Tag: openweb

A fluffy view of the path, with a touch of spiky

The concept of the “good society” is the most socially profound questions we can ask, especially at this moment of history. When we face the overlapping crises of climate change, political instability, and extreme economic inequality, the question of what constitutes a “good society” becomes urgent and pressing.

There should be an obvious view that there is a need for a real change of path, to address the severe social, political, and environmental mess we have made of our time, we need more than just incremental change—we need a fundamental shift in how we think about and act in society. This involves rethinking our economic, political, and social systems in ways that enhance the freedoms and well-being of the majority, rather than concentrating wealth and power in the hands of a few.

This path leads us to break from the current #stupidindividualism of #deathcult worship to walk a very different “good society”. Not the current #mainstreaming one of the minimalist state advocated by #libertarians, nor the highly constricted state envisioned by #neoliberalism. Instead, we have options, the #fluffy path of rejuvenated European social democracy or a new American progressive capitalism—a twenty-first-century version of the Scandinavian welfare state. Or the more #spiky path of #openweb native anarchism or metadata driven socialism.

What we cannot do is live in the #neoliberalism that has dominated the political and economic landscape for the past 40 years, with the concentration of wealth and power among the nasty few eroding the lives of the nicer meany, with resulting undermining of democratic institutions and social bindings. Our current path, claims to promote “free markets,” has been lying to us, imposed new rules for the benefit of the wealthy and powerful, and socializing losses to the meany. The 2008 financial crisis, where governments bailed out banks with taxpayer money, while the bankers themselves reaped enormous profits, is a prime example of this. This led to economic inequality, political corruption, and a loss of faith in social democratic paths. It is a road to fascism at worst and ecological and social break down at best, please let’s step away from this mess.

On the fluffy path, there is a role for government, a role to play in creating a “good society.” This involves using the economic system to provide people with the resources needed to open the range of options available to them in life. This, in turn, enhances their freedom to act and live up to their potential, its basic humanism. This path, would address the deprivations faced by those with low incomes, ensuring access to basic needs like healthcare, education, and housing. The assumption that economic rights and political rights are inseparable is core to this path. That freedom can be achieved when people have the economic security to exercise their political rights.

The conception of “freedom” promoted by neoliberal thinkers like Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman led us down a dangerous path. While they argued for “free markets” and minimal government intervention, in practice, this restricts freedom for the many while expanding it for the few. The deregulation of markets and the reduction of taxes on the wealthy leads to a concentration of power that threatens the foundations of the #fluffy social democracy path. If we stay on this path, it will lead us to a twenty-first-century version of authoritarianism, where advances in science and technology are used to surveil and control us. In this Orwellian scenario, truth is sacrificed to power, and the freedoms of the majority are eroded.

What would a path to a “good society” look like, prioritizing the well-being and freedom of the many over the wealth and power of the few? From a #spiky view, this would need fundamentalist change that frees us to take very different paths. There are seeds for this in the #OMN #OGB #makeinghistory and #indymediaback etc. For people who doubt, the two paths, projects, will work fine at the same time, many people push the #fluffy path, with its commitment to social democracy, progressive capitalism. The spiky path will work as a balance to this, and maybe replace it if people can get their act together, it’s up to people and communities to decide which path to take in the end.

We are in a global, intellectual, and political war, the paths we take now will determine whether we move towards a just and equitable society, or whether we continue down the path of inequality and authoritarianism, which will lead to #climatechaos, death and displacement. It’s good to remember that the good society provides for the needs of all its people, enhances their freedoms, and ensures that democracy and justice are more than just “chatting class” noise. Let’s please take a different path https://opencollective.com/open-media-network

Trust in Mutual Aid Networks

Mutual aid is a tool for building resilience and solidarity, which works best within networks of trust. For mutual aid to function, there needs to be a foundation of relationships where people “know” each other. This isn’t just familiarity—it’s about understanding the needs, values, and dynamics of the community involved.

The role of trust networks is that members share common bonds, whether it’s geographical, ideological, or social. These help to ensure that resources are distributed fairly and reach those who need them. When people know each other, there’s an inherent accountability that strengthens this network. This trust is crucial because it ensures that mutual aid efforts are sustainable and effective, rather than being exploited and misdirected.

