the hands of grassroots paths. This framework is built from the #fediverse to flow freely, with control in the hands of the users.

The OMN is a “data soup”—a blend of tagged data objects flowing through channels. These flows are mediated by trust, which means that users can depend on the reliability of sources and content within the network. This isn’t just about blind trust; it’s about a dynamic, evolving network of trust relationships where both content creation and consumption are guided by the principles of openness and integrity.

Within the OMN, people are free to choose their own level of engagement—whether they want to be active participants contributing content and trust, or more passive consumers curating what they see and share. The choice is yours, the network’s design supports autonomy. Embracing the messiness of data, the OMN has several unconventional features that might be seen as “problems” by those entrenched in traditional geekproblem tech paths.

  • Lossy Data: Accepting that not all data needs to be perfect or complete. The world is messy, and our data can reflect that reality.
  • Redundancy: Multiple instances of the same data help to ensure that information isn’t lost and allows the network to be more resilient.
  • Trust: It is integral to the network’s design. Users navigate this “data soup” based on trust relationships rather than on algorithms or centralized authority.

By mediating the #geekproblem, which will view these attributes as flaws, we open up perspectives on how data and communities can interact and thrive. This network is built on the principles to ensure that the OMN is not another closed-off tech experiment but a genuinely open and collaborative path. It’s not about reinventing the wheel or creating something entirely new from scratch. Instead, it’s about leveraging existing tools and technologies to build a decentralized media/news network that is “permissionless” for anyone to use and contribute to, it’s up to them if they trust other people.

What makes the OMN exciting is the potential it offers for “flows of trust” to develop. Communities and people are encouraged to build their own projects on top of the simple OMN framework, allowing a wide range of alternative media, news, and social projects to emerge. The focus is on using these flows to cultivate healthy, vibrant communities where trust is a core currency, and where diverse perspectives can coexist and grow.

The goal is empowerment through decentralizing control and empowering communities that allow people to take control of their media, their data, and their interactions. The #OMN provides a good user interface (UX) to facilitate easy navigation and interaction within the network, making it accessible for tech-savvy developers to everyday users to create meaning and shared spaces.

In conclusion, the OMN is not just a project; it’s a framework for interacting with information and with each other to invite us to rethink our relationship with media, data, and trust. So, let’s get involved. Let’s build, experiment, and trust. The #OMN is an opportunity to shape a truly #openweb where you have the power to change the world by challenging the current statues quo.

The patriarchs of the early #openweb

Parasite #NGO and #fashionista tech

“But the principal objection will doubtless refer to the plain language used. My excuse, if indeed excuse be needed for saying just what I mean, is, that it is impossible to clothe in delicate terms the intolerable nastiness which I expose, and at the same time to press the truth home to those who are most in need of it; I might as well talk to the winds as veil my ideas in sweet phrases when addressing people who it seems cannot descry the presence of corruption until it is held in all its putridity under their very nostrils.”

On the of alt-tech path, I’ve been navigating this messy terrain of decentralized, grassroots technology for a long time. From this experience, I can say with some authority that we have taken a step away from the current mess with the growing #activertypub open web reboot. But we still need to mediate some of the ongoing #fashionistas #blocking, which is not helping us compost this mess into fertile soil for the fresh shoots of alternative technology that we so desperately need. This ongoing mess needs more composting, if we leave this in place to continue down this path, we risk strangling the growth we’re trying to cultivate.


The is a useful tool to recognizing the parasite #NGO and #Fashernista tech projects, that we keep stumbling over. The way genuinely grassroots tech projects—those born from communities, those driven by necessity and vision—are repeatedly being pushed aside by parasite tech projects. These feed from our grassroots efforts, taking the buzzwords and aesthetics without understanding or respecting the underlying principles and socially embedded paths.

