Tag: OMN

Composting in tech

The #OMN (Open Media Network) is composting in tech, it is a process of recycling and repurposing digital resources and technologies in a sustainable and environmentally conscious manner. As composting in agriculture involves breaking down organic matter into nutrient-rich soil, composting in tech involves reusing and repurposing digital assets and technologies to create new value and reduce waste.

* Reuse of Code: Instead of reinventing the wheel, developers should reuse existing code and software components to build new applications and platforms. This approach reduces duplication of effort and promotes community and efficiency in software development.

* Repurposing Digital Content: With media and content creation, composting in tech involves repurposing existing digital content (such as articles, videos, or podcasts) to create new linking content and derivative works. This practice helps extend the lifespan of digital assets and reduce the need for constant creation of “new” generic content.

* Open Source and Collaboration: Embracing principles and collaborative development models is a form of composting in tech. By sharing code, knowledge, and resources openly, developers collectively improve and build upon existing technologies, growing innovation and sustainability in the tech ecosystem.

* Circular Economy in Tech: Composting in tech aligns with the principles of a circular economy, where resources are used, reused, and recycled to minimize waste and maximize use. By applying this concept to digital technologies, #OMN promotes a sustainable approach to tech development and consumption.

“Composting in tech” reflects a mindset of sustainability, resourcefulness, and responsible stewardship of digital resources within the #openweb, it’s a path we need to take.

The mess we need to compost:

* Arrogance and Ignorance: In alternative and grassroots movements, there is a recurring problem where people displaying arrogance and ignorance. This hinders progress and collaboration within these movements. At a time when there’s a growing need for successful examples to inspire larger, more #mainstreaming alternative and progressive movements. Addressing these issues becomes important.

* Challenge of “Stupid” Individualism: #Stupidindividualism refers to the pervasive influence of individualistic thinking promoted by #neoliberal ideology. This mindset undermines collective action and makes it difficult to build alternative tech and social projects that prioritize community over individual gain.

* Vertical vs. Horizontal Structures: Hierarchical thinking (“vertical”) disrupts egalitarian structures (“horizontal”) within movements. This disruption contributes to a cycle of destruction and rebuilding, making it challenging to maintain momentum and achieve lasting change that is needed.

* Affective Direct Action: This type of activism emphasizes emotional engagement and personal connection to issues. This experience underscores the cyclical nature of social and political challenges and highlights the importance of addressing underlying issues for meaningful and lasting change.

* Capitalism as the Root Problem: The solution, involves stepping away from capitalist structures. This requires a combination of strategies, including non-violent resistance and, in some cases, revolutionary action.

Addressing the challenges faced by alternative and grassroots movements requires collective action, strategic thinking, and a rejection of individualistic and hierarchical ideologies. It involves creating spaces where collaboration and community-driven solutions can thrive, ultimately working federating these to works towards a more equitable society.

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 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 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

Time to Ground Public Funding: Why We Should Invest in Energy, Not Billionaire Space Races

In the last year, the typical taxpayer spent more on #SpaceX — a company owned by one of the richest men in history — than on programs for energy efficiency and renewable energy. It’s time to reverse this. The way governments allocate public funds says everything about their priorities — and right now, those priorities are dangerously skewed.

Let’s look at the subsidies with SpaceX vs. Renewable Energy: A distorted allocation of public wealth. SpaceX, owned by Elon Musk, one of the wealthiest people ever to live, has received billions in public funding. While innovation in space technology might be exciting, it’s worth asking: Why are taxpayers subsidizing a billionaire’s rocket dreams while the planet burns?

Meanwhile, energy efficiency and renewable energy programs, critical for addressing the climate emergency, are underfunded and deprioritized. These programs offer immediate, tangible benefits for emissions reduction, energy security, and public health, yet they receive a fraction of the financial support funnelled into private space ventures.

Wealth disparity & public investment is now about funding the nasty few while communities struggle. The fact that public funds prop up Musk’s space empire reflects a deep structural rot: wealth inequality baked into public policy. Why should a man with more wealth than some nations receive massive state support while local renewable projects, energy transition initiatives, and community-based sustainability efforts scramble for scraps? Public money should serve the public good, not inflate the wealth of billionaires chasing sci-fi fantasies while entire regions face climate-driven collapse.

Energy transition, is a basic funding shift for survival. Redirecting funding from private space exploration to energy efficiency and renewable energy is a moral and practical necessity. The #climatecrisis is here and accelerating, and every dollar spent propping up a vanity space race is a dollar stolen from the fight for a liveable planet. Investing in solar, wind, community microgrids, and conservation programs. Lower emissions to build resilient local economies, reduced energy poverty by job creation in sustainable industries. The payoff is immediate and lasting. A rocket launch might inspire wonder for a day, but a robust renewable grid can sustain generations.

