The Meta-Mess of the “Open” Social Web

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

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

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

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

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

Audrey Tang

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

Mike Masnick

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

Laurens Hof

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

Johannes Ernst

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

Melanie Bartos

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

Robin Berjon

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

PublicSpaces

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

Waag Futurelab

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

What’s Missing Matters Most

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

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

Compost, Soil, and Rebalancing

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

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

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

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

The Crew – Paths to Growth?

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

LIVE at c-base a #fluffy Fediverse conference

It’s been going on for the last few years, let’s look at a current example. Live at c-base is a #Fediverse event that highlights the need for composting the dogmatic #fluffy mess making to keep balance in our shared #openweb reboot. With our #fluffy crew talking about the shared reboot, on the surface it looks positive – friendly conversations, smiles, the right hashtags – but underneath it reveals a deeper problem: there is zero balance at these events. This is the third event I’ve seen with the same issue: the same small group, the same narrow framing, the same blindness. It is not healthy. It is not balanced. And it is not a good path to stay on.

What we are seeing, again and again, is a kind of #blinded #blocking. A narrow circle, reproducing itself, shutting out the very people who dug the digital soil for the seedling stage of the current #Fediverse growth. Sadly, #blindness and #blocking makes these people prats, not because they don’t care, but because they can’t see beyond their narrow bubbles.

Composting the mess, we need to be honest here. We all make messes in movement spaces, and the only way forward is to compost these messes. Composting means breaking down what is toxic, unbalanced, or self-serving and transforming it into nutrients that can grow something better. If we ignore the problem, the mess just piles up until the whole project smells. If we compost it, we can build soil, roots, and future growth.

Where’s the hope? Right now, hope is hard to see in these paths. A purely #fluffy approach – friendly, soft, smiling – is good for atmosphere, but it slides into dogmatic blindness. Fluffy alone does not challenge power. Fluffy alone does not create balance. Fluffy alone does not compost.

What we need is spiky/fluffy. We need the warmth of fluff but also the edge of spike, the courage to challenge, to draw lines, to say when things are going wrong. Without this, we share the same blindness, wrapped in smiles and funding applications. One thing that might explain this narrowness is that we are in the middle of a generation change. The original crew who put real work into growing the #Fediverse in its seedling years are no longer invited, and the real problem is that to this new fluffy crowd the last generation are mostly invisible.

Looking at the Berlin Fedi Day schedule the only person I recognise from that seedling stage, that built the current working reboot is Christine Lemmer-Webber, and they were always firmly within the #NGO-fluffy camp. Everyone else? New faces, from before, like Evan Prodromou who played no role in the atavism of the seedling stage or the people from after ??? Who to often bring the #NGO and funding paths that is at the root of current mess making.

One such event would be understandable. But three in a row? It looks less like an “accident” and more like a PRAT move, hardcoded fork of our shared project. A fork that speaks with arrogance “for all of us” while shutting out the #spiky voices of the community who helped built the current #fedivers path. Towards balance, where do we go from here?

Name the mess: We can’t fix what we won’t face. #blinded #blocking is real, and it needs to be called out. This is what I am doing here.

Compost, don’t cancel: These are not enemies, just our #NGO, #fashionista in need of wider perspective. We don’t waste energy and focus in burning them out; we compost their mess into fuel for growth, they are a part of the debate.

Spiky/Fluffy events: The next gathering should explicitly mix both tendencies. Spikiness to challenge, fluffiness to care. That balance is the only way to keep hope alive, let’s not be prats on this, please.

Reconnect with roots: We need to bring back more of the seedling stage #Fediverse builders and seedling voices, not as nostalgia but as grounding. The roots matter if the tree is to grow.

Expand the circle: No small group should speak for the whole. Open doors, open process, open web. #4opens. A part of this is embedded in the closed funding of these events and process.

Final thought, right now, what we’re watching is real prat behaviour, dressed up in smiles and #NGO funding. That’s a dead end. If we want the #openweb reboot to be more than another hollow fad, we need balance, humility, and compost. The fluffy mess won’t compost itself. That’s our job.

You likely need a shovel #OMN to work on composting. Or if you want to continue with this kind of mess making then clearer naming the events for the minority they invite and host would help to make less mess, a few #NGO groups have started to do this like #FediForum and the #SWF now have less imperialistic language, which is at least is a little less blinded.

