The political power that Silicon Valley and Big Tech pushed over this election is a real #geekproblem threat, with the #dotcons leveraging technological and financial influence to shape society in ways that benefit the nasty few and undermine basic democratic paths we need to be fallowing to mediate #climatechaos
One path to balance this #mainstreaming mess making is the need for active and healthy critiques of the lack of institutional support for #openweb projects and paths that focus on humanistic alternatives to these Big Tech platforms. The problem we need to challange is that organizations theoretically supportive of democratic values, such as #NLNet and #NGI, sideline core “native” paths in tech as “too radical”, instead favouring safe narrow #geekproblem and #NGO tech paths which we know do not work. This is frustrating, and with the increasing authoritarianism spreading worldwide, it’s a part of the #deathcult we all worship.
The “geekproblem” in tech is about challenges arising from the culture and mindset within technical communities, particularly around developers and engineers. It is associated with an overemphasis on technical solutions, insularity, and a tendency to prioritize technological efficiency or novelty over broader social and ethical considerations.
Overemphasis on Technical Solutions: People involved in tech prioritize creating or improving technical features while overlooking social impacts or peoples needs. This leads to “solutionism,” where every problem is assumed to have a tech-based answer, neglecting simpler, social, or policy-based solutions.
Insularity and Group Think: The tech world is insular, with tight-knit subcultures that resist input from outside communities and dismiss perspectives that don’t align with technical paths. This leads to narrow solutions and a resistance to the needer wider perspectives, ultimately #blocking the social change and challenge we need.
Focus on Control over Collaboration: Tech communities are often defacto hierarchical, top-down in the paths of design and governance, leading to a “we know best” paths. This often alienates non-technical people and discourages cooperative and participatory input, making it hard to integrate open, community-based governance in to the narrow paths that are imposed.
Ignoring and Dismissing Social Issues: Focused on technical work overlook social issues the tech is supposed to be addressing and solving. By focusing only on engineering, they overlook who has access to the technology, who benefits from it, and what ethical implications it brings, perpetuating the disconnect between technology and the communities it made for.
Resistance to Broadening Perspective: Tech creators actively resist moving beyond their own narrow areas of expertise and interest, they block ideas and initiatives that don’t fit within their immediate understanding, inhibiting growth and the needed experimentation. This resistance limits meaningful progress, community needs, and alternative technologies.
In sum, the #geekproblem stems from a blend of narrow technical focus, resistance to diverse input, and lack of attention to social impact. Addressing it involves building more inclusive, collaborative, and socially aware tech paths that embrace #4opens broader perspectives beyond the purely technical.
In the online spaces I navigate, there’s no shortage of #fashernistas crowding the conversation, diverting focus from the native #openweb paths we urgently need to explore. They take up space and ultimately block more than they build. Then there’s the #geekproblem: while geeks get things done within narrow boundaries, they’re rigidly resistant to veering beyond their lanes, dogmatically shutting down alternatives to the world they’re so fixated on controlling. This produces a lot of #techshit, occasionally innovations, but with more that needs composting than the often limited value they create.
Then there are the workers, many of whom default to the #NGO path. Their motivations lean toward self-interest rather than collective good, masking this in liberal #mainstreaming dressed up as activism. At worst, they’re serving the #deathcult of neoliberalism; at best, they’re upholding the status quo. This chaotic mix dominates alternative culture, as it always has, and the challenge is one of balance. Right now, we have more to compost than we have to plant and build with.
What would a functioning alternative to this current mess in alt paths look like? Well we don’t have to look far as there is a long history of working alt culture, and yes I admit it “works” in messy and sometimes dysfunctional ways, but it works. What can we learn and achieve from taking this path and mating it with modern “native #openweb technology, which over the last five years has managed in part to move away from the #geekproblem with #ActivityPub and the #Fediverse.
