Update about us page and remove foundation section.
This commit is contained in:
@@ -4,29 +4,183 @@ heroStyle: background
|
|||||||
showDate: false
|
showDate: false
|
||||||
showWordCount: false
|
showWordCount: false
|
||||||
showReadingTime: false
|
showReadingTime: false
|
||||||
|
cardView: false
|
||||||
aliases:
|
aliases:
|
||||||
- /foundation/
|
- /foundation/
|
||||||
|
- /foundation/core-principles/
|
||||||
|
- /foundation/mission-statement/
|
||||||
---
|
---
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
{{<lead>}}
|
The Civil Society Technology Foundation is a global, volunteer-led, US 501(c)3 non-profit charity incorporated in Washington State.
|
||||||
Empowering civil society through equitable access to technology, digital literacy, and responsible innovation, advancing human rights and sustainable development in the digital age.
|
|
||||||
{{</lead >}}
|
## Purpose
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
The foundational technologies of our digital lives are open and free. The architecture of the Internet was intentionally designed with standardization, open protocols, and distributed governance to ensure it remained robust, interoperable, and accessible to all. The Internet and the technologies that run upon it hold the promise to empower individuals and communities locally and globally with the tools to communicate, organize, and innovate without barriers.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
However, instead of embracing this potential directly, individuals and organizations have increasingly turned to commercial platforms and service providers to mediate access to technology. While convenient, our usage of technology is now largely centralized, gated, and governed by the increasingly few at the expense of access, privacy, and self-determination of the many. Over-reliance on centralized platforms has resulted in degraded health and weakened civil liberties as they too often prioritize engagement and control over user welfare.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Digital technology, like knowledge, is in its essence a common good. While physical infrastructure that provides the substrate for the Internet (the chips, and cables, and towers, and power plants) required massive investment, it is now largely commoditized. The protocols and standards designed to run on this infrastructure are open. Today, innovation on our common infrastructure is powered by ingenuity rather than capital-intensive hardware deployment. It is software. Software that is freely available to every individual and community connected to the Internet.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
_The Civil Society Technology Foundation collaborates to remove barriers to creating and using this software directly. Our work spans open software development, educational resources, and community engagement, creating pathways to technological self-determination for individuals and communities in alignment with their values._
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
## Who We Are
|
## Mission
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
{{< div class="flex flex-col gap-10" >}}
|
The Civil Society Technology Foundation (CSTF) empowers individuals and communities to reclaim digital self-determination through the development and dissemination of open-source, self-hosted technologies.
|
||||||
{{< article link="/foundation/charter/" >}}
|
|
||||||
{{< article link="/foundation/mission-statement/" >}}
|
|
||||||
{{< article link="/foundation/core-principles/" >}}
|
|
||||||
{{< article link="/foundation/position-statements/" >}}
|
|
||||||
{{< article link="/projects/governance/" >}}
|
|
||||||
{{< /div >}}
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
## What We Believe
|
We exist to create a world where technology serves people by reducing dependency on centralized platforms and enabling direct control of digital infrastructure and applications.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
{{< div class="flex flex-col gap-10" >}}
|
Through accessible tools, educational resources, and community engagement, we advance practical autonomy: the capacity of users to understand, create, modify, and maintain the technologies they rely on.
|
||||||
{{< article link="/articles/independent-technology/" >}}
|
|
||||||
{{< article link="/articles/why-digital-sovereignty-matters/" >}}
|
We believe digital self-determination, including control over data, identity, and computation, is essential to democratic participation and institutional resilience in the digital era.
