Update content to focus on the important parts.
This commit is contained in:
@@ -284,18 +284,33 @@ body.zen-mode-enable {
|
||||
.left-0 {
|
||||
left: calc(var(--spacing) * 0);
|
||||
}
|
||||
.left-\[calc\(max\(-50vw\,-800px\)\+50\%\)\] {
|
||||
left: calc(max(-50vw, -800px) + 50%);
|
||||
}
|
||||
.-z-10 {
|
||||
z-index: calc(10 * -1);
|
||||
}
|
||||
.z-2 {
|
||||
z-index: 2;
|
||||
}
|
||||
.z-10 {
|
||||
z-index: 10;
|
||||
}
|
||||
.z-30 {
|
||||
z-index: 30;
|
||||
}
|
||||
.z-80 {
|
||||
z-index: 80;
|
||||
}
|
||||
.z-100 {
|
||||
z-index: 100;
|
||||
}
|
||||
.z-500 {
|
||||
z-index: 500;
|
||||
}
|
||||
.z-\[1\] {
|
||||
z-index: 1;
|
||||
}
|
||||
.z-\[2\] {
|
||||
z-index: 2;
|
||||
}
|
||||
.z-\[999\] {
|
||||
z-index: 999;
|
||||
}
|
||||
@@ -829,6 +844,12 @@ body.zen-mode-enable {
|
||||
.-mt-4 {
|
||||
margin-top: calc(var(--spacing) * -4);
|
||||
}
|
||||
.-mt-\[2px\] {
|
||||
margin-top: calc(2px * -1);
|
||||
}
|
||||
.-mt-\[15px\] {
|
||||
margin-top: calc(15px * -1);
|
||||
}
|
||||
.mt-0 {
|
||||
margin-top: calc(var(--spacing) * 0);
|
||||
}
|
||||
@@ -862,18 +883,21 @@ body.zen-mode-enable {
|
||||
.mt-20 {
|
||||
margin-top: calc(var(--spacing) * 20);
|
||||
}
|
||||
.mt-\[-2px\] {
|
||||
margin-top: -2px;
|
||||
}
|
||||
.mt-\[0\.1rem\] {
|
||||
margin-top: 0.1rem;
|
||||
}
|
||||
.mt-\[0\.5rem\] {
|
||||
margin-top: 0.5rem;
|
||||
}
|
||||
.-mr-48 {
|
||||
margin-right: calc(var(--spacing) * -48);
|
||||
}
|
||||
.-mr-\[100\%\] {
|
||||
margin-right: calc(100% * -1);
|
||||
}
|
||||
.mr-0 {
|
||||
margin-right: calc(var(--spacing) * 0);
|
||||
}
|
||||
.mr-1 {
|
||||
margin-right: calc(var(--spacing) * 1);
|
||||
}
|
||||
@@ -889,6 +913,9 @@ body.zen-mode-enable {
|
||||
.mr-6 {
|
||||
margin-right: calc(var(--spacing) * 6);
|
||||
}
|
||||
.mr-\[10px\] {
|
||||
margin-right: 10px;
|
||||
}
|
||||
.mr-auto {
|
||||
margin-right: auto;
|
||||
}
|
||||
@@ -943,6 +970,9 @@ body.zen-mode-enable {
|
||||
.-ml-12 {
|
||||
margin-left: calc(var(--spacing) * -12);
|
||||
}
|
||||
.ml-0 {
|
||||
margin-left: calc(var(--spacing) * 0);
|
||||
}
|
||||
.ml-2 {
|
||||
margin-left: calc(var(--spacing) * 2);
|
||||
}
|
||||
@@ -1767,6 +1797,15 @@ body.zen-mode-enable {
|
||||
.pt-16 {
|
||||
padding-top: calc(var(--spacing) * 16);
|
||||
}
|
||||
.pt-\[2px\] {
|
||||
padding-top: 2px;
|
||||
}
|
||||
.pt-\[5px\] {
|
||||
padding-top: 5px;
|
||||
}
|
||||
.pr-0 {
|
||||
padding-right: calc(var(--spacing) * 0);
|
||||
}
|
||||
.pr-\[24px\] {
|
||||
padding-right: 24px;
|
||||
}
|
||||
@@ -1785,6 +1824,12 @@ body.zen-mode-enable {
|
||||
.pb-32 {
|
||||
padding-bottom: calc(var(--spacing) * 32);
|
||||
}
|
||||
.pb-\[3px\] {
|
||||
padding-bottom: 3px;
|
||||
}
|
||||
.pl-0 {
|
||||
padding-left: calc(var(--spacing) * 0);
|
||||
}
|
||||
.pl-2 {
|
||||
padding-left: calc(var(--spacing) * 2);
|
||||
}
|
||||
@@ -3420,7 +3465,9 @@ button, [role="button"] {
|
||||
margin-top: calc(var(--spacing) * 3);
|
||||
}
|
||||
#TableOfContents {
|
||||
max-width: 25vw;
|
||||
@media (width >= 1024px) {
|
||||
max-width: 25vw;
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
#TOCView {
|
||||
max-height: calc(100vh - 150px);
|
||||
@@ -3730,9 +3777,7 @@ pre {
|
||||
background-repeat: no-repeat;
|
||||
background-size: cover;
|
||||
background-position: center;
|
||||
width: calc(100% + 40px);
|
||||
z-index: -10;
|
||||
margin-left: -20px;
|
||||
}
|
||||
.hero_gradient {
|
||||
width: 100%;
|
||||
@@ -3748,42 +3793,6 @@ pre {
|
||||
height: 0px;
|
||||
visibility: hidden;
|
||||
}
|
||||
.center-relative-left {
|
||||
left: calc(max(-50vw, -800px) + 50%);
|
||||
}
|
||||
.margin-0 {
|
||||
margin: 0;
|
||||
}
|
||||
.margin-top-\[-15px\] {
|
||||
margin-top: -15px;
|
||||
}
|
||||
.margin-top-\[0\.5rem\] {
|
||||
margin-top: 0.5rem;
|
||||
}
|
||||
.margin-right-\[10px\] {
|
||||
margin-right: 10px;
|
||||
}
|
||||
.margin-left-\[0px\] {
|
||||
margin-left: 0px;
|
||||
}
|
||||
.padding-main-menu {
|
||||
padding: 2px 0 3px 0;
|
||||
}
|
||||
.padding-top-\[5px\] {
|
||||
padding-top: 5px;
|
||||
}
|
||||
.z-index-\[-10\] {
|
||||
z-index: -10;
|
||||
}
|
||||
.z-index-80 {
|
||||
z-index: 80;
|
||||
}
|
||||
.z-index-100 {
|
||||
z-index: 100;
|
||||
}
|
||||
.z-index-500 {
|
||||
z-index: 500;
|
||||
}
|
||||
[id^="fn"], [id^="fnref"] {
|
||||
scroll-margin-top: 145px;
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -19,4 +19,21 @@ h1, h2, h3, h4, h5, h6, .main-menu, .decoration-primary-500 {
|
||||
figure {
|
||||
margin: .5em;
|
||||
padding: 0;
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
/* Table styling for tools directory */
|
||||
table {
|
||||
width: 100%;
|
||||
table-layout: fixed;
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
table th:first-child,
|
||||
table td:first-child {
|
||||
width: 25%;
|
||||
white-space: nowrap;
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
table th:last-child,
|
||||
table td:last-child {
|
||||
width: 75%;
|
||||
}
|
||||
@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: The Civil Society Technology Foundation
|
||||
title: About CSTF
|
||||
heroStyle: background
|
||||
showDate: false
|
||||
showWordCount: false
|
||||
@@ -11,149 +11,97 @@ aliases:
|
||||
- /foundation/mission-statement/
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
The Civil Society Technology Foundation is a global, volunteer-led, US 501(c)3 non-profit charity incorporated in Washington State.
|
||||
## Hello, Neighbor
|
||||
|
||||
## Purpose
|
||||
Society is held together with care. People helping people. When we join others around us we form community.
|
||||
|
||||
The foundational technologies of our digital lives are open and free. The architecture of the Internet was intentionally designed with standardization, open protocols, and distributed governance to ensure it remained robust, interoperable, and accessible to all. The Internet and the technologies that run upon it hold the promise to empower individuals and communities locally and globally with the tools to communicate, organize, and innovate without barriers.
|
||||
The Internet connects us instantaneously with people around the world and, in that very real way, we become neighbors.
|
||||
|
||||
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.
|
||||
The Internet is a pathway towards engaging with others in meaningful ways. Social networks, discussion boards, event listings, and community hubs are all ways we can engage with others. Oftentimes, though, the websites and apps we use are designed and mediated in a way that make us feel more isolated than ever.
|
||||
|
||||
This is a crisis of _digital self-determination_.
|
||||
CSTF is working to change that by putting the control of the Internet back where it belongs, in the communities that connect on it.
|
||||
|
||||
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.
|
||||
Our flagship project, Wild Cloud, allows communities of all sizes to host their websites and applications themselves, on their own computers, for members to access and enjoy.
|
||||
|
||||
_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._
|
||||
Wild Cloud serves your neighborhood, whether that is an apartment building, a city block, a town, a club, or an organization, _any_ community. It provides a place for your community to host the apps that suit you, to keep your data private, and to grow with you. Beyond purchasing your own computers and investing your time, Wild Cloud is free, allowing you to keep your resources where you want them, inside your neighborhood.
|
||||
|
||||
Wild Cloud is the missing piece of your neighborhood's technology puzzle. Open Source software provides much of the software your neighborhood requires. AI-coding agents make custom software, software that is by your neighborhood and for your neighborhood a new possibility. With Wild Cloud, all your software, and all your hardware stays entirely within your communities control.
|
||||
|
||||
## Mission
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
The Civil Society Technology Foundation (CSTF) empowers individuals and communities to reclaim digital self-determination through the development and dissemination of open-source, self-hosted technologies.
|
||||
CSTF is a place for people who believe communities can build their own technology—and who want to help make that happen.
|
||||
|
||||
We exist to create a world where technology serves people by reducing dependency on centralized platforms and enabling direct control of digital infrastructure and applications.
|
||||
Not because the alternatives are scary (though sometimes they are). But because community-owned technology is simply *better*. It's more affordable. It stays when companies leave. It reflects what neighbors actually need. And building it together turns out to be one of the best ways to meet each other.
|
||||
|
||||
Through accessible tools, educational resources, and community engagement, we advance practical autonomy: the capacity of users to understand, create, modify, and maintain the technologies they rely on.
|
||||
## What We've Noticed
|
||||
|
||||
We believe digital self-determination, including control over data, identity, and computation, is essential to democratic participation and institutional resilience in the digital era.
|
||||
All around the world, communities are quietly building remarkable things:
|
||||
|
||||
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.
|
||||
**In Chattanooga, Tennessee**, the city built its own fiber network. Now 170,000 residents have gigabit internet for $50/month, the city has attracted billions in economic development, and no corporate ISP can decide to raise prices or abandon the community.
|
||||
|
||||
**In Barcelona**, a network called Guifi.net has grown to over 37,000 nodes—the largest community-owned telecommunications network in the world. It started with neighbors who wanted internet access in rural areas. They just... built it themselves.
|
||||
|
||||
## Principles
|
||||
**In Detroit**, the Equitable Internet Initiative trains residents as "Digital Stewards" who build and maintain neighborhood wireless networks. Participants say they've met more neighbors installing antennas than in years of living there.
|
||||
|
||||
The Civil Society Technology Foundation operates according to the following core principles that guide all our work, partnerships, and initiatives.
|
||||
**In rural Lancashire, England**, farmers formed B4RN (Broadband for the Rural North) and dug trenches across their fields to lay fiber optic cable. They now have faster internet than central London.
|
||||
|
||||
### Self-determination by Design
|
||||
**In Brooklyn**, Red Hook WiFi kept the neighborhood connected during Hurricane Sandy when commercial networks failed. Neighbors maintained the mesh network themselves.
|
||||
|
||||
**Users must own their data and control their computing environment.**
|
||||
These aren't tech startups. They're neighbors who decided to build something together.
|
||||
|
||||
Digital systems should be designed with autonomy as a foundational requirement, not an afterthought. This means:
|
||||
## What We Do
|
||||
|
||||
- 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.
|
||||
CSTF exists to help more communities do what Chattanooga, Detroit, and Barcelona have done—but for all kinds of technology, not just internet access.
|
||||
|
||||
### Tools Over Policy
|
||||
### We Build Tools
|
||||
|
||||
**We build alternatives rather than asking for permission.**
|
||||
Our [Wild Cloud project](/projects/wild-cloud) gives communities everything they need to run their own digital services—email, file storage, collaboration tools, and more. Think of it as a community center for your digital life, one that actually belongs to your community.
|
||||
|
||||
While policy reform has its place, we prioritize creating technical solutions that enable autonomy regardless of regulatory environments:
|
||||
### We Share Stories
|
||||
|
||||
- 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.
|
||||
We collect and tell the stories of communities building their own technology. These stories show what's possible and help communities learn from each other.
|
||||
|
||||
### Open Source, Always
|
||||
### We Grow Knowledge
|
||||
|
||||
**Software must be libre—free to use, study, modify, and share.**
|
||||
We create guides, documentation, and learning pathways that help people understand and maintain their own technology. Technical knowledge is a gift we can give each other.
|
||||
|
||||
Open source is not simply a development methodology but a foundation for digital self-determination:
|
||||
### We Connect Neighbors
|
||||
|
||||
- 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.
|
||||
We bring together people who are building community technology—practitioners, organizers, curious beginners. Together, we're all learning.
|
||||
|
||||
### Self-Hosted Infrastructure
|
||||
## What We Believe
|
||||
|
||||
**Individuals and communities should control their own infrastructure.**
|
||||
**Communities can do this.** The examples above aren't flukes. They're proof of what's possible when neighbors decide to build together.
|
||||
|
||||
Centralized hosting creates fundamental risks of capture, surveillance, and dependency:
|
||||
**It works better.** Community-owned technology isn't just more ethical—it's often faster, cheaper, more reliable, and more responsive to what people actually need.
|
||||
|
||||
- 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.
|
||||
**Everyone can contribute.** You don't need to be technical. Communities need organizers, teachers, writers, encouragers, and people willing to learn. The technology is just an excuse for neighbors to work together.
|
||||
|
||||
### Democratized AI
|
||||
**Simple is better.** The best solutions are often the simplest ones. We favor approaches that communities can understand, maintain, and adapt over time.
|
||||
|
||||
**Artificial intelligence must be open, efficient, and serve civil society.**
|
||||
**Open means trustworthy.** When you can see how something works, you can trust it. When you can change it, you can make it yours. That's why everything we build is open source.
|
||||
|
||||
As AI becomes increasingly central to digital systems, its governance and accessibility are critical:
|
||||
**Joy matters.** This work should be enjoyable. Building things together, learning new skills, meeting neighbors—these are good things. If it feels like drudgery, we're doing it wrong.
|
||||
|
||||
- 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.
|
||||
## What Becomes Possible
|
||||
|
||||
### Transparent Governance
|
||||
When communities own their digital spaces, wonderful things happen:
|
||||
|
||||
**All governance must be visible, accountable, and auditable.**
|
||||
**Neighbors meet each other.** The technology becomes an excuse for connection. Installation days become community events. Teaching becomes a way of caring for each other.
|
||||
|
||||
How we govern ourselves models the world we seek to create:
|
||||
**Local needs get met.** Tools can reflect local values, languages, and priorities—not the one-size-fits-all approach of global platforms.
|
||||
|
||||
- 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.
|
||||
**Skills grow.** People who never thought of themselves as "technical" discover they can learn, contribute, and teach others.
|
||||
|
||||
### Healthy Ecosystems Win
|
||||
**Resources stay local.** Instead of subscription fees flowing to distant corporations, communities invest in their own infrastructure and each other.
|
||||
|
||||
**Projects succeed through their value to communities, not popularity or funding.**
|
||||
**Resilience builds.** Communities that control their own technology can't be cut off by a company's business decision.
|
||||
|
||||
We evaluate success by contribution to civil society, not market metrics:
|
||||
## Who We Are
|
||||
|
||||
- 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.
|
||||
CSTF is a volunteer-led nonprofit (a US 501(c)(3) charity) based in Washington State. We're small, we're growing, and we'd love your help.
|
||||
|
||||
### Interoperability via Consent
|
||||
|
||||
**Standards emerge from alignment, not imposition.**
|
||||
|
||||
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 autonomy.
|
||||
|
||||
### Contribution Defines Membership
|
||||
|
||||
**Participation is earned through action. Identity is contextual and optional.**
|
||||
|
||||
Communities grow stronger through active contribution:
|
||||
|
||||
- Value is created through doing, not just affiliating.
|
||||
- Multiple forms of contribution should be recognized and valued.
|
||||
- Identity verification should be proportional to the context.
|
||||
- Privacy and pseudonymity are valid choices in appropriate contexts.
|
||||
|
||||
### Critical Adoption over Blind Use
|
||||
|
||||
**Pragmatism means understanding trade-offs.**
|
||||
|
||||
We advocate informed choice rather than ideological purity:
|
||||
|
||||
- Users should understand what rights they give up and why.
|
||||
- Perfect autonomy may be balanced against practical needs.
|
||||
- Transition paths from closed to open systems are valuable.
|
||||
- Transparency about compromises builds trust and education.
|
||||
|
||||
## Directors
|
||||
### Directors
|
||||
|
||||
<div class="not-prose">
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -161,23 +109,25 @@ We advocate informed choice rather than ideological purity:
|
||||
src="/people/paul-payne.jpg"
|
||||
href="/people/paul-payne/"
|
||||
target="_self"
|
||||
alt="Paul Payne, CSTF Director"
|
||||
alt="Paul Payne, Director"
|
||||
nozoom="true"
|
||||
caption="Paul Payne, CSTF Director"
|
||||
caption="Paul Payne, Director"
|
||||
class="max-h-80"
|
||||
>}}
|
||||
|
||||
</div>
|
||||
|
||||
_CSTF is recruiting for board members and other positions. View our [open positions](/contribute/positions) for more information._
|
||||
_We're looking for more neighbors to join us. See our [open positions](/contribute/positions) if you're interested._
|
||||
|
||||
## Contact
|
||||
## Come Say Hello
|
||||
|
||||
We'd love to hear from you.
|
||||
|
||||
### Online
|
||||
|
||||
Join our [community forum](https://forum.civilsociety.dev) to get in touch with us. You can view member profiles and send direct messages once you register.
|
||||
Join our [community forum](https://forum.civilsociety.dev) to connect with others building community technology. Come introduce yourself—we're friendly.
|
||||
|
||||
### Mailing address
|
||||
### Mail
|
||||
|
||||
7405 168th St NE #621<br/>
|
||||
Redmond, WA 98052
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -1,322 +1,124 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: Arguments Against Centralization
|
||||
title: Why Communities Choose Independence
|
||||
date: 2025-07-06
|
||||
featureImageCaption: "Photo by Chad Davis, licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 (CC BY 2.0): https://www.flickr.com/photos/146321178@N05/49062863796. License link: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/"
|
||||
summary: While centralization can offer certain efficiencies and conveniences, we 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.
|
||||
summary: When communities build and own their own technology, something wonderful happens. They discover tools that actually serve their needs, data that stays theirs, and neighbors who become collaborators. Here's what draws communities to independence.
|
||||
aliases:
|
||||
- /articles/arguments-against-centralization/
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Executive Summary
|
||||
When communities start running their own digital infrastructure, they often discover something unexpected: it's not just about avoiding the downsides of big platforms. It's about what becomes possible when technology actually belongs to the people who use it.
|
||||
|
||||
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.
|
||||
Here's what communities tell us about why they chose independence—and what they found on the other side.
|
||||
|
||||
## Technical Arguments
|
||||
## "We wanted tools that fit our needs"
|
||||
|
||||
### 1. Single Points of Failure
|
||||
**The discovery:** When you build your own tools, they can reflect your actual priorities.
|
||||
|
||||
**Argument**: Centralized systems create critical vulnerabilities through single points of failure.
|
||||
Communities have different needs. A rural cooperative needs different things than an urban advocacy organization. A group preserving Indigenous languages has different priorities than an artist collective. Global platforms are designed for the average of everyone, which means they're perfect for no one.
|
||||
|
||||
**Evidence**:
|
||||
When the Equitable Internet Initiative in Detroit started building community wireless networks, they didn't just get internet access—they got infrastructure designed around their neighborhoods' actual geography, needs, and values. The technology bent to serve the community, not the other way around.
|
||||
|
||||
- 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
|
||||
**What communities say:**
|
||||
- "For the first time, we're not second-class citizens waiting for a company to decide our neighborhood is profitable enough."
|
||||
- "We can add features that matter to us, even if they'd never make sense for a global platform."
|
||||
- "The tools actually work the way our community works."
|
||||
|
||||
**Impact**: As essential services migrate to digital platforms, these vulnerabilities create systemic risks to healthcare, financial systems, communications, and other critical infrastructure.
|
||||
## "We wanted our data to stay ours"
|
||||
|
||||
### 2. Scaling Limitations
|
||||
**The discovery:** When you control your infrastructure, privacy becomes real.
|
||||
|
||||
**Argument**: Centralized systems face inherent scaling challenges that distributed alternatives can overcome.
|
||||
On most platforms, your data is the product. Your messages, your files, your patterns of behavior—all of it feeds business models built on knowing everything about you.
|
||||
|
||||
**Evidence**:
|
||||
When communities run their own services, that changes completely. Your email stays on servers you control. Your files aren't being scanned to train AI models. Your private conversations are actually private.
|
||||
|
||||
- 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
|
||||
**What communities say:**
|
||||
- "We work with vulnerable populations. We couldn't in good conscience put their information on platforms that monetize data."
|
||||
- "It's not that we have anything to hide. It's that privacy is a basic form of respect."
|
||||
- "Our members trust us more because they can see exactly where their data lives."
|
||||
|
||||
**Impact**: Centralization often creates artificial bottlenecks that limit growth, innovation, and resilience.
|
||||
## "We wanted to meet our neighbors"
|
||||
|
||||
### 3. Inefficient Resource Allocation
|
||||
**The discovery:** Building technology together builds community.
|
||||
|
||||
**Argument**: Centralized systems often use resources inefficiently compared to distributed alternatives.
|
||||
This is the one that surprises people most. Communities that build their own infrastructure consistently report that the technology becomes an excuse for connection.
|
||||
|
||||
**Evidence**:
|
||||
In Detroit's community wireless networks, installation days became neighborhood events. People who'd lived on the same block for years finally met each other. Teenagers taught seniors about networking; elders shared wisdom about community organizing. The technical work created relationships that extended far beyond technology.
|
||||
|
||||
- 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
|
||||
**What communities say:**
|
||||
- "I met more neighbors in three months of antenna installations than in five years of living here."
|
||||
- "The young people teaching the older folks—and the older folks teaching right back—that's community."
|
||||
- "We came for the internet. We stayed for each other."
|
||||
|
||||
**Impact**: More efficient resource utilization can reduce costs, environmental impact, and performance limitations.
|
||||
## "We wanted to build skills"
|
||||
|
||||
## Security Arguments
|
||||
**The discovery:** Technical literacy is a gift communities can give themselves.
|
||||
|
||||
### 1. Concentrated Attack Surfaces
|
||||
When communities run their own technology, knowledge spreads. People who never thought of themselves as "technical" discover they can learn, contribute, and eventually teach others.
|
||||
|
||||
**Argument**: Centralization creates concentrated attack surfaces that attract sophisticated adversaries.
|
||||
This isn't about everyone becoming a systems administrator. It's about enough people in a community understanding how things work that the community isn't dependent on outside experts for everything.
|
||||
|
||||
**Evidence**:
|
||||
**What communities say:**
|
||||
- "I was terrified of anything technical. Now I help onboard new community members."
|
||||
- "We have teenagers who started as curious helpers and are now leading projects."
|
||||
- "The skills stay in our community. We're not dependent on consultants who disappear."
|
||||
|
||||
- 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
|
||||
## "We wanted resilience"
|
||||
|
||||
**Impact**: As data and services concentrate, the security stakes become existentially high, yet perfect security remains impossible.
|
||||
**The discovery:** When you own your infrastructure, no one can take it away.
|
||||
|
||||
### 2. Mass Surveillance Enablement
|
||||
Platforms change their terms. Companies get acquired, pivot, or shut down. Services that millions depend on can disappear with a press release.
|
||||
|
||||
**Argument**: Centralized systems enable mass surveillance by both corporate and state actors.
|
||||
Communities that run their own infrastructure don't face these risks. Their communication channels, their archives, their shared spaces persist because they own them. No distant business decision can cut them off.
|
||||
|
||||
**Evidence**:
|
||||
**What communities say:**
|
||||
- "We've watched other organizations lose years of community history when platforms shut down. That won't happen to us."
|
||||
- "When a platform we used changed their policies overnight, we were glad we'd already moved our critical communications."
|
||||
- "Our infrastructure will last as long as our community wants it to."
|
||||
|
||||
- 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
|
||||
## "We wanted our resources to stay local"
|
||||
|
||||
**Impact**: This surveillance undermines fundamental rights to privacy, free association, and free expression.
|
||||
**The discovery:** Money and skills invested in community infrastructure build community wealth.
|
||||
|
||||
### 3. Security Monocultures
|
||||
When communities pay for big tech services, that money leaves. When they build their own infrastructure, the investment stays local—in equipment owned by the community, in skills held by community members, in capacity that grows over time.
|
||||
|
||||
**Argument**: Centralized systems create security monocultures that increase vulnerability.
|
||||
**What communities say:**
|
||||
- "Instead of subscription fees going to California, we're paying local people to maintain local infrastructure."
