Phew...another long one...please feel free to skip it if it does not interest you...
Was it burn-out? Take a break. Call it a break. Maybe take
long break. Think about asking for more support. Reconsider this decentralization we're all philosophizing and dreaming about...
From what I understand, that is ultimately why it was closed [and what I was trying to emphasize in part of my reply to
Cobra! above]. They did all of those things and nothing seemed to change. They took intermittent breaks and repeatedly
tried to come up with different community structures to lighten the load. They also asked for help, multiple times. Out of a group that grew to nearly 3,000 people, a miniscule fraction of that actually offered help and followed through. In all honesty, I probably should have helped too. To
quote Auzzie:
That is one of the main problems that I hope we can address in our work together here: Centralized roles are unsustainable. The responsibility for the operation of a community space as a whole should not fall to a relatively small number of people. If it doesn't lead to an abuse of power by those who do not care about the group, it leads to total burn out by the ones that do.
How do we structure communities so that they do not automatically take the form of a hierarchy that centralizes power around a "founder"? It can be very subtle. For example, this forum is centralized around
Ray (who has to approve sign-ups) and the collaborative website is centralized around
loaf (who has to add people as contributors). It is a small group now, but imagine that was multiplied a couple thousand fold. At that scale, one can see the objectification of the staff occurring quite plainly. To
quote Madness:
Again, that is on top of trying to moderate the anti-social behaviors that occur when people are unwilling to make a genuine attempt to use the
Etiquette. To
quote Sadness:
And as I had already mentioned, they also had to maintain the other projects and try to mitigate more serious threats by "bad actors" (in the cybersecurity sense). A couple years of all of that combined is probably enough to make anyone throw up their hands in exasperation and "be done with it", yet they calmly explained why they were closing, answered questions personally, tried to offer help to people starting their own communities by writing the Summary, and gave people time to communicate with each other before shutting down. Considering the circumstances, I think they exhibited grace under pressure. They could've easily sold out or silently nuked the place. They didn't owe anyone anything to begin with, but they persisted because they care about the people within the community. To
quote Sadness again:
When creating a community, we have to think very carefully about the activities that different roles entail and how they affect communication throughout. Ironically enough, this also applies when attempting to assess the large "social media" platforms too.
What do the moderators have to deal with? How can we come to conclusions about it without getting to know what it is first? Likewise, those who just want a service done for them may not be interested in learning any of this, hence the objectification. However, whenever we are communicating through The Internet, we are engaging with other people. Our impacts upon others are unavoidable whether we are conscious of it or not.
[I'm not referring to you
π
²ππ
Έπ , just talking about the situation in general. You actually joined to try to figure out what is going on and I commend you for that. I'm also not condemning anyone...When any number of people get together, some amount of doubt and disagreement is probably to be expected, but those issues are not resolved when they degrade into arguments or rumors. We need to state specifically what actions we find disagreeable and what we would do differently and why so that they can be addressed out in the open and built upon. This can be done peaceably and in a manner where everyone's input is carefully considered. Perhaps I am being overly optimistic, but I truly think that everyone can get along if they are sincerely willing to try, and I have been repeatedly attempting to put a focus on different ways that we can all work together to build things that might resolve those issues.]
...This is what I'm talking about by co-opting activist language/actions. If the "protests" were directed at "the community: the monolith" it's putting blame on the community, once again. As if they have done something so heinous that warrants the use of "protest/on strike".
The staff were essentially in a worker role the entire time and they finally rebelled against it by refusing to do it any longer. "Strike" seems like an appropriate word for describing it to me. I was actually a part of the community and I do not take it personally or see it as some kind of blame of everyone in it. This is what I meant by "the community is NOT a monolith" (e.g.: while united by common causes and many friendships, the group is very diverse and everyone communicates differently).
Further, they explicitly stated several times that it was not necessarily the "fault" of any particular person within the community; they were just burned out and did not know how to proceed any longer. For example, to
quote Madness:
Words can take on very different meanings depending upon the assumptions that we approach them with. For example, let's look at
the quote from Madness that you mentioned:
What is the implication that you are deriving from this? All I gather is a somewhat flowery way of saying that she is tired of helping to run online communities and would rather put the past behind her to focus on offline activities.
