Should we ban TikTok

The #dotcons are about ideological control (advertising) of information for profit, #TikTok is likely one of the most advanced on this path.

Whether to ban TikTok is part of the #mainstreaming mess and significant within the wider context of the move back to the #openweb

Some considerations:

Impact on Ideological Control: TikTok, like other #dotcons social media platforms, shapes public discourse and pushes #neoliberal and #stupidindividualism ideological agenda and control. Banning #TikTok could disrupt the control exerted by centralized platforms over the flow of information and content moderation policies. However, it’s essential to consider whether banning TikTok is the most effective way to address concerns about ideological control, as users will mostly simply migrate to other #dotcons with the same issues.
Privacy and Data Control: TikTok faces scrutiny over its data practices and ties to the Chinese government, raising concerns about privacy and data security. This is a normal issue with any state bound #dotcons. Banning TikTok might address these concerns by limiting the collection and dissemination of user data to the replacement state, the USA. However, it’s important to explore alternative measures, such as regulatory oversight and #4opens requirements, to protect user data without resorting to a ban.
Innovation and Competition: Banning TikTok could stifle innovation and competition in the #dotcons, limiting the diversity of #techshit platforms available to users. This has implications for content creators, influencers, and businesses that rely on TikTok for outreach and monetizable engagement. Instead of a ban, maybe fostering competition and growing alternative, decentralized platforms (like the #Fediverse) would promote innovation and diversity in the social media ecosystem in a better way?
Freedom of Expression: Banning TikTok raises concerns about freedom of expression, as it restricts digital surfs ability to share content and engage with others slaves on the platform. While TikTok faces criticism for its content moderation practices, outright banning the platform may not be an appropriate solution. Instead, data portability and interoperability as combined efforts would address harmful content and promote healthy online discourse, thus focus on regulatory measures and community-driven initiatives rather than a ban.
Broader Societal Implications: Banning TikTok could have broader societal implications, particularly for younger generations who are active users of the platform. It’s important to consider the social and cultural significance of TikTok as a platform for #fashernista creativity, self-expression, and community-building. Efforts to mitigate potential harms associated with TikTok should prioritize education, digital literacy, and awareness-raising initiatives of real alternatives rather than simply national propaganda agender.

In conclusion, whether to ban TikTok involves weighing concerns about ideological control, interoperability, privacy, innovation, freedom of expression, and wider social implications. While banning TikTok may address some of these concerns, alternative approaches, such as #4opens, regulatory oversight, #openweb competition promotion, and community-driven initiatives, would likely ensure a more balanced and effective response.

We need to move past these illogical gatekeepers.

We can work together?

The is occasional discussion surrounding the classification of different versions of the #web, such as #Web01, #Web02, #Web03, #Web04, or #Web05, this is not merely an academic exercise but an aspect of understanding the evolving nature of the digital landscape. However, the proliferation of these hashtags leads to confusion and contribute to the spread of fear, uncertainty, and doubt (#FUD) among users, people and communities.

In response to this confusion, proofer to use the hashtags #openweb and #closedweb which offer a clear and concise way to delineate between platforms that embrace openness, transparency, and community control (#openweb) and those that prioritize proprietary technology, centralized control, and lack transparency (#closedweb). By using these hashtags, we foster a better understanding of the ideological and technical underpinnings of different web platforms and paths.

Projects like #indymediaback and #OMN exemplify grassroots efforts to promote decentralized, community-controlled media and communication platforms. These initiatives can become vital in challenging the dominance of large corporations in shaping the digital paths and in offer an inclusive, diverse, and community-controlled approach to technology development.

At the heart of this discussion lies the #geekproblem, which highlights the tendency among technologically people to prioritize technical solutions without considering their broader social implications or the needs of ordinary people. By recognizing the #geekproblem, we begin to address the inherent biases and limitations of tech-centric paths to problem-solving and can then move to advocating for solutions that are inclusive and community-driven.

The solution to this “problem” lies in developing social tech that transcends the #geekproblem and focuses on the needs and perspectives of communities. This needs a diverse group of people in the development and decision-making process and promoting open-source code, open standards, open governance, and open data in technology development. By embracing this #KISS path and principles, we create a more equitable, transparent, and collaborative #4opens ecosystem.