|
||||
- "Every dollar we spend builds something we own."
|
||||
- "The skills and equipment stay here. We're building wealth, not renting access."
|
||||
|
||||
**Evidence**:
|
||||
## "We wanted technology that felt good"
|
||||
|
||||
- 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
|
||||
**The discovery:** Technology designed for community, not engagement, actually feels different.
|
||||
|
||||
**Impact**: Diversity and plurality in digital systems creates overall resilience against both targeted and broad attacks.
|
||||
Big platforms are optimized for engagement—keeping you scrolling, clicking, reacting. That's how they make money. But engagement optimization often means anxiety, comparison, and compulsive checking.
|
||||
|
||||
## Economic Arguments
|
||||
Community-owned platforms don't need to maximize your time on site. They can be designed for actual usefulness and genuine connection.
|
||||
|
||||
### 1. Monopolistic Control
|
||||
**What communities say:**
|
||||
- "I forgot social media could feel good until I joined a community-run instance."
|
||||
- "There's no algorithm trying to make me angry so I'll keep scrolling."
|
||||
- "It's calmer. More like a town square and less like a casino."
|
||||
|
||||
**Argument**: Digital centralization leads to monopolistic market dynamics that harm innovation and competition.
|
||||
## "We wanted to be part of something larger"
|
||||
|
||||
**Evidence**:
|
||||
**The discovery:** Independence doesn't mean isolation.
|
||||
|
||||
- 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
|
||||
Communities running their own infrastructure aren't alone. They're part of a growing movement of communities, organizations, and individuals building alternatives together.
|
||||
|
||||
**Impact**: These monopolies extract excessive value, stifle competition, and reduce innovation compared to more open markets.
|
||||
Through federation protocols, open standards, and shared knowledge, independent communities can connect with each other while maintaining their autonomy. It's cooperation without centralization.
|
||||
|
||||
### 2. Value Extraction
|
||||
**What communities say:**
|
||||
- "We run our own instance, but we're connected to thousands of others."
|
||||
- "The community of people doing this work is incredibly generous with knowledge and support."
|
||||
- "We're independent, but we're not isolated. That's the whole point."
|
||||
|
||||
**Argument**: Centralized platforms systematically extract value from creators and communities.
|
||||
## Getting started
|
||||
|
||||
**Evidence**:
|
||||
If any of this resonates, you're not alone. Communities around the world are already building independent technology, and they're eager to help others join them.
|
||||
|
||||
- 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
|
||||
You don't need to be technical to start. You don't need to do everything at once. Many communities begin with a single service—a shared file server, a community chat, a local wireless network—and grow from there.
|
||||
|
||||
**Impact**: This extraction undermines sustainable livelihoods and fair compensation for digital labor and creativity.
|
||||
The [Civil Society Technology Foundation](/about/) exists to help communities on this journey. Our [Wild Cloud project](/projects/wild-cloud/) provides the tools, and our community provides the support.
|
||||
|
||||
### 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.
|
||||
Come see what becomes possible when communities own their digital homes.
|
||||
|
||||
156
content/articles/civic-tech-tools/index.md
Normal file
156
content/articles/civic-tech-tools/index.md
Normal file
@@ -0,0 +1,156 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: Civic Technology Tools
|
||||
date: 2025-12-27
|
||||
summary: Tools for government transparency, freedom of information, and citizen engagement. When communities can easily access public information and report local issues, democracy becomes more than just voting.
|
||||
draft: True
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
Democracy shouldn't be something that happens to you once every few years. It should be an ongoing relationship between citizens and the institutions that serve them.
|
||||
|
||||
But traditional civic participation has significant barriers. Freedom of information requests require knowing which agency to contact and navigating bureaucratic processes. Reporting local problems means figuring out which department handles what. Tracking what elected officials actually do requires time most people don't have.
|
||||
|
||||
Civic technology tools lower these barriers, making it easier for ordinary citizens to access public information, report problems, and participate in governance.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Why This Matters for Communities
|
||||
|
||||
### Government Accountability
|
||||
|
||||
Civic tech creates mechanisms for citizens to monitor government actions, spending, and decision-making. When government activities are visible, officials are more likely to act in the public interest.
|
||||
|
||||
Technology lowers the barriers to holding institutions accountable. What once required lawyers and journalists can now be done by ordinary citizens.
|
||||
|
||||
### Citizen Engagement
|
||||
|
||||
Traditional civic participation—attending town halls, writing to representatives—has significant barriers: time, knowledge, access. Civic tech tools democratize engagement by making it easier to report problems, request information, and participate in decisions.
|
||||
|
||||
These tools transform passive citizens into active participants in their communities.
|
||||
|
||||
### Bridging the Gap
|
||||
|
||||
Many people feel disconnected from government. Civic tech creates practical touchpoints. When citizens can easily report a pothole and see it fixed, or request information and receive it, trust in institutions grows.
|
||||
|
||||
Small wins—a fixed streetlight, an answered FOI request—demonstrate that participation works.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Real-World Impact
|
||||
|
||||
### Alaveteli: Making FOI Accessible
|
||||
|
||||
Alaveteli is a platform for making and publishing freedom of information requests. Users submit requests through the platform, which tracks responses and publishes everything publicly.
|
||||
|
||||
**Impact**: 25+ country deployments worldwide. WhatDoTheyKnow (UK) alone has processed 800,000+ requests.
|
||||
|
||||
**How transparency multiplies**: When one person's FOI request is published, everyone benefits. Others don't need to re-request the same information. Journalists find stories by browsing requests. Researchers study government behavior at scale. Agencies feel pressure to respond properly.
|
||||
|
||||
### FixMyStreet: Empowering Local Problem-Solving
|
||||
|
||||
FixMyStreet allows citizens to report local problems—potholes, broken streetlights, graffiti—to the responsible authority. Reports include location, photos, and descriptions, and are tracked publicly.
|
||||
|
||||
**Impact**: 40+ country implementations. 2 million+ reports in the UK alone. Used by 150+ UK local councils.
|
||||
|
||||
**How it transforms communities**:
|
||||
- **Removes knowledge barriers**: Citizens don't need to know which department handles what
|
||||
- **Creates accountability**: Public reports mean councils can't ignore problems
|
||||
- **Builds evidence**: Patterns reveal systematic issues
|
||||
- **Celebrates fixes**: Showing resolved problems demonstrates participation works
|
||||
|
||||
### mySociety: Two Decades of Civic Innovation
|
||||
|
||||
mySociety is the UK organization that created Alaveteli and FixMyStreet, along with other civic tools like TheyWorkForYou (parliamentary monitoring) and WriteToThem (contacting representatives).
|
||||
|
||||
**Impact**: Tools used in 40+ countries. Tens of millions of civic actions enabled over 20+ years.
|
||||
|
||||
**The mySociety model**: Build tools that solve real problems people face when engaging with government. Make them open source so they can be adapted worldwide. Research what works and share findings freely.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## The Freedom of Information Revolution
|
||||
|
||||
### Before Civic Tech
|
||||
|
||||
- FOI requests required knowing which agency to contact
|
||||
- Requests were made by mail or in person
|
||||
- Responses were often delayed, denied, or buried in bureaucracy
|
||||
- Only journalists, lawyers, and determined activists could navigate the system
|
||||
|
||||
### After Civic Tech
|
||||
|
||||
- Platforms guide users through the request process
|
||||
- Requests and responses are published online for everyone
|
||||
- Patterns of government responsiveness become visible
|
||||
- One person's successful request benefits everyone
|
||||
|
||||
### The Multiplier Effect
|
||||
|
||||
When FOI requests are made public:
|
||||
- Others don't need to re-request the same information
|
||||
- Journalists can find stories by browsing requests
|
||||
- Researchers can study government behavior at scale
|
||||
- Government agencies feel pressure to respond properly
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Open Source Options
|
||||
|
||||
| Project | Description |
|
||||
|:--------|:------------|
|
||||
| [Alaveteli](https://alaveteli.org) | Platform for making and publishing freedom of information requests. <br><small>📊 25+ countries, 800K+ requests (UK alone).</small> <br><small>📦 [GitHub](https://github.com/mysociety/alaveteli) · AGPL-3.0</small> |
|
||||
| [FixMyStreet](https://fixmystreet.org) | Report local problems to authorities with location and photos. <br><small>📊 40+ countries, 2M+ reports (UK), 150+ councils.</small> <br><small>📦 [GitHub](https://github.com/mysociety/fixmystreet) · AGPL-3.0</small> |
|
||||
| [mySociety](https://www.mysociety.org) | Organization behind Alaveteli, FixMyStreet, and other civic tools. <br><small>📊 40+ countries, 20+ years of civic tech development.</small> <br><small>📦 [GitHub](https://github.com/mysociety) · Various</small> |
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## How Communities Can Use These Tools
|
||||
|
||||
### For Individual Citizens
|
||||
|
||||
**Start simple**:
|
||||
1. Report a local problem using FixMyStreet—experience the satisfaction of civic participation
|
||||
2. Make an FOI request about something you're curious about—local spending, meeting minutes, environmental data
|
||||
3. Follow up and share what you learn with neighbors
|
||||
|
||||
**Build the habit**:
|
||||
- Check your local council's website for participation opportunities
|
||||
- Subscribe to planning notifications for your area
|
||||
- Use tools like TheyWorkForYou to track what your representatives are doing
|
||||
|
||||
### For Community Groups
|
||||
|
||||
**Organize around issues**:
|
||||
- Use FixMyStreet data to identify patterns (which neighborhoods get neglected?)
|
||||
- Coordinate FOI requests to build comprehensive pictures of government activity
|
||||
- Share findings through community newsletters, social media, local press
|
||||
|
||||
**Build local capacity**:
|
||||
- Host workshops teaching neighbors how to use civic tech tools
|
||||
- Create guides specific to your local government's processes
|
||||
- Celebrate wins publicly to encourage more participation
|
||||
|
||||
### For Local Governments
|
||||
|
||||
**Embrace transparency**:
|
||||
- Adopt open-source civic tech platforms
|
||||
- Publish data proactively
|
||||
- Respond promptly and fully to information requests
|
||||
|
||||
**Engage authentically**:
|
||||
- Use participatory budgeting to give citizens real power
|
||||
- Create feedback loops so citizens see their input matters
|
||||
- Celebrate civic participation as a strength, not a burden
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## The Bigger Picture
|
||||
|
||||
Civic tech is democracy infrastructure for the digital age. These tools give ordinary people practical power to:
|
||||
- **Access information** that was previously buried in bureaucracy
|
||||
- **Report problems** without navigating confusing government structures
|
||||
- **Track accountability** of elected officials and institutions
|
||||
- **Participate meaningfully** in decisions that affect their lives
|
||||
|
||||
The tools are proven—they work in dozens of countries, enabling millions of civic actions. They're open source—communities can adapt them to local needs and contexts.
|
||||
|
||||
Democracy is a practice, not just an event. Civic tech tools help communities practice it every day.
|
||||
128
content/articles/community-collaboration-tools/index.md
Normal file
128
content/articles/community-collaboration-tools/index.md
Normal file
@@ -0,0 +1,128 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: Community Collaboration Tools
|
||||
date: 2025-12-27
|
||||
summary: Self-hosted chat, forums, video conferencing, and document collaboration. When communities own their collaboration infrastructure, they control their conversations and their data.
|
||||
draft: True
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
Every community needs places to gather, discuss, and work together. In the digital age, these spaces are often rented from corporations—Slack, Discord, Google Workspace, Zoom.
|
||||
|
||||
But renting your community's communication infrastructure comes with costs beyond the subscription fee. Your data feeds someone else's business model. Your conversations happen on someone else's terms. Your community's history can disappear if a company changes direction.
|
||||
|
||||
Self-hosted collaboration tools offer an alternative: infrastructure your community actually owns.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Why Self-Hosting Matters
|
||||
|
||||
### Data Ownership
|
||||
|
||||
On commercial platforms, your community's messages, files, and behavioral patterns feed business models built on knowing everything about you. Organizations working with vulnerable populations can't in good conscience put sensitive information on platforms that monetize data.
|
||||
|
||||
When you self-host, your data never leaves your infrastructure. There's no third-party access, no behavioral profiling, no feeding the surveillance economy.
|
||||
|
||||
### No Algorithmic Manipulation
|
||||
|
||||
Commercial platforms are optimized for "engagement"—keeping users scrolling, clicking, reacting. This often means anxiety, comparison, and compulsive checking.
|
||||
|
||||
Community-owned platforms don't need to maximize time on site. They can be designed for actual usefulness and genuine connection. As one community member put it: "There's no algorithm trying to make me angry so I'll keep scrolling."
|
||||
|
||||
### Autonomy and Customization
|
||||
|
||||
Global platforms are designed for the average of everyone, which means they're perfect for no one. Communities have different needs: a rural cooperative needs different things than an urban advocacy organization.
|
||||
|
||||
Self-hosted tools can be customized to fit how your community actually works, not how a product manager in Silicon Valley thinks you should work.
|
||||
|
||||
### No Vendor Lock-in
|
||||
|
||||
Platforms change their terms. Companies get acquired, pivot, or shut down. Communities have watched years of history disappear when platforms closed.
|
||||
|
||||
Your ability to communicate and organize shouldn't depend on anyone else's permission.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Real-World Adoption
|
||||
|
||||
### Government and Public Sector
|
||||
|
||||
| Organization | Tools | Why |
|
||||
|:-------------|:------|:----|
|
||||
| German Federal Government | Nextcloud | Data sovereignty, GDPR compliance |
|
||||
| French Government | Nextcloud, Matrix | Digital sovereignty initiative |
|
||||
| German Bundeswehr | Matrix | Security requirements |
|
||||
| CERN | Mattermost, Rocket.Chat, Nextcloud | Security, scale, customization |
|
||||
|
||||
### Open Source Communities
|
||||
|
||||
| Community | Tools | Why |
|
||||
|:----------|:------|:----|
|
||||
| Rust Programming Language | Zulip | Threading for technical discussions |
|
||||
| Julia Language | Zulip | Organized async communication |
|
||||
| Docker | Discourse | Community support |
|
||||
| Mozilla | Etherpad, Matrix | Open source values alignment |
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Choosing the Right Tools
|
||||
|
||||
### For Real-Time Chat
|
||||
|
||||
**Mattermost**: Enterprise-focused Slack alternative with strong DevOps integrations. Used by Samsung, NASA JPL, US Department of Defense.
|
||||
|
||||
**Rocket.Chat**: Team collaboration with omnichannel capabilities (WhatsApp, Facebook, SMS integration). Used by Deutsche Bahn, US Navy, CERN.
|
||||
|
||||
**Zulip**: Unique "streams + topics" threading model prevents conversation chaos. Beloved by technical communities for keeping discussions organized.
|
||||
|
||||
### For Asynchronous Discussion
|
||||
|
||||
**Discourse**: Modern forum software that combines mailing list, discussion forum, and long-form chat. Powers communities for Docker, DigitalOcean, Rust, and thousands of others. Best-in-class for long-form community discussions.
|
||||
|
||||
### For Video Conferencing
|
||||
|
||||
**Jitsi**: Video conferencing that works in your browser with no account required. Zero friction, end-to-end encryption option. Integrated into Matrix/Element.
|
||||
|
||||
**BigBlueButton**: Web conferencing designed specifically for online learning. Whiteboard, breakout rooms, polling, shared notes, recording. Used by universities worldwide.
|
||||
|
||||
### For Document Collaboration
|
||||
|
||||
**CryptPad**: End-to-end encrypted collaborative documents, spreadsheets, and presentations. Server operators can't read your documents. Used by journalists, activists, and privacy-focused organizations.
|
||||
|
||||
**Etherpad**: Real-time collaborative text editor, simple and fast. Excellent for quick collaboration sessions.
|
||||
|
||||
### For Everything
|
||||
|
||||
**Nextcloud**: Complete collaboration platform—file sync, calendars, contacts, document editing, chat (Talk), and much more. Replaces Google Workspace or Microsoft 365. Used by German Federal Government, French Government, CERN.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Open Source Options
|
||||
|
||||
| Project | Description |
|
||||
|:--------|:------------|
|
||||
| [Discourse](https://www.discourse.org) | Modern forum software for long-form community discussions. <br><small>📊 30,000+ communities, tens of millions of users.</small> <br><small>📦 [GitHub](https://github.com/discourse/discourse) · GPL-2.0</small> |
|
||||
| [Mattermost](https://about.mattermost.com) | Self-hosted Slack alternative with enterprise features. <br><small>📊 800K+ deployments. Used by Samsung, NASA JPL.</small> <br><small>📦 [GitHub](https://github.com/mattermost/mattermost) · AGPL-3.0</small> |
|
||||
| [Rocket.Chat](https://rocket.chat) | Team collaboration with omnichannel capabilities. <br><small>📊 800K+ servers, 12M+ users.</small> <br><small>📦 [GitHub](https://github.com/RocketChat/Rocket.Chat) · MIT</small> |
|
||||
| [Zulip](https://www.zulip.com) | Chat with threaded conversations for organized discussions. <br><small>📊 Thousands of organizations. Used by Rust, Julia, MariaDB.</small> <br><small>📦 [GitHub](https://github.com/zulip/zulip) · Apache-2.0</small> |
|
||||
| [Nextcloud](https://nextcloud.com) | Complete collaboration suite—files, calendars, chat, and more. <br><small>📊 400K+ servers, 50M+ users.</small> <br><small>📦 [GitHub](https://github.com/nextcloud/server) · AGPL-3.0</small> |
|
||||
| [Jitsi](https://jitsi.org) | Video conferencing with no account required. <br><small>📊 Thousands of instances, tens of millions of users.</small> <br><small>📦 [GitHub](https://github.com/jitsi/jitsi-meet) · Apache-2.0</small> |
|
||||
| [BigBlueButton](https://bigbluebutton.org) | Web conferencing designed for online learning. <br><small>📊 Thousands of deployments, billions of minutes.</small> <br><small>📦 [GitHub](https://github.com/bigbluebutton/bigbluebutton) · LGPL-3.0</small> |
|
||||
| [CryptPad](https://www.cryptpad.org) | End-to-end encrypted collaborative documents. <br><small>📊 100+ public instances, 100K+ users.</small> <br><small>📦 [GitHub](https://github.com/cryptpad/cryptpad) · AGPL-3.0</small> |
|
||||
| [Etherpad](https://etherpad.org) | Real-time collaborative text editing. <br><small>📊 Thousands of instances, millions of users.</small> <br><small>📦 [GitHub](https://github.com/ether/etherpad-lite) · Apache-2.0</small> |
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Getting Started
|
||||
|
||||
A recommended starter stack for most communities:
|
||||
|
||||
- **Nextcloud** for files, calendar, and basic chat
|
||||
- **Jitsi** for video meetings
|
||||
- **Discourse** for community discussions
|
||||
|
||||
As needs grow, add specialized tools for real-time chat (Mattermost, Zulip) or encrypted collaboration (CryptPad).
|
||||
|
||||
The technical barrier is lower than ever. Docker deployments, managed hosting services, and excellent documentation make self-hosting accessible to communities without deep technical expertise.
|
||||
|
||||
And the benefits compound: every dollar spent on self-hosted infrastructure builds something your community owns, rather than paying rent to a distant corporation.
|
||||
|
||||
Communities that build their own collaboration infrastructure report something unexpected: the technology becomes an excuse for connection. The process of choosing, deploying, and maintaining tools together builds relationships that extend far beyond the technology itself.
|
||||
126
content/articles/community-mapping-tools/index.md
Normal file
126
content/articles/community-mapping-tools/index.md
Normal file
@@ -0,0 +1,126 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: Community Mapping and Local Data
|
||||
date: 2025-12-27
|
||||
summary: Tools for creating maps, documenting local knowledge, and crowdsourcing geographic information. When communities map themselves, they control how their places are represented and understood.
|
||||
draft: True
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
Maps are political documents. They reflect the priorities and perspectives of their makers. Colonial maps erased indigenous presence. Corporate maps prioritize commercial interests. Official maps often exclude informal settlements, traditional territories, and local knowledge.
|
||||
|
||||
Community mapping tools return that power to the people who actually live in and know these places. They let communities document their own reality, respond to crises with local knowledge, and advocate for themselves with evidence that can't be dismissed.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Why This Matters for Communities
|
||||
|
||||
### Local Knowledge is Irreplaceable
|
||||
|
||||
Communities know their geography intimately—the unofficial footpaths, the flooding zones that don't appear on official maps, the sacred sites, the informal gathering places, the danger areas.
|
||||
|
||||
Official maps often exclude marginalized communities. Informal settlements, indigenous territories, and rural areas are frequently unmapped or mapped incorrectly by government and commercial services.
|
||||
|
||||
Local context matters. A community member knows that "the old mill road" floods every spring, or that a particular intersection is dangerous for children walking to school.
|
||||
|
||||
### Crisis Response
|
||||
|
||||
During disasters, local volunteers can map affected areas faster than outside agencies. In the 2010 Haiti earthquake, volunteer mappers created the most detailed map of Port-au-Prince within 48 hours—used by search and rescue teams on the ground.
|
||||
|
||||
Communities can report conditions as they change during evolving crises. Mapping where resources are needed, where they've been delivered, and where gaps remain saves lives.
|
||||
|
||||
### Advocacy and Justice
|
||||
|
||||
**Environmental justice**: Mapping pollution sources, toxic sites, and their proximity to communities of color and low-income neighborhoods creates evidence for advocacy.
|
||||
|
||||
**Land rights**: Indigenous communities document ancestral territories to defend against encroachment.
|
||||
|
||||
**Urban planning**: Communities mapping their own needs—safe routes to school, food deserts, transit gaps—influence planning decisions.
|
||||
|
||||
**Accountability**: Creating evidence that can't be ignored when advocating for resources or policy changes.
|
||||
|
||||
### Counter-Mapping
|
||||
|
||||
Communities can create "counter-maps" that tell different stories than official cartography. Documenting what authorities don't want seen: police violence locations, environmental violations, displacement patterns.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Real-World Examples
|
||||
|
||||
### Crisis Response
|
||||
|
||||
**Haiti Earthquake (2010)**: Within 48 hours, volunteer mappers created the most detailed map of Port-au-Prince ever made. Used by search and rescue teams, aid organizations, and the US military.
|
||||
|
||||
**Ushahidi's Origin (Kenya 2007-2008)**: Created in response to post-election violence. Citizens reported incidents via SMS, email, or web, creating a real-time map of violence that helped people avoid danger zones. Now deployed 150,000+ times in 160+ countries.
|
||||
|
||||
### Indigenous and Cultural Preservation
|
||||
|
||||
**Amazon Indigenous Communities (Terrastories)**: Indigenous communities map oral histories tied to specific locations on their traditional lands. Elders record stories that would otherwise be lost. Works offline in areas without internet.
|
||||
|
||||
**Native Land Digital**: Maps indigenous territories, languages, and treaties across North America—a counter-narrative to colonial maps that erased indigenous presence.
|
||||
|
||||
### Urban Community Mapping
|
||||
|
||||
**Anti-Eviction Mapping Project (San Francisco)**: Documents displacement, evictions, and speculation in the Bay Area. Creates powerful visualizations of the housing crisis used by tenant advocates and policymakers.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Choosing the Right Tool
|
||||
|
||||
### uMap: Quick Custom Maps
|
||||
|
||||
Best for creating custom maps without coding knowledge.
|
||||
|
||||
**Strengths**: Extremely low barrier to entry—anyone can create a map in minutes; no account required to view; builds on OpenStreetMap data; embeddable on websites.
|
||||
|
||||
**Used by**: NGOs, journalists, municipalities, community groups, activists.
|
||||
|
||||
### Ushahidi: Crisis Crowdsourcing
|
||||
|
||||
Best for crowdsourced data collection and crisis mapping.
|
||||
|
||||
**Strengths**: Multi-channel data collection (SMS, email, Twitter, web); verification workflows; real-time mapping; designed for low-resource environments.
|
||||
|
||||
**Used by**: Crisis responders, election monitors, human rights documenters worldwide.
|
||||
|
||||
### Terrastories: Place-Based Storytelling
|
||||
|
||||
Best for indigenous and local communities mapping oral histories.
|
||||
|
||||
**Strengths**: Designed specifically for indigenous communities; offline-first architecture; audio/video story attachments; community-controlled access; runs on Raspberry Pi.
|
||||
|
||||
**Philosophy**: Prioritizes community ownership and data sovereignty.
|
||||
|
||||
### MapComplete: Collaborative OpenStreetMap Editing
|
||||
|
||||
Best for community mapping campaigns contributing to OpenStreetMap.
|
||||
|
||||
**Strengths**: Lowers barrier to OSM contribution; themed questionnaires (cycling, accessibility, nature); contributions benefit entire OSM ecosystem.
|
||||
|
||||
**Used for**: Mapping cycling infrastructure, accessibility features, drinking fountains, AED locations.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Open Source Options
|
||||
|
||||
| Project | Description |
|
||||
|:--------|:------------|
|
||||
| [uMap](https://umap.openstreetmap.fr) | Create custom maps using OpenStreetMap data without coding. <br><small>📊 500,000+ maps created on main instance.</small> <br><small>📦 [GitHub](https://github.com/umap-project/umap) · AGPL-3.0</small> |
|
||||
| [Ushahidi](https://www.ushahidi.com) | Crowdsourced data collection and crisis mapping platform. <br><small>📊 150,000+ deployments in 160+ countries.</small> <br><small>📦 [GitHub](https://github.com/ushahidi/platform) · AGPL-3.0</small> |
|
||||
| [Terrastories](https://terrastories.io) | Geostorytelling for communities to map place-based oral histories. <br><small>📊 Used by indigenous communities worldwide.</small> <br><small>📦 [GitHub](https://github.com/Terrastories/terrastories) · MIT</small> |
|
||||
| [MapComplete](https://mapcomplete.org) | Themed questionnaires for easy OpenStreetMap contribution. <br><small>📊 100+ themed maps. Contributions go to OSM.</small> <br><small>📦 [GitHub](https://github.com/pietervdvn/MapComplete) · GPL-3.0</small> |
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## The Bigger Picture
|
||||
|
||||
For centuries, maps were made by those in power—governments, militaries, corporations—and reflected their priorities and perspectives. Communities were mapped, but rarely did the mapping themselves.
