Tag: opendata

Replacing market signalling with #opendata signalling

The dominance of the free market, for the last 40 years personified by the #deathcult worship, has instilled in us a deep-rooted belief in the power of market-driven signals as a determinant of value and action. This belief system prioritizes capital and greed as the primary forces that drive progress and social development. However, as our world becomes increasingly digitized, it’s past time to rethink and replace these signals with something more sustainable and aligned with collective welfare: #opendata signalling based on the .

Market signalling, a core tenet of capitalism, operates on the assumption that prices, supply, and demand efficiently communicate the state of the economy. These signals guide decisions across industries, influencing everything from resource allocation to investment trends. While this system has propelled economic growth, it comes at a significant cost: environmental degradation, social inequality, and systemic exploitation. In resent years, our worship of this “free market” led to an economy built on misery—a #miseryeconomy where people and communities pay to escape the hardships imposed by the very system they are part of.

The open vs. closed data dichotomy is currently largely invisible, so good to bring focus on this path. When considering alternatives to market signalling, we need to explore the difference between open and closed data paths. The original #openweb was built on the principles —open source, open data, open standards, and open processes. These fostered transparency, collaboration, and equitable growth. However, the rise of the #dotcons (dominant tech corporations) over the past two decades introduced #closeddata silos that have stifled openness and thus blocked this native path. Closed data systems prioritize proprietary algorithms, user data and metadata hoarding, and opaque decision-making processes. This has been used to reinforcing capital-driven signals as the only path.

In the emerging #openweb ecosystem, there is a new model—one rooted in opendata signalling. Unlike market signals driven by profit, opendata signalling operates on transparent and shared data inputs that inform decision-making across communities. This shift prioritizes communal benefits, sustainability, and builds trust. This path can only be glimpsed in the messy fashernista driven #openweb reboot we are a part of. Consider the surge in decentralized networks such as #Mastodon, the broader #Fediverse, #BlueSky, and #Nostr. Over the past years, these have grown from a few hundred thousand users to tens of millions, highlighting an appetite for more community-driven paths. Open-source platforms like WordPress are integrating ActivityPub to support decentralization, extending open data practices to a quarter of the web. Even #dotcons corporations like #Facebook (with its #Threads initiative) are adapting to this movement, albeit with a corporate agenda.

What opendata signaling looks like? In a practical sense, opendata signalling means that any institution or person running a Mastodon instance, for example, can access a significant portion of the Fediverse’s content as plain text in their database. This access allows communities to collaboratively analyse and act on data without the current corporate intermediaries distorting and monetizing it for control.

Imagine policymaking informed by real-time public discourse, free from the profit-driven filters of major platforms. Local governments could tap into decentralized data to plan infrastructure, health initiatives, or educational reforms that reflect actual community needs. Environmental policies could be shaped by transparent data on ecological impact, rather than suppressed by industry lobbyists protecting capital interests.

Challenges and Considerations? Transitioning to opendata signalling isn’t without challenges. Regulation and policy will need to adapt to safeguard open data’s integrity and prevent exploitation. The fear of spam and manipulation, which critics often raise, must be addressed with intelligent design and community moderation. Yet, these challenges are surmountable compared to the unsustainable trajectory of a market that fails to act collectively for basic servival let along the greater good.

Moving Beyond Worship. Our reverence for the “free market” as an ultimate arbiter has reached its limit. By embracing opendata signaling and shifting away from closed, profit-driven paths, we create a foundation where collaboration, sustainability, and shared progress are at the forefront. This is not only a technological shift but a cultural one, As we continue this transition, let’s recognize that our digital choices will dictate whether we uphold the values of the #openweb or fall back into the restrictive practices of #closeddata. Let’s try to have a real conversation about this, please.

The Path Beyond #Neoliberalism

On the path of the current climate and systemic crises, it becomes realistic to see that #neoliberalism, with its free-market orthodoxy and the pushing of minimal state intervention, is fundamentally an inadequate path that is ill-equipped to address #climatechaos and social challenges we face. This failure means a radical shift in perspective and approach is going to happen, with this we might need to shift our “common sense” to being “Revolutionary Realism.”

The current #mainstreaming of false promises of #Neoliberalism over the last 40 years has pushed the fundamentalist free market path as the engine of prosperity, wealth and efficiency. However, since the 2008 financial crisis, these promises have increasingly rung hollow. The empirical evidence—rising inequality, decreasing life expectancy, and environmental degradation—exposes the limitations and failures of this economic model.

From our turn of the century Alt globalization movement, we have Mark Fisher’s concept of “capitalist realism”, which describes the pervasive belief that capitalism is the only viable economic system. This invisible dogma has fostered a sense of fatalism, particularly on the left, where a resignation to critique and protest has replaced active efforts to envision and construct alternatives. This defeatism perpetuates the status quo, as it undermines belief in the possibility of systemic change.

