A fresh look at the mess we need to compost

In every activist space, grassroots project, every loose collective, you get people who bring mess in the wrong way – sniping, backbiting, constant undermining. Call it ego, trauma, status games, burnout… it doesn’t matter. What matters is: this friction is normal. It’s part of the #mess we can’t avoid.

The mistake is thinking we can eliminate it. You can’t, but you can design for it. That’s where the #OMN path is useful: don’t try to “fix the people,” build processes that compost the behaviour instead of letting it rot the group.

Anything that starts as a real idea – community, freedom, or independence – gets picked up, processed, and turned into something hollow. Not just by “the other side,” but by the entire modern media and tech machine. Good ideas go in, slogans come out, you’ve seen it: “freedom” becomes branding, “community” becomes marketing and resently “sovereignty” becomes a funding pitch.

This is the trap, when ideas get flattened into talking points, they stop doing anything real. They become easy to repeat, to weaponise and impossible to build with. And once that happens, it doesn’t matter who started the idea, it’s no longer yours. So the question isn’t only left vs right. It’s how do you keep ideas grounded so they can’t be hijacked and sold back to us?

One answer is structure, the #4opens approach is simple, a way to stop things being quietly twisted behind closed doors. If you can see how something works, it’s harder to fake. If you can take part, it’s harder to capture.

The other answer is mess (the good kind), the #OMN hashtag approach doesn’t try to clean everything up into a single message. It keeps things local, contextual, a bit rough around the edges. That “mess” is protection, because systems that are too neat, too polished, too uniform… are exactly the ones that get captured, repackaged, and pushed back at you.

In plain terms if an idea can be turned into a neat slogan, it can be taken over. If it stays tied to real people, real places, and real processes, it’s much harder to fake. This is the difference between something you can live with and something that gets sold to you. Call it compost if you like – You break things down, keep what’s real, and grow from that.

One example: Tactical Tech is a Berlin-based nonprofit that’s been around since the early 2000s, working on tech, activism, media, and education. Their core thing is:

  • building digital literacy + critical thinking tools
  • producing toolkits, exhibitions, and guides (like The Glass Room, Data Detox Kit)
  • working with civil society orgs, journalists, activists, educators
  • focusing on how tech shapes power, politics, and society

They’re not grassroots infrastructure builders, they’re capacity builders and narrative shapers, working through partnership networks, funding, and “field building” – classic NGO patterns.

In #OMN view they sit squarely in what we call the #NGO / #mainstreaming layer of the #openweb story. In that they don’t build the soil (infrastructure, protocols, messy grassroots tools). They build the interpretation layer (how people think about tech). They push this into narratives + toolkits that travel across institutions. That’s why they’ve lasted 20+ years – they’re adaptable mediators, not in anyway rooted projects.

So why dose it feels like “they create mess”? The friction comes from this pattern the balance of abstraction over grounding in that they translate messy realities into frameworks, exhibitions and “kits”. This flatten lived complexity into safer portable concepts, in to language production. They are part of the ecosystem that generates terms like digital literacy, resilience and sovereignty (adjacent space). These become floating signifiers – useful for funding and policy, messy in practice.

They collaborate with foundations, governments and large NGOs. So their outputs are shaped to be fundable, presentable and non-threatening enough to circulate. That’s where the “compost” instinct kicks in – because this layer detaches language from practice.

But it’s not just negative, if were honest (and it’s worth being), groups like this do some real things. They’ve help millions engage “critically” with tech issues to make complex problems accessible (privacy, AI, influence systems). They might create bridges between activists, educators, and institutions. So they’re not empty, they’re just not where the roots are.

The real tension, the problem isn’t that they exist, it’s where they sit in the ecology. They are compost producers, but they mistake themselves for gardeners. Or more sharply

  • They circulate meaning rather than anchor it
  • They mediate change rather than enact it
  • They stabilize narratives that should sometimes stay unstable

So yes – they create “mess” …but it’s a different kind of mess than grassroots paths. Grassroots mess = fertile, emergent – #NGO mess = abstracted, packaged, drifting.

Projects like Tactical Tech can be a part of the same ecosystem we need – but they sit one layer up from where change actually happens. Their outputs duse need composting because they generalize lived practice into frameworks, turn struggle into language and then feed that language back into systems which tends to blunt its edges.

The task isn’t only to reject them, it’s to ground what they produce back into lived, messy, trust-based practice – the bit they can’t really do. Once you see this pattern, a lot of the confusion in the #openweb space makes sense.

• Soil layer → messy, native, trust-based (#indymediaback, grassroots, actual users)
• Infrastructure layer → protocols, servers, code (#ActivityPub, Fediverse devs)
• Mediation layer → governance, coordination (#OGB-type thinking)
• Narrative/NGO layer → language, framing, funding-facing outputs
• Power layer → states, corporations, capital (#dotcons)

Most confusion comes from people mixing these layers up, Here are a few examples of these groups and organisation.

Tactical Tech – Layer: Narrative / NGO
Role: Translator of tech → society
What they do (in practice)
• Turn complex tech issues into stories, exhibitions, toolkits
• Shape how civil society talks about tech
• Build “awareness” rather than infrastructure

In #OMN terms they produce processable compost input, but often pre-packaged into neat bags. This problem pattern flattens messy reality into clean narratives to encourages passive understanding over active building. So what is there value? Good at onboarding people, opens doors into the conversation. But risk is people stop at understanding instead of doing.

Mozilla Foundation – Layer: Narrative + Funding + Soft Infrastructure
Role: Bridge between grassroots + institutions
What they do is fund projects to run advocacy campaigns (AI, privacy, etc.) that maintains a symbolic connection to the #openweb. In #OMN terms they gate keep legitimacy to define what is “acceptable open”. This is a problem pattern because of NGO gravity → safe, fundable ideas win, radical edges softened into “trustworthy AI” and “ethical tech”. So what is the value? Real money → keeps projects alive and visibility → amplifies issues. The risk is common sense #mainstreaming capture that shapes agenda toward what institutions tolerate. Makeing only more mess to compost.

Open Society Foundation – Layer: Power / Funding
Role: Macro-level agenda shaping
What they do is fund civil society globally to influence policy, rights frameworks, governance. In #OMN terms its a part of the liberal wing of the #deathcult. Problem being funding creates dependency, agenda alignment when movements adapt to grant logic. Value is it enables work that wouldn’t exist otherwise to support rights-based infrastructure. The risk is it turns movements into professionalised NGOs and risk-averse actors.

Sovereign Tech Agency – Layer: State / Infrastructure funding
Role: Stabiliser of critical open tech
What they do is fund maintenance of open-source infrastructure with a focus on “digital sovereignty” In #OMN terms they are trying to support the infrastructure layer by using state-language framing. Its a problem pattern as language like “sovereignty” pulls toward state/control logic and away from commons/trust logic. What is the value? It pays for the essential work to keeps #FOSS tools alive. But it risks reframes the #openweb as national infrastructure instead of shared commons.

NLnet Foundation – Layer: Infrastructure funding (closer to soil)
Role: Rare “good compost feeder”
What they do is fund small, weird, early-stage open projects with minimal interference. In #OMN terms one of the few funding bodies that, could in theory not over-shape outputs to respect messy innovation. But the are problem pattern of limited scaling and still within funding constraints, Value is they enables actual building and possibly supports non-mainstream ideas. The risk is the normal that they still are pulled into NGO gravity over time.

Electronic Frontier Foundation – Layer: Advocacy / Legal
Role: Defensive shield
What they do – Legal battles, policy advocacy and civil liberties protection. In #OMN terms they protects space for the #openweb to exist. But the are problem patterns, the focus on defence, not creation that only works inside existing legal frameworks. Value they are absolutely necessary to stops things getting worse. The risk is they doesn’t build alternatives = slowing decline, not transformation.


The pattern, is all these orgs sit above the soil. They translate, fund, shape, defend. But they rarely grow rooted communities of sustaining messy trust networks or live with the consequences. So why dose this create “mess” it is because language drifts away from practice. Ideas come and go: “digital sovereignty”, “trustworthy AI” or “resilience”. These sound solid, but float free of lived reality, then incentives bend behaviour. Funding → reporting → metrics → simplification is when mess gets cleaned up too early or packaged instead of composted

The #geekproblem + NGO problem merge, you get geeks wanting to tidy systems and #NGOs wanting to tidy narratives. The result is over-simplified systems + over-simplified stories. The #OMN position is clear and grounded, we don’t reject these orgs, we place them correctly: Useful → yes, Central → no and ground truth → never.

The simple way to say this (#KISS) These organisations sometimes help explain, fund, and defend the world, but they do not remake it. If we mistake them for the source of change, we end up with only better words and worse reality. The next stage is a practical progression from “mapping the mess” → “building something that can survive it”.

To make anything work we need to stop confusing layers (cognitive clarity) – Before anything technical the path needs to never treat NGO / funding / advocacy layer as if it is THE system. This is the correction, in #OMN terms:

  • NGOs ≠ infrastructure
  • funding ≠ governance
  • narratives ≠ reality
  • protocols ≠ politics

The outcome is people stop trying to “fix the web” by only better policy decks, better ethical frameworks, better terminology (like “digital sovereignty”). And start asking “What is actually being built, and by whom?”

How to do this? we need to build the soil layer first (not apps, not orgs) as this is where most projects fail. The soil layer is trust groups, working collectives, repeated interaction spaces and small-scale publishing + coordination. In #OMN framing #indymediaback style groups, #OGB governance spaces and local + affinity networks. If it doesn’t survive social breakdown, it isn’t infrastructure.

Define “failure as feature” systems, is one of the strongest #OMN ideas. Instead of perfect systems that must not break – We grow systems that fail into human repair. What that means in practice is moderation doesn’t escalate → it returns to people, governance doesn’t lock → it re-opens, conflicts don’t freeze → they surface into trust spaces. The principle is breakage must increase human contact, not reduce it, this directly counters the platform logic (#dotcons), #NGO sanitisation logic and geek “perfect system” logic.

Build mediation layers (not control layers). This is where #OGB thinking fits. Mediation layer ≠ governance authority, is translation between groups, conflict visibility, trust routing and decision recording (not decision ownership). We don’t centralise power – we route attention. This is the difference between bureaucracy (control) and federation (flow).

Define “trust as infrastructure” this is the “missing” technical core. Most systems assume identity, verification and thus control. #OMN flips this to assume partial trust, local trust, evolving trust and broken trust. So native systems must record trust signals (lightweight) to allow contradiction, allow decay and allow repair. Trust is not a certificate, it is a living flow.

Explicitly resist “narrative capture”. This is where orgs like Tactical Tech / Mozilla / OSF become relevant. The patterns to avoid – messy reality emerges, #NGO translates it, funding aligns around translation and original practice disappears. #OMN counter-path is if it can be fully explained in a funding report, it is likely already dying. So we maintain ambiguity, partial documentation and lived process > polished narrative.

