Tag: openweb

Categories
Uncategorized

The problem with #openweb funding and the tools people use

#NGO Internet funding organizations often use #closedweb tools despite their stated commitment to openness and the Digital Commons. Some of these reasons:

* Familiarity and Convenience: Many funding organizations and their staff are accustomed to using closed tools due to their prevalence in the industry. This is a non “native” aproch

* Security Concerns: Closed tools are perceived as more secure, especially when dealing with sensitive information or financial transactions. Funding organizations prioritize security over openness.

* Vendor Lock-In: Closed tools come bundled with proprietary services or platforms, leading to vendor lock-in. Once an organization becomes reliant on a particular closed tool, switching to open alternatives can be challenging and costly.

* Perceived Reliability: Closed tools are often associated with established companies or brands known for their reliability and stability. Funding organizations feel more confident entrusting their operations to these tools, especially if they lack experience with open alternatives.

* Lack of Awareness: Despite their commitment to openness, some funding organizations may not be aware of the availability or benefits of open tools. They may simply default to using closed tools out of habit or lack of knowledge about alternative options.

However, advocating for the use of open tools, such as #FOSS video streaming solutions and open collaboration platforms, aligns with the principles of openness and transparency promoted by funding organizations like #NGI. By encouraging the adoption of open tools at events and in everyday operations, organizations can demonstrate their commitment to fostering a more inclusive, accessible, and equitable #openweb.

We need to advocate for a more open-web native approach within the EU and beyond, ensuring that the internet remains a digital common that empowers people and promotes trust, collaboration, and innovation.

https://socialhub.activitypub.rocks/t/we-ask-that-ngi-use-native-approaches-and-tools-at-future-openweb-events/3728

Please share this thanks

Categories
Uncategorized

Outreach text for the #4opens

The framework provides a set of principles 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 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, individuals and communities can support initiatives that empower users to build 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, individuals and communities can make informed judgments about the transparency, inclusivity, and ethical practices of a given project. Here’s how the can work to assign ratings/badges to #openweb projects based on the criteria, a loose evaluation process assessing each criterion against a set of user defined criteria and assigning scores accordingly. Projects could then display these ratings/badges prominently on their websites or documentation, allowing users to quickly assess their openness and transparency. Additionally, centralized registry or directory can be created to showcase and promote projects that adhere to the principles, providing users with a trusted resource for discovering and supporting openweb initiatives.

Categories
Uncategorized

The new and old #openweb protocols

A.

The #nostr crew are the children of #web3 mess, they are a bit reformed, let’s see.
Then the #BlueSky are the reformed children of the #dotcons
The #fediverse is the child of the #openweb

Q. Where would you put #dat or #ssb and in general the #p2p post-web tools?

A.

#dat is a child of the #geekproblem if it is reformed or not, you can maybe tell me?
#SSB was a wild child, now sickly/lonely with the #fahernable kids gathering round #nostr
#p2p was the poster child of the era of the #openweb it was caught in the quicksand of legal issues, the shadow that was left was eclipsed by “free to use” #dotcons Now finds it hard to come back due to mobile devices not having an IP address, thus most people not actually able to use p2p reliably.

Categories
Uncategorized

Funding Application: Open Media Network (OMN)

Project Overview: The Open Media Network (OMN) is a groundbreaking project that aims to revolutionize digital media by building trust-based human networks using technology. At its core, the #OMN enables users to publish, subscribe, moderate, rollback, and edit content across various sites within the network. This unique approach empowers users to control the content they receive and ensures that it comes from trusted sources, fostering transparency, accountability, and democratization of information.

Project Benefits:

  1. Democratization of Information: The OMN empowers users to control and manage the content they receive, ensuring that it comes from trusted sources and fostering a more informed and engaged citizenry.
  2. Transparency and Accountability: By promoting openness and transparency, the OMN holds content creators and publishers accountable, fostering trust and credibility within the network.
  3. Preservation of Digital Heritage: The archiving functionality of the OMN ensures that valuable digital content is preserved for future generations, safeguarding our collective digital heritage.
  4. Grassroots Engagement: The OMN promotes grassroots engagement and collaboration, enabling individuals and communities to share their stories, amplify their voices, and challenge dominant narratives.
  5. Scalability and Sustainability: The federated nature of the OMN allows for scalability and sustainability, as anyone can participate in the network and contribute to its growth and development.