The need for revolutionary path in the imminent collapse of capitalism, contrary to the notion that capitalism is indestructible, we are witnessing its destabilization under the weight of its inherent contradictions and the accelerating climate mess. This realization prompts a shift from capitalist realism to revolutionary realism, acknowledging the inevitability of capitalism’s decline and the necessity of preparing for what comes next.

The climate crisis is a catalyst, a primary driver of this impending transformation. From droughts affecting global trade to natural disasters disrupting economies, the environmental impacts of #climatechaos are compounding the systemic vulnerabilities. These disruptions necessitate a move towards a different way of organizing economic systems, this could be a controlled and planned economic system or more a balance of grassroots federated democracy.

State control of the economy is one path. Historically, state intervention has proven effective in times of crisis, as seen during World War II and the COVID-19 pandemic. State control of the economy does not inherently mean totalitarianism; it can involve a balanced approach, with both top-down planning and bottom-up participation.

Effective planning is a path we might need to take, being crucial for managing resources and ensuring equitable distribution. This could involve simplifying economic processes, such as reducing the variety of consumer goods and localizing production to reduce dependency on international trade. Digital technology can enhance this planning by providing real-time #opendata and facilitating more responsive governance.

Democratic Participation is a path to avoid the pitfalls of authoritarianism, any new system must incorporate democratic mechanisms, such as #OGB path of building the power of citizens’ assemblies, to legitimize state actions and ensure accountability. This grassroots participatory approach mitigates the risk of corruption and foster a sense of collective responsibility.

Practical steps for transition, free basics and rationing. A key element of a new system would be the socialization of essential services—healthcare, housing, and food production—to ensure that everyone’s basic needs are met. Rationing of luxuries and non-essential goods can help to push some sustainability and equity on this mediation path.

Encouraging worker participation in decision-making using projects like the #OGB and perhaps supporting small businesses, as a path out of the current #mainstreaming, can humanize the economy and maintain a degree of market diversity to push the needed transition. This hybrid approach blends state control with “entrepreneurial” social freedom, making the path through the coming mess by balancing efficiency with innovation to shift our dogmatic common sense.

But fundamentally we need a cultural shift towards valuing sustainability, community, and collective well-being over the #stupidindividualism of individual consumerism. This can be promoted through, empowering #DIY education, radical media (#indymediaback), and grassroots movements. There is a long history of this (#makinghistory) which we need to remind our selves about.

The transition from current #mainstreaming to a more sustainable and equitable system requires revolutionary realism—a pragmatic recognition of the imminent collapse of the current system and a proactive approach to growing its successor. This might involve embracing state control, and or fostering grassroots democratic participation, to push the cultural shift towards sustainability and collective well-being. Can we navigate the complexities of this transition to take the path to building a more resilient and just society is the most important question for today?

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.

Outreach text for the #4opens

The framework provides a set of principles/path for testing, evaluating and promoting progressive social and tech projects. By adhering to these principles, people and communities support initiatives that prioritize openness, collaboration, and social good. Let’s explore how each of the 4opens can be utilized.

  1. Open Data: Open data is the foundation of transparency and accountability in tech projects. By making data freely accessible and usable by anyone, projects can foster innovation, collaboration, and democratic decision-making. Progressive social and tech initiatives can leverage #opendata to empower communities, address social inequalities, and advance public interest goals. For example, open data can be used to track government spending, monitor environmental pollution, or analyze social trends.
  2. Open Source: Open source software is essential for fostering a healthy and vibrant tech ecosystem. By providing access to source code and encouraging collaborative development, #opensource projects can accelerate innovation, improve software quality, and promote digital autonomy. Progressive social and tech initiatives can utilize open source software to build tools and platforms that empower people and challenge corporate monopolies.
  3. Open “Industrial” Standards: Open industrial standards are critical for ensuring interoperability and compatibility across diverse tech systems. By adhering to #openstandards, projects can avoid vendor lock-in, promote diversity, and facilitate innovation. Progressive social and tech initiatives can advocate for and adopt open standards to build decentralized, resilient, and inclusive tech infrastructures. For example, #openstandards for communication protocols can enable peer-to-peer networks and decentralized social media platforms.
  4. Open Process: Open process refers to the transparent and participatory decision-making processes that govern tech projects. By involving stakeholders in project planning, development, and governance, open process fosters trust, accountability, and collective ownership. Progressive social and tech initiatives can embrace #openprocess by adopting democratic and inclusive decision-making structures, such as consensus-based decision-making or participatory budgeting. For example, open process can enable community-led initiatives, address social justice issues, and promote collective well-being.