#fediday #c-based

It’s Not About You

This is a story of power, plain and simple

The state of the world, over the last few years, we’ve been watching a familiar story unfold, we’ve seen repeat itself in radical spaces, tech movements, and grassroots networks for decades. It starts in the grassroots with “progressive” #fashernistas (yes, them) pushing themselves into the front to speak for “us.” They talk the talk of decentralisation, care, community, and #FOSS ethics. They wear all the right hashtags: #opensocialmedia, #Fediverse, #commons, #techforgood. But when you look at how power is actually exercised behind the scenes, it’s something else entirely. This is a story of power, plain and simple. Not in the dramatic “revolutionary” sense. But in the subtle creep of careerism, institutional capture, and “safe” social capital games that flatten the real radical and uplifts the fake “palatable”.

Let’s take a few examples from the #activertypub world, first with the #SocialHub stagnation, this open space was originally created by the grassroots crew to shape the standards of the decentralised web. On the surface It was a working common, protocol-building and governance exploration space. So, what happened? The people now “leading” came from lifestyle #fashionista activism and wannabe #NGO circuits, who in the end were all trying to be embedded in the institutional funding environments, or visiting from the safe academic bubble. And thus they brought with them the dogmas of safe spaces, of “emotional consensus,” “hidden affinity group governance,” and “(ex)inclusive dialogue”… that JUST SO happened to exclude the radical and messy paths that are actually native to the #openweb flows, the bad mess they then made, ended up only pushing the dogma of the #geekprolem as it was the ONLY path they could imagine controlling in a way that would not threaten the thin connection to the institutions they were feeding from. This behaviour so often slips into forms of parasitism, that is not a good thing at all.

Then we have the current #Fediverse outreach infrastructure capture, where we’ve seen the same class of actors attach themselves to the most visible projects – like Mastodon, ActivityPub standards, and now “Fediverse governance.” They secure seats on boards. They host conferences with glossy branding and friendly logos. Not only that, but they use these controlled spaces to then push out “code of conduct” documents and “safe space” branding… while closing and excluding the real working infrastructure of discussion and direction that is should be native and needed.

Examples? #Mastodon’s GitHub, issue tracking, and moderation are all tightly controlled by a small clique around the project founder. Community voices are kinda tolerated at best, discarded at worst. The project is moving onto the #NGO path, no bad thing in its self, but with its years of pushing its own branding as THE Fediverse, it becomes a bad thing. In this, there is a very real debt of damage they need to pay back – as a part of a functioning gift economy – saying sorry and admitting mistakes would be a good limited first step.

Then we have the example of the #FediForum events, pushing into the space blindly, with zero historical context or any shared knowledge, to talk over, “represent” the #activertypub ecosystem. The problem is beyond this mess, they paywalled, which lead “naturally” to increasingly gate keeping with #NGO commercial interests being pushed to the front to represent “us”. When the radical and experienced grassroots voices obviously don’t get involved, as they simply refuse to step over the paywall. This is now an ongoing mess, that we do need to compost and not only with #fashionista outrage but with real working paths, we used to do this, but we can’t any more – why?

Over the last few years we have had proposals for genuine horizontal governance, that could have been used to shift this mess making and to actually shifts power outward – but these were labelled “too messy,” “too political,” or “not the right time.” This is not accidental, it is #liberalism functioning as control – with a smile. So… what can we do? Let’s be clear: This is a power issue, it’s not only about bad intentions. It’s about how power is used, and then abused, even in the so-called “horizontal” paths.

The first thing we have to do is recognise the smell of #NGO-style liberalism that so easily hides itself in good intentions, grants, DEI language, and “process.” But it then ends up:

Disempowering community autonomy
Replacing radical potential with “professionalism”
Marginalising away activists and messy real-world projects
Recreating the same vertical hierarchies, just with better “open” branding

Composting this is needed to break the cycle:

Build and back native projects. The only way to push back against capture is to grow infrastructure from within our communities, like: #OMN (Open Media Network) #OGB (Open Governance Body). These must be trust-based, not credential-based. That means supporting those doing the work without demanding they translate it into pointless and most importantly powerless NGO-speak to be taken seriously.
Use the #4opens as a filter, this simple social retelling of #FOSS is designed precisely to push out the 95% of #techshit and focus energy on projects with: Open source Open data Open standards Open governance. Apply these consistently, and the parasite class will struggle to keep and find a foothold.
Push for messy, lived governance, stop waiting for perfect systems. We need to prototype imperfect, transparent, accountable governance now. It should be: Based on trust, not rules-lawyering Driven by use, not representation Grounded in solidarity, not status
Refuse the “leader class”, just because someone has a title, a grant, or a #dotcons following, doesn’t mean they speak for us. Call out the unaccountable influence. Politely or not. Let’s not let careerists write our futures, please.