Government spending & climate accountability, this is a political choice, not an inevitability. Governments choose to fund SpaceX over solar panels, rockets over wind farms, the nasty few over marginalized communities. To balance this mess, we need to demand better transparency in public funding decisions, people-first policy prioritizing climate justice, accountability for politicians who choose corporate welfare over planetary survival.

The path forward is in reclaiming public funds for public good. We don’t need more billionaire space escapism, we urgently need a grounded, radical shift in spending that reflects the urgent needs of humanity and the planet. That means, massive public investment in renewable infrastructure, decentralized energy solutions owned by communities, not corporations, research and development in climate tech, not just space tech, global cooperation on sustainability, not competition for interplanetary dominance.

The future isn’t in the stars, it’s right here, on Earth. And if we don’t fight for it, no amount of rocket launches will save us. Let’s defund billionaire fantasies and invest in life. #KISS a liveable planet is worth infinitely more than footprints on Mars.

#OMN #climatechaos #deathcult #NothingNew #EnergyTransition #PublicFunding #TaxTheRich

Current messy thinking

Pushing defederation from #meta is not wrong in sentiment, the #dotcons are vile and cons. But is wrong from a practical sense. The #Fediverse and #ActivityPub are #openweb based on , this is a space where you do not have technical tools for stopping the #dotcons from taking the data, as the data in the end is in the open, unencrypted, in the database, in #RSS and in open flows.

The people who push the idea of closed are fighting for the #closedweb on a “native” #openweb platform. This makes no sense at all, incoherences everywhere, a lot of mess over the last 40 years that we need to compost.

There are likely good, useful motivation for unfederating from the #dotcons let’s be motivated by them please.

Who is making the shovel #OMN

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 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 , 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 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 ?”. 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 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.

A script #makinghistory

[Opening Shot: A montage of radical historical photographs, documents, and footage representing social movements and political activism throughout history.]

Narrator: In a world where history is written by the victors, a new #openweb project emerges, aiming to democratize the process of archiving and storytelling. This is the story of #makeinghistory, a groundbreaking initiative within the Open Media Network (#OMN).

[Cut to Interview with Project Lead]

Project Lead: The #makeinghistory project is about empowering communities to take control of their own narratives. It’s about recognizing the importance of grassroots movements and ensuring that their stories are preserved and shared for generations to come.

[Cut to Footage of Archiving Process]

Narrator: The journey begins with the digitization of historical archives, like the #CampbellFamily archive, containing invaluable materials related to activism and political movements.

[Voiceover: Setting up the Application]

Narrator: The first step is setting up the application for #makeinghistory.

[Voiceover: Uploading Digital Files]

Narrator: Users create accounts and start uploading directories of digital files from the archives, adding basic metadata to organize the materials.

[Cut to Community Building]

Narrator: Building a community of users is essential. Family members, activists, and allies are invited to join the project, seeding an affinity group dedicated to preserving history.

[Voiceover: Column Structure]

Narrator: The application features columns like “new” and “recent,” along with others added by users, organizing the data based on boolean logic lists and hashtag based metadata.

[Voiceover: Data Interaction]

Narrator: Users actively interact with the data, organically adding metadata, information, and editing hashtags to categorize items effectively.

[Voiceover: Categorization]

Narrator: Through collaborative efforts, items move into category columns, creating cohesive narratives and facilitating engagement.

[Voiceover: Story Feature]

Narrator: The story feature transforms categorized, metadata-enriched data into cohesive narratives, providing overviews and linking multiple items and categories.

[Cut to Exhibition Setting]

Narrator: But the impact of #makeinghistory extends beyond digital platforms. In exhibition settings, visitors can participate in archiving and storytelling, creating a participatory space for engagement.

[Voiceover: Sharing History]

Narrator: The stories created through #makeinghistory are shared with the wider world, providing grassroots quality history in addition to normal traditional top-down narratives.

[Closing Shot: A group of people gathered around a digital display, discussing and engaging with historical materials.]

Narrator: Through #makeinghistory, people are reclaiming their stories, inspiring real and lasting social change by recognizing the power of history in driving progress.

