#Community #Tech #CommuntyTech #TheSocialInterNetwork #ArtelHost #TePeWu #FLOSS
@Strypey
@Michał "rysiek" Woźniak · 🇺🇦

While I am still desperately fighting for some headspace to write a full size article (not easy), let me outline a quintessence of my perspective on the optimal community-wise use of fediverse environment.

So, the central term is "community". Here you can see (as a terminological convention) what I consider a community: a group of people, sharing several tangible and intangible commons:
- space (physical or virtual),
- means of communication and transport,
- resources,
- worldview (how the world works),
- goals (what is its desired shape),
- roadmap (how to get there),
- protocols (how to interact internally and externally),
- and, finally, identity (yes, we are the community).

Assumptions concerning community:
1. Each person needs to participate in at least one community to be stable and realized.
2. A person can participate in more than one community at the time
3. Conflicts between communities one participates in can happen, but often they can be resolved.

To thrive safely, community needs to have full control over three "services" provided by the (online) environment:
a. Communal memory retention.
b. Internal and external communication channels.
c. Clear division between the internal and the external.

The online environment (infrastructure), aka internet, was created to provide survivors of thermonuclear war with communication, command and control previously reserved for upper echelons of power. Due to existence of various networking standards, it was to facilitate communication between heterogeneous networks/communities, while respecting their differences and keeping their local resources, well, local.
Fast forward 30 years, no thermonuclear war occurred. Heterogeneousness gradually vanished, replaced by "TCP/IP to the curb" and then "...to the pocket". And many technical, metatechnical (think: topology) and sociopolitical tools have been employed to steamroll "command and control to the people" notion. Effectively, neoliberal institutions and thinking tainted once proudly anarchist "cyberspace" and made it a hyperefficient extension of the capitalist "meatspace" instead.
Most communities now only have contractual control over their data and communication, which is increasingly precarious, as the physical infrastructure crumbles and political changes make all guarantees flimsier every month.

Enter fediverse. A distributed network of instances built upon the shared protocol (ActivityPub, mostly). Each instance can be anything it wants to be, as long as it communicates properly. Each (by default) can provide whatever community needs to thrive (see above).

Just like the internet of old. Considering the evolution of underlying infrastructure, nodes of the network no longer have to be expensive or hardware-heavy. WiFi, LoRaWAN, mesh networks, VPNs, self-hosting solutions like Yunohost or Caprover, OpenWRT routers and Linux servers on laptops or SBCs - it all makes it relatively simple to get the command and control back to communities.

Now, as we are given technical tools to regain our data sovereignty, we (rhetorical "we") realize how much our mentality changed. Two main hurdles seem to be alienation (misnamed as "individualism" or "independence") and opportunism (sold as "convenience" or "efficiency").

People got alienated, so they do not consider themselves as community participants. It makes them assume a "customer" stance, instead of being a co-creator. As they try to fen for themselves, they also loose most skills, in favour of making money. The cult of specialisation makes them buy, instead of make - and claim it to be the virtue.

A very old wisdom is embedded in a seemingly silly joke. "How many psychotherapists are needed to change a bulb? - Just one, but the bulb needs to wish to change itself!" <faint applause>
No person [thinks they] need a community, until their alienation sweeps the floor with them. No community will migrate out from the corpoverse, until they feel to the bone the chill of existential threat of staying there. There are already such communities (LGBTQA+, anarchist, climate activist ones - to name a few), and political changes (trumpizm and the worldwide brown wave rising) will keep the numbers growing.

So, how can we help those interested to move into the wild and not perish? We need an infrastructure first (yes, I am an infrastructure freak, and proud of it). I think of a network of cooperative enterprises, providing support and knowledge, creating incubators and developing less decentralizable services of the 2nd tier.
An interested community starts with a managed hosting, exploring platfoms (applications) of their choice. Once they decide what is good for them, the may move to a VPS and start buiding their fediverse presence. As they grow confident, they may decide to migrate (with our assistance) to self-hosting (using a laptop or mini PC), and later towards creating their own acces VPN and joining secure backbone, connecting other nodes spawned the same way.

As we see, using fediverse to create safe network of communities is almost trivial. The real challenge is - as usually - to educate, agitate and organize. Can we do it?

Within 24 hours of a person’s mental health crisis, open dialogue aims to provide a safe space for family, friends and mental health practitioner to come together and try to make sense of the experience. It is often in a home or a non-clinical setting. Using open-ended questions, such as: ‘how would you like to use your time today?’ It feels less like an interview for a diagnosis and more of a collaboration between people with differing expertise, whether personal or professional.
[...]
It is well documented that community and a strong support network can be powerful agents of recovery. Looking at World Health Organization data on outcomes for psychosis, for example, people who live in low-income countries often have better outcomes than people in the UK.

While this response is often mistakenly tied to an absence of medication, the key elements are social togetherness, dignity, and a safe place to heal. Open dialogue, in other words, might help introduce these core principles into wealthier countries that have become over-medicalised in their approach to mental health care. By formalising the ‘social network approach’ through rigorous testing and data, we may return to a model of care that happens by default in countries outside of the western world.

Anyone here familiar with this approach? I am asking for people struggling with expensive, privatised and fossilised #psychiatry here in #Poland, and even more in #Ukraine.
#MentalHealth #OpenDialog #Psychiatry #community #support

Somebody check my #math (and #thinking), please.

Following recent discussion about centralization of #fediverse I am trying to establish the "desirable" sizes for instances, following certain assumptions I list below (with links to their sources).

A. The #instance is a #community (social network), thus its functionality follows the dynamics of such.

B. The close-knitted community (village) size (I know you) I derive conservatively from Dunbar's Number = 150

C. The medium-sized community I calculate based on 2 degrees of separation (I know someone who knows you). Which is a typical dynamics for a small town community.

D. The large community size (I know someone who knows someone who knows you) comes from the assumption that the limit is at the "influence dissipation" size, thus three degrees of separation. This one corresponds with a bigger town or a city district, being the largest population that still maintains natural mechanisms of cohesion, control & communication.

Of course all specific numbers are approximate. The key thing, I believe, is to give people a way to assess what community they want to create or join.

The math I use comes from here and here.

So, I start from
"An average path length between two nodes in a random network (D) is equal to ln N / ln K, where N = total nodes and K = acquaintances per node."

In my case I know K=150 and D being either 2 or 3. I need to calculate N

N = e^(ln K * D)

1. Small community (I know you) will then be 150 persons.

2. Medium community (I know someone who knows you) will then be

D = 2
K = 150
ln K = 5.010 635
ln N = 10.02127
N = 22 500 (and I am baffled )

3. Large community (I know someone who knows someone who knows you) will then be:

D = 3
K = 150
ln K = 5.010 635
ln N = 15.031905
N = 3 374 997 (and I am stupefied )

I am aware of the power of the exponential growth, but still, results #2 and #3 are orders of magnitude above what I expected. And I do not understand why.

Would someone point me towards understanding (and better model), please?