This isn’t a fringe occurrence; it’s a pattern that has repeated itself over the last 30 years in meany cases I’ve come across. From social media alternatives to community-focused platforms, time and again, well-intentioned grassroots efforts are overshadowed by the glossy, polished facades of #VC funded or #NGO-backed, fashion-driven tech initiatives that lack, depth and commitment to the actual communities they purport to serve. These projects can be seen as they are more concerned with optics, funding, and their own visibility than with fostering genuine, sustainable alternatives.

There is a role for the in composting this #techshit, this is a framework that helps to expose and compost this kind of mess at its source. For those unfamiliar, the are:

  • Open Data: Data must be accessible, reusable, and modifiable.
  • Open Source: Code should be freely available for anyone to use, modify, and share.
  • Open Standards: Interoperability is key; data and code should work together, not against each other.
  • Open Process: The decision-making process should be transparent and inclusive, not hidden behind closed doors.

By applying the in grassroots tech projects, we can help to make visible the manipulations and shortfalls of parasitic NGO and fashernista power grabs. This works best when the process is open, so people see who is contributing to the ecosystem and who is simply feeding off it. This visibility is crucial because, without it, these actors are allowed to thrive unchecked, feeding off our work and energy while providing little in return. The open process serves as a powerful tool to expose those who claim to be fostering change but are merely replicating the same hierarchical and closed structures that led us into the current tech mess. It’s about shining a light on the hidden agendas and pushing for accountability and transparency in what this reveals.

How can our #NGO crew actually help? This is harder than it seems as the is strong #blocking to overcome, so the first step is overcoming this blocking, need ideas please?

My idea: Celebrate the mess, understanding that change is messy, and in this mess that new ideas form, where unexpected connections are made, and where real, lasting change takes root. We need to change and challenge the world dominated by the #dotcons and take our alternatives out of the hands of stale paths of dead-end NGO and fashernista tech. We do need composting as a regenerative path.

Motivation for moving away from this mess. The fact that people are rebooting the #openweb by building the #fediverse in a #DIY, grassroots way, without millions in VC funding, is one of the most remarkable feats of contemporary digital resistance. It’s not about “winning” in the capitalist sense—dominating the market, scaling endlessly, or achieving monopoly status in the image of the #dotcons and big tech path. The fediverse powerful from being built on principles of decentralization, community effort, it’s a native path, outside the norms that capitalism dictates to us as essential.

#NGO platforms like #Bluesky can be fertilised by $12 million in backing and a fully-paid team, the fediverse is growing grassroots from the ground up. It’s powered by people and communities working in their spare time, without corporate salaries and benefits. The coding and creating is driven by belief and belonging, not because a corporation paying to hit growth targets. That’s a different motivation, and it has strength.

The thing we need to see here is that the fediverse exists and thrives, standing as a living counter culture to the idea of competition, capital and centralized control. It’s running against the grain of what’s considered “necessary” in tech, it’s rewriting the rules back to the “native” #openweb path. This openweb reboot shows that people can build non #mainstreaming alternatives, with no paywalls, no ad-tracking, no surveillance, just open collaboration and shared values.

That it’s running at all, while not on the capitalism’s, path and ignoring its “rules”, is the victory. It doesn’t have to become the dominant social media platform. It’s already proved that another way is possible. And that, in itself, is a powerful statement that we need to build from #OMN

The Activist History of the Web: Lessons we can learn

Mediating the prat’ish behaviour and #deathcult mentality

When alternatives bridge to #mainstreaming in our #openweb movement and the broader #dotcons landscape, we find ourselves confronting a troubling dynamic—a rise in prat’ish behaviour, characterized by ego-driven conflict, divisiveness, and resistance to meaningful change, this threatens to undermine the real progress we urgently need.

At the heart of this issue is the 40 years of #deathcult mentality—a mindset defined by #neoliberal values, the relentless pursuit of profit, and a shallow adherence to the mess of the current status quo. This mentality permeates not just the big tech giants, but also, unfortunately, seeps into our own movements, like the #fediverse, when we become entangled in reproducing their “common sense” paths.

