The Failure of #Mainstreaming – What Comes Next?

It should be painfully obvious by now that all the current #mainstreaming paths have failed. Whether we look at politics, technology, media, or activism, the same patterns emerge, co-option, stagnation, and eventual collapse under their own mess and self-destructive contradictions.

The valid question isn’t whether mainstreaming has failed, it has. The real question is – What do we do about it? This applies just as much to our efforts to reboot the #openweb as it does to broader struggles in the “real world”.

The failure of mainstreaming in the #openweb, the openweb, in its original form, was about freedom, transparency, and grassroots empowerment. But as it became “mainstreamed,” it was gradually stripped of its radical paths and potentials. We’ve seen co-option by corporate interests, with Big Tech adopting the language of openness while building walled gardens. #NGO bureaucracy, with funding models turning radical ideas into managed, defanged projects that no longer challenge power. Gatekeeping by the #geekproblem with overcomplicated, insular development processes alienate the people the #openweb was meant to be for.

This leads to fragmentation and infighting, instead of building a strong, collective movement, energy is wasted on internal disputes and purity tests. What is the alternative? This is simple, if we don’t want to repeat the same old failures, we need to do things differently. For an #openweb reboot to work, it needs to balance:

Rejecting the mainstreaming path, this means resisting corporate and #NGO capture while keeping the web decentralized and grassroots-driven.
Building real alternatives, not only endless discussion, but practical, working tools that people can actually use.
Embrace the organic intellectual, knowledge should come from real-world experience, not echo chamber theory and academic bubbles.
Find a balance between structure and openness to avoiding bureaucracy, which doesn’t mean avoiding organization. We need cooperative governance models like #OGB to navigate this.

This isn’t only about tech, it’s about power. If we keep letting traditional power structures dictate how things develop, we will always end up back in the same mess. The mainstream has failed. It’s time to build something that works. Read more: hamishcampbell.com

#DIYculture #4opens #nothingnew #OMN #OGB #openweb

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

Setting up a #Mastodon account to move away from supremacist platforms like #Twitter, #Threads, #Bluesky, and #LinkedIn felt like the right step. But almost immediately, I ran into one of the core failures of the so-called #openweb—drastic post length limits, artificial restrictions, and a general lack of usability. At first glance, Mastodon appears no different from the mainstream platforms it’s supposed to replace. With the post lengths, why are we still replicating big tech models?

But that’s only partially true. Some Mastodon instances do allow longer posts, and the broader #Fediverse is full of different options, many of which are free from the limits imposed by inherited #mainstreaming culture. The issue isn’t Mastodon itself, but how fragmented and confusing the experience still is. The #Geekproblem strikes again, a quick dive into the openweb landscape reveals the same story:

Messy, inconsistent user experiences
Endless debate over technical details while real users struggle
A lack of funding or structured support for meaningful improvements
This fragmentation preventing mass adoption

All the noise about “fixing” this is just noise. Yes, the #openweb path exists and works, but it’s underfunded, unsupported, and often overshadowed by corporate-backed alternatives. A Familiar Failure that is both frustrating and predictable, this is a view of these struggles from an outside perspective. We still have a chaotic landscape where even well-intentioned users find themselves frustrated and giving up. The open web won’t succeed just by existing, it needs to work. Right now, for too many people, it doesn’t.

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

Building #OGB is about power without #powerpolitics

If we want the #openweb to survive and thrive, we need new forms of power, ones that can defend the community and challenge traditional power dynamics without falling into the traps of control, hierarchy, and co-option.

The problem is clear: If we follow traditional power politics, which are built on control, manipulation, and exclusion, we will fail. We’ve seen this play out repeatedly, grassroots movements spark change, only to be then sold out and absorbed, neutralized by the #mainstreaming flows of #blinded personal and institutional power.

The #blocking issues, what’s stopping us building the #OGB? This is about the “Silo Path” vs. the “Aggregation Path”. Centralized control (the silo path) is easier to manage, but it kills autonomy and leads to gatekeeping. A decentralized, organic approach (the aggregation path) requires more effort but keeps power in the hands of the community. The #OGB needs to be built on open trust networks, not locked-down institutions. This leads to perception of a lack of “perceived power” and currently people, default to following power. It’s a chicken-and-egg issue, If we don’t look like power, we will struggle to attract participation. But power doesn’t have to mean hierarchy, it can mean influence, legitimacy, and real impact. We need to keep building structures that feel like power while staying true to open, bottom-up values.

