A conversation that circles

Too often, I find myself in conversations that revolve around the intersection of technology and social issues, with one view emphasizing the importance of practical solutions to real-world problems, while the other highlights the underlying social dynamics that shape the technological landscapes these so-called “solutions” are often supposed to address.

On one side, there are those who prioritize pragmatic, immediate problem-solving. They want concrete fixes for specific issues and are often impatient with broader discussions around ethics, power structures, and social impact. For example, they might advocate for encrypted communication platforms as a straightforward defence against surveillance, without considering how these tools unintentionally foster isolated, fragmented communities, or how the #encryptionist mindset reinforce the individualism that makes collective action harder.

This mindset tends to dismiss systemic critiques, like the argument that contemporary code is shaped by capitalist structures that inherently promote profit over people. Think of how open-source projects get co-opted by corporations (#dotcons) to reduce costs while extracting free labour from developers. The “easy fix” of simply licensing code as open might seem like a solution, but without addressing the exploitative dynamics, it to often end up reinforcing the problems they think they are solving.

On the other side, you have those who argue that technological problems are inherently social problems. They believe you can’t build meaningful tech without addressing the human dynamics that shape its development and use. For example, decentralized social media platforms like #Mastodon or #PeerTube are built to resist the control of big tech monopolies, but if the culture within these platforms mirrors the same paths and thinking of the orgional #dotcons, then the tech itself fails to be a strongly alternative. The #geekproblem shows up here when developers dismiss social considerations as irrelevant or secondary to technical design, leading to platforms that are hostile to non-technical users and communities with different values.

Take the example of the Fediverse: while it offers a more open, decentralized alternative to Twitter or YouTube, many instances end up replicating the same patterns of gatekeeping and fragmentation. Without intentional social processes and governance, like the kind explored in projects like the #OGB (Open Governance Body), the tech alone isn’t enough to shift the power dynamics at all.

To sum up, this ongoing conversation highlights the complex relationship between technology and society. We need to move beyond the constant back-and-forth between quick-fix pragmatism and endless critique, and instead build projects, process and practices that balance immediate action with a deeper understanding of social paths. It’s not about rejecting practical solutions, but about recognizing that real change, that posses real challenge, comes from embedding social responsibility, collective governance, and human-centred design into every layer of the technology we create.

The path requires both shovels and soil, practical tools to dig through the mess, and rich compost from decades of social struggles to nourish truly transformative alternatives. It’s time to break this cycle of mess-making and start growing tech that serves communities, not just individual “users” or feeding back into #dotcons interests.

If this resonates, let’s build together. 🌱

Open Media Network

Tech governance projects miss the mark

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

Composting the Mess: Transforming Society through Collective Action

In the tapestry of human interaction, the worst threads of people and #society manifest as destructive feedback loops. Whether fuelled by greed, fear, or power dynamics, this cycle weaves our current culture of brokenness and decay.

To break from this destructive cycle, we need to embrace a paradigm shift, normalizing the best parts of people and society. By cultivating trust, hope, and collaboration, we create a fertile ground for growth and transformation.

At the heart of this shift lies the contrast between #capitalism and alternative paths like socialism and #anarchy. Capitalism, with its emphasis on greed and fear, thrives on control and power that perpetuate societal fractures. In contrast, at their best socialism and anarchy offer pathways rooted in trust and hope, to nurture the best aspects of human nature and society.

Capitalism’s foundation in the worst of human behaviour pushes inequality and division, thus stifling collective progress. In contrast, socialism and anarchy offer frameworks that prioritize equity, solidarity, and cooperation, providing fertile soil for societal flourishing.

As communerties wielding shovels of collective action, we have the power to compost the mess that withers our societies. By coming together to cultivate a #4opens culture of transparency, flows, and mutual aid, we can transform the landscape of human interaction with projects like the #OMN #OGB and #makeinghistory

This act of composting requires patience, dedication, and a willingness to confront the roots of systemic problems. It involves breaking down the “non-native” barriers that divide to nourishing the soil of our communities with the seeds of change.

