The “social./bill-of-rights” is a new example of a well-meaning but toothless attempt at defining ethical tech. It’s the same process and project as the #4opens, but framed in a way that’s more palatable to liberal and capitalist interests. The difference? The #4opens isn’t just an appeal to values—it’s a functional way of judging developers and projects. #KISS
For those who actually want to build a better #openweb, the real work is here: https://unite.openworlds.info/Open-Media-Network/4opens
This should not be about reinventing the wheel. We really don’t need another set of guidelines that sound good but change nothing. What we need is real accountability and practical tools that push projects directly to actually align with the open principles they claim to support.
- The #4opens isn’t just an ideal—it’s a framework for action.
- If a project doesn’t hold up under scrutiny, it’s not open.
#nothingnew comes to mind, but diversity is not necessarily bad, diversity in approaches is good, but fragmentation isn’t. These initiatives need to be linked together in a meaningful way, rather than diluted into disconnected efforts. This is basic #openweb thinking, connect, build, and push back against the corporate creep.
If the #deathcult of neoliberal tech has taught us anything, it’s that soft reforms lead to co-option. The path is through grassroots accountability and practical, enforceable openness #KISS
UPDATE: then you have the #fediforum implosion https://kolektiva.social/deck/tags/fediforum
Discover more from Hamish Campbell
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
One thought on “The #4opens vs. liberal tokenism in #openweb tech”