Tag: openweb

Capitalism is the logic of the #dotcons

Let’s look at capitalism through the lens of #dotcons (a term that plays on “dot-coms” with a critical twist).

  1. Commercialization of the Internet: Capitalism drives the commercialization of the #openweb and internet, where profit motives override basic humanist considerations such as community, autonomy, privacy and basic democratic values. The term “#dotcons” is a critique of how the internet has been taken by commercial interests, turning it into a marketplace to push aside its “native” public good.
  2. Exploitation of people: Digital platforms exploit users’ data and metadata and attention for profit. Companies like Facebook, Google, and Amazon collect vast amounts of personal data to sell targeted advertising and shape public behaver.
  3. Monopolization and Centralization: Tends to create monopolies or oligopolies, as the most evil companies buy out competitors and dominate markets. Today, a few large companies control significant portions of the market, stifling competition and ending innovation.
  4. Surveillance Capitalism: The #fahernistas term Surveillance Capitalism coined by Shoshana Zuboff describes an economic system centred around the commodification of personal data to use to manipulate behaviour and generate profits, reinforcing capitalist dynamics.
  5. Erasing the Public: The logic erodes the public sphere by pushing profitable content over informative or educational material. Algorithms designed to maximize engagement promote sensationalist and emotionally charged content, contributing to misinformation and polarization. This diminishing of the commons is a detrimental path of capitalism on digital discourse.
  6. Short-termism and Innovation Stagnation: In pursuit of immediate profits, capitalist enterprises prioritize short-term gains over humanistic paths, long-term innovation and ecological sustainability. A focus on quick, lucrative projects rather than any groundbreaking or socially beneficial innovations.
  7. Digital Divide: This exacerbate inequalities, including the digital divide. Access to technology and the internet is dictated by market forces, leaving disadvantaged communities behind.

“Capitalism is the logic of the #dotcons” shows how these paths have shaped the #openweb into a landscape to prioritize profit over public good, leading to the current mess of exploitation, centralization, surveillance, and inequality.

We have made a mess of the #openweb, we can’t keep being “prats about this” please, let’s try something different #OMN

Real Social Media is a Hard Balancing Act

#Opensocialmedia is native to the #openweb it represents liberation, while #closedsocialmedia is centred around control for profit. The balance between these two forms is nuanced, and understanding the implications and paths of each requires consideration. It is not “common sense” so you need to think outside your current limited view please #KISS

Open Social Media: Liberation

  1. Transparency and Accountability: Open social media operate with transparency, allowing people to see and understand the algorithms, policies, and decision-making processes. This transparency builds trust and accountability, as people feel responsible and empowered to be responsible for actions and content.
  2. Empowerment: At best, people and communities have control over their content and data. They shape experiences to take their own path, contribute to the platform’s development, and participate in governance. This builds ownership and engagement, it’s a feedback loop.
  3. Innovation and Collaboration: Open platforms grow through collaboration. Developers and users create features together, improving collectively. This collaborative building nurtures technological for people rather than only for profit.
  4. Information: Open social media provides unrestricted access to information, promoting affective and for fulling speech and sharing of ideas. This supports progressive education, activism, and the basic democratization of knowledge.

Closed Social Media: Control

  1. Monetization and Profitability: Closed social media platforms are motivated by monetization, using people’s data and metadata to generate revenue through manipulative advertising and social control.
  2. Centralized Power: Control is centralized to the platform owners and administrators, in the end the state. This centralization limits people influence over the network, policies and progressive changes, creating vertical, top-down governance.
  3. Content Moderation and Censorship: Content moderation is core to building community and to prevent abuse, closed platforms exercise total, manipulative control, leading to #mainstreaming censorship and the shaping of agendas, and most obviously the suppression of dissenting voices. This control is used to shape public thinking and silence any real opposition.
  4. Data Privacy Concerns: Closed platforms collect and store vast amounts of people’s data and metadata without much transparency about how it is used. This lack of transparency highlights privacy concerns and risks of invertible data leeks.