|
||||
|
||||
These tools change that equation. They allow communities to:
|
||||
- **Document their own reality** rather than accepting others' versions
|
||||
- **Respond to crises** with local knowledge and real-time information
|
||||
- **Advocate for themselves** with evidence that can't be dismissed
|
||||
- **Preserve their heritage** in ways that honor their own traditions
|
||||
- **Control their own data** rather than surrendering it to extractive platforms
|
||||
|
||||
In a world where "being on the map" often determines whether you receive resources, recognition, or rights, the ability to map yourself is a form of self-determination.
|
||||
|
||||
The tools exist. They're free. They're proven. Communities are already using them to tell their own stories.
|
||||
157
content/articles/community-networks/index.md
Normal file
157
content/articles/community-networks/index.md
Normal file
@@ -0,0 +1,157 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: Community Networks
|
||||
date: 2025-12-27
|
||||
summary: Community-owned internet infrastructure—mesh networks, cooperatives, and municipal broadband. When communities own their connectivity, they bridge the digital divide on their own terms.
|
||||
draft: True
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
What if your internet connection belonged to your community rather than a distant corporation?
|
||||
|
||||
Community networks are telecommunications infrastructure built, owned, and operated by local communities. They represent a grassroots approach to connectivity where residents, cooperatives, municipalities, or nonprofits take control of their own internet access.
|
||||
|
||||
In a world where connectivity is essential infrastructure, community networks offer an alternative to dependence on corporations whose priorities may not align with community needs.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Why This Matters
|
||||
|
||||
### The Digital Divide
|
||||
|
||||
Approximately 21-42 million Americans lack access to broadband internet. Even where broadband exists, many cannot afford it—internet costs in the US are among the highest in developed nations.
|
||||
|
||||
Commercial ISPs systematically underinvest in areas deemed "unprofitable": rural communities, low-income neighborhoods, communities of color. Studies show ISPs practice digital redlining even within cities they serve.
|
||||
|
||||
The result: essential infrastructure distributed by profit motive rather than community need.
|
||||
|
||||
### Why Local Control Matters
|
||||
|
||||
**Accountability**: Community-owned networks answer to residents, not shareholders.
|
||||
|
||||
**Reinvestment**: Revenue stays local rather than flowing to distant corporate headquarters.
|
||||
|
||||
**Responsive service**: Local operators understand and prioritize community needs.
|
||||
|
||||
**Democratic governance**: Community members have voice in decisions about their infrastructure.
|
||||
|
||||
**Digital equity**: Community networks can prioritize underserved populations that commercial providers ignore.
|
||||
|
||||
**Resilience**: Local control means communities aren't dependent on corporate decisions.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## How Community Networks Work
|
||||
|
||||
### Mesh Networks
|
||||
|
||||
Decentralized networks where each node connects to multiple others. Data "hops" between nodes to reach its destination—no single point of failure.
|
||||
|
||||
**Advantages**: Low cost to expand, resilient to failures, community members become active participants.
|
||||
|
||||
### Cooperatives
|
||||
|
||||
Member-owned organizations where users are also owners. Democratic governance, surplus reinvested in network or returned to members.
|
||||
|
||||
### Municipal Broadband
|
||||
|
||||
City or county government builds and operates internet infrastructure. Can offer service directly or lease infrastructure to providers.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Real-World Examples
|
||||
|
||||
### Guifi.net (Catalonia, Spain)
|
||||
|
||||
One of the world's largest community networks, founded in 2004 when commercial providers ignored rural Catalonia.
|
||||
|
||||
**Scale**: 35,000+ active nodes across Catalonia and beyond.
|
||||
|
||||
**How it works**: Combines wireless links, fiber optic, and other technologies. Operates under a "commons" model—any individual or organization can connect and extend the network. Democratic, transparent governance.
|
||||
|
||||
**Impact**: Proved community networks can operate at massive scale. Recognized by European Commission as model for digital inclusion.
|
||||
|
||||
**Philosophy**: "The network belongs to everyone who builds it."
|
||||
|
||||
### NYC Mesh (New York City)
|
||||
|
||||
Volunteer-run community mesh network serving New York City, operating on a "pay what you can" model.
|
||||
|
||||
**Scale**: 1,000+ active nodes across all five boroughs, serving thousands of New Yorkers.
|
||||
|
||||
**How it works**: Supernodes on tall buildings connect to internet exchange points. Point-to-point wireless distributes connectivity to neighborhood hubs. Volunteers install equipment on rooftops and in apartments.
|
||||
|
||||
**Impact**: Provided free internet to public housing residents during COVID-19. Maintained connectivity when commercial providers failed during Hurricane Sandy and the pandemic.
|
||||
|
||||
### Detroit Community Technology Project
|
||||
|
||||
Founded in 2015, focusing on digital equity and community self-determination in a city where commercial providers had systematically disinvested.
|
||||
|
||||
**Programs**:
|
||||
- **Equitable Internet Initiative**: Trains "Digital Stewards" to build and maintain neighborhood wireless networks
|
||||
- **Digital Stewards Program**: 20-week training creating community leaders
|
||||
- **DiscoTech Events**: Community gatherings exploring technology and digital justice
|
||||
|
||||
**Impact**: Trained 100+ Digital Stewards, built networks serving thousands, created a replicable model adopted nationwide.
|
||||
|
||||
**Philosophy**: "We believe that communication is a fundamental human right."
|
||||
|
||||
### The Broader Movement
|
||||
|
||||
The Institute for Local Self-Reliance tracks 900+ community broadband networks in the US. Their research shows:
|
||||
- Community networks consistently deliver faster speeds at lower prices
|
||||
- Municipal networks outperform private ISPs on customer satisfaction
|
||||
- Claims that municipal broadband "always fails" are demonstrably false
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Organizations and Resources
|
||||
|
||||
| Organization | Description |
|
||||
|:-------------|:------------|
|
||||
| [Guifi.net](https://guifi.net) | World's largest community network. Model for commons-based infrastructure. <br><small>📊 35,000+ nodes in Catalonia and beyond.</small> |
|
||||
| [NYC Mesh](https://www.nycmesh.net) | Volunteer-run mesh network serving New York City. <br><small>📊 1,000+ nodes across all five boroughs.</small> |
|
||||
| [Detroit Community Technology Project](https://detroitcommunitytech.org) | Digital equity organization training community technology leaders. <br><small>📊 100+ Digital Stewards trained.</small> |
|
||||
| [MuniNetworks / ILSR](https://muninetworks.org) | Research and advocacy for community broadband. Tracks 900+ networks. <br><small>📊 Comprehensive database of US community networks.</small> |
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Arguments for Community Ownership
|
||||
|
||||
### The Economic Argument
|
||||
|
||||
Community networks typically offer faster speeds at 20-50% lower prices. Local ownership keeps money circulating in the community. Creates local jobs and builds local technical capacity.
|
||||
|
||||
### The Equity Argument
|
||||
|
||||
Commercial ISPs created the digital divide through profit-driven decisions. Only community ownership can ensure universal, equitable access. Digital equity requires community control, not just connectivity.
|
||||
|
||||
### The Resilience Argument
|
||||
|
||||
Distributed, community-controlled networks are more resilient to disasters. Local operators respond quickly to local needs. Communities aren't dependent on corporate decisions.
|
||||
|
||||
### The Democracy Argument
|
||||
|
||||
Who controls infrastructure shapes who has power. Community ownership means community governance. Technology should serve communities, not extract from them.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Challenges
|
||||
|
||||
**Legal barriers**: 18+ states have laws restricting municipal broadband, largely written by incumbent ISP lobbyists.
|
||||
|
||||
**Financial challenges**: Significant upfront capital required. Competition from well-funded incumbents.
|
||||
|
||||
**Political opposition**: Incumbent ISPs lobby aggressively. Misinformation campaigns claim municipal broadband "always fails."
|
||||
|
||||
**Technical challenges**: Requires expertise that may not exist locally. Ongoing maintenance needs.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## The Bigger Picture
|
||||
|
||||
Community networks are part of a larger movement for community-owned infrastructure. They connect to platform cooperatives, community land trusts, and other solidarity economy initiatives.
|
||||
|
||||
The principle is consistent: essential infrastructure should be controlled by the communities that depend on it, not by corporations optimizing for shareholder returns.
|
||||
|
||||
The tools exist. The models are proven. Communities around the world are already doing this.
|
||||
|
||||
Connectivity is too important to leave to the market. Communities can—and are—building their own.
|
||||
143
content/articles/cooperative-platforms/index.md
Normal file
143
content/articles/cooperative-platforms/index.md
Normal file
@@ -0,0 +1,143 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: Cooperative Platforms
|
||||
date: 2025-12-27
|
||||
summary: Digital platforms owned and governed by the people who use them. When workers and users own the platforms they depend on, technology serves communities rather than extracting from them.
|
||||
draft: True
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
What if the platforms you use every day were owned by the people who create value on them?
|
||||
|
||||
Not by distant shareholders optimizing for quarterly returns. Not by venture capitalists expecting exponential growth. But by the workers, users, and communities who actually make these platforms valuable.
|
||||
|
||||
This is platform cooperativism: combining the digital platform economy with the century-old tradition of cooperative ownership. It's a movement proposing that the apps and websites we use for work, social connection, and commerce should be governed democratically by the people who depend on them.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Why This Matters
|
||||
|
||||
### The Problem with Extractive Platforms
|
||||
|
||||
Gig economy workers on platforms like Uber, DoorDash, and TaskRabbit typically earn poverty wages with no benefits, job security, or voice in how the platform operates. They're classified as "independent contractors" to strip them of labor protections, while being controlled by opaque algorithms they have no input into.
|
||||
|
||||
Meanwhile, the platforms extract enormous value. Uber has paid $0 in dividends to drivers despite billions in revenue. The wealth flows to shareholders who have never provided a ride.
|
||||
|
||||
This pattern repeats across the digital economy: users create value, platforms capture it.
|
||||
|
||||
### The Cooperative Alternative
|
||||
|
||||
Platform cooperatives flip this model:
|
||||
- **Workers become owners** rather than disposable "contractors"
|
||||
- **Users have voice** in how platforms operate
|
||||
- **Profits are shared** rather than extracted
|
||||
- **Governance is democratic** rather than top-down
|
||||
- **Data serves members** rather than feeding surveillance capitalism
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## How Cooperatives Differ from Extractive Platforms
|
||||
|
||||
| Dimension | Extractive Platforms | Platform Cooperatives |
|
||||
|:----------|:--------------------|:---------------------|
|
||||
| **Ownership** | Venture capital, shareholders | Workers, users, community |
|
||||
| **Governance** | Corporate hierarchy | Democratic (one member, one vote) |
|
||||
| **Profits** | To distant shareholders | To members, reinvested locally |
|
||||
| **Data** | Platform owns all data | Users control their data |
|
||||
| **Algorithms** | Black box, proprietary | Open, accountable to members |
|
||||
| **Growth model** | "Blitzscaling" at all costs | Sustainable, human-scale |
|
||||
| **Worker relationship** | Disposable "contractors" | Member-owners with voice |
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Real-World Examples
|
||||
|
||||
### Open Food Network
|
||||
|
||||
A global platform connecting local food producers directly with consumers and food hubs, cutting out extractive middlemen.
|
||||
|
||||
**How it works**: Operates as a network of independent instances in 20+ countries. Each regional instance is governed locally. The software is developed as a commons by a global community. Farmers, food hubs, and consumers all have voice in governance.
|
||||
|
||||
**Impact**: 10,000+ producers connected to local markets. Millions of dollars in food transactions. Keeps food dollars in local economies rather than flowing to Amazon or corporate grocery chains.
|
||||
|
||||
**Why it matters**: Demonstrates that communities can build their own digital infrastructure for essential needs without depending on extractive platforms.
|
||||
|
||||
### Resonate
|
||||
|
||||
A music streaming cooperative owned by artists and listeners, offering a "stream-to-own" model as an alternative to Spotify.
|
||||
|
||||
**How it differs from Spotify**:
|
||||
- Artists and listeners are member-owners, not just users
|
||||
- "Stream-to-own" model: after streaming a track ~9 times, you own it
|
||||
- Artists earn significantly more per play than Spotify's ~$0.003-0.005 per stream
|
||||
- Democratic governance with voting rights for members
|
||||
- Transparent analytics—artists see who's listening and where
|
||||
|
||||
**Scale**: ~15,000 members, 100,000+ tracks.
|
||||
|
||||
**Why it matters**: Proves that even in industries dominated by giants, cooperative alternatives can offer fairer models for creators.
|
||||
|
||||
### Social.coop
|
||||
|
||||
A cooperatively-owned Mastodon instance demonstrating that social media can be democratically governed.
|
||||
|
||||
**How it works**:
|
||||
- ~1,500-2,000 members paying dues ($1-10/month sliding scale)
|
||||
- Decisions made via Loomio (another cooperative tool)
|
||||
- Working groups handle moderation, tech, finance, community
|
||||
- Transparent finances and decision-making
|
||||
- One member, one vote on major decisions
|
||||
|
||||
**Why it matters**: Demonstrates that social media doesn't have to be controlled by billionaires. Communities can govern their own digital public squares democratically.
|
||||
|
||||
### Other Notable Cooperatives
|
||||
|
||||
| Platform | Sector | Impact |
|
||||
|:---------|:-------|:-------|
|
||||
| **Stocksy** | Photography | Artist-owned stock photos; photographers earn 50-75% of sales (vs. ~15-45% on Getty) |
|
||||
| **Up & Go** | Home Services | Worker-owned cleaning cooperative in NYC; cleaners earn $25/hour vs. ~$10-15 on TaskRabbit |
|
||||
| **Eva** | Ride-sharing | Driver-owned in Quebec; drivers keep 85%+ of fares |
|
||||
| **CoopCycle** | Food Delivery | Federation of bike delivery cooperatives across Europe |
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Open Source Platforms
|
||||
|
||||
| Project | Description |
|
||||
|:--------|:------------|
|
||||
| [Open Food Network](https://www.openfoodnetwork.org) | Platform for local food systems connecting producers and consumers. <br><small>📊 10,000+ producers in 20+ countries.</small> <br><small>📦 [GitHub](https://github.com/openfoodnetwork/openfoodnetwork) · AGPL-3.0</small> |
|
||||
| [Resonate](https://resonate.coop) | Music streaming cooperative with stream-to-own model. <br><small>📊 15,000+ members, 100,000+ tracks.</small> <br><small>📦 [GitHub](https://github.com/resonatecoop) · Various</small> |
|
||||
| [Social.coop](https://social.coop) | Cooperatively-owned Mastodon instance with democratic governance. <br><small>📊 1,500-2,000 members. Governed via Loomio.</small> <br><small>📦 Part of Mastodon/Fediverse ecosystem</small> |
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## The Movement
|
||||
|
||||
### Key Organizations
|
||||
|
||||
**Platform Cooperativism Consortium**: Based at The New School, provides research, education, and support for platform cooperatives worldwide.
|
||||
|
||||
**Internet of Ownership**: Directory of 300+ democratic digital economy projects.
|
||||
|
||||
**Start.coop**: Accelerator program specifically for cooperative startups.
|
||||
|
||||
### Challenges
|
||||
|
||||
Platform cooperatives face real obstacles:
|
||||
- **Capital access**: Can't offer equity to venture capitalists
|
||||
- **Network effects**: Extractive platforms benefit from massive scale
|
||||
- **Awareness**: Most people don't know alternatives exist
|
||||
|
||||
But the movement is growing. COVID-19 exposed the precarity of gig work. Growing backlash against Big Tech creates openings. The fediverse's growth demonstrates appetite for alternatives.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## The Bigger Picture
|
||||
|
||||
Platform cooperativism answers one of the defining questions of our time: **Who should own and govern the digital infrastructure that shapes our lives?**
|
||||
|
||||
The cooperative answer: the people who create value should own and control the platforms they depend on.
|
||||
|
||||
This isn't just about better apps. It's about economic democracy. It's about whether technology serves communities or extracts from them. It's about who gets to shape the digital future.
|
||||
|
||||
The tools exist. The models work. The movement is growing.
|
||||
|
||||
Another digital economy is possible—one where platforms are owned by the people who use them.
|
||||
156
content/articles/crm-membership-newsletters/index.md
Normal file
156
content/articles/crm-membership-newsletters/index.md
Normal file
@@ -0,0 +1,156 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: Membership, CRM, and Newsletters
|
||||
date: 2025-12-27
|
||||
summary: Tools for managing contacts, memberships, donations, and communications. When your member relationships live on your infrastructure, your community's most valuable asset stays under your control.
|
||||
draft: True
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
Communities exist through relationships. The contacts, members, donors, and supporters who make up your community are your most valuable asset.
|
||||
|
||||
Without good systems, this relationship data lives in scattered spreadsheets, personal email accounts, and people's heads. When key volunteers leave, contact histories and donor relationships disappear. Communication becomes chaotic—duplicate outreach, missed renewals, frustrated members.
|
||||
|
||||
Commercial platforms like Mailchimp, HubSpot, and Salesforce solve these problems, but at a cost: per-contact pricing that scales with your community, data stored on corporate servers, and dependency on companies whose priorities may not align with yours.
|
||||
|
||||
Open source alternatives offer the same capabilities while keeping your community's relationships under your control.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Why This Matters for Communities
|
||||
|
||||
### The Cost Reality
|
||||
|
||||
A nonprofit with 25,000 contacts might pay $300+ per month for Mailchimp alone. Add CRM features and the costs climb further.
|
||||
|
||||
Self-hosted Listmonk on a $10/month server plus Amazon SES ($0.10 per 1,000 emails) costs under $50/month total—an 80%+ savings.
|
||||
|
||||
Over years, these savings compound. Every dollar not spent on subscription fees is a dollar available for actual community work.
|
||||
|
||||
### Data Sovereignty
|
||||
|
||||
Your member data is your community's institutional memory. On commercial platforms:
|
||||
- Your data lives on their servers, subject to their terms
|
||||
- Platforms can change terms, raise prices, or shut down features
|
||||
- Data portability is often limited
|
||||
- Third-party data sharing feeds advertising profiles
|
||||
|
||||
Self-hosted tools mean:
|
||||
- Complete data sovereignty—data never leaves your infrastructure
|
||||
- Full export capability—your data, your format, anytime
|
||||
- Simplified compliance—you're the sole data controller
|
||||
- No surveillance—no behavioral tracking for advertising
|
||||
|
||||
### Mission Alignment
|
||||
|
||||
When your member data lives on a commercial platform, you're paying rent on your own relationships. Every dollar spent on subscription fees flows to distant shareholders rather than your mission.
|
||||
|
||||
Organizations that advocate for community control should use tools that embody those values.
|
||||
|
||||
### Sustainability
|
||||
|
||||
Commercial platforms get acquired, pivot, or shut down. Mailchimp was acquired by Intuit. Constant Contact has changed hands multiple times. Each transition brings pricing changes and policy shifts.
|
||||
|
||||
Open source software can't be "acquired" away from you. The code belongs to everyone. Your community's institutional memory shouldn't depend on a startup's runway or a corporation's quarterly earnings.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Real-World Examples
|
||||
|
||||
### CiviCRM
|
||||
|
||||
Used by major organizations worldwide:
|
||||
- **Wikimedia Foundation**: Donor management for Wikipedia fundraising
|
||||
- **Amnesty International**: Member management across multiple chapters
|
||||
- **Electronic Frontier Foundation**: Supporter engagement and action alerts
|
||||
- **Creative Commons**: Community and donor management
|
||||
- **Australian Greens**: Political party membership management
|
||||
|
||||
11,000+ active installations manage tens of millions of contact records globally.
|
||||
|
||||
### Listmonk
|
||||
|
||||
Growing rapidly among technical and privacy-conscious organizations:
|
||||
- 15,000+ GitHub stars
|
||||
- Single binary, extremely lightweight
|
||||
- Can handle millions of subscribers
|
||||
- Popular with developer communities and open source projects
|
||||
|
||||
### Mautic
|
||||
|
||||
200,000+ installations claimed:
|
||||
- Marketing agencies using it as white-label solution
|
||||
- Educational institutions for student recruitment
|
||||
- Nonprofits for donor cultivation
|
||||
- Political campaigns for voter outreach
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Choosing the Right Tool
|
||||
|
||||
### CiviCRM: The Nonprofit Powerhouse
|
||||
|
||||
Best for nonprofits and civic organizations needing comprehensive constituent management.
|
||||
|
||||
**Strengths**: Purpose-built for nonprofits; comprehensive features (contacts, contributions, memberships, events, mailings, cases, campaigns, grants); deep CMS integrations (WordPress, Drupal, Joomla); large extension ecosystem.
|
||||
|
||||
**Considerations**: Steeper learning curve; requires CMS; best with technical support or training.
|
||||
|
||||
### Listmonk: The Newsletter Specialist
|
||||
|
||||
Best for organizations primarily needing newsletter and email list management.
|
||||
|
||||
**Strengths**: Blazingly fast and resource-efficient; simple, focused feature set; handles millions of subscribers; easy to deploy.
|
||||
|
||||
**Considerations**: Newsletter/mailing only—not a full CRM; requires technical comfort for setup.
|
||||
|
||||
### Mautic: The Marketing Platform
|
||||
|
||||
Best for organizations wanting full marketing automation capabilities.
|
||||
|
||||
**Strengths**: Full marketing automation; visual campaign builder; landing pages and forms; lead scoring and nurturing; multi-channel (email, SMS, web).
|
||||
|
||||
**Considerations**: More complex than simpler tools; resource-intensive; requires ongoing maintenance.
|
||||
|
||||
### Odoo Community: The Business Suite
|
||||
|
||||
Best for organizations needing CRM integrated with broader business operations.
|
||||
|
||||
**Strengths**: Complete business suite (CRM is one module of many); unified data across sales, inventory, accounting; massive app ecosystem.
|
||||
|
||||
**Considerations**: Can be overkill for CRM-only needs; some features push toward Enterprise edition.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Open Source Options
|
||||
|
||||
| Project | Description |
|
||||
|:--------|:------------|
|
||||
| [CiviCRM](https://civicrm.org) | Comprehensive constituent management for nonprofits. Contacts, donations, memberships, events, and more. <br><small>📊 11,000+ installations. Used by Wikimedia, Amnesty, EFF.</small> <br><small>📦 [GitHub](https://github.com/civicrm/civicrm-core) · AGPL-3.0</small> |
|
||||
| [Listmonk](https://listmonk.app) | High-performance newsletter and mailing list manager. <br><small>📊 15,000+ GitHub stars. Handles millions of subscribers.</small> <br><small>📦 [GitHub](https://github.com/knadh/listmonk) · AGPL-3.0</small> |
|
||||
| [Mautic](https://www.mautic.org) | Full marketing automation platform with campaigns, landing pages, and lead scoring. <br><small>📊 200,000+ installations claimed.</small> <br><small>📦 [GitHub](https://github.com/mautic/mautic) · GPL-3.0</small> |
|
||||
| [Odoo Community](https://www.odoo.com/page/community) | Complete business suite including CRM, integrated with sales, inventory, and accounting. <br><small>📊 7M+ users across editions.</small> <br><small>📦 [GitHub](https://github.com/odoo/odoo) · LGPL-3.0</small> |
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Feature Comparison
|
||||
|
||||
| Feature | CiviCRM | Listmonk | Mautic | Odoo |
|
||||
|:--------|:--------|:---------|:-------|:-----|
|
||||
| Contact management | Excellent | Basic | Good | Good |
|
||||
| Email campaigns | Good | Excellent | Excellent | Good |
|
||||
| Donation tracking | Excellent | No | No | Via modules |
|
||||
| Membership management | Excellent | No | No | Via modules |
|
||||
| Marketing automation | Basic | No | Excellent | Good |
|
||||
| Event management | Good | No | No | Via modules |
|
||||
| Best for | Nonprofits | Newsletters | Marketing | Full business |
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## The Bigger Picture
|
||||
|
||||
Your members trusted you with their information—not a Silicon Valley advertising company. Self-hosted tools mean member data never leaves your control. There's no behavioral profiling, no third-party data sharing, no surveillance capitalism built on your community's relationships.
|
||||
|
||||
Using open source community tools isn't just about saving money. It's about building capacity. When your organization understands and controls its own technology, you're not just a customer—you're a participant in a global movement of communities helping communities.
|
||||
|
||||
These tools are maintained by communities of users who share your values. When CiviCRM or Mautic evolves, it's because organizations like yours shaped that evolution.
|
||||
|
||||
Your community's relationships are too important to rent. Own them.
|
||||
@@ -1,131 +1,110 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
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.
|
||||
summary: What becomes possible when you control your own digital life? Digital self-determination means having genuine authority over your data, your tools, and the spaces where you connect with others.
|
||||
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
|
||||
draft: True
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## What is digital self-determination?
|
||||
## What does it mean to own your digital life?
|
||||
|
||||
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.
|
||||
Imagine a neighborhood where the community center, the bulletin board, and the mailboxes all belonged to the neighbors themselves. Where the rules were set by the people who lived there. Where no distant landlord could suddenly change the terms, raise the rent, or read everyone's mail.
|
||||
|
||||
True digital self-determination includes:
|
||||
That's what digital self-determination looks like.
