Hamishcampbell

@Hamishcampbell@campaign.openworlds.info

An organic intellectual, that's me :') Please ask questions here

Looking at the fluffy side of activism #NGO

#fedi22 #openweb #opensource #4opens #OMN #technology #tech #social #grassroots #activitypub #reboot #fluff

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.

witchescauldron, to foss
@witchescauldron@kolektiva.social avatar

For building alts we have reached beyond the end of what we can do by copying as outreach like we are doing here https://kolektiva.social we need "native" codebases as well as copies of to be the change and challenge we need.

The are projects that need your help and support here https://opencollective.com/open-media-network

witchescauldron, to random
@witchescauldron@kolektiva.social avatar

We can't keep doing this tech crap. Composting is the path for parasites and the

Think positive projects outside mess making, need crew, focus and dev :)

is a good hashtag for this.

smallcircles, to fediverse
@smallcircles@social.coop avatar

🤩 Aren't you just delighted by all those proprietary software apps for the ?

😮 Don't be. Each time you choose proprietary you help turn the fedi slowly in the direction of the usual corporate hellscape that the rest of the Web already is.

😨 And then we end up in an online space where for years we can complain to each other how we squandered an opportunity and how won once more.

🎯 Use apps instead, created by the public for the public.

🌻 Keep the Fediverse open.

hamishcampbell,
@hamishcampbell@mastodon.social avatar

@smallcircles a mess indeed, and mess making all round.

As you just said, we can't keep doing this crap.

Composting is the path for parasites and the the core of this mess.

Think positive projects outside this mess making, need crew, focus and dev :)

And is a good hashtag for this http://hamishcampbell.com/2023/10/09/dontbeaprat-whats-next/

witchescauldron, to random
@witchescauldron@kolektiva.social avatar

In activism (and interestingly less so in life now) is a constant poison. With , people treat critical social thinking as ONLY personal criticism. This has the effect of that spreads mess over the very needed social change and challenge. Am increasingly using the hashtag to communicate on this problem.

I think another useful hashtag on this behaviour is , which is in part self-inflicted and in part a general social outcome of the last 40 years of worshipping and . The hashtag is a useful "uncomfortable" way of expressing this.

Why is this such an issue, people are directly responsible for this mess making, as both of these ideologies are actually dead themselves now. It's an intellectual zombie block.

So is a positive statement of what's next?

Please on this, thanks.

witchescauldron, to random
@witchescauldron@kolektiva.social avatar

The is little value in baiting the on here... Where is the value for the is a real question we need ideas about.

msaunders, to random

Regarding my posts from the Permaculture Designers' Manual () - so far only from the final chapter, the one least spoken or known about among online Permaculture communities, 'Strategies for an Alternative Nation' - they are not intended as shouts into the void.

They are intended to drum up practical conversation and trigger real action.

If you don't want to talk here, fine - go out, observe, learn, and most importantly, do (keeping within our agreed ethics).

witchescauldron, to Bulgaria
@witchescauldron@kolektiva.social avatar

Hope is a swift flow and the strong current that pushes change/challenge

Talking to the crew

Hope is a swift left wing flow and the strong current that pushes change/challenge. Simple truth telling is a deep upwelling, the spring that feeds this fresh flow. We need to nurture truth and hope in every part of our society, both our tribalism and bureaucracy are part of this river, more important than ever in the era of we are fast moving into

Bring simple truth to the surface, pure spring waters helps to nourish.

In the and wider rivers, we have increasing inflows of funding from the traditional bureaucracy. This, on the one hand, is feeding the grassroots and on the other hand shaping to a more river. We need to strive to have a better outcome from this, the tools they are funding are all open licence, we need to build into them that the more bureaucratic/closed agender can be switched on and off in all these funded projects. This is a simple solution we can work towards.

Conclusion

  • All flows have value, we need this influx of funding to grow the and if we are to do challenge/change, so use this opening to shape the influx of value and to shape these institutions that push this flow. See this as an opportune for activism, rather than something to be

  • On our-side, we can nurture our tribalism to this “common” course with the and simple political statements like hallmarks.

