#OGB is a projects that grew from #socialhub

#SocialHub is a community-driven space that seeks to promote #activertypub, working with new models of governance and organization that empower communities. It is part of the larger #fediverse, which is a network of decentralized social media platforms that do not conform to traditional hierarchies and power structures.

The #OGB project, which is come from #SocialHub, aims to develop a more decentralized and autonomous model of governance by leveraging open-source technologies and building on existing fediverse infrastructure. The project seeks to find a balance between structure and flexibility, with a focus on involving community members in decision-making and empowering them to “natively” shape their digital spaces.

The project is guided by the principles of the #4opens, which emphasize openness, transparency, and inclusivity. However, there is a need to resist the urge to impose traditional liberal solutions and instead embrace original thinking that is native to the #fediverse and #openweb.

The project is still in development and seeks coding input to build this community best practice grassroots producer governance model to help focus on sustainable, inclusive, and equitable. Lets keep project focus on separating off-topic threads, discussions from mainstream dogmas and “common sense” to prevent trolling and maintain focus.

The project is available on Open Media Network’s repository on Gitea https://unite.openworlds.info/Open-Media-Network/openwebgovernancebody, and a remainder we like to focus on #KISS online tools to facilitate horizontal governance.

Why do people keep doing pointless self harm – news aggregation

There are hundreds (over the last 20 years likely thousands) of news, aggregation sites. It’s a common #dotcons model to enclose the “commons” people see free content and think I can capture that. The problem is news content looks like it’s free, but that’s because it’s “free” to spread, but it’s VERY expensive in human (and thus money) to produce the content. This side is never addressed in these failed tech projects.

We currently have #traditionalmedia all round the world pushing to be paid for aggregation and even search of their “product”. At #OMN and #indymediaback, we get round these issues as we add “value” by the #DIY labour of the meany people involved in the shared “commons” space. We are producing rather than “stealing” in the #mainstreaming view.

It’s normal that the top-down news aggregators are seen as parasites, and the bootem up aggregators as adding value. For a few years of #indymedia growth, #traditionalmedia was using #indymedia as a “news” source, this shaped the #mainstreaming agenda, adding value to both paths.

When the #openweb we were building was ripped apart by internal and external pressers and agenders, the #DIY value was captured by the #dotcons such as #Facebook and later #Twitter (when it left it’s open’ish path).

The first step away from the current mess is to recreate the “commons” to bring the value back from the #dotcons capture, this should be more possible now as we are building from the #Fediverse where this has already happened. What we do with this recreated “commons” is up to meany different groups/people, but let’s hold the #4opens and #PGA strongly in place to stop “common sense” enclosing attempts, which are constant pointless damage we need to work around.

To sum up, a key part of the #OMN is to recreate the data “commons” then it’s up to meany other groups to find useful things to do with this free to use non-commercial value. And yes lots of people will see the stupid path of enclosing this to capture the value for themselves, this is damage.

In capitalism, any non-owned value is seen as an opportunity to capture, enclosed and profit from. This is why we have copyleft licences in code, which is visibly failing and why we extend this to the #4opens to fail less 😉

This all comes down to the question of what we value. And for meany people, this is a blindness.

Thinking through composting the #techshit

The #openweb has many benefits, though it will not always be the right tool for all situations, there is a lot of mature tech available for privacy and control. The desire to mix these technologies comes from #mainstreaming liberalisms desire for social media to be private, rather than inherently public.

The decentralized #openweb and encrypted chat are obviously separate and should coexist without reproducing the mistakes of centralized #dotcons social media. Focusing on the #4opens and leaving hard privacy for individuals and groups in peer-to-peer encrypted chat is the “native” path.

Thinking through composting the #techshit. In our era of dead ideologies like post-modernism and neoliberalism, we need to build “bounded” projects that have clear boundaries, such as #4opens and #PGA, to keep us focused and resist #mainstreaming liberalism and right-wing ideologies. This helps us create a shared space of practice and direction for politics and technology. While “branding” can be powerful, caution is needed to not creating a sense of dogmatic tribalism in these movements #OMN

Good horizontalists understand theory comes from practice, and the basis of this is #DIY – working practice to build theory. Starting from theory lead’s to a dizzy mess that results in more #techshit to compost or academic wank. Instead. Building from grassroots DIY practices, such as #OMN, #Indymediaback, and #OGB, and then using theory from these practices.

