"Self-determination" is more on point.
This commit is contained in:
@@ -38,7 +38,7 @@ title: "Welcome to CSTF!"
|
||||
|
||||
<div class="flex flex-col gap-4 pt-16" >
|
||||
{{< article link="/articles/independent-technology/" >}}
|
||||
{{< article link="/articles/why-digital-sovereignty-matters/" >}}
|
||||
{{< article link="/articles/digital-self-determination/" >}}
|
||||
{{< article link="/articles/arguments-against-centralization/" >}}
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -19,9 +19,11 @@ The foundational technologies of our digital lives are open and free. The archit
|
||||
|
||||
However, instead of embracing this potential directly, individuals and organizations have increasingly turned to commercial platforms and service providers to mediate access to technology. While convenient, our usage of technology is now largely centralized, gated, and governed by the increasingly few at the expense of access, privacy, and self-determination of the many. Over-reliance on centralized platforms has resulted in degraded health and weakened civil liberties as they too often prioritize engagement and control over user welfare.
|
||||
|
||||
Digital technology, like knowledge, is in its essence a common good. While physical infrastructure that provides the substrate for the Internet (the chips, and cables, and towers, and power plants) required massive investment, it is now largely commoditized. The protocols and standards designed to run on this infrastructure are open. Today, innovation on our common infrastructure is powered by ingenuity rather than capital-intensive hardware deployment. It is software. Software that is freely available to every individual and community connected to the Internet.
|
||||
This is a crisis of _digital self-determination_.
|
||||
|
||||
_The Civil Society Technology Foundation collaborates to remove barriers to creating and using this software directly. Our work spans open software development, educational resources, and community engagement, creating pathways to technological self-determination for individuals and communities in alignment with their values._
|
||||
Digital technology is in its essence a common good. It is software and software, like knowledge or speech, is free to all. Free to be created. Free to be shared.
|
||||
|
||||
_The Civil Society Technology Foundation collaborates to remove barriers to creating, sharing, and using software. Our work spans open software development, educational resources, and community engagement, creating pathways to technological self-determination for individuals and communities in alignment with their values._
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
## Mission
|
||||
@@ -41,60 +43,60 @@ This work is motivated by a conviction that open systems, federated infrastructu
|
||||
|
||||
The Civil Society Technology Foundation operates according to the following core principles that guide all our work, partnerships, and initiatives.
|
||||
|
||||
### Sovereignty by Design
|
||||
### Self-determination 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:
|
||||
Digital systems should be designed with autonomy 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
|
||||
- Data remains under user control by default.
|
||||
- Consent must be explicit, informed, and revocable.
|
||||
- Infrastructure should be designed for individual or community ownership.
|
||||
- Privacy is a fundamental right, not a premium feature.
|
||||
|
||||
### Tools Before Policy
|
||||
### Tools Over 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
|
||||
- Direct action through tool-building creates immediate paths to autonomy.
|
||||
- Self-determination cannot wait for legislative or corporate reform.
|
||||
- Working alternatives demonstrate what's possible and accelerate change.
|
||||
- Technical empowerment reduces reliance on regulatory protection.
|
||||
|
||||
### Open Source, Always
|
||||
|
||||
**Software must be libre—free to use, study, modify, and share.**
|
||||
|
||||
Open source is not simply a development methodology but a foundation for digital freedom:
|
||||
Open source is not simply a development methodology but a foundation for digital self-determination:
|
||||
|
||||
- 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
|
||||
- Source code transparency enables trust verification and community oversight.
|
||||
- Freedom to modify ensures tools can adapt to evolving needs.
|
||||
- Rights to redistribute create resilience against capture or abandonment.
|
||||
- Collective improvement leads to higher quality and security.
|
||||
|
||||
### Self-Hosting Infrastructure
|
||||
### Self-Hosted 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
|
||||
- Local infrastructure ownership provides true digital autonomy.
|
||||
- Self-hosting creates resilience against external disruption.
|
||||
- Community-scale infrastructure balances efficiency with self-determination.
|
||||
- Infrastructure design should prioritize simplicity, reliability, and maintainability.
|
||||
|
||||
### AI for the People
|
||||
### Democratized AI
|
||||
|
||||
**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
|
||||
- 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 over commercial imperatives.
|
||||
- Benefits should accrue to communities, not just model owners.
|
||||
|
||||
### Transparent Governance
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -102,10 +104,10 @@ As AI becomes increasingly central to digital systems, its governance and access
|
||||
|
||||
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
|
||||
- Decision-making processes should be documented and accessible.
|
||||
- Influence should be earned through contribution, not financial control.
|
||||
- Community participation in governance should be substantive, not symbolic.
|
||||
- Accountability requires both transparency and mechanisms for change.
|
||||
|
||||
### Healthy Ecosystems Win
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -113,32 +115,21 @@ How we govern ourselves models the world we seek to create:
|
||||
|
||||
We evaluate success by contribution to civil society, not market metrics:
|
||||
|
||||
- Genuine utility to real communities outweighs vanity metrics
|
||||
- Sustainability matters more than rapid growth
|
||||
- Complementary projects create more value than competitors
|
||||
- Diversity of approaches strengthens the ecosystem as a whole
|
||||
|
||||
### Forkability is Freedom
|
||||
|
||||
**Divergence is a right. Balkanization is not failure—it is resilience.**
|
||||
|
||||
The ability to take a different path ensures true independence:
|
||||
|
||||
- Projects should be designed for potential forking from inception
|
||||
- Architectural choices should facilitate independent operation
|
||||
- Community disagreement should be respected through supported divergence
|
||||
- Diversity of implementations creates anti-fragility in the ecosystem
|
||||
- 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.