The Complex Balance

  1. Finding the Middle path: Balancing open and closed social media involves finding a balance where people’s empowerment and creativity coexist with democratic controls and sustainability measures. This balance requires careful consideration of the trade-offs involved in both cases.
  2. Regulation and Governance: Effective democratic regulation and governance are crucial in maintaining this balance. Policies protects people’s rights, data privacy, and promotes transparency without stifling creativity by pushing only #mainstreaming agenda.
  3. Community Involvement: Building in community decision-making grows this balance. Platforms that have participatory governance are likely to achieve a harmonious equilibrium between openness and control.

Conclusion

The balance between open and closed social media is not straightforward and requires taking the path of reflection and adaptation. Open social media offers liberation through transparency, empowerment, and collaboration (#4opens), while closed social media focuses on control, centralization, and monetization (#dotcons). Walking a path that maximizes the benefits of both approaches involves navigating trade-offs, fostering community involvement, and implementing effective governance (#OGB).

You can support this path https://opencollective.com/open-media-network

The Battle for the Internet: Open vs. Closed

Since its creation, the internet and World Wide Web have been shaped by two competing and overlapping paths:

The #OpenWeb

Rooted in the DNA of internet code and culture, we see the web as a platform for collaboration, sharing, and the free exchange of information. Built for use in a world where information is abundant and free, embodying the ethos of “free as in free beer.”

The #OpenWeb emphasizes the #4opens: open source, open data, open standards, and open process. It walks the path of creativity and collective creation, and is closely associated with “native geek culture” alongside radical/anarchist libertarian thinking. Social interactions are visible, promoting accountability and collective decision-making. Examples include public forums, open-source projects, and community assemblies.

The #ClosedWeb

On the other side, we have the approach of companies like Microsoft under Bill Gates and late-stage Google, that focus on the monetization and commercial viability of the internet. This vision is fixated on control for profitability, and the economics of running online platforms in a world based on artificial scarcity

The #ClosedWeb pushes interactions to private, monetized paths with the illusion of privacy and confidentiality are necessary. This approach seeks to lock down information and interactions, creating walled gardens that can be controlled and monetized.

The Internet’s “native” Potential

The inherent democratization and egalitarianism of the internet allow people to create and share content. However, this ideal clashes with commercial interests that push for control to monetize user data and interactions.

From the #OpenWeb perspective:

  • Interconnectedness: Technology reflects human values and structures.
  • Empowerment: The internet empowers people to distribute their work, share ideas, and bypass traditional power politics gatekeepers.
  • Education and Information: The web transforms education and information access, linking vast resources to walking the path to a different society.

From the #ClosedWeb perspective, the dominant emotion is fear:

  • Fear of sustainability: Concerns about how to maintain and profit from online platforms.
  • Fear of losing control: Worries about people having too much freedom, undermining business models and #mainstreaming dogmas.

The Battleground for Openness

The #OpenWeb remains a battleground between the paths of openness and the pushing of fear. While it has democratized content creation and access, the economic models sustaining this ecosystem are often a toxic mess. This tension shapes society both online and offline, creating a complex and messy landscape to find a sustainable path.

The #GeekProblem

One barrier to addressing these issues is the #GeekProblem. On the web, those with technical expertise and control over resources bypass democratic processes and accountability, leading to a kind of “feudalism.” This problem is equally present in grassroots #FOSS (Free and Open Source Software) communities and corporate #dotcons (dot-com companies), as both share the same #geekproblem mindsets regarding control and authority.

A part of the #openweb path involves re-evaluating the relationship between control, wealth, power, and social change in both technology and wider society. Currently, we lack clear ways to discuss the “problem” in geek culture, making it difficult to mediate the #closedweb problem. This is a growing problem, as groups who succeed in a capitalism are the worst equipped to solve the problems that the system creates.

The struggle between these visions is ongoing. For the #openweb to thrive, there must be a concerted effort to address the underlying issues of control and power within both the open and closed paths. By acknowledging and working on these problems, we maintain the internet’s potential as a force for democratization, creativity, and the needed social change.

Please “don’t be a prat” about this, thanks.

Open vs Closed in Tech

Open Systems: Emphasize transparency, inclusiveness, and shared power. Social interactions in open systems are visible, allowing for accountability and collective decision-making. Examples include public forums, open-source projects, and community assemblies.

Closed Systems: Reserved for private interactions, where privacy and confidentiality are necessary. Examples include personal conversations, private messages, and some business dealings.