We need to emphasize the importance of focus on the #openweb. Engage with this flow to practice activism and to avoid pushing mess.

Talking about tech – Enclosing the “commons” is a bad history for native societies

White Lies About Security and Privacy in the Fediverse

We’re told small white lies about security and privacy to boot up #Mastodon. But the truth is, this #openweb tech is about dancing elephants throwing paper planes as a security/privacy model.

Yes, this is simply not the right tool for the “common sense” privacy and control needs the #geekproblem have. In reality, there’s already a wealth of mature, privacy-focused tech out there built specifically for that path.

Enclosing the “commons” is a dark chapter in history for native societies, and we risk repeating this mistake if we misunderstand the political roots of decentralized social media.

Let’s pause and check the unspoken/unthinking political aspect of this. Much of the desire to retrofit heavy privacy into the #Fediverse comes from #mainstreaming liberalism, which frames everything through fear and control. But the Fediverse wasn’t born from that path, it emerged from a trust-based, anarchistic culture.

At its core, social media is:

Social (one-to-many)
Media (sharing news and events)

It’s an inherently public activity.

On the other hand, encrypted chat (one-on-one or in small groups) is an inherently private activity.

The #dotcons messily mix these two spheres together, but only because their centralized architecture makes it possible (and profitable). Of course, this is a black lie, since these platforms don’t actually respect the privacy they promise. Their entire business model depends on violating it.

In the decentralized #openweb, public and private spaces have generally been separate and tidy, and that’s a good thing. But lately, some online discussions feel like an attempt to deliberately blur these lines, reproducing the #mainstreaming model under the guise of “common sense”, to take the same failed path we’ve been trapped in for 20 years.

We don’t need to reproduce the mess. We can have the best of both worlds:

Public, federated social media built around the #4opens
Private, encrypted communication for individuals and groups in P2P chat

Let’s keep our focus on the true nature of social media and build tools that respect both public and private spheres, without falling back into the traps of the #deathcult.

What is the #openweb

While the commercial web is dominated by large corporations, the #dotcons are what most people are familiar with, there is another side to the internet – the #openweb. In this article, we will explore what the #openweb is and why it matters.

The #openweb refers to the part of the internet that is not owned by corporations. Unlike the commercial web, where large tech companies like #Google, #Facebook, and #Amazon dominate the landscape, the #openweb is a decentralized space where people can create, share, and access content without restrictions.

The openweb is built on #4opens standards and protocols, which means that everyone can develop software or services that work seamlessly with existing tools and platforms. One of the primary benefits of the openweb is that it fosters humane creativity. Because we can all contribute to the open web, it encourages a diverse, liberal, range of voices and perspectives. Openweb technologies like blogs, wikis, and federated social networks have enabled people to connect and collaborate, leading to the emergence of new norms and social movements.

Another important aspect of the openweb is its commitment to transparency, it is a critical tool for promoting #freespeech and #democracy. Because it is not owned by any single entity or government, the openweb is a place where people can express themselves without fear of censorship or repression.

In recent years, the openweb has come under threat from the rise of the dominating #dotcons of the commercial web and the growing power of big tech companies. The commercial web is dominated by a few large corporations that control vast amounts of user data and use it to extract profit. This has led to concerns about, social control, and the concentration of power in the hands of a few tech giants and their agenders.

Despite these challenges, there are many organizations and individuals working to preserve the #openweb. From #grassroots groups such as #OMN to #NGO’s like the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) an international community that develops open standards for the web, while #mainstreaming organizations like the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and the Google funded #Mozilla Foundation are dedicated to promoting a liberal #mainstreaming open and accessible internet.

In conclusion, the openweb is a critical part of the internet that promotes, creativity and free society. It is a space where anyone can contribute and participate without restrictions, and it has played a vital role in social movements and democracy. While the openweb faces many challenges in the face of the commercial web and big tech, it is essential to work together to ensure that the internet remains an open and accessible space.

A story about outreach

The #openweb has become an integral part of our daily lives, with almost every aspect of our existence now touched by it. However, over the years, concerns have grown about the centralized nature of the internet and the power politics this creates. The rise of social media giants such as Facebook, Twitter, and Google has brought this issue to the fore. These platforms, #dotcons, are centralized and controlled by a handful of powerful corporations, which poses a significant threat to user privacy and freedom of expression.

