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.

The #NGO mess is hard blocking

We need to talk, again, about how the #NGO world pushes HARD BLOCKING over the native #openweb paths we need to take. This isn’t some new issue; we’ve been having the same conversation for years. And yet, here we are, watching the same bad behaver and the same mistakes repeating, only now, with the #mainstreaming flooding in, with more funding and institutional interference.

The simple antidote to this incompetence? Listen. Think. And stop blocking. Seriously, it’s not that complicated. If the #NGO crowd could grasp this, we might actually find a compromise that builds bridges instead of walls. What do we currently get? More #BLOCKING, more CONTROL, and an ongoing refusal to engage with the people working on the paths we need for digital commons building.

The example I keep talking about is the #OMN approach, which is messy, leaky, and human. At the #OMN, we have a different view: if it’s not messy, it’s not worth doing. And by messy, we don’t mean technological chaos, we mean social messiness. Because here’s the #KISS truth: Social change is messy, The best ideas leak and evolve, Security and CONTROL in the social realm are just dressed-up gatekeeping. If you try to lock everything down, what you’re really doing is blocking creativity, trust, and progress. We need a leaky system where communication and data flow in ways that benefit community needs, when we don’t have an idea of what the community is.

The #geekproblem has spent years pushing CONTROL and SECURITY as the primary solutions, because they don’t understand social reality. The cult of CONTROL is why the #geekproblem is still a very real problem. This isn’t a personal attack, it’s just a fact. Many of these folks see the world in mechanical terms, where every problem has a technical fix. But social trust isn’t a tech problem, it’s a human one. And let’s be clear: while CONTROL can create functioning systems, it also creates bad societies.

Fear-based governance has always led to failure, whether in tech, politics, or history. Look at the Soviet Union: they built an economy on CONTROL and FEAR, and it collapsed under its own weight. If we blindly follow this same path in the #Fediverse, we’re going to end up in the same place.

Who organizes the #Fediverse? For the last few years, there’s been a struggle for control over who organizes the #Fediverse. Most want it to be a #DIY but some, this is described by our #fashionista as a #DoOcracy, where whoever does the work makes the decisions. Where the more native path is parallel communities cooperating, as is outlined in the #OGB social tech project. The two, are currently blocking each other, it’s a mess that needs composting.

One thing we can be shore is that the #twittermigration and #mainstreaming influx isn’t going to magically fix this. And the current path of doing nothing is itself a form of BLOCKING, by refusing to change, we entrench the same old power structures.

We need to be #KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid) about this:

No more dressing up old CONTROL structures in #fashernista cloth

No more gatekeeping disguised as governance

No more pretending that fear and CONTROL will lead to a better society

What will unblock this needed path? How do we shift the balance from CONTROL back to TRUST?

1️) Stop treating the #Fediverse like a product to be managed, it’s a social movement.
2️) Shift from CONTROL-based structures to TRUST-based ones, this means radical transparency and the #4opens.
3️) Stop repeating #mainstreaming mistakes, if we follow the centralized web’s path, we will be consumed by the same mess.
4️) Find and fund coders who actually understand TRUST, not just software engineers, but community builders who can work in code.

The first step on this path is the need to move beyond #geekproblem agendas and build something that actually has power for social change. The #OMN is one such path, but only if people stop blocking and start listening, understanding and building. So, the question is simple: Are you on the side of CONTROL or TRUST? Because one leads to stagnation, and the other leads to a real alternative future we say we need.

Find out more about this

The #geekproblem is too often soft blocking change and challenge in tech

The #geekproblem has been an ongoing issue in the development of radical and open internet paths. This is particularly evident in the influx of #mainstreaming users into the #Fediverse, bringing with them behaviors that, for us #openweb natives, are easy to recognize as part’ish, a mix of good intentions and ingrained habits that common sense uphold the status quo. Our response needs to be one of patience, hand-holding rather than outright biting, because if we want real change, we need to build bridges, not gates.