The real fear of Closed Systems

Isolation and Control: Closed systems isolate people and groups, enabling power to exert disproportionate influence without any meaningful oversight. This leads to abuses of power, lack of accountability, and the perpetuation of harmful practices.

Stifling Innovation and Collaboration: When information and resources are locked away, collaboration is harder, and serendipity to build the trust for horizontal working suffers. Open systems encourage the sharing of ideas and collective problem-solving, driving trust and humane creativity.

    Historical examples

    Diaspora vs. RSS Networks:

    Diaspora: Promoted as a closed network, provide a privacy-focused alternative to Facebook. However, its closed nature limited its adoption and integration with existing #openweb web ecosystems.

    The 10-Year Gap: The decade-long gap between the initial promise of open standards like RSS and their reinvention (e.g., ActivityPub) underscores the challenges of maintaining momentum and community support for open systems. This gap is a huge-lost opportunity.

    RSS and ActivityPub: Open standards, facilitate interoperability and decentralized communication. The resurgence of interest in these technologies (e.g., ActivityPub) highlights the value of open systems to building trust based networks.

      Ideological Perspectives

      Conservatism: Emphasizes stability, tradition, and supports hierarchical structures. In the context of the #openweb, conservatives argue for maintaining closed systems to preserve order and control.

      Liberalism: Advocates for individual freedoms and freespeech ideals. Liberals support open communication systems as they align with values, but have a need for closed systems to facilitate the capitalist economics they so love.

      Anarchism: Promotes the dismantling of hierarchical structures and champions radical #4opens with decentralization. Anarchists advocate for fully open systems, minimizing any form of “hard” centralized control.

        Questions to Consider

        Balancing Openness and Privacy: How can we design systems that maximize openness while respecting some privacy and confidentiality?

        Sustaining Open Systems: What mechanisms can ensure the longevity and resilience of open systems, preventing them from being overshadowed by closed, proprietary alternatives?

        Addressing the #GeekProblem: How can we engage technologists and developers in conversations about the sociopolitical implications of their work, encouraging a commitment to the open path?

        Navigating Ideological Differences: How can we bridge ideological gaps to create a shared vision for the #openweb, recognizing the diverse motivations and concerns of different political and social groups?

          The discussion about open versus closed is not only technical but rooted in sociopolitical ideologies and ideas of human nature. By understanding these perspectives and implications, we can advocate for the #openweb, to build up this vibrant, inclusive, and innovative space. This needs a thoughtful consideration of historical contexts, current challenges, and future possibilities, always with an eye toward preserving the #4opens that make our internet beneficial for society, not just the few greedy monsters that are destroying what we value, life.

          How can we have this conversation without the normal “prat behaver” is a hard path to find.

          #mainstreaming counter-cultures

          The #mainstreaming of counter-cultures, like the #openweb, #Fediverse, and #Mastodon, touch on issues in openweb culture and the needed community sustainability. It should come as no surprise that we need both action and community to hold together the culture, values and integrity of these digital spaces.

          Normalization and Dilution of Values: As counter-cultures like the openweb and Fediverse gain #mainstreaming acceptance, the values and ethos that created these spaces and technology they are based on get diluted, this is the normal. The key community-driven, decentralized, and open-source principles are pushed over by commercial interests and mainstream norms.

          Sustaining Cultural Integrity: The challenge lies in maintaining the native culture of these spaces while expanding their reach. The inclusion of diverse voices and broader participation is essential for growth, but it needs to be balanced with the preservation of #4opens foundational path for the value to have the maximum impact that we need.

          Different Perspectives: The interpretation of #mainstreaming as good, bad, or indifferent varies depending on political and ideological perspectives. For some, mainstream acceptance represents success and broader impact. For others, it signals a loss of autonomy and a clear steeping away from the original path.

          Critical Stance: it should be obvious that #mainstreaming without holding the original #4opens and #DIY ethos in place is a bad path. There is growing need for vigilance and action to safeguard these spaces from being co-opted and over commercialized.

          Participation: Engaging “natively” in discussions on platforms like SocialHub is a path. This participation helps in shaping the future of these open’ish spaces and ensuring they remain relevant and on mission.