The risk of feeding the #deathcult when mutual aid extends beyond these trust networks—such as when sharing needs or begging posts from people outside your community for example on the #dotcons or broadcast on the social networks of the #openweb—there’s a risk of unintentionally feeding the mess. The #deathcult is a pervasive system of exploitation and inequality that thrive on unchecked resource distribution and manipulation. Without the accountability of a trust network, resources are in part diverted to sustain the inherently destructive paths that “common sense” puts us all on.

Building and strengthening trust networks, before sharing or contributing to mutual aid requests, means it’s important to take the time to understand the community or individual asking for help. Getting to know the community by engaging with the community that the person is a part of. Understand their values, struggles, and the context in which they operate. This helps ensure that your support is going to a cause aligned with shared principles. Whenever possible, build direct relationships with the people you are helping, this can be through conversations, mutual friends, or shared activities. Knowing the person or group directly helps build trust and ensures your aid is helping rather than simply feeding at worst or propping up at best the current mess. Prioritize mutual aid efforts within communities you are connected to, or within wider networks you trust to help strengthen local resilience.

Conclusion, mutual aid is effective within networks of trust, where communities know and support each other. When sharing or responding to requests for help, please consider whether you are supporting a community need or inadvertently feeding into current messy paths of exploitation. By focusing on building and maintaining trust networks, we help to ensure that mutual aid efforts are sustainable and beneficial to those who need them #KISS

The Urgent Need for a Paradigm Shift

For the last 40 years, we’ve been entrenched in a system that pushes economic efficiency, shown by the rich getting richer while the poor get poorer. This mess has been touted as the ideal, leading to an “efficient” economic structure that, in reality, has been a disaster of environmental destruction and social disintegration. It’s well past time we recognize the worship of the #deathcult for what it is: a dire mistake that urgently needs correction to move away from the false idol of economic “efficiency”.

We need to rebalance for survival, to prioritize social and environmental sustainability rather than only blinded consumption to push mere economic “gain”. The last four decades of economic efficiency have destroyed the balance necessary for a stable and healthy society. If we continue down this path, we will face complete social disintegration and ecological disaster in the next 20 years.

Our current social structures are riddled with status games and toxic individualism, direct outcomes of the clective worship of the #deathcult. We need to move away from these destructive patterns if we want to live in a civil society in the coming years. This means rejecting “common sense” paths tainted with this worship and embracing collective, community-driven approaches. “Let us not flatter ourselves on account of our human victories over nature. For each such victory, nature takes its revenge on us.” – Friedrich Engels

We are in a mess, as highlighted by fluffy movements like #XR (Extinction Rebellion). On the positive path we need is planting grassroots media and alternative narratives, without this it is a real challenging to escape this mess. The #OMN offers a path forward, but it requires us to rethink our values and priorities fundamentally. We need to focus on this shift of power away from the #geekproblem and the #dotcons to the grassroots producers of media, culture and meaning. To foster a commons-based #openweb, economic, and social ecosystem.

This positive shift in power dynamics is a step in nurturing a #KISS more sustainable and equitable path. The wisdom from Engels reminds us that our actions have consequences. The environmental and social crises we face are nature’s “revenge” for our hubris and neglect. It’s time to change course and prioritize balance, sustainability, and collective well-being over short-term economic “gains” for the few. The time for change is now.

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

In general, as a part of the hashtag story, I call this #stupidindividualism

Understanding the Hashtags: A Guide

In activism of the #openweb hashtags serve as tools to share complex ideas and social movements. On my blog, I use a hashtag story to highlight both the positive and negative aspects of our current socio-political and technological paths. Here’s a breakdown of what some of these hashtags mean:

#deathcult: The pervasive influence of neoliberalism, which operates invisibly in our minds, dictating many aspects of society without us even realizing it. Example: “The corporate-driven decisions affecting climate policies are a clear manifestation of the deathcult mindset.”

