nathan schneider

nathan schneider.png

intro’d to Nathan via his platform coop conf (w Trebor)


Platform Cooperativism Conference Disrupts Silicon Valley’s Disruptions

Schneider said on Friday that what we need are “algorithms for the 99 percent.”

perhaps.. chip (actually us) as platform.. algorithms via personal fab.. self-talk as data.. in the city. as the day.

“The history of the Internet is full of hope and disappointment,” says Schneider. “Free-and-open-source software, the ‘personal’ computer, the ‘sharing’ economy — each of these aroused hope for empowerment for people, only to become tools for monopoly and extraction.”

www ness

Silicon Valley, for its part, was busy the same weekend with the O’Reilly Media “Next:Economy” summit on the future of work. That conference is succinctly summarized by Tim O’Reilly’s declaration on the conference website that “Every industry and every organization will have to transform itself in the next few years.” It is this Silicon Valley mindset of transformation as an end unto itself that platform cooperativism is thinking outside of and against. While tech entrepreneurs look to disrupt in order to profit and see adoption on platforms as a bigger bottom line, platform cooperativists are focused on creating democratic ownership and governance structures and seek to adapt technology toward those ends.

? or maybe both have some of both…?

“When people in Internet culture talk about ‘democratizing’ something, they normally just mean expandingaccess to something,” says Schneider. “This is a pretty gross misuse of the word. A core challenge of platform cooperativism is to make sure that the need for democratic ownership and access of online platforms never gets watered down again into mere access for the sake of capital extraction.”


We’re drawing on decades of critical scholarship on the political economy of the Internet,” says Schneider. We’re trying to offer an intervention that might help end the cycle that turns all our of great hopes and ideas for a truly democratic Internet into new tools for monopolies to exploit.”

perpetuation ness.. broken feedback loop ness


nathan and krista 2014 – start at 6 min:

krista on nathan.. far seeing mind of youth… what it means to be human

11 min – my parents were both searchers.. and i got to go along with that

12 min – when i started realizing.. this weirdness i’m encountering is not weird.. others too.. and this time is not so unique.. other times..

14 min – experience at 17-18 – then monestary – then college..

the word proof – had this sort of intoxication for me… spent next 10 yrs trying to experience that word proof..

16 min – at this time.. new atheists were forming.. 9/11 had just happened..

17 min – the real power of these so called proofs .. was in the relationships (between people) they were forming

18 min – on not being able to separate logic from affection… the way the question was being framed around me.. of proof.. was maybe not the best way

23 min – young people not protesting church…. but protesting church wasn’t acting like a church… general identity was that of the nuns.. that was the cry.. act like a church

24 min – occupy wall street people banded to offer relief/supplies… in churches

occupy sandy ness

25 min – which is still ongoing and still tremendously unequal…

was good for them to see resilience power from these people that they had not had with occupy.. they started to draw from ideas, ie: jubilee… they started to recognize there is something real in this religious language that they were connecting with in the frustration of societies around them

27 min – bonhoffer ness.. the death of god phenom in 1960s.. something tantalizing about those questions.. ie: is church necessary… i think traditions/communities are necessary… only if.. at constant renewal w/respect for tradition…

a challenge the none’s amongst us are facing.. there isn’t a satisfaction with being a none (the new none religious)

30 min – reading paul goodman’s growing up absurd… made mistake focusing on just white men… he did point … dislocation.. was also necessary response to hypocrisy..

32 min – on diversity challenging to occupy movement.. on some of the undoing of relationships formed.. race/class.. things that divide us that we don’t know how to talk about.. we are the 99% but we are the 99% in a lot of diff ways.. far graver.. longer times..

occupy ness

34 min – people started recognizing the pain that so many in our society are carrying that we don’t have language to talk about.. because movement wasn’t built around, ie: people most impacted.. it ended up marginalizing them…. the injustices in outside world replicating themselves.. deeply puzzling many.. but set them off more aware… to connect local with global in a way they had thought to before..

35 min – one of great privileges for me.. covering occupy.. i had responsibility to edit columns of a pair of civil rights veterans.. (w/king et al)… i would tell them chaotic.. everyone saying.. where are the demands.. etc… and they said.. yes.. that’s the way it goes.. just flow with it… such a reminder of the amnesia we give ourselves about our social movements… we forget what movements have looked like and how to build stronger ones in the future

reminds of ta-nehisi at harvard nov – talking about things being bad for king when he was alive..

39 min – we saw so much of this w/occupy.. disappointment in how hard it was.. they saw selves not as americans rising up but as actually joining a global movement.. one thing i was noticing about way stories were being told.. the flash/flicker/spectacle.. that shows on streets for a few weeks.. but i had heard the long/patient organizing behind all this… there was a nother story about what was going on in the midst of it..  set up a lot of disappoint in young people.. a strange set of expectations by the way we tell our stories.. ie: where’s you king coming to save..

43 min – i find term: digital native as troubling… why are we using fb instead of something we control..

44 min – i was drawn to computer science same way i was drawn to religion.. interested in the stuff that was affecting our imaginations… i thought i might do a thesis: how people organize files on computers.. but we never talk about how/why.. it’s those decisions i’m interested in in tech..

45 min – on mesh networking… feeding each other internet rather than everyone getting it independently from comcast.. but it doesn’t work.. our neighborhoods are organized enough… it’s important when we talk about tech.. that we talk about how we relate to others in other ways..

46 min – on turkle – i’ve been exploring frontiers of ways people are doing that… ie: europe gathering hacker ness in monestaries.. looking to religious legacy as means of starting from scratch… don’t feel they can go to traditional institutions to explore these things…

a nother way to leapfrog to a global do-over – deep enough for all of us..

49 min – reason alone eventually turns into reason together… that was something i saw very vividly in occupy movement

i was very vividly here – when you’re free to be you.. you can’t not be us..

51 min – people talking and talking as if no one had ever listened to them before.. – at occupy

55 min q&a – on how people got drawn into occupy a: three words in an email: occupy wall street.. if they doesn’t pull you in.. need to spend time studying what wall street means to us today

57 min – we can’t stop ourselves from destroying the planet.. why is that..

what kind of society is one that can’t stop itself from destroying the planet…

59 min – q: where can we go for true investigative reporting a: leaks – power of leaks are indicative of failure of media/govt

1:02 – something about this movement (occupy) brought out the incredibly troubling militarization of our police around the country… whatever we think about the movement.. that’s something we should all be troubled by… not police.. military.. for an unarmed crowd..

1:05 – blessed are the organized by stout..

also not available on overdrive

1:06 – mesh network.. one of many ways we could have built the internet.. didn’t have to be all google/fb all the time…  use imagination for more equitable/just ways that tech might enable us

www ness –

1:08 – on away from shiny – and turning attention to inner work

self-talk as data.. commonplace booking ourselves into being and as we are being.. ish

1:11 – on a person who had been losing his faith had guided me to mine..

1:11 – despair i feel comes from the stories.. when people tell each other stories in which they have no agency.. in which someone else has to do it for us..

the experiences of hope are the stories that i’m grasping to be able to tell.. but where people are living that agency.. to build societies that resist that injustice… i hope that we can learn to tell those stories better.. to see that divinity that’s within all of us.. how to tell those stories.. to hold up those moments where we find our ability/agency to make a change..

a and a ness – a nother way

recommended god in proof to overdrive.. but thank you anarchy not available for recommend. nice.


nathan on occupy 2013:

3 min – several meetings.. independent… about occupy ness… trying to bring u.s. into global uprising

4 min – w/in weeks occupy had majority of support in u.s.

5 min – didn’t pilfer out.. was taken down

6 min – talking on the movements that came out of the movement

9 min – if you’re going to make a right wing comparison with occupy.. i’d compare more to churches of the right than tea party of the right…

10 min – tea party and occupy share: concern with financial/bail-outs and deep concern of growth of security state.. differences.. occupy concerned w/growth of military.. far less nationalistic/borders.. occupiers want borders eliminated in general.. see selves as global movement

14 min – are people going to rediscover tools of grass roots ness …

problem with people is not that they are agreeing with what’s going on but that they feel helpless..


from platform coop conf:

from recording/opening … Nathan:

the internet has changed the meaning of our words.. that’s why we’re here today; ie: democracy; sharing; .. what if we brought the fuller meanings of these words back… barcelona – experimenting with working on their own- faircoop – using bitcoin et al…

open source, holocracy, blockchain… really powerful tools for organizing.. but too often extractive for big business… firewall between bottom line and where decisions are being made

what if we were in control… surveillance, isp, net neutrality..

what i think these next 2 days are/aren’t about.. focus on questions of ownership and govt and not just access, democracy and sharing… we have to be talking about building an ecosystem not just apps.. uber is good because of a whole ecosystem.. if we’re going to create alts we need to create an alt ecosystem.. process not solution… going to be difficult/flawed… not because one time fix..but because it’s right/just… a horizon not an absolute… not get set on what this has to look like.. most of all this is an invitation..

when i go back to colorado.. i’m going to try to build up an ecosystem there… where a young person w/good idea … democracy available/option/chance to do something even better…

dear Nathan.. boulder already has so many ecosystems.. so much of what you are saying.. is the future.. together in one place. (like we saw at contactcon at devcon and at platform coop) that’s not what we need.. we need the glue. first.

there is a nother way.. based very much on.. the divinity/map in each of us. already there.

we can Nathan. we can’t not.

think about who you’d like to get together over next 2 days..

last year.. we kept coming up to responses.. to what do we do next.. (trevor and i) decided we need to go deeper

end of day 1:

Really blown away by our #platformcoop showcase so far: @fairmondo@StocksyUnited@fuselabs. The future’s here, together for the 1st time!



convened by two guys.. one: nathan schneider – from cu boulder

Looking forward to tomorrow’s conference, orgnz’d by & : the internet needs a new economy!

