Tag: opensource

#4opens vs. #4closed

The critical paths between governance, activism, and the ideological underpinnings of #FOSS, #opensource, and the #openweb. The problem, governance without “politics” which FOSS and opensource often ignore and block the politics, leading to governance models resembling feudalism where “better kings” may emerge, but the underlying structure remains inequitable. Without addressing systemic issues, projects replicate the very power imbalances they aim to escape.

Decentralization is a post-capitalist concept, as decentralization eliminates middlemen, undermining the foundations of capitalism. However, capitalism co-opts decentralization, selling illusions while embedding scarcity (e.g., #encryptionist projects). Recognizing and resisting this is vital to preserving the openweb. Composting the shit, current activism often worsens the “shit pile” by pouring misaligned efforts and unclear priorities into an already broken paths. Instead, we need shovels for composting—tools and frameworks like #OMN and the to transform waste into fertile ground for radical change.

A solution can be found in 4opens and #OGB, this creates a permissionless path, framework for decentralized, equitable governance. The Open Governance Body (OGB) fosters participatory decision-making, breaking away from feudal hierarchies and cultivating more of a balance of collective ownership. The path is building together, the Open Media Network (OMN) embodies this ethos by emphasizing “you and me” over “just me.” A core part of this path is that activist media must embrace discomfort as a catalyst for change, balancing inspiration, information, and critique to challenge the status quo.

A world in flux, old paths are gone, there’s no going back, reboots are imminent—social upheavals (#Trump, #Brexit) and environmental crises signal the need for systemic transformation. The 4opens promote transparency, participation, and shared ownership. By contrast, the represent secrecy, exclusivity, control, and commodification—aligning with the #dotcons and the #deathcult’s vision of the future. Words as power, the spell of repetition, the 4opens is more than a mantra, it’s a way of embedding ethical, decentralized values into public consciousness. This “spell” counters the pervasive narratives of the 4closed and offers a tangible path for the needed transformation.

Grassroots Radical Media: A #4opens Path

The resurgence of grassroots radical media projects requires a return to foundational principles, particularly the embrace of #FOSS and #opensource practices. These principles align with the framework, which acts as both a lock and a key for building sustainable and accountable media networks.

The Basics, Activism vs. Mainstreaming, where activism aims to resist and redirect the mainstream toward progressive change. #Mainstreaming, on the other hand, often serves NGO agendas, softening resistance to maintain institutional stability and job creation for its participants. Recognizing this distinction helps grassroots projects avoid being co-opted into reducing systemic change to incremental tweaks.

The importance of #FOSS and in keeping radical media transparent and accessible. The (open process, open data, open licenses, and open standards) ensure inclusivity and guard against #mainstreaming dilution. These principles help create paths accountable to people, not funders and institutions.

This is the #OMN mission:

Core vs. Periphery: OMN prioritizes the 1% of technologies and workflows that align with human-focused projects, filtering out the shiny distractions of mainstream tech. Guided by the PGA Hallmarks, the project adheres to these anti-capitalist, anti-patriarchal, and grassroots-oriented principles to ensure alignment with long-term goals rather than fleeting trends. This challenges, right-wing coordination, the right has effectively leveraged #openweb media over the last decade, outpacing the left in cooperation and strategy. To counter this, the left must embrace collaborative frameworks like the and avoid falling into isolated #stupidindividualism. Verbiage and Focus is an issue, academia often overcomplicates the discourse, leading to a churn of ideas without actionable outcomes. Projects need clear plans that balance innovation with practical implementation.

Avoiding the #deathcult of neoliberalism, most mainstream tech assumes human nature is fixed by 40 years of neoliberalism, building reactionary systems. Grassroots projects reject this limitation and design tools that reflect the full spectrum of human potential. To move, we need to leverage experience, older activists should gently guide enthusiastic newcomers by asking, “How does this work with the ?” and “Does this further the PGA hallmarks?” This approach fosters accountability and focus without stifling creativity. A core part of this is filtering technology, to avoid getting lost in the tech world’s “stinky, shiny fashions.” Focus on tools that genuinely empower communities rather than perpetuate #mainstreaming.

Build humanistic tools, to stop creating isolated, individualist solutions, tools fostering collaboration across diverse movements. Reboot proven models, starting new projects in a world dominated by #stupidindividualism leads to often to fragmentation. Instead, reboot and modernize successful past initiatives like #Indymedia, grounding them in the and #KISS federated governance.