This brings up issues of funding and recognition of grassroots growth, which is where almost all valuable social and technological change, comes from, ONLY grassroots movements, not the #mainstreaming institutions that later co-opt them and claim ownership and CONTROL. The problem is that these CONTROL institutions default to sucking up resources, draining the energy and focus from grassroots projects, leaving hollowed out shells, undervalued and underfunded. To fix this, we need a cultural shift that recognizes and invests in decentralized, community-driven alternatives.

An important change is needed before we can be coming the change and challenge, to actually make this work. This is the path of supporting “Organic Intellectuals with Muddy Feet”, Change happens on the ground, not in #NGO meetings or #dotcons boardrooms. We need to elevate people who are actively engaged in building solutions, not just talking, or co-opting them.

To learn from effective grassroots paths, the #OGB draws from real-world activist organizing, not abstract theories or #fashernista posturing. Let’s look at some examples, in coding, loose scrum for open source dev leads to adapting flexible, iterative structures for governance. In culture, Burning Man’s self-organizing, mutated from Rainbow Gatherings, illustrating that radical decentralization works at scale, though this dose brining issues. And in tech federated networks (like the #Fediverse), show that distributed, non-hierarchical systems can replace corporate monopolies.

To take a few steps, we need to avoid the trap of fighting over power, where internal battles drain energy and distract from the real mission. This is needed to keep the focus on building the native path, not arguing over control. In this #KISS path, the #OGB must function as a shared infrastructure, not a battleground for egos.

The Path isn’t to directly destroy existing power structures, it’s to build alternatives that are too effective to ignore. The #OGB isn’t just another governance tool; it’s a blueprint for creating sustainable, community-led power without falling into the traps of traditional politics.

Let’s work together as if we are at a turning point. We can either follow the same old paths of control, stagnation, and eventual failure, or we can build something new that actually works. The choice is ours. Let’s make it happen, please.

#4opens #nothingnew #DIYculture #openweb #grassroots

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

The “social./bill-of-rights” is a new example of a well-meaning but toothless attempt at defining ethical tech. It’s the same process and project as the #4opens, but framed in a way that’s more palatable to liberal and capitalist interests. The difference? The #4opens isn’t just an appeal to values—it’s a functional way of judging 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 real accountability and practical tools that push projects directly to actually align with the open principles they claim to support.

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

#nothingnew comes to mind, but diversity is not necessarily bad, diversity in approaches is good, but fragmentation isn’t. 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 co-option. The path 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 https://kolektiva.social/deck/tags/fediforum

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

Composting the mess

Fighting the #mainstreaming is pointless if you don’t have anything to replace it with #KISS.

We need to present a sharp critique: funding structures not only shape but often stall #openweb development. The core issue is that #NGO funding models divert energy away from real grassroots alternatives, trapping projects in bureaucracy rather than fostering a thriving #DIY culture.

The rise of full-scale, paranoid individualism—born from #stupidindividualism and fueled by the #deathcult’s mainstream influence—further entrenches these issues. NGO funding mechanisms consume real alternatives, replacing them with sanitized, ineffective projects that lack transformative potential. The missing link is a genuine #DIY culture, yet structural forces keep it suppressed.

The #OMN and #OGB offer a possible escape, but without more organic intellectuals actively engaging, the cycle of stagnation will only repeat. The challenge is clear: can the #OGB carve out a space where real alternatives can grow, or will it become just another casualty of the NGO machine?

For the #OMN and #OGB to succeed, they must open a genuine alternative path—but the battle is uphill. The key lies in the organic intellectual: grounded, engaged, and practical. This stands in stark contrast to the alt-tech “chatting classes,” who recycle uninspired narratives instead of building real solutions.

What software do activists need?

The core problem for the last 20 years has been that most activists were locked into #dotcons (corporate social media silos) because open alternatives were either too difficult to use, lack network effects, or fail to meet their practical needs. With the current reboot of the #openweb with the #fedivers based on #ActivityPub has already taken a step away from this mess.

Here’s what’s needed from a software development perspective to break out of this mess. Open & accessible publishing networks. Activists need easy ways to publish and share information outside corporate-controlled platforms. Right now, #Fediverse tools like #Mastodon and #PeerTube exist, but they are still largely copies of centralized platforms rather than native alternatives that work for grassroots media.

