Update.

.gitmodules

@@ -1,3 +1,7 @@
 [submodule "themes/ananke"]
 	path = themes/ananke
 	url = https://github.com/theNewDynamic/gohugo-theme-ananke.git
+[submodule "themes/blowfish"]
+	path = themes/blowfish
+	url = https://github.com/nunocoracao/blowfish.git
+	branch = main

assets/css/custom.css

@@ -0,0 +1,8 @@
+@font-face {
+    font-family: font;
+    src: url('/fonts/font.ttf');
+}
+
+html {
+    font-family: font;
+}

config/_default/hugo.toml

@@ -0,0 +1,69 @@
+# -- Site Configuration --
+# Refer to the theme docs for more details about each of these parameters.
+# https://blowfish.page/docs/getting-started/
+
+theme = "blowfish"
+baseURL = "https://www.civilsociety.dev/"
+defaultContentLanguage = "en"
+
+# pluralizeListTitles = "true" # hugo function useful for non-english languages, find out more in  https://gohugo.io/getting-started/configuration/#pluralizelisttitles
+
+enableRobotsTXT = true
+summaryLength = 0
+
+buildDrafts = false
+buildFuture = false
+
+enableEmoji = true
+
+# googleAnalytics = "G-XXXXXXXXX"
+
+[pagination]
+  pagerSize = 100
+
+[imaging]
+  anchor = 'Center'
+
+[taxonomies]
+  tag = "tags"
+  category = "categories"
+  author = "authors"
+  series = "series"
+
+[sitemap]
+  changefreq = 'daily'
+  filename = 'sitemap.xml'
+  priority = 0.5
+
+[outputs]
+  home = ["HTML", "RSS", "JSON"]
+
+[related]
+  threshold = 0
+  toLower = false
+
+    [[related.indices]]
+        name = "tags"
+        weight = 100
+
+    [[related.indices]]
+        name = "categories"
+        weight = 100
+
+    [[related.indices]]
+        name = "series"
+        weight = 50
+
+    [[related.indices]]
+        name = "authors"
+        weight = 20
+
+    [[related.indices]]
+        name = "date"
+        weight = 10
+
+    [[related.indices]]
+      applyFilter = false
+      name = 'fragmentrefs'
+      type = 'fragments'
+      weight = 10

config/_default/languages.en.toml

@@ -0,0 +1,73 @@
+disabled = false
+languageCode = "en"
+languageName = "English"
+weight = 1
+title = "CivilSociety.dev"
+
+[params]
+displayName = "EN"
+isoCode = "en"
+rtl = false
+dateFormat = "2 January 2006"
+# logo = "img/logo.png"
+# secondaryLogo = "img/secondary-logo.png"
+# description = "My awesome website"
+# copyright = "Copy, _right?_ :thinking_face:"
+
+[params.author]
+name = "Civil Society Technology Foundation"
+email = "paul@payne.io"
+#   image = "img/blowfish_logo.png"
+#   imageQuality = 96
+#   headline = "I'm only human"
+#   bio = "A little bit about you"
+#   links = [
+#     { email = "mailto:hello@your_domain.com" },
+#     { link = "https://link-to-some-website.com/" },
+#     { amazon = "https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/wishlist-id" },
+#     { apple = "https://www.apple.com" },
+#     { blogger = "https://username.blogspot.com/" },
+#     { bluesky = "https://bsky.app/profile/username" },
+#     { codepen = "https://codepen.io/username" },
+#     { dev = "https://dev.to/username" },
+#     { discord = "https://discord.gg/invitecode" },
+#     { dribbble = "https://dribbble.com/username" },
+#     { facebook = "https://facebook.com/username" },
+#     { flickr = "https://www.flickr.com/photos/username/" },
+#     { foursquare = "https://foursquare.com/username" },
+#     { github = "https://github.com/username" },
+#     { gitlab = "https://gitlab.com/username" },
+#     { google = "https://www.google.com/" },
+#     { hashnode = "https://username.hashnode.dev" },
+#     { instagram = "https://instagram.com/username" },
+#     { itch-io = "https://username.itch.io" },
+#     { keybase = "https://keybase.io/username" },
+#     { kickstarter = "https://www.kickstarter.com/profile/username" },
+#     { lastfm = "https://lastfm.com/user/username" },
+#     { linkedin = "https://linkedin.com/in/username" },
+#     { mastodon = "https://mastodon.instance/@username" },
+#     { medium = "https://medium.com/username" },
+#     { microsoft = "https://www.microsoft.com/" },
+#     { orcid = "https://orcid.org/userid" },
+#     { patreon = "https://www.patreon.com/username" },
+#     { pinterest = "https://pinterest.com/username" },
+#     { reddit = "https://reddit.com/user/username" },
+#     { researchgate = "https://www.researchgate.net/profile/username" },
+#     { slack = "https://workspace.url/team/userid" },
+#     { snapchat = "https://snapchat.com/add/username" },
+#     { soundcloud = "https://soundcloud.com/username" },
+#     { spotify = "https://open.spotify.com/user/userid" },
+#     { stack-overflow = "https://stackoverflow.com/users/userid/username" },
+#     { steam = "https://steamcommunity.com/profiles/userid" },
+#     { telegram = "https://t.me/username" },
+#     { threads = "https://www.threads.net/@username" },
+#     { tiktok = "https://tiktok.com/@username" },
+#     { tumblr = "https://username.tumblr.com" },
+#     { twitch = "https://twitch.tv/username" },
+#     { twitter = "https://twitter.com/username" },
+#     { x-twitter = "https://twitter.com/username" },
+#     { whatsapp = "https://wa.me/phone-number" },
+#     { youtube = "https://youtube.com/username" },
+#     { ko-fi = "https://ko-fi.com/username" },
+#     { codeberg = "https://codeberg.org/username"},
+#   ]

config/_default/markup.toml

@@ -0,0 +1,13 @@
+# -- Markup --
+# These settings are required for the theme to function.
+
+[goldmark]
+[goldmark.renderer]
+  unsafe = true
+
+[highlight]
+  noClasses = false
+
+[tableOfContents]
+  startLevel = 2
+  endLevel = 4

config/_default/menus.en.toml

@@ -0,0 +1,135 @@
+# -- Main Menu --
+# The main menu is displayed in the header at the top of the page.
+# Acceptable parameters are name, pageRef, page, url, title, weight.
+# 
+# The simplest menu configuration is to provide:
+#   name = The name to be displayed for this menu link
+#   pageRef = The identifier of the page or section to link to
+#
+# By default the menu is ordered alphabetically. This can be
+# overridden by providing a weight value. The menu will then be
+# ordered by weight from lowest to highest.
+
+
+[[main]]
+name = "Getting Started"
+pageRef = "getting-started"
+weight = 20
+
+# About
+
+[[main]]
+name = "About"
+pageRef = "about"
+weight = 30
+
+[[main]]
+name = "Charter"
+pageRef = "charter"
+parent = "About"
+weight = 10
+
+[[main]]
+name = "Mission Statement"
+pageRef = "mission-statement"
+parent = "About"
+weight = 20
+
+[[main]]
+name = "Core Principles"
+pageRef = "core-principles"
+parent = "About"
+weight = 30
+
+[[main]]
+name = "The Importance of Independent Technology"
+pageRef = "independent-technology"
+parent = "About"
+weight = 40
+
+[[main]]
+name = "Why Digital Sovereignty Matters"
+pageRef = "why-digital-sovereignty-matters"
+parent = "About"
+weight = 50
+
+[[main]]
+name = "Arguments Against Centralization"
+pageRef = "arguments-against-centralization"
+parent = "About"
+weight = 60
+
+[[main]]
+name = "Position Statements"
+pageRef = "position-statements"
+parent = "About"
+weight = 70
+
+[[main]]
+name = "Governance"
+pageRef = "projects/governance"
+parent = "About"
+weight = 80
+
+[[main]]
+
+# Projects
+
+[[main]]
+name = "Projects"
+pageRef = "projects"
+weight = 40
+
+[[main]]
+name = "Sovereign Cloud"
+parent = "Projects"
+pageRef = "projects/sovereign-cloud"
+weight = 20
+
+[[main]]
+name = "Learning"
+pageRef = "learning"
+weight = 90
+
+#[[main]]
+#  name = "example sub-menu 2"
+#  parent = "Parent"
+#  pageRef = "posts"
+#  weight = 20
+
+#[[subnavigation]]
+#  name = "An interesting topic"
+#  pageRef = "tags/interesting-topic"
+#  weight = 10
+
+#[[subnavigation]]
+#  name = "My Awesome Category"
+#  pre = "github"
+#  pageRef = "categories/awesome"
+#  weight = 20
+
+#[[main]]
+#  name = "Categories"
+#  pageRef = "categories"
+#  weight = 20
+
+#[[main]]
+#  name = "Tags"
+#  pageRef = "tags"
+#  weight = 30
+
+
+# -- Footer Menu --
+# The footer menu is displayed at the bottom of the page, just before
+# the copyright notice. Configure as per the main menu above.
+
+
+[[footer]]
+name = "Contribute"
+pageRef = "contribute"
+weight = 10
+
+# [[footer]]
+#   name = "Categories"
+#   pageRef = "categories"
+#   weight = 20

config/_default/module.toml

@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+[hugoVersion]
+  extended = false
+  min = "0.87.0"

config/_default/params.toml

@@ -0,0 +1,167 @@
+# -- Theme Options --
+# These options control how the theme functions and allow you to
+# customise the display of your website.
+#
+# Refer to the theme docs for more details about each of these parameters.
+# https://blowfish.page/docs/configuration/#theme-parameters
+
+colorScheme = "blowfish"
+defaultAppearance = "light" # valid options: light or dark
+autoSwitchAppearance = true
+
+enableSearch = true
+enableCodeCopy = false
+
+replyByEmail = false
+
+# mainSections = ["section1", "section2"]
+# robots = ""
+
+disableImageOptimization = false
+disableTextInHeader = false
+# backgroundImageWidth = 1200
+
+# defaultBackgroundImage = "IMAGE.jpg" # used as default for background images 
+# defaultFeaturedImage = "IMAGE.jpg" # used as default for featured images in all articles
+
+# highlightCurrentMenuArea = true
+# smartTOC = true
+# smartTOCHideUnfocusedChildren = true
+
+giteaDefaultServer = "https://git.fsfe.org"
+forgejoDefaultServer = "https://v8.next.forgejo.org"
+
+[header]
+  layout = "basic" # valid options: basic, fixed, fixed-fill, fixed-gradient, fixed-fill-blur
+
+[footer]
+  showMenu = true
+  showCopyright = true
+  showThemeAttribution = true
+  showAppearanceSwitcher = true
+  showScrollToTop = true
+
+[homepage]
+  layout = "profile" # valid options: page, profile, hero, card, background, custom
+  #homepageImage = "IMAGE.jpg" # used in: hero, and card
+  showRecent = false
+  showRecentItems = 5
+  showMoreLink = false
+  showMoreLinkDest = "/posts/"
+  cardView = false
+  cardViewScreenWidth = false
+  layoutBackgroundBlur = false # only used when layout equals background
+
+[article]
+  showDate = false
+  showViews = false
+  showLikes = false
+  showDateOnlyInArticle = false
+  showDateUpdated = false
+  showAuthor = false
+  # showAuthorBottom = false
+  showHero = true
+  # heroStyle = "basic" # valid options: basic, big, background, thumbAndBackground
+  layoutBackgroundBlur = true # only used when heroStyle equals background or thumbAndBackground
+  layoutBackgroundHeaderSpace = true # only used when heroStyle equals background
+  showBreadcrumbs = true
+  showDraftLabel = true
+  showEdit = false
+  # editURL = "https://github.com/username/repo/"
+  editAppendPath = true
+  seriesOpened = false
+  showHeadingAnchors = true
+  showPagination = true
+  invertPagination = false
+  showReadingTime = true
+  showTableOfContents = true
+  # showRelatedContent = false
+  # relatedContentLimit = 3
+  showTaxonomies = false
+  showAuthorsBadges = false
+  showWordCount = true
+  sharingLinks = [ "linkedin", "twitter", "bluesky", "mastodon", "reddit", "pinterest", "facebook", "email", "whatsapp", "telegram"]
+  showZenMode = false
+
+[list]
+  showHero = false
+  # heroStyle = "background" # valid options: basic, big, background, thumbAndBackground
+  layoutBackgroundBlur = true # only used when heroStyle equals background or thumbAndBackground
+  layoutBackgroundHeaderSpace = true # only used when heroStyle equals background
+  showBreadcrumbs = false
+  showSummary = false
+  showViews = false
+  showLikes = false
+  showTableOfContents = false
+  showCards = false
+  orderByWeight = false
+  groupByYear = true
+  cardView = false
+  cardViewScreenWidth = false
+  constrainItemsWidth = false
+
+[sitemap]
+  excludedKinds = ["taxonomy", "term"]
+
+[taxonomy]
+  showTermCount = true
+  showHero = false
+  # heroStyle = "background" # valid options: basic, big, background, thumbAndBackground
+  showBreadcrumbs = false
+  showViews = false
+  showLikes = false
+  showTableOfContents = false
+  cardView = false
+
+[term]
+  showHero = false
+  # heroStyle = "background" # valid options: basic, big, background, thumbAndBackground
+  showBreadcrumbs = false
+  showViews = false
+  showLikes = false
+  showTableOfContents = true
+  groupByYear = false
+  cardView = false
+  cardViewScreenWidth = false
+
+[firebase]
+  # apiKey = "XXXXXX"
+  # authDomain = "XXXXXX"
+  # projectId = "XXXXXX"
+  # storageBucket = "XXXXXX"
+  # messagingSenderId = "XXXXXX"
+  # appId = "XXXXXX"
+  # measurementId = "XXXXXX"
+
+[fathomAnalytics]
+  # site = "ABC12345"
+  # domain = "llama.yoursite.com"
+
+[umamiAnalytics]
+  # websiteid = "ABC12345"
+  # domain = "llama.yoursite.com"
+  # dataDomains = "yoursite.com,yoursite2.com"
+  # scriptName = ""
+  # enableTrackEvent = true
+
+[selineAnalytics]
+  # token = "XXXXXX"
+  # enableTrackEvent = true
+
+[buymeacoffee]
+  # identifier = ""
+  # globalWidget = true
+  # globalWidgetMessage = "Hello"
+  # globalWidgetColor = "#FFDD00"
+  # globalWidgetPosition = "Right"
+
+[verification]
+  # google = ""
+  # bing = ""
+  # pinterest = ""
+  # yandex = ""
+  # fediverse = ""
+
+[rssnext]
+  # feedId = ""
+  # userId = ""

content/_index.md

@@ -1,9 +1,15 @@
 +++
-title = 'Welcome to Civil Society .dev'
+title = 'Welcome to CivilSociety.dev'
 +++
 
+[The Importance of Independent Technology](/foundation/independent-technology) - Cornerstone essay on why independent technology matters for civil society
 
-[Getting started](/learning/getting_started)
+[Why Digital Sovereignty Matters](/foundation/why-digital-sovereignty-matters) - Accessible primer on digital sovereignty and its importance
 
-<!-- <a class="f6 link dim ba ph3 pv2 mb2 dib black" href="/learning/getting_started">Getting Started</a> -->
+[Arguments Against Centralization](/foundation/arguments-against-centralization) - Comprehensive resource categorizing various arguments against digital centralization
 
+[Position Statements](/foundation/position-statements) - Our formal positions on key issues affecting digital sovereignty
+
+[Getting started](/learning/getting-started)
+
+<!-- <a class="f6 link dim ba ph3 pv2 mb2 dib black" href="/learning/getting-started">Getting Started</a> -->

content/about.md

@@ -1,26 +1,30 @@
 +++
-title = 'About'
+title = 'About the Civil Society Technology Foundation'
 +++
 
-## Mission
+The **Civil Society Technology Foundation (CSTF)** is a community-driven organization dedicated to empowering individuals and civil society organizations to reclaim digital sovereignty through open-source tools and self-hosted infrastructure.
 
-To create and maintain open-source digital infrastructure that empowers civil society, reducing dependence on corporate and government-controlled technology.
+## Our Mission
 
-## Core Values
+We believe that independent, community-controlled technology is essential for a vibrant civil society in the digital age. As digital systems increasingly mediate civic participation, it's vital that these systems remain under the control of the communities they serve, rather than consolidated in the hands of governments or corporations.
 
-- Decentralization – No single point of control.
+The Civil Society Technology Foundation works to achieve this vision through:
-- Privacy & Security – Everything built with user autonomy in mind.
-- Sustainability – Self-funded, resilient, and community-supported.
-- Transparency – Open discussions, decision-making, and finances.
-- Cooperation Over Competition – Collaborate with other projects rather than duplicate efforts.
 