In the #geekproblem worldview, technical infrastructure is about CONTROL. The metaphor they use for protocols and interactions is a gateway, something that can be opened or closed at will, something that allows some people in and keeps others out. The #OMN, by contrast, understands this infrastructure in terms of TRUST. Our metaphor is a bridge, something that facilitates free movement, allowing people to interact organically, without arbitrary restrictions. This fundamental difference in perspective is crucial. In real life, bridges don’t have gates. This should be obvious, but it is entirely non-obvious to the geek mindset and its rigid coding paths.

The root of the problem is the lack of social thinking. One of the driving forces behind the constant tech churn, the never-ending cycle of new projects, new code, new systems that never seem to lead anywhere, is a fundamental lack of respect for joined-up social thinking. In the #geekproblem worldview, technology exists in a vacuum, disconnected from the wider social context. They believe they can invent from their limited social experience and simply ignore the history of radical movements that shapes the flows they supposedly code for.

This is why so many geek-led projects fail to align with humane agendas. Without social grounding, their work reinforces the dominant, pointless, and extractive tech industry culture rather than challenging it. The irony is that this problem isn’t just limited to #dotcons; it also infects the alt-tech sphere, where supposedly radical projects fall into the same patterns of CONTROL rather than TRUST.

Open vs. closed, is the same old struggle: #openweb vs. #closedweb, TRUST vs. CONTROL. It is the spirit of the age, a battle that has now become a worldwide issue affecting both corporate platforms and alternative technology movements alike. What we need is a radical shift in thinking. We need to move from a mindset of CONTROL, of hard blocks, of gatekeeping, of rigid protocol enforcement, to one of TRUST. This requires unlearning deeply ingrained habits and embracing the messy, leaky, social reality of real-world interaction. The #4opens provide a clear path out of this mess, but the geek world’s obsession with control constantly obstructs that path.

Breaking the blocks to shift this balance? The first step is to recognize that the current approach is failing. The narrow #DoOcracy model, which has dominated for the last five years, is not working. With the #dotcons bringing an influx of new people to the #Fediverse, the problem is only going to get worse if we don’t address it. And it’s useful to remember that to do nothing is to actively block progress.

Solutions, challenge the orthodoxies, that the dominant thinking in tech culture is not set in stone. We need to push back against the assumption that CONTROL is the only way to maintain order.

Build bridges, not gates: The infrastructure we create must facilitate movement and exchange, not gatekeeping and restriction. We must actively design for TRUST rather than CONTROL.

Reject the #fashernista trap: Many existing solutions are just old ideas dressed up in new clothes. If we want real change, we must strip away the façade and get to the core of what actually works.

Trust-based coding: We need to find and support #FOSS coders who are willing to build systems based on trust, rather than reinforcing the culture of control. The #OGB is one example of an initiative attempting to do this.

Learn from history: We need to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past. For a #mainstreaming example, the Soviet Union’s control-based economic system ultimately failed, and we should be wary of replicating its top-down approach in our tech movements.

A non-mainstreaming movement, is a truly radical path to break free from the invisible constraints that now seem like common sense. We need to go back in time, before these blocks solidified, and build up from there. Non-mainstreaming tech must be SOCIAL and COMMUNITY-driven. To achieve real social change, we step away from the current narrow geek agendas and refocus on the needs of people rather than the diversity of protocols. let’s treat them as simple flows.

The #OMN project is a answer to this problem. By using the #4opens as a foundation, we build a open and transformative alternative to both #dotcons and alt-tech dead ends. But to get there, we must first overcome the #geekproblem’s obsession with control. The bottom line is the desire for CONTROL in both code and culture is a dead-end. It is part of the #deathcult ideology that underpins both corporate and alternative tech spaces. If we want to break free from this cycle, we must embrace TRUST, social thinking, and real-world complexity. We must compost the old ways of thinking and build something new.

The solution is clear, stop hard-blocking progress, embrace messiness as a necessary part of building real alternatives, design systems that prioritize TRUST over CONTROL. If we can do this, we have a chance to build the future we actually want. If not, we will remain trapped in an endless cycle of reinvention, failure, and stagnation.

The choice is ours. Let’s make it wisely.

