Tag: dotcons

The #encryptionist detour

Let’s look back to before the #Fediverse, to be honest about the last two decades of #openweb failure, for a long time we got pulled off the path. Not only by enemies, but by a mix of fear, fashion, and half-understood technical “solutions” that felt right to fearful people at the time.

The rise of the dogmatic, blinded #encryptionist mindset came out of real conditions of mass surveillance revelations (Snowden era), common sense #neoliberal distrust of states and corporations and the real harms of our worship of the (same neoliberal) #deathcult of the #dotcons

Encryption mattered – and still does – private space matters, protection matters. But what happened next at this time is where things went wrong – we shifted focus from necessary tool to blinded totalising path. For the #geekproblem and its fashionista followers – encryption shifted from being a tool in the stack to the answer to everything.

Instead of asking what should be public? – what should be private? And how do we build shared, accountable space? We got a flattened answer of “make everything encrypted and trustless” that sounds good to the blinded fear filled crew as It feels “safe”. But if you are not blind, it obviously undermines the foundations of the #openweb we were working to reboot, the #openweb isn’t built on secrecy – it’s built on shared visibility, trust, and negotiation.

This was mess, enter #blockchain and #DAO – the peak of the detour, this is where the #fashionista layer really took over. Into this already confused path stepped #blockchain, #NFT’s and #DAO governance models of token economies. The mess making was wrapped in smoke and mirrors language of decentralisation, autonomy and trustlessness to “fixing governance”.

But look at what they actually did – financialisation of everything, instead of building commons, we got tokens, ledgers, “market” incentives leading to speculation. This is a very easy to see failed imagination of market logic reintroduced through the back door of wealth = power, not in any way new, it’s smoke and mirrors to hide the same old system the native #openweb path was supposed to move beyond. This detour directly contradicts gift economies, commons-based governance and trust-based collaboration, it was used to push this needed path out of sight.

    It’s the normal mess of fear based #stupidindividualism – governance avoidance disguised as governance. DAOs didn’t in any way solve governance, they simply avoided it as real governance is messy, social, contextual, rooted in trust and relationships. DAOs tried and failed to replace this with hard voting mechanisms, token-weighted decisions and rigid rules. That’s not in any way useful governance, that’s automation of power to remove the human layer instead of engaging with it, its pure #geekproblem that our #fashionistas were to blind (or self-interested) to see past.

      This is the same problem we are repeating today (still in embryo) with the current new crew taking over pushing the #openweb reboot – this time its not only encryption, but it’s the same mess of shifting focus away from what actually matters, the same distraction.

      What can we compost from the last mess, to shine light on this path, back in the day people were busy writing whitepapers, launching tokens, debating protocol layers. Were they should have been building communities, maintaining infrastructure to grow trust networks to support real-world use #KISS This misdirection of focus, resources and energy is the recurring damage as attention is diverted away from the soil layer into tiny self-interested abstract cliques that never root.

        The #geekproblem and the #NGO loop feed this mess, as the fashionista class capture does not happen in isolation. It is amplified by two reinforcing dynamics – the #geekproblem – preference for technical certainty over social mess, belief that systems can replace relationships, discomfort with ambiguity and lived complexity. The #NGO layer with its need for fundable, legible “solutions”, preference for clean frameworks – over messy reality, career pathways built on producing narratives, not outcomes.

        Put these together, and you get complicated “solutions” that look impressive, but don’t work in practice. Back then we had a decade of drift we need to not repeat now. Back then we ended up with over-engineered systems nobody uses, governance models disconnected from lived communities and fragmented efforts chasing the next “solution”. This weakened focus on building actual alternatives, meanwhile, the #dotcons carried on consolidating power.

        The reality check for today is we built a pile of #techshit, and we are doing the same now with the current takeover crew of the #Fediverse. The last time because we failed to compost the accumulated outcome of the mess of abandoned projects, broken promises, conceptual clutter we still have the current confused direction. We need to now compost this historical mess, as keeping pretending this is fine is part of the problem, it’s not fine. But – and this matters – this “shit” doesn’t need to be useless, it’s compost.

        The native path we didn’t take (but still can), was always simpler, and still is, to build in public (#4opens), separate public and private space (#KISS), focus on trust, not “trustless”, grow from real communities, not closed cliques.

        We need to develop governance as lived practice, not only code, this is what #OMN and #OGB are pointing toward – human networks first, tech as support, not driver, openness as default for shared knowledge, privacy where it actually matters. If we’re serious about a future – it is to stop chasing totalising tech fixes, stop “common sense” financialising community, stop pretending governance can be automated and start growing from the soil up. And most importantly shift from control → collaboration, from abstraction → grounded practice to shift from narrative → lived reality.

        The point is the #encryptionist turn wasn’t (only) evil as it was a reaction to real harm. But it became a dead end when it tried to replace the social with the technical. What we need to lean from this to shift the current mess is if we want a real #openweb we don’t need more “solutions”, we need to get our hands dirty again to compost the mess to make soil to plant something much more real that can grow.

        #openweb #4opens #OGB #OMN #geekproblem #techshit #KISS

        The Crew – Paths to Growth?

        So what path should we be focusing on to balance this current oligarchy mess. The #OMN (Open Media Network) is decentralized, grassroots, focused on an “open process” rather than a fixed, top-down control structure, it’s a governance model:

        • Continuous ecological process, as navigation through lived memory rather than a set of static rules.
        • Decentralized & community-driven, from users, producers/creators, and admins, aiming to balance out central authority.
        • Federated coordination, strong transparency were no one has to agree, but reasoning and actions are publicly visible to produce accountability for public mess making.
        • The #4opens Principles – building on open data, open source, open standards, and open process.
        • Emergent structure, grows organically through “lived collaboration” and social federated tech flows #OGB (Open Governance Body).

        The #OMN is a path to growing an alternative to corporate-controlled platforms (#dotcons), a “public-first” digital commons.

        People resist is visible structure

        The Meta-Mess of the “Open” Social Web

        Signal, Noise, and the missing ground – We have a signal-to-noise problem, that if we’re serious about “paths to growth,” we need to be honest about the paths and people pushing us down paths we’re actually walking. The problem was never just the #dotcons platforms. It’s what we build instead – and more importantly, how and why we build it.

        Right now, too much of the #openweb conversation is caught in narrative loops of reframing stagnation as growth, critique as progress and visibility as impact. That’s the “paths to growth” trap. The #fashionista movement where activity is presented as meaningful change, without asking what is materially shifting underneath. From an #NGO perspective, this should ring alarm bells – outputs are being mistaken for outcomes. This is where the signal keeps geting lost.

        We don’t lack ideas, frameworks, or commentary, we have an abundance of them. What we lack is grounded, collective practice – work rooted in real-world use, trust, and actual need. Instead, we’ve built layer upon layer of people interpreting the #openweb, narrating it, funding it, branding it. Meanwhile, the “soil layer” – people running infrastructure, building communities, and holding things together day-to-day – remains underrepresented, under-resourced, and largely invisible. That’s where the “Open Social” ecosystem is currently quietly breaking down.

        The #fashionista problem is friendly gatekeeping is still gatekeeping. This isn’t about bad intentions, it’s about institutional form. Who decides what counts as “important work”? Who gets visibility, funding, and legitimacy? Which version of the #openweb gets promoted? In NGO thinking, this is a question of agenda-setting power, when soft curation becomes quiet exclusion. Over time, this “problem” shapes the field, not only through explicit decisions, but through accumulated bias. The result is a narrowing of what is seen as valid, fundable, and worth paying attention to.

        Let’s look at a current example of this mess we need to compost – This Jury is a Symptom. What follows isn’t a critique of individuals as people. It’s a mapping of roles within the ecosystem, and how those roles, collectively, skew the field.

        Audrey Tang

        “Prosocial digital tools” and civic tech, but operating within state infrastructure. A ministry is still a ministry when legitimacy flows from above. This is the #openweb translated into a form that fits government and #NGO logic: managed participation that stabilises systems rather than challenging them. Valuable in context, but not the same as bottom-up, native practice.

        Mike Masnick

        “Protocols Not Platforms” was useful framing. But with Bluesky, it became a foundation for the kind of product it critiqued. This is how #mainstreaming works: good ideas are absorbed, reshaped, and redeployed within existing power structures. From an #NGO lens, this is a classic case of co-option.

        Laurens Hof

        The Fediverse Report is useful journalism. But it’s still reading as observation from the outside. Analysis without embedded practice becomes detached – what looks like insight drifts into repetition. Even by his own admission, there’s fatigue. This is narrative acting as if it were ground truth.

        Johannes Ernst

        Advising organisations on “navigating decentralised platforms” sits squarely in the mediation layer. This is where translation happens – but also where capture creeps in. Spaces like #FediForum are structured, controlled, and legible to institutions. That makes them low challenge convening spaces, but also reinforcing the dynamics the #openweb is trying to move beyond.