-## Governance
+- **Creating Educational Resources** that build technical literacy and sovereignty awareness
+- **Developing Reference Implementations** like the Sovereign Cloud for self-hosted infrastructure
+- **Building Community** around sovereign technology practices and principles
+- **Advancing Open Standards** that enable interoperability without centralized control
+- **Supporting Civil Society Organizations** in their journey toward digital independence
 
-- See [Governance](/projects/governance)
+## Who We Are
 
-## Contact
+- [Charter](/foundation/charter) - The comprehensive founding document for the organization, including structure, governance, and strategic focus areas
+- [Mission Statement](/foundation/mission-statement) - Our concise mission and approach to digital sovereignty
+- [Core Principles](/foundation/core-principles) - Detailed explanations of our 11 guiding principles with practical implications
 
-Paul Payne  
+## What We Believe
-paul@payne.io  
+
-+1 (206) 790-6707  
+- [The Importance of Independent Technology](/foundation/independent-technology) - Cornerstone essay on why independent technology matters for civil society
-Redmond, WA 98052  
+- [Why Digital Sovereignty Matters](/foundation/why-digital-sovereignty-matters) - Accessible primer on digital sovereignty and its importance
+- [Arguments Against Centralization](/foundation/arguments-against-centralization) - Comprehensive resource categorizing various arguments against digital centralization
+- [Position Statements](/foundation/position-statements) - Our formal positions on key issues affecting digital sovereignty

content/foundation/_index.md

@@ -0,0 +1,30 @@
++++
+title = 'About the Civil Society Technology Foundation'
++++
+
+The **Civil Society Technology Foundation (CSTF)** is a community-driven organization dedicated to empowering individuals and civil society organizations to reclaim digital sovereignty through open-source tools and self-hosted infrastructure.
+
+## Our Mission
+
+We believe that independent, community-controlled technology is essential for a vibrant civil society in the digital age. As digital systems increasingly mediate civic participation, it's vital that these systems remain under the control of the communities they serve, rather than consolidated in the hands of governments or corporations.
+
+The Civil Society Technology Foundation works to achieve this vision through:
+
+- **Creating Educational Resources** that build technical literacy and sovereignty awareness
+- **Developing Reference Implementations** like the Sovereign Cloud for self-hosted infrastructure
+- **Building Community** around sovereign technology practices and principles
+- **Advancing Open Standards** that enable interoperability without centralized control
+- **Supporting Civil Society Organizations** in their journey toward digital independence
+
+## Who We Are
+
+- [Charter](/foundation/charter) - The comprehensive founding document for the organization, including structure, governance, and strategic focus areas
+- [Mission Statement](/foundation/mission_statement) - Our concise mission and approach to digital sovereignty
+- [Core Principles](/foundation/core_principles) - Detailed explanations of our 11 guiding principles with practical implications
+
+## What We Believe
+
+- [The Importance of Independent Technology](/foundation/independent-technology) - Cornerstone essay on why independent technology matters for civil society
+- [Why Digital Sovereignty Matters](/foundation/why_digital_sovereignty_matters) - Accessible primer on digital sovereignty and its importance
+- [Arguments Against Centralization](/foundation/arguments_against_centralization) - Comprehensive resource categorizing various arguments against digital centralization
+- [Position Statements](/foundation/position_statements) - Our formal positions on key issues affecting digital sovereignty

content/foundation/arguments-against-centralization.md

@@ -0,0 +1,319 @@
++++
+title = 'Arguments Against Centralization'
++++
+
+## Executive Summary
+
+This document consolidates key arguments against the extreme centralization of digital infrastructure, platforms, and services. While centralization can offer certain efficiencies and conveniences, the Civil Society Technology Foundation believes that the current level of concentration poses fundamental threats to individual autonomy, community resilience, and democratic governance. This resource provides evidence-based arguments that can be used in advocacy, education, and technology development contexts.
+
+## Technical Arguments
+
+### 1. Single Points of Failure
+
+**Argument**: Centralized systems create critical vulnerabilities through single points of failure.
+
+**Evidence**:
+
+- The 2021 Facebook outage took down multiple essential services for billions of users worldwide for over six hours because of centralized infrastructure
+- AWS outages regularly impact large portions of the internet ecosystem, demonstrating the fragility of concentrated cloud infrastructure
+- Centralized DNS and CDN services like Cloudflare have experienced outages that effectively disabled large portions of the web
+
+**Impact**: As essential services migrate to digital platforms, these vulnerabilities create systemic risks to healthcare, financial systems, communications, and other critical infrastructure.
+
+### 2. Scaling Limitations
+
+**Argument**: Centralized systems face inherent scaling challenges that distributed alternatives can overcome.
+
+**Evidence**:
+
+- Email, the original federated protocol, has scaled to billions of users without centralized control
+- BitTorrent consistently outperforms centralized distribution for large file sharing
+- The Bitcoin network has demonstrated remarkable resilience compared to centralized financial systems
+
+**Impact**: Centralization often creates artificial bottlenecks that limit growth, innovation, and resilience.
+
+### 3. Inefficient Resource Allocation
+
+**Argument**: Centralized systems often use resources inefficiently compared to distributed alternatives.
+
+**Evidence**:
+
+- Centralized cloud services frequently oversell capacity, leading to resource contention
+- Local computation and storage can reduce latency and bandwidth requirements
+- Distributed systems can take advantage of idle resources across many devices
+
+**Impact**: More efficient resource utilization can reduce costs, environmental impact, and performance limitations.
+
+## Security Arguments
+
+### 1. Concentrated Attack Surfaces
+
+**Argument**: Centralization creates concentrated attack surfaces that attract sophisticated adversaries.
+
+**Evidence**:
+
+- Major platforms like Microsoft, Facebook, and Google routinely suffer breaches affecting millions or billions of users
+- Government-sponsored attackers specifically target large platforms for maximum impact
+- Centralized data repositories create incentives for attacks proportional to their value
+
+**Impact**: As data and services concentrate, the security stakes become existentially high, yet perfect security remains impossible.
+
+### 2. Mass Surveillance Enablement
+
+**Argument**: Centralized systems enable mass surveillance by both corporate and state actors.
+
+**Evidence**:
+
+- The Snowden revelations demonstrated how intelligence agencies leverage centralized services for surveillance
+- Corporate data collection practices amount to pervasive tracking of online and offline behavior
+- Centralized AI systems can analyze vast datasets to identify patterns and individuals
+
+**Impact**: This surveillance undermines fundamental rights to privacy, free association, and free expression.
+
+### 3. Security Monocultures
+
+**Argument**: Centralized systems create security monocultures that increase vulnerability.
+
+**Evidence**:
+
+- When most users run the same operating system, vulnerabilities affect a larger percentage of devices
+- Diversity in implementation is a key security principle that centralization undermines
+- Alternatives facing different threat models develop different security approaches
+
+**Impact**: Diversity and plurality in digital systems creates overall resilience against both targeted and broad attacks.
+
+## Economic Arguments
+
+### 1. Monopolistic Control
+
+**Argument**: Digital centralization leads to monopolistic market dynamics that harm innovation and competition.
+
+**Evidence**:
+
+- App store gatekeeping by Apple and Google extracts significant revenue from developers
+- Amazon's control of e-commerce creates dependencies for countless small businesses
+- Network effects and data advantages create "winner-take-all" markets
+
+**Impact**: These monopolies extract excessive value, stifle competition, and reduce innovation compared to more open markets.
+
+### 2. Value Extraction
+
+**Argument**: Centralized platforms systematically extract value from creators and communities.
+
+**Evidence**:
+
+- Content creators receive minimal compensation on platforms that monetize their work
+- Gig economy platforms capture most of the value created by workers
+- User data generates billions in profit while users receive negligible compensation
+
+**Impact**: This extraction undermines sustainable livelihoods and fair compensation for digital labor and creativity.
+
+### 3. Artificial Scarcity
+
+**Argument**: Centralization creates artificial scarcity in digital goods that are naturally abundant.
+
+**Evidence**:
+
+- Digital content can be reproduced at near-zero cost, yet artificial restrictions create scarcity
+- Knowledge and information get placed behind paywalls despite trivial distribution costs
+- Computational resources are artificially limited through licensing rather than technical constraints
+
+**Impact**: These artificial limitations reduce access to knowledge, tools, and resources that could benefit society.
+
+## Social Arguments
+
+### 1. Power Asymmetries
+
+**Argument**: Centralization creates extreme power asymmetries between platform operators and users.
+
+**Evidence**:
+
+- Platform terms of service are non-negotiable and can change unilaterally
+- Content moderation decisions affect millions with limited recourse
+- Platform design changes can disrupt communities and livelihoods overnight
+
+**Impact**: These asymmetries undermine individual agency and community autonomy in digital spaces.
+
+### 2. Algorithmic Control
+
+**Argument**: Centralized systems impose algorithmic control that shapes social behavior and information access.
+
+**Evidence**:
+
+- Recommendation algorithms determine what content receives visibility
+- Engagement-optimizing systems promote divisive and emotional content
+- Search algorithms shape what information appears relevant and accessible
+
+**Impact**: This control fundamentally shapes public discourse, information ecosystems, and social behavior without democratic accountability.
+
+### 3. Cultural Homogenization
+
+**Argument**: Centralized platforms lead to cultural homogenization that reduces diversity of expression.
+
+**Evidence**:
+
+- Global platforms impose consistent interfaces and interaction models regardless of cultural context
+- Content policies reflect primarily Western values and business priorities
+- Algorithmic amplification tends to favor dominant languages and cultural expressions
+
+**Impact**: This homogenization reduces cultural diversity, contextual nuance, and community-specific practices.
+
+## Democratic Arguments
+
+### 1. Accountability Deficits
+
+**Argument**: Centralized digital power lacks democratic accountability mechanisms.
+
+**Evidence**:
+
+- Major platforms make decisions affecting billions without democratic input
+- Corporate governance prioritizes shareholder interests over broader stakeholder concerns
+- Terms of service replace democratically-created law as governance mechanisms
+
+**Impact**: As digital systems increasingly mediate civic life, this accountability deficit undermines democratic governance.
+
+### 2. Regulatory Capture
+
+**Argument**: Centralized digital powers achieve regulatory capture that undermines democratic oversight.
+
+**Evidence**:
+
+- Tech lobbying expenditures have grown dramatically as centralization increases
+- Complex technical systems create information asymmetries that disadvantage regulators
+- Revolving doors between industry and regulatory agencies create conflicts of interest
+
+**Impact**: This capture prevents effective democratic oversight of increasingly essential infrastructure.
+
+### 3. Civil Society Erosion
+
+**Argument**: Digital centralization erodes the independence of civil society organizations.
+
+**Evidence**:
+
+- NGOs and advocacy groups become dependent on platforms they seek to critique
+- Community organizations lose communication channels if they violate platform policies
+- Surveillance chills political organization and association
+
+**Impact**: A healthy democracy requires independent civil society, which centralization increasingly undermines.
+
+## Cognitive & Psychological Arguments
+
+### 1. Attention Exploitation
+
+**Argument**: Centralized platforms systematically exploit human cognitive vulnerabilities.
+
+**Evidence**:
+
+- Engagement-maximizing design deliberately leverages psychological vulnerabilities
+- Addictive design patterns are well-documented across major platforms
+- A/B testing optimizes for metrics like "time spent" rather than user well-being
+
+**Impact**: This exploitation undermines agency, mental health, and intentional use of technology.
+
+### 2. Information Environment Degradation
+
+**Argument**: Centralization degrades information environments through engagement-driven amplification.
+
+**Evidence**:
+
+- Studies show algorithmic amplification of sensationalistic and divisive content
+- Misinformation spreads more rapidly than corrections on major platforms
+- Centralized algorithms optimize for engagement, not information quality
+
+**Impact**: This degradation undermines informed decision-making, social cohesion, and shared reality.
+
+### 3. Dependency Creation
+
+**Argument**: Centralized systems deliberately create psychological and practical dependencies.
+
+**Evidence**:
+
+- Platform design incorporates habit-forming hooks and engagement mechanics
+- Walled gardens and proprietary formats create switching costs
+- Essential functionalities increasingly require centralized services
+
+**Impact**: These dependencies reduce autonomy and increase vulnerability to exploitation.
+
+## Ethical Arguments
+
+### 1. Consent Failures
+
+**Argument**: Centralized systems systematically undermine meaningful consent.
+
+**Evidence**:
+
+- Terms of service are notoriously long and complex, preventing informed consent
+- Dark patterns guide users toward privacy-compromising choices
+- Many services are essentially required for modern life, making consent coercive
+
+**Impact**: Without meaningful consent, user autonomy is fundamentally compromised.
+
+### 2. Unequal Impacts
+
+**Argument**: The harms of centralization disproportionately affect vulnerable populations.
+
+**Evidence**:
+
+- Marginalized communities face more aggressive content moderation
+- Privacy violations have more severe consequences for vulnerable groups
+- Economic extraction has greater impact on those with fewer resources
+
+**Impact**: These unequal impacts reinforce existing social inequities and power imbalances.
+
+### 3. Future Foreclosure
+
+**Argument**: Current centralization forecloses possible futures with greater autonomy and pluralism.
+
+**Evidence**:
+
+- Network effects create path dependencies that become harder to change over time
+- Technical standards and protocols become dominated by large players
+- Alternative models receive less investment and development
+
+**Impact**: The longer extreme centralization continues, the harder it becomes to change course.
+
+## Historical Arguments
+
+### 1. Previous Centralizations
+
+**Argument**: Historical precedents show the dangers of communication and information centralization.
+
+**Evidence**:
+
+- State control of printing presses enabled censorship and suppression
+- Broadcast media centralization limited participatory culture and diverse viewpoints
+- Telephone monopolies stifled innovation and extracted excessive rents
+
+**Impact**: These historical examples demonstrate recurring patterns when essential communication infrastructure becomes centralized.
+
+### 2. Decentralization Successes
+
+**Argument**: Major technological successes have often come from decentralized, open approaches.
+
+**Evidence**:
+
+- The internet itself succeeded because of open protocols and distributed governance
+- Open source software has consistently produced high-quality, resilient systems
+- Innovation often emerges from diverse, uncoordinated experimentation
+
+**Impact**: These successes challenge the necessity and inevitability of current centralization.
+
+### 3. Centralization Cycles
+
+**Argument**: Technology tends to cycle between periods of centralization and decentralization.
+
+**Evidence**:
+
+- The early internet was relatively decentralized before platform consolidation
+- Personal computing decentralized computing power before cloud recentralization
+- Similar patterns appear in telecommunications, media, and other information technologies
+
+**Impact**: Understanding these cycles helps resist the narrative that current centralization is inevitable or permanent.
+
+## Conclusion
+
+The arguments presented here demonstrate that extreme digital centralization poses significant threats across multiple dimensions—technical, security, economic, social, democratic, psychological, ethical, and historical. While some degree of centralization may be appropriate for certain functions, the current concentration of digital power has far exceeded the balance point where benefits outweigh harms.
+
+The Civil Society Technology Foundation believes these arguments make a compelling case for developing and adopting more distributed, community-governed approaches to digital technology. Such approaches can preserve the benefits of digital tools while mitigating the harms of excessive centralization.
+
+By understanding these arguments, individuals, communities, and organizations can make more informed choices about the technologies they use, develop, and advocate for. This understanding forms a crucial foundation for building digital systems that genuinely serve human flourishing and civil society rather than undermining them.

content/foundation/charter.md

@@ -0,0 +1,130 @@
++++
+title = 'Charter of Civil Society Technology Foundation'
++++
+
+## Purpose
+
+The Civil Society Technology Foundation (CSTF) empowers individuals and communities to reclaim digital sovereignty through open-source tools, self-hosted infrastructure, and transparent governance. We exist to create a world where technology serves people — not corporations or governments.
+
+## 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.

