There’s a familiar pattern in foreign policy debates: outrage at the current regime, amnesia about how it got there. Yes, the current government of Iran is repressive. It crushes dissent, restricts freedoms, and enforces authoritarian rule. None of that needs soft-pedalling, but if we’re at all serious about understanding the world – rather than just reacting to #fashernista headlines – we also have to look at how situation came to be.
In 1953, the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran, Mohammad Mosaddegh, was removed in a coup orchestrated by the Central Intelligence Agency and MI6. The reason wasn’t hidden. Mosaddegh had nationalised Iran’s oil industry, which had been dominated by British interests. Oil, not democracy, was the priority.
The coup, coup d’état, dismantled a native government with a democratic mandate and reinstalled Mohammad Reza Pahlavi an authoritarian monarch, backed by the United States and the United Kingdom. His regime relied on repression, secret police, and heavy Western support to maintain control. That repression didn’t produce stability. It produced rage. In 1979, the backlash came in the form of the Iranian Revolution, which overthrew the Shah and replaced him with a theocratic system that remains in power today.
This is the churn. Western powers intervene blindly for strategic and economic gain. They undermine any democratic movements that natively conflict with this corporate and geopolitical greed. The installed regime rules repressively, public anger builds, eventually, it explodes – often empowering forces that are more hostile, more radical, and less aligned with Western interests than the government that was overthrown. Then we act surprised and circle back to the same mess.
None of this excuses the Iranian regime’s actions. But pretending history began in 1979 is dishonest. If we want fewer authoritarian states and fewer hostile stand-offs, we might start by acknowledging how “defending freedom” has meant undermining it. Policy churn without accountability simply produces the next crisis, and then the next one.
In tech funding, over the last decade, the #EU poured hundreds of millions of euros into the #blockchain mess. The promise has proven to be illusion, we built no working transformation: trustless systems, frictionless governance or new economic layers for Europe. The reality? By any honest social metric, 99.9% of that public funding was poured straight down the drain.
Now we are lining up to do the same with AI. Another wave of hundreds of millions, based on another cycle of hype, feeding frenzy for consultants, startups, and policy conferences. And if we are realistic, 99% of this funding will follow the same path: absorbed into closed, corporate-driven ecosystems with minimal public return, poured down the drain.
In between these two hype cycles, we invested comparatively little in the #openweb and #FOSS. And yet that is where we actually saw meaningful results. Even if we are conservative and say 70% of public funding for #openweb and Free and Open Source Software was wasted, that still leaves 30% that worked. Thirty percent that built tools people use. Thirty percent that created infrastructure that continues to function. Thirty percent that delivered measurable social good.
Compared to less than 0.001% meaningful return from blockchain projects (and that’s being generous), and perhaps 1% from AI funding (also generous), this is an extraordinary success rate. So why aren’t we talking more about this?
The Pattern: Funding the Closed, Ignoring the Commons
The problem is not technology, it’s political economy. Public money is repeatedly funnelled into closed ecosystems. #Blockchain projects were built around proprietary platforms, based on financialisation. They all failed to deliver public infrastructure, most were simply vehicles for extraction.
#AI is following the same pattern. Instead of building public infrastructure rooted in openness, transparency, and shared governance, we are too often simply subsidising closed models and corporate consolidation. The result will be the same: dependency, vendor lock-in, and very little democratic control.
Meanwhile, the #4opens and #FOSS quietly power the world.
Servers run on open-source operating systems.
The web runs on open protocols.
Community platforms run on federated code.
Critical infrastructure depends on open libraries.
And yet funding for these projects remains very marginal, precarious, and treated, if at all, as an afterthought.
Why This Matters
This is not only about waste, it is about direction. We are living in an era of climate breakdown, democratic fragility, and accelerating inequality. Public investment needs to strengthen commons-based infrastructure, not deepen dependency on mess of speculative and corporate-controlled #dotcons. When we fund the #fashionista hype cycles we increase centralisation, reduce public oversight and lock ourselves into closed ecosystems, which hollow out our needed local capacity.
When we fund #openweb and #FOSS we build shared infrastructure, increase resilience, enable local innovation to create tools that can be forked, adapted, and reused. Even a poor 30% success rate in commons-based funding creates compounding social value. Code written once can be reused globally. Infrastructure built openly becomes a foundation others can extend. Knowledge stays in the public sphere.
Closed projects don’t compound in the same way. They expire, pivot, get acquired, and then disappear behind paywalls.