In response to this, a disparate group of committed libertarian “cats” from the Fediverse community decided to take #directaction to promote decentralized and #openweb models of the Fediverse to the European Union (#EU). The Fediverse is a collection of decentralized social networking platforms that use the ActivityPub protocol to interconnect with each other.

The Fediverse crew participated in EU events, conferences, engaged with policy-makers. They explained the benefits of decentralized and autonomous models of the #openweb and how they can shape a more humane online world. As a result, a minority of people in the #EU became interested in these technologies and began to adopt them in a soft rollout of “official” instances.

The huge growth of Mastodon, one of the most popular social networking platforms in the Fediverse, due to the #Twittermigration attracted a diverse and vibrant community of users from across the EU and the world. This growth helped to validate the importance of decentralized internet and its potential to shape a more humane world.

From this seed, today, ActivityPub, Fediverse, and Mastodon continue to grow to becoming important players in the EU’s efforts to promote a more humane internet. The unspoken grassroots outreach and community-building efforts by the #Fediverse “cats” have empowered us, and helped to shift the EU closer to being what they say they are.

The story of the mouse and the elephant making friends is a reminder that even the most Eurocratic and ossified institutions can embrace radical grassroots movements. The Fediverse “cats” have shown that by working together, we can be a part of the change we would like to see. The #openweb is a powerful tool, and it is up to us to use it.

In conclusion, the efforts of the Fediverse community to promote decentralized and autonomous models of the internet in the EU have been successful. Our outreach and advocacy have helped to shift the EU closer to promoting a more humane internet, and the growth of platforms such as Mastodon has validated the importance of these models. This change and challenge is up to us., please don’t step back and let “them” take over shaping this path.

The solution to the #geekproblem

One of the ways the world of technology is in a mess is due to the problem with institution’s limited funding of the social side of #openweb. Unfortunately, much of the funding that is given ends up feeding parasitic NGOs, which does little to nothing to solve the problems. The existing funding for functional coding also contributes to the #geekproblem by not pushing anything outside the basics. It’s up to people with shovels to clean up this mess, but the question remains – who funds them?

Technology has become an important part of our daily lives. We rely on the internet for everything from communication and entertainment to work and education. However, despite the many benefits that technology offers, there is a growing problem in the industry. Many of the software programs that we rely on are failing because they are built on the wrong foundation.

The #geekproblem software that dominates the tech industry today is built on a foundation of “control”. Developers focus on creating systems that regulate the user’s experience, from how they access information to how they interact with others. However, what many fail to realize is that good societies are built on a foundation of “trust”. When we trust the people and institutions around us, we are more likely to cooperate and work together on common goals.

Unfortunately, the current commercial approach to technology development is leading to piles of #techshit. People don’t trust these #dotcons programs, and they don’t trust the people who create them. This lack of trust can lead to a breakdown in society, that is accelerating the break-down of our environment

The problem is compounded by the fact that the tech industry struggles to communicate this simple understanding to the wider public. Developers are so focused on narrow #geekproblem agenda, technical jargon and complex systems that they often struggle to explain their ideas to others.

One way to address this problem is to fund the social side of tech. By focusing on the human aspects of technology, we can create programs that are not only technically sound, but also easy to use and trustworthy. We need to bridge the gap between the technical and social aspects of tech and create a more holistic approach to technology development.

However, there are very few institutions that fund the social side of #openweb tech. Many of these institutions focus support on parasitic #NGOs that don’t understand the technical side of things and are not interested in building trust. If we continue down this path, we will only feed the #techshit pile.

To make a difference, we need to fund the social side of tech in a way that supports both technical expertise and social understanding. We need to create programs that are not only technically sound but also easy to use and trustworthy. We need to invest in initiatives like the #OMN and #4opens that promote communication, cooperation, and trust within the tech industry.

Ultimately, the solution to the #geekproblem is to realize that good societies are built on trust, not control. We need to build technology that reflects this reality and invest in the social side of tech. By doing so, we can ensure that technology continues to serve us and not the other way around.

Liberal trolls – are often not WHO they think they are

DRAFT to be edited

http://hamishcampbell.com/2023/02/14/archiving-the-openweb-in-a-personal-way/

http://hamishcampbell.com/2023/02/12/thinking-about-why-openweb-projects-fail/

It’s hard to get a thried out of mastodon, hopeful this is in the right order and not missing bits. As usually, if you would like to be anonymous with no linking please say so, thanks.