        Melanie Bartos

        University-led open science communication. This is the institutional layer doing its best to adapt. Mastodon in a university context is a step forward – but the surrounding structures remain top-down. In #NGO terms: adoption of tools without a shift in governance or practice.

        Robin Berjon

        Operating at the standards and governance layer. Institutions like the W3C shape the infrastructure of the web, but participation is still dominated by well-resourced actors, often including #dotcons. This is reform from within, important, but with structural limits.

        PublicSpaces

        A coalition of public institutions building non-commercial alternatives. This is closer to the right instinct – moving away from pure market logic. But it remains institution-led. Public funding is valuable input (good compost), but it can still miss the lived reality of grassroots use.

        Waag Futurelab

        A long-standing critical tech organisation with roots in DIY culture. Over time, it has become embedded in #NGO and funding ecosystems. The work still has value, but the centre of gravity has shifted toward outputs that are legible to funders and partners. This is a familiar trajectory in NGO spaces.

        What’s Missing Matters Most

        Taken together, this jury represents the narrative, mediation, and funding layers of the #openweb ecosystem. What’s absent is the soil layer – People running Mastodon instances on minimal budgets, community organisers doing trust-based, messy work and practitioners dealing with moderation, governance, and sustainability in real time. In #NGO language: the implementing layer, the frontline, the lived experience.

        This absence isn’t neutral as it shapes outcomes. The mess we need to compost is that the “Open Social Awards” will surface work that is legible to institutions, aligned with existing narratives and cleanly packaged and communicable. Meanwhile, the genuinely native work – the messy, relational, unpolished work that actually sustains the ecosystem – remains invisible. Not because anyone intends harm, but because of #blinded institutional common sense – systems reward what they can see, measure, and understand.

        Compost, Soil, and Rebalancing

        This systemic bias, if we’re serious about the #openweb, need to shift to be more practical:

        • Less talking about it
        • More building within it
        • Less curation from above
        • More trust from below

        For NGOs, this isn’t (only) rejection, it’s a recalibration, a reminder that enabling ecosystems means resourcing soil, not just shaping the story. The key distinction metaphor here is between compost and soil.

        A lot of the work described above has real value. It produces compost – ideas, funding, visibility, structure, that’s necessary. But compost only matters if it feeds living systems, if we keep mistaking compost for soil, we end up measuring activity instead of growth. And that’s the meta-mess we need to start composting.

        The Crew – Paths to Growth?

        Think I am starting to mix my metaphors – it’s the story I am telling 😉

        The Problem Was Never Just the Platforms – It’s What We Build Instead

        For years, the #fashionista #openweb conversation has been stuck in a loop of naming villains: surveillance capitalism, the #dotcons, Zuckerberg, Musk, “the algorithm.” But focusing on enemies only gets you so far. The creative question isn’t what we’re against – it’s what we’re actually building together to replace it.

        That’s where the #OMN takes a useful path. Yes, the big platforms absorb resistance, repackage it, and sell it back to us, that cycle is real. But pointing it out, again and again, doesn’t break it. In fact, it can become part of the same loop – critique as content, outrage as engagement, nothing changing underneath. The issue isn’t just that the #dotcons are powerful. It’s that we keep rebuilding their patterns, even when we think we’re doing something different.

        This is why the #OMN isn’t framed as a protest, a brand, or a “better platform.” It’s a collective path to build alternatives that don’t reproduce the same failures. Not through ideology alone, but through structure. The #4opens – open code, open data, open standards, open process – aren’t slogans here, they’re foundations. They’re how we walk paths that can be shared, checked, and reshaped collectively, rather than captured and enclosed.

        The same goes for governance, the #OGB isn’t about replacing one centre of power with another, it’s about making sure power doesn’t quietly re-centralise through habit, personality, and convenience. If we don’t actively design for that, we drift straight back into the same patterns, and that drift is the problem.

        People don’t arrive in the #openweb as blank slates. We’ve all been shaped by the systems we’re trying to move beyond. The habits of control, gatekeeping, branding, and individual positioning – what we call #stupidindividualism – come with us. If we don’t consciously challenge that, we just recreate the #dotcons in smaller, messier forms.

        So the focus has to shift, from only critique to construction, balancing individuals to collectives and from blinded platforms to open processes. That means starting with the human network – trust, collaboration, shared purpose – and letting the technology grow out of that. Not the other way around.

        It also means accepting that this work isn’t neat or fast. There’s no clean break, no single “killer app,” no moment where the old control simply disappears. What we have instead is a composting process: breaking down what doesn’t work, reusing what does, and slowly growing something more resilient.

        That’s the revolt, not a personal mission, not a branded alternative, but a collective shift in how we build and relate. If we get that right, the #dotcons stop being the centre of the story, not because they were defeated, but because we’ve made them less relevant.

        And that’s something they can’t easily absorb.

        #OMN #4opens #OGB #openweb

        Actually solving things, and why this matters for #OMN

        Activism has a reputation problem, in default #mainstreaming storytelling it’s painted as chaos, absence, or naive idealism. But if you look at what activists at best actually do, a different picture emerges: a long tradition of people working out, in practice, how to solve real problems together without relying on distant authority. And that’s the bit most people quietly skip.

        In most social/political movements, the hard questions – how we organise, decide, share resources, resolve conflict – are deferred. If people think about this at all – First you win power, then you figure out how things will work. That “later” rarely comes, or when it does, it arrives shaped by hierarchy, bureaucracy, and control.

        The #OMN paths flips this. It starts at the micro level of how do a group of people share space? How do they make decisions without bosses? How do they deal with conflict, mess, bad behaviour, uneven effort and how do they build trust that actually holds under pressure? These are not abstract questions, they are everyday problems.

        And this path – at its best – has decades (centuries, really) of paths with real answers like messy consensus processes, affinity groups, mutual aid, horizontal organising, temporary structures that form and dissolve as needed. None of it perfect, all of it is grounded. This is why grassroots activism works in real situations: disaster response, grassroots organising, protest camps, community projects. Because it doesn’t wait for permission or perfect conditions. It already has tools for acting now.

        The messy bit is it’s not magic, let’s not romanticise this. Horizontal organising is hard, it’s full of friction. You get informal hierarchies, dominant personalities, avoidance of conflict until it explodes and burnout leading to #blocking of uncomfortable but necessary conversations. This is the same “poisonous people” problem you see in every movement. #4opens grassroots activism doesn’t remove it – it exposes it – and that’s actually the point. Instead of hiding dysfunction behind formal power, horizontal spaces push it into the open where it has to be dealt with. Or not – and then things fall apart, which is also a kind of clarity. In #OMN language, this is #compost, the mess isn’t a failure. It’s raw material.

        Why this matters for the #openweb – most digital infrastructure is built on the opposite assumption. The #dotcons model says to centralise control, extract value, smooth over conflict, optimise engagement, hide the mess. It “works” – but only by disempowering people and communities. The #openweb path, if it’s going to mean anything, has to go the other way:

        • decentralised
        • messy
        • trust-based
        • human-scale
        • and able to function anyway

        That last bit is where we can learn from anarchist practice, because building federated, grassroots media (like #OMN, #indymediaback, Fediverse spaces) is not just a technical problem, it’s a social one. The tech already basically works, the people part doesn’t – yet. Micro practice is the missing layer – What we keep hitting is the gap between having tools (#ActivityPub, servers, platforms) and having cultures that can use those tools effectively

        You can spin up a server in an afternoon, you can’t spin up trust, shared norms, or collective process nearly as fast. This is where activist/anarchist thinking helps – not as blinded ideology, but as a toolkit:

        • how to run meetings that don’t collapse
        • how to distribute responsibility without losing coherence
        • how to handle conflict without defaulting to bans or dominance
        • how to balance openness with resilience

        These are the problems that keep blocking #openweb projects. It’s about the clash: horizontal vs “common sense”. One of the biggest tensions is this is people default to vertical “common sense” – someone should be in charge, decisions should be quick, authority should be clear. And in moments of stress, that instinct feels right, but over time, it reproduces the same power structures we’re supposedly trying to move beyond.

        So we get a cycle of start horizontal, hit friction, fall back to informal hierarchy, burn out or fragment then repeat. Balancing this cycle requires conscious practice, not just good intentions. For #OMN, this isn’t theory, it’s practical. If we want a functioning, grassroots media network:

        • we need working horizontal processes
        • we need ways to mediate conflict and #blocking
        • we need to actively compost dysfunction instead of ignoring it
        • we need to balance “fluffy” inclusion with “spiky” clarity and direction

        Otherwise, the social layer collapses long before the tech does. And then the #dotcons win by default, not because they’re better, but because they’re simpler in the short term.

