Tag: nlnet

Supporting Native Grassroots Projects in the Fediverse

It should be now more noticeable that we urgently need to balance the current #mainstreaming inrush in to the #Fediverse. We can do this by rallying support for native grassroots projects that will strengthen community-driven networks. I have been putting off more funding applications to NLnet, so we need some encouragement and comments, feedback, and some help with sharing these proposals:

  1. The MakingHistory Project

A collaborative effort to create a decentralized and participatory network for documenting and sharing:

Grassroots movements
Historical events
Underrepresented narratives

This initiative empowers communities to control their own stories and ensure diverse histories are preserved and accessible.

  1. IndymediaBack Project

A Fediverse project to reboot the radical grassroots media network, #Indymedia, with a foundation in trust-based principles:

#4opens: Open Data, Open Source, Open Process, and Open Standards

This project aims to restore Indymedia as a vital, decentralized platform for radical journalism and activism.

  1. The OGB Project

Focused on creating a trust-based, decentralized framework for governance, the #OGB project supports:

Grassroots networks
Native community-driven decision-making

Its goal is to enable fair, transparent, and inclusive governance for active producer communities striving for more equity and sustainability.

With all the projects, feedback and support can make a difference. Let’s please work together to build goodwill and grow consensus around “native” paths and projects. If you think that there is a need for decentralization, trust-based systems, and grassroots empowerment, please comment and share widely, to take a step in helping to create a stronger, more inclusive future.

So should we apply again? Maybe, but, not because they’ll suddenly “get it,” but because persistence itself is part of the composting, a record and point of pressure.

So to build this presser we need to apply and simultaneously build a parallel path of community support, donations, partnerships, volunteer time. That way, the inevitable sad #NLnet rejection doesn’t kill all the momentum.

So, ideas please on how we shift the blocking? Maybe translate native ideas into their language. Bureaucracies like “deliverables,” “impact metrics,” “alignment with EU digital policy.” Wrap the radical #4opens core in to a framing they can recognise: resilience, digital sovereignty, anti-disinformation, democratic participation? That might be harder for them to ignore.

This could expose the bias, in a bitter way, a constructive one: point out the repeated rejection of grassroots-native projects while funding flows to #geekproblem/NGOs. This grassroots pressure might help them re-balance (and others will maybe notice).

If you want to help, share the 3 projects (#MakingHistory, #IndymediaBack, #OGB) in #Fediverse channels. Frame this positively: “If we want a living #openweb, we need to fund and support native projects, not just corporate/NGO clones.” This is a needed positive balance, to make it harder for them to keep negatively pushing the #geekproblem mess.

#KISS

The #blocking of #openweb funding

Funders, #NGOs, and the #mainstreaming crew are trapped in fixed truths, while real change comes from dynamic thinking. That’s why they keep failing us. So, how do we break this cycle and move forward? For meaningful #openweb funding, we need projects that are native and align with critical social needs for the evolution of the internet, balancing openness/trust based tech with funding for outreach and feedback mechanisms.

  1. Shifting Funding From “Fear/Control” to “Open/Trust” The Problem, current funding paths for internet projects focus on security, control, and compliance, perpetuating systems of centralized authority. This approach stifles trust-based collaboration, which are essential for the #openweb path. Action: help to advocate for dedicated funding streams for projects explicitly focused on decentralization, trust-building, and open governance structures like the Open Media Network (#OMN) and #OGB. Incorporate trust-based metrics into funding criteria, rewarding projects that demonstrate sustainable, human-centered governance.
  2. Bridging hard tech and soft use. The Problem: Hard tech (protocols, platforms) develop in isolation from people, leading to tools that fail to meet real-world social needs. Action: Allocate funds for programs to bridge developers and user communities, ensuring reciprocal feedback between tech builders and real life communities. Establish mechanisms to incorporate insights from “soft use” (how people interact with tools) into the iterative development of “hard tech.” Support user-led design initiatives for communities to directly shape the platforms they use.
  3. Governance: The Problem: Existing tech networks prioritize technical over social design, exacerbating the #geekproblem of over-complexity and alienating the change we need. Action: Fund projects like the OMN that flip this dynamic, prioritizing human networks as the foundation for technical systems. This creates tools that reflect and support the needs of grassroots communities. Promote protocols like #ActivityPub to enhance interoperability and people/community autonomy across networks.
  4. The OMN is a lightweight framework with five core functionalities aimed at building a trust-based semantic web:
    * Publish: Share content as objects.
    * Subscribe: Follow streams of interest (people, organizations, topics).
    * Moderate: Manage trust by endorsing or rejecting content flows
    * Rollback: Remove historical flows content from the point trust is broken.
    * Edit Metadata: Improve the discoverability and context of content.
    These tools enable people to control their digital spaces and data flows while horizontally growing collaboration and accountability