  • Our more theoretical friends can use their skills to resurrect the ideas that shaped past movements and feed these into the new movements.

How can we make our media better.

  • Use the carrot and the stick, talk about balance rather than conflict.

  • Bring the liberals in, but keep the basic strong and visible, everyone has a role in the era of so be hopeful and friendly.

  • If the river is cool and fresh, the and will soon jump and swim with this flow.

We live in creative times, let’s enjoy creativity.

https://www.ngiforum2023.eu/

witchescauldron, to Bulgaria
@witchescauldron@kolektiva.social avatar

https://www.ngiforum2023.eu/

With the growing influx of funding into the we will see an increase in due to the being feed by of most of the who can jump through the bureaucracy gatekeeper hoops.

Hoping for a balance of good Vs damage, though the shear blinded arrogance of the vertical crew push us to the damage side. do not won’t to see this problem, we as a community need to push back on this for a better outcome
Some examples from a resent meeting

Example, a horizontal public BBB meeting where the organizers are the only one who have access to the share notepad space. Note in BBB this is open by default, so a moderator closed it on the assumption that this was the right thing to do.

The result, all the public input is lost in the transitory chat.

Let’s look at a second example from the same meeting, the chare (who is likely lovely in person) took notes that were ONLY her agenda, ignoring the meeting input. Yes, I was non-directly rood about this. She was confused and started to try and take the agenda of the meeting badly.

Q. Should we have been silent and let her agenda and a few other people been the only thing recorded in the minutes, thus the next round of funding?

A. we need to compost this crap, not add to it. Most time people do not STOP this crap process, we need to do this more.

As it said on the side of my blog for the last 10 years:

“A river that needs crossing political and tech – On the political side, there is arrogance and ignorance, on the geek side there is naivety and over complexity”

Orgs such as are unwitting feeding the “geek side there is naivety and over complexity” where the are pushing the political side “arrogance and ignorance”

As I have been at the heart of this garden for more than 30 years, I think I have a better voice on this than most. That’s not arrogance, that’s truth 🙂

If you feel like talking shit please read this first https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_homin

Let’s have a chat with @NGIZero about this https://unite.openworlds.info/Open-Med Of course, if we can’t have this conversation the is only the stick which likely will end increasing the mess.

I think the guys find it hard to see how low our apion of the mess they work in. The people at these events are clearly incompetent on the subject of (and meany argue life on the planet in general) we all understand this in the grassroots.

If you wonder why grassroots people see the as children. An example, due to the crap behaver of voting for piss poor politics, we have this boat land to look forward to. To call incompetent is a clear understatement of the issue, talking to the wide project here.

We should talk about this survey https://unite.openworlds.info/Open-Media-Network/4opens/wiki/Funding-of-openweb-projects and some of the more scary issues it brining up:

NONE WOULD DO FEEDBACK IN PUBLIC, this is important. The funding has some “terrorism” in the cliques that run it, as people are actually afread that they will lose their livelihood if they speak out about these issues.

Me am “chaotic governance” so I ignore this, but you guys maybe need to take this onboard if you have not already.

A carrot and stick approach is a good path. I see @ngizero as the carrot and us the “community” as the stick. With this leverage, we can push harder for a better balance of good/damage from the funding influx to the from the

Good to remember here, I am seeing @NGIZero as the solution and not as the problem in what am talking about

In the end, my difficulty is that I see the funding from the being pushed by a “childish” point of view that is hard to respect and that it’s likely to do more damage than good, this we need to fix somehow, if anybody wants to help with child care.

Some things to think about:

It’s interesting how the truly aporling behaver of vertical minded people is excused by power (majority vertical) when they act in easy to understand crap ways in horizontal situations. And on the other hand, how the horizontal people are vilified at every point often for simply pointing out how bad the vertical behaver is. We need to look at crap behaver in vertical organizers, as they often do not see themselves shiting over the preceding. Though this act comes ever so naturally to them.