Composting the #TechShit

The value of the #Fediverse isn’t in the tech specs. It’s not in the #ActivityPub protocol or the code itself, those are tools. The value lies in the culture that birthed it. The #Fediverse is the living embodiment of the #openweb, not some #VC Silicon Valley plaything. But as money floods in #mainstreaming forces will unconsciously increasingly try to turn it into another hollow platform, on this we risk losing the very thing that makes it powerful, its strong decentralized, trust-based roots.

The looming battle is CONTROL vs. TRUST

We need to shout this loud and keep shouting it: if we don’t compost the inrushing #techshit, we will rot in it. So if you’re plotting a power grab, do us all a favour – DON’T. These grabs for control create more mess that others then have to clean up. #Powerpolitics is a wasteful distraction, and we have better things to do. The #Fediverse is built on trust and open collaboration, it is not the place for #fashionista influence peddling or backroom power games. If you want real change, try the #4opens, it’s the grounded native path.

Look at history, every commons that survives long enough faces an inflection point. Do we defend openness, or do we let it be devoured by the forces of control? Right now, we are at that moment.

CONTROL wants to bring in governance models borrowed from the corporate. #NGO world, top-down, centralized, policed from above.
TRUST builds governance through open, messy, and transparent processes, by learning from failures rather than silencing dissent.

It’s the serious question: are you on the side of CONTROL or TRUST?

Breaking the cycle of destruction, the #mainstreaming web is collapsing under its own dead weight. People are stepping back to the #openweb, but they are bringing their baggage with them. We need better tools to mediate this influx. If we don’t, we’ll repeat the same mistakes that led to the first enclosure of the internet commons 20 years ago.

The Fediverse is working, and that’s terrifying to the #dotcons and the #NGO class trying to domesticate it. It still needs to destroy billions of dollars worth of CONTROL while growing billions of people and communities based on collective happiness. That’s the balance we push and maintain: keeping it messy enough to stay real, but structured enough to survive.

And let’s be clear, if we don’t call out those in our own communities who push control agendas, we are complicit in their mess making. If we don’t resist the #NGO push to turn the Fediverse into another grant-funded, #VC playground, we are signing its death warrant. If we don’t challenge the rising mobs of faux-activists and #fashernistas who police culture over substance, we are handing them control.

The Poison is the cult of control, isn’t only corporate overlords, it’s also being fed by dead ideologies like postmodern nihilism. Too many people are weaponizing identity politics, turning everything into a performative purity contest. The cruelty of social capital hoarding is just as toxic as corporate greed, it’s the same authoritarian impulse, just wearing a different mask.

YOU can’t do social change without annoying people. We need to stop chasing distractions and focus on real accountability. Otherwise, we are just repeating the cycle that destroyed the early web. Let’s be blunt: if you think you can do radical change without stepping on toes, you’re play-acting. You’re the problem, not the solution. If this annoys you, good—that means it applies. We don’t have time for the normal path of #stupidindividualism, for personal empire-building, or endless #powerpolatics struggles. The #Fediverse is about cooperation over control, culture over corporations, and trust over fear. Let’s keep shouting this, least we forget.

The reality is messy. The future is uncertain. That’s OK. The answer isn’t sterile management, it’s composting the ground into something fertile. We aren’t shouting into the void. We are building something new from the mess of the old. Dive in, follow the flow, and be part of the solution, click a hashtag to join the conversation:

#OMN
#openweb
#activitypub
#stepaway
#4opens
#geekproblem
#fashernista
#dotcons
#failbook

Are you here to build, or are you here to control? Choose wisely please.

Journalism

The media’s focus on Trump’s spectacle over substance pushes the current #mainstreaming path. By focusing on his contradictory statements, they keep the news cycle spinning around noise (words) rather than signal (policies and actions). This distraction benefits those on the #powerpolatics path, that is pushed with little scrutiny while the public and journalists remain fixated on the smoke and mirrors of the rhetorical outrage mess.

The #KISS media’s role needs to be exposing the real consequences of his administration, focusing on who is profiting? Billionaires and corporations received massive tax cuts, while working-class wages stagnated. And who is suffering? What institutions are being gutted? What laws and policies are being enacted or dismantled?

The real story is the looting of the old #mainstreaming system while distracting us all with mess. By chasing every outrageous statement, journalists failed to cover how the new #mainstreaming #nastyfew is looting the remains of the old #nastyfew system. The distractions, bombastic rhetoric, manufactured culture wars, scandals, have a role to play, they bury the obverse of enriching from dismantling public institutions.