Sadness stated pretty much the same thing:
...The organizers have reiterated this same thing over and over again. I could go on, but I've repeated a lot of this already as well. At this point, unless any of the staff feels the need to come back and further elaborate upon what happened, it seems moot. To
quote Madness again:
That said, you make a valid point
π
²ππ
Έπ . There is some mixed messaging, like what is stated within
the very first part of the Summary (emphasis mine):
And that is probably what is driving
a lot of the upset within the community as a whole. A co-opting of activist language though? I'm more inclined to see it as just poor wording because they are tired. I also do not see it as an act of betrayal towards the ideals that many within the community are working toward. Again, if they didn't care they wouldn't have put in all of the effort that they had trying to support everyone...yes, that includes Madness.
It also highlights several other problems that maybe we could address together: All association should be voluntary. How can communities be structured so that things do not start to fracture when someone wants to leave? When only a few people manage a space, their absence becomes obvious as the operation of things that people might normally take for granted quickly starts to unravel. However, a similar thing can also happen when it is only a few people conversing. For example, when someone deletes all of their comments within a forum, anything that had quoted or referred to them might start to make less sense. At the same time, it should be a personal choice of what happens to the information that one chooses to contribute. What is a resonable balance?
There are some interesting ideas and tools for creating the types of collaborative communities that we are trying to here, such as
Local-First Software and
Solid. These give a start on the technical aspects, but what about the social aspects? What types of mutual agreements must be in place for people to work together effectively? I am not necessarily referring to everyone agreeing to apply a Creative Commons-like licensing to the results of a collaboration beforehand, but to the organizational foundations that must be in place for teamwork to occur.
I would very much hesitate shrugging this off as another example of cancel culture. To quote this
article:
Thank you for sharing those articles. I already knew the orgins of these terms, but it is nice to have a more thorough exploration of their etymologies. I wasn't using the term "cancel culture" sarcastically, nor does the video that I was quoting. My point in posting it was to highlight the pattern that it describes:
The Presumption of Guilt ->
Abstraction ->
Essentialism ->
Pseudo-Moralism or
Pseudo-Intellectualism ->
No ForgivenessI find it useful for "separating the wheat from the chaff" when it comes to pieces of gossip and hope that others can benefit from it as well. To elaborate:
People often repeat what they've heard about others without verifying it, and as it is shared, it starts to overgeneralize in a way that can lead to fighting rather than restoration. For example:
1. A person is rumored to have done something as ideas are separated from their original context (e.g.: "
I heard that [blank] did [blank].").
2. Through careless repetition, it can become the assumption that they definitely did it (e.g.: "[blank]
did [blank].").
3. That in turn might become an attack upon someone's character as a whole as people draw conclusions from the association (e.g.: "[blank]
is [blank].").
4. And once condemned, it may turn into an unchanging state because people have already made up their mind about the situation and are simply looking for confirmation of their biases rather than a dialogue with the person who has been accused (e.g.: "[blank]
will always be [blank]").
It has been occuring within this situation to some degree. To
quote Vincent:
That is another one of the main problems that I hope that we can address together here: When "misinformation" is spread amongst one's "peer group", people can split into factions as they "take sides" on the interpretation of it. The community starts to fragment as they start to attack one another. Not only is such in-fighting mentally and emotionally draining for everyone, it breaks up a lot of meaningful relationships and closes off the potential for teamwork towards common (mutually beneficial) goals.
There are many factors that can potentially lead to those kinds of misunderstandings, but they can only be avoided if all aspects of an organization are transparent, and roles do not become isolating to the point that they lead to communication breakdown. How can we structure things so that people still have the safety afforded by personal anonymity balanced with collective accountability? How do we balance the individual with the community so that neither suffer and both thrive?
Despite trying to write the Summary as something like a "
blameless postmortem", it is obvious that there were strong disagreements throughout the lifespan of the Yesterweb. This is especially evident in sections 13 and 14,
Observed Phenomena and
Significant Errors. As
π
²ππ
Έπ has already pointed out, it isn't hard to go to online spaces that are adjacent to the Yesterweb and find comments by people who feel slighted. I could easily quote a few. Instead, I invite others who feel that they have been misrepresented to tell their side of the story. Let's expand this into a greater dialogue where all of the communities can grow because we understand one another better.
I would also like to address one other thing that I think is very important: Some might have read
the now infamous "digital guerrilla" comment and gotten the impression that there was some kind of secretive "
social engineering" of the group that was happening. Again, I wasn't part of the staff, but I have no personal evidence of that occuring. Maybe someone else does?