However, this requires overcoming challenges, including the resistance of the status quo and the fear of change. By actively using the #4opens to judge projects, we challenge the prevailing narrative, call out pointless technologies, and compost the #techshit that contributes to the perpetuation of harmful social dynamics.

Moreover, it is essential to recognize that the struggle for a more sustainable future is inherently political. The dominance of large corporations and the perpetuation of #neoliberal ideologies pose significant barriers to any progress. Therefore, it is imperative to mobilize collective action and advocate for policies and initiatives that prioritize, balance the needs and well-being of communities over these profit-driven interests. Without this, the progressive tech dev will fall on barren ground.

In conclusion, the use of hashtags such as #openweb, #closedweb, and #4opens serves as powerful tools for organizing and mobilizing grassroots efforts to challenge the status quo. By embracing these hashtags and the values they represent, we work towards a future where technology serves the interests of the many rather than the few.

Let’s try harder, please.

Talking about #hashtags

We need to think of a serendipity view of how #hashtags work and how our coder kings implement them (#feudalism). Not saying this is a good aproch… i don’t know… but spelling hashtags “wrong” makes their use in categorization and sorting work differently. Might be worth thinking if this could add value or is purely negative? This depends on different views on federation and ideas of a universal truth or messy “truths”. Composting thought on this.

In the #OMN coding project, currently offline (unite.openworlds.info) we add word grouping flows, so you can say one hashtag is the same as another, ie. you can group different “meanings” to build category flows. This makes misspelled hashtags functional, and our current coding broken from the #OMN point of view.

It’s not implemented, is a speck projects so can’t test this. Over the last year I have put 5 #FOSS funding applications in to try and get this built, 3 turned down so far 2 more to be turned down (cross fingers and toes not) soon. Our #AP #openweb reboot is being destroyed by our #fahernistas and #geekproblem nothing new here, but we do need to do better.

That’s what we set out to fix 20 years ago, with the #OMN still digging, but my shovel has no handeal nor a head… says the man on his knees hands covered in shit… composting worthwhile however you do it, I could not make this shit up… but we keep making more #techshit

NGI Zero open source funding talks about the @sovtechfund

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can we get a link to the people making the agenda, thanks, will try polite conversation #4opens

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

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

This is a #4opens fail.

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

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

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

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

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

First step is #4opens, WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE PUSHING MESS while doing “good”, step into the light please #openprocess

Ignoring this basic #openprocess is #blocking, this is why conversations are done in public #4opens

yes, I understand the fear this creates and the desire to #block, but this then makes the #4opens fail more visible if people wont to use this for the needed change and challenge if they don’t yes it’s more noise what are you signal or noise 🙂

Signal vs Nose.

I find #mainstreaming people to be actually mad and increasingly bad. When do we get more #4opens people pushing change challenge in these #openweb spaces, please?

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

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

Who are the bad people, the powerless pushing the #4opens on the #openweb or the powerful Burocrats worshipping the #deathcult while protecting these thin careers in the #mainstreaming

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

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

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

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

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

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

The #hashtags embody a story and world-view

My use of #hashtags is confusing a lot of people, good to have some signal in the noise on this subject https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypertext I am using them in the way the #WWW was designed to use them #KISS

The #hashtags embody a story and world-view that are rooted in a progressive and critical perspective on technology and society. They highlight the negative impact of neoliberalism (#deathcult) and consumer capitalism (#fashionista) on society, and promote the original ideals of the World Wide Web and internet culture (#openweb). The #closedweb hashtag critiques the for-profit internet and its social consequences, while the #4opens promote the principles of transparency, collaboration, and sharing in open-source development.

The #geekproblem hashtag draws attention to the cultural movement of geeks, who can become blinded by their own technical knowledge and fail to consider the broader social implications of their work (#techshit). The #encryptionists hashtag critiques the dominant belief among some geeks that all solutions need more encryption, which can lead to a desire for total control and artificial scarcity.

Overall, these hashtags are interlocking to tell a wide-ranging story and world-view that advocates for a more humane, collaborative, and transparent path in technology and society. The #nothingnew hashtag raises whether new technological projects are needed, or whether we should focus on improving existing ones. The #techchurn hashtag refers to the technological outcome of the #geekproblem, which can lead to a constant cycle of new projects that do not address underlying social issues. Finally, the #OMN and #indymediaback hashtags promote the idea of an open media network and the rebooting of the altmedia project that was once the size of traditional media on the #openweb. The #OGB hashtag represents the need for open governance and the power of the community to make decisions collectively.