In summary, the framework provides a roadmap for advancing progressive social and tech change and challenging the dominance of centralized, proprietary tech platforms. By prioritizing openness, collaboration, and social impact, people and communities support initiatives that empower a more equitable and democratic tech ecosystem.

The framework provides a set of criteria for evaluating and assessing the “Nativeness” of #openweb projects. By applying these criteria, we make informed judgments about the transparency, inclusivity, and ethical practices of a given project. The 4opens can work to assign ratings/badges to openweb projects based on the 4opens criteria, a loose evaluation process assessing each criterion against a set of loose criteria and assigning scores accordingly. Projects could then display these ratings/badges prominently on their websites or documentation, allowing people to quickly assess their openness and transparency. Additionally, a centralized registry or directory can be created to showcase and promote projects that adhere to the 4opens path, providing people with a trusted resource for discovering and supporting openweb projects.

Cambridge Analytica, 5 years on

I think we face the usual problem of working on and implementing policy for yesterday’s issues.

* We are coming out of ten years of Blockchain mess

* Now we are into #AI mess, the is no intelligence in the current round, only artificial writing.

Let’s look at what actually matters

The original openweb had in this context #opendata is the issue we are talking about.

We then had 20 years of the #dotcons with #closeddata. Which you have talked about.

Coming out of this, we have an active openweb reboot happing with federation and opendata.

For example with #Mastodon, the #Fediverse, #bluesky and #Nosta which have grown from half a million to 10 to 15 million users over the last year. #WordPress building #ActivityPub support for a quarter of the internet and #Failbook‘s #threads.

You are seeing a different world back to #opendata, if you run a mastodon instance you will have a large part of the content of the Fediverse sitting in your database in plan text….

Take this into account with policy and regulation please

#Oxford

hashtag storys #4opens

Q. While I agree with everything you wrote in that post, I don’t get how that illustrates the geekproblem. Is the #geekproblem the same as the #encryptionists?

A. The #geekproblem is illustrated here http://hamishcampbell.com/index.php/2021/03/06/over-the-last-10-years-we-have-been-told-a-lie/

Q. In one post you wrote that the geek problem is replacing trust with control. That immediately communicated clearly to me.

A. The #geekproblem is a general issue of misunderstanding of “total control” and what it is to be human. The #encryptionists are an example of this, that have been dominate for the last 10 years, the solution to everything is “privacy” “lock down” isolated individualism, me only me “no such thing as society only individuals and their family’s”.

The hashtags have different meanings if you look at them from different directions – but always #KISS and radical at base. Metaphors, soft knowledge. The are no hard definitions – but add them together and they tell a story of “control”. The opening is that YOU have the opertinertly… maybe its a bit Qanion, first time I thought about that one 🙂

Q. I assume open data, which is good in some contexts but shades into surveillance in others.
Open processes? Which again I like in most of the contexts I work in,
What else?

A. The is a few pages http://hamishcampbell.com/index.php/projects/4opens its a radical “social” definition of the open-source/free-software process. can be used to judge any tech/social project. It’s needed to lift the lid on what #dotcons and #NGO say and what they actually do, always different. If people make judgments it’s likely to put to one side 95% of the current tech crap and concentrate on real #openweb projects that get lost in the churning of #fahernista and #geekproblem agenders.

With #opendata currently we have a control issue. All the #dotcons data is open to corporations who pay and government agencies who spy, it’s just closed to us. What is the role of data in society is a complex issue that we do almost nothing to talk about in any real sense.

Social (data) ideas to think about:

What is a “free-market”

A. Ain’t no such thing and never has been nor will be

What is a command economy.

A. Any capitalist supply chain.

What are humane relationships.
A. longer conversation…

Q. But this is such a thing as a “free-market” in inverted commers 🙂 it’s the data we have on the things we “value” which we exchange for “data” that is created and guarded by our “states” with lots of guns and bombs.
A command economy is what the soviets tried and failed and china is trying to recreate with a state “manoalay” on data and metadata.
The “humane data” is the interesting one for and #OMN which are planting seeds for.

The currency of the 21st century is information 

What is the effect of #geekproblem, of privacy and encryption, and their fetishization of #cryptocurrencies?

The market (liberal individualism and private property that comes with it) provides information on value based on explotion greed and selfishness.

#Opendata and #metadata provides information on value based on connection, cooperation and altruism.

A approach spreads connection, cooperation and altruism into our social world.

A market approach (privacy, individualism and private property based on encryption) allows exploitation, greed and selfishness to be at the centre of our society.

This is an old ideological and political divide that is not talked about at all in the #geekproblem as the is “no such things as society, only individuals and their family’s ”.

Society is based on social norms, walking down the street in safety – soft

Code is hard norms. A policeman on every street corner – hard

The question that we need answers to is how can we talk soft (social) power to the hard power (code) of the #geekproblem when for them such norms are invisible. They can’t hear what we are saying.