The progressive majority must focus on real accountability and action. Instead of reacting to every piece of nonsense, progressives need to cut through the noise and push for more independent journalism that prioritizes policy analysis over personality-driven coverage. Community-driven movements that expose corruption and mobilize against real threats. Structural reforms that break the cycle of #nastyfew capture and maintain public control over essential institutions.

It’s not about what they say, it’s about what they do.

Rebuilding Radical, Grassroots Media

For too long, our digital spaces have been hijacked by corporate interests, turning the internet into a surveillance-driven wasteland where control, profit, and censorship push aside community, useful creativity, and communities autonomy. As a first step to reclaim our media and communication networks, we need to step away from the #mainstreaming mess and build self-organized, decentralized alternatives that resist capture.

Creating and supporting decentralized codebase like the #OMN, we have already taken the first step on this with the #Fediverse for a community already exist outside the old walled gardens of the #dotcons, #Facebook and #Twitter. This is the path of encouraging open protocols that allow interconnectivity without corporate gatekeepers. It’s challenging opaque decision-making by insisting on community-driven governance. Our current problem is that our tools aren’t built with openness and transparency, thus they will always be vulnerable to co-option and corporate capture.

We don’t need permission from corporations, #NGOs, or governments to organize, publish, and communicate, we need tools, tactics, and commitment. To reclaim radical politics, we need to build and experiment with our own independent media infrastructure, like the #indymediaback project. Engage in direct action rather than waiting for institutions to change from within, to encourage self-sufficiency in media production, hosting, and distribution.

Refocusing on #DIY activism, with practice over theory, on this path the grassroots movements of the past succeeded because they prioritized action over academic theorizing. Today, many “activists”, if they have not completely sold out, are trapped in performative online discourse instead of real-world engagement.

On this path, the is built in challenge to change the dominant narratives of corporate capture & liberal pacification. The mainstream narrative is designed to disempower us, keeping us passive while corporate and state power consolidates control. It tells us, “You need the platforms to reach people.” (No, we build our own.) “You can change the system from within.” (No, it co-opts and neuters movements.) “Decentralization is too hard, just use what exists.” (No, that keeps us trapped.)

The #NGO-driven “activism” of today plays into liberal pacification, where radical demands are diluted into polite requests for reform. Instead, we must amplify disruptive, independent, and autonomous voices. The paths exist, but will we walk them? We know what needs to be done, decentralize—Build networks outside corporate control. Organize—Move beyond performative social media activism. Disrupt—Challenge power instead of negotiating with it.

The tools, knowledge, and communities already exist, the only question is, are we finally ready to act?

The #Open Path vs The #Closed Path – Why Simplicity Matters

The #mainstreaming success of #Bluesky means we have a crew who keep pushing the idea of creating a “native” #AP federated codebase/platform that captures its simplicity and ease of use. The problem they focus on is complexity vs. accessibility, the #open path is inherently more complex than the #closed path, and that’s a good thing in an open society. It allows for diversity, resilience, and decentralization. But in a closed society (which is what we’re working with), complexity hinders adoption. In this, the problem isn’t just technical, it’s social.

Bluesky thrives because it prioritizes usability (#closed). What these people keep brining up is what if we had a #AP federated equivalent that did the same? As a new entry point for the #Fediverse? The idea that keeps coming back, and sometimes pushed is the normal #dotcons path of imaging a platform designed for non-technical users, with #Bluesky-like simplicity in setup and everyday use, a sleek, intuitive interface that doesn’t overwhelm, built-in discovery features to easily find content and people. With seamless onboarding for users unfamiliar with federation

This “new” path wouldn’t replace #Mastodon, and the wider #Fediverse apps, it would complement them. Mastodon remains the power-user platform, while they think that the new space could serve as a gateway for mainstream adoption of the Fediverse.

Questions to consider: Is there a genuine need for such a platform, or is this just another #techcurn distraction? What key features from Bluesky (or other platforms) would be essential to replicate on this path? How do we simplify federation without sacrificing its core values? What social and technical challenges stand in the way of making this happen? Why do we not simply continue down the existing #openweb path of pushing cultural change.