The Incentive Problem
So why does this mess keep happening? Because hype is easier to support than maintenance. The current #mainstreaming is to blind, Blockchain and AI come with glossy narratives of disruption and geopolitical competition. They promise growth, dominance, strategic autonomy. They flatter policymakers with the illusion of being at the frontier.
The #openweb and #FOSS, by contrast, are mundane. They are about maintenance, collaboration, and long-term stewardship. They don’t produce any unicorn valuations, the smoke and mirrors that feed splashy policy headlines. But they work, and in public policy, “working” should be the gold standard.
What We Need to Talk About
We need to keep asking direct #spiky questions about what percentage of publicly funded tech projects remain usable five years later? How many are open, forkable, and independently maintainable? Who owns the infrastructure we are building with public money? And does this investment strengthen the commons or subsidise enclosure? If we measured blockchain funding by long-term public utility, it would be exposed as a massive misallocation at best and fraud at worst. If we measure AI funding the same way in five years, we may reach the same conclusion. We #KISS need structural change:
Default to #4opens – Public funding #KISS should require open licenses, open standards, and transparent governance.
Fund Maintenance – Not just #fashionista projects, but long-term stewardship of critical open infrastructure.
Measure Social Value – Not hype, not valuation, not patents, but actual public use and resilience.
Grassroots tech as seedlings – to be open to real change and challenge in tech.
Support Commons Governance – Fund communities, not more startups.
Why We Need to Act
If we do not challenge the current messy #techshit cycle, we keep pushing ourselves into a future defined by the #dotcons, closed platforms with extractive models. To say this is not anti-technology, it is pro-public infrastructure. The choice is simple, do we keep pouring public money into, closed ecosystems with near-zero public return or invest systematically in the messy, imperfect, but functioning #openweb commons.
The data – even by generous estimates – is clear. Thirty percent real return beats 0.001% every time. We need to stop funding hype, we need to fund what works, and we need to say this loudly, before the next billion euros disappears down the same drain.
If you’ve spent years in #FOSS, you’ve likely developed a strong allergy to vague political language. You care about licenses, reproducibility, governance models, and whether something actually runs. Good. That discipline is why free software exists at all.
But here’s the uncomfortable question, what if the biggest blocker to the #openweb right now isn’t technical debt – but social debt? And what if “good faith” is not a moral nicety, but a core infrastructure requirement?
The problem is when activism meets the #geekproblem. Anyone who pushes for change – especially against #mainstreaming pressures – develops a recurring relationship with bad faith. You see this when:
Corporate actors adopt the language of openness while enclosing the commons.
Institutions celebrate “community” while centralizing control.
Projects technically comply with openness while culturally gatekeeping participation.
This isn’t new, but the scale is new, in the age of #dotcons, #NGO enclosure is polished, funded, and normalized. Resistance generally fragmented, exhausted, and defensive as years of platform manipulation and extractive models have left people burnt out and cynical. In that climate, good faith is fragile, yet without it, nothing decentralized works. Good faith is infrastructure, decentralized systems cannot rely on coercion at scale. They rely on:
Trust
Transparency
Shared norms
The assumption is that participants are not actively trying to sabotage the commons, as when bad faith dominates, decentralized governance collapses into:
Endless meta arguments
Capture by the loudest actors
Drift toward hierarchy “for efficiency”
Sound familiar? This is why good faith isn’t sentimental, it’s structural. If you’ve ever tried to maintain a FOSS project while navigating trolls, corporate opportunists, and purity politics, you already know this.
To help the #4opens is a practical test, not a vibe. The #4opens framework exists precisely to operationalize good faith. It asks four simple questions of any grassroots tech project:
Is the data open?
Is the source open?
Are the processes open?
Are the standards open?
This extends beyond traditional open data initiatives (often institutional, often cosmetic). It covers the entire ecosystem of a project, not just its outputs. The value is not ideological purity, it’s resilience. When data, code, process, and standards are open:
Capture becomes harder.
Forking remains possible.
Governance can be contested transparently.
Communities can leave without losing everything.
That’s not abstract politics, it’s survival architecture. Composting the current rot is why #OMN exists as a project. We are living in a digital environment thick with enclosure and manipulation. Years of bad faith, disempowerment, and algorithmic extraction have created social decay. The instinct of many geeks is to build a cleaner stack and hope people migrate. But the problem isn’t just software, it’s trust collapse.