Blending the resilience and collective spirit of historical alternative cultures with the new strengths of federated, decentralized tech solutions like ActivityPub and the Fediverse, the path we need to take:
Community-Centric Design: Historically, alternative cultures prioritize more communal, open, and egalitarian paths. The path out of this mess need to be rooted in this ethos, a new alt-tech landscape could leverage federated technology to avoid centralization and corporate control, emphasizing community ownership. The Fediverse, with its decentralized model, embodies this shift, each instance is a unique community with shared norms, which helps to protect against centralized censorship and allows diversity without imposing a single dominant path.
Resilient, Messy, and Organic Growth: A #KISS lesson from traditional alternative spaces is that success doesn’t require perfect order. Alt-culture spaces thrive on a degree of chaos and adaptability, which enables rapid response to new challenges and paths. This messiness aligns with how decentralized systems function: they’re, resilient, while letting communities develop their own norms and structures while remaining connected to a larger network.
Mediating the #Geekproblem: A key challenge in the tech space is overcoming the “problem” geeks, where technical cultures focus narrowly on technical functionality at the expense of accessibility and inclusiveness. ActivityPub and Fediverse have shifted this by prioritizing people-centric design and by being open to non-technical contributions. Integrating more roles from diverse social paths—designers, community, activists—can bridge gaps between tech-focused and community-focused paths.
Using #4opens Principles: The “#4opens” is native to #FOSS philosophy—open data, open source, open process, and open standards—guide this ecosystem. By adopting transparency in governance and development, communities foster trust and accountability. This openness discourages monopolistic behavior, increases collaboration, and enables #KISS accountability.
Sustainable Engagement Over Growth: Unlike the current #dotcons model that focuses on endless growth and engagement metrics, the alternative path prioritizes quality interactions, trust-building, and meaningful contributions. This sustainable engagement path values people’s experience and community health over data extraction and advertising revenue.
Leveraging Federated Technology for Cross-Pollination: ActivityPub has shown that federated systems don’t have to be isolated silos; they can be connected in a openweb of interlinked communities. Just as historical alt-cultures drew strength from diversity and exchange, the Fediverse path allows for collaboration and cross-pollination between communities while maintaining autonomy.
By integrating these native #openweb principles, we create an alt-tech ecosystem that is democratic, inclusive, and resistant to the mess that currently plague #mainstreaming and some alt-tech paths. This hybrid path allows tech to serve communities authentically, fertilising sustainable growth and meaningful, collective agency that we need in this time to counter the mainstream mess.
There is a divide in #FOSS between #openculture and #opensource that is becoming more visible and a significant tension is growing, with each movement originating from different perspectives on sharing and collaboration, even though they overlap in the broad mission of making knowledge and technology accessible. You can see this in the AI debates and in grassroots “governance” in the #Fediverse and the issues this brings up as current examples. The differences are in focus and motivation:
Value path: Open Source focuses on the technical, structured development of software, with licences that ensure people can access, modify, and redistribute code. It tends to be practical, driven by the necessity to create robust, community-driven technology.
Open Culture, however, extends beyond software to include media, art, and knowledge. It centres around the idea that cultural paths – art, literature, music, and other media – should be accessible and adaptable by more people. It values knowledge sharing in all forms, encompassing the ethical path that information and culture should be democratized.
Legal frameworks and licences: Open Source relies on licences like GPL, Apache, and MIT licenses that set clear boundaries on how code can be used and ensure that software modifications remain open. This fosters collaboration but also keeps contributions within a strong structured framework.
Open Culture, leans on Creative Commons (CC) licences, which are more flexible in terms of content usage and address a broader range of creative and educational materials. These licences vary widely, allowing authors to shape how much or how little freedom people have to use their contributions, which can lead to different interpretations of “openness.”
#FOSS and Open Source communities are more driven by practical needs and more standardized approach to governance, which function at times as gatekeeping and can be seen as restrictive by Open Culture advocates. There’s often an emphasis on the meritocratic and structured contributions, rather than the more messy cultural paths.
Open Culture communities are more fluid, valuing inclusivity, encouraging contributions from broader groups. This can create tension with Open Source projects that prioritize hard structured paths.