|
||||
|
||||
- **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 is the ability to exercise meaningful control over your digital life—your data, your tools, and the spaces where you connect with others. It means:
|
||||
|
||||
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.
|
||||
- **Your data is yours.** You decide what to share, with whom, and under what conditions.
|
||||
- **Your tools work for you.** The software you use can be examined, modified, and shared.
|
||||
- **Your space belongs to you.** You can run your own services on infrastructure you control.
|
||||
- **You understand how things work.** You have the knowledge to make informed choices.
|
||||
- **You have a voice.** You participate in decisions about the technology that affects your life.
|
||||
|
||||
## The threat to digital self-determination
|
||||
This isn't all-or-nothing. Digital self-determination exists on a spectrum, and every step toward greater ownership is worthwhile.
|
||||
|
||||
Most people today have very little digital self-determination. Consider your typical online experience:
|
||||
## What becomes possible
|
||||
|
||||
- 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.
|
||||
When individuals and communities take ownership of their digital lives, wonderful things happen.
|
||||
|
||||
### 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.
|
||||
**You get to be yourself.** When you control your own digital space, you're not performing for algorithms or being nudged toward behaviors that benefit someone else. You can use technology intentionally, in ways that actually serve your life.
|
||||
|
||||
**Your privacy is real.** Your browsing history, your location, your private conversations—these stay private because you control the infrastructure. There's no business model built on surveilling you.
|
||||
|
||||
**You build lasting skills.** Understanding how your technology works is empowering. People who start maintaining their own email server often discover they can learn far more than they imagined. Technical literacy is a gift you give yourself.
|
||||
|
||||
**You're not dependent.** When you run your own services, no company can suddenly change the terms, shut down a product you rely on, or lock you out of your own data.
|
||||
|
||||
### For communities
|
||||
|
||||
**Neighbors meet each other.** Something magical happens when communities build technology together. In Detroit, people setting up community wireless networks report meeting more neighbors in a few months than in years of living there. The technology becomes an excuse for connection.
|
||||
|
||||
**Local needs get met.** When a community builds its own tools, those tools can reflect local values, languages, and priorities. Indigenous communities are using self-hosted platforms to preserve languages and cultural practices on their own terms. Neighborhood groups can design spaces that work for their specific context.
|
||||
|
||||
**Resources stay local.** Instead of subscription fees flowing to distant corporations, communities invest in their own infrastructure and each other. The money and skills stay in the community.
|
||||
|
||||
**Resilience grows.** Communities that control their own technology can't be cut off by a platform's policy change or a company's business decision. Their communication channels, their archives, their shared spaces persist because they own them.
|
||||
|
||||
**Trust deepens.** When community members can see how their tools work and participate in decisions about them, trust grows. There's no black box, no hidden algorithm, no mysterious moderation decisions from afar.
|
||||
|
||||
### 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.
|
||||
**Your mission stays intact.** Organizations working on sensitive issues—human rights, public health, political reform—can operate without contradicting their values by depending on surveillance-based platforms.
|
||||
|
||||
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.
|
||||
**Your security improves.** When you control your infrastructure, you control your security. Sensitive communications and confidential data stay on systems you manage, not on platforms designed for other purposes.
|
||||
|
||||
## Conclusion
|
||||
**Your costs become predictable.** Self-hosted infrastructure often costs less over time than endless subscriptions, and you're not subject to sudden price increases or service changes.
|
||||
|
||||
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.
|
||||
**Your work continues.** Organizations that run their own infrastructure can't be silenced by a platform deciding they violate terms of service. Your ability to communicate and organize doesn't depend on anyone else's permission.
|
||||
|
||||
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.
|
||||
## How to begin
|
||||
|
||||
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.
|
||||
Taking ownership of your digital life is a journey, not a destination. Here are some ways to start.
|
||||
|
||||
### Small steps for individuals
|
||||
|
||||
**Get curious.** Start noticing which services you depend on and who controls them. What would happen if they disappeared tomorrow?
|
||||
|
||||
**Try one thing.** Pick a single service—maybe a password manager, maybe a note-taking app—and try an open-source, self-hosted alternative. See how it feels.
|
||||
|
||||
**Find your people.** Connect with others on similar journeys. Communities of practice make everything easier and more fun.
|
||||
|
||||
**Learn as you go.** You don't need to become an expert before you start. Every bit of understanding you gain is valuable.
|
||||
|
||||
### Steps for organizations
|
||||
|
||||
**Start with what matters most.** What communications or data would be most damaging if compromised? That's where to focus first.
|
||||
|
||||
**Build capacity gradually.** Invest in technical skills within your organization. Even a little expertise goes a long way.
|
||||
|
||||
**Partner with others.** Share infrastructure and knowledge with similar organizations. You don't have to do everything alone.
|
||||
|
||||
**Make it part of your strategy.** Digital self-determination isn't just an IT decision—it's about organizational resilience and values alignment.
|
||||
|
||||
### For communities
|
||||
|
||||
**Start a conversation.** Talk with neighbors about what you could build together. The technology is often less important than the relationships.
|
||||
|
||||
**Learn from others.** Communities around the world are already doing this. Their stories and lessons are freely shared.
|
||||
|
||||
**Begin with something visible.** A community wireless network, a shared file server, a local chat space—something tangible that people can see and use.
|
||||
|
||||
**Celebrate small wins.** Every step forward is worth celebrating. Building community technology is as much about the building as the technology.
|
||||
|
||||
## The invitation
|
||||
|
||||
Digital self-determination isn't about rejecting technology or going back to some imagined simpler time. It's about technology that actually serves us—tools we understand, spaces we own, connections we control.
|
||||
|
||||
Communities around the world are already building this. Rural cooperatives in Minnesota are running their own broadband. Neighborhoods in Detroit are building wireless networks that bring neighbors together. Artist cooperatives are creating platforms where creators keep what they earn. Indigenous communities are preserving languages and cultures on their own terms.
|
||||
|
||||
The tools exist. The knowledge is shared freely. The communities are welcoming.
|
||||
|
||||
The question isn't whether this is possible—it's already happening. The question is what you and your community might build together.
|
||||
|
||||
We're here to help. That's what the [Civil Society Technology Foundation](/about/) is for, and it's why we're building [Wild Cloud](/projects/wild-cloud/)—to make community-owned technology accessible to everyone.
|
||||
|
||||
Come see what becomes possible when communities own their digital homes.
|
||||
|
||||
142
content/articles/event-management-tools/index.md
Normal file
142
content/articles/event-management-tools/index.md
Normal file
@@ -0,0 +1,142 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: Open Source Event Management
|
||||
date: 2025-12-27
|
||||
summary: Tools for organizing conferences, meetups, and community gatherings. When your event infrastructure belongs to you, every registration builds community assets rather than paying platform fees.
|
||||
draft: True
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
Events are the heartbeat of communities. They transform online connections into real relationships, create shared experiences that strengthen bonds, and provide regular touchpoints that maintain momentum.
|
||||
|
||||
Conferences bring together practitioners and newcomers for knowledge exchange. Meetups provide regular connection points for local communities. Workshops enable skill-sharing and hands-on learning. Gatherings like hackathons and unconferences foster collaboration and innovation.
|
||||
|
||||
But organizing events on commercial platforms comes with costs: Eventbrite takes 3.7% plus $1.79 per ticket. Meetup.com charges organizers $98-198 per month. And beyond the fees, your attendee data—your community's most valuable asset—lives on someone else's servers.
|
||||
|
||||
Open source event management tools offer a different path.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Why This Matters for Communities
|
||||
|
||||
### The Fee Problem
|
||||
|
||||
Consider a community running 10 events per year with 500 attendees each, charging $50 per ticket. Eventbrite would take approximately $25,000+ in fees annually. Self-hosted Pretix on a $20/month server costs $240/year.
|
||||
|
||||
For free events, the savings are even more dramatic—commercial platforms still charge processing fees, while self-hosted tools cost only hosting.
|
||||
|
||||
### Data Ownership
|
||||
|
||||
Your attendee list is your community. On commercial platforms:
|
||||
- They own your attendee data
|
||||
- Export options are often limited
|
||||
- If they change pricing or shut down, you lose your audience
|
||||
- Your community data feeds their marketing systems
|
||||
|
||||
Self-hosted tools mean:
|
||||
- You own your attendee list forever
|
||||
- Full export capabilities at any time
|
||||
- GDPR compliance in your hands, not a third party's
|
||||
- No risk of platform selling or sharing your community data
|
||||
|
||||
### Customization
|
||||
|
||||
Commercial platforms are designed for the average of everyone. Your community has specific needs: custom registration fields, particular workflows, integration with your other tools, branding that matches your identity.
|
||||
|
||||
Open source tools can be modified to fit how your community actually works.
|
||||
|
||||
### Values Alignment
|
||||
|
||||
For communities built on open source principles, using proprietary event platforms creates a contradiction. Your conference about digital freedom shouldn't fund surveillance capitalism.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Real-World Examples
|
||||
|
||||
### CERN and Indico
|
||||
|
||||
CERN developed Indico for their own needs—managing everything from small meetings to massive physics conferences. Now used by 200+ institutions worldwide, with 25,000+ users at CERN alone.
|
||||
|
||||
Other major users include Fermilab, DESY, and United Nations agencies. The tool handles everything from small meetings to conferences with thousands of attendees.
|
||||
|
||||
### Chaos Communication Congress and Pretix
|
||||
|
||||
The Chaos Communication Congress—one of the world's largest hacker conferences with 17,000+ attendees—uses Pretix. So does FOSDEM (10,000+ attendees). Millions of tickets have been sold through the platform.
|
||||
|
||||
Privacy-conscious technical communities trust Pretix because they can verify exactly how it handles their data.
|
||||
|
||||
### FOSSASIA and Eventyay
|
||||
|
||||
FOSSASIA developed Eventyay for their own open source conferences. It's now used for FOSSASIA Summit, OpenTech Summit, and events throughout the global open source community in Asia.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Choosing the Right Tool
|
||||
|
||||
### Indico: The Conference Powerhouse
|
||||
|
||||
Best for academic conferences, research institutions, and organizations needing robust scheduling and abstract management.
|
||||
|
||||
**Strengths**: Battle-tested at massive scale; exceptional conference management (sessions, tracks, abstracts); strong meeting management; room booking integration; mature and well-documented.
|
||||
|
||||
**Used by**: CERN, Fermilab, DESY, UN agencies, major universities.
|
||||
|
||||
**Considerations**: Complex setup (designed for large institutions); ticketing/payment features less developed; steeper learning curve.
|
||||
|
||||
### Pretix: The Ticketing Expert
|
||||
|
||||
Best for events focused on ticketing and registration, especially paid events.
|
||||
|
||||
**Strengths**: Excellent ticketing and payment handling; beautiful, modern UI; powerful plugin system; seating plans and reserved seating; strong check-in app.
|
||||
|
||||
**Used by**: Chaos Communication Congress, FOSDEM, many European tech conferences and cultural events.
|
||||
|
||||
**Considerations**: Less focused on conference program management; no built-in call for papers or speaker management.
|
||||
|
||||
### Eventyay: The All-in-One Option
|
||||
|
||||
Best for open source communities wanting full conference features with modern UX.
|
||||
|
||||
**Strengths**: Full-featured (ticketing + scheduling + speaker management); modern, clean interface; call for papers built-in; supports in-person, virtual, and hybrid events.
|
||||
|
||||
**Used by**: FOSSASIA events, open source conferences globally.
|
||||
|
||||
**Considerations**: Smaller deployment base; fewer payment gateway integrations than Pretix.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Open Source Options
|
||||
|
||||
| Project | Description |
|
||||
|:--------|:------------|
|
||||
| [Indico](https://getindico.io) | Comprehensive event management from CERN. Excellent for conferences with complex scheduling. <br><small>📊 200+ institutions, 25K+ users at CERN alone.</small> <br><small>📦 [GitHub](https://github.com/indico/indico) · MIT</small> |
|
||||
| [Pretix](https://pretix.eu) | Modern ticketing platform with excellent payment handling and check-in tools. <br><small>📊 Millions of tickets sold. Used by CCC, FOSDEM.</small> <br><small>📦 [GitHub](https://github.com/pretix/pretix) · AGPL-3.0</small> |
|
||||
| [Eventyay](https://eventyay.com) | Full-featured event platform with ticketing, scheduling, and speaker management. <br><small>📊 Powers FOSSASIA and open source events worldwide.</small> <br><small>📦 [GitHub](https://github.com/fossasia/open-event-server) · Apache-2.0</small> |
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Feature Comparison
|
||||
|
||||
| Feature | Indico | Pretix | Eventyay |
|
||||
|:--------|:-------|:-------|:---------|
|
||||
| Registration | Yes | Yes | Yes |
|
||||
| Paid ticketing | Limited | Excellent | Good |
|
||||
| Session management | Excellent | Basic | Good |
|
||||
| Call for papers | Yes | No | Yes |
|
||||
| Speaker management | Yes | No | Yes |
|
||||
| Check-in app | Yes | Excellent | Yes |
|
||||
| Badge printing | Yes | Yes | Yes |
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## The Bigger Picture
|
||||
|
||||
Events are where communities come alive. They deserve infrastructure that serves the community rather than extracting from it.
|
||||
|
||||
When your event platform belongs to you:
|
||||
- Every registration builds your community's database, not someone else's
|
||||
- Every dollar saved on fees can fund community programs
|
||||
- Every customization serves your specific needs
|
||||
- Every year of history stays under your control
|
||||
|
||||
The tools exist. They're battle-tested at massive scale. They're free to use and modify.
|
||||
|
||||
Your community's gatherings deserve infrastructure as thoughtful as the events themselves.
|
||||
121
content/articles/federated-social-networks/index.md
Normal file
121
content/articles/federated-social-networks/index.md
Normal file
@@ -0,0 +1,121 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: Federated Social Networks
|
||||
date: 2025-12-27
|
||||
summary: Decentralized social platforms where communities run their own instances, connected to a wider network but governed by their own rules. Social media that belongs to the people who use it.
|
||||
draft: True
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
What if social media actually belonged to the communities that use it?
|
||||
|
||||
Not rented from a corporation that can change the rules at any moment. Not subject to algorithms designed to maximize engagement through outrage. Not mined for data to feed advertising machines.
|
||||
|
||||
Federated social networks offer this possibility. They're platforms where communities run their own servers (called "instances"), set their own rules, and connect with a broader network of other communities—all while maintaining sovereignty over their own digital space.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Why Federation Matters
|
||||
|
||||
### Data Ownership and Digital Sovereignty
|
||||
|
||||
On federated platforms, your data lives on servers controlled by your community, not a corporation. You can export your data, move between instances, or run your own. There's no surveillance capitalism—no business model built on knowing everything about you to sell ads.
|
||||
|
||||
The French government runs its own Matrix server for inter-ministerial communication. The German Bundeswehr uses Matrix for military communications. The European Commission has its own Mastodon instance. These institutions chose federation specifically because they need to control their own communications infrastructure.
|
||||
|
||||
### Community Governance
|
||||
|
||||
Each instance sets its own rules. A photography community can have different norms than an academic institution. A cooperative can govern its social media democratically. Instance administrators are accountable to their communities, not shareholders.
|
||||
|
||||
Social.coop demonstrates this beautifully: a cooperatively-owned Mastodon instance where members vote on policies, pay dues, and share governance through Loomio. It's social media run like a community organization.
|
||||
|
||||
### Freedom from Algorithmic Manipulation
|
||||
|
||||
Most federated platforms show posts in chronological order by default. There's no engagement-maximizing algorithm pushing inflammatory content. No dark patterns designed to maximize addiction. No "you might also like" rabbit holes engineered to keep you scrolling.
|
||||
|
||||
The software is open source. Anyone can audit exactly how content is displayed and distributed. There are no hidden mechanisms shaping what you see.
|
||||
|
||||
### Resilience
|
||||
|
||||
The fediverse has over 10,000 Mastodon instances alone. There's no single point of failure, no single entity to pressure or acquire. Communities can't be "deplatformed" by a corporate decision. If one instance shuts down, the network continues.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## How It Works
|
||||
|
||||
Federation works like email: Gmail users can email Yahoo users can email self-hosted users. You pick your provider based on your values and needs, but you can communicate with everyone.
|
||||
|
||||
The ActivityPub protocol (a W3C standard) enables this. It defines how servers communicate—how a post on one server reaches followers on another, how likes and comments flow back. Your identity is `@username@instance.domain`, and you can follow anyone on any instance.
|
||||
|
||||
Corporate social media is like if Gmail users could only email other Gmail users. Federation breaks that lock-in.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Real Communities Using Federation
|
||||
|
||||
### Government and Institutional Adoption
|
||||
|
||||
- **European Commission**: Runs its own Mastodon instance for official EU communications
|
||||
- **German Government**: Multiple federal agencies on Mastodon; Bundeswehr uses Matrix
|
||||
- **French Government**: Uses Matrix (via Tchap) for inter-ministerial communication
|
||||
- **Mozilla, Wikimedia**: Major tech organizations running their own instances
|
||||
|
||||
### Academic and Interest Communities
|
||||
|
||||
- **Scholar.social**: Mastodon instance for academics and researchers
|
||||
- **Fosstodon.org**: Free and open source software community
|
||||
- **Hachyderm.io**: Tech professionals, including many ex-Twitter employees
|
||||
- **Tabletop.social**: Board gaming community
|
||||
- **Photog.social**: Photography enthusiasts
|
||||
|
||||
### Cooperative and Activist Spaces
|
||||
|
||||
- **Social.coop**: Cooperatively-owned instance with democratic governance
|
||||
- **Kolektiva.social**: Anarchist and activist communities
|
||||
- **Sunbeam.city**: Solarpunk and environmental community
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Challenges and Considerations
|
||||
|
||||
### Moderation Complexity
|
||||
|
||||
Federated moderation requires active community management. Bad actors can set up their own instances, so communities must actively defederate (block) problematic servers. Most instance moderation is done by unpaid volunteers, which can lead to burnout.
|
||||
|
||||
The tradeoff: you get community control over moderation policies, but you also get community responsibility for enforcement.
|
||||
|
||||
### Technical Maintenance
|
||||
|
||||
Running an instance requires server administration skills, ongoing maintenance, and costs for hosting and storage (especially for media-heavy platforms like Pixelfed or PeerTube). Managed hosting services like Masto.host and Spacebear.ee are emerging to reduce this burden.
|
||||
|
||||
### The Network Effect Challenge
|
||||
|
||||
New instances start with no content and few users. Discovery is harder than on corporate platforms—there's no central algorithm promoting content. Choosing an instance can be confusing for newcomers.
|
||||
|
||||
But the fediverse is growing. Mastodon saw massive growth after Twitter's acquisition, and Lemmy experienced 10x growth during Reddit's 2023 API controversy. The ecosystem is maturing.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Open Source Options
|
||||
|
||||
| Project | Description |
|
||||
|:--------|:------------|
|
||||
| [Mastodon](https://joinmastodon.org) | Federated microblogging. Run your own Twitter-like service connected to thousands of others. <br><small>📊 10,000+ instances, 10-15M accounts. Used by European Commission, German government.</small> <br><small>📦 [GitHub](https://github.com/mastodon/mastodon) · AGPL-3.0</small> |
|
||||
| [Matrix](https://matrix.org) | Open standard for secure, decentralized communication. Chat, voice, and video with end-to-end encryption. <br><small>📊 100K+ servers, 80M+ users. Used by French government, Mozilla.</small> <br><small>📦 [GitHub](https://github.com/matrix-org/synapse) · Apache-2.0</small> |
|
||||
| [Mobilizon](https://joinmobilizon.org) | Federated event organizing. A privacy-respecting alternative to Facebook Events. <br><small>📊 80-100 instances. Developed by Framasoft.</small> <br><small>📦 [Framagit](https://framagit.org/framasoft/mobilizon) · AGPL-3.0</small> |
|
||||
| [WriteFreely](https://writefreely.org) | Minimalist, federated blogging focused on writing. <br><small>📊 500-1,000 instances, 100K+ users.</small> <br><small>📦 [GitHub](https://github.com/writefreely/writefreely) · AGPL-3.0</small> |
|
||||
| [Pixelfed](https://pixelfed.org) | Federated image sharing. A community-owned alternative to Instagram. <br><small>📊 300-500 instances, 150-300K users.</small> <br><small>📦 [GitHub](https://github.com/pixelfed/pixelfed) · AGPL-3.0</small> |
|
||||
| [PeerTube](https://joinpeertube.org) | Decentralized video hosting using peer-to-peer technology. <br><small>📊 1,000+ instances, 300-500K users. Used by Blender Foundation.</small> <br><small>📦 [Framagit](https://framagit.org/framasoft/peertube/peertube) · AGPL-3.0</small> |
|
||||
| [Lemmy](https://lemmy.ml) | Federated link aggregator and discussion, like Reddit but community-owned. <br><small>📊 1,000-1,500 instances, 500K-1M users.</small> <br><small>📦 [GitHub](https://github.com/LemmyNet/lemmy) · AGPL-3.0</small> |
|
||||
| [BookWyrm](https://bookwyrm.social) | Federated social network for tracking reading and reviewing books. <br><small>📊 30-50 instances, 30-50K users.</small> <br><small>📦 [GitHub](https://github.com/bookwyrm-social/bookwyrm) · AGPL-3.0</small> |
|
||||
| [Gancio](https://gancio.org) | Shared agenda for local communities—federated event publishing without registration. <br><small>📊 20-50 instances. Popular in Italian activist communities.</small> <br><small>📦 [Framagit](https://framagit.org/les/gancio) · AGPL-3.0</small> |
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## The Bigger Picture
|
||||
|
||||
Federation represents a fundamentally different vision of social media. Instead of a few corporations controlling the digital public square, thousands of communities govern their own spaces while remaining connected.
|
||||
|
||||
These platforms may never "beat" corporate social media in raw numbers. But they don't need to. They need to provide viable alternatives for communities that want something different—something they actually own and control.
|
||||
|
||||
The fediverse is growing, maturing, and proving that another way is possible. Social media doesn't have to be controlled by billionaires. Communities can govern their own digital spaces democratically.
|
||||
|
||||
That's not just a technical achievement. It's a democratic one.
|
||||
126
content/articles/financial-transparency-tools/index.md
Normal file
126
content/articles/financial-transparency-tools/index.md
Normal file
@@ -0,0 +1,126 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: Financial Transparency Tools
|
||||
date: 2025-12-27
|
||||
summary: Tools for budgeting, expense tracking, and transparent collective funding. When communities can see exactly how money flows, trust grows and accountability becomes real.
|
||||
draft: True
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
Financial transparency is the cornerstone of community trust. When members can see exactly how funds are collected and spent, accountability becomes real. Leaders are held responsible. Members are more likely to contribute. Conflicts about money diminish.
|
||||
|
||||
Yet many community organizations struggle with opaque finances—lack of clear reporting, difficulty attracting donors who can't verify fund usage, and risk of mismanagement going undetected.
|
||||
|
||||
Open source financial tools and transparent funding platforms solve these problems while keeping your community's financial data under your control.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Why This Matters for Communities
|
||||
|
||||
### Trust and Accountability
|
||||
|
||||
When everyone can see the books, financial decisions become community decisions. There's no suspicion about where money goes. Leaders can demonstrate integrity rather than just claiming it.
|
||||
|
||||
Transparent finances also protect organizations: clear records prevent accusations and make audits straightforward.
|
||||
|
||||
### Collective Funding Models
|
||||
|
||||
Modern communities increasingly rely on collective funding: membership dues, crowdfunding campaigns, grants, sponsorships, donation drives. All of these require transparent tracking to maintain donor confidence.
|
||||
|
||||
Open Collective has demonstrated this powerfully: open source projects that show exactly how money is used attract more consistent, long-term funding.
|
||||
|
||||
### The Open Finances Movement
|
||||
|
||||
The principle that "sunlight is the best disinfectant" applies directly to community finances. When organizational money management is visible, misuse becomes difficult and trust becomes verifiable.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Real-World Examples
|
||||
|
||||
### Open Source Projects on Open Collective
|
||||
|
||||
Webpack, Babel, Vue.js, and hundreds of other open source projects openly track all contributions and expenses on Open Collective. Anyone can see who contributed, how much, and exactly what the money was spent on.
|
||||
|
||||
This transparency has enabled sustainable funding for projects that previously struggled with finances.
|
||||
|
||||
### Community Organizations
|
||||
|
||||
Hackerspaces and makerspaces use open financial tools to manage membership dues and equipment purchases. Cooperatives leverage transparent accounting to give members visibility into collective finances. Nonprofit organizations use open source tools to reduce costs while maintaining accountability.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Choosing the Right Tool
|
||||
|
||||
### For Personal/Small Group Finances
|
||||
|
||||
**Firefly III**: Self-hosted personal finance manager adaptable for small community use.
|
||||
|
||||
**Strengths**: Double-entry bookkeeping; budget management; rule-based transaction handling; comprehensive reports; full data sovereignty.
|
||||
|
||||
**Philosophy**: "Firefly III should give you insight into and control over your finances. Money should be useful, not scary."
|
||||
|
||||
**GnuCash**: Mature desktop accounting software for personal and small-business use.
|
||||
|
||||
**Strengths**: Full double-entry bookkeeping; decades of development; runs on Linux, BSD, macOS, Windows; no cloud dependency.
|
||||
|
||||
### For Organizational Accounting
|
||||
|
||||
**Akaunting**: Online accounting software designed for small businesses, suitable for community organizations.
|
||||
|
||||
**Strengths**: Invoicing and billing; expense tracking; double-entry accounting; financial reporting; multi-user access with role permissions.
