Tag: feudalism

Commons and the metaphor of “grow a backbone”

With the tyranny of the structureless path, every attempt to share the commons decays into a fog of personalities, cliques, and unspoken power. What needs composting here is that, at best, you end up with a smiling violent man as the backstop of governance.

Without mediating structures, what emerges is not freedom but hidden hierarchy. “Smiling violence” – the agreeable man (or clique) who insists they’re just holding things together – quietly blocks challenge, manipulates process, and reserves the final say. If you’re not paying attention, and can’t move away, you wake to find yourself living in #feudalism, with its ever-present threat of personal violence lurking behind the smile.

This is how “horizontal” spaces rot. They confuse the absence of shared structures with openness, when in fact it is poisoned soil: domination by those most willing to coerce, block, or flatter. Without functioning myths and traditions, shared trust, and open processes, what grows is not commons but personal power, one person’s will, or a small group’s grip.

The smiling violent man is not an accident. He is the inevitable product of structurelessness:

Without flows of accountability, you get bottlenecks of control.

Without mediating trust systems, you get gatekeepers posing as “protectors.”

Without a backbone, you get a backstop, a hard edge of coercion dressed in kindness.

The result: commons replaced by fiefdoms, trust replaced by muscle, care replaced by the mask of “caring the most.” Once that happens, the commons are no longer common, they are held hostage.

When I see this again and again, I sometimes say: “grow a backbone.” But this rarely lands well. So let’s pause and ask what backbone really means in social settings:

  1. Structure / Stability: Like a spine holding the body upright, a social backbone is the framework that keeps everything from collapsing into mush. In #OMN terms: the #5F framework is the backbone, UX, UI, and culture all grow around it.
  2. Courage / Integrity: To “have backbone” means to stand firm under pressure. For movements, this means holding the line when mainstreaming forces, fashionistas, or gatekeepers push back. Backbone is refusing co-option, staying rooted in trust.
  3. Invisible but Essential: The backbone is not the face, not the style. It’s the quiet strength – shared trust and open processes – that allows everything else to move. Often invisible, but without it, nothing functions.

A social backbone, then, is the shared trust + open processes that holds a community upright against both internal decay and external capture. By contrast, on the progressive path the #fashionistas build style without backbone (pretty, but collapses quickly), and the #geekproblem builds bone without flesh (rigid, alienating).

Metaphors work when people use them, this might become convoluted 🙂

The comments brought up some points -When we talk about composting bad process, the stink comes from rot sealed off from air, the smiling violence holding the heap down, suffocating flows. The shovel (#OMN) exists to turn the pile, let oxygen in, keep the ecosystem alive. But the real work is done not by the shoveler but by the hidden actors: the invertebrates, fungi, and bacteria. The slow, distributed, many-voiced work of transforming mess into fertile ground. That’s us, when we build trust-based flow networks.

So let’s think about this backbone metaphor more. In biology, spines give structure, but ecosystems are held up just as much by invisible scaffolding: fungal networks, soil webs, rhizomes. In tech, the Internet “backbone” was designed with redundancy, no single node decisive, everything routing around damage. That’s closer to an exoskeleton or even a rhizome than to a rigid spine: strength through distributed paths, not central authority.

Back to the subject of tech #Mainstreaming likes to tell the story that the Internet came from the Pentagon, born a war machine. There’s truth there. But there’s also the buried history (see APC’s work) of people shaping it into a commons, a tool for organizing, a network not of command but of association. That history is the “invertebrate” path, fragile, messy, hard to see, but alive. And in truth, tech is ideology embodied: the people who built the early net built something that could survive without the state, routing around command and control. That’s a good definition of anarchy.

So the wider metaphor isn’t just backbone, but ecosystem: A scaffold that gives form (#5F of the #OMN as the bones). Shovels to aerate and mediate (#OGB as the process tools). Invertebrates and fungi (the hidden actors – users, trust webs, communities). Rhizomes and redundancy (the net’s anarchic, native design).