          DIY : The #DIY (Do It Yourself) is fundamental to the #openweb and #Fediverse. Emphasizing community control, self-reliance, and collaborative development. Promoting and practising this ethos to resist “common sense” #mainstreaming pressures is needed.

          Mobilization: Encouraging wide community involvement is essential. Whether it’s through developing new features, creating content, or moderating discussions, contributions sustain the “native” ecosystem, it is at best a “gift economy” path.

          The #mainstreaming of counter-cultures of the #openweb, #Fediverse, and #Mastodon is filled with challenges as well as opportunities. With native participation, a strong commitment to #DIY principles, and a collective effort to preserve this native culture, it is possible to sustain and grow these spaces without losing their original path of cultural integrity.

          You can find out much more about my thinking on http://hamishcampbell.com, and please try “not to be a prat” thanks.

          Tension, Open and Closed Web

          From its very minority creation, the spreading internet and World Wide Web has been shaped by two competing, often overlapping visions:

          The collaborative, #openweb: Rooted in #DNA of post apocalyptical internet code and culture, this vision is of a network for collaboration, sharing, and free exchange of information. Built for use in a world of abundance of information, free as in free beer. Emphasizes #4opens, creativity, and collective creation, associated with “native geek culture” and what can be understood as radical/anarchist libertarian thinking.

          The commercial, #closedweb: The approach of companies like Microsoft under Bill Gates, and late stage google, focuses on monetization and commercial viability of the internet. Fixated on fear of sustainability, profitability, and the economics of running online platforms in a scarcity based world.

          The Internet inherent democratization and egalitarianism allows everyone to create and share content. However, this ideal clashes with the pushing of commercial control, to monetize user data and interactions. This #open path empowers people to distribute their work, share ideas, and bypass traditional gatekeepers. The web transforms education and information access to synthesizing vast resources needed for a different view of society. From the #closedweb prospective, you have fear, simply fear.

          The #openweb remains a battleground between these feelings, of openness and the pushing of fear. While it has worked to democratized content creation and access, the existing economic models to sustain this ecosystem are a toxic mess. The ongoing tension shapes society both online and offline, yes it’s a mess.

          Why we so often can’t see or do much about this mess is that our #geekproblem have disproportionate control over resources and decisions. This leads to blinded “#feudalism” that bypass democratic processes and accountability. This is equally a “problem” in grassroots #FOSS and corporate #dotcons, as they share the same mindset.

          A part of the #openweb is a move to re-evaluate the relationship between “control”, wealth, power, and social change. But currently we have no clear way to talk about this issue from the limited, narrow “problem” in geek culture. So have little way to mediate the #closedweb of the groups who “succeed” in capitalist #mainstreaming, who are actually the worst equipped to solve the problems that the system creates.

          UPDATE https://www.theregister.com/2024/10/25/opinion_open_washing/ this is playing out here.

          We need to compost the current culture of lying

          The Fediverse is “native” to Anarchism

          Anarchism is a part of #FOSS governance, it is a political philosophy and social movement that shaped the foundations of the internet and #openweb on a path to move from centralized power to decentralized, self-government. This was a strong part of #web01 and a strong part of why it worked so well. So this space embodies #anarchism which believe that society and technology can be organized to build freedom, equality, and cooperation

          What is Anarchism?

          There are forms of anarchism, some well-known:

          • Anarcho-Communism: Advocates for the abolition of private property and the establishment of a classless, stateless society based on communal ownership and cooperation.
          • Anarcho-Syndicalism: Seeks to abolish the wage system and replace it with a system of workers’ self-management and direct democracy.
          • Individualist Anarchism: Emphasizes the importance of individual freedom and autonomy, and is associated with the writings of figures like Emma Goldman and Max Stirner.

          This has a long and varied history, with roots in liberalism and socialism.

          Anarchism in Action

          1. Direct Action: Anarchism emphasizes direct action over traditional protest. Instead of petitioning authorities to make changes, anarchists take matters into their own hands. For example, if a community lacks drinking water, anarchists would dig a well themselves rather than petitioning the government.
          2. Acting as If Free: Anarchism is about behaving as though one is already free, practising this directly.
          3. Democracy Without Government: Anarchism can be seen as democracy without the state, where people collectively make decisions without hierarchical structures. It is based on self-organization, voluntary association, and mutual aid.