The Fediverse path could be the most important #openweb reboot of the commons of this decade. But it will only be that if we keep it rooted in social power, not polished #PR and #NGO mess. We don’t need new kings. We need more gardeners, to work together to compost the piles of #techshit and keep the space open and safe.

I think when our #fahernistas say to us “what have we done, please be nice to us, you’re not welcoming.” We need to reply: Am happy to be nice #KISS, just stop being a prat in this space please.

It’s really simple, please stop being (an often nasty) prat.

The Mess We Make (Again… and again)

It’s becoming a problem

It’s becoming a problem. When people start asking, “Is @_elena the first genuine superstar of the Fediverse?” – we should all pause. This isn’t idle praise, it’s the reproduction of celebrity culture, liberal imperialism, and vertical hierarchy in a space that explicitly set out to reject those structures.

Have you ever thought – just for a moment – that this might be the completely WRONG path for a horizontal network like the #Fediverse? Yes, we need mess. Yes, we need experimentation. But this? This is #mainstreaming in its most seductive form, a soft power grab, hiding behind friendly faces and growing marketing gloss.

Both #pubconf2025 and #fediforum, and the people who attend them, are becoming a showroom for this liberal capture, promoting star-making and platforming over community process and open governance. It’s an “open” mirror of the conference-industrial complex, repackaged for the #dotcons-weary.

We’ve seen this before: #NGOs turned movements into funding funnels. Influencers replaced organizers. Polite panels replaced fourm-level solidarity. It’s been happening here the last few years. But we do need to remember, the Fediverse isn’t a playground for fame, it’s a commons, to distribute power – not concentrate it. We don’t need to unthinkingly push people down the superstars’ path. We need peers, comrades, care, conflict resolution, and actual shared infrastructure.

So let’s be honest, if you’re pushing “the first superstar of the Fediverse,” you’re not pushing decentralization, you’re pushing brand culture, mainstreaming logic, and attention economies repackaged for liberal feels. That’s not radical. That’s not native, it’s not what we came here to build.

Let’s compost this celebrity logic before it roots too deep. Let’s stay messy, collaborative, and resist the temptation to crown anyone. Because if we don’t? We’re just rebuilding the same old pyramids – with slightly alt avatars.

Maybe we need to look agen at the more #mainstreaming #dotcons path. The not-so-subtle message we need to remember on social media: Dictators hate to be ignored. Especially on their “special days” – birthdays, elections, court appearances, or orchestrated spectacles. These moments are designed to dominate the media cycle and, by extension, the social media algorithms.

They thrive on attention, and whether that attention is praise or outrage, it fuels their visibility and power. Here’s the social tech they exploit:

When you doomscroll their face, the algorithm sees interest.
When you post disgust, the algorithm sees engagement.
When you argue with trolls, you’re boosting the signal of the original post.
When you call them names, it still centres them.

That’s the #dotcons feedback loop, engagement is king, and dictators know how to play that game. Let’s break this circle, on these days, do something different:

Share stories of local mutual aid.
Link to historical context that exposes the long game of these power grabs.
Boost voices that decentralize attention, not concentrate it.
Post about books, direct action, food sovereignty, climate organizing, and tools for collective autonomy.
Highlight grassroots projects like #OMN, which are building sustainable, decentralized alternatives.

This is how we take the air out of #mainstreaming fires. Starve the algorithm and feed the resistance. Focus on things that actually matter, remember: not engaging is a strategy. Ignore the circus. Build the commons.

#KISS

The Fediverse is opening, but there is a cost

With the #Fediverse gaining #mainstreaming attention, we’re entering a familiar cycle, with the influx of well-funded #NGO-branded projects trying to “fix” the #openweb by reshaping it in their own narrowing and to often blinded dead end paths.

Take this year’s #chatteringclass event, #FediForum. Alongside breathless praise, last years focus on #Threads joining the #opensocialweb space, we’re seeing the launch of shiny new tools: #BonfireSocial, #Channelorg, #Bounce. That promise innovation and ecosystem growth, but look closer, lift the lid, and you’ll see the #NGO pattern: branding over substance, silos in disguise, and a creeping return of the mini #dotcons under new, friendlier wrappers.