The danger comes when we forget this, and mistake surface style for soil depth. The #fashionistas offer flowers without roots, the #geekproblem offers bone without flesh. The commons require both – backbone and compost, scaffold and ecosystem. Otherwise, the heap stinks and collapses into fiefdoms.

A call-out for collective tech with teeth

It’s important to be honest about the landscape we’re working in. Just about every so-called “alternative tech” or #opensocialweb event – especially those run under the #NGO banner – is riddled with institutional parasites. They talk a big game about ethics, governance, and decentralisation, but their main role is to capture energy, not release it. The value in these spaces is minimal, maybe a few decent corridor chats, but structurally, they serve the status quo.

What we’re seeing is an attempt to #mainstream change by reshaping it into something more passive and marketable. It’s branding, not building. It’s funding cycles, not freedom. And people are so used to the #feudalism of current #FOSS governance models, full of gatekeepers, toxic meritocracy, and internalised hierarchy, that they don’t see the need to move past this. They double down instead, its just #blocking masked as principled caution.

That’s why the #OGB project (Open Governance Body) takes a radically different approach: build it permissionless and let it loose. No waiting for gatekeepers, no begging for funding, no asking nicely. Just making space for people to actually do the thing – together, in the open. If it works, people will come. If not, we try something else. But we stop wasting energy on the #mainstreaming rituals.

The key is to recognise that there’s a different and much larger group of people, beyond the usual suspects, who can be empowered by tech if the structures are simple, human, and social enough. People who want to work together, share power, and build resilience, not just ship code. Yes, the tools need to exist, the ideas already exist, what’s been missing is a path that doesn’t instantly collapse into control.

That’s why #OGB is a #KISS project, it’s not about perfection. It’s about functioning enough to seed community processes that can grow over time. Something you can pick up and use, rather than argue about forever in a GitHub issue or a grant proposal.

Let’s be real, people are up shit creek without a paddle right now. And most of what’s presented to them as “solutions” are just more mess dressed up in new UX. If we want people to find different ways out, we have to build different places to look. That means creating tech ecosystems rooted in social trust, creativity, and actual autonomy, not more extractive platforms or performative NGOs.

We also need to deal with the deeper issue of apathy and Laissez-faire fatalism. People feel the system’s broken but don’t believe it can be changed. They’ve internalised the idea that trying is pointless. So we need to design structures that take this into account. Systems that don’t rely on constant enthusiasm or perfect participation. That hold space through thick and thin, for the long term.

This is where there’s real space for creativity and care, not just in what we build, but in how we build it, and who we build it with. Not self-promoting conferences, not glossy decks, but compost piles and messy gardens, things that live, change, and root themselves in everyday needs.

The #OGB project is just one shovel. But there are others. Pick one up. The ground’s ready.

The left, right mess is on repeat

This is at the heart of the contradictions and confusion in the political landscape today. The liberal and left muddle, where elements of economic populism are shared across ideological divides, is something we’ve seen before, especially in the 1930s, when fascist movements co-opted working-class grievances while pushing reactionary nationalism.

Lets looks at history #Bannon, like the Nazi Röhm long before him, plays a dangerous game by mobilizing working-class anger against neoliberal “elites” but steering it toward nationalism rather than genuine class struggle. The key difference is that Bannon, unlike the decedent Röhm, seems aware of how these power games play out, he’s studied history and applies these lessons to manipulate movements in favour of the #nastyfew being pushed into power. The economic critiques overlap with parts of the left, but his solutions (corporate nationalism, authoritarianism) are the very real danger. The question is: how do we make these distinctions clear to people trapped in the populist right-wing narratives? We need a strategy to cut through the confusion:

  • Recentre on Class Struggle (#KISS #classwar) by striping away the nationalist framing and refocus on economic realities: who actually benefits from policies? Who holds power? Expose how right-wing populists co-opt class anger but always serve capital in the end.
  • Expose the fake anti-establishment, Bannon claims to fight “globalists,” but his solution is just another form of “elite” rule, corporate fascism, not worker control. The “anti-tech bro” stance is surface-level; fascists historically seek state-corporate fusion, not any real accountability.
  • Build a networked radical alternative, left populism needs to be clearer, bolder, and independent of liberal NGO-driven paths and politics. We need grassroots led movements like the #OMN
  • Break through the media fog, #Mainstreaming and #dotcons push right-wing populism by treating it as an acceptable part of discourse rather than a threat. Use independent media (like #indymediaback) to reframe the conversation on more clear class terms.

The 21st Century Struggle is about climate, class, and collapse. This isn’t just about fighting fascism, it’s about surviving #climatechaos and social collapse. The solutions that emerge now will shape the next century. If we allow the right to set the terms, we end up in corporate #feudalism. If we organize and push a real alternative, there’s still a chance to shift to something better.

How do we sharpen this message so it cuts through the noise? What channels do you see as effective? We need working change and challenge #KISS

Trump is more Italian #fascism than German fascism
Trump and the tools of the old world order

The Fediverse is a step

Let’s do a brief breakdown of the core structural problems of centralized platforms and how they warp social interaction. This ties directly into the #geekproblem, #4opens, and the broader issues of #dotcons and digital feudalism. Key issues:

  • Centralization breeds #feudalism. One big virtual server means a few people have all the power while the rest are serfs.
  • “Ease of use” is often a lie. It just means the real costs are hidden, either pushed onto users (moderation, unpaid labour) or externalized (data exploitation, environmental costs).
  • Advertising poisons everything. It’s a moral hazard because platforms optimize for ad revenue, not people’s or community well-being, leading to manipulation and surveillance.
  • Moderation cannot be outsourced. Centralized platforms fail at moderation because they have to apply feudal control instead of organic, community-led governance.
  • As it’s used now, the algorithm is not your friend. It reinforces biases, kills discovery, and turns users into dopamine addicts, making them less able to engage meaningfully.
  • Buying influence kills real communities. When orgs and brands dominate a space, the authentic social fabric collapses.

The #openweb Alternative? The #4opens and #OMN offer a radically different path, where trust replaces control, decentralized, transparent networks let communities govern themselves. Organic discovery beats algorithms, instead of being trapped in echo chambers, people explore through human curation and paths.

The Fediverse is a step, but it’s still struggling with #geekproblem governance issues. The real challenge is breaking out of the social #postmodernist loop and building solid, trust-based, grassroots media and social spaces to shape the change challenge we need.

The #dotcons #mainstreaming internet is designed to pacify and extract, we need to build for resistance and renewal #KISS path is native #openweb

Security is a social problem first, a tech problem second

The #geekproblem locks us into hardcoded #feudalism, power structures baked into the code itself, with server admins as kings, users as serfs. To break this, we need to build trust-based paths first and let security emerge from that, rather than bolting it on after the fact.
What actually needs to be secured?

  • The account → If the instance isn’t secure, the account isn’t either.
  • The activity feed → The flows need to be secured to prevent manipulation.
  • The credit (data attribution) → Maybe hashing media objects?

But rather than obsessing over client-server security, we accept that trust must be social, not just cryptographic. #4opens keeps security honest, openness exposes flaws so they can be fixed.

The #encryptionists problem, is that they act like encryption is the solution to everything, but in reality, most people’s security is already broken at the device level, old phones, proprietary blobs, built by #dotcons. If you encrypt your messages, but the recipient’s device is compromised, what’s the point?

Open vs Closed

  • Closed breeds monsters—plots happen in the dark, and truth is impossible to judge.
  • Open exposes monsters—they might still exist, but they can be tripped up and countered.