Over and over, this is what happens with the most promising new technologies. From the telegraph to radio and television, early adopters imagine a coming reign of freedom and democracy. But then investors buy in and monopolies rise up, extracting profits above all and suppressing the next generations of innovators, at least until the next “disruption.”


We’re operating on the hunch that many of the economic challenges we face—wealth inequality, job security, health coverage, pensions—can’t be addressed adequately without the reorganization of how online platforms are owned and governed. Platforms are already reorganizing our economy; let’s reorganize them first, putting solidarity at the center.

or perhaps.. make them irrelevant.. no? ie: pensions, health, security..


We will hear, for instance, from the people behind Stocksy, an artist-owned stock-photography website, and Resonate, a cooperative music streaming platform. Backfeed, Swarm, and Consensys will show us the potential of the technology that made Bitcoin possible. We’ll learn about several new platforms that put labor markets under the control of workers themselves.


Cooperative businesses require a different kind of ecosystem than what fuels today’s online monopolies. This means, for instance, forms of financing that allow the people most affected by platforms to retain ownership and control, while still reaching appropriate scale. We’ll need cooperative incubators, cooperative legal clinics, and federations that coordinate the open-source software development that co-ops need. Governments will need to enact policies that make it easier for cooperative enterprises to flourish in the context of markets stacked against them.

? how is that a different kind of ecosystem..?

our souls are begging for systemic change..

we can. so we can’t not.


The same weekend as we convene Platform Cooperativism in New York (entrance is gratis, the public invited), the Silicon Valley elite will be gathering for O’Reilly Media’s Next:Economy conference to discuss the future of work. “No company, no job is immune to disruption,” its website boasts, and for $3,500, you too can attend. But the future need not emanate from there. The same weekend, in Cincinnati, the much more modest Union Co-op Symposium will gather those who are organizing to disrupt the reigning elite with cooperatives. We hope to amplify the growing chorus seeking real ownership and control over the systems that determine the shape of our lives. It’s time to bring the solidarity economy online.

www ness

a nother way – ps in the open et al – to leapfrog to a global do-over

find/follow Nathan:

link twitter

[links to new handle – @ntnsndr… old was @nathanairplane]

his site:

from his about page:

I’m Nathan Schneider, a writer, editor, and professor of media studies at the University of Colorado Boulder. I’ve published a book each on God and the Occupymovement. ..

I suppose what I’m after is the chronicling of ideas, of perfect worlds, of ordinary imaginations in practice. My method is speculative. Every word is hypothesis—while recognizing fearfully that with even the most casual remark we are building ourselves and our world irrevocably.

wikipedia small

Nathan Schneider (born 1984) is a journalist and author who covers religion and political movements in the United States.


Schneider was among the first journalists to cover the Occupy Wall Street movement during its planning stages and wrote about it for Harper’s Magazine, The Nation, The New York Times, and other publications, as well as in his 2013 book Thank You, Anarchy: Notes from the Occupy Apocalypse, published by University of California Press. He claims that his coverage of Occupy Wall Street served as the basis for a scene about Occupy Wall Street in HBO’s The Newsroom. His early articles about the movement appeared in a briefing sent to analysts at the security company Stratfor, which was released by WikiLeaks as part of its “Global Intelligence Files.”[13]Democracy Now! regularly turned to him as a correspondent about the movement,[14] and he also appeared on NPR’s The Brian Lehrer Show, Al Jazeera’s Inside Story, and an oral history of the movement by Vanity Fair, and Ezra Klein of The Washington Post referred to one of his articles as “the single best place to start” learning about the movement. Interviews with Schneider appear in two of the feature films made about the movement, American Autumn and 99%.


Writer Rebecca Solnit wrote the foreword to Thank You, Anarchy, which was adapted into an article for the Los Angeles TimesIn it, she wrote, “Thanks to this meticulous and elegant book, we know what one witness-participant was thinking all through the first year of Occupy, and what many of the sparks and some of the tinder were thinking, and what it was like to be warmed by that beautiful conflagration that spread across the world.”



when adding pic above.. David Graeber‘s value came up.. so perhaps he writes of Nathan..


may 2015

Still, Slow is far from perfect. If NSA spooks want to read your mail, they can install a keylogger, or steal your hard drive. Open-source software development depends on some big-bad corporate benefactors, and there are real usability benefits to embracing the dismal conformity of monopolistic operating systems. To those interested in some consciousness-raising about the machines with which we spend so much of our lives, I wholeheartedly, evangelistically recommend a bit of Slow Computing. But I’m not sure how much more it is than an act of piety.

ps in the open


nov 2015

“The pregnancy of Mary this year coincides with pangs of violence in the land where she gave birth.” @nathanairplane
Original Tweet:

Closer to home, the United States remains one of the few countries in the world that does not guarantee paid maternity leave. God may have dispatched legions to defend the woman in the sky and her child, but too few American mothers have even the protection of time.

 Should parents have to play this roulette with their weeks-old infant?
I wasn’t just up against the end of my parental leave. I was up against an entire culture that places very little value on caring for infants and small children.


Everybody has their own thing that they yell into a well

We can be her, her midwives, her doulas.

also thinking.. on birthing a nother way.. for all of us..


reading code/recode.. Nathan facilitated second interview..

here his article on them aug 2014:

Can Monasteries Be a Model for Reclaiming Tech Culture for Good?

perhaps unMonasteries, sparing the dogma and self-flagellation, can keep alive the promise of a liberating Internet as companies like Google and Facebook tighten their grip.

The unMonastery’s gestation began in 2011, the year of Occupy and the Indignados, a time of so many ambitious undertakings with ambivalent outcomes. The Council of Europe’s ominous-sounding Social Cohesion Research and Early Warning Division sought, in the words of its chief, “to have a better idea of the extent of insecurity in society.” The international body sponsored the invention of Edgeryders, “an open and distributed think tank” of people working through an online social network and a series of conferences. They produced a report about the economic crisis—a “Guide to the Future.” Soon the council’s funding ended, but Edgeryders pressed on as an online network with more than 2,000 members and an incorporated entity. The group presents itself as a company in the business of “open consulting.”

At the end of its first conference in Strasbourg in June of 2012, a small circle of Edgeryders, with glasses of wine in their hands and under the shadow of a church, dreamed up the unMonastery. The idea was this: find a place with unmet needs and unused space to lend a building to a group of young hackers. Live together cheaply, building open-source infrastructure for the commons. Repeat until it becomes a network.

The unMonastery vision went viral in the Edgeryders community. It fit into a widely felt longing at the time, evident in many parts of Europe and North America where protest had broken out in 2011, to start figuring out practical alternatives to the failed order. Occupy activists were learning to set up worker co-ops, and their counterparts in Spain laid plans for Internet-driven political parties. This was the period, too, of Edward Snowden’s leaks, of Aaron Swartz’s suicide, of blockades against techie commuter buses in San Francisco. Google became one of the world’s leading lobbyists, and Jeff Bezos bought The Washington Post. Tech could no longer claim to be a post-political insurgency; it had become the empire.

wow just copying it all so far

ben vickers.. insight – much to read here .. just go to link above

documentation can trump even failure; others can study the attempt, tweak it and try again.


Elf Pavlik, a 31-year-old web developer with pony-tailed hair, had been living for five years without touching money or government IDs.


Keeping track of the longer view was the job of Bembo Davies, a Canadian-turned-Norwegian widower and grandfather, a veteran of the circus and the stage who updated his WordPress chronicle in august prose.


or when they worried about whether they’d done any good for Matera whatsoever, they reminded each other, “Everything’s a prototype.”


Building a new society in the shell of the old can seem so impossibly hard. Capitalism, meanwhile, makes organizing ourselves look easy by paying us to pretend that’s what we’re doing. Maybe the longing for leaderless swarms in the protests of 2011 partly stemmed from the image of a team at a software conglomerate, or a noncommercial, open-source project nonetheless parasitic on its corporate sponsors. But the kind of democracy and community we glean from tech culture lacks a deep structure, a core; tech culture is particularly good at disguising the reality that its core has become investor returns and Wall Street IPOs. The CEO’s absolute authority dresses up like charisma. Rapt in admiration, we the people are being de-skilled out of actual self-organizing. A few months in, the unMonastery’s communications had become a jungle of platforms, many of them proprietary, with few clear lines between inward and outward: the public Edgeryders website, public Trello boards, a closed Google Group and public folders full of Google Docs.


Like just about everything, all of this has happened before.


“Making the democratic most of the Information Age,” Roszak wrote, “is a matter not only of technology but also of the social organization of that technology.” – 80s

rushkoff os law – we need to go deep/simple/open .. ps in the open – io dance ness


Offers of real estate for a new unMonastery have come from Greece, Spain and up near Venice.


Michel Bauwens, an elder statesman in Europe’s peer-to-peer movement, wrote an open letter to Pope Francis suggesting that underused churches and monasteries not be sold on the real-estate market but repurposed as sites of a new collaborative economy. He cited the unMonastery as a model.


These relationships can seem like compromises with the past, but what seems new and original almost never really is, except to the degree that we fail to remember.


Of course the @washingtonpost thinks #OregonUnderAttack is about hating gov’t. But it’s also about the meaning of common land & resources.

Original Tweet:



jan 2016 – are you ready counter apocalypse

When I and several hundred thousand people demanding action on climate change marched through Midtown Manhattan on September 21, 2014, apocalypse was on our lips. We were marching to save the world—to change everything, as the propaganda beckoning us to participate had said. Wave after wave of marchers paraded through the city, carrying hand-painted banners and giant puppets, hopeful and joyful despite the likelihood of more political inaction to follow.

After a few hours in the streets, we could hear each other’s tired voices wondering what it might take for real change to happen.