What do you think? Is this a #techcurn distraction, or could it be the missing path for wider Fediverse outreach and adoption? What I think about this is discussed here http://hamishcampbell.com

#Fediverse #Bluesky #Mastodon #OpenWeb #4opens

The problem with centralized data

The hidden centralization crisis in #openweb tech, and how #OMN fixes It. One of the often overlooked issue in #openweb technology is that our data remains dangerously centralized. Even in supposedly decentralized systems, vast amounts of critical information still rely on a handful of corporate-owned data centres. This fragile setup means that a single accident, political upheaval, corporate shutdown, or environmental catastrophe (#climatechaos) could wipe out entire digital histories overnight.

Despite the promise of decentralization, much of our infrastructure still depends on centralized hosting, leaving communities vulnerable to erasure. The illusion of permanence is just that, an illusion. The question isn’t if data loss will happen, but when.

The #OMN path to building a resilient web, is a radically different approach, ensuring that content remains accessible even in the face of system failures. Instead of relying on fragile, monolithic storage solutions, it embraces redundancy, simplicity, and resilience through the #4opens principles.

Here’s how #OMN keeps the web truly open and sustainable, redundant, grassroots network-stored content. Data is distributed across multiple independent nodes rather than locked into a single corporate-controlled server. This prevents mass erasure and ensures that no single entity controls access to vital information.

#KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid) design, instead of complex, failure-prone tech, #OMN emphasizes simplicity and usability. The system is built to survive disruptions by keeping technology accessible, lightweight, and easy to replicate. No reliance on traditional backups, when a node fails (which it inevitably will), there’s no need for massive backup operations. Simply boot up a new node, input your hashtags and user info, and the network automatically reconstructs as much data as possible. This lossy-but-functional recovery method ensures continuity without unnecessary complexity.

Scalability through home hosting, the future of a resilient #openweb lies in decentralized, grassroots hosting rather than reliance on corporate servers. Home hosting allows people and communities to reclaim control, expanding the network organically without falling into the traps of commercialization.

Reboot the #OMN, follows the #4opens, the corporate web is fragile because it’s designed to serve profit, not people. The #openweb was never meant to be centralized, and yet, the forces of capitalism, surveillance, and convenience have led to its current vulnerable state. If we want a web that survives revolutions, #climatechaos, and the collapse of tech giants, we need to reboot the #openweb and commit to the #4opens:

Open Data – Data should be accessible and free from corporate control.
Open Source – Technology should be transparent and modifiable by anyone.
Open Standards – Systems should communicate and work together, not be locked into proprietary silos.
Open Process – Development should be done in public, ensuring accountability and community-driven decision-making.

The native path isn’t bigger servers or better encryption, it’s resilient, people-powered infrastructure that is based on trust, usability, and decentralization over corporate control.

Reboot the web. Build for resilience. Follow the #4opens.

Who Broke the #OpenWeb?

30 years ago, the #openweb held the promise of a decentralized, people-driven internet where communities thrived free from corporate control, built on openness, collaboration, and trust. However, over time, #mainstreaming overlapping forces contributed to its fragmentation and decay. I will outline each of these groups that played a role in hollowing out the one’s strong native path. Till ten years ago, we just had a shell of its former self.

A brief look at who undermined the #openweb:

#Encryptionists – Security Theatre Over Trust-Based Relationships

Security and privacy are crucial aspects of online interactions. However, the rise of encryption absolutism led to a fixation on security theatre rather than meaningful, trust-based relationships. By prioritizing complex, user-unfriendly security measures, #encryptionists alienated non-technical users. They created barriers to entry, making the #openweb feel inaccessible to the very people it aimed to empower. Trust, once a fundamental building block of the openweb, was sidelined in favour of rigid, abstract security morality that ignored real-world social dynamics. While encryption is necessary, it should complement usability rather than hinder this “native” path. When security becomes a gatekeeper rather than an enabler, it fractures communities rather than strengthening them.