|
||||
|
||||
### Interoperability via Consent
|
||||
|
||||
**Standards emerge from alignment, not imposition.**
|
||||
|
||||
True interoperability respects sovereignty while enabling cooperation:
|
||||
True interoperability respects autonomy 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
|
||||
- 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 autonomy.
|
||||
|
||||
### Contribution Defines Membership
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -146,10 +137,10 @@ True interoperability respects sovereignty while enabling cooperation:
|
||||
|
||||
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
|
||||
- Value is created through doing, not just affiliating.
|
||||
- Multiple forms of contribution should be recognized and valued.
|
||||
- Identity verification should be proportional to the context.
|
||||
- Privacy and pseudonymity are valid choices in appropriate contexts.
|
||||
|
||||
### Critical Adoption over Blind Use
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -157,10 +148,10 @@ Communities grow stronger through active contribution:
|
||||
|
||||
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
|
||||
- Users should understand what rights they give up and why.
|
||||
- Perfect autonomy may be balanced against practical needs.
|
||||
- Transition paths from closed to open systems are valuable.
|
||||
- Transparency about compromises builds trust and education.
|
||||
|
||||
## Directors
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
Before Width: | Height: | Size: 1.5 MiB After Width: | Height: | Size: 1.5 MiB |
131
content/articles/digital-self-determination/index.md
Normal file
131
content/articles/digital-self-determination/index.md
Normal file
@@ -0,0 +1,131 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: Digital Self-Determination
|
||||
date: 2025-07-06
|
||||
summary: Digital self-determination is essential for individuals, communities, and civil society organizations to maintain control over their digital lives. This article explores the importance of digital self-determination, the threats it faces, and practical steps toward achieving it.
|
||||
featureImageCaption: "Photo by <a href=\"https://unsplash.com/@lemonvlad?utm_content=creditCopyText&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=unsplash\">Vladislav Klapin</a> on <a href=\"https://unsplash.com/photos/assorted-flag-YeO44yVTl20?utm_content=creditCopyText&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=unsplash\">Unsplash</a>"
|
||||
aliases:
|
||||
- /articles/why-digital-sovereignty-matters/
|
||||
updated: 2025-07-06
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## What is digital self-determination?
|
||||
|
||||
Digital self-determination 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 self-determination 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 self-determination 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.
|
||||
|
||||
## The threat to digital self-determination
|
||||
|
||||
Most people today have very little digital self-determination. 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 de-rank 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 self-determination 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.
|
||||
|
||||
## Individuals need digital self-determination
|
||||
|
||||
For individuals, digital self-determination affects fundamental aspects of daily life:
|
||||
|
||||
### Privacy and security
|
||||
|
||||
Without digital self-determination, your personal information becomes vulnerable to exploitation. Your browsing history, location data, and private communications transform into corporate assets, traded and monetized without meaningful consent. Intimate details of your life face constant exposure through data breaches and surveillance, creating a permanent digital record that can be weaponized against you at any time.
|
||||
|
||||
Digital self-determination changes this dynamic fundamentally. When you control your digital infrastructure, you determine what information you share and with whom. Encryption and privacy-preserving tools become standard practice rather than specialized knowledge. You can maintain clear boundaries between different aspects of your digital life, protecting both your current privacy and your future autonomy.
|
||||
|
||||
### Personal autonomy
|
||||
|
||||
Without digital self-determination, your choices become systematically constrained by forces beyond your control. Algorithms shape not just what information you see, but what options appear available to you. Design patterns constantly nudge you toward behaviors that benefit platforms rather than yourself, while essential tasks increasingly require surrendering privacy as the price of participation.
|
||||
|
||||
Digital self-determination restores meaningful choice to your daily life. You can make decisions based on diverse information sources that you've actively chosen rather than algorithmic curation. Your tools serve your needs rather than exploiting your attention for profit. Most importantly, you can participate fully in digital society without surrendering your fundamental rights or personal dignity.
|
||||
|
||||
### Economic security
|
||||
|
||||
Without digital self-determination, you face growing economic vulnerabilities in an increasingly digital economy. Your skills and livelihood become dependent on proprietary platforms that can change terms or revoke access arbitrarily. Economic opportunities remain subject to the whims of platform policies, while the value you create online flows primarily to distant corporate owners rather than building your own wealth or community resources.
|
||||
|
||||
Digital self-determination builds genuine economic resilience. You develop portable skills that transcend any specific corporate platform, ensuring your capabilities remain valuable regardless of technological shifts. You can create and connect through systems you help govern, participating in cooperative economic models that distribute value more equitably among those who generate it.
|
||||
|
||||
## Communities need digital self-determination
|
||||
|
||||
Communities, from local neighborhoods to identity groups to civil society organizations, face particular challenges in the digital age.
|
||||
|
||||
### Community autonomy
|
||||
|
||||
Without digital self-determination, communities lose fundamental autonomy as their governance structures become subordinated to platform rules and algorithms. Local knowledge and cultural context get systematically flattened by global platforms designed for mass consumption rather than community specificity. Meanwhile, community resources flow steadily toward distant corporations instead of circulating locally to strengthen community bonds and capacity.