To take the second step in alt tech we need a native decentralized, trust-based publishing network (#OMN is the example I am working on) Bridging tools to syndicate content between #dotcons and open platforms. Better “unbranded” discovery tools for surfacing trusted grassroots content (think of a federated search engine that’s not controlled by Google)

Secure yet open communication, is already mostly in place. Activists do need secure yet transparent communication tools that balance privacy with accessibility. Right now, many are stuck using encrypted corporate platforms like #WhatsApp and #Telegram, which create silos and exclude people who don’t have the apps. Projects like #Signal and XMPP based chat kinda work in this space, so this is not a strong tech focus, but is a social issue to work on.

The type of project we do need #indymediaback, #makeinghistory, #OGB and the base #OMN coding. There is a continuing need for resilient infrastructure, hosting and sysadmin alongside sustainable funding tools for activists’ websites, blogs, and tools often get taken down due to coordinated attacks or lack of resources. On the more dev side of this path, hybrid peer-to-peer hosting solutions (so sites can stay online even under attack) could be useful to bridge client server tools.

There’s a roadmap, but the problem is developer focus and funding. If you’re serious about helping, check out the stalled dev work on https://unite.openworlds.info and see how it can be set in motion agen. If you’re a dev who wants to make a real impact, this is a good place to look.

The issue with #FOSS tech development

The failure of many #FOSS projects is a failure to move from theory to practice. The issue is that developers work in isolation, disconnected from grassroots needs, and get lost in perfectionism rather than delivering functional prototypes.

The #geekproblem dominates, many coders prioritize control, abstract debates, or self-contained experiments over practical, usable tools for real-world communities. This is why projects stall: they are not built with activists in mind. Meanwhile, centralized platforms continue to consolidate power, because they offer simple, accessible, and functional solutions, despite their deep flaws.

To break this cycle, we need:

Practical iteration—build rough, working solutions rather than endless theorizing.
#4opens culture—embrace open process, standards, and real collaboration.
Bridging solutions—tech that activists can actually use, not just developer-driven experiments.
Funding models beyond #NGO traps—so projects remain independent and sustainable.

The fight for the #openweb is not only about resisting #dotcons but creating alternatives people can and will use. Can we move beyond abstraction and actually make history?

The #mainstreaming mess

The #mainstreaming project is visibly failing. Worse, it is set to catastrophically fail over the next 30 years as #climatechaos escalates. The signs are everywhere: environmental collapse, political instability, and the hollow nature of mainstream culture. Yet, large parts of liberal society continue to bow to the #deathcult, a path of power, greed, and control over life, community, and sustainability. The end result we can now clearly see is the rule of big, dumb, ugly men with guns, a world driven by violence and fear rather than cooperation and creativity.

But we do still have a choice, on the internet we can build and support alternative projects and paths. Instead of kneeling before the #deathcult, we could embrace a #lifecult dedicated to nurturing the #grassroots, growing resilient communities, and reclaiming our collective autonomy. This path is not easy, nor is it comfortable, but it is one of the humane outcomes we can hope for. Am not up for cults my self, but if this is what people won’t let’s make it life rather than death.

The challenge of change, is that this does not emerge from #mainstreaming circles without friction. When alternative movements gain traction, they are both rejected outright and then co-opted and diluted until they become meaningless. The #OMN hashtag story highlights this process, and pushes back the rejection, to balance the struggle, and the slow but real impact on agendas we need.

The question is whether people can engage with this, in the needed #4opens processes. The #4opens is a completely obverse “social” restating of the #FOSS development process, with a crucial addition: #openprocess. Over the last decade, much of this transparency has been lost as activist communities and developers shifted towards encrypted chat for process, locking away vital discussions from needed public discourse.

The weaponization of process, in my experience, whenever we create rigid structures, people inevitably pick them up and start hitting each other with them. This pattern has repeated over decades, killing countless effective grassroots social challenge/change projects. Nearly all of them, in fact. The result? Communities that should be working together end up tearing each other apart over minor ideological differences, procedural disagreements, or personal conflicts. This cycle of infighting and stagnation serves the interests of those in power, it ensures that no real alternative ever gains momentum.

Food for thought is how do we break this cycle? One path is rebuilding the commons, which is currently possible in the digital spaces. Yes, more evaluation than revolution. It’s not about grand theoretical debates or ideological purity, it’s about doing the work by getting involved in your communities. By gather a group together to take practical steps towards #stepaway to move to the #openweb and start rebuilding commons outside the #dotcons.

