Outreach text for the #4opens

The #4opens framework provides a set of principles for testing, evaluating and promoting progressive social and tech projects. By adhering to these principles, people and communities support initiatives that prioritize openness, collaboration, and social good. Let’s explore how each of the #4opens can be utilized.

  1. Open Data: Open data is the foundation of transparency and accountability in tech projects. By making data freely accessible and usable by anyone, projects can foster innovation, collaboration, and democratic decision-making. Progressive social and tech initiatives can leverage #opendata to empower communities, address social inequalities, and advance public interest goals. For example, open data can be used to track government spending, monitor environmental pollution, or analyze social trends.
  2. Open Source: Open source software is essential for fostering a healthy and vibrant tech ecosystem. By providing access to source code and encouraging collaborative development, #opensource projects can accelerate innovation, improve software quality, and promote digital autonomy. Progressive social and tech initiatives can utilize open source software to build tools and platforms that empower people and challenge corporate monopolies.
  3. Open “Industrial” Standards: Open industrial standards are critical for ensuring interoperability and compatibility across diverse tech systems. By adhering to #openstandards, projects can avoid vendor lock-in, promote diversity, and facilitate innovation. Progressive social and tech initiatives can advocate for and adopt open standards to build decentralized, resilient, and inclusive tech infrastructures. For example, #openstandards for communication protocols can enable peer-to-peer networks and decentralized social media platforms.
  4. Open Process: Open process refers to the transparent and participatory decision-making processes that govern tech projects. By involving stakeholders in project planning, development, and governance, open process fosters trust, accountability, and collective ownership. Progressive social and tech initiatives can embrace #openprocess by adopting democratic and inclusive decision-making structures, such as consensus-based decision-making or participatory budgeting. For example, open process can enable community-led initiatives, address social justice issues, and promote collective well-being.

In summary, the #4opens framework provides a roadmap for advancing progressive social and tech change and challenging the dominance of centralized, proprietary tech platforms. By prioritizing openness, collaboration, and social impact, individuals and communities can support initiatives that empower users to build a more equitable and democratic tech ecosystem.

The #4opens framework provides a set of criteria for evaluating and assessing the “Nativeness” of #openweb projects. By applying these criteria, individuals and communities can make informed judgments about the transparency, inclusivity, and ethical practices of a given project. Here’s how the #4opens can work to assign ratings/badges to #openweb projects based on the #4opens criteria, a loose evaluation process assessing each criterion against a set of user defined criteria and assigning scores accordingly. Projects could then display these ratings/badges prominently on their websites or documentation, allowing users to quickly assess their openness and transparency. Additionally, centralized registry or directory can be created to showcase and promote projects that adhere to the #4opens principles, providing users with a trusted resource for discovering and supporting openweb initiatives.

The right-wing are taking the tools, traditions and the myths of the left wing

The phenomenon of the right-wing appropriating the tools, traditions, and mythos of the left wing is a complex and multifaceted issue. This strategic attempt by conservative forces to reshape the political and cultural landscape by co-opting symbols, narratives, and strategies traditionally associated with progressive movements. It poses a significant challenge for the left, as it risks diluting the effectiveness of progressive ideas and undermining efforts to achieve social and political change.

To effectively mediate this repurposing and ensure a better-balanced outcome, the left must engage in strategic and proactive measures. Here are some tools and approaches to considered:

  1. Reclaiming Narratives: The left must actively reclaim and assert control over its narratives, symbols, and values. This involves articulating a clear and compelling vision for social justice, equality, and solidarity, and consistently communicating it through various channels, including media, art, and grassroots organizing.
  2. Counter-Messaging: In response to the right-wing’s appropriation of progressive rhetoric, the left should develop counter-messaging strategies that expose the contradictions and falsehoods inherent in conservative narratives. This will involve fact-checking, debunking misinformation, and highlighting the real-world consequences of right-wing policies and agendas.
  3. Cultural Production: The left can leverage the power of cultural production—such as music, film, literature, and visual art—to promote progressive values and inspire social change. By creating and amplifying cultural works that reflect the diversity, resilience, and aspirations of communities, the left can challenge the hegemony of right-wing cultural narratives.
  4. Community Organizing: Grassroots community organizing remains a potent tool for social and political transformation. The left should prioritize building strong, inclusive, and resilient communities that are capable of mobilizing for collective change and challenge. This involves fostering solidarity, building alliances across diverse constituencies, and empowering left voices.
  5. Policy Advocacy: The left must continue to advocate for progressive policies and reforms that address systemic inequalities and promote social justice. This includes campaigning for issues such as economic redistribution, healthcare access, environmental protection, racial justice, and LGBTQ+ issues. By advancing concrete policy solutions, the left demonstrates its commitment to improving the material conditions of real world communities.
  6. Critical Engagement: Finally, the left should engage in critical dialogue and reflection on its own internal dynamics, strategies, and blind spots. This involves interrogating power relations within progressive movements, addressing issues of privilege and exclusion, and fostering a #4opens culture of accountability and self-critique. By continuously evolving and adapting to changing political realities, the left can remain relevant and resilient in the face of right-wing co-optation.

In conclusion, navigating the challenges posed by right-wing appropriation requires a proactive approach that combines strategic communication, cultural production, community organizing, policy advocacy, and critical engagement. By reclaiming its narratives, values, and agency, the left can effectively mediate the repurposing of its tools and traditions, ultimately contributing to the change we need in the era of #climatechoas and worship of the #deathcult of the right.

Funding Application: MakingHistory – Archiving the Open Media Network

Project Overview: MakingHistory is an initiative within the Open Media Network (#OMN) aimed at preserving and archiving digital content shared across the network. It operates on the same principles and workflow as the renowned Indymedia project but utilizes a different template to organize and categorize content. The primary objective of MakingHistory is to ensure that valuable digital content shared within the OMN ecosystem (and wider #openweb) is preserved for posterity, fostering transparency, accountability, and the democratization of information.

Project Objectives:

  1. Develop and implement a tagging function within the OMN platform to facilitate the archiving process.
  2. Establish archiving nodes within the OMN network to serve as repositories for tagged content.
  3. Enable users to choose specific hashtags for archiving, providing a customizable and decentralized approach to content preservation.
  4. Provide users with a “lossy” view of archived content across the network, allowing them to prioritize which content to focus on archiving.
  5. Foster collaboration with institutions such as libraries, archive.org, and universities to ensure the long-term preservation of archived content in structured formats.
  6. Maintain adherence to the principles of the #4opens, ensuring that all archived content remains openly accessible and transparent.

Project Benefits:

  1. Preservation of Digital Heritage: MakingHistory ensures that valuable digital content shared within the OMN ecosystem is preserved for future generations, safeguarding our collective digital heritage.
  2. Democratization of Information: By enabling users to archive content based on their interests and priorities, MakingHistory fosters a decentralized approach to information preservation, democratizing access to knowledge.
  3. Transparency and Accountability: MakingHistory promotes transparency and accountability by archiving content in an open and accessible manner, allowing for greater scrutiny and oversight.
  4. Collaboration and Engagement: MakingHistory encourages collaboration with institutions and individuals interested in preserving digital content, fostering a sense of community and engagement within the OMN network.
  5. Scalability and Sustainability: The federated nature of MakingHistory allows for scalability and sustainability, as anyone can run an archiving node within the OMN network, ensuring redundancy and resilience.

Budget Breakdown:

  1. Development of Tagging Function: $10,000
  2. Establishment of Archiving Nodes: $15,000
  3. Outreach and Collaboration: $5,000
  4. Maintenance and Support: $7,000
  5. Contingency: $3,000

Total Budget: $40,000


  • Development and Implementation of Tagging Function: 3 months
  • Establishment of Archiving Nodes: 6 months
  • Outreach and Collaboration: Ongoing
  • Maintenance and Support: Ongoing

Conclusion: MakingHistory is a critical initiative within the Open Media Network, dedicated to preserving and archiving digital content in a decentralized and transparent manner. With your support, we can ensure that valuable digital content is safeguarded for future generations, fostering transparency, accountability, and the democratization of information. Together, let’s make history by preserving our digital heritage for generations to come. Thank you for considering our funding application.

Rebooting Indymedia: Restoring the OpenWeb and Grassroots Technology

Hamish Campbell, looking at the past and future of “native” grassroots media.