content/foundation/core-principles.md

@@ -0,0 +1,126 @@
++++
+title = 'Core Principles'
++++
+
+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

content/foundation/independent-technology/index.md

@@ -0,0 +1,209 @@
++++
+title = 'The Importance of Independent Technology in Civil Society'
++++
+
+## Introduction
+
+Independent technology—software and hardware developed outside corporate and government control, owned and operated by the people who use it—is essential to the flourishing of civil society in the digital age. As our social, political, and economic lives increasingly move online, the question of who controls these digital spaces has profound implications for democracy, individual autonomy, and collective well-being.
+
+The Civil Society Technology Foundation (CSTF) contends that truly independent technology is not just preferable but necessary for addressing the growing crises of digital rights, privacy, autonomy, and democratic participation. When technology serves its users rather than distant shareholders or state interests, it becomes a foundation for a more equitable, free, and resilient society.
+
+The concentration of digital power in the hands of a few corporations and governments has reached a critical threshold where it now threatens the very foundations of civil society. This essay examines why independent technology matters, what's at stake, and how we can build toward digital self-determination.
+
+## The Problem: Centralization of Digital Power
+
+Our digital infrastructure—from communication platforms to cloud computing services, from operating systems to artificial intelligence models—has become increasingly centralized under the control of a handful of global corporations and powerful states. This concentration creates systemic vulnerabilities and power imbalances that undermine individual autonomy and collective agency.
+
+### Corporate Capture
+
+The corporate capture of our digital commons has proceeded rapidly, with alarming consequences:
+
+- **Infrastructure Consolidation**: Major technology companies have consolidated control over fundamental digital infrastructure, from cloud services to communication platforms. Just five companies—Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Meta, and Microsoft—now control much of the infrastructure that powers our digital lives, creating unprecedented concentrations of power.
+
+- **Misaligned Incentives**: Commercial imperatives prioritize engagement, data collection, and profit over user well-being. When a service is "free," users become the product, with their attention and personal data monetized through surveillance-based advertising. As one tech executive famously noted, "If you're not paying for the product, you are the product."
+
+- **Extractive Relationships**: Platform monopolies create harmful dependencies and extract value from communities. Local businesses, independent creators, and civil society organizations increasingly rely on centralized platforms that extract fees, impose arbitrary rules, and can unilaterally change terms of service.
+
+- **Artificial Scarcity**: Corporate technology creates artificial scarcity in what should be abundant digital resources. Digital goods can be replicated at near-zero marginal cost, yet subscription models, paywalls, and intellectual property regimes create artificial barriers to access and use.
+
+- **Personalization as Control**: Algorithmic "personalization" becomes a mechanism for behavioral manipulation and preference shaping, optimizing for commercial outcomes rather than user agency or collective well-being. These systems are designed to maximize time spent, interaction, and consumption—not to enhance human flourishing.
+
+Our public messaging infrastructure should not be in the hands of any individual, such as Elon Musk or Mark Zuckerberg, where a single person's whims can reshape the digital public sphere that billions of people rely on.
+
+### Government Overreach
+
+As digital systems become central to civic life, governments have expanded their control in problematic ways:
+
+- **Mass Surveillance**: State surveillance undermines civil liberties and democratic processes. The capabilities revealed by Edward Snowden and subsequent whistleblowers demonstrate how digital infrastructure has enabled unprecedented monitoring of citizens, activists, and journalists without appropriate democratic oversight.
+
+- **Regulatory Capture**: Government regulation of technology often reinforces corporate power rather than constraining it. Complex regulatory frameworks crafted with industry input frequently protect incumbents while raising barriers to entry for smaller, independent alternatives.
+
+- **Dependency Relationships**: Public services increasingly rely on proprietary technologies, creating long-term vulnerabilities. When governments outsource core functions to proprietary platforms, they sacrifice sovereignty and create risky dependencies that undermine democratic accountability.
+
+- **Security State Expansion**: National security justifications often mask anti-democratic control mechanisms. The post-9/11 expansion of digital surveillance and the ongoing use of security arguments to justify technological control demonstrate how nominal protection can lead to substantial harm.
+
+- **Corporate-State Alliances**: The line between corporate and state power blurs as they develop symbiotic relationships. Tech companies gain market access and regulatory advantages, while states gain access to data and infrastructure for surveillance and control.
+
+Government is too often compromised by corporate special interests, creating a cycle where those with the most resources shape both market and regulatory outcomes.
+
+### Systemic Failures
+
+These problems aren't just individual failures but represent systemic issues with how digital technology is currently structured:
+
+- **Inequality Amplification**: Concentration of technological power amplifies existing social inequalities. Those with fewer resources have less privacy, less control, and are more vulnerable to exploitation in digital systems designed primarily for profit maximization.
+
+- **Manipulation Incentives**: Ad-based business models incentivize psychological manipulation rather than service. The imperative to maximize "engagement" leads to the amplification of divisive, emotional content and the creation of addictive design patterns.
+
+- **Innovation Barriers**: Proprietary systems create artificial barriers to innovation and adaptation. When core technologies are locked behind patents, trade secrets, and closed interfaces, communities cannot adapt them to their specific needs or improve upon them.
+
+- **Infrastructure Vulnerabilities**: Critical infrastructure becomes vulnerable to both market and geopolitical forces. When essential digital services are controlled by profit-seeking entities or potentially hostile governments, they become points of leverage that can be exploited during conflicts or crises.
+
+- **Externalized Harms**: The costs of digital systems are often externalized onto users and society, from privacy violations to psychological harms to environmental impacts. These are treated as "external" to the core transaction, though they represent real and significant costs.
+
+The structure of our digital infrastructure has evolved rapidly, without sufficient consideration of its impacts on civil society, democracy, and human flourishing. The consequence is a digital ecosystem that systematically extracts value from communities while undermining the conditions for collective agency.
+
+## The Solution: Digital Self-Determination
+
+In response to these challenges, we need a vision of digital self-determination—where individuals and communities can meaningfully control their technological destinies. This isn't merely a technical project but a social and political one, grounded in core principles that put human flourishing at the center of technological development.
+
+### Core Principles of Independent Technology
+
+Independent technology is guided by principles that prioritize human agency and community well-being:
+
+- **User Sovereignty**: Control over personal data and computing environments must rest with users. People should own their data, determine how it's used, and maintain authority over the devices and services they rely on. Consent should be meaningful, informed, and revocable.
+
+- **Open Systems**: Technology should be transparent, modifiable, and freely available. Open-source software, open standards, and open hardware create the conditions for inspection, improvement, and adaptation by communities rather than just original creators.
+
+- **Decentralization**: Power and control should be distributed across networks of users rather than concentrated in a few hands. Federated and peer-to-peer systems demonstrate that we can have robust digital services without central points of control that become vectors for surveillance or censorship.
+
+- **Practical Autonomy**: Users must be able to understand, modify, and maintain their own tools. This requires both accessible technology and educational resources that build capacity for technical self-determination. Autonomy without capability is merely theoretical.
+
+- **Democratic Governance**: The rules, policies, and development priorities of digital systems should be determined through democratic processes. Those affected by technological systems should have a voice in how they function and evolve.
+
+### Benefits to Civil Society
+
+Independent technology creates substantial benefits for civil society organizations and the communities they serve:
+
+- **Enhanced Privacy and Security**: Vulnerable communities and organizations gain protection from surveillance and data exploitation. Organizations working on sensitive issues like human rights, public health, or political reform can operate with greater safety and confidence.
+
+- **Resilience Against Control**: Independent systems provide resilience against censorship, platform bans, and arbitrary rule changes. When an organization runs its own infrastructure, it cannot be easily silenced through the decision of a commercial platform.
+
+- **Local Adaptation**: Communities can adapt technology to their specific needs, languages, and cultural contexts. Rather than accepting one-size-fits-all solutions designed for maximum market share, they can modify systems to reflect their own priorities and circumstances.
+
+- **Cost Reduction**: Over time, organizations reduce financial dependencies and costs associated with proprietary solutions. Though initial investment may be higher, the elimination of recurring licensing fees and the ability to maintain and extend systems independently creates long-term sustainability.
+
+- **Value Alignment**: Technology can be aligned with democratic values and human rights principles rather than profit maximization. When the primary goal is service to community rather than return on investment, different design choices emerge.
+
+- **Cooperative Scale**: Collaboration between organizations multiplies capabilities without centralizing control. Federated approaches allow for interoperability and shared resources while preserving autonomy for each participating entity.
+
+Most importantly, independent technology simply works better for the specific needs of civil society. The quality can be higher because it's designed for use rather than for market dominance or data extraction.
+
+## The Path Forward: Building Digital Commons
+
+Building viable alternatives to corporate-controlled technology requires both technical and social infrastructure. We need robust, accessible tools and the organizational structures to sustain them.
+
+### Technical Foundations
+
+The technical foundations of digital commons include:
+
+- **Self-Hosted Infrastructure**: Individuals and organizations need infrastructure they can directly control. From personal servers to community-scale hosting, self-hosting creates the foundation for genuine autonomy and reduces dependencies on corporate services.
+
+- **Open-Source Software**: Software that can be freely used, modified, and shared provides the basis for adaptation and improvement. The vast ecosystem of open-source tools demonstrates that collaborative, non-proprietary development produces robust, high-quality solutions.
+
+- **Federation Protocols**: Communication standards that enable interaction without central control allow communities to connect while maintaining their autonomy. Email, the original federated protocol, demonstrates how diverse systems can interoperate without a single controlling entity.
+
+- **Efficient Design**: Tools must be designed for accessibility and efficiency, not requiring corporate-scale resources. Software that runs well on modest hardware and with limited bandwidth ensures that technological self-determination isn't limited to those with significant resources.
+
+- **Data Portability**: Users should be able to move their data between different services and systems. Open formats and export capabilities ensure that people aren't locked into particular tools or platforms because of their historical data.
+
+These technical elements aren't merely features but fundamental design principles that shape what technology can and cannot do, who it serves, and how power flows within digital systems.
+
+### Social Foundations
+
+Technical infrastructure alone is insufficient; we also need social structures to support and sustain independent technology:
+
+- **Community Ownership**: Digital infrastructure should be governed by the communities it serves. Cooperative ownership models, community trusts, and other collective governance approaches provide alternatives to both corporate control and state centralization.
+
+- **Technical Literacy**: Building capacity for understanding and maintaining technology is essential. Educational resources, mentorship programs, and accessible documentation help more people participate meaningfully in digital self-determination.
+
+- **Collaborative Development**: Cooperative development models distribute both the work and the benefits of creating and maintaining digital commons. From formal cooperatives to informal contributor communities, collaborative approaches make sustainable independent technology possible.
+
+- **Public Investment**: Digital commons require public support commensurate with their social value. Just as we fund libraries, parks, and other public goods, we should invest in digital infrastructure that serves the common good rather than private interests.
+
+- **Network Solidarity**: Communities of practice must support each other across different contexts and applications. By sharing resources, knowledge, and political solidarity, independent technology initiatives can resist the pressure to centralize or commercialize.
+
+The social dimension of independent technology is not secondary but fundamental to its success. Technical solutions divorced from community governance and capacity building will inevitably drift toward centralization and exploitation.
+
+## Artificial Intelligence: A Critical Inflection Point
+
+The rapid development of artificial intelligence represents both a profound challenge and a potential opportunity for digital self-determination. How AI evolves in the coming years will shape the balance of power in digital spaces for decades to come.
+
+### The Challenge
+
+AI development currently reinforces centralization and inequality:
+
+- **Concentration of Control**: Unprecedented concentration of AI capabilities in a few corporations and states creates new power imbalances. The resources required to train frontier models have limited development to a handful of well-funded entities, primarily in the US and China.
+
+- **Resource Barriers**: Massive computational and data requirements create barriers to independent development. Training large language models requires infrastructure investments beyond the reach of most communities, universities, or even mid-sized companies.
+
+- **Governance Deficits**: Rapid deployment has proceeded without adequate governance or oversight. Models with significant capabilities and potential risks are being deployed into society with minimal democratic input or regulatory frameworks.
+
+- **Inequality Amplification**: Without intervention, AI is likely to amplify existing power imbalances. Those who control AI systems gain unprecedented capabilities to automate tasks, analyze data, and influence social processes, while those without access fall further behind.
+
+- **Colonization of Knowledge**: AI models trained on human cultural production without consent or compensation represent a new form of appropriation. The ingestion of text, images, code, and other cultural artifacts into proprietary models effectively privatizes collective knowledge.
+
+These trends threaten to create a new era of technological dependency more profound than any we've seen before, where a few entities control the fundamental tools of knowledge work, cultural production, and computational reasoning.
+
+### The Opportunity
+
+Despite these challenges, AI also presents significant opportunities for digital self-determination:
+
+- **Efficiency Innovations**: Open, efficient AI models that can run on commodity hardware are becoming increasingly viable. Models designed for local deployment rather than API access can provide sophisticated capabilities without centralized control.
+
+- **Community Governance**: AI development aligned with public interest values can prioritize different outcomes. Community-governed projects demonstrate alternatives to both corporate and state-controlled AI, emphasizing transparency, safety, and broad access.
+
+- **Capability Democratization**: AI can expand human capability and agency when designed for augmentation rather than replacement. Tools that enhance creativity, learning, and problem-solving can strengthen rather than undermine human autonomy.
+
+- **Resource Redistribution**: Democratized access to computational power can rebalance digital inequalities. Cooperative computing initiatives, public infrastructure, and efficient algorithms can make advanced capabilities available to a much wider range of communities.
+
+- **Knowledge Commons**: Open models trained on consensually shared data can create a genuine knowledge commons. Public investment in models explicitly designed as digital public goods can ensure that AI capabilities become a shared resource rather than a proprietary advantage.
+
+The path we choose with AI—toward further centralization or toward democratization—will significantly shape the future of digital self-determination. By supporting open, efficient, and community-governed approaches to AI, we can ensure that these powerful tools enhance rather than undermine human agency and collective well-being.
+
+## Case Study: The Sovereign Cloud
+
+The Civil Society Technology Foundation's Sovereign Cloud project exemplifies the principles of independent technology in practice. This reference implementation demonstrates how civil society organizations can regain digital sovereignty through practical, accessible tools.
+
+The Sovereign Cloud provides:
+
+- **Self-Hosted Services**: Organizations can run their own email, calendar, file storage, website, and collaboration tools on infrastructure they control, reducing dependency on corporate platforms.
+
+- **Privacy by Design**: All services prioritize data minimization, encryption, and user control, ensuring that sensitive information remains protected from surveillance and exploitation.
+
+- **Simplified Deployment**: Despite the complexity of the underlying systems, simplified deployment tools make it feasible for organizations with limited technical capacity to set up and maintain their own infrastructure.
+
+- **Community Support**: A network of practitioners provides documentation, troubleshooting assistance, and ongoing development, ensuring that organizations aren't alone in their journey toward digital self-determination.
+
+- **Federation**: All services support open standards and federation protocols, allowing organizations to communicate with others while maintaining their autonomy and control.
+
+This practical approach to digital sovereignty demonstrates that independence from corporate platforms is not merely theoretical but achievable with current technology and modest resources. By making these tools more accessible and providing support for their adoption, we create pathways to broader digital self-determination.
+
+## Conclusion: A Call to Action
+
+The choice is not between technology and its absence, but between technology that serves its users and technology that serves other masters. Civil society requires digital tools that enhance rather than undermine its core values of autonomy, cooperation, and democratic governance.
+
+Independent technology is not a luxury or a theoretical preference—it is a practical necessity for maintaining the conditions that make civil society possible. When our digital infrastructure is captured by commercial or state interests, the spaces for independent association, expression, and collective action narrow dangerously.
+
+By investing in independent technology, we create the possibility of digital spaces that reflect and reinforce the values of civil society rather than market or state power. This is not merely a technical challenge but a social and political imperative that requires both visionary thinking and practical action.
+
+The path forward requires:
+
+1. **Individual Action**: Moving personal and organizational data to self-hosted or community-governed platforms
+2. **Collective Investment**: Supporting the development and maintenance of digital commons through funding, contribution, and advocacy
+3. **Policy Reform**: Advancing regulatory frameworks that limit surveillance, protect privacy, and ensure interoperability
+4. **Educational Initiatives**: Building technical literacy and capacity for digital self-determination
+5. **Alternative Models**: Developing and demonstrating viable alternatives to the current dominant paradigms
+
+An open Internet is a human right. Our digital commons—the shared spaces, tools, and resources that enable connection, creation, and collective action—must be protected from capture and enclosure, whether by corporate monopolies or authoritarian states.
+
+The Civil Society Technology Foundation invites individuals, organizations, and communities to join in building and maintaining the digital commons our shared future requires. By reclaiming control over our technological infrastructure, we take a crucial step toward a more just, democratic, and flourishing society.

content/foundation/mission-statement.md

@@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
++++
+title = 'Mission Statement'
++++
+
+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.

content/foundation/position-statements.md

@@ -0,0 +1,149 @@
++++
+title = 'Position Statements'
++++
+
+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.