|
||||||
{{< article link="/articles/arguments-against-centralization/" >}}
|
|
||||||
{{< /div >}}
|
This work is motivated by a conviction that open systems, federated infrastructure, and transparent governance are not only technically feasible, but socially necessary. By building and sharing common resources, we contribute to a broader ecosystem of public digital goods—critical to any robust civil society.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## Principles
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
The Civil Society Technology Foundation operates according to the following core principles that guide all our work, partnerships, and initiatives.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
### Sovereignty by Design
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Users must own their data and control their computing environment.**
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Digital systems should be designed with sovereignty as a foundational requirement, not an afterthought. This means:
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
- Data remains under user control by default
|
||||||
|
- Consent must be explicit, informed, and revocable
|
||||||
|
- Infrastructure should be designed for individual or community ownership
|
||||||
|
- Privacy is a fundamental right, not a premium feature
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
### Tools Before Policy
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**We build alternatives rather than asking for permission.**
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
While policy reform has its place, we prioritize creating technical solutions that enable autonomy regardless of regulatory environments:
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
- Direct action through tool-building creates immediate paths to freedom
|
||||||
|
- Self-determination cannot wait for legislative or corporate reform
|
||||||
|
- Working alternatives demonstrate what's possible and accelerate change
|
||||||
|
- Technical empowerment reduces reliance on regulatory protection
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
### Open Source, Always
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Software must be libre—free to use, study, modify, and share.**
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Open source is not simply a development methodology but a foundation for digital freedom:
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
- Source code transparency enables trust verification and community oversight
|
||||||
|
- Freedom to modify ensures tools can adapt to evolving needs
|
||||||
|
- Rights to redistribute create resilience against capture or abandonment
|
||||||
|
- Collective improvement leads to higher quality and security
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
### Self-Hosting Infrastructure
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Individuals and communities should control their own infrastructure.**
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Centralized hosting creates fundamental risks of capture, surveillance, and dependency:
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
- Local infrastructure ownership provides true digital autonomy
|
||||||
|
- Self-hosting creates resilience against external disruption
|
||||||
|
- Community-scale infrastructure balances efficiency with sovereignty
|
||||||
|
- Infrastructure design should prioritize simplicity, reliability, and maintainability
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
### AI for the People
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Artificial intelligence must be open, efficient, and serve civil society.**
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
As AI becomes increasingly central to digital systems, its governance and accessibility are critical:
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
- AI systems should run on commodity hardware where possible
|
||||||
|
- Models and training data should be publicly available and auditable
|
||||||
|
- Development should be guided by public needs, not commercial imperatives
|
||||||
|
- Benefits should accrue to communities, not just model owners
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
### Transparent Governance
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**All governance must be visible, accountable, and auditable.**
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
How we govern ourselves models the world we seek to create:
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
- Decision-making processes should be documented and accessible
|
||||||
|
- Influence should be earned through contribution, not financial control
|
||||||
|
- Community participation in governance should be substantive, not symbolic
|
||||||
|
- Accountability requires both transparency and mechanisms for change
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
### Healthy Ecosystems Win
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Projects succeed through their value to communities, not popularity or funding.**
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
We evaluate success by contribution to civil society, not market metrics:
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
- Genuine utility to real communities outweighs vanity metrics
|
||||||
|
- Sustainability matters more than rapid growth
|
||||||
|
- Complementary projects create more value than competitors
|
||||||
|
- Diversity of approaches strengthens the ecosystem as a whole
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
### Forkability is Freedom
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Divergence is a right. Balkanization is not failure—it is resilience.**
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
The ability to take a different path ensures true independence:
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
- Projects should be designed for potential forking from inception
|
||||||
|
- Architectural choices should facilitate independent operation
|
||||||
|
- Community disagreement should be respected through supported divergence
|
||||||
|
- Diversity of implementations creates anti-fragility in the ecosystem
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
### Interoperability via Consent
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Standards emerge from alignment, not imposition.**
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
True interoperability respects sovereignty while enabling cooperation:
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