          History of Anarchism

          Some old dead figures and movements include:

          • The French Revolution: Inspired many early anarchists with ideas of liberty, equality, and fraternity.
          • Pierre-Joseph Proudhon: The first self-proclaimed anarchist, wrote the influential work What is Property? In 1840.
          • Mikhail Bakunin: A Russian revolutionary, was a key figure in the anarchist movement of the late 19th century.
          • Emma Goldman: An American feminist, anarchist, was a prominent in the early 20th century.

          Arguments for Anarchism

          Supporters of anarchism emphasize:

          1. Individual Freedom and Autonomy: Anarchism values individual freedom and autonomy, arguing that centralized systems of power limit personal liberty.
          2. Equality and Cooperation: Anarchism promotes equality and cooperation among people, envisioning a society where resources are shared, and the needs of all members are met.
          3. Direct Democracy and Grassroots Participation: Anarchism is associated with a strong commitment to direct democracy and grassroots participation in decision-making.
          4. Challenging Oppressive Systems: Anarchist ideas inspired many social movements to challenge and dismantle oppressive systems and hierarchies.

          Arguments Against Anarchism

          Critics of anarchism raise concerns:

          1. Unrealistic or Utopian: Critics argue anarchism is unrealistic or utopian, calling for the abolition of centralized power, many believe are necessary for maintaining order and protecting people’s rights.
          2. Overemphasis on Individual Freedom: Some forms of anarchism, such as individualist anarchism, are criticized for placing emphasis on individual freedom and autonomy at the expense of community and collective action.
          3. Association with Violence: Anarchism has been associated with violence and extremism, particularly in the form of bombings and assassinations carried out by anarchist individuals or small groups.
          4. Practical Implementation: Critics argue that anarchism is too hard to put into practice, as it calls for the overhaul of existing political and economic systems, which is a steep path to walk and difficult to achieve in the “real” world.

          One thing, we do need to understand is that anarchism is at the heart of meany of our #openweb norms, its advantages and disadvantages depend strongly on assumptions and material conditions in the time and place where people try and enact it. The #openweb and #Fediverse with its strong flow of “trust” and “abundances” is a fertile place for “nativist” experiments like this. Though, as critics, argue this path is not easy or without its problems.

          The #OMN is mediated “native” to this https://opencollective.com/open-media-network join us if you would like to try walking this path.

          Let’s look a bit deeper, anarchism challenges forms of authority and domination. The idea, rooted in classical liberalism and Enlightenment principles, is any exercise of authority or power must justify its legitimacy. This burden of proof applies universally, whether within a family, a state, or global institutions. If authority cannot demonstrate its legitimacy, it should be dismantled.

          The concept of legitimate authority is central to anarchism. Those in power must justify their actions and their right to hold power. If they cannot, their authority is considered illegitimate.

          1. Personal Example: Imagine walking with a granddaughter who runs into the street. If you pull her back, that is an exercise of authority. However, this action must be justified as legitimate, perhaps by arguing that it was necessary to protect her from harm.
          2. Broader Examples: The same principle applies in broader contexts. Men in patriarchal systems must justify their authority over women. Governments must justify their authority over citizens. Corporations must justify their control over workers.

          In democratic paths, legitimacy is supposed to be maintained through public debate, interaction, and struggle. If these mechanisms fail, the legitimacy is in question. In totalitarian or authoritarian systems, legitimacy is non-existent because these systems do not allow challenges to authority. People in positions of authority internalize the belief that their power is legitimate. This internalization makes it difficult for them to recognize or acknowledge the need to justify authority.

          Throughout history, authority and domination have been accepted as legitimate by those who are subordinated. This acceptance flows from a combination of indoctrination, socialization, and the internalization of prevailing values.

          • Slavery: Many slave societies were stable because slaves accepted their subordination as legitimate.
          • Feudalism: In feudal societies, people accepted their roles within the hierarchy as natural and proper.
          • Modern Employment: Today, many people accept the necessity of renting their labour to survive, a concept that was once seen as wage slavery.