content/foundation/why-digital-sovereignty-matters/index.md

@@ -0,0 +1,197 @@
++++
+title = 'Why Digital Sovereignty Matters'
++++
+
+## What Is Digital Sovereignty?
+
+Digital sovereignty is the ability of individuals, communities, and organizations to exercise meaningful control over their digital lives. It means having genuine authority over your data, the software you use, and the infrastructure that powers your online activities.
+
+True digital sovereignty includes:
+
+- **Data control**: Determining what information you share, with whom, and under what conditions
+- **Software freedom**: Using, examining, modifying, and sharing the code that runs your digital tools
+- **Infrastructure ownership**: Having the ability to operate your own servers and services
+- **Knowledge access**: Understanding how your technology works and being able to make informed choices
+- **Governance participation**: Having a voice in how digital systems are designed and regulated
+
+Digital sovereignty exists on a spectrum from complete dependency to full autonomy. The Civil Society Technology Foundation works toward shifting the balance away from centralized control and toward individual and community empowerment.
+
+## Why Sovereignty Is Under Threat
+
+Most people today have very little digital sovereignty. Consider your typical online experience:
+
+- Your personal information is collected, analyzed, and monetized by corporations without meaningful consent
+- The software you use is controlled by distant companies that can change terms, features, or access at any time
+- Your content and connections depend on platforms that can censor, amplify, or derank what you share
+- Critical services like email, calendars, and file storage are hosted on corporate infrastructure that you cannot inspect or control
+- Algorithms shape what you see and how you communicate in ways designed to maximize corporate profit
+
+This lack of sovereignty is not accidental—it's the result of business models and regulatory environments that incentivize centralization and data extraction. The trend toward concentration has accelerated as digital technology has become essential to nearly every aspect of modern life.
+
+## Why Digital Sovereignty Matters for Individuals
+
+For individuals, digital sovereignty affects fundamental aspects of daily life:
+
+### Privacy and Security
+
+Without digital sovereignty, your personal information is vulnerable:
+
+- Your browsing history, location data, and private communications become corporate assets
+- Intimate details of your life can be exposed through data breaches or surveillance
+- Your digital footprint creates a permanent record that can be used against you
+
+With digital sovereignty, you can:
+
+- Determine what information you share and with whom
+- Use encryption and privacy-preserving tools as a matter of course
+- Maintain boundaries between different aspects of your digital life
+
+### Personal Autonomy
+
+Without digital sovereignty, your choices are constrained:
+
+- Algorithms shape what information you see and what options seem available
+- Design patterns nudge you toward behaviors that benefit platforms, not yourself
+- Essential tasks increasingly require using services that compromise your privacy
+
+With digital sovereignty, you gain freedom:
+
+- Make decisions based on diverse information sources you've chosen
+- Use tools designed to serve your needs rather than exploit your attention
+- Participate online without surrendering your rights or dignity
+
+### Economic Security
+
+Without digital sovereignty, you face growing vulnerabilities:
+
+- Skills and livelihoods become dependent on proprietary platforms
+- Your access to economic opportunities can be arbitrarily restricted
+- The value you create online is captured primarily by platform owners
+
+With digital sovereignty, you build resilience:
+
+- Develop portable skills that aren't tied to specific corporate platforms
+- Create and connect through systems you help govern
+- Participate in cooperative economic models that distribute value more equitably
+
+## Why Digital Sovereignty Matters for Communities
+
+Communities—from local neighborhoods to identity groups to civil society organizations—face particular challenges in the digital age:
+
+### Community Autonomy
+
+Without digital sovereignty, communities lose self-determination:
+
+- Community governance gets usurped by platform rules and algorithms
+- Local knowledge and context get flattened by global platforms
+- Community resources flow to distant corporations rather than circulating locally
+
+With digital sovereignty, communities thrive:
+
+- Design digital spaces that reflect local values and needs
+- Maintain community standards and practices without corporate override
+- Build digital infrastructure as a community asset
+
+### Resilience Against Censorship
+
+Without digital sovereignty, communities face silencing:
+
+- Platform policies can restrict legitimate speech, especially from marginalized groups
+- Arbitrary enforcement affects those with the least power most severely
+- Commercial content moderation cannot reflect the nuance of community standards
+
+With digital sovereignty, communities maintain their voice:
+
+- Run their own communication infrastructure resistant to external censorship
+- Develop community-appropriate content moderation
+- Create fallback channels that cannot be easily blocked
+
+### Collective Memory
+
+Without digital sovereignty, community history becomes precarious:
+
+- When platforms shut down, they take community archives with them
+- Algorithmic sorting buries historically important content
+- Corporate priorities determine what gets preserved
+
+With digital sovereignty, cultural continuity strengthens:
+
+- Communities maintain their own archives and historical records
+- Knowledge transfer between generations happens on community terms
+- Digital artifacts remain accessible even as technologies change
+
+## Why Digital Sovereignty Matters for Civil Society
+
+For civil society organizations—the non-profit and non-governmental bodies that form the backbone of democratic society—digital sovereignty is particularly crucial:
+
+### Independence from Corporate Control
+
+Without digital sovereignty, civil society becomes compromised:
+
+- NGOs must accept surveillance and data extraction to use essential tools
+- Advocacy organizations depend on platforms that may not share their values
+- Corporate philanthropy shapes which digital infrastructure gets built
+
+With digital sovereignty, civil society maintains integrity:
+
+- Organizations use tools aligned with their mission and values
+- Advocacy can proceed without platform-imposed limitations
+- Infrastructure development responds to community needs, not market incentives
+
+### Operational Security
+
+Without digital sovereignty, organizations face serious risks:
+
+- Sensitive communications and data reside on vulnerable commercial platforms
+- Critical workflows depend on services that can be withdrawn without notice
+- Organization data becomes integrated into commercial AI training sets
+
+With digital sovereignty, operations become more secure:
+
+- Organizations maintain control over sensitive information
+- Communication channels resist surveillance
+- Infrastructure resilience protects against disruption
+
+### Ethical Alignment
+
+Without digital sovereignty, civil society faces contradictions:
+
+- Organizations advocating for rights often use tools that undermine those rights
+- Digital workflows can contradict organizational values
+- Resource dependencies compromise advocacy positions
+
+With digital sovereignty, values and practices align:
+
+- Technology choices reflect and reinforce organizational principles
+- Digital infrastructure embodies the world organizations are working to create
+- Consistency between means and ends strengthens moral authority
+
+## The Path to Digital Sovereignty
+
+Achieving greater digital sovereignty isn't an all-or-nothing proposition. It's a journey with practical steps that individuals and organizations can take:
+
+### For Individuals
+
+1. **Start with awareness**: Learn how your current tools work and what alternatives exist
+2. **Make incremental changes**: Replace proprietary services with open alternatives one by one
+3. **Join communities of practice**: Connect with others on similar journeys
+4. **Develop technical literacy**: Build skills to maintain more of your own technology
+5. **Support and advocate**: Contribute to projects and policies that promote digital sovereignty
+
+### For Organizations
+
+1. **Audit current dependencies**: Understand where you lack digital sovereignty
+2. **Prioritize critical systems**: Focus first on communications and sensitive data
+3. **Invest in capacity**: Build technical skills within your organization
+4. **Build community infrastructure**: Partner with similar organizations to share resources
+5. **Center sovereignty in planning**: Make digital autonomy a strategic priority
+
+The Civil Society Technology Foundation's Sovereign Cloud project provides a reference implementation for organizations seeking to regain digital sovereignty. It demonstrates that practical steps toward greater independence are possible today, even with limited resources.
+
+## Conclusion
+
+Digital sovereignty isn't a luxury—it's increasingly essential for meaningful participation in society, for the health of communities, and for the independence of civil society. As digital technology becomes more deeply embedded in every aspect of our lives, the question of who controls that technology becomes more urgent.
+
+The challenges are significant, but practical alternatives exist. By taking incremental steps toward greater sovereignty, we can build a digital future that enhances rather than undermines human agency, community resilience, and democratic values.
+
+Digital sovereignty matters because it determines whether technology will serve as a tool of liberation or a mechanism of control. The choice between these futures is still ours to make—if we act with purpose and clarity about what's at stake.

content/learning/getting-started.md

@@ -0,0 +1,9 @@
++++
+title = 'Getting Started'
++++
+
+The Soverign Cloud project is in active development.
+
+```bash
+https://github.com/payneio/sovereign-cloud.git
+```

content/learning/getting_started.md

@@ -1,15 +0,0 @@
-+++
-title = 'Getting Started'
-+++
-
-```bash
-# See https://k3s.io/
-curl -sfL https://get.k3s.io | sh -s - --write-kubeconfig-mode=644 
-export KUBECONFIG=/etc/rancher/k3s/k3s.yaml
-```
-
-## Future
-
-Consider defaults:
-
-- [Longhorn](https://docs.k3s.io/storage).

content/learning/git.md

@@ -1,5 +1,258 @@
 +++
-title = 'Git'
+title = 'Git: Distributed Version Control for Digital Independence'
 +++
 
+## Introduction
 
+Version control systems are the backbone of modern software development, enabling collaboration, preserving history, and managing complexity. Among these tools, Git stands apart—not just as the most widely used version control system, but as a technology that fundamentally aligns with principles of decentralization, resilience, and user sovereignty.
+
+For civil society organizations, Git represents much more than a development tool. It embodies a different way of thinking about collaboration—one based on distributed trust, transparent history, and resilience against centralized control. In this article, we explore what Git is, how it works, and why its approach to distributed collaboration matters for organizations committed to digital sovereignty.
+
+## What Is Git?
+
+Git is a distributed version control system created by Linus Torvalds (the original developer of Linux) in 2005. Unlike previous version control systems that relied on centralized servers, Git gives every participant a complete copy of the project's entire history. This seemingly simple architectural choice has profound implications for how collaboration works.
+
+### Key Characteristics of Git
+
+- **Distributed**: Every repository contains the full history, enabling offline work and eliminating single points of failure
+- **Content-addressed**: Files are identified by cryptographic hashes of their content, ensuring integrity
+- **Branching-focused**: Multiple lines of development can proceed in parallel, merging when ready
+- **History-preserving**: Changes are recorded as an immutable chain, creating transparency and accountability
+- **Non-hierarchical**: Any repository can synchronize with any other, without requiring a central authority
+
+These characteristics create a system where collaboration is possible without requiring trust in a central authority—a principle that resonates deeply with civil society's need for resilient, independent systems.
+
+### How Git Differs from Centralized Systems
+
+To understand Git's significance, it helps to contrast it with centralized approaches:
+
+| Aspect                  | Centralized Version Control  | Git (Distributed Version Control)  |
+| ----------------------- | ---------------------------- | ---------------------------------- |
+| **Network Requirement** | Constant connection needed   | Can work offline with full history |
+| **Failure Points**      | Central server is critical   | Multiple complete copies exist     |
+| **Control**             | Administrator manages access | Each user controls their copy      |
+| **Workflow**            | Linear and prescribed        | Flexible and adaptable             |
+| **Trust Model**         | Trust in central authority   | Trust distributed across network   |
+
+This shift from centralized to distributed architecture mirrors many of the broader transitions civil society organizations seek in digital infrastructure—moving from single points of control to resilient networks of peers.
+
+## Technical Foundations
+
+Understanding Git's technical approach helps clarify why it's so valuable for sovereign technology practices.
+
+### The Object Model
+
+At its core, Git stores four types of objects:
+
+1. **Blobs**: The content of files
+2. **Trees**: Directories of blobs and other trees
+3. **Commits**: Snapshots of the repository at a point in time
+4. **Tags**: Named references to specific commits
+
+These objects form a content-addressed database where each object is identified by its SHA-1 hash. This cryptographic approach ensures:
+
+- Content integrity (changes are immediately detectable)
+- Deduplication (identical content is stored only once)
+- Authentication (commits can be cryptographically signed)
+- Verification (history cannot be silently altered)
+
+### The Distributed Model
+
+Git's distributed nature means:
+
+- Each repository contains all objects and history
+- No single repository has special status
+- Changes are exchanged between peers through "remotes"
+- Any repository can serve as a backup for the entire project
+
+This architecture creates resilience through redundancy—exactly the quality that civil society organizations need in potentially challenging environments.
+
+## Git for Civil Society
+
+For civil society organizations, Git offers specific benefits that align with core values and practical needs:
+
+### 1. Resilience Against Disruption
+
+Git's distributed nature means:
+
+- Work continues even if internet connectivity is limited or monitored
+- No single point of failure can eliminate access to code or documents
+- Information can be shared through multiple channels when needed
+- Organizations can maintain control of their projects regardless of hosting platform decisions
+
+In contexts where infrastructure may be unreliable or subject to interference, this resilience is invaluable.
+
+### 2. Sovereignty and Control
+
+Git provides complete control over:
+
+- Where and how repositories are hosted
+- Who has access to what parts of the codebase
+- How contributions are reviewed and incorporated
+- What external dependencies are included
+
+This sovereignty means organizations aren't dependent on the policies or availability of any particular service provider.
+
+### 3. Transparency and Accountability
+
+Git's immutable history creates:
+
+- Clear attribution of changes to specific contributors
+- Permanent record of development decisions
+- Ability to audit exactly when and how code evolved
+- Cryptographic verification of who made what changes
+
+These transparency features support organizational accountability and help build trust in critical systems.
+
+### 4. Collaborative Without Centralization
+
+Git enables collaboration models that:
+
+- Don't require hierarchical permissions
+- Allow multiple approaches to develop in parallel
+- Support both tight coordination and loose federation
+- Function across organizational boundaries
+
+This flexibility accommodates diverse organizational structures and coalition-building.
+
+### 5. Future-Proof Documentation
+
+Git repositories provide:
+
+- Complete historical context for decisions
+- Self-contained documentation that travels with the code
+- Independence from any particular documentation platform
+- Resilience against link rot and lost references
+
+Organizations investing in long-term projects benefit from this comprehensive approach to institutional memory.
+
+## Beyond Code: Git for Documents and Data
+
+While initially designed for source code, Git has proven valuable for many other content types:
+
+### Documents and Publications
+
+Many organizations use Git for:
+
+- Policy documents with transparent revision history
+- Collaborative writing with clear attribution
+- Website content with staging and review
+- Reports that show how analysis evolved
+
+Tools like Markdown, Asciidoc, and LaTeX work particularly well with Git, allowing documents to benefit from the same workflows as code.
+
+### Data and Research
+
+Git can manage:
+
+- Datasets with clear provenance tracking
+- Analysis scripts alongside their data
+- Research findings with reproducible methods
+- Configuration files with documented changes
+
+While large binary files require special handling, Git-LFS (Large File Storage) extends Git's capabilities to manage these efficiently.
+
+### Infrastructure as Code
+
+Git is essential for:
+
+- Server configurations that can be tested and rolled back
+- Network setups with documented changes
+- Deployment scripts with security reviews
+- Container definitions with audit trails
+
+This "infrastructure as code" approach lets organizations apply the same governance to their infrastructure that they apply to their software.
+
+## Common Git Workflows for Civil Society
+
+Organizations can adapt Git workflows to match their needs and structures:
+
+### Lightweight Personal Projects
+
+For individual work or small teams:
+
+- Simple branching strategy (main branch with feature branches)
+- Direct pushes for trusted contributors
+- Minimal process overhead
+- Local repositories with occasional synchronization
+
+### Collaborative Open Projects
+
+For community projects with multiple contributors:
+
+- Fork and pull request model
+- Review requirements for all changes
+- Issue tracking integrated with development
+- Public repositories on platforms like GitHub, GitLab, or self-hosted Gitea
+
+### Secure Sensitive Projects
+
+For projects handling sensitive information:
+
+- Careful access control with signed commits
+- Self-hosted repositories with controlled access
+- Encrypted storage of sensitive configuration
+- Clear separation between public and private components
+
+## Misconceptions About Git
+
+Several misconceptions can discourage adoption:
+
+### "Git Is Only for Programmers"
+
+**Reality**: While Git emerged from software development, its principles apply to any collaborative work that benefits from version history. Many non-technical teams use Git for documentation, policy development, and publishing workflows.
+
+### "Git Is Too Complicated"
+
+**Reality**: Git's power does come with complexity, but:
+
+- Basic workflows require learning only a few commands
+- Graphical interfaces make common operations accessible
+- The learning curve reflects Git's power and flexibility
+- Skills developed transfer across projects and organizations
+
+### "We Need a Central Server Anyway"
+
+**Reality**: While many organizations use platforms like GitHub or GitLab, these are conveniences, not requirements. Git can function entirely via email, USB drives, or direct connections when needed, and any Git repository can serve as a temporary "hub" when appropriate.
+
+## Getting Started with Git
+
+For civil society organizations exploring Git, we recommend:
+
+1. **Start small**: Use Git for a defined project with clear boundaries
+2. **Focus on fundamentals**: Learn core concepts rather than memorizing commands
+3. **Choose appropriate tools**: Use graphical interfaces when they help
+4. **Create conventions**: Establish clear norms for commit messages and branching
+5. **Build skills gradually**: Add more advanced workflows as teams become comfortable
+
+The Civil Society Technology Foundation can provide guidance on Git adoption strategies tailored to organizational needs and constraints.
+
+## Beyond Git: The Distributed Collaboration Ecosystem
+
+Git has inspired a broader ecosystem of tools supporting distributed, sovereign approaches:
+
+- **Decentralized forges** like Radicle provide Git collaboration without central servers
+- **Offline-first tools** extend Git's model to other content types
+- **Peer-to-peer synchronization** enables collaboration without central infrastructure
+- **Signed commits** provide strong attribution even in untrusted environments
+
+These innovations continue to expand Git's relevance for civil society's digital infrastructure.
+
+## Case Study: Resilient Documentation in Challenging Environments
+
+Organizations working in regions with internet censorship or surveillance have used Git to:
+
+- Maintain critical documentation despite platform blocks
+- Share information through multiple channels when primary methods are restricted
+- Preserve historical records that might otherwise be vulnerable to tampering
+- Collaborate across geographical and technical boundaries
+
+By distributing repositories across multiple participants, these organizations ensure their work continues regardless of external pressures.
+
+## Conclusion
+
+Git represents more than just a tool—it embodies an approach to collaboration built on principles that civil society defends: distributed authority, transparent history, resilient systems, and user sovereignty. By adopting Git and its associated practices, organizations don't just improve their technical workflows; they align their operational methods with their values.
+
+The Civil Society Technology Foundation recognizes Git as a foundational technology for independent civil society infrastructure, enabling transparent collaboration without creating new dependencies or vulnerabilities.
+
+In a digital landscape increasingly dominated by centralized platforms and services, Git offers a tested, proven approach to collaboration that maintains independence, builds institutional memory, and creates resilience against disruption—not as a technical preference, but as an expression of civil society's core principles in code.