Build dual-stack reality (critical stage). This is essential, you always run:

Native stack (real community power)

  • trust networks
  • local groups
  • Fediverse-native tooling
  • #4opens processes

Interface stack ( individual survival layer)

  • NGO language when needed
  • funding language when needed
  • policy translation when needed

The path is never confuse the interface with the infrastructure.

So what are composting failures? Instead of discarding failed projects, rewriting history and blaming actors. We need to explicitly turn failure into reusable material. Compost includes:

  • broken governance attempts
  • failed funding models
  • collapsed communities
  • conflict histories

Output:

  • patterns
  • lessons
  • reused structures
  • new trust layers

This is where the “mess is valuable” idea becomes operational.

Anti-capture safeguards – Every healthy #OMN system needs resistance to #NGO capture, funding capture, geek capture and ideological capture. Mechanisms:

  • lose roles
  • refuse most permanent authority
  • keep systems reversible
  • enforce transparency (#4opens)
  • limit scale before complexity dominates

The long game is federated commons, at scale, the goal is not a platforms, it is many overlapping, messy, partially connected commons. Not one Fediverse or one governance model, not one truth layer. But overlapping trust regions, with shared protocols and local autonomy to weak global coupling.

The summary (#KISS version). If you compress all of this:

  1. Stop confusing explanation with infrastructure
  2. Build trust-first “soil systems”
  3. Design failure that returns to people
  4. Keep governance as mediation, not control
  5. Treat trust as a living system
  6. Resist narrative capture
  7. Run dual-stack (native + interface)
  8. Compost failure, don’t hide it
  9. Prevent capture structurally, not morally
  10. Scale as messy federated commons, not platforms

The shift is from “understanding the system” → to “acting in a small part of it without being captured” This means choosing a river, a locality, a topic, or a community and committing to working inside its mess without trying to abstract it into a universal model too early. #OMN path is if it doesn’t exist in a place, it doesn’t exist at all. This is where a lot of NGO / narrative layer work fails – it stays placeless.

Build “thin infrastructure”, the #OMN correction to both NGO thinking and geek thinking is that wrong instinct is to build full systems, design complete governance models, define everything upfront. #OMN instinct is to build the minimum structure that lets humans keep adjusting it together. Thin infrastructure = simple publishing tools, basic coordination spaces, visible decision trails and lightweight identity/trust signals. Nothing heavy, nothing “final”, because heavy systems attract control, thin systems attract use.

Make conflict visible, not resolved. This is where #NGO culture diverges hardest from native systems. NGO pattern is to resolve conflict, smooth disagreement and force consensus narrative. #OMN pattern is surface conflict so it can be worked with socially. Why, because in real networks conflict is information, disagreement is structure and tension is direction. The compost is if conflict disappears, it hasn’t been solved – it has been buried. Buried conflict always returns, festers, later as system failure.

Build “trust scaffolding”, not trust systems. This is subtle but crucial, you cannot design trust, you can only create conditions where trust can form and where it can fail safely. Trust scaffolding includes repeated interaction spaces, low-stakes collaboration, visible contribution histories and reversible decisions with clear exit paths. The path to trust is an emergent behaviour of stable mess, not a product of design. This directly opposes #mainstreaming ideas of identity systems, certification systems and techbro reputation scoring systems.

Explicitly reject “clean governance” as this is where most of well-meaning systems collapse. The trap is people try to build clean voting systems, formal representation and universal rule sets. But in messy reality governance is not clean – it is negotiated, situated, and constantly patched. #OMN path is instead of clean governance, we grow layered responsibility, overlapping legitimacy with temporary authority and visible disagreement. Think of governance as weather, not architecture.

Anti-scale principles (very important). Most systems fail because they assume more scale = more success The #OMN flips this with a path of scale should be resisted until coordination proves it is needed. Because scale introduces abstraction, funding dependency, narrative capture, bureaucratic drift. So instead we grow horizontally first, federate slowly and allow divergence to tolerate inconsistency.

Build “failure memory” as infrastructure, its one of the most underused ideas in the whole space. Most ecosystems forget failures, hide conflict history and rewrite past attempts. #OMN path is about failure is the most valuable dataset. So you build public failure logs, conflict histories and abandoned project archives with “why this didn’t work” notes. Not as shame, but as compost. Because systems that cannot remember failure are forced to repeat it.

Soil layer (real life)

trust groups
lived coordination
actual practice

Infrastructure layer

tools
protocols
servers

Mediation layer

conflict handling
coordination
routing

Narrative layer

NGOs
funding language
public explanation

Power layer

states
capital
platforms

On this working group path no layer is allowed to pretend it is another layer, the core anti-confusion mechanism.

So what is the actual #OMN outcomes, when this all works, you don’t get a platform, a movement or a unified system. You get a living field of partially connected commons that can adapt without central control, yes it looks messy from outside – and that’s correct. Because coherence is not the goal, survivability and humain flourishing is. lets reduce the whole thing to operational clarity: Build small, stay local. Keep systems thin, let conflict stay visible, treat trust as emergent. Avoid clean narratives, resist scale, remember failure. Separate layers to never centralise experimentation into control.

That’s where theory finally has to become dirt-under-the-fingernails practice, where the abstraction has to survive contact with reality. Lets look at some example work flows, different angles of the same living loop.

What a real example #OMN #oxfordboaters river project looks like day-to-day. The river communerty is not an organisation. It’s a persistent coordination affinity around a real place/problem/ecology (a river in this case). Daily reality looks like this:

Morning layer (signal gathering) when people notice things:

  • water quality change
  • planning notices
  • blocked access points
  • local council updates
  • photos from walks
  • stories from anglers / walkers / residents

This is not formal reporting, It’s messy input that lands in:

  • Fediverse posts
  • local group chats
  • simple shared logs

Mid layer (sensemaking) is when a few people (DIY, not fixed) do:

  • cluster reports (“this looks like sewage spike again”)
  • link patterns (“this happened upstream last month”)
  • tag relevance (#pollution #access #planning)

No authority – just attention shaping (or focalising).

Action layer (light coordination) is made up of small, reversible actions:

  • someone emails council
  • someone visits site
  • someone talks to landowner
  • someone checks data source
  • someone posts explainer thread

Crucially no one needs permission to act, only visibility into what others are doing

Weekly rhythm (social compression) is a loose gathering (online or physical):

  • “what changed?”
  • “what patterns are forming?”
  • “what are we missing?”
  • “what broke this week?”

No authority, rather shared memory and process. The river project is not a formal group. It is a shared affinity flow. That’s why it works (when it works) – it stays situated, porous, and continuously re-formed.

Lets look at a second example, how #OGB decision flows actually operate, it is not voting or governance in the institutional sense. It is a routing system for trust, conflict, and attention.

Step 1 – Issue appears, something surfaces

  • conflict
  • proposal
  • blockage
  • uncertainty

It is posted publicly (default open).

Step 2 – Context attaches, people attach:

  • experience (“this happened before”)
  • local knowledge
  • technical input
  • historical memory
  • disagreement

Important – contradiction is allowed and expected

Step 3 – Clustering happens (not authority). Instead of leaders deciding clusters of alignment form naturally, disagreement clusters remain visible and minority views persist. Think weather systems, not committees

Step 4 – Decision emerges as a path, not a vote – a “decision” is a visible “common” path of action with acknowledged alternatives still open. So nothing is deleted, nothing is finalised, nothing is owned

Step 5 – Follow-through is voluntary, but visible. People act based on trust in community, reasoning based on proximity and capacity. And they report back into the same system. The native path is the #OGB doesn’t only decide things – it makes decision pressure visible.

What a Fediverse-native governance loop feels like is where it becomes felt reality rather than structure. It feels like slow public thinking, less meetings, less agendas. More like threads that evolve over days, posts that accumulate context and replies that become infrastructure

Persistent memory in the stream, nothing disappears old decisions are still linkable, conflict history is visible and prior attempts remain accessible. So governance is navigation through lived memory. Weak coordination, strong transparency as no one is forced to agree. But disagreement is visible, reasoning is public and action is observable. This produces accountability without authority to grow temporary gravity centres.

Certain threads or instances become coordination hubs, discussion anchors and action nodes. But they fade naturally – nothing, but memmery is permanent. It feels like thinking in public with other people who sometimes act on what emerges. Not bureaucracy, not formal consensus culture. More like shared situational awareness that occasionally crystallises into action.

OMN / #OGB model is: surface → act → observe → remember → re-surface. It is governance more as continuous ecological process, less a fixed control structure.

Think that is anufe for today, please ask in comments to help finsh this.

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

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


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

Gates vs Bridges: the obscure politics of the #geekproblem

In the #geekproblem mindset, crossing a protocol flow is a gateway were in #openweb terms, it’s a bridge. That difference is not technical – it’s social – the difference between CONTROL and TRUST. A gate is something you lock, permission, authentication, enforcement were a bridge is something you cross, connection, flow, relationship. In the physical world, we don’t put gates on bridges as a default, but in software, we keep rebuilding them, and then wondering why things fragment.

  • RSS is a bridge.
  • Closed APIs are gates.

This should be obvious, but it keeps getting lost inside coding culture.

This isn’t just a #mainstreaming problem, if this critique only applied to Big Tech (#dotcons), it would be easy, but it doesn’t. From 30 years of building in alt-tech spaces – hundreds of projects, no bosses, no corporate control – the same pattern keeps reappearing. Control creeps in, what’s striking is that this cuts across both mainstreaming “professional” engineering culture and radical, horizontal, “alternative” tech spaces. That’s why it’s an overarching #geekproblem, the shared cultural bias toward CONTROL in both code and community design.

The deeper issue is social blindness, at the root of this is something uncomfortable – A lack of joined-up social thinking – when a relatively small technical minority designs systems based on limited social experience, abstract models of human behaviour and little grounding in historical or grassroots movements.

When these systems scale globally, the result is tools fail to support humane, collective use, and undermine trust instead of building it, they reproduce the same power dynamics they claim to escape. This feeds the wider #dotcons worldview – even when the intent is “alternative”. It’s not just “the spirit of the age” it’s a worldview of a narrow culture that has become infrastructural. We’re all, to some extent, still operating inside this #deathcult logic, even when we think we’re critiquing it.

So a good first step is looking at who is funding the problem, this is where foundations and FOSS funding bodies need to look closely. A lot of funding unintentionally reinforces gate-based architectures, complexity that centralises control and abstract innovation over lived social practice. We keep funding new gates, then asking why the #openweb doesn’t grow. It #KISS that if people cannot mentally model a system, they cannot govern it, if they cannot govern it, power centralises every time.

A different path is bridges and flows. Projects like #OMN and #indymediaback take this different approach of start with flows, not platforms, building bridges, not gateways. The focus is on keeping systems simple enough to understand (#KISS) to grow trust as social and visible, not hidden in code. Using the #4opens as grounding, not branding, we understand none of this is new, that’s the value of #nothingnew. As I keep pointing out it’s how RSS worked, early Indymedia worked and large parts of the existing Fediverse still work (when not over-engineered).