- Protocols should be open, documented, and implementable by anyone
|
||||||
|
- Standards adoption should be voluntary and beneficial
|
||||||
|
- Federation should respect boundary decisions of participants
|
||||||
|
- Gateways between systems should preserve user sovereignty
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
### Contribution Defines Membership
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Participation is earned through action. Identity is contextual and optional.**
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Communities grow stronger through active contribution:
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
- Value is created through doing, not just affiliating
|
||||||
|
- Multiple forms of contribution should be recognized and valued
|
||||||
|
- Identity verification should be proportional to the context
|
||||||
|
- Privacy and pseudonymity are valid choices in appropriate contexts
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
### Critical Adoption over Blind Use
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
**Pragmatism means understanding trade-offs.**
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
We advocate informed choice rather than ideological purity:
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
- Users should understand what rights they give up and why
|
||||||
|
- Perfect sovereignty may be balanced against practical needs
|
||||||
|
- Transition paths from closed to open systems are valuable
|
||||||
|
- Transparency about compromises builds trust and education
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## Directors
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
<div class="not-prose">
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
{{<figure
|
||||||
|
src="/people/paul-payne.jpg"
|
||||||
|
href="/people/paul-payne/"
|
||||||
|
target="_self"
|
||||||
|
alt="Paul Payne, CSTF Director"
|
||||||
|
nozoom="true"
|
||||||
|
caption="Paul Payne, CSTF Director"
|
||||||
|
class="max-h-80"
|
||||||
|
>}}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
</div>
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## Contact
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
7405 168th St NE #621<br/>
|
||||||
|
Redmond, WA 98052
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
+1 (206) 790-6707
|
||||||
|
|||||||
@@ -1,15 +0,0 @@
|
|||||||
---
|
|
||||||
title: The Civil Society Technology Foundation
|
|
||||||
params:
|
|
||||||
showHero: true
|
|
||||||
heroStyle: background
|
|
||||||
cascade:
|
|
||||||
params:
|
|
||||||
heroStyle: background
|
|
||||||
showWordCount: false
|
|
||||||
showReadingTime: false
|
|
||||||
showDate: false
|
|
||||||
_build:
|
|
||||||
render: 'never'
|
|
||||||
list: 'never'
|
|
||||||
---
|
|
||||||
@@ -1,134 +0,0 @@
|
|||||||
---
|
|
||||||
title: Charter of the Civil Society Technology Foundation
|
|
||||||
date: 2025-07-06
|
|
||||||
weight: 100
|
|
||||||
summary: The foundational document establishing the purpose, vision, mission, principles, and strategic focus of the Civil Society Technology Foundation.
|
|
||||||
showDate: true
|
|
||||||
---
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
## Purpose
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
To empower civil society through equitable access to technology, digital literacy, and responsible innovation, advancing human rights and sustainable development in the digital age.
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
## Vision
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
A sustainable, decentralized ecosystem of people-centered technology. A world governed by user agency, not technocracy, where digital sovereignty enables rather than undermines democratic participation, personal autonomy, and collective action.
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
## Mission
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
To advance digital self-determination through the development and dissemination of open-source, self-hosted technologies. We aim to reduce structural dependency on centralized corporate or governmental platforms by enabling individuals and institutions to operate their own digital infrastructure.
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
Through accessible tools, educational resources, and community engagement, we cultivate practical autonomy: the capacity of users to understand, modify, and maintain the technologies they rely on.
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
## Core Principles
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
1. **Sovereignty by Design**
|
|
||||||
Users own their data and control their computing environment. Consent is explicit, revocable, and informed.
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
2. **Tools Before Policy**
|
|
||||||
We build alternatives rather than asking for permission. Reform is irrelevant where autonomy is possible.
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
3. **Open Source, Always**
|
|
||||||
Software must be libre — free to use, study, modify, and share. This is the foundation of digital freedom.
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
4. **Self-Hosting Infrastructure**
|
|
||||||
Individuals and aligned collectives should run their own infrastructure. Central hosting creates capture risks.
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
5. **AI for the People**
|
|
||||||
AI must be open, efficient, and serve civil society. Closed models and centralized control are unacceptable.
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
6. **Transparent Governance**
|
|
||||||
All governance must be visible, accountable, and auditable. Influence is earned through contribution.
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
7. **Healthy Ecosystems Win**
|
|
||||||
Projects are judged by their value to communities and civil society, not popularity or funding.
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
8. **Forkability is Freedom**
|
|
||||||
Divergence is a right. Balkanization is not failure — it is resilience.
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
9. **Interoperability via Consent**
|
|
||||||
Standards emerge from alignment, not imposition. We will propose, not enforce.
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
10. **Contribution Defines Membership**
|
|
||||||
Participation is earned through action. Identity is contextual and optional.
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
11. **Critical Adoption over Blind Use**
|
|
||||||
Pragmatism means understanding trade-offs. Users should know what rights they give up — and why.