In the last three decades, the digital landscape has undergone dramatic changes. I have witnessed its evolution firsthand, working in radical media and engaging with grassroots technology. But this journey hasn’t been without its challenges and setbacks.

The Dawn of the OpenWeb

The early years of the #openweb were a golden age. It was a time when the power of connectivity and innovation was shared and wielded by people rather than confined to corporate silos. This openweb we cherished was built at a human scale, with real conversations and decisions made not by algorithms or profit-driven entities, but by human beings with a vision for a decentralized and inclusive digital space.

However, those pioneering days of the openweb seem distant now. The landscape rapidly shifted, favoring echo chambers over open forums, transforming the dream of a participatory digital spaces into commercialized pockets designed to commodify our data and society

The Rise and Fall of .Coms

The term #dotcons, inspired by the .com boom, exposes the underlying deceit in this new era of the internet. Companies emerged with the aim of capitalizing on our online presence, turning every click and keystroke into a financial opportunity. Social media platforms like #Facebook—aptly dubbed #Failbook and others have become disasters for both our personal mental health and societal construct.

The Encryptionist Agenda

In response to the corporatization of the web, alternative technology, especially within radical grassroots movements, began to focus heavily on encryption. Yet this #encryptionist agenda, instead of fostering a true alternative, led us to a dead end. #Indymedia, which once stood as a beacon of open, participatory journalism, eventually succumbed to this closed technology approach.

The Plight of Progressive Technology

#Fashionista politics—those which blindly follow trends without questioning the underlying systems—have dominated the progressive tech landscape, often embracing the very platforms that stand contrary to open standards. The ideals that spurred movements and created spaces for change have been eroded, leaving us in a technological quagmire that stifles creativity and real progress.

Rebuilding from the Roots

Despite these challenges, hope remains for a resurgence of grassroots media. By revisiting the core principles that made #Indymedia a force in its early days, we can steer the movement back on course.

A Simple Federated Network

I consider Oxford IMC, which I co-founded, as a blueprint for this revival. Through a network of trust-based content sharing, we can create a federated model that allows information to flow freely yet responsibly.

Think of it as a series of nodes: activist news websites, Mastodon instances, peertube channels, and local blogs, all interlinked by trust and moderated collaboration, governed by a simple yet effective set of controls—including link subscribe, moderate/trusted flow, and rollback functions to maintain the integrity of our content.

Trust First, Moderate Later

By focusing on trust-first networking, where content flows are based on established relationships, we not only streamline communication but also protect against the pitfalls of a closed, controlled web. This approach allows for open, decentralized storytelling, with an organic curation system that respects the diversity and autonomy of each node.

Reclaiming and Reshaping Security

Recognizing the need for secure communication without sacrificing openness, the reboot incorporates both bridges to other #4opens network publishing and guidelines for pseudo-anonymous contributions through Tor.

These measures provide a balanced approach, enabling activists to share their stories without fear of repercussion while maintaining a spirit of openness and community-driven journalism.

Foundations of the Reboot

Central to this reboot are the #PGA hallmarks and the #4opens—open data, open source, open standards, and open process. This framework, informed by the lessons from #Indymedia’s past, will ensure that we do not repeat the same mistakes.

Moreover, by adopting federated databases and leveraging tags and flows of news objects, this network will function as a vibrant, resilient web of news, accessible at different levels and capable of adapting to the ever-changing demands of radical grassroots journalism.

Be Part of the Open Media Reboot

I invite you to join us as we embark on this journey to reclaim our digital commons. If you share the vision for an open, grassroots-powered web, visit http://unite.openworlds.info and contribute your expertise. With a commitment to the #4opens and a collaborative spirit, we can usher in a new era of the fediverse centered on truth, empowerment, and community.

This is more than a project—it’s a movement. Let’s create a network that stands as a testament to our collective power, one that honors our past achievements while forging a future that lives up to our highest aspirations. Let’s make history, again.

The open web is not just a concept; it’s our birthright. Together, let’s bring it back to life.

This blog post is a call to action. It’s a bid to revive the original spirit of #Indymedia and extend a hand to those willing to contribute to the future of open, grassroots media.

