@smallcircles But also, yes you have a point. And I would point a finger. Consider the stark difference between OSS and Free Software. The difference is that Free/Libre Software (GPL and such that lock software open) has a lucid model for participation in the Free world. OSS (I'm going to group Apache and BSD, and those such licenses) are hands off. I do believe we should state how we want people to use what we write, and build structures that nurture the society we want to live in.
If it could be possible to lock the code you write away from dominance-oriented surveillance-capitalist libertarian-funded startups and monopolists, would you?
@travisfw I've been using the Peer Production License myself, as it seems the closest to doing just that. It's insufficient (as are all attempts to upend capitalism via licenses, IMO), but it's a step in the right direction.
> I do believe we should state how we want people to use what we write and build structures that nurture the society we want to live in
@travisfw I do agree, esp. on the last bit. As "we should state how we want" is a) yes, a good thing to do, but b) falls flat afterwards in chaotic "herding of cats" #grassroots environments, esp. at scale where the true "nurturing online society" takes shape. This happens by #emergence, which is my focus area with Social experience design. Truly fascinating stuff.
Sustainable ecosystem evolution (SEE) ℹ Note: The diagram depicst SEE simplified. The full SEE model evolves commons-first. Click to expand the Alt-text to the diagram.
> I do believe we should state how we want people to use what we write and build structures that nurture the society we want to live in
@travisfw I do agree, esp. on the last bit. As "we should state how we want" is a) yes, a good thing to do, but b) falls flat afterwards in chaotic "herding of cats" #grassroots environments, esp. at scale where the true "nurturing online society" takes shape. This happens by #emergence, which is my focus area with Social experience design. Truly fascinating stuff.
Sustainable ecosystem evolution (SEE) ℹ Note: The diagram depicst SEE simplified. The full SEE model evolves commons-first. Click to expand the Alt-text to the diagram.
to what extent are plants responsible for the oxygen they provide to dictators?
I could agree that any FOSS project specifically designed for, let's say, killer robots is ethically bad. But other software that happens to also be used in some questionable project... I don't think it's on us.
FOSS brings freedom to the entire world. Maybe without FOSS these projects would need more money to succeed. But also, the rest of us would really have nothing to build on top of.
Yes, that is one way to look at it. If FOSS is bricks and bolts it is not responsible for the evil castles and tanks built with it.
If FOSS were coca leaves or poppies it was different perhaps.. Can't blame the small farmers that supply the drug cartel. FOSS creators are also poor wrt earnings of their work. Or are they privileged to be able to spend the time and money?
Suppose FOSS is bricks and bolts. There's still a difference. A brick doesn't know it is abused. But FOSS does. It has many intelligent people creating it.
Shouldn't they weigh the net result of the externalities? If on some areas there's delightful progress, but the overall trend is dystopic?
Or are we in the clear because as an individual we can't be held responsible for the collective? Same as with climate change perhaps, "my 2cts count for nothing, the big polluters must act"?
it's already tough for FOSS developers who are (mostly) building their projects with little to no compensation to be held accountable for anything else. We have to shift the focus to the wrongdoers.
What does weighing the result of externalities mean? Should we cancel a FOSS project because some bad actor started building on top? That's the end of FOSS. Should we add ethical (thus, subjective) layers of permissions on top of FOSS licenses? That also kills FOSS.
I do not have the answers, but think it is important to raise these questions and have exchanges like these to ponder things. I spent a ton of time and savings myself to contribute to the FOSS communit at large. Know very well about its sustainability issues.
I love the idea of FOSS. The values, the principles.
However, after 11 years in FOSS, my own personal conclusion is "FOSS alone isn't enough". It is just software + software freedoms, provided on the basis of US Copyright law.
The comparison plants, bricks, bolts also works when saying "weapons". If we produced weapons and gave these to anyone with the label "For good use only". It gives a similar consideration to the Right to bear arms in the US constitution.
There's not just 'giving away' here, but regulation and enforcement. FOSS has a very meagre amount of that.