The #Fediverse, #OMN, and #openweb need messy, trust-based networks, not fantasies of absolute control. Security isn’t about paranoia, it’s about transparency. The takeaway, we can’t solve security in a world where most people’s devices and networks are already compromised. Instead of a head-in-the-sand approach, we embrace the mess, trust the process, and build open systems that expose threats instead of pretending to eliminate them #KISS

Yes, it’s a feedback loop, geeks build the infrastructure of our digital world, but their worldview is trapped inside that same infrastructure. The #geekproblem is the inability to step outside their own frame of reference, even when the failures of their approach are pointed out hundreds of times over a decade.

They think in technical solutions to social problems, and because those solutions look logical to them, they assume the problem is fixed, even when it clearly isn’t. Worse, they don’t understand why people reject their fixes, so they blame the users, not their own blind spots.

What does the #geekproblem do?

  • It pushes crossover left/right tech governance that lacks any grounding in real-world politics or social movements.
  • It gets stuck in endless debates where nothing ever changes, because geeks can’t see what’s outside their own mental models.
  • It defaults to #postmodernism, where everything is relative, nothing is real, and any attempt to define truth is dismissed as controlling “them”.
  • It refuses to accept accountability because the tools they build don’t support it.

Example of the #geekproblem? We have already pointed to #indymedia, where geek-led decisions undermined the very social movements the tech was supposed to support. And we see it today in Fediverse governance, where geeks cling to process without understanding power.

The #4opens exposes these problems, but geeks still can’t see them. Why? Because openness forces social accountability, and geek culture resists that. The way forward? We need diverse voices in digital spaces, not just geek monocultures. The Fediverse, #OMN, and other #openweb projects need balance, geeks build the tools, but they shouldn’t be the ones defining the social governance of those tools.

So yeah, go round in circles with geeks all you want, but until they acknowledge there’s a problem, nothing changes. Instead of fighting them, we should be building outside their bubble, bringing in people who have some understanding of social processes, and making the #geekproblem a public discussion.

Because if they won’t see the problem, we’ll just have to work around them somehow, ideas please?

Songs that matter, in our times

The La Marseillaise, the French national anthem, one of the bloodiest and most revolutionary anthems ever written. It’s a war song, a call to arms from the French Revolution, dripping with the spirit of resistance and rage against tyranny. Unlike the polite, polished nationalism of modern times, this one doesn’t hold back. It’s about rising up, fighting back, and paying the price in blood when necessary.

And yes, we need this for the coming #climatechaos. The urgency is the same, an existential crisis, the threat of total destruction, and the need for people to move rather than just mourn. So where’s our battle cry? Where’s our marching song for an age of collapsing ecosystems and corporate #feudalism?

Who are the bad guys? Same as always: the kings, the traitors, the plotting tyrants, only today they wear suits instead of crowns. The CEOs, the oil barons, the lobbyists, the financiers, the politicians who smile while signing our death warrant. The #deathcult that prioritises profit over people, extraction over regeneration, and control over cooperation.

The fight isn’t just climate collapse, it’s against the entire path we are on. The enemy isn’t just rising seas, but the hands gripping the wheel as we drive off the cliff.

So yes. It’s time to start singing again. Loudly.

The Digger Song is a call to action, that still matters now as we try to compost the mess of capitalism, climate collapse, and broken politics. It’s about taking back what was stolen, land, resources, autonomy, by working together, not waiting for permission from those in power.

The Diggers weren’t dreamers, they were doers. In 1649, they squatted land, grew food, and built communities outside feudal control. They understood that private property is violence, that hoarding land and resources is the root of inequality.

Fast-forward 400 years, and we’re in the same fight. The enclosures never ended, they just shifted from fields to data, ideas, culture, and technology. The #dotcons fence off the #openweb, billionaires hoard wealth while people freeze and starve, and everything, from social movements to ecology, is turned into a commodity.