The #deathcult is a useful metaphor to use, representing a blind adherence to systems that are actively destroying our planet, eroding our communities, and undermining our humanistic values. When we speak of current #mainstreaming as a killer problem, we are talking about this neoliberalism, and that while this is not a part of our culture, it feeds into it. It’s not only a problem with “them”—the dotcons—but is also reflected within our movements. Even in the openweb and #fediverse, spaces built to resist such values, we see tendencies toward this #mainstreaming creeping in, the huge influxes of liberals, bring the replications of patterns of hierarchy, exclusion, and competition, even as they claim to oppose them.

We need practical steps to mediate this and move to a constructive path:

  1. Embrace radical honesty and reflection, we need to start with radical honesty about our own roles in perpetuating the problems we face. Are we unconsciously replicating the patterns of the #dotcons? Are we engaging in excluding grassroots native paths by that prioritize ego over community? Reflecting on these questions is crucial.
  2. Promote transparent and open dialogue by creating spaces both online and offline for open and honest communication, like the #OMN. We need to move away from secretive, behind-the-scenes decisions and instead encourage a culture of transparency where disagreements are aired constructively. Use the (Open Data, Open Source, Open Standards, and Open Process) as guiding principles helps us pick better tools for this.
  3. Encourage diversity of thought and approach, let’s challenge the #mainstreaming impulse by embracing a diversity of thought and approaches. Different strategies and solutions flourish, even if they seem unconventional or counter to prevailing norms. On the progressive path, encourage people to experiment, fail, and try again without fear of ridicule or exclusion.
  4. Use shovels and compost as metaphors for action, instead of shovelling dirt on each other’s efforts, we need to shovel it into the compost heap—taking what doesn’t work or what has failed and turning it into fertile ground for new growth. This means consciously choosing to see conflict and disagreement as opportunities for transformation rather than threats.
  5. Reject the #deathcult mentality, that is deeply ingrained but not unchangeable. Reject the idea that we must always be in competition, that progress is a zero-sum game, or that only the fittest deserve to survive. Instead, let’s balance cooperation, mutual aid, and community over profit, power, and exclusion.
  6. Build real alternatives, not only #FOSS copies, many of our attempts to build alternatives have, so far, merely replicated the models of the #dotcons. It’s time to balance this copying of systems we oppose and instead start to create native alternatives, there are meany good histories we can build from, an example #indymediaback is more truly embodied in the principles we value.

Composting this mess, we need a way to mediate the prat’ish behavior and the pervasive #deathcult mentality. We cannot afford to be the ones saying, “Now is not the time.” To those who say this, I say: Get off your knees, lift your head, and look at the mess we have made. It’s time to confront this problem head-on and work hard to compost it.

If we are to get anywhere with the messy #openweb reboot we need to be nice when calling prats, prats, do it a lot, but try and keep this #fluffy

UPDATE: this is a difficult path, will use this space to LINK to the problem resources:

https://fediverse-governance.github.io/images/fediverse-governance.pdf this report is focused on #NGO #fashernista and to a lesser extent #geekproblm, the is useful information from this limited view path.

https://infrastructureinsights.fund the outreach text on this is nice, but look at who makes up the Review Board and you see the funding at best is poured down the drain, and, at worst, will misshape the #openweb native path.

And meany more, to help post links in comment for me to add and comment on, thanks.

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 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

Definitions, that might help

This is from the view of progressive, grassroots and Alt media in the UK:

Silo, definition: Closed data systems hoarding information. Impact: Data vanishes when projects end, diminishing the effectiveness of alternative media. Most alt/grassroots media projects are silos, capturing data without open licensing for reuse.

Portal, definition: Attempts to be the dominant site, locking users into their ecosystem. Impact: Builds projects that trap users, contrary to the #openweb’s logic. In alt/grassroots media, this resembles a one-party state approach of the 20th century.

#Dotcons, definition: For-profit data silos and pseudo-networked portals. Impact: Many alt media projects mimic #dotcons, aspiring to their closed models.