Today, we see this division in action with increasing calls from the Open Culture side for a more inclusive, less restrictive approach. Open Culture argue that #FOSS and Open Source can be too rigid, excluding many types of cultural contributions and voices that don’t fit neatly into software development paths. Conversely, Open Source proponents view Open Culture as lacking in the clear boundaries that have shaped Open Source to work in structured technological development paths.
Bridging the gap: For #openweb projects, addressing this divide to respect a path for both technical standards and the inclusiveness Open Culture calls for. Projects like #OMN and #4opens navigate this divide, building on community-driven networks where technical governance is balanced with cultural openness. We push the building of tools that emphasize accessibility and collaboration – while being technically robust and community-driven to bridge the gap, aligning Open Source rigour with Open Culture’s inclusiveness.
To move forward, both communities benefit from dialogues focused on shared values, finding where their paths complement each other, but with clear strengthens and weakness to both paths. This issue is important as we confront the composting of #techshit and #dotcons and in the wider world the onrushing #climatechaos that all require technological, cultural, and social reshaping to adapt.
Over the last few decades, the web’s evolution has been shaped by competing ideals. Early on, we witnessed the shift from the “better” #closedweb corporate controlled paths to an #openweb#DIY explosion—a time when collaborative, decentralized approaches thrived. #Mainstreaming efforts to recapture this #4opens spirit failed for years, but eventually, corporate-driven dot-coms platforms captured the majority of people. Activist voices were muffled as #dotcons pushed mainstream interests, pulling away the community-driven power the web once enabled. This phase was a bait-and-switch operation, leading to surveillance capitalism and making it harder to stand up for collective, public-first internet paths.
A key aspect here is that this decline wasn’t caused by isolated figures but by broader, recurring social forces, like #fahernistas and the #geekproblem, who fell into patterns of adopting dominant narratives by failing to recognize the alt values of “native” open tech paths. As this happened, the #NGO world came in with “nice funding,” which subtly aligned activist tech initiatives with liberal, watered-down approaches. This pushed and promoted co-option over the power of change. The result was tech stagnation, with communities gradually losing their voice and control, the mess we were in 5 years ago.
The current openweb revival is due to protocols like #ActivityPub, coinciding with the rise of #web03, which was about re-implements #closedweb paths. This presents both a challenge and an opportunity, especially as the rotting of dotcons reveals the hollowness of centralization. While this #reboot has potential, it’s often bogged down by the same forces that hindered past movements. The #fahernistas focus on transient tech trends and individualistic coding projects that ignore the power of collective working, and the #web03 uncritical push of #encryption as a solution without a broader social strategy results in mountains of #techshit.
What works? Building from simple foundations: As digital activists and #DIY tech communities try to reboot the web, it’s essential to start with simplicity: #KISS principles (Keep It Simple, Stupid) offer a practical foundation. Instead of complex, flashy approaches, this mindset prioritizes clarity, accessibility, and collective agency. Each simple, intentional step creates a more durable basis to counter #mainstreaming forces.
What do we need: Self-organization tools within community are needed to reshape the path. Hashtags, for instance, have devolved into self-branding tools (fashernista), whereas they originally provided decentralized organizing power. Reclaiming these tools for grassroots purposes helps bring DIY activism to the forefront and build cohesive networks across digital paths.
What needs balance: The #VC poison of “nice funding” and #NGO co-option, are the big challenges facing the #openweb movement. Often, well-intentioned tech initiatives accept NGO money to sustain themselves, but this financial support is not neutral. The NGO world, embedded in liberal agendas, steers projects toward safe, palatable solutions that appeal to funders rather than fostering the radical shifts needed for real change. This sugar-coated poison draws tech initiatives away from their roots and into a cycle of compromise, weakening the collective power that grassroots projects depend on.
What can we do? As we look at ways to reignite a meaningful openweb, these lessons from history are crucial. Without seeing these patterns, we are repeating the same mistakes and allowing corporate and liberal to dictate the paths we take to build our shared digital commons. How we actually make this work is not obverse, but the current #fedivers reboot is a seed that is in the ground and growing.