# Introduction
– Hamish Campbell’s background in grassroots and radical media
– The open web’s early potential for alternative media

# The Failure of Alternative Media
– Rise of big tech like Facebook led to closed and monopolized systems
– Encryptionist agenda went nowhere over the past decade
– Climate crisis shows need for societal alternatives

# The Open Media Network
– Explaining the decentralized federated network model
– Trusted flows of content based on open standards

# Rebooting Indymedia
– Rebuilding the local community news site with focus areas
– Approaches for enabling secure anonymous publishing

# Why Indymedia Failed
– Early successes but internal disputes over openness
– Problems with incompatible customized systems
– Control desires led to user-hostile encryption

# Lessons Learned
– Open standards critical for networks
– Loose flexible processes over rigid bureaucracy
– Explicitly embedding the “four opens” philosophy

# Project Overview
– Building a web of trusted news flows
– Agnostic decentralized network via protocols like ActivityPub
– Get involved to help create alternative media


The mess we make without blind behavior

We have to focus for activism. How to change them and how to make us better at changing them, both are valid and needed for any real change to happen.

Most visible activism is the tension between fluffy and spiky, this debate is what pushes affective progressive change and challenge, dogmas of either side of this is the blocking of the possibility of the need change.

Our default behaver is to block this debate, in this we are actively blocking the desired and needed change and challenge.

This is an ongoing mess that we need to compost. To do composting you need tools, as much of our lives are online in part we need web tools https://unite.openworlds.info/explore/repos are examples of such #4opens “shovels” to use for this needed composting.

Who is the change and challenge we need?

In the era of #climatechaos of the last 40 years #mainstreaming  we have had a choice of the nice or nasty #deathcult most people in fear have chosen the nasty, we are going to pay the price for this choice over the next 20 years, With millions of deaths and billions 9f people displaced.

This mess we have made has narrowed our daly worship to actually the #deathcult or nasty “progressive” secrets worshippers.

In the grassroots we need to compost this mess #4opens is a shovel for this in tech, #XR a easy pail path in society. You are the only people who can or will do this.

Navigating Grassroots Evolution in Tech Communities: Challenges and Paths Forward

The landscape of technological evolution often traverses a spectrum between grassroots innovation and mainstream integration. Within this spectrum lies #Socialhub, a space that was born as a grassroots alternative—a bastion of the activertypub reboot’s integrity within its original framework. This trajectory from its inception in #activertypub delineates a distinctive approach in the technological realm.

The emergence of the #openweb reboot unfolded serendipitously during the #WC3 proceedings. In an atypical scenario where mainstream stakeholders were absent, the reins of definition were firmly grasped by an alternative cohort, paving an advantageous, albeit less conventional, path for the #openweb community’s progression.

Initially, Socialhub thrived as a nurturing ground for a vibrant community, exemplified by the impactful outreach endeavors to the EU within the Fediverse. However, recent years have introduced complexities. The influx of people lacking a ‘native’ #openweb perspective has precipitated a divergence from the community’s original focus, largely due to the significant influence of Twitter immigrants and Fediverse expansion. This shift presents both challenges and opportunities, marking a departure from the initial vision towards a less intricate and diverse community.

Notably, a pronounced shift towards the technical aspects has eclipsed the attention to its social dimensions, critical for a functional alt, with a reduction in the core social-oriented crew and an influx of technically inclined new members. This transition mirrors the WC3 process reboot, necessitating a delicate respectful balance of responsibilities between the two facets.

The delineation between a community-driven space and a platform steered by a specific technical viewpoint and agenda has become increasingly visible. This deviation from the original ethos poses challenges, signalling a transition from happenstance to intentionality, necessitating a more democratic approach to reconcile these shifts.

Grassroots initiatives inherently embody a level of messiness that distinguishes their authenticity. Constructive feedback and improvement strategies are pivotal in the “native” FEP process, while the underlying ideas in this are commendable, the outcomes remain questionable, requiring refinement in the process. Volatile yet essential debates to fortify the FEP’s legitimacy, particularly in the unspoken political sphere. Proposals for procedural enhancements aimed at bolstering legitimacy within the FEP necessitate a non-technical, social explanation of proposed changes and their wider implications.