This native #openweb path requires systemic support with funding to promote tools and frameworks that build human agency and trust. By doing this, we create resilient and equitable paths in tech, moving away from the limitations of the #open and #closed web mess we keep repeating

On this subject, it’s worth looking at this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_law

The funding crisis for the #openweb isn’t just about money—it’s about values. Right now, too much funding goes into coding copies of #dotcons, replicating the same social centralized, mess under a different name. This doesn’t fix anything—it just locks us into the same broken patterns.

We need to push for native #openweb approaches—ones rooted in decentralisation, trust, and open process. History is full of projects that did this right—#indymediaback being just one example. But the real challenge isn’t just building the tech; it’s getting people to value this diversity.

Funding bodies like #NGI, #nlnet, and #ngizero could play a key role if they prioritize projects that challenge, rather than copy, the status quo. But beyond grants, we need a cultural shift—one that recognises the importance of public digital infrastructure and collective ownership over our tools.

So what can we do?

  • Demand funding for actual #openweb projects, not more social silos.
  • Build bridges between funders and radical grassroots tech.
  • Create our own support networks outside traditional funding models.
  • Shift the conversation—value the diversity, not just the tech.

If we don’t push, the funding will keep flowing into the wrong places, and we’ll be stuck recycling the same failures. Let’s compost the mess and grow something real.

#4Opens #OMN #DIY

In part, the USA shift to the right is due to the #geekproblem in tech

The political power that Silicon Valley and Big Tech pushed over this election is a real #geekproblem threat, with the #dotcons leveraging technological and financial influence to shape society in ways that benefit the nasty few and undermine basic democratic paths we need to be fallowing to mediate #climatechaos

One path to balance this #mainstreaming mess making is the need for active and healthy critiques of the lack of institutional support for #openweb projects and paths that focus on humanistic alternatives to these Big Tech platforms. The problem we need to challange is that organizations theoretically supportive of democratic values, such as #NLNet and #NGI, sideline core “native” paths in tech as “too radical”, instead favouring safe narrow #geekproblem and #NGO tech paths which we know do not work. This is frustrating, and with the increasing authoritarianism spreading worldwide, it’s a part of the #deathcult we all worship.

The “geekproblem” in tech is about challenges arising from the culture and mindset within technical communities, particularly around developers and engineers. It is associated with an overemphasis on technical solutions, insularity, and a tendency to prioritize technological efficiency or novelty over broader social and ethical considerations.

  • Overemphasis on Technical Solutions: People involved in tech prioritize creating or improving technical features while overlooking social impacts or peoples needs. This leads to “solutionism,” where every problem is assumed to have a tech-based answer, neglecting simpler, social, or policy-based solutions.
  • Insularity and Group Think: The tech world is insular, with tight-knit subcultures that resist input from outside communities and dismiss perspectives that don’t align with technical paths. This leads to narrow solutions and a resistance to the needer wider perspectives, ultimately #blocking the social change and challenge we need.
  • Focus on Control over Collaboration: Tech communities are often defacto hierarchical, top-down in the paths of design and governance, leading to a “we know best” paths. This often alienates non-technical people and discourages cooperative and participatory input, making it hard to integrate open, community-based governance in to the narrow paths that are imposed.
  • Ignoring and Dismissing Social Issues: Focused on technical work overlook social issues the tech is supposed to be addressing and solving. By focusing only on engineering, they overlook who has access to the technology, who benefits from it, and what ethical implications it brings, perpetuating the disconnect between technology and the communities it made for.
  • Resistance to Broadening Perspective: Tech creators actively resist moving beyond their own narrow areas of expertise and interest, they block ideas and initiatives that don’t fit within their immediate understanding, inhibiting growth and the needed experimentation. This resistance limits meaningful progress, community needs, and alternative technologies.

In sum, the #geekproblem stems from a blend of narrow technical focus, resistance to diverse input, and lack of attention to social impact. Addressing it involves building more inclusive, collaborative, and socially aware tech paths that embrace #4opens broader perspectives beyond the purely technical.

We now need to compost these piles of #techshit

Corporate presence in the Fediverse?