You can see this with the suffrages, the hunger marches, the Spanish Civil War, the Greenham women, the miner’s strike, corbinisam and just about anywhere you look where the two groups meet.

It’s crap that we keep letting this happen, take note I have near zero tolerances for this!

Positive projects for a better outcome:

witchescauldron, to Bulgaria
@witchescauldron@kolektiva.social avatar

The first part is about democracy, the second part is hard politics, and is more nasty.

The was booted up on grassroot passion and crowed funding, it was sustained in the early growth by crowed funding and expanded (in an often not helpful way) by passion. Over the last 2 years we have seen this shift sharply to “institutional” funding, some of this has been behind the seanes “think-tanks/academia” but over the last years the though and more specifically have taken a central role in funding just about all fedivers projects and much background technology.

In this, we have moved from meany 1000’s of people shaping the direction in a radically transparent way to handfuls of people controlling the levers of influence in a more opaque process. This is a clear and very obvues failing of governance, kinda normal and very obvuesly fail.

Now the wider project pour funding directly down the drain, which is a normal outcome so not an issue for us as the money is wasted anyway. are doing good, they are funding grassroots technology, so they are people we should work with.

How do we start to mediate this issue “In this we have moved from meany 1000’s of people shaping the direction in a transparent way to handfuls of people controlling the levers of influence in a more opaque process” And more importantly rebalance the agenda that flows with this funding https://unite.openworlds.info/Open-Media-Network/4opens/wiki/Funding-of-openweb-projects this second part is a BIG problem, this first part is about democracy, the second part is hard politics, and is more nasty.

witchescauldron, to Bulgaria
@witchescauldron@kolektiva.social avatar

Talking about hope and dispair in tech

Q. A lot of evil stuff happens via the cyberweb, no doubt. But I would encourage anyone who still knows how it works not to give up on it. Instead, try to work around the BS and design systems which are resilient to adversaries. As conditions of life get harder and the oligarchy turns the screws we need channels of dissident communication, even if they are no longer mainstream ones. Even retro stuff may go under the radar.

A. This is a social tech problem, a and the solution is social tech that steps away from the we cant just keep doing the same it’s time for composting are example of this that are currently blocked.

Q. As far as I could understand from what you said, what would then be exactly the social related problem to solve ? Are you referring to the way spying agencies like the CIA that is dominating the hacktivist scene, are creating “trends” on how to be safe online, which have most of the time no true impact regarding the possibilities of such agencies to continue spying and having social control? So you mean it’s a matter of being good at creating counter propaganda to cancel

A. You are describing the problems, then adding a layer of self-destruction to the problem, that’s not helpful. The has been “destroyed” by some forces you name. But we have also played a role in destroying it ourselves in refection to the real problems you highlight. We have little power over the first and more power over the second. It’s hopeful to think about this

Q. The wasn’t destroyed exactly. If you look at the numbers of websites over time, the open web is still there, but what happened is that almost all of the attention got captured by a small number of enormous corporate sites. The corporate sites made themselves critical conduits for search and discovery of news and views, such that the notion of “web surfing” has become almost obsolete. Google search increasingly won’t show much of the open web, because it’s not within the targeted ads business model.

A. yes my point, the is under a thin veneer of corporate crap. The is a tiny break out of this that seceded because it was “accidentally” anti we need to be hardcore anti is the is to be HOPE 🙂

Q. The success of the fediverse did have a very large element of luck to it. Before 2017 it was doing very badly, and I remember unsuccessfully trying to persuade people to try GNU Social instead of going on Facebook. Even people who hated Facebook were reluctant to try the fediverse. Also my interpretation is that ActivityPub was originally a corporate idea but that the corporates lost interest, leaving its development to a few remaining grassroots activists. If the corporates had stayed that ActivityPub would probably be something quite different.