[End Credits]

Criticism of Post-modernism and Neo-liberalism

The ideological mess we need to compost:

Post-modernism

Over the last four decades, post-modernism has emphasized subjectivity and questioned universal truths. Its aim was to deconstruct grand narratives and expose hidden power structures. While this brought critiques, it also contributed to increasingly fragmented worldviews, where shared reality became harder to establish and #fashionista truth was treated as entirely relative. This fragmentation has made it more difficult to build coherent social movements capable of addressing systemic problems.

Neo-liberalism

Neo-liberalism promoted deregulation, privatization, and market-driven policies as the dominant model for society. In practice, this has widened inequality, weakened labour rights, commodified public services, and concentrated wealth and power. Economic growth has too been pushed at the expense of social justice, democratic accountability, and ecological sustainability. Markets have become the only measure of value, while the commons and collective wellbeing have been pushed aside.

Identity Politics

Identity politics has played an important role in highlighting the experiences of marginalized communities and exposing forms of discrimination that were previously ignored. At the same time, when disconnected from broader social and economic analysis, it fragments collective action by encouraging movements to organize around separate identities rather than shared material interests. Institutions can also adopt the language of diversity and inclusion without addressing the deeper structures that reproduce inequality, turning radical ideas into only liberal symbolic gestures.

The Balanced Approach

Any real change and challenge project needs to respond to these challenges by rebuilding the commons through collective action rather than individual competition. We need to restart our thinking starts from the view that social, economic, technological, and ecological systems are interconnected, and that meaningful change requires addressing these #KISS relationships together.

A practical framework for this is the : open data, open source, open standards, and open process. These simply encourage “common sense” transparency, collaboration, and shared ownership while reducing opportunities for enclosure, monopoly, and co-option.

On the path we push – rather than rejecting identity or diversity, #OMN aims to place them within a broader politics of solidarity. Individual experiences matter, but lasting change depends on building communities capable of acting together across differences. This shifts the focus from representation alone toward creating institutions and infrastructures that empower people collectively.

The goal is not simply to critique post-modernism, neo-liberalism, or identity politics, but to compost their limitations into something more productive: in the tech path an #openweb built on trust, participation, shared governance, and the digital commons. In this sense, #OMN is both a technological and a social project, as it seeks to create practical tools that help communities organise, communicate, and govern themselves while remaining rooted in the values of the commons rather than the logic of markets or centralized control.

The development of ActivityPub was a collaborative effort

One thing that is missing from much of the unthinking #mainstreaming outreach and expansion is that the history of #ActivityPub and the #Fediverse is a grassroots collaboration, and an ongoing struggle between open and closed paths. To understand this history, we need to explore the origins of ActivityPub and its evolution within the broader #openweb movement.

ActivityPub emerged as a response to the limitations of early social media protocols like #OStatus, which powered platforms such as #StatusNet (later GNU-social). While OStatus enabled some level of federation, it lacked robust privacy features and limited conversation dynamics. This pushed developers to seek alternatives that could better support native social interactions.

The early drafts of ActivityPub, initially called #ActivityPump, were an ambitious attempt to build a flexible protocol supporting rich, decentralized communication. In tech OStatus, used XML, ActivityPump adopted JSON, a more modern, lightweight, and developer-friendly format. This shift made it easier for platforms to adopt and extend the protocol.

The transition to ActivityPub, the move from ActivityStreams 1.0 to ActivityStreams 2.0, and ultimately to ActivityPub, reflected the need for a more comprehensive standard. ActivityPub introduced server-to-server communication, enabling platforms to share activities, like posts and follows, across different instances. This innovation laid the foundation for true federation, where separate platforms could interact seamlessly.

Key projects helped shape this evolution. Pump.io, created by #EvanProdromou (the developer behind StatusNet), was an early experiment with ActivityStreams, though it never achieved widespread adoption. But these experiments were stepping stones that informed the development.

Next is the role of #Mastodon and the rise of the #Fediverse, Eugen Rochko’s decision to implement ActivityPub as Mastodon’s primary protocol catalyzed the growth of the Fediverse. Mastodon offered a #openweb “native” but familiar Twitter-like experience with federation baked in, its rise attracted a wave of people disillusioned by #dotcons social media.

As Mastodon grew, other platforms joined the ecosystem, #PeerTube for video, #Pixelfed for images, #WriteFreely for blogging, and meany more. Each new platform enriched the Fediverse and reinforced the strength of the decentralized path.