Let's try to get a handle on that comment together. Madness explained what the internal structure of the organization was like. To quote:
The
Summary elaborates on what those methods consist of. Now, this is actually one point where I agree with
the suboptimalism article to some extent:
In my opinion, they are not complex if one takes the time to patiently read through them, but they do seem like something that would be incredibly hard to succinctly deliever to a large group. I doubt many people would try to understand them, let alone take the time to implement them, especially when the Etiquette and Manifesto are regularly ignored. These methods were both conceived and refined as the group grew, and
Madness also described how hard it was/is to convey this type of information:
I will try to put a couple of these methods into my own words (meaning they will also be colored by my own interpretations):
* "
The Localized Scientific Method" is paying close attention to what is occuring within a specific environment and repeatedly giving it conscious expression in words and actions that seem as beneficial to as many people as possible, sharing things that have helped us with an awareness of how it affects others. It is essentially taking self-responsibility for how we impact the people around us, passively trying to meet the needs of a community through "living by example".
* "
The Mass Democratic Method" is trying to help people resolve their own issues by attempting to put them into words that can be understood by as many people as possible and then brainstorming ways to accomplish that together. It is actively trying to meet the needs of a community through collaborative creative problem-solving. What is learned is then integrated as a way of living by each individual and is reflected in how the community is operating.
They overlap to some degree. When we do both, people eventually realize that "democracy" (like the "scientific method") is something we each take part in. It does not belong to specific people, but to everyone. To quote the Summary:
It is not about having power over other people. It is about raising up as many as you can in whatever ways you know how, inspiring others to do the same, and then growing together through the process. It feeds back into itself...For those that are taking the time to understand one another, the process is happening right now.
Furthermore, people
have started their own projects, webrings, forums, indie radio stations, communities, etc. They have
been doing this, even long before the yesterweb. And after taking a gander 'round the indie web neighborhood, they seem to be doing pretty well and publishing interesting material.
Yes, and nowhere did I imply that others haven't. I should clarify...My purpose in these replies has been multifold:
* You named the thread "Yesterweb Discussion Continued" so I am trying to describe to you (and anyone else who is interested) a little of what was going on in the server when I was there. Of course, not all of it was deep, there was a ton of leisurely chit-chat too (e.g.: comments about daily life, jokes/memes, talking about retro media, sharing personal art/music/games, etc.). But the undercurrent of a greater hope for society was always there.
* I also want it to serve as a pool of ideas that we can draw from in our work here, or that others can take and run with.
In short, I am trying to share as many constructive things as I can, while also trying to dispell rumors and answer questions. I want this to be of benefit to all, but if no one reads it, that is ok too. It can serve as a personal record that helped me to organize some thoughts.
In regards to other projects, many people in the server were active among several different communities with complementary philosophies simultaneously. We spoke about a lot of them together (e.g.:
IndieWeb,
SmolNet,
The Small Web,
Web Revival,
The Decentralized Web, etc.). There were also a few groups that spun off from the YW and/or ran parallel to it (e.g.:
MelonLand,
The 32-Bit Cafe,
New Web Collective, etc.). Many people there had a
Neocities,
Ichi City, and/or
SpaceHey. I remember Kicks Condor and Glitchy Owl (the team that made
Multiverse) chatted there for awhile too. It was a convergence of a lot of things.
This deeply reminds me that when one amasses a huge following, one can go from being human (i.e. an average person, a private citizen etc.) to being an Archetype to represent the concept of what they deeply hold within them instead of someone that is merely approachable one on one. Which if I were to get religious for a moment, it makes me think what if certain deities at some point were exemplary people who became archetypes. It's interesting to think about. Or even in the sense of the system of monarchy in regards to the "divine right to rule" It seems when people have such powerful sentiments and put them into action.. we give people that power automatically or rather something yields to them being in the role. Wanted to respond here though of course this can be a whole other thread lol!
That is a fascinating take and there is a lot to explore there. I will give a brief comment:
I have always thought things like fame were strange because I saw celebrities as "regular people", although some may have honed a particular skill or set of skills very well (like athletes, actors/actresses, etc.).
Cognitive biases like the "
halo effect" sometimes encourage people to "put others on a pedestal". In so doing, a kind of hierarchy is automatically formed of one "above" and another "below".
...Anyway, I hope that helps everyone. Again, if you've stuck with me through that, thank you for reading!