various LURK related presentations
git clone
Log | Files | Refs

commit 96ddf314d128b0f48a554f1191d7632c7c38f198
parent 92dbd0feb51296aa8ce81af8b9fa1fe158494638
Author: ugrnm <>
Date:   Tue Jan 28 14:52:39 +0100

all summary drafts done
transmediale-2020-7-theses/index.html | 96+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
1 file changed, 92 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/transmediale-2020-7-theses/index.html b/transmediale-2020-7-theses/index.html
@@ -94,6 +94,7 @@ blablabla
 ## Fediverse as transition from meme wars to network wars?
 TM needs a talk about memes
 what else can be added to dicussion
@@ -107,6 +108,8 @@ Instead they became a language, a slang, a collection of signs and symbols throu
 This is a growing concern for social media platforms, well actually it's a bit of a panic, because the situation has gone completely out of control.
 Social media platforms have became Petri dishes for all sorts of opinions and beliefs circulating out of control, and no amount of AI or precarious traumatised human moderators will help them dismantle or control these communities.
@@ -225,8 +228,37 @@ usage of these systems.
 This model has been eroded throughout the decades to the situation where usership has became limited to questions of customisation and feedback on product development.
 And even further with the model of usership as a source of revenue for a third party.
+On the other hand, on the fedi users do not only engage in bug reporting, or help with the creation of the products’ culture, but also become actively engaged in scrutinizing the code, debating its effects and sometimes contributing code back.
+They also setup instance, write CoC, come with ToS
+At the same time, there is a different approach in some Fediverse software project where a move has been made from a situation where the ideal user is able to change the program to suit their needs to a situation where there is a discussion between programmers and non-programmers to understand what usership means and what should be good defaults for everyone.
+To be sure, these developments are neither new or unique to the Fediverse. For
+instance, the way service facilitators are supported on the Fediverse is very
+analogous to the way content creators on streaming platforms in gaming
+communities are supported by their audience. Calls for and the development of
+better governance of software projects have also been happening more generally
+in FLOSS communities.
+Likewise, many of the moderation and community management practices seen in the
+Fediverse have been informed by experiences on other platforms. Users have
+drawn inspiration from the successes and failures of others tools and systems
+and brought them over to the Fediverse. What is noteworthy is how increasingly
+the synthesis and coordination of all these practices become visible in the
+Fediverse.  In turn, issues and approaches articulated in the Fediverse set a
+precedent for other FLOSS projects, encouraging transformations and discussions
+that were until now limited and difficult to initiate.
+It is obviously not the case that the entirety of the Fediverse operates along
+these lines, as the space is shared between servers with diverse models of
+usership. These range from venture capital backed alt-right platforms, to
+Japanese image-board like systems, anarcho-communist collectives, political
+factions, safe spaces for sex workers, live coding algoravers, gardening
+forums, personal blogs and data self-hosting cooperatives. The developments
+described above do, however, hint at the fact that there are many different
+models of usership yet to be discovered and tried and that the Fediverse is a
+productive environment for these to be tried. 
@@ -234,7 +266,54 @@ And even further with the model of usership as a source of revenue for a third p
 ## 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.
@@ -251,7 +330,16 @@ Twitter being maybe one step ahead for future regulations
 class: inverted
 # Uffff....
+Like we said in the introduction we are not lacking of any social media critique and discourse, but there is definitively a lack of research, support and investment in alternatives such as the Fediverse.
+To be blunt this is where the energy is at the moment, and as we tried to articulate with these theses, how this phenomenom is particularly interesting for resarchers and practitioners interested in net culture, software studies, political theory, privacy debates, free labour and platform coops, graphic and web application design, and of course free/ libre and open sauce software.
+This is why don't have a conclusion, there is nothing to conclude, this is just an introduction.
+Thank you.
+*people screaming*