|
||||
|
||||
Digital self-determination enables communities to truly thrive on their own terms. They can design digital spaces that authentically reflect local values and meet specific community needs. Community standards and practices remain intact without corporate override or algorithmic interference. Most importantly, digital infrastructure becomes a genuine community asset that builds collective wealth and capacity rather than extracting value.
|
||||
|
||||
### Resilience against censorship
|
||||
|
||||
Without digital self-determination, communities face systematic silencing through mechanisms that appear neutral but consistently harm marginalized voices. Platform policies regularly restrict legitimate speech, with enforcement patterns that disproportionately affect those with the least institutional power. Commercial content moderation systems cannot possibly reflect the nuance and context of diverse community standards, leading to decisions that undermine rather than protect community discourse.
|
||||
|
||||
Digital self-determination preserves community voice through infrastructure independence. Communities can operate their own communication systems that resist external censorship while developing content moderation approaches appropriate to their specific context and values. They maintain fallback channels that cannot be easily blocked, ensuring continuity of communication even under pressure.
|
||||
|
||||
### Collective memory
|
||||
|
||||
Without digital self-determination, community history becomes dangerously precarious as it depends entirely on corporate platforms with their own priorities and lifespans. When platforms shut down or change direction, they take irreplaceable community archives with them. Algorithmic sorting continuously buries historically important content, while corporate priorities rather than community values determine what gets preserved for future generations.
|
||||
|
||||
Digital self-determination strengthens cultural continuity by giving communities control over their own historical record. They can maintain archives and documentation according to their own standards and priorities. Knowledge transfer between generations happens on community terms rather than through corporate intermediaries. Digital artifacts remain accessible and meaningful even as underlying technologies evolve, ensuring that community memory persists across technological transitions.
|
||||
|
||||
## Civil society needs digital self-determination
|
||||
|
||||
For the non-profit and non-governmental bodies that form the backbone of democratic society, digital self-determination is particularly crucial.
|
||||
|
||||
### Independence from corporate control
|
||||
|
||||
Without digital self-determination, civil society becomes fundamentally compromised in its mission and effectiveness. NGOs find themselves forced to accept surveillance and data extraction as the price of accessing essential digital tools, undermining their ability to protect the communities they serve. Advocacy organizations become dependent on platforms that may actively oppose their values, while corporate philanthropy increasingly shapes which digital infrastructure gets built, prioritizing donor interests over community needs.
|
||||
|
||||
Digital self-determination allows civil society to maintain its integrity and independence. Organizations can choose and use tools that genuinely align with their mission and values rather than contradicting them. Advocacy work can proceed without platform-imposed limitations that undermine effectiveness, while infrastructure development responds to actual community needs rather than market incentives or corporate priorities.
|
||||
|
||||
### Operational security
|
||||
|
||||
Without digital self-determination, civil society organizations face escalating security risks that threaten their core work. Sensitive communications and confidential data must reside on vulnerable commercial platforms designed for profit rather than protection. Critical organizational workflows become dependent on services that can be withdrawn or modified without notice, while organizational data gets integrated into commercial AI training sets without consent or oversight.
|
||||
|
||||
Digital self-determination dramatically improves operational security by returning control to the organizations themselves. They can maintain direct oversight of sensitive information rather than trusting corporate intermediaries. Communication channels become resistant to surveillance and interference, while infrastructure resilience protects against both technical disruption and political pressure.
|
||||
|
||||
### Ethical alignment
|
||||
|
||||
Without digital self-determination, civil society faces deep contradictions that undermine moral authority and organizational effectiveness. Organizations advocating for human rights often find themselves using tools that systematically violate those same rights. Digital workflows frequently contradict stated organizational values, while resource dependencies on extractive platforms compromise advocacy positions and limit strategic options.
|
||||
|
||||
Digital self-determination enables authentic alignment between values and practice. Technology choices can reflect and actively reinforce organizational principles rather than undermining them. Digital infrastructure embodies the world organizations are working to create, demonstrating alternative possibilities rather than perpetuating existing problems. Most importantly, consistency between means and ends strengthens moral authority and makes advocacy more credible and effective.
|
||||
|
||||
## The path to digital self-determination
|
||||
|
||||
Achieving greater digital self-determination 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 self-determination.
|
||||
|
||||
### For organizations
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Audit current dependencies**: Understand where you lack digital self-determination.
|
||||
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 self-determination in planning**: Make digital autonomy a strategic priority.
|
||||
|
||||
The Civil Society Technology Foundation's [Wild Cloud project](/projects/wild-cloud) provides a reference implementation for individuals, communities, and organizations seeking to regain digital self-determination. It demonstrates that practical steps toward greater independence are possible today, even with limited resources.
|
||||
|
||||
## Conclusion
|
||||
|
||||
Digital self-determination 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 self-determination, we can build a digital future that enhances rather than undermines human agency, community resilience, and democratic values.
|
||||
|
||||
Digital self-determination 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.
|
||||
@@ -39,9 +39,9 @@ As digital systems become central to civic life, governments have expanded their
|
||||
|
||||
_Government regulatory capture_ 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.
|
||||
|
||||
Public services increasingly rely on proprietary technologies, creating long-term vulnerabilities within _overdependent relationships_. When governments outsource core functions to proprietary platforms, they sacrifice sovereignty and create risky dependencies that undermine democratic accountability.