There are challenges to openness, despite its successes, this journey of rebooting the #openweb with ActivityPub and the Fediverse hasn’t been without friction:

  • Commercial Capture: As the Fediverse gained traction, larger players began exploring it. #Threads’ integration with ActivityPub, for instance, raises concerns about whether the #dotcons might dilute the Fediverse’s grassroots ethos.
  • Technical Complexity: Implementing ActivityPub isn’t straightforward. the pushing of features like HTTP signatures for verifying interactions introduce technical hurdles that can create compatibility issues between platforms.
  • Centralization Drift: Even within the Fediverse, centralizing tendencies continue. Mastodon’s continuing dominance has concentrated influence, raising questions about how to prevent decentralized paths from replicating the “common sense” patterns of the #dotcons.

There is a constant need for guarding this open future, in which we need to balance the outreaching to the #mainstreaming with caring and supporting the native grassroots that created the value in the first place.

Looking forward, the future of ActivityPub and the Fediverse hinges on collective action. We need to resist the “common sense” commercial co-option from both friends and enemies to expand into building tools that make decentralized tech more accessible #OMN

The promise of the #Fediverse isn’t simply technological, it’s cultural and political. It’s about reclaiming the internet as public commons, where communities thrive on their own terms. On this path, by staying rooted in collaboration and community care, we ensure the Fediverse remains a beacon of hope in increasingly enclosed digital paths.

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 good 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 #dotcons in #FOSS, as we have too often done in the #Fediverse.

The next step needs to be more native to the 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 fall. 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 #natsyfew. That concentration erodes democratic norms and opens the door to authoritarianism. Twitter is just one case of 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 so hard to build and sustain.

The trap of nostalgia, is 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 helps to highlight the tendency of #mainstreaming to adapt to life under oppressive regimes, out of self-preservation, habit, and a fear driven 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 is easily found in this transformation of Twitter from neoliberalism to fascism – 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 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:

  1. Centralization of Power: The dominating platforms in the #dotcons era are #closedweb, centralized, controlled by a handful of corporations.
  2. Monopolistic Practices: This 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.
  3. 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 obvues ethical concerns.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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 mess we made requires continuing efforts to promote decentralization, and “native” #openweb culture and infrastructure. 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 make 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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 social/economic 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 any 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 path.

We can work together?

The is occasional discussion surrounding the classification of different versions of the #web, such as #Web01, #Web02, #Web03, #Web04, or #Web05, this is not merely an academic exercise but an aspect of understanding the evolving nature of the digital landscape. However, the proliferation of these hashtags leads to confusion and contribute to the spread of fear, uncertainty, and doubt (#FUD) among users, people and communities.

In response to this confusion, proofer to use the hashtags #openweb and #closedweb which offer a clear and concise way to delineate between platforms that embrace openness, transparency, and community control (#openweb) and those that prioritize proprietary technology, centralized control, and lack transparency (#closedweb). By using these hashtags, we foster a better understanding of the ideological and technical underpinnings of different web platforms and paths.

Projects like #indymediaback and #OMN exemplify grassroots efforts to promote decentralized, community-controlled media and communication platforms. These initiatives can become vital in challenging the dominance of large corporations in shaping the digital paths and in offer an inclusive, diverse, and community-controlled approach to technology development.

At the heart of this discussion lies the #geekproblem, which highlights the tendency among technologically people to prioritize technical solutions without considering their broader social implications or the needs of ordinary people. By recognizing the #geekproblem, we begin to address the inherent biases and limitations of tech-centric paths to problem-solving and can then move to advocating for solutions that are inclusive and community-driven.

The solution to this “problem” lies in developing social tech that transcends the #geekproblem and focuses on the needs and perspectives of communities. This needs a diverse group of people in the development and decision-making process and promoting open-source code, open standards, open governance, and open data in technology development. By embracing this #KISS path and principles, we create a more equitable, transparent, and collaborative ecosystem.

However, this requires overcoming challenges, including the resistance of the status quo and the fear of change. By actively using the to judge projects, we challenge the prevailing narrative, call out pointless technologies, and compost the #techshit that contributes to the perpetuation of harmful social dynamics.

Moreover, it is essential to recognize that the struggle for a more sustainable future is inherently political. The dominance of large corporations and the perpetuation of #neoliberal ideologies pose significant barriers to any progress. Therefore, it is imperative to mobilize collective action and advocate for policies and initiatives that prioritize, balance the needs and well-being of communities over these profit-driven interests. Without this, the progressive tech dev will fall on barren ground.

In conclusion, the use of hashtags such as #openweb, #closedweb, and serves as powerful tools for organizing and mobilizing grassroots efforts to challenge the status quo. By embracing these hashtags and the values they represent, we work towards a future where technology serves the interests of the many rather than the few.

Let’s try harder, please.