A. Yep, gave me hope, though it’s failing now – we have to stop fucking up this grassroots tech. A start is talking about the and using these to start composting

Q. The fediverse isn’t failing as such, but is becoming an established technology and so is no longer shiny or something which a clueless tech journalist would want to breathlessly scribble about as a new phenomena. Like XMPP and other previous protocols it is getting into the “plateau of productivity” where it mostly “just works”. There are complaints about lack of spec development, and some of those are justified. But ActivityPub doesn’t need to do all the things, it only needs to do one job well – that of being a social network protocol.

A. yes, it’s not failing in its own terms. But it is not heading to success in the bigger picture of being a alt to the I should know being involved for the last few years outreaching it to the that understands it has a problem. The outreach is interesting in this and likely also going to fail in the wider mission. It’s hard to push in a era controlled by and capitalism/alt diesper.

Q. It depends on what the EU’s wider mission is, but I expect that it’s not really a grassroots type of mission anyway. Whatever the machinations or motives of the EU, we do need to maintain a viable space for people who actively don’t want to be stuck in the corporate hellscape. And we shouldn’t assume that the EU will continuously bankroll some projects.

A. At the it’s a power politics fight between the need for in a organization that is all about people know they need to change but are only brave to pretend to do this. Am interested if a little crack of might be enough to undermine the monolith. Problem is everyone is up for selling out to grab a bit of so only weak PUSH is all we have, needs to be sharper and harder push. Think stake and vampire level of PUSH with a few blows of a mallet to drive the point home. has power over closed, just like light over darkness.

witchescauldron, to couchsurfing
@witchescauldron@kolektiva.social avatar

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:

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 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 .

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 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 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 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 , , , , , , , and , 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 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.

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.

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

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 and , as healthy of 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.

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.

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.

witchescauldron, to Bulgaria
@witchescauldron@kolektiva.social avatar

A story about outreach we need to bring to this https://www.ngiforum2023.eu/ though the is no space for this in the "official" program, good to make a space please.

The 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, , 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 to promote decentralized and models of the Fediverse to the European Union (). 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 and how they can shape a more humane online world. As a result, a minority of people in the 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 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 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 to 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. It is up to all of us to ensure that the internet is used for the betterment of society.

witchescauldron, to Bulgaria
@witchescauldron@kolektiva.social avatar

Come and talk about this here https://www.ngiforum2023.eu/ though you will likly have to make space as the is non in the programe.

The mess we make of funding

It’s important to remember in tech that most funding is poured directly down the drain, all value comes from culture which is always underfunded. Would be a good idea to try to rebalance this mess. And yes, we are not talking about the mess, that’s another subject 😉

The value we are all talking about, the based on is a very good example of this issue. The group that pushed through the speck only goes through the formal consensuses process because the were not interested in owning the outcome as it had no “value” to them. The speck was done as unpaid, unfunded labour, this is where almost all value actually comes from when you lift the lid on the current mess.

The importance of culture and the underfunding of technologies. It is true that much of the value in openweb technologies comes from the grassroots efforts of individuals and communities who are passionate about creating and maintaining these tools. This can be seen in the case of the , which was developed by a group of volunteers who were committed to creating a decentralized and open social networking platform.

At the same time, it is also important to recognize the role that funding can play in supporting the development of openweb technologies. While it is true that much of the value comes from DIY culture, funding can help to support and sustain this culture, providing resources and support to help communities. One initiative that is working to address this issue is , which is a program funded by the European Commission to support the development of technologies. Through this program, funding is provided to support projects that are focused on creating often focused decentralized and projects.

Overall, it is important to recognize the importance of DIY culture and grassroots efforts in the development of openweb culture and technologies. At the same time, we should also work to support these efforts through funding and other forms of support, in order to help ensure that these grassroots cultures and the technologies they build continue to thrive and evolve in the years to come.

witchescauldron, to fediverse
@witchescauldron@kolektiva.social avatar

A native path out of the mess people make on the

The Open Governance Body () 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 emphasizes that there is no exclusion and always diversity, making it a natural fit for the .