I use the #4opens as a tool to do this as it’s simply #foss development with #openprocess added on, a useful tool to get past what people say their projects are about. And what they are actually about https://unite.openworlds.info/Open-Media-Network/4opens we need tools like this to compost the piles of #techshit people keep creating, if we are to have soil to grow tech seeds of hope, like #Activertypub
The path is simple, who is coming down it with me and meany others?
It’s clear there are differing perspectives on whether #BlueSky, now backed by Blockchain Capital, aligns with the values of #openweb or is moving to the #dotcons path. Blockchain Capital’s focus on decentralized technologies includes investments beyond cryptocurrency, yet the question remains about how much this continuing VC involvement influences BlueSky’s direction. In the hashtag story the “#dotcons” refers to corporations profiting under a facade of openness, potentially undermining grassroots and community-led standards.
Good to understand removing posts isn’t the goal; instead, fostering, community, transparency and critical dialogue around these paths is crucial. Ensuring open communication about motivations and funding helps prevent co-option by profit-centric interests—something I am arguing the #openweb aims to avoid. Yes, not everyone agrees on this, so we need to hold a balance, where this balance is, is a consensus, we need to find if we are to hold this community together.
The core issue isn’t blockchain technology itself but its common role in enabling corporatization within decentralized tech, shifting focus from community control to venture-driven paths and how these goals align or diverge from #openweb principles shapes the ongoing debate.
OK, this is a bit off subject. So back to the actual thread: “The consensus process is about us being the community we talk about – it’s likely the only thing that can work at the moment-can we focus please.”
The focus on consensus in SocialHub is embodying the collaborative, community-driven spirit native to grassroots and openweb paths. In discussions about governance and decision-making, consensus helps ensure that the process reflects shared values rather than any single, dominant voice. It’s practical, particularly now, as it aligns with the decentralized nature of the projects within SocialHub. Staying focused on building consensus is a path to achieving functional, inclusive community, reflecting the community “ethos” rather than replicating corporate or hierarchical structures we are so used to work in.
It’s a path for us to become what we often say we want to be.
This is what I am talking about, the rest, the “subject” is food for this path.
For forty years, we’ve been steeped in a dominant, and largely invisible ideology I call here the #deathcult, which is a metaphor for the relentless spread of #neoliberalism that has reshaped our social, economic, and technological systems in very destructive ways. Alongside this, the rise of #dotcons (corporate, centralized tech platforms) over the past twenty years has distorted the path of the internet and #openweb, steering it away from #4opens collaboration and into monopolized, extractive business models. We’re have been living the fallout now for the last ten years: a fractured digital landscape built on artificial scarcity and closed systems of control. This article explores the roots of this ideological mess and touches on the return to community-oriented solutions, rooted in collective ideals, through projects like the #fediverse and a renewed #openweb.
Neoliberalism, is the driver of our current crisis, is anti-social at its core, cutting shared resources and social spaces in favour of so-called “efficiency” and profit, leading to what I call in the hashtag stories the #deathcult – a mindset where profit pushes over life, social well-being, and environmental health. This ideological control permeates our sense of “common sense,” bending it to fit a world where exploitation is not just tolerated but expected. With our head down worship, we’ve been pushed to accept social and environmental sacrifices as the price of “progress”, instead of recognizing them as a sign of systemic failure.
The #dotcons and digital enclosure of our commons, has changes the path of the internet, which was originally built to be an open and decentralized platform. Yet, the past two decades of “#dotcom” culture transformed it into a centralized, corporate-controlled ecosystem that discourages innovation and subverts people’s and community autonomy. Companies like Google, Facebook, and Amazon thrive by enclosing the commons, creating walled gardens where data and attention are commodities for sale and control. This shift, which we all played a role in, has stifled alternative voices and projects, pushing out grassroots initiatives in favour of profit-driven silos.