        The real opportunity here is to combine #KISS activist micro-practice (how people actually work together) with #openweb technology (how systems interconnect at scale). That combination is rare, and powerful. It gives us a path that is:

        • grounded (not abstract)
        • scalable (but not centralised)
        • resilient (because it expects mess)
        • and actually usable by normal people, not just #geekproblem specialists

        This path isn’t useful because it promises a perfect future, it’s useful because it takes responsibility for the present. It asks – how do we make this work, here, now, with these people, in this mess? That’s the question the #openweb needs to answer, and if we don’t answer it, the answer we’ll get is more of the same, more #closedweb, more #dotcons, more #deathcult normality.

        If we do answer it – even imperfectly – we start to build something else, something that grows not by control, but by practice.

        #OMN Grounding (the roots as a story)

        #OMN Grounding (the roots as a story)

        #techchurn is the endless cycle of adopting new platforms, tools, and technologies – not because they solve any real problems, but because novelty is mistaken for progress. It burns community trust, institutional memory, and activist energy, while leaving the underlying #nastyfew power structures untouched.
        https://hamishcampbell.com/?s=techchurn

        The #OMN uses #stupidindividualism to describe the culturally manufactured habit of prioritising personal gain and self-interest over collective well-being – a behaviour normalised by forty years of #neoliberalism, where people work against their own community and ecological survival while believing they are exercising “freedom”.
        https://hamishcampbell.com/?s=stupidindividualism

        In the #OMN hashtag story, #spiky is the confrontational, direct, and uncompromising tendency within radical movements – the willingness to push back against power, name uncomfortable truths, and refuse to sand down political edges for mainstream comfort.
        https://hamishcampbell.com/?s=spiky

        #RSS is the unglamorous but democratic backbone of the #openweb – a simple, open standard that allows content to flow without the gatekeeping, algorithmic manipulation, and the data hoarding of the #dotcons.

        #reboot is the necessary reset of the #openweb – stepping away from the dead ends of #techshit and #dotcons to rebuild human-centred, trust infrastructure using tools like #activitypub and the #fediverse, guided by the #4opens.
        https://hamishcampbell.com/?s=reboot

        #postmodernism is the cultural current that dissolved shared truth into competing narratives, undermines the foundations needed for collective action – leaving people fragmented, cynical, and unable to build solidarity.
        https://hamishcampbell.com/?s=postmodern

        In the #OMN hashtag story, #Oxford is a grounded example of real-world contradiction – where elitist power (#mainstreaming, #NGO, #deathcult) coexists with genuine grassroots community, making it a test bed for grassroots #openweb organising and the #4opens path.
        https://hamishcampbell.com/?s=Oxford

        In the #OMN hashtag story, #PGA (Peoples’ Global Action) represents horizontal, grassroots, anti-capitalist organising – a prefiguration of the #openweb, built on direct action and solidarity rather than #NGO bureaucracy or #mainstreaming compromise.
        https://hamishcampbell.com/?s=PGA

        In the #OMN path, #p2p means people-to-people before peer-to-peer – real human relationships and trust as the foundation that decentralised tech should serve, not replace.
        https://hamishcampbell.com/?s=p2p

        In the #OMN view, #opensource is not just a licence – it’s a political commitment to transparency, shared ownership, and community control over code, data, and process.
        https://hamishcampbell.com/?s=opensource

        The #openweb is internet infrastructure built on open standards, open-source code, and community control – where users share power – as opposed to the #dotcons, with the #closedweb which enclose and monetise the commons.
        https://hamishcampbell.com/?s=openweb

        #openprocess means decisions and governance happen visibly and participatorily – not behind closed doors, so people can see, challenge, and shape outcomes.
        https://hamishcampbell.com/?s=openprocess

        #opendata means data that is freely accessible and shareable – controlled by communities rather than locked inside corporate silos.
        https://hamishcampbell.com/?s=opendata

        In the #OMN path, #open means building on the #4opens – open code, data, standards, and process as a foundation for technology that serves people, not profit.
        https://hamishcampbell.com/?s=open

        #OMN (Open Media Network) is a grassroots project to build human-centred, trust-based digital infrastructure on the #openweb, grounded in the #4opens and focused on community control over technology.
        https://hamishcampbell.com/?s=OMN

        The #OGB (Open Governance Body) is a framework for transparent, inclusive decision-making – replacing hidden power structures with accountable, federated, messy collective governance.
        https://hamishcampbell.com/?s=OGB

        In the #OMN story, #nothingnew reminds us that cycles of co-option and failure have all happened before – and ignoring this history is how we repeat mistakes.
        https://hamishcampbell.com/?s=nothingnew

        In the #OMN story, #NGO refers to professionalised activism that defuses radical politics – replacing grassroots power with managed, funder-friendly “dissent”.
        https://hamishcampbell.com/?s=NGO

        In the #OMN path, #neoliberalism is the dominant ideology of markets over people – normalising greed and eroding solidarity into the logic of the #deathcult.
        https://hamishcampbell.com/?s=neoliberalism

        #makinghistory is the practice of communities reclaiming storytelling – building open, living archives rather than leaving history to those in power.
        https://hamishcampbell.com/?s=makeinghistory

        In #OMN usage, #mainstreaming is how radical ideas get absorbed and neutralised – keeping the language while stripping out real challenge.
        https://hamishcampbell.com/?s=mainstreaming

        In the #OMN path, #KISS (“Keep It Simple, Stupid”) is a political stance against the #geekproblem – rejecting unnecessary complexity as a form of control.
        https://hamishcampbell.com/?s=KISS

        #indymediaback is a call to rebuild grassroots, community-controlled media as an alternative to both #dotcons and hollow #NGO media structures.
        https://hamishcampbell.com/?s=indymediaback

        In the #OMN path, a hashtag is not just a label – it’s a node in a shared political vocabulary, building a map of meaning and direction.
        https://hamishcampbell.com/?s=hashtag

        #grassroots means bottom-up organising rooted in real communities – accountable to collective need, not institutions.
        https://hamishcampbell.com/?s=grassroots

        The #geekproblem is the tendency to replace human trust with technical control – embedding narrow values into systems that shape everyone’s lives.
        https://hamishcampbell.com/?s=geekproblem

        In #OMN, #FOSS is a political commitment to collective ownership of technology – not just a licensing model.
        https://hamishcampbell.com/?s=FOSS

        In #OMN language, #fluffy describes feel-good politics that avoid conflict – prioritising comfort over any real change.
        https://hamishcampbell.com/?s=fluffy

        #feudalism describes the emerging digital structure where platform owners extract value like lords from dependent users.
        https://hamishcampbell.com/?s=feudalism

        #fascism is what happens when the #deathcult drops its mask – authoritarian control to defend failing systems.
        https://hamishcampbell.com/?s=fascism

        On the #OMN path, the #fediverse is practical #openweb infrastructure – decentralised, federated, and not owned by corporations.
        https://hamishcampbell.com/?s=fediverse

        #encryptionist describes the tendency to prioritise technical security over social trust – a core expression of the #geekproblem.
        https://hamishcampbell.com/?s=Encryptionist

        #dotcons are corporate platforms built on data extraction and control, presenting themselves as neutral while enclosing the commons.
        https://hamishcampbell.com/?s=dotcon

        In the #OMN story, #DIY means reclaiming the ability to build and organise outside institutional control – grounding politics in practice.
        https://hamishcampbell.com/?s=DIY

        The #deathcult is the self-destructive logic of #neoliberalism – sacrificing social and ecological survival for short-term fear drivern greed.
        https://hamishcampbell.com/?s=deathcult

        In the #OMN story, #compost means breaking down failure and mess into fuel for new growth.
        https://hamishcampbell.com/?s=compost

        In #OMN, #closedweb is controlled, extractive digital infrastructure where users have no power.
        https://hamishcampbell.com/?s=closed

        #climatechaos describes the accelerating breakdown driven by the #deathcult, beyond manageable “climate change.”
        https://hamishcampbell.com/?s=climate

        #classwar is the ongoing conflict between the #nastyfew and the communities they exploit – often hidden by #mainstreaming narratives.
        https://hamishcampbell.com/?s=classwar

        #capitalism is the dominant system turning everything – relationships, nature, culture – into “profit”.
        https://hamishcampbell.com/?s=capitalism

        In #OMN, #block is the reflex to shut down challenge – preventing the messy work needed for real change.
        https://hamishcampbell.com/?s=block

        #blinded is being unable or unwilling to see beyond #mainstreaming and #dotcons logic.
        https://hamishcampbell.com/?s=blinded

        #fashernista describes performative activism that prioritises appearance over substance.
        https://hamishcampbell.com/?s=fashionistas

        #dotcons are the corporate platforms – Facebook, Twitter/X, Instagram, YouTube and their kin – whose business model is built on harvesting user data, manufacturing engagement, and converting human attention and community into profit, while presenting themselves as neutral public spaces.