Made a blog post, if you reply your text might be added to this if you don’t tell me not to 🙂

We are talking about this blog post http://hamishcampbell.com/2023/02/12/thinking-about-why-openweb-projects-fail/ I sent to the people I had archived the conversation as a seed for a blog post, the guys jump in with limited good faith.

@bob Note that my posts are CC-BY-NC. If you’re quoting me, then you need attribution, otherwise it looks like your own work.

The blog is to take transitory content “a toot” and make it more long-lasting and link it into a flow of social memory. I would love a codebase that had this built into its #UX Now, if someone made code to automate credit and archiving work just as well, I would be happy to use it.

@elplatt yes, in general it’s good practice to quote or block quote and attribute. Right now, it’s not clear who said what

I don’t tend to do “good practice” as I do this #DIY and don’t get paid for my time. I have two ways to “anonymize” text, if I keep the flow then I take the names out and put Q. and A. as the voices, if it’s out of the flow I just put “from the #openweb” this makes it quick and simple to archive things I value without jumping though impossible conversations each time. If people won’t credit and ask, I add it, it’s the polite thing to do.

Then nuttyness starts – from @elplatt I’d prefer not to be associated with plagiarism. Please remove my content. Thanks.

It says from the #openweb in BOLD, so it’s not plagiarism (Plagiarism is the fraudulent representation of another person’s language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions as one’s own original work.) . But happy to remove stuff if people don’t won’t it archived. (I updated the blog post to add bob as he asked to be, then move the FROM THE OPENWEB under bob. Have a look and tell me what you won’t http://hamishcampbell.com/2023/02/12/thinking-about-why-openweb-projects-fail/

whaw that is bad behaver: @elplatt #GreatjusticeNet has blocked campaign.openworlds.info for plagiarizing fediverse content [IMAGE] lie about someone then block their instance.

Q. Interesting to think about, if this was an argument, should I keep the stuff online or remove it if asked? What’s the good path for this?

@bob Friendly reminder to always credit people for their work. Avoid making it look as if you wrote something, which you didn’t. This is really just courtesy, or treating people with care. Saying “this came from the internet” isn’t sufficient. There can also be cases where people request to remain anonymous, but that is typically rare.

That is way too much work is the problem, in grassroots activism the are to meany borderline nutters, so my work practice is a reflection of this. Good to remember all #OMN projects are #4opens CC licence and not for profit, so with this understanding its best just to hold the nuttiness and talk as a first step. People to people, not law/rights/property etc 🙂

@bob Well, in the case of plagiarism this isn’t really a law thing it’s just an act of courtesy to say who quotes originate from. (we get a bit lost here as it’s nothing to do with plagiarism, it is about a liberal troll) Ripping people off is what BigTech does. We need to be better, and treat people well. (its not about ripping people off it is about a liberal troll)

Nobody is doing plagiarism, nobody is stealing. Nobody is ripping anyone off, we are talking in good faith, I hope. Best to put bad words and judgments to one side https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagiarism it is not, now what else is the issue?

To @bob you are missing the point of what we/am talking about, and pushing a liberal private property view agenst a #4opens “commons” view.

Now this does bring up the issue of licence, my instance is the same as bobs CC-BY-NC so in theory I have the right to reuse content without asking as my blog is also CC-BY-NC, but I am polite and go a stage further if I am unshore if a person wants to be linked I initially publish post with “from the #openweb” post the URL to get feedback.

@bob This isn’t a stage further. It’s the BY part of the CC license. It doesn’t necessarily require links, but some indication of who the content is by.

Morally, you would be in most cases wrong to push this, but legally you are right. Now comes the issue of me making this into a blog post. I need to quote him in the post, but it would likely increase the bad feeling if I did this with name and LINK, under CC-BY-NC I have the right to use his post, he can’t say NO but morlay should I name and shame him or just leave the mess as an anonymous example of working practice?

@bob Under CC-BY-NC I have the right to use his post, but not without attribution.