The announcement from the #SocialWebFoundation is a corporate vision rather than something native, grassroots or revolutionary. Describing people as “users” who follow “influencers and brands” is a social mess, the commercialized, top-down paths that clash with the #4opens of collaboration, activism, and mutual aid path we build. On its current path this is a delusional dream from corporate America trying to coopt the #4opens network we built from community, solidarity and radical change. On the #mainstreaming #NGO current path this is not the kind of project to engage with or be a part of building, we do not won’t a space dominated by brands and influencers, it isn’t the future anyone actually wants or needs.

On mainstream paths, there is an unspoken disconnect between “volunteerism”, philanthropy, and “entrepreneurship” in the paths #opensource and decentralized tech people take. In #FOSS when people contribute their time and skills, there’s an assumption that their work is for the public good, but many are actually hoping for recognition or a way to generate financial stability. It’s not a contradiction to expect support for work that holds social value, though when this manifests as “entrepreneurship” we see the #deathcult path, underlining expectation for funding and sustainability. This is a hard path to tread and stay “native” to the #openweb

This ties into the mess with philanthropy and funding. For initiatives to gain traction and financial support, they need a compelling story, but many in the #FOSS and #fediverse communities struggle with this social storytelling part. They underestimate how few people aligned with their “native” vision, and how difficult it is to convey, outreach, the non-mainstream paths to a broader audience and the people who hold the money. The concept of “sustainability” for organizations becomes convoluted, with an overemphasis on replicating “common sense” venture capital models. It’s a mess that philanthropic groups have significant resources but fail in distributing them meaningfully, focusing instead on mimicking pointless tech startup mess. This is very likely a problem with #SocialWebFoundation path, the question is how to mediate this, for better outcomes.

This tension between grassroots movements, the expectations of funding, and the structural constraints of both the tech and non-profit paths. An example of this is the #NLnet and #EU tech funding fits this conversation of how philanthropy and volunteerism fail to mix due to flawed execution and basic storytelling problems on all sides.

More of my thinking on this https://hamishcampbell.com/?s=funding It’s hard to find a path to mediate, especially with the growing corporate presence in our #openweb spaces like the Fediverse. Ideas please?

UPDATE: its very #mainstreaming As the open social web grows, a new nonprofit looks to expand the ‘fediverse’ | TechCrunch

Some quotes from my prier work:

“Power only understands power, so, we might need something that looks like “power” without all the power politics that involves… this is bluesky thinking to this end. If #activertypub is taken up by the #dotcons this WILL BE IMPOSED ON US anyway.”

“its trying to think outside this traditional path, so we think BEFORE we inevitably go down it this kinda crap path.”

“As I said here in the end this will be IMPOSED as a governance model dressed in “community clothes” if we do not build something else with dancing elephants and paper planes.”

“Our current working models of “governance” in open-source projects are Monarchy (the dictator for life), Aristocracy (the devs), oligarchy (the NGO, funders) and finally way out on the edge Democracy (the users).” This above is a move from current feudalism to NGO, the funders.

“…all the existing power structures BEFORE Democracy. As we are “permissionless” we can’t stop them from doing this. We just have to do better, and being native to the fedivers is a big help here.”

“Power… in the Fediverse path comes from different places than a corporation, a government, courts, police etc. we need to think and build with this difference and NOT try and drag the Fediverse back to the normal path. REMEMBER, the Fediverse works BECAUSE it’s different. It’s easy to forget this important thing when #mainstreaming agender, grab and hold.”

#OGB “It’s the correct word Governance – Wikipedia “Governance is the way rules, norms and actions are structured, sustained, regulated and held accountable”

“Yep, the liberal foundation model will be forced onto us if the Fediverse is taken up buy large Burocratic orgs like the #EU and yes there will be a fig leaf of “democracy” placed over the self-selecting oligarchy that will be put into place by “power politics” that this path embeds. Yes this path is the default outcome.”

Likely more…

Peoples views:

https://flamedfury.com/posts/a-social-web

https://bix.blog/posts/holy-hell-the-social-web-did-not-begin-in-2008

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41644267

https://lemmy.world/post/20160202

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

Slogan for #openweb: “Technology’s job is to hold the trust in place”

Definitions can be loose; making things overly rigid is a #Geekproblem that fosters conflict.
This is why the #4opens is about interpretation and judgment. The #Fediverse is a vibrant and active #openweb project, currently one of the healthiest “native” parts of this path.

Some “native” examples we are working on:

Principles for #OGB (Open Governance Body) Consensus and Engagement: Decisions are valid only if a wide range of people are involved, ensuring that the collective is the consensus. This prevents any single individual from overpowering the group. Power resides in trust groups, which likely use their influence positively. This #KISS is needed to maintain trust that ensures better outcomes.