It’s simple #KISS, so please try not to react like a prat about this, thanks.

A native path out of the mess people make on the #openweb

The Open Governance Body (#OGB) describes a permissionless process/structure that is open and allows the group that forms using the tools to decide who is a part of the group or not. This process can divide into a web of connecting instances of governance as a natural human process of group formation. The #OGB emphasizes that there is no exclusion and always diversity, making it a natural fit for the #fediverse.

The #OGB also shows that if people are stupid and focused on individualism, each governance instance will have one member and no power. To gain power, people have to work together, which is built into the code. The #OGB emphasizes that hoarding power is limited, and it flows through the community, energizing and solidifying the community and building horizontal power to challenge/change vertical power.

The #OGB focus is on the importance of keeping things simple (#KISS) and that some people will try to push for existing power structures before democracy. However, as the process is permissionless, it is not possible to stop them from doing this. The #OGB emphasizes the need to do better, and that being native to the #fediverse is a big help in this regard.

The #OGB emphasizes the importance of recognizing where power comes from in the context of the #fediverse. The fediverse operates differently from corporations, governments, courts, and police, and it is important to think and build with this difference rather than trying to drag the fediverse back to the #mainstreaming path.

The #OGB builds from the #fediverse works because it is different, and it is easy to forget this important thing when #mainstreaming agendas grab and hold. The #OGB suggests that the missing question in almost all conversations is “who are we empowering,” and emphasizes the need to do better in alt-tech.

The #OGB notes that there are problems in alt-tech and suggests that starting with the #4opens would remove 90% of the mess, revealing the real potential for good outcomes. The #OGB highlights that doing better in alt-tech would involve using shovels to make compost and planting seeds of the world we want to see.

The #OGB describes the process scaffolding for the governance body as a default effect, where the decisions on how things work will be up to the members of the body. The power of the governance body is only the power of default, and the #OGB is about removing all hard default choices and building in a small number of KISS tools, then letting the body members work out themselves how to use them.

The #OGB uses the example of #Couchsurfing, where the website redesign removed the #DIY tools active Couchsurfers had used to self-organize, leading to disappointment among members. The #OGB argues that letting members make their own process, open vs. closed, is necessary to overcome the #geekproblem and have hope for alt-tech.

The #OGB builds governance with the way, rules, norms, and actions are structured, sustained, regulated, and held accountable. this is to mediate that the #Fediverse currently has a “herding cats” governance, denoting a futile attempt to control or organize a class of entities that are inherently uncontrollable.

The #OGB codebase is not just a tool for the #Fediverse, but it can be used to democratically run any structures that have stakeholders.

The #OGB provides an example of how the codebase can be used to run a local street market, with each stallholder as a stakeholder, people who shop at the market as users, and the local council, events company, and shop owner’s association as affiliate groups. The #OGB approach and codebase will scale sideways, with street markets governed city-wide, and each of the markets becoming a stakeholder, users as users, and city-wide orgs and groups as affiliate groups.

The #OGB shaping of the “body” comes from a long history/experience of horizontal activism, where “those who do the work have more say.” https://www.noisebridge.net/wiki/Do-ocracy

The #OGB pushes that the bulk of the voice comes from those who run the #Fediverse, the people who run/support the instances. The people who build the tools also get a say, as do support orgs and events, and the users who will be spread widely get a say, but their power is diluted by the much larger numbers involved.

This working practice comes from 30 years of building from The Tyranny of Structureless tick box list https://unite.openworlds.info/Open-Media-Network/openwebgovernancebody/wiki/03.-The-Tyranny-of-Stucturelessness That code being quite “anti-human” is an interesting challenge, and it’s important to figure out how to get the humane “mess” in a coding process that is based on being “exact” and in control #OGB

The #OGB project is grounded in lived experience, and it’s a way out of this mess. We cannot keep using traditional institutions. We have to stop the #techcurn if we are going to use #openweb tech for social/ecological change/challenge, and we need to think about this now.