          We need to make this obvious that people challenging the legitimacy of authority leads to social struggles, revolutions, and sometimes significant change. Anarchists take this challenge seriously and push questioning the illegitimacy of authority through active resistance and the promotion of #DIY self-governing structures. Understanding, this path and philosophy has profound implications for how we build and work in technology and shapes our current #openweb reboot.

          Please keep this path #KISS

          More on this https://hamishcampbell.com/understanding-anarchism/

          Utopia

          Let’s try and reclaim some words, in the current mess of #mainstreaming, #Utopia is a dirty word #Dystopia is not. The story that imagines a future of continual decline feels more reasonable, even inevitable. It’s easy and kinda enjoyable to picture #apocalyptic paths, given the current state of the world.

          With the growth of #deathcult worshipping, the end of history was declared 40 years ago, equating our current social and economic organization as the pinnacle of human achievement. The prevailing #neoliberal system —markets, competition, a gladiatorial struggle for personal betterment—was seen as the only viable one. The myth that individual success trickles down to benefit everyone persists, despite now widespread disbelief and distrust in this what should be obvious to any thinking person – #deathcult

          However, we’re so deeply in to everyday “common sense” worship that imagining alternatives feels impossible now, Utopia has become a dirty word, while dystopia is accepted. Reflecting on our childhood wonder at human progress—pilotless planes, robots, space exploration, flying cars—we now see these advancements as threats. Military drones, job-stealing automation, space as a private escape, and flying cars are all tinged with dread.

          It’s the system. Whether you support or oppose it, the is a consensus, that the future under this system is rarely viewed with optimism. The promises of market-driven utopia have led to repeated crises like 2008, not the envisioned social prosperity. Even so, we cling to this system, its power inescapable, much like the divine right of kings once was.

          Individualization of Collective Imagination

          Capitalism’s sells us as a personalized, isolated package. Unlike divine rights or blood-bound royalty, it promotes the idea of control over one’s destiny. This creates a stark divide in experiences, making collective betterment less achievable. Pursuing a better life individually, rather than collectively, becomes the normal path. This social “blindness” stops us from seeing ourselves as we are, as a part of a larger human social experiment.

          Even those aware of the system’s flaws live by its tenets, striving for personal success. The fear of revolution or change is partly because of the effort already invested in this individual progress. The idea that there’s an alternative to struggle is overshadowed by the pursuit of these personal goals, leading to a narrowed view of possibilities. We all still blindly worship this #deathcult in our everyday lives.

          Capitalism is internalized as the natural way of life. Imagining beyond it is seen as insanity. The greatest progress arises from dire circumstances, where the alternative to suffering is non-existence. Today, comfort smothers the drive for change. Yet, dystopian media normalizes bleak futures, projecting what #climatechaos and social break down will eventually make happen.

          Fictional literature and media have always been vital in exploring human futures. The contrast between grim dystopias and hopeful utopias illustrates our capacity for imagining different worlds. Yet, creating believable, relatable utopias is challenging in a world where the status quo dominates. Characters proposing radical change are cast as antagonists, reinforcing the idea that reform, not revolution, is the only path.

          The Room for Optimism

          Despite this, the fact we’re discussing these issues means there’s hope. Remembering that this current system is a tiny step in human history, that human social organization is dynamic and changeable. Reflecting on past norms—such as ancient philosophers, fascist regimes, or the lack of modern conveniences—shows how transient and idiotic we can be in the belief in a single “static” path.

          Rejecting the idea that our pinnacle achievement is building bigger shopping malls is basic. Utopia isn’t a dirty word; it’s an aspiration made dirty by those who fear its potential. Utopias aren’t meant to be achieved, but to serve as light guiding us forward. Embracing utopian thinking means daring to imagine better futures, challenging the status quo, and recognizing our capacity for taking different paths to profound social evolution.

          So, let’s reclaim utopia, not as an endpoint, but as a direction, an ideal to strive towards, illuminating our path through the darkness of the present mess. Be part of this path https://opencollective.com/open-media-network you can hold the light, the #OMN is building real world #openweb native alternatives, together we can be this step.

          A Positive View Of Current Trends

          The challenges of today: #climatechaos, inequality, and the social impacts of #dotcons technology are a creating a very nasty social mess. However, there is a some potential for a positive transformation if we push the power of #openweb and #4opens technology and align it with progressive and radical “native” grassroots politics.