“We come in peace, they said, to dig and sow…”

We need this spirit in today’s fight, whether it’s radical media, grassroots organising, or the battle against #climatecollapse. Instead of begging for scraps, we take what we need. We compost the rotting systems of control and plant something better.

“You lords and you ladies, so proud of the earth,
Think that you maintain us in power and mirth;
But down with your fences, all nature reclaim,
For the earth was made a common treasury for all!”

The Diggers weren’t waiting for permission. Neither should we.

The English equivalent is Jerusalem, we are drowning in defeatism, nihilism, and passive despair. Blake’s words, set to Parry’s soaring melody, are a defiant call to build, to resist the decay and corruption, to forge something better with our own hands.

Blake wasn’t celebrating the past, he was raging against the present. Against the industrial hellscape replacing the green and pleasant land. Against the exploitation, the greed, the machine of empire grinding people into dust. Sound familiar? The climate is collapsing, communities are atomised, and the rich build fortresses while the rest drown, burn, and starve. Yet, we are told to accept it, to sit down, be reasonable, and wait for the same path that caused the disaster to save us. This is a call for activism:

“I will not cease from mental fight,
Nor shall my sword sleep in my hand…”

We need this spirit, this refusal to surrender. Not just in politics, but in how we rebuild the #openweb, how we fight the #deathcult, how we create spaces outside of corporate and state control. This isn’t about nostalgia; it’s about taking up the hammer and the spade, writing the code and stepping into the storm, to make something better.

Please add more in the comments.

The clear and urgent challenge, to step away from entrenched thinking

There are deep cultural and structural problem in our social world, here I concentrate on the #openweb and tech spaces, which are shaped by entrenched hierarchical thinking (#feudalism) and the inability to embrace horizontal governance models. This #geekproblem represents a persistent resistance to the solutions necessary for the meaningful change we need, and defaults to patterns that reinforce the status quo (#deathcult worshipping).

Horizontal solutions have proven foundations, community-driven models like #OGB (Open Governance Body) reflects a grounded understanding of what works. The last five years of work in the decentralized #Fediverse shows that horizontal technology can scale without succumbing to the mess of centralized, hierarchical control.

#Nothingnew is about combining what works. The creative task now is to integrate these proven social and technical approaches into cohesive systems: #OMN (Open Media Network): A decentralized framework for building media networks based on trust, transparency, and shared governance. #OGB: A governance model for the open web, ensuring horizontal decision-making structures that resist co-option by hierarchical or neoliberal influences. #Indymediaback: Reviving radical, grassroots media projects that embody these principles, amplifying voices outside the mainstream.

To do any of these project we need to break the #blocking cycle, when discussions about radical or progressive changes are met with #blocking, the result is to often a stagnant cycle of unresolved issues that eroded goodwill. This stagnation is a direct threat to the social commons. To break this cycle, we can use, and, think inside the Fluff/Spiky debate to encourage broad, inclusive paths while not shying away from hard truths and unpopular calls for accountability. Reject #fashernista worship to push back against superficial trends that align with neoliberal and #mainstreaming values, which are ultimately harmful to the #openweb.

The language trap, #liberalism, and by extension #neoliberalism dominate conversations, we need a constant low level critical examination of this misalignment with the goals of the #openweb. Then calling this out is uncomfortable but necessary, to recognize and challenge how these frameworks perpetuate the #deathcult. The question remains, will others step up to help make this happen? Are they ready to take on this challenge?

Grassroots in Tech Communities: Challenges and Paths

The discussions surrounding grassroots movements within tech communities should be entwined with social themes, such as #neoliberalism and #postmodernism. As these ideologies shape what is considered “common sense” and create real barriers to introducing alternative viewpoints and practices that we need. Within this conversation, progressive grassroots initiatives need to counteract these dominant paradigms, but instead they frequently face challenges both from within and outside their communities.