        https://hamishcampbell.com/?s=dotcon

        In the #OMN hashtag story, #DIY means reclaiming the practical capacity to build, organise, and maintain tools and communities outside of corporate and state control – not as a lifestyle choice, but as a political act of grounding radical change in real skills, real trust, and real human relationships rather than outsourcing power to institutions that don’t serve you.

        https://hamishcampbell.com/?s=DIY

        The #deathcult is the #OMN metaphor for the self-destructive logic of forty years of #neoliberalism – an ideology so committed to short-term profit, individualism, and economic growth that it knowingly sacrifices the ecological and social foundations that human life depends on.

        https://hamishcampbell.com/?s=deathcult

        In the #OMN hashtag story, #compost means taking the failures, mistakes, and accumulated mess of past movements and tech projects – rather than discarding or ignoring them – and breaking them down into something that can feed new growth, treating dysfunction and #blocking dead ends as raw material for building better rather than as waste to be hidden.

        https://hamishcampbell.com/?s=compost

        In #OMN language, #closedweb refers to the controlled digital infrastructure – platforms like Facebook, Google, and Twitter – built on proprietary code, extractive business models, and centralised power, where people have no meaningful control over their data, their communities, or the rules that govern them.

        https://hamishcampbell.com/?s=closed

        The #deathcult of #neoliberalism has driven us past the point where “climate change” – with its implication of manageable, orderly shifts – remains any honest description of what we face now. What we actually have is #climatechaos: cascading, systemic breakdown of the ecosystems, weather patterns, and social structures that human civilisation depends on, accelerating faster than institutions built on forty years of market logic are capable of, or willing to, address.

        https://hamishcampbell.com/?s=climate

        #classwar is the ongoing and unacknowledged conflict between those who benefit from and actively reproduce the #deathcult of #neoliberalism – the #nastyfew, managing, and credentialed classes – and the communities, workers, and ecosystems they exploit. A conflict that #mainstreaming culture works to render invisible, reframing systemic dispossession as individual failure.

        https://hamishcampbell.com/?s=classwar

        #capitalism is the current common sense – the water we swim in – the economic system that systematically converts collective goods, human relationships, and the natural world into private profit, enforcing this logic through every institution and platform we touch, while presenting itself as the only possible reality.

        https://hamishcampbell.com/?s=capitalism

        In the #OMN hashtag story, #block refers to the reflexive, unconscious tendency of individuals and communities to shut down unfamiliar and challenging ideas, people, and processes – a defensive gesture rooted in #stupidindividualism and #postmodernism that prevents the trust-building and messy collective work needed for real #openweb organising.

        https://hamishcampbell.com/?s=block

        #blinded refers to being so captured by #mainstreaming tech orthodoxy and ideological “common sense” – particularly #neoliberalism and #dotcons culture – that you no longer see, or refuse to see, the harms those systems cause or any alternative paths that exist outside them.

        https://hamishcampbell.com/?s=blinded

        #fashernista describes a person in progressive or radical spaces who prioritises the appearance and aesthetic of activism – the right look, language, and social positioning – over the unglamorous, difficult work of actually building lasting structural change.

        https://hamishcampbell.com/?s=fashionistas

        If you want, the next step is to cluster these into a clean “chapter flow” (roots → mess → behaviours → solutions) so this stops being just a glossary and becomes a narrative tool.

        These are the foundation tags – the ones everything else grows out of – the overall project: grassroots, trust-based, human-centred media infrastructure

        #openweb – the political/technical terrain we’re trying to reclam

        #4opens – the non-negotiable baseline (open code, data, standards, process)\openprocess – visible, participatory decision-making as default

        #grassroots – bottom-up power, not institutional mediation

        This cluster is about legitimacy, if it’s not grounded in these, it drifts into #NGO capture or #dotcons logic quickly. This is the “native soil” everything else either grows from or gets rejected by.

        The Problem Space (what we’re composting), these tags describe the mess we’re in – the stuff we don’t ignore, but break down.

        #deathcult (neoliberalism as destructive common sense)

        #neoliberalism – 40 years of market logic shaping behaviour

        #dotcons – corporate capture of digital space

        #closedweb – controlled, extractive infrastructure

        #mainstreaming – dilution and co-option of radical ideas

        #NGO – managed dissent and professionalised politics

        #classwar – underlying structural conflict

        This is the compost heap, you don’t fix this directly, you don’t “win” against it head-on. You break it down, reuse what’s useful, and grow alternatives around and through it.

        The #geekproblem Layer (tech distortions) is where things go wrong in implementation.

        #geekproblem – replacing social trust with technical control

        #techchurn – endless pointless rebuilding

        #encryptionists – over-prioritising technical purity over social reality

        #KISS – counterbalance: keep things simple and usable.

        This cluster is why good ideas fail, not because the ideas are wrong, but because the tools and culture get shaped by people who don’t understand social process. This is where most #openweb projects die.

        Cultural/Behavioural Patterns (how people act). The human layer – messy, unavoidable, and central.

        #stupidindividualism – learned self-interest over collective good

        #postmodernism – fragmentation of shared meaning

        #fluffy – avoidance of conflict, feel-good paralysis

        #spiky – necessary confrontation and edge

        #block – reflex rejection of challenge

        #blinded – inability to see outside dominant narratives

        #fashernista – prioritising appearance over substance

        This is the real battlefield, not tech, not policy – behaviour. If you don’t mediate this layer, everything collapses back into dysfunction, no matter how good your structure is.

        The Alternative Infrastructure (what we build), are the actual tools and practices that make change possible.

        #fediverse – decentralised network as a base layer

        #activitypub – the protocol glue

        #RSS – simple, open distribution backbone

        #p2p – people-to-people first, tech second

        #FOSS / #opensource – shared ownership of tools

        #opendata – accessible, non-extractive information

        These only work if rooted in the first cluster, otherwise they get captured and turned into another layer of the #closedweb.

        Governance & Process (how we hold it together). Where most projects fail – or succeed.

        #OGB – structured, open governance

        #openprocess – again, because it’s that important

        #DIY – practical ownership and responsibility

        Without this, informal power takes over. You end up with hidden hierarchies, gatekeeping, and eventual burnout. With it, you get messy but functional collective control.

        Practice & Direction (how we move).

        #reboot – reset and rebuild from working patterns

        #indymediaback – learning from past grassroots media

        #makinghistory – documenting and owning our narratives

        #nothingnew – grounding in historical cycles

        This cluster stops you repeating mistakes, without it, every new wave thinks it’s inventing something new and walks straight into the same traps.

        Grounding Example Layer

        #Oxford – real-world test bed of contradictions

        #PGA – historical example of horizontal organising

        Without grounding, this all drifts into theory, these are example tags anchoring it in lived practice, where things break, and where they can actually work.

        The Meta Layer (how to use this)

        #compost – break down failure into growth

        This is the key to the whole thing – Don’t try to “fix” the mess. Don’t try to “win” cleanly, you compost:

        bad behaviour → learning

        failed projects → patterns

        conflict → structure

        Final point (this matters) is the mistake people make is trying to tidy this into a neat theory, reduce it to messaging, turn it into a fixed ideology. That kills it, this clustering is not about control – it’s about navigation.

        The mess stays messy, but now people can walk through it without getting lost.If you don’t cluster this stuff, it turns into a wall of noise. The mess is useful.

        The hashtag story is messy, that’s the Point

        One of the constant pressures we face in #OMN and wider #openweb spaces is the urge to “tidy things up.” People arrive, see a messy landscape of hashtags – #geekproblem, #deathcult, #dotcons – and their first instinct is to fix it, define it, standardise it, make it neat and legible. That instinct feels sensible, but is also the #geekproblem.

        The hashtag ecology we’ve been growing over the last decade is designed to be messy. Not as a failure, but as a feature. These tags are not rigid definitions; they’re handles – entry points into ongoing conversations. They hold space rather than close it down. Different people can use the same tag slightly differently, argue over it, stretch it, even misuse it. That friction is not a bug. It’s the composting process.

        This is where the #geekproblem shows up hard. The default technical mindset is to treat language like code: define variables, eliminate ambiguity, enforce consistency. In living social systems, that approach kills more than it fixes. You don’t get clarity – you get dead structure. A taxonomy that excludes instead of invites.

        But – and this matters – pure chaos doesn’t work either. If everything is noise, only insiders can hear anything. New people can’t find a way in, and the whole thing collapses into a closed loop. The compost stops producing anything useful. So the question isn’t “mess or order?” It’s how to grow balanced living structures.

        Dead structure says: this is the correct meaning, this is the right way to use it, anything else is wrong. Were living structure says: here’s how this is being used, here are examples, come play and meaning emerges through use. That’s the difference between a locked-down platforms and the #openweb. One enforces clarity from above, the other grows understanding from below.

        Think of it like ecology. Compost isn’t just random waste – it’s a process. Layers, breakdown, transformation over time. Healthy systems have patterns and flows, but they’re never fixed. Forests change. Rivers shift. Nothing is static, but nothing is completely formless either.