content/learning/internet.md

@@ -1,4 +0,0 @@
-+++
-title = 'The Internet'
-+++
-

content/learning/internet/index.md

@@ -0,0 +1,366 @@
++++
+title = 'The Internet: Infrastructure for Civil Society'
++++
+
+## Introduction
+
+The Internet stands as one of humanity's most transformative technological achievements, connecting billions of people and fundamentally reshaping how we communicate, learn, organize, and participate in public life. For civil society—the network of organizations, movements, and communities working for social good outside government and market structures—the Internet has become essential infrastructure.
+
+Yet the Internet we experience today is increasingly shaped by commercial imperatives and state control, diverging from its original design as a decentralized, open network. Understanding how the Internet works, how it's changing, and how it can be reclaimed is crucial for civil society organizations seeking to maintain their independence and effectiveness.
+
+This article explores the Internet's technical foundations, its evolution, the challenges to its openness, and how civil society can work toward a more democratic digital infrastructure.
+
+## Technical Foundations: How the Internet Works
+
+The Internet is not a single entity but a "network of networks" built on open protocols—shared technical standards that allow diverse systems to communicate. Understanding these foundations helps reveal both the Internet's inherent values and the points where those values are being compromised.
+
+### Core Protocols
+
+Several key protocols form the Internet's foundation:
+
+- **TCP/IP** (Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol): The fundamental communication language of the Internet, which breaks data into packets and routes them to their destination
+- **DNS** (Domain Name System): Translates human-readable domain names (like civilsociety.dev) into numerical IP addresses that computers use
+- **HTTP/HTTPS** (Hypertext Transfer Protocol): Enables the retrieval and display of web pages and other content
+- **SMTP/IMAP/POP** (Email protocols): Allow messages to be sent and received across different email providers
+
+These protocols were designed with openness and interoperability as core values—anyone could implement them without permission, and they enabled communication between different systems regardless of who made them.
+
+### Decentralized Design
+
+The Internet was originally designed with decentralization as a core principle:
+
+- No central authority controls the entire network
+- Data can route around damage or censorship
+- New services and applications can be created without permission
+- Anyone can connect a new network to the existing infrastructure
+
+This decentralization was not just a technical choice but a value-laden design decision with profound implications for freedom of expression, innovation, and accessibility.
+
+### Open Standards
+
+The Internet relies on open standards developed through collaborative processes:
+
+- **IETF** (Internet Engineering Task Force): Develops core Internet protocols
+- **W3C** (World Wide Web Consortium): Creates web standards
+- **IEEE** (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers): Develops networking standards
+
+These organizations traditionally operated on principles of openness, transparency, and rough consensus—anyone could participate, decisions were made in the open, and standards were freely available.
+
+## The Internet's Evolution: From Open Commons to Enclosed Spaces
+
+The Internet has undergone profound changes since its inception, with significant implications for civil society:
+
+### The Early Internet (1970s-1990s)
+
+The early Internet emerged from government and academic research networks, with design principles that emphasized:
+
+- Resilience against failure
+- Peer-to-peer communication
+- Open collaboration
+- Decentralized governance
+
+During this period, the Internet functioned largely as a digital commons—a shared resource governed by its community of users rather than commercial or state interests.
+
+### The Commercialization Era (1990s-2010s)
+
+With the development of the World Wide Web and growing public interest, commercial entities began playing a larger role:
+
+- Telecommunications companies became the primary providers of Internet access
+- Commercial web browsers and servers dominated
+- Advertising emerged as the primary business model
+- Proprietary services began to replace open protocols
+
+This commercialization brought resources and innovation but also introduced private interests into what had been a common resource.
+
+### The Platform Era (2010s-Present)
+
+The most recent phase has seen the rise of a few dominant platforms:
+
+- Social media platforms have become primary communication channels
+- Cloud services concentrate data storage and processing
+- App stores create controlled environments for software distribution
+- Digital advertising enables mass surveillance
+
+These platforms have created unprecedented centralization on a network designed to be decentralized—a fundamental contradiction with significant consequences.
+
+## Challenges to an Open Internet
+
+Today's Internet faces several interconnected challenges that threaten its role as open infrastructure for civil society:
+
+### 1. Network Neutrality and Access
+
+The principle that all Internet traffic should be treated equally—regardless of its source, destination, or content—faces ongoing threats:
+
+- Internet Service Providers seeking to create "fast lanes" for paying content
+- Zero-rating schemes that exempt certain services from data caps
+- Technical practices like deep packet inspection that enable discrimination
+- Asymmetric connections that privilege consumption over creation
+
+These threats undermine the Internet's function as a level playing field where all voices have equal technical opportunity to be heard.
+
+### 2. Surveillance Capitalism
+
+The dominant business model of today's Internet is based on comprehensive tracking and behavioral modification:
+
+- Pervasive tracking across websites and applications
+- Detailed profiling of users for targeted advertising
+- Behavioral manipulation to maximize engagement
+- Commodification of personal data and attention
+
+This model creates inherent conflicts with privacy, autonomy, and the trust necessary for civic participation.
+
+### 3. Digital Enclosures
+
+Increasingly, open protocols are being replaced by closed platforms:
+
+- Messaging moving from email and SMS to proprietary apps
+- Content shifting from websites to social media platforms
+- Applications moving from locally-installed software to cloud services
+- Identity systems controlled by a few major providers
+
+These enclosures create dependencies and vulnerabilities for civil society organizations that rely on digital infrastructure they cannot control.
+
+### 4. Infrastructure Consolidation
+
+At the physical and logical levels, the Internet is becoming more concentrated:
+
+- Cloud services concentrated among a few providers
+- Content delivery networks controlling much web traffic
+- Internet backbone dominated by a small number of companies
+- DNS increasingly centralized despite its distributed design
+
+This consolidation creates single points of failure and control in a system designed to avoid them.
+
+### 5. State Control and Surveillance
+
+Governments worldwide are asserting greater control over the Internet:
+
+- Mass surveillance by intelligence agencies
+- Censorship and filtering systems
+- Data localization requirements
+- Internet shutdowns during protests or elections
+
+These controls directly threaten civil society's ability to organize, communicate, and advocate freely.
+
+## Implications for Civil Society
+
+These challenges have specific implications for civil society organizations:
+
+### Organizational Autonomy
+
+As digital infrastructure becomes more centralized and commercial, civil society organizations face threats to their autonomy:
+
+- Dependence on platforms that can change rules unilaterally
+- Vulnerability to surveillance by both corporate and state actors
+- Limited control over how they reach their communities
+- Potential conflicts between platform policies and organizational mission
+
+These dependencies undermine organizations' ability to operate independently and in accordance with their values.
+
+### Communication and Community-Building
+
+Civil society depends on the ability to communicate freely and build community:
+
+- Platform algorithms determine which messages reach which audiences
+- Corporate content policies may restrict legitimate speech
+- Surveillance chills participation and trust
+- Commercial incentives prioritize engagement over substantive connection
+
+These constraints limit organizations' ability to foster the authentic communication essential to their missions.
+
+### Information Access and Sharing
+
+Civil society requires the free flow of information:
+
+- Search algorithms shape what information seems relevant and accessible
+- Paywalls restrict access to knowledge
+- Content filters may block legitimate resources
+- Data caps and connectivity costs limit access
+
+These barriers create information inequalities that particularly affect marginalized communities.
+
+### Technology Choices
+
+Civil society organizations face difficult choices about their technology use:
+
+- Using commercial platforms means accepting their surveillance and control
+- Building alternatives requires resources many organizations lack
+- Avoiding dominant systems may limit reach and impact
+- Technical complexity creates barriers to informed decisions
+
+There are no perfect options in a digital environment increasingly designed to serve interests other than those of civil society.
+
+## Reclaiming the Internet for Civil Society
+
+Despite these challenges, numerous initiatives are working to reclaim the Internet as open infrastructure for civil society:
+
+### Community Networks
+
+Around the world, communities are building their own Internet infrastructure:
+
+- Mesh networks that provide local connectivity
+- Community-owned fiber networks
+- Wireless community networks in both rural and urban areas
+- Local data centers controlled by their communities
+
+These initiatives demonstrate that the physical layer of the Internet can be built and maintained as a community resource rather than a commercial service.
+
+### Protocol Revival and Innovation
+
+New protocols are emerging to replace centralized services:
+
+- **ActivityPub** enables federated social networking
+- **Matrix** provides decentralized real-time communication
+- **IPFS** (InterPlanetary File System) offers distributed content storage
+- **Secure Scuttlebutt** enables offline-first social networking
+
+These protocols return to the Internet's original design philosophy of openness and interoperability while addressing contemporary needs.
+
+### Platform Cooperativism
+
+Alternative ownership models are being applied to digital platforms:
+
+- User-owned social networks
+- Worker-owned gig platforms
+- Community-governed digital infrastructure
+- Cooperatively developed and maintained software
+
+These models align governance with the interests of users rather than external shareholders.
+
+### Digital Commons
+
+Various initiatives are building digital commons—resources that are collectively owned and governed:
+
+- Open-source software communities
+- Open educational resources
+- Community-maintained knowledge bases
+- Public domain datasets
+
+These commons provide alternatives to enclosed, proprietary resources.
+
+### Policy Advocacy
+
+Civil society organizations are advocating for policies that protect the Internet as public infrastructure:
+
+- Network neutrality protections
+- Privacy regulations that limit surveillance
+- Interoperability requirements for dominant platforms
+- Public investment in digital infrastructure
+- Antitrust enforcement against digital monopolies
+
+These policy approaches recognize that the Internet's governance cannot be left entirely to market forces.
+
+## The Civil Society Technology Foundation's Approach
+
+The Civil Society Technology Foundation works toward an Internet that serves civil society through several interconnected strategies:
+
+### 1. Self-Hosted Infrastructure
+
+Our Sovereign Cloud project demonstrates how civil society organizations can regain control over their digital infrastructure by running their own services on hardware they control. This approach:
+
+- Reduces dependency on commercial platforms
+- Enhances privacy and security
+- Builds technical capacity
+- Creates resilience against censorship or shutdown
+
+By providing accessible tools and knowledge for self-hosting, we help organizations reclaim their technological autonomy.
+
+### 2. Federation and Interoperability
+
+We advocate for and support federated approaches to digital services, where independent instances can communicate through open protocols. This model:
+
+- Enables community governance of each instance
+- Allows adaptation to local needs and contexts
+- Prevents central points of control
+- Maintains the benefits of network connectivity
+
+Federation represents a middle path between isolated self-sufficiency and centralized dependency.
+
+### 3. Digital Literacy
+
+We develop educational resources that help civil society organizations understand the Internet's technical, social, and political dimensions. This knowledge enables:
+
+- Informed decisions about technology adoption
+- Strategic advocacy for better policies
+- Recognition of threats to autonomy
+- Participation in governance processes
+
+Without this literacy, technical and governance decisions are effectively made by default, often against civil society's interests.
+
+### 4. Standards Participation
+
+We participate in Internet standards processes to ensure civil society perspectives are represented. This participation helps:
+
+- Keep protocols open and accessible
+- Center human rights concerns in technical design
+- Resist surveillance by default
+- Maintain the Internet as a global commons
+
+Standards decisions that seem purely technical often embed important value choices that affect civil society's ability to function.
+
+## Practical Steps for Civil Society Organizations
+
+Organizations seeking to reclaim their digital autonomy can take several practical steps:
+
+### 1. Inventory and Assessment
+
+Begin by understanding your current digital dependencies:
+
+- What platforms and services does your organization rely on?
+- What data do you share with those platforms?
+- What risks would you face if those services changed policies or shut down?
+- What information is most sensitive for your community?
+
+This inventory creates the foundation for strategic decisions about where to invest in alternatives.
+
+### 2. Prioritization
+
+Based on your assessment, identify priorities for increasing autonomy:
+
+- Which dependencies create the greatest risks?
+- Where would investments in alternatives create the most benefit?
+- What capabilities do you need to develop internally?
+- What can be addressed through collective action with peer organizations?
+
+Given limited resources, strategic prioritization is essential for effective action.
+
+### 3. Collective Approaches
+
+Many challenges are best addressed collectively:
+
+- Pool resources with similar organizations to develop shared infrastructure
+- Join existing cooperatives or commons initiatives
+- Participate in federated networks that align with your values
+- Contribute to open-source projects that meet your needs
+
+Collective approaches distribute costs while building resilient communities of practice.
+
+### 4. Incremental Implementation
+
+Implement changes incrementally to manage transition costs:
+
+- Start with less visible systems to build experience
+- Develop internal capacity through manageable projects
+- Create migration paths that allow gradual transition
+- Evaluate and adapt based on experience
+
+Incremental approaches make change sustainable and build internal support.
+
+### 5. Advocacy and Solidarity
+
+Address structural issues through advocacy:
+
+- Support policy initiatives for an open Internet
+- Raise awareness about digital rights issues
+- Build solidarity with other civil society organizations
+- Participate in governance forums where decisions are made
+
+Individual efforts must be complemented by structural change for sustainable impact.
+
+## Conclusion
+
+The Internet remains essential infrastructure for civil society, but its current trajectory threatens the openness and autonomy that make it valuable. By understanding how the Internet works, recognizing the challenges to its openness, and taking practical steps toward alternatives, civil society organizations can help reclaim this vital resource.
+
+The Civil Society Technology Foundation believes that an Internet aligned with civil society values is both necessary and possible. Through self-hosted infrastructure, federated services, digital literacy, and collective action, we can build a digital environment that genuinely serves the public interest rather than commercial or state control.
+
+As we face increasing centralization and surveillance, this work becomes not just technically important but essential for preserving the spaces where civil society can function effectively. The Internet we need—open, accessible, and democratic—won't emerge by default; it must be actively built and maintained as a digital commons.