If the #openweb is to mean anything beyond developer autonomy, it has to support collective storytelling and coordination, not just individual expression. #OMN is a shovel, not a cathedral. It’s a way to compost the mess rather than pretend it isn’t there.
The #OMN (Open Media Network) is not a shiny new protocol. It’s deliberately simple: Publish, Subscribe, Moderate, Rollback, Edit. That’s it, no engagement hacks, no growth funnels and no surveillance capitalism. It’s a #DIY, trust-based, human-moderated space. Messy, organic, built for communities, not only users.
This matters in the era of #climatechaos and social break down. As climate instability accelerates, centralized platforms will align with state and corporate power to prioritize “order” over dissent and optimize for profitability in shrinking margins.
To balance these communities will need coordination without permission, information flows that aren’t algorithmically distorted and infrastructure they can adapt locally, that’s a social demand. If #FOSS remains culturally optimized for the small minority who enjoy living inside the #geekproblem, it will not meet that demand at all.
We need to understand that the vast majority do not want to self-host, they do not want to debate licences, they do not want to live inside issue trackers. They want functioning, trustworthy spaces, if we can’t provide that, someone else will – and it won’t be #4opens.
The hard part is working with the empowered disempowered of our #fashionista class. We have a generation trained in #closed systems that reward performative critique over collective construction. On #dotcons platforms and strands of #NGO thinking, people are empowered to disempower others with common sense #blocking of call-out culture, optics over substance and branding over shared process. You get a strange anti-politics, egotistical, individualistic, allergic to long-term responsibility. A culture that critiques power while replicating it. Escaping this dynamic may be uncomfortable, it may get nasty before it stabilizes.
But here are some kinder strategies we can use:
Make contributions obvious and low-drama, clear process reduces ego battles.
Reward maintenance, not only innovation, culture follows incentives.
Default to transparency over suspicion, sunlight reduces paranoia looping.
Design for groups, not influencers, collective accounts, shared moderation, distributed ownership.
Keep it simple (#KISS), as complexity amplifies gatekeeping.
None of this eliminates conflict, but it shifts the terrain from personality warfare to shared work.
An invitation to the sceptics, you don’t need to buy the rhetoric, maybe ask instead does this increase forkability? Reduce capture risk? Does it lower dependence on extractive infrastructure to strengthen collective agency? If the answers are yes, they belong in the #FOSS conversation. The future of the #openweb will not be secured by better branding or cleverer stacks. It will be secured by projects that treat good faith as a design constraint and collective resilience as the goal.
This is not about purity, it’s about durability. We can keep polishing tools for the tiny minority who enjoy living inside the #geekproblem, but, we need to build infrastructure that ordinary communities can also use to navigate the storms ahead. The invitation stands, pick up a shovel, help compost the mess by build something that gives back more than it extracts.
This matters for #FOSS because as if it remains culturally trapped inside the #geekproblem, it becomes socially irrelevant at the exact historical moment it is most needed. Right now, most #FOSS energy still assumes that if you build complex tools, argue narrowly, and keep everything technically “open,” people will come. But only a tiny minority actually want to live the full-stack geek life: self-hosting, compiling, debating licenses, maintaining infra. That path selects for a personality type. It is not neutral.
The problem isn’t that this path exists, it’s that it quietly tries to define culture. The tension is that the #geekproblem tends to reduce political and social questions to technical architecture. It too often treats freedom as a property of code, rather than a property of relationships. But in an era of #climatechaos, people don’t need abstract freedom in protocol design. They need mutual aid to build trust networks and local resilience. They need collective agency in open spaces to coordinate without corporate capture. These are #KISS social demands.
If #openweb remains framed as a technical alternative to Big Tech, it will only attract geeks and edge cases. If it is framed as a public infrastructure for collective survival, it suddenly matters to everyone. This shift in focus is urgent as climate disruption accelerates: Centralized platforms will prioritize profit and state alignment, infrastructure failures will become normal, feeding political polarization. Authoritarian coordination models will look “efficient.” If #FOSS cannot step outside the geek subculture, it leaves the field open to #dotcons and state/corporate hybrids to define digital coordination. That’s not a tech failure. It’s a social failure.
So, what changes this frameing? To make #openweb meaningful to the majority, we need to shift from tools to practices. Don’t only ask people to install software, ask what they are trying to do with digital tools together. Then lower cultural barriers, not just technical ones, by building code for groups, not only individuals. The mainstream internet optimizes for #stupidindividualism, the alternative needs to be balancing this mess, by optimizing for collectives.