The 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 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 focus is on the importance of keeping things simple () 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 emphasizes the need to do better, and that being native to the is a big help in this regard.

The emphasizes the importance of recognizing where power comes from in the context of the . 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 path.

The builds from the works because it is different, and it is easy to forget this important thing when agendas grab and hold. The 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 notes that there are problems in alt-tech and suggests that starting with the would remove 90% of the mess, revealing the real potential for good outcomes. The 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 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 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 uses the example of , where the website redesign removed the tools active Couchsurfers had used to self-organize, leading to disappointment among members. The argues that letting members make their own process, open vs. closed, is necessary to overcome the and have hope for alt-tech.

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

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

The 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 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 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 pushes that the bulk of the voice comes from those who run the , 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

The 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 if we are going to use tech for social/ecological change/challenge, and we need to think about this now.

The project is about developing better ways of having “trust” based conversations and “trust” based “governance” in the . 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 approach. The is a native way of working, NOT a way, and it comes from directly working, setting up, and solving recurring problems at hundreds of direct action protest camps.

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

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

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

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

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 🙂

“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 and looks safe to the “normal world” while being native to the and its roots. All the coding is , based on .

With , it’s important not to get lost in the and their dogmatic love of , as that’s a dead end and has been for the 30 years of activism and coding tech. It’s important to keep the both and human, understandable. The 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 “” 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 to have a hope of a better world.

To remind you that the need for “governance” came out of a practical problem where the community is made up of “cats” who were doing seminars outreach to powerful Eurocrats on why they should be interested in . 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.

witchescauldron, to opensource
@witchescauldron@kolektiva.social avatar

Maybe we can try to bring this tech funding mess to https://www.ngiforum2023.eu/, but we face a normal top down fail, so likely will not find an easy space to do this.

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/
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 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

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

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

This is a 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.

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 and the 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 , WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE PUSHING MESS while doing “good”, step into the light please

Ignoring this basic is , this is why conversations are done in public

yes, I understand the fear this creates and the desire to , but this then makes the 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 people to be actually mad and increasingly bad. When do we get more people pushing change challenge in these spaces, please?

Am increasingly seeing this 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 on the or the powerful Eurocrats worshipping the while protecting these thin careers in the

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 to compost.

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

You talk to people to emplane 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 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…

witchescauldron, to Bulgaria
@witchescauldron@kolektiva.social avatar

Hope is a swift flow and the strong current that pushes change/challenge

Talking to the crew

Hope is a swift left wing flow and the strong current that pushes change/challenge. Simple truth telling is a deep upwelling, the spring that feeds this fresh flow. We need to nurture truth and hope in every part of our society, both our tribalism and bureaucracy are part of this river, more important than ever in the era of we are fast moving into

Bring simple truth to the surface, pure spring waters helps to nourish.

In the and wider rivers, we have increasing inflows of funding from the traditional bureaucracy. This, on the one hand, is feeding the grassroots and on the other hand shaping to a more river. We need to strive to have a better outcome from this, the tools they are funding are all open licence, we need to build into them that the more bureaucratic/closed agender can be switched on and off in all these funded projects. This is a simple solution we can work towards.

Conclusion

  • All flows have value, we need this influx of funding to grow the and if we are to do challenge/change, so use this opening to shape the influx of value and to shape these institutions that push this flow. See this as an opportune for activism, rather than something to be

  • On our-side, we can nurture our tribalism to this “common” course with the and simple political statements like hallmarks.

  • Our more theoretical friends can use their skills to resurrect the ideas that shaped past movements and feed these into the new movements.

How can we make our media better.

  • Use the carrot and the stick, talk about balance rather than conflict.

  • Bring the liberals in, but keep the basic strong and visible, everyone has a role in the era of so be hopeful and friendly.

  • If the river is cool and fresh, the and will soon jump and swim with this flow.