In the face of adversity, let’s stand united in our commitment to composting the mess that is breaking us and our societies. Together, we can cultivate a future rooted in the best parts of humanity, where empathy, cooperation, and collective well-being build our path.

The Mess of Web3: Why #openweb natives question the Blockchain Narrative

In the ongoing discourse surrounding #openweb and its relation to failing technologies like #web3 and #blockchain, a critical question emerges: why do we readily accept solutions without first defining the problem at hand?

“… it’s not secure, it’s not safe, it’s not reliable, it’s not trustworthy, it’s not even decentralized, it’s not anonymous, it’s helping destroy the planet. I haven’t found one positive use for blockchain. It has nothing that couldn’t be done better without it.”

—Bruce Schneier, *Bruce Schneier on the Crypto/Blockchain Disaster

The allure of decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs) and blockchain technology for the last ten years has overshadowed the necessity of understanding the fundamental issues within our communities. Instead of exploring how we want to govern, decide, and interact within our communities, we find ourselves seduced by the promises of #DAO pitches.

The core of the matter lies in the conflation of culture with technology. Every time a DAO or blockchain solution is proposed, the culture and organization of communities become intertwined with the #geekproblem tools being offered. This bundling tactic obscures the essence of the technology and stifles meaningful discourse. By presenting technology as a fait accompli, we are robbed of the opportunity to critically assess its implications.

In the realm of the #openweb, technology is envisioned as a manifestation of communal decisions and conscious choices. It is the crystallization of community values, traditions, and needs. Where blockchain and DAOs represent an antithesis to this vision. They dictate choices rather than empower communities to determine their own paths.

One of the most concerning aspects of blockchain technology is its enforced financialization within communities. The implementation of ledger systems and tokens mirrors the #dotcons capitalist market traditions, where wealth equates to power. In stark contrast to the principles of “native” gift economies and communalism, blockchain perpetuates a system where those with the most resources wield influence.

In this, even in #mainstreaming dialogue, these ten years of blinded move to blockchain threatens to undermine centuries of liberal evolution by replacing established legal systems with #web3 engineers acting as arbiters of justice. This shift from #mainstreaming transparent and “equitable” legal frameworks to opaque and centralized technological solutions is deeply troubling.

As proponents of #4opens ideals, we should question the last ten years narrative of blockchain’s and DAOs. We must resist the allure of #geekproblem technological solutions that obscure the essence of community governance and autonomy. Instead, let’s engage in meaningful dialogue, grounded in clear understanding of the problems we address and the values we hold to forge a “native” #openweb path.

We now face another wasted ten years of #AI hype with the same issues and agender. We have to stop feeding this mess.

#OGB #OMN #makeinghistory

A fresh look at #openweb history

Building trust in the #openweb

The #openweb is a framework for human-centric, decentralized technologies built on transparency and collaboration. Its success hinges on trust, and as a slogan suggests, “Technology’s job is to hold the trust in place.” This concept is woven into the #OMN and #OGB initiatives, which emphasize community-driven decision-making and adherence to the #4opens principles.

#OGB and consensus, decisions are valid when a wide group of engaged participants achieves consensus. This safeguards against the normal invisible authoritarian control, single individual find it hard to dominate because the collective create and validate the decisions. Trust groups, not individuals, are the seat of power, ensuring better decision-making and accountability.