Accept messiness, social systems are not elegant, they compost, they fork culturally before they fork technically. Centre use in crisis, not only ideology, when floods hit, when heatwaves hit, when services fail – what does the #openweb enable that corporate #dotcons platforms cannot? If the answer is “we have a nicer licence,” it won’t matter. If the answer is “your community can coordinate and survive without asking permission,” it becomes essential.
The hard truth is only a minority want to be geeks, but almost everyone wants dignity, voice, belonging and some stability in chaos. If #FOSS and #openweb can’t translate into those terms, they remain culturally marginal. This is why the issue is urgent, not because the code is broken – but because the social imagination around it is too small for the scale of the social and ecological crisis. And in the age of #climatechaos, infrastructure that doesn’t scale socially (#fluffy) will be replaced by infrastructure that scales politically (#spiky) – whether we like it or not.
The question isn’t whether #openweb works, it’s whether it can grow beyond the #geekproblem long enough to matter.
Human Tech: The Open Media Network (#OMN) is a proposal for human-scale, federated media infrastructure built on standard #FOSS practices and the #4opens: open data, open source, open process, open standards.
It does not attempt to invent a new platform. It defines a minimal, interoperable framework for how content flows through networks, in ways that remain understandable, auditable, and governable by the communities that use them.
The core premise is simple, if people cannot mentally model how a system works, they cannot meaningfully govern it. When infrastructure becomes opaque, power centralises.
OMN reduces networked publishing to five irreducible functions. Everything else – feeds, timelines, notifications, dashboards – is interface.
The OMN Framework: The Five Functions (#5F)
Rather than starting from features or products, OMN starts from flows. Think of a network as pipes and holding tanks. Objects move through them, communities decide how. The entire stack reduces to #5F:
1. Link / Subscribe to a Flow
Connection is explicit and user-controlled. A node can link to or subscribe to any flow – local or remote. Flows can be personal, collective, moderated, experimental, or archival. This replaces platform enclosure (“you are inside us”) with composable federation (“this connects to that”).
No built-in opaque ranking algorithms, no engagement manipulation, just declared connections between flows.
2. Trust / Moderate a Flow
Moderation is treated as routing and filtering – not binary censorship. Flows can:
Pass through untouched
Be diverted into holding tanks
Be filtered through community-defined sieves
Be contextualised rather than removed
Trust is local and explicit, different communities can apply different filters to the same upstream source. This preserves plurality while avoiding centralised control.
3. Rollback
Rollback enables recovery without destructive central authority. Communities can:
Rewind aggregation decisions
Remove objects from local flow
Correct moderation mistakes
Recover from abuse or spam
Without rollback, errors escalate into governance crises. With rollback, accountability becomes procedural rather than punitive.
4. Edit Metadata
Objects are not rewritten, they are contextualised, metadata can be appended to content:
Tags
Trust signals
Warnings
Summaries
Translations
Relevance markers
Meaning emerges through socially applied metadata, not engagement-optimised algorithms. This is the backbone of decentralised news curation.
5. Publish Content
Publishing is simply adding an object into a flow. Publication does not imply amplification. Authority is emergent through trust relationships. At the base of all five functions is a simple storage layer, a database holding objects in motion. No proprietary feed logic, its people and community. No built-in opaque AI ranking layer or dependency on surveillance economics.
Why This Matters for Public Digital Infrastructure
Most contemporary social media systems are vertically integrated, identity, distribution, ranking, moderation, monetisation and storage are all coupled inside corporate governance structures. This produces structural centralisation, even when protocols are nominally federated.
#OMN is about functional decoupling by isolating the core five functions, infrastructure becomes auditable, replaceable, forkable, composable and grassroots governable. Complexity is where capture happens, minimalism is a #KISS governance strategy.
Nothing New – By Design
OMN intentionally builds on patterns that already work: Packet-switched networks, electrical grids, plumbing systems, version control systems and federated FOSS collaboration models. This is the #nothingnew principle: sustainable infrastructure mirrors systems humans already understand. When technology reflects intuitive physical systems, governance becomes possible at human scale.
Built on #4opens and Standard FOSS Process
The OMN stack adheres to:
Open data
Open source
Open process
Open standards
It is not a product, it is a reference architecture and implementation framework. Others are encouraged to build clients, moderation layers, UX experiments, archival tools, research layers, and community governance models in the flow. The value lies not in novelty, but in interoperability and trust-layer experimentation.