My pondering on possible answers I made part of Social experience design (SX) exploration. See coding.social
Far too simplistic. It seems like the equivalent of asking, are we complicit in destroying the planet by using an electric stove? Let's say I abandon all tech use, & instead merely indulge in abstract higher maths. Complicity remains. How far will we take it? If I merely farm food, am I not complicit, allowing engineers to survive and build the tech? Finding ways to protect our work doesn't address the problem, it just covers our arses with a fig leaf, while leaving front exposed
Yes. No toot will be able to address the nuances that exist. You raise valid counter arguments to ponder. I think where our responsiblity starts is not to shun asking the uncomfortable questions and reflect on them. So at least we are grounded, and might be more open to find better ways.
Yes, that is one way to look at it. If FOSS is bricks and bolts it is not responsible for the evil castles and tanks built with it.
If FOSS were coca leaves or poppies it was different perhaps.. Can't blame the small farmers that supply the drug cartel. FOSS creators are also poor wrt earnings of their work. Or are they privileged to be able to spend the time and money?
Suppose FOSS is bricks and bolts. There's still a difference. A brick doesn't know it is abused. But FOSS does. It has many intelligent people creating it.
Shouldn't they weigh the net result of the externalities? If on some areas there's delightful progress, but the overall trend is dystopic?
Or are we in the clear because as an individual we can't be held responsible for the collective? Same as with climate change perhaps, "my 2cts count for nothing, the big polluters must act"?
Absolutely. Constant reflection is a must. We also need to review positions and decisions made in the past, and check if their merit persists. Simplifications have their place, but sometimes their power lays in obfuscation, which might be unintended and certainly unwanted. I think "Are we in the clear?" is the wrong question to ask, though, as we are never in the clear as citizen. You ask correctly what can, and should we do? And that, that's a difficult one... very difficult.
Super difficult, yes. "Wicked problem" level of difficult. Individually we all have the best intentions I am sure. It is in the large where the externalities have their impact.
For Social experience design (SX) I started from a philosophical angle by making the distinguishment between "commons" vs. the public.
In FOSS we favor working in public. And we say "by the people and for the people". But those are not the same. "The public" includes the bad actor.
So what is this "commons" then, how can it cocreate humane and harmonious techology, and how can we ensure resposible technology remains commons based i.e. address sustainability of the commons? How can we organize a commons from a chaotic grassroots environment full of individuals that all pursue different needs?
First step is what you are doing - create and maintain public debate/discourse. Next, remind everyone that there is no answer but a set of answers, and their applicability varies with time and context. We have a variety of licenses, now we need to figure out how to have free collective activity gain the ability to enforce spirit and word of licenses. I'd also pose the question, how can our collective actions ensure the effects of bad players is minimised? /1
A question that keeps me awake at night, is what to do about CP and other exploitation materials being readily shared in a free and anonymous cyberspace? If we build a decentralised web with untraceability embedded, how can we fight those who cause harm? /2
I agree. To enforce spirit and word implies a level of control that the commons has / retains. SX considers "commons based" to be a state where sustainable evolution and healthy natural growth can be assured i.e. commons based is the place-to-be.
Things start with a minimization of access to the bad actors / players, and subsequently design and deliver services that are less attractive to them. Stripping the benefits for the bad actor, not just at the software level, but at participation level i.e. the processes around software (co)creation. Change the fitness formula in the commons to work against the bad actor.
One important aspect is Trust, and related, Trustworthiness that trust builds over time. Our hypercapitalist society is increasingly built on mistrust.
Coding is social. What is very interesting is that social networking is much broader than social media. It constitutes *all* human interaction. So here online we should be able to have commons based social web.
When you think about it this way, it should be easier to address CP on the basis of Personal social networking i.e. with decentralized social networking support (in the technosphere).
In the anonymous masses of the hyperscale platforms and the wider internet it is likely either easier for CP crime to fester, or overly dystopic measures to be introduced to supposedly mitigate it (think ChatControl and UK regulations).