|
||||
|
||||
### For Transparent Collective Funding
|
||||
|
||||
**Open Collective**: Platform designed specifically for transparent community funding.
|
||||
|
||||
**Strengths**: Full transparency (all contributions and expenses publicly visible); fiscal hosting (legal infrastructure without forming your own nonprofit); collective budgets; expense management with audit trail.
|
||||
|
||||
**How it works**: Every transaction is public by default. Anyone can see who contributed, how much, and what money was spent on. Complete financial history is accessible.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Open Source Options
|
||||
|
||||
| Project | Description |
|
||||
|:--------|:------------|
|
||||
| [Firefly III](https://www.firefly-iii.org) | Self-hosted personal finance manager with budgeting and reporting. <br><small>📊 17,000+ GitHub stars. Active development.</small> <br><small>📦 [GitHub](https://github.com/firefly-iii/firefly-iii) · AGPL-3.0</small> |
|
||||
| [Akaunting](https://akaunting.com) | Free online accounting software for small organizations. <br><small>📊 Modern Laravel/Vue stack. Cloud or self-hosted.</small> <br><small>📦 [GitHub](https://github.com/akaunting/akaunting) · BSL-1.1</small> |
|
||||
| [Open Collective](https://opencollective.com) | Transparent platform for collective funding and expense management. <br><small>📊 Used by thousands of open source projects and communities.</small> <br><small>📦 [GitHub](https://github.com/opencollective/opencollective) · MIT</small> |
|
||||
| [GnuCash](https://www.gnucash.org) | Free, mature accounting software for personal and small-business use. <br><small>📊 Decades of development. Cross-platform.</small> <br><small>📦 [GitHub](https://github.com/Gnucash/gnucash) · GPL-2.0</small> |
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Feature Comparison
|
||||
|
||||
| Feature | Firefly III | Akaunting | Open Collective | GnuCash |
|
||||
|:--------|:------------|:----------|:----------------|:--------|
|
||||
| Self-hosted | Yes | Yes | No (SaaS) | Yes (desktop) |
|
||||
| Public transparency | No | No | Built-in | No |
|
||||
| Collective funding | No | No | Core feature | No |
|
||||
| Double-entry | Yes | Yes | No | Yes |
|
||||
| Invoicing | No | Yes | No | Yes |
|
||||
| Multi-user | Limited | Yes | Yes | Limited |
|
||||
| Best for | Personal/small | Organizations | Transparent funding | Traditional accounting |
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Recommendations by Use Case
|
||||
|
||||
| Community Type | Recommended Tools |
|
||||
|:---------------|:------------------|
|
||||
| Open source project | Open Collective (primary) + GnuCash (detailed tracking) |
|
||||
| Small nonprofit | Akaunting or GnuCash |
|
||||
| Hackerspace/makerspace | Firefly III (self-hosted) + Open Collective (donations) |
|
||||
| Cooperative | Akaunting (business features) |
|
||||
| Informal community group | Open Collective (easiest setup) |
|
||||
| Privacy-focused group | Firefly III or GnuCash (fully self-controlled) |
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## The Bigger Picture
|
||||
|
||||
Financial transparency isn't just about preventing misuse—it's about building the trust that makes collective action possible.
|
||||
|
||||
When community members can verify how money flows, they're more likely to contribute. When donors can see exactly where their money goes, they give more consistently. When leaders operate in the open, their integrity becomes demonstrable rather than claimed.
|
||||
|
||||
Open source tools make this transparency accessible, verifiable, and sustainable. They keep financial data under community control while enabling the visibility that builds trust.
|
||||
|
||||
Money should serve communities, not create suspicion within them. These tools help make that possible.
|
||||
130
content/articles/forms-surveys-tools/index.md
Normal file
130
content/articles/forms-surveys-tools/index.md
Normal file
@@ -0,0 +1,130 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: Open Source Forms and Surveys
|
||||
date: 2025-12-27
|
||||
summary: Self-hosted tools for collecting feedback, registrations, and community input. When your survey data stays on your servers, your community's information serves your community—not the surveillance economy.
|
||||
draft: True
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
Forms and surveys are the nervous system of community organizing. They're how communities listen, learn, and respond to their members.
|
||||
|
||||
Event registrations. Membership applications. Feedback collection. Needs assessments. Volunteer sign-ups. Every touchpoint where you gather information from community members.
|
||||
|
||||
Commercial tools like Google Forms, Typeform, and SurveyMonkey make this easy—but at a cost. Your community's data feeds someone else's business model. Your members' information becomes a commodity.
|
||||
|
||||
Self-hosted alternatives keep that data where it belongs: with your community.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Why This Matters for Communities
|
||||
|
||||
### Data Sovereignty
|
||||
|
||||
On commercial survey platforms, your data is the product. Responses feed advertising algorithms, behavioral profiles, and business intelligence systems you have no control over.
|
||||
|
||||
When you self-host, response data never leaves your infrastructure. There's no third-party access, no behavioral profiling, no feeding the surveillance economy.
|
||||
|
||||
### Privacy for Sensitive Information
|
||||
|
||||
Communities often collect sensitive information: health surveys, political views, personal struggles, experiences of vulnerable populations.
|
||||
|
||||
When this data lives on commercial platforms, it's subject to their terms of service, their data sharing agreements, their vulnerability to subpoenas. Self-hosting keeps sensitive information under your control.
|
||||
|
||||
### Cost Predictability
|
||||
|
||||
Commercial survey tools often have:
|
||||
- Per-response fees that punish successful outreach
|
||||
- Feature paywalls (conditional logic, data exports often require paid tiers)
|
||||
- Annual price increases
|
||||
- Sudden policy changes
|
||||
|
||||
Self-hosted tools have predictable costs—just hosting fees—with no artificial limitations.
|
||||
|
||||
### Regulatory Compliance
|
||||
|
||||
GDPR, HIPAA, and other regulations are simpler when you control the data. You're the sole data controller. There are no complex Data Processing Agreements to navigate.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Key Features
|
||||
|
||||
### Conditional Logic
|
||||
|
||||
All serious survey tools support branching—showing different questions based on previous answers. This is essential for creating surveys that respect respondents' time.
|
||||
|
||||
**LimeSurvey** offers the most advanced conditional logic with its expression manager. **Typebot** provides visual flow building for conversational surveys. **Formbricks** offers modern conditional logic with targeting rules.
|
||||
|
||||
### Data Export
|
||||
|
||||
Getting your data out matters:
|
||||
- **LimeSurvey**: CSV, Excel, SPSS, R, Stata, PDF reports
|
||||
- **Typebot**: CSV, JSON, webhook streaming
|
||||
- **Formbricks**: CSV, API, webhook integrations
|
||||
- **OhMyForm**: CSV, JSON
|
||||
|
||||
### Integrations
|
||||
|
||||
- **LimeSurvey**: LDAP, CRM plugins, API, custom plugins
|
||||
- **Typebot**: Zapier, Make, webhooks, OpenAI, Google Sheets, Notion, Slack
|
||||
- **Formbricks**: Webhooks, Zapier, Slack, native JS SDK
|
||||
- **OhMyForm**: Webhooks, basic API
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Choosing the Right Tool
|
||||
|
||||
### LimeSurvey: The Research Workhorse
|
||||
|
||||
Best for academic research, government surveys, and large-scale data collection requiring statistical analysis.
|
||||
|
||||
**Strengths**: Extremely feature-rich (28+ question types); excellent statistical export (SPSS, R, Stata); proven at scale; strong multilingual support (80+ languages).
|
||||
|
||||
**Used by**: German Federal Statistical Office, UN agencies, universities worldwide, humanitarian organizations.
|
||||
|
||||
**Considerations**: Steeper learning curve; UI feels dated; can be overwhelming for simple use cases.
|
||||
|
||||
### Typebot: The Conversational Builder
|
||||
|
||||
Best for conversational forms, chatbot-style interactions, and modern user experiences.
|
||||
|
||||
**Strengths**: Beautiful visual flow builder; conversational UX increases completion rates; modern interface; AI integration capabilities.
|
||||
|
||||
**Considerations**: Less suited for traditional long-form surveys; newer project with smaller community.
|
||||
|
||||
### Formbricks: The Experience Platform
|
||||
|
||||
Best for in-app surveys, user feedback, and product research.
|
||||
|
||||
**Strengths**: Modern, clean interface; in-app survey SDK; user targeting and segmentation; privacy-first design.
|
||||
|
||||
**Considerations**: More focused on product feedback than general surveys; younger project.
|
||||
|
||||
### OhMyForm: The Simple Solution
|
||||
|
||||
Best for simple forms and basic surveys where minimal complexity is the priority.
|
||||
|
||||
**Strengths**: Very simple to deploy and use; lightweight; MIT license (most permissive); low resource requirements.
|
||||
|
||||
**Considerations**: Less actively maintained; fewer features; smaller community.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Open Source Options
|
||||
|
||||
| Project | Description |
|
||||
|:--------|:------------|
|
||||
| [LimeSurvey](https://www.limesurvey.org) | Comprehensive survey platform for research and large-scale data collection. <br><small>📊 Millions of downloads. Used by UN agencies, universities, governments.</small> <br><small>📦 [GitHub](https://github.com/LimeSurvey/LimeSurvey) · GPL-2.0</small> |
|
||||
| [Typebot](https://typebot.io) | Conversational form builder with visual flow design. <br><small>📊 Growing adoption. Modern, intuitive interface.</small> <br><small>📦 [GitHub](https://github.com/baptisteArno/typebot.io) · AGPL-3.0</small> |
|
||||
| [Formbricks](https://formbricks.com) | Experience management platform for in-app surveys and feedback. <br><small>📊 Privacy-first design. Active development.</small> <br><small>📦 [GitHub](https://github.com/formbricks/formbricks) · AGPL-3.0</small> |
|
||||
| [OhMyForm](https://ohmyform.com) | Simple, lightweight form builder. <br><small>📊 Community-maintained. Good for basic needs.</small> <br><small>📦 [GitHub](https://github.com/ohmyform/ohmyform) · MIT</small> |
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## The Bigger Picture
|
||||
|
||||
When you use a "free" commercial survey tool, your community members are the product. Their data, their patterns, their preferences become commodities feeding someone else's business model.
|
||||
|
||||
Self-hosting means your community's data serves your community—not Silicon Valley's advertising machine.
|
||||
|
||||
For communities doing sensitive work—advocacy, organizing, legal aid, health services—this isn't just a preference. It's often a requirement. The people who trust you with their information deserve to know that information stays with you.
|
||||
|
||||
And for all communities, there's a simpler truth: the tools you use should work for you, not extract from you. Self-hosted survey tools embody that principle.
|
||||
@@ -1,204 +1,114 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: The Importance of Independent Technology in Civil Society
|
||||
title: Community-Owned Technology
|
||||
date: 2025-07-06
|
||||
summary: Independent technology is essential for civil society to thrive in the digital age. This essay explores the problems of centralization, the benefits of digital self-determination, and how we can build a more equitable and resilient digital future.
|
||||
summary: What happens when communities build and own their own technology? From rural broadband cooperatives to artist-owned platforms, communities around the world are showing us what's possible.
|
||||
featureImageCaption: "Photo by <a href=\"https://unsplash.com/@sahrulfikrilaitupa?utm_content=creditCopyText&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=unsplash\">Sahrul Laitupa</a> on <a href=\"https://unsplash.com/photos/a-young-man-sitting-at-a-desk-with-headphones-on-64ONLGrc0HQ?utm_content=creditCopyText&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=unsplash\">Unsplash</a>"
|
||||
aliases:
|
||||
- /articles/independent-technology/
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Introduction
|
||||
## A different kind of technology
|
||||
|
||||
Independent technology is software and hardware developed outside corporate and government control, owned and operated by the people who use it. We are so accustomed to being dependent on commercial platforms and services that we fail to recognize the alternatives; however, independent technology 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.
|
||||
What if the tools you use every day actually belonged to you and your community? Not rented from a distant corporation, not subject to terms that change without notice, but genuinely yours—to use, to understand, to modify, to share?
|
||||
|
||||
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.
|
||||
This isn't a hypothetical. Communities around the world are already building and owning their own technology. And what they're discovering goes far beyond the technical: when communities build together, they become stronger together.
|
||||
|
||||
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.
|
||||
## What community-owned technology looks like
|
||||
|
||||
## The problem: centralization of digital power
|
||||
Community-owned technology is software and infrastructure developed, operated, and governed by the people who use it. It comes in many forms:
|
||||
|
||||
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.
|
||||
**Community networks** where neighbors build and maintain their own internet infrastructure, from rural broadband cooperatives to urban wireless mesh networks.
|
||||
|
||||
### Corporate capture
|
||||
**Platform cooperatives** where the people who create value—drivers, artists, freelancers—own the platforms they work through.
|
||||
|
||||
The corporate capture of our digital commons has proceeded rapidly, with alarming consequences.
|
||||
**Self-hosted services** where organizations run their own email, file storage, and collaboration tools on infrastructure they control.
|
||||
|
||||
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.
|
||||
**Federated social spaces** where communities run their own social media instances, connected to others but governed by their own rules.
|
||||
|
||||
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."
|
||||
**Open source projects** where software is developed collaboratively and shared freely, belonging to everyone and no one.
|
||||
|
||||
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.
|
||||
What unites these approaches is a simple principle: the people who use technology should have meaningful control over it.
|
||||
|
||||
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.
|
||||
## Stories from communities
|
||||
|
||||
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.
|
||||
### Neighbors building networks
|
||||
|
||||
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.
|
||||
In Detroit, the Equitable Internet Initiative trains community members to build and maintain wireless networks in their own neighborhoods. What started as a response to inadequate internet access has become something more: a way for neighbors to meet each other, learn together, and build lasting community infrastructure.
|
||||
|
||||
### Government overreach
|
||||
"I met more neighbors in three months of antenna installations than in five years of living here," one participant reported. The technology became an excuse for connection.
|
||||
|
||||
As digital systems become central to civic life, governments have expanded their control in problematic ways.
|
||||
In rural Minnesota, RS Fiber Cooperative brought high-speed internet to communities that commercial providers had written off as unprofitable. Owned by the people it serves, the cooperative keeps resources local and makes decisions based on community needs, not shareholder returns.
|
||||
|
||||
_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.
|
||||
In Catalonia, Guifi.net has grown into one of the world's largest community networks, with over 35,000 active nodes. Built and maintained by volunteers, it demonstrates that community-scale infrastructure can work at remarkable scale.
|
||||
|
||||
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.
|
||||
### Workers owning their platforms
|
||||
|
||||
_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.
|
||||
The Drivers Cooperative in New York City is owned by its driver-members. Unlike corporate ride-hail apps that take 40% or more of each fare, the cooperative lets drivers keep most of what they earn while charging riders less. "I'm not working for someone anymore," one driver explained. "I'm working for myself and my fellow drivers."
|
||||
|
||||
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.
|
||||
Stocksy United, a stock photography cooperative, is owned by its contributing artists. Instead of the pennies-per-download that most stock platforms pay, Stocksy artists receive 50-75% of each sale and have a real voice in how the platform operates.
|
||||
|
||||
The line between corporate and state power blurs as _corporate-state alliances_ develop. Tech companies gain market access and regulatory advantages, while states gain access to data and infrastructure for surveillance and control.
|
||||
These aren't charity projects—they're businesses that work better because they're owned by the people who create value.
|
||||
|
||||
Government is too often compromised by corporate special interests, creating a cycle where those with the most resources shape both market and regulatory outcomes.
|
||||
### Communities preserving culture
|
||||
|
||||
### Systemic failures
|
||||
Indigenous communities are using self-hosted platforms to preserve and share languages and cultural knowledge on their own terms. When you control your own infrastructure, you can implement cultural protocols that global platforms would never support—deciding who can access what knowledge, and how it should be shared.
|
||||
|
||||
These problems aren't just individual failures but represent systemic issues with how digital technology is currently structured.
|
||||
The First Voices project helps Indigenous communities build digital archives of their languages, hosted on infrastructure the communities control. The technology serves cultural preservation rather than data extraction.
|
||||
|
||||
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.
|
||||
### Artists and creators taking control
|
||||
|
||||
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.
|
||||
Resonate, a music streaming cooperative, is owned by the artists, listeners, and workers who make it run. Instead of the fractions-of-a-penny that major streaming platforms pay per play, Resonate uses a "stream to own" model where listeners gradually purchase the music they love.
|
||||
|
||||
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.
|
||||
Ampled connects musicians directly with supporters through a cooperatively-owned platform. Artists keep more of what they earn, and the platform's direction is shaped by the community it serves.
|
||||
|
||||
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.
|
||||
## What makes it work
|
||||
|
||||
The _harms_ 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.
|
||||
Community-owned technology succeeds when it combines several elements:
|
||||
|
||||
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.
|
||||
**Real ownership.** Not just using open source software, but genuinely controlling the infrastructure and governance. The community makes the decisions.
|
||||
|
||||
## The solution: digital self-determination
|
||||
**Shared purpose.** People come together around something they care about—their neighborhood, their profession, their culture, their values.
|
||||
|
||||
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.
|
||||
**Distributed knowledge.** Skills spread through the community so it's not dependent on any single person. Teaching and learning become part of the culture.
|
||||
|
||||
### Core principles of independent technology
|
||||
**Sustainable economics.** Whether through cooperative ownership, community contributions, or creative business models, the project can sustain itself over time.
|
||||
|
||||
Independent technology is guided by principles that prioritize human agency and community well-being:
|
||||
**Connection to others.** Independent communities connect with each other, sharing knowledge, resources, and solidarity. Independence doesn't mean isolation.
|
||||
|
||||
- **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.
|
||||
## What becomes possible
|
||||
|
||||
- **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.
|
||||
When communities own their technology, new possibilities emerge:
|
||||
|
||||
- **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.
|
||||
**Technology fits local needs.** Instead of one-size-fits-all platforms designed for global scale, communities get tools shaped by their actual priorities and values.
|
||||
|
||||
- **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.
|
||||
**Resources stay local.** Money spent on community infrastructure builds community wealth instead of flowing to distant shareholders.
|
||||
|
||||
- **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.
|
||||
**Skills grow.** People who never thought of themselves as "technical" discover they can learn, contribute, and teach others.
|
||||
|
||||
### Benefits to civil society
|
||||
**Resilience builds.** Communities that control their own infrastructure can't be cut off by a company's business decision or a platform's policy change.
|
||||
|
||||
Independent technology creates substantial benefits for civil society organizations and the communities they serve:
|
||||
**Trust deepens.** When community members can see how their tools work and participate in decisions about them, trust grows.
|
||||
|
||||
- **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.
|
||||
**Connection happens.** Building together creates relationships that extend far beyond the technology itself.
|
||||
|
||||
- **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.
|
||||
## Getting started
|
||||
|
||||
- **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.
|
||||
You don't need to be a technical expert to participate in community-owned technology. Many communities begin with people who are simply curious and willing to learn together.
|
||||
|
||||
- **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.
|
||||
**Start with what you care about.** What community are you part of? What needs aren't being met by existing tools? What would you build if you could?
|
||||
|
||||
- **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.
|
||||
**Find others.** You're not alone. Communities around the world are doing this work and are eager to share what they've learned.
|
||||
|
||||
- **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.
|
||||
**Begin small.** A single self-hosted service, a neighborhood mesh node, a local instance of a federated platform. Start with something tangible and grow from there.
|
||||
|
||||
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.
|
||||
**Learn as you go.** You don't need to know everything before you start. Every community that's built something started with people who were willing to figure it out together.
|
||||
|
||||
## The path forward: building digital commons
|
||||
## An invitation
|
||||
|
||||
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.
|
||||
The Civil Society Technology Foundation exists to help communities build and own their own technology. Our [Wild Cloud project](/projects/wild-cloud/) provides tools that make self-hosting accessible. Our community connects practitioners who are learning and building together.
|
||||
|
||||
### Technical foundations
|
||||
We believe technology works better when it belongs to the people who use it. We believe communities are capable of building remarkable things when they work together. And we believe the best way to create change is to build alternatives so good that people choose them freely.
|
||||
|
||||
The technical foundations of digital commons include:
|
||||
Communities around the world are already doing this. Rural cooperatives, urban neighborhoods, artist collectives, advocacy organizations, cultural preservation projects—all discovering what becomes possible when they own their digital homes.
|
||||
|
||||
- **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 of AI
|
||||
|
||||
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 of AI
|
||||
|
||||
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: 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 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 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
|
||||
|
||||
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 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.
|
||||
Come see what you might build.
|
||||
|
||||
143
content/articles/knowledge-management-wikis/index.md
Normal file
143
content/articles/knowledge-management-wikis/index.md
Normal file
@@ -0,0 +1,143 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: Knowledge Management and Wikis
|
||||
date: 2025-12-27
|
||||
summary: Tools for documenting, organizing, and sharing community knowledge. When institutional memory lives in systems you control, it survives leadership transitions and serves future generations.
|
||||
draft: True
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
Every community accumulates knowledge: how things work, why decisions were made, what was tried before, who knows what. This knowledge is precious—and fragile.
|
||||
|
||||
When key members leave, undocumented knowledge disappears with them. When information lives in scattered documents, email threads, and people's heads, newcomers struggle to get up to speed. When decisions aren't recorded, communities relitigate the same questions over and over.
|
||||
|
||||
Wikis and knowledge bases solve this problem by creating shared, searchable, continuously updated repositories of community knowledge.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Why This Matters for Communities
|
||||
|
||||
### Institutional Memory
|
||||
|
||||
The "bus factor" problem is real: when key community members leave, retire, or become unavailable, undocumented knowledge disappears. Communities without documentation systems face "organizational amnesia"—lessons learned are repeatedly forgotten.
|
||||
|
||||
Good documentation preserves not just decisions, but the reasoning behind them. This prevents future members from repeating past mistakes or relitigating settled questions.
|
||||
|
||||
### Onboarding New Members
|
||||
|
||||
New members with access to well-organized documentation can become productive contributors much faster than those who rely on asking questions and tribal knowledge.
|
||||
|
||||
Self-service learning allows newcomers to learn at their own pace without requiring constant mentorship. Everyone receives the same foundational knowledge, reducing confusion from conflicting verbal explanations.
|
||||
|
||||
### Transparency and Trust
|
||||
|
||||
When processes, policies, and decisions are documented publicly, community members can understand how things work and hold leadership accountable.
|
||||
|
||||
Knowledge hoarding creates informal hierarchies. Shared documentation democratizes access to information. Transparent documentation of governance, finances, and operations builds trust with members, donors, and external stakeholders.
|
||||
|
||||
### Collective Intelligence
|
||||
|
||||
Community members collectively know far more than any individual. Wikis allow this distributed expertise to be captured and organized.
|
||||
|
||||
Unlike static documents, wikis enable continuous refinement as the community learns and grows.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Real-World Examples
|
||||
|
||||
### The Arch Wiki
|
||||
|
||||
Widely considered one of the best community-maintained documentation resources in existence. Used even by users of other Linux distributions. Demonstrates how community-driven documentation can exceed commercial quality.
|
||||
|
||||
### Wikipedia
|
||||
|
||||
The ultimate proof-of-concept that collaborative knowledge management works at massive scale: 60+ million articles in 300+ languages, maintained by volunteers.
|
||||
|
||||
### Hackerspaces and Makerspaces
|
||||
|
||||
Noisebridge, NYC Resistor, and makerspaces worldwide commonly use wikis to document equipment usage, project ideas, and organizational procedures.
|
||||
|
||||
### Cooperatives and Community Organizations
|
||||
|
||||
Housing cooperatives use wikis for member handbooks, maintenance procedures, and governance documentation. The knowledge stays with the organization even as members come and go.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Key Considerations
|
||||
|
||||
### Ease of Editing
|
||||
|
||||
| Approach | Pros | Cons |
|
||||
|:---------|:-----|:-----|
|
||||
| **WYSIWYG** (BookStack, Outline) | No learning curve, familiar interface | Less precise formatting control |
|
||||
| **Markdown** (Wiki.js, Outline) | Developer-friendly, portable format | Learning curve for non-technical users |
|
||||
| **WikiText** (MediaWiki) | Powerful, proven at scale | Steeper learning curve |
|
||||
|
||||
### Organization Methods
|
||||
|
||||
**Hierarchical** (BookStack's Shelves → Books → Chapters → Pages): Intuitive for structured documentation.
|
||||
|
||||
**Flat with Tags** (Outline): Flexible, good for cross-cutting topics.
|
||||
|
||||
**Category-based** (MediaWiki): Powerful but can become complex.
|
||||
|
||||
**Hybrid** (Wiki.js): Supports multiple organizational paradigms.
|
||||
|
||||
### Permissions
|
||||
|
||||
Consider who can view (public vs. members-only vs. mixed) and who can edit (open vs. registered users vs. approval workflows). Different communities need different balances of openness and control.
|
||||
|
||||
### Search
|
||||
|
||||
Full-text search is essential—all four major tools provide this. For large wikis, advanced search with Elasticsearch integration (Wiki.js, MediaWiki) becomes important.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Choosing the Right Tool
|
||||
|
||||
### Wiki.js: Modern and Flexible
|
||||
|
||||
Best for technical communities wanting flexibility and modern UX.
|
||||
|
||||
**Strengths**: Beautiful interface; multiple editor options (Markdown, Visual, HTML); 50+ integrations; Git-based storage sync; highly performant.
|
||||
|
||||
### BookStack: Intuitive and Structured
|
||||
|
||||
Best for organizations wanting structured documentation with minimal learning curve.
|
||||
|
||||
**Strengths**: Very intuitive organization model (Shelves → Books → Chapters → Pages); easy for non-technical users; built-in diagramming; good permission system.
|
||||
|
||||
### Outline: Clean and Collaborative
|
||||
|
||||
Best for teams wanting a modern, Notion-like collaborative writing experience.