OMN aligns with public-interest infrastructure goals:
1. Decentralisation Without Fragmentation
Federated flows with local moderation and shared protocols.
2. Trust Mediation as a First-Class Function
Trust is explicit, inspectable, and socially determined, not hidden inside ranking systems.
3. Lossy by Design
Perfect synchronisation is not required. Redundancy increases resilience.
4. Forkability
Each node can evolve independently without breaking interoperability.
5. Infrastructure Over Platform
OMN is a toolkit for building ecosystems, not a single destination site.
From Indymedia to a Federated Commons
The first seed projects are makinghistory and rebooting early grassroots media networks like Indymedia demonstrated the power of open publishing anyone could contribute, communities moderated collectively and infrastructure was mission-aligned. But back in the day, those systems lacked tech scalable trust layering and sustainable federation paths.
OMN is an attempt to reboot that tradition using contemporary FOSS practice and federated architecture. Not as nostalgia, but as public digital infrastructure.
What Funding Enables
Support from funders such as NLnet would allow:
Formal specification of the #5F architecture
Reference FOSS implementation
Interoperability tooling with existing federated systems
Trust-metadata experimentation frameworks
Governance model documentation
Security auditing and resilience testing
Documentation aimed at non-technical community operators
The aim is to lower the barrier to running community-governed media nodes while preserving composability with the broader federated web.
In Summary
The Open Media Network is federated, trust-based, open by design with minimal core architecture built for governance, not engagement capture. It is infrastructure for communities to create their own flows, their own networks, their own moderation models. It is not about optimising users, it is about enabling public agency. Not control, trust.
OMN is not a platform, it is plumbing for democratic digital commons #KISS
The #NastyFew are not hiding in the shadows, they’re integrated. The so-called “Epstein files” are not the record of one predator. They are a snapshot of how #mainstreaming works at elitist levels, a map of proximity around the people who default-run the mess we call society.
Billionaires. Prime ministers. Cabinet officials. Tech founders. Bankers. Cultural icons.
From Bill Gates to Elon Musk. From Reid Hoffman to Peter Thiel. From Ehud Barak to Prince Andrew.
Different countries. Different parties. Different supposed ideologies.
Same choreography:
Minimise. Deny. Distance. Then quietly continue.
This isn’t a normal view of Left vs Right. It’s naked class power of capital, office, platform and narrative dominance. We are ruled by a tightly interlocked ecosystem of board members, ministers, venture capitalists, financiers, media gatekeepers, and intelligence-adjacent operators who circulate through the same rooms.
When someone like Jeffrey Epstein enters that ecosystem, the question isn’t “Is he moral?” It’s “Is he useful?” for access, introductions, money flows and information leverage. Utility beats any ethics, every time. The system Is working, If it were broken, this mess would have triggered collapse. Instead, what did we get? Public outrage cycles, partisan weaponisation, conspiracy noise, then normality. All the mainstreaming did was shrug, markets, platforms, elections and most importantly funding rounds continued. We get increasing calls that the mainstream needs to move on.
What we are experiencing is not failure, it’s design. The system functions as intended: absorb scandal, protect capital concentration, maintain continuity. Consolidation Is the real danger, it isn’t only the criminality, it’s this consolidation. Look at the overlap:
The founders of the #dotcons we use to communicate.
The investors shaping AI and data infrastructure.
The companies building surveillance tooling.
The politicians writing regulatory frameworks.
The financiers underwriting the entire stack.
When the same class controls:
Capital
Media distribution
Data infrastructure
Political influence
As more evidence surfaces, something predictable happens. Truth becomes radioactive, reasonable people back away, the conversation collapses into culture-war sludge, signal drowns in noise. Information overload stabilises the system, not an accident that while we argue, the #NastyFew consolidate.
You cannot reform a system that protects itself through structural interdependence. Accountability becomes theatre, you can only build outside its smoke, mirrors, and radioactive truth. The hard part is waiting becomes consent, and we keep waiting for the courts, elections, investigations, journalists and for platforms to regulate themselves. But those institutions are staffed, funded, and structurally influenced by the same #nastyfew class. Waiting is not neutral, it is consent via inertia.
To start to compost this mess we need to get back to rebooting an alternative, for twenty years I’ve been arguing that we urgently need to reboot a working alternative. A good place to start is the #openweb as the mainstream web is dominated by corporate platforms tightly coupled to capital and intelligence ecosystems. We cannot keep debating inside systems owned by the #NastyFew and expect any structural change.