From a growing network of people and groups doing this, we might get real social change, or we might not. But at least we’ll be doing something practical, rather than simply feeding the current corporate machine.

Seeding the #OMN is a solution to a universal problem, the shit nature of both mainstream/traditional media and the #dotcons that dominate the media landscape. Our lives, economies, and governments are now totally embedded in these corporate-controlled spaces, leaving us little room to manoeuvre. The #OMN offers an alternative, but the biggest barrier is not technology, it’s people’s capture and passivity. Right now, the ONLY thing holding us back is the mass acceptance of despair. The #mainstreaming system breeds apathy. It tells us there’s no alternative, that change is impossible, that resistance is futile. But we know that’s a lie.

The question is: will we act before it’s too late?

Community support needed to keep this site online

If you’ve been finding https://hamishcampbell.com useful, here’s a heads-up, the site is struggling under increasing load, thanks to growing #ActivityPub readership. That’s a good problem to have, but it means I need to pay much more to upgrade the server and do some tech work to keep things running smoothly.

If you have any spare dosh (cash), please consider chipping in to help cover the ongoing costs. Every bit helps! You can donate here: https://opencollective.com/open-media-network/projects/hcampbell

Tech-minded? If you enjoy tinkering with WordPress configs and want to lend a hand, drop me a message! Let’s keep this #openweb native space up and running reliably.

Struggling for a Real Alternative

For the last 5 years conversations have been about, the #Fediverse, #Web3 and more recently the pushing of #mainstreaming into the #openweb native path. But despite this, the fediverse is still a notable outlier in the digital landscape. This is in part because unlike the dominant tech trends, which emerge from Silicon Valley and the cross-Atlantic #dotcons agenda, the fediverse is rooted in European ideals of decentralization, federation, and digital autonomy, it’s a “native” openweb project.

When you step outside, into so-called “global” tech events, you’re hit with a wall of #techshit nonsense. Looking back, when I used to bring up the Fediverse at these events, the reaction was predictable: blank stares, polite nods, and then a quick return to parroting the latest #bluesky, #blockchain, talking points. This tells us that the techshit is still mainstreaming and more native paths will continue to be invisible to most people looking for real decentralized alternatives.

One of the issue that pushes this is Identity Politics, in our own spaces, beyond the tech sphere, this issue impacts the Fediverse and grassroots media projects or more precisely, its misapplication dose. By overemphasizing individual identity over collective struggle, leftist and progressive movements fall into fragmentation, making them easier for the #nastyfew to co-opt, divide, and neutralize. This is not to dismiss identity politics outright, systemic oppression is real, and addressing issues of race, gender, and class matters deeply. But when these struggles are disconnected from broader grassroots organizing, they are easily absorbed into the neoliberal agenda.

This is the normal mess dressed in a dress, to push a likely unhelpful metaphor. We’ve seen this time and again with corporate tokenism of big tech and NGOs pushing superficial diversity while maintaining exploitative structures. This “thinking” leads to co-optation of radical movements, which are watered down into harmless social branding exercises that don’t threaten power. Feeding divisiveness, when instead of organizing collectively, activists are pitted against each other over micro-issues, while top-down power structures remain untouched.

The central question is who gains power, the only question that matters in activism, are we giving more power to the centralizers, or are we shifting power to the grassroots? Everything else, culture wars, internal leftist feuds, academic debates, is secondary. And the normal reality is that our current #mainstreaming always leads to power centralization. When the path we need to take, requires discomfort, real change, which is never easy. And right now, we are still stuck in this mess, watching many in the #Fediverse waste time repeating liberal nonsense instead of challenging the #neoliberal dieing old world order.

This leads us onto the illusion of the liberal “centre”, where many so-called progressives are still worshipping the #deathcult, by amplifying right-wing culture war narratives. Why? Because it’s easier. The liberal-left is caught in an endless cycle of reacting to right-wing provocations instead of fighting systemic power. The truth, is that the “centre” is not holding, the centre is never going to hold. And that if you refuse to choose a side, both the left and the right will decide your fate for you. Liberal fence-sitting has always been about the rise of reactionary forces, both online and offline. Thus, if you’re still spending your time fighting over petty internal issues while ignoring the big-picture consolidation of power, you are helping the system you claim to oppose.

What’s can people do? A good first step is building real alternative’s. my example is the #OMN projects and growing the Fediverse, this means: Keeping focus on systemic power, not just individual experience that people keep focusing on. Actively pushing back against co-optation, building truly decentralized native alternatives, not only clones of corporate platforms. Rejecting the culture war distractions and pushing real organizing.