The concept of #mainstreaming refers to the process where dominant ideologies and practices become the accepted norm, marginalizing alternative perspectives. This current mainstreaming is driven by the forces of neoliberalism, emphasizes market-driven solutions and (stupid) individualism, and (zombie) postmodernism, that both foster a sense of scepticism and relativism. Together, these forces create a “common sense” that is actively hostile to grassroots progressive initiatives.

Let’s look at a few of the “surface issue” faced by Grassroots Movements:

  • Perception of Spam: As highlighted in #socialhub experiences, grassroots advocates face accusations of spamming when they consistently share links and resources to support #KISS arguments. This perception can stem from a purposeful misunderstanding of the intent behind sharing information, which is actually to provide context and facilitate basic understanding.
  • Resistance to Alternative Views: When #mainstreaming ideas are challenged, the response is often, hostile, defensive and then dismissive. This resistance is rooted in cognitive dissonance and the threat to personal and collective identities that alternative viewpoints need to pose.
  • Governance Issues: Effective governance within tech communities is crucial for growing wider inclusivity and legitimacy. However, governance processes become contentious, particularly when there are differing visions for the community’s direction and priorities. This is a ongoing problem with much of the #feudalism in current #FOSS thinking.

Some projects designed to mediate these issues

  • The Open-Media-Network (#OMN) and its associated projects, such as the Open Governance Body (#OGB) and the #4opens framework, represent grassroots efforts to address these challenges. These aim to be more democratic and inclusive “trust” based paths for growing the native #openweb. They emphasize transparency, open governance, and community-driven development.
  • Open Web Governance Body (#OGB): Project is for creating governance structures for horizontal projects using simple online tools. By promoting open and inclusive governance, the OGB mitigates the issues caused by #mainstreaming and ensure that grassroots voices are heard and valued.
  • The #4opens Framework: Advocates for open data, open source, open standards, and open processes. By adhering to these principles, grassroots movements can grow robust defences against co-optation to maintain the path of autonomy and integrity.

What can you do to help:

  • Build Community and Solidarity: Strengthening ties within the communities by fostering a sense of shared purpose to help counteract the fragmentation often caused by dominant ideologies.
  • Educate and Inform: Providing accessible and compelling information about the benefits of alternative viewpoints and practices to shift perceptions and reduce resistance.
  • Engage in Dialogue: Creating spaces for open and respectful dialogue can help bridge divides and shift mutual understanding.
  • Leverage Technology: Utilizing #openweb tools and platforms like the #OMN and wider #Fediverse to empower grassroots movements to organize effectively and promote their message and escape the narrowing #dotcons echo chambers.

The struggle to establish and maintain grassroots movements within tech communities is ongoing and very messy. By understanding the dynamics of #mainstreaming and employing strategies to counteract this, movements can create more inclusive and democratic paths. The initiatives by the Open-Media-Network offer real grassroots frameworks and tools for achieving these goals, demonstrating that a small group of thoughtful, committed people can indeed change the world.

Become a part of this movement https://opencollective.com/open-media-network

Feudalism, #FOSS native governance?

Interesting to see this metaphor take off

#Feudalism, in Free and Open Source Software (#FOSS) governance, is not inherently native to the path, but is often found due to structural and cultural factors inside the development communities.

Feudalism in FOSS

  1. Hierarchy and Control: In FOSS projects, a small group of core maintainers or a single benevolent dictator (often the project’s founder) holds power over decision-making processes. This creates a hierarchical structure where decision-making authority is concentrated.
  2. Dependency on Maintainers: Contributors depend on the core maintainers to merge their contributions and resolve issues. This dependency creates a power dynamic where the maintainers like courtiers have control over the project’s direction and priorities.
  3. Gatekeeping: Core maintainers act as gatekeepers, deciding which contributions are accepted and which are not. This leads to favouritism and exclusion, reminiscent of feudal lords controlling access to resources and opportunities.

Why?