|
||||
Public services increasingly rely on proprietary technologies, creating long-term vulnerabilities within _overdependent relationships_. When governments outsource core functions to proprietary platforms, they sacrifice self-determination and create risky dependencies that undermine democratic accountability.
|
||||
|
||||
_Mass 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.
|
||||
_Mass state surveillance_ undermines civil liberties and democratic processes. The capabilities revealed by Edward Snowden and subsequent whistle-blowers demonstrate how digital infrastructure has enabled unprecedented monitoring of citizens, activists, and journalists without appropriate democratic oversight.
|
||||
|
||||
National security justifications often mask anti-democratic control mechanisms. The post-9/11 expansion of digital surveillance, the current expansion of surveillance technologies in response to civil protests of immigration enforcement, and the ongoing use of security arguments to justify technological control demonstrate how nominal protection can lead to substantial harm.
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -73,7 +73,7 @@ In response to these challenges, we need a vision of digital self-determination
|
||||
|
||||
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.
|
||||
- **User Self-determination**: 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.
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -175,13 +175,13 @@ The path we choose with AI—toward further centralization or toward democratiza
|
||||
|
||||
## Case study: Wild Cloud
|
||||
|
||||
The Civil Society Technology Foundation's [Wild Cloud project](/projects/wild-cloud/) exemplifies the principles of independent technology in practice. This reference implementation demonstrates how civil society can regain digital sovereignty through practical, accessible tools.
|
||||
The Civil Society Technology Foundation's [Wild Cloud project](/projects/wild-cloud/) exemplifies the principles of independent technology in practice. This reference implementation demonstrates how civil society can regain digital self-determination through practical, accessible tools.
|
||||
|
||||
Wild Cloud enables individuals, communities, and organizations to run their own email, calendar, file storage, website, and collaboration tools on infrastructure they control, reducing dependency on corporate platforms. Services under user control ensure sensitive information remains protected from surveillance and exploitation.
|
||||
|
||||
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. A network of practitioners provides documentation, troubleshooting assistance, and ongoing development, ensuring that organizations aren't alone in their journey toward digital self-determination.
|
||||
|
||||
Wild Cloud 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.
|
||||
Wild Cloud services support open standards and federation protocols, allowing organizations to communicate with others while maintaining their autonomy and control. This practical approach to digital self-determination 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.
|
||||
|
||||
## A call to action
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -1,128 +0,0 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: Why Digital Sovereignty Matters
|
||||
date: 2025-07-06
|
||||
summary: Digital sovereignty is essential for individuals, communities, and civil society organizations to maintain control over their digital lives. This article explores the importance of digital sovereignty, the threats it faces, and practical steps toward achieving it.
|
||||
featureImageCaption: "Photo by <a href=\"https://unsplash.com/@lemonvlad?utm_content=creditCopyText&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=unsplash\">Vladislav Klapin</a> on <a href=\"https://unsplash.com/photos/assorted-flag-YeO44yVTl20?utm_content=creditCopyText&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=unsplash\">Unsplash</a>"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 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.
|
||||
|
||||
## The threat to digital sovereignty
|
||||
|
||||
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 de-rank 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.
|
||||
|
||||
## Individuals need digital sovereignty
|
||||
|
||||
For individuals, digital sovereignty affects fundamental aspects of daily life:
|
||||
|
||||
### Privacy and security
|
||||
|
||||
Without digital sovereignty, your personal information becomes vulnerable to exploitation. Your browsing history, location data, and private communications transform into corporate assets, traded and monetized without meaningful consent. Intimate details of your life face constant exposure through data breaches and surveillance, creating a permanent digital record that can be weaponized against you at any time.
|
||||
|
||||
Digital sovereignty changes this dynamic fundamentally. When you control your digital infrastructure, you determine what information you share and with whom. Encryption and privacy-preserving tools become standard practice rather than specialized knowledge. You can maintain clear boundaries between different aspects of your digital life, protecting both your current privacy and your future autonomy.
|
||||
|
||||
### Personal autonomy
|
||||
|
||||
Without digital sovereignty, your choices become systematically constrained by forces beyond your control. Algorithms shape not just what information you see, but what options appear available to you. Design patterns constantly nudge you toward behaviors that benefit platforms rather than yourself, while essential tasks increasingly require surrendering privacy as the price of participation.
|
||||
|
||||
Digital sovereignty restores meaningful choice to your daily life. You can make decisions based on diverse information sources that you've actively chosen rather than algorithmic curation. Your tools serve your needs rather than exploiting your attention for profit. Most importantly, you can participate fully in digital society without surrendering your fundamental rights or personal dignity.
|
||||
|
||||
### Economic security
|
||||
|
||||
Without digital sovereignty, you face growing economic vulnerabilities in an increasingly digital economy. Your skills and livelihood become dependent on proprietary platforms that can change terms or revoke access arbitrarily. Economic opportunities remain subject to the whims of platform policies, while the value you create online flows primarily to distant corporate owners rather than building your own wealth or community resources.
|
||||
|
||||
Digital sovereignty builds genuine economic resilience. You develop portable skills that transcend any specific corporate platform, ensuring your capabilities remain valuable regardless of technological shifts. You can create and connect through systems you help govern, participating in cooperative economic models that distribute value more equitably among those who generate it.