The role of #4opens, open process, open data, open licences, and open standards—acts as “gatekeepers” for technological decisions. #Openprocess ensures inclusivity and transparency, blocking decisions that don’t involve public participation. #Opendata guarantees that shared information is accessible, reducing the potential for siloed control. #Openlicenses prevent restrictive ownership that could undermine collaboration. #Openstandards resist fragmentation and force adherence to balance collaborative practices and individual paths. This “soft, swishy” approach avoids rigid authoritarian structures while maintaining #KISS robust, “enforceable” values.

let’s look at challenges and strategies for #OMN combatting #mainstreaming “common sense” practices that erode grassroots values. By build strong defaults into projects and hardcode the #4opens principles to keep them central. To make this happen, let’s try and stay polite and inclusive during outreach, avoiding burnout and adding mess through conflict.

Dealing with #fahernistas and trust issues, a significant challenge arises from people and groups who appear trustworthy due to their #mainstreaming tactics but ultimately undermine the values of the #openweb. Coders and contributors need to align with #KISS social change goals, ensuring a grassroots and horizontal approach to development, this is basic.

To do this, we need to work on sustainability efforts by avoid overloading projects with unnecessary features, “How does this fit into the #4opens?”. One path is to balance “friction” as a positive filter for misguided additions, while maintaining a welcoming environment for constructive collaboration.

Building a future beyond the #geekproblem, the “problem” originates from early open-source projects that #block the social dimensions of their technologies. By integrating the #4opens and prioritizing trust networks, the #openweb can (re)evolve into a human value network rather than a technological dead-end.

The #deathcult feeding off the decay of the #openweb perpetuates centralized and exploitative systems. All our activism is about, focusing on planting seeds for a grassroots rebirth, #nothingnew is a starting point, returning focus on modernist principles—clear goals, collective action, and systemic solutions—provides a foundation to grow #somethingnew.

The #openweb vs. #closedweb debate is not new, but it remains a critical narrative. By holding technology accountable to trust and community values, we create tools that empower rather than exploit. The #OMN and #OGB projects embody this path.

For those interested in coding for change, visit the OMN wiki and join the effort to make this vision a reality, please. Or you can donate some funding here if you don’t feel confident with tech path.

Nurturing the Potential of the Fediverse: A Socio-Political Roadmap

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 mess we made with the #dotcons

The #dotcons are designed for greed and selfishness. Everything about them feeds this and, in turn, feeds off it. This negative path is hard-coded deep into their architecture. They cannot be fixed.

The rebooting of the #openweb is the path we have taken. Copying worked well for the first step — it let us get moving. But for the next step, we need to move past the simple replication of the current #mainstreaming mess. We cannot reboot alternatives by simply copying them in #FOSS, as we have too often done in the #Fediverse.

The next step needs to be more native to the #4opens path we have started down. Let’s thank the people who copied. Let’s give them statues and security – they did us all a service. They deserve gratitude for this first step, not hatred. But we cannot stop there.

The mess of the #dotcons. Take the example of Twitter’s devolution. What began as a #neoliberal platform – deregulated, market-driven, profit-focused – has slid into a space with growing fascist tendencies under Elon Musk. This is not an accident. It’s a stark reminder of the pitfalls of unchecked corporate #dotcons and their susceptibility to authoritarian capture.

Neoliberalism, with its emphasis on deregulation and market “solutions,” inevitably concentrates wealth and power into the hands of a few. That concentration erodes democratic norms and opens the door to authoritarianism. Twitter is just one case. The intertwining of neoliberalism and fascism underscores why we need vigilance: not only against economic inequality, but also against the erosion of the native #openweb projects we struggle to build and sustain.

The trap of nostalgia, in the reaction of neoliberal “common sense” to Twitter’s fascist turn is instructive. Despite the platform’s descent, many #mainstreaming users still engage with it, clinging to nostalgia for its earlier, more liberal incarnation. This highlights the tendency of #mainstreaming to adapt to life under oppressive regimes, out of self-preservation, habit, or a misguided sense of normalcy. It is a sobering reminder of the dangers of complacency and the urgency of resisting authoritarianism, especially in its early stages.