|
||||
|
||||
**Strengths**: Beautiful, distraction-free interface; real-time collaboration; Markdown-native with slash commands; fast search.
|
||||
|
||||
### MediaWiki: Battle-Tested at Scale
|
||||
|
||||
Best for large communities needing Wikipedia-style collaborative editing.
|
||||
|
||||
**Strengths**: Proven at massive scale (powers Wikipedia); extremely powerful and extensible; huge ecosystem of extensions.
|
||||
|
||||
**Considerations**: Steeper learning curve; WikiText syntax; more complex administration.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Open Source Options
|
||||
|
||||
| Project | Description |
|
||||
|:--------|:------------|
|
||||
| [Wiki.js](https://js.wiki) | Modern wiki with multiple editors and extensive integrations. <br><small>📊 25,900+ GitHub stars. Active development.</small> <br><small>📦 [GitHub](https://github.com/requarks/wiki) · AGPL-3.0</small> |
|
||||
| [BookStack](https://www.bookstackapp.com) | Simple, self-hosted platform with intuitive organization. <br><small>📊 16,000+ GitHub stars. Popular with non-technical organizations.</small> <br><small>📦 [GitHub](https://github.com/BookStackApp/BookStack) · MIT</small> |
|
||||
| [Outline](https://www.getoutline.com) | Modern team knowledge base with real-time collaboration. <br><small>📊 29,000+ GitHub stars. Clean, Notion-like interface.</small> <br><small>📦 [GitHub](https://github.com/outline/outline) · BSL-1.1</small> |
|
||||
| [MediaWiki](https://www.mediawiki.org) | The software behind Wikipedia. Proven at massive scale. <br><small>📊 Powers Wikipedia's 60M+ articles. Used by thousands of organizations.</small> <br><small>📦 [GitHub](https://github.com/wikimedia/mediawiki) · GPL-2.0</small> |
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Getting Started
|
||||
|
||||
Start by documenting what you wish you'd known when you joined. The most valuable documentation often comes from newcomers who can identify what's confusing or missing.
|
||||
|
||||
Don't aim for perfection. "Good enough" documentation that exists beats perfect documentation that never gets written. Wikis enable continuous improvement—start simple and refine over time.
|
||||
|
||||
Create a culture of documentation. Make it normal to update the wiki after meetings, after solving problems, after learning something new. The habit matters more than the tool.
|
||||
|
||||
And remember: knowledge documented in systems you control stays with your community forever. It survives leadership transitions, serves future generations, and becomes part of your community's lasting legacy.
|
||||
132
content/articles/learning-education-platforms/index.md
Normal file
132
content/articles/learning-education-platforms/index.md
Normal file
@@ -0,0 +1,132 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: Open Source Learning Platforms
|
||||
date: 2025-12-27
|
||||
summary: Tools for online courses, training programs, and community education. When communities own their learning infrastructure, they control how knowledge is created, shared, and preserved.
|
||||
draft: True
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
Every community has knowledge to share. Skills to develop. Expertise to pass on. Newcomers to onboard. Members to train.
|
||||
|
||||
Commercial learning platforms make this easy—but at a cost. Per-learner fees that scale with your community. Content locked in proprietary formats. Learning data harvested for advertising or sold to employers. Dependency on companies that may not share your values.
|
||||
|
||||
Open source learning platforms offer an alternative: educational infrastructure that belongs to your community.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Why This Matters for Communities
|
||||
|
||||
### Skills Development and Capacity Building
|
||||
|
||||
Communities can create curricula tailored to their specific needs—local languages, cultural contexts, industry requirements that commercial platforms rarely address.
|
||||
|
||||
Organizations can train members on specific tools, processes, and skills without paying per-seat licensing fees. Expertise from experienced members can be captured and shared before they move on.
|
||||
|
||||
### Digital Sovereignty in Education
|
||||
|
||||
Student data, learning analytics, and course content remain under community control—not harvested by tech companies. There's no algorithmic interference; communities decide what content gets promoted.
|
||||
|
||||
Independence from corporate decisions means no risk of platforms being discontinued, pricing changes, or terms of service modifications.
|
||||
|
||||
### Reducing Barriers to Access
|
||||
|
||||
Removing per-learner fees democratizes access to quality learning management tools. Many open source platforms support offline access—critical for communities with unreliable internet.
|
||||
|
||||
Platforms can be modified to meet specific accessibility needs of community members.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Real-World Examples
|
||||
|
||||
### Moodle: Global Scale
|
||||
|
||||
- **Open University (UK)**: 170,000+ students on Moodle
|
||||
- **State University of New York**: 64 campuses, 400,000+ students
|
||||
- **United Nations**: Global staff training
|
||||
- **Shell Oil**: 100,000+ employees
|
||||
- **Amnesty International**: Human rights education globally
|
||||
|
||||
Overall: 300+ million users, 200,000+ registered sites, translated into 100+ languages, used in 240+ countries.
|
||||
|
||||
### Open edX: Enterprise Grade
|
||||
|
||||
- **edX/2U** (Harvard & MIT): The original MOOC platform, 40+ million learners
|
||||
- **Microsoft**: Technical certifications and learning paths
|
||||
- **IBM**: Global workforce skills development
|
||||
- **France Université Numérique**: French government's official MOOC platform
|
||||
- **Tsinghua University (China)**: XuetangX platform, 50M+ users
|
||||
|
||||
### Chamilo: Accessible Simplicity
|
||||
|
||||
- **Spanish Red Cross**: Volunteer training for disaster response
|
||||
- **Belgian Federal Government**: Civil service employee training
|
||||
- **Universidad de Salamanca**: One of Spain's oldest universities
|
||||
- **NGOs in developing countries**: Low-resource deployments
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Choosing the Right Platform
|
||||
|
||||
### Moodle: Maximum Flexibility
|
||||
|
||||
Best for educational institutions and organizations needing extensive customization.
|
||||
|
||||
**Strengths**: Most widely-used open source LMS; 1,900+ plugins available; flexible course formats; excellent accessibility compliance; strong community and documentation.
|
||||
|
||||
**Considerations**: Requires PHP/MySQL expertise; can be complex for simple use cases.
|
||||
|
||||
### Open edX: Enterprise Scale
|
||||
|
||||
Best for large-scale deployments and MOOC-style self-paced courses.
|
||||
|
||||
**Strengths**: Enterprise-grade architecture; designed for massive scale; built-in ecommerce; excellent video support; sophisticated analytics.
|
||||
|
||||
**Considerations**: Complex infrastructure requirements; needs DevOps capacity; resource-intensive.
|
||||
|
||||
### Chamilo: Ease of Use
|
||||
|
||||
Best for smaller organizations prioritizing simplicity over features.
|
||||
|
||||
**Strengths**: Simple installation and use; low technical requirements; social/collaborative learning features; strong in Spanish/Portuguese-speaking regions.
|
||||
|
||||
**Considerations**: Smaller ecosystem than Moodle; fewer advanced features.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Open Source Options
|
||||
|
||||
| Project | Description |
|
||||
|:--------|:------------|
|
||||
| [Moodle](https://moodle.org) | The world's most widely used learning platform. Flexible, extensible, with massive plugin ecosystem. <br><small>📊 300M+ users, 200K+ sites, 100+ languages.</small> <br><small>📦 [GitHub](https://github.com/moodle/moodle) · GPL-3.0</small> |
|
||||
| [Open edX](https://openedx.org) | Enterprise-grade platform from Harvard and MIT. Powers major MOOC platforms worldwide. <br><small>📊 40M+ learners on edX alone.</small> <br><small>📦 [GitHub](https://github.com/openedx/edx-platform) · AGPL-3.0</small> |
|
||||
| [Chamilo](https://chamilo.org) | User-friendly LMS emphasizing simplicity and accessibility. <br><small>📊 Popular in Latin America and Europe.</small> <br><small>📦 [GitHub](https://github.com/chamilo/chamilo-lms) · GPL-3.0</small> |
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Feature Comparison
|
||||
|
||||
| Feature | Moodle | Open edX | Chamilo |
|
||||
|:--------|:-------|:---------|:--------|
|
||||
| Course management | Excellent | Excellent | Good |
|
||||
| Video support | Good | Excellent | Good |
|
||||
| Assessments | Excellent | Excellent | Good |
|
||||
| Certificates | Yes | Yes | Yes |
|
||||
| Mobile apps | Yes | Yes | Limited |
|
||||
| Plugin ecosystem | Massive | Good | Moderate |
|
||||
| Ease of setup | Moderate | Complex | Easy |
|
||||
| Best for | Institutions | Large scale | Simplicity |
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## The Bigger Picture
|
||||
|
||||
Education is too important to outsource to corporations. When learning platforms are controlled by commercial interests, they optimize for engagement metrics and revenue extraction rather than genuine learning outcomes.
|
||||
|
||||
Community-owned learning infrastructure means:
|
||||
- **Curriculum independence**: Create content without platform censorship
|
||||
- **Data sovereignty**: Learning data serves learners, not advertisers
|
||||
- **Sustainability**: Platforms survive regardless of corporate acquisitions
|
||||
- **Local capacity**: Technical skills stay in the community
|
||||
|
||||
The tools exist at every scale, from small community workshops to massive open online courses. They're proven, mature, and free to use.
|
||||
|
||||
Communities deserve to own their learning infrastructure.
|
||||
131
content/articles/no-code-databases/index.md
Normal file
131
content/articles/no-code-databases/index.md
Normal file
@@ -0,0 +1,131 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: No-Code Database Tools
|
||||
date: 2025-12-27
|
||||
summary: Spreadsheet-like interfaces for building custom databases without coding. When communities can create their own data tools, they're not limited by what commercial platforms think they need.
|
||||
draft: True
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
Every community manages data: member directories, project tracking, inventory lists, event registrations, volunteer schedules. Spreadsheets work at first, but they break down as needs grow—no validation, no relationships between data, no proper forms for input.
|
||||
|
||||
Commercial tools like Airtable and Notion solve this with friendly interfaces for building custom databases. But they come with per-seat pricing, data stored on corporate servers, and dependency on platforms that may change or disappear.
|
||||
|
||||
Open source no-code databases offer the same power with different tradeoffs: your data stays yours, your costs stay predictable, and your custom tools stay under your control.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Why This Matters for Communities
|
||||
|
||||
### Flexible Data Management
|
||||
|
||||
Communities have unique needs that off-the-shelf software doesn't address. A mutual aid network needs to track requests, resources, and volunteers in ways no standard CRM anticipates. A community garden needs to manage plots, members, and harvests in custom combinations.
|
||||
|
||||
No-code databases let communities build exactly what they need without hiring developers or forcing workflows into ill-fitting commercial tools.
|
||||
|
||||
### Beyond Spreadsheets
|
||||
|
||||
Spreadsheets are flexible but fragile. No data validation means typos corrupt your data. No relationships mean duplicate information everywhere. No proper forms mean confusing data entry.
|
||||
|
||||
No-code databases provide:
|
||||
- **Data validation**: Ensure entries are correct before they're saved
|
||||
- **Relationships**: Link records together (members to projects, events to attendees)
|
||||
- **Forms**: Clean interfaces for data entry
|
||||
- **Views**: Multiple ways to see the same data (calendar, kanban, gallery)
|
||||
- **API access**: Connect to other tools and automate workflows
|
||||
|
||||
### Cost Predictability
|
||||
|
||||
Airtable charges $20/user/month for team features. For a 50-person organization, that's $12,000/year.
|
||||
|
||||
Self-hosted NocoDB or Baserow costs only hosting fees—typically $20-50/month regardless of user count.
|
||||
|
||||
### Data Sovereignty
|
||||
|
||||
Your community's data—member information, project details, organizational knowledge—shouldn't live on servers you don't control. Self-hosted tools keep sensitive information under your governance.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Choosing the Right Tool
|
||||
|
||||
### NocoDB: Airtable Alternative
|
||||
|
||||
Best for teams wanting a direct Airtable replacement with familiar interface.
|
||||
|
||||
**Strengths**:
|
||||
- Can connect to existing databases (MySQL, PostgreSQL, SQL Server)
|
||||
- Spreadsheet interface with database power
|
||||
- Multiple views (grid, gallery, kanban, form, calendar)
|
||||
- API access for integrations
|
||||
- Self-hosted or cloud options
|
||||
|
||||
**Used by**: Organizations migrating from Airtable, teams with existing databases wanting friendlier interfaces.
|
||||
|
||||
### Baserow: Modern and Extensible
|
||||
|
||||
Best for teams wanting a polished, actively-developed platform.
|
||||
|
||||
**Strengths**:
|
||||
- Clean, modern interface
|
||||
- Real-time collaboration
|
||||
- Powerful API
|
||||
- Plugin system for extensibility
|
||||
- Strong development momentum
|
||||
|
||||
**Philosophy**: "Open source, no-code database tool and Airtable alternative."
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Open Source Options
|
||||
|
||||
| Project | Description |
|
||||
|:--------|:------------|
|
||||
| [NocoDB](https://nocodb.com) | Open source Airtable alternative. Turns any database into a smart spreadsheet. <br><small>📊 50,000+ GitHub stars. Very active development.</small> <br><small>📦 [GitHub](https://github.com/nocodb/nocodb) · AGPL-3.0</small> |
|
||||
| [Baserow](https://baserow.io) | Open source no-code database with real-time collaboration. <br><small>📊 12,000+ GitHub stars. Modern, polished interface.</small> <br><small>📦 [GitLab](https://gitlab.com/baserow/baserow) · MIT</small> |
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Feature Comparison
|
||||
|
||||
| Feature | NocoDB | Baserow |
|
||||
|:--------|:-------|:--------|
|
||||
| Spreadsheet interface | Yes | Yes |
|
||||
| Multiple views | Grid, Gallery, Kanban, Form, Calendar | Grid, Gallery, Kanban, Form, Calendar |
|
||||
| Relationships | Yes | Yes |
|
||||
| API access | Yes | Yes |
|
||||
| Connect to existing DB | Yes | No |
|
||||
| Real-time collaboration | Yes | Yes |
|
||||
| Self-hosted | Yes | Yes |
|
||||
| Cloud option | Yes | Yes |
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Common Use Cases
|
||||
|
||||
### Member Directories
|
||||
|
||||
Track members with custom fields (skills, interests, availability), link them to projects and events, create forms for self-registration, generate different views for different needs.
|
||||
|
||||
### Project Tracking
|
||||
|
||||
Manage initiatives with status tracking, assigned members, deadlines, and related resources. Kanban views for workflow, calendar views for timelines.
|
||||
|
||||
### Inventory Management
|
||||
|
||||
Track equipment, supplies, or resources with location, condition, and checkout status. Link to borrowers, generate reports.
|
||||
|
||||
### Event Management
|
||||
|
||||
Track events, registrations, volunteers, and tasks. Form views for registration, calendar views for scheduling.
|
||||
|
||||
### Custom CRM
|
||||
|
||||
Build exactly the contact management system your organization needs, with the fields and relationships that match your actual workflows.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## The Bigger Picture
|
||||
|
||||
No-code databases democratize the ability to build custom tools. Communities don't need to hire developers or accept the limitations of off-the-shelf software. They can create exactly what they need.
|
||||
|
||||
When these tools are self-hosted and open source, communities also maintain sovereignty over their data and independence from commercial platforms.
|
||||
|
||||
The combination is powerful: the flexibility to build custom solutions, the simplicity to do it without coding, and the freedom that comes from owning your own infrastructure.
|
||||
272
content/articles/open-source-community-tools/index.md
Normal file
272
content/articles/open-source-community-tools/index.md
Normal file
@@ -0,0 +1,272 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: Open Source Tools for Communities
|
||||
date: 2026-01-01
|
||||
summary: A curated directory of open source software that helps communities organize, communicate, collaborate, and govern themselves. These tools put communities in control of their own digital infrastructure.
|
||||
draft: True
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
Communities around the world are building their digital homes with open source software—tools that anyone can use, study, modify, and share. This directory collects the best of what's available, organized by what communities actually need to do.
|
||||
|
||||
Each of these projects represents countless hours of work by developers who believe technology should serve people, not extract from them. Many are mature, battle-tested, and used by thousands of organizations worldwide.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Participatory Democracy & Decision-Making
|
||||
|
||||
Tools that help communities make decisions together, from simple polls to sophisticated deliberation platforms.
|
||||
|
||||
| Project | Description |
|
||||
|:--------|:------------|
|
||||
| [Decidim](https://decidim.org) | A comprehensive participatory democracy platform used by cities and organizations worldwide. Supports proposals, debates, participatory budgeting, and more. <br><small>📊 400+ instances, 2M+ participants. Used by Barcelona, Helsinki, NYC, French National Assembly.</small> <br><small>📦 [GitHub](https://github.com/decidim/decidim) · AGPL-3.0</small> |
|
||||
| [Loomio](https://www.loomio.com) | Collaborative decision-making software that helps groups discuss issues and reach clear outcomes together. <br><small>📊 150K+ users in 100+ countries. Used by Greenpeace, Enspiral, Podemos, City of Wellington.</small> <br><small>📦 [GitHub](https://github.com/loomio/loomio) · AGPL-3.0</small> |
|
||||
| [Consul](https://consulproject.org) | A citizen participation platform for open, transparent, and democratic governments. <br><small>📊 135+ institutions in 35+ countries. Madrid alone has 500K+ registered users.</small> <br><small>📦 [GitHub](https://github.com/consuldemocracy/consuldemocracy) · AGPL-3.0</small> |
|
||||
| [Pol.is](https://pol.is) | AI-powered platform for gathering and understanding public opinion at scale, finding consensus across diverse viewpoints. <br><small>📊 Millions of participants. Famous for Taiwan's vTaiwan (200K+ citizens).</small> <br><small>📦 [GitHub](https://github.com/compdemocracy/polis) · AGPL-3.0</small> |
|
||||
| [Your Priorities](https://www.yourpriorities.org) | A platform for citizen engagement that helps communities prioritize ideas and proposals. <br><small>📊 50+ deployments, 500K+ participants. Better Reykjavik reached 40% of city population.</small> <br><small>📦 [GitHub](https://github.com/CitizensFoundation/your-priorities-app) · MIT</small> |
|
||||
| [Helios Voting](https://heliosvoting.org) | Verifiable online voting system that provides mathematical proof that votes were counted correctly. <br><small>📊 Thousands of elections. Used by Princeton, IACR, ACM, university associations.</small> <br><small>📦 [GitHub](https://github.com/benadida/helios-server) · Apache-2.0</small> |
|
||||
| [Belenios](https://www.belenios.org) | A verifiable voting system with strong security guarantees, developed by academic researchers. <br><small>📊 5,000+ elections. Used by CNRS, Inria, French universities and research institutions.</small> <br><small>📦 [GitLab](https://gitlab.inria.fr/belenios/belenios) · AGPL-3.0</small> |
|
||||
| [LiquidFeedback](https://liquidfeedback.com) | Implements liquid democracy, allowing participants to vote directly or delegate their vote to trusted representatives. <br><small>📊 20-50 installations, 50K+ historical users. Used by German Pirate Party, Italian Five Star Movement.</small> <br><small>📦 [GitHub](https://github.com/fluidemocracy/frontend) · MIT</small> |
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Federated Social & Communication
|
||||
|
||||
Decentralized social platforms where communities run their own instances, connected to a wider network but governed by their own rules.
|
||||
|
||||
| Project | Description |
|
||||
|:--------|:------------|
|
||||
| [Mastodon](https://joinmastodon.org) | Federated microblogging platform. Run your own Twitter-like service that connects to thousands of other instances. <br><small>📊 10,000+ instances, 10-15M accounts, 1-2M monthly active. Used by European Commission, German government.</small> <br><small>📦 [GitHub](https://github.com/mastodon/mastodon) · AGPL-3.0</small> |
|
||||
| [Matrix](https://matrix.org) | Open standard for secure, decentralized communication. Supports chat, voice, and video with end-to-end encryption. <br><small>📊 100K+ homeservers, 80M+ users. Used by French government, German Bundeswehr, Mozilla.</small> <br><small>📦 [GitHub](https://github.com/matrix-org/synapse) · Apache-2.0</small> |
|
||||
| [Mobilizon](https://joinmobilizon.org) | Federated event organizing platform. A privacy-respecting alternative to Facebook Events. <br><small>📊 80-100 instances, 50-100K users. Developed by Framasoft.</small> <br><small>📦 [Framagit](https://framagit.org/framasoft/mobilizon) · AGPL-3.0</small> |
|
||||
| [WriteFreely](https://writefreely.org) | Minimalist, federated blogging platform focused on writing. Connects to the fediverse. <br><small>📊 500-1,000 instances, 100K+ users. Flagship at Write.as.</small> <br><small>📦 [GitHub](https://github.com/writefreely/writefreely) · AGPL-3.0</small> |
|
||||
| [Pixelfed](https://pixelfed.org) | Federated image sharing platform. A community-owned alternative to Instagram. <br><small>📊 300-500 instances, 150-300K users. Popular with photographers and artists.</small> <br><small>📦 [GitHub](https://github.com/pixelfed/pixelfed) · AGPL-3.0</small> |
|
||||
| [PeerTube](https://joinpeertube.org) | Decentralized video hosting using peer-to-peer technology to reduce server costs. <br><small>📊 1,000+ instances, 300-500K users. Developed by Framasoft. Used by Blender Foundation.</small> <br><small>📦 [Framagit](https://framagit.org/framasoft/peertube/peertube) · AGPL-3.0</small> |
|
||||
| [Lemmy](https://lemmy.ml) | Federated link aggregator and discussion platform, similar to Reddit but community-owned. <br><small>📊 1,000-1,500 instances, 500K-1M users. Explosive growth during 2023 Reddit API changes.</small> <br><small>📦 [GitHub](https://github.com/LemmyNet/lemmy) · AGPL-3.0</small> |
|
||||
| [BookWyrm](https://bookwyrm.social) | Federated social network for tracking reading, reviewing books, and connecting with other readers. <br><small>📊 30-50 instances, 30-50K users. Goodreads alternative for the fediverse.</small> <br><small>📦 [GitHub](https://github.com/bookwyrm-social/bookwyrm) · AGPL-3.0</small> |
|
||||
| [Gancio](https://gancio.org) | A shared agenda for local communities—federated event publishing without registration requirements. <br><small>📊 20-50 instances. Popular in Italian activist communities.</small> <br><small>📦 [Framagit](https://framagit.org/les/gancio) · AGPL-3.0</small> |
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Community Collaboration & Chat
|
||||
|
||||
Real-time communication and collaboration tools for teams and communities.
|
||||
|
||||
| Project | Description |
|
||||
|:--------|:------------|
|
||||
| [Discourse](https://www.discourse.org) | Modern forum software that combines mailing list, discussion forum, and long-form chat. Widely used by open source communities. <br><small>📊 30,000+ communities, tens of millions of users. Used by Twitter Dev, Figma, Docker, DigitalOcean.</small> <br><small>📦 [GitHub](https://github.com/discourse/discourse) · GPL-2.0</small> |
|
||||
| [Mattermost](https://about.mattermost.com) | Self-hosted Slack alternative with channels, direct messaging, and integrations. <br><small>📊 800K+ deployments claimed. Used by Samsung, NASA JPL, US DoD, European Space Agency.</small> <br><small>📦 [GitHub](https://github.com/mattermost/mattermost) · AGPL-3.0</small> |
|
||||
| [Rocket.Chat](https://rocket.chat) | Team collaboration platform with chat, video conferencing, and file sharing. <br><small>📊 800K+ servers, 12M+ users claimed. Used by Deutsche Bahn, US Navy, CERN.</small> <br><small>📦 [GitHub](https://github.com/RocketChat/Rocket.Chat) · MIT</small> |
|
||||
| [Zulip](https://www.zulip.com) | Chat with threaded conversations, making it easier to follow discussions in busy communities. <br><small>📊 Thousands of organizations. Used by Rust, Julia, Lean, MariaDB Foundation.</small> <br><small>📦 [GitHub](https://github.com/zulip/zulip) · Apache-2.0</small> |
|
||||
| [Nextcloud](https://nextcloud.com) | Complete collaboration platform with file sync, calendars, contacts, document editing, and much more. <br><small>📊 400K+ servers, 50M+ users. Used by German Federal Government, French Government, CERN.</small> <br><small>📦 [GitHub](https://github.com/nextcloud/server) · AGPL-3.0</small> |
|
||||
| [Jitsi](https://jitsi.org) | Video conferencing that works in your browser. No account required, easy to self-host. <br><small>📊 Thousands of instances, tens of millions monthly. Integrated into Element/Matrix.</small> <br><small>📦 [GitHub](https://github.com/jitsi/jitsi-meet) · Apache-2.0</small> |
|
||||
| [BigBlueButton](https://bigbluebutton.org) | Web conferencing designed for online learning, with whiteboard, breakout rooms, and polling. <br><small>📊 Thousands of deployments, billions of minutes. Deep Moodle integration.</small> <br><small>📦 [GitHub](https://github.com/bigbluebutton/bigbluebutton) · LGPL-3.0</small> |
|
||||
| [CryptPad](https://www.cryptpad.org) | End-to-end encrypted collaborative documents, spreadsheets, presentations, and more. <br><small>📊 100+ public instances, 100K+ users. Used by journalists, activists, privacy-focused orgs.</small> <br><small>📦 [GitHub](https://github.com/cryptpad/cryptpad) · AGPL-3.0</small> |
|
||||
| [Etherpad](https://etherpad.org) | Real-time collaborative text editor. Simple, fast, and effective for working together on documents. <br><small>📊 Thousands of instances, millions of users. Used by Mozilla, Wikimedia.</small> <br><small>📦 [GitHub](https://github.com/ether/etherpad-lite) · Apache-2.0</small> |
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Project Management
|
||||
|
||||
Tools for organizing work, tracking tasks, and managing projects.
