FediDev KR — Korean Fediverse Developers
A community of fediverse developers living in Korea or using the Korean language.
We've just added an English homepage for FediDev KR, a community of fediverse developers living in Korea or using the Korean language.
If you're interested in connecting with Korean-speaking fediverse developers, feel free to check it out: https://fedidev.kr/en/.
07.03.2026 02:42
👍 2
🔁 2
💬 0
📌 0
Fediverse Linux Users Group
Today, I had lunch with @Yohei_Zuho and @kur0den0010 from FediLUG Japan, along with @nebuleto from FediDev KR, and it looks like something exciting is going to happen at @COSCUP 2026! Stay tuned!
06.03.2026 09:02
👍 2
🔁 2
💬 1
📌 0
Original post on social.wake.st
Has anyone made a good guild for how to ask for survival money on the fediverse yet? One that outlines how tagging strangers isn't a good long term strategy. That it can temporarily work for engagement but sooner or later you will either loose your account or get blocked so much that you don't […]
05.03.2026 22:36
👍 0
🔁 4
💬 1
📌 0
오늘 FediLUG 日本(일본)의 @Yohei_Zuho 님과 @kur0den0010 님, 韓國(한국) 聯合宇宙(연합우주) 開發者(개발자) 모임의 @nebuleto 님과 제가 모여서 함께 點心(점심) 食事(식사)를 했습니다. 아무래도 @COSCUP 2026에서 聯合宇宙(연합우주)와 關聯(관련)된 재밌는 일이 일어날 것 같으니, 많은 期待(기대) 付託(부탁)드립니다!
06.03.2026 09:24
👍 1
🔁 1
💬 0
📌 0
Fediverse Linux Users Group
Today, I had lunch with @Yohei_Zuho and @kur0den0010 from FediLUG Japan, along with @nebuleto from FediDev KR, and it looks like something exciting is going to happen at @COSCUP 2026! Stay tuned!
06.03.2026 09:02
👍 2
🔁 2
💬 1
📌 0
Check-in screen on Mobile
Admin Panel for managing group/place/moderation action
Dashboard for event organizers
#moim_live #fedidev
I'm building an open source ActivityPub service called "Moim" — 모임 in Korean, meaning gathering or meetup. It started as a federated RSVP service, but I realized I wanted to connect people even beyond events. Events are where people come […]
[Original post on hackers.pub]
05.03.2026 08:25
👍 3
🔁 5
💬 3
📌 0
moim.live 에 authorized fetch 지원 완료
05.03.2026 03:24
👍 2
🔁 1
💬 0
📌 0
Let's stop saying Fediverse is federated + universe and start saying it's federated + diverse
05.03.2026 05:35
👍 2
🔁 7
💬 3
📌 0
メタモンのシロノワールブルーベリーフロマージュ
メタモンのシロノワールブルーベリーフロマージュ食べにコメダ珈琲店に来た。
05.03.2026 06:19
👍 1
🔁 0
💬 0
📌 0
モスバーガーに来て焼肉のライスバーガーを食べた。写真は無い。
05.03.2026 04:59
👍 1
🔁 0
💬 1
📌 0
京鴨汁つけうどん
京鴨汁つけうどんを食べに来た。
04.03.2026 11:38
👍 1
🔁 1
💬 1
📌 0
宿にチェックインした。
04.03.2026 07:21
👍 0
🔁 0
💬 1
📌 0
Always forgetting to use `.at(-1)` to get last element in an array.
#JavaScript
04.03.2026 01:23
👍 2
🔁 2
💬 0
📌 0
成田空港に着いた。
04.03.2026 02:24
👍 0
🔁 0
💬 1
📌 0
仁川空港に来た。
03.03.2026 22:16
👍 0
🔁 0
💬 1
📌 0
明日からHaze Leeさん（@nebuleto）と一緒に一週間東京に旅行に行くんだ。楽しみ！
03.03.2026 10:04
👍 2
🔁 1
💬 1
📌 0
Acting materialistically in an imperfect world: LLMs as means of production and social relations
# Acting materialistically in an imperfect world: LLMs as means of production and social relations
This is a follow-up to last month's Histomat of F/OSS: We should reclaim LLMs, not reject them.