The lesson for the #openweb can be found in this transformation of Twitter from neoliberalism to fascism, which shows the interconnectedness of economic and political systems. It underlines the need for collective action to safeguard native #openweb values. By recognizing the warning signs of authoritarianism and refusing to normalize its spread, we can prevent the erosion of the commons we are trying to grow.

The next stage of the reboot cannot be a mirror of the #dotcons. It must be different, open, grounded, messy, and alive.

The #dotcons and #closedweb of the last 20 years have clear problems:

Centralization of Power: The dominant platforms in the #dotcons era are #closedweb, centralized, controlled by a handful of corporations.
Monopolistic Practices: The dominance of a few major players led to monopolistic practices that stifled “native” #openweb culture. These monopolies limit people choice and hindered the development of alternative paths that could offer more diverse and community-centric life.
Surveillance Capitalism: The #dotcons relies on business models built around surveillance capitalism, where data and metadata is harvested, monetized, and exploited for targeted advertising and social control without consent and transparency. This exploitation of people’s data undermines “society” and creates significant ethical concerns.
Filter Bubbles and Echo Chambers: The algorithms employed in the #dotcons are designed to prioritize content based on user engagement metrics, leading to the formation of filter bubbles and echo chambers. These push people to beliefs and preferences that limit exposure to diverse perspectives and contributing to growing and entrenching polarization and disinformation.
Erosion of Public Discourse: The rise of social media in the #dotcons facilitated the spread of misinformation, hate, and extremist right ideologies. These platforms prioritized engagement and virality over the quality and accuracy of content, leading to the erosion of public spaces based on trust.
Data Concerns: The collection and exploitation of user data by #dotcons raised significant concerns. People have limited to no control over their social data and metadata.
Digital Divide: Access to the internet and digital technologies remained unevenly distributed during the #closedweb era, exacerbating social and economic inequalities. Due to resource constraints, marginalized communities, faced barriers to access our #openweb reboot, limiting their ability to participate in our native paths and thus the wider digital economy and society we need to build.

To sum up, the dominance of centralized platforms, surveillance capitalism, algorithmic biases, erosion of social norms, and inequalities have been some of the most pressing issues associated with the #dotcons and #closedweb over the last two decades. Balancing this requires continuing efforts to promote decentralization, #4opens and “native” #openweb infrastructure and culture. You can help with this by working on projects like #OMN #OGB #makinghistory and #indymediaback

Please donate here is you can https://opencollective.com/open-media-network to support making this path happen.

This post is a reaction https://mastodon.ar.al/@aral/112098724636424845

A positive view of Postmodernism in tech

In the postmodernist mess of the last 40 years, this is a balanced positive from the negative view. In the context of projects of the #OMN (Open Media Network), #OGB (Open Governance Body), #indymediaback, and #makinghistory.

Postmodernism/modernism influences the approach to media, governance, and historical narratives:

Distributed and Decentralized Media: Postmodernism challenges the idea of centralized control over media and information. Projects like #OMN and #indymediaback embrace a decentralized model where content creation and distribution are open to communertys, rather than controlled by a select few. This approach reflects postmodern skepticism towards grand narratives and authority, allowing for diverse voices and perspectives to be heard.
Open Governance: Postmodernism’s emphasis on skepticism towards authority and power structures informs the approach to governance in projects like #OGB. Instead of traditional hierarchical structures, open governance bodies work for transparency, inclusivity, and participatory decision-making processes. This reflects a postmodern rejection of centralized authority in favour of distributed forms of power.
Alternative Historical Narratives: Postmodernism challenges dominant historical narratives and encourages the exploration of alternative perspectives and counter-histories. Projects like #makinghistory aim to democratize the production of historical knowledge by allowing communities to share their own stories and experiences. This approach recognizes the subjective nature of historical interpretation and emphasizes the importance of diverse voices in shaping our understanding of the past.
Emphasis on Multiplicity and Pluralism: Postmodernism rejects the idea of a single, objective truth in favour of multiplicity and plurality of perspectives. Projects like #OMN, #OGB, #indymediaback, and #makinghistory embrace this diversity by providing platforms for a wide range of voices and viewpoints. Rather than privileging one perspective over others, these projects aim to foster dialogue and exchange between different communities and individuals.