|
||||
|
||||
## Communities need digital sovereignty
|
||||
|
||||
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 fundamental self-determination as their governance structures become subordinated to platform rules and algorithms. Local knowledge and cultural context get systematically flattened by global platforms designed for mass consumption rather than community specificity. Meanwhile, community resources flow steadily toward distant corporations instead of circulating locally to strengthen community bonds and capacity.
|
||||
|
||||
Digital sovereignty enables communities to truly thrive on their own terms. They can design digital spaces that authentically reflect local values and meet specific community needs. Community standards and practices remain intact without corporate override or algorithmic interference. Most importantly, digital infrastructure becomes a genuine community asset that builds collective wealth and capacity rather than extracting value.
|
||||
|
||||
### Resilience against censorship
|
||||
|
||||
Without digital sovereignty, communities face systematic silencing through mechanisms that appear neutral but consistently harm marginalized voices. Platform policies regularly restrict legitimate speech, with enforcement patterns that disproportionately affect those with the least institutional power. Commercial content moderation systems cannot possibly reflect the nuance and context of diverse community standards, leading to decisions that undermine rather than protect community discourse.
|
||||
|
||||
Digital sovereignty preserves community voice through infrastructure independence. Communities can operate their own communication systems that resist external censorship while developing content moderation approaches appropriate to their specific context and values. They maintain fallback channels that cannot be easily blocked, ensuring continuity of communication even under pressure.
|
||||
|
||||
### Collective memory
|
||||
|
||||
Without digital sovereignty, community history becomes dangerously precarious as it depends entirely on corporate platforms with their own priorities and lifespans. When platforms shut down or change direction, they take irreplaceable community archives with them. Algorithmic sorting continuously buries historically important content, while corporate priorities rather than community values determine what gets preserved for future generations.
|
||||
|
||||
Digital sovereignty strengthens cultural continuity by giving communities control over their own historical record. They can maintain archives and documentation according to their own standards and priorities. Knowledge transfer between generations happens on community terms rather than through corporate intermediaries. Digital artifacts remain accessible and meaningful even as underlying technologies evolve, ensuring that community memory persists across technological transitions.
|
||||
|
||||
## Civil society needs digital sovereignty
|
||||
|
||||
For 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 fundamentally compromised in its mission and effectiveness. NGOs find themselves forced to accept surveillance and data extraction as the price of accessing essential digital tools, undermining their ability to protect the communities they serve. Advocacy organizations become dependent on platforms that may actively oppose their values, while corporate philanthropy increasingly shapes which digital infrastructure gets built, prioritizing donor interests over community needs.
|
||||
|
||||
Digital sovereignty allows civil society to maintain its integrity and independence. Organizations can choose and use tools that genuinely align with their mission and values rather than contradicting them. Advocacy work can proceed without platform-imposed limitations that undermine effectiveness, while infrastructure development responds to actual community needs rather than market incentives or corporate priorities.
|
||||
|
||||
### Operational security
|
||||
|
||||
Without digital sovereignty, civil society organizations face escalating security risks that threaten their core work. Sensitive communications and confidential data must reside on vulnerable commercial platforms designed for profit rather than protection. Critical organizational workflows become dependent on services that can be withdrawn or modified without notice, while organizational data gets integrated into commercial AI training sets without consent or oversight.
|
||||
|
||||
Digital sovereignty dramatically improves operational security by returning control to the organizations themselves. They can maintain direct oversight of sensitive information rather than trusting corporate intermediaries. Communication channels become resistant to surveillance and interference, while infrastructure resilience protects against both technical disruption and political pressure.
|
||||
|
||||
### Ethical alignment
|
||||
|
||||
Without digital sovereignty, civil society faces deep contradictions that undermine moral authority and organizational effectiveness. Organizations advocating for human rights often find themselves using tools that systematically violate those same rights. Digital workflows frequently contradict stated organizational values, while resource dependencies on extractive platforms compromise advocacy positions and limit strategic options.
|
||||
|
||||
Digital sovereignty enables authentic alignment between values and practice. Technology choices can reflect and actively reinforce organizational principles rather than undermining them. Digital infrastructure embodies the world organizations are working to create, demonstrating alternative possibilities rather than perpetuating existing problems. Most importantly, consistency between means and ends strengthens moral authority and makes advocacy more credible and effective.
|
||||
|
||||
## 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 [Wild Cloud project](/projects/wild-cloud) provides a reference implementation for individuals, communities, and 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.
|
||||
@@ -11,7 +11,7 @@ showReadingTime: false
|
||||
Help us create a strong and lasting technical foundation for Civil Society.
|
||||
{{< /lead >}}
|
||||
|
||||
The Civil Society Technology Foundation is a community-driven organization that relies on the support of individuals and organizations who share our vision of digital sovereignty and independent technology. There are many ways you can contribute to our mission:
|
||||
The Civil Society Technology Foundation is a community-driven organization that relies on the support of individuals and organizations who share our vision of digital self-determination and independent technology. There are many ways you can contribute to our mission:
|
||||
|
||||
### 1. Financial Contributions
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -25,11 +25,11 @@ We welcome volunteers who can contribute their skills and expertise to our proje
|
||||
|
||||
### 3. Spread the Word
|
||||
|
||||
Share our mission and resources with your network. Help raise awareness about the importance of digital sovereignty and independent technology for civil society. Follow us on social media, share our content, and engage in discussions about these critical issues.