Budget Breakdown:

  1. Platform Development: $45,000
  2. Tagging Functionality: $7,000
  3. Test Nodes: $10,000
  4. Outreach and Collaboration: $5,000
  5. Maintenance and Support: $8,000
  6. Contingency: $5,000

Total Budget: $80,000

Timeline:

  • Platform Development: 18 months
  • Tagging Functionality: 3 months
  • Outreach and Collaboration: Ongoing
  • Maintenance and Support: Ongoing

Conclusion: The Open Media Network (OMN) is a vital project for the #openweb, promoting transparency, accountability, and democratization of information in the digital age. By funding this initiative, we can empower users to control and manage the content they receive, preserve valuable digital content for future generations, and foster grassroots engagement and collaboration. Together, let’s build a more open, transparent, and equitable media ecosystem for all. Thank you for considering our funding application.

Categories
Uncategorized

Funding Application: MakingHistory – Archiving the Open Media Network

Project Overview: MakingHistory is an initiative within the Open Media Network (#OMN) aimed at preserving and archiving digital content shared across the network. It operates on the same principles and workflow as the renowned Indymedia project but utilizes a different template to organize and categorize content. The primary objective of MakingHistory is to ensure that valuable digital content shared within the OMN ecosystem (and wider #openweb) is preserved for posterity, fostering transparency, accountability, and the democratization of information.

Project Objectives:

  1. Develop and implement a tagging function within the OMN platform to facilitate the archiving process.
  2. Establish archiving nodes within the OMN network to serve as repositories for tagged content.
  3. Enable users to choose specific hashtags for archiving, providing a customizable and decentralized approach to content preservation.
  4. Provide users with a “lossy” view of archived content across the network, allowing them to prioritize which content to focus on archiving.
  5. Foster collaboration with institutions such as libraries, archive.org, and universities to ensure the long-term preservation of archived content in structured formats.
  6. Maintain adherence to the principles of the , ensuring that all archived content remains openly accessible and transparent.

Project Benefits:

  1. Preservation of Digital Heritage: MakingHistory ensures that valuable digital content shared within the OMN ecosystem is preserved for future generations, safeguarding our collective digital heritage.
  2. Democratization of Information: By enabling users to archive content based on their interests and priorities, MakingHistory fosters a decentralized approach to information preservation, democratizing access to knowledge.
  3. Transparency and Accountability: MakingHistory promotes transparency and accountability by archiving content in an open and accessible manner, allowing for greater scrutiny and oversight.
  4. Collaboration and Engagement: MakingHistory encourages collaboration with institutions and individuals interested in preserving digital content, fostering a sense of community and engagement within the OMN network.
  5. Scalability and Sustainability: The federated nature of MakingHistory allows for scalability and sustainability, as anyone can run an archiving node within the OMN network, ensuring redundancy and resilience.

Budget Breakdown:

  1. Development of Tagging Function: $10,000
  2. Establishment of Archiving Nodes: $15,000
  3. Outreach and Collaboration: $5,000
  4. Maintenance and Support: $7,000
  5. Contingency: $3,000

Total Budget: $40,000

Timeline:

  • Development and Implementation of Tagging Function: 3 months
  • Establishment of Archiving Nodes: 6 months
  • Outreach and Collaboration: Ongoing
  • Maintenance and Support: Ongoing

Conclusion: MakingHistory is a critical initiative within the Open Media Network, dedicated to preserving and archiving digital content in a decentralized and transparent manner. With your support, we can ensure that valuable digital content is safeguarded for future generations, fostering transparency, accountability, and the democratization of information. Together, let’s make history by preserving our digital heritage for generations to come. Thank you for considering our funding application.