We need #4opens publishing infrastructure, federated networks with transparent governance and community hosting to build protocol-level resilience infrastructure. Not hobby projects, this is where projects like the #OMN come in – Replace, Don’t Rage – If the top layer is structurally compromised, the answer isn’t endless outrage, it’s replacement. But not with another billionaire, another charismatic founder or “ethical” walled garden. But with #KISS open protocols building shared distributed control for memory that cannot be quietly buried.
Because the real lesson here isn’t just that elitist protects elitists, it’s that centralised systems protect concentration of power, and concentration of power always protects itself. We need to build the alternative before the #NastyFew finish locking the doors.
Let’s be clear, the current #mainstreaming was never a social justice path. This isn’t conspiracy theory, it’s documented history, the archive is public. But when we forget history, propaganda works better. When people and communities challenge dominant economic arrangements – resource control, industrial policy, alignment with rival powers – they enter dangerous territory. And this matters, because fear feeds myth, and myth feeds compliance.
This matters for the #OMN as the battle is not military or economic, it is informational, when #mainstreaming agencies master social media aesthetics and narrative framing, the line between media and propaganda blurs further. There is no neutral “information environment.” in the #dotcons, there is infrastructure, and whoever controls it shapes perception, It’s why #4opens media matters, why memory matters. That’s why the #OMN is not only about publishing tools, but about resisting amnesia.
We live in a mess, on a planet with 8 billion people, we produce enough food for far more, yet billions are hungry – not because of scarcity, but because of distribution mediated by money. If markets fail to meet basic human needs at planetary scale, insisting that they will eventually fix themselves becomes its own form of idealism. Calling that out is not naïve utopianism, it’s structural realism.
Compost the bad myths, we don’t study history to marinate in resentment, we study it to understand power. #dotcons glamour does not erase violence, inclusion does not erase intervention and rebranding does not erase mandate. If we want an open future, we have to defend it.
Memory against amnesia, infrastructure against capture and media against propaganda. There is no such thing as “independent media” floating above power, there is media aligned with structures of power and there is media that challenges them. #OMN is a path to build the latter.
If you think age verification is just an engineering challenge – better cryptography, better zero-knowledge proofs, better ID rails – you’re likely a part of the #geekproblem at best, or at worst the control culture we need to compost. We need to better balance this mess, as a technical problem and a political instrument of control.
Across multiple jurisdictions, “protecting children” is used as the framing device. But the mechanism being normalised is much broader:
mandatory identity gateways
infrastructure-level filtering
platform liability tied to speech
centralised verification intermediaries
The problem is that isn’t child protection infrastructure, it’s a population control infrastructure. Once identity verification becomes a prerequisite for accessing speech, publishing content, and browsing information, anonymity stops being a right and becomes an exception. And history is clear, when anonymity disappears, dissent becomes riskier.
The function of age verification systems are:
centralise power over who can access what
create databases of identity–behaviour linkage
raise barriers to entry for independent publishers
entrench large platforms that can afford compliance
They don’t in any way “solve a safety issue.” It’s clearly about restructure the public sphere, and this is done in ways that favour #dotcons, with surveillance-heavy models leading to state oversight of online life. This is why treating it as a neutral technical puzzle is very dangerous. You can build the most privacy-preserving age-gate imaginable, and still legitimise the idea that access to information requires credential checks. That’s the shift, it’s about control, not code.
Authoritarian governments are obvious examples, but even “liberal democracies” slide when given the tools to normalise identity-linked browsing, mandatory compliance filtering and speech conditioned on verification… we move from open networks to permissioned networks. That’s a structural change, and structural changes are hard to reverse.
The line is that “free speech” isn’t just about what you’re allowed to say, it’s about the conditions under which speech occurs:
Can you speak without being tracked?
Can you access information without registering?
Can minority or dissident voices reach people without identity clearance?
Age verification regimes chop away at those conditions, maybe gradually, reasonably, for safety. That’s how rights erode, not with dramatic bans, but with infrastructure.
The path is not something to “innovate around.” It’s something to resist at the policy level. If we accept the premise that identity checks are a legitimate precondition for access to online speech, we concede the foundation of an #openweb.
Age verification is being framed as technical hygiene, it is, in reality, a governance shift. And governance shifts of this scale shouldn’t be quietly accommodated, they need to be openly debated, and, where they undermine civil liberties, firmly opposed.
