commit 70067fd133f623408ee6a9b313667fd5568ce9cb
parent 23ade33d62217aef82815b50aa2d8e67df00f47c
Author: rra <rscmbbn@riseup.net>
Date: Fri Jan 31 11:51:05 +0100
Merge branch 'master' of agnes:/var/www/git.lurk.org/repos/slides
Diffstat:1 file changed, 54 insertions(+), 47 deletions(-)
diff --git a/transmediale-2020-7-theses/index.html b/transmediale-2020-7-theses/index.html
@@ -170,15 +170,34 @@ blablabla
# THESIS 1
## Fediverse as transition from meme wars to network wars?
+???
What would be a conference on art and digital culture without a good old discussion about internet memes?
+---
+
+MEMES
+
+???
+
Social media platforms have allowed the democratisation of meme production and have greatly facilitated their circulation.
+--
+
+???
+
They achieved this by creating software that favours the circulation of viral content to keep their users hooked.
+---
+
+Everything is a meme
+
+???
+
And if you do that for more than a decade, you end up with everything having to be a meme to have any chance at being naticeable in social media.
+
+
But there's something that was completely unforseen, and that was how memes became a language through which collective identities could emerge and be stronger,to the point of creating hostile and toxic environments.
As a result all those that ended up excluded or harmed in these environments have become interested in migrating to platforms that they can control themselves, reversing the narrative of the universal global village, and the tech industry claim of connecting the world without friction.
@@ -515,53 +534,41 @@ productive environment for these to be tried.
# THESIS 7
## Fediverse as the end of Free/Libre and Open Source Software as we know it?
-Until now, the vast majority of discussions around FLOSS licensing have
-remained locked in a tiresome comparison between free software's emphasis on
-user ethic versus the open source approach based on economics. Whether
-motivated by ethics or economics, both free software and open source software
-share the ideal that their position is superior to closed source and
-proprietary modes of production. However in both cases, the foundational
-liberal drive at the base of these ethical and economic perspectives has hardly
-ever been challenged or questioned.
-
-In fact they have been inconceivable because one of the most important aspects
-of FLOSS is that it has been conceived as non-discriminatory in nature. Anyone
-can make use of FLOSS for any purpose, and the sharing of source code can not
-be decoupled from this.
-
-First, the rise of a new kind of usership, discussed previously, started to
-question the classic models of governance of FLOSS projects, such as the
-benevolent dictator. As a result several historical FLOSS projects have been
-increasingly pressured to adopt accountability structures and migrate to
-community-based forms of governance like coops and associations. Second,
-licenses have been increasingly combined with other textual documents like
-copyright transfer agreements, terms of services and codes of conduct. These
-documents are used to shape the community in a certain way, make their
-ideological alignment more clear, and generally try to prevent manipulation and
-misunderstanding around vague notions of openness, transparency and freedom.
-Finally, at a third level, the recently strong political colouring of source
-code is challenging the understanding of FLOSS.
-
-These efforts do not only dispute the universality and global usefulness of
-large general social media platforms, they also deeply question the
-universality and neutrality of software in general. This is particularly true
-when that software comes with politically explicit complementary terms, codes,
-and agreements for their users and developers to accept.
-
-Because of its quite diverse constituency in terms of users, developers,
-agendas, software, ideologies, the Fediverse is becoming the most relevant
-system where this new form of FLOSS critique is being slowly articulated. The
-Fediverse in that sense becomes a site where the traditional notions of FLOSS
-get confronted and modified by those who understand its use as part of a larger
-set of practices that challenge the status quo.
-
-It has also become a place where a constructive critique of FLOSS and a longing
-for its re-imagination are the most vivid. In its current state FLOSS culture
-increasingly feels like an overly patched collection of irreconcilables from
-another era, and it is urgent to revaluate many of its characteristics that
-have been taken for granted. With that said, if we can accept the much needed
-sacrilege of thinking of free software without free software, it still remains
-to be seen what could fill in the void left by its absence.
+Until now, pretty much all the internal debates around FLOSS licensing have
+remained stuck at the level of comparing over and over again the difference between the free software's emphasis on user ethics versus the open source approach based on economics.
+
+One thing that everyone seems to agree is that whether motivated by ethics or economics, both free software and open source software share the belief that their position is superior to closed source and proprietary modes of production.
+
+They also both agree that the foundational liberal drive at the base of these ethical and economic perspectives should not be challenged or questioned.
+
+That does not mean that there are not disagreement on the scope of such liberal foundation, as seen in discussion opposing copyleft licenses with permissive licenses.
+
+But further discussion have been inconceivable because one of the most important aspects of FLOSS is its non-discriminatory nature.
+
+Anyone can use FLOSS for any purpose.
+
+So far this has worked pretty well, and has benefited all sorts of groups, from for-profit tech companies to activists collectives.
+
+And yet here we are, in a context where many communities are increasingly wondering why the software they develop and publish under FLOSS licensing should end up used by groups that want to harm them or others.
+
+This questionning did not happen over night.
+
+In the recent years FLOSS has also been incresingly indirectly scrutinized with the ermergence of new forms of governance, creation of codes of conduct, and open discussion about the political colouring of source code.
+
+This time however what is happening is going beyond isolated efforts, virtue signaling and theoretical examinations.
+
+Because of its diversity of users, developers, agendas, software, ideologies, the Fediverse is becoming the most important system where this new form of FLOSS critique gets articulated and tested.
+
+Because of all the reasons discussed in this presentation, this is where the traditional notions of FLOSS get confronted and modified by those who understand its use as part of a very concrete larger set of practices that challenge the status quo.
+
+It is a place where a constructive critique of FLOSS and a longing
+for its re-imagination are the most vivid.
+
+With FLOSS culture increasingly feeling like an overly patched collection of irreconcilables from another era, it is urgent to revaluate many of its characteristics that have been taken for granted.
+
+But of course, if we can accept the much needed sacrilege of thinking of free
+software without free software, it still remains to be seen what could fill in
+the void left by its absence.
---
