It’s worth a look at the emptiness of the paywalled FediForum | FediForum September, 2024“The unconference for the people, who move the Fediverse forward.” the alt who are not there are still more active and important than the people pushing #mainstreaming on this #NGO and #dotcons path.
Good to take notice and to remember this when thinking of your place and role in this balance. Yes, we are making a mess of this grassroots path, but we are still here. They are thin on the #mainstreaming path, and cover this by make noise and taking space.
On balance, this is a grassroots project, and we are the “native” people on the openweb path, the #NGO and even the #dotcons can be a part, but it’s native - natives are the web of meany colours, that’s us.
This signal-to-noise is something we need to mediate by activism.
Sorry, what?! FediForum is full of individuals not from companies who want to advance the Fediverse too, in fact, one topic brought up was how SocialHub being so technical often discourages regular people from contributing, and asking how we could provide space for those people to help influence the protocol and platforms.
Yes, there are companies who presented, but there’s also a lot of individual developers and people who ran sessions.
I attended the first one, as the paywall had a gap, to talk to the people there, NOTE am not making a moral judgment whether these are good or bad people and talking about culture. People can make up their own minds.
The culture was strongly #NGO#liberal#dotcons friendly, their tools were not #FOSS and were closed source and build on top of #dotcons like ZOOM, Eventbrite, it was a conversation to get this point onto the table. The problem with this is meany people on this space, socialhub refused to get involved because of this.
Q. Has this changed, I understand they are cross-posting videos to peertube and well as YouTube so that’s a step.
As all the rest of the events they run were paywalled, I have not been back, I don’t think meany people on the “native” grassroots path have been, so where these issues addressed?
Blockquote
The unconference, for the people, who move, the Fediverse forward
I talk to them about using honest language, and most importantly about treading careful about being Imperialist fu****ts - by GRABBING SPACE. Yes this is normal in the mess we live in, but it’s not native path, culture, when we are commons building for the openweb
The #KISS solution, which I talked to them about, was a simple process of prominently linking to other projects doing the same thing - an example would have been socialhub as an organising space and the AP conference as a historical thread. This is a native commons based path, what they did was ignore this and intolerantly push the normal #NGO path of enclosing a part of the commons we spent the last years building, no bridge was put in place, and with the closing of the paywall the majority of people who had worked in the grassroots over the last ten years were ideological locked out of this event.
I could go on, but let’s leave a space for bridge building.
The #NGO path of #fediforum can be a part of the commons building that is all our openweb reboot, but they are current off this path, linking is a good step to become more “native” #KISS
This is a DRAFT as have not looked at this project deeply for a while. Look past what they say, look at what they do #4opens.
The 4opens are a simple way to judge the value of an “alt/grassroots” tech project.
Open data – is the basic part of a project. Without this openness, they cannot function. Open data is essential for transparency and collaboration.
They are pretty open on this and use CC licence, there are some RSS feeds. But input into the events is paywalled so closed, after the event videos are published as open. A full TICK or a half TICK
Open source – refers to “free software.” This keeps development healthy by increasing interconnectedness and fostering serendipity. Open licences, such as Creative Commons. Open source FOSS encourages collaboration and innovation.
am not sure what CMS they use, but likely #FOSS. They use a mash-up of closed source #dotcons for the events. Half TICK or non?
Open “industrial” standards – are foundational for the open internet and WWW Open standards ensure interoperability and compatibility, enabling diverse systems to work together seamlessly.
There are some RSS feeds on the sites, but this is it, the #dotcons used for the events make this hard to give a tick so no TICK
Open process – is the most nebulous part but crucial for collaboration and trust. Examples include wikis and activity streams. Open process ensures that project workflows are transparent and participatory.
the organizing of events and process to organize the events are closed, the events themselves being unconferences are open. But are paywalled so ideologically closed to meany people.
Half a TICK to be positive
It’s easy to become a #4opens project and join the #openweb path:
So we have a wide spread for this project at worst, not a #4opens project at all with one TICK at best a bronze #4opens project with 2 TICKS that needs improvement.
DRAFT
Being critical only has good outcomes if people take the time and effect to look for the value in this path. If the is no looking and more so if the is ONLY hard blocking, then the is little value.
Activism is about making the value hard to ignore #KISS
Yes, the conference costs money, but conferences require money to put on, given the amount of organising work involved; it’s unclear if qiqochat costs money or if zoom (which supports larger gatherings well) cost money — I would guess they do. Hosting say Jitsi for the conference would also cost money (would rather jitsi than whereby), whether that’s in paying someone to operate jitsi or paying for servers to run it at conference scale.
So given all the costs involved in putting together and running a conference, it does seem fair that it would cost some amount of money.
$40 isn’t that much, and a lot of tickets were available at $2 — IFTAS even had tickets that we’d buy for people wanting to attend, I think we only had one person take us up on that offer.