The #OGB project is about developing better ways of having “trust” based conversations and “trust” based “governance” in the #openweb. The project is built from hundreds of years of on the ground organizing that has shaped every “freedom” we enjoy and is done in a #KISS approach. The #OGB is a #fedivers native way of working, NOT a #mainstreaming way, and it comes from directly working, setting up, and solving recurring problems at hundreds of direct action protest camps.

The #OGB focus on what we know works, as at the moment, almost nothing works for social good. The #OGB project is what is needed, a voluntary cooperative and collaborative alliance that is native to the #fediverse.

The thinking is that we need to put a stop to the #techchurn as we have piles of #techshit already to compost, that #nothingnew is a hashtag for this.

It’s not the goal of the #OGB project to create an organization that tells everyone what protocols and standards to use in the #fediverse. The #OGB project is about developing better ways of having good “trust” based conversations and “trust” based “governance” in the #openweb

To sum up, the current working models of “governance” in open-source projects are monarchy, aristocracy and oligarchy. This is the rock star developer, the coders and the funders. It should be obverse to anyone that 99.99% of people are missing from this feudalistic ideal of “governance”.

Democracy is the basic foundation of our shared modernity.

WHY DO WE PUT UP WITH THIS MESS IN TECH?

Let’s take a different path, please #OGB

Q. that is an optimistic projection

A. I have no illusion that the normal shitty behaver of fucking people over and being a prat will happen, but the codebase is designed to mediate this crap behaver for better outcomes 🙂

#OGB “permissionless” is an important word that needs some thought. The body is made up of three different, balanced groups: stakeholders, users, and affiliate stakeholders. Anybody can become a stakeholder by setting up and running an active instance, and users are self-explanatory. That affiliate stakeholders are a little more complex and are treated differently, and it’s up to the body itself to decide if they play an active and useful role.

That nothing in this is top-down, elitist, discriminatory, or undemocratic, and it’s #KISS and looks safe to the “normal world” while being native to the #fediverse and its roots. All the coding is #4opens, based on #activertypub.

With #OGB, it’s important not to get lost in the #processgeeks and their dogmatic love of #formalconsensus, as that’s a dead end and has been for the 30 years of activism and coding tech. It’s important to keep the #OGB both #KISS and human, understandable. The #OGB is native “governance” and federates in the same way as the projects it “governs”. That this approach is counterintuitive to mainstream ideas and “common sense,” but that’s not necessarily a bad thing.

This approach has worked to some extent, as seen in the “#Fediverse” as a living example, working to scale small to bigger. There will be lots of “smoke,” and help is needed to keep the project clear of this mess. We have to overcome our #stupidindividualism to have a hope of a better world.

#OGB To remind you that the need for “governance” came out of a practical problem where the #activitypub community is made up of “cats” who were doing seminars outreach to powerful #EU Eurocrats on why they should be interested in #activertypub. #OGB is designed to be messy and not tidy, and it’s a “governance” of a disorganization, not a traditional power structure. “governance” can cooperate with more formal models of governance like traditional cooperatives.

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.

Theory and practice in activism

Meany #fashernistas have a troubling view of theory and practice. All good horizontalists understand that they come from practice. At the basis of this is #DIY that is working through practice to build theory.

To start from theory go ground and round and round then try and put this into practice, ends in a dizzy mess. When this mess is imposed as a solution we obviously get more #techshit to compost or academic wank to clean up.

We are building from what works #grassroots #DIY with #OMN #indymediaback #OGB based on theory from practices.

Good to engage with this flow to practice activism. Please try not to push mess our way, focus is important.

The solution to the #geekproblem

One of the reasons the technology world is in such a mess is the chronic failure to fund the social side of the #openweb. Where funding does exist, it is too often captured by parasitic NGOs that absorb resources while delivering little meaningful change. At the same time, most technical funding is narrowly aimed at “functional” coding, reinforcing the #geekproblem by never moving beyond basic infrastructure or questioning what that infrastructure is for.

This leaves a growing pile of #techshit for others to deal with. People with shovels do the cleanup work – maintaining communities, mediating conflict, building trust, and keeping projects alive – but almost no one funds them. The uncomfortable question remains: who pays for the work that actually makes technology socially usable?

Technology now underpins nearly every aspect of daily life: communication, education, work, culture, and care. Yet many of the systems we rely on are failing, not because they are poorly engineered, but because they are built on the wrong foundations.