Link, definition: Fundamental to the #openweb, giving content value. Impact: The absence of linking in alt media reduces the content’s value.

#Activitypub, definition: is a protocol and open standard for decentralized networking, a tool for commons building. Impact: this is growing in use.

#RSS, definition: An open web standard that adds value through data sharing. Impact: RSS is underutilized in alt media, overshadowed by silo and portal models.

Geek Culture, definition: A subculture focused on control and technical solutions. Impact: Often closes open projects, contributing to the failure of alt media initiatives, ca use the hashtag #geekproblem

#Fashionista Culture, definition: An unthinking pursuit of innovation and conformity. Impact: Churns through alt/grassroots projects, preventing them from growing.

#NGO, definition: Bureaucratic entities consuming resources. Impact: Push agendas that overshadow grassroots initiatives, often invisibly counterproductive.

Network, definition: Both technical (wires, frequencies) and mutual aid (diversity of strategy).
Impact: Essential for alt media but underutilized.

, definition: Open source, open data, open standards, open process. Impact: Exemplified by projects like Wikipedia; foundational to just and effective media projects.

To sum, up, we are still in the process of moving away from the mess of most UK alt/grassroots media projects, who are focused on silos, on capturing data and users rather than linking and sharing to build commons. Emphasizing the and fostering a culture of linking and openness help’s to break this cycle and build a more interconnected and effective alternative media landscape.

This post is based off this https://hamishcampbell.com/looking-at-the-tech-and-organising-of-uk-alt-grassroots-media/

Caring in a culture that disregards human well-being requires resistance to dominant values

I have come to think that care for people requires a high degree of resistance to the culture around us, simply because that culture is dedicated to values that have no concern for people. A tension in society: the disconnect between cultural values and genuine care for people. Actually caring for people requires a strong resistance to prevailing cultural norms that prioritize profit, “efficiency”, and superficial success over human well-being. This resistance is needed to overcome the last 40 years of #postmodern, #neoliberalism that undermines basic humanism.

The Mess

  1. Profit Over People: Our current worship of the #deathcult within capitalist societies, prioritizes profit driven consumerism above all else. Companies and institutions exploit labour, cut costs at the expense of safety and well-being, and focus on short-term gains rather than any long-term sustainability, or even basic survival.
  2. Superficial Success Metrics: Societal success is measured by wealth, status, and material possessions, rather than by well-being, happiness, community health or basic ecological function. This leads to widespread neglect of where value actually lie.
  3. Individualism Over Community: Our dominating “common sense” culture emphasize individual achievement and self-reliance, at the expense of communal support and cooperation. This erodes social bonds and leave individuals isolated and unsupported.

Resistance

  1. Ethical Imperative: Caring for people is an ethical obligation that at best makes us challenge and resist cultural norms that dehumanize or exploit people. It involves advocating for fairness, justice, compassion, and prioritizes a living environment.
  2. Mental and Emotional Health: The pressures of conforming to the #deathcult culture which values productivity and success over well-being leads to mental health issues such as anxiety, depression, and burnout. Joining together to resist these pressures is essential for maintaining mental and emotional health.
  3. Social and Environmental Justice: Resistance is necessary to address systemic inequalities and injustices that are pushed by the dominant culture. To stop the degradation of our ecology, both human and inhuman.

Making Resistance Happen

  1. Advocacy and Activism: Engaging in #NGO advocacy and #spiky activism to promote and push policies and practices that build human well-being over profit. This includes strong ecological policies, supporting labour rights, affordable healthcare, sustainability, and education etc.
  2. Community Building: Fostering real, supportive communities of mutual aid, solidarity, and collective well-being. This involves creating open non-commercial spaces where people can come together, share resources, and support one another.
  3. Alternative Value Systems: Promoting and practising alternative systems that emphasize care, empathy, and interdependence. This can be through #spiky #DIY activism culture, like squatting, protest camps or more lifestyle #fluffy choices, such as minimalism or voluntary simplicity, and through supporting businesses and organizations that prioritize ethical practices in the #dotcons.
  4. Personal Practices: This is a harder path to make meaningful of implementing personal practices that resist cultural pressures, such as mindfulness, self-care, and setting boundaries to protect one’s mental and emotional health. This path can be a problem, as it in part feeds the #stupidindividualism that feeds the very problems in the first place. Encouraging others to do the same can, maybe, help create a ripple effect of resistance and care.