Categories
Uncategorized

Why fund the reboot of the indymedia project

In the midst of this upheaval, the #Indymedia project emerged as a beacon of hope—a grassroots effort to reclaim the narrative and provide a platform for voices marginalized by mainstream media. Indymedia embodied the principles of the #openweb, empowering people and communities to share stories, amplify unheard voices, and challenge dominant narratives.

The Indymedia Legacy

Indymedia was more than just a website; it was a global network of activists, journalists, and concerned citizens committed to truth and transparency. It transcended geographical boundaries, connecting people across continents and cultures in a shared struggle for social justice and equality.

However, like many grassroots initiatives, Indymedia faced its share of challenges. As the digital landscape evolved, maintaining the infrastructure and funding needed to sustain such a project became increasingly difficult. The rise of social media platforms further marginalized independent media outlets, diverting attention and resources away from alternative voices.

The Need for a Reboot

Despite its decline, the spirit of Indymedia lives on—a testament to the enduring importance of grassroots media in an age dominated by corporate interests. But to truly reclaim the narrative and challenge the status quo, we need to breathe new life into the Indymedia project.

A reboot of Indymedia represents an opportunity to reignite the flame of grassroots activism and reclaim the openweb for the people. By leveraging emerging technologies and decentralized platforms, we can create a space where voices are heard, stories are shared, and truth prevails.

Why Fund the Reboot?

Funding the reboot of the Indymedia project is not just an investment in a website; it’s an investment in democracy, transparency, and social justice. Here’s why:

  1. Amplifying Marginalized Voices: Indymedia provides a platform for marginalized communities to share their stories and experiences, amplifying voices that are often overlooked or silenced by mainstream media.
  2. Challenging Dominant Narratives: By providing an alternative to mainstream media narratives, Indymedia encourages critical thinking and challenges the status quo, fostering a more informed and engaged citizenry.
  3. Building Community: Indymedia fosters a sense of community among activists, journalists, and citizens committed to social change, creating connections and solidarity across geographical boundaries.
  4. Promoting Transparency: Unlike corporate media platforms driven by profit motives, Indymedia is committed to transparency and accountability, ensuring that information is shared openly and ethically.
  5. Empowering Individuals: Indymedia empowers people to become active participants in the media landscape, encouraging citizen journalism and grassroots activism.

In a world increasingly dominated by corporate interests and centralized control, the reboot of the Indymedia project offers a beacon of hope—a chance to reclaim the openweb for the people and reignite the flame of grassroots activism. By funding this initiative, we can create a space where voices are heard, truth prevails, and democracy thrives.

Categories
Uncategorized

Rebooting Indymedia: Restoring the OpenWeb and Grassroots Technology

Hamish Campbell, looking at the past and future of “native” grassroots media.

In the last three decades, the digital landscape has undergone dramatic changes. I have witnessed its evolution firsthand, working in radical media and engaging with grassroots technology. But this journey hasn’t been without its challenges and setbacks.

The Dawn of the OpenWeb

The early years of the #openweb were a golden age. It was a time when the power of connectivity and innovation was shared and wielded by people rather than confined to corporate silos. This openweb we cherished was built at a human scale, with real conversations and decisions made not by algorithms or profit-driven entities, but by human beings with a vision for a decentralized and inclusive digital space.

However, those pioneering days of the openweb seem distant now. The landscape rapidly shifted, favoring echo chambers over open forums, transforming the dream of a participatory digital spaces into commercialized pockets designed to commodify our data and society

The Rise and Fall of .Coms

The term #dotcons, inspired by the .com boom, exposes the underlying deceit in this new era of the internet. Companies emerged with the aim of capitalizing on our online presence, turning every click and keystroke into a financial opportunity. Social media platforms like #Facebook—aptly dubbed #Failbook and others have become disasters for both our personal mental health and societal construct.