There are many kinds of apocalypse stories. One can wait for the climate apocalypse to come, or one can see that it is happening already, especially in the pockets and places far from centers of power, where people live closest to the earth. These people are already on the brink. Things can get worse before they get better, but who says that they must


dispensationalism—a wildly popular, yet little-discussed, kind of Christian theology—that the idea of things getting worse before they can get better has been hidden in plain sight.


Those who long for crisis, and who imagine that it is necessary, betray their privilege.


Wherever we are, those facing apocalypse at the margins can be our guides, and our hope. … Grace Lee Boggs was heralding the kind of counter-apocalypse Catherine Keller writes about. Boggs and other Detroiters have been resisting the distant investors trying to take over their city, …“Instead of pursuing rapid economic development and hoping that it will eventually create community,” Boggs writes, “we need to do the opposite—begin with the needs of the community and create loving relationships with one another and with the earth.”


This is basic Sermon-on-the-Mount stuff. And it bears a simple and utterly non-dispensational revelation: Things will get better if we make things better for each other now, if we survive and love our neighbors where those who rule the present age want us out of the way. This is our calling, and it means no longer waiting for things to get worse. This is an apocalypse worth having.

yes. let’s. now. a nother way


The result is a financial system whose most serious risks are borne by the most vulnerable. Foreclosure, eviction and eventual homelessness are part of a tolerable business model. Through international debt, lenders dictate policy to debtor governments with little oversight from the people who will be expected to obey. And, as Aquinas warned, financiers lavish on themselves money from out of thin air. These are moral problems, but without a concept of usury it can be hard to see that. It is hard to imagine a jubilee.



New from @excinit@KernelMag: Can we build a humane alternative to Uber?…#platformcoop#IoO


VC $$ backed platforms like Uber slash customer prices to gain market share. Hard for coops, upstarts to compete.…


.@ucsdCOMM@excinit@KernelMag time to anti-trust the platform monopolies and cooperativize the pieces. #platformcoop#IoO

and/or cooperativize us.. making the pieces irrelevant (pieces from article, ie: money, policy, et al)

are we meaning share as in share things or as in monetary shares.. huge difference. i’m not sure we’re ever sure which one we mean.


on Illich

schooling the world ness..


platform coop as critique of open source

The result is products like Android, an operating system that employs Linux to carry out perhaps the most powerful engine of corporate surveillance ever invented.


Finally we are beginning to hack corporate ownership design with the same gusto and imagination with which the progenitors of FLOSS hacked intellectual property. We’re coming up with democratic financing, open companies, and diverse, multi-stakeholder co-ops. And we’re also rethinking the rules of the digital commons. The “copyfarleft” licenses of Dmytri Kleinerand the P2P Foundation, for instance, are designed to protect commons from exploitation by extractive companies while allowing their use by democratic and non-commercial enterprises. Some platform co-ops deem it necessary to use full copyright. There is disagreement about intellectual property in the platform co-op community, and I view this as a good thing; robust debate is needed to address the challenge of cultivating the commons while also doing business democratically.





What does campus rape have to do with the 2008 financial crisis?…#StanfordRapist#BrockTurner

A similar creeping  came over me during a very different kind of news cycle—the financial crisis of 2008 and its aftermath. ..the people who carried it out, finally, got a pass. …they knew they’d get away with it…….Where did the titans of finance learn to live so confidently by unwritten rules? At a formative age, we ship promising young people off to institutions where they’re supposed to develop the skills and relationships that will give them a start on adult life. Meanwhile, they’re expected to drink. For most of them, it’s illegal, of course; they start at 17 or 18, and the legal drinking age is 21. But they do it anyway, just as many of their parents did, just most of their new friends do, just as the literature and films of the American college experience indicate they must. On many campuses, there is a special police force, which helps ensure that dangerous situations can be dealt with while maintaining a parallel, privileged universe of tolerated illegality.



Those who don’t get to attend these special institutions, meanwhile, learn a very different lesson. When I lived in a rent-stabilized building in Brooklyn, I’d try to befriend my young neighbors—especially the young black men, many of whom had little hope of reaching a gentle enclosure of high-up higher ed. Befriending them could be difficult, though, not least because from time to time they’d disappear for months on end due to arrests and detentions. When they’d come back, I’d learn the crime was usually something along the lines of what I or people I knew had done regularly in college, with no thought that there would be any serious consequences; for us, there weren’t. For them, the lesson was their own expendability.


Alcohol and rape are part of a common continuum of toleration on campuses, constituting a curriculum of privilege that teaches students that they are and will be—so long as they remain in service of elite institutions—above the law and the ordinary moral order. This is how we train our leaders.


july 2016 – scandinavian econs

ust because their countries are at the top of the international charts for equality, that is no reason to be smug.


I know we are so much more.


plan to save twitter: buy it

obviously sharp thinking.. ie: green bay packers, twitter employees, crunching the numbers of shares .. et al

imagine if we go bolder.. and disengage from ownership.. from money ness.. why do we have to own it..? why play the game of measuring all this.. shares.. et al..

Even the US government could step in, recognizing Twitter as a public utility and helping to orchestrate the conversion – just as it has in financing rural electric co-ops since the 1930s, which have become vehicles forbroadband expansion today.

yes.. we need it all.. but why waste energy on counting shares.. on inspectors of inspectors.. disengage from money as os..



“anarchism offers a stark alternative. It calls for a politics that doesn’t begin and end with politicians”…

bulk of anarchist tradition has sought for people to be better org’d in everyday lives..from below/shared..not room for so much greatness

live as if already free.. anarch\ism

rev of everyday life


via Nathan fb share:

A new bit of #platformcoop for Quartz (my first there), focusing on founders. They should have more options. Featuring insights from Paul Allen, a founder of, as well as Jason Wiener.

before long, the founders discovered that their companies were no longer built around that original idea anymore, or even around the users it could serve. The whole point had become to extract short-term returns for shareholders—and to disguise that fact from users. The great idea, together with the community it attracted, became a mere commodity.


“When people ask what modern invention has led to the most inequality in modern civilization,” Allen told Quartz, “the answer I give is ‘the modern corporation.’”


Balancing the competing, diverging needs of investor-owners and users is a *cumbersome task. Given the choice, many companies may find they’d be **better off making their owners and users one and the same.

always/obsessing measuring transactions/exchanges is a *cumbersome task.. imagine how much **better off we all would be if we disengaged from that..


fb share

Okay, so this is my moral argument against the philanthropy of the super-rich, new at America Magazine – The Jesuit Review.

The Case Against Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg and Philanthropy As We Know It

What goes by the name of philanthropy—literally, the love of people—and what the tax code regards as giving can rival the cynicism of the feudal indulgence business.

When most of us donate from our small excess, we express a concern and entrust the money to those with expertise; when Gates donates, he sets the agenda.

He chose to do this through a limited liability company rather than a foundation, forgoing even the tax code’s spacious definition of philanthropy. The intended targets for this wealth, as for the Gates fortune, are health and public education, although, like the Gateses, they have limited direct experience in either field

If we are to go on tolerating the self-canonization and attempted do-gooding of wealthy donors, we should expect them to actually be engaged in donating—not in the buying of indulgences, not in a vast privatization scheme to replace what could be public decision-making. This is advocacy; advocacy is fine, but we should call it what it is.

If philanthropy means love of others, it must prove itself by entrusting the material of that love to the intended recipients.

To believe in the dignity of other human beings is to honor their capacity to choose.

Giving should mean really giving, or giving back.

Nothing is mine or yours, but it is ours because we are part of the same divine communism.

There is, of course, a very big but.

The catechism goes on, “However, the earth is divided up among men to assure the security of their lives, endangered by poverty and threatened by violence.” Our flawed and fallen nature makes God’s communism impracticable. Therefore “the appropriation of property is legitimate for guaranteeing the freedom and dignity of persons and for helping each of them to meet his basic needs and the needs of those in his charge.”


So, there is a pass for possessions. Property of some kind is needed and useful.

or not

property ness

Thomas Aquinas put the matter this way in the Summa Theologica: “Man ought to possess external things, not as his own, but as common, so that, to wit, he is ready to communicate them to others in their need.” We hold property, yes, but we should hold it as if it is not completely ours. We should dispense with it that way, too.

common ing ness

many such gifts are simply acts of either obligation, preference or reciprocity—like tithing at one’s church, or supporting organizations that promote one’s social opinions, or underwriting a public radio station to which one listens. That is a normal part of being a good community member, and it’s praiseworthy, but it is not really giving. It is more a matter of responsibility than philanthropy. Actual philanthropy, the love of people, the stewarding of Providence—these expect a fuller kind of gift.

In either case the gift, once given, is no longer one’s own. It never really was.

Pope Francis has made a point of challenging the common habit of mind in contemporary philanthropy that second-guesses the person in need, that presumes to know better.

an attempt to back away from the presumption that a philanthropist is typically entitled to: the presumption of knowing what other people need better than the people in need do.

Another framework for dispatching such presumptions is democracy. Democracy can be a tool, or a family of tools, for achieving the humility that wealth can otherwise lift beyond reach. We tend to think of democracy as the purview of government, but it can also be a means of real giving. It can be a vehicle of Providence.

Democracy often gets blamed for the bureaucratic outgrowths of government, so we forget its efficiencies;

spreading decision-making processes widely across a large and diverse society is, in principle, a far better way to meet people’s needs than trying to anticipate them through central planning.

redefine decision making via hlb

There has never been less reason for tolerating feudal, unaccountable pretenders to generosity.

One way or another, in order for a gift to be regarded as truly a gift, it should be given in a way that is accountable to its recipients, rather than as an imposition on them.