#dotcons: This highlights how we have been deceived into enriching a greedy few through the use of digital platforms and technologies. It’s a product of the #deathcult. Example: “Major social media platforms are the epitome of dotcons, prioritizing profit and control over people’s well-being.”

#stupidindividualism: This represents the peak of current societal trends where extreme individualism overrides collective well-being to our detriment. Example: “The resistance to community-based solutions for climate change is rooted in stupidindividualism.”

#fashernistas: Flotsam influenced by fleeting trends and currents. In the #dotcons era, this refers to a large directionless majority. Example: “Influencers today are fashernistas, swayed by whatever is trending rather than contributing meaningful change.”

: A horizontal approach to technological development. Example: “Projects adhering to the 4opens principles build transparency and collaboration.”

#openweb: Refers to the decentralized digital network that revolutionized communication 30 years ago but is now pushed under by people’s use of the #dotcons. Example: “We must reclaim the openweb to preserve the internet’s native path of free and open communication.”

#OMN: An #openweb project that has been in development for the last 20 years, based on the . Example: “The OMN initiative is a beacon of hope for creating a more democratic digital space.”

#stepaway: A safe method to break free from the addiction to #dotcons while maintaining connections with friends, one step at a time. Example: “By taking a stepaway, we can gradually reduce our reliance on exploitative digital platforms.”

These hashtags are critical perspectives and positive paths in our digital and social choices. The negative hashtags (#deathcult, #dotcons, #stupidindividualism, and #fashernistas) point out the pitfalls and dangers we face, while the positive hashtags (#4opens, #openweb, #OMN, and #stepaway) offer pathways to more sustainable and community-oriented tech and social solutions. By understanding and using these stories, we help to build better while advocate for meaningful change.

A Critique of “fluffy” Leftist and Progressive #AI Paths

In our conversations on #AI there is a copyright trap, pushed in the #mainstreaming, the #fashionista conversation around protecting producers and cultural industries are growing hysterical. Some policymakers and activists are pushing for shielding creators from the very real threats posed by these new technologies. However, in their haste to act, leftist and progressive crew are advocating for the use of copyright law as a defensive path. This approach is a mess and fraught with contradictions and risks, a real “Copyright Trap”.

The Copyright Trap is the “common sense” belief that copyright law can be used as a tool to support and protect producers of our culture. This path is problematic:

  • Feudal Nature of Copyright: Copyright, along with patents and trademarks, is a form of intellectual property that comes from feudal rights. It grants semi-eternal rents to those who did not contribute to the production of the work, much like the way land was historically controlled by a few powerful lords.
  • Restriction of the Commons: Copyright takes works out of the public domain and locks them into walled gardens, thus restricting the commons. These runs counter to the principles of access and communal sharing that activists and progressives champion.
  • Injustice to Future Creators: By extending and expanding copyright protections, we make it harder for future producers to build upon the shoulders of giants. This stifles creativity, trapping future generations in a cycle of restricted access and limited freedom.

The mess underpin the current debates around AI and copyright:

  • “If Value, Then (Property) Right” Fallacy: This is the ideological belief that if something has value, it must be protected as property. This ignores the complex ways in which value is created and shared, particularly through communal and collaborative efforts, that do not fit into property rights dogma.
  • Unauthorized Copying as Inherently Wrongful: The idea that copying is wrong ignores the realities of how culture and knowledge developed through imitation, adaptation, and remixing. This perspective is particularly ill-suited to the #openweb era, where information is shared and transformed.
  • The Starving Artist Trope: This trope is resurrected to justify the expansion of copyright protections, suggesting that without such protections, artists will starve. This story fails to address the systemic issues that actually lead to the impoverishment of producers, such as inequitable distribution of wealth and the monopolistic practices in the #dotcons.

Using copyright as a weapon against AI companies is counterproductive and hypocritical for those who advocate for the rights of authors, creators, and intellectual workers:

  • Counter to Progressive Values: Copyright as it stands is a tool of capital that entrenches inequality and restricts access to knowledge and culture. Using it to protect producers from #AI companies simply reinforces a system that many leftists and progressives have long criticized.
  • Locking Up the Commons: Stronger copyright protections, risk enclosing the cultural commons, making it difficult for producers to share content freely to be built upon.
  • Hindering change and challenge: Stricter copyright laws stifle social activism, as new producers find it harder to access and build on existing works. This is detrimental in an era where collaborative and iterative creation is key to technological and cultural progress.