The dotcons path exploits not just users’ data but the very concept of community, turning every interaction into controlling people for private profit. At long last, we’re now seeing a response in the form of projects like the #fediverse and #activertypub, which decentralize and reclaim digital space from these corporate giants. However, without collective action and a shared vision, this new path remains under threat of co-option from these corporate interests, with #dotcons and #VC funded #threads and #bluesky both being pushed into this “commons” we have spent years opening.
On a parallel path of the last 20 years, we have been suffering from a #geekproblem: a cultural fixation within the tech community on solving social issues through purely technical means, in ways that exclude non-technical people. Encryption, for instance, is a valuable tool for privacy but isn’t a universal solution to all social or technological issues. The “more encryption” mindset neglects the importance of building trust and understanding in online communities, focusing instead on individual security in isolation.
For example, with projects like #nostr when encryption becomes the end-all solution, we’re left with technology that is impenetrable to regular people, creating more barriers than it removes. The challenge isn’t just technical, it’s social. We need to mediate the geek-centric approach with practical, accessible solutions that empower people, not only a few tech-savvy minorities.
A basic #KISS and #nothingnew path, can help to mediate these issues, they are concepts that encourage us to revisit old, tried-and-true solutions rather than reinventing the wheel in ways that add complexity. Complexity and “innovation for innovation’s sake” leads to, too much, #techshit, overly complicated tech that serves no one but its creators. The KISS path reminds us that simplicity growes inclusivity. If we want more people to engage with the #openweb, we need to create tools that prioritize accessibility and usability over complex features. The #nothingnew philosophy supports this by encouraging us to look to the past for inspiration, reviving old ideas that worked instead of constantly chasing the latest #fashernista trends.
Hashtags are a useful tool for #DIY community organization, but in this era of #stupidindividualism, hashtags get dismissed as tools for self-expression or “fashion statements” (#fashernista). Yet, hashtags can serve a deeper purpose in organizing and connecting people around shared ideas and goals. Instead of using hashtags to show off, we can use them to build flows of mutual support and collaboration. The DIY ethos is central to this: organizing from the bottom up, using digital tools to strengthen offline communities and collective action.
Embracing collective paths, one of the main issues that fractured early movements, like #indymedia, was the inability to work collectively. The culture of individualism championed by neoliberalism crept into activist spaces, weakening them from within. Reclaiming the openweb means reclaiming collective processes, where shared resources and collaborative decision-making are balanced with individual control. We need native digital spaces where communities work together, rather than being siloed into “users” isolated by individualistic platforms.
Moving forward is now about composting the #techshit, a path to compost the tech detritus of the past two decades, the techshit accumulated through#NGO funding of misguided projects and closed systems. Just as composting turns organic waste into fertile soil, we can take the lessons of past failures to create a thriving, resilient commons reboot. By fundamentally abandoning the pursuit of artificial scarcity and focusing on shared abundance, we foster this better, more humane path.
For this to work, we need to address the #geekproblem by placeing as much value on social solutions as we do on technical ones, to create tech that supports community needs rather than hindering them. This path values process over product, relationships over transactions, and social well-being over profit.
Ultimately, the choice is clear: continue worshipping at the altar of the #deathcult, or support the “native” path with the openweb. The former is the path we are on now, of escalating, isolation, environmental destruction, and social disintegration, while the latter offers a chance at connection, collaboration, and resilience. This path won’t be easy, but it’s worth the effort to avoid being subsumed by the dominant, #deathcult story we repeat to oftern to ourselves.
As we work to reboot old systems and build better ones, let’s ask ourselves: What are we helping to reboot today? By choosing collective action over individualism, KISS over complexity, and cooperation over control, we can step away from the current mess and plant the seeds for hope and survival.
Lift your head, dirty your hands we have a world to plant
I understand people’s frustration. We’ve been working for decades at the forefront of social and environmental activism, particularly in the realm of tech, aiming to create change through initiatives like the #4opens and the #OMN. It’s clear that we’re addressing serious, fundamental issues—especially around how the #openweb has been captured by corporate interests with people’s use of the #dotcons.
People might misunderstand the path as less serious because they don’t grasp the depth of the critique or are overwhelmed by the complexity of the issues. They may also be caught up in their own perspectives, pushing back against ideas that challenge their comfort zones and #blinded entrenched interests.