@ainali that is a fair question. On first inkling I think yes that does apply universally. But the extent to which it applies depends on the nature of what is published.
My very first lesson in technical university was about the importance of tech ethics and to always be aware of them when introducing new technologies into society. To know and weigh externalities, and account for them when necessary.
it is impossible to do a complex topic justice in a toot, but I think it boils down to: the baddies are huge and well-funded. FOSS makes things cheaper for everyone. Yes, that makes it cheaper for the baddies as well - but it gives team-good a fighting chance at all. So it helps the good more than it helps the bad.
Yes. But then the last sentence then is what this hinges on. What is the net outcome? How much bad can the baddies do with the fruits of our labor, given the money and power they can throw into execution? If that is sizable, aren't we fighting the rear-end battle to solve the problem we helped cause?
Yes, that is one way to look at it. If FOSS is bricks and bolts it is not responsible for the evil castles and tanks built with it.
If FOSS were coca leaves or poppies it was different perhaps.. Can't blame the small farmers that supply the drug cartel. FOSS creators are also poor wrt earnings of their work. Or are they privileged to be able to spend the time and money?
Suppose FOSS is bricks and bolts. There's still a difference. A brick doesn't know it is abused. But FOSS does. It has many intelligent people creating it.
Shouldn't they weigh the net result of the externalities? If on some areas there's delightful progress, but the overall trend is dystopic?
Or are we in the clear because as an individual we can't be held responsible for the collective? Same as with climate change perhaps, "my 2cts count for nothing, the big polluters must act"?
Yes. But to what extent can we oversee the consequences of what we did in the past, to do better in the future? Or are we fine, and can leave that to others to ponder?
The license doesn't offer anything IMHO, the people who want to use tools will do regardless, taking it to a base example: Do we lock the tools away or teach people to use them with respect?
beside ethics training some type of enforcement may be required for bad actors, then some level of power is needed to do that, one of the things I see in tech is the lack of collective power, but this is a larger societal problem than just FOSS communities.
I have had endless 'discussions' in non-tech related orgs using big tech for office related tasks, and I have consistently lost the arguments, mostly due to some type is 'convenience' position, even after implementing FOSS solution which have been successful in the orgs.
My personal opinion on licensing is release everything under non-commercial, no profit can be extracted from the use of the tool. cut capitalists out entirely. I don't know if this makes a diff though.
@houba yes, totally. The license is but a small tool in the toolbox. Some actors are repelled by #copyleft, but still we have this open kitchen then, where they learn all the recipes and let #FOSS folks explore the market for them on the cheap.
In a separate branch I mentioned the concept of "commons based" as a way forward, where the #SocialWeb and #PersonalSocialNetworking form the collaboration environments for cocreation..
The chaotic commons is big. How do we foster chaordic organization, so that FOSS projects and initiatives are encouraged to pay attention beyond their direct scope, to dedicate collectively to the health of the ecosystem and key enabling technologies such as #ActivityPub that they rely upon?
Here #HedonicPeerProduction comes in, which can be supported on the #SocialNetwork itself. Different than top-down enforced #community #governance, which only works at small scales, self-interest is basis for participation.
I agree. To enforce spirit and word implies a level of control that the commons has / retains. SX considers "commons based" to be a state where sustainable evolution and healthy natural growth can be assured i.e. commons based is the place-to-be.
Things start with a minimization of access to the bad actors / players, and subsequently design and deliver services that are less attractive to them. Stripping the benefits for the bad actor, not just at the software level, but at participation level i.e. the processes around software (co)creation. Change the fitness formula in the commons to work against the bad actor.
One important aspect is Trust, and related, Trustworthiness that trust builds over time. Our hypercapitalist society is increasingly built on mistrust.
Coding is social. What is very interesting is that social networking is much broader than social media. It constitutes *all* human interaction. So here online we should be able to have commons based social web.
The Chaordic stuff looks sound, but could just as easily be a method of cartel building as is the case for VISA.
However the Hedonic stuff is highly questionable, and "self-interest is basis for participation." Along with being incompatible with the Chaordic development proposed, it would open the door wide for capitalist tendencies to run wild in any organisation.