Most dominant software today is built on a logic of control. Developers focus on regulating user behaviour: what people see, how they interact, how long they stay, and how value is extracted from them. But functional societies are not built on control, they are built on trust. This trust enables cooperation, shared responsibility, and collective problem-solving.

The commercial tech model systematically undermines this. #Dotcons produce systems people do not trust, run by institutions they do not trust, for goals that are openly extractive. The result is alienation, social fragmentation, and an accelerating ecological and social breakdown. This is not an accidental side effect – it is the predictable outcome of designing systems around domination rather than care.

The problem is compounded by the tech sector’s inability to communicate beyond its own narrow culture. Developers trained within the #geekproblem are trapped in there narrow vision, jargon, abstraction, and technical obsession. They struggle to explain why their systems exist, who they serve, or how they fit into broader social realities. This gap between technical capability and social meaning is where many projects quietly fail.

One obvious response is to fund the social layer of technology: the human work of governance, community, usability, mediation, and trust-building. When this layer is healthy, technical systems become resilient and meaningful. When it is neglected, even the best code rots.

Yet very few institutions fund this work. What funding does exist is often routed through NGOs that neither understand the technical realities nor care about building long-term trust. These organisations specialise in reports, branding, and “stakeholder engagement,” not in maintaining living systems. The result is more process, more abstraction, and more #techshit.

If we continue like this, we will keep feeding the same mess. What’s needed is funding that supports both technical competence and social intelligence. We need to invest in projects that integrate open code with open governance, technical infrastructure with human care. Initiatives like the #OMN and the #4opens matter because they centre communication, cooperation, and trust, the things that actually make technology usable in the real world.

The solution to the #geekproblem is not more control, better metrics, or smarter algorithms. It is the recognition that good societies are built on social trust, and that our technologies must reflect that reality. Until we start funding the social foundations of the #openweb, we will keep rebuilding the same broken systems and wondering why they fail.

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 outreach of the hashtag story

Classification of different versions of the web (such as #Web1, #Web2, #Web3, #Web4, or #Web5) can be a source of confusion and FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt).

The hashtags #openweb and #closedweb provide a clear way to describe and understand the different types of web platforms. The #openweb refers to platforms that are open-source, community-controlled, and promote transparency, the #closedweb to platforms that are proprietary, controlled by a few large companies and lack transparency.

Projects like #indymediaback and #OMN are examples of grassroots of social tech. These projects are focused on promoting decentralized, community-controlled media and communication platforms.

It’s time to compost the normal #techshit, and to focus on developing social tech that is more inclusive, diverse, and community-controlled. This will require a change in the way we think about technology, and a shift away from the current dominant paradigm.

The solution to this problem is to develop social tech that steps away from the #geekproblem and focuses on the needs and perspectives of the community. This can be achieved by involving a diverse group of people in the development and decision-making process, and by promoting open-source code, open standards, open governance, and open data in technology development.

The #geekproblem is a social tech problem that refers to the negative impacts that technology can have on society when it is developed and controlled by a small group of people with limited perspectives and values. It is important to recognize that the #geekproblem is not only a technical issue but also a social issue.

It’s important to remember that fear can be a barrier for change, but by actively using the #4opens we can call out pointless things, call out the #deathcult and compost the #techshit, we can actively work towards a more sustainable future.

It’s important to remember that all thinking is critique and if you aren’t looking at the faults, you are likely not looking at the thing at all. Don’t be afraid, use the #4opens, take up gardening the compost, and plant the seeds of hope in the era of #climatechaos.

It’s important to lift your head and look, lift your shovel, dig and plant. By actively using the #4opens and composting the #techshit, we can actively work towards a more sustainable future.

Living in fear is a common response to the challenges of the era of #climatechaos, when many people are on their knees worshipping the #deathcult. However, it is important to call out pointless things as pointless and actively use the #4opens as a tool to compost the #techshit that is contributing to these challenges.

The problem is that the nice moral majority, our liberal friends, have not accepted that the system they try to push is broken. It’s pastime for change, and holding onto our current system is not helping. Their “common sense” is the problem we need to be fighting, as well as the far right.

We must come together as a united force to address the real issues and challenges facing society, rather than spending time fighting among ourselves.