Why use strong words, because there are parasites and shit to shovel. Why this is helpful? Because it gives the people who currently being default parasitic a chance not to be, and the people who are creating #techshit space to compost some of this mess making. If they do, fantastic, a kindness has been done. If they don’t, we can compost the #fuckwits ourselves to grow something better #KISS.
“Impossible” is a horizon, not a boundary, not a fantasy, it is a pattern in history – abolition was “impossible.”, Universal suffrage was “impossible.”, Worker self-organisation was “impossible.” An open, global communication network outside state control was “impossible.” Until people acted as if it weren’t.
The function of calling something impossible is too often, political, about narrowing imagination and disciplining ambition, to keep demands within the limits of what current power structures find tolerable.
But structural shifts rarely start as “reasonable proposals.” they start as overreach – commons infrastructure, resisting enclosure, pushing back on identity-gated speech, building beyond scarcity logic – If we only aim for what seems immediately feasible within existing incentives, we tend to only reinforce those incentives.
If we aim beyond them, we can change the terrain, we may not reach the “impossible” goal, but we shift what becomes possible next. That’s the wager, it’s not utopian perfection or strategic overreach, historically, it’s acturly #KISS how the boundaries move.
With this firmly in mind, it’s useful to talk in metaphors, the poetry of life balances communication with blunt truth. Let’s look at current mess making. Open spaces attract life, they also attract parasites, that’s ecology. The #openweb and #4opens spaces generate value:
code
trust
collaboration
legitimacy
cultural capital
Composting Is real work, when drift sets in, someone has to shovel. It’s messy, exhausting, unpaid and constant, because digital commons produce nutrients – and institutional actors are trained to harvest nutrients. If nobody composts the shit, the projects choke.
Where value accumulates, extraction follows, the “parasite class” in tech isn’t evil masterminds. They tend to come from a layer of actors – often institutional, often NGO-aligned, often career-professional – who attach themselves to commons projects and redirect energy toward grant cycles, branding positioning and compliance governance trends. They don’t build the soil, they feed on it.
One of the Infections is digital scarcity, the most common parasite logic is simple, “Everyone should pay their way.” It sounds responsible, mature, it sounds sustainable. It’s also a direct import from market ideology. Digital infrastructure is non-rivalrous. It can be shared at near-zero marginal cost. But scarcity logic is reintroduced through:
subscriptions
premium tiers
paywalled functionality
SaaS dependency
professional gatekeeping
That’s enclosure wearing a cardigan, not building commons, it’s rebuilding platforms with nicer vibes.
The #NGO layer brings its own metabolism of risk aversion, soferned by consensus theatre. This is about measurable outputs, depoliticised language and in the end branding as reputational management. Again, not directly evil, but structurally parasitic to native grassroots paths. Because the moment legitimacy becomes more important than usefulness, the centre of gravity shifts. You start designing for funders instead of participants. You optimise optics instead of flows. You’re protecting the brand instead of the commons.
So it’s useful to ask why this keeps happening? Because the commons produce surplus of trust, energy, attention and infrastructure. Institutional actors are trained to capture surplus. They don’t see themselves as parasites. They see themselves as stabilisers. But when their survival depends on control by managing narratives, they can’t help bending the project toward those needs. That’s structural parasitism.
The real questions, where the value is, are you building soil or feeding off soil someone else built? Are you increasing abundance or reintroducing scarcity through “sustainable” monetisation? Are you decentralising power materially or professionalising it? Be honest.
The shovel test is are you building out the commons, or are you feeding on commons energy. Commons infrastructure should reduce dependence on gatekeepers, not multiply them.
The spiky bottom line: Yes, there are parasites. Yes, there’s shit to shovel. No, pretending everything is collaborative harmony doesn’t help. The work of the #OMN and #4opens isn’t trend-chasing or NGO alignment. It’s building resilient soil, designing against digital scarcity, protecting flows from enclosure by keeping governance open and messy.
If that makes institutional actors uncomfortable, that’s fine. Composting always smells bad before it becomes fertile. The question is whether we’re willing to pick up the shovel – or whether we’d rather keep pretending the pile isn’t growing.
Stop burning out alone, the number of good people burning out right now is not accidental. It’s what happens when systemic problems are framed as personal responsibility.
Collective infrastructure is weak and crisis is constant. No one can carry that alone, and no one should try.
The solution isn’t heroic effort, it’s shared architecture. In #FOSS terms: if the system keeps crashing, stop blaming the users. Redesign the stack, that’s the composting we actually need to do.