The Encryptionist Agenda

In response to the corporatization of the web, alternative technology, especially within radical grassroots movements, began to focus heavily on encryption. Yet this #encryptionist agenda, instead of fostering a true alternative, led us to a dead end. #Indymedia, which once stood as a beacon of open, participatory journalism, eventually succumbed to this closed technology approach.

The Plight of Progressive Technology

#Fashionista politics—those which blindly follow trends without questioning the underlying systems—have dominated the progressive tech landscape, often embracing the very platforms that stand contrary to open standards. The ideals that spurred movements and created spaces for change have been eroded, leaving us in a technological quagmire that stifles creativity and real progress.

Rebuilding from the Roots

Despite these challenges, hope remains for a resurgence of grassroots media. By revisiting the core principles that made #Indymedia a force in its early days, we can steer the movement back on course.

A Simple Federated Network

I consider Oxford IMC, which I co-founded, as a blueprint for this revival. Through a network of trust-based content sharing, we can create a federated model that allows information to flow freely yet responsibly.

Think of it as a series of nodes: activist news websites, Mastodon instances, peertube channels, and local blogs, all interlinked by trust and moderated collaboration, governed by a simple yet effective set of controls—including link subscribe, moderate/trusted flow, and rollback functions to maintain the integrity of our content.

Trust First, Moderate Later

By focusing on trust-first networking, where content flows are based on established relationships, we not only streamline communication but also protect against the pitfalls of a closed, controlled web. This approach allows for open, decentralized storytelling, with an organic curation system that respects the diversity and autonomy of each node.

Reclaiming and Reshaping Security

Recognizing the need for secure communication without sacrificing openness, the reboot incorporates both bridges to other network publishing and guidelines for pseudo-anonymous contributions through Tor.

These measures provide a balanced approach, enabling activists to share their stories without fear of repercussion while maintaining a spirit of openness and community-driven journalism.

Foundations of the Reboot

Central to this reboot are the #PGA hallmarks and the #4opens—open data, open source, open standards, and open process. This framework, informed by the lessons from #Indymedia’s past, will ensure that we do not repeat the same mistakes.

Moreover, by adopting federated databases and leveraging tags and flows of news objects, this network will function as a vibrant, resilient web of news, accessible at different levels and capable of adapting to the ever-changing demands of radical grassroots journalism.

Be Part of the Open Media Reboot

I invite you to join us as we embark on this journey to reclaim our digital commons. If you share the vision for an open, grassroots-powered web, visit http://unite.openworlds.info and contribute your expertise. With a commitment to the and a collaborative spirit, we can usher in a new era of the fediverse centered on truth, empowerment, and community.

This is more than a project—it’s a movement. Let’s create a network that stands as a testament to our collective power, one that honors our past achievements while forging a future that lives up to our highest aspirations. Let’s make history, again.

The open web is not just a concept; it’s our birthright. Together, let’s bring it back to life.

This blog post is a call to action. It’s a bid to revive the original spirit of #Indymedia and extend a hand to those willing to contribute to the future of open, grassroots media.

# Introduction
– Hamish Campbell’s background in grassroots and radical media
– The open web’s early potential for alternative media

# The Failure of Alternative Media
– Rise of big tech like Facebook led to closed and monopolized systems
– Encryptionist agenda went nowhere over the past decade
– Climate crisis shows need for societal alternatives

# The Open Media Network
– Explaining the decentralized federated network model
– Trusted flows of content based on open standards

# Rebooting Indymedia
– Rebuilding the local community news site with focus areas
– Approaches for enabling secure anonymous publishing

# Why Indymedia Failed
– Early successes but internal disputes over openness
– Problems with incompatible customized systems
– Control desires led to user-hostile encryption

# Lessons Learned
– Open standards critical for networks
– Loose flexible processes over rigid bureaucracy
– Explicitly embedding the “four opens” philosophy

# Project Overview
– Building a web of trusted news flows
– Agnostic decentralized network via protocols like ActivityPub
– Get involved to help create alternative media

 

Categories
Uncategorized

Navigating Grassroots Evolution in Tech Communities: Challenges and Paths Forward

The landscape of technological evolution often traverses a spectrum between grassroots innovation and mainstream integration. Within this spectrum lies #Socialhub, a space that was born as a grassroots alternative—a bastion of the activertypub reboot’s integrity within its original framework. This trajectory from its inception in #activertypub delineates a distinctive approach in the technological realm.

