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 😷:krulorange:replied to Jan Wildeboer 😷:krulorange: last edited by [email protected]
My gut feeling is that there are (at least) two sides to decentralised tech. Isolationists and communicators. One group wants to use the tech to stay amongst themselves and keep others at a distance. The other group wants to use the tech to connect people without being surveilled and under control.
Obviously isolationists tend to be more on the far-right and they are driven by suspicions.
The other group isn't necessarily (far-)left, they tend to be optimistic, trusting but also careful. 2/4
-
Jan Wildeboer 😷:krulorange:replied to Jan Wildeboer 😷:krulorange: last edited by [email protected]
So the complicated thing to solve is: how do we create a community of positive-minded, friendly people that feel safe sharing innovation in the field of decentralised technology and using it to create a more open and sharing sentiment?
I don't know yet, but I want to get there. Any hints on existing (but also failed) approaches welcome. Just don't be too dogmatic and fundamentalist, ok? 3/4
-
palhareplied to Jan Wildeboer 😷:krulorange: last edited by
Since when are antifascists and the left pro-government? They mistakenly believe they align with the government, particularly in Germany, where ex-socialists (who abandoned the working class decades ago) and the Greens (more bourgeois) hold sway.
Independent, decentralized communication networks are still urgently needed. I'd rather filter content myself—even from preppers or the far-right—than have censorship outsourced to companies or political pressure groups, as it is today.
-
Jan Wildeboer 😷:krulorange:replied to palha last edited by
@palha 1) I never said lefties are pro-government. Don't put words in my mouth. It leads to being blocked.
-
jonny (good kind)replied to Jan Wildeboer 😷:krulorange: last edited by
@jwildeboer p2p but for engaging with the world and its health instead of abandoning it yes please
-
Gareth Kitchenreplied to Jan Wildeboer 😷:krulorange: last edited by
@jwildeboer Maybe solve is the wrong word? Intuition tells me that any solution will be a horrible mish mash where nobody is completly happy and the whole shebang is held together with duck tape.
-
Jan Wildeboer 😷:krulorange:replied to Gareth Kitchen last edited by [email protected]
@gruff And weirdly enough, that approach seems to work Look at TCP/IP, the web — a lot of GoodEnough(tm) solutions are controlled chaos, where the level of control is most often the drama point See also: The Tale of Two Bridges https://social.wildeboer.net/@jwildeboer/113175406061265492
-
@jonny @jwildeboer I wonder if the solution might just require being up front about the politics for the community. People can then participate if they want to
-
Jan Wildeboer 😷:krulorange:replied to Chip Butty last edited by
-
jonny (good kind)replied to Jan Wildeboer 😷:krulorange: last edited by
@jwildeboer @otfrom oh god is it about to happen right now
-
Jan Wildeboer 😷:krulorange:replied to jonny (good kind) last edited by
-
jonny (good kind)replied to Jan Wildeboer 😷:krulorange: last edited by
@jwildeboer @otfrom i'm over here about to bang on the table like a football dad changing 'purity! tests! purity! tests!'
-
Chip Buttyreplied to jonny (good kind) last edited by
@jonny your profile bio is a pretty good steer wet what kind of politics you are trying to support. I'm thinking something along those lines. If you said crypto bro survivalist I'd probably not follow you
-
Jan Wildeboer 😷: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 😷: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 😷: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 😷:krulorange:replied to Jan Wildeboer 😷: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 😷:krulorange:replied to jonny (good kind) last edited by
-
Huubjereplied to Jan Wildeboer 😷: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 😷: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 — I am still trying to:)