What should you do?

Caring for people in a culture that disregards human well-being requires a conscious and active resistance to dominant values. By advocating for social justice, building supportive #DIY communities, promoting alternative value systems like the #OMN, and maybe practising personal care, we can create a more compassionate, sustainable society. This resistance is not only a needed path, but also a moral imperative. What are you doing today?

More on this https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/collective-intelligence-calls-for-sharing-rewards-from-innovation-for-the-common-good-by-mariana-mazzucato-2024-08

Feudalism, #FOSS native governance?

Interesting to see this metaphor take off

#Feudalism, in Free and Open Source Software (#FOSS) governance, is not inherently native but is often found due to structural and cultural factors inside the development communities.

Feudalism in FOSS

  1. Hierarchy and Control: In FOSS projects, a small group of core maintainers or a single benevolent dictator (often the project’s founder) holds power over decision-making processes. This creates a hierarchical structure where decision-making authority is concentrated.
  2. Dependency on Maintainers: Contributors depend on the core maintainers to merge their contributions and resolve issues. This dependency creates a power dynamic where the maintainers like courtiers have control over the project’s direction and priorities.
  3. Gatekeeping: Core maintainers act as gatekeepers, deciding which contributions are accepted and which are not. This leads to favouritism and exclusion, reminiscent of feudal lords controlling access to resources and opportunities.

Why?

  1. Volunteer Nature of Contributions: Since contributors are volunteers, there is no structure to ensure equal participation or accountability. Core maintainers emerge “naturally” based on their sustained contributions and expertise.
  2. Meritocracy Ideals: FOSS communities value meritocracy, people gain influence based on their contributions. However, this leads to entrenched power structures, as those who have contributed the most or the longest hold sway, sometimes stifling new contributors’ voices.
  3. Resource Scarcity: Many #FOSS projects operate with limited resources, leading to a concentration of control among those who dedicate the most time and effort. This result in a few individuals having outsized influence.

Manifestations

  1. Benevolent Dictator for Life (BDFL): Projects like Python had Guido van Rossum as a #BDFL, where his decisions are final. While this can lead to clear and consistent leadership, it also centralizes power.
  2. Core Team Dominance: In projects like Linux, the core team led by Linus Torvalds has control over the kernel’s development. This centralized control lead to conflicts within the community, as seen in the controversies around code of conduct enforcement and inclusivity.

Balancing Feudalism.

  1. Distributed Governance Models: Some FOSS projects adopt #NGO type democratic or federated governance models, such as Apache Software Foundation’s model, which emphasizes burocratic community-driven decision-making and a meritocratic process for becoming a committer or PMC member.
  2. Transparency and Accountability: Increasing transparency in decision-making helps to hold maintainers accountable through open process and community oversight plays a role in helping mitigate feudal tendencies.
  3. Community Practices: Promoting diversity and inclusivity helps balance power dynamics. Encouraging mentorship and lowering barriers to entry for contributors also helps distribute influence.

Conclusion

While feudalism is not inherent to #FOSS governance, structural and cultural factors lead to feudal-like power dynamics. Addressing these issues requires conscious effort to promote full transparency, accountability, and inclusivity within the community. Adopting balanced governance models and practices, like the #OGB, allow projects to mitigate the risks of feudalism and ensure a healthier development environment.

