I would go with the Enclosure, considering the the previous slide is called How the Web Became Closed and to avoid a repetition with The Closed Web. Also, I think @how is right, as it’s suggesting a process and not a static thing. I would suggest to decide among you if you really wish to make the change, but I would go with how it is right now.
Can you let me know expressly who should I mention? Last time we said we will add a note instead of a bold font for those, but I don’t spot a note somewhere. Obviously I don’t want to make someone feel left behind.
His main criticism was that current big platform spend a lot of resources to invest in outreching citizens and they are doing a good job from the perspective of the audience. It does not matter much that it’s a direct approach or a mediated one. At Inter-department communication he said it does not reflect how the EU works and people will laugh at us. We ended the discussion here in fact, as I was having a call with Joost from 20h00 (I had one with Mathew at 19h00). To me this slide does make sense, I’ve seen this idea with direct outreach as an important point mentioned in some other places.
If this is so important for you, I could add it and explain humanism as a philosophical concept as well, so it’s not a new term introduced out of the blue. All good with Humanist approach - can you however let me know what is the opposite approach? " today humanism may refer to a nontheisticlife stance centred on human agency and looking to science rather than revelation from a supernatural source to understand the world."(Humanism - Wikipedia)
^^ This is what I find on Wikipedia on humanism.
I will explain it and it will make sense. I can say it creates a crisis in democracy, to be aligned with your suggestion.
The opposite approach is where the social media are purely developed for “the bottom line” i.e. to maximize profits and shareholder value to the detriment of all other - moral and ethical - considerations and regardless of negative downsides. This incentive is completely lacking in the Fediverse, hence people’s interests come first and foremost into consideration again. (I’d like to say that Fediverse can be considered a playground for ‘humane technologists’ in that way).
I don’t think it needs a deep-dive on more philosophical terms. The summary text on Wikipedia is often the strongest and just says “Humanism is a philosophical stance that emphasizes the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively”. Later on in such pages various intepretations and details are mentioned.
See also my comment above, after my apology. @how, a fair way would name no apps then? Personally I like the current glimpse of the landscape
I agree. Makes sense to me too. Unless other people want to improve, I have no further suggestions.
I would be +1 not to mention anyone, just let them be on the slide - and focus on the idea behind. But if you want me to mention someone, please let me know which one, so I do mention it and not get in trouble.
With full fairness I was referring to not even displaying names. But anyway, I think you need not mention them at all, just go through the first column and explain that we are in these app domains with cool apps. They can follow links after the event is over.
As for the change to the slide. It was made Fri, Apr 16, 2021 11:21 PM and the original title was: How the Web was Closed.
In this presentation there are some meany ways we could communicate here, I have self censored just about everything I value to get a non off-putting outcome.
The openweb (how it started) How the Web Became Closed (self explantery), The #closedweb (what it is now) then the openweb what we wont it to become. it’s a simple story which brakes if we change the flow in the middle.
Yep… its needlessly dangurus game to play to list some projects and leave projects that are much bigger out of the list. The safe option is to just mention the mains ones and then have a prominent link to the rest at the bootm - am not sure where this adding random project is coming from, it badly though through.
Quite frankly I don’t have a strong opinion, both make sense. It’s just what is written on the slide here.
I sure hope that nobody will be making text analysis on what I actually get to say. I am sticking to the notes, but there is a lot of explaining to be done on some slides where I will do my best to explain what we discussed.
I am waiting for you to tell me the names to mention on the slide with projects, if any.
I am quite sure we were all in the meetup when adding the current list. Anyway I leave this to figure out for others. I don’t mind what is in here. Gave several options (current list, smaller list, no list at all).
The slide How the Web was Closed still looks broken on my end - is this normal?
Guys, who added on the slide
Random deplatforming
Algorithmic censorship
No support desk
?
I don’t remember adding it in the meeting. Please don’t add things to the presentation now, it’s hard to follow and it’s becoming a mess on my end. It’s not the content of the slides that preoccupies me now, but the explanations on what is written there. If I am preparing an explanation on something and I see the slide changed, it’s confusing.
(PS. I added the 3 subbullets… see earlier feedback. If these are undesirable, feel free to remove)
This is what I added in the morning, based on the feedback that “Sovereignty” was unclear. Removedthe sub-bullets and added to slide notes (you may delete them).
The is no direct opposite as this concept is the bedrock of modern European culture and been built from it. In the 1980s the was an academic fashion for postmodernism that has since been discredited, like neo-liberalism in the 80’s was fashionable both are passing into obscurity as Incoherent thinking. BUT both dieing views still shape our thinking “common senses” so the might be could be some backlash if people still care about these things…
I would agree, the diversity of views discussed here also means that there is enough food for thought for the discussion after the presentation I think the message in the presentation is clear and concise. The fact that the last two slides are the most talked about now, makes me look forward to the discussion after it. Enough to meow about @hamishcampbell indeed
I won’t touch the presentation anymore, unless upon request by 