• 10 Posts
Joined 5M ago
Cake day: May 05, 2021


Definition of war footing: the condition of being prepared to undertake or maintain war

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/war footing

Or did I miss something? Could be as English is my 4th language…

I think this is the least probable group of adopters for now, at least until we reach the early majority stage. They live in a groomed bubble of corpoinfluence and are not likely to break out on themselves. The demographics, however, is on our side. In every generation there is always a group of dissidents, actively looking for something “above and beyond” and – even bigger – a group of those who see no alternative but getting molded into a shape that mainstream dictates.

IMO it is not the fediverse lack of anything. It is rather that fediverse appeals to those, who are not happy with the centralized media ecosystem. And such people are:

  • a minority (while growing)
  • very often invested in their long-term footprint in the former environment
  • also often not knowing what is the fediverse about and what would they trade their “comfort zone” for.

I believe it is to us, precursors, to keep “educating, agitating and organizing” long-term, so more and more people come here, shed their toxic habits acquired in the corpozone, and become happier and caring members of their communities.

What it needs, I believe, is

  1. Building our own social permaculture ecosystem.
  2. Supporting technical infrastructure of fediverse by elaborating other levels of social dynamics, for example as I outlined here: https://lemmy.ml/post/63108
  3. Expanding the variety of needs (social, psychological and material) fediverse services can fulfil, so people keep coming not just for a whiff of freedom. :-)

“They come for services, they stay for freedom”

Well, for now, I have installed osada (osa.tepewu.pl) and it works. Until I get a substantial help with Hubzilla or learn some serious reason to swich to Zap, so be it.

Thanks, I will try to ask there. Fully confused now…

There are two problems with it:

  1. I find Hubzilla extremely unfriendly for a non-coding admin, particularly if run within Yunohost. I was unable to get any feedback from Mario, wha – if I get it right – is Hubzilla main dev. Zotadel is down. Hubzilla dev forum is unresponsive and Hubzilla room on Matrix seems to be above my level of competence. To do what I have to do, I’d need a full time admin/dev support which I don’t have.

  2. Zap is clearly declared out of AP zone, while retaining nomadic identity. I need something to interact with fediverse, not just within Zot family.

So far, Osada seems to be the least problematic and, while I see its limits (which can be later overcome with some custom plugins) I like it.

Support for Osada?

is there any forum / group or wiki, providing support for Osada users/admins?..

I am about to start putting together the DreamDeck – modular deck, which core module will be built around Raspi CM4. Thus, I am looking for a way to connect essential peripherals (a touchscreen and a camera) directly to CM4, not through I/O board. …


Try “edit wars” :-)

I am more and more interested in getting into hubzilla. It surely has a potential to become community hub. I just need someone to help me with configuration and integration.

Looking for a federated wiki

I am looking for a nice wiki platform using (or about to start using) federation. My initial search brought http://fed.wiki.org, but it seems to come from a parallel universe…

The direct need that made me work on it is the situation now common in Poland, where local authorities, together with developers, cut down an enormous number of trees without or clearly against the consent of local communities. Information about planned cuts is usually unavailable or distorted, to prevent protests. At the same time, if there is any public discussion, people are usually without access to factual knowledge, as the tree inventory is kept by the same entities that approve cutting.

So the plan is three-step:

  1. Raise interest and awareness through getting people involved in making inventory (and in monitoring).
  2. Raise knowledge by installing environmental sensors in comparable locations with and without trees, to show real time how their presense influences living conditions.
  3. Create federated decentralized network of such installations, providing large-scale data and communication platform for tree-defending communities.


I am now preparing a proof-of-concept installation for communities who want to monitor trees in their area. The functionality for the first stage of development:…


Thanks for the hint.

As for licencing schemes, I know PPL almost since the moment it was publicly announced. I was also considering NC clause in CC licence. I cannot speak for my co-op peeps, but my way of thinking you may find below:

  1. I am generally against the idea of “intellectual property” as it is now used in capitalist economy and ideology. Apart from the reputation aspect (attribution), to me it is an artificially expanded bullshit that is only invented to extend control over immaterial creation. That is why, even if I refer to licensing laws, I publish it under the section “For those who obey law…”.

  2. I am in no position to monitor and enforce restrictions against commercial use of my works. Even more, boundaries there are pretty much blurred and there are many cases that I, personally, would see differently depending on a particular situation. Say, giving a printed version of my work for free to participants of an event – depending on whether the event participation was free, freemium or highly paid. All that means that the NC restriction would be futile, thus showing its weakness. And PPL inherits that, adding its own ambiguities and overregulation. But the main problem is, IMO, that NC licences make a statement: if you want to make money on my work, pay me royalties. And that is reinforcing and perpetuation of the “intellectual property” paradigm, which I reject. Not that I’d expect to become filthy rich that way.