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
_Expanded explanations of these principles can be found in our [Core Principles](/foundation/core-principles) document._
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
## Strategic Focus
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
The Civil Society Technology Foundation pursues its mission through five interconnected areas of work:
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
### 1. Infrastructure Development
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
- Building and distributing personal cloud infrastructure
|
|
||||||
- Creating efficient, user-friendly self-hosting solutions
|
|
||||||
- Developing reference implementations of sovereign technologies
|
|
||||||
- Ensuring solutions work on commodity hardware
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
### 2. Education and Capacity Building
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
- Creating accessible learning resources on digital sovereignty
|
|
||||||
- Educating individuals and organizations on self-hosted alternatives
|
|
||||||
- Building technical literacy and maintenance capabilities
|
|
||||||
- Documenting best practices for independent technology
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
### 3. Community Support
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
- Facilitating knowledge sharing among practitioners
|
|
||||||
- Creating spaces for collaborative development
|
|
||||||
- Supporting civil society in adopting sovereign technologies
|
|
||||||
- Connecting technologists with community needs
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
### 4. Standards and Interoperability
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
- Developing open standards that respect user sovereignty
|
|
||||||
- Promoting interoperability between independent systems
|
|
||||||
- Documenting protocols for federation and cooperation
|
|
||||||
- Encouraging critical adoption of standards
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
### 5. Research and Advocacy
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
- Documenting the impacts of centralized vs. sovereign technology
|
|
||||||
- Researching sustainable models for independent infrastructure
|
|
||||||
- Identifying barriers to digital sovereignty
|
|
||||||
- Advocating for enabling conditions for technological independence
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
## Organizational Structure
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
The Civil Society Technology Foundation is structured to reflect our principles in practice:
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
### Governance
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
- Permanently non-profit structure
|
|
||||||
- Contributors have meaningful voice in decision-making
|
|
||||||
- Transparent processes for strategic and operational decisions
|
|
||||||
- Regular public reporting on activities and finances
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
### Funding and Resource Allocation
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
- Funding accepted from diverse sources with full transparency
|
|
||||||
- No single funding source should create dependency or control
|
|
||||||
- Resources prioritized for maximum impact on digital sovereignty
|
|
||||||
- Sustainability takes precedence over growth
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
### Membership and Participation
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
- Contribution-based participation model
|
|
||||||
- Multiple pathways for meaningful involvement
|
|
||||||
- Recognition of diverse forms of contribution
|
|
||||||
- Commitment to inclusive participation
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
## Amendment Process
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
This charter establishes the foundation of the Civil Society Technology Foundation. It may be amended through a transparent process that includes:
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
1. Public proposal of amendments
|
|
||||||
2. Community discussion period of at least 30 days
|
|
||||||
3. Consideration of all substantive feedback
|
|
||||||
4. Formal adoption through established governance processes
|
|
||||||
5. Public documentation of changes and rationale
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
The core purpose and principles may only be modified when necessary to better fulfill our fundamental mission of advancing digital self-determination and sovereignty.
|
|
||||||
@@ -1,127 +0,0 @@
|
|||||||
---
|
|
||||||
title: Core Principles
|
|
||||||
date: 2025-07-06
|
|
||||||
weight: 80
|
|
||||||
---
|
|
||||||
The Civil Society Technology Foundation operates according to the following core principles that guide all our work, partnerships, and initiatives.