We live in creative times, let’s enjoy creativity.

witchescauldron, to fediverse
@witchescauldron@kolektiva.social avatar

The is an “accidental” reboot by the , so it’s herding cats to get anything done, not a bad thing, not a good thing It’s what it is.

One way to move away from this mess is grassroots producer governance.

Otherwise, live (and die) with the mess, and try to stop people bowing down and praying to the is a step to keep the in place.

witchescauldron, to fediverse
@witchescauldron@kolektiva.social avatar

A activist history of the web

The “better” (ISP intranets) was “surprisingly” destroyed by the “inferer” which then exploded in use to spread everywhere.

The thinking then tried and failed to recapture this project for ten years as it takes up global space, and was a real challenge change, that the “common sense” said should not exist.

This working alternative was finally sold out by our own , who bribed with money and statues members of the “unthinking” to build the that rapidly took over the space.

Our wider activist created “liberal stories” about how embracing the was a good path. The wider flocked to these spaces to grasp at the real early power they provided, after society had finished this shift, the bate and switch took this power away, and we were left with “servalence capitalism” and no social power, as was obvuse at the time it was a con.

Our then pissed tech change/challenge agenst the wall for ten years. While the user facing technology withered, ignored and irrelevant to

A few years ago we had an “accidental” reboot with and soon after pushing of the next generation of projects with leaving us in the current messy times.

Yes now the are roting, but the is only a small change challenge due to our and actively the change challenge inherent to the project.

Where are we now and what can we learn from this?
Liberalism in tech are often active prats, co-opting, bait and switch and taking the easy funded path when the choice comes.
They are , even when they deny this with all their “common sense”
Ideas to mediate this, please?

Do you except that “new” is often (neo-liberalism) and because this is “common sense” what is your plan/idea to get around these problems?

I have had 20 years of “new” and am very underwhelmed, actually it’s almost all or adding to the to be composed. This is obviously a problem that needs to be mediated, what is your plan/process to have a better outcome?

Remember that the only thing that has worked in the last 10 years has been copying with every themselves has failed, what can we learn from this?

This is an important question that the project mediates.

msaunders, to random

To those of you who know the Permaculture Designers' Manual () and not only the trendy side of Permaculture, might we please strike up a practical conversation?

Action is required.

Is the fediverse a useful tool in this?
Is it capable of helping re-form bioregional communities?

Or is it doomed to be yet another place where we all shout into the void and achieve nothing except rubbing our own (and sometimes others') ego's?

msaunders, to random

(...) all prepar(ing) for selfreliance and regional interdependence. As the problems are truly global, global concern and action will be needed.
(...) only group or community (bioregional) survival is meaningful and possible; individual survival is meaningless, as is survival in fortresses. Thus, we must plan for total regions, and include all skills of a global society."

witchescauldron, to random
@witchescauldron@kolektiva.social avatar

Introducing OMN: A Trust-Based Project for Federated Networks

In the ever-expanding digital landscape, where information overload and spam are commonplace, there's a crucial need for a trust-based project that emphasizes human moderation and community cooperation. Welcome to OMN – a unique initiative that aims to leverage the power of human moderation to foster federated networks and genuine online communities.

The concept is simple: every piece of content, known as a "flow," goes through a trust-building process. When users create content, it's either trusted – indicating a consistent track record of quality contributions – or moderated when the content varies in quality. This dynamic approach ensures that the system scales effectively by encouraging users to build trust links with one another.

Without this human touch, a network's workload quickly becomes unmanageable, or it's overwhelmed by irrelevant or spammy content, rendering the sites useless. This core feature of OMN is designed to encourage the growth of human-scale federated trust communities.

To maintain a useful site, two key outcomes are possible: the creation of large, diverse communities with a broad spectrum of admins and moderators, or the establishment of smaller, tightly-knit trust groups focused on quality connections. Both outcomes are valuable and central to the essence of .

While automation might seem tempting, it risks creating countless middling-quality sites, leading to a signal-to-noise problem. In the end, this could undermine the entire network. OMN's philosophy is rooted in the idea that "less is more" – a deliberate move away from the of endlessly improving tools.