“Philanthropy is supposed to be private funding for the public good,” he has written, “but increasingly it’s become a playground for private interests.”


a people owned internet – ie: next light

@ntnsndr “A people who are hard to provoke are a people harder to rule.” Damn. All from here: @ntnsndr

Original Tweet:

Figure out what each of our peoples brings to all of us, that is

ie: hlb via 2 convos that io dance.. as the day..[aka: not part\ial.. for (blank)’s sake…]..  a nother way

one can save that energy for focused, committed work

energy toward eudaimoniative surplus

A people who are hard to provoke are a people harder to rule.



everything for everyone

This is the start of what is going to be a potentially obnoxious spree of book promotion in the coming months. I will do my best, in the process, to focus on promoting not primarily myself or even the book so much as the tradition it depicts, especially the remarkable people I’ve met who embody that tradition. This process can be awkward, but I view it as a duty and a service, and from there it can turn into a pleasure. Thank you, in advance, for understanding that this will be my job in 2018. Thank you, in advance, should you help amplify these remarkable people’s good works and my attempt to share them.

I hope this book will be a useful tool. I think it might be.

suggested to library for purchase – thanks library

everything for everyone


P2P Foundation (@P2P_Foundation) tweeted at 4:31 AM – 1 Aug 2018 :

Thoughts on OPEN 2018 (

Nathan Schneider had questions about the cooperative side of things. Are we using the language of commons, or the language of ownership? Are we escaping ownership, or doubling down on it?.. Nathan’s musing on whether this community is part of the traditional co-op movement or something new and different was interesting

hardt & negri property law

nathan and co op ness

let go


Felipe (@cubaenergy) tweeted at 6:58 AM on Mon, Sep 17, 2018:
“Accompaniment is the only way we can learn what God is trying to tell us.”  Thank you @ntnsndr. Great column:

 at homosexuality, in general, which he reminds us the church regards as “intrinsically disordered” and that “cries out to heaven for vengeance” and possibly—the referent is not fully clear—is to be “hated with a perfect hatred.

Each time I read something like this, I think of how, over and over, the people who have saved my faith when it was on the brink happened to be queer folks. I suspect this is not an accident. I cannot be sure, but I expect it was their experience of marginalization and their humanness against it that helped me see where God is.

the universal church will not be any use if it is rooting out and driving underground all kinds of queer experience. We need to be present with that experience if we are to learn from it, together, to enlarge a bit our pitiful grasp of God..t

thurman interconnectedness law

In a sense, there is some truth that the problem of abuse has to do with a problem of queer sexuality. It is the problem of a repressed, denialist, immature queerness that discovered itself a little after Vatican II but was not able to go beyond that.

There is a revelation at hand here. It is not a liberal revelation or a conservative one. It is something else, something ancient. Blindness to it has caused so, so much pain. It has caused good people and good leaders to be their worst selves.


RT @uniteddiversity: Everything for everyone: mbauwens interviews @ntnsndr in @Commons_Trans

Original Tweet:

First, a book on arguments about God, then a close-up on Occupy Wall Street, and now co-ops. But it all makes sense in my head somehow. The overriding challenge for me has always been that of capturing how people bring their highest ambitions into the realities of the world. I’m drawn to people with both adventuresome imaginations and the audacity to put them into practice.

Pretty early on in this work, I started seeing opportunities for cooperatives in tech. I’ve long been a tinkerer with free software and open source, so I’d been used to thinking of technology as a kind of commons.

I regard cooperatives as a kind of commons, a mode of commoning that has made itself legible to the industrial-era state and market.

Cooperatives are a way of introducing people to a radical vision of the commons that also includes familiar stuff like Visa, Associated Press, and the credit union down the street. But I wouldn’t claim cooperatives are sufficient. They’re a starting point, a gateway to more diverse and widespread commoning.

The experience of FLOK, which was an effort to craft a country-sized commons transition, was very instructive for me. It was a chance to see commoning presented as a comprehensive social vision, not just as a series of isolated interventions.

has to be.. partial is killing us


on team humanDouglas Rushkoff

douglas rushkoff (@rushkoff) tweeted at 9:26 AM on Wed, Sep 26, 2018:
The coops are already here and alive and well. Learn to see them. Nathan @ntnsndr Schneider on the new @teamhumanshow

10 min – d: you’ve been trying to spread the gospel of cooperation as a business strategy

12 min – going from seeing this stuff (co-op ness) as utopian/marginal to recognizing.. ie: you can see remnants/manifestations of co-op businesses..doing stuff in the background .. we rely on.. that are helping to prop up some of the best parts of this world.. and this is a part of the story of what goes under then name of capitalism.. that.. capitalism propaganda doesn’t want us to know that actually it’s not all a kind of investor crazy land of casino competition that is producing all the wonders.. to the extent that they are wonders.. that we live among.. there’s actually other logics that work as well..

capitalism ness

14 min – (coming out of occupy).. i saw a lot of those leading activists starting to figure out how to live in the econ that they hadn’t yet transformed.. and they turned to cooperative business.. where people can participate in democracy everyday.. where participants/workers are the owners and have some say on how it’s run

15 min – and then.. as i was continuing to be fascinated by this tradition and learn more about it.. i had the opp to move out here to colorado where my mother’s family was from.. to ask more questions about my family.. ie: my grandfather’s farm didn’t get electricity (1940s) until a co-op showed up.. to build utilities where an investor-owned utility company wouldn’t go

17 min – this is not something that the right/left owns.. (from my hard conservative grandfather to anarchists at occupy) .. that to me is an incredible sign of hope .. that this is something that’s so sensible.. that people who agree about virtually nothing else can actually get behind

22 min – d: your work is showing us that these businesses are everywhere

23 min – ie: ace hardware .. co-op of local hardware stores..  ace enables this individuals the opp to buy as if they’re a chain.. a model that does best when enabling diversity to happen.. and accountable downward than when upward to wall street

25 min – d: not a franchise like ie: mcdonalds..

lines can blur when co-op not vibrant.. can start looking like mcdonalds

26 min – 1\ voluntary and open membership – a non discrimination clause.. today esp important where co-ops being developed w people who are vulnerable in society.. ie: immigrants; disenfranchised

do we need membership anymore..?

27 min – d: i like this idea of voluntary.. reminds me of those open space.. unconferences.. not forced to contribute

2\ democratic member control – but not so straightforward ie: everyone voting on everything.. ie: when i was living in co-op house .. needed that weekly 2 hr meeting or the *bathroom wouldn’t get cleaned..

this is a red flag that we need to go deeper..  to the roots of healing.. and *help\ing

29 min – the diff is that the board is not made up of people accountable to investors.. but people accountable to the people/workers

rep\ing will still be a killer.. have to go deeper – only because now we can.. i don’t think we could go deeper in the past.. to get to the energy of 7bn alive people.. via tech as it could be (faciling 7bn daily curiosities).. thru 2 convers as infra

3\ member econ participation – that’s skin in the game.. this is not about a free handout.. this is about accepting and *building responsibility into the nature of the business..

we need a free handout (aka: no strings).. if we truly want to get to the energy of 7bn alive people

accountable ness is a killer (from 5+ years of non abstract findings)

wouldn’t have to *build anything if we didn’t squash innate ness (ie: curiosity, desire to help, et al)

often means.. co-ops were the original crowd funding.. when people wanted to do something in their community and no one had the resources to do it.. a co-op would serve that role

crowdfunding ness.. as panhandle\ing ness

30 min – ie: rei – one of our great consumer co-ops in the us – founded because a couple outdoors people in seattle wanted to get this really sweet ice ax from germany that they couldn’t buy on their own.. now you would start a kickstarter

4\ autonomy and independence – making sure that democracy is real.. goes back to anxieties of govt interference..

31 min – 5\ ed and training – people gotta know something about your business.. just like ie: have to know what a senator is.. make sure people know what they’re participating in.. making sure people can empower themselves..

34 min – d: if look at black panther movement.. a lot of ed ing in there

book – cooperative courage – talks about role of education.. in every co-op she studied.. make sure ed is always a part

yes .. education.. but not prescribed.. if we have to train.. i see that as a red flag.. we’re doing it wrong.. or rather.. we’re not doing it as it could be ie: as we have the means to do now.. (faciling 7bn daily curiosities)

35 min – d: the weird thing that happens to me when i try to promote co-op ness.. sometimes well meaning.. id politics friendly liberals will say.. isn’t that kind of elitist.. ? people in the projects wouldn’t be able to do this.. not educated enough.. as if these are elitist fabrications..  and i say.. no no.. the inner city people you are looking down on could teach you how to do co-op enterprise

again.. no one needs to teach/train/Ed anyone.. if we are first.. all truly free ie: meadows undisturbed ecosystem

36 min – yeah.. so many ie’s of that.. raising in times of most need.. but there too is that.. elitist ness.. ie: natural grocers.. whole foods.. in contrast go to italy.. the largest grocer retail in the country is a co-op.. sometimes look like whole foods.. sometimes like a target

37 min – on people asking for cheaper food..and getting shunned.. so some can’t afford..  co-op as an opp to manage our compromises

begs no money/measure man

39 min – not that you have to vote everyday.. ie: my credit union.. i don’t have to vote go everyday.. but still go to the annual meeting.. it comes down to accountability.. they have permission to not throw their customers under the bus

imagine.. (just for a second) .. not having to spend time/space on this ie: money/measure ness

40 min – 6\ cooperation among co-ops – d: hardest one..? competition for same members

41 min – this one can be hard.. like all of these rules..there are ways in which a little violation here and there doesn’t hurt things.. ie: credit unions competing w each other.. but you want to create structures where cooperation is happening because otherwise this ecosystem doesn’t work.. in same way can’t build co-op w people who are fighting w each other..

competition as disturbance (and/or symptoms) of disturbance to undisturbed ecosystem

42 min – the whole idea of co-op in itself – people recognizing their common interests..t

but see.. (again from 5+ years of non abstract findings).. if truly free.. those interests change.. or at least should be free to change.. everyday.. or the energy will die out..

begs.. a mech to listen to and facil daily curiosities..  sans money/measure

and similarly you can’t build individual businesses into a sector w/o those co-ops recognizing their common interests.. i think unfortunately that sense of culture has been lost in a lot of places in the us where co-ops have been kind of lurking under the radar.. pretending to be good ole capitalism for so long that they have kind of forgotten their co-op id.. so that kind of puts onus on new generation.. to revive that sense of id.. one way we’re doing that in colorado.. a co-op type branding.. create alignments so not relying on people to be saints all the time

43 min – another strategy is legal.. in italy.. co-ops required by law to contribute some portion of profit to help finance development of new co-ops.. if everybody does well .. everybody else benefits.. so .. building structure for that

44 min – d: but also about mindset

45 min – now into my crazy spiritual stuff.. co-ops are creatures of the fall.. .. these are not businesses designed w the expectation that we’re all perfect.. or that if we just do a little more internal cleansing and meditate an hr a day then we’ll be good/conscious.. no .. these are businesses for people who are kind of *broken and have goodness in them and have a little bit of that **art of the deal in them too..