On #blocking and conflict – Yes, it’s sometimes necessary, but often it’s a symptom of deeper failure of rigid, internalised worldviews, lack of shared mediation tools and systems designed for exclusion rather than negotiation. It’s easy to block, it’s much harder to build bridges, so the real question is how do we design systems that reduce pointless conflict without exhausting the people inside them? Food for thought (and compost).

We’re all carrying some of this mess, it’s fine – it’s compost. But if we don’t consciously shift from gates to bridges, we’ll keep rebuilding the same broken systems, just with nicer branding. As bridges scale trust – Gates scale control, to mediate this mess, the hard question we need to ask the #mainstreaming is which one are they funding?

#openweb #4opens #OMN

Let’s try and simplify the #OMN

The #OMN Framework: The Five Functions (#5F)

The #OMN is simple flows, not platforms, it’s a way of thinking about media as flows of objects moving through a network. People shape the flow, you can find a more technical view to read after here. A human-scale, federated media infrastructure built on #FOSS practices and the #4opens:

  • open data
  • open source
  • open process
  • open standards

It doesn’t start with features, apps, or ideology, it starts with flows. Imagine the network as:

pipes and holding tanks

Content (objects) flows through them, communities decide how that flow is shaped. Nothing magical, nothing hidden. This matters because:

If people can’t picture how a system works, they can’t govern it.
And when systems become opaque, power centralises.

So #OMN reduces everything to five simple functions:

1. Publish

(Add a drop to the flow)

Publishing is simply adding an object:

  • a story
  • a post
  • media
  • data

to a stream.

  • No automatic amplification
  • No built-in authority
  • No algorithmic boost

Publication is contribution, not domination.

2. Subscribe

(Connect the pipes)

Subscription is how flows connect:

  • people
  • groups
  • topics
  • instances

This replaces:

  • platform logic → “you are inside us”
    with
  • network logic → “this connects to that”

No opaque ranking, you decide which pipes you connect.

3. Moderate

(Filter and route the flow)

Moderation is not censorship. It’s sieving.

Flows can:

  • pass through
  • be filtered
  • be slowed or prioritised
  • be contextualised

Trust is:

  • local
  • visible
  • reversible

Different communities can apply different filters to the same flow.

This is a feature, not a bug.

4. Rollback

(Drain and reset the flow)

Rollback is how systems recover:

  • remove past content from your stream
  • undo aggregation decisions
  • correct mistakes
  • respond to abuse

Without rollback:

  • errors become power struggles

With rollback:

Accountability becomes procedural, not punitive.

5. Edit Metadata

(Shape meaning downstream)

Content is not rewritten – it is contextualised.

Metadata can include:

  • tags
  • summaries
  • trust signals
  • warnings
  • translations
  • relationships

This is where meaning is created.

Not by algorithms, but by people.


The Holding Tank

Underneath it all is:

a simple storage layer

  • a database
  • stored objects
  • moving through flows

No “AI brain” or hidden feed logic, just data shaped by social processes.

Why This Matters

Most current systems bundle everything together:

  • identity
  • publishing
  • distribution
  • moderation
  • monetisation

This creates centralised control, even when systems claim to be “open”.

OMN does the opposite:

It separates the core functions.

This makes the system:

  • understandable
  • auditable
  • forkable
  • governable

#NothingNew by Design

This model isn’t new, it mirrors systems we already understand:

  • plumbing
  • electrical grids
  • packet-switched networks
  • version control

That’s intentional.

Systems people understand are systems people can govern.

From Platforms to Commons

The #5F is the smallest possible set of actions needed to run a media network:

  • Publish
  • Subscribe
  • Moderate
  • Rollback
  • Edit

Everything else:

  • feeds
  • timelines
  • notifications
  • UI/UX

…is just interface, nice to have but not essential.

The Point Is – The OMN is not about building a better platform.

It’s about building:

infrastructure for a democratic digital commons

Simple flows.
Social mediation.
Human control.

Not control systems, but trust systems.

In One Line

#OMN is plumbing for the #openweb. #KISS


To simplify the Open Media Network (#OMN), we focus on its core goal: creating a human-scale, community-governed media infrastructure that isn’t controlled by big corporate platforms. As we outline to understand and “simplify” the #OMN is a simple workflow:

  • Write: Creating the content.
  • Tag: Categorizing it, so others can find it.
  • Publish: Making it available on the web.
  • Federate: Sharing it across different trusted networks.
  • Archive: Ensuring it remains accessible over time.

The “#4opens” Framework is built on four principles designed to keep power in the hands of communities and users rather than central authorities:

  • Open Data: Information belongs to the community.
  • Open Source: The code is free to see and change.
  • Open Process: Decisions are made transparently.
  • Open Standards: Systems can “talk” to each other without gatekeepers.

Key Concepts for Simplification

  • Keep It Simple (KISS): The system should be so simple that anyone can mentally model how it works. If it’s too complex to understand, it’s too complex to govern.
  • Social over Technical: Prioritise how people use the tools over how “elegant” the code is, to mediate the #geekproblem (tech that’s too hard for normal people to use).
  • Composting the Past: Instead of starting from scratch or repeating old mistakes, the #OMN is about taking the “wreckage” of previous projects and turning them into “fertile soil” for new, federated networks.
  • Trust-Based Networking: It moves away from global algorithms and toward small, connected “nodes” of people who trust each other (or not).

You can build any application from this foundation – that’s the point of keeping the core this simple. On top of the basic #OMN #5F, we’re developing a set of seed projects:

  • #makinghistory – tools to keep grassroots and mainstream history alive, linked, and evolving across the #openweb
  • #indymediaback – a reboot of grassroots news, open publishing with modern federated infrastructure
  • #OGB (Open Governance Body) – lightweight, federated governance for coordinating people, decisions, and trust
  • #digitaldetox – a horizontal tool to step away from addictive, manipulative platform dynamics

Interoperability is default, not an afterthought, nothing is locked in, instead of building another isolated platform, we plug into the existing ecosystem, extend it to compost what doesn’t work. This is how we grow the #openweb by building better flows inside what already exists, not by replacing everything.

These aren’t separate silos, they’re expressions of the same underlying flows. The system is native to the Fediverse, built on ActivityPub. That means content flows in from existing platforms and codebases and flows out to existing networks and apps.

Compost metaphor – is memorable, not just technical. The focus on process over platform is clear and important. The move to simple steps works as onboarding and the insistence on #KISS + #nothingnew is the right first step.

#OMN is not an app, it’s a process + tools to move from isolation to commons.

A bit of #OMN history and where the current paths come from

For a long time the focus has been on solving two linked problems – both of which are actually #nothingnew. The first is grassroots publishing and organising. The second is network coordination between communities. Neither of these problems started with the internet, and they certainly didn’t start with Silicon Valley.

Projects like #Indymedia and community organising networks solved these problems culturally long before modern platforms existed. They worked through shared practice, trust networks, affinity groups, and rough consensus. Importantly, they worked in non-federated ways – loose collaboration across independent nodes. This model likely stretches back a century or more in activist and cooperative cultures.

What the last five years of #ActivityPub rollout has given us is something new to add to that history: technical federation. So we now have two complementary paths that both grow naturally from the #openweb:

  • Grassroots #DIY culture – social federation built on trust, practice and community.
  • Technical federation – protocols like ActivityPub enabling networks of independent servers to interoperate.

Both are native to the open web. From the #OMN perspective this leads to practical projects:

#indymediaback – rebuilding grassroots publishing and organising infrastructure based on the lessons of the original Indymedia movement, but updated with openweb tools.

#OGB – a parallel path emerging through EU outreach and institutional engagement.

The key point is that these paths do not depend on the dominant platform ecosystem, the #dotcons. In fact, if we step back historically, we can see a fork in the road that happened twenty years ago. Instead of building open infrastructure, most movements ended up relying on corporate platforms. It was easier, faster, and seemed practical at the time. But that path turned out to be a trap.

The current tech landscape – platforms, algorithms, venture capital ecosystems, and the ideology surrounding them – is largely #techshit. Not because technology itself is bad, but because the dominant model is built to extract value and control attention rather than support communities. The solution isn’t simply to reject technology, it’s to compost it. Take what works, discard what doesn’t, and grow something healthier from the remains. That’s the thinking behind #OMN projects.

The projects start from a social understanding: technology alone doesn’t create networks. Culture, trust, and shared practice do. The tools should support those relationships, not capture or replace them. So the historical loop closes. Grassroots culture + open protocols – #DIY practice + federation. If we had taken that path twenty years ago, the web might look very different today.

The task now is simple, go back to that fork and take the other path.

#OMN #OpenWeb #ActivityPub #DIY #Fediverse #Indymedia

We can use a lot of the mess of the last 20 years to learn from, the composting metaphor.

EU tech strategy, composting the mess

As #climatechaos accelerates, European politics will not stay where it is now. History suggests that periods of instability push politics to the right, because right-wing politics tends to be driven by fear and control. If that trajectory holds, then the digital infrastructure we build today needs to be resilient in a more hostile political environment tomorrow. This matters for the EU’s current technology strategy.

Most policy thinking still focuses on industrial competitiveness – AI funding, semiconductor independence, cloud sovereignty, cybersecurity frameworks. These are important, but they mostly reinforce state and corporate power structures. What is missing is investment in grassroots civic infrastructure.

If democratic societies are going to survive the pressures of climate disruption, economic instability, and political polarisation, they will need independent communication systems that communities themselves can run and trust. This is where projects like #OMN, #OGB, #indymediaback, and #makeinghistory fit.

The starting point: is yes, we are all inside #neoliberal systems. For forty years Europe has been shaped by neoliberal infrastructure – platforms, markets, and institutions designed around extraction and competition. In the hashtag story language this is the #deathcult we have worshipped. None of us are outside this mess, the realistic mission is not purity but gradual exit.

That means: building small affinity groups, creating tools that allow communities to organise themselves to develop infrastructure that scales socially, not just technically. The #openweb is a core path for this. The #4opens – open data, open source, open process, open standards – provide a practical way to judge whether infrastructure actually supports commons-based development we need.

Why this matters politically? The dominant platforms – the #dotcons – centralised the web’s communication power. Grassroots movements traded their own infrastructure for convenience. In doing so, they gave away their media power. The problem we need to balance is if you have no power, talking directly to power is usually pointless. Grassroots power grows from the soil, from collective organisation.

What we need are projects like the #OMN which are not more platforms, rather it is an attempt to build simple trust-based media infrastructure, the design principle is #KISS – Keep It Simple. At its core, building and boot-up media nodes run by communities, systems for publishing and sourcing content with flows of rich metadata linking media together. Technically this becomes a very simple semantic layer: media objects linked through open metadata streams.