* * *
Cory Doctorow celebrated the sixth anniversary of Pluralistic by walking readers through his publishing workflow. Among other things, he mentioned running each post through Ollama, an open-source LLM, to catch typos before publication. The predictable pushback followed. Two days later, German technology critic tante responded with a piece titled Acting ethically in an imperfect world.
Borrowing his title felt like the right place to start. Acting ethically in an imperfect world—that is his question. I want to answer the same question with a different framework. Not ethics, but materialism.
In my previous piece, I pushed licensing too far to the front as a means of reclaiming LLMs. I took criticism for being naïve, and I accept some of it. What I was arguing for was a _direction_ , not a _prescription_. This piece tries to sharpen that direction.
## Two strawmen
tante makes some fair points. Doctorow portrayed LLM critics as purists who object to the technology because its creators are bad people—a strawman. The actual criticisms come from somewhere else entirely: the enormous consumption of electricity and water, the collection of training data without consent, the exploitative labeling work done in the Global South, the harm inflicted on the knowledge commons including the open source ecosystem. Doctorow reduced all of this to “you just don't like Sam Altman,” and tante was right to call that out.
The Bluesky point lands too. Doctorow refused to create a Bluesky account on ideological grounds, because he objects to the centralized control Bluesky's corporation holds over the network. He believes in, and practices, refusing technology based on one's values. When others refuse LLMs for the same kind of reason, he calls it purism. tante identified this double standard precisely.
But tante falls into the same trap.
In critiquing the direction of reclamation, he effectively limits it to one path: building a frontier model from scratch that rivals GPT. That would take billions of dollars and produce the same environmental costs in the process, so reclamation is unrealistic—or so the argument goes. But just as Doctorow oversimplified the criticism of LLMs, tante oversimplified the paths to reclaiming them. Legal resistance through licensing is one path. Regulatory pressure that compels corporations to release proprietary models is another. Collectively building public foundation models is another still. Which of these might actually work depends on political and social conditions that remain open. When I mentioned licensing in my previous piece, it was the first example that came to mind, nothing more.
## Machinery and its capitalist application
In the first volume of _Capital_ , Marx assessed the Luddite movement in England:
> It took time and experience before the workers learnt to distinguish between machinery and its employment by capital, and to transfer their attacks from the material instruments of production to the form of society which utilises those instruments.
The anger of the workers who smashed the looms was justified. The direction was wrong. The problem was not the machinery but the capitalist social relations surrounding it: machinery that extended working hours rather than shortening them, that turned workers into appendages of the machine rather than freeing them. That was not the nature of machinery; it was the nature of how machinery was deployed. Marx was not mocking the Luddites. He was describing how a struggle matures.
This framework still holds in the LLM debate. tante's approach is fundamentally ethical: he evaluates the technology itself on moral grounds and decides whether to use it accordingly. Doctorow's approach is not so different—the evaluation just runs in the opposite direction. Both treat technology as a moral object.
A materialist approach asks different questions. What social relations does this technology sit inside? Who owns it, whose labor maintains it, and where does the surplus go? And can those relations be changed?
The “for or against AI” framing buries these questions. The reason it looks inconsistent to criticize the major AI vendors while remaining open to LLMs as a technology is that the framing assumes the technology and its capitalist application are the same thing. That assumption is wrong.
## Libraries and people
LLMs are not libraries. The criticism that a library connects people to the original source while an LLM produces answers without one is not entirely wrong. But I think LLMs are closer to people.
Human beings spend their entire lives absorbing vast quantities of text, code, and images, without asking permission from the copyright holders. They work that material into something of their own and produce, at times, something that is little more than pastiche and, at other times, connections nobody had made before.
Nicholas Carlini at Anthropic recently ran an experiment in which he tasked Claude Opus 4.6 with writing a C compiler in Rust from scratch, without internet access, in a clean-room setting. The result was a hundred-thousand-line compiler that builds the Linux 6.9 kernel on x86, ARM, and RISC-V; compiles PostgreSQL, FFmpeg, SQLite, and Redis; and passes 99% of the GCC torture test suite. To my knowledge, no Rust-written C compiler has come close to that. It is hard to call this reproduction.
LLMs are not always creative, of course, any more than people always are. The point of the analogy is not to flatter LLMs. It is that the criticism built on the premise that “LLMs only reproduce” is standing on shakier ground than it appears.