*broken by money/measure ness.. so we keep on perpetuate\ing not-us

ie: grammatis broken law

**marsh exchange law

46 min – and the whole notion of forming .. co-op is an institutional innovation.. it’s a structure designed to make apparent to people.. that *ultimately we will benefit from working together

dang.. i think ultimately we benefit form trusting each other (at the point of whimsy et al).. perhaps we design from trust.. 100% trust

and from supporting each other’s success.. this is a structure that enables people to see that day to day and to do it w/o having to *trust each other to be perfect.. w/o **having to have worked out all their inner demons first.. before they can even come in

whoa.. *trust has nothing to do w others being perfect.. has nothing to do with earning it..

yeah **trust has no strings.. which begs.. we free people.. truly free them.. first

47 min – so to me it’s an invitation to a kind of institutional design that allows people to see/embody a better side of themselves..

yeah.. i don’t think that better side happens until we let go.. all the way.. inviting people to things is letting them get to eudaimonia – where the ultimate energy (we need more than anything) is

ie: invited vs invented ness et al

what the catholic workers/founders dorothy day and peter moran talked about.. a place where it’s easier to be good


that would be the place where we just assume good .. or rather.. assume we don’t have to be ‘good’.. (i mean who’s defining that..?)

what we need are spaces of permission where people have nothing to prove.. nothing

(again from 5+ years of non abstract findings)

not because you’re perfect but because the system helps you see the benefits of goodness more clearly

we can’t have a system defining goodness..  that’s how we got here in the first place..

‘benefits’ is sounding so poisonous.. ie: what we found.. is that.. if people are free to do their art (the thing they can’t not do) everyday.. and if it changes everyday so be it.. that.. that art/being-ness is the part of our one ness that we need..

we need 7bn alive people.. not 7bn ‘good’ people

could be semantics.. because i say assume good – but assuming good is more about not wasting energy judging.. benefits of goodness.. and place where it’s easier to be good .. seems to have an agenda.. to me..

again.. something i’ve been delving into for 10 yrs now.. with live people

d: we can embed certain values and stack the deck

yeah.. not that..

we can’t embed values and stack decks if we want to get to eudaimoniative surplus aka: meadows undisturbed ecosystem..

we have to create an infra for values to ongoingly emerge from within 7bn people.. everyday.. which we finally have the means to do today.. and we’re missing it.. team human et al

mufleh humanity law.. big time.. because what you describe sounds cleaner/kinder/gooder..  which means most people will go along with it..thinking it’s deep enough

d: all of these things are social constructions anyway.. so why not socially construct transactional platforms and commercial systems that engender the best qualities of humans..

dang – do we even know what that is..? ie: black science of people/whales

d: rather than designing them to bring out the worst

or the slightly better but still extremely compromising to the human spirit.. to human nature..

47 min – w/o illusions.. and you know obviously a lot of the young co-op entrepreneurs i run into do come w i think a certain set of illusions about

48 min – d: well they’re young and sweet in a certain way.. i mean they’re going to get disillusioned at some point.. but.. isn’t that part of youth.. your eyes are clearer..


(laughing) well older one’s too

d: go in wonderful raves and now you’re going to make a co-op rave.. veggie.. vegan.. yogie.. enlightenment center

exactly.. exactly.. i generally tend to appreciate the people who come to this w a deeper business experience and then some co-op experience

of course.. dang..

and they come to it mainly as a business in the sense that they are trying to solve problems successfully..

which problems.. ? matters little if they’re the wrong problems..

i’ve ragging on you.. because we’re missing an incredible opp here

and they have an idea about how to do that or they have a process in motion.. they see an opp.. and then they recognize the co-op has a strategy for actually achieving that thing.. better than another model..

then i’d say.. perhaps it wasn’t a deep enough problem.. for all of us.. it has to be all of us.. you know that (everything for everyone.. no..?)

49 min – d: it’s almost like a 12 step program for those who have become addicted to capitalism..

yeah.. we all need detox

d: and plumet and hit bottom .. so now they join the co-op movement.. accept that there’s this higher power and go thru the steps of cooperation.. democratic control and autonomy  .. and slowly become better people..

there is that sense/opp to slowly become better people in this.. and that’s the beauty of it

again.. i’d call it alive people

mona lisa compare law et al

as opposed to ie: during crypto boom.. $50 i bought years ago now worth something so i suddenly found myself being a financial trader.. trying to figure out just what to do w this stuff and also get it in a place that would be more legal where it otherwise might be.. so it’s like doing trades/deals.. that financial transaction.. i could feel myself becoming something.. this business shapes us .. right


marsh exchange law

50 min – d: right.. diff hormones get released and it changes your personality


yes.. imagine that happening for years and years..  until we are all like whales at sea world.. aka: not us .. at all..

(on good bitcoin moment) i could feel myself becoming the image of that transactor.. that machine transactor of play money

right .. there’s that desperate sense.. sort of like that feeling of speeding on a highway

51 min – business shapes us .. and as much as we can organize these things in a way that is attentive to the *realities of the world but also gives us opp to say.. hey.. **if you actually do the right things.. there’s rewards in that.. that helps us become better people

curious what you would call *those

**holy ..? help\ing is innate.. rewards are a disturbance to that innate ness..  to the ecosystem we are now primed to get back/to.. dang.

and also i think.. to go back to that blockchain.. the kind of magic tech stuff.. i think we also need to be always pushing these forward..

wish you could hear man.. ie: tech as it could be..

a lot of the big old co-ops in this country.. i gotta be honest.. they don’t think of themselves very much as co-ops .. they don’t have a strong id.. don’t distinguish selves from other kinds of businesses.. ie: diff between state farm (mutually owned by car owners) and the competitor down the street .. farmers (not mutually owned) .. not a whole lot of diff.. so i think .. as w any other form of democracy.. we need to always keep pushing not only the people inside but the businesses.. and keep pushing.. developing new strategies to *deepen democracy.. otherwise it gets so stale and just really does not function anymore

we need rev of everyday life.. 7bn people getting a go everyday.. a new..  imagine that..

today.. we can do that

go *deeper

52 min – d: yeah .. well it’s got to stay alive

alive democracy (whatever that is) ?.. let’s go for alive people.. no..?

d: and part of that is this concern for the community.. which seems obvious.. because.. you live there

community.. ness

community – structure of belonging

it’s got to go deeper than.. ie: giving donations to wield power.. and this is why a lot of young people getting in this new wave of co-op movement that much of this book is about documenting.. a lot of them.. they don’t even want to touch the big ole co-ops because they want to touch.. they want to do that concern for community deeper into their business model.. they want it to be part of everyday not just part of volunteer day

not part\ial.. for (blank)’s sake

53 min – and sometimes they don’t even use the word co-op.. they’ll go into language about collab econs..  to me that’s good.. we need that push to continue to differentiate/push the sense of possibility.. that this kind of model can allow

i wish we could have convo man

d: yeah.. i mean charity is a great thing.. i’m not going to say people shouldn’t tithe or whatever .. but in most business landscapes charity is seen as a sort of compensation for the effects of your business on the world.. so.. doing this awful thing.. exploiting these people.. destroying this land.. but at least we’re taking 20% of our profits and giving it to this good thing

54 min – d: whereas if you have a true co-op that is genuinely concerned for the community.. that’s genuinely promoting automony and independence.. participation.. democracy.. openness.. then the co-op business itself is having a net positive effect on *reality.. so .. taking away from the good that it’s doing to do some other good is.. it’s almost silly at a certain point.. yeah .. go ahead do it if you’ve got extra money around.. pay for the little league.. help people out.. but.. it’s a very diff understanding

dang.. there’s that word again.. reality.. almost an hour with focus on the abstract of money

and to the extent that co-ops actually do that is one of their vulnerabilities.. and this is something we have to learn to work around..