Let’s take Channel.org, On the surface, it looks like a #mainstreaming version of the #OMN project #indymediaback – community news channels, a grassroots publishing model, maybe even respectful federation. But scratch that surface and the cracks show quickly:

The default feeds are anaemic #NGO fodder
The orgs list reads like a who’s who of liberal foundations, with the usual hidden gatekeeping logic behind the scenes.
And it’s yet another “pay or pray” model: either be a professional #NGO or get nudged out.

In short, it’s likely just more #techshit to compost. A well-polished box built to contain, not empower. A place where “participation” is narrow and boring. This isn’t to say there’s zero value. There will be overlap with what we’re doing in grassroots projects like the #OMN and #indymediaback spaces. But experience tells us, these projects rarely cooperate. They prefer to rebuild from scratch, with branding and compliance hardcoded. They see networks as products to manage, not native cultures to nurture. In the end they sell out, it happens, and will keep happening.

And the result? A growing layer of parasites attaching to the living Fediverse, the familiar smell of funding cycles, strategy decks, and locked-down roadmaps. We’ve seen this before. We know where it leads. The real question isn’t what’s new? It’s what’s native?

What we don’t need is more branded reboot of the same paths, what we do need is more funded and sustainable grounded, messy, radically open alternatives. We need deep roots in social movement history, not just more nice UX. We need resourced paths that resist capture, and refuses to turn community into product.

That’s the path we’re on at the #OMN, so if the #NGO track wants to build parallel paths, fine. Just don’t expect us to be polite about this mess making, we’ve already walked that road too many times. Live and let live, compost #techshit and build real alternatives #KISS

You know your getting big when parasites like this start to attach… salt and branding irons come to mind.

The #4opens vs. liberal tokenism in #openweb tech

The “social./bill-of-rights” is a fresh example of a well-meaning but toothless attempt at defining ethical tech. It’s the same process and project as the existing #4opens, but framed in a way that’s more palatable to liberal and capitalist interests. The difference? The #4opens isn’t an appeal to values, it’s a functional way of judging, thus pushing developers and projects. #KISS

For those who actually want to build a better #openweb, the real work is here: https://unite.openworlds.info/Open-Media-Network/4opens This should not be about reinventing the wheel. We really don’t need another set of guidelines that sound good but change nothing. What we need is accountability and practical tools that push projects directly to align with the open principles they often claim to support.

The #4opens isn’t an ideal, it’s a framework for action.
If a project doesn’t hold up under scrutiny, it’s not open.

The hashtag #nothingnew comes to mind, but diversity is not necessarily bad, diversity in approaches is good, but fragmentation isn’t. To fix this these initiatives need to be linked together in a meaningful way, rather than diluted into disconnected efforts. This is basic #openweb thinking, connect, build, and push back against the corporate creep. If the #deathcult of #neoliberal tech has taught us anything, it’s that soft reforms lead to endless co-option. The effective path to take is through grassroots accountability and practical, enforceable openness #KISS

The Forgotten Story of Social Technology: Why It Matters

UPDATE: then you have the #fediforum implosion to learn from https://kolektiva.social/deck/tags/fediforum

A guest post – The Mess of the Current #OpenWeb Path: A User’s Experience

Why the Fediverse Needs a Bridge Between Mainstreaming and Grassroots

A key point that often gets misunderstood – #Mainstreaming isn’t inherently good or bad – it depends on who is influencing whom.

Good #mainstreaming = Bringing #openweb values into the mainstream (transparency, decentralization, cooperation).

Bad #mainstreaming = The mainstream (corporate control, surveillance capitalism, hierarchy) infusing itself into the #openweb and reshaping it in its own image.

In the current context, mainstreaming is mostly bad because it pushes dilution of radical alternatives into market-friendly compromises. The #deathcult (neoliberalism) doesn’t absorb things in good faith, it co-opts and neutralizes them.

That’s why we need mediation, pushback, and a clear understanding of context when talking about #mainstreaming. Sometimes it’s the right move, but right now, the priority is defending and growing the roots of the #openweb before our # #fashionistas can sell it off as a brand.

On this path, one of the best things about the #Fediverse is that real people and community’s get to choose what kind of digital paths they want to take. Don’t want #Meta snooping around? Join or host an instance that blocks them out. Prefer not to have people search your content? Lock it down in your settings. Want to mediate the strong #blinded flow of “normies”? Close the doors via your instance settings. It’s a “nativist” system that offers a radical degree of agency compared to the #dotcons.