We’re offering a radical, long-term solution to counter the #deathcult of neoliberalism and the pushing of environmental collapse, yet people all too often mix up urgency and extremism. The good faith we’re extending in these discussions—despite resistance—shows we are dedication to finding real, grounded solutions, instead of surface-level fixes.
Maybe framing the conversation with clearer, step-by-step plans for practical actions might help open a few people’s eyes from their self-inflicted blindness to see the gravity of the situation without dismissing it as “too radical” or “not serious.” We are, after all, pushing for both radical and liberal coalitions to confront the massive issues of #climatechaos, #openweb, and our very real lack of collective future.
As ever, stay strong, it’s through persistence and clarity that we’ll navigate past the mess-making and onto the real work that so urgently needs doing.
One thing we really need to compost is the often invisible conflict between the native commons-based approach and the realities of capitalist infrastructure—particularly in how we fund, organize, and maintain spaces, for example #FediForum. It is hard to get across this invisible #blocking . The perspective, of ideological exclusion rather than the money itself being an issue, though of course it is. this captures a deeper issue about how certain approaches (like paywalls) alienate grassroots communities, even if the cost is minimal or scholarships are available.
We need to see the value in both native and #mainstreaming paths, the native path of the Fediverse and related #openweb movements grew organically from gift economies and volunteer-driven efforts. As did a lot of openweb work, including the ActivityPub standard, which was developed in such spaces, without the need for a paywall or corporate sponsorship. This ethos is central to the commons-building process, where trust, collaboration, and openness are valued more than monetization or statues in formal hard structures.
In the example of FediForum you can see contrast, mainstreaming, paywalls, closed applications, proprietary tools like Zoom and Eventbrite, etc. While they may argue that these tools and models are necessary to cover costs, they create barriers for those who have historically contributed to the commons, in this they are unthinkably enclosing, pushing these paths. The point that the paywall is an ideological barrier, not merely a financial one, is critical. For many in the grassroots community, the introduction of a paywall—even if it’s just $2 or $40—symbolizes a shift away from open, accessible organizing. It’s not just about affordability; it’s about how the space is structured and who it’s structured for.
Events organized without paywalls, based on voluntary contributions, have historically worked because they maintained a native, commons-based ethos. They relied on the trust and collaboration of participants, who donated time, energy, and resources to make things happen without needing to resort to gatekeeping mechanisms like paywalls. With this in mind, we need to try and move conversations that can so easily turn nasty and negative into building bridges, not undermining foundations. The solution lies in acknowledging the strengths of both paths, native and mainstreaming, and finding a way to link them, rather than blindly pushing for one path to dominate and enclose the other.
Actions for Bridge-Building: Ideas and actions for how we might approach this challenge pragmatically, without compromising on the core values of the native common’s path:
Transparent Linking: Start by linking to other paths. Our example FediForum can openly acknowledge and link to grassroots spaces like SocialHub, recognizing that both are part of the larger network. This small step would create a bridge rather than a division.
FOSS Infrastructure is absolutely basic. Push for the use of open-source alternatives to #dotcons tools like Zoom and Eventbrite. This could include tools we have successfully used before , BigBlueButton, Jitsi or other FOSS video conferencing platforms, alongside commons-based event platforms. Even if these tools mean volunteers agreeing to host, the ideological message is different: they are part of the #openweb rather than a concession to the #dotcons proprietary mess.
Open Scholarship Programs: While some financial costs are unavoidable, events could offer open, transparent scholarship programs, as FediForum did at the first event, not just token offerings but significant pathways for those in the grassroots to attend for free. This can help balance the ideological exclusion of paywalls.
Co-organization with Grassroots: Instead of the mainstreaming path of dominating, events really need to engage in co-organization with grassroots communities, ensuring a balance of perspectives. The #OGB would help this issue, as for example, fediforum could be an affiliate stakeholder. This would be a step toward more commons-based governance and event management.