Alternative Approaches, to effectively address the risks and harms posed by generative AI, we need to move past the “copyright trap” and look towards more appropriate “native” paths:

  • Promote Open Access and Open Source: Encourage the use of open access and open source licenses and traditions that allow for the free sharing and modification of works. This helps knowledge and culture remain accessible for social use.
  • Equitable Funding Models: Develop new models for supporting creators that do not rely on restrictive copyright laws. This could include systems of public funding, grants, and cooperative ownership that ensure people are fairly compensated for their work without repressively restricting access.
  • Regulation of #AI Companies: Rather than using copyright as a blunt instrument, on the vertical path, we can regulate AI companies directly. This includes measures to ensure transparency, accountability, and fair compensation for the use of creative works.

The call to use copyright law to protect producers from the threats of #AI is not a useful path for leftist and progressive movements. Instead of reinforcing a flawed and restrictive system, we need to seek “native” paths that align with our values. By doing so, we build a future where both humane creativity and resulting technology can thrive in balance, and not just #techchun the current mess.

Why #AI is more #techshit

Control in Tech Culture

The 20th century was marked by significant technological and scientific advancements, alongside violent conflicts. As we move through the 21st century, the nature of these conflicts is shifting. The struggle is increasingly between humanity and nature, with dire consequences if we continue down our current path. Environmental degradation and climate change are no longer side effects, but central challenges that must be addressed. We need to find paths to move off the current paths, there are assumptions that are #blocking this needed move, one is in technology and its assumptions.

This #geekproblem has been inherited from past era’s in our computer architectures and the broader tech culture that has an ingrained concept of control. This control, hardcoded into systems and frameworks, poses an unspoken problem within many geek paths. Addressing this issue is crucial for understanding the broader implications and possibilities of grassroots #openweb tech activism as a path out of the current social and technical mess.

The Control paradigm in tech, from the foundations of computing, control has been a central theme. Systems are designed to operate under strict protocols, ensuring reliability, security, and efficiency. This paradigm, while effective in technological contexts, is inadvertently extend into social dynamics within tech communities. Control in tech is not just about managing systems; it also shapes interactions, hierarchies, and decision-making processes.

Unconscious participation in control structures, in tech communities, is unconsciously embedded in social groups that perpetuate this control paradigm. It’s essential to recognize that this isn’t a personal failing but a reflection of broader cultural trends. The challenge lies in identifying and addressing these unconscious patterns to foster more open, collaborative, and equitable environments.

The Keep It Simple, Stupid (#KISS) principle is a valuable tool for analysing generalist issues within our shared cultures. By simplifying complex problems, we can better understand the dynamics at play and develop more effective solutions. Applying the KISS principle to tech activism helps to demystify the control paradigm and its impact on our communities.

This blog is dedicated to exploring alternative paths that we can take to address these issues. By grassroots #openweb tech activism to mitigate the destructive patterns of control and build more sustainable and equitable paths. To promote decentralized technologies to empower people and communities, reducing reliance on centralized control structures.

emphasizes the importance of open-source software, to encourages collaboration, transparency, and shared ownership and community building. We need to fostering strong, inclusive communities that prioritize collective well-being over hierarchical control. We need to shift to environmental stewardship and ecological consciousness in our tech development and usage, recognizing the interconnectedness of human and environmental health in the tools we use.

This path requires a fundamental shift in how we approach technology and control. By embracing the #openweb and grassroots activism, we can create resilient, inclusive, and sustainable technological systems. This is not just a technical challenge but a cultural and ethical one.