Think of it as a network of media “cauldrons” and flows, growing from local publishing outward. The important point is that the infrastructure is open and decentralised. Communities decide how to use it. Initial examples include: #makeinghistory and #indymediaback, the architecture is intentionally general. Once you have open pipes and flows, many other uses become possible. Protocols like #RSS and #ActivityPub are starting points for this type of infrastructure.

The path looks like this: Create a focus (hashtags, projects, shared language). Grow community networks around that focus. Use those networks to regain collective power. Then speak to power with power, this matters as we have mess to compost.

The control myth in tech policy? A lot of current EU tech thinking is built around control frameworks: cybersecurity regimes, digital identity systems, privacy enforcement and regulatory compliance layers. These are needed protections, but they also reflect a deeper ideological assumption: that the internet must be controlled to be safe. In practice, many of these approaches close possibilities for social paths we need.

Two concepts in particular have been used in ways that reinforce centralisation: security and privacy. Both are important. But when implemented through centralised systems, they become tools that close infrastructure rather than open it. Security without social trust becomes just another form of control.

So trust versus control. One of the biggest ideological shifts needed in tech infrastructure is moving from control-based systems to trust-based systems. In tech culture we to often fetishise control: permissions, identity verification, cryptographic enforcement and algorithmic moderation. But the internet originally grew through something very different: open trust networks.

The early World Wide Web forced enormous social change because it was built around open protocols and shared infrastructure. The #dotcons later captured that infrastructure and turned it into centralised platforms. Rebuilding the #openweb means reopening those pathways.

Digital infrastructure is a mode of production we need this deeper economic perspective, Karl Marx famously argued that the mode of production shapes social consciousness. The digital era represents a new mode of production, built on information flows, network effects, and data infrastructures. If those infrastructures are controlled by a handful of #dotcons corporations, they shape society accordingly. If they are open, distributed, and collectively governed, they create very different possibilities.

What this means for EU policy is we need better balance in EU funding, legislation and thinking. An effective EU digital strategy should not only fund: AI research, blockchain experiments and industrial platforms. It should balance support for public digital common’s infrastructure, funding projects that: follow the #4opens, strengthen the #openweb to enable local community media networks and reduce dependence on corporate platforms. These paths will not look like Silicon Valley platforms. They will look messier, smaller, and more local. But they are also more resilient.

King Canute and the digital tide. There is an old story about King Cnut, who supposedly ordered the tide to stop to demonstrate that even kings could not control nature. The digital tide is similar. No amount of regulation or platform power can permanently control networked communication. The question is not whether the tide moves, the question is who builds the boats.

Projects like #OMN are attempts to start building them, and yes – the tools required are simple.

Shovels and compost come to mind.

https://shkspr.mobi/blog/2026/01/where-is-bitcoin

Oxford: Rising With The Flood

This story was sparked by worrying about water quality in the UK, on the map above, it’s sewage everywhere https://www.sewagemap.co.uk/ The turds are active now, the red is active recently. The story is about this nasty mess set a few years before the longer Oxford story of refuges.

The characters are idealised/generalised versions of existing people, boaters, student journalist and collage bureaucrats I have met at meany events. the rowers come from watching this film. The setting and situation is completely real.


Chapter One – Waterline

The rain had stopped pretending to be weather. It no longer arrived as storms or fronts that moved across maps. It stayed. A fine, patient pressure against roofs and leaves, seeping into brickwork, soaking pathways until the ground forgot its original shape. By late January the river had stopped falling between tides of rain. Each morning it held the height it had reached the night before, as if testing the city’s tolerance. Nobody spoke of flooding yet. Oxford preferred euphemism. Seasonal levels. Saturated ground. Temporary closure of low paths.

The meadows filled first. At dawn they looked like fog lying flat against the grass, until the light shifted and revealed water stretched thin across the land, smooth as skin. Fence posts stood half-submerged like markers from an abandoned survey. Ducks moved where cyclists used to ride.

Scot adjusted the rope without thinking about it. Two turns around the bollard, a glance at the knot, a tug to feel how the current pressed against the hull. He had lived on the river long enough to trust tension more than official numbers. The boat rose another inch as he watched. Behind him, kettles boiled across the moorings, music murmured inside cabins, someone coughed hard enough to echo off the steel sides of the boats. A smell drifted through the damp air – sweet and wrong – something between, mold, cut grass and sewage. He breathed through his mouth.

“Gone up again?” called a voice from the next boat. “Couple of fingers,” he said, holding up two knuckles. The neighbour nodded without surprise. No one here expected stability. The river moved; they moved with it. A dead fish bumped gently against the hull, turning once before drifting away downstream.

Up at the boathouses the crews arrived before sunrise, carrying their shells like frail objects. Mist hung low across the water, flattening sound. Commands from coaches emerged as disembodied instructions – legs, together, hold – then faded again. Maya slid into her seat, pushing the thought away that the water felt heavier lately. She told herself it was just the cold. They launched cleanly. The river widened beyond its usual edges, swallowing landmarks she used to count strokes by. Trees stood ankle-deep in water. The current tugged harder than expected. “Ignore it,” the coach shouted from the bank. “You adapt.” They drove forward.

Halfway through the session her stomach tightened. Not pain exactly, more a hollow instability, like standing up too quickly. She swallowed it down. Everyone was tired this term. Everyone was pushing harder. The boat surged forward. Oars cut clean arcs through water that smelled faintly metallic. She did not mention it.

In a EA office in town, a spreadsheet refreshed itself every hour. River levels displayed as neat columns. Amber warnings held steady. Red remained unused. A junior analyst highlighted a row and hesitated before adding a note: Monitoring station offline – awaiting maintenance confirmation. He hovered over the send button, reread the sentence, and deleted the second half. Too definitive. Outside the window, water pooled along the curb where drains had stopped pretending to function.

By mid-morning, students gathered along bridges to photograph the reflections. The flood looked beautiful from above. Buildings doubled themselves in the still surfaces. The sky appeared deeper. Someone posted a video captioned Oxford Venice lol. Comments split immediately between jokes, arguments, and links to articles nobody opened.

Scot walked the towpath until it vanished beneath opaque water. He stopped where a sign warned of unstable ground, though the warning itself leaned at an angle suggesting long familiarity with instability. He watched the current carry fragments past – twigs, plastic bottles, a child’s football, clumps of foam that held together longer than they should. Another boater joined him, hands deep in coat pockets. “Smell that?” she asked. He nodded. They stood without speaking, listening to the quiet rush that had grown louder over the past week, as if the river had found a new voice and was testing its volume. Further downstream, sirens sounded briefly and then cut off. The waterline reached the bottom of the signpost and kept moving. Neither of them said the word flood. Not yet.

Chapter Two – Acceptable Risk

Dr. Elaine Mercer read the email twice before opening the attachment. The subject line carried no urgency: Weekly Environmental Health Summary – Thames Catchment, She appreciated that. Urgency implied responsibility. The office heating clicked on and off with mechanical indifference. Outside, rain traced slow vertical lines down the window, each drop merging with the last until individual motion disappeared. She scrolled.

River levels: elevated but stable.

Sewage overflow events: within seasonal expectations.

Waterborne illness reports: unremarkable variation.

The language was precise enough to reassure without committing to certainty. She paused at a footnote. Monitoring station temporarily offline – data extrapolated from upstream metrics. Elaine leaned back in her chair. The ceiling tiles carried faint stains from older leaks that had long ago been classified as resolved. Extrapolated data always made her uneasy. It meant the map no longer matched the terrain, only its memory. She opened a second window and checked hospital admissions. Gastrointestinal complaints had ticked upward over the past two weeks. Nothing dramatic. A slope rather than a spike. Easily explained by seasonal viruses, student travel, poor food hygiene. She highlighted the row anyway.

Her phone vibrated. “Morning,” said Tomas from water quality, his voice thin through the speaker. “You’ve seen the report?” she asked. “Which version?” She smiled without humour. “The one that says everything is normal.” A pause. “We’re within thresholds,” he said carefully. “Technically.” “And unofficially?” He exhaled, the sound distorted by the connection. “We’re getting more overflow triggers than expected. Pumps struggling. Ground saturation is… unusual.” “Unusual doesn’t go into public statements.” “I know.” Another pause, heavier. “They’re worried about panic,” he added. “They’re always worried about panic.” Elaine closed the report. “What are you worried about?” she asked. He hesitated long enough to answer without answering. “Complex interactions,” he said finally. “Floodwater mixes things that are meant to stay separate.”

At midday she attended a risk communication briefing. The meeting took place over video call, faces arranged in a grid like postage stamps. “Key objective,” said a communications officer, “is maintaining proportional response.” Slides appeared: graphs with reassuring gradients, bullet points shaped to soften edges. “Current evidence does not indicate significant risk to the general public.” Elaine watched the phrase settle into the room like condensation. She imagined it repeated in interviews, printed in newspapers, shared across feeds. Does not indicate, significant risk, general public. Words designed to distribute responsibility so thinly that no single person could feel its weight. “Any dissenting views?” asked the chair. Silence. She considered speaking. Instead she made a note in the margin of her notebook: absence of evidence ≠ evidence of absence. The camera reflected her own face back at her, pale under office lighting, eyes already tired. She muted her microphone.

On the way home she walked along the river. She told herself it was coincidence. Water covered the lower path entirely. Temporary barriers redirected pedestrians onto higher ground, but people stepped over them anyway, drawn by proximity to the swollen current. A rowing shell cut through the surface, oars rising and falling in mechanical rhythm. The rowers’ breath hung visible in the air. She noticed a smell she could not immediately categorize – organic decay layered with something sharper, chemical. A dead fish lay caught against the bank, its silver skin dulled to grey.

Two boaters stood nearby talking quietly. One glanced at her, assessing whether she belonged to their conversation. She did not. She walked on. Her phone buzzed again – a message from a hospital contact. Three more cases similar symptoms. Mostly rowers. Probably coincidence but flagging anyway. She stopped under a tree, reread the message, then looked back at the river. The water moved steadily, carrying fragments past: branches, foam, something plastic twisting slowly like a ribbon. Above her, a student laughed loudly, taking photos of reflections. The river looked calm enough to trust. She typed a reply. Keep me updated. Then she added, after a moment’s hesitation: Especially if pattern emerges. She slipped the phone into her pocket and continued walking, aware of a faint tightening in her chest that had nothing to do with cold air. Behind her, unseen, the water climbed another centimetre.

Chapter Three – Signal and Noise

That evening she drafted a note for internal circulation. Careful language. Measured tone. She avoided words that triggered escalation protocols. She added a line near the end: Recommend increased sampling frequency if resources allow. Before sending, she reread it and changed the phrasing. Consider review of sampling schedule subject to operational capacity. The revised sentence felt safer. She pressed send. Outside, rain began again – not heavier, not lighter – just present, as if it had never stopped.

Isaac watched the river through her phone before she looked at it directly. The live stream buffered, caught up, froze, then jumped forward three seconds. Someone had tied their camera to a bridge railing; the view tilted slightly off level, water sliding sideways across the frame like a mistake in gravity. The chat scrolled too quickly to read.