        The same applies here we don’t need to “clean up” the hashtag mess. We need to use it better by repeating patterns, so people can follow threads, tell stories that embody the tags, let contradictions surface and be worked through and resist the urge to prematurely close meaning. This is basic #KISS, but it’s a hard lesson. Keep it simple doesn’t mean make it simplistic. it means don’t over-engineer what needs to stay alive.

        So yes, the mess has value. It creates space for people to build differently, to step outside the rigid frames of the #dotcons and their algorithmic control. It’s how we hold open a commons instead of collapsing back into platforms.

        But remember, if everything is compost, nothing grows. If everything is fixed, nothing lives. #OMN sits in that tension, not cleaning up the mess, not drowning in it – but composting it into something people can actually use to make change.

        “Digital sovereignty” is more mess we need to compost

        People, Process, and the Myth of Difficulty

        What we are doing at #Oxfordboaters is simple, that’s the uncomfortable truth for people who see this as to complex. The core idea – people coming together around shared concerns, communicating openly, and acting collectively – is about as old as human society. There’s nothing technically complex about it, nothing conceptually obscure. Yet in practice, it feels almost impossible.

        So where does this friction come from? It’s not the goal, it’s not even the surface the process, most of the time, it’s the people – and, more importantly, the tools and cultures we bring with us. The path we need is simplicity underneath – #Oxfordboaters is doing three things:

        • Sharing information about what’s happening
        • Building a shared understanding of that information
        • Acting together based on that understanding

        That’s it, strip away the noise, and that’s the whole system. It’s classic #actavisam: publish, discuss, act. You don’t need layers of management theory or complex governance frameworks to make that work. You need #KISS trust, visibility, and participation.

        But we rarely get to operate at this level of clarity, the difficulty creeps in as people bring baggage – Everyone arrives with habits shaped by the #mainstreaming worshipping of the #deathcult that leads to the imposing of unthinking expectation of hierarchy (“who’s in charge?”) and fear of speaking openly (“will this be used against me?”) leading to the desire for control (“we need to manage the message”) this “common sense” mess leads to focus on avoidance of conflict (“let’s keep it positive and not rock the boat”).

          These aren’t individual personal failings, they’re social learned behaviours, that distort simple processes into complicated ones. This mess is amplified by a second “common sense” problem, that the tools we use shape behaviour, the #dotcons platforms we “use” default push us in particular mess making directions:

            • Chat tools fragment conversations into noise
            • Social media rewards reaction over reflection

            Instead of supporting collective clarity, these default tools amplify confusion, they make it harder to see what’s actually going on, and thus easier for misunderstandings to spiral. One tool we have is process but is it a tool or weapon? Process can either help people work together, or it can be used to block this work. Some processes are designed to:

            • Encourage participation
            • Make decisions visible
            • Build shared ownership

            Others – often unintentionally – end up:

            • Slowing everything down
            • Creating gatekeepers
            • Hiding power behind “procedure”

            You can see this easily when something urgent comes up – healthy process helps people respond quickly and collectively, were a broken one turns into endless discussion, deferral, and inaction. Same situation, same people – different outcome depending on the process.

            At #Oxfordboaters, the work itself is straightforward: There’s an issue affecting the river community – People gather information about it – That information is shared – A response is organised. But what makes it hard? People are different – Disagreements about tone (fluffy vs spiky), uncertainty about who should act and fragmented communication across platforms leading to #blocking of action.

            None of these are about the actual goal, they’re all about how people relate to each other and the structures they’re working within. The illusion of complexity is one of the biggest traps – mistaking this friction for complexity. When something feels hard, we assume the solution is to add more structure, more meetings, more rules, more #dotcons tools. But this “common sense” push to often adds another layer of blockage, it treats the symptoms, not the cause.

            The reality is harsher the system is simple, but we as a community are messy. So how can we work better in this mess? The answer isn’t to eliminate the mess – that’s impossible. It’s to design processes that work with it instead of work against it. That means accepting disagreement as normal, making conflict visible rather than suppressing it. Keeping structures lightweight and adaptable, in the end it’s about prioritising clarity over control. In #OMN terms, this is where the #4opens come in:

            Open data → everyone can see what’s happening

            Open process → decisions aren’t hidden

            Open source → tools can be adapted

            Open standards → systems interconnect

            These don’t remove human complexity, but they can mediate it from becoming opaque and blocking. So what do we mean by blocking vs enabling. You can tell the health of a project by a simple test – Does the process help people act, or stop them from acting? If people feel empowered to contribute → the process is working. Hesitant, confused, or sidelined → the process is blocking.

            At #Oxfordboaters, like many grassroots efforts, both dynamics exist at the same time. That’s normal. The work is to shift the balance toward enabling. So the hard truth is this the challenge isn’t building the perfect system, it’s growing the relationships that allow the #4opens path to function. That’s slower, messier, and far less comfortable than designing a neat process diagram, but it’s the only thing that actually works.

            Keep it simple (#KISS) – when things get messy, the instinct is to add complexity. The better move is usually the opposite by striping things back to focus on what actually needs to happen. Make it easier for people to take part, because underneath all the noise, the work is still simple. People, talking to each other, deciding to act. Everything else is either helping that – or getting in the way.

            Closed systems protect individuals, but they rarely build movements

            People fight against or/and ignore the #KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) approach in tech because simplicity exposes power. Complexity, jargon, and process give cover – they make control look like competence. When paths are simple and transparent, everyone can see who’s blocking, who’s hoarding, who’s acting in bad faith. Many “experts” and institutions are emotionally and professionally invested in keeping things complicated; simplicity threatens their authority, their funding, and their identity.

            All the #OMN projects are not directly about social change – they’re about making social change possible. That distinction matters as people don’t step into change unless they first believe change can happen. If the world feels fixed, locked, inevitable, then nothing moves. Our role is simpler, and maybe more important, to open that door a crack, to show that different paths exist.

            Think of #OMN as a helping hand, not dragging people forward, not telling them what to do – just making it easier for them to take that first step when they’re ready. But to do this, we need to think more clearly – and more fundamentally – about technology itself. As most of the current “open paths” are cosplay at best, we need a network that links them as flows for there use to be unlocked from the current limits of #stupidindividualism shaping them – to become a native part of the expanding #openweb reboot.

            I’ve been working on this for over 20 years, and one thing keeps proving true: we need roughly 90% open and 10% closed, the balance matters. As the current push from the #encryptionists flips this – aiming for 90% closed and 10% open. That isn’t a solution, it’s a retreat. It breaks the social fabric that makes collective tools usable and meaningful. It fragments, isolates, and ultimately shrinks the space where shared culture can exist.

            Yes, privacy matters, yes, some things should be closed, that’s the 10%. But the commons – the space where we meet, talk, organise, and build trust – has to be open. Without that, there is no network, just silos. Take a simple example: you’re reading this via #activitypub. That’s a system built on being mostly open, with just enough closure to function safely. And it works, people are here, conversations happen, networks grow.

            Compare that to more closed, encryption-heavy systems like old school Diaspora. Technically interesting, sure, but socially? Empty, few people, little flow, no impact. That’s the core point: this isn’t just about functions or features, it’s about culture.

            Open federated, networked systems create the possibility of shared culture, and from that, the possibility of social change. Closed systems protect individuals, but they rarely build movements. We need both – but we need to get the balance right. Right now, too many people are getting it the wrong way round.

            This Isn’t New: Decentralisation Was the Point All Along

            Decentralised servers – what we now call the #Fediverse – are often talked about as if they’re some new, radical innovation. They’re not, they’re a return to the original design of the network. The early internet wasn’t built to be controlled, it was built to survive. The core idea was simple: if parts of the network were destroyed – even something as extreme as a nuclear strike – the rest would keep functioning. No centre, single point of failure or “off switch.”

            That’s what decentralisation actually means. And this thinking didn’t even start with the #openweb. Systems like Usenet already embodied this approach: distributed, federated, run by many, owned by none. Messy? Yes. But resilient, open, and hard to capture.

            What we’ve been living through for the last 20+ years – the rise of the #dotcons – is the opposite of this. Centralised platforms with single points of control. Easy to use for control and monetise, easy to manipulate, easy to shut down. We didn’t lose the #openweb by accident, we blindly traded it away for this convenience.

            What we’re seeing now with the #Fediverse, #ActivityPub, and related projects isn’t innovation in the common sense. It’s a reboot, a return to the path we were on before we derailed it. The difference is that now we’re trying to rebuild this in a world that has spent decades normalising centralisation and control. 40 years of death cult worship has changed people, institutions, social groups and our very internal selves. That’s where the friction comes from, people arrive expecting #dotcons platforms, what they find is networks. People expect control, what they get is responsibility. People expect “free” what they face is shared cost and care.