A wider picture of this mess

A European Future

Changing the European Union (#EU) to be more competent and progressive on social and tech issues requires concerted effort and engagement from all the stakeholders, including activists, citizens, civil society organizations (#NGO), policymakers, and Eurocrats. I outline some #fluffy strategies for driving change within the EU:

  1. Engagement and Advocacy: Citizens and civil society organizations can engage with EU institutions through advocacy efforts, lobbying, and participation in public consultations. By pushing concerns, proposing solutions, and advocating for progressive policies, grassroots movements can exert pressure on policymakers to prioritize social and tech issues.
  2. Policy Innovation: Grassroots and “organic” experts in the fields of social and technology policy can develop and promote “innovative “native” policy proposals that address emerging challenges and needed change. This includes regulations that protect the paths, promote community, and foster #KISS technological innovation reasonably.
  3. Transparency and Accountability: Promoting transparency and accountability within EU institutions is core to ensuring that decision-making processes are open, inclusive, and accountable to the people. This involves pushing for transparency in policymaking, access to information, and mechanisms for holding people and policymakers accountable for their actions.
  4. Capacity Building: Investing in capacity building initiatives enhances the knowledge and expertise of policymakers, civil servants, and “grassroots” stakeholders involved in shaping EU policies. This includes shifting funding, training, resources, and support to enable all stakeholders, focusing on the grassroots, to effectively engage with complex social and tech issues and develop evidence-based policy solutions.
  5. Coalition Building: Building coalitions and alliances among diverse spiky and fluffy stakeholders amplify voices and increase collective influence on EU policies. By forging partnerships across wide sectors, groups and organizations leverage their collective strengths and resources to drive the needed systemic change.
  6. Public Awareness and Education: Raising people’s awareness and educating citizens about social and #FOSS and #dotcons tech issues is essential for building progressive policies and initiatives. This includes conducting #DIY public campaigns, organizing educational events, and leveraging grassroots media and digital platforms to inform and mobilize the engaged people around key issues.
  7. Participatory Governance: Promoting participatory governance mechanisms within the EU enhances peoples engagement and democratic decision-making. This includes establishing platforms like the #OGB for public participation, citizen assemblies, and deliberative processes that enable people to contribute to policy development and decision-making.
  8. International Collaboration: Collaborating with international partners, organizations, and networks amplify efforts to drive change within the EU. By sharing “native” practices, sharing knowledge, and coordinating advocacy efforts at the international level, stakeholders strengthen their collective impact and influence the needed global policy agendas.

Overall, changing the EU to be more competent and progressive on social and tech issues requires a grassroots approach that involves activism, engagement, advocacy, policy innovation, transparency, capacity building, coalition building, public awareness, participatory governance, and international collaboration. By working together in active fluffy/spiky debate across sectors and borders, stakeholders can contribute to shaping the change and challenge to build an inclusive, equitable, and sustainable future within the EU and wider world in the era of #climatechaos

The European Union: A “spiky” view

#NGI #NLNET

Academics at Oxford

Economic Diversification and Climate Change in the Middle East

St Antony’s College, Dr Sarah Bush (University of Pennslyvania)

The right-wing and the #NGO crew have both coopted the idea of activism with some of its traditions and without any use of its purpose and path.

This academic aproch looks at gender and the shift to liberal norms and what effect this will have on the current patriarchal governments in the Middle East

Good points from a economist about the coal transition as a starting point for studies like this. The is unseen prier art.

This studie has the normal issue of the sustainabity of the unexamined political middle, this assumption is unlikely to hold in the next 20-30 years. As we see today a hard shift to the right, which at best will open space for a shift to the left.

So much of this thinking and academic work assumes that the liberal path will continue, with no understanding that this is an unreasonable path if you look at the scientific data of climate change and its social and economic outcomes

What we do need is study’s of the next hard right-wing and progress left paths. With the issue in mind that the more likely path is post apocalyptic “Mad Max” world for meany of the equator countries. This applies to the Middle East, the subject of this studie.