The same framework makes clearer why not all generative AI is alike. The difference between LLMs and image generation models is not a technical one—it is a difference in what kind of labor is displaced and how. When an image generation model produces work in the style of a specific artist, it directly encroaches on that artist's market. This is not the replacement of a function; it is the replacement of an existence. Where the surplus goes in that transaction is telling. Marx's concept of the _Verelendung_ of labor plays out more directly in image generation than anywhere else in this space. Whether the same measure applies to LLMs is a much more complicated question.
## The default viewpoint
There is one more thing I want to say, and it is personal.
tante's essay is on the web, but it appears to be configured to serve garbage to LLM scrapers. Korean is my first language; English is my second. A text like tante's, where the nuances of the argument and its unstated premises matter, does not survive conventional machine translation intact. You need something at the level of an LLM for the reasoning to come through. I ended up copying the essay by hand and feeding it to one.
tante argues that LLMs sever the connection between reader and author: search engines lead you to the original, while LLMs extract the content and keep you inside their own loop. There is something to that. But my experience shows whose perspective that picture was drawn from. For a fluent English reader, an LLM might well be a technology that cuts connections. For a reader working in a second language, an LLM is sometimes the technology that _makes_ connection possible in the first place. tante's decision to block LLM scrapers is consistent with his own logic, but it ended up reinforcing the asymmetry between readers who are fluent in English and those who are not.
This is not just an irony. The asymmetry operates across the whole of technology discourse. Whose viewpoint is set as the default? What social relations produced that default?
Acting materialistically means starting by refusing to take that default for granted. Before asking whether a technology is good or bad, ask who it works for, on whose labor it runs, and in whose interest. That question is not a reason to reject the technology. It is a reason to reclaim it, and I still think that is where we need to go.
지난 며칠 동안 〈F/OSS 史唯(사유): 우리는 LLM을 拒否(거부)할 게 아니라 되찾아 와야 한다〉 및 〈不完全(불완전)한 世上(세상)에서 唯物論的(유물론적)으로 行動(행동)하기: 生產(생산) 手段(수단)으로서의 LLM과 社會的(사회적) 關係(관계)〉를 둘러싸고 사람들과 論爭(논쟁)하며 느낀 點(점)…
03.03.2026 05:12
👍 0
🔁 0
💬 0
📌 0
西歐圈(서구권) 聯合宇宙(연합우주)에서는 LLM 및 AI 全般(전반)에 對(대)해 情緖(정서)가 매우 안 좋다보니, 애當初(당초) LLM이나 AI의 쓸모 自體(자체)를 否定(부정)하는 境遇(경우)가 많은 듯. 쓸모가 없는 技術(기술)이라면, 그 技術(기술)에서 물을 한 방울만 쓰더라도 浪費(낭비)가 된다. 價値(가치)와 費用(비용)의 셈 自體(자체)가 달라져 버리는 것. 그래서 均衡(균형) 잡힌 論議(논의)를 이루기까지 미리 說明(설명)하고 說得(설득)해야 하는 地點(지점)이 너무 많다.
03.03.2026 05:10
👍 0
🔁 0
💬 1
📌 0
Original post on hollo.social
While I have no ill will toward the “ATmosphere” (Bluesky/AT Protocol), the contrast in funding models is hard to ignore. The fediverse’s support from strategic investments in open infrastructure (like NLnet or STF) feels far healthier than ATmosphere's heavy backing from crypto-linked VCs—a […]
02.03.2026 15:23
👍 2
🔁 5
💬 1
📌 0
Original post on hollo.social
@fabrice I hear your concerns about burnout, and as someone who has actually secured STF investment for my project (Fedify), I won't pretend the administrative overhead is non-existent. It's a real challenge.
However, in my experience, that effort is a price well worth paying for the autonomy […]
02.03.2026 17:34
👍 0
🔁 0
💬 0
📌 0
Original post on hollo.social
@fabrice You're right that constant grant-hopping is fragile, and I don't see it as a perfect endgame. However, my point about “healthiness” was less about financial stability and more about the _alignment of incentives_.