|
||||
Share our mission and resources with your network. Help raise awareness about the importance of digital self-determination and independent technology for civil society. Follow us on social media, share our content, and engage in discussions about these critical issues.
|
||||
|
||||
### 4. Collaborate with Us
|
||||
|
||||
We are always looking for partnerships with like-minded organizations and individuals. If you have a project or initiative that aligns with our mission, let's explore how we can work together to advance digital sovereignty and empower civil society.
|
||||
We are always looking for partnerships with like-minded organizations and individuals. If you have a project or initiative that aligns with our mission, let's explore how we can work together to advance digital self-determination and empower civil society.
|
||||
|
||||
### 5. Join Our Community
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -37,11 +37,11 @@ Engage with us through our community forums, mailing lists, and events. Share yo
|
||||
|
||||
### 6. Stay Informed
|
||||
|
||||
Subscribe to our newsletter and follow our blog to stay updated on our latest projects, resources, and events. Being informed is the first step toward active participation in the movement for digital sovereignty.
|
||||
Subscribe to our newsletter and follow our blog to stay updated on our latest projects, resources, and events. Being informed is the first step toward active participation in the movement for digital self-determination.
|
||||
|
||||
### 7. Advocate for Policy Change
|
||||
|
||||
Engage in advocacy efforts to promote policies that support digital sovereignty and independent technology. Your voice can help influence decision-makers and raise awareness about the importance of these issues.
|
||||
Engage in advocacy efforts to promote policies that support digital self-determination and independent technology. Your voice can help influence decision-makers and raise awareness about the importance of these issues.
|
||||
|
||||
### 8. Donate Your Expertise
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -49,5 +49,5 @@ If you have specialized knowledge or skills that could benefit our projects, con
|
||||
|
||||
### 9. Become a Member
|
||||
|
||||
Join the Civil Society Technology Foundation as a member to support our mission and gain access to exclusive resources, events, and networking opportunities. Your membership helps us strengthen the community and advance our work in digital sovereignty.
|
||||
Join the Civil Society Technology Foundation as a member to support our mission and gain access to exclusive resources, events, and networking opportunities. Your membership helps us strengthen the community and advance our work in digital self-determination.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -3,4 +3,4 @@ title: "Learning"
|
||||
cardView: true
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
Resources for building technical skills and understanding digital sovereignty.
|
||||
Resources for building technical skills and understanding digital self-determination.
|
||||
@@ -2,14 +2,14 @@
|
||||
title: "Git: Distributed Version Control for Digital Independence"
|
||||
date: 2025-01-15
|
||||
featureImageCaption: Author unknown. (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Linus-Torvalds.jpeg), “Linus Torvalds”, https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode
|
||||
summary: "Git is more than just a version control system; it embodies principles of decentralization, resilience, and user sovereignty. This article explores how Git's distributed architecture aligns with the values of civil society organizations, enabling them to maintain control over their digital infrastructure."
|
||||
summary: "Git is more than just a version control system; it embodies principles of decentralization, resilience, and user self-determination. This article explores how Git's distributed architecture aligns with the values of civil society organizations, enabling them to maintain control over their digital infrastructure."
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 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.
|
||||
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 self-determination.
|
||||
|
||||
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.
|
||||
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 self-determination.
|
||||
|
||||
## What Is Git?
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -85,7 +85,7 @@ Git's distributed nature means:
|
||||
|
||||
In contexts where infrastructure may be unreliable or subject to interference, this resilience is invaluable.
|
||||
|
||||
### 2. Sovereignty and Control
|
||||
### 2. Self-Determination and Control
|
||||
|
||||
Git provides complete control over:
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -94,7 +94,7 @@ Git provides complete control over:
|
||||
- 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.
|
||||
This self-determination means organizations aren't dependent on the policies or availability of any particular service provider.
|
||||
|
||||
### 3. Transparency and Accountability
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -254,7 +254,7 @@ By distributing repositories across multiple participants, these organizations e
|
||||
|
||||
## 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.
|
||||
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 self-determination. 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.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -2,14 +2,14 @@
|
||||
title: "Language Models: Understanding AI in the Context of Civil Society"
|
||||
date: 2025-01-15
|
||||
featureImageCaption: "dvgodoy (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/file:Transformer,-full-architecture.png), 'Transformer, full architecture', https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode"
|
||||
summary: "Language models are reshaping how we interact with technology, but they also raise critical questions about control, transparency, and the future of human agency. This article explores language models through the lens of civil society values, examining their implications for digital sovereignty and how organizations can navigate this complex landscape."
|
||||
summary: "Language models are reshaping how we interact with technology, but they also raise critical questions about control, transparency, and the future of human agency. This article explores language models through the lens of civil society values, examining their implications for digital self-determination and how organizations can navigate this complex landscape."