#OMN #indymediaback #OGB #makeinghistory #visionontv

Communities and People are the #Openweb

The #Fediverse, short for Federated Universe, is a part of the #openweb made of human connections through computer networks. Its value is not a collection of software packages, much more about the flows of human community that build relationships across diverse groups and regions. Imagine the Fediverse as a web of communities, each represented as a node. These nodes are not defined by the software they use, but by the people and groups that form them:

  • Affinity Groups in Activism: communities of action and social movements
  • Local Governments: Municipalities using the Fediverse to communicate with residents, share public announcements, and gather feedback.
  • Universities: Academic institutions fostering collaboration among students, faculty, and researchers, enabling the sharing of resources and knowledge.
  • Families: Family members staying connected, sharing updates, photos, and maintaining family bonds regardless of geographical distances.
  • Friend Groups: Friends interacting and sharing moments in a private, ad-free space, organizing events, and maintaining their social ties.
  • Companies: Businesses collaborating internally and with their customers, providing customer support, and sharing company news.
  • Interests: People and communities expressing themselves, sharing their thoughts, hobbies, and connecting with like-minded individuals around the world.

These communities interact seamlessly across the #openweb, regardless of the specific codebase they grow in. Yes it’s important to understand the good #UX of the software that makes these connections possible plays a part, and that each of these nodes use a common protocol, #ActivityPub, to communicate, forming the backbone of “native” #openweb flows. This interoperability allows people on one codebase to interact with users on another, creating a unified, yet decentralized, social network.

“The Fediverse isn’t about connecting software packages. It’s about connecting communities and people. If you make a Fediverse explainer, try to show some real communities as the nodes in the network, rather than using software packages and their logos. Companies, local governments, universities, families, friend groups, individuals. You can explain what software makes those networks possible in your next slide.” https://mastodon.social/deck/@evan@cosocial.ca/112847724644046695

Though, what meany in our #fashernista and #geekproblem paths miss is this thrives because of the human element. It’s about the people who use these platforms to connect, share, and build spaces that reflect their values and needs. It’s the people and the communities of use that make this real, let’s talk about them #KISS

Talking #openweb or #Fediverse, I have to talk about #Mastodon

Let’s look at this “#branding” issue. The tech world is changing as there is a #reboot of the #openweb happening, yes a lot of people don’t see this, so worth talking about a bit. If you are interested in this subject, every day you likely hear another big player joining the #fediverse. What does that mean? It is not complex, there is a chance you are already on this path, if you are on #dotcons sites like #meta #Threads or #WordPress etc.

It’s actually something we already know about, a network of websites that interact with each other through a shared protocol, just like #email has worked for the last 50 years. The term #Fediverse is a mash-up of two words: federate and universe. To federate means to form an alliance, so the Fediverse is an alliance of websites or apps that federate content with each other. It’s a federated universe, a part of the #openweb we all grew up on if we are over our teenage years.

This network is decentralized, meaning no #dotcons controls it, people and communities have control over their information, news and data flows. While most are run by communities and individuals, a few are run by corporations. Some may have thousands of users, while others have just a few.

Each of these websites has their own myths and traditions to shape their local feeds, but people on one site can easily interact with people on another site because they’re using the same protocol, an open-source tool that connects websites into a “native” #openweb global network. How Does It Work? The protocol is called #ActivityPub, which you might’ve heard of because it powers apps like Mastodon. But it also powers #Peertube, #Pixelfed, #Lemmy, and our own #OMN etc, and even the #dotcons are sharing this space, with #meta’s #Threads. It’s extremely popular. When you publish a post on your website, it gets federated to all the people who follow you on other websites that are based on this protocol. They can like, share, or comment on your posts. That’s the path of federation and what the #openweb is about https://fediverse.party/en/miscellaneous/

The process that governs the culture of this path is simple in abstract, If the website admins notice a ton of spam coming from another website, they can either block that individual user or they can block that whole website. If that server is sending too much spam, it’s a problematic server. You can defederate from that server so you’re no longer hit with spam until they clean up their act. This is a horizontal path of how moderation works on this path, it works as an individual and as a community.

Like email, when the first thing you do is pick a username that’s available on that website. To do this, find a site that fits your interest, pick a username that’s available on that server. Your Fediverse handle is going to look like an email address: It’s going to be username@server, for example info@hamishcampbell.com for this blog’s #ActivityPub feed.