            So, it was never about the tech, the mistake we keep making is ONLY thinking this is a technical shift, it’s not, it’s cultural. You can spin up a decentralised server in minutes, that’s not the hard part, the hard part is everything around it:

            • Who runs it
            • Who pays for it
            • How decisions are made
            • How conflict is handled
            • How trust is built and maintained

            This is the work the #dotcons hide from us, they wrap control as “free services” paid for with surveillance, extraction, and control. Now that we’re back on the #openweb path, that work becomes visible again, and yes – it’s harder.

            Why this matters (Again). Resilience isn’t an abstract idea anymore as we’re living through cascading crises: political instability, #climatechaos, infrastructure fragility. A centralised network fails catastrophically were a decentralised network degrades – but keeps going. That’s the difference between a system you depend on and a system you can trust.

            We don’t need to overcomplicate this – Keep It Simple (#KISS)

            One builds commons, the other extracts value, everything else is detail. And yes nobody thinks the Fediverse is not messy, uneven, (yet) match the polish of corporate platforms. That’s fine, mess is where growth happens – if we compost it properly.

            The #OMN view, we’re not trying to invent something new. We’re trying to make what already works usable at scale for media, trust, and collective action. The infrastructure is there, the protocols exist, the history is long. What’s missing is the shared layer – the commons – where information flows in ways people can actually rely on, that’s what we’re building.

            If decentralisation feels radical, it’s only because we’ve spent so long inside systems that forgot #OMN #openweb #KISS

            The #dotcons, #mainstreaming, and Build to Walk Away

            Three years ago I was trying to explain something simple in language liberals might actually hear. They talk about “platform capitalism.” Fine. But I’ve been calling it the #dotcons for 20 years – because that’s what it is – a con.

            The last 30 years of tech hasn’t just drifted into this mess. It’s been shaped, step by step, enclosure by enclosure, into systems designed to extract value from us. What we now call the internet is, in large part, a machine built to manipulate, capture, and profit.

            The old #openweb got fenced in, and most people, especially polite liberal society, went along with it. So we need to talk about the return and the problem. Now we have a shift of the #mainstreaming is flowing back toward the #openweb, that should be a good thing. But there is a problem: people don’t leave the #dotcons behind when they move, they bring the culture with them.

            What we’re seeing is a flood of the same patterns – extractive behaviour, ego performance, status games. Not from one “side,” but from everywhere. The habits built inside the #dotcons don’t magically disappear just because the platform changes.

            So the real issue isn’t technical, it’s cultural. If we don’t actively mediate this influx, we won’t rebuild the #openweb – we’ll just recreate the same broken systems in slightly different code.

            So why do I talk so much about compost, and mess not being the problem. Mess is necessary, but only if it composts – if it breaks down into something fertile. Right now, we’re mostly just piling it higher.

            This is where projects like #indymediaback and #OGB matter. They’re not perfect, but they are native to the #openweb path: grounded in trust, process, and the #4opens rather than control, branding, and capture.

            The question isn’t whether #mainstreaming is good or bad. The question is: how do we hold the cultural line so that what grows is something genuinely different? Because if we don’t, the #dotcons don’t need to defeat us. We’ll blindly rebuild them ourselves.

            So why do I argue we can’t just leave the #dotcons? This is where people get it wrong, every time the #dotcons tighten control – censoring, tweaking algorithms, shifting rules – the reaction is the same: leave, build the #openweb.

            Yes, build the #openweb, but the idea that we should stop organizing inside the #dotcons right now? That’s a trap, because billions of people are still there. The conversations, the communities, the movements, they haven’t magically migrated. Walking away doesn’t free those people, it abandons them, leaving the space to be shaped entirely by the #deathcult and the forces already in control.

            This is #nothingnew. The #dotcons are #closedweb infrastructure. They serve power because they were built to serve power. Expecting anything else is misunderstanding the system. The real question has never been: are these platforms good? It’s: what do we do, given that this is where people are?

            The #geekproblem and the exodus fantasy, is a persistent fantasy – a classic #geekproblem – that if we just build better tools, people will come. They won’t, not on their own. A clean exodus to the #fediverse or any #openweb space doesn’t happen because we post about it. Movement-building has never worked like that, people move through relationships, trust, and shared struggle – not technical superiority.

            So if you abandon the spaces where people already are, you cut those pathways. The #OMN approach has always been simple to use the #dotcons as a bridge, not a home, seed organizing where people already are while focusing energy on building the #openweb in parallel to clearly keep your foundations in the #4opens.

            This isn’t about purity, it’s about effectiveness, don’t fall into #stupidindividualism, the idea that personal withdrawal is more important than collective reach. This is about infrastructure and grounding, if the #dotcons can switch you off at any moment, they cannot be your foundation.

            That’s why we need:

            • indymediaback as publishing roots
            • activitypub and the #fediverse as distributed infrastructure
            • OMN as a bridge between cultures and spaces

            This is the practical expression of the #4opens: not just open code, but open process and open trust. Don’t build your house on someone else’s land, but don’t stop talking to the people still living there either. Stay in the fight, when the #dotcons clamp down, it’s not a surprise, it’s a signal of what they are, and what they’ve always been.

            The answer isn’t to run away, it’s to root ourselves somewhere that can’t be shut down, while continuing to show up where the people are.

            Build the #openweb, stay in the fight, keep it simple #KISS

            Toward Healthier Digital Public Spaces: A Cultural and Structural Challenge

            From a practical perspective, the challenges in digital and social technology are not technical, they are cultural. This may seem obvious, but it is often overlooked in policy and implementation. At a basic level, there are two broad approaches to handling disagreement and complexity in online spaces:

            • Exclusion-focused approaches (e.g. blocking, filtering, silencing), which reduce immediate friction but reinforce fragmentation and polarisation.
            • Engagement approaches (e.g. dialogue, questioning, listening, and iterative response), which are more demanding but can, over time, reduce conflict and build shared understanding.

            In the current mess – shaped by strong norms of individualism and personal optimisation – the first dysfunctional approach dominates. This grows increasingly fragmented discourse, where communities become isolated and less resilient.

            Understanding this we can start to show the limits of “Common Sense” in today’s mess, were governance relies on this “common sense.” Over the past four decades, economic and cultural frameworks – market-driven individualism – has controlled how we design and use digital systems contributing to:

            • Increased social fragmentation
            • Growing economic inequality
            • Incentive structures prioritising engagement over well-being
            • Environmental and social externalities (including visible #climatechaos impacts)

            These outcomes tell us that existing models are not sufficient for building sustainable digital public spaces, so we need to #KISS revisit platform dynamics and structural Incentives.

            The dominant digital platforms (the #dotcons) operate on business models that prioritise data extraction, engagement metrics, and advertising revenue. These incentives shape what information is amplified, how users interact and which behaviours are rewarded. While these systems are effective at scaling control, they are not in any way aligned with public interest outcomes such as trust, accountability, or democratic participation.

            Current trends – ranging from disinformation to polarisation and environmental stress – highlight the limits of systems based purely on competitive, self-interested models. At the same time, alternative approaches – such as the #openweb and federated systems – offer more aligned values but face basic challenges of coordination, usability, and governance. So we need to move from fragmentation to constructive engagement, to reframe the problem, from crisis to stewardship.

            This more sustainable approach emphasises stewardship over extraction, collaboration over isolation to help build resilience over short-term optimisation. This does not mean abandoning innovation or individual freedom, but rather #KISS balancing these with responsibility for shared outcomes. As the current challenges in digital spaces are not only the result of “bad actors” or isolated failures. In simple terms we need to move from systems that amplify division toward systems that support understanding and the common good.

            To compost this mess we need a willingness to engage with complexity and a commitment to building systems (technical and social) that prioritise long-term public value over short-term individual gains. This is not easy work – but it is necessary if digital infrastructure is to support healthy, democratic societies.

            KISS – Keep it simple, sustainable, and focused on the common good.

            Beyond Blocking: Building Trust Infrastructure for the Open Web

            A Policy Case for Commons-Based Moderation in the Fediverse

            The problem with the current approach

            The normal response to harmful content and behaviour on federated social platforms today is the block. Instance administrators block other instances. Users block other users. Communities build blocklists and share them. This is understandable – it is the tool available – but it is not a solution. It is, at best, a temporary containment strategy.

            Blocking is the digital equivalent of closing the curtains. The problem does not go away. The harmful actor does not change. The tension, between open participation and community safety, between freedom of expression and protection from harm, is not resolved. It is deferred, and at a cost to the openness that makes the Fediverse worth defending in the first place.

            When entire instances are blocked, legitimate users on those instances lose access to communities they value. When blocklists are the primary moderation infrastructure, the communities that maintain them acquire disproportionate power over what the network sees. The default is isolation, the Fediverse fragments, not because of any external threat, but because of its own defensive reflexes.