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 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.
|
||||
In this article, we examine language models through the lens of civil society values, exploring how these technologies work, their implications for digital self-determination, and pathways to harnessing their benefits while minimizing risks to autonomy and independence.
|
||||
|
||||
## What Are Language Models?
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -65,7 +65,7 @@ These capabilities can be particularly valuable for organizations with limited r
|
||||
|
||||
### Critical Concerns
|
||||
|
||||
At the same time, language models raise serious concerns for organizations committed to digital sovereignty:
|
||||
At the same time, language models raise serious concerns for organizations committed to digital self-determination:
|
||||
|
||||
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
|
||||
@@ -77,13 +77,13 @@ At the same time, language models raise serious concerns for organizations commi
|
||||
|
||||
These concerns connect directly to civil society's core focus on distributed power, accountability, and human agency.
|
||||
|
||||
## Sovereignty Considerations
|
||||
## Self-Determination Considerations
|
||||
|
||||
For organizations committed to digital sovereignty, language models present particular challenges:
|
||||
For organizations committed to digital self-determination, language models present particular challenges:
|
||||
|
||||
### The Sovereignty Paradox
|
||||
### The Self-Determination Paradox
|
||||
|
||||
The most capable language models currently exist in a paradigm that conflicts with sovereignty principles:
|
||||
The most capable language models currently exist in a paradigm that conflicts with self-determination principles:
|
||||
|
||||
- Trained on massive datasets that no individual organization can replicate
|
||||
- Requiring computational resources beyond most civil society organizations
|
||||
@@ -92,9 +92,9 @@ The most capable language models currently exist in a paradigm that conflicts wi
|
||||
|
||||
This creates a paradox: using these tools can advance an organization's mission while simultaneously reinforcing dependency on centralized technological infrastructure.
|
||||
|
||||
### Sovereignty-Respecting Approaches
|
||||
### Self-Determination-Respecting Approaches
|
||||
|
||||
Several approaches exist for using language models while maintaining alignment with sovereignty principles:
|
||||
Several approaches exist for using language models while maintaining alignment with self-determination 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
|
||||
@@ -118,7 +118,7 @@ Before implementing language model technologies, organizations should evaluate:
|
||||
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.
|
||||
This assessment helps determine the appropriate balance between capability and self-determination for each use case.
|
||||
|
||||
### Recommended Approaches by Context
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -189,7 +189,7 @@ A human rights organization uses language models to help draft, organize, and tr
|
||||
- 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.
|
||||
This hybrid approach balances practical needs with self-determination concerns.
|
||||
|
||||
### Scenario 2: Community Legal Aid
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -200,7 +200,7 @@ A legal assistance organization develops a system to help explain legal concepts
|
||||
- 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.
|
||||
This self-determination-first approach prioritizes control and alignment with the organization's values.
|
||||
|
||||
### Scenario 3: Environmental Data Analysis
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -211,7 +211,7 @@ A climate advocacy group uses language models to analyze environmental impact re
|
||||
- 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.
|
||||
This pragmatic approach uses available tools while working toward greater self-determination.
|
||||
|
||||
## The Future Landscape
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -226,14 +226,14 @@ Models continue to decrease in size while maintaining capabilities:
|
||||
- Specialized models outperform general models in specific domains
|
||||
- Browser-based models enable client-side processing
|
||||
|
||||
These trends make sovereignty-respecting approaches increasingly viable.
|
||||
These trends make self-determination-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
|
||||
- Federated learning approaches that preserve data self-determination
|
||||
- Community-governed models with transparent decision making
|
||||
- Regional training efforts creating linguistically diverse models
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -263,12 +263,12 @@ For organizations navigating language model adoption, we recommend the following
|
||||
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.
|
||||
These guidelines help organizations balance practical benefit with long-term self-determination.
|
||||
|
||||
## 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 Civil Society Technology Foundation advocates for a self-determination-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.
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -1,13 +1,13 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Linux: The Operating System for Digital Sovereignty"
|
||||
title: "Linux: The Operating System for Digital Self-Determination"
|
||||
date: 2025-01-15
|
||||
featureImageCaption: "Photo by <a href=\"https://unsplash.com/@wwarby?utm_content=creditCopyText&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=unsplash\">William Warby</a> on <a href=\"https://unsplash.com/photos/a-penguin-is-standing-on-a-rocky-area-mlDxrRUuDxc?utm_content=creditCopyText&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=unsplash\">Unsplash</a>"
|
||||
summary: "Linux is more than just an operating system; it is a cornerstone of digital sovereignty for civil society organizations. This article explores how Linux empowers communities to reclaim control over their technology, ensuring independence, security, and adaptability in an increasingly centralized digital landscape."
|
||||
summary: "Linux is more than just an operating system; it is a cornerstone of digital self-determination for civil society organizations. This article explores how Linux empowers communities to reclaim control over their technology, ensuring independence, security, and adaptability in an increasingly centralized digital landscape."
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 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.
|
||||
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 self-determination, 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.
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -43,7 +43,7 @@ These characteristics reflect Linux's organic development process, where improve
|
||||
|
||||
## Why Linux Matters for Civil Society
|
||||
|
||||
For civil society organizations seeking digital sovereignty, Linux provides several unique benefits:
|
||||
For civil society organizations seeking digital self-determination, Linux provides several unique benefits:
|
||||
|
||||
### 1. Freedom from Corporate Control
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -93,9 +93,9 @@ Linux's accessibility removes barriers to participation:
|
||||
|
||||
This accessibility aligns with civil society's commitment to inclusion and equitable access to technological tools.
|
||||
|
||||
### 5. Sovereignty and Control
|
||||
### 5. Self-Determination and Control
|
||||
|
||||
Perhaps most importantly, Linux enables genuine sovereignty over computing infrastructure:
|
||||
Perhaps most importantly, Linux enables genuine self-determination over computing infrastructure:
|
||||
|
||||
- Organizations can inspect and modify any aspect of their systems
|
||||
- Technical knowledge builds internal capacity rather than dependency
|
||||
@@ -103,7 +103,7 @@ Perhaps most importantly, Linux enables genuine sovereignty over computing infra
|
||||
- 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.