VC money inevitably demands a return on investment, which often leads to […]
02.03.2026 16:42
👍 0
🔁 0
💬 1
📌 0
Original post on hollo.social
I've been increasingly concerned about the corporate monopoly over frontier LLMs. While many ethically-minded people choose to boycott these models, I believe passive resistance alone cannot break the structural grip of big tech. To truly “liberate” these technologies and turn them into public […]
02.03.2026 12:22
👍 2
🔁 0
💬 0
📌 0
Original post on hollo.social
While I have no ill will toward the “ATmosphere” (Bluesky/AT Protocol), the contrast in funding models is hard to ignore. The fediverse’s support from strategic investments in open infrastructure (like NLnet or STF) feels far healthier than ATmosphere's heavy backing from crypto-linked VCs—a […]
02.03.2026 15:23
👍 2
🔁 5
💬 1
📌 0
Original post on hollo.social
I've been increasingly concerned about the corporate monopoly over frontier LLMs. While many ethically-minded people choose to boycott these models, I believe passive resistance alone cannot break the structural grip of big tech. To truly “liberate” these technologies and turn them into public […]
02.03.2026 12:22
👍 2
🔁 0
💬 0
📌 0
Original post on hollo.social
以前から、東アジアにもFediConのようなイベントがあればいいなと言い続けてきました。独自のカンファレンスはまだ難しそうですが、小さな一歩として考えていることがあります。
@COSCUP 2026（台北、8月8日〜9日）がコミュニティトラックの提案を受け付けています。FOSDEMのSocial Web devroomのような感じで、**Social Webトラック** を開けないかなと思っているところです。
まだ構想段階ですが、ActivityPubやフェディバース、ソーシャルウェブ全般に取り組んでいて、発表や共同オーガナイズに興味があるという方がいれば、ぜひ話しかけてください。 […]
01.03.2026 09:22
👍 0
🔁 1
💬 0
📌 0
Original post on hollo.social
東(동)아시아에도 FediCon 같은 行事(행사)가 있으면 좋겠다는 말을 여러 番(번) 해왔는데요. 獨立的(독립적)인 컨퍼런스는 아직 어렵더라도, 작은 첫걸음으로 생각해보고 있는 게 있습니다.
@COSCUP 2026(臺北(타이베이), 8月(월) 8日(일)–9日(일))이 커뮤니티 트랙 提案(제안)을 받고 있어요. FOSDEM의 Social Web devroom 같은 느낌으로, 거기서 **Social Web 트랙** 을 열 수 있지 않을까 하고 構想(구상) 중입니다.
아직 確定(확정)된 건 아무것도 없지만 […]
01.03.2026 09:21
👍 2
🔁 5
💬 1
📌 1
Original post on hollo.social
I've been saying for a while that we need something like FediCon in East Asia. A dedicated conference is still a stretch, but I've been thinking about a smaller step:
@COSCUP 2026 (Taipei, Aug 8–9) is accepting proposals for community tracks. It might be worth trying to open a _Social Web […]
01.03.2026 09:20
👍 2
🔁 10
💬 1
📌 0
Original post on social.silicon.moe
그 뭐시냐.... 제가 모임 개최 플랫폼 (대충 https://event-us.kr 혹은 https://connpass.com 같은거) + 지역 기반 리뷰 서비스 (대충 포스퀘어 같은거) 를 만들었는데요.
어떻게 만들어나갈지 나름 고민은 많이 해봤고, 내가 생각하는 고민이랑 다른 사람들이 생각하는 수요가 일치하는지 확인도 하고 싶어서 이렇게 공개적인 글을 올립니다.
https://moim.live
많은 관심과 사랑 부탁드리고, 문의사항이나 피드백 있으면 GitHub Issue로 부탁드리겠습니다. GitHub 링크 […]
01.03.2026 15:30
👍 2
🔁 4
💬 0
📌 0
Original post on hollo.social
以前から、東アジアにもFediConのようなイベントがあればいいなと言い続けてきました。独自のカンファレンスはまだ難しそうですが、小さな一歩として考えていることがあります。
@COSCUP 2026（台北、8月8日〜9日）がコミュニティトラックの提案を受け付けています。FOSDEMのSocial Web devroomのような感じで、**Social Webトラック** を開けないかなと思っているところです。
まだ構想段階ですが、ActivityPubやフェディバース、ソーシャルウェブ全般に取り組んでいて、発表や共同オーガナイズに興味があるという方がいれば、ぜひ話しかけてください。 […]
01.03.2026 09:22
👍 0
🔁 1
💬 0
📌 0
