I think giving the “branding” to the communertys who run the instances is the right aproch. CURRENTLY, most of the codebase have strong, dominant project branding all over them.
We gave branding to the sites that use our software. Completely. This is mentioned here as something that is desirable; and removing all importance and significance of whatever the software repository is called, yet I’m called a prat (literally stupid) for actually doing it – by the same person proposing it. I’m sorry but you can’t have it both ways.
But the fact that my post violated some code of conduct and you calling me stupid didn’t is kinda’ ominous.
I’d report you but I can’t be bothered. It’s probably best that I leave this space but unfortunately that doesn’t seem possible. Is there some way to block people on this platform?
For the record: There was no CoC violation. A member flagged, and the flag was not honored. Likely your initial text seemed out of context, but subsequent edit made clear it was on-topic in the thread.
@hamishcampbell maybe this is some kind of acronym and you don’t mean it in the dictionary sense of the word, idk. But I strongly urge not to use such emotionally charged language on the forum. These kinds of communication ARE against the Code of Conduct.
If you read through this thread the is almost no engagement with the issues talked about, this is the #geekproblem that strongly #BLOCK the change/challenge we need for social technology to play a role in progressive social outcomes.
Quite frankly, I am not clear on what issues you are trying to bring up. You keep using the term “branding” as if it is some evil thing, but you are not using that word in the same sense that I and others use that word.
A brand is literally the name you give something. But you mention things like imperialism and #geekproblem, and I am confused as to how that is relevant to what you name a product or service or organization.
I can guess what some of the issues are, because I do see issues that we can talk about. But I am unclear about what you want to talk about and don’t want to put words in your mouth.
Perhaps defining terms would help. What do you mean by branding and what specific issues are you referring to?
First, I hope everything turns out okay with you family.
And, the reason why I asked what you mean is that you have not defined terms in this thread. I can guess what you mean, but I try not to put words in people’s mouths, so I ask instead of assume.
And considering that almost all of my projects have a social purpose and I majored in political science, I think I am very versed in “humane messiness” and social systems in general. Probably more than most people.
If you want to have a positive discussion, I love talking about how technology affect society and what steps we can take to make a better world. And I am always open to discussing new systems of society and governance.
But, saying my comment is the definition of “the inability to think in humane messiness” is both harsh and inaccurate. Asking what you mean after you did not explain what you mean anywhere in this thread is not an example of the #geekproblem. It is an example of a lack of communication between parties and that I am interested enough to actually ask for clarification.
One thing that I realized a long time ago when studying political science and the decades of personal research after that, is that you always have to define terms, especially if the issue is controversial.
For example, people define the word “democracy” differently. The political science definition is that it simply means that the people choose their leaders. It does not even specify how. So under that definition, the USSR and the USA are both democracies. (The Soviet Union even called itself a democracy.) But most people mean “western-style democracy” when they say democracy, which means elections, a constitution, a declaration of human rights, and usually some sort of checks and balances. And if two people talking about “democracy” are using different definitions, the conversation gets muddy.
So, in order to have a productive conversation, we must define terms first, which is why I asked.
Good will and #4opens process should/can mediate this problem, when it does not then we likely have a #geekproblem or dogmatic thinking, kinda the same thing.
To be clear, am coming at this from “undefined” position of grassroots DIY direct action, a very long history, though this history is defined badly as you say.
It’s a hard bridged to build as nobody can decide where to lay the foundations, so best to move on with a rickety wooden bridge held together with string… not sure whether that is a good metaphor, but it is a pretty good description of the whole #activertypub project
To sum up #BLOCKING is the failed 20h century, best not to keep doing this, please.
In tech, we find it hard to think outside feudalism, this is connected to our #mainstreaming BRAND thinking. We try not be this stupid on the #openweb, but we are only human. Please try to help us do better
This is going to become an increasing problem as the #mainstreming floods in, ideas please?