            This matters beyond the technical community. The Fediverse represents the largest functioning alternative to corporate social media. It is, in the most literal sense, public digital infrastructure owned by nobody and available to everyone. How it handles the tension between openness and safety determines whether it can scale to serve democratic societies, or if it remains a technically interesting experiment for a self-selecting community.

            The #4opens principle and why it matters for policy

            The Fediverse is built on a set of principles called the #4opens: open data, open source, open standards, and open process. These are not just technical preferences, they are a statement about what public digital infrastructure should look like – transparent, accountable, forkable, improvable by anyone.

            The fourth open – open process – is the most politically significant and the most underdeveloped. It means that governing our communities, including how we handle conflict and harm, should be visible, contestable, and collectively grown. Not handed down by a platform’s trust and safety team or enforced by an opaque algorithm, not dependent on the goodwill of a instance administrator.

            The current state of Fediverse moderation largely fails this test. Moderation decisions are made locally, inconsistently, and without shared infrastructure for collective reasoning. The result on balance is less freedom, more a patchwork of micro-kingdoms, each with its own rules, enforced by blocking the kingdoms whose rules they disagree with. This is not a stable foundation for the kind of digital public sphere that European democratic values require.

            The commercial platforms are not the solution – but they are in the room talking loudly

            Commercial social media platforms – what we call the #dotcons, shorthand for the dot-com era corporations that monetised public digital space, are present in or adjacent to the Fediverse. Meta’s Threads now implements ActivityPub, the protocol underlying Fediverse federation. This means that the same open standard that allows community-run instances to talk to each other also allows a platform with three billion users and an advertising-driven engagement model to participate in the same network.

            The response in parts of the Fediverse community has been, predictably, to block Threads at the instance level. This is coherent as a local decision. As a strategy for the #openweb, it is kinda self-defeating. Blocking Meta does not make Meta go away, it does not change Meta’s incentives. It does not protect users who remain on Meta from the harms of algorithmic amplification. And it does little to build the alternative infrastructure that would give those users somewhere better to go.

            The principled response to commercial platform encroachment on the openweb is not isolation, it is to build commons infrastructure so robust, so trustworthy, and so genuinely useful that the value proposition of centralised platforms diminishes. That means solving the moderation problem properly, not routing around it.

            What trust-based flows offer that blocking cannot

            The research and development work at projects like the Open Media Network (#OMN) points toward a different model: moderation not as exclusion but as flow management. In a trust-based flow architecture, content does not move through the network based on algorithms optimising for engagement, nor is it blocked at the border by administrators making binary decisions. Instead, it flows – or slows, or stops – based on trust relationships that communities build and maintain themselves. Trust is local, it is composable, different communities will apply different trust filters to the same content without requiring global consensus or any centralised authority.

            This model has several properties that should interest European policymakers directly:

            Accountability without centralisation. Trust relationships are explicit and auditable. When a community decides not to propagate certain content, that decision is visible and contestable within the community. This is categorically different from both corporate content moderation (opaque, unaccountable) and simple blocking (binary, irreversible).

            Resilience against capture. Because trust is distributed and local, there is no single chokepoint that a bad actor – commercial, state, or otherwise – can capture to control information flows across the network. This is critical infrastructure resilience in the same sense that distributed energy grids are resilient against single points of failure.

            Reversibility. The rollback function – the ability to re-evaluate historical content visibility based on updated trust relationships – is something no current platform offers at scale. It means that moderation decisions can evolve as communities learn, rather than being permanently encoded in block lists that few people maintain.

            Scalability without hierarchy. Top-down moderation breaks down as communities grow. Moderators experience burnout and trauma. Rules based decision making become inconsistent. The trust-based model scales horizontally – as the network grows, the trust infrastructure grows with it, because it is built into the relationships between nodes rather than concentrated in any central authority.

            The culture question is not separate from the technical question

            It is a constant mistake to read this as purely a technical, you cannot build a healthy online culture without infrastructure – and you cannot build the working infrastructure without clear visions of what culture looks like.

            The Fediverse community is currently navigating this without adequate tools. The result is a recurring cycle: a wave of new users arrives, often fleeing a crisis on commercial platforms. The existing community debates how to handle them. Blocking becomes the instrument of cultural negotiation. Fragmentation follows. The cycle repeats.

            What is needed is not better blacklists, we need infrastructure that makes constructive engagement the path of least resistance, where trust can be extended incrementally, withdrawn proportionally, and rebuilt over time. Where communities are not forced to choose between openness and safety because the tools exist to manage both simultaneously.

            This is a social and political problem that has a technical component. The Open Media Network project is one concrete path to solving it, building on mature existing infrastructure, proven open standards, and a decade of practical experience in grassroots on the ground and online federated media.

            What European public investment can achieve here

            European public funding for digital commons infrastructure has a strong track record. The NGI Zero programme has supported foundational work on everything from secure routing protocols to private messaging to federated video platforms. This investment compounds: open source outputs are reused, extended, and built upon by developers and institutions across the continent and beyond.

            The case for investing in trust-based moderation infrastructure for the Fediverse is straightforward as the problem is real, well-documented, and getting worse. The Fediverse is growing, but without better tools for managing harmful content and building coherent information flows, its growth will hit a ceiling defined by the limits of volunteer moderator capacity and the inadequacy of binary blocking as a governance tool.

            The solution is technically tractable, the components exist, the protocol exists, the codebases exist, the community exists. What is missing is the focused R&D investment to implement trust-based flows as working, deployable, open infrastructure.

            The alternative is worse, if the Fediverse fails to solve this problem, the vacuum will be filled either by commercial platforms extending their reach into the federated space on their own terms, or by the continued fragmentation of the #openweb into isolated communities talking only to themselves. Neither outcome serves European democratic values or European digital sovereignty.

            The investment required is modest. The upside, is a functioning commons layer for federated media distribution, owned by nobody, available to everyone, accountable to the communities it serves, is large. The time to build it is now, before the structural problems of the current moment ossify into the permanent architecture of the next generation internet.

            Why you should help

            The internet’s public square is privatised, algorithmically controlled for “engagement” over any idea of truth, and placed under the control of a handful of American corporations with no accountability to European citizens or values. The #Fediverse is the most credible existing alternative – but it lacks the shared infrastructure to function as a native commons for news and media. #OMN builds that infrastructure: trust-based, community-controlled, transparent, reversible, and owned by nobody. At €45,000 for a proof of concept, it is one of the cheapest possible investments in the long-term health of European digital public life. If it works – and the technical and social groundwork suggests it will – it becomes the plumbing for a Fediverse that can actually be used to serve democratic societies rather than more #techshit alongside the current #dotcons platforms that undermine them.

            Why this matters – because the #WWW was stolen – Designed as commons at CERN, decentralised, open, nobody in charge. What we have today is instead is five American corporations controlling the information diet of billions of people. Facebook decides what news you see. YouTube’s algorithm decides which voices get amplified. Twitter/X decides who gets banned. None of these decisions are transparent, accountable, or reversible. They are made by private entities in pursuit of control, advertising revenue and engagement metrics – not truth, not public interest, not democracy.

            The #Fediverse exists as a rejection of this, it’s the largest real functioning alternative to corporate social media, with millions of people on thousands of servers, federated together, nobody owning the whole thing. It works. It’s growing. But it has a weakness: it’s kinda fragmented at the commons layer. There’s no shared infrastructure for how news and media actually flows across the network in any trustworthy and coherent way.

            That’s the gap #OMN fills, but why? Most people don’t think about internet infrastructure. They think about whether they can trust what they read. Whether the news they see is real. Whether the platform they’re on is working for them or selling them. Whether they can do anything when something goes wrong.

            Right now the answer to all of those is: it depends entirely on decisions made by people you’ll never meet, for reasons you’ll never know. OMN proposes something different. If your community trusts a source, a trust flow, you see it. If they don’t, you don’t. And that decision is yours, reversible, transparent, locally controlled.

            For a journalist in a small country trying to get independent news out, this is the difference between having infrastructure that works for them and being at the mercy of a platform that can deplatform them overnight. For a community archive trying to keep historical memory alive and accessible, this is the difference between dependence on Google’s goodwill and owning your own distribution. For an ordinary person trying to figure out what’s true, this is the difference between an algorithm designed to maximise your outrage and a network shaped by people you actually trust.

            Bureaucracies fund things slowly, in ways that often serve existing power structures rather than challenging them. But digital sovereignty is an existential European concern. The EU has spent years trying to regulate American platforms – GDPR, the Digital Services Act, the Digital Markets Act – and the platforms have responded with compliance theatre, token gestures, and armies of lawyers. Regulation of concentrated private power is a losing path. The only actual answer is to build the alternative infrastructure so that people have somewhere else to go. That’s what the NGI Commons Fund is for and what #OMN does.

            The EU should not only be funding products, it needs to fund commons infrastructure – the plumbing that nobody owns and everyone can use. Like funding roads rather than funding a logistics company. The outputs are open source, meaning any European media organisation, any local community, any public institution can pick this up and use it. No lock-in. No dependency on a vendor who will be acquired or shut down.