With growing #climatechaos even this above “normal” politics is likely only possible for the non equator countries, for large parts of the planet the norm will this

Q.can the Middle East manage this shift in any real way?

My view: Seeing these people, in the room, as self blinded evil would likely be an understatement. They are fixated on status in the current world, the shift we should be talking about does not exist for them yet. The politeness, in #Oxford, is unkind at best in this growing mess.

Ideas please on how to talk to these people?

Why people should worry about NGO paths

The problem with #NGO (Non-Governmental Organization) and the wider (vertical adjacent) thinking they represent. In part, the issue is about how the organizations operate and adapt to pressures, particularly regarding funding.

  1. Agenda Shifting for Funding: All NGOs rely on funding from various sources, including governments, corporations, private donors, international organizations and foundations. To secure this funding, they feel compelled to adjust their agendas or priorities to align with the interests of funders. This leads to a disconnect between the organization’s original mission and the activities it pursues to maintain financial support.
  2. Cultural Shift: As NGOs continue to receive funding based on their adjusted agendas, these shifts can become entrenched within the organization’s culture. Over time, what was initially a strategic adaptation to secure funding evolves into the norm, shaping the organization’s identity and operations.
  3. Neutrality and Weakness: The pressure to maintain funding leads to NGOs prioritizing neutrality and avoiding controversial or confrontational stances. In doing so, they become less effective agents for social change and challenge, as they are hesitant to take bold actions or advocate for transformative policies that could jeopardize their funding relationships.
  4. Reactivity: In their efforts to sustain funding, NGOs develop a tendency to react to external demands rather than proactively pursuing their mission. This reactive approach limits their ability to address root causes of social issues and instead focus on short-term, band-aid solutions to appease funders or being “scene” to respond to immediate crises.

Overall, this dynamic results in a situation where NGOs, initially formed to challenge the status quo and advocate for change, become co-opted by the systems they seek to change. They prioritize stability and survival over meaningful impact, ultimately undermining their effectiveness as agents of social change.

This also applies to fluffy activist groups who are happy to shift their agenda to get funding, and as they get funding this shift becomes their working culture. In this, they are “neutralized” into weak agents for social change/challenge, and a tendency to become reactionary to keep funding flowing.

I hope talking about this mess helps you see how to take a powerful path through the fluffy/spiky debate.

People in activism

In the coming era of #climatechaos the problem of #mainstreaming thinking and people will become a MUCH bigger issue that we need to mediate. The “common sense” they often bring is the #deathcult a strong problem we do need to do something with, the #NGO crew and “activists” who worship this cult.

There is also the issue that needs mediating of the parasitic activists who push #fahernista paths in the grassroots movements. These guys are BAD friends, there are a lot of them. They are “native” being a part of the tribe, in this it’s a question of balance to take a good path.

OK, what more can we say on this?

The mess we keep making of #FOSS governance

It’s disheartening to see a community platform like #Trustroots https://trustroots.org facing challenges with governance, with issues and tensions among its contributors https://github.com/trustroots-community/trustrots/issues?q= and here https://trustroots.community/ This situation is messy and underscores the importance of establishing healthy governance practices within community-driven projects to ensure their long-term sustainability and effectiveness.

The case of Trustroots alongside the earlier issue of #CouchSurfing are a cautionary tale about the pitfalls of traditional feudalistic #FOSS foundation/ #NGO models for open-source projects. These models may initially foster collaboration and innovation, but easily become susceptible to internal conflicts and power struggles over time.

The #OGB (Open Governance Body) is an alternative approach rooted in a grassroot and inclusive history and ethos. By embracing “producer” sortation, decentralized decision-making and community-led initiatives, projects like #OGB aim to avoid the pitfalls associated with hierarchical governance structures https://hamishcampbell.com/?s=OGB

Examining case studies like Trustroots and CouchSurfing offer insights into the complexities, and outcomes, of managing community platforms and the importance of fostering transparent, inclusive, and participatory governance to sustain healthy and thriving communities.

We can’t keep making this same mess.