Have a look at Albert Hirshman's The Passions and the Interests, to see the perniciousness of this idea.
On the same note, it is interesting stuff, thanks for the response.
Don't take the criticism as hostility, everyone here is working in their own way to what could be a better place, and I'm not so hubristic to believe I could not be wrong.
Social experience design is a holistic approach that involves a mindset shift. SX 1st of all starts by recognizing *ones own* self-interested motives to participate in a commons. Everyone is here for a reason. Realize what people are after, which Dreams they pursue, and how they are dependent on others for realizing them. Focus is on making Progress, however small, which is enough as dreams will change over time (and Visions, such as a Peopleverse, should only be pursued by groups).
Knowing what makes one tick allows expressing of Needs to others, so they can anticipate them and collaborate with you on basis of their own dreams and interests. Thus cocreation takes places on the basis of mutual understanding of obligations and expectations, and not merely on an assumption thereof.
Things are turned around to make them right again, which can feel weird, like:
"Ask not what you can do for the commons, but what the commons can do for you."
I not a fan of the "Ask not what you can do for the commons, but what the commons can do for you." I see more of a balance than in thinking like this, we should be doing both.
There is also fundamental differences between community motivations and individual ones.
I agree that the understanding and trust building is key, that is a long and involved process - including strategising and building shared understanding - and recognising that this never ends is also important.
There was an interesting talk by the economist Mark Blyth on Politics of grievance, I don't agree with everything he says, but this conversation reminded me of it.
For sure! The slogan is intentionally phrased to be thought provoking. It requires the gradual mindset shift that comes through proactive commons participation. Generally people have wrong and unrealistic expectations about our grassroots communities and FOSS projects, which greatly hamper our ability to cocreate, and helps keep our work inherently unsustainable (unless one has the privilege to dabble in FOSS as a hobby).
SX and Social coding commons focus on an overarching organizational model, one fit for the grassroots commons because of how it takes existing social dynamics into account that exist between people in chaotic collaboration environments.
Thanks for the vid link! I will queue it up for a watch, looks interesting.
Btw, I made a start with the vid and looking at the description I can say that this major challenge is deeply considered in the approach that SX follows, fundamentally so.
SX as a methodology is only 'the business end' of a deeper foundation on a simple life philosophy that aims for people to *experience* the full power of Humanity and Freedom. Intrinsic values. This goes entirely on their own volition, driven by their own self-interests, how they can be combined with others, and how that leads to most benefit and progress.
Importantly this philosophy need not be taught. It is experienced through participation in a commons based value economy, where the full spectrum of Humanity and Freedom are like the 'currencies' we can exchange services with. Along the way then we learn to better *perceive* value, which is now often overlooked or misjudged.
I feel many specialists suffer from being rewarded too much, neurologically, for engaging in their specialist area. This means we allow that area to crowd out or dismiss other less rewarding thoughts. I think the halo effect of seeing yourself as a good person crowds out exploring your privilege. We don't want to bother ourselves with awkward ethical questions, esp if they would detract us from playing with our toys, feeling clever, earning a living.
I’ve read down these various branches & have many many thoughts (and little time to pursue them all!)
As someone who is “not a coder” but who has been around since the dawn of the www moving in these spaces, I think FOSS has a very unfortunate weak spot in its foundation, that being the idea that “free” implies “without ownership” rather than “equitably shareable”. To be a little more concrete, we are waaay behind on community values and lean very libertarian.
software devs of any profit margin are raised and trained to have a product-to-market drive: ship, cash in, forget it, NEXT!
My career work and when I reflect on it, my pro bono work in digital social communities has been all about dealing with what happens once engineering ships product and scrubs out, off to the next cash cow. A concise overarching title for my work is Technical _Client_ Services.
I make product actually meet the users’ needs, cuz damn, you didn’t!
I had the advantage of working in companies from just past their startup phases in regulated sectors where Quality was a managed process realm, and “customer care” was not just marketing.