The absence of broader social context and buy-in inhibits legitimacy, necessitating a proactive approach by the community to elucidate and democratize these processes. Currently entrenched as ‘black boxes’, both the FEP and the W3C demand transparency and community involvement to garner support and avoid being ignored sidelined by #mainstreaming dev.

Without proactive measures rooted in activism and learning from historical effective activism, this cycle of ignorance towards these processes will persist. Therein lies the importance of integrating wider social buy-in, understanding the social implications of technical changes, and engaging in transparent, #4opens processes—key tenets for the evolution and legitimacy of tech communities like Socialhub in the digital age.

To note for people who are not familer with this way of looking at the world, the ansear to the question is always more alt grassroots vs less mainstreaming, of course this is always a balance so best not to get into a #ragecircle on this mess making.

#Socialhub originated as a grassroots alternative space specifically designed to maintain the integrity of the activertypub reboot within its inherent framework. Initially stemming from #activertypub itself, this forum embarked on this trajectory.

The emergence of the current #openweb reboot was more serendipitous than deliberate. Amidst the #WC3 proceedings, the absence of the typical mainstream participants allowed our alternative cohort to drive and solidify the definition through this “native” #4opens technological pathway an uncommon yet advantageous route for our community to follow.

Socialhub fostered a genuine and thriving community. The pinnacle of this community’s strength was witnessed during the outreach efforts to the EU within the Fediverse. However, recent years have brought challenges; the influx of individuals without a “native” #openweb view has led to a divergence from our initial focus, primarily due to the significant impact of Twitter immigrants and the expansion of the Fediverse. This is good and bad, we have moved a long way from where we started, and have to make the best of this more messy community.

Over the last year we have had a (strong dogmatic) shift to the tech side of activertypub working and away from the social side that is needed for making a working #openweb reboot. In the forum we have had a reduction of the core crew, and an influx of the tech focused new members, this is likely a mirror in the expansion and the rebooting of the WC3 process and the two have have a balancing act of responsibility.

“To use the forum, you must agree to these terms with Petites Singularités, the company that runs the forum.” This has become more visible and the owner has a point of view and agenda, this is actually not a space for/by “community” in the sense it was originally sold… shifting from “serendipitous to deliberate” the solution to this shift/issue is likely not easy and involves democracy in some form.

Grassroots is always messy, that’s how you can judge if its grassroots or NOT 🙂

Let’s try some constructive comments on this to improve the fep process.

What we have here is a classic activism 3 steps forward 3 steps back process, this is a recurring issue.

The ideas behind this are good, the outcome is questionable, and the process still needs work.

There is a current undeclared fight in the FEP → W3C email list, that is likely unresolvable which is a fine example of the fluffy spiky debate, the only good outcome from my prospective and likely socialhub is making the fep more Legitimacy (political) this is a post with ideas for process to help that happen.

To be a valid fep they should have a non-technical (social) explanation on why it’s needed and what are the social implications of this purely technical change.

As we are NOT only talking about technical points here, most are based on social ideas and have social outcomes for social networking. We need this wider buy in to make this process legitimate.

This process is simple and can be started by the original poster, then carried on by the wider community to build buy in and legitimacy.

Currently, both the fep and the W3C are too much black boxes to have any path to build buy in, thus are being ignored defacto.

This will likely continue without some basic activism as outlined above, the is much to learn from this long history of affective activism.

Can This Platform Survive? Governance Challenges

A paper on the Fediverse by Thomas Struett, American University – School of Communication, Aram Sinnreich, American University – School of Communication, Patricia Aufderheide, American University – School of Communication, Rob Gehl, York University.

Interesting #mainstreaming look, that bypasses the grassroots it’s actually talking about, this is a common issue with academic writing, am at Oxford this winter so have everyday “organic” expirence of this.

For governance, we have a widely discussed project on this forum that is “native” to address all the issues outline in the article Open-Media-Network/openwebgovernancebody: ON STANDBY due to waiting for funding – (OGB) This is a space for working through Governance of horizontal projects – using #KISS online tools. – openwebgovernancebody – Open Media Network 4

Then for fighting the capture we have an “organic” path the #4opens if used is a strong defence Home – 4opens – Open Media Network

So to sum up, what we need is for “us” the collective to get up from our knees and become the change we would like to see. This is actually not a hard thing to do “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed, citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.”