When I talk to people about the #openweb or mention the #Fediverse, I have to talk about #Mastodon for them to get an understanding on the subject, this is a non-native issue, thus the need for this blog post to try and fix this blindness. While Mastodon is a decentralized microblogging platform similar to Twitter. If you’re looking for a Twitter alternative, this is probably the one you’ve heard of. It’s one of the largest applications on the Fediverse. But Mastodon is not the Fediverse https://fediverse.observer/map look wider there are meany interesting projects.

Solidarity in the era of #stupidindividualism

In the current #sociopolitical landscape, building comradeship and solidarity is needed more than ever. However, the structures of capital and cultural norms are #blocking this path, promoting division and individualism that makes us all more “stupid”. How can we foster a community where #KISS class consciousness thrives?

This solidarity and comradeship are meaningful resistance against #deathcult capitalist structures. A first step is bridging vertical and horizontal structures in a healthy ongoing fluffy/spiky debate. This helps move past the current fragility of class consciousness, to strengthen this path we need to examine how the “petit bourgeoisie” and cultural industries deflect and pre-empt discussions about class.

Exclusion and division pushes the tendency to condemn and abuse, to mediate this mess is to create a culture where disagreement occur without exclusion. Addressing class does not mean downgrading the importance of many other issues like race and gender, all struggles are interconnected.

To make this work, it is important to critique the “stupid” path of individualism, the focus on individual behaviour over structural critique undermines collective action. Let’s clearly look at the ideology of individualism propagated by the ruling class and its impact on solidarity. A structural critique is the path to challenge capitalist ideologies, to take this path we need to mediate the tendency to individualize and privatize issues. How do we shift the focus from individual behaviour to structural analysis in public discourse and activism?

Revitalizing class consciousness is a way to push back fear and insecurity spread by the #deathcult. It should be easy to see that capital has subdued organized labour and co-opt the discourse of the left. Thus, the need for a renewed focus on class consciousness and mediating the left path, out of being mired in moralizing individualism and devoid of class analysis, which serves capital’s interests rather than challenging it. To do this, we need to move past the pursuit of #fashionista “bourgeois” recognition and its limitations.

The #dotcons social media is enemy terrain, a trap set by communicative capitalism. Yes, we maybe can strategically use and abuse this mess to move people back to the #openweb which is the “native” path. Remember, the goal is not to simply be an “activist”, we need tools from our own community to grow and use like the #OMN, to aid in the growth and transformation of the working class and on the ground organizing. This is the difference between performative activism and genuine class struggle.

Please, let’s shift the balance of focus from individualism to collective action and solidarity. Let’s stop our prat ish behaver on this. https://opencollective.com/open-media-network

State Funding of #FOSS and Open Source: Is it a Good Idea or a Bad Idea?

The questioning over state funding of Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) and open-source initiatives revolves around invisible ideological debates about benefits and drawbacks. Let’s look at this from a few specific examples: #NLnet, #NGI, and the European Union (#EU), to understanding the implications and effectiveness of this funding path.

  • The #NLnet Foundation is a notable example of an organization that provides funding to open-source projects. Supported by private and public funds, including significant contributions from the #EU, NLnet focuses on promoting a free, open, and secure internet.
  • The #NGI initiative, funded by the #EU, aims to shape the development of the internet of tomorrow. By supporting a range of open-source projects, NGI tries to foster innovation, privacy, and security. It emphasizes human-concentric technology, ensuring that the future internet respects humanistic values and needs.
  • The #EU has been a significant proponent of FOSS, providing funding through programs such as Horizon 2020 and Horizon Europe. The EU’s supports digital sovereignty, reduce dependency on non-European technologies through promoting open standards.

The is some democratization as these state-funded FOSS projects ensure software is accessible to wider groups, thus reducing the digital divide. For instance, NGI-funded projects are supposed to focus on inclusivity and user empowerment. At best, this transparency brings public overview to these processes.

There are some economic benefits and cost savings in using and supporting FOSS instead of expensive proprietary software. Funding initiatives like NGI stimulate innovation by allowing developers to build upon existing open-source projects, fostering a collaborative environment. Though, there are unspoken issues of sustainability in a pure capitalist path, thus the question of balance in state funding.