OXFORD VENICE 😂

mate this happens every year calm down

no seriously sewage alerts are up again

fake news lol

She lowered the phone. The real river moved slower than the version online, heavier, less dramatic. Floodwater had spread into the parkland, flattening colour into a reflective tone. A row of temporary barriers leaned at odd angles where people had stepped around them. A group of students stood nearby filming themselves. “Climate change aesthetic,” one of them said, laughing. Isaac opened her notes app and typed: Observation: people perform disaster before recognising it. She deleted the sentence. It sounded pretentious.

Her editor at the Cherwell student paper wanted something for social media “local but wider.” “You know,” he’d said, leaning back in his chair, “something that feels bigger than just weather.” He had already written the headline in his head. She had nodded as if she understood. Now she stood by the river scrolling through fragments. A meme showed a gondola photoshopped under Magdalen Bridge. Another overlayed rising water levels with a joke about student debt. Someone else posted screenshots of a sewage spill report, red circles drawn around numbers with no explanation. In the comments, arguments multiplied.

water company lies every year

stop fear mongering

rowers always get sick it’s normal

my mate works at hospital says loads of cases

She opened three tabs at once. An official EA statement: No evidence of significant risk. A local activist thread claiming the river was “toxic soup.” A rowing forum discussing stomach bugs as training stress. Each narrative linked to different sources, different screenshots, different interpretations of the same data. She felt like she was looking at three overlapping maps that refused to align.

A notification pinged from a group chat. Boathouse Rumours. She had joined it weeks ago for a class project. anyone else sick? it’s just norovirus going round halls, nah coach said water quality fine, someone posted testing results yesterday?? A blurry photo appeared – handwritten numbers on damp paper. No context. The chat exploded with reactions. where is this from??fake, looks legit actually, why would anyone fake water tests..The image disappeared a minute later, deleted by the sender. She stared at the empty space where it had been.

Isaac walked further along the path until the ground dipped under water. A man on a barge adjusted ropes with slow, practised movements. Another person handed him something through a window – a mug, maybe – and they spoke briefly before retreating into separate spaces. They didn’t look alarmed. They looked attentive. She raised her camera but hesitated. Filming felt intrusive here, like interrupting a conversation she didn’t understand. Instead she recorded audio. Water moving. Metal tapping against metal. Distant oars cutting rhythmically. She listened back through headphones. The river sounded alive, busy, layered with small sounds that vanished in video.

Her phone vibrated again. A text message from an unknown number: You’re asking about water quality? Talk to people on boats. They know more than council. No name attached. She typed a reply, deleted it, typed again. Who is this? No response.

Back on social media, a thread had gone viral accusing the university of ignoring safety concerns to protect reputation. Replies divided instantly. Some shared personal illness stories. Others accused the posters of exaggeration. A verified account from the water company posted a calm infographic explaining how monitoring ensured safety. The comments underneath filled with sarcasm.

Isaac felt the familiar vertigo of trying to assemble truth from fragments designed to resist coherence. She opened a new document and began outlining: Official narrative: controlled, reassuring. Athletic culture: denial framed as resilience. Informal networks: anecdotal but detailed. Online discourse: escalating polarisation. She paused. It felt wrong to describe them as separate categories. They overlapped constantly, people moving between them depending on context, belief, mood. Reality behaved like the floodwater – spreading into unexpected spaces, dissolving boundaries.

A rowing shell passed close to shore. One of the rowers coughed hard, missing a stroke. The boat wobbled briefly before recovering its rhythm. The coach shouted encouragement that sounded like command. Isaac recorded video on her phone automatically. Later she replayed it frame by frame, trying to decide whether she had witnessed something meaningful or just normal strain.

As evening approached, posts about the river multiplied. Drone footage showed wide reflective surfaces that looked almost peaceful. Someone uploaded a chart claiming bacteria levels were rising rapidly. Another account debunked it within minutes. The same images circulated with opposing captions. She felt less informed with each new piece of information. Her phone buzzed again. The unknown number had sent a location pin – a stretch of moorings downstream. No message attached.

She looked up from the screen at the river itself, flowing steadily past without commentary. For a moment she considered turning the phone off entirely. Instead she saved the location. Behind her, two students argued loudly about whether the flood was exaggerated by the media. Neither of them looked at the water.

Chapter Four – Currents of Knowledge

Scot leaned over the gunwale, cupping his hands to taste the river. Not drinking – testing. The water was colder than usual, metallic on his tongue, slick with an unplaceable tang. A murk had settled beneath the surface that made him uneasy. He had learned to trust these sensations more than any EA report. Across the mooring, Fiona clinked glass bottles together, shaking samples from the day’s collection. She labelled each quickly with waterproof pen: “A1,” “B2,” “downstream,” “midstream.” Her handwriting wobbled, fingers numb from damp.

“Anything yet?” Scot asked. “Foam thicker than last week. Sediment’s darker. Smells worse.” He nodded. Nothing definitive, but the signs were consistent. The boater network had grown quietly over winter. Messages passed through open affinity group chat apps, handwritten notes. No one formally coordinated; it was peer-to-peer, messy, fragile – but it worked. Knowledge didn’t accumulate in one place. It moved like the river itself, branching, looping, returning.

Someone had posted a warning in a private channel the night before: Rowers experiencing stomach problems. Reports from Radcliff hospital. Be careful. The posts sparked questions, not solutions. People who knew each other personally replied. Locations were confirmed. Water samples cross-checked. Patterns began to appear. Scot glanced toward the bridge. A rowing shell cut the water in the distance. The oars dipped in rhythm, steady, precise. The coach’s voice carried faintly over the fog: Push! Keep the pace!

He knew that one of those shells had sick rowers aboard. He also knew that warning them officially would be useless – the culture of gap would interpret caution as weakness. he started a group voice call including Simon, who lived upriver. He had a boat but also a background in microbiology. “Levels rising faster than expected. Sediment test on last run shows E. coli count above what we’ve seen in previous winters.” Fiona’s hand tightened around her bottle. “No official channels will touch this. If anyone reports, it will vanish in bureaucracy.” Scot tapped his fingers on the hull. He had already seen it happen. Official data suppressed. Emails phrased to reassure, never to inform. But across moorings, across boats, across small docks hidden on the back waters, people were starting to see the same thing. “Maybe it’s time to test farther downstream,” he said. “Agreed,” Fiona said. “Some of the locals swim there, enough to worry about.”

The idea of crossing divides lingered unspoken. They weren’t rowing teams, university staff, or students. They were outsiders, drifting on water. And yet, if the information reached beyond their own moorings, someone might act differently. Someone might adapt. Scot imagined a chain of hands, people passing knowledge quietly: boaters upstream, rowers who paid attention, local swimmers, perhaps even students who could interpret the posts. Not coordination, not instructions – just fragments, repeated, checked, trusted where trust existed.

A duck slipped past, bobbing between the current and the bank, untroubled. “Should we try mapping it?” Fiona asked, voice low. “Better than just watching,” he said. They pulled a waterproof notebook from under the deck. Sketches of currents, markers of unusual foam, dead fish, points where the river smelled wrong, A diagram here, a note there. It was slow, tedious, almost invisible. But every entry felt like building a bridge – not across the river, but across understanding.

A message notification sound carried faintly through the mist. Not a coach’s call this time. Someone on another mooring had spotted a pattern, taken a sample. Shared it upstream. The current carried both water and knowledge. And for the first time that week, Scot thought maybe the fragments – the boaters, the rowers, the students, the locals – might meet somewhere in the middle, if only the river allowed it. The water rose another inch.

Chapter Five – Fatigue and Fever

Maya woke with a heaviness that made her arms feel like lead. The bed beneath her sagged slightly, as if the mattress itself had absorbed some of the river’s weight. She coughed quietly, taste metallic on her tongue. The text from her teammate blinked on her phone: “Stomach still off. Just me?” She typed back: “Feels weird. Maybe last night’s pasta?” A lie, easily accepted. A way to maintain rhythm. By the time she reached the boathouse, the mist had settled over the river like a curtain, hiding both depth and current. Coaches shouted instructions that sounded tinny and distant. The air was cold, damp, faintly sweet in the wrong way.

She tried to push the fatigue away. Training waited for no one. The first rower stumbled. Not dramatically. Just a slight wobble as he carried the shell to water, hand pressed against his stomach. Teammates glanced but said nothing. By the second set on the river, Maya’s own nausea was undeniable. Oars cut the water mechanically, rhythm repeating even as her body rebelled. Her head felt light, chest hollow. The river had a smell she couldn’t place – algae, decay, something metallic – drifting beneath the mist.

A cough ran through the boat behind her. Another crew. They turned in rhythm to look at each other. Faces pale, eyes tight. A few whispered excuses, blaming last night’s dinner, lack of sleep, stress. She knew better. The coach barked over the fog, oblivious: “Keep the stroke! Push through!” Maya clenched her teeth, muscles aching beyond exertion, heart racing faster than rowing could explain. One by one, the rowers around her began to falter: hands gripping the oars tighter than necessary, footsteps uneven when stepping back onto the bank, lips pale, eyes darting. No one spoke the word sick. Denial was easier. Discipline required it. Performance demanded it.

Back at the boathouse, a pile of discarded jackets and water bottles marked the temporary battlefield. Someone leaned over the sink, dry-heaving into a basin, laughter shaking through coughs. They cleaned up quickly. No one lingered. They would train again tomorrow. They had to. Maya tried to speak to a teammate quietly. “Maybe we should-” He waved a hand dismissively. “You’re fine. Just tired. Everyone’s tired.”

The hospital logs later that week would show a subtle rise in gastrointestinal complaints. For now, it was invisible in any aggregate. Administrators would see normal variation, seasonal fluctuation.

Out on the river, the water shimmered silver in the half-light. The reflection of oars cutting through mist looked like normal motion. Order persisted. Rhythm persisted. Illness persisted beneath it, silent, creeping. By evening, Maya’s fever spiked. She lay in bed, shivering, phone messages pinging with vague reports from other rowers. “Feels weird. Still going?” Her own reflection in the dark window looked wrong – pale, hollow-eyed, feverish. Outside, the river moved steadily, carrying foam, branches, debris, fragments of reality along with it. Somewhere upstream, a boater took water samples. Somewhere online, memes argued over whether the river was safe. Somewhere in a EA office, spreadsheets displayed flat lines. And the rowers kept rowing.

Chapter Six – Invisible Protocols

Elaine Mercer sat at her desk, surrounded by the soft hum of computers and the occasional scrape of a chair across linoleum. The office smelled faintly of printer ink and damp air seeping through old windows. Outside, the river pressed against its banks, invisible from the sixth floor, but palpable in the vibration of water pumping through the city. Her inbox had grown overnight. Three new reports flagged mild gastrointestinal clusters. Rowers, students, a handful of local residents. Nothing that qualified as an outbreak. Nothing that justified action.