The time is ripe for a #reboot of the alt/grassroots tech world. By centring projects on transparency, inclusivity, and collaboration, we can counter the forces of #deathcult neoliberalism and #mainstreaming. The #OMN is a framework for this sustainable and impactful radical media, to make us ready to sift through the tech pile and find the tools that serve humanity. Join the effort to help shape the future of grassroots media and governance. Learn more at OMN

Building #FOSS bridges

There is a divide in #FOSS between #openculture and #opensource that is becoming more visible and a significant tension today, with each movement originating from different perspectives on sharing and collaboration, even though they overlap in the broad mission of making knowledge and technology more accessible. You can see this in the AI debates and in grassroots “governance” in the #Fediverse and the issues this brings up as current examples. The differences are in focus and motivation:

  • Value path: Open Source focuses on the technical, structured development of software, with licences that ensure people can access, modify, and redistribute code. It tends to be practical, driven by the necessity to create robust, community-driven technology.
  • Open Culture, however, extends beyond software to include media, art, and knowledge. It centres around the idea that cultural paths—art, literature, music, and other media—should be freely accessible and adaptable by all. It values knowledge sharing in all forms, encompassing the ethical path that information and culture should be democratized.
  • Legal frameworks and licenses: Open Source relies on licenses like GPL, Apache, and MIT licenses that set clear boundaries on how code can be used and ensure that software modifications remain open. This fosters collaboration but also keeps contributions within a strong structured framework.
  • Open Culture, leans on Creative Commons (CC) licenses, which are more flexible in terms of content usage and address a broader range of creative and educational materials. These licenses vary widely, allowing authors to shape how much or how little freedom people have to use their contributions, which can lead to different interpretations of “openness.”
  • Open Source communities are more driven by practical needs and more standardized approach to governance, which function at times as gatekeeping and can be seen as restrictive by Open Culture advocates. There’s often an emphasis on the meritocratic and structured contributions, rather than the more mess cultural paths.
  • Open Culture communities are more fluid, valuing inclusivity, encouraging contributions from broader groups. This can create tension with Open Source projects that prioritize hard structured paths.

Today, we see this division in action with increasing calls from the Open Culture side for a more inclusive, less restrictive approach. Open Culture argue that #FOSS and Open Source can be rigid, excluding many types of cultural contributions and voices that don’t fit neatly into software development paths. Conversely, Open Source proponents view Open Culture as lacking in the clear boundaries that have shaped Open Source to work in structured technological development.

Bridging the gap: For #openweb projects, addressing this divide requires a path that respects both technical standards and the inclusiveness Open Culture calls for. Projects like #OMN and navigate this divide, building on community-driven networks where technical governance is balanced with cultural openness. Building tools that emphasize accessibility and collaboration—while being technically robust and community-driven—bridge the gap, aligning Open Source rigour with Open Culture’s inclusiveness.

To move forward, both communities benefit from dialogues focused on shared values, finding where their paths complement each other, but with clear strengthens and weakness to both paths. This issue is important as we confront the composting of #techshit and #dotcons and in the wider world the onrushing #climatechaos that all require technological, cultural, and social innovation.

Then there is this issue to think about https://lovergine.com/foss-governance-and-sustainability-in-the-third-millennium.html

Corporate presence in the Fediverse?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some quotes from my prier work:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Likely more…

Peoples views:

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

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

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

https://lemmy.world/post/20160202

We need to reclaim focus and energy wasted on current failing systems

Many years ago, I stopped going to most tech events and supporting “ethical” business. the #NGO tech events are mere talking shops, spaces filled with endless discussions but no outcomes. They suck up time, energy, and focus, acting as gatekeepers that reinforce the status quo while masquerading as spaces of change. These events are part of a semi-hidden #deathcult, worshiping, the failing structures of the present rather than imagining and building of alternatives. Next time you see one of these events pop up in your feed, ask yourself: Is this contributing to actual change, or just taking up space?

Then we have the same problem with the way people, too often, set up “soft green alt businesses” that can’t “pay their way” within the current capitalist system. If you can’t challenge capitalism’s rules, why not consider working to overthrow them first? Only then will we have the non “pay-to-play” spaces where real alternative projects can grow.