|
||||
|
||||
| Project | Description |
|
||||
|:--------|:------------|
|
||||
| [OpenProject](https://www.openproject.org) | Full-featured project management with Gantt charts, agile boards, time tracking, and team collaboration. <br><small>📊 9K+ GitHub stars, 10M+ Docker pulls. Used by Siemens, Audi, German government agencies.</small> <br><small>📦 [GitHub](https://github.com/opf/openproject) · GPL-3.0</small> |
|
||||
| [Taiga](https://taiga.io) | Agile project management platform for cross-functional teams, with Kanban and Scrum support. <br><small>📊 16K+ GitHub stars, 1M+ Docker pulls. Popular with agile teams and open source projects.</small> <br><small>📦 [GitHub](https://github.com/taigaio/taiga) · MPL-2.0</small> |
|
||||
| [Wekan](https://wekan.github.io) | Open source Kanban board. Simple, visual task management for teams. <br><small>📊 19K+ GitHub stars, 10M+ Docker pulls. Widely self-hosted Trello alternative.</small> <br><small>📦 [GitHub](https://github.com/wekan/wekan) · MIT</small> |
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Knowledge Management & Wikis
|
||||
|
||||
Platforms for documenting, organizing, and sharing knowledge within communities.
|
||||
|
||||
| Project | Description |
|
||||
|:--------|:------------|
|
||||
| [Wiki.js](https://js.wiki) | Modern, beautiful wiki with powerful search, multiple editors, and extensive integrations. <br><small>📊 24K+ GitHub stars, 50M+ Docker pulls. Rapidly growing as the modern wiki choice.</small> <br><small>📦 [GitHub](https://github.com/requarks/wiki) · AGPL-3.0</small> |
|
||||
| [BookStack](https://www.bookstackapp.com) | Simple, self-hosted documentation platform organized into books, chapters, and pages. <br><small>📊 15K+ GitHub stars, 10M+ Docker pulls. Popular for internal documentation.</small> <br><small>📦 [GitHub](https://github.com/BookStackApp/BookStack) · MIT</small> |
|
||||
| [Outline](https://www.getoutline.com) | Fast, collaborative knowledge base for teams with real-time editing and search. <br><small>📊 28K+ GitHub stars. Used by many startups and teams. Also offers hosted version.</small> <br><small>📦 [GitHub](https://github.com/outline/outline) · BSL-1.1</small> |
|
||||
| [MediaWiki](https://www.mediawiki.org) | The software behind Wikipedia. Extremely powerful for large-scale collaborative documentation. <br><small>📊 Powers Wikipedia (billions of pageviews). Used by thousands of wikis worldwide.</small> <br><small>📦 [GitHub](https://github.com/wikimedia/mediawiki) · GPL-2.0</small> |
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Forms & Surveys
|
||||
|
||||
Tools for collecting information, running surveys, and gathering community input.
|
||||
|
||||
| Project | Description |
|
||||
|:--------|:------------|
|
||||
| [LimeSurvey](https://www.limesurvey.org) | Professional survey platform with advanced question types, branching logic, and detailed analytics. <br><small>📊 1.5M+ registered users, 10M+ Docker pulls. Used by universities, NGOs, governments.</small> <br><small>📦 [GitHub](https://github.com/LimeSurvey/LimeSurvey) · GPL-2.0</small> |
|
||||
| [Typebot](https://typebot.io) | Conversational form builder that creates engaging, chat-like surveys and forms. <br><small>📊 7K+ GitHub stars. Rapidly growing conversational form builder.</small> <br><small>📦 [GitHub](https://github.com/baptisteArno/typebot.io) · FSL-1.1-Apache-2.0</small> |
|
||||
| [Formbricks](https://formbricks.com) | Open source survey platform with in-app surveys, website surveys, and link surveys. <br><small>📊 8K+ GitHub stars. YC-backed, privacy-first experience management.</small> <br><small>📦 [GitHub](https://github.com/formbricks/formbricks) · AGPL-3.0</small> |
|
||||
| [OhMyForm](https://ohmyform.com) | Simple, self-hosted form builder for creating surveys and collecting responses. <br><small>📊 2.5K+ GitHub stars, 100K+ Docker pulls. Simpler TypeForm alternative.</small> <br><small>📦 [GitHub](https://github.com/ohmyform/ohmyform) · AGPL-3.0</small> |
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Event Management
|
||||
|
||||
Platforms for organizing events, managing registrations, and selling tickets.
|
||||
|
||||
| Project | Description |
|
||||
|:--------|:------------|
|
||||
| [Indico](https://getindico.io) | Full-featured event management system developed at CERN. Handles conferences, meetings, and lectures. <br><small>📊 200+ installations, 25K+ users at CERN alone. Used by Fermilab, DESY, UN agencies.</small> <br><small>📦 [GitHub](https://github.com/indico/indico) · MIT</small> |
|
||||
| [Pretix](https://pretix.eu) | Ticket sales and event registration platform with flexible pricing, seating, and check-in tools. <br><small>📊 Thousands of deployments, millions of tickets sold. Used by Chaos Communication Congress, FOSDEM.</small> <br><small>📦 [GitHub](https://github.com/pretix/pretix) · AGPL-3.0</small> |
|
||||
| [Eventyay](https://eventyay.com) | Event management platform supporting in-person, virtual, and hybrid events. <br><small>📊 Thousands of events. Part of FOSSASIA ecosystem.</small> <br><small>📦 [GitHub](https://github.com/fossasia/eventyay-tickets) · Apache-2.0</small> |
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Membership, CRM & Newsletters
|
||||
|
||||
Tools for managing members, supporters, donors, and communications.
|
||||
|
||||
| Project | Description |
|
||||
|:--------|:------------|
|
||||
| [CiviCRM](https://civicrm.org) | Constituent relationship management designed for nonprofits, with fundraising, events, and membership tracking. <br><small>📊 11,000+ installations, millions of records managed. Used by Amnesty International, Wikimedia, EFF.</small> <br><small>📦 [GitHub](https://github.com/civicrm/civicrm-core) · AGPL-3.0</small> |
|
||||
| [Listmonk](https://listmonk.app) | High-performance, self-hosted newsletter and mailing list manager. Fast, simple, and powerful. <br><small>📊 14K+ GitHub stars, 10M+ Docker pulls. Can handle millions of subscribers.</small> <br><small>📦 [GitHub](https://github.com/knadh/listmonk) · AGPL-3.0</small> |
|
||||
| [Mautic](https://www.mautic.org) | Marketing automation platform with email campaigns, landing pages, and contact management. <br><small>📊 200,000+ installations claimed. Most widely adopted open source marketing automation.</small> <br><small>📦 [GitHub](https://github.com/mautic/mautic) · GPL-3.0</small> |
|
||||
| [Odoo Community](https://www.odoo.com/page/community) | Comprehensive business suite including CRM, inventory, accounting, and more. <br><small>📊 7M+ users (Community + Enterprise), 36K+ GitHub stars. Used by Toyota, Hyundai.</small> <br><small>📦 [GitHub](https://github.com/odoo/odoo) · LGPL-3.0</small> |
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Resource Sharing & Scheduling
|
||||
|
||||
Tools for sharing resources, coordinating schedules, and enabling mutual aid.
|
||||
|
||||
| Project | Description |
|
||||
|:--------|:------------|
|
||||
| [Leihs](https://github.com/leihs/leihs) | Equipment and resource lending system. Track what's available, who has it, and when it's due back. <br><small>📊 50-100 installations. Developed by Zurich University of the Arts.</small> <br><small>📦 [GitHub](https://github.com/leihs/leihs) · GPL-3.0</small> |
|
||||
| [LibreBooking](https://www.bookedscheduler.com) | Resource scheduling application for booking rooms, equipment, and other shared resources. <br><small>📊 10K+ downloads, thousands of installations. Popular with libraries, makerspaces.</small> <br><small>📦 [GitHub](https://github.com/LibreBooking/app) · GPL-3.0</small> |
|
||||
| [Karrot](https://karrot.world) | Coordination tool for grassroots initiatives, particularly food-saving and sharing groups. <br><small>📊 100+ active groups, 10K+ users in 30+ countries. Strong in European foodsaving movement.</small> <br><small>📦 [GitHub](https://github.com/karrot-dev/karrot-frontend) · MIT</small> |
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Learning & Education
|
||||
|
||||
Platforms for online courses, training, and educational communities.
|
||||
|
||||
| Project | Description |
|
||||
|:--------|:------------|
|
||||
| [Moodle](https://moodle.org) | The world's most widely used learning management system. Powers online courses for millions of learners. <br><small>📊 200K+ registered sites, 400M+ users in 242 countries. Used by Open University, Shell, Microsoft.</small> <br><small>📦 [GitHub](https://github.com/moodle/moodle) · GPL-3.0</small> |
|
||||
| [Open edX](https://openedx.org) | The platform behind edX. Enterprise-grade online learning at scale. <br><small>📊 2,000+ instances, 50M+ learners. Powers Harvard, MIT, IBM, Microsoft training courses.</small> <br><small>📦 [GitHub](https://github.com/openedx/edx-platform) · AGPL-3.0</small> |
|
||||
| [Chamilo](https://chamilo.org) | E-learning and collaboration platform designed for ease of use and accessibility. <br><small>📊 20,000+ installations, 20M+ users. Popular in Spanish/French-speaking countries.</small> <br><small>📦 [GitHub](https://github.com/chamilo/chamilo-lms) · GPL-3.0</small> |
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Maps & Local Data
|
||||
|
||||
Tools for mapping, visualizing geographic data, and telling location-based stories.
|
||||
|
||||
| Project | Description |
|
||||
|:--------|:------------|
|
||||
| [uMap](https://umap.openstreetmap.fr) | Create custom maps with OpenStreetMap data. Add markers, shapes, and layers without coding. <br><small>📊 500K+ maps created on main instance. Used by NGOs, journalists, municipalities.</small> <br><small>📦 [GitHub](https://github.com/umap-project/umap) · AGPL-3.0</small> |
|
||||
| [Ushahidi](https://www.ushahidi.com) | Crowdsourced data collection and mapping platform, originally built for crisis response. <br><small>📊 150,000+ deployments in 160+ countries. Used for Haiti earthquake, Fukushima, election monitoring.</small> <br><small>📦 [GitHub](https://github.com/ushahidi/platform) · AGPL-3.0</small> |
|
||||
| [Terrastories](https://terrastories.io) | Geostorytelling application for communities to map and share place-based stories. <br><small>📊 20-50 community deployments. Used by Amazon indigenous communities.</small> <br><small>📦 [GitHub](https://github.com/Terrastories/terrastories) · MIT</small> |
|
||||
| [MapComplete](https://mapcomplete.org) | Easy-to-use tool for viewing and adding data to OpenStreetMap through themed maps. <br><small>📊 100+ themed maps/questionnaires. Used by OSM Belgium, cycling advocacy.</small> <br><small>📦 [GitHub](https://github.com/pietervdvn/MapComplete) · GPL-3.0</small> |
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Financial & Transparency
|
||||
|
||||
Tools for managing finances, tracking expenses, and maintaining financial transparency.
|
||||
|
||||
| Project | Description |
|
||||
|:--------|:------------|
|
||||
| [Firefly III](https://www.firefly-iii.org) | Personal and small organization finance manager. Track expenses, budgets, and accounts. <br><small>📊 100K+ estimated deployments, 15K+ GitHub stars, 50M+ Docker pulls.</small> <br><small>📦 [GitHub](https://github.com/firefly-iii/firefly-iii) · AGPL-3.0</small> |
|
||||
| [Akaunting](https://akaunting.com) | Free accounting software for small businesses and freelancers. <br><small>📊 100,000+ businesses claimed, 7K+ GitHub stars. Free QuickBooks alternative.</small> <br><small>📦 [GitHub](https://github.com/akaunting/akaunting) · BSL-1.1</small> |
|
||||
| [Open Collective](https://opencollective.com) | Transparent fundraising platform where communities can collect and spend money openly. <br><small>📊 10,000+ collectives, 500K+ contributors, $500M+ raised. Hosts webpack, Babel, Vue.js.</small> <br><small>📦 [GitHub](https://github.com/opencollective/opencollective) · MIT</small> |
|
||||
| [GnuCash](https://www.gnucash.org) | Double-entry accounting software for personal and small business use. <br><small>📊 Millions of downloads, 100K+ active users. One of oldest FOSS financial apps (since 1998).</small> <br><small>📦 [GitHub](https://github.com/Gnucash/gnucash) · GPL-2.0</small> |
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## No-Code Databases
|
||||
|
||||
Tools for building databases and applications without programming.
|
||||
|
||||
| Project | Description |
|
||||
|:--------|:------------|
|
||||
| [NocoDB](https://nocodb.com) | Turn any database into a smart spreadsheet. An open source Airtable alternative. <br><small>📊 50K+ GitHub stars, millions of Docker pulls. Used by various startups and SMBs.</small> <br><small>📦 [GitHub](https://github.com/nocodb/nocodb) · AGPL-3.0</small> |
|
||||
| [Baserow](https://baserow.io) | No-code database platform for creating databases, applications, and automations. <br><small>📊 20K+ GitHub stars. YC-backed. Popular with European organizations.</small> <br><small>📦 [GitLab](https://gitlab.com/baserow/baserow) · MIT</small> |
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Cooperative Platforms & Networks
|
||||
|
||||
Platforms built on cooperative principles, owned by their users.
|
||||
|
||||
| Project | Description |
|
||||
|:--------|:------------|
|
||||
| [Open Food Network](https://www.openfoodnetwork.org) | Platform connecting local food producers with consumers and food hubs. <br><small>📊 20+ country instances, 10,000+ producers. Millions in transactions.</small> <br><small>📦 [GitHub](https://github.com/openfoodnetwork/openfoodnetwork) · AGPL-3.0</small> |
|
||||
| [Resonate](https://resonate.coop) | Music streaming cooperative owned by artists and listeners. Stream-to-own model. <br><small>📊 ~15,000 members, 100K+ tracks. Artist-owned cooperative.</small> <br><small>📦 [GitHub](https://github.com/resonatecoop) · GPL-3.0</small> |
|
||||
| [Social.coop](https://social.coop) | Cooperatively-owned Mastodon instance demonstrating democratic platform governance. <br><small>📊 ~1,500-2,000 members. Worker-owned, democratically governed via Loomio.</small> <br><small>📦 Uses [Mastodon](https://github.com/mastodon/mastodon) · AGPL-3.0</small> |
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Community Networks
|
||||
|
||||
Resources and organizations supporting community-owned internet infrastructure.
|
||||
|
||||
| Project | Description |
|
||||
|:--------|:------------|
|
||||
| [Guifi.net](https://guifi.net) | One of the world's largest community networks, based in Catalonia with over 35,000 nodes. <br><small>📊 35,000+ active nodes, serves hundreds of thousands. Founded 2004. World's largest community network.</small> <br><small>📦 [GitHub](https://github.com/guifi) · GPL-2.0</small> |
|
||||
| [NYC Mesh](https://www.nycmesh.net) | Community-owned mesh network providing internet access across New York City. <br><small>📊 1,000+ nodes, 3,000+ member households. Volunteer-run.</small> <br><small>📦 [GitHub](https://github.com/nycmeshnet) · GPL-3.0</small> |
|
||||
| [Detroit Community Technology Project](https://detroitcommunitytech.org) | Building community-owned internet infrastructure in Detroit neighborhoods. <br><small>📊 Multiple neighborhood networks, hundreds of households. Focus on digital equity.</small> <br><small>📦 Community organization (training & advocacy)</small> |
|
||||
| [Community Broadband Networks](https://muninetworks.org) | Resources and advocacy for community-owned broadband networks across the US. <br><small>📊 Tracks 900+ community networks in US. Research/advocacy by ILSR.</small> <br><small>📦 Policy research organization</small> |
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Civic Tech
|
||||
|
||||
Tools for government transparency, citizen engagement, and civic participation.
|
||||
|
||||
| Project | Description |
|
||||
|:--------|:------------|
|
||||
| [Alaveteli](https://alaveteli.org) | Platform for making and publishing freedom of information requests. <br><small>📊 25+ country deployments, millions of FOI requests. WhatDoTheyKnow (UK) has 800K+ requests.</small> <br><small>📦 [GitHub](https://github.com/mysociety/alaveteli) · AGPL-3.0</small> |
|
||||
| [FixMyStreet](https://fixmystreet.org) | Report local problems like potholes and broken streetlights to the responsible authority. <br><small>📊 40+ country implementations, 2M+ reports in UK. Used by 150+ UK councils.</small> <br><small>📦 [GitHub](https://github.com/mysociety/fixmystreet) · AGPL-3.0</small> |
|
||||
| [mySociety](https://www.mysociety.org) | Organization building civic technology, including tools for contacting representatives and tracking legislation. <br><small>📊 Tools used in 40+ countries, tens of millions of civic actions. 20+ years of civic tech.</small> <br><small>📦 [GitHub](https://github.com/mysociety) · AGPL-3.0</small> |
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Recommended Starting Points
|
||||
|
||||
If you're new to community technology, these mature, widely-adopted projects are excellent places to start:
|
||||
|
||||
| Need | Recommendations |
|
||||
|:-----|:----------------|
|
||||
| **Decisions** | Decidim, Loomio |
|
||||
| **Discussion** | Discourse, Matrix |
|
||||
| **Events** | Mobilizon, Pretix |
|
||||
| **Social** | Mastodon, Pixelfed, PeerTube |
|
||||
| **Collaboration** | Nextcloud, CryptPad |
|
||||
| **Video Calls** | Jitsi, BigBlueButton |
|
||||
| **Publishing** | WriteFreely, BookWyrm |
|
||||
| **Knowledge** | BookStack, Wiki.js |
|
||||
| **CRM/Newsletter** | CiviCRM, Listmonk |
|
||||
| **Forms** | LimeSurvey, Formbricks |
|
||||
| **Learning** | Moodle, Open edX |
|
||||
| **Finance** | Open Collective, Firefly III |
|
||||
| **Mapping** | uMap, Ushahidi |
|
||||
| **Mutual Aid** | Karrot |
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Building Your Community's Stack
|
||||
|
||||
These tools work even better together. Many communities combine several to create a complete digital home:
|
||||
|
||||
- **Nextcloud** for files, calendars, and contacts
|
||||
- **Matrix** or **Mattermost** for real-time chat
|
||||
- **Discourse** for long-form discussions
|
||||
- **Jitsi** for video meetings
|
||||
- **Mobilizon** for events
|
||||
- **Loomio** for decisions
|
||||
|
||||
The [Wild Cloud project](/projects/wild-cloud/) makes it easier to run many of these tools together on infrastructure you control.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Contributing
|
||||
|
||||
Know of an open source community tool that should be listed here? We'd love to hear about it. The best tools are built and improved by communities working together.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
*Note: Adoption statistics are estimates based on publicly available data, official announcements, GitHub metrics, and Docker Hub pulls. Self-hosted deployments are difficult to track accurately. Numbers change frequently—check project websites for current data.*
|
||||
115
content/articles/participatory-democracy-tools/index.md
Normal file
115
content/articles/participatory-democracy-tools/index.md
Normal file
@@ -0,0 +1,115 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: Participatory Democracy Tools
|
||||
date: 2026-01-01
|
||||
summary: Digital platforms that help communities make decisions together, from simple polls to sophisticated deliberation systems. When people have real voice in decisions that affect them, democracy comes alive.
|
||||
draft: True
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
Democracy shouldn't be something that happens to you once every few years. It should be something you participate in—actively, meaningfully, continuously.
|
||||
|
||||
Yet traditional civic participation has significant barriers. Town halls happen at inconvenient times. Public comment periods favor those with time and confidence to speak. Complex decisions get made by small groups of officials while the broader community remains disconnected.
|
||||
|
||||
Digital participatory democracy tools change this equation. They lower barriers to participation, enable asynchronous deliberation, and create transparent records of how decisions are made. When implemented well, they don't replace face-to-face democracy—they extend it, making participation possible for people who could never attend a Tuesday evening meeting.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Why This Matters for Communities
|
||||
|
||||
### The Civic Engagement Crisis
|
||||
|
||||
Voter turnout in local elections often falls below 20%. Citizens feel their voices don't matter—that decisions are made "for them" rather than "with them." This isn't apathy; it's rational disengagement from systems that seem unresponsive.
|
||||
|
||||
The trust deficit is real. When people don't understand how decisions are made or feel excluded from the process, they stop believing institutions serve their interests.
|
||||
|
||||
### What Participatory Democracy Solves
|
||||
|
||||
**Broader inclusion**: Digital tools allow participation from home, at any hour, accommodating working parents, shift workers, people with disabilities, and those without transportation.
|
||||
|
||||
**Better decisions**: Communities possess distributed knowledge that no single expert can match. Deliberative processes surface trade-offs and build understanding of complexity.
|
||||
|
||||
**Legitimacy and buy-in**: Decisions made participatively carry greater democratic legitimacy. People are more likely to support and help implement decisions they helped shape.
|
||||
|
||||
**Transparency**: Digital platforms create permanent records of proposals, discussions, and decisions. Citizens can track how their input influenced outcomes.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Real-World Success Stories
|
||||
|
||||
### Barcelona, Spain (Decidim)
|
||||
|
||||
Barcelona's Decidim platform ("We Decide" in Catalan) has engaged over 400,000 registered users. More than 70% of the city's strategic plan was shaped by citizen input. The city has allocated over €75 million through participatory budgeting.
|
||||
|
||||
The key insight: Barcelona integrated online and offline participation. Digital proposals could be submitted at in-person events, ensuring no one was excluded.
|
||||
|
||||
### Madrid, Spain (Consul)
|
||||
|
||||
Madrid's Decide Madrid platform allows citizens to propose ideas that go to binding votes if they reach a 1% support threshold. The city has allocated €100 million through citizen decisions. When your proposal wins, the city must implement it—creating real stakes for participation.
|
||||
|
||||
### Reykjavik, Iceland (Your Priorities)
|
||||
|
||||
Better Reykjavik has reached 40% of the city's population, processing over 700 citizen ideas into policy. The simple pro/con format makes participation intuitive, and the city commits to responding to top ideas.
|
||||
|
||||
### Taiwan (Pol.is / vTaiwan)
|
||||
|
||||
Taiwan's vTaiwan process has addressed 26 national issues, including resolving the contentious UberX regulation debate with 80% consensus. Pol.is surfaces consensus by visualizing opinion clusters, helping identify bridging positions that most groups can accept.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Key Considerations
|
||||
|
||||
### Choosing the Right Tool
|
||||
|
||||
**For small communities (under 1,000 people)**: Loomio works well for group decision-making. Simpler tools may suffice; complex platforms can feel empty.
|
||||
|
||||
**For medium communities (1,000-50,000)**: Your Priorities offers a good balance of features and simplicity. Consider whether you need participatory budgeting features.
|
||||
|
||||
**For large cities (50,000+)**: Decidim or Consul are designed for this scale, with robust moderation tools and integration capabilities.
|
||||
|
||||
**For finding consensus on divisive issues**: Pol.is excels at surfacing common ground in large, polarized groups.
|
||||
|
||||
### Addressing the Digital Divide
|
||||
|
||||
Digital tools can exclude those without reliable internet access or digital literacy. Successful implementations use hybrid approaches:
|
||||
|
||||
- Offer in-person participation alongside digital options
|
||||
- Provide computer access at libraries and community centers
|
||||
- Include phone-based participation options
|
||||
- Accept paper submissions that get entered into the system
|
||||
|
||||
### Closing the Feedback Loop
|
||||
|
||||
The biggest risk is participation fatigue. If input doesn't lead to visible change, people stop participating. Successful platforms:
|
||||
|
||||
- Show how input influenced decisions
|
||||
- Celebrate wins and implemented proposals
|
||||
- Are selective—don't consult on everything
|
||||
- Allow people to choose their engagement level
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Open Source Options
|
||||
|
||||
| Project | Description |
|
||||
|:--------|:------------|
|
||||
| [Decidim](https://decidim.org) | Comprehensive participatory democracy platform used by cities worldwide. Supports proposals, debates, participatory budgeting, and more. <br><small>📊 400+ instances, 2M+ participants. Used by Barcelona, Helsinki, NYC.</small> <br><small>📦 [GitHub](https://github.com/decidim/decidim) · AGPL-3.0</small> |
|
||||
| [Loomio](https://www.loomio.com) | Collaborative decision-making for groups. Helps communities discuss issues and reach clear outcomes together. <br><small>📊 150K+ users in 100+ countries. Used by Greenpeace, Enspiral.</small> <br><small>📦 [GitHub](https://github.com/loomio/loomio) · AGPL-3.0</small> |
|
||||
| [Consul](https://consulproject.org) | Citizen participation platform for open, transparent governments. <br><small>📊 135+ institutions in 35+ countries.</small> <br><small>📦 [GitHub](https://github.com/consuldemocracy/consuldemocracy) · AGPL-3.0</small> |
|
||||
| [Pol.is](https://pol.is) | AI-powered platform for understanding public opinion and finding consensus across diverse viewpoints. <br><small>📊 Millions of participants. Powers Taiwan's vTaiwan.</small> <br><small>📦 [GitHub](https://github.com/compdemocracy/polis) · AGPL-3.0</small> |
|
||||
| [Your Priorities](https://www.yourpriorities.org) | Platform for citizen engagement that helps communities prioritize ideas and proposals. <br><small>📊 50+ deployments, 500K+ participants.</small> <br><small>📦 [GitHub](https://github.com/CitizensFoundation/your-priorities-app) · MIT</small> |
|
||||
| [Helios Voting](https://heliosvoting.org) | Verifiable online voting with mathematical proof that votes were counted correctly. <br><small>📊 Thousands of elections. Used by Princeton, ACM.</small> <br><small>📦 [GitHub](https://github.com/benadida/helios-server) · Apache-2.0</small> |
|
||||
| [Belenios](https://www.belenios.org) | Verifiable voting system with strong security guarantees from academic researchers. <br><small>📊 5,000+ elections. Used by CNRS, Inria.</small> <br><small>📦 [GitLab](https://gitlab.inria.fr/belenios/belenios) · AGPL-3.0</small> |
|
||||
| [LiquidFeedback](https://liquidfeedback.com) | Implements liquid democracy—vote directly or delegate to trusted representatives. <br><small>📊 Used by German Pirate Party, Italian Five Star Movement.</small> <br><small>📦 [GitHub](https://github.com/fluidemocracy/frontend) · MIT</small> |
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Getting Started
|
||||
|
||||
The technology matters less than the commitment to act on input. A simple tool with strong follow-through beats a sophisticated platform that's ignored.
|
||||
|
||||
Start with clear goals: Are you trying to allocate budget? Generate ideas? Build consensus on divisive issues? Different goals suggest different tools.
|
||||
|
||||
Plan for sustainability. The graveyard of civic tech is full of platforms launched with fanfare and abandoned within years. Budget for ongoing operations, not just launch.
|
||||
|
||||
And remember: these tools being open source means communities own their democratic infrastructure. No vendor lock-in, full data sovereignty, and the ability to customize for local needs.
|
||||
|
||||
Democracy is a practice, not just an outcome. These tools help communities practice it together.
|
||||
@@ -1,153 +1,94 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: Position Statements
|
||||
date: 2025-07-06
|
||||
weight: 60
|
||||
featureImageCaption: "Photo by <a href=\"https://unsplash.com/@nasa?utm_content=creditCopyText&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=unsplash\">NASA</a> on <a href=\"https://unsplash.com/photos/satellite-view-of-earths-surface-_SFJhRPzJHs?utm_content=creditCopyText&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=unsplash\">Unsplash</a>"
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
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.