She opened the first one: “Case cluster – mild symptoms – no confirmed pathogen – monitoring advised.” She scrolled down. Spreadsheet columns suggested the trend, but trends were provisional. Thresholds were arbitrary. Numbers did not yet speak clearly enough to demand alarm. Her phone buzzed. A junior analyst pinged a direct message: “Should we escalate?” Elaine typed slowly: “Hold. Waiting for confirmation. Keep notes. Do not inform public.” She paused before hitting send. The phrase “do not inform public” always felt heavy. Its weight pressed against her chest like the damp air outside. But responsibility was diffused, deliberately. Someone else would escalate if it became necessary.

The internal briefing began over video call. Faces squared in neat rectangles. Everyone had memorised the protocol language: measured, neutral, repetitive. “Current evidence does not indicate significant risk,” repeated the chair. Elaine watched the statement settle. Nobody disputed it aloud. The words carried reassurance, and yet behind each participant’s eyes she could sense a flicker of unease. Everyone had read the same emails. Everyone had noticed the same symptoms creeping through local hospitals. But the line between evidence and obligation was rigid: no one acted unless forced. One analyst spoke quietly: “We’re missing data from the upstream station. Maintenance delayed again.” The chair nodded: “Resource constraints. Noted. Continue monitoring.” Elaine’s fingers itched over the keyboard. She had spent hours drafting caveats, phrasing warnings with a precision designed to avoid alarm. Consider review of sampling schedule subject to operational capacity. Safe, polite, non-committal. Words that ensured compliance without responsibility.

Later, she walked along the office corridor, stopping at the window to watch reflections of light across rain-slicked streets. The river was wider than usual, almost smooth in its slow, persistent rise. Foam clung to the edges like a subtle warning. She imagined the students filming selfies on the bridges, the rowers pushing through exhaustion, the boaters testing water themselves. They moved with knowledge she could not issue. They acted where she could not. Internal communications hummed: charts, reports, spreadsheets, flagged emails. All precise, all incomplete. No protocol allowed for uncertainty that might matter. A message pinged from another department: “Gastro clusters slightly above expected seasonal variation. Could be coincidence.” Elaine sighed. Coincidence. The word was an invisible shield, a buffer against panic and responsibility.

By evening, the office lights reflected off polished floors, ghosts of fluorescent tubes bouncing across walls. Outside, the river reached further into the floodplain. Sandbags leaned at impossible angles. Trees stood in water that had never reached them before. No one outside would know from official announcements. Press releases continued to frame conditions as “temporary,” “seasonal,” “controlled.” Inside, emails circulated quietly: “Resource constraints limit testing frequency.” “Staffing shortages prevent further field inspections.” “Continue public messaging: minimal risk.” The words repeated like a mantra, each iteration stripping away presence. Presence of authority. Presence of care. Presence of action. Elaine closed her eyes for a moment. Her reflection in the dark window looked pale, tired, aware of currents she could neither measure nor direct.

The river carried everything past her sight: boats, shells, debris, illness, rumours. She wondered who was really paying attention. And when she opened her eyes, she realised the institutional protocols were already withdrawing. Slowly. Quietly. Just like the flood would, eventually. The water rose another centimetre.

Chapter Seven – Fragments Connecting

Isaac sat on the riverbank, knees tucked under her chin, phone and notebook open, earbuds tangled in her hair. Notifications blinked like tiny, impatient lights. Somewhere upstream, the river carried foam and debris past silently, unbothered by the chatter of humans. She had spent days tracing posts, messages, screenshots, rumours. Nothing coherent. Nothing official. And yet patterns emerged. A student forum had flagged a cluster of stomach complaints among rowers. A boater she’d met through a private chat channel reported elevated sediment levels. Council statements insisted “no significant risk.” The contrast made her stomach tighten more than any actual virus. She typed quickly into her notes: Official channels absent. Observations exist elsewhere. Overlap appears around river usage – rowers, swimmers, moorings, public access. Her phone buzzed. A message from Simon, a boater upstream: “Sampling indicates rising bacterial counts. Sharing info with anyone we can trust. Who are you?” She hesitated. But trust was the only way to make sense of the fragments. “Student journalist. Trying to map patterns. Can share what I’ve collected.”His reply came almost immediately: “Send. But be careful. Not everyone wants this public.” She opened her notes, consolidated URLs, chat screenshots, photos of foam, handwritten water samples. She sent them as encrypted files. Almost immediately, a response from another boater: “Seen. Agree with trends. Rowers affected. Swimmers may be next.” Isaac scrolled through her feeds again, eyes flicking between narratives. Student jokes about Oxford Venice, EA assurances, hospital data, rowing forums. Each fragment had been isolated. Now, layered together, a pattern glimmered through the noise. She sketched it in a diagram: circles representing social clusters, arrows showing information flow, dotted lines where trust existed, red marks where observations indicated actual danger. For the first time, the isolated threads began to form a network.

The river itself seemed to acknowledge it – light rippling over foam, carrying both debris and signals, bridging distance without ceremony. A small dinghy approached the bank. Fiona and Scot leaned over the rail, hands wet, notebooks tucked under jackets. “Isaac?” Scot asked. “We’ve seen your posts. You’re putting pieces together.” She nodded. “Trying. It’s messy. But… look.” She pointed to the diagram on her screen. “Patterns across all groups,” she said. “Rowers, boaters, locals, social media chatter… even what hospitals report quietly. Nothing official, but we can see it.” Fiona glanced at Scot. “Exactly. That’s why we share water samples with each other. Not authority. Peer-to-peer. Trust-based.” Scot added, “We can’t stop the river. We can only see it.” Isaac typed a note: River carries both information and contamination. She deleted it. It sounded dramatic. Still, the words lingered.

They sat in silence, watching the river rise slowly, inch by inch. Somewhere upstream, foam thickened, a duck paddled past, debris spun in the current. The conversation was quiet, almost ritual. But it worked. A network had formed. Fragmented truths converging into something approximating understanding. And for the first time, Isaac imagined that if these fragments reached the rowers, the students, the locals – even partially – someone might act differently. The system of trust, informal but real, could operate where the formal system had already withdrawn. She looked at her phone. The official EA feeds were calm, reassuring, unchanged. Nothing had moved. Yet downstream, someone had posted photos of water samples taken the night before. Verified only by the boater network. And for now, that was enough. The river rose another centimetre.

Chapter Eight – The Tipping Point

By midweek, it was impossible to ignore. The river had risen steadily, swallowing the paths and creeping past the first floor of riverside buildings. Foam gathered like pale residue along boat moorings. The smell of damp decay hung in the air, a mix of rotting vegetation, chemical tang, and something indefinable.

At the boathouse, Maya clutched her stomach while struggling to step into a shell. Her teammates followed, pale, hesitant, some leaning against the dock to steady themselves. Each cough, each stagger, no longer dismissed as fatigue. The symptoms were obvious, undeniable.

Scot and Fiona had collected new samples that morning. E. coli counts were far higher than previous weeks. Sediment analysis showed elevated bacterial colonies. The data was clean, reproducible. And yet, the official channels remained silent. Spreadsheets reflected only “seasonal variation.” Public messaging continued to insist there was no significant risk.

Isaac arrived at the boathouse, notebook open, phone buzzing with messages from upstream boaters. She moved between groups like a bridge, showing fragments of information, connecting the dots. “Look,” she said, tapping at a photo of foam-stained water. “These reports match the water samples Scot and Fiona collected. And the rowing illness clusters correspond.” The rowers leaned closer, faces pale, uncertainty breaking through their habitual denial. “What do you mean?” asked one. “Meaning,” Isaac said, “we can see the pattern if we combine what the boaters, locals, and hospitals know. It’s not just one group noticing – it’s all of us.”

Slowly, glances exchanged across tribal lines: students, athletes, boaters. The divides thinned, curiosity replacing instinctive suspicion. Fiona handed a sample bottle to a young rower. “See for yourself. Compare with the official reports. They’re not testing enough, not here.” The rower hesitated, then dipped a finger into the water, swirling it cautiously. Color, texture, smell – all pointed to what the numbers already confirmed.

Outside, the locals who swam and walked along the riverbank stopped as well. Some had heard rumours from boater contacts, some from Isaac’s social media thread. Now, seeing water and illness mirrored in multiple sources, their scepticism gave way to concern. “I’ve never seen it like this,” an older local muttered. His eyes scanned foam-dotted water, half-submerged fences, and the rising riverbank. “Feels… different.”

Small gestures began to ripple outward. Students stopped walking across flooded towpaths. Rowers paused training. Boaters marked mooring hazards and shared coordinates where current and contamination converged.

Isaac typed furiously on her phone, broadcasting a composite map of affected areas, lab results, and anecdotal reports. The network of fragments was now forming an emergent structure. No one called it coordination. Nobody issued orders. It was trust, connecting observations across social divides. And the river moved through all of them, carrying both danger and knowledge.

By evening, the hospital admitted its first significant cluster of patients: rowers, students, locals, all overlapping. The spike was visible now, undeniable. Internal memos that had previously phrased concern in vague terms were updated with precise counts. Yet outside, official statements still insisted the risk was minimal.

Down at the moorings, someone tied a rope differently, adjusted a hull, marked a waterline.

Isaac shared a final note with the network: Trust each other. Observe. Share what you see. No one else will. For the first time, multiple social worlds – boaters, rowers, students, locals – were observing the same reality, not through media filters or institutional reassurances, but through their own eyes and through trusted networks. The flood had revealed what had been invisible: the river carried more than water. It carried knowledge, exposure, and connection. And for a moment, across social divides, the fragments aligned. The river rose another inch.

Chapter Nine – Reflections in Rising Water

The river had claimed more than paths. It had redrawn invisible boundaries. Towpaths disappeared beneath a muted grey surface, moorings shifted, and gardens along the banks had become small islands. Boats floated higher, leaning against each other in silent negotiation.

Isaac stood on a small rise, notebook in hand, phone buzzing occasionally with updates from the boater network. She watched the water reflect the last pale light of day, patterns of foam and driftwood twisting in slow spirals.

People moved differently now. Rowers paused mid-practice, hands hovering over oars, bodies reluctant to obey habit. Students walked carefully along diverted paths, sharing observations instead of jokes. Boaters exchanged notes across tea and bottles of something stronger. Locals came down to check their fences, their gardens, their memories of floods past, and this time felt… different.

At the centre of it, the informal networks hummed quietly. Knowledge passed sideways, diagonally, across previously unbridgeable social divides. The river had forced connection, but it had also exposed fragility: fragmented reporting, stretched hospitals, official reassurances now empty.