The left fail is spending too much time fighting inside the left over this balance, instead of focusing on the real issues and challenges. #BLOCKING #stupidindividualism and worshipping the #deathcult all push this fight, and it’s important not to be a “PRAT” (i.e. a person who behaves in a foolish or unthinking way) on this subject.

The “left mess” we are in refers to the challenges and divisions within the left-leaning political spectrum. The idea that on the “fluffy” left, we must be “nice” to get people involved in social change, and on the “spiky” left, we need to be nasty to be effective in social change, both have some truth to it. It is important to find a balance between the two approaches in order to be effective in bringing about social change.

Group use of hashtags as an organizing tool. This can help to bring attention to issues, promote collaboration, and increase the visibility of alternative perspectives on technology and society.

Overall, these ideas are meant to challenge the status quo, promote ethical considerations in technology development, and increase transparency, accountability, and collaboration in the tech industry.

Pushing simple #KISS ideas like #openweb vs #closedweb and #4opens as a powerful way to judge and compost #techcrap to mediate the #techchurn. This can help to promote open-source code, open standards, open governance, and open data in technology development.

To work with this, some ideas include:

Naming the current “common sense” as worshipping the #deathcult and making #mainstreaming uncomfortable. This can help to bring attention to the negative impact of neoliberalism on society and the importance of addressing it.

#stupidindividualism is a term that refers to the idea that people prioritize personal gain over the well-being of others and the community. It is often associated with the last 40 years of neoliberalism and a part of the liberal 20th century consensus. It is a strong #BLOCK that prevents people from recognizing and addressing the negative impact of their actions on society.

One way to address this challenge is to promote grassroots, DIY producer governance through the use of the #OGB hashtag and project. This can help to ensure that the development of the fediverse is guided by ethical considerations and that it is focused on the needs of the producers and the community.

It’s important to note that it’s not always possible to avoid mess and challenges.

One of the challenges of the fediverse is that it is decentralized and lacks a centralized governance structure, making it difficult to coordinate and get things done. This can be seen as both a good thing and a bad thing, as it allows for a lot of creativity and innovation, but also makes it difficult to achieve goals and create a consistent user experience.

The #fediverse is a network of independently operated servers that communicate with each other using open protocols. It is often considered an “accidental” reboot of the #openweb, as it emerged organically as a response to the centralized nature of social media platforms, which are dominated by the #dotcons

While the #4opens is not a way of keeping large corporations out of the open-source development, it can be used as a tool to mediate and prevent any attempts to extinguish the open source community by promoting transparency, accountability, and collaboration. By using #4opens, developers, users and community members can have a better understanding of the motivations and intentions of the corporation and can act accordingly.

The #4opens is a powerful tool for promoting open-source code, open standards, open governance, and open data in technology development. It can help to ensure that the development of technology is guided by ethical considerations and that it is focused on the needs of the users and the community, rather than the profits and control of a few large companies.

Additionally, the website could include links to the wiki for more in-depth information and resources, as well as a section for community engagement and discussion. This could be a valuable tool in the fight against #techshit #techcurn and a powerful way to reboot the #openweb movement..

The website could feature a clean and modern design, with a focus on easy navigation and clear, concise information about the #4opens. The text could be polished to make it easy for people of all skill levels to understand. You can use the existing wiki page https://unite.openworlds.info/Open-Media-Network/4opens/wiki as a starting point and add more information and resources to it.

Creating a visually appealing and user-friendly website for the #4opens could be a powerful tool in promoting the use of open-source code, open standards, open governance, and open data in grassroots tech projects. This website could serve as a central hub for information and resources on the #4opens, and it could be designed to make it easy for people to understand and adopt the principles of the #4opens in their own projects.

The hashtag story is a way of using different hashtags to paint a picture of the current state of the world and the paths that can be taken to address the issues at hand. It involves defining each hashtag and how it relates to the larger narrative. Here is an example of a hashtag story:

#fahernista is about consumer capitalism and the negative impact it has on society, treating it as a social illness.

More http://hamishcampbell.com/2023/01/12/the-hashtag-story-shows-the-current-state-of-the-world/

The #4opens is a powerful tool to be used in grassroots tech projects to promote open-source code, open standards, open governance, and open data. It can help to ensure that the development of technology is guided by ethical considerations, and that it is focused on the needs of the community, rather than the #dotcons.