The Fediverse should be better, it’s one of the last remaining spaces where you can create rather than just consume. But we won’t get there unless we actively fight for it. So the question is: Are we ready to stop feeding shit and start building something real?

#Techshit Hype – #NothingNew

The is nothing new to pointing out that our #fashionistas #mainstreaming crew push tech mess.

Remember in when drone deliveries were going to revolutionize shopping? When every major news outlet unthinkably reported that we’d have autonomous quadcopters dropping off toothpaste and Amazon boxes on our doorsteps?

Or when 3D TVs were the future of entertainment, pushed so aggressively that manufacturers stopped making non-3D models for a while? Where are they now? Rotting covered in dust in clearance bins or forgotten in garages.

Then there was the Internet of Things (#IoT) hype, your fridge was supposed to talk to your toaster, which would text your smart kettle to boil water before you even knew you wanted tea. Instead, we got insecure, surveillance-riddled devices spying on us for #dotcons corporate profit.

And we need to not forget #blockchain, #NFTs, and the endless #Web3 hype? Each was pushed as a revolution, yet all followed the same pattern of hype, vulture capital gold rush, and then, inevitably, disillusionment. NFTs went from “the future of digital ownership” to being silently abandoned by even their most vocal promoters.

Why do we keep pushing this #techshit? Every time a new #mainstreaming tech fad appears, it follows a predictable, boring hype cycle. First, it’s marketed as the next big thing, a must-have, must-invest, must-embrace technology. Then, sceptics, like this site, are ridiculed as out-of-touch or anti-progress, at best or simply trolling at worst. But when the promised revolution never materializes, we quietly move on, forgetting the past mistakes and priming ourselves for the next wave, this is a rinse and repeat cycle.

We need more people to say, “Not this again, you were wrong last time”? So we have space to ask why do we let the wannabe #nastyfew feed us this mess, why do we let it slide, allowing the same marketing binds to #blind us over and over?

The answer is that we have our heads down worshipping a #deathcult, and this is the pushing of #fashernista tech, the cycle of embracing new trends not because they work but because they fit the cultural moment. A mixture of corporate propaganda, social pressure, and the desire to be seen as forward-thinking creates a path where critical thinking is drowned out by #FOMO (fear of missing out). It’s fear, simply fear.

How do compost this? A first step is, instead of dismissing critics, we should embrace grounded scepticism as part of a healthy tech culture. The goal isn’t to reject all new technology, it’s to demand real, meaningful progress rather than letting corporations sell us snake oil over and over. There’s a hashtag for that: #nothingnew, a reminder that most “revolutions” are just recycled ideas repackaged for a new round of exploitation.

This is part of the native #openweb story, not just about technology, but about culture. We don’t need to mindlessly adopt every new fad. Instead, we should compost the hype, extract what’s useful, and discard the corporate waste. Yes, it’s messy. But that’s what being native to the #openweb means.

It’s not easy, and it’s not as simple as clicking “sign up” and walking into a ready-made community

Q: Very interested in what you have to say. I’ve been trying to find a place in the #Fediverse that’s not in thrall to big tech. How do I join up? #OMN #OpenWeb. Hungry, feed me!

A: This is harder than it should be, and that itself is a telling sign of where we are right now. The #Fediverse is a fascinating, messy, and diverse space, but much of it is still trapped in the gravity of the #dotcons. What you’ll mostly find are either clones of corporate social media—Twitter-like, YouTube-like, Reddit-like—attempting to reimplement the same narrow and limiting designs, or small, scattered projects built by devs scratching a personal itch.

We haven’t yet built the truly native, #DIY #openweb alternatives, and it’s not for lack of effort. There have been decades of attempts, countless working groups, community-driven projects, and radical experiments, but again and again, they have been met with #blocking, not just from external forces, but from within our own communities. The failure isn’t technical; it’s social, political, and cultural. The conversation on http://hamishcampbell.com delves into this deeply.

The Open Media Network (#OMN) was created as a framework to address these issues, to move beyond the false choice between corporate clones and isolated passion projects. But it, too, has struggled to gain traction in a landscape that defaults to control-based thinking instead of trust-based collaboration. The #OMN dev site is http://unite.openworlds.info, but it has been static for the past two years, stuck, like so many other alternative projects, due to a lack of momentum, a lack of funders and coders who understand social needs, and a culture that too often rewards and pushes closed, individualistic development over collective, open building.