I know we cannot just drop an entire Regulatory and Compliance field into FOSS - never heard of an open source lawyer, myself.
But I think we somehow need to enculturate more relational knowledge, and absorb the idea that the users are participants and contributors as well.
You cannot architect anything, ever, to only be used to the extent of your own purest intentions. The wetware is always going to malfunction in some way. 😜
Maybe perversely, what keeps the guardrails up is … more wetware. En masse.
One of my biggest lightbulb moments in systems theory class was realizing that even humans who may never directly interact within the scope of your design are very much still stakeholders.
> FOSS has a very unfortunate weak spot in its foundation, that being the idea that “free” implies “without ownership” rather than “equitably shareable”
Note, that "libertarianism" is emergent, comes with scale. I avoid the term for its political heat it often introduces, and how that stifles #solution-orientation.
> I make product actually meet the users’ needs, cuz damn, you didn’t!
It's funny how actual #Needs are often totally unknown, esp. in FOSS. The #technology then quickly exists mostly for the sake of itself. Damn the externalities.
Social coding commons defines FOSS as the pure software artifact. Code + an open license. Period. All the rest is #SocialCoding where all #expectations we have are either implied and unjustified, or warranted with mutual understanding. The latter is hardly done.
> I do believe we should state how we want people to use what we write and build structures that nurture the society we want to live in
@travisfw I do agree, esp. on the last bit. As "we should state how we want" is a) yes, a good thing to do, but b) falls flat afterwards in chaotic "herding of cats" #grassroots environments, esp. at scale where the true "nurturing online society" takes shape. This happens by #emergence, which is my focus area with Social experience design. Truly fascinating stuff.
Sustainable ecosystem evolution (SEE) ℹ Note: The diagram depicst SEE simplified. The full SEE model evolves commons-first. Click to expand the Alt-text to the diagram.
> One of my biggest lightbulb moments in systems theory class was realizing that even humans who may never directly interact within the scope of your design are very much still stakeholders
Exactly, very true. It is funny.. a couple years ago and inspired by @aral tooting about it, I started practicing avoidance of the word "user".
This now comes very natural to me, to the extent that so many uses of the word really poke me in the eye with how artificial, unnatural, distancing, and yes.. even inhumane they are.
"User" is a #tech word, same as "Reverse proxy" or "Factory class". And its a leaky #abstraction that serves to lose all #nuance, and is best avoided. Furthermore it implies an #ownership relationship between devs and their captivated audience, that doesn't, shouldn't exist.
Sustainable ecosystem evolution (SEE) ℹ Note: The diagram depicst SEE simplified. The full SEE model evolves commons-first. Click to expand the Alt-text to the diagram.
I have made various attempts in the past to explain to FLOSS communities that they need to have at least their users implied in their governance, and ideally even more distant stakeholders. With little success.
The typical reaction is one of
- Users get our work for free, they have no right to complain.
- Users can join our community, e.g. by contributing to documentation, and then they have a say as well.
Indeed. And we see what the result is. After various supply chain attacks and whole range of other software supply line related issues that typically are not well handled in most #FOSS projects, the 'market' (need not be commercial clients per se) start demanding all kinds of quality compliance guarantees.
In the new and upcoming #HorizonEurope grant programs by @EUCommission I heard - there was much discussion about this - on changing nature of #NGI0 #grants as provided by @nlnet whereby the #EU mandate shifts towards placing bigger focus on these concerns.
Though I admit that I'm not fully in the loop, and neither do I know if things were already all clearly communicated to the public. Perhaps @michiel or someone else at #NLnet might point to the most relevant info resource atm.
Other than that, the misunderstandings which lead to perceived #entitlement (client/customer) or #privilege (creator/devs) are expectation mismatch, solvable by better comms practices.
Better comms practices is where I'd start as well. For example: if you consider yourself a community project rather than a software vendor, don't make a Web page that advertises a project, make a Web page that showcases a community.