I much prefer for each Fediverse community to be able to have it’s own form of recognition; a logo, for instance, and so far, many applications are already beginning to take that into their own hands; Pleroma/Akkoma, Soapbox frontend for those, the normal fork of Mastodon, and also Socialhome. Some of the ones mentioned above on this thread, I haven’t had a lot of time to study.
It is important to note that branding can serve different purposes for different organizations. In the context of the #fediverse, the use of branding can be seen as a way to assert control and ownership over the platform and its content. This can be problematic as it can stifle community participation and decision-making.
One potential solution to this issue could be to shift the focus from project branding to instance branding. Giving more control over decisions to the communities that are using and running the instance, rather than leaving it in the hands of the developers/funders.
It is important to engage in open and honest dialogue about the role of branding in the #fediverse and its impact on community participation and decision-making. By working together, we can find ways to create a more equitable and inclusive #openweb
One potential solution to this issue could be to shift the focus from project branding to instance branding.
Looks to me like this conversation may be going around in circles. It’s probably best to just break the cycle now because it didn’t turn out well last time. In the fediverse you have choice. Big brands, small brands, site brands, collective (multi-site) brands, popup (temporary) brands, no brands. Whatever floats your boat.
By working together
Now we’re getting to the dark heart of the matter.
This thried is about thinking in terms of social groups not individual choices, I understand It’s hard to think in these terms, but we do need to at least try and think in this way to engage positively with the subject of the thried.
Strong branding in #openweb codebases can create a barrier for communities to adopt and customize the technology for their clective use. It can limit the ability for different communities and groups to collaborate and share resources. A more community-driven approach, where branding is minimized and customization is made easy, would allow a more inclusive and decentralized ecosystem to develop. This is important for the growth and sustainability of the #fediverse.
It is important to engage in open and honest dialogue about the role of branding in the #fediverse and its impact on community participation and decision-making.
Empowering communities to make their own digital spaces for collaboration and collective action. This involves rethinking the traditional concept of branding and finding ways to communicate the values and mission of projects without relying on dominant, project branding. Creating better #UX for community members to shape the look and feel of their spaces, and an active role in decision-making.
#mainstreaming#NGO thinking people prioritizing BRANDING in both instances and codebase are making a mess of the #openweb reboot.
We need responsible people to STOP pushing only #Mastodon as this is not helping, just look at the SPAM currently spewing from this process. With this mess we are building a codebase and an instance that are “too big to fail” this is absurdly stupid and not needed.
Please link and talk about the #openweb or the #fediverse to start to compost the mess people are, making, thanks.
#Mastodons current moves are an example of why this thread is here, we need ideas for a culture of “responsible” BRANDING in the Fediverse, if we are not a #openweb culture then why are we here doing this work, few people get paid, almost all of us our working on this for cultural beliefs, this is a shared culture, cats
The answer is simple we have a #openweb culture… let’s not get into a fight defining this, but a good start is #4opens best to keep things #KISS
On the wider subject, I think more people will look at the #dotcons smelling centralized mastodon than the wildflower smelling #fedivers as #mainstreaming culture pushes over tech, and yes this is a broken culture. Not saying the #openweb is bad, just it’s a hard sell to head down #deathcult worshippers, this is why we have mastodon selling centralization, it’s not tech.
There is terrible branding abuse going on right now. There was a discussion last week in the credentials community group when one of the previous chairs took the w3c logo and put the doge coin dog on it, and called it w3d
Doge was the same folk that did infinitecoin and a bunch of other scam coins, doge was the ultimate print free money coin, and they worked w/ cryptsy folk to dump most of it.
Lots of people got hurt. The 2nd time round they lost 70Bn, which is more than Enron. There are people that will want to abuse good brands with their own all over the place. It’s called an “affinity scam”. It’s very aggressive, and they do it with a smile on their face. These people are hard to stop.
There is an influx from twitter. Because twitter is a mixed (I dont want to be cruel and say bad) brand
There needs to a well branded place that Facebook users can come to, too.
One issue is that Social web didnt make a “friend” specification. In facebook, activity streams was like that little notification bell you have on facebook that says “Alice Liked your post”. The actual facebook bit was never built!