#Geekproblem – The #openweb as an irrelevant subculture

Technologists and early adopters built the openweb, but over time, the culture of fear based geek elitism turned the flow into a closed-off subculture. Developers built tools for themselves rather than for broader communities, leading to solutions that required extensive technical knowledge to use. The obsession with purity in code and ideology hidden within this path created unnecessary division and infighting. Rather than embracing the diverse needs of the public, the #geekproblem pushed people away, reinforcing a bubble that only a self select few could engage with. Instead of evolving into an inclusive, mass-adopted movement, the openweb became a niche playground for those already initiated in its ways, leaving the rest to the mercy of corporate-controlled #dotcons.

#Fashernistas – Self-interest, greed, and the worst of both worlds

The rise of wannabe internet influencers, thought leaders, and opportunists, what we call the #fashernistas, has further eroded the openweb. Many latched onto the latest trends not out of any genuine belief or understanding, but for self-promotion and status. They borrowed aspects of both corporate and grassroots cultures, cherry-picking whatever served their individual interests while ignoring the larger ethical paths and responsibilities. Their influence diluted the radical ideas, turning this space into shallow branding exercises rather than growing the meaning filled movements. Instead of acting as advocates for real change and thus challenge, they became part of the problem, steering discussions toward popularity contests rather than the substance we need.

#Dotcons – The corporate takeover of data and social control

The most obvious and destructive force has been the rise of corporate social media (#dotcons), which privatized data and metadata for profit and control. The internet was transformed from an open space into a series of walled gardens controlled by tech giants. Monetization models based on surveillance and algorithmic manipulation reshaped online behaviour, pushing engagement metrics over any real or genuine human connection. By making convenience their selling point, they successfully pulled people away from the increasingly #geekproblem decentralized, community-led paths and platforms. The result? A generation that has become dependent on centralized services while completely losing control over their digital lives.

The destruction of the openweb was not inevitable, and it does not have to be permanent. A lot of people and communities are already back on this “native” path with the #Fediverse. How we actively help to work to reclaim this openweb reboot:

Reclaim Trust-Based Relationships – Instead of hiding behind abstract security models, we need to balance this with rebuilding relationships based on trust and transparency. This means developing tools that prioritize human connection over cryptographic isolation.

Stop Chasing Security Theatre at the Cost of Usability – Security should serve people, not alienate them. We need simple, effective solutions that balance safety with accessibility.

Challenge Commercialization and Centralization – Corporate control of the web needs to be actively resisted. Open, federated, and cooperative models should be the foundation of our digital spaces, this is a fight we can win.

Build Resilient, People-Powered Infrastructure – We need investment in decentralized, community-driven technologies that are not reliant on any single entity. By growing the culture of home-hosting, redundancy, and peer-to-peer networks, we can create systems that can survive and thrive outside corporate control and be a little resilient to social brake down we are going to face over the next 20 years.

In conclusion, the openweb was torn apart by a combination of #deathcult ideological rigidity, cultural elitism, opportunism, and corporate greed. But the is hope, as we are currently rebuilding this path, the question now is: Will we let the forces that destroyed the original openweb movement shape these fresh seedling beds, or will we take back control to grow something better and stronger.

VisionOnTV: A Lost Future of Grassroots Video

Nearly 20 years ago, we built something radical. #VisionOnTV wasn’t just another platform, it was a #4opens movement. A bold attempt to break free from corporate-controlled media and give people the tools to create and share activist-driven, alternative television. We weren’t waiting for permission; we were building the future we wanted to see.

Before #YouTube became the advertising surveillance monolith it is today, we had a different vision. One where video wasn’t just disposable clickbait, but a tool for social change. The project was to curated hard-hitting documentaries, radical comedy, underground music, and voices that #mainstreaming #TV wouldn’t touch. Unlike the corporate “content farms”, our focus was on nurturing quality grassroots storytelling, ensuring activist media was just as compelling as anything on TV.

Technically, we were ahead of the curve. Using #Bittorrent for distribution, #Miro for viewing, and Creative Commons licensing, VisionOnTV se out to build a decentralized media network, a vision that today’s #PeerTube is still catching up to. We worked for a world where people weren’t just passive consumers, but active participants in the media they watched.