I can see no copyright notice https://greatjustice.net/about But his personal sight is https://elplatt.com/ CC so let’s assume for now. Added the link though it feels like trolling, very happy to remove it

For the blog post, would likely need to look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use as am pretty sure at this stage he would say no text, but the is no story without the text, and he has already given me the right to use the text under CC-BY-NC if I link to him, the instance blocking and CC licencing cross site is icing on the cake.

NEED TO CHECK THIS

Thinking more about this, I likely did not need to have this conversation at all, as a journalist criticizing a “work” is a clear case of fair use. I anonymize the text so that I can freely reinterpret it, which is what the archives are for, and labaled (FROM THE OPENWEB) to stop people thinking it was my work TICK then it’s just a working document and a good example of a clash of Liberal ideas.

The CC side of the conversation is not wrong, it’s just NOT what my actions are based on, OK, this makes more sense. This conversation is ltraly a liberal troll storm in a tea cup, that’s what happens if you talk to people about archiving 🙂

This is based on the idea that this is a working document (which all my blog posts are, they get updated and reused all the time) So it’s not an act of publishing (which in this case it was not as I was still drafting, asking if people wonted attribution)

But would be when I mythically called it finished… round in circals in the #4opens world. The second story on the post is more finished, the text there is changed/transformed, so from the #openweb is OK.

http://hamishcampbell.com/2023/02/12/

Archiving the #openweb in a personal way

I spend a bit of time copying conversations off transient communication, microblogging, #failbook, chat etc. and archive this on my blog. I don’t tend to do “good practice” in this as I do it #DIY and don’t get paid for my time 🙂

I have two ways to “anonymize” text, if I keep the flow then I take the names out and put Q. and A. as the voices, if it’s out of the flow I just put “from the #openweb” this makes it quick and simple to archive things of value without jumping though impossible conversations each time. If people won’t credit and ask, I add it, it’s the polite thing to do.

Now if someone made code to automate credit and archiving work just as well, I would be happy to use it 🙂

Talking about grassroots media as a step away from the current #techshit

Hamish Campbell on the #openweb and rebooting indymedia

Hamish Campbell, a veteran of radical media for more than 30 years, argues that mainstream technology and culture are failing us. The rise of the #dotcon platforms has commodified our lives: closed silos like #Facebook and #Instagram harvest our attention and data, locking us into systems that serve profit, not people.

Attempts to build alternatives around an #encryptionist agenda have gone nowhere. As a result, the tech giants dominate. For Campbell, the answer lies in the #openweb – once born open, but now slowly suffocated over the past two decades. His solution is to reboot grassroots media.

Drawing on the example of Oxford #IMC, Campbell shows how a simple federated network can thrive: content is shared through trusted link flows, moderation happens collectively, and mistakes can be rolled back. Unlike the #closedweb, the beauty of the #openweb is its free-flowing links, its openness to serendipity and collaboration.

For Campbell, the #OMN project is most powerful not for what it does, but for what it refuses to do: it rejects capture, centralisation, and gatekeeping. Change begins with small, practical steps, rebooting grassroots media as a living example.

What You Can Do

In recent years, events in the US, Portugal, and Madrid have explored the idea of #rebooting #Indymedia. So far, the history of Indymedia has been told mainly by academics, often through a narrow, American lens. To truly revive it, we need to retell those stories more widely, and more honestly.

A successful reboot means returning to Indymedia’s open and serendipitous roots, not the bureaucratic, closed structures it later became. The good news is that most of the technical tools we need already exist, from federated protocols like ActivityPub to peer-to-peer networks like dat.

To keep its radical, grassroots character intact, any reboot must follow the #4opens: open data, open process, open access, and open source. These principles ensure transparency, accessibility, and trust.

If you want to get involved, search for #indymediaback or “reboot Indymedia” to find links, projects, and discussions around the #OMN.

The problem with institutions funding the social side of #openweb tech

Almost all our #geekproblem software fails because they are building “control”, where all good societies are built on “trust”. We keep making piles of #techshit because we can’t communicate about this simple understanding #techchurn one way to address this is to fund the social side of tech.

The problem which we need to solve is the institutions funding of the social side of #openweb tech, if we do this now most of this funding will feed parasite #NGO’s rather than anything useful. This is also a problem of the existing funding for coding, it pushes the #geekproblem when it funds anything outside the basics.

We have a mess because our world is messy, current funding plays little role in composting this mess.

That’s the job of people with shovels – who funds them.