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: What We Believe
|
||||
date: 2025-07-06
|
||||
weight: 60
|
||||
featureImageCaption: "Photo by <a href=\"https://unsplash.com/@nasa?utm_content=creditCopyText&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=unsplash\">NASA</a> on <a href=\"https://unsplash.com/photos/satellite-view-of-earths-surface-_SFJhRPzJHs?utm_content=creditCopyText&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=unsplash\">Unsplash</a>"
|
||||
aliases:
|
||||
- /articles/position-statements/
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
These beliefs guide our work. They're not abstract principles—they're what we've learned from watching communities build technology that actually serves them.
|
||||
|
||||
## Technology can be a public good
|
||||
|
||||
**Some software is too important to be driven primarily by profit.**
|
||||
|
||||
Just as we have public parks, libraries, and utilities, we need digital spaces governed for public benefit. Communication platforms, identity systems, information access tools—these serve essential social functions. When profit is the only driver, these systems inevitably prioritize engagement and data extraction over human well-being.
|
||||
|
||||
This doesn't mean all software must be non-commercial. It means we need robust alternatives developed explicitly for communities. And here's what we've found: these alternatives often work better, because they're designed around what people actually need.
|
||||
|
||||
## Privacy is a foundation, not a feature
|
||||
|
||||
**Everyone deserves meaningful control over their personal information.**
|
||||
|
||||
Privacy isn't a luxury or a preference—it's a necessary condition for freedom of thought, association, and expression. Technology should be designed with privacy as a core requirement, not an afterthought or a premium upgrade.
|
||||
|
||||
When communities run their own infrastructure, privacy becomes real. Your data stays where you put it. Your conversations remain private. Your patterns of life aren't being analyzed and monetized.
|
||||
|
||||
## Communities should control their own spaces
|
||||
|
||||
**Digital infrastructure shouldn't be concentrated in a few hands.**
|
||||
|
||||
When a handful of companies control cloud services, social platforms, and network access, they gain unprecedented power over society. This concentration creates vulnerabilities, enables surveillance, and removes democratic accountability.
|
||||
|
||||
Digital resilience requires diverse, distributed infrastructure. Communities that own their own technology can't be cut off by a distant business decision or a platform's policy change.
|
||||
|
||||
## Communication belongs to everyone
|
||||
|
||||
**Public messaging infrastructure should be a public good.**
|
||||
|
||||
Platforms that serve as public squares shouldn't be subject to any individual's whims. When communication infrastructure is privately controlled, arbitrary rule changes can disrupt communities, commercial incentives distort information, and essential public functions lack accountability.
|
||||
|
||||
Communication infrastructure works better when it's built on open protocols, federation, and community governance. Many voices, many spaces, connected but not controlled.
|
||||
|
||||
## Content governance should be local
|
||||
|
||||
**Communities know their own needs better than distant platforms.**
|
||||
|
||||
One-size-fits-all content policies can't meet the diverse, contextual needs of different communities. What works for one group may harm another. Algorithmic enforcement misses nuance and context.
|
||||
|
||||
True content governance requires community-determined standards, transparent processes, and distributed rather than centralized authority. Federated, community-governed platforms make this possible.
|
||||
|
||||
## The internet should be open
|
||||
|
||||
**Access to an open, neutral internet is a fundamental right.**
|
||||
|
||||
Internet service should treat all content equally, support both consumption and creation, and enable peer-to-peer connectivity. Artificial scarcity through data caps and tiered access serves corporate interests, not communities.
|
||||
|
||||
When communities build their own networks—as many are doing—they can ensure that infrastructure serves people rather than extracting from them.
|
||||
|
||||
## Public investment matters
|
||||
|
||||
**Democratic societies should invest in digital public goods.**
|
||||
|
||||
Governments invest in physical infrastructure and public services. Digital infrastructure deserves the same attention. This means funding open source development, supporting community-governed digital commons, and prioritizing open standards in procurement.
|
||||
|
||||
When government abdicates this responsibility, it cedes the digital future to interests that aren't aligned with public good.
|
||||
|
||||
## User-centered technology works better
|
||||
|
||||
**Software built for people, not shareholders, produces better results.**
|
||||
|
||||
This isn't just ideological—it's practical. When developers are accountable to users rather than conflicting commercial imperatives, they build technology that's more reliable, more secure, less bloated, and more respectful of human attention and capabilities.
|
||||
|
||||
Communities that build their own tools consistently report that those tools work better for their actual needs.
|
||||
|
||||
## Self-determination is essential
|
||||
|
||||
**People should be able to understand and shape the technology in their lives.**
|
||||
|
||||
This requires access to source code and technical knowledge, the right to modify tools for local needs, control over personal data, and freedom to choose or create alternatives.
|
||||
|
||||
Digital self-determination isn't a luxury. It's necessary for maintaining human dignity and agency in a world increasingly mediated by technology.
|
||||
|
||||
## Building is better than fighting
|
||||
|
||||
**The best way to create change is to build alternatives so good that people choose them freely.**
|
||||
|
||||
We believe in demonstrating what's possible rather than just critiquing what exists. When communities see that they can own their digital homes, that the tools can work better, that neighbors can build together—they choose independence not because they're told to, but because it's genuinely better.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
These beliefs inform everything we do—the tools we build, the communities we support, the future we're working toward. They're grounded in our commitment to digital self-determination and the flourishing of civil society.
|
||||
|
||||
And they're not just beliefs. Communities around the world are already living them.
|
||||
|
||||
137
content/articles/project-management-tools/index.md
Normal file
137
content/articles/project-management-tools/index.md
Normal file
@@ -0,0 +1,137 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: Open Source Project Management
|
||||
date: 2025-12-27
|
||||
summary: Tools for coordinating volunteers, tracking initiatives, and managing community projects. When your project management lives on infrastructure you control, your institutional knowledge stays with your community.
|
||||
draft: True
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
Every community organization juggles projects—campaigns to coordinate, events to plan, initiatives to track, volunteers to organize. Without good systems, this work lives in scattered spreadsheets, email threads, and people's heads.
|
||||
|
||||
Commercial project management tools like Asana, Monday, and Jira solve this problem, but at a cost: per-seat pricing that scales with your team, data stored on corporate servers, and dependency on companies whose priorities may not align with yours.
|
||||
|
||||
Open source project management tools offer the same capabilities with different tradeoffs: your data stays yours, your costs stay predictable, and your institutional knowledge stays with your community.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Why This Matters for Communities
|
||||
|
||||
### The Unique Challenges of Volunteer Organizations
|
||||
|
||||
Community organizations face coordination challenges that commercial tools weren't designed for:
|
||||
|
||||
**Unpredictable availability**: Unlike employees, volunteers contribute on their own schedules. Tracking who's doing what becomes essential when you can't assume consistent availability.
|
||||
|
||||
**High turnover**: Volunteers come and go. Without good systems, institutional knowledge disappears when people leave. Project management tools preserve context across transitions.
|
||||
|
||||
**Transparency requirements**: Nonprofits and community organizations often need to demonstrate accountability to funders, members, and the public. Visible project tracking helps.
|
||||
|
||||
**Flat structures**: Many community organizations avoid hierarchy, but still need coordination. Project management tools provide structure without bureaucracy.
|
||||
|
||||
### The Cost Argument
|
||||
|
||||
A 50-person volunteer organization using commercial tools might pay $6,000-18,000 per year in subscription fees. That's program budget being spent on software.
|
||||
|
||||
Self-hosted open source alternatives cost only hosting fees—often $20-100 per month. The savings can fund actual community work.
|
||||
|
||||
### The Values Argument
|
||||
|
||||
Organizations that advocate for open, democratic, community-controlled systems should use tools that embody those same values. Using proprietary software while advocating for digital commons is a contradiction.
|
||||
|
||||
### The Sustainability Argument
|
||||
|
||||
When your organization's institutional memory lives in a commercial SaaS product, you're one acquisition, one price increase, or one pivot away from disruption. Open source tools put you in control of your own continuity.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Key Features Communities Need
|
||||
|
||||
### Kanban Boards
|
||||
|
||||
Visual workflows are perfect for volunteer coordination. Anyone can see at a glance what's "To Do," "In Progress," and "Done." No training required—the interface is intuitive.
|
||||
|
||||
### Gantt Charts
|
||||
|
||||
Grant-funded projects have milestones and deadlines. Gantt charts help demonstrate to funders that timelines are being met and resources allocated properly.
|
||||
|
||||
### Collaboration Features
|
||||
|
||||
- Comments and @mentions for asynchronous communication
|
||||
- File attachments to keep documents with related work
|
||||
- Activity feeds to see what happened while you were away
|
||||
- Notifications to stay informed without constant check-ins
|
||||
|
||||
### Role-Based Permissions
|
||||
|
||||
Different people need different access:
|
||||
- Board members see high-level progress
|
||||
- Project leads manage tasks
|
||||
- Volunteers see only what they need
|
||||
- Sensitive information stays protected while transparency is maintained
|
||||
|
||||
### Time Tracking
|
||||
|
||||
Many grants require reporting on hours spent. Built-in time tracking eliminates separate timesheets and ensures accurate reporting.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Choosing the Right Tool
|
||||
|
||||
### OpenProject: The Full-Featured Option
|
||||
|
||||
Best for organizations needing traditional project management with Gantt charts, work breakdown structures, and time tracking.
|
||||
|
||||
**Strengths**: Most feature-complete; strong for traditional PM methodologies; excellent for grant reporting and complex projects.
|
||||
|
||||
**Used by**: Greenpeace Germany, City of Cologne, Siemens, universities and research institutions.
|
||||
|
||||
### Taiga: The Agile-Friendly Option
|
||||
|
||||
Best for teams who want a beautiful, intuitive interface with strong agile methodology support.
|
||||
|
||||
**Strengths**: Beautiful UI/UX; intuitive for non-technical users; excellent Scrum and Kanban support; wiki documentation built in.
|
||||
|
||||
**Used by**: Software teams, design teams, civic tech organizations.
|
||||
|
||||
### Wekan: The Simple Option
|
||||
|
||||
Best for teams wanting a simple, Trello-like kanban experience they fully control.
|
||||
|
||||
**Strengths**: Simplest to use; lowest learning curve; lightweight; Trello muscle memory transfers directly.
|
||||
|
||||
**Used by**: Small teams, privacy-conscious organizations looking for a Trello replacement.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Open Source Options
|
||||
|
||||
| Project | Description |
|
||||
|:--------|:------------|
|
||||
| [OpenProject](https://www.openproject.org) | Comprehensive project management with Gantt charts, agile boards, time tracking, and more. <br><small>📊 Used by Greenpeace Germany, City of Cologne, universities worldwide.</small> <br><small>📦 [GitHub](https://github.com/opf/openproject) · GPL-3.0</small> |
|
||||
| [Taiga](https://taiga.io) | Beautiful agile project management with Kanban, Scrum, and wiki. <br><small>📊 Popular with software teams and civic tech organizations.</small> <br><small>📦 [GitHub](https://github.com/kaleidos-ventures/taiga-docker) · MPL-2.0</small> |
|
||||
| [Wekan](https://wekan.github.io) | Open source Trello-like kanban board. <br><small>📊 Used as Trello replacement by privacy-conscious organizations.</small> <br><small>📦 [GitHub](https://github.com/wekan/wekan) · MIT</small> |
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Quick Comparison
|
||||
|
||||
| Feature | OpenProject | Taiga | Wekan |
|
||||
|:--------|:------------|:------|:------|
|
||||
| Kanban boards | Yes | Yes | Yes |
|
||||
| Scrum/Agile | Yes | Yes | Basic |
|
||||
| Gantt charts | Yes | No | No |
|
||||
| Time tracking | Yes | No | No |
|
||||
| Wiki/Docs | Yes | Yes | No |
|
||||
| Learning curve | Medium | Low-Medium | Low |
|
||||
| Best for | Complex projects | Agile teams | Simple kanban |
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Getting Started
|
||||
|
||||
Start with your actual needs, not the most feature-rich option. A team that just needs kanban boards will be frustrated by OpenProject's complexity. An organization tracking grant milestones will be frustrated by Wekan's simplicity.
|
||||
|
||||
All three tools support self-hosting with Docker, making deployment accessible for organizations with basic technical capacity. Cloud-hosted options are also available for those who prefer managed services.
|
||||
|
||||
The key insight: project management tools are where your organization's institutional knowledge accumulates. When that knowledge lives on infrastructure you control, it stays with your community regardless of what happens to any vendor.
|
||||
|
||||
Every dollar spent on self-hosted infrastructure builds something you own. Every hour of organizational history stays under your control. That's not just cost savings—it's organizational sovereignty.
|
||||
134
content/articles/resource-sharing-scheduling/index.md
Normal file
134
content/articles/resource-sharing-scheduling/index.md
Normal file
@@ -0,0 +1,134 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: Resource Sharing and Scheduling
|
||||
date: 2025-12-27
|
||||
summary: Tools for coordinating shared resources—tool libraries, equipment pools, community spaces, and volunteer activities. When communities share effectively, everyone has access to more while owning less.
|
||||
draft: True
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
Most households own tools they use only a few times per year—drills, ladders, camping gear, specialized kitchen equipment. Meanwhile, community spaces sit empty between scheduled events, and skilled community members have expertise they'd gladly share but no easy way to connect with those who need it.
|
||||
|
||||
The result: duplicated purchases, wasted money, environmental impact from manufacturing rarely-used items, and missed opportunities for community connection.
|
||||
|
||||
Resource sharing solves the coordination problem. These tools answer the fundamental questions: What's available? Where is it? Who has it now? When can I use it?
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Why This Matters for Communities
|
||||
|
||||
### Economic Benefits
|
||||
|
||||
The average power drill is used for only 13 minutes in its entire lifetime. A quality drill costs $150-400. A tool library membership might cost $25-50 per year for access to hundreds of tools.
|
||||
|
||||
Communities can collectively afford professional-grade equipment no individual would purchase. People can try new hobbies, complete home projects, or start small businesses without upfront capital investment.
|
||||
|
||||
Tool libraries report 10-20x utilization compared to individual ownership—the same resources serve far more people.
|
||||
|
||||
### Environmental Sustainability
|
||||
|
||||
Fewer items need to be produced when they're shared effectively. Shared items are often better maintained and repaired rather than discarded. Resources stay in use longer and serve more people.
|
||||
|
||||
This is circular economy in practice.
|
||||
|
||||
### Community Building
|
||||
|
||||
Lending and borrowing builds relationships and reciprocity. Resources often come with knowledge—experienced users teach newcomers. Sharing creates natural touchpoints for community interaction.
|
||||
|
||||
Research shows that communities with strong sharing networks have higher trust, more civic participation, and better outcomes during crises.
|
||||
|
||||
### Resilience
|
||||
|
||||
When money is tight, sharing becomes essential. During emergencies, communities with established sharing networks can mobilize resources quickly. Local sharing reduces dependence on commercial services and supply chains.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Real-World Examples
|
||||
|
||||
### Tool Libraries
|
||||
|
||||
**Berkeley Tool Lending Library** (California): One of the oldest and most successful, operating since 1979. Free tool lending to Berkeley residents, with thousands of tools available.
|
||||
|
||||
**Toronto Tool Library**: Multiple locations, membership-based, also offers workshops and repair cafés.
|
||||
|
||||
**Library of Things movement**: Public libraries worldwide now lend non-book items—cake pans, telescopes, sewing machines, musical instruments.
|
||||
|
||||
### Food Sharing Networks
|
||||
|
||||
**Foodsharing.de** (Germany): 200,000+ "food savers" have rescued 50+ million kg of food from being wasted.
|
||||
|
||||
**Community fridges**: Physical locations where anyone can leave or take food, coordinated through digital tools.
|
||||
|
||||
### Mutual Aid and Volunteer Coordination
|
||||
|
||||
**Karrot**: Originally built for food-saving coordination, now used by mutual aid groups, community gardens, and neighborhood initiatives worldwide.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Choosing the Right Tool
|
||||
|
||||
### Leihs: Equipment Lending System
|
||||
|
||||
Best for organizations with significant physical inventory that needs formal tracking—tool libraries, equipment pools, educational institutions, makerspaces.
|
||||
|
||||
**Strengths**: Complete inventory management with photos and categories; sophisticated lending workflows (reservations, hand-outs, returns); barcode/QR code support; reporting and statistics.
|
||||
|
||||
**Origin**: Developed by Zurich University of the Arts for managing media equipment.
|
||||
|
||||
### LibreBooking: Space and Resource Scheduling
|
||||
|
||||
Best for scheduling shared spaces (meeting rooms, studios, kitchens) and equipment where time-based booking is the primary need.
|
||||
|
||||
**Strengths**: Multi-resource booking with conflict prevention; waitlists for in-demand resources; quotas and credits for fair usage; calendar integration.
|
||||
|
||||
**Used by**: Libraries, coworking spaces, makerspaces, educational institutions.
|
||||
|
||||
### Karrot: Volunteer Coordination
|
||||
|
||||
Best for grassroots volunteer groups coordinating regular activities—food rescue, community gardens, neighborhood initiatives, mutual aid groups.
|
||||
|
||||
**Strengths**: Place management; activity scheduling (one-time and recurring); feedback gathering; newcomer onboarding; built-in chat; conflict resolution tools; Android app.
|
||||
|
||||
**Philosophy**: Explicitly designed to support "community-building and a more transparent, democratic and participatory governance."
|
||||
|
||||
**Scale**: 100+ active groups, 10,000+ users in 30+ countries.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Open Source Options
|
||||
|
||||
| Project | Description |
|
||||
|:--------|:------------|
|
||||
| [Leihs](https://github.com/leihs/leihs) | Equipment lending system with inventory management and lending workflows. <br><small>📊 50-100 installations, primarily European educational and cultural institutions.</small> <br><small>📦 [GitHub](https://github.com/leihs/leihs) · GPL-3.0</small> |
|
||||
| [LibreBooking](https://github.com/LibreBooking/app) | Resource scheduling for rooms, equipment, and shared resources. <br><small>📊 Thousands of installations. Popular with libraries and coworking spaces.</small> <br><small>📦 [GitHub](https://github.com/LibreBooking/app) · GPL-3.0</small> |
|
||||
| [Karrot](https://karrot.world) | Coordination tool for grassroots initiatives and volunteer groups. <br><small>📊 100+ active groups, 10,000+ users in 30+ countries.</small> <br><small>📦 [GitHub](https://github.com/karrot-dev/karrot-frontend) · MIT</small> |
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Feature Comparison
|
||||
|
||||
| Feature | Leihs | LibreBooking | Karrot |
|
||||
|:--------|:------|:-------------|:-------|
|
||||
| Primary use | Equipment lending | Space/resource booking | Activity coordination |
|
||||
| Inventory tracking | Excellent | Basic | Place-based |
|
||||
| Lending workflows | Excellent | Basic | Not primary focus |
|
||||
| Booking/scheduling | Yes | Excellent | Activity-focused |
|
||||
| Built-in communication | Limited | Limited | Excellent |
|
||||
| Mobile app | Web only | Web only | Android |
|
||||
| Best for | Tool libraries | Meeting rooms | Volunteer groups |
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## The Bigger Picture
|
||||
|
||||
The "sharing economy" has been largely captured by commercial platforms like Uber and Airbnb that extract value from communities rather than building them.
|
||||
|
||||
These open source tools represent a different vision:
|
||||
- **Community-owned infrastructure**: The software belongs to everyone
|
||||
- **No platform fees**: Value stays in the community
|
||||
- **Local governance**: Communities set their own rules
|
||||
- **Privacy-respecting**: Data stays with the community
|
||||
|
||||
This is about reclaiming the commons—using technology to enable the kind of neighborly sharing that used to happen naturally, but at a scale that modern communities need.
|
||||
|
||||
Every tool shared is a tool that didn't need to be manufactured. Every skill exchanged is a relationship strengthened. Every resource coordinated is a community made more resilient.
|
||||
|
||||
The tools exist. The models work. Communities are already doing this.
|
||||
@@ -1,6 +1,10 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Learning"
|
||||
title: "Learn"
|
||||
cardView: true
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
Resources for building technical skills and understanding digital self-determination.
|
||||
Building and running your own technology is a journey, and every journey starts somewhere.
|
||||
|
||||
You don't need to become an expert before you begin. The best way to learn is often by doing—trying things, asking questions, and helping others along the way. Everyone here started as a beginner.
|
||||
|
||||
These resources are here to help, wherever you are on the path.
|
||||
|
||||
10
layouts/_shortcodes/article.html
Normal file
10
layouts/_shortcodes/article.html
Normal file
@@ -0,0 +1,10 @@
|
||||
{{ $link := .Get "link" }}
|
||||
{{ $target := .Page }}
|
||||
{{ if ne $link .Page.RelPermalink }}
|
||||
{{ $target = index (first 1 (where .Site.AllPages "RelPermalink" $link)) 0 }}
|
||||
{{ end }}
|
||||
{{ if $target }}
|
||||
<section class="space-y-10 w-full">
|
||||
{{ partial "article-link/simple.html" $target }}
|
||||
</section>
|
||||
{{ end }}
|
||||
@@ -1,14 +0,0 @@
|
||||
{{ define "main" }}
|
||||
<article class="h-full max-w-full flex flex-col items-center justify-center">
|
||||
<section class="mt-6">
|
||||
{{ .Content }}
|
||||
</section>
|
||||
<section>
|
||||
{{ partial "recent-articles/main.html" . }}
|
||||
</section>
|
||||
<footer class="pt-8">
|
||||
</footer>
|
||||
</article>
|
||||
{{ end }}
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
13
layouts/partials/home/custom.html
Normal file
13
layouts/partials/home/custom.html
Normal file
@@ -0,0 +1,13 @@
|
||||
|
||||
<article class="max-w-full prose dark:prose-invert">
|
||||
{{ with .Title }}
|
||||
<header>
|
||||
<h1>{{ . | emojify }}</h1>
|
||||
</header>
|
||||
{{ end }}
|
||||
<section>{{ .Content }}</section>
|
||||
</article>
|
||||
<section>
|
||||
{{ partial "recent-articles/main.html" . }}
|
||||
</section>
|
||||
|
||||
BIN
static/android-chrome-192x192.png
Normal file
BIN
static/android-chrome-192x192.png
Normal file
Binary file not shown.
|
After Width: | Height: | Size: 5.2 KiB |
BIN
static/android-chrome-512x512.png
Normal file
BIN
static/android-chrome-512x512.png
Normal file
Binary file not shown.
|
After Width: | Height: | Size: 17 KiB |
BIN
static/apple-touch-icon.png
Normal file
BIN
static/apple-touch-icon.png
Normal file
Binary file not shown.
|
After Width: | Height: | Size: 4.5 KiB |
BIN
static/favicon-16x16.png
Normal file
BIN
static/favicon-16x16.png
Normal file
Binary file not shown.
|
After Width: | Height: | Size: 545 B |
BIN
static/favicon-32x32.png
Normal file
BIN
static/favicon-32x32.png
Normal file
Binary file not shown.
|
After Width: | Height: | Size: 1.1 KiB |
BIN
static/favicon.ico
Normal file
BIN
static/favicon.ico
Normal file
Binary file not shown.
|
After Width: | Height: | Size: 15 KiB |
1
static/site.webmanifest
Normal file
1
static/site.webmanifest
Normal file
@@ -0,0 +1 @@
|
||||
{"name":"","short_name":"","icons":[{"src":"/android-chrome-192x192.png","sizes":"192x192","type":"image/png"},{"src":"/android-chrome-512x512.png","sizes":"512x512","type":"image/png"}],"theme_color":"#ffffff","background_color":"#ffffff","display":"standalone"}
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user