4 ms·

Plug: I'm working with the author on a decentralized protocol for networked thought and a companion browser called Subconscious. We're a very young project and

by cdata 4y ago

Plug: I'm working with the author on a decentralized protocol for networked thought and a companion browser called Subconscious. We're a very young project and just getting off the ground. If you're interested in topics like the one in the article, all our work is open source and we love getting into it with folks on Github or our Discord (link in the README): https://github.com/subconsciousnetwork/noosphere https://github.com/subconsciousnetwork/noosphere

jessmartin 4y ago
I've been exploring Noosphere as a protocol-level solution to the dilemma posed here about centralization. Some really interesting tech! Definitely worth checking out if this stuff interests you.
kitkat_new 4y ago
yet you choose two closed source centralized solutions for your project: Github and Discord
- openfuture 4y ago
  Preach yo! the medium is the message.
- cdata 4y ago
  "We should improve society somewhat..." Seriously though, I would be happy to have a polite discussion about the reason for our choices in our Discord server!
  - openfuture 4y ago
    So make the change. If your idea is strong and has gravity then people will follow (clearly the guy who is working hard with no reward is a FOSS developer ;)
beefman 4y ago
Have you considered not asking people to agree to rules before joining your Discord?
- cdata 4y ago
  Yes, we have considered the likely social dynamics of a discussion space with and without a code of conduct. The discussion space is for our project which we are inviting other humans to contribute to. We are open and welcoming to all, but it's not the town square. We strongly prefer to work in a social context where every participant has explicitly agreed to be kind and respectful of each other, to recognize each other's humanity and to abstain from violence of any kind towards others. Folks who won't agree to such terms may still fork our work or contribute on Github if they are so inclined.
  - beefman 4y ago
    Isn't such a code of conduct generally implied? And isn't it more generous to wait until it is broken to bring it up? Also, the rules are not so general or unambiguous as you've described them here. They mention speech patterns and topics that are highly loaded on contemporary politics.
    - cdata 4y ago
      To head off any uncertainty, the code of conduct we ask participants to agree to is nearly identical to the Rust Code of Conduct: https://www.rust-lang.org/policies/code-of-conduct https://www.rust-lang.org/policies/code-of-conduct I have found that all it takes for one remain on the right side of such a code is to have good will in one's heart towards other humans. We have hundreds of participants, a lot of lively and thoughtful discussion on a range of topics, and not a single user has been found in violation of the code of conduct to date.
      - beefman 4y ago
        You say you're welcoming to all. But that isn't true, because you refuse access to anyone who doesn't agree to these rules. And a subtantial fraction of people would not agree to them, as you well know, regardless of whether they would ever break them. That you got them from somewhere else doesn't head off uncertainty in their interpretation. It does raise the possibility that they're a bit of groupthink spreading through the open source software scene, versus something your group believes in enough to have indpendently developed. Historically such things tend to function more as shibboleths than meaningful exercises and I suspect that's the case here.

by cdata 4y ago

jessmartin 4y ago

I've been exploring Noosphere as a protocol-level solution to the dilemma posed here about centralization. Some really interesting tech! Definitely worth checking out if this stuff interests you.

kitkat_new 4y ago

yet you choose two closed source centralized solutions for your project: Github and Discord

openfuture 4y ago
Preach yo! the medium is the message.
cdata 4y ago
"We should improve society somewhat..." Seriously though, I would be happy to have a polite discussion about the reason for our choices in our Discord server!
- openfuture 4y ago
  So make the change. If your idea is strong and has gravity then people will follow (clearly the guy who is working hard with no reward is a FOSS developer ;)

beefman 4y ago

Have you considered not asking people to agree to rules before joining your Discord?

cdata 4y ago
Yes, we have considered the likely social dynamics of a discussion space with and without a code of conduct. The discussion space is for our project which we are inviting other humans to contribute to. We are open and welcoming to all, but it's not the town square. We strongly prefer to work in a social context where every participant has explicitly agreed to be kind and respectful of each other, to recognize each other's humanity and to abstain from violence of any kind towards others. Folks who won't agree to such terms may still fork our work or contribute on Github if they are so inclined.
- beefman 4y ago
  Isn't such a code of conduct generally implied? And isn't it more generous to wait until it is broken to bring it up? Also, the rules are not so general or unambiguous as you've described them here. They mention speech patterns and topics that are highly loaded on contemporary politics.
  - cdata 4y ago
    To head off any uncertainty, the code of conduct we ask participants to agree to is nearly identical to the Rust Code of Conduct: https://www.rust-lang.org/policies/code-of-conduct https://www.rust-lang.org/policies/code-of-conduct I have found that all it takes for one remain on the right side of such a code is to have good will in one's heart towards other humans. We have hundreds of participants, a lot of lively and thoughtful discussion on a range of topics, and not a single user has been found in violation of the code of conduct to date.
    - beefman 4y ago
      You say you're welcoming to all. But that isn't true, because you refuse access to anyone who doesn't agree to these rules. And a subtantial fraction of people would not agree to them, as you well know, regardless of whether they would ever break them. That you got them from somewhere else doesn't head off uncertainty in their interpretation. It does raise the possibility that they're a bit of groupthink spreading through the open source software scene, versus something your group believes in enough to have indpendently developed. Historically such things tend to function more as shibboleths than meaningful exercises and I suspect that's the case here.