  3. So, instead of making a paper tiger, I chose to go another way. Share-Alike clause is much easier to enforce. It can be monitored by anyone who cares enough to check the attribution and compare it with the derivative work licence. Then the request to change the licence can be made retroactively. Also, the virality of SA clause makes me happier. I do not care if someone makes money by producing and audiobook with my essays, as long as I can take this audio and spread it around for free. This way whatever the audio producer “exploited” out of me, they return to the community, using open licence themselves. So, my priority is to encourage penetration of open licences throughout the economy, rather than limit them to my/our political bubble. If it works for Arduino and Wikipedia, I do not see why it would not work for me.

I am also on SocialHub, slowly exploring discussions there.

While I am an infrastructure freak and part-time technologist, I also feel that we need to acknowledge “the geek problem”, as stated by Hamish Campbell. Not being a Marxist, I see strong potential in dialectical tension between social and technological visionaries and “design thinkers”, prioritizing already identified and expressed needs. This tension can move us ahead without struggling for unified and “one for all” answers.

I have just translated a piece by John Holloway, originally published here. I believe there is a fragment there that may help to develop a meta-narration for our joint efforts:

…a politics of questions is very different from a politics of answers. If we have the answers, it is our duty to explain them to others. That is what the state does, that is what vanguardist parties do. If we have questions but no answers, then we must discuss them together to try and find ways forward. “Preguntando caminamos,” as the Zapatistas say: “Asking we walk.”

We are a collective of four persons, trying to build a translation and publishing cooperative in Poland. …


[short] We can if we agree on it. But we do not have to.

[long] The question that I have been trying to address is the tension (dialectical, should I say) between self-determination and cooperation. On the community level, it is all about self-determination. People are absolutely free to arrange their mutual social dynamics as they see fit.
On the network (inter-community) level, we need a minimal, possibly protocol-driven (con)federation, focused on cohabitation, communication and cooperation to maintain and develop common infrastructure. As long as a community adheres to it, it is considered a member of society with all obligations and privileges attached.

Democracy, as one of ancient political concepts, carries a legacy of misinterpretations, twisted definitions and “forks” – each of them claimed to be “the only right and true”. As such it is quite prone to hacking, infights, and general stalling. So, while I am delighted to see it remixed gazillionth time in a neighbouring community, I am reluctant to trust it humanity’s life support, the infrastructure.

Luckily, we have at least two tested and working ways to manage the very infrastructure we use now – the internet – and whether they are considered democratic or not, they work.

While I prefer a lazy consensus framework, which also amplifies to the aspect of (ir)reversability of our deeds, pretty important on a moral ground, both models are working well enough and thus can be built upon. If one calls them democratic, it will be a bonus as well. :-)

[disclaimer]There may be some misunderstanding here, as it seems to me that the answer is “obviously obvious”. If I am missing the point, please reiterate.[/disclaimer]

So, in my perspective, one engages in social activity as their needs can only be fulfilled through it. We have certain needs, concerning our personal survival and also our personal integrity and at the moment I cannot recall any of them that can be fulfilled without social interaction, synchronous or asynchronous. Thus, the motivation comes from one’s needs.

On a more general level, I do not think I am reinventing a society. After decades of (amateur) studies, observations and modelling, I am trying to offer a viable way to reorganize human society, avoiding some, if not most, pitfalls, connected with other solutions. The key part is to change as little as possible and possibly do not change the immediate human environment that is their community. It seems to me that the all-crisis situation may be a good moment to try. :-)

We are all in love with decentralized social topology, aren’t we. But to make society reasonably decentralized, we need to remodel more than one level of it. I would like to bounce around some thoughts that may help establish a multilayer model of decentralized society. …

What is your opinion abut usability in the context I gave? From some other source I got this:

Zap and Osada do one thing (social networking) and do it well. Use Osada if you want a really good ActivityPub server, and use Zap if you want or need nomadic identity and much stronger privacy than the fediverse can offer. Use Hubzilla if you actually know what a ‘platform’ is and want to build something great (decentralised communities and cities with shoppes and businesses that all respect your freedom) rather than than just waste your life in idle chit-chat.

What says you?

Shall we compare notes? I believe the sociopolitical aspect is primary, as long as there is interoperability on technical level. My interest in ZOT family comes from the fact that they are largely ignored in Fediverse discourse and I would like to know why.


I am looking for people who are interested in Zot-based platforms: Hubzilla, Zap and Osada as a base to build “village intranet” instances for either intentional or local communities. Anyone out there?..

ZOT family friends?

For new readers here, let me emphasize that these are not theoretical cases. In my day job I participate in a team that is working towards finding an innovative solution for these two problems and – if I can offer a viable proposal – it is an opportunity to get funding for a small PoC project.