@johannab @aral I was writing a section on software risk for a proposed book and identified stakeholders - institutions originating/funding the system, those building it, those who directly use it, and those affected by it but don't directly use it and maybe don't even know it exists. Each of those groups except the last has a clear common name except the last. The best I could come up with was "victims".
Yes, that is the most unaddressed group, suffering the externalities if they are negative. But they can also be positive, bring indirect benefits, it all depends. So victims is not the best word.
Umm, let's see..
In the most general sense #SX distinguishes between #commons and the #public. "The public" is then the word, the wider public, everyone touched. But that's not very useful other than talking handwavingly.
In many cases I suspect it is best to refine to a domain-specific stakeholder name. E.g. if you are the Lung Health Institute you may have "The public affected by Smokers" and then divide the public into Non-smokers, Asthma patients, Covid patients, etc. either direct or indirect stakeholders who suffer the externalities when in close proximity to a Smoker direct/indirect stakeholder.
Btw, I posted on @aral observations on "user" and started practicing my avoidance from there on, though gradually at first, takes practice.
"Victims" is kind of 😬 but also, not inaccurate in the context of recent technology culture.
My perspective is from the "inside" of enterprise medical tech. Some examples that companies externalize:
-- more readily available diagnostic imaging leads to many people being unnecessarily identified with injury/disease, despite it not being clinically significant. Trauma and death from unnecessary treatment exists. -- "optimizing" health care, with fast comms or ... 1/?
... online-only services or purely digital diagnostics further marginalizes some populations, who may outright lose access they once had when clinics and services select only "compliant" patients.
-- a notable and rather horrifying statistic was revealed by study that cancer patients who receive their diagnostic results directly and remotely have higher suicide rates and may be less likely to return to treatment compared to those whose prognosis comes in-person.
I could spend another 10 minutes and easily type out at least 6 more examples, but I think my point is there.
When I left med tech and went back to school, I continued to see those "unintended consequences" and unacknowledged stakeholders just about everywhere, it's like one of those "THEY LIVE" realizations where I'm the one with the magic glasses.
@johannab "victims" is not a great word but it's clearer than "indirect stakeholders" or some other bloodless term for people don't directly use the system _with agency_ but are otherwise affected by the system's results. I'm thinking of this in an engineering context - what if our safety analysis software doesn't work correctly and the results lead designers or regulators to make bad engineering decisions which lead to bad outcomes for workers and the public. Economically and politically, the misguided austerity policy decisions justified by the flawed Reinhart-Rogoff model (Excel) no doubt killed people in the UK, though to be fair the austerity policy would likely have been instituted regardless of the conclusions of Growth in a Time of Debt en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growth_i… (i.e. starving pensioners was a policy feature, not a bug.). And I don't doubt you could find another 6 examples from med tech before you finished breakfast (bad UIs for pharmacy dispensing have killed people). "unacknowledged stakeholders" is very close to the term I'm looking for, it just has 4-5 more syllables than I want.
And yeah, once you start thinking about this group of people subject to software risk, you start seeing them everywhere. Really a "THEY LIVE" turning point in outlook.
> "victims" is not a great word but it's clearer than "indirect stakeholders" or some other bloodless term for people don't directly use the system _with agency_ but are otherwise affected by the system's results.
Totally agree with you. "Affected" might be a better word.
Other than that, when looking at #SX methodology specifically, in a holistic approach multiple things must come together:
0. Center. Knowing where to go. Desire. 1. Think. An underpinning philosophy. 2. Act. A formal design approach. 3. Feel. A translation to real-world practice.
In the last bit, bullet 3) the formal design language in 2) has a concept of Storytelling.
If you explain to a government institution that it is vital to subsidize fediverse development, to ensure ecosystem health and growth, you use different storytelling for that audience, than when you rally the grassroots forces for a multi-disciplinary hackathon for all fedizens to participate in.
Interestingly, in the case of #SX the term "external stakeholders" is more likely to constitute Storytelling than formal design language.
It is storytelling for ICT folks who are used to such language. They are the ones working in countless institutions and organization entities that practice agile and all that jazz.