Of course, the internet went in a different direction. The rise of #dotcons pulled people into walled gardens where visibility was dictated by algorithms, engagement was hijacked by ads, and “independent creators” had to play the platform game or disappear. VisionOnTV stood against that tide, but history didn’t side with us.

Yet, the need for a project like VisionOnTV has never gone away. The corporate grip on media is suffocating, activist voices are still being marginalized, and the fight for an open, people-powered internet continues. Maybe it’s time to dig through the compost of the past and see what new seeds we can plant.

What do you remember about VisionOnTV? And what lessons should we carry forward into today’s decentralized media struggles?

#IndymediaBack #OMN #4opens #NothingNew

People, community, the long struggle between the #openweb and #dotcons

This is a mess that has been clear to see for 20 years, but people keep falling into the same traps instead of stepping off the cycle of control. We had something, we lost it, and we are still refusing to face why.

Let’s use #Failbook as a practical example of a monster that devours our dreams, fifteen years ago, the writing was already on the wall, #failbook and the #dotcons would eat everything. It wasn’t some grand conspiracy, just basic power and control dynamics. People knew this. They saw the cage being built around them, yet walked in willingly. Why? Because in the small picture, it was “easier” to stay inside than to step outside. They thought they were users, but they were being used. Every attempt to “fix” #failbook, the endless ethical tech debates, the “kinder, fairer” alternatives, the #NGO-funded projects promising “a better social network”, misses the core issue: You don’t fix a monster. You stop feeding it and walk away.

This is where the religious metaphor fits, people don’t want atheism (the #openweb), they just want a nicer god (ethical #dotcons). They still kneel before centralized power, just hoping for a softer whip. We need to stop worshipping the digital feudal lords and start building something else entirely. One path is to reboot the original #openweb

To do this we need some social history: The #openweb was murdered, and no one faced the consequences, we need a truth and reconciliation process for what happened to the #openweb. Why? Because people refuse to learn from history, and that means they keep making the same mistakes. Look at the waves of migration from open to closed over the last two decades:

The rise of blogs and open publishing (2000s) → The pull into social media walled gardens (2010s)
The rise of the federated web (2000s, early 2010s) → The collapse into corporate-owned silos (late 2010s, 2020s)
The rebirth of the Fediverse (Mastodon, PeerTube, Lemmy, etc.) → Now being co-opted by NGOs and #mainstreaming interests

Each time, the excuse is different, but the result is the same, we hand over power, they take control, we lose everything. Until we face the fact that we let this happen, that we were complicit, this cycle won’t stop. Every time we fail to call it what it is, the blood-letting/stains keep coming back.

The problem with #NGO and Co-op models, people love to push the same “solutions” that failed before. Pushing a voluntary project into a hard “not-for-profit” structure kills it, this happened again and again. Look at #indymedia. It worked because it was messy, decentralized, built from the ground up. Run by volunteers, not controlled by a central authority. Rooted in the activist base, not an #NGO-funded agenda. Then came the push to “formalize” it, and what happened?

Funding fights, bureaucracy, infighting.
Projects being hijacked or forced into rigid structures.
Most of the co-op/NGO media projects collapsed.

There is nothing wrong with people building not-for-profit media, but stop forcing voluntary activism into structures that will kill it. The old mistakes aren’t new solutions. They are just mistakes waiting to happen again.

The #OMN and the need for diversity of strategies, the #OMN is built on a simple idea, diversity of strategies is strength. We need:

Commercial models where they work.
Not-for-profit structures where they make sense.
Voluntary activism as the foundation.

Then the basic #4opens of them linking to each other. What we don’t need is people using their own narrow worldview as a #BLOCK on other approaches in the guise of “helping”. This happens all the time, with the #NGO crowd that wants everything formalized, structured, and professionalized, they see grassroots messiness as a problem. The geeks want everything to be purely about the tech, ignoring the social and political realities. The politicos want everything to align with their ideology, even when that means excluding actual working solutions. These proxy fights kill the meany projects before they even start.