Let’s look at this PDF:

This thread and our failing in general in “governance” is to do with the fluffy and spiky debate, or much more obviously the failing of this debate to actually be held in place.

“Potential benefits of the fediverse are at risk of being subverted, either by commercial
competitors or through structural dysfunction.”

Dealing with both commercial and structural dysfunction here.

Commercial – funding has shifted from distributed to centralized over the last few years, this is driving core dysfunctions – interesting and useful subject to discus.

Structural – we have not moved anywhere towards “native” governance approaches, this is building crises Legitimacy (political) – Wikipedia

“hold promise as human-scale, democratically-run platforms for civil discourse within and between these groups of users.”

We aspire to this, but with no democracy in any formal or informal sense. And secondly we lack “groups of users” as the coding being copies of #dotcons are strongly “individualized” which pushed our #mainstreaming “common sense” over this openweb “native” space.

“challenges inherent to distributed governance, commercial platform capture, inclusive
access, moderation at scale, reputational assaults by commercial competitors, and the tacitly
neoliberal techno-Romanticism familiar from previous digital innovations. ”

The is a long working (activist) history of mediating these problems that we are ignoring here. A first step to addressing this is the fluffy spiky debate being held in place #KISS

“Developers, entrepreneurs, institutions, and users of these technologies
must also work collectively and proactively to help the fediverse avoid these historical threats
and maximize its civic potential.”

This is the bit we need to talk more about, as it’s key to not fucking up agen.

“However, the fediverse is more than a technical system; it is also a political structure (Mansoux
& Roscam Abbing, 2020). ”

On this currently, we are seeing Legitimacy (political) – Wikipedia failing.

“the structure of platform governance and moderation is both reflective of and integral to the
functioning of democratic processes in digital networks, and much of the proverbial “devil in the
details” comes down to arcane and obscure questions about transparency, control, and
information flow at any given chokepoint or sociotechnical layer.”

This is why link to the #4opens, and it’s use to judge if a project or group are “native” or not – to make transparent in groups and most impotently OUT-GROUPS. A technical/social membrane, as this quote say “devil in the details”

“1. Distributed governance failures
Previous decentralized social platforms have sometimes failed to deliver on their civic potential
because of challenges emerging from the governance process: the norms, institutions, and
technologies that determine who gets to say what to whom, under which circumstances,”

This is the subject of responses to this thried, illustrating the issues, so think of it as the spiky in the fluffy spiky debate. Notice, we are currently failing to hold this debate in place.

“it introduces other risks that must be addressed and mitigated, including new threats such as accountability and liability crises, forking… Corporate actors may also exploit these challenges, by posing themselves as solutions to distributed governance frictions (Marshall, 2006).”

This is likely in part one of the underling issues we are not talking about here.

“Examples of distributed platforms falling prey to these governance challenges in the past are

We have much to learn and address on this, I talk about this a lot as it’s a key subject we need to move away from “common sense” approaches. Yes this is seen as spiky, but it’s needed, let’s hold this debate open please.

“Not all platform governance is alike. Though corporate platforms emulate traditional media
structures by centralizing power (Napoli & Caplan, 2017), the fediverse has a more distributed
governance structure. This decentralization is not just an aspect of the underlying software but also a core tenet of the governance philosophy of the fediverse itself.”

This is a subject I talk about a lot and have been working on for the last few years with the ogb as a “native” approache. In general, these “native” approaches are still being #blocked by #mainstreaming “common sense” approaches. This needs to change if the openweb reboot is not to wither and die.

“Benjamin Mako Hill (2018) describes this corporate capture of OSS projects as “strategic closedness.””

This is in easy view with a lot of our tech and fashionable crew pushing #closedweb ideas as “common sense” verse “native” openweb approaches. This is a problem with no obverse solutions, the #4opens project is one way to mediate this insolvable/unspoken issue that is everywhere in our dev crew.