OMN addresses the challenge of managing spam and low-quality content by allowing them to flow into the network and then guiding them away from the quality areas of the network.

One unique feature of OMN is its organic growth model. New sites may need to be set up to allow new content to flow in, spreading the network wider and narrowing the focus. This leads to an ecosystem where base sites feed into middle sites, which in turn feed into top sites, creating a robust network interconnected by quality tags, subject feeds, and editorial articles.

Surprisingly, OMN inverts the traditional value pyramid: the top sites are easier to set up and manage but hard to add value to. The core of the project lies in the middle sites, where content is sifted and aggregated. The real value, however, remains at the base where content is created.

OMN operates on the principle that there is nothing entirely original in its approach – it draws inspiration from how plumbing, electrical grids, and even the neurons in our brains function. This embraces the concept of as a fundamental pillar of the project.

In the next step of the project, the focus is on stepping away from the dominant ideologies of the 20th century and building social technology based on a different vision of human nature. Unlike other projects, is all about simplicity and decentralization, emphasizing people and community control and social connections. It's an invitation to break free from the confines of the past and shape the future of online communities.

witchescauldron, to fediverse
@witchescauldron@kolektiva.social avatar

In "governance" at the moment people are mostly crew, some are careerism, others are doing careerism.

Neither of these are real friends of any alternatives, they are friendly enemies ;)

witchescauldron,
@witchescauldron@kolektiva.social avatar

@evan it's what it is, I like grassroots and DIY and am not a fan of mess making, think we tip into this from now on, this is both good and bad, my view do better at holding culture and neticate in place while outreaching to

msaunders,

@evan

and are not positive terms in my personal estimation.
But I guess it depends on personal stance ;)

The to me (also a programmer) is where tech-obsessives build almost for the sake of building, do not consider the repercussions of their work and end up making shit worse.
E.g. the 'like' button

is more obvious. While it is sometimes nice to feel part of something big, it's where diversity goes to die.

@witchescauldron

witchescauldron,
@witchescauldron@kolektiva.social avatar

@evan

"they are friendly enemies" this is a view of the polarization our freshly people push over "native" alt spaces, it makes a mess, let me illustrate:

An example of this are the guys, they are "well meaning" but talk to them and you get dogmatic liberal imperialism, pushing polarizing mess making.

Look at current shifts in It's now run by one person, the diversity is sidelined and silenced by the "common sense" of it's a shadow of the community it was and needs to be.

Experience the the lack of social buy in for this is feeding the

Our tech it self with its of admin, user etc, king and serf hardcoded allows the polarizing to embed.

All these initiatives are good and grassroots, but all are poisoned by the polarization of the dogmatic paths of the few people left in charge.

One way out of this mess is sortation based, consensus building, trust networking, democracy.

This is a completely normal recurring issue with grassroot activism, before we were we were doing better, the question we can't ask is how do we do better while .

The - as we can't keep doing the same shit, it's well past time to compost this mess.

msaunders,

@evan
I guess another shining example of the would be https://xkcd.com/927/ though that also reflects a societal problem of scale.

The more people who have to agree on something the more impossible it becomes.

And people say they want a single global society.
How insane that is.

A true global society may only exist paradoxically (better word?).

It may only exist by virtue of smaller, actually functioning, autonomous, sovereign bioregions working together.

@witchescauldron

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • JUstTest
  • modclub
  • DreamBathrooms
  • InstantRegret
  • tacticalgear
  • magazineikmin
  • Youngstown
  • thenastyranch
  • mdbf
  • slotface
  • rosin
  • Leos
  • kavyap
  • Durango
  • normalnudes
  • ethstaker
  • everett
  • GTA5RPClips
  • cubers
  • khanakhh
  • ngwrru68w68
  • anitta
  • provamag3
  • cisconetworking
  • tester
  • osvaldo12
  • megavids
  • lostlight
  • All magazines