Paying money didn’t guarantee you a position to speak nor present a demo, those were a close application process (to protect privacy of potential demos that we’re launching at the conference)
Whilst we may want everything to be open, sometimes reality requires a different approach that tries to be as open as possible
This is why I used the term ideological excluded, it’s the fact of a paywall, not the money, which make this a non-native path, which a lot of people simply refuse to engage with, see the history of past events organised as examples without paywall which did work as native.
The unconference, for the people, who move, the Fediverse forward.
Then there is the #4opens, I must admit this likely needs a deeper look, but clearly shows the problem.
NOTE at the end all I ask for is a bit of transparent linking - as a step to place the needed bridge. And perhaps less Imperialist in the outreach and naming… it’s a basic #KISS ask.
An unconference, for the people to grow the Fediverse. Maybe? Then link to other paths… I understand doing this is hard, but it would help.
What ACTION can we do about this? They ignored me taking the time to ask them to do this at the start, what is the path to start this bridging.
A #KISS key to growing diversity is Linking and this means linking to people you disagree with, but you understand they are doing useful work.
As mentioned, putting on a conference costs money, do you expect the conference organisers to just eat the costs, just so it can remain ideologically free?
Or would you rather they solicit sponsorship & ads to fund it to keep it free?
Let’s not mince words here, it’s great to have ideals, but majority, if not all of us, live in capitalist societies and things cost money. Organising is time, which under capitalism is money.
It’s unfortunate, but there’s no such thing as a free lunch.
We are talking cross purposes, which is understandable, I hope.
On a side note on your last line. The used to be lots of places to get a free lunch, as an example, in the activism and culture of the turn of the century there were a generation of people who grew up doing social good and being feed to do this. This path, or gift economy, is in large part how much of the work on the Fediverse was practically been done till #NLnet funding came along.
The original work on ActivityPub standard was also done outside the paid economy, yes differently, but hope this helps to illustrate the “native path” and the #mainstreaming path, and that am not blindly arguing for one or the other.
Let’s build bridges rather than undermining each other foundations, please.
All the original AP / SWICG people, to my knowledge, had jobs that afforded them the ability to participate in the standards process & all the time that requires.
Even in your free lunch example above, someone still paid for the materials to make the lunch, it was just a gift to you, because they valued your activism: it was still a value exchange, even if no money changed hands between you and others.
Most of us live in a capitalist society, that means money is required to make things so, whether we like it or not. I’d love to have UBI and be able to work on whatever, and not have to solicit for donations to keep my work sustainable, but we don’t have that so I must do what I need to make things financially sustainable and not take a huge loss.
I would imagine the same is true for the organisers of FediForum
One thing we really need to compost is the often invisible conflict between the native commons-based approach and the realities of capitalist infrastructure—particularly in how we fund, organize, and maintain spaces, for example #FediForum. It is hard to get across this invisible #blocking. The perspective, of ideological exclusion rather than the money itself being an issue, though of course it is. this captures a deeper issue about how certain approaches (like paywalls) alienate grassroots communities, even if the cost is minimal or scholarships are available.
We need to see the value in both native and #mainstreaming paths, the native path of the Fediverse and related openweb movements grew organically from gift economies and volunteer-driven efforts. As did a lot of openweb work, including the ActivityPub standard, which was developed in such spaces, without the need for a paywall or corporate sponsorship. This ethos is central to the commons-building process, where trust, collaboration, and openness are valued more than monetization or statues in formal hard structures.
In the example of FediForum you can see contrast, mainstreaming, paywalls, closed applications, proprietary tools like Zoom and Eventbrite, etc. While they may argue that these tools and models are necessary to cover costs, they create barriers for those who have historically contributed to the commons, they are unthinkably enclosing, pushing these paths. The point that the paywall is an ideological barrier, not merely a financial one, is critical. For many in the grassroots community, the introduction of a paywall—even if it’s just $2 or $40—symbolizes a shift away from open, accessible organizing. It’s not just about affordability; it’s about how the space is structured and who it’s structured for.
Events organized without paywalls, based on voluntary contributions, have historically worked because they maintained a native, commons-based ethos. They relied on the trust and collaboration of participants, who donated time, energy, and resources to make things happen without needing to resort to gatekeeping mechanisms like paywalls. With this in mind, we need to try and move conversations that can so easily turn nasty and negative into building bridges, not undermining foundations. The solution lies in acknowledging the strengths of both paths, native and mainstreaming, and finding a way to link them, rather than blindly pushing for one path to dominate and enclose the other.
Actions for Bridge-Building: Ideas and actions for how we might approach this challenge pragmatically, without compromising on the core values of the native common’s path:
Transparent Linking: Start by linking to other paths. Our example FediForum can openly acknowledge and link to grassroots spaces like SocialHub, recognizing that both are part of the larger network. This small step would create a bridge rather than a division.