“2. Commercial capture
Another challenge that has undermined the health and strength of previous decentralized or
open platforms is commercial capture. Proprietary, value-added features that enhance the user
experience are used to bring more users onto the platform, ”

We currently have few tools to push this back, our strongest tool is likely our “culture” but this itself is fractured, full of infighting and unspoken. Speaking this out load while creating tension is likely nessersery for any good outcome. Hiding from this is #fail

“This means that only a continuing commitment to interoperability by developers, and not merely the existence of an open technological standard, can ensure an open ecosystem within the fediverse.”

It’s social/political NOT a technical problem, so our current fixation on ONLY tech and avoidance of the social/political is a easy to see and act on #fail

“Eternal September is not that new users simply need to be taught the social norms of the space they are joining, but that norms policing is a form of gatekeeping that can exclude new and more diverse users from joining.”

This is both true and a #fashernista problem, we need a better path, this should be easy, it’s not.

“it is important to critique calls for technological approaches to user-friendliness, which are often couched in rhetoric of democratization of technology, while simultaneously undermining decentralized
power relations… making the platform easier to join and use,
while also limiting users’ agency to make choices about the underlying infrastructure that will
best foster their communities”

We are going to see this from every side for and agenst, we need a balances’ path through this mess, we are not currently talking about this path, we need to.

“the fediverse currently relies on the goodwill of countless volunteer moderators and self-funded instances, this goodwill can’t last indefinitely, and a workable approach to funding and compensation has yet to emerge.”

This one is a can of worms, the current “best” solution is to keep instances small and voluntary run, our ongoing disagreements on this path is likely to continue to do damage… one path out of this is legitimate “governance”.

“The reputational anti-halo is already cropping up in discourse about the fediverse and Mastodon, which have been tainted by their uses among the “alt-right” (Makuch, 2019) and for child abuse (Thiel & DiResta, 2023).”

This comes down to voice and power, as “libertarian cats” we have little of either… it’s a bad path to stay on, what path would be better and more “native” is a good question to talk about.

“techno-Romanticism works to obscure the labor, networks, and institutions that are key to supporting technological development while elevating the simplistic view of the great men of history… the fediverse is particularly vulnerable to techno-Romanticism”

This is an endemic issue, and most people are chasing the tech equivalent of the American dream that they will become the top dev… this is not a native approach to the openweb, but it’s currently a dominating view. This is mess making.

“Technical language and the assumption of baseline technical expertise may also present unintended obstacles to adoption. Conversely, the fediverse also faces the threat that the rhetoric of “user friendliness” will justify the curtailing of user agency, or re-centralization of the network… messy, and continuous practice of maintaining a healthy and inclusive space for civic discourse…

Techno-Romantism’s utopian discourse poses a threat to the fediverse because it distracts from the importance of social action in the development of technology… discussion about how to
identify them and limit their impact, is a critical step toward reaching those civic and
technosocial goals together.”

In conclusion, the roadmap for the fediverse’s future must transcend the confines of technicality and delve deep into the socio-political fabric. Holding the fluffy-spiky debate firm, nurturing ‘native’ approaches, mitigating commercial capture, addressing governance challenges, and fostering a culture of inclusivity and sustainability—these constitute the keystones for nurturing the true potential of the fediverse.

Mess makeing is an brackdown in communication – ideas please.

Interesting #mainstreaming look, that bypasses the grassroots it’s actually talking about, this is a common issue with academic writing, am at Oxford this winter so have every day “organic” expirence of this.

For governance, we have a widely discussed project on this forum that is “native” to address all the issues outline in the article Open-Media-Network/openwebgovernancebody: ON STANDBY due to waiting for funding – (OGB) This is a space for working through Governance of horizontal projects – using #KISS online tools. – openwebgovernancebody – Open Media Network 4

Then for fighting the capture we have an “organic” path the #4opens if used is a strong defence Home – 4opens – Open Media Network

So to sum up, what we need is for “us” the collective to get up from our knees and become the change we would like to see. This is actually not a hard thing to do “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed, citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.”


Continuing the discussion from Can This Platform Survive? Governance Challenges for the Fediverse 2:

Dear @hamishcampbell,

although we already had this discussion several times, you keep posting external links to your website every time you have an opportunity to do so, which is quite a lot, since you are very attentive to responding to any new topic with such links.

What it achieves is that your posts rarely bring anything to the conversation and rather look out of place, and barely get any response. Do you realize that all these links have rel="nofollow" attached to them, which means no search engine will index them in relation to this site?