          Addressing Climate Change with Technology and Revolutionary change

          • Renewable Energy: Solar, wind, and other renewable energy sources are becoming more than cost-effective and widespread. With strong political will, we can transition to a carbon-neutral economy. By reducing consumption and shifting this energy balance, we take a step to mitigating some of the effects of climate change.
          • Climate Resilience: Investment in both physical and social climate resilience infrastructure, flood defences and mediation, sustainable agriculture. This will shape and can protect vulnerable communities and ecosystems as we weather this transition. On the digital side, federation is a big step towards more #p2p native infrastructure, which will help to mediate the failing of our overly centralise #dotcons world.

          Leveraging Automation for Social Good

          • Reducing Work Hours: Automation reduces the need for human labour, allowing for shorter work weeks and more leisure time without reducing productivity. This leads to improved quality of life and wider social and mental health benefits.
          • Universal Basic Income: #UBI provides a financial base for building sustainable alternatives, ensuring that wider groups benefits from increased productivity and technological advancements, rather than the normal nasty few.

          Ensuring Equitable Access to Resources and Services

          • Universal Basic Services: By providing free and universal access to essential services such as healthcare, education, housing, and public transport, we create a more equitable society where people has the opportunity to thrive and build social good.
          • Socialized Finance: Redirecting financial resources from speculative markets to socially beneficial projects ensures that investments are made in areas that improve public well-being and infrastructure.

          Fostering a Culture of Innovation and Inclusion

          • Inclusive Policy Making: Ensuring that marginalized communities have a voice in policymaking leads to more equitable and just outcomes. Participatory democracy and community-led tech initiatives like the #OGB drive inclusive development and the needed social change.
          • Education and Retraining: As the job paths shift, providing education and retraining opportunities helps people transition to new roles, ensuring that fewer people are left behind.

          Utilizing Technology for Global Collaboration and Problem-Solving

          • Global Cooperation: Harnessing #4opens digital technology for international collaboration to address global challenges effectively. Federated platforms for knowledge sharing and joint initiatives leads to real solutions for climate change, health, and economic development.
          • Data for Good: Using #openweb and #4opens data analytics to address social issues leads to more effective public planing, policies and resource allocation.

          Conclusion: A Vision of Hope, In Tech

          There is a potential for a positive future when we combine technological innovation with radical progressive politics and a commitment to social equity. By addressing #climatechange, leveraging automation, ensuring food security, and providing universal access to essential services, we build a wider world of opportunity and basic justice.

          This vision needs us to reimagine our current paths to prioritize humanistic well-being over profit. With the right policies and collective action, we can turn today’s challenges into opportunities for basic survival and a better global society.

          You can support a technological project https://opencollective.com/open-media-network its a small step.

          Why We Need the Open Media Network (#OMN)

          The Challenge of Mainstream Media

          #Mainstreaming media is dominated by establishment interests that have perfected the art of propaganda. This media landscape is highly effective at brainwashing the public, making it difficult to foster a social and political change and challenge. Without altering this media ecology, progressive movements stand little chance against the overwhelming influence of #traditionalmedia.

          #openweb “native” progressive media plays a crucial role in countering this propaganda. It empowers people by amplifying their voices and holding those in power accountable.

          The Necessity of Alternative Media

          1. Independent Reporting: Progressive media platforms operate without the influence of corporate forces, advertisements, or outside money. This independence allows them to challenge the prevailing narratives and offer alternative perspectives.
          2. Amplifying Voices: These #openweb platforms provide a space for voices that are ignored or suppressed by mainstream media. This inclusivity is vital for a healthy democratic discourse.
          3. Fighting Misinformation: By breaking the media narrative that fosters fear and conflict, progressive media helps to create a more informed and engaged public.
          4. Empowering Movements: For progressive movements to succeed, they need a media infrastructure that supports their goals. Progressive media acts as a crucial pillar in this infrastructure, offering the tools, networking and platforms necessary for advocacy and change.