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
## 1. Sovereignty by Design
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
**Users must own their data and control their computing environment.**
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
Digital systems should be designed with sovereignty as a foundational requirement, not an afterthought. This means:
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
- Data remains under user control by default
|
|
||||||
- Consent must be explicit, informed, and revocable
|
|
||||||
- Infrastructure should be designed for individual or community ownership
|
|
||||||
- Privacy is a fundamental right, not a premium feature
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
## 2. Tools Before Policy
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
**We build alternatives rather than asking for permission.**
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
While policy reform has its place, we prioritize creating technical solutions that enable autonomy regardless of regulatory environments:
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
- Direct action through tool-building creates immediate paths to freedom
|
|
||||||
- Self-determination cannot wait for legislative or corporate reform
|
|
||||||
- Working alternatives demonstrate what's possible and accelerate change
|
|
||||||
- Technical empowerment reduces reliance on regulatory protection
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
## 3. Open Source, Always
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
**Software must be libre—free to use, study, modify, and share.**
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
Open source is not simply a development methodology but a foundation for digital freedom:
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
- Source code transparency enables trust verification and community oversight
|
|
||||||
- Freedom to modify ensures tools can adapt to evolving needs
|
|
||||||
- Rights to redistribute create resilience against capture or abandonment
|
|
||||||
- Collective improvement leads to higher quality and security
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
## 4. Self-Hosting Infrastructure
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
**Individuals and communities should control their own infrastructure.**
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
Centralized hosting creates fundamental risks of capture, surveillance, and dependency:
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
- Local infrastructure ownership provides true digital autonomy
|
|
||||||
- Self-hosting creates resilience against external disruption
|
|
||||||
- Community-scale infrastructure balances efficiency with sovereignty
|
|
||||||
- Infrastructure design should prioritize simplicity, reliability, and maintainability
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
## 5. AI for the People
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
**Artificial intelligence must be open, efficient, and serve civil society.**
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
As AI becomes increasingly central to digital systems, its governance and accessibility are critical:
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
- AI systems should run on commodity hardware where possible
|
|
||||||
- Models and training data should be publicly available and auditable
|
|
||||||
- Development should be guided by public needs, not commercial imperatives
|
|
||||||
- Benefits should accrue to communities, not just model owners
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
## 6. Transparent Governance
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
**All governance must be visible, accountable, and auditable.**
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
How we govern ourselves models the world we seek to create:
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
- Decision-making processes should be documented and accessible
|
|
||||||
- Influence should be earned through contribution, not financial control
|
|
||||||
- Community participation in governance should be substantive, not symbolic
|
|
||||||
- Accountability requires both transparency and mechanisms for change
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
## 7. Healthy Ecosystems Win
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
**Projects succeed through their value to communities, not popularity or funding.**
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
We evaluate success by contribution to civil society, not market metrics:
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
- Genuine utility to real communities outweighs vanity metrics
|
|
||||||
- Sustainability matters more than rapid growth
|
|
||||||
- Complementary projects create more value than competitors
|
|
||||||
- Diversity of approaches strengthens the ecosystem as a whole
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
## 8. Forkability is Freedom
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
**Divergence is a right. Balkanization is not failure—it is resilience.**
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
The ability to take a different path ensures true independence:
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
- Projects should be designed for potential forking from inception
|
|
||||||
- Architectural choices should facilitate independent operation
|
|
||||||
- Community disagreement should be respected through supported divergence
|
|
||||||
- Diversity of implementations creates antifragility in the ecosystem
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
## 9. Interoperability via Consent
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
**Standards emerge from alignment, not imposition.**
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
True interoperability respects sovereignty while enabling cooperation:
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
- Protocols should be open, documented, and implementable by anyone
|
|
||||||
- Standards adoption should be voluntary and beneficial
|
|
||||||
- Federation should respect boundary decisions of participants
|
|
||||||
- Gateways between systems should preserve user sovereignty
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
## 10. Contribution Defines Membership
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
**Participation is earned through action. Identity is contextual and optional.**
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
Communities grow stronger through active contribution:
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
- Value is created through doing, not just affiliating
|
|
||||||
- Multiple forms of contribution should be recognized and valued
|
|
||||||
- Identity verification should be proportional to the context
|
|
||||||
- Privacy and pseudonymity are valid choices in appropriate contexts
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
## 11. Critical Adoption over Blind Use
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
**Pragmatism means understanding trade-offs.**
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
We advocate informed choice rather than ideological purity:
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
- Users should understand what rights they give up and why
|
|
||||||
- Perfect sovereignty may be balanced against practical needs
|
|
||||||
- Transition paths from closed to open systems are valuable
|
|
||||||
- Transparency about compromises builds trust and education
|
|
||||||
@@ -1,24 +0,0 @@
|
|||||||
---
|
|
||||||
title: Mission Statement
|
|
||||||
date: 2025-07-06
|
|
||||||
weight: 90
|
|
||||||
---
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
The Civil Society Technology Foundation (CSTF) empowers individuals and communities to reclaim digital sovereignty through the development and dissemination of open-source, self-hosted technologies.
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
We exist to create a world where technology serves people—not corporations or governments—by reducing structural dependency on centralized platforms and enabling direct control of digital infrastructure.