Overall, postmodernism shapes the philosophy and approach of these projects by challenging traditional notions of authority, truth, and history. By embracing decentralization, openness, and plurality, the projects seek to empower communities, promote inclusivity, and challenge dominant narratives in media, governance, and historical discourse.

The negative history of this movement and its role in the current #deathcult

The negative aspects of postmodernism, particularly when intertwined with #neoliberalism, have had detrimental effects on society, including influencing projects like #OMN, #OGB, #indymediaback, and #makinghistory:

Fragmentation and Atomization: Postmodernism’s emphasis on deconstruction and skepticism towards grand narratives has contributed to the fragmentation of society. Instead of fostering solidarity and collective action, it has led to atomization, where individuals prioritize their own experiences and perspectives over communal goals. In projects like #OMN and #OGB, this fragmentation can hinder effective collaboration and decision-making, as individuals prioritize their personal interests over the common good.
Relativism and Truth Decay: Postmodernism’s rejection of objective truth has paved the way for widespread relativism, where all beliefs and perspectives are considered equally valid. While diversity of thought is important, this extreme relativism leads to a breakdown in shared understanding and consensus. In the context of #indymediaback and #makinghistory, this can result in the proliferation of competing narratives and a lack of accountability for factual accuracy, undermining efforts to construct a progressive cohesive historical record or media landscape.
Crisis of Authority and Expertise: Postmodernism’s skepticism towards authority and expertise erodeds trust in social institutions and grassroots experts, leading to a crisis of legitimacy. In the absence of trusted sources of information, conspiracy theories, misinformation, and disinformation thrive, further contributing to societal polarization and distrust. In projects like #OMN and #indymediaback, this crisis of authority can undermine efforts to establish credible media platforms or governance structures, as participants may question the legitimacy of leadership or expertise.
Commodification of Identity: Postmodernism’s focus on individual identity and difference has been co-opted by neoliberal capitalism to commodify identity and diversity. In this neoliberal/postmodern paradigm, diversity and inclusivity are reduced to marketable commodities, used to sell products and services rather than challenge systemic inequalities. In projects like #OGB and #makinghistory, this commodification of identity can undermine efforts to address structural oppression and promote genuine social justice, as diversity and inclusivity become mere branding (lifestyle) exercises rather than catalysts for systemic change.

Overall, the negative aspects of postmodernism, exacerbated by its alignment with neoliberal ideology, have contributed to societal disintegration, truth decay, erosion of trust, and the commodification of identity. In the context of projects like #OMN, #OGB, #indymediaback, and #makinghistory, these dynamics hinder efforts to foster genuine collaboration, construct meaningful historical narratives, and promote social justice. Recognizing and addressing these negative influences is crucial for building a working #openweb

We need to bridge the balance between these stresses, “don’t be a prat” is a start to this.

Historically, #mainstreaming politics exhibited a tendency to shift to the right during times of crisis

The intersection of #climatechange, #mainstreaming politics, and fear is a complex phenomenon that influences societal attitudes and policies. Historically, mainstream politics has exhibited a tendency to shift towards the right during times of crisis, and the looming specter of #climatechaos is following this trend. In this context, it is essential to recognize the pivotal role that fear plays in driving right-wing politics and shaping public discourse.

Fear operates as a potent motivator in shaping political attitudes and policies, particularly within the realm of right-wing ideologies. Whether it manifests as apprehension over economic instability, cultural change, or national security, fear serves as fertile ground for the proliferation of right-wing narratives. In the context of climatechaos, this fear is further amplified by concerns surrounding environmental degradation, natural disasters, migration, and resource scarcity. Such apprehensions provide a breeding ground for the flourishing of the right-wing, which feeds on these anxieties to promote their agenda.