Solving technology problems with trust and #4opens: These principles provide a flexible and resilient approach to technological challenges. To repeat, the key role of technology is to maintain trust. To do this, let’s focus on the social path, an example of this would be #PGA (People’s Global Action), that keeping this as a checkpoint helps block #mainstreaming attempts and maintain polite engagement.

Building and maintaining projects needs strong social defaults and hardcoding #4opens. Consistency, keep the #4opens principles at the forefront to prevent dilution during outreach. Building tech from the grassroots level, horizontally, avoids #mainstreaming “common sense” which always leads to burnout and friction. While outreach is essential, the core principles should not be compromised. Focus on community and consensus to ensure broad engagement to maintain trust and effective governance.

These guidelines provide a structured approach to developing and maintaining technology projects that are open, transparent, and community-driven. By emphasizing trust and the #4opens principles, we create a resilient and sustainable path for technological and social change and challenge that is so needed in the era of #climatechaos.

#NGI #NLnet #EU

#EU bureaucracy in tech funding

Tackling the challenges of bureaucracy and #mainstreaming inertia. We need to try and jump the hurdles within tech communities with for example the current pouring down the drain of tech funding provided by #NGI (Next Generation Internet). It is an obvious path we need to get right soon:

Addressing bureaucratic inertia (and native corruption) in the EU tech funding:

  1. Leverage small wins pilot projects: we need to get some funding to shift to real alternatives, Implement small-scale pilot projects that demonstrate benefits and serve as proof of concepts. These projects gradually shift perspectives and encourage larger scale initiatives. Advocate for incremental changes rather than radical shifts, which are more palatable to bureaucratic institutions.
  2. Engage stakeholders in collaborative platforms, we need to rejuvenate the moribund https://socialhub.activitypub.rocks/ to build agen the collaborative space where policymakers, activists, industry experts, and community members discuss, co-create, and refine initiatives.
  3. Storytelling and communication narrative building to craft compelling narratives, using the existing hashtag seeds to highlight the human and social benefits of proposed changes. Use storytelling to make abstract concepts tangible and relatable.

Mediate the #geekproblem in our tech communities:

  1. Resource allocation funding initiatives: Seek funding from diverse sources, including grants, crowdfunding, alongside the #EU institutional funding. Use this to invest in skill development to bridge gaps within the community and foster the “native” #openweb path.
  2. Encourage collaboration across different prospectives to bring fresh paths to push solutions. Knowledge sharing, use the #4opens to clear meaningful paths to move outside the current clutter. Create platforms for sharing this knowledge, run workshops, webinars, and hackathons, to facilitate “native” learning and collaboration.
  3. Promote open practices that encourage contributions from a wide range of participants, not just the core tech-savvy individuals. Experimentation Spaces: Create spaces for experimentation where failures are seen as learning opportunities rather than setbacks.

Bridging the Gap Between EU Bureaucracy and Tech Communities:

  1. Dialogue and advocacy: Establish regular dialogues between tech communities and EU policymakers to discuss challenges, share insights, and co-develop solutions. Use projects like the #OGB to build up tech ambassadors and liaisons who can effectively communicate this divide.
  2. Develop joint projects where tech communities and EU bodies work together on common goals, such as digital transformation, data commons, and open internet standards. Learn from the “native” hackerspace movement to create innovation hubs that serve as collaborative spaces for tech communities and policymakers to experiment with new ideas and technologies.

In conclusion, the journey to shift meaningful initiatives within the #EU and overcome the #geekproblem in tech communities involves activism leveraging small wins, engaging wider stakeholders, using community advocacy, and fostering inclusive and collaborative #openweb environments. These are a path to shift the resources of bureaucratic institutions while overcoming internal #geekproblem challenges, ultimately driving the positive and impactful change that is so obviously needed.

#NLNET #NGIzero

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 #4opens paths, promote community, and foster #KISS technological innovation reasonably.
  3. Transparency and Accountability: Promoting transparency and accountability within EU institutions to ensuring that decision-making processes are open, inclusive, and accountable to the people. This involves pushing for #4opens 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. 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 #4opens educational events, and leveraging grassroots media and networks to inform and mobilize the people around key issues.
  7. Participatory Governance: Promoting participatory governance within the EU enhances peoples engagement and democratic decision-making. This includes establishing networks like the #OGB for public participation, citizen assemblies, and deliberative processes for people to contribute to policy development and decision-making.
  8. International Collaboration: Collaborating with international partners, organizations, and networks to amplify efforts to drive change within the EU. By sharing “native” practices, 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 needed 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

Funding tech outside the shadow of the #deathcult

There is a complete failure of funding for the community (non #mainstreaming) side of tech, I have put in more than ten funding applications over the last few years to all the openweb funding flows.