I’m reacting to this specific message because you, being in Oxford, could have made a much better contribution by summarizing the findings of this paper rather than waving your opinion as a pretext to add two more links to your site.

Should I resort to simply unlinking all such references to it so you have an incentive to bring more useful comments? You have been warned repeatedly that your posting style feels spammy, and I would not like to have to kick you out, because when you want you can make interesting contributions. But most of the time, I feel that it’s a waste of time.

What do others think?

  • Use the mute feature on this user
  • Flag posts as spam
  • Unlink openworlds.info
  • Leave Hamish alone


#ragecircle the assumption this is spamming is troubling, and we likely need to look at this assumption? What would be the mod process to start this?

Linking is how ideas are addressed on the openweb

UPDATE: to be clear, the is a mod question here, please can the mods address it, thanks.


This conversation is getting beyond silly, here is what What Is Link Spam: Definition and Types of Link Spamming – Kontely link spamming is.

It SHOULD be obvious the post is not doing any of these things.

I would like the current mods, on this open and community driven forum, to stop this please.

And I ask, repeat (and the risk of this being seen as SPAM) for the 3ed time, can we get some process put in place to mediate mod behaver, thanks.

I think this space is increasingly lacking Legitimacy (political) – Wikipedia it was the subject of the post in question. This is a difference of social/tech path of me and the two mods, not some something to be pushed out of view, thanks.

Please stop this.


This mess making from our mods is bringing the lack of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy_(political) in this “community site” into view. This is the subject of the ogional post

I call the subject post #mainstreaming to describe that it’s a reflective post of the chatting classes, not to say this has no value, just it’s not “native” to the grassroots internet some of us want to build.

Then link this to my personal experience, I have 20 years of dealing with this of mess making in openweb tech/funding so have a lot to say on this ps. this link is not SPAMMING take note, it’s a weblink so you can fallow it to find out more about what I am talking about, if you are interested in clicking on the link.

Next link to the about page of a project that directly addresses the issue the original post is about, with context. I post a link rather than simply copy and past the intro, as this is how the WWW is supposed to work.

Then I describe how we can fight affectively to push the grassroots “native” internet some of us would like to see, and link to a tool that can be used to affect the needed change. Native to the WWW people can click on the link if interested.

Finally the is a bit of a spike in the tail, that yes is indirectly pointing at our mods and an inclination on this forum. Take NOTE this is done in a polite way without naming names, so no issue with the CVP etc.

Ok, i understand you don’t like this aproch, this has been made clear the last few years, what exactly is wrong with these posts mods #KISS

The mission of the NGI is to re-imagine and re-engineer the Internet

We ask that #NGI use “native” approaches and tools at future #openweb events

“The mission of the NGI is to re-imagine and re-engineer the Internet… Committed to open source (both hardware and software) and open data… Build an Internet of Trust, empowering end-users… the concept of the Digital Commons, which is particularly crucial for Europe, as it fosters equitable access to information… the transition to the future internet…”

We ask that #NGI use at future openweb events:

FOSS video streaming solution

Simple open tools for audiences chat, one to meany and one to one

A open to edit shared doc (for links and notes) for the online participants to use, for each session.

This is a #4opens basic path for people to people internet based on trust, for a European #openweb

“When it comes to important ideas that can help improve our society, there really are no boundaries. The challenge is to turn those opportunities into reality. Great ideas just come, but they are gone in a breeze as well. Let’s make good use of them.”

The quotes are from https://ngiforum2023.eu/ , https://www.ngi.eu/ and https://nlnet.nl/ lets together ask/help the #EU to be more openweb native.

The mission of the NGI is to re-imagine and re-engineer the Internet… Committed to open source (both hardware and software) and open data… Build an Internet of Trust, empowering end-users… the concept of the Digital Commons, which is particularly crucial for Europe, as it fosters equitable access to information… the transition to the future internet…

We ask that #NGI use at online events:

* FOSS video streaming solution
* Simple open tools for audiences chat, one to many and one to one
* A open to edit shared doc (for links and notes) for the online participants to use, for each session.

This is a #4opens basic path for people to people internet based on trust, for a European #openweb