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
Through accessible tools, educational resources, and community engagement, we advance practical autonomy: the capacity of users to understand, modify, and maintain the technologies they rely on.
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
We believe digital sovereignty—including control over data, identity, and computation—is essential to democratic participation and institutional resilience in the digital era.
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
## Our Approach
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
To fulfill this mission, we pursue two primary strategies:
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
1. The creation and support of accessible, libre digital tools
|
|
||||||
2. The cultivation of technical literacy through educational resources and community engagement
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
We approach artificial intelligence as a public utility to be shaped and governed by civil society. Our efforts seek to align technological capabilities with ethical, sustainable, and equitable use, outside the logic of commercial exploitation.
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
This work is motivated by a conviction that open systems, federated infrastructure, and transparent governance are not only technically feasible, but socially necessary. By building and sharing common resources, we contribute to a broader ecosystem of public digital goods—critical to any robust civil society.
|
|
||||||
@@ -1,151 +0,0 @@
|
|||||||
---
|
|
||||||
title: Position Statements
|
|
||||||
date: 2025-07-06
|
|
||||||
weight: 60
|
|
||||||
---
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
The Civil Society Technology Foundation (CSTF) holds the following positions regarding technology, digital rights, and civil society. These statements represent our core beliefs and guide our work.
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
## 1. Digital Commons & Public Interest Technology
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
**Position: Some critical software must be developed outside of profit motives to serve the public interest.**
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
We believe that certain categories of software and digital infrastructure are too important to be driven primarily by commercial interests. Just as we recognize the need for public parks, libraries, and utilities, we need digital commons that are governed for public benefit rather than private gain.
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
Software that serves essential social functions—including communication platforms, identity systems, and information access tools—should be developed with public interest as the primary goal. When profit is the main driver, these systems inevitably prioritize engagement, data extraction, and lock-in over human well-being and community resilience.
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
This doesn't mean all software must be non-commercial, but rather that we need robust alternatives developed explicitly for public benefit. These alternatives often produce better results because they align with user needs rather than business imperatives.
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
## 2. Surveillance Advertising & Attention Exploitation
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
**Position: Surveillance-based advertising models are fundamentally harmful to individuals and society.**
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
We oppose business models that rely on ubiquitous tracking, psychological manipulation, and attention extraction. These approaches:
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
- Systematically violate privacy at scale
|
|
||||||
- Create incentives for addiction-promoting design
|
|
||||||
- Fund the development of increasingly manipulative technology
|
|
||||||
- Distort information ecosystems toward engagement rather than accuracy
|
|
||||||
- Convert human attention and behavior into corporate assets
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
Alternative funding mechanisms exist for digital services, including transparent subscriptions, community funding, public support, and contextual (non-surveillance) advertising. These approaches can support vibrant digital ecosystems without the harms of surveillance capitalism.
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
## 3. Censorship & Content Control
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
**Position: Content filtering and moderation should not be controlled by corporations or governments.**
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
We oppose centralized control over online expression, whether by commercial platforms or state authorities. When a few entities can determine what expression is allowed, both legitimate speech and vulnerable communities suffer.
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
Communities have diverse, contextual needs for content moderation that cannot be met through one-size-fits-all policies or algorithmic enforcement. True content governance requires:
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
- Community-determined standards
|
|
||||||
- Transparent, contestable processes
|
|
||||||
- Context sensitivity
|
|
||||||
- Distributed rather than centralized authority
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
By building federated, community-governed platforms, we can enable effective content management without centralizing control over expression.
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
## 4. Privacy & Personal Data
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
**Position: Privacy is a fundamental right that must be protected by design, not treated as an optional feature.**
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
We believe that everyone deserves meaningful control over their personal information. Current digital ecosystems systematically undermine privacy through:
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
- Surveillance-based business models
|
|
||||||
- Hidden data collection and sharing
|
|
||||||
- Complex, misleading consent mechanisms
|
|
||||||
- Insecure design and implementation
|
|
||||||
- Weak or absent legal protections
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
Privacy is not merely a personal preference but a necessary condition for freedoms of thought, association, and expression. Technology must be designed with privacy as a core requirement, not an afterthought.