FOSS Infrastructure is absolutely basic. Push for the use of open-source alternatives to #dotcons tools like Zoom and Eventbrite. This could include tools we have successfully used before , BigBlueButton, Jitsi or other FOSS video conferencing platforms, alongside commons-based event platforms. Even if these tools mean volunteers agreeing to host, the ideological message is different: they are part of the openweb rather than a concession to the #dotcons proprietary mess.
Open Scholarship Programs: While some financial costs are unavoidable, events could offer open, transparent scholarship programs, as FediForum did at the first event, not just token offerings but significant pathways for those in the grassroots to attend for free. This can help balance the ideological exclusion of paywalls.
Co-organization with Grassroots: Instead of the mainstreaming path of dominating, events really need to engage in co-organization with grassroots communities, ensuring a balance of perspectives. The ogb would help this issue, as for example fediforum could be an affiliate stakeholder. This would be a step toward more commons-based governance and event management.
Decentralized Organizing Models: An option (am this is NOT compulsory) would be to take a cue from successful decentralized networks like the Fediverse itself, where governance and organizing can be shared across multiple nodes. In our example, FediForum could adopt a more structurally decentralized organizing model, where grassroots actors have a say in how the event is structured, funded, and run.
What we are talking about here is recognizing different realities, yes we do live in capitalist societies, and sometimes the realities of funding and infrastructure cannot be ignored. However, recognizing this doesn’t mean fully conceding to the #mainstreaming path. Instead, there can be a balance where the native commons ethos is preserved while finding sustainable ways to support events and initiatives. This is actually how the THING we are talking about was originally built, this is what I am calling “native”.
The commons-based path is not simply about ideals; it’s about creating structures that are inclusive, accessible, and genuinely collaborative. While mainstream forces may argue for pragmatism (paywalls, proprietary tools), we do need to push back for a #KISS solution, transparent linking and FOSS tools, offers a simple yet profound bridge. This is how we can grow diversity and ensure that the Fediverse remains grassroots, native space where trust, openness, and collaboration thrive.
Don’t you think running the SocialHub for six years cost money? Yet nobody ever asked anything to anyone – nor that anyone proposed to support any of the costs so far anyway. See, it’s really a matter of where you put your priorities: either you support the Commons, and make things open and inviting, or you don’t. Did IFTAS and Fediforum ever tried to collaborate with this community? No. They came, took the money, and are still abroad. Different paths, different worldviews, different approaches: they come from the market, but I come from the commons. So be it.
I do, which is why I’m encouraging you to set up some non-profit cooperative to oversee SocialHub and act as a conduit to receive funding via OpenCollective. SocialHub shouldn’t be expected to be your financial burden. The longer things in the fediverse rely on free labour and freely provided services, the longer we will continue to struggle and unevenly feel the burden. We need to take pathways towards sustainability.
I can’t speak for FediForum, but as an advisor to IFTAS both myself and Jon (@jdp23) do participate in SocialHub. As for the ticket program for FediForum, it was promoted through our forums on IFTAS Connect, and matrix, since the goal was to get more moderators and community builders and marginalised folks into FediForum.
SocialHub remains largely technical and does not have the people we were trying to help as a trust and safety organisation; but all that’s beside the point because due to others buying more expensive tickets, there were a significant number of tickets available for like $2 which covers just the eventbrite fees, I’m certain that is accessible, and if not I’m sure you could have contacted their team to ask if anyone could help get you into the event.
If you look back am not talking about price, I have never been talking about price, it’s irrelevant to the discussern so far. What I am talking about, the paywall being an ideological block to meany people who are core to building these space. In this am focus on native and non-native paths, this is the subject of the last few posts.
And the illustration that there is an “invisible problem” for some people in this conversation is the paragraph I wrote just now above this line.
Now, if we can both see this “problem” can we talk about the solutions i add to bridge this?
An important point about the invisible barriers that people face, which aren’t always immediately understood by others involved in conversation like this. For many grassroots contributors, the imposition of a paywall feels like an act of enclosure, a kind of taking of space that they had a hand in building. This is often not visible to those who approach these events from a more #mainstreaming or #NGO mindset.
To address this “invisible problem” We need to keep emphasizing the importance of recognizing this divide, not as an attack but as an opportunity for mutual understanding. The more people on the mainstreaming path can see how their actions might be excluding core contributors, the more likely bridges can be built. Encourage people to step into the shoes of those who feel excluded, and help them understand that this isn’t just about access or money—it’s about respecting the ethos and history of the movement.
Am constantly amazed how self-destructive people can be, we have made a mess, we need to compost this mess, we need tools to pile the compost, people on this space are toolmakers #KISS