And the answer, if the is one, is always the same, some of the replies:

” This kind of effort is very hard to seek grants for – which holds for the vast majority of
FOSS efforts, to be sure, but for things this high up in the stack even more.”

“I don’t have an obvious candidate for you to go to either”

The issue is that this is actually a LIE, the funders do fund the subjects we are applying for, just they ONLY fund the shadow of the #deathcult because they do not understand anything outside this. Or if they do understand, they are to afried of their funding flows drying up if they did fund anything outside this shadow.

“What the times are and how they are changing is different from every perspective. And so is utility. Not every project can be equally successful from everyone’s point of view. From our vantage point the process we deliver seems to work better than the vast majority of other processes (there are many tens of billions spent less frugality and with no impact at all within the same EC frameworks, I’m sure you’ll agree). Future history will have to prove the approach right or wrong,”

So good advice is nice, change challenge is better, ideas please for change challenge of this funding mess.

Or this openweb reboot is going to be absorbed by the #mainstreaming, not a bad thing, but it’s NOT the project meany of have been working on #KISS

“Obviously, we are always eager to haul in new projects – so do send projects you deem worthy our way.”

Ten funding applications latter, it’s a problem, I think we need both being nice and not being nice, and we need these together to break this LIE in funding.

On https://socialhub.activitypub.rocks/ we have fucked this path over the last few years – the spiky fluffy debate has not been respected. This holding the “debate” in place is the secret of all working/affective activism, hint, hint. And we are doing activism in this openweb reboot, I understand the majority of people like to deny this, but this denying makes these people prats and the problem not the solution, let’s politicly tell them this.

#KISS PS. there is the word “stupid” in this hashtag, in this am not calling any individual stupid, so please don’t take this as pointing at YOU personally I am talking about social groups, stupid #mainstreaming fearful groups.

#NLnet #NGI #ngizero #summerofprotocols #investinopen #RIPENCC

Talking about the #geekproblem in funding

Q. #nlnet – The problem we face with funding http://hamishcampbell.com/2022/06/06/the-problem-we-face-with-funding/

A. KiCAD, some warrant canary and Armbian aren’t “open internet” projects by any stretch of imagination, but the ones relating to routers and mesh networks are. They’re “open internet” at the infrastructure level – like Guifinet or Freifunk.

Q. yep and are useful for a tiny number of people so worth supporting. BUT the call-out for the funding is for a much wider social affect in the #openweb, so the is an obvious #geekproblem can you see this?

A. Whatever funding they put into the applications layer will be cautious because they probably don’t want to be dealing with Twitter-like problems. Infrastructure is more narrowly technical, and so it’s hard for that to blow up into a scandal, which could happen if they were more directly funding social networks.

Q.  yep… but the #openweb needs better USER-FACING code not more backend, the backend is not helping to address the social problems we face where it is being digested by the #dotcons and then adding more mess to compost. How to communicate this problem to the geeks?

A. Really it’s the backend – the plumbing – which needs more funding, because when you peel off the layer of ultra-trendy ActivityPub apps underneath you will find tools and systems which have been neglected for years if not decades. The application layer is currently a house built on sand. Or quicksand if you include Javascript.

Q. We do see the #geekproblem here you are right, and at the same time the view is irrelevant when you step back to look at the problem.

An example, #activertypub would have been still born without the outreach social UX of #mastodon. We have the #fediverse due to the social side of the mastodon project.

Adding more backend is feeding the #dotcons not the #openweb because we need BOTH, and we need to fund both. Yes, we can play “safe” and build tools to feed the future #dotcons, or we can do both and live life with the possibility of social change challenge…

UPDATE

Talking about the problem:

Q. Am thinking the #fedivers is in a bad way, so being angry and annoyed is understandable. The #openweb momentum we had is stumbling, the people sellingout growing as funding shifts… the problems grow, am interested in ideas to mediate these? The fedivers is a CULTURE first and a standard second… ideas?

A. I agree with your observation on the state of the fediverse. And on the cultural aspect too. I envision a Peopleverse (social) that is enabled / supported by the Fediverse (technical). And much more diverse social activity taking place here, that goes well beyond microblogging. And the funding should shift accordingly. You can fund as many innovation projects as you wish, but if the adoption of the technology grinds to a halt, then there’s a high risk this money is wasted.