56 min – ie: whitewashing all the crap.. like bill gates .. whitewashing fact that his foisted horrible software on the world for a bunch of years by taking over the world health org and solving all these unrelated problems..

i see co-op ness (as you describe here – with money/measure) as unrelated problems..

d: right by spending capital.. which gets to another big issue that people aren’t getting quite yet.. is that co-ops are about ownership.. you actually own the own the means of production.. it’s not about redistsributin the spoils of capitalism after the fact w some kind of a grant/tax/welfare.. it’s about actually owning the thing

dang.. ownership .. property (propert itself is the problem).. disturbances (and or symptoms of disturbances) to undisturbed ecosystem

productivity as disturbance (and or symptom of disturbances) to undisturbed ecosystem

d: and i hear a lot of people talking today.. they want to push thru to something lilke ubi.. which it’s hard to argue against because i know everybody needs money.. but *income is not the solution.. it would be what marina gorbis for the future .. talks about .. **universal basic assets.. the idea that we are each claiming a stake.. to this thing.. which is somehow fundamentally different.. than this employee.. i’ll get revenue from this thing

*deeper – measuring transactions is not the solution

**asset ness not so diff – still cancer at the core..

57 min – oh yeah.. this idea of wage labor.. since ww2..  has been model for employment and access to abundance generally in our society.. but in time of abe lincoln – he has these great speeches where he talks about ie: nobody would work for somebody else intentionally for more than just a few years to get on their own feet.. obvioulsy all of us want to be owners of our own land or business or whatever it is.. he could say that at a time.. in the years before the civil war that we can’t even imagine now

dang.. property (propert itself is the problem)

graeber job less law

58 min – but ownership is so important because that wage/social-contract is just not working anymore.. and when you look at where wealth ineq is really coming from .. *it’s ownership ineq

go deeper.. *it’s getting a go everyday ineq

the fact that all the value that is being created from what we produce is going to the owners of it .. not to the recipients of wages.. because labor has less leverage in the econ

so value is basically money..?

so .. how we own.. is really the question on the 21st cent..


and it’s back there with that question of how we get renumerated for renting ourselves

oy.. of math and man.. this is not a mechanical/numerical problem..

59 min – d: even further back though.. the period i always get interested in .. and i find out more and more about it w every book i read.. is that moment back in the late middle ages king henry 8 got rid of catholic church and started his own because he wanted to get married to a divorced woman..  or get divorced .. or whatever.. but the side effect to that was

they enclosed the commons

that is key.. (i’m not sure if it was truly commons before that.. but that thinking is what we need).. to me.. commong/ing sans money/measure/exchange.. et al.. is our undisturbed ecosystem

d: commons in a sense is like a cooperatively operated shared asset that then became privatized land.. and the catholics have alwasy railed against that as the beginning of the end.. that that’s when we got the invention of the chartered monopoly.. which became the corporation.. that’s when we got the invention of central currency and all of the local currencies that were tilted towards circulation ..and distribution got repressed or made illegal.. that was the moment of the birth of the individual.. that’s supposed to learn all these things and become one of the gods.. and the collapse of the mutuality.. community.. and sense of home and kinship and solidarity that defined the human experience up then.. and that’s when this more corrosive.. competitive.. highly individualistic brand of capitalism was born

need to go back further/deeper

1:00 – yeah.. this is a kind of historic opp.. and i like looking at that moment.. another person that looks at that moment as you do is michel bauwens.. very interested in the commons as a kind of path forward.. and that moment is important because it’s *an ie of an econ shifting drastically.. and actually the whole society shifting with it.. the spirituality/culture shifting.. together.. 


*we have the means/opp for bigger.. (ginorm/smaller) .. than that just now..

1:01 – and it seems like we may be in a moment where those kinds of things may be happening.. and it’s important to look to that moment because we recognize there are choices.. choices we are making now that we don’t think of as being kind of *world historical choices.. but which are

*yeah.. for sure.. let’s not miss it.. here are some ways to not: short bp; radical econ; a quiet revolution; ..

and i think that question of ownership.. what becomes of it.. what we do w it is critical.. maybe ownership.. some people in the new gen in the co-op movement want to do away with ownership ultimately.. they want to get away from that logic.. property is theft.. they don’t want that to be the destination

i think.. if we had an authentic enough .. quiet enough.. pause.. and reset.. we’d find 7bn souls are craving that..

some want to hold onto that.. i’m kind of *indifferent.. but to me the main question is .. regardless of where we end up.. if we don’t get there by addressing the ineq’s of ownership and *making sure to practice the art of ownership.. build democracy into the art of ownship.. we’re going to end up w a bad situation no matter what it looks like.. ie: a feudalism in which people are owning or a feudalism in which people are not owning

**so you’re not *indifferent

1:02 – the question is.. have we managed to equalize power to the point where every person/family/community in a society *have voice.. have the capacity to shape their destiny

it’s not that we don’t *have voice/capacity.. we just need a mech to listen to it.. everyday.. ie: tech as it could be..

you know the co-op model is in a way a thing/solution/answer.. or maybe it’s a metaphor/inspiration.. that invites us into this possibility.. that yes.. we actually can push democracy into other areas of our lives.. and here’s a bunch of ways that people have been doing it that nobody ever taught you in civics/econ class or in the normal run of cultural experience

black science of people/whales

1:03 – people doing/modeling this: the new econ coalition in us; p2p foundation – more toward ownership mattering less; also..look to co-ops around you..


Michel Bauwens (@mbauwens) tweeted at 5:36 AM – 3 Nov 2018 :
RT @platoniq: Everything for everyone: Michel Bauwens interviews Nathan Schneider @ntnsndr on future of #coops and #platformcoops (

his reporting on Occupy, followed by his visit to our FLOK project in Ecuador in 2014 (the first commons transition project undertaken at the invitation of nation-state institutions). Nathan was then instrumental in setting up, with Trebor Scholz, the platform cooperative movement and conferences.

I’m drawn to people with both adventuresome imaginations and the audacity to put them into practice.

I regard cooperatives as a kind of commons, a mode of commoning that has made itself legible to the industrial-era state and market

Cooperatives are a way of introducing people to a radical vision of the commons that also includes familiar stuff like Visa, Associated Press, and the credit union down the street. But

I wouldn’t claim cooperatives are sufficient. They’re a starting point, a gateway to more diverse and widespread commoning.


Another concern: Cooperatives are all about old-fashioned property and ownership. I’m sympathetic to the “property is theft” vein of anarchism, but I also think it’s a mistake for commoners to relinquish ownership before the lords do—as the sharing economy proposed.

good point – but i don’t think the waiting game has an end.. i think we need to offer an alt that let’s us all let go.. in sync.. aka: leap

As Piketty demonstrates, capital ownership (more than wage income) is the driving force behind economic inequality. The cooperative tradition is a way of distributing ownership more equitably. That will put us in a better position to shift toward a world in which property is less important and we can meet more of our needs through the commons. Commoners need to claim their rights from a position of strength.

The experience of FLOK, which was an effort to craft a country-sized commons transition, was very instructive for me. It was a chance to see commoning presented as a comprehensive social vision, not just as a series of isolated interventions. Cooperatives were a critical ingredient in all that, of course. ..Everyone should have that experience once in a while—to participate in crafting a plan for the future of the world.



Michel Bauwens (@mbauwens) tweeted at 2:41 PM on Sat, Mar 16, 2019:
via Nathan Schneider
“we’ve been building a wiki called Ethical EdTech, focused on sharing strategies for free, open, non-extractive technology in education. To invite broader  into the project, we’re hosting our first edit-a-thon on April 3.”

This is a directory, created by and for higher-ed educators, for sharing tools and use-cases. We believe that education can be a critical site through which to transform the broader tech industry and the cultures surrounding it.

Criteria for inclusion

At this stage of the process, we have yet to define explicit criteria for inclusion or exclusion in this directory. We know it when we see it. Currently, we are looking out for tools that:

  • provide students and educators with greater control over their data and greater understanding of data collection practices
  • avoid commercialization of the educational experience and the power relations involved in it
  • expose students to the principles and practices of free/libre software
  • foster more participatory, critical modes of relating to software
  • teach students how to recreate ethical tech practices outside of the classroom

Ethical EdTech does not assume a perfect or universally agreed-upon set of digital tools or rules. Tools by themselves do not guarantee ethical pedagogy, and we do not deny that tools not included here can be used in ethical ways. Rather, we seek to point out tools that value user freedom, privacy, and control, so that these norms might become more easily within reach.

why work so hard to curate tech then keep it (& the people) in the pkg deal of Ed.. when today we have the means to facil daily curiosity  ie: cure ios city


collab at scale convo – april 2019 – 2 hour


Michel Bauwens (@mbauwens) tweeted at 6:38 AM – 9 Jun 2019 :
Looks Like New: How Can We Self-Organize at Scale? (

augment (new)  interconnectedness (old)

ie: listen to every voice everyday.. and use that as data .. to connect us




nathan fb share of his – how to build mutual aid that will last after crisis: []

often the needs that arise in a crisis have been there all along, and the solutions need to outlive the crisis, too.

ie: cure ios city (not esoteric)

has to be for everyone.. today


26 pg pdf – tyranny of openness

Okay, new draft up: “The Tyranny of Openness: What Happened to Peer Production?”
Feedback most welcome.
Original Tweet:

Nathan Schneider (@ntnsndr) tweeted at 11:42 PM on Wed, Apr 01, 2020:
Oh, cool, I hadn’t seen that—thank you.


Just as Jo Freeman called her fellow activists to rather conventional forms
of structural accountability in their organizations, the agitators in these
high-tech communities raise old questions of power, ethics, and economic
did she? i don’t know .. jo and structureless ness
Jeffrey Epstein and the MIT Media Lab enveloped
Free Software Foundation founder Richard Stallman and Creative Commons
founder Lawrence Lessig. A year earlier, the notoriously blunt Linux founder
Linus Torvalds took a hiatus from leading Linux development, as one journal-
ist put it, “to work on himself and try to stop being a dick” (Jones 2018
The challenges to foregoing patterns of Open Source licensing come in the
realms of ethics, on the one hand, and economics on the other. Perhaps it
is not incidental, also, that while as many as 95 percent of Open Source
contributors identify as men (GitHub 2017), the principal license proliferators
in each realm are women
The question of “sustainability” in software peer production has been a
persistent matter of anxiety and study (e.g., Arp et al. 2018), stemming
from the challenge of forming a business model around publicly available
The new “age of license proliferation” proposes to involve economics at the
level of licensing.