          The Role of the Open Media Network (OMN)

          The Open Media Network (#OMN) is essential for building a new media ecosystem that supports progressive change. Here’s why:

          1. Decentralized Control: OMN aims to create a decentralized media network, reducing the control of media oligopolies and increasing the diversity of voices and perspectives.
          2. Community-Driven: OMN empowers communities to produce and share their content, fostering a democratic and participatory media landscape.
          3. Transparency and Accountability: By adhering to #4opens principles like open data, open source, and open processes, OMN ensures transparency and accountability in media production and distribution.
          4. Sustainability: OMN can provide a sustainable model for progressive media by leveraging community support and funding mechanisms. This financial independence is crucial for maintaining editorial integrity.

          The current media environment is heavily skewed towards establishment interests, making it difficult for progressive movements to gain any traction. Progressive #openweb media outlets are crucial in challenging this status quo by offering independent, accountable, and inclusive reporting. The Open Media Network (OMN) is pushes to building a, decentralized media ecosystem that empowers communities and fosters genuine democratic discourse. Supporting these initiatives is vital for the success of progressive movements worldwide.

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

          General elections are a travesty of democracy

          The need for the #OGB (Open Governance Body) stems from a growing recognition of the limitations of traditional democratic systems, as highlighted in a recent article by The Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/jun/06/general-elections-democracy-lottery-representation Progressive movements are increasingly advocating for alternatives, and the OGB represents such an initiative within the #openweb community.

          The guardian article argues that general elections result in a form of representation that is skewed, and the voices of many are left unheard. In response, progressive voices within the #mainstreaming community are calling for the implementation of projects like the OGB as a native governance model.

          The OGB provides a more inclusive and representative form of governance, where decisions are made collectively and transparently. This addresses the shortcomings of existing democratic systems by leveraging digital technologies and community participation. However, the success of the OGB depends on the support of coders and community members who are willing to contribute their skills and efforts to development. This initiative requires both technical expertise and a commitment to the #4opens path.

          In summary, the #OGB represents a promising approach to governance within the #openweb paths, offering an alternative to traditional democratic structures and emphasizing transparency, inclusivity, and community-driven decision-making.

          We can’t keep making the same mess, please.

          A tech story

          In the #openweb of digital innovation, there is a culture revered for its ingenuity and technical prowess – the hackers of old. Yet, beneath the surface of their achievements lays a problem, one that has led to the downfall of many endeavours: the #geekproblem.

          In the early days, hackers were pioneers, pushing the boundaries of what was possible, though as their influence grew, so too did the imbalance within their communities. The projects that thrived, that embodied the principles of openness and collaboration (#4opens), were not only the work of these geeks, but wider diverse affinity groups where social leadership was core.

          The projects that flourished had strong social guidance, with the geeks playing one part in the larger diversity. A healthy dynamic, with different perspectives and different skills, complemented each other to further common social goals.

          However, over time tragedy grew when the geeks seized control of the foundations and the #fashernistas, with their penchant for superficial trends, hijacked the facade. With the geeks at the helm and the fashernistas dictating the direction, the once vibrant projects slowly over time withered and died.

          The demise of the #openweb was not a sudden event, this slow and steady decline was orchestrated by those who valued personal agendas and status over collective progress. The geeks, blinded by their technical prowess, failed to recognize the importance of social partnerships, while the fashernistas, eager to climb the ladder of #mainstreaming success, sold out the principles they once claimed to champion.

          And so, the legacy of the #openweb was tarnished, its promise of democratized access and decentralized trust, betrayed by those who prioritized their own blinded interests over the “native” common good. Yet, amidst this wreckage, a glimmer of hope remains – a reminder that progress lies not in the hands of the few, but in the collective efforts of all who dare to dream of a better world. Let’s try not to make the same mistakes with our #web1.5 reboot in the #Fediverse, please.

          ———————————————-

          To avoid repeating this mess we need to mediate the tragic reality that within our #fashernista circles, there exists a pervasive sense of hopelessness, a destructive force that accompanies their every endeavour. Their relentless pursuit of trends and their blind devotion to the #deathcult have left a trail of destruction in their wake.

          We need to actually use the #4opens project, as a beacon of hope amidst this chaos, a reminder that there is another way forward. Not doing this is leading us on the path to failure, contributing to the ever-growing piles of #techshit.

          There’s much to be learned from this cycle of destruction and renewal. It’s time to embrace the lessons of the past and walk a better path, one guided not by the whims of #fashionistas or the allure of the #deathcult please.

          #4opens