Most of our software fails because it is built with a focus on “control”, rather than “trust”, which is the foundation of a good society. This leads to an endless cycle of creating useless technology that we can’t communicate about. To address this problem, we need to invest in the social side of technology.

The challenge lies in funding the social aspect of #openweb technology. Currently, most funding goes to non-governmental organizations (#NGOs) that are not always effective. Additionally, the existing funding for coding primarily focuses on the basics, which perpetuates the problem of the #geekproblem.

Our world is messy, and the current funding plays little role in cleaning up this mess. People with shovels – those who do the work – need funding to make a difference.

Thinking about why #openweb projects fail.

Many #openweb projects have failed over the years, and there are reasons, first is the challenge of sustaining a project that is built on open-source principles and relies on community involvement and collaboration. In capitalism, without a clear and consistent funding model, it can be difficult to keep projects going over the long term.

Another factor is the competition from proprietary technology that is always better funded and more easily accessible to the public. This can create a challenging environment for open-source projects that struggle to keep up with the pushing of “innovation” in the tech industry.

There are also ideological differences between different groups within the open-source community that leads to conflicts and disagreements over the direction of projects. This can result in splintering and fragmentation of the community, making it difficult to achieve a shared goal.

Non “standard” #UX is a big issue as well, nice to make something you like, but better to do something the user community likes.

From @bob@epicyon.libreserver.org Irreconcilable musical differences, someone in charge of donations taking it to Vegas, becoming a parent or getting a new job, burnout, unrealistic expectations based on hegemonic BigTech systems, illness, an excess of technical debt and trolling can all result in failures of open source projects.

Most projects are one or two people with occasional driveby patches. Projects with more volunteers than that are rare exceptions. Most maintainers are not people on six-figure salaries going on slides at Google. Usually they are barely making rent.

Another factor is that often accessibility is not as good as it could be. The big companies can dedicate a department to just ensuring accessibility meets a minimum standard, but open source projects often don’t have the knowledge and are regularly criticized for accessibility problems.

From the #openweb

(https://elplatt.com/) happy to remove this link if asked

The main challenges I’ve experienced in projects I’ve been a part of:
* Tendency for potential contributors to start new projects from scratch
* Lack of communication within the user community and between users and maintainers
* Contributions driven by prestige or excitement, prioritizing new features over maintenance
* Lack of funding

It’s a good list, maybe we need a post writing up covering them all.

(This is why I work #KISS whaw that is bad behaver, lie about someone then blocked their instance. #GreatjusticeNet has blocked campaign.openworlds.info for plagiarizing fediverse content. In this post, it says “From the #openweb” in BOLD, so clearly it’s not plagiarism. But happy to remove stuff if people don’t won’t it archived)

Over the years, many #openweb projects have failed due to various reasons. The first challenge is to sustain a project that is built on open-source principles and relies on community involvement and collaboration. In a capitalist society, without a clear and consistent funding model, it becomes difficult to keep the project going over the long term.

Another factor is the competition from proprietary technology that is better funded and more easily accessible to the public. This creates a challenging environment for open-source projects that struggle to keep up with the “innovation” pushed by the tech industry.

Ideological differences within the open-source community leads to conflicts and disagreements over project direction, resulting in splintering and fragmentation of the community, making it challenging to achieve shared goals.

Non-standard #UX is also a significant issue, as it’s better to create something the user community likes than something just the developer likes.

Some ideas on this from the #openweb, irreconcilable musical differences, individuals in charge of donations taking it to Vegas, becoming a parent, getting a new job, burnout, unrealistic expectations based on hegemonic BigTech systems, illness, an excess of technical debt, and trolling can all result in open-source project failures.

Most projects have only one or two people, with occasional drive-by patches. Projects with more volunteers are rare exceptions, and maintainers are typically not people on six-figure salaries going on slides at Google. Usually, they barely make rent.

To sum up, the main challenges experienced in the projects that the author has been a part of include the tendency for potential contributors to start new projects from scratch, lack of communication within the user community and between users and maintainers, contributions driven by prestige or excitement, prioritizing new features over maintenance, and lack of funding.

Additionally, accessibility is often not as good as it could be, as big companies can dedicate a department to ensure accessibility meets a minimum standard, but open-source projects often lack the knowledge and are regularly criticized for accessibility problems.

In conclusion, a post covering all these challenges would be useful.