content/learning/language-models.md

@@ -0,0 +1,271 @@
++++
+title = 'Language Models: Understanding AI in the Context of Civil Society'
++++
+
+## Introduction
+
+Large Language Models (LLMs) have rapidly transformed from research curiosities to everyday tools. These systems, trained on vast corpora of human-written text, have demonstrated remarkable capabilities in understanding and generating human language, powering applications from automated assistants to content creation tools. For civil society organizations, these technologies represent both opportunity and challenge—tools that can amplify effectiveness and reach, but also systems that raise profound questions about centralization, control, and the future of human agency.
+
+In this article, we examine language models through the lens of civil society values, exploring how these technologies work, their implications for digital sovereignty, and pathways to harnessing their benefits while minimizing risks to autonomy and independence.
+
+## What Are Language Models?
+
+Language models are AI systems trained to predict the next word in a sequence, typically through exposure to enormous datasets of text. Through this seemingly simple task, these models develop sophisticated representations of language that enable them to:
+
+- Generate coherent and contextually appropriate text
+- Answer questions based on learned information
+- Summarize lengthy documents
+- Translate between languages
+- Carry out conversations that mimic human interaction
+- Write and debug code
+- Analyze and extract information from documents
+
+The largest of these models, such as GPT-4, Claude, and PaLM, contain hundreds of billions of parameters and are trained on trillions of words, giving them capabilities that can seem almost human-like in certain contexts.
+
+### How Language Models Work
+
+At a high level, modern language models operate through the following process:
+
+1. **Pre-training**: The model is exposed to vast quantities of text from the internet, books, and other sources, learning statistical patterns about how language works
+2. **Fine-tuning**: Additional training with human feedback teaches the model to be helpful, harmless, and honest
+3. **Prompting**: Users provide instructions or questions that guide the model's output
+4. **Inference**: The model generates text based on what it has learned and the prompt provided
+
+This approach—training on vast datasets to develop general capabilities, then fine-tuning for specific behaviors—has proven remarkably effective, enabling these systems to handle a wide range of language tasks without task-specific programming.
+
+### The Current Landscape
+
+Several types of language models exist in the current ecosystem:
+
+1. **Proprietary cloud-only models**: Systems like GPT-4 (OpenAI), Claude (Anthropic), and PaLM (Google) available only through APIs, with the highest capabilities but least transparency or control
+2. **Open-weight models**: Systems like Llama (Meta), Mistral, and Falcon, where model weights are available for download but may have usage restrictions
+3. **Fully open models**: Systems like Pythia and BLOOM, completely open for research, modification, and deployment
+4. **Specialized models**: Domain-specific models for code (Codex, CodeLlama), medicine (Med-PaLM), and law (Claude JD), optimized for particular fields
+
+These categories represent different trade-offs between capability, control, efficiency, and openness—trade-offs that have significant implications for civil society use.
+
+## Language Models and Civil Society
+
+For civil society organizations, language models present unique benefits, risks, and considerations:
+
+### Potential Benefits
+
+Language models can enhance civil society work in several important ways:
+
+1. **Amplifying Capacity**: Automating routine writing, data analysis, and information processing allows teams to focus on higher-level work
+2. **Bridging Language Gaps**: Improving access to information across languages and technical domains
+3. **Reducing Knowledge Barriers**: Making specialized knowledge more accessible through natural language interfaces
+4. **Enabling New Analysis**: Processing and synthesizing large volumes of documents to identify patterns and extract insights
+5. **Democratizing Technical Tools**: Making programming and technical skills more accessible through natural language interfaces
+
+These capabilities can be particularly valuable for organizations with limited resources, potentially leveling the playing field between well-funded institutions and grassroots efforts.
+
+### Critical Concerns
+
+At the same time, language models raise serious concerns for organizations committed to digital sovereignty:
+
+1. **Centralization of Power**: The most capable models require resources only available to large corporations or governments
+2. **Data Extraction Risks**: API-based access creates dependency and potential surveillance
+3. **Opacity and Accountability Gaps**: How models make decisions remains largely opaque
+4. **Training Data Biases**: Models inherit biases present in their training data
+5. **Synthetic Reality**: The ability to generate convincing but false content at scale
+6. **Environmental Impact**: Training and running large models requires significant energy resources
+7. **Labor Impacts**: Automation of knowledge work may affect livelihood and employment patterns
+
+These concerns connect directly to civil society's core focus on distributed power, accountability, and human agency.
+
+## Sovereignty Considerations
+
+For organizations committed to digital sovereignty, language models present particular challenges:
+
+### The Sovereignty Paradox
+
+The most capable language models currently exist in a paradigm that conflicts with sovereignty principles:
+
+- Trained on massive datasets that no individual organization can replicate
+- Requiring computational resources beyond most civil society organizations
+- Delivered as black-box services through APIs owned by corporations
+- Controlled by entities whose incentives may not align with civil society
+
+This creates a paradox: using these tools can advance an organization's mission while simultaneously reinforcing dependency on centralized technological infrastructure.
+
+### Sovereignty-Respecting Approaches
+
+Several approaches exist for using language models while maintaining alignment with sovereignty principles:
+
+1. **Self-hosted smaller models**: Running smaller but still capable models on local infrastructure
+2. **Federated improvement**: Pooling resources to improve open models without centralizing data
+3. **Hybrid architectures**: Using local models for sensitive tasks and cloud models for general needs
+4. **APIs with strong boundaries**: Clear policies on what data can be sent to external APIs
+5. **Proxy infrastructure**: Community-controlled interfaces to commercial models that protect user data
+
+These approaches represent different balances between capability, independence, and practical constraints.
+
+## Practical Approaches
+
+For civil society organizations considering language models, we recommend a principled, thoughtful approach:
+
+### Risk Assessment Framework
+
+Before implementing language model technologies, organizations should evaluate:
+
+1. **Data Sensitivity**: What information will the system process and what would be the impact of compromise?
+2. **Task Criticality**: How central is the use case to the organization's mission?
+3. **Dependency Risk**: What happens if the model provider changes terms, pricing, or availability?
+4. **Alignment Check**: Does the model's training and operation align with the organization's values?
+5. **Resource Analysis**: What local capabilities exist to understand, deploy, and maintain the system?
+
+This assessment helps determine the appropriate balance between capability and sovereignty for each use case.
+
+### Recommended Approaches by Context
+
+Different contexts call for different approaches to language model use:
+
+#### For General, Non-Sensitive Tasks
+
+When working with public information and general tasks:
+
+- Commercial APIs may be acceptable with appropriate data policies
+- Focus on clear boundaries for what data can be shared
+- Consider specialized interfaces that limit data exposure
+
+#### For Sensitive Information
+
+When working with private, sensitive, or strategic information:
+
+- Self-hosted open models are generally preferable despite capability limitations
+- Air-gapped systems may be necessary for highest sensitivity
+- Careful prompt engineering to avoid exposing unnecessary information
+
+#### For Core Infrastructure
+
+When building critical systems that will be long-term dependencies:
+
+- Prefer open models even at some capability cost
+- Invest in developing internal expertise
+- Consider federation with similar organizations to pool resources
+
+## Open Language Model Ecosystem
+
+A growing ecosystem of open language models offers alternatives to commercial services:
+
+### Notable Open Models
+
+Several open and open-weight models provide viable options for civil society use:
+
+- **Llama 2 and 3**: Meta's model with weights available for research and commercial use
+- **Mistral**: High-performance efficient models with multiple sizes
+- **Falcon**: State of the art open-weight models with flexible licensing
+- **MPT**: Commercially permissive models from MosaicML
+- **BLOOM**: Multilingual model developed by a global collaboration
+
+These models continue to improve rapidly, narrowing the gap with proprietary alternatives.
+
+### Self-Hosting Options
+
+Several frameworks make deploying language models more accessible:
+
+- **LM Studio**: Simple desktop application for running models locally
+- **Ollama**: Command line tool for easy model management
+- **Transformers.js**: Run smaller models directly in web browsers
+- **vLLM**: High-performance inference server for larger deployments
+- **Ollama-WebUI**: Graphical interface for Ollama's language models
+
+These tools make local deployment increasingly viable for organizations with limited technical resources.
+
+## Case Studies: Language Models in Civil Society
+
+Several examples illustrate how civil society organizations are navigating language model adoption:
+
+### Scenario 1: Documentation Assistance
+
+A human rights organization uses language models to help draft, organize, and translate documentation. They implement:
+
+- Local models for initial drafting of sensitive content
+- Careful review processes before publication
+- Cloud APIs for translation of already-public information
+- Clear data policies regarding what can be sent to external services
+
+This hybrid approach balances practical needs with sovereignty concerns.
+
+### Scenario 2: Community Legal Aid
+
+A legal assistance organization develops a system to help explain legal concepts to non-lawyers. They:
+
+- Fine-tune open models on public legal documents
+- Host models on their own infrastructure
+- Create specialized interfaces for common questions
+- Maintain human review of all substantive advice
+
+This sovereignty-first approach prioritizes control and alignment with the organization's values.
+
+### Scenario 3: Environmental Data Analysis
+
+A climate advocacy group uses language models to analyze environmental impact reports. They:
+
+- Use commercial APIs for initial processing of public documents
+- Develop specialized prompts to extract consistent information
+- Implement clear boundaries on sensitive strategic discussions
+- Contribute to open model development in their domain
+
+This pragmatic approach uses available tools while working toward greater sovereignty.
+
+## The Future Landscape
+
+Several trends will shape how language models interact with civil society in coming years:
+
+### Smaller, More Efficient Models
+
+Models continue to decrease in size while maintaining capabilities:
+
+- 7-billion parameter models now approach what required 175B parameters in 2020
+- Techniques like quantization reduce resource requirements
+- Specialized models outperform general models in specific domains
+- Browser-based models enable client-side processing
+
+These trends make sovereignty-respecting approaches increasingly viable.
+
+### Decentralized Research and Development
+
+Alternatives to centralized AI development are emerging:
+
+- Research collaboratives pooling resources for model development
+- Federated learning approaches that preserve data sovereignty
+- Community-governed models with transparent decision making
+- Regional training efforts creating linguistically diverse models
+
+These initiatives create possibilities for models that align with civil society values from inception rather than as an afterthought.
+
+### Governance and Accountability
+
+New frameworks for language model governance are developing:
+
+- Constitutional AI approaches embedding ethical guidelines
+- Auditing frameworks for model behavior
+- Documentation standards for training data and processes
+- Participatory governance models for model development
+
+Civil society has a crucial role in shaping these governance approaches.
+
+## Guidelines for Civil Society Organizations
+
+For organizations navigating language model adoption, we recommend the following principles:
+
+1. **Start with clear purpose**: Define specific problems these tools can help solve
+2. **Maintain human judgment**: Keep humans in decision loops, especially for consequential actions
+3. **Build internal literacy**: Develop organizational understanding of the technology's capabilities and limitations
+4. **Practice data minimalism**: Share only the information necessary for the task
+5. **Prefer open models where viable**: Choose open alternatives even with some capability trade-offs
+6. **Support community infrastructure**: Contribute to open model development when possible
+7. **Document and share learnings**: Help build collective knowledge about responsible use
+8. **Regularly reassess**: Technology and best practices are evolving rapidly
+
+These guidelines help organizations balance practical benefit with long-term sovereignty.
+
+## Conclusion
+
+Language models represent a profound technological shift with particularly complex implications for civil society. While these tools offer significant benefits for organizations with limited resources, they also present risks of creating new dependencies and reinforcing centralization of technological power.
+
+The Civil Society Technology Foundation advocates for a sovereignty-respecting approach to language models—one that leverages their benefits while working toward a future where such capabilities are available through community-governed, transparent infrastructure. This means making thoughtful choices today about how and when to use these tools, while supporting the development of alternatives that better align with civil society values.
+
+The path forward is neither uncritical adoption nor blanket rejection, but rather principled engagement that shapes these technologies to serve human agency, community autonomy, and distributed power—the core values that define civil society itself.

content/learning/language_models.md

@@ -1,5 +0,0 @@
-+++
-title = 'Language Models'
-+++
-
-

content/learning/linux.md

@@ -1,5 +1,209 @@
 +++
-title = 'Linux'
+title = 'Linux: The Operating System for Digital Sovereignty'
 +++
 
+## Introduction
 
+Linux stands as one of the most remarkable achievements in the history of computing—an operating system built by a global community, freely available to all, and powering everything from the smallest embedded devices to the largest supercomputers. For civil society organizations seeking digital sovereignty, Linux represents both a practical tool and a powerful symbol of what's possible when technology development is driven by community needs rather than corporate interests.
+
+In this article, we explore what Linux is, why it matters for civil society, and how it provides the foundation for technological independence in an increasingly controlled digital landscape.
+
+## What Is Linux?
+
+Linux is an open-source operating system—the fundamental software that manages computer hardware and provides services for computer programs. When most people think of operating systems, they think of Microsoft Windows or Apple's macOS, but Linux works differently in several important ways.
+
+### A Brief History
+
+Linux began in 1991 when Linus Torvalds, a Finnish computer science student, created a free alternative to Unix, a powerful operating system then limited to expensive computers. What started as a personal project quickly became a global collaborative effort, with thousands of developers contributing code.
+
+This collaborative development model produced an operating system that now:
+
+- Powers over 96% of the world's top web servers
+- Forms the foundation of Android, running on billions of devices
+- Drives most of the world's supercomputers
+- Runs countless embedded devices, from smart TVs to automobile systems
+- Offers dozens of user-friendly desktop distributions for personal computing
+
+Crucially, Linux developed outside traditional corporate structures, guided by the needs and contributions of its community rather than shareholders or marketing departments.
+
+### Technical Characteristics
+
+Linux offers several technical advantages that make it ideal for organizations seeking resilience and control:
+
+- **Modularity**: Components can be added, removed, or modified independently
+- **Stability**: Systems can run for years without rebooting
+- **Efficiency**: Works well on older or less powerful hardware
+- **Security**: Transparent code review and rapid patching of vulnerabilities
+- **Flexibility**: Can be customized for specific purposes from tiny devices to massive servers
+
+These characteristics reflect Linux's organic development process, where improvements emerge from actual use cases rather than product planning cycles.
+
+## Why Linux Matters for Civil Society
+
+For civil society organizations seeking digital sovereignty, Linux provides several unique benefits:
+
+### 1. Freedom from Corporate Control
+
+Running Linux means your fundamental computing infrastructure isn't controlled by any single corporation. This independence means:
+
+- No forced updates or feature changes
+- No data collection for business intelligence
+- No artificial limitations or tiered pricing models
+- No risk of being locked out of your own systems
+- No dependency on a vendor's business decisions
+
+This independence is particularly important for organizations working on sensitive issues or operating in contexts where corporate alliances with governments may create additional risks.
+
+### 2. Longevity and Sustainability
+
+Linux distributions offer remarkable longevity:
+
+- Major distributions provide long-term support versions with 5-10 years of security updates
+- Systems can be maintained indefinitely by the community if needed
+- Hardware can remain useful long past commercial obsolescence
+- Knowledge investment isn't invalidated by product discontinuation
+- Migration paths always exist between distributions
+
+This sustainability aligns with civil society's need for long-term planning and responsible resource use, in contrast to commercial software's planned obsolescence cycles.
+
+### 3. Security and Privacy
+
+Linux's security model offers significant advantages:
+
+- Open code enables independent security audits
+- Distributed development means more eyes looking for vulnerabilities
+- Rapid patching cycles address security issues quickly
+- Fine-grained permissions systems limit potential damage
+- Transparent operation means hidden functionality can't easily exist
+
+These security characteristics are especially important for organizations working with vulnerable populations or sensitive information, where privacy breaches could have serious consequences.
+
+### 4. Global Accessibility
+
+Linux's accessibility removes barriers to participation:
+
+- Zero cost for the software itself
+- Runs on modest hardware, including older computers
+- Available in dozens of languages, including those often neglected commercially
+- Works in regions with limited internet connectivity
+- Adapts to local needs and contexts
+
+This accessibility aligns with civil society's commitment to inclusion and equitable access to technological tools.
+
+### 5. Sovereignty and Control
+
+Perhaps most importantly, Linux enables genuine sovereignty over computing infrastructure:
+
+- Organizations can inspect and modify any aspect of their systems
+- Technical knowledge builds internal capacity rather than dependency
+- Adaptation to specific needs doesn't require vendor permission
+- Systems can be fully understood rather than treated as black boxes
+- Community governance replaces corporate decision-making
+
+This sovereignty is not just a technical preference but essential for organizations that need to control their own digital infrastructure.
+
+## Linux Distributions for Civil Society
+
+Linux comes in many "distributions" (or "distros")—different versions packaged with specific software selections, installation tools, and management systems. For civil society organizations, several distributions are particularly relevant:
+
+### For Desktop Computing
+
+- **Ubuntu**: User-friendly for those transitioning from Windows or macOS
+- **Fedora**: Emphasizes latest stable software and security features
+- **Linux Mint**: Particularly accessible for newcomers
+- **Tails**: Focuses on privacy and leaves no digital footprint
+- **Debian**: Prioritizes stability and software freedom
+
+### For Servers
+
+- **Debian**: Rock-solid stability with long support cycles
+- **Ubuntu Server**: Good documentation and commercial support options
+- **Rocky Linux**: Enterprise-grade stability for critical applications
+- **Alpine Linux**: Minimalist and security-focused for specific applications
+
+### For Specific Use Cases
+
+- **Qubes OS**: Compartmentalized security for high-risk contexts
+- **PureOS**: Focus on privacy and avoiding non-free software
+- **Armbian**: For single-board computers and low-cost infrastructure
+- **OpenWrt**: For network devices and community networks
+
+The Civil Society Technology Foundation's Sovereign Cloud project uses lightweight Linux distributions as the foundation for self-hosted infrastructure, allowing organizations to run essential services on hardware they control.
+
+## Common Myths About Linux
+
+Despite Linux's ubiquity in many domains, several misconceptions persist:
+
+### "Linux Is Too Difficult for Non-Technical Users"
+
+**Reality**: Modern Linux distributions offer graphical interfaces as user-friendly as Windows or macOS. For basic tasks like web browsing, document editing, and email, the experience is largely identical. While some advanced functions require command-line knowledge, the same is increasingly true of any operating system.
+
+### "Linux Doesn't Run the Software We Need"
+
+**Reality**: Linux supports a vast ecosystem of applications, including LibreOffice for documents, Firefox and Chromium for web browsing, Thunderbird for email, and thousands of specialized tools. Additionally, web applications work the same on Linux as on any platform, and compatibility layers can run many Windows applications when needed.
+
+### "There's No Support for Linux"
+
+**Reality**: Linux has extensive community support through forums, documentation, and local user groups. Additionally, many distributions offer professional support options, and a growing ecosystem of consultants specializes in Linux deployment and maintenance.
+
+### "Linux Isn't Ready for Professional Use"
+
+**Reality**: Linux powers mission-critical systems at organizations including Google, Amazon, Facebook, NASA, the New York Stock Exchange, and countless governments and universities. It has demonstrated its reliability in the most demanding environments globally.
+
+## Getting Started with Linux
+
+For civil society organizations considering Linux, we recommend a phased approach:
+
+1. **Start with a pilot**: Identify a specific use case where Linux offers particular advantages
+2. **Choose a user-friendly distribution**: For desktop use, Ubuntu or Mint reduce the learning curve
+3. **Dual-boot or use live systems**: Allow users to try Linux without committing entirely
+4. **Focus on training**: Invest in building internal knowledge and capacity
+5. **Join communities**: Connect with local Linux user groups or online communities
+6. **Consider professional support**: For critical systems, budget for professional assistance
+
+The Civil Society Technology Foundation can provide guidance on distribution selection, initial setup, and connecting with relevant communities of practice.
+
+## Beyond the Operating System: The Linux Ecosystem
+
+Linux has inspired a broader ecosystem of tools and practices that support digital sovereignty:
+
+- **Container technologies** like Docker and Kubernetes (themselves Linux-based) enable flexible, portable deployments
+- **Configuration management** tools allow systematic administration of multiple systems
+- **Mesh networking** software facilitates community-controlled networks
+- **Self-hosting solutions** enable organizations to run their own services
+
+Together, these technologies form a comprehensive toolkit for organizations seeking to maintain control over their digital infrastructure.
+
+## Case Study: Community Networks
+
+Around the world, communities are using Linux to build and maintain their own communications infrastructure. From Catalonia's Guifi.net to Mexico's Rhizomatica network to the Detroit Community Technology Project, these initiatives demonstrate how Linux and related open-source tools enable communities to create alternatives to commercial telecommunications infrastructure.
+
+These community networks typically use Linux for:
+
+- Network routing and management
+- Local content hosting
+- Communications security
+- Mesh network coordination
+- Community ownership of technology
+
+By providing a free, adaptable foundation, Linux enables these initiatives to focus their resources on hardware, training, and community engagement rather than software licensing.
+
+## The Future of Linux and Civil Society
+
+As digital technology becomes increasingly central to all aspects of civic life, the relationship between Linux and civil society grows more important. Several emerging trends highlight this connection:
+
+- **Edge computing** brings computation closer to communities, often using Linux on small devices
+- **Software sovereignty** movements advocate for public control of critical code
+- **Digital commons** initiatives build shared technological resources
+- **Community cloud** approaches offer alternatives to corporate infrastructure
+- **Digital public infrastructure** creates essential services outside market logic
+
+In each of these areas, Linux provides a foundation that enables community control, adaptation to local needs, and independence from commercial imperatives.
+
+## Conclusion
+
+For civil society organizations committed to digital sovereignty, Linux represents both practical infrastructure and a compelling vision. By choosing Linux, organizations assert control over their fundamental computing environment, build internal capacity rather than dependency, and join a global community developing technology for human needs rather than market demands.
+
+The Civil Society Technology Foundation recognizes Linux as essential infrastructure for robust civil society in the digital age. By building on this foundation, organizations can create resilient, independent systems that genuinely serve their missions and communities.
+
+In a world where technology increasingly mediates civic participation, Linux offers a proven path to maintaining autonomy, security, and control—not as a technical preference but as a necessary condition for vibrant civil society in the digital era.