There is hope in this situation, as it is possible to take the “stupid” away from “individualism” and to embrace a more balanced and responsible form of individualism. This would involve recognizing the importance of community and the well-being of others, and taking actions that promote the well-being of society and ecology as a whole.

It is a path that may not be easy, but it is essential for creating a more equitable and sustainable society.

The hashtag #stupidindividualism is used as a critique of this form of individualism, and highlights the negative consequences it can have on society. It suggests that this form of individualism is not only detrimental to society, but also to the individuals who embrace it.

The concept of “stupid individualism” refers to a form of individualism that prioritizes personal gain and self-interest over the well-being of others and the community. It is often associated with the post-modern and neoliberal times we live in, where people are encouraged to prioritize their own needs and wants over the needs of others and ecology/society as a whole. This can lead to a lack of empathy, cooperation, and social responsibility.

The human condition does include a desire or need for blindness, as it is often easier to conform to the status quo and ignore the negative consequences of our actions, rather than to challenge them. Throughout history, there have been moments of rebellion and enlightenment, where individuals and groups have challenged the dominant social thinking and pushed for change.

The hashtags suggest that often people find meaning and build their lives in the twilight, constantly pushing away glints of light that might illuminate too strongly the social squalor and everyday cruelty that is hidden away from them in the shadows. They are blind to the negative consequences of capitalism, choose to ignore them in order to preserve their way of life.

People shape their own history and create their own reality, but they do so within the constraints of the existing social and historical conditions. People are not free to make history as they please, but are limited by the circumstances that are already in place and have been inherited from the past.

The theme is expressed by the hashtags, people are shaped by the dominant social thinking of capitalism to conform to the expectations of society, even when it is detrimental to their well-being

It’s important to remember that people are not passive recipients of social structures and institutions, and can actively shape their own consciousness and the world around them. By becoming aware of the mechanisms that shape their thoughts and beliefs, and by actively challenging the dominant social thinking, people can create a more equitable and sustainable society.

This creates a dynamic where people feel compelled to conform to the dominant social thinking, even when it is detrimental to their well-being, in order to avoid punishment and to gain reward. It can be difficult for people to break away from this dynamic and to challenge the #mainstreaming agenda because they fear the consequences of not conforming.

People choose to be blind in our “sunlight” world. One possible reason is that people are often motivated by the desire for reward and the fear of punishment. Those who conform to the dominant social thinking and push the #mainstreaming agenda may be rewarded with social acceptance, material wealth, and status. On the other hand, those who challenge the mainstreaming agenda may be punished with social rejection, financial insecurity, and marginalization.

The hashtags tell a story that people are often blind to this obverse thinking and that they block challenges to their blindness by rejecting or ignoring alternative perspectives. This can be seen as a form of self-defense mechanism to protect their current way of thinking and to avoid the discomfort of change.

People’s thoughts and beliefs are not formed independently, but are shaped by the social structures and institutions in which they live.

This idea is in the themes of the hashtags , as they all talk about how people are shaped by the dominant social thinking of capitalism, and the control and manipulation of individuals by this dominant thinking.

The hashtags suggest that the way out of this sordid story is to step away from the constant pursuit of consumer goods and services, and to reject materialism and consumerism in favour of more meaningful and fulfilling pursuits. They advocate for a simpler and more sustainable way of life, where people are not controlled or manipulated for profit and where ethical considerations are at the forefront of the development of technology.

For open-source code, open standards, and open governance.

The hashtags express a desire for a more equitable and sustainable internet. They advocate for open-source code, open standards, and open governance.

The story and world-view that these hashtags embody is a critical examination of the current state of technology, and a call for a more equitable and sustainable future.

They are a reminder of the importance of considering the impact of technology on society and individuals, and the need for ethical and responsible innovation.

The #hashtags #fahernista, #openweb, #dotcons, #4opens, #geekproblem, #techcurn, #nothingnew, #techshit and #encryptionists, all embody a similar story and world-view, which is the critique of the negative impact of technology and its development on society. They all express a concern that the #mainstreaming current state of technology is not aligned with the values of fairness, openness, and sustainability, and that it is being driven by the profit motives.

#encryptionists prioritize the use of encryption, viewing it as a way to protect privacy and security online.

The problem is that they prioritize encryption over important principles such as trust, transparency, and collaboration. These are essential for a progressive society, the idea of giving up control and building trust among groups.