Scot leaned over the gunwale, bottle in hand. Fiona marked the latest sample. Isaac approached, showing a map she’d stitched together – clusters, anomalies, anecdotal reports – nothing authoritative, everything provisional, but coherent when viewed collectively. “You’ve made sense of it,” Fiona said quietly. “Part of it,” Isaac corrected. “We’re still just seeing fragments. But the fragments… they line up now.” Across the water, a rowing shell moved cautiously, crew slower, attentive, hesitant. One rower coughed, another adjusted her stroke, careful not to break rhythm completely. Observation had replaced denial. Downstream, a group of locals wadded to retrieve a sunken fencepost, sharing gossip with a boater who then passed the observation upstream. The data – who was sick, where the water was thickest, which moorings had shifted – spread organically, without authority, without broadcast, without ceremony.

Elaine Mercer sat at her office, watching the river from six floors above. She had drafted the latest internal memo but left it unsent. The words felt hollow now: no significant risk, within seasonal norms. The flood had shown that absence of data was not absence of consequence.

At sunset, Isaac, Scot, and Fiona stood together, watching water lap against steel hulls. The river was high, slow, inexorable. Foam spun in eddies around submerged posts. Reflections shimmered across surfaces that had never existed before. They spoke little. The work had become observation, verification, communication – small acts of adaptation. No one expected salvation from institutions. They had learned to trust one another, across moorings, hulls, and social divides.

Somewhere upstream, a student posted photos of rising water to a seedling open network, #indymediaback annotated with boater data, hospital snippets, and local observations. Comments appeared cautiously, linking threads, connecting reality across silos. For a moment, the fragmented social world aligned, if only partially.

The river, indifferent, carried both debris and knowledge past them.

Isaac closed her notebook. The flood isn’t dramatic. It isn’t spectacular. It just rises, inch by inch, carrying what the world refuses to see.

Scot adjusted a rope on a mooring, Fiona checked a water supply, and the rowers paused mid-stroke to watch the foam spiral in the current.

The river had exposed what was already broken – the fragile infrastructures, the siloed realities, the uneven trust. But it had also revealed resilience: networks built on observation, trust, and care, however informal.

Night fell, grey and quiet. The water licked at edges of moorings, bridges, and gardens. Somewhere, laughter and coughs echoed across distances. The river rose another centimetre.

And for those who watched, measured, and shared, the world – fractured, fragile, uncertain – had become slightly more visible.

Epilogue – Afterwater

The river receded slowly, dragging foam and debris into quiet eddies, leaving behind mud-streaked banks and hollowed paths. Towpaths re-emerged, but warped, uneven, lined with silt and broken fences. Bridges sagged slightly, docks leaned at odd angles, a cityscape subtly altered by the water’s patient insistence.

Isaac walked along the edge of the floodplain, notebook tucked under her arm. She paused at each mooring, noting subtle shifts in waterlines, minor changes in vegetation, footprints where boats had scraped the banks. Networks had persisted, passed quietly on chat apps, and handwritten notes. Rowers, students, locals, boaters – each had learned to see fragments of the same reality, to trust what could be measured, observed, shared.

But it was imperfect. Some moorings remained isolated. Some rowers resumed training before fully recovered. Some hospital logs still masked minor outbreaks. Official channels had not changed, and the river’s slow memory would outlast bureaucracy.

Scot adjusted a mooring rope, Fiona tested water for the last time in a series of makeshift ways, and Isaac typed a final note to the network: Patterns hold. Trust persists. Continue observing.

No one claimed victory. There was no heroism. Only adaptation, quiet and uneven, a human reflection of the river’s relentlessness.

Across the floodplain, water still shimmered in shallow puddles, carrying leaves, twigs, fragments of boats and fences, hints of past motion. Noise, debris, life – all mingled in the slow current.

The social divides had softened slightly, edges blurred by necessity and observation, but old habits persisted. People returned to routines, yet moved differently, carrying new awareness of fragility and connection.

Isaac looked at the river, silver under a low sun. It was unchanged, and yet everything around it had shifted.

The flood had passed. The water receded.

And somewhere, quietly, the fragments of knowledge, care, and trust flowed on – drifting into spaces not yet visible, shaping futures in ways no spreadsheet, report, or official statement could contain.

The river whispered.

And the world remained unresolved.


Read the next part – https://hamishcampbell.com/oxford-going-with-the-flow/

Why good faith is a technical requirement for #FOSS

If you’ve spent years in #FOSS, you’ve likely developed a strong allergy to vague political language. You care about licenses, reproducibility, governance models, and whether something actually runs. Good. That discipline is why free software exists at all.

But here’s the uncomfortable question, what if the biggest blocker to the #openweb right now isn’t technical debt – but social debt? And what if “good faith” is not a moral nicety, but a core infrastructure requirement?

The problem is when activism meets the #geekproblem. Anyone who pushes for change – especially against #mainstreaming pressures – develops a recurring relationship with bad faith. You see this when:

  • Corporate actors adopt the language of openness while enclosing the commons.
  • Institutions celebrate “community” while centralizing control.
  • Projects technically comply with openness while culturally gatekeeping participation.

This isn’t new, but the scale is new, in the age of #dotcons, #NGO enclosure is polished, funded, and normalized. Resistance generally fragmented, exhausted, and defensive as years of platform manipulation and extractive models have left people burnt out and cynical. In that climate, good faith is fragile, yet without it, nothing decentralized works. Good faith is infrastructure, decentralized systems cannot rely on coercion at scale. They rely on:

  • Trust
  • Transparency
  • Shared norms

The assumption is that participants are not actively trying to sabotage the commons, as when bad faith dominates, decentralized governance collapses into:

  • Endless meta arguments
  • Capture by the loudest actors
  • Drift toward hierarchy “for efficiency”

Sound familiar? This is why good faith isn’t sentimental, it’s structural. If you’ve ever tried to maintain a FOSS project while navigating trolls, corporate opportunists, and purity politics, you already know this.

To help the #4opens is a practical test, not a vibe. The #4opens framework exists precisely to operationalize good faith. It asks four simple questions of any grassroots tech project:

  • Is the data open?
  • Is the source open?
  • Are the processes open?
  • Are the standards open?

This extends beyond traditional open data initiatives (often institutional, often cosmetic). It covers the entire ecosystem of a project, not just its outputs. The value is not ideological purity, it’s resilience. When data, code, process, and standards are open:

  • Capture becomes harder.
  • Forking remains possible.
  • Governance can be contested transparently.
  • Communities can leave without losing everything.

That’s not abstract politics, it’s survival architecture. Composting the current rot is why #OMN exists as a project. We are living in a digital environment thick with enclosure and manipulation. Years of bad faith, disempowerment, and algorithmic extraction have created social decay. The instinct of many geeks is to build a cleaner stack and hope people migrate. But the problem isn’t just software, it’s trust collapse.

If the #openweb is to mean anything beyond developer autonomy, it has to support collective storytelling and coordination, not just individual expression. #OMN is a shovel, not a cathedral. It’s a way to compost the mess rather than pretend it isn’t there.

The #OMN (Open Media Network) is not a shiny new protocol. It’s deliberately simple: Publish, Subscribe, Moderate, Rollback, Edit. That’s it, no engagement hacks, no growth funnels and no surveillance capitalism. It’s a #DIY, trust-based, human-moderated space. Messy, organic, built for communities, not only users.

This matters in the era of #climatechaos and social break down. As climate instability accelerates, centralized platforms will align with state and corporate power to prioritize “order” over dissent and optimize for profitability in shrinking margins.

To balance these communities will need coordination without permission, information flows that aren’t algorithmically distorted and infrastructure they can adapt locally, that’s a social demand. If #FOSS remains culturally optimized for the small minority who enjoy living inside the #geekproblem, it will not meet that demand at all.

We need to understand that the vast majority do not want to self-host, they do not want to debate licences, they do not want to live inside issue trackers. They want functioning, trustworthy spaces, if we can’t provide that, someone else will – and it won’t be #4opens.

The hard part is working with the empowered disempowered of our #fashionista class. We have a generation trained in #closed systems that reward performative critique over collective construction. On #dotcons platforms and strands of #NGO thinking, people are empowered to disempower others with common sense #blocking of call-out culture, optics over substance and branding over shared process. You get a strange anti-politics, egotistical, individualistic, allergic to long-term responsibility. A culture that critiques power while replicating it. Escaping this dynamic may be uncomfortable, it may get nasty before it stabilizes.

But here are some kinder strategies we can use:

  • Make contributions obvious and low-drama, clear process reduces ego battles.
  • Reward maintenance, not only innovation, culture follows incentives.
  • Default to transparency over suspicion, sunlight reduces paranoia looping.
  • Design for groups, not influencers, collective accounts, shared moderation, distributed ownership.
  • Keep it simple (#KISS), as complexity amplifies gatekeeping.

None of this eliminates conflict, but it shifts the terrain from personality warfare to shared work.

An invitation to the sceptics, you don’t need to buy the rhetoric, maybe ask instead does this increase forkability? Reduce capture risk? Does it lower dependence on extractive infrastructure to strengthen collective agency? If the answers are yes, they belong in the #FOSS conversation. The future of the #openweb will not be secured by better branding or cleverer stacks. It will be secured by projects that treat good faith as a design constraint and collective resilience as the goal.

This is not about purity, it’s about durability. We can keep polishing tools for the tiny minority who enjoy living inside the #geekproblem, but, we need to build infrastructure that ordinary communities can also use to navigate the storms ahead. The invitation stands, pick up a shovel, help compost the mess by build something that gives back more than it extracts.

#4opens #indymediaback #openweb #compostingthemess #KISS #makeinghistory #OMN

State Funding of #FOSS and Open Source: Is it a Good Idea or a Bad Idea?

Yes, its messy stepping out of the churn

Everywhere we look – what we see, touch, and use – we are living inside systems shaped by decades of economic and technological assumptions. This isn’t only something happening “out there”. It has been normalised and internalised over the last forty years.

The dominance of #stupidindividualism, combined with rigid economic dogma, influenced how we design technology, how we organise communities, and how we imagine progress itself. The outcomes are now starkly visible: #climatechaos, social fragmentation, and a weakening of collective sense-making.

The internet reflects this reality. Online and offline are no longer separate spaces; they feed back and reinforce each other. Recognising this isn’t only about blame, it’s more importantly about understanding the terrain we’re all navigating. These are the technology limits of the current path and why we continue to repeat familiar patterns. New platforms emerge, new interfaces are launched, yet the underlying values remain unchanged. The result does feel like endless churn to people who notice, innovation that rearranges surfaces while leaving deeper structures intact.

This isn’t simply the fault of individuals or communities. Many developers, especially within #FOSS and the #fediverse, are actively trying to build alternatives. But the broader ecosystem still pushes toward centralisation, scaling, and extraction because those are the dominant incentives of the wider paths.

So recognising our #geekproblem isn’t about rejecting technical culture – it’s about expanding it. Technical excellence alone cannot solve social problems without grounding in alt collective needs and lived social realities. This is what the #openweb means, it’s more than #blinded nostalgia for the early internet. It represents a shared direction many communities are already moving toward.

The #openweb is an internet where #4opens information is accessible regardless of platform or location, content can be shared, linked, and reused, participation is not gated by proprietary control. It’s basic: open data, open source, open standards, and open processes.