content/learning/open-source/index.md

@@ -0,0 +1,154 @@
++++
+title = 'Open Source: The Foundation of Digital Freedom'
++++
+
+## Introduction
+
+Open source isn't just a development methodology or licensing approach—it's a foundational philosophy that enables digital freedom, community empowerment, and technological resilience. At the Civil Society Technology Foundation, we believe that open source principles are essential for building technology that genuinely serves people rather than controlling them.
+
+This article explores what open source means, why it matters for civil society, and how it forms the basis for digital autonomy in an increasingly centralized tech landscape.
+
+## What Is Open Source?
+
+Open source refers to software whose source code is publicly available, allowing anyone to view, use, modify, and distribute it. This approach stands in contrast to proprietary software, where the source code is kept secret and controlled by a single entity.
+
+### The Four Freedoms
+
+At its core, open source (or "free software" in the sense of freedom, not price) is defined by four essential freedoms:
+
+1. **The freedom to run the program** for any purpose
+2. **The freedom to study how the program works** and change it to suit your needs
+3. **The freedom to redistribute copies** to help others
+4. **The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions** to others
+
+These freedoms, articulated by Richard Stallman and the Free Software Foundation, establish the basic rights that users should have over their software. When any of these freedoms is restricted, users lose control over their computing environment.
+
+### Beyond Software
+
+While open source began as a software movement, its principles have expanded to other domains:
+
+- **Open hardware**: Physical device designs that can be studied, modified, and manufactured by anyone
+- **Open data**: Datasets that are freely available for anyone to access, use, and share
+- **Open standards**: Technical specifications available for anyone to implement without restrictions
+- **Open content**: Creative works that others can modify and redistribute (like Creative Commons)
+
+This expansion recognizes that the values of openness, transparency, and user control apply to all forms of digital artifacts, not just code.
+
+## Why Open Source Matters for Civil Society
+
+For civil society organizations—the non-governmental groups that form the backbone of democratic participation—open source is particularly crucial:
+
+### 1. Independence and Agency
+
+Open source ensures that organizations maintain control over their technical infrastructure. When your tools can be inspected, modified, and maintained independently, you're not subject to the changing business decisions, terms of service, or surveillance practices of commercial vendors.
+
+This independence is especially important for advocacy organizations working on sensitive issues, organizations operating in politically challenging environments, or those with limited resources who cannot afford constant licensing fees.
+
+### 2. Security and Privacy
+
+While "security through obscurity" (keeping code secret) is a common commercial approach, it often masks deeper vulnerabilities:
+
+- Open source enables **transparent security** where many eyes can review code for flaws
+- Communities can identify and fix vulnerabilities **before** they're exploited
+- Organizations can verify that software does exactly what it claims—nothing more, nothing less
+- Security practices can be independently verified rather than taken on faith
+
+For organizations handling sensitive information about vulnerable populations, this transparency is not just preferable but ethically necessary.
+
+### 3. Sustainability and Resilience
+
+Open source creates sustainable technology ecosystems:
+
+- Software cannot be "discontinued" if the original creator loses interest
+- Knowledge is preserved and shared rather than locked in proprietary systems
+- Communities can maintain critical infrastructure even if companies change direction
+- Organizations build internal capacity rather than perpetual dependency
+
+This sustainability is essential for long-term planning and resilience against market fluctuations or external pressures.
+
+### 4. Collaborative Innovation
+
+Open source enables collaborative problem-solving across organizational boundaries:
+
+- Civil society organizations with similar needs can pool resources
+- Improvements developed by one organization benefit all users
+- Specialized adaptations can be shared with the broader community
+- Innovation happens through cooperation rather than competition
+
+This collaborative approach aligns with the cooperative values of many civil society organizations and allows for more efficient use of limited resources.
+
+### 5. Ethical Alignment
+
+Open source creates alignment between technological means and social ends:
+
+- Organizations advocating for transparency can use transparent tools
+- Those fighting for equity can use tools available to all regardless of resources
+- Communities seeking self-determination can use self-governed technology
+- Movements promoting democracy can use democratically-developed software
+
+This alignment strengthens moral authority and prevents contradictions between values and practices.
+
+## Common Misconceptions About Open Source
+
+Despite its importance, several misconceptions persist about open source:
+
+### "Open Source Means Lower Quality"
+
+**Reality**: Many of the world's most reliable systems run on open source software. The Linux kernel powers most of the internet's servers, Android phones, and embedded devices. Studies consistently show that open source development practices often lead to higher-quality, more secure code through distributed peer review and transparent processes.
+
+### "Open Source Isn't Sustainable"
+
+**Reality**: Open source has developed numerous sustainable models, from community maintenance to foundation support to commercial services built around open cores. Many open source projects have outlived the commercial alternatives in their space precisely because they aren't dependent on a single company's business model.
+
+### "Open Source Is Just for Programmers"
+
+**Reality**: While contributing code is one way to participate in open source, communities also need documentation writers, translators, designers, testers, and users providing feedback. The principles of open source apply to any collaborative creation process, not just software development.
+
+### "Open Source Means Anyone Can Change Your Copy"
+
+**Reality**: Open source licenses give you the right to modify your own copy, not to force changes on others. This means you maintain control over your specific implementation while benefiting from the freedom to adapt it as needed.
+
+## Open Source in Practice: The Sovereign Cloud
+
+The Civil Society Technology Foundation's Sovereign Cloud project demonstrates open source principles in action. This reference implementation for self-hosted infrastructure:
+
+- Uses only open source components that can be freely inspected and modified
+- Enables organizations to maintain full control over their infrastructure
+- Creates a community of practice where improvements benefit all participants
+- Provides adaptable solutions that respect the diversity of civil society needs
+- Builds capacity for technological self-determination rather than dependency
+
+By combining carefully selected open source tools into a cohesive system, the Sovereign Cloud shows how open source can address practical needs while embodying the values of digital freedom.
+
+## Practical Steps Toward Open Source Adoption
+
+For organizations interested in moving toward open source, we recommend an incremental approach:
+
+1. **Conduct an inventory** of your current technology stack
+2. **Identify priorities** based on sensitivity, cost, and alignment with your mission
+3. **Research alternatives** for each proprietary component
+4. **Develop a transition plan** with realistic timelines and training needs
+5. **Build internal capacity** through learning and community participation
+6. **Contribute back** when you make improvements or adaptations
+
+This approach recognizes that transition takes time and should be tailored to your organization's specific context and needs.
+
+## The Broader Movement: Digital Commons
+
+Open source is part of a broader movement to create digital commons—resources that are collectively owned and governed rather than privately enclosed. This movement includes:
+
+- **Community networks** providing local internet access
+- **Public interest technology** focused on civic needs
+- **Digital public goods** accessible to all
+- **Knowledge commons** like Wikipedia and open educational resources
+- **Cooperative platforms** owned by their users rather than investors
+
+Together, these initiatives are creating an alternative vision for technology—one where collective benefit takes precedence over private extraction, and where communities maintain control over the digital systems that increasingly shape their lives.
+
+## Conclusion
+
+Open source is not merely a technical choice but a social and political one. By choosing open source, civil society organizations assert the principle that technology should serve its users rather than control them, that knowledge should be shared rather than enclosed, and that communities should determine their own technological futures.
+
+The Civil Society Technology Foundation sees open source as essential infrastructure for robust civic participation in the digital age. By building on open foundations, we create the conditions for technology that genuinely enhances human agency, protects fundamental rights, and strengthens rather than undermines democratic society.
+
+As we face increasing concentration of technological power in the hands of a few corporations and states, open source provides a proven alternative—one built on collaboration, transparency, and freedom. It is not just a preference but a necessity for civil society organizations committed to independence, sustainability, and ethical alignment in their technological choices.

content/learning/open_source.md

@@ -1,5 +0,0 @@
-+++
-title = 'Open Source'
-+++
-
-

content/learning/software-development.md

@@ -0,0 +1,479 @@
++++
+title = 'Software Development: Building Digital Infrastructure for Civil Society'
++++
+
+## Introduction
+
+Software development is not merely a technical activity but a form of infrastructure building with profound implications for human freedom and agency. As digital systems increasingly mediate civic life, the ability to create, modify, and control software becomes essential for civil society's independence and effectiveness.
+
+In this article, we explore software development through the lens of civil society values—examining how development practices, tools, and approaches can either reinforce dependency or enable sovereignty. We'll address both practical aspects of creating software and the broader implications of development choices for organizational autonomy and mission.
+
+## Why Software Development Matters for Civil Society
+
+Software plays multiple critical roles in civil society contexts:
+
+### 1. Infrastructure for Independence
+
+Software forms the foundation for independent digital operations:
+
+- Custom tools that meet specific organizational needs
+- Adaptable systems that evolve with changing circumstances
+- Infrastructure resilient against external disruption or control
+- Alternatives to extractive or surveillance-oriented commercial options
+
+Organizations that can create and modify their own software maintain fundamental control over their digital environment.
+
+### 2. Expression of Values in Code
+
+Software development decisions directly embody organizational values:
+
+- Privacy by design rather than as an afterthought
+- Accessibility as a foundational requirement
+- Transparency in operation and decision-making
+- Inclusion through multilingual support and cultural adaptations
+- Sustainability through efficient resource use
+
+These values-in-code determine whether digital systems empower or constrain the communities they serve.
+
+### 3. Capacity Building
+
+Software development builds crucial organizational capabilities:
+
+- Technical literacy throughout the organization
+- Problem-solving skills applicable across domains
+- Understanding of digital systems' possibilities and limitations
+- Reduced dependency on external vendors or consultants
+- Ability to evaluate and adapt external technologies
+
+These capacities extend beyond software itself to strengthen overall organizational resilience.
+
+## Sovereignty-Respecting Development Practices
+
+Software development practices can either enhance or undermine digital sovereignty. We advocate for approaches that:
+
+### 1. Focus on Simplicity and Maintainability
+
+Complex systems create dependency on their creators. Sovereign infrastructure prioritizes:
+
+- Understandable code over clever solutions
+- Maintainable architecture over cutting-edge complexity
+- Documented designs that enable future modification
+- Clear separation of concerns for easier adaptation
+- Appropriate technology choices that balance capability and sustainability
+
+These practices ensure systems remain under community control over time.
+
+### 2. Build for Adaptability
+
+Sovereign software anticipates the need for change:
+
+- Modular architectures that allow component replacement
+- Well-defined interfaces between system parts
+- Configuration over hardcoding for easy adaptation
+- Extension points for future functionality
+- Clear migration paths between versions
+
+This adaptability ensures systems can evolve with changing needs rather than requiring wholesale replacement.
+
+### 3. Design for Resilience
+
+Software should function in challenging contexts:
+
+- Graceful degradation when resources are limited
+- Offline capabilities when connectivity is unreliable
+- Low resource requirements for accessibility on older hardware
+- Data portability for migration between systems
+- Resistance to common attacks and disruptions
+
+These resilience characteristics are particularly important for organizations working in constrained environments.
+
+### 4. Prioritize Transparency
+
+Open development practices build trust and enable verification:
+
+- Open source licensing for core functionality
+- Public development repositories when appropriate
+- Clear documentation of design decisions
+- Transparent security practices and vulnerability handling
+- Accountable processes for incorporating feedback
+
+This transparency allows communities to verify that systems work as claimed and remain aligned with their values.
+
+## Practical Software Development Approaches
+
+For civil society organizations building software, certain approaches have proven particularly effective:
+
+### Start with Clear Purpose
+
+Effective development begins with purpose, not technology:
+
+1. **Identify specific needs**: What concrete problems must be solved?
+2. **Define key constraints**: What limitations must the solution respect?
+3. **Articulate success criteria**: How will you know if the solution works?
+4. **Consider context**: Who will use the system and under what conditions?
+5. **Establish boundaries**: What is in and out of scope for the solution?
+
+This purpose-driven approach ensures technology serves human needs rather than the reverse.
+
+### Choose Appropriate Tools
+
+Tool selection should balance multiple considerations:
+
+1. **Community health**: Is there an active, diverse community supporting the tool?
+2. **Sovereignty implications**: Does the tool create new dependencies?
+3. **Learning curve**: Can your team develop and maintain expertise?
+4. **Longevity**: Is the tool likely to remain viable over your project's lifetime?
+5. **Resource requirements**: Does the tool work within your constraints?
+
+These considerations should outweigh trendiness or corporate backing when evaluating options.
+
+### Build Incrementally
+
+Incremental development reduces risk and enables adaptation:
+
+1. **Identify minimum viable functionality**: What's the simplest version that provides value?
+2. **Create end-to-end prototypes**: Build thin slices of complete functionality
+3. **Gather early feedback**: Test with real users from the beginning
+4. **Iterate based on experience**: Let real use guide further development
+5. **Deploy frequently**: Get working code into users' hands regularly
+
+This approach builds momentum while avoiding overcommitment to unproven designs.
+
+### Document Thoughtfully
+
+Documentation creates institutional memory and enables independence:
+
+1. **Document decisions, not just code**: Explain why choices were made
+2. **Focus on mental models**: Help readers understand the system conceptually
+3. **Keep documentation close to code**: Maintain alignment as the system evolves
+4. **Consider multiple audiences**: Address both developers and users
+5. **Document limitations**: Be clear about what the system doesn't do
+
+Good documentation transforms software from a black box to a maintainable community resource.
+
+## Common Development Challenges in Civil Society Contexts
+
+Civil society organizations face specific challenges when developing software:
+
+### Limited Resources
+
+Most civil society organizations operate with constrained resources:
+
+**Challenges**:
+
+- Limited developer time and expertise
+- Restricted budgets for tools and infrastructure
+- Pressure to deliver quickly with minimal investment
+- Difficulty competing with commercial salaries
+
+**Approaches**:
+
+- Leverage open source components to reduce development effort
+- Build incrementally to deliver value sooner
+- Focus on core differentiators rather than reinventing common components
+- Invest in developer tooling that multiplies productivity
+- Consider contributor models that engage volunteers effectively
+
+### Technical Debt Management
+
+Resource constraints often lead to accumulated technical debt:
+
+**Challenges**:
+
+- Pressure to deliver features over maintaining code quality
+- Limited time for refactoring and improvement
+- Difficulty justifying "invisible" maintenance work
+- Risk of system breakdown as debt accumulates
+
+**Approaches**:
+
+- Budget maintenance time as part of regular development
+- Document technical debt explicitly to make it visible
+- Address debt incrementally rather than in "big bang" efforts
+- Emphasize the mission cost of technical debt
+- Design with maintenance in mind from the beginning
+
+### Knowledge Continuity
+
+Civil society organizations often experience higher turnover:
+
+**Challenges**:
+
+- Knowledge loss when key contributors leave
+- Difficulty onboarding new developers
+- Overreliance on individual "heroes" rather than processes
+- Institutional memory gaps regarding past decisions
+
+**Approaches**:
+
+- Document architecture and key decisions explicitly
+- Create onboarding materials that explain the big picture
+- Build a "contribution ladder" with graduated responsibility
+- Prefer common patterns that new contributors can recognize
+- Conduct regular knowledge-sharing sessions
+
+### Security Considerations
+
+Civil society organizations may face elevated security threats:
+
+**Challenges**:
+
+- Targeted attacks from sophisticated adversaries
+- Limited security expertise on small teams
+- Difficulty evaluating security trade-offs
+- Balancing security with usability
+
+**Approaches**:
+
+- Adopt secure-by-default frameworks and platforms
+- Implement defense in depth rather than single protections
+- Focus on basic security hygiene consistently applied
+- Document security decisions and assumptions
+- Cultivate relationships with security professionals
+
+## Technology Selection Guidelines
+
+For civil society organizations, technology selection involves balancing multiple considerations:
+
+### Language and Framework Selection
+
+Programming languages and frameworks establish fundamental constraints:
+
+**Key considerations**:
+
+- Community health and governance
+- Availability of developers in your context
+- Learning curve for new contributors
+- Long-term maintenance outlook
+- Performance characteristics relative to your needs
+- Security track record and approach
+
+**Civil society-aligned options**:
+
+- Python: Readable, widely taught, strong in data processing
+- JavaScript/TypeScript: Ubiquitous, large ecosystem, runs everywhere
+- Ruby: Optimized for developer happiness, strong web framework
+- Rust: Memory safety without runtime overhead, growing ecosystem
+- Go: Simple, efficient, excellent for networked services
+
+### Database and Storage Technologies
+
+Data storage choices have significant sovereignty implications:
+
+**Key considerations**:
+
+- Data ownership and portability
+- Query capabilities for your access patterns
+- Operational complexity and maintenance requirements
+- Resource consumption relative to your constraints
+- Backup and recovery options
+
+**Civil society-aligned options**:
+
+- PostgreSQL: Full-featured, mature, community-governed
+- SQLite: Zero-configuration, embedded, excellent for smaller applications
+- Local file storage with structured formats (JSON, CSV, etc.)
+- CouchDB/PouchDB: Synchronization-focused, offline-capable
+- Content-addressable storage for immutable data
+
+### Infrastructure and Deployment
+
+Deployment infrastructure determines operational dependency:
+
+**Key considerations**:
+
+- Control over computing environment
+- Vendor lock-in potential
+- Resource requirements and costs
+- Operational complexity
+- Geographic distribution options
+
+**Civil society-aligned options**:
+
+- Self-hosted infrastructure on owned hardware
+- Container-based deployment for portability
+- Static site generation for content-focused applications
+- Lightweight virtualization for efficient resource use
+- Peer-to-peer approaches for certain applications
+
+## Case Studies in Civil Society Software Development
+
+Several examples illustrate effective approaches to civil society software development:
+
+### Case Study 1: SecureDrop
+
+SecureDrop, an anonymous whistleblowing platform, demonstrates several sovereignty-respecting practices:
+
+- **Air-gapped architecture** protects sources even from sophisticated adversaries
+- **Clear documentation** enables independent verification and deployment
+- **Security-focused design** prioritizes source protection above all else
+- **Simple installation** makes deployment accessible to non-specialists
+- **Regular auditing** builds trust in critical security properties
+
+This system enables newsrooms to protect sources without depending on third-party services that could be compromised or coerced.
+
+### Case Study 2: Community Cellular Networks
+
+Community cellular network software demonstrates adaptability to challenging environments:
+
+- **Offline-first design** works in intermittent connectivity
+- **Low resource requirements** run on affordable hardware
+- **Local administration** puts control in community hands
+- **Modular architecture** enables customization to local needs
+- **Open interfaces** allow integration with existing systems
+
+These systems enable communities to build their own communications infrastructure when commercial providers won't serve them or do so only on extractive terms.
+
+### Case Study 3: Humanitarian Data Platform
+
+A humanitarian data collection platform demonstrates sensitive data handling:
+
+- **Local-first processing** minimizes data transmission risks
+- **End-to-end encryption** protects sensitive information
+- **Consent-driven design** gives data subjects control
+- **Minimal collection** reduces vulnerability surface
+- **Anonymization by default** protects individuals
+
+This approach balances the need for information in crisis response with protecting vulnerable populations from surveillance or targeting.
+
+## Common Pitfalls to Avoid
+
+Civil society software projects should be aware of common challenges:
+
+### 1. Technology-First Thinking
+
+**The pitfall**: Choosing technologies based on novelty or developer interest rather than appropriateness for the problem.
+
+**The impact**: Systems that are difficult to maintain, consume excessive resources, or create new dependencies.
+
+**The alternative**: Start with clear problem definition and constraints, then select technologies that fit those parameters.
+
+### 2. Reinventing Common Components
+
+**The pitfall**: Building custom solutions for problems that have well-established, maintained solutions available.
+
+**The impact**: Wasted development resources and ongoing maintenance burden.
+
+**The alternative**: Leverage existing components for common functionality, focusing custom development on your unique value.
+
+### 3. Ignoring Operational Realities
+
+**The pitfall**: Designing systems that assume ideal conditions rather than the actual environments where they'll run.
+
+**The impact**: Systems that fail in real-world conditions or require unrealistic operational support.
+
+**The alternative**: Design for the actual constraints of your operating environment, not theoretical ideals.
+
+### 4. Perfectionism Over Progress
+
+**The pitfall**: Delaying releases until everything is "perfect" rather than delivering incremental value.
+
+**The impact**: Delayed impact, wasted resources on unused features, and missed feedback opportunities.
+
+**The alternative**: Define minimal viable functionality and release early, iterating based on actual usage.
+
+### 5. Neglecting Usability
+
+**The pitfall**: Focusing on technical elegance over user experience, particularly for non-technical users.
+
+**The impact**: Systems that work technically but see limited adoption or effective use.
+
+**The alternative**: Involve users from the beginning and regularly test with representative users.
+
+## Building Your Software Development Capacity
+
+Organizations can build their software development capabilities through several approaches:
+
+### 1. Start Small and Focused
+
+- Begin with well-defined, contained projects
+- Solve specific problems rather than building platforms
+- Gain confidence and skills through completion
+- Learn about your organization's specific challenges
+- Build on successes rather than overreaching
+
+### 2. Invest in Learning
+
+- Allocate time for structured learning and exploration
+- Build relationships with more experienced developers
+- Participate in open source projects to gain experience
+- Document and share learning within your organization
+- Create opportunities for pair programming and mentorship
+
+### 3. Engage with Communities of Practice
+
+- Join communities working on similar problems
+- Contribute to related open source projects
+- Attend conferences and events in your domain
+- Share your challenges and solutions publicly
+- Collaborate with allied organizations on common needs
+
+### 4. Focus on Fundamentals
+
+- Invest in version control practices
+- Establish testing as a core practice
+- Create clear documentation habits
+- Build deployment automation early
+- Maintain regular code review practices
+
+These fundamentals provide greater return on investment than pursuing the latest trends.
+
+## The Future of Civil Society Software Development
+
+Several emerging trends and opportunities will shape civil society software development:
+
+### 1. Local-First Software
+
+The local-first approach prioritizes user control while enabling collaboration:
+
+- Data lives primarily on user devices, not in the cloud
+- Synchronization happens peer-to-peer when possible
+- Applications work offline by default
+- User sovereignty over data is a foundational principle
+- Collaboration happens without centralized control
+
+This paradigm aligns closely with civil society's sovereignty principles.
+
+### 2. Small-Scale Machine Learning
+
+Machine learning is becoming accessible to smaller organizations:
+
+- Pre-trained models reduce resource requirements
+- Federated approaches preserve data sovereignty
+- On-device inference enables privacy-preserving intelligence
+- Transfer learning makes specialized applications viable
+- Community datasets enable alternatives to corporate AI
+
+These approaches allow civil society to leverage AI's capabilities without surrendering control.
+
+### 3. Mesh Networks and Peer-to-Peer Systems
+
+Distributed infrastructure creates resilience:
+
+- Applications designed for peer-to-peer operation
+- Local-first storage with selective synchronization
+- Mesh networking for communication independence
+- Cryptographic approaches to trust without centralization
+- Resilience against network disruption or control
+
+These architectures align technology design with civil society's distributed nature.
+
+### 4. Low-Code Development
+
+More accessible development tools expand who can create software:
+
+- Visual programming environments reducing required expertise
+- Component libraries for common functionality
+- Simplified deployment and operation
+- Documentation-generating tools
+- Progressive complexity enabling skill growth
+
+These approaches make software development accessible to more civil society organizations.
+
+## Conclusion
+
+Software development for civil society is not merely about creating tools but about building infrastructure for human freedom and agency. The technical choices organizations make have profound implications for who controls the digital systems mediating civic participation.
+
+The Civil Society Technology Foundation advocates for development approaches that prioritize sovereignty, resilience, and community control—recognizing that software created with these values will better serve civil society's mission than technologies that create new dependencies or vulnerabilities.
+
+By building software with these principles in mind, civil society organizations don't just solve immediate problems but contribute to a digital ecosystem that reinforces rather than undermines human agency and collective action—the foundation upon which civil society itself rests.