The solution is not ideological purity, it’s pragmatic diversity. If we want to break the cycle, we need to stop repeating the same mistakes, stop blocking each other, link and start building with what we have #KISS

One path to this, that needs support https://opencollective.com/open-media-network

The light in this is the #Fediverse, otherwise the last decade in tech has been a complete dead end. We’ve watched the same old mistakes play out, layering more “solutions” onto the #geekproblem without ever questioning the foundation. Instead of building trust, we’ve been sold “security” wrapped in fear, reinforcing the same toxic cycles that keep us locked in place.

The #OMN projects build from the #Fediverse and #openweb reboot to break from this. They are about real empowerment, shifting power by growing trust rather than control. If we keep repeating the same mistakes, we’re just feeding the #deathcult, accelerating the collapse. The #fashernista and #encryptionist obsessions, instead of opening paths to change, have become blind alleyways leading to catastrophe. We need to step back, reassess, and build differently, before the coming decades bring suffering on a scale we’ve barely begun to grasp.

#AI and Warfare – Oxford Panel Discussion

A conversation with Professor Stephen Rosen and Professor Shivaji Sondhi on artificial intelligence in warfare. The talk stays on the surface, not offering deep insights, but it does stimulate thinking, which is maybe its purpose. We are already well down this path.

Some of my takeaways: #AI in war functions as a force multiplier, but the key question is how nations deploy it. Ukraine shows that both sides use similar technology. A major limitation of current AI use is that it is too expensive to be integrated into cheap drones and autonomous weapons. To bypass communication jamming, control is shifting to space, which then requires AI to operate in space as well.

A stopgap is drone relays flying at high altitudes, but these become targets themselves. Simple autonomy (using basic image recognition) is being developed to maintain functionality when communications are jammed, for both targeting and navigation. With this we highlight the issue of autonomy and decision-making, if AI is to be increasingly used to managing battles, then the advantage will go to those who trust it most. Authoritarian states embrace AI more readily, as they do not trust their own people. This “first strike advantage” AI brings increases instability in conflicts.

This rises, the issue of why the U.S. Fails in War. The answer might be simple, the U.S. often struggles in warfare due to a lack of understanding of other cultures, leading to psychological biases in strategy. AI might help identify these blind spots by analysing what people actually fear. However, there’s scepticism, will AI truly improve decision-making, or will it reinforce existing biases?

Vulnerabilities and decision-making, it is already used in autonomous machine decision-making for missile defence, where human response times are too slow. People are more ready to accept AI in a defensive role because it does not involve direct human casualties, but history shows that similar systems have been used offensively, sometimes dangerously. The Soviet Union’s use of automated nuclear systems for attack nearly led to disaster. The increasing reliance on AI in space-based “defence” systems raises concerns about whether similar failures could occur today.

Let’s step back from that brink, to look at the future of AI in war in wider senses. In the near future, the battlefield is moving to space, where communication for AI-controlled drones and communications is increasingly shifting. Ukraine’s use of Starlink: SpaceX’s Starlink satellite network has been crucial for Ukraine, allowing drones and soldiers to maintain communication even under heavy Russian jamming.

A scary likely future scenario is AI-controlled satellites managing drone vs. drone warfare, where AI systems fight each other in a logistics and targeting battle, without direct human involvement. This creates new arms control challenges, how do you regulate AI-driven weapons? How do you verify compliance when AI systems operate in secret?

AI and economic warfare: #Capitalism vs. #Socialism, AI is also shifting the balance of power between capitalist and socialist economies. For example: China’s “social credit system”: AI-driven surveillance and data collection allow China to exert social planing while improving resource allocation. Silicon Valley’s AI in finance: AI algorithms in the U.S. optimize high-frequency trading, automating stock market decisions and reinforcing economic inequalities.

Could AI reshape military-industrial production? AI could redefine supply chains, making economies less dependent on foreign production. AI-powered cyber warfare could cripple rival economies without direct military engagement. This raises a final question, will AI-driven economies favour authoritarian or democratic paths?

Conclusion, the future of AI in war, the panel discussion raises far more questions than answers. Will AI create more stable deterrence, or increase instability by enabling preemptive strikes? Will “democracies” fall behind authoritarian regimes in AI warfare due to ethical constraints? How will AI shape the future of economic and military power?

The only certainty #AI is already changing the nature of warfare, and we are not in any way prepared for this.

#Oxford