The growth of the Fediverse demonstrates that alternatives like these are possible. Decentralised social networks, community-run servers, and cooperative governance models show glimpses of a healthier digital ecosystem. Yet within these paths, tensions remain between “native” grassroots values and pressures toward #NGO #mainstreaming and power politics institutionalisation.

For this space to grow, we need to keep moving beyond false choices. On institutional paths, many proposed solutions focus solely on regulation or institutional reform, imagining that better rules will fix systemic problems. While governance matters, relying exclusively on top-down solutions risks becoming another form of dependency to add to the mess.

Another path exists alongside institutional change: horizontal, grassroots approaches rooted in #DIY practice, #4opens shared infrastructure. This path is imperfect and often messy, but it keeps agency within communities rather than outsourcing change to distant structures.

The goal is not purity, it is balance, the #OMN approach grows from this perspective. Grassroots, #DIY, non-corporate, human-scale, not disruption for its own sake, not scaling driven by venture logic. Instead, building social technology that serve collective needs while respecting individual agency. Many people within #FOSS and the Fediverse are already working toward these goals, even if they use different languages. The opportunity now is to deepen collaboration, connect projects that share values, and strengthen the social foundations alongside the technical ones.

So the path we need is about finding each other, it’s the path we made work for a while then failed on socialhub, so I need to repeat, the question isn’t whether alternatives exist, they do. The challenge is finding alignment among people who are already trying to move in similar directions, but feel isolated or fragmented.

Who recognises that technology must serve communities rather than extract from them. If you see value in grassroots, cooperative approaches to technology – if you believe the #openweb is still worth building – then the invitation is simple. Stop churning, start building. Who is ready to move beyond endless reinvention toward shared infrastructure and shared purpose?

Seeds, Safety, and the Chicken-and-Egg Problem – A Q&A on Practical Building vs Intellectual #Blocking. This explores a recurring tension in grassroots technology projects: the gap between practical historical paths and fresh “intellectual” critique, it reflects on a broader patterns seen in #openweb, #FOSS, and #DIY spaces.

Q: What is the “shared path” and why describe it as a seed?

A: The shared path is a practical response to repeated historical failure. It is not a finished solution, a moral demand, or a complete alternative system. It begins as a seed, something small, imperfect, and grounded. If you judge a seed by whether it is already a tree, nothing will ever grow. The idea is to start building despite uncertainty and allow structure to emerge rooted organically through practice.

Q: What is the main critique of this “seed” approach?

A: Critics argue that metaphors like seeds and growth avoid addressing concrete mechanisms. They focus on first-step effects: What signals are being sent? Who carries risk or unpaid labour? What moral pressures are created? What happens when survivability is deferred? From this perspective, issues must be addressed at the beginning rather than grown from the seed.

Q: Why does this debate often become circular?

A: Because both sides are asking different questions. Practical builders ask: Where do the resources come from to implement safety before anything exists? Critics ask: How do we prevent harm if we begin without safeguards? Without answering the resource question, discussions loop endlessly between ethics and feasibility.

Q: What is the “chicken-and-egg” problem here?

A: Many grassroots projects face a structural paradox: You need resources, tools, and commitment to build sustainable alternatives. But those resources only appear after something exists and demonstrates use value, agenst mainstreaming pushback Waiting for perfect conditions prevents starting; starting without resources has risks, but it’s the only thing that can grow change and challenge.

Q: What work is actually happening in practice?

A: Practical work often remains messy, distributed, and unpaid. Examples include: Supporting student journalists in rebooting grassroots media projects like Oxford #Indymedia. Motivating unfunded technical communities to collaborate on shared codebases such as #indymediaback. Maintaining ongoing organisational and community infrastructure through long-term volunteer labour. These efforts are naturally invisible and impossible to summarise because they work organically rather than following formal project structures.

Q: Why is documentation itself a source of conflict?

A: Critics ask for clear summaries or structured documentation of ongoing work. Builders simply see this as additional unpaid labour imposed on already stretched contributors. External demands that assume others should organise information for them, creates friction between expectations of accessibility and the working realities of #4opens and #DIY grassroots work.

Q: What role does #DIY culture play?

A: In #DIY culture, participation is active rather than observational. If someone believes something needs improvement – documentation, tools, funding guides – the expectation is that they step in and contribute rather than stand outside only pointing critique. Critique without participation is too often lazy negative pressure rather than constructive help on “native” DIY paths.

Q: Is this simply a disagreement about ethics?

A: Not entirely. Both sides often share ethical concerns. The deeper disagreement is about sequence: Should, impossible and irrelevant in a practical sense, safety and compensation frameworks exist before building begins? Or can these frameworks emerge better through #DIY messy real-world working practice?

Q: What is the takeaway?

A: Grassroots building requires balancing, ethical awareness and practical starting points. Intellectual critique can help identify risks, but when detached from material constraints it too often unintentionally blocks action at best or turn into trolling at worst. Likewise, practical work can benefit from reflection, but cannot wait for perfect theoretical clarity.

The challenge is to compost both approaches into something that moves forward.

Europe, the Fediverse, and the story we failed to tell

A bunch of native #openweb people spent real time, energy, and focus pushing the #EU toward the #Fediverse. This wasn’t theoretical, it wasn’t speculative, it wasn’t a #NGO whitepaper or a #VC funding pitch. It was practical outreach, grounded in working technology and lived experience, aimed at reducing Europe’s dependency on centralized corporate platforms.

One concrete moment of this work was the webinar organised between the European Commission and the ActivityPub community: https://socialhub.activitypub.rocks/t/webinar-with-the-european-commission-and-ap-community/1507

The webinars mattered, they demonstrated that EU institutions were genuinely open to #ActivityPub as a viable public infrastructure standard, not as a niche hobby project, but as a way to regain institutional and civic agency without defaulting to US-based platforms.

This is the work we needed more of, but this kind of engagement is slow, unglamorous, and politically awkward. It doesn’t fit VC startup narratives or revolutionary aesthetics. But it is the work required if Europe wants digital sovereignty without surrendering to #BigTech or reinventing the same centralized failures under an #EU flag.

So the obvious question is: what went wrong? Drift, fragmentation, and the return of the #dotcons. Instead of consolidating that momentum, the grassroots fractured, attention drifted, energy leaked away, people burned out or moved on. In the end, outreach was blocked from both sides

And then slowly, predictably, attention returned to the familiar #dotcons, because they are easy, visible, and culturally dominant. They offer the illusion of reach without the substance of agency, in the long run, this is just more #techshit to compost later.

#SocialHub itself documents much of this history. The discussions are there, the threads exist, the intent is visible. But there is little aggregation, little synthesis, and almost no narrative continuity. For anyone not already embedded, it’s hard to see what mattered, what succeeded, and what was quietly blocked or abandoned.

The missing piece is our own history – this is the core failure – we are very bad at telling our own history, this thread says it plainly: https://socialhub.activitypub.rocks/t/eu-outreach-if-we-dont-tell-our-story-am-not-sure-who-will/2950

Because we didn’t document, curate, and repeat this story, the same myths keep resurfacing:

“The EU was never interested.”

“Federation can’t work at institutional scale.”

“There were no serious alternatives.”

“Centralized platforms are the only realistic option.”

None of these are true – but they feel true when history is missing. When people don’t know that EU–Fediverse outreach already happened, when they don’t know that viable alternatives already exist, when they don’t know that these paths were actively neglected rather than disproven.

Then people fall – again and again – for the #dotcons mess, believing it’s the only possible future. This matters now, as focus shifts back to tech change, and is exactly why #OMN, #indymediaback, #makinghistory, and #OGB exist, not as competing platforms, not as replacements for everything else, but as infrastructure for memory, communication, and accountability.

Before we argue about funding models, platforms, or scale, we need to get the ordering right:

  • History — to remember what already worked and what failed, and why
  • Media — to tell the story properly, in our own words
  • Governance — to keep power visible, contestable, and rooted in trust rather than myth

Without these, attempts at “European digital sovereignty” will reproduce the same capture dynamics under a different logo. Telling the story is political work, if we don’t tell our story, someone else will, and it won’t be told in our interests. It will be told as inevitability, as market logic, as “there was no alternative.” That story always ends the same way: more centralization, more dependency, more enclosure – followed by another round of cleanup and composting.

We already did part of the hard work, we opened doors, we proved viability. What’s missing is not only technology – it’s memory, narrative, and continuity. Until we fix that, Europe will keep mistaking amnesia for realism, and surrender for pragmatism.

Examples of the problem we need to compost

In #openweb tech, these people are the problem not the solution https://freeourfeeds.com/whoweare

This is spoiler incompetent #techshit and likely funding mess we need to ignore https://cybernews.com/tech/europe-social-media-w/ Then compost.

Diversity is good, but this is a prat move https://www.modalfoundation.org/ the are quite a few of these.

The rise of #stupidindividualism as a common sense path

Part of the shitty mess we’re in comes from the failure of #DIY culture and the rise of #stupidindividualism as the common sense path. #stupidindividualism is completely unscalable in social terms. It fragments, isolates, and exhausts. That isn’t accidental, it’s a classic divide-and-control strategy of the #deathcult. And we need to consciously step away, and away, and far away from this.

An example, over the last 20 years, I’ve answered the same questions individually, over and over. But the point of #DIY culture was never one-to-one hand-holding. You don’t need to stress personal connections just to begin. The hashtags are links – they exist to let you start the process yourself.

You can do this by #KISS following the flow, not by demanding individual explanations. Click the #hashtag links. Read the background posts. Trace the project history. Use a search engine. Learn how the process works before pulling people into one-on-one clarification. This is basic #DIY practice, grounded in the #4opens.

You need a second example, looking back, remember how many of our activist friends ran workshops on how to use #dotcons social media as a campaign tool? How to organise activism through corporate platforms? While this was happening, our own independent media was being ripped apart internally, ossified by process, and then abandoned by the same #fashionista activists.

This mess is the devil child of #postmodernism and #neoliberalism, all surface, no grounding, all individual expression, no shared responsibility. We know the names and URLs of many of the people who did this. It’s the legacy we’re dealing with. Our projects like #indymediaback exists because of this history.

If you’re serious about changing society, you have to think your way past this common sense #blocking. That means rebuilding collective pathways, shared knowledge, and common processes, not endlessly repeating the same individual conversations. The tools are here. The links are here. The work starts when we stop pretending this is a personal problem and recognise it as a social one.

Capitalism grew from historical processes rooted in enclosure, extraction, and the exploitation of people and nature. Liberal politics stabilise rather than challenge this, while promoting forms of (stupid)individualism that fragment collective power, making it harder for people to organise together against entrenched control.

The individual, their freedom, and their capacity for reason are products of social relationships, not independent origins. Society is not built from isolated individuals; individuals grow from shared culture, history, and collective life. As society grows richer and more humane, individuals gain the conditions needed for deeper development – and real freedom emerges from this shared foundation.