Benkler and Lessig have had to stretch conventional economic and legal theories

to encompass peer production, feminist approaches are in more familiar
For a feminist-informed consideration of “the great open source shake-up,” I
will rely on Marilyn Power (2004)’s summary of feminist economic thought
in terms of what she calls “social provisioning”—an emphasis on how social
practices structure the distribution of resources and rewards. Power identifies
five “methodological starting points,” which I paraphrase as follows:
Recognizing hidden care and domestic labor in economic life
Placing human well-being alongside other metrics of wealth
Noticing and naming unequal access to power and agency
Asserting the validity and inescapability of ethical judgment
Incorporating gender analysis with that of race, class, and other forms
of identity
In the following, I build on an ongoing feminist critique of male-dominated
spaces in contemporary tech cultures.
conclusion: from tyranny to commons
wasting energy w tragedy of the non common
I conclude with reflections in the vein of what Benjamin J. Birkinbine
(2020) terms “subversive commoning”—a call to accept that “commons-based
movements will actively need to work to subvert capital logics” (p. 114).
Like the clever subversion of intellectual-property law that is
wasting energy playing defense
Rather than continually adding restrictions, peer production licensing regimes
might be rethought from the ground up in terms of cultivating a deeper
Visions of parallel institutions for peer producers have been theorized and
experimented on in such terms as “open value networks” (Siddiqui and
Brastaviceanu 2013) or “open cooperatives” (Bauwens and Kostakis 2014).
In these models, peer production is not peripheral to the firm, but provides
the logic for the firm itself. Early experiments have tended to be small-
scale or imperiled, but this could change in presence of a more robust
cultural and political ecosystem (Bauwens and Pantazis 2018). These kinds
of approaches introduce a new social contract for productive activity, one in
which contributors create public commons while also receiving remuneration
in proportion to the assessed value of their contributions. Contributors also
hold governance rights within a project and have a say over its internal
priorities and external partnerships
let’s try this ginorm small experiment: 2 convers as infra
Yet blockchain communities have
tended to repeat—even amplify—the demographic monotony and endemic
sexism present elsewhere in software peer production (Penny 2018). Their
governance systems tend to privilege financial interests over other concerns,
such as ethical ones. In response, a document called the
DisCO Manifesto
(Troncoso and Utratel 2019) proposes “distributed cooperative organizations,”
insisting that using technology like blockchains does not absolve communities
of the need for building an inclusive culture and intentional relationships. The
DisCO model explicitly applies feminist economics, such as by incorporating
non-market care work as part of its *accounting method
disco manifesto – still tragedy of the non common ie: have to let go of money (any form of measuring/*accounting)
I hope to have offered reasons for taking seriously the upheavals underway
in software peer production and an invitation for further study. For in-
stance, there is need for more empirical investigations of the dynamics of
participation—particularly in terms of under-valued labor—in peer produc-
tion communities.
what we need most: the energy of 8b alive people.. not participation in someone else’s agenda/project/production
Second, as new approaches to software licensing emerge, they should be treated as opportunities for research and experimentation, rather than merely as grist for ideological combat.
this all sounds like combat.. as in defense.. rather than creating what we could have/be
Finally, there is need for research on legal structures and funding models for open cooperatives and the like, which seek to extend the territory of peer production from hacking intellectual property to reimagining the firm—a territory better suited to serve as a nexus of economics, ethics, and governance.

perhaps let’s try/code money (any form of measuring/accounting) as the planned obsolescence

ie: ubi as temp placebo.. (people thinking they have money when really just getting whatever they need)

The critiques and innovations now besieging software peer production are
asking more of this tradition. The achievements thus far in licensing are
remarkable but not sufficient. If peer production is to challenge broader
norms of economy and culture, surely it will have to engage more directly
with those realms.


eutopia workshop


Can you name organizations or movements >1000 people that achieves coordinated action without bureaucracy and hierarchy?

HK protests maybe?

Original Tweet:

@decentralion Occupy wall street / @ntnsndr any others U can think of?

Original Tweet:

@owocki @decentralion Not especially effectively. To some extent, anything that achieves coordinated action at that scale, for any duration, will involve something that looks like hierarchy and bureaucracy. The important question is how to design in accountability:

Original Tweet:

or perhaps design so accountability is irrelevant (because people are alive/awake rather than like ie: whales in sea world)

perhaps thinking we need accountability et al is a big piece to ‘the tragedy of the non common

ie: findings.. thinking restate/update..

@ntnsndr @owocki This feels on-point. I see a lot of people in the decentralized tech space with a knee-jerk opposition to the word “bureaucracy”, but I think they’re necessary; we need to avoid self-serving unaccountable cases

Started on your paper and it looks great, top of reading list.

Original Tweet:

@decentralion @owocki Glad to hear it. While I love the prospect of decentralization, we also gotta admit there are a lot of pretty important bureaucracies out there.

Original Tweet:

@decentralion @owocki And appreciate that good tech often relies on some really skilled, diligent, devoted bureaucrats to keep it going.

Original Tweet:

@ntnsndr @decentralion Nathan have you heard of the principle of “credible neutrality”? I wonder if a middle ground is perhaps the bureaucracy being credibly neutral so as to prevent capture and favoritism.

Original Tweet:

@ntnsndr @decentralion Brb also going to actually read the paper before I ask more questions lol
Original Tweet:

me too

notes from paper:


While frequently employed as if it were a technical term, decentralization more reliably appears to operate as a rhetorical strategy that directs attention toward some aspects of a proposed social order and away from others. It is called for far more than it is theorized or consistently defined.
This non-specificity has served to draw diverse participants into common
political and technological projects. Yet discourses of decentralization tend
to take on a tragic hue, and justly so; even the most apparently decentralized
systems have shown the capacity to produce economically and structurally
centralized outcomes. The rhetoric of decentralization thus obscures other
aspects of the re-ordering it claims to describe. It steers attention from
where concentrations of power are operating, deferring worthwhile debate
about how such power should operate. For decentralization to be a reliable
concept in formulating future social arrangements and related technologies, it
should come with high standards of specificity. It also cannot substitute for
anticipating centralization with appropriate mechanisms of accountability
This study puts into conversation three main interlocking discourses of
decentralization: political theory, early computer networking, and cultures
surrounding blockchain-based crypto-networks.
In his landmark account of “commons-based peer production,” Yochai Benkler
(2006) adopted a more economic formulation. Decentralization, he wrote,
occurs when coordination can happen without hierarchy—when “many agents
cohere and are effective despite the fact that they do not rely on reducing the
number of people whose will counts to direct effective action” (p. 62). “The
most pervasive mode,” he added, “is the ideal market.” Thus decentralization
amounts to a social vision of price signals and feedback loops taking the
place of willful regulation. It is by nature volatile
I do not offer a theory here for why recentralization happens because I have
come to regard recentralization as an illusion. The center never departed
in so many cases where we hear the cry of decentralization—it only shifted
and took time for proper reconstitution. The shift was not noticed because
people were too busy speaking of decentralization
As the prefix de suggests, ideologies of decentralization tend to emphasize
what they negate—a freedom from rather than a freedom to. In the formulation of Hirschman (1970), they focus on the opportunity for exit rather than
the **capacity of voice. .. What **protections are necessary to ensure that the forms of decentralization that matter most to us can persist? If an important system goes awry, as any inevitably will, what ***recourse do participants have to course-correct? Any ambition for decentralization will remain chronically incomplete without accompanying ambitions for ****accountability.

***2 convers as infra sans ****accountability


erin glass (@erinroseglass) tweeted at 2:26 PM on Wed, Apr 29, 2020:
great piece by @ntnsndr on the “implicit feudalism” of open source projects and the need for more transparency and critical thinking around governance structure
i’m especially intrigued by the new “CommunityRule” tool, designed to help with those needs!

Isn’t it weird that the radically democratic miracle of open-source collaboration is so full of monarchical dictatorships?

i’d say not really.. assuming that nothing has worked yet to get to global equity (findings et al)

The open-source dictators are part of a broader pattern among online communities that I call “implicit feudalism.” It has to do with a historical and technical norm by which platforms grant nearly absolute power to community founders and their appointed successors, whether in a Facebook Group or a GitHub repo. But as much as it confers absolute power, this primitive governance system often results in what the 1970s feminist activist Jo Freeman called a “tyranny of structurelessness.” Under the rhetoric of openness and meritocracy, an entrenched and disguised hierarchy reigns. Newcomers have a hard time knowing who is really in control. Outside companies can hijack and steer open-source development as long as they keep the dictators happy. This sort of medieval arrangement has also helped create the problem of open-source “sustainability”—or lack thereof.

freeman structure law (?)

Noticing this got me started on what became CommunityRule, a tool designed to help diverse groups—whether global open-source projects or local mutual-aid efforts—to get their governance house in order. Like choosing a Creative Commons license, CommunityRule offers a palette of templates, from dictatorship to various flavors of democracy. Like the Contributor Covenant, a group’s “Rule” might sit in the background most of the time, needed only when a particularly thorny conflict or decision arises. Rightly or wrongly, however, CommunityRule differs from those by encouraging customization before you drop a Rule into your group.

