My personal problem with a lot of decentralised tech out there (meshtastic, p2p solutions): many communities are full of peppers, anti-government, far-right people.
-
Jan Wildeboer π·:krulorange:replied to Chip Butty last edited by
@otfrom The dilemma to solve is to create and implement standards that guarantee full neutrality. That is impossible (and the examples of that approach failing are numerous). So what is the next best thing? That is what is driving me. How to create solutions that enough people agree on without having any group being able to "own" and control it. @jonny
-
jonny (good kind)replied to Jan Wildeboer π·:krulorange: last edited by
@jwildeboer @otfrom (too late for me to have serious thoughts so i'm gonna duck out for the night so i'm not a distraction lol but i am on a parallel but separate track of thought that's about "soft security" as the wiki world called it, lowering the consequences of ideological divide, allowing people to disagree and split apart and reform without it being such a huge problem. cross apply forking discourse and etc, but in the morning)
-
Esther Payne :bisexual_flag:replied to Jan Wildeboer π·:krulorange: last edited by
@jwildeboer You already follow Librecast on Codeberg.
We're aligned.
https://nlnet.nl/project/LibreCastLiveStudio/interview.html
https://www.apc.org/node/40340 -
Jan Wildeboer π·:krulorange:replied to Jan Wildeboer π·:krulorange: last edited by
@otfrom One way I found very promising is the C4 approach [1] used by ZeroMQ and a few other projects. Reading just the RFC doesn't do the philosophy behind it justice, IMHO, and might lead to wrong conclusions. Pieter, the author of C4, wrote a little book that helps a lot in understanding this [2].
[1] https://rfc.zeromq.org/spec/42/
[2] https://hintjens.gitbooks.io/social-architecture/content/preface.html -
Jan Wildeboer π·:krulorange:replied to jonny (good kind) last edited by
-
Huubjereplied to Jan Wildeboer π·:krulorange: last edited by
@jwildeboer I think the difference should be viewed as less about political affiliations, but more in terms of individualism and collectivism (obviously, I know). Is a technology designed to foster community, or tiny individual atoms? It's one of the reasons I see revolutionary potential in free software, not necessarily directly. How often have we seen fringe far right contributors give to the greater good in spite of those contributions being contradictory to their overall world view?
-
Jan Wildeboer π·:krulorange:replied to Huubje last edited by
@Huubje Agreed in most parts. So the task at hand is to keep politics out of the process s much as possible. But also to keep the community healthy and welcoming. A known dilemma with no real solution that is universally acceptable. Both being too naive and too restrictive can kill any movement. Finding and maintaining the right balance without it costing too much energy β I am still trying to:)
-
Jan Wildeboer π·:krulorange:replied to Jan Wildeboer π·:krulorange: last edited by [email protected]
I really like the Tale of Two Bridges from chapter 5 of Social architecture [1] to explain the directions of my thinking: "... and that's where everyone went." 4/4
[1] https://hintjens.gitbooks.io/social-architecture/content/chapter5.html
-
Jan Wildeboer π·:krulorange:replied to Jan Wildeboer π·:krulorange: last edited by
(Simply out of curiosity I posted this Tale of Two Bridges on LinkedIn. I want to see how the Gen Z business folks react to it
-
Jeromereplied to Jan Wildeboer π·:krulorange: last edited by
@jwildeboer You are taking it backwards. If you have a suitable place, then the people will come and the community will form, just like the bridge story. As some people have noted in this thread, the fediverse is not far from a "suitable place".
Of course, after a little while, the place will be easier to use because tinkerers tinker and eventually it will be eternal September. This happened several times.
But in the meantime, it will work. -
Jan Wildeboer π·:krulorange:replied to Jerome last edited by [email protected]
@dl2jml Sure. The problem I have seen play out (too) many times is that when communities form and are NOT strong enough to protect themselves, they fail and all too often with that their very good ideas and solutions.
-
Jeromereplied to Jan Wildeboer π·:krulorange: last edited by
@jwildeboer Yes. But you cannot solve problems caused by social interactions with technology alone.
-
Jan Wildeboer π·:krulorange:replied to Jerome last edited by
@dl2jml Preaching to the choir Which is why this whole thread tried to focus on humans and not tech
-
Uwe KΓΌchlerreplied to Jan Wildeboer π·:krulorange: last edited by
@jwildeboer Took the opportunity to connect on LinkedIn and to boost your message.
Not too many reactions so far, though. -
Jan Wildeboer π·:krulorange:replied to Uwe KΓΌchler last edited by
@oraculix It's still weekend And I am not really active on LinkedIn anyway. Let's see what happen tomorrow