Decentralized Organizing Models: An option (am this is NOT compulsory) would be to take a cue from successful decentralized networks like the Fediverse itself, where governance and organizing can be shared across multiple nodes. In our example, FediForum could adopt a more structurally decentralized organizing model, where grassroots actors have a say in how the event is structured, funded, and run.
What we are talking about here is recognizing different realities, yes we do live in capitalist societies, and sometimes the realities of funding and infrastructure cannot be ignored. However, recognizing this doesn’t mean fully conceding to the #mainstreaming path. Instead, there can be a balance where the native commons ethos is preserved while finding sustainable ways to support events and initiatives. This is actually how the THING we are talking about was originally built, this is what I am calling “native”.
The commons-based path is not simply about ideals; it’s about creating structures that are inclusive, accessible, and genuinely collaborative. While mainstream forces may argue for pragmatism (paywalls, proprietary tools), we do need to push back for a #KISS solution, transparent linking and FOSS tools, offers a simple yet profound bridge. This is how we can grow diversity and ensure that the Fediverse remains a grassroots, native space where trust, openness, and collaboration thrive.
An important point about the invisible barriers that people face, which aren’t always immediately understood by others involved in conversation like this. For many grassroots contributors, the imposition of a paywall feels like an act of enclosure, a kind of taking of space that they had a hand in building. This is often not visible to those who approach these events from a more #mainstreaming or #NGO mindset.
To address this “invisible problem” We need to keep emphasizing the importance of recognizing this divide, not as an attack but as an opportunity for mutual understanding. The more people on the mainstreaming path can see how their actions might be excluding core contributors, the more likely bridges can be built. Encourage people to step into the shoes of those who feel excluded, and help them understand that this isn’t just about access or money—it’s about respecting the ethos and history of the movement.
The imperialism visible in FediForum is a part of the broader critique of the culture surrounding it, that can help to highlight a core issue in the evolution of the openweb and grassroots activism: the tension between #mainstreaming (enclosure) and grassroots commons (open, decentralized commons paths).
The Cultural Divide, the culture around FediForum is #NGO and #liberal, #dotcons-friendly, a path that tends to centralize control and enclosure, even in discussions about decentralization. The use of #closedsource tools like Zoom and Eventbrite highlights this contradiction. This cultural divide is significant, grassroots communities, including those on SocialHub, reject participation in spaces dominated by tools and processes that contradict the #4opens values. While this isn’t necessarily about whether the individuals involved are “good or bad,” it’s crucial to acknowledge the cultural influence of #NGO and corporate models, that seek to enclose and professionalize what should remain a grassroots, commons-based path, we need to do this so as not to simply end up enclosing the commons in ignorant “common sense” paths. Now that’s a mouth twister 😉
Lack of a Bridge, suggests a commons-oriented solution—a bridge between these two cultural approaches through transparent linking and collaboration between different projects (e.g., FediForum and SocialHub) which would respect the decentralized nature of the #openweb. I personally talk to them about this at the first event, unfortunately, this advice was ignored, and the #NGO path continued, leading to the ideological exclusion of grassroots participants who have been building the Fediverse and the openweb for years at this paywalled event
The #4opens is useful to highlight what for meany people is an invisible, thus unimportant divide:
Applying the #4opens framework is a helpful way to assess the project’s alignment with the openweb’s foundational values. Here’s a quick DRAFT breakdown of how FediForum fares:
Open Data: They are somewhat open, using Creative Commons licenses and publishing event videos openly, but the paywall during the events limits input and participation, reducing the openness. Partial TICK.
Open Source: The CMS might be FOSS, but the reliance on closed-source platforms for the events themselves (Zoom, Eventbrite) contradicts the open-source ethos. Half TICK or none.
Open Industrial Standards: Limited to some RSS feeds, but the integration of proprietary platforms makes it hard to give full credit here. No TICK.
Open Process: Organizing is closed, with paywalled events, though the unconference format allows for more open discussions. However, the ideological closure to many grassroots participants remains. Half TICK.