Projects lean on other layers of the stack to make up for the absence of the governance layer—keeping dictators at least a bit accountable through the culture of collaboration and through the platform’s built-in features. But basic tools for real *accountability—the elections, the juries, the term limits—are nowhere to be found. Having a Rule in place at least makes explicit a shared intention to do those things one way or another.

perhaps *irrelevant (and poisonous).. if 8b people are living their fittingness

in undisturbed ecosystems ..the average individual, species, or population, left to its own devices, behaves in ways that serve and stabilize the whole..’ –Dana Meadows


New at @americamag: “What innovations do people actually need after the pandemic? Not flying cars.”
Original Tweet:

The best venture capital sci-fi could come with the promise of some basic fairness and accountability, but we are not well equipped to innovate that way.

maybe the best ‘innovation’ would be a means where we could let go of accounting for things/people and trust that ‘fairness’ is baked in us.. if we’re legit free

maybe the accounting ness is what’s keeping us from equity (everyone getting a go everyday)

Rather than target specific needs with cooperative solutions, as the New Deal did, we could design a recovery based on popular innovation of any sort. . t

ie: cure ios city

The image we often have of innovation is a white coat in a lab, but what makes technology matter in our lives are the innovations that furnish them with capital and bring them to market.


innovations we need are sans money (any form of measuring/accounting)

Sure, bring on the drones and the gleaming factories. But make their promise accessible anywhere, on the terms of those who will rely on them, not just where a certain sort of investor sees fit.


on freeman structure law (?):

Nathan Schneider (@ntnsndr) tweeted at 9:23 PM on Mon, Jun 15, 2020:
1. @Angelfire still exists (but does not have SSL)
2. It is a place where you can read Cathy Levine’s response to “The Tyranny of Structurelessness,” “The Tyranny of Tyranny”:

from cathy levine’s tyranny of tyranny:

What we definitely don’t need is more structures and rules, providing us with easy answers, pre-fab alternatives and no room in which to create our own way of life. What is threatening the female Left and the other branches even more, is the ‘tyranny of tyranny’, which has prevented us from relating to individuals, or from creating organisations in ways that do not obliterate individuality with prescribed roles, or from liberating us from capitalist structure.

The aim of feminist revolution is for women to achieve our total humanity, which means destroying the masculine and feminine roles which make both men and women only half human. Creating a woman’s culture is the means through which we shall restore our lost humanity.

non binary ness

Psychic crippling of its citizens makes its citizens report to work, fight in wars, suppress its women, non-whites, and all non-conformists vulnerable to suppression.

The origin of the small group preference in the women’s movement -and by small group I refer to political collectives – was, as Joreen explains, a reaction against the over-structured, hierachical organisation of society in general, and male Left groups in particular. But what people fail to realise is that we are reacting against bureaucracy because it deprives us of control, like the rest of this society; and instead of recognising the folly of our ways by returning to the structured fold, we who are rebelling against bureaucracy should be creating an alternative to bureaucratic organisation.. t The reason for building a movement on a foundation of collectives is that we want to create a revolutionary culture consistent with our view of the new society; it is more than a reaction; the small group is a solution.

ie: 2 convers as infra.. to undo our hierarchical listening

Because the women’s movement is tending towards small groups and because the women’s movement lacks direction at this time, some people conclude that small groups are to blame for the lack of direction. They wave the shibboleth of ‘structure’ as a solution to the strategic stalemate, as if structure would give us theoretical insight or relief from personal anxieties. it might give us a structure into which to ‘organise’, or fit more women, but in the absence of political strategy we may create a Kafkaesque irony, where the trial is replaced by a meeting.

Rather than calling for the replacement of small groups with structured, larger groups, we need to encourage each other to get settled into small, unstructured groups which recognise and extol the value of the individual. Friendships, more than therapy of any kind, instantly relieve the feelings of personal shittiness – the revolution should be built on the model of friendships.

augment our interconnectedness

rather than ‘friendliness’ – a toxic word.. let’s build it (the connections) on daily curiosities  ie: cure ios city

The omnipresent problem which Joreen confronts, that of elites, does not find solution in the formation of structures. Contrary to the belief that lack of up-front structures lead to insidious, invisible structures based on elites, the absence of structures in small, mutual trust groups fights elitism on the basic level – the level of personal dynamics, at which the individual who counters insecurity with aggressive behaviour rules over the person whose insecurity maintains silence. The small personally involved group learns, first to recognise those stylistic differences, and then to appreciate and work with them; rather than trying to either ignore or annihilate differences in personal style, the small group learns to appreciate and utilise them, thus strengthening the personal power of each individual.

even deeper than that..

‘in undisturbed ecosystems ..the average individual, species, or population, left to its own devices, behaves in ways that serve and stabilize the whole..’ –Dana Meadows

Given that each of us has been socialised in a society in Which individual competition with every other individual is the way of existence, we are not going to obliterate personal-styles-as-power, except by constant recognition of these differences, and by learning to let differences of personal style exist together. Insofar as we are not the enemy, but the victims, we need to nurture and not destroy each other. The destructive elements will recede gradually as we grow stronger. But in the meantime we should guard against situations which reward personal style with power.

all red flags..

All across the country independent groups of women began functioning without the structure, leaders and other factotems of the male Left, creating independently and simultaneously, organisations similar to those of anarchists of many decades and locales. No accident either.

humanity needs a leap.. to get back/to simultaneous spontaneity..   simultaneous fittingness..  everyone in sync..


nathan on tyrannies

New Podcast Episode!
The Meaning of ‘Tyranny of Openness’ with @ntnsndr
Panelist: @coderberry, @piamancini, @jdorfman, @richlitt, @allengunn
Original Tweet:

6 min – nathan: on jo freeman – saying .. when you claim to be structureless .. you are often importing in a tyranny.. that’s recurred in sv tech.. afterlife.. so i used tyranny of openness.. just a way to pose challenges to openness.. that they’ve neglected tyrannies arising within .. to be more intentional about how tools are used

8 min – nathan: on how tools we use lead us into feudalist structures.. ie: mailing lists are very feudal.. either you’re an admin or you’re not.. lots have this admin aspect..  if we had tools that had cool governance built in.. would so many of our projects be structured around this..

11 min – pia: what we need is structure that helps us manage the power.. what would that look like..t

2 convers as infra.. to undo our hierarchical listening

nathan: to me.. an open question that i’m really interested in the answer to.. two ie’s: creative commons; open the floodgates – meta governance project – what would it be like for people to build own governance tools..

13 min – nathan: people who like governance and rules and processes of instruction.. have a kind of distorted view of world because they don’t realize most people don’t care about those things at all.. and that those things have a violence to them and destroy culture/community.. so i have to enter this convo w a recognition that my bias is as someone who likes this stuff.. so i have to be wary of them.. and try them out.. and see what the world does.. what i can learn from regular people who are less.. kind of .. distorted in their vision.. what would be useful for you.. would you want to play w governance or get it over with

14 min – nathan: do we start at mech level or general level (democracies et al).. one useful pattern for me.. governance optimized for decision rather than action.. middle class activist obsessed w decisions.. working class taught to do stuff.. get the job done

16 min – nathan: democratic mediums was my attempt to collect some of these patterns.. this longing people had for the one true voting system.. i was thinking about things like friendship.. eloquence..  if ever played around w some of these.. find they have their tool w beautiful voting system.. by see most of their time not on tool but on telegram.. trying to keep track of what everybody’s talking about.. reinventing in background and pretending tech is running the show..

19 min – nathan: wonder if people in school get embeds of class.. from hierarchy built in

again.. what we need is a means to undo our hierarchical listening

21 min – nathan: how some tyrannies arise.. these kind of happy tyrannies.. the subtext often driving communities if not clear where power lies (what jo was getting at)

24 min – nathan: coop idea is to put resources under control/accountability of users

27 min – nathan: what’s the response to open source still perpetuating insecurities (paraphrase)

gershenfeld something else law

29 min – nathan: on community rule.. this is a result of my impatience.. can’t wait for governance calculations.. we were longing for mutual aid networks around ie: virus.. what about the governance file..  so community rule set up to let people publish their little set of rules.. an attempt to start w natural language and experiment .. so that simple governance norms are embedded in our communities

32 min – pia: what blueprints can we put together for governance..

oi.. let go

imagine if we just focused on listening to the itch-in-8b-souls.. first thing.. everyday.. and used that data to augment our interconnectedness.. we might just get to a more antifragile, healthy, thriving world.. the ecosystem we keep longing for..

what the world needs most is the energy of 8b alive people


Is duty oppression?

Original Tweet:

i think when we think in terms of having any obligation.. it oppresses our spirit/fittingness.. keeps us from our true nature


nathan schneider and vitalik buterin on blockchain and cryptocurrency ness:

Responding to (and largely agreeing with) Nathan Schneider @ntnsndr’s piece on blockchain governance and moving beyond financialization:
Also a good opportunity to expand on the language of collusion prevention.
Original Tweet:

There is plenty of room for blockchain-based systems that do not look like money, and indeed we need more of them.

ie: hosting daily curiosities.. so that we can use them to augment our interconnectedness rather than trying to measure/account for anything (any form of m\a\p)


I want to think that a healthier system (“a world where it is easier to be good,” as the Catholic Workers put it) can help with those relationships, and for doing stuff at scale when it needs to be.
I have tried to sketch that out:
Original Tweet:

At a time when regulators are seeking new responses to the dilemmas of world-spanning digital platforms, forms of community ownership such as cooperatives and trusts offer attractive benefits for workers and other users. Yet if economic democracy is to provide a counterweight to investor ownership in the online economy, *it will require an appropriate policy framework. This paper argues that such a framework can come from radically generalizing and expanding on pre-digital successes in local and industry-specific policies from various countries and contexts—**including policies for incorporation, financing, and coordination. Policy should use community ownership not just to solve specific problems but as ***a universal means of organizing innovation. It should also seek to repair past injustices to communities marginalized through under-investment. Community ownership could thereby become at least as available to the online economy as investor ownership has been.

*red flag – **policy ness et al

***need a means to org around legit needs..

the above policy ness might be healthier.. but still not healthy..

there is a nother way

Janelle so powerfully spells out why marginal change is no change at all.
But her challenge is deeper, too. It asks us to get more real than we have been with ourselves and each other.
I want to/hope I can be down for that.
Original Tweet:

marginal: any form of m\a\p