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
## 5. Infrastructure Concentration
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
**Position: Digital infrastructure should not be concentrated in the hands of a few corporations or governments.**
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
We oppose the extreme concentration of control over critical digital infrastructure. When a handful of companies control cloud services, social platforms, app stores, and network access, they gain unprecedented power over society.
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
This concentration:
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
- Creates single points of failure for essential services
|
|
||||||
- Enables mass surveillance and data extraction
|
|
||||||
- Undermines innovation through monopolistic control
|
|
||||||
- Removes democratic accountability
|
|
||||||
- Increases vulnerability to both market and state exploitation
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
Digital resilience requires diverse, distributed infrastructure that no single entity can dominate or disrupt.
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
## 6. Messaging Infrastructure
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
**Position: Public messaging infrastructure should be a digital public good, not controlled by individuals or corporations.**
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
We believe that communication platforms that serve as de facto public squares should not be subject to the whims of individual owners like Elon Musk or Mark Zuckerberg. These platforms have become essential infrastructure for civic discourse, organizing, and information sharing.
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
When such infrastructure is privately controlled:
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
- Arbitrary rule changes can disrupt communities and vital communication
|
|
||||||
- Commercial incentives distort information flows
|
|
||||||
- Owners can impose their personal ideologies on global speech
|
|
||||||
- Essential public functions lack democratic accountability
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
Communication infrastructure should be built on open protocols, federation, and community governance rather than centralized corporate control.
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
## 7. Internet Access & Net Neutrality
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
**Position: Open Internet access is a human right that requires appropriate regulation.**
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
We believe that access to an open, neutral Internet is a fundamental right in the digital age. This requires preventing internet service providers (ISPs) from engaging in society-antagonistic practices such as:
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
- Violating network neutrality by discriminating between different types of content
|
|
||||||
- Implementing asymmetric speeds that privilege consumption over creation
|
|
||||||
- Using carrier-grade NAT and other techniques that undermine peer-to-peer connectivity
|
|
||||||
- Blocking or throttling competitive services
|
|
||||||
- Creating artificial scarcity through data caps and tiered access
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
Appropriate regulation is necessary to ensure that internet infrastructure serves the public interest rather than merely corporate profit.
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
## 8. Public Investment & Governance
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
**Position: Democratic societies must invest in public digital infrastructure with appropriate governance.**
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
We believe that governments have a responsibility to support and develop digital public goods, just as they invest in physical infrastructure and public services. This requires:
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
- Direct public funding for open source development
|
|
||||||
- Support for community-governed digital commons
|
|
||||||
- Procurement policies that prioritize open standards and software
|
|
||||||
- Investment in digital literacy and technical capacity
|
|
||||||
- Governance models that ensure public accountability
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
When government abdicates this responsibility, it cedes the digital future to corporate interests that are not aligned with the public good.
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
## 9. Technical Quality & User Agency
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
**Position: User-centered, community-driven technology consistently delivers better quality and respects user agency.**
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
We believe that technology developed with genuine respect for users—their needs, rights, and agency—produces superior results. Software and services that are accountable to their users, rather than to shareholders or advertisers, tend to be:
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
- More reliable and secure
|
|
||||||
- More respectful of user attention and capabilities
|
|
||||||
- Less bloated with unwanted features
|
|
||||||
- More adaptable to diverse contexts
|
|
||||||
- More aligned with human well-being
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
This position is not merely ideological but practical: when developers are aligned with users rather than conflicting commercial imperatives, they build better technology.
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
## 10. Digital Self-Determination
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
**Position: Individuals and communities have the right to technological self-determination.**
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
We believe that people should be able to understand, control, and meaningfully shape the technology that increasingly mediates their lives. This requires:
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
- Access to source code and technical knowledge
|
|
||||||
- The right to modify and adapt tools for local needs
|
|
||||||
- Control over personal data and digital identity
|
|
||||||
- Freedom to choose or create alternatives to dominant systems
|
|
||||||
- Protection from coercive digital dependencies
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
Digital self-determination is not a luxury but a necessity for maintaining human dignity and agency in the digital age.
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
---
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
These position statements reflect our values and inform our approach to building, advocating for, and supporting technology that serves civil society rather than undermining it. They are living statements that may evolve as technology and societal needs change, but they remain grounded in our core commitment to digital self-determination and the flourishing of civil society.
|
|
||||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user