content/learning/software_development.md

@@ -1,5 +0,0 @@
-+++
-title = 'Software Development'
-+++
-
-

content/projects/education.md

@@ -2,4 +2,6 @@
 title = 'Education'
 +++
 
-Curating and developing education resources.
+Curating and developing education resources.
+
+Check out our [Learning articles](../learning/).

content/projects/sovereign-cloud/_index.md

@@ -0,0 +1,65 @@
++++
+title = 'Sovereign Cloud'
++++
+
+The Sovereign Cloud is the Civil Society Technology Foundation's reference implementation for personal and organizational self-hosted infrastructure. This project empowers individuals and organizations to run their own digital services without dependency on centralized corporate platforms.
+
+## Overview
+
+The Sovereign Cloud provides a complete, accessible solution for operating essential digital services on infrastructure you control. It combines carefully selected open-source components into a cohesive system that balances security, usability, and maintainability.
+
+By deploying the Sovereign Cloud, organizations can:
+
+- Host their own email, calendar, file storage, website, and collaboration tools
+- Maintain full control over their data and communications
+- Reduce or eliminate dependencies on surveillance-based platforms
+- Build technical capacity and digital sovereignty
+- Participate in a community of practice around independent infrastructure
+
+The Soverign Cloud project aims to start you with a simple self-hosted cloud solution that gets you set up quickly and easily manage your cloud. However, it is a full solution. None of the technical foundations are stripped away. You can go deeper and extend your cloud how you see fit.
+
+### Architecture
+
+The Soverign cloud allows individuals and organizations (cloud admins) to install and manage a full Kubernetes cluster (using K3s) made of one or multiple computers on their own premises. Kubernetes manages much of the complexity of maintaining the health of your cloud and managing the applications deployed in it.
+
+### Applications
+
+Admins can deploy various applications into their cloud, including:
+
+- Email servers with webmail interfaces
+- Calendar and contacts synchronization
+- File storage and sharing
+- Collaborative document editing
+- Website hosting
+- Chat and communication tools
+- Knowledge management systems
+- And more, based on organizational needs
+
+## Getting Started
+
+The Soverign Cloud project is currently being built out. When v1 is ready, it will be freely available on GitHub. Instructions for getting started with your cloud will be included in the repository after it is cloned.
+
+See our [Tech Notes](tech-notes) page for more information on current development.
+
+## Community Support
+
+The Sovereign Cloud is supported by a community of practitioners who share knowledge, troubleshooting tips, and enhancements. The Civil Society Technology Foundation provides:
+
+- Documentation and tutorials
+- Installation guides for different environments
+- Regular security advisories
+- Community forum for mutual assistance
+- Workshops and training opportunities
+
+## Philosophy
+
+The Sovereign Cloud embodies the Civil Society Technology Foundation's core principles:
+
+- **Sovereignty by Design**: Users control their data and computing environment
+- **Open Source, Always**: All components are free to use, study, modify, and share
+- **Self-Hosting Infrastructure**: Direct control reduces dependency and vulnerability
+- **Transparent Governance**: All components have clear, accountable governance
+- **Forkability is Freedom**: Any component can be replaced or modified as needed
+- **Practical Autonomy**: Infrastructure that users can understand and maintain
+
+By providing this reference implementation, we demonstrate that digital sovereignty is not merely theoretical but practically achievable with current technology and modest resources.

content/projects/sovereign-cloud/tech-notes/index.md

@@ -0,0 +1,75 @@
++++
+title = 'Sovereign Cloud Tech Notes'
++++
+
+The Sovereign Cloud is under active development.
+
+## Core Components
+
+The Sovereign Cloud is being built on a lightweight Kubernetes distribution (K3s) that provides the foundation for deploying and managing containerized applications. This architecture offers several key advantages:
+
+- **K3s**: A certified Kubernetes distribution designed for production workloads in unattended, resource-constrained, edge, IoT, or appliance settings
+- Visibility layer
+  - **MetalLB**: Assigns network IPs to services, allowing clean exposure of applications within your LAN
+  - **Traefik**: Ingress controller that handles subdomain routing and TLS termination within your cloud
+  - **ExternalDNS**: Automatically registers cloud resources as subdomains with your external DNS provider (currently supporing CloudFlare)
+  - **CoreDNS**: Provides split-horizon DNS for both public and private services
+  - **cert-manager**: Automatically manages TLS certificates via Let's Encrypt and internal CA
+- Volatility layer
+  - **Vanilla Kubernetes**: Kubernetes manifests, configured with kustomize, applied with kubectl.
+- Persistece layer
+  - **Longhorn**: Cluster-wide block storage.
+  - **PostgreSQL/MariaDB**: Databases for applications requiring persistent storage
+
+## Security Features
+
+The Sovereign Cloud incorporates several security features:
+
+- **Automatic TLS certificates**: All services use HTTPS with valid certificates
+- **Network isolation**: Clear separation between public-facing and internal-only services
+- **Split-horizon DNS**: Different resolution for internal vs. external access
+- **Certificate-based authentication**: For administrative access
+- **Regular updates**: Streamlined process for keeping components secure
+- **Backup system**: Automated backups with encrypted off-site options
+
+## Management Interfaces
+
+The Sovereign Cloud includes a web-based dashboard for monitoring and managing your infrastructure:
+
+- **Soveign Cloud Home**: A web application that is the central management interface for your cloud
+- **Kubernetes Dashboard**: Web UI for full visibility of your Kubernetes cluster
+- **Application-specific interfaces**: Each application provides its own management UI
+
+## Why K3s?
+
+K3s offers a lightweight, simplified version of Kubernetes without sacrificing core functionality. It’s designed to be easy to install, easy to manage, and efficient enough to run in places where full Kubernetes would be too heavy — like edge devices, small clusters, or developer environments.
+
+By stripping away unnecessary extras and bundling everything into a single binary, K3s dramatically reduces the complexity and resource demands of a Kubernetes installation. This makes it much faster to get started and much easier to operate over time.
+
+For teams who want the power of Kubernetes without all the operational overhead, K3s provides a practical, open-source alternative that stays true to Kubernetes principles while removing a lot of the friction.
+
+## Application Packaging
+
+For the Sovereign Cloud project, we chose a simple, transparent approach to application packaging based on two principles: reproducibility and openness.
+
+Each application is defined by a maintained Dockerfile. This ensures that anyone can rebuild the application from source without relying on external or proprietary tools. Keeping Dockerfiles clear and self-contained supports long-term sustainability and prevents hidden dependencies.
+
+For deployment, we use plain Kubernetes manifests managed through Kustomize. Kustomize allows us to build a clean, declarative base for each application, then apply environment-specific overlays without introducing unnecessary complexity. It keeps the configuration understandable and versioned in Git, supporting collaboration and peer review across organizations.
+
+By avoiding heavier tooling, we prioritize clarity and control over pseudo-convenience. Our goal is for anyone — technical teams within civil society or otherwise — to be able to read, audit, and reproduce the full deployment process without needing specialized knowledge or access to private infrastructure.
+
+This approach keeps the system open, portable, and maintainable over the long term, aligning with Sovereign Cloud's goal of building infrastructure _for civil society, by civil society_.
+
+### Why Not Helm?
+
+While Helm is popular for managing Kubernetes applications, it introduces unnecessary complexity for many real-world deployments. Helm doesn't eliminate the need for careful configuration — it simply shifts it. Instead of managing plain YAML files directly, you now manage Helm charts, templates, and values files. This can actually make it harder to understand exactly what is being deployed.
+
+Helm also creates hidden state inside your cluster, making upgrades and rollbacks dependent on Helm itself rather than on clear, versioned files in Git. If something goes wrong, you're often troubleshooting Helm releases and secrets instead of just fixing a Kubernetes manifest.
+
+We value simplicity, transparency, and full control over infrastructure. Using plain YAML, lightweight templates, and Git provides a more reliable and auditable system. With a small amount of scripting, the same flexibility Helm promises can be achieved without introducing another layer of abstraction.
+
+### Why Kustomize?
+
+Kustomize provides a simple, powerful way to manage Kubernetes configurations without introducing hidden complexity. It works directly with plain YAML files — letting you layer changes cleanly and predictably.
+
+Unlike templating systems that mix logic into your configuration, Kustomize keeps everything declarative. You start with a base set of manifests and apply structured overlays to customize them, without ever touching the originals. This approach keeps deployments transparent, easy to audit, and easy to version in Git.

content/projects/sovereign_cloud.md

@@ -1,8 +0,0 @@
-+++
-title = 'Sovereign Cloud'
-+++
-
-A.K.A "The Stack", a.k.a., "The Starter Kit"
-
-- Kubernetes
-- Rancher

hugo.toml.archive

@@ -1,39 +1,40 @@
 baseURL = 'https://civilsociety.dev/'
 languageCode = 'en-us'
 title = 'Civil Society .dev'
-theme = 'ananke'
+# theme = 'ananke'
+theme = 'blowfish'
 copyright = 'CivilSociety.dev'
 
 [menus]
-  [[menus.main]]
+[[menus.main]]
-    name = 'About'
+name = 'About'
-    pageRef = '/about'
+pageRef = '/about'
-    weight = 20
+weight = 20
-  [[menus.main]]
+[[menus.main]]
-    name = 'Contribute'
+name = 'Contribute'
-    pageRef = '/contribute'
+pageRef = '/contribute'
-    weight = 30
+weight = 30
-  [[menus.main]]
+[[menus.main]]
-    name = 'Projects'
+name = 'Projects'
-    pageRef = '/projects'
+pageRef = '/projects'
-    weight = 40
+weight = 40
-  [[menus.main]]
+[[menus.main]]
-    name = 'Learning'
+name = 'Learning'
-    pageRef = '/learning'
+pageRef = '/learning'
-    weight = 50
+weight = 50
 
-  [[menus.footer]]
+[[menus.footer]]
-    name = 'About'
+name = 'About'
-    pageRef = '/about'
+pageRef = '/about'
-    weight = 10
+weight = 10
-  [[menus.footer]]
+[[menus.footer]]
-    name = 'Terms'
+name = 'Terms'
-    pageRef = '/terms'
+pageRef = '/terms'
-    weight = 20
+weight = 20
-  [[menus.footer]]
+[[menus.footer]]
-    name = 'Privacy'
+name = 'Privacy'
-    pageRef = '/privacy'
+pageRef = '/privacy'
-    weight = 20
+weight = 20
 
 [params]
 # mainSections = ["post"]
@@ -48,4 +49,4 @@ background_color_class = "bg-black"
 featured_image_class = "cover bg-top"
 # choose a color dimming class for the page or site header from any on this page: https://tachyons.io/docs/themes/skins/, preface it with "bg-" and add the value such as "-X0" where X is in [1,9]
 cover_dimming_class = "bg-black-60"
-recent_posts_number = 3
+recent_posts_number = 3