So what can you do now? For immediate participation, the best bet is to start using and supporting the #Fediverse platforms that exist, even if they are still copies of the #dotcons. They work, they are functional, and they serve as a stepping stone toward something better. But don’t stop there, push beyond them. Get involved with projects that are trying to break out of these patterns. Contribute to discussions, support developers who are thinking outside the mainstream, and help to fund and create the bridges we desperately need.

It’s not easy, and it’s not as simple as clicking “sign up” and walking into a ready-made community. The #openweb requires effort, participation, and sometimes frustration, but that’s the reality of building something instead of recycling the #mainstreaming. If you’re hungry, the food is there, but you might have to help cook it first.

I have been walking this path for 30 years as an #openweb organic intellectual, technologist, and part of the #OMN.

The #GeekProblem: Why Open Development Is Stuck in a Dead End

It’s no sin to have to submit to the #dotcons overlords—we all do it, whether we like it or not. Just recently, I found myself installing that vile spyware known as #WeChat because this was the only way to talk to the people I needed to talk to. That bitter swipe to hide the app from view brought a momentary sense of agency, but the reality remains: we are still too often failing at building out the #openweb that normal people find useful

The fundamental question is: why? It’s too easy blaming users. After all, if they just cared more, if they just tried harder to use open tools, we wouldn’t be in this mess. But let’s be honest: this isn’t on them. The real fault lies with the so-called “open developers” who have spent the last 20 years failing to make open tools actually work for normal people. And before anyone objects, yes, I’ve been in the trenches. I’ve been building, testing, promoting, and using these tools for two decades. I’ve seen what works, and more often, what doesn’t.

The truth is stark: “open development” is way too often a dead end. The current paths isn’t going anywhere useful. There are way to meany dysfunctional ecosystems of half-built projects, overcomplicated interfaces, and insular communities that gatekeep instead of welcoming. Meanwhile, the #dotcons corporate silos grow ever stronger, locking out alternatives at every turn. And what do the open devs do? They tinker endlessly on the backend, build for themselves rather than for real people, and when questioned they retreat into ideological purity rather than engaging in practical bridge-building. The #geekproblem is not just one of incompetence, it’s one of misplaced priorities and an aversion to social reality.

Control vs. Trust is the core divide, at the heart of the #geekproblem lies a fundamental misunderstanding of social dynamics. The #OMN sees the solution as building bridges, while the dominant geek mindset sees it as erecting gates. A gate is about control: who gets in, who stays out, who holds the keys. A bridge is about trust: connecting communities, facilitating movement, and breaking down barriers. Yet, the geek worldview, deeply shaped by corporate structures, #neoliberal ideology, and a toxic engineering mindset, defaults to control every time.

This is why open projects fail. They mimic the structures of the #dotcons without the resources to sustain them. They chase security and rigidity at the expense of usability and social flow. They then see failure as an inevitable technical problem, rather than a failure of community engagement and human-centred design. And worst of all, they refuse to recognize that openness isn’t just about code, it’s about social process. What needs to change:

Stop building for yourself, the #openweb won’t be rebooted by developers coding for their own niche needs. It needs to serve real people, communities in real contexts.
Embrace messiness, if it’s not messy, it’s not worth doing. The corporate mindset is about tidiness and control. The #openweb must be about adaptability and flexibility.
Then the is leaky by design – Data and communication should leak in ways that benefit social needs, but yes, not in ways that serve the surveillance economy. Locking everything down means locking serendipity out.
Bridge, don’t block: Instead of obsessing over ideological purity, we need to build pragmatic solutions that work alongside existing tools while providing clear alternatives.
Trust as the foundation: The default state of open networks should be trust, not fear. We have seen where the obsession with security leads, it builds walls instead of communities.

There are paths forward, and a good place to start is with the principles of the #OMN and #4opens. These aren’t abstract theories; they’re rooted in decades of radical tech and media movements that worked, before they were systematically ignored and buried by the rising tide of centralized control. It’s time to stop pretending the current model will somehow fix itself. It won’t. We need to go back, dig up the roots, and start again, not with another doomed attempt at technical perfection, but with a renewed commitment to social usability, community-first development, and a radical rejection of the failed control-based mindset.

The alternative is simple: keep failing, keep watching the #openweb erode, and keep making excuses while we all install the next piece of #dotcons spyware just to stay connected. The choice is ours, but the time to act is now.