|
||||
This self-determination is not just a technical preference but essential for organizations that need to control their own digital infrastructure.
|
||||
|
||||
## Linux Distributions for Civil Society
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -168,7 +168,7 @@ The Civil Society Technology Foundation can provide guidance on distribution sel
|
||||
|
||||
## Beyond the Operating System: The Linux Ecosystem
|
||||
|
||||
Linux has inspired a broader ecosystem of tools and practices that support digital sovereignty:
|
||||
Linux has inspired a broader ecosystem of tools and practices that support digital self-determination:
|
||||
|
||||
- **Container technologies** like Docker and Kubernetes (themselves Linux-based) enable flexible, portable deployments
|
||||
- **Configuration management** tools allow systematic administration of multiple systems
|
||||
@@ -196,7 +196,7 @@ By providing a free, adaptable foundation, Linux enables these initiatives to fo
|
||||
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
|
||||
- **Software self-determination** 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
|
||||
@@ -205,7 +205,7 @@ In each of these areas, Linux provides a foundation that enables community contr
|
||||
|
||||
## 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.
|
||||
For civil society organizations committed to digital self-determination, 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.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -2,14 +2,14 @@
|
||||
title: "Software Development: Building Digital Infrastructure for Civil Society"
|
||||
date: 2025-01-15
|
||||
featureImageCaption: Photo by <a href="https://unsplash.com/@kellysikkema?utm_content=creditCopyText&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=unsplash">Kelly Sikkema</a> on <a href="https://unsplash.com/photos/woman-wearing-black-t-shirt-holding-white-computer-keyboard-YK0HPwWDJ1I?utm_content=creditCopyText&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=unsplash">Unsplash</a>
|
||||
summary: "Software development is a critical aspect of civil society's digital sovereignty. This article explores how development practices, tools, and approaches can either reinforce dependency or enable sovereignty, emphasizing the importance of building independent, adaptable, and resilient software systems."
|
||||
summary: "Software development is a critical aspect of civil society's digital self-determination. This article explores how development practices, tools, and approaches can either reinforce dependency or enable self-determination, emphasizing the importance of building independent, adaptable, and resilient software systems."
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 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.
|
||||
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 self-determination. 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
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -50,9 +50,9 @@ Software development builds crucial organizational capabilities:
|
||||
|
||||
These capacities extend beyond software itself to strengthen overall organizational resilience.
|
||||
|
||||
## Sovereignty-Respecting Development Practices
|
||||
## Self-Determination-Respecting Development Practices
|
||||
|
||||
Software development practices can either enhance or undermine digital sovereignty. We advocate for approaches that:
|
||||
Software development practices can either enhance or undermine digital self-determination. We advocate for approaches that:
|
||||
|
||||
### 1. Focus on Simplicity and Maintainability
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -123,7 +123,7 @@ This purpose-driven approach ensures technology serves human needs rather than t
|
||||
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?
|
||||
2. **Self-determination 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?
|
||||
@@ -261,7 +261,7 @@ Programming languages and frameworks establish fundamental constraints:
|
||||
|
||||
### Database and Storage Technologies
|
||||
|
||||
Data storage choices have significant sovereignty implications:
|
||||
Data storage choices have significant self-determination implications:
|
||||
|
||||
**Key considerations**:
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -305,7 +305,7 @@ Several examples illustrate effective approaches to civil society software devel
|
||||
|
||||
### Case Study 1: SecureDrop
|
||||
|
||||
SecureDrop, an anonymous whistleblowing platform, demonstrates several sovereignty-respecting practices:
|
||||
SecureDrop, an anonymous whistleblowing platform, demonstrates several self-determination-respecting practices:
|
||||
|
||||
- **Air-gapped architecture** protects sources even from sophisticated adversaries
|
||||
- **Clear documentation** enables independent verification and deployment
|
||||
@@ -432,17 +432,17 @@ 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
|
||||
- User self-determination over data is a foundational principle
|
||||
- Collaboration happens without centralized control
|
||||
|
||||
This paradigm aligns closely with civil society's sovereignty principles.
|
||||
This paradigm aligns closely with civil society's self-determination 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
|
||||
- Federated approaches preserve data self-determination
|
||||
- On-device inference enables privacy-preserving intelligence
|
||||
- Transfer learning makes specialized applications viable
|
||||
- Community datasets enable alternatives to corporate AI
|
||||
@@ -477,6 +477,6 @@ These approaches make software development accessible to more civil society orga
|
||||
|
||||
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.
|
||||
The Civil Society Technology Foundation advocates for development approaches that prioritize self-determination, 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.
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -23,14 +23,13 @@ The Wild Cloud project aims to start you with a simple self-hosted cloud solutio
|
||||
|
||||
Wild Cloud embodies the Civil Society Technology Foundation's [core principles](/about/#principles), which include:
|
||||
|
||||
- **Sovereignty by Design**: Users control their data and computing environment.
|
||||
- **Self-determination 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.
|
||||
By providing this reference implementation, we demonstrate that digital self-determination is not merely theoretical but practically achievable with current technology and modest resources.
|
||||
|
||||
## Architecture
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user