Open-source software allows for independent security audits, reducing the risk of vulnerabilities. The EU’s investment in secure communication tools underlines this advantage. Reducing reliance on a few large proprietaries #dotcons software vendors enhances national security and control. The EU’s support for open-source projects aims to bolster humanistic digital sovereignty.

For example, #NLnet’s diverse (though #geekproblem) funding portfolio highlights this limited community-driven development. The collaboration between public institutions, the private sector, and community contributors helps #NGI projects bring together diverse stakeholders to work on common goals. #FOSS projects thrive on community contributions, leading to continuous improvement and support and thus in theory community needs, though due to the dogmatic #geekproblem this is currently failing.

Funding Continuity: Projects become dependent on government funding, which currently is not stable or continuous. For example, sudden policy shifts in the EU affect long-term project sustainability. Without a sustainable funding, FOSS projects struggle with long-term maintenance and support.

Most #FOSS projects are too idiosyncratic to meet quality #UX standards. Thus, the current #geekproblem dominated process means that state funding inadvertently support meany unusable and thus pointless, subpar projects. Effective diversity and oversight of these mechanisms are crucial to mitigate this failing path.

Government involvement leads to bureaucracy, slowing down and ossifying development cycles, currently we do not work though this path well, The balance between oversight, diversity and agility is critical. With the #EU path this is a huge problem leading to almost all the current funding bring poured down the drain.

For #mainstreaming capitalism the issue of “Market Distortion”, the idea of competition raises the issue of state funding distorting “market” dogmas to disadvantage private companies and startups that don’t receive government support. For instance, EU funding can overshadow smaller #dotcons, capitalist thinking sees this as a risk that government-backed projects might stifle innovation by shaping the market landscape.

Political and ideological biases influence which projects receive funding, this is currently pushing a #blocking of the needed “native” #openweb path. How to move past this to ensuring diversity and “impartiality” in funding decisions need real work. How can we shift this “common sense” focus that government priorities do not align with the wider needs of the #openweb community and end-users. Aligning funding priorities with community needs is needed to address this concern, how can we make this happen with funding like #NLnet and #NGI?

To sum up, #NLnet are doing some good work, but this is focused on feeding the #geekproblem and building #fashionista careers, evern then on balance they do a better job than most. Then the wider #NGI funding is going into the #dotcons and #NGO mess, thus being poured directly down the drain. Over all, it’s fantastic that the #EU is funding the #openweb even if it is doing it very badly by funding very little that is native or useful.

Conclusion, state funding for FOSS and open-source initiatives, in our examples #NLnet, #NGI, and the #EU, has potential for creating real change and challenge, but this path presents both opportunities and challenges. When implemented thoughtfully, it can foster “native” paths, innovation, reduce costs, and enhance community and security to challenge the current worshipping of the #deathcults by our widespread use of the #dotcons. The question is the will and understanding to balancing this path to ensures that state funding positively contributes to the FOSS ecosystem, driving forward a free, open digital future or just leads to the capitalistic criticism of waste and distortion? At best and at worst, we see some real change and a lot of poring funding down the drain to feed some #geekproblem and build the careers of a few #fashernistas

The is much to compost in the current mess, can we get funding for shovels please #OMN

Communication barriers, lead to a lack of awareness

The #fashernista-driven path pushes aside grassroots and #openweb movements due to misalignment agendas. The #fashernists are driven by #mainstreaming agendas that end up co-opt grassroots initiatives, then systematizing them in ways that dilute their “original native” paths, intent and value. This mess leads to #techchurn and a continuous cycle of superficial innovation that does nothing to address real issues at all.

This #blocking of communication leads to a lack of awareness of people involved in these movements, understanding of the history and principles underlying the #KISS grassroots and #openweb paths. With the #fediverse, decentralization is a core principle, though it often leads to difficulties in coordination and collective decision-making. This in hand with the “common sense” #mainstreaming people resistances to adopting new models of governance and cooperation like the #OGB pushes the current mess and #techcurn mess we live in.