We got into this mess by accommodating these structures rather than challenging them. As Marx said:

“Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past. The tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living. And just as they seem to be occupied with revolutionizing themselves and things, creating something that did not exist before, precisely in such epochs of revolutionary crisis they anxiously conjure up the spirits of the past to their service, borrowing from them names, battle slogans, and costumes in order to present this new scene in world history in time-honoured disguise and borrowed language.” Karl Marx, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonapart

In simple words, we must be realistic about the conditions we face but also bold in our strategies to change them. To take this path, we need to navigate past the blocks of power politics, the stupidity, fear, control freakery, cowardice, and overwork that consistently stymie technological and social change. It’s past time to move aside from this mess. We need to reclaim the focus and energy wasted on maintaining the current failing systems and redirect/balances this to building #openweb and resilient #community spaces for change and challenge.

A #KISS step is compost the #techshit to create space to build networks based on #4opens—#OpenData, #OpenSource, #OpenProcess, and #OpenStandards. In the current #fediverse the pathways are there; it’s up to us to walk them.

You likely need a shovel #OMN

The Open Media Network (#OMN) is a set of tools to empower communities
A project we need to build together as a path”native” to the #openweb

let’s recap, as you likely missed half the story the first time round. This speaks directly to the core of why meaningful change is so hard to achieve within the current mess of tech and “ethical” business. Most #NGO tech events, which claim to be about fostering change and innovation, have become places of inertia. They are “talking shops” paths where people discuss endlessly with no concrete action or achieving “real “native” outcomes. These spaces take up limited time, energy, and focus, which could be directed toward building real alternatives. They are gatekeepers, reinforcing the status quo while pretending to be progressive and transformative.

These paths only “exist” if they play by the rules of capitalism, rules that are designed to extract value rather than support meaningful, sustainable alternatives. So, instead of challenging these rules, people waste time trying to work within them, missing the bigger picture. If we want to create real change, we need to challenge the foundations of the system itself, not simply try to adapt to it.

Marx’s quote emphasizes that while people make their own history, they do so within the constraints of circumstances handed down from the past. In other words, we carry the weight of outdated structures and ideologies that continue to stifle transformation. The history of failed strategies and the perpetuation of ineffective methods weigh us down, preventing us from taking different paths to different possibilities.

The power dynamics within these spaces—be it #NGO tech events and “ethical” businesses are filled with control, fear, overwork, and cowardice, which block progress. Real change is movement beyond this mess, to reclaim energy wasted propping up failing systems, to redirect it toward building #openweb and resilient communities to use this freed up space for change and challenge. The #fediverse and other decentralized networks already provide pathways; we just need to be brave enough to walk them.

In short, this matters, for a radical shift in focus from superficial actions to systemic change to compost the #techshit and build truly transformative from the ground up. And yes, we need a shovel #OMN.

Yes, we are in a mess, we need a path

Free Software is Political

In progressive discussions about technology and open source, there is intolerant pushing of mess from people who say “just focus on the code” without the politics. This is an understandable outlook, but it is also stupid, based on a misunderstanding of what is Free/Open Source Software (#FOSS). This everyday pushing of mess making comes from #blinded #mainstreaming people claiming that FOSS is “a-political” or should be kept that way, and shows a lack of any understanding of this movement.

As this article highlights, the idea of “a-political” Free Software is not only incorrect; it’s historically nonsense. Free Software is intrinsically and unavoidably political. It is not simply about code; it is about who controls the code and, therefore, who controls the user. This is why the path that many projects take, to jam FOSS into capitalism without addressing these core issues, is a mess and failing path.

The roots of free software are in a political and ethical movement that just happens to focus on software. “Computer users should be free to modify programs to fit their needs, and free to share software, because helping other people is the basis of society.” This is not just a technical stance; it is a moral, ethical, and political one. The idea that users should have the right to control their own digital lives and help others do the same is at the heart of Free Software. This #KISS foundation opposes proprietary software, where users are legally prevented from helping their neighbours, thus restricting their freedom.

“Computer users should be free to modify programs to fit their needs, and free to share software, because helping other people is the basis of society.”