The emergence of the #openweb reboot unfolded serendipitously during the #WC3 proceedings. In an atypical scenario where mainstream stakeholders were absent, the reins of definition were firmly grasped by an alternative cohort, paving an advantageous, albeit less conventional, path for the #openweb community’s progression.

Initially, Socialhub thrived as a nurturing ground for a vibrant community, exemplified by the impactful outreach endeavors to the EU within the Fediverse. However, recent years have introduced complexities. The influx of people lacking a ‘native’ #openweb perspective has precipitated a divergence from the community’s original focus, largely due to the significant influence of Twitter immigrants and Fediverse expansion. This shift presents both challenges and opportunities, marking a departure from the initial vision towards a less intricate and diverse community.

Notably, a pronounced shift towards the technical aspects has eclipsed the attention to its social dimensions, critical for a functional alt, with a reduction in the core social-oriented crew and an influx of technically inclined new members. This transition mirrors the WC3 process reboot, necessitating a delicate respectful balance of responsibilities between the two facets.

The delineation between a community-driven space and a platform steered by a specific technical viewpoint and agenda has become increasingly visible. This deviation from the original ethos poses challenges, signalling a transition from happenstance to intentionality, necessitating a more democratic approach to reconcile these shifts.

Grassroots initiatives inherently embody a level of messiness that distinguishes their authenticity. Constructive feedback and improvement strategies are pivotal in the “native” FEP process, while the underlying ideas in this are commendable, the outcomes remain questionable, requiring refinement in the process. Volatile yet essential debates to fortify the FEP’s legitimacy, particularly in the unspoken political sphere. Proposals for procedural enhancements aimed at bolstering legitimacy within the FEP necessitate a non-technical, social explanation of proposed changes and their wider implications.

The absence of broader social context and buy-in inhibits legitimacy, necessitating a proactive approach by the community to elucidate and democratize these processes. Currently entrenched as ‘black boxes’, both the FEP and the W3C demand transparency and community involvement to garner support and avoid being ignored sidelined by #mainstreaming dev.

Without proactive measures rooted in activism and learning from historical effective activism, this cycle of ignorance towards these processes will persist. Therein lies the importance of integrating wider social buy-in, understanding the social implications of technical changes, and engaging in transparent, processes—key tenets for the evolution and legitimacy of tech communities like Socialhub in the digital age.

To note for people who are not familer with this way of looking at the world, the ansear to the question is always more alt grassroots vs less mainstreaming, of course this is always a balance so best not to get into a #ragecircle on this mess making.

#Socialhub originated as a grassroots alternative space specifically designed to maintain the integrity of the activertypub reboot within its inherent framework. Initially stemming from #activertypub itself, this forum embarked on this trajectory.

The emergence of the current #openweb reboot was more serendipitous than deliberate. Amidst the #WC3 proceedings, the absence of the typical mainstream participants allowed our alternative cohort to drive and solidify the definition through this “native” technological pathway an uncommon yet advantageous route for our community to follow.

Socialhub fostered a genuine and thriving community. The pinnacle of this community’s strength was witnessed during the outreach efforts to the EU within the Fediverse. However, recent years have brought challenges; the influx of individuals without a “native” #openweb view has led to a divergence from our initial focus, primarily due to the significant impact of Twitter immigrants and the expansion of the Fediverse. This is good and bad, we have moved a long way from where we started, and have to make the best of this more messy community.

Over the last year we have had a (strong dogmatic) shift to the tech side of activertypub working and away from the social side that is needed for making a working #openweb reboot. In the forum we have had a reduction of the core crew, and an influx of the tech focused new members, this is likely a mirror in the expansion and the rebooting of the WC3 process and the two have have a balancing act of responsibility.