Proposed solutions to this path, build and support authentic projects, like the #OMN and #OGB etc. To foster collaborative governance and inclusive decision-making, start with small-scale pilot projects to demonstrate the effectiveness of collaborative governance and build “test” decentralized development. Then use these projects (with federation) as models for larger initiatives, rinse and repeat, it’s a #KISS path. This leads to the cultivation of a community of resilience and nurtures infrastructure that is robust and adaptable, capable of withstanding pressures and disruptions.

Part of this path needs to challenge #mainstreaming narratives with alternative progressive media (#indymediaback) providing a counter-story, pushing this feedback loop to highlight successes and innovations within the grassroots and #openweb movements.

Also using the as a path to encourage critical engagement with #geekproblem and #dotcons projects, questioning their alignment with grassroots values and pushing for accountability and transparency to move people off these paths.

Let’s start embracing the composting of #techshit to turn the current mess into fertile ground for new #openweb growth and innovation. Let’s pick up our shovels and building the change and challenge that is so obviously needed, and please try not to be a prat, thanks.

“The work of the anarchist is above all a work of critique. The anarchist goes, sowing revolt against that which oppresses, obstructs, opposes itself to the free expansion of the individual being.”
— Emile Armand

Crisis of Governance in FOSS: Medieval Politics and Neoliberal Failures

Silicon Valley influence is significant and with the globe hegemony of the #dotcons every where, the concentration of power and resources among a few #dotcons raises issues about democracy, equity, and control. With this in mind, we need a strong push and for meany people a fundamental rethink and restructuring of how we approach technology, governance, and real community building.

The open-source and free software communities, despite their progressive foundations, are marred by outdated governance structures that are at base medieval aristocracy and monarchy. This, compounded by the problematic mediation attempts through #neoliberal individualism, results in a stagnation of innovation and collaboration that highlights the #geekproblem within these communities.

Medieval governance in modern tech, aristocratic hierarchies are the core in most open-source projects, decision-making power is concentrated in the hands of a few “maintainers” or “core developers.” These individuals hold their positions for long periods, leading to a de facto aristocracy, with the same people in control and influencing the paths of projects big and small. Monarchical leadership is core to meany, led by “charismatic” leaders whose word becomes law. This monarch-like leadership stifle dissent and discourage fresh contributors, as the projects revolves around the vision and whims of a single individual, in the #fediverse an example is the #Mastodon codebase.

Neoliberal Individualism and Its Failures

#StupidIndividualism is a part of #neoliberalism, which promotes a form of individualism emphasizesing self-interest and competition over collaboration and community. This mindset infiltrates open-source communities, leading to fragmented efforts and a lack of cohesive or even any vision. This “common sense” market-driven development infects open-source projects that are pushed by market demands rather than community needs. The results are software that prioritizes “control”over usability and any innovation.

The #techshit and #geekproblem

  • #techshit, a term that reflects the use of #dotcons and #FOSS which proliferates, poorly designed, unmaintained, and redundant software projects that clutter the open-source paths.
  • #geekproblem, refers to the insular and exclusionary culture within tech communities. It includes issues like poor communication, lack of diversity, and a focus on technical prowess over collaborative skills.

Moving Towards Modern Governance

Democratizing Decision-Making: Shifting from aristocratic and monarchical structures to more democratic governance can help. This includes implementing transparent decision-making processes, rotating leadership roles, and widerning voices that are heard.

Community-Centric Approaches: Prioritizing community needs over individual ambitions and market demands leads to more sustainable and impactful projects. This involves active engagement with users and contributors to understand their needs and incorporate their feedback.

Embracing Diversity: Cultivating an inclusive culture that values diverse perspectives address the #geekproblem. This means actively working to include wider groups in tech and fostering a collaborative rather than competitive environment.

Holistic thinking: Moving beyond the neoliberal framework requires a holistic approach to mediation that considers social, cultural, and economic factors. This includes spaces for dialogue, conflict resolution mechanisms, and support systems for contributors.

Conclusion, to move forward, we need to shed the medieval political structures and #neoliberal individualism to make space to embracing democratic governance, community-centric paths, diversity so that communities can mediate the #techshit and #geekproblem, paving the way for a more collaborative and native #openweb.