But what happens when people start demanding that their version of the #Fediverse become the default for everyone else? That’s where things get tricky, and where we risk losing the most valuable aspect of this messy, decentralized network: the bridges between worlds. The danger of closed loops, it’s understandable that people want their corners of the #Fediverse to feel safe, sustainable, coherent, and aligned with shared values.

The problem is that when we focus on tools so that every group can retreat into its own echo chamber, we recreate the failures of the wider #dotcons web: fragmented bubbles where ideas stagnate, and meaningful conversations can’t happen. This is what I mean when I talked about #mainstreaming echo chambers, the tendency for people to isolate themselves in what feels comfortable, which ultimately makes everything smaller.

The irony is that this impulse to close off is, in a way, the same as the desire to keep the Fediverse open. Both are reactions to the failures of centralized tech platforms. People who want to mediate #mainstreaming influences are trying to nurture the fragile seedlings of the grassroots culture they’ve built, while those advocating for broader adoption hope to prevent the network from collapsing into irrelevance. Both impulses come from wanting the Fediverse to survive, they just express that desire in too often opposite #blocking ways.

The failed bridging of FediverseHouse is a normal, the tension came to a head with projects like #FediverseHouse and #Fediforum, which aimed to be a gathering space but ultimately failed to build lasting bridges. It wasn’t because people didn’t care, it was because there wasn’t enough understanding of how to hold that tension between the grassroots and the mainstream without one swallowing the other. The projects lack the simplicity of #KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid) and got tangled in the same old dynamics of control and fragmentation.

Keeping the bridge in place has a lot to do which sharing resources, in non #mainstreaming ways, yes, we understand, this is a hard leap for meany people but only people who can make this step can be useful in the end to the “native” #openweb paths. The solution isn’t to pick a side, but to intentionally hold the bridge in place.

In a smaller, view, that might look like running accounts across multiple instances and boosting content between different ideological spaces to keep ideas flowing. It might mean advocating for #4opens values even in mainstream-leaning spaces, or gently nudging the more isolated pockets of the Fediverse to stay curious about what lies outside their walls.

The Fediverse doesn’t need to be one thing, that’s its strength. But if we let the bridges decay, we lose the possibility of cross-pollination, of radical ideas seeping into #mainstreaming consciousness, or of everyday people stumbling into a space that makes them question the status quo. Instead of fighting, as we so often do, to make one version of the #Fediverse dominant, maybe the real work is in keeping the network alive, messy, imperfect, but always connected. Because it’s in those connections that real alternatives grow.

Fediverse, grassroots, native, trust, openness, and collaboration

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.

Let’s try a #fluffy path:

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.

We need to balance this mess making

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.

Looking at the paths out of the current mess

We need an effective way of communicating that all value on the #fedivers is cultural, the tech itself is a product of this #openweb culture. The #activertypub speck is an accident of this culture not being swamped become the #mainstreaming was not interested at the time

We have an increasing number of funders pouring money down the drain in #fedivers tech, when the source of the value #openweb culture that created this new “commons” is swamped by the #mainstreaming agenda.

This #fediforum thing is going to be a hardcore invisible clash of cultures, all the #fashernista who stood back from the #ActivertyPub push for the last 5 years are now flooding in, as are refugees from the encryptions mess. The language might be #fedvers BUT most of the people will not be. Let’s try and create focus, small steps.

#Mozfest Is on if you want to see posers, #fashernista and general #NGO pointless. I did sign up but when the time came to log in I could not be bothered. I do use the browser, though.

We do need to express contempt for what a lot of the assumptions and agenda (often unspoken) our #NGO and #fashernista crew push. Yes, it’s crap and pointless, so please say this, in most cases the “emperor’s” are not wearing any clothes. Express yourself, it’s needed.

The is going to be an increasing mix of #mainstreming people moving back to the #openweb we need much better tools and process to deal with the mess they bring with them as well as our own mess we have here. The is going to be a lot of prat’ish behaviour from both inside our #openweb movement and outside from the #dotcons we need a way to mediate this… as it’s obviously damage dressed up in #NGO clothing.

The problem with this negative circle is that it is self reinforcing, the prats, don’t like being pointed at as prats, and in reaction they dig deeper into prat’ish behaver. This damage is not helpful, we need fresh thinking, what do we do when “our” people act as prats. Ideas please?

The is a solution to this, the #OGB which mediates prat’ish behaver by democracy https://unite.openworlds.info/Open-Media-Network/openwebgovernancebody