However, amidst this landscape of fear, a counterpoint emerges: the waning fear of socialism. Traditionally, socialism has been met with suspicion and trepidation by capitalist classes, serving as a perceived threat to the status quo. Yet, as socialist ideals gain traction and legitimacy in #mainstreaming discourse, particularly among younger generations, the fear of socialism begins to diminish. This shifting dynamic challenges the hegemony of right-wing politics and offers a glimmer of hope for progressive change in the growing mess.

Indeed, this shift presents an opportunity for hope. By embracing socialist principles and advocating for progressive policies, there is potential to counteract the politics of fear perpetuated by the right. However, this window of opportunity for hope is narrowing in the face of escalating #climatechaos. The urgency of the climate crisis demands immediate action, and the failure to seize this opportunity through #mainstreaming inaction exacerbate the cycle of fear and despair.

In essence, the delicate balance between fear and hope shapes political narratives and responses to climate change. While fear may dominate #mainstreaming politics in the short term, there remains a potential for collective action and progressive change. In #openweb tech initiatives such as the Open Media Network (#OMN), #OGB, #indymediaback, and #makeinghistory we exemplify efforts to challenge the status quo and chart a course towards a future grounded in resilience, equity, and sustainability to fostering a society that prioritizes collective the well-being and environmental stewardship that we need.

You can support these projects

Composting the mess with the #OMN

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.

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

Digital waste – shouting into the void

Interesting links on “digital” waste https://gerrymcgovern.com/world-wide-waste/
https://volume.lboro.ac.uk/digital-waste-polluting-the-planet/
https://theconversation.com/dark-data-is-killing-the-planet-we-need-digital-decarbonisation-190423
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/feb/15/power-grab-hidden-costs-of-ireland-datacentre-boom
https://digitaldecarb.org/

This is true. With the #OMN we are building tools for use, not for distraction, shouting into the void is not the project. Community, talking to community, is the core mission. The “personal” is not a part of our core project.

This is alien to #mainstreaming common sense in social tech. Politics as human not as other, we need the tools and the use to build the everyday of our lives #DIY

How to actually communicate this to the #mainstreaming is the challenge that is very hard to bridge. This is actually impossible, so agen our plan is to build it and communicate by doing, not by just talking.

We are looking for a crew to build and do,” talking” is the tool to create this crew #DIY it’s not the tool itself for change and challenge.

#OMN #4opens #OGB #makinghistory are shovels (tools) for social use.

The #geekproblem is a part of our collective #deathcult

There is a value miss match that is a core part of the #geekproblem and its relationship to “normal” society. One side prioritises the tech, the other the social, they then ignore each other. Both suffer and become pointless, or likely die out as a species in the era of #climatechaos. Build a bridge or be pointless, or more likely dead in the long term. #OMN #indymediaback #makeinghistory #OGB are bridges.

The recognition and resolution of the value mismatch between technology and society are crucial for addressing pressing global challenges such as #climatechaos. The #geekproblem encapsulates this divide, where one side prioritizes technological development while the other prioritizes social considerations. However, both perspectives are essential for meaningful progress. By building bridges between technology and society, initiatives like #OMN, #indymediaback, and #OGB serve as vital connectors that facilitate collaboration and mutual understanding. These projects recognize that addressing complex issues requires interdisciplinary approaches that integrate technological innovation. By bridging the gap between technology and society, these initiatives pave the way for holistic solutions that can effectively tackle the challenges of our time, ultimately contributing to a more sustainable and equitable future. Failure to build such bridges risks rendering both perspectives ineffective or irrelevant, potentially leading to dire consequences for humanity in the long term. Therefore, the importance of initiatives like #OMN, #indymediaback, and #OGB cannot be overstated, as they play a role in bridging the gap between technology and society and advancing collective efforts towards a better future.