The emergence of the “Open Source” in the late 1990s pushed change on this “native” path, into a more #mainstreaming direction by shifting focus to development benefits, pushing out the ethical and political core. This, however, does not change the foundational politics of Free Software, it merely tries to mask it, to hide it, by pushing out of sight the political core, this is mess making and the normal mainstream “common sense” when it comes to taking up any Alt paths, this is a history we need to stop.

The difference between Free Software and Open Source: “Open source is a development methodology; free software is a social movement.” For the #opensource path, non-free software is a suboptimal technical solution. For the FOSS path, non-free software is a social problem that needs challenging and changing. This is a distinction that some who try to take this path fail to recognize, leading to the meany messy social and coding projects we try to make work today.

As the #dotcons world increasingly face crises of privacy, control, and trust, the relevance of these distinctions, hopefully, becomes more into focus. From tech giants abusing data to governments exploiting backdoors, the ethical foundation that Free Software rests upon is needed, not optional.

The politics of software, the idea that software can be a-political, is a misunderstanding of what software does and represents. As Larry Lessig says – “Our choice is not between ‘regulation’ and ‘no regulation.’ The code regulates. It implements values, or not. It enables freedoms, or disables them. It protects privacy, or promotes monitoring.” Every decision in software development, from what features to include, to how data is handled, to what kind of accessibility is provided, is a political one. There is no “neutral” code. Decisions about prioritizing user rights, security, and privacy are political decisions, and they shape the wider digital networks we live within.

All code is ideology solidified into action – thus most contemporary code is capitalism, this is hardly a surprise if you think about this at all. Yes, you can try and act on any ideology path from this code, but the outcome and assumptions are preprogramed. If we continue to pretend that the software and platforms can be devoid of politics, we are, taking a side, and actively contributing to the mainstream mess that dotcons push, and this is the mess we urgently need to move away from. As outlined on my website, we need to focus on building a #openweb projects that respect people, rather than merely mimicking corporate platforms with a veneer of openness as we do so often, on the #Fediverse, #Bluesky etc.

Conclusion: stop pretending and start building, to those who wish to “just code” without the politics, it needs to be continually pointed out strongly that is impossible in the path of impactful software development. Every piece of software carries with it values, ethics, and political implications. Acknowledging this is the first step toward building digital networks that serves the people, rather than controlling them. We need to walk a path away from the mess of #mainstreaming towards a more open and humanistic internet.

This is not a hard path to take #OMN

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.

NGI Zero open source funding talks about the @sovtechfund

NGI Zero open source funding
The @sovtechfund is offering grants to people who contribute to a sustainable open source ecosystem. Grants go up to €300,000 per application and cover three main topics:

1. Improve FOSS Developer Tooling
2. Securing FOSS Software Production
3. FOSS Infrastructure Documentation

With this program, the Sovereign Tech Fund seeks to stimulate an open digital infrastructure: fundamental technologies that enable the creation of other software.

https://sovereigntechfund.de/en/challenges/ #opensource
Three Challenges to Contribute Back to Open Source

UPDATE Looks like people are also arguing this point https://shared-digital.eu/statement/

We are pouring public funding down the drain agen, these criteria are feeding the #geekproblem not actually trying to take the “problem” out of our geek paths. The people who PUSH this agenda are the problem – please POINT at them and talk about this mess, thanks.

Can we get a link to the people making the agenda, thanks, will try polite conversation

I worked with the guy who used to be behind the #NGIzero account, we did good stuff with the #EU outreach.

The replacement, I have no idea who they are and getting #blocking

This is a fail.

In all these toots am talking past “people” to talk about things/social/groups and not directly to individuals, they are second in all these conversations. This is the place where social value lives. The problem is, we don’t have hardly any of this… which is the subject am talking about.

#blocking is not seeing this, addressing this, the is a lot of blocking going on 😉

Am happy to talk to “individuals” as a first step.

Pouring money down the drain, because the majority of the problems in the #Fediverse and the #openweb are social not technical – if they only fund technical parts of this culture they are feeding the “problem” and this problem is going to pour the resources down the drain.

I understand this is a hard conversation to have, we have to try.

First step is , WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE PUSHING MESS while doing “good”, step into the light please #openprocess

Ignoring this basic #openprocess is #blocking, this is why conversations are done in public

yes, I understand the fear this creates and the desire to #block, but this then makes the fail more visible if people wont to use this for the needed change and challenge if they don’t yes it’s more noise what are you signal or noise 🙂

Signal vs Nose.