“To use the forum, you must agree to these terms with Petites Singularités, the company that runs the forum.” This has become more visible and the owner has a point of view and agenda, this is actually not a space for/by “community” in the sense it was originally sold… shifting from “serendipitous to deliberate” the solution to this shift/issue is likely not easy and involves democracy in some form.

Grassroots is always messy, that’s how you can judge if its grassroots or NOT 🙂

Let’s try some constructive comments on this to improve the fep process.

What we have here is a classic activism 3 steps forward 3 steps back process, this is a recurring issue.

The ideas behind this are good, the outcome is questionable, and the process still needs work.

There is a current undeclared fight in the FEP → W3C email list, that is likely unresolvable which is a fine example of the fluffy spiky debate, the only good outcome from my prospective and likely socialhub is making the fep more Legitimacy (political) this is a post with ideas for process to help that happen.

To be a valid fep they should have a non-technical (social) explanation on why it’s needed and what are the social implications of this purely technical change.

As we are NOT only talking about technical points here, most are based on social ideas and have social outcomes for social networking. We need this wider buy in to make this process legitimate.

This process is simple and can be started by the original poster, then carried on by the wider community to build buy in and legitimacy.

Currently, both the fep and the W3C are too much black boxes to have any path to build buy in, thus are being ignored defacto.

This will likely continue without some basic activism as outlined above, the is much to learn from this long history of affective activism.

Categories
Uncategorized

What is Socialhub – in the activertypub world

#Socialhub originated as a grassroots alternative space specifically designed to maintain the integrity of the activertypub reboot within its inherent framework. Initially stemming from #activertypub itself, this forum embarked on this trajectory.

The emergence of the current #openweb reboot was more serendipitous than deliberate. Amidst the #WC3 proceedings, the absence of the typical mainstream participants allowed our alternative cohort to drive and solidify the definition through this “native” technological pathway—an uncommon yet advantageous route for our community to follow.

Socialhub fostered a genuine and thriving community. The pinnacle of this community’s strength was witnessed during the outreach efforts to the EU within the Fediverse. However, recent years have brought challenges; the influx of individuals without a “native” #openweb view has led to a divergence from our initial focus, primarily due to the significant impact of Twitter immigrants and the expansion of the Fediverse. This is good and bad, we have moved a long way from where we started, and have to make the best of this more messy communerty.

Over the last year we have had a (strong dogmatic) shift to the tech side of activertypub working and away from the social side that is needed for making a working #openweb reboot. In the codebase we have had a reduction of the core crew, and an influx of the tech focused new members, this is likely a mirror of the rebooting of the WC3 process and the two have had a rocky balancing act of responsibility.

“To use the forum, you must agree to these terms with Petites Singularités, the company that runs the forum.” This has become more visible and the owner has a point of view and agenda, this is actually not a space for/by “community” in the sense it was originally sold… shifting from “serendipitous to deliberate” the solution to this shift/issue is likely not easy and involves democracy in some form.

Grassroots are always messy, that’s how you can judge if It’s grassroots or not 🙂

Categories
Uncategorized

Cyber capacity and strategic advantage: resilience, influence, and control

Julia Carver is a DPhil candidate in International Relations at the University of Oxford and Nuffield College. Her work explores cyber-foreign policymaking and strategic thinking in the current era of great power competition, particularly the relationship between digital infrastructure, capacity building, and strategic advantage. In 2021, she founded the Changing Character of War Centre’s Cyber Strategy and Information Operations Working Group, and she currently holds a stipendiary lectureship in Politics at Magdalen College (Oxford). Her research is jointly funded by the Economic and Social Research Council and Nuffield College.

 

These people are the wannabe technocrats in training and waiting on the sides. In this event, we have the assumption that we need to push back our internet to before the #openweb took over the world and economic growth for the last 20 years. All they talk is about control locked down “national” intranets, ie what we had before the #openweb, a lossy circle we should not keep going round if we can help ourselves.

In all the sectors there is a split between open and closed. These events are the “common sense” of the closed.

Fear and control
Trust and open