            It’s cheap, with the second stage scaling across Europe with institutional partners, building on European strengths. The Fediverse is disproportionately European. Mastodon was built by a German developer. The culture of digital commons, open standards, and public interest technology is stronger in Europe than anywhere else. This project is native to that tradition. It’s not asking Europe to compete with Silicon Valley on Silicon Valley’s terms – it’s asking Europe to build the alternative on its own terms.

            The problem #OMN solves is getting worse, not better. Disinformation, algorithmic radicalisation, platform capture of public discourse – these are not abstract threats. They are actively destabilising European democracies. Funding the technical infrastructure for trustworthy, community-controlled information flows is not a nice-to-have. It is digital public health infrastructure.

            #KISS

            Thematic call: NGI Zero Commons Fund

            Organisation: Open Media Network (unincorporated community project, fiscal hosting in Belgium via OpenCollective) Country: United Kingdom General Project Information Proposal name: Trust-Based Media Flows for the Fediverse (#OMN) Website / wiki: https://unite.openworlds.info/Open-Media-Network/Open-Media-Network

            Abstract

            Can you explain the whole project and its expected outcome(s)?

            The Open Media Network (#OMN) is a protocol-driven, federated media infrastructure built on top of ActivityPub and the Emissary codebase (emissary.dev). It addresses a real gap in the current Fediverse: while platforms like Mastodon, PeerTube, and Lemmy are federated at the instance level, there is little coherent cross-platform layer for trust-based content flows, moderation, or news aggregation. Each instance operates largely as its own silo, moderation is hierarchical and per-server, and there is no shared commons model for media distribution across the ecosystem. #OMN proposes a minimal, compostable interaction model – the Five Functions (#5F): Publish, Subscribe, Moderate, Rollback, and Edit Metadata – implemented as a flow layer on top of existing Fediverse infrastructure. Content moves through the network as objects flowing through pipes and holding tanks, filtered and shaped by trust relationships between nodes rather than by opaque algorithms or centralised authority.

            The central R&D question is: can trust-based moderation and distribution flows replace algorithmic amplification in a federated news ecosystem? Expected outcomes of this first-stage grant: By Month 3: A technical specification of the flow architecture; a prototype flow service routing ActivityPub objects between two instances; documentation of existing Fediverse flow patterns; early integration with one platform (likely PeerTube). By Month 6: A cross-platform prototype connecting at least two Fediverse systems; a working demonstration of trust-based moderation flows; a public code repository and documentation; and a user-facing prototype via the #makinghistory test environment (https://unite.openworlds.info/Open-Media-Network/MakingHistory). All outputs will be released under recognised open source licences. The project follows the #4opens framework: open data, open source, open standards, and open process.

            Have you been involved with projects or organisations relevant to this project before?

            Yes. The project lead, Hamish Campbell, has over 40 years of experience in grassroots media and technology, including early involvement with Indymedia – the pioneering open publishing news network – and more than 8 years working directly with the Fediverse and ActivityPub community. The #OMN conceptual framework has been developed over this time and is documented extensively in the project wiki, SocialHub, and at https://hamishcampbell.com. Developer Michael has contributed to #OMN concepts and logic for 10 years and is currently building the #makinghistory reference implementation. Ben, the core developer of Emissary, brings specific expertise in the codebase that will form the technical foundation of the project. Alex brings potential DAT/distributed storage support, and IKA will work on testing and rollout.

            Requested Support Requested Amount: €45,000

            Explain what the requested budget will be used for. Does the project have other funding sources, both past and present? A breakdown in the main tasks with associated effort is appreciated. Make rates explicit. The budget covers a lean, seed-stage proof of concept with no prior external funding. There are currently no other funding sources. The budget breakdown can be found in the attached PDF (funding). Roles: Hamish Campbell (project lead, coordination, documentation, community engagement) and Michael Saunders (primary development, UX, system logic). Additional contributors (Ben, Alex, IKA) are contributing on a voluntary/community basis during this seed phase. Work packages and approximate effort: WP1 Research & Specification (Months 1–2, ~25% of effort): Architecture design, gap analysis of existing Fediverse tools and flows (PeerTube, Lemmy, Mastodon), and documentation of trust-flow patterns. Output: Technical design document. WP2 Core Development (Months 2–5, ~45% of effort): Flow service implementation on top of Emissary; ActivityPub integration for the #5F model; and a trust-based moderation layer extending Emissary’s existing block/flag capabilities. Output: Working prototype codebase. WP3 UX & Prototype (Months 3–5, ~20% of effort): #makinghistory user interface; dual-layer UX (simple and advanced modes); and WCAG 2.1 accessibility compliance. Output: Testable user prototype. WP4 Testing & Documentation (Months 5–6, ~10% of effort): Community testing and iteration; public documentation and reports; and an open knowledge base of what works and what fails. Output: Public documentation, reports, and reusable design patterns. LINK PDF and wiki

            Compare your own project with existing or historical efforts.

            The closest existing efforts are: Mastodon’s built-in moderation tools: per-instance block lists and the Fediblock community blocklist. These are instance-level tools – they do not create cross-platform trust flows or shared content aggregation. #OMN operates at the network layer, not the instance layer. Fediseer: a trust registry allowing instances to vouch for each other. Fediseer addresses instance-level reputation but does not implement content flow logic, rollback, or metadata editing as network functions. #OMN builds a compostable flow model on top of the kind of trust signals that Fediseer represents. GNU Social / Friendica: older federated social platforms with some aggregation capability. These predate ActivityPub’s consolidation as the dominant standard and do not address the cross-platform news/media commons use case. Indymedia (1999–2010s): the historical precedent for open publishing federated media. Within the wider project, #OMN explicitly revives and modernises the Indymedia model for the ActivityPub era via the #indymediaback reference implementation, addressing the unfinished work of that tradition. The #makinghistory project grows from, and shares, this same established workflow. Bonfire networks: likely related, but unclear in scope and function. Attempts to install and use it have not clarified its approach. It may be trying to address similar problems, but this remains uncertain. The key difference of #OMN: it is not building a new platform. It is building a protocol-level flow layer that works across existing Fediverse platforms, implementing trust-based content propagation as commons infrastructure rather than as a product. See included PDFs.

            What are significant technical challenges you expect to solve during the project?

            1. Trust flow implementation: Designing and implementing a data model for trust relationships between federated nodes that is lightweight, compostable, and expressible via or alongside ActivityPub. Trust is local and subjective – the system must allow different communities to apply different trust filters to the same content flow without requiring global consensus.
            2. Rollback across federated state: Implementing the rollback function (re-evaluating and reshaping historical content visibility) in a distributed system where content has already propagated to multiple nodes. This requires a time-aware, local re-indexing approach rather than a global delete mechanism.
            3. Cross-platform content normalisation: Aggregating content objects from Mastodon (short-form social), PeerTube (video), and Lemmy (forum) into a common JSON-LD content model with a consistent trust trail, despite these platforms having different ActivityPub implementations and object schemas.
            4. Search actors as push feeds: Implementing the “content finds you” model – where a defined search query becomes a persistent ActivityPub actor that pushes matching new content to subscribers – requires extending Emissary’s existing subscribable search engine capability.

            Describe the ecosystem of the project, and how you will engage with relevant actors and promote the outcomes.

            The primary ecosystem is the Fediverse: the network of federated, open-source social platforms running ActivityPub, including Mastodon, PeerTube, Lemmy, Friendica, and many others. This ecosystem has grown substantially (estimated 10+ million active users across thousands of instances) but remains technically fragmented at the commons/media layer. The project builds directly on the Emissary codebase (https://emissary.dev), an existing ActivityPub-native Go application. Engagement with the Emissary community is embedded in the team through Ben’s mentoring role.

            Wider ecosystem engagement:

            The project will contribute design patterns and documentation back to the broader Fediverse developer community via public code repositories, the project wiki, and events. The #makinghistory test phase connects us to existing archives such as Bishupsgate, Maydyroom, the Peace Museum, and the Campbell Family Archive, providing access to extensive datasets as well as outreach to their administrators and users. The five community events included in the budget are specifically designed to recruit contributors, gather real-world feedback, and expand the network of participating nodes.

            Promotion of outcomes:

            Outcomes will be shared through the Fediverse itself (maintaining an active presence on ActivityPub-native platforms and legacy social media), via open-licensed documentation, and through NGI/NLnet networks and events. This first-stage grant is explicitly designed as a seed and proof-of-concept phase, with a larger second-stage proposal planned to deliver a fully production-ready system once the core architecture is validated.

            See attached PDFs.
            Powered by Forgejo

            Technical SpecificationDownload


            Answering the small print for fundingDownload
            FundingDownload

            Would like to thank all the meany people who helped with this funding application.