I find #mainstreaming people to be actually mad and increasingly bad. When do we get more people pushing change challenge in these #openweb spaces, please?

Am increasingly seeing this #blocking as a culture of fear, or more real as a culture of fear pushed as power politics.

Am thinking meany people will be confused and likely mix signal with noise on this subject.

Who are the bad people, the powerless pushing the on the #openweb or the powerful Burocrats worshipping the #deathcult while protecting these thin careers in the #mainstreaming

If you find yourself agenst the first and defending the second, then you are the problem.

This makes your behaver noise, and what you do very likely to be more #techshit to compost.

I wonder if people understand what activism is on the #openweb any more?

You talk to people to explane why they are doing WRONG, and at the same time you push them as HARD as you can to change their wrong behaver.

This works best with the #fluffy #spiky debate as a core part of this process.

People who keep saying “why can’t we all get along”, and “wouldent it go better if we were nice to each other” and the PROBLEM blocking the activism from having the needed affect…

Keep building a better world, one link, one line of code at a time

Once upon a time, in a world dominated by the #dotcons, closed-source technology and centralized decision-making, a small group of passionate activists and developers came together to reboot an old way of building technology. They believed that technology should serve the needs of people, not just the interests of big corporations and governments. They called themselves the community.

The community believed that openness and trust were the keys to creating technology that served the needs of people. They codified the existing #FOSS, open-source working practices as a process called the , which consisted of four #KISS principles: open data, open source, open “industrial” standards, and open process. They believed that by embracing these principles, they could create technology that was more transparent, collaborative, and decentralized.

The first principle of the was open data. The community believed that data should be freely available to everyone, so that anyone could use it to build new tools and uses. They created a platform #OMN where people could share data openly and collaborate on projects together.

The second principle of the was the #mainstreaming idea of #opensource. The community believed that software should be free and open for anyone to use, modify, and distribute. They created a library of #FOSS software that people and community can use to build new tools and services.

The third principle of the is open “industrial” standards. This principle was a little more complex, but it basically meant that technology should be built using open, standardized protocols that anyone could use. This would ensure that technology was interoperable and that people could easily switch between different tools and services.

The fourth and final principle of the was open process. This principle was perhaps the most important of all. The community believed that technology should be developed using transparent, collaborative processes that anyone could participate in. They organized on a platform https://unite.openworlds.info/ where people could share ideas, collaborate on projects, and make decisions together.

Over time, the community grew and expanded. They built new tools and services that were based on the principles of openness and trust. They created a vibrant ecosystem of developers, designers, and users who worked together to create technology that served the needs of people, not just the interests of big corporations and governments.

And so the community continued to grow and evolve, creating a more healthy vision for technology. They knew that their work was just the start, they were determined to keep pushing forward, to keep building a better world, one link, one line of code at a time.

A look at the recent history of radical grassroots activism

#ClimateCamp was a radical grassroots direct action movement to directly challenge #climatechaos and raise awareness about climate change and advocate for solutions to mitigate its effects. The movement was made up of a loosely organized network of activists who used a diversity of tactics to achieve their goals. Climate Camps were established in many countries. The movement reached its peak in the late 2000s and early 2010s and had a significant impact on public debate and government policy.

#Protestcamps are gatherings of activists who set up temporary camps in public spaces in order to bring attention to a cause or issue. The goal of these camps is to create a direct action space where people come together, discuss and demonstrate. The camps may range from #fluffy peaceful gatherings to more #spiky disruptive and confrontational events, depending on the nature of the issue protested and the diversity of tactics of the activists involved. Some well-known examples of protest camps include #Occupy, #ClimateCamp

#CriticalMass a decentralized activism movement started in 1992. The movement is centred around a monthly direct action bike ride where participants gather to raise awareness about car culture.
The idea behind Critical Mass is to reclaim public space for cyclists and to assert the right of cyclists to use the roads. The rides are often a festive and celebratory event. The Critical Mass movement has since spread to cities around the world, with similar events taking place in many cities.