At best, this makes FediForum a bronze #4opens project with significant room for improvement. At worst, it’s not aligned with the #4opens, thus the #openweb at all.
The path that keeps “commons” open is activism, which is about making it hard for these values to be ignored. In this case, we could start this by pushing for the adoption of simple steps like linking and transparency (#KISS). This can begin to rebuild bridges that better reflects the diverse contributions of all involved, without closing doors on those who helped build it in the first place.
This is a DRAFT as have not looked at this project deeply for a while.
Look past what they say, look at what they do #4opens.
The #4opens are a simple way to judge the value of an “alt/grassroots” tech project.
* Open data – is the basic part of a project. Without this openness, they cannot function. Open data is essential for transparency and collaboration.
- The are pretty open on this and use CC license, the are some RSS feeds. But input into the events is paywalled so closed, after the event videos are published as open. A full TICK or a half TICK
* Open source – refers to “free software.” This keeps development healthy by increasing interconnectedness and fostering serendipity. Open licences, such as Creative Commons. Open source FOSS encourages collaboration and innovation.
- am not sure what CMS they use but likely #FOSS. They use a a mashup of closed source #dotcons for the events. Half TICK or non?
* Open “industrial” standards – are foundational for the open internet and WWW Open standards ensure interoperability and compatibility, enabling diverse systems to work together seamlessly.
The are some RSS feeds on the sites but this is it, the #dotcons used for the events make this hard to give a tick so no TICK
* Open process – is the most nebulous part but crucial for collaboration and trust. Examples include wikis and activity streams. Open process ensures that project workflows are transparent and participatory.
- the organizing of events and process to organize the events are closed, the events themselves being unconferences are open. But are paywalled so ideologically closed to meany people.
Half a TICK to be positive
It’s easy to become a #4opens project and join the #openweb path:
So we have a wide spread for this project at worst, not a #4opens project with one TICK at best a bronze #4opens project with 2 TICKS that needs improvement.
The paywalled #FediForum, while billed as “the unconference for those moving the Fediverse forward,” is thin on the ground when it comes to real, impactful “native” voices. The grassroots actors who are notably absent from these spaces are far more significant in shaping the #openweb path than the #NGO and #dotcons interests pushing #mainstreaming.
It’s important to notice this and remember where you stand in this network. Yes, we’re struggling and making a mess on our grassroots path, but we’re still here. On the other hand, those on the #mainstreaming path are few but make up for their lack of presence by generating noise and occupying space.
This is still a grassroots project, and we, the “native” people on the #openweb, are the vibrant threads in the tapestry. #NGOs and even the #dotcons can join in, but they are not at the core. We are the core. Balancing the signal-to-noise ratio, while noisy forces try to drown us out, requires active mediation—activism, plain and simple.
Stay engaged, stay noisy in a good way, and keep pushing the #4opens path.
The #4opens are a simple way to judge the value of an “alt/grassroots” tech project.
Open data – is the basic part of a project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_data without this open they cannot work.
You can get your data out with RSS and AP and vie user export, so TICK
Open source – as in “free software” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software this keeps development healthy by increasing interconnectedness and bringing in serendipity. The Open licences are the “lock” that keep the first two in place, what we have isn’t perfect, but they do expand the area of “trust” that a project needs to work, creative commons is a start here.
Open “industrial” standards – this is a little understood but core open, it’s what the open internet and WWW are built from. Here is an outline https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_standard
Here it’s problematic, it supports atom/RSS good, but is AP support is pushing broken HALF TICK
Open process – this is the most “nebulous” part, examples of the work flow would be wikis and activity streams. Projects are built on linking trust networks, so open process is the “glue” that binds the links together. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process
It uses #github a #dotcons platform, which kinda has open process but is in meany ways unresponsive to this #openprocessHALF TICK
Solidarity
It’s easy to become a #4opens project and join the #openweb family. Just show that your project fulfils 2 or more of the above “opens”.
This makes 3 opens, so Mastodon is a silver #4opens project, to become gold it needs to improve its standards competence and/or work at better open process.