  1. Volunteer Nature of Contributions: Since contributors are volunteers, there is no structure to ensure equal participation or accountability. Core maintainers emerge “naturally” based on their sustained contributions and expertise.
  2. Meritocracy Ideals: FOSS communities value meritocracy, people gain influence based on their contributions. However, this leads to entrenched power structures, as those who have contributed the most or the longest hold sway, sometimes stifling new contributors’ voices.
  3. Resource Scarcity: Many #FOSS projects operate with limited resources, leading to a concentration of control among those who dedicate the most time and effort. This result in a few individuals having outsized influence.

Manifestations

  1. Benevolent Dictator for Life (BDFL): Projects like Python had Guido van Rossum as a #BDFL, where his decisions are final. While this can lead to clear and consistent leadership, it also centralizes power.
  2. Core Team Dominance: In projects like Linux, the core team led by Linus Torvalds has control over the kernel’s development. This centralized control lead to conflicts within the community, as seen in the controversies around code of conduct enforcement and inclusivity.

Balancing Feudalism.

  1. Distributed Governance Models: Some FOSS projects adopt #NGO type democratic or federated governance models, such as Apache Software Foundation’s model, which emphasizes burocratic community-driven decision-making and a meritocratic process for becoming a committer or PMC member.
  2. Transparency and Accountability: Increasing transparency in decision-making helps to hold maintainers accountable through open process and community oversight plays a role in helping mitigate feudal tendencies.
  3. Community Practices: Promoting diversity and inclusivity helps balance power dynamics. Encouraging mentorship and lowering barriers to entry for contributors also helps distribute influence.

Conclusion

While feudalism is not inherent to #FOSS governance, cultural factors generally lead to feudal-like power dynamics. Addressing these issues requires conscious effort to promote full #4opens transparency, accountability, and inclusivity within the community. Adopting balanced governance models and practices, like the #OGB, allow projects to mitigate the risks of feudalism and ensure a healthier development environment.

A wider picture of this mess

Talking about #hashtags

We need to think of a serendipity view of how #hashtags work and how our coder kings implement them (#feudalism). Not saying this is a good aproch… i don’t know… but spelling hashtags “wrong” makes their use in categorization and sorting work differently. Might be worth thinking if this could add value or is purely negative? This depends on different views on federation and ideas of a universal truth or messy “truths”. Composting thought on this.

In the #OMN coding project, currently offline (unite.openworlds.info) we add word grouping flows, so you can say one hashtag is the same as another, ie. you can group different “meanings” to build category flows. This makes misspelled hashtags functional, and our current coding broken from the #OMN point of view.

It’s not implemented, is a speck projects so can’t test this. Over the last year I have put 5 #FOSS funding applications in to try and get this built, 3 turned down so far 2 more to be turned down (cross fingers and toes not) soon. Our #AP #openweb reboot is being destroyed by our #fahernistas and #geekproblem nothing new here, but we do need to do better.

That’s what we set out to fix 20 years ago, with the #OMN still digging, but my shovel has no handeal nor a head… says the man on his knees hands covered in shit… composting worthwhile however you do it, I could not make this shit up… but we keep making more #techshit

Why is Mastodon so dominant in the fediverse?

Q. Why is Mastodon so dominant in the fediverse?

A. It had better #UX and @Gargron running it was an effective communicator at #KISS and built it out as a #4opens project alongside a healthy (white) lie about security and privacy.
The rest of the projects lacked these things – #Pleroma the obverse compaine was ripped apart by the #geekproblem then embraced by the right-wing. #Peertube was stuck in a good but closed development for years. #Pixelfed is a little brother project to #mastodon. Then there are a whole flood of #NGO funded projects that have no community.

Might be useful to see it as we’re having a “KING” problem, then the rest are #feudalism all the way down. This should be easy to fix as its #4opens and all #openweb, but it’s not. Just about everyone is hard #BLOCKING the obvuse need for “democracy” as a path out of the mess #OGB

How is the #NOSTR world doing on this?