Using #openweb tools like #RSS and #ActivityPub has several benefits in the context of direct action and grassroots politics.
Decentralization: RSS and ActivityPub are decentralized technologies that are not controlled by any single entity, making them resistant to censorship and control.
Interoperability: By using open standards like ActivityPub, organizations and individuals can communicate and share content with each other, regardless of the platform they use.
Transparency: The use of #openweb tools can increase transparency and accountability in the political process, allowing for greater public scrutiny and engagement.
Ownership: By using #opensource tools, individuals and organizations can own and control their data, rather than relying on proprietary services controlled by corporations.
Accessibility: By using open web technologies, information can be more easily accessible to those who are marginalized or excluded from the mainstream, enabling more inclusive and equitable participation in the political process.

Direct action and grassroots politics are important tools for effecting social change. Direct action refers to forms of activism that seeks to achieve a goal directly, without intermediaries, often through disruptive or confrontational means. Direct action can include strikes, sit-ins, blockades, and other forms of resistance.
Grassroots politics refers to a political movement or approach that is bottom-up, rather than top-down, meaning it seeks to empower citizens to take action on political issues, rather than relying on traditional power structures such as political parties or government. Grassroots politics aims to give a voice to marginalized or underrepresented communities, and to create change from the ground up.
Together, direct action and grassroots politics offer a way for people to engage in the political process and to bring about change in a democratic and inclusive way. By taking action outside traditional political channels, activists and communities bring about change on issues that they care about.

#Fediverse is a #openweb decentralized social network ecosystem consisting of independent, user-run servers that are all compatible with each other. This allows for a more open and democratic internet experience, as users can choose to participate in a variety of online communities without relying on any single centralized platform.
The Fediverse is seen as a more privacy-friendly alternative to the #dotcons, this is a working “white lie” based on thinking.

#XR “Extinction Rebellion,” is a global social movement that uses non-violent civil disobedience to protest against the failure of governments to take action on the climate and ecological crisis. The movement seeks to disrupt the status quo and force political leaders to take immediate action to address the crisis. The movement was founded in the UK in 2018 and has since spread to other countries around the world, with a focus on large-scale protests and acts of civil disobedience.

#XR is a protest movement, some people classify XR as a #spiky radical protest movement due to its tactics and goals, but others consider it more liberal because of its commitment to #fluffy non-violence. Ultimately, the classification of XR as radical or liberal depends on individuals looking at the problem, it’s a debate.

Programming and ideology are different areas that intersect. Ideology refers to a set of beliefs, values, and assumptions that shape an understanding of the world and people’s place in it. In the context of programming, ideology comes into play when a programmer brings their often #mainstreaming values and beliefs to the coding they write and the systems they build. You can see this in the copying of the #dtcons to build the #fediverse and how this is now shaping the #openweb

Discussing #postmodernism and the criticism to “isms”. The idea is that blindly following a particular ideology can make a person a “zombie” to limit the ability to think critically. The phrase #nothingnew is used to suggest that fresh thinking on old issues is needed, rather than blindly following existing dead #mainstreaming ideologies. The use of ad hominem arguments, which is a type of logical fallacy that attacks an individual rather than the argument they are making, is clearly #blocking

The #OMN is a project focused on linking alt/grassroots media. In the context of the need for a rebooted #openweb and avoiding the #blocking of this by #fashernista and #geekproblem agenda.

The #OpenWeb is the internet where information and content is accessible to all, regardless of their location, device or network, and can be shared, linked, and re-used without restrictions or barriers imposed by proprietary platforms, walled gardens, or monopolistic practices. It is based on and aims to provide a more inclusive, equitable, and participatory world.
The #OpenWeb is often contrasted with the #closedweb or “walled garden web”, where content and data are locked behind proprietary platforms, controlled by corporations or governments, and subject to limitations, restrictions, and surveillance. The #dotcons

Over the last 10 years we have been told a lie

The is no security in CLOSED – The is security in OPEN/social

The is no security in individualism – this is only security in community.

The is no security in “trustless” – The is security is in social trust

Over the last 10 years we have been told a lie. A thought to set a spark – this is easy to see in tech – look at #opensource and think if there is any CLOSED in this?

Over the last 20 years there has been a battle between OPEN/CLOSED and over the last 10 years CLOSED has come to dominated with #dotcons and their shadow puppet the #encryptionists Both are CLOSED- both put on the cloth of OPEN and say the words, but words are wind, look at the ground we live in a closed world. Please do not add to this mess.