I recommend, to all my friends, on the internet, who care about digital liberation, to read this wonderful book, Internet for the People, by Ben Tarnoff. thank you. !/
amazing how we agree so much on the second part but after this and reading your tl it's clear it's in such radically different ways that it's irrelevant. hard blocked and reported vibes.
@jonny Had a look at Ben Tarnoff’s website (https://www.bentarnoff.com/), for consistency w/his apparent thesis. His website is js-free & #Cloudflare-free (nice!). His email is #protonmail (good). His book is sold on Verso (good, b/c it’s not Amazon).
But there is some #hypocrisy because he publishes a newsletter on a Cloudflared website. The magazine he co-founded is Google-hosted. His webpage mentions a Twitter account but not a federated account.
@jonny To be clear, I see no issue w/him having a Twitter account (this is the crowd he needs to reach). The problem is that his website leads web visitors into Twitter’s walled garden. The website should make no reference to a Twitter account, only a #fedi account so that web visitors are lead in the right direction. He also uses the bit.ly URL shortener, which iirc is a privacy abuser.
@jonny I would say Tarnoff is doing better than most because the bar is very low these days. E.g. it would not be surprising to find someone like him peddling their book on amazon.com in complete reckless disregard for the thesis they’re trying to sell. But I would not say he is doing the best he can. A purist would say don’t even have a #Twitter acct.
@jonny The optimum for #Tarnoff is to have both a Twitter acct & a Facebook acct to reach those audiences, but to make zero mention of those accounts outside of those #walledgardens. It should be a 1-way reference. The pawnverse accounts should point to his free-world website, but his website should not point to twtr or fb.
@jonny This avoids the counterproductivity of failing to reach the people who most need to be reached while also avoiding the counter productivity (and hypocrisy) of leading people from the free world into those pernicious walled gardens. I think RMS is spot-on in the Facebook pages of his blog where he suggests the references going 1-way.
aha, I see more what you mean now. yeah I'm with you on not being neutral on a gradient of action, basically an embodiment of an advocacy. I can also imagine someone with legitimate grievance (I know several) with the fediverse as such and not making such an unambiguous commitment but still being aligned. like I said I plan on talking to him specifically, but I also feel like there's space to engage with why someone might not have the same organizational mode
I agree that a sort of unidirectional guidance, especially in the political economy of links that can represent belief, is used strategy. but maybe they don't even know we're over here! we are but a few hundred thousand last I checked :) want to check for same team first before throwing stones, yano?
eg. I know plenty of people very skeptical and indeed outright hostile towards RMS that also pull in the same direction. conflicts like those are not worth dividing our organizing capacity over. just as an example
(not to dismiss them, just that we should not cut off all contact etc. other drastic disorganizational actions)
A Fediverse instance for people interested in cooperative and collective projects.