> misguided austerity policy decisions
I perceive our world, in particular society here, as mostly made up of chaotic emergent structure, and within that countless specs of top-down organization is possible. But this is kinda artificial, against natural force, and requires continuous energy to be put in to uphold these centralization points. At certain scale they fall apart, and are notoriously difficult to organize well at scale.
If you live under healthy democratic rule, much has been achieved with such top-down organization.
But easily things start to crumble, when too much top-down rigour is overlayed. Chaos chimes in then, uncertain outcomes.
As soon as you'd define that in a design, you acknowledge them though. It is just part of the design process to break down who they are in more detail and how they are affected by the solution, and how that can be accounted for better.
"External stakeholders" may be better.
If a client comes to a creator and says "I want to build a festival park that is totally free for everyone. People need to have these places, to unwind, be social together, be happier".
All good. Bunch'a direct stakeholders to account for, including a breakdown of "The People" i.e. everyone for which the parc is open and free.
That is all solution scope.
But down-wind, when it comes from the West, is a neighborhood of houses where people live their daily life. And they get mad by the noise and the repetitive songs of carnival attractions.
External stakeholders. Outside solution scope. Yet affected. Per saldo for them net negative in this case.
@arclight better, but not exactly what my vibe is either. You’re quite right that “unacknowledged stakeholders” is contradictory the instant they are identified *in the design*. But my encounters were often reactive/ forensics, identifying those, like the neighbourhood downwind of the amusement park, who were neglected in being unseen as part of, or affected by, the system.
They SHOULD be external stakeholders! But they were left out. “Unidentified”?
Yes, that is a good one. The acknowledgement that there are unknown stakeholders brings a stage to the design and realization phase that allows to investigate and anticipate timely. It becomes plannable.
Btw, I remembered that I once made a kind of translation for SX on the subject of 'what constitutes a sustainable FOSS business' a whole checklist that takes broader look than is typical in the average approach.
Sustainable FOSS Questionaire (source: freepngimg.com, CC BY-NC-4.0) I reformulated Gabriel Mays’ article Business questions worth asking to be a better match for Sustainable FOSS.
The #WWW enabled AI. It made a lot of text available over the internet.
#LLMs are not inherently bad. #VibeCoding might be irresponsible, but it is not inherently bad, either.
What *IS* inherently bad is the libertarian-funded dominance-oriented surveillance-capitalist economic model, and the dominance worship that success under that scheme is regarded with.
Travis F W
in reply to Travis F W • • •- yes (60%, 15 votes)
- no (16%, 4 votes)
- maybe (12%, 3 votes)
- mostly (12%, 3 votes)
25 voters. Poll end: 1 day agoLykso
in reply to Travis F W • • •🫧 socialcoding..
in reply to Lykso • • •> I do believe we should state how we want people to use what we write and build structures that nurture the society we want to live in
@travisfw I do agree, esp. on the last bit. As "we should state how we want" is a) yes, a good thing to do, but b) falls flat afterwards in chaotic "herding of cats" #grassroots environments, esp. at scale where the true "nurturing online society" takes shape. This happens by #emergence, which is my focus area with Social experience design. Truly fascinating stuff.
PS. I'm curious which toot of mine inspired your reply, as its unattached. I hope to blog soon on #ParadoxOfEmergence and have created forum thread already: discuss.coding.social/t/sx-sus…
> I've been using the Peer Production License myself
@lykso interesting, TIL didn't know about it. You may peek at #HedonicPeerProduction if you hadn't before: coding.social/blog/reimagine-s…
> Is this ☝️ the gist?
Sort of. You may say that #SX is a holistic approach to foster a fair 'fitness formula' in a #commons.
SX: Sustainable ecosystem evolution (SEE)
Discuss Social CodingTravis F W
in reply to Travis F W • • •🫧 socialcoding..
in reply to Travis F W • • •@travisfw oh, I responded on the other thread branch, btw..
social.coop/@smallcircles/1164…
🫧 socialcoding..
2026-04-19 21:55:34