This issue is then embedded in the code and becomes a problem when it leads to the creation of technology that undermines trust and cooperation.

#techshit usually happens when people do not ask whether the project is necessary or brings new value, but instead build it anyway, repeatedly.

#nothingnew this term encourages developers and creators to consider if the project they are working on is truly innovative and necessary, or if it is just a replication of something that already exists. It also highlights the importance of evaluating the impact of new technologies and products on society, and encourages developers to consider the perspectives of different stakeholders before creating new products or services.

Looking at early examples of #couchsurfing and #indymedia, as healthy of #openweb culture, they built on the principles of sharing and collaboration, and they prioritized community building and connection over profit. However, as they grew in popularity and became more mainstream, they began to face challenges such as commercialization, privacy issues and other problems that led to the decline of the community spirit that once defined them. They are examples of the “problem” of openweb culture.

#failbook and Google are examples of large tech companies that are accused of using their dominance and control over technology to exploit users and undermine society. Both companies have faced criticism for their data collection and use practices.

#4opens refers to the four principles of open source, the essentials for creating a more equitable and sustainable internet. A tool that can guide us towards a better, more humane path, promoting transparency and collaboration. They give us the power to JUDGE the technology we use and the companies that provide it to decide whether they align with our values and interests. In this way, 4opens are a source of power for both individuals and communities to take back control of their digital lives.

This closed web is a form of “technological slavery” in which users are subjected to the control and manipulation of these companies, and that users choose to use these services due to lack of alternatives and /or because they are not aware of the implications of their choices.

The #closedweb refers to the World Wide Web that is dominated by large companies, often referred to as “#dotcons”, who control the flow of information and access to online services through the use of proprietary technology and closed systems. These companies often use their power to collect and monetize user data, and to shape online experiences in ways that prioritize their own interests.

#Dotcons is a term that refers to companies that dominate the internet, and the negative impact they have on society. They are seen as feeding into the social illness of capitalism, prioritizing profit over the well-being of users and society.

The step away metaphor is a positive path to move away from this negative impact, this may include promoting open web and decentralized platforms, supporting alternative models, and encouraging more ethical and responsible behaviour.

The fight for #open in the #EU is a power politics struggle between the need for openness and transparency in an organization that is often characterized by closed decision-making processes and lack of accountability. Some people within the EU are aware of the need for change and are taking steps to pretend to be more open, but they are not truly committed to it.

It is possible that a small crack of #open might be enough to undermine the monolithic closed system, but the problem is that many people are willing to sell out #open in order to keep a bit of #closed. This means that the push for #open needs to be sharper and harder, with a more aggressive approach.

It is important to remember that #open has power over closed, just like light over darkness. By pushing for more openness and transparency, we can create a more democratic and accountable #eu

This might still require a stake and vampire level of PUSH, with a few blows of a mallet to drive the point home. We need to be aggressive, and not back down in the fight for #open in the EU.

The hashtag story shows the current state of the world

The hashtag story on this site is a way of using different hashtags to paint a picture of the current state of the world and the paths that can be taken to address the issues at hand. It involves defining each hashtag and how it relates to the larger narrative. Here is an example of a hashtag story:

#fashernista is about consumer capitalism and the negative impact it has on society, treating it as a social illness.

#dotcons are feeding this social illness by promoting constant consumption and exploiting users for their data.

#closedweb represents the control and manipulation of individuals by dominant companies and the rise of technological slavery.

#openweb, on the other hand, is about building code for a more equitable and sustainable internet.

#4opens is a tool that can be used to guide us on a better and more humane path, giving us the power to judge and decide.

#geekproblem is a group of people lost in darkness, blinded to humane light, who inbreed monsters in code.

The use of #techcurn, #techshit and #nothingnew highlights the need to question the necessity of certain coding projects, and to stop building them if they do not serve a valuable purpose.

#encryptionists, when focused on artificial scarcity, are a roadblock to trust, a key element of any progressive society.

#stupidindividualism is the problem of socialization, where people prioritize personal gain over the well-being of others and the community.

This hashtag story shows the current state of the world as polemical metaphors, to help us work though what we need to address in order to create a more equitable and sustainable society. It also provides a glimpse of the possible paths that can be taken to change and challenge these issues and to create a brighter future for us all.