Meany people see the world degrading, enclosure accelerating. They see climate, politics, media all bending toward extraction. And even when they can see the trajectory, they feel powerless, so they cope by optimise their careers. They scroll. They argue. They consume. They retreat into irony. From birth, we’re trained into one core assumption: There Is No Alternative (#TINA).
Not because it’s true, but because every dominant institution reinforces it:
Schools train compliance.
Media normalises enclosure.
Platforms reward performance over substance.
Workplaces absorb our creative energy into extractive systems.
The message is subtle but constant:
“You can’t change anything.”
“Radicals just break things.”
“Be reasonable. Fit in.”
For builders, this message hits differently, because we know alternatives are possible, we’ve already built them. This is the #FOSS Paradox, as free and open source software proves collaboration without enclosure works, commons-based production works, open standards work and distributed governance can work. Yet somehow, the infrastructure we helped build keeps being enclosed.
The #openweb became the #dotcons, protocols became platforms and communities became markets. Not because we failed technically, but because we underestimated scale, incentives, and capture. And too often, we built tools without building parallel social power. The real trap isn’t rebellion – It’s drift – The #mainstreaming system doesn’t survive by crushing everyone loudly. It survives by absorbing alternatives, funding safe versions of dissent, steering energy into manageable channels and exhausting people with maintenance and precarity
Gatekeeping doesn’t always look like repression, more it looks like grants, partnerships, “best practices,” and institutional legitimacy. The result is that talented builders end up reinforcing the systems they once set out to replace. Not out of malice more from survival.
This Is where #OMN and #4opens come In, it isn’t only ranting about what’s broken, it’s about rebuilding missing layers:
Trust
Shared infrastructure
Media flows outside algorithmic capture
Governance rooted in actual participants
The #4opens are not branding, they are structural safeguards:
Open data
Open source
Open standards
Open process
Without all four, enclosure can creep back in, slowly, politely and inevitably.
This Is not about individual heroics, the myth of the lone hacker is part of the problem. What we need for the new “common sense” is that #stupidindividualism is a dead end. Few people escape extractive systems alone, no one builds durable alternatives alone. Collective infrastructure helps build counterweight to centralised power.
That’s what the #Fediverse gestures toward, what the #openweb once promised, and what needs strengthening now. A first step is to stop pretending we’re powerless. If you’re in #FOSS, you already have:
skills
networks
literacy in decentralised systems
experience with commons governance
What’s missing isn’t capability, it’s coordination and shared direction. The first step isn’t dramatic, it’s simple, reject the #NGO path to:
Find your people.
Support projects aligned with the #4opens.
Build flows, not just features.
Connect tools to real communities.
Refuse quite capture.
Do something – anything – that strengthens commons infrastructure instead of platform enclosure. The biggest lie Is that there’s no choice, when we keep repeating “this is just how things are,” eventually it becomes self-fulfilling. But history says otherwise, every dominant system looks permanent, until it isn’t.
The real outsiders aren’t the loudest rebels, they’re the ones who quietly stop reinforcing broken systems and start building viable alternatives. That’s what this moment asks of the #FOSS community is not #blocking outrage, not purity and not only collapse fantasies.
So, please stop waiting for permission, build systems that align with human autonomy and biophysical reality by strengthening commons before they’re erased. Because alternatives don’t appear, they’re built, and if we don’t build them, enclosure wins by default.
Human behaviour does not stay the same as groups grow. The instincts that helped small tribes survive – loyalty, signalling belonging, defending boundaries, competing for status, consolidating influence – functioned well within natural limits. In small groups, feedback was immediate. Consequences were visible. Power was constrained by proximity and material reality.
But when those same instincts operate at contemporary social scale – inside complex technological societies, or even something like the current #NGO-fediverse – they stop stabilising systems and begin to destabilise them.
What once supported survival can amplify fragmentation. What once built cohesion can produce polarisation. What once protected the group can spiral into extraction and enclosure.
This isn’t a moral failure of the human species. It’s a predictable outcome of scale.
We now live inside systems where old social instincts interact with global networks, algorithmic amplification, financial abstraction, and industrial metabolism. The more-than-human crisis – #climatechaos, biodiversity collapse, geopolitical fracture – isn’t a collection of isolated problems. These are symptoms.
Beneath them are recurring systemic patterns. Beneath those patterns are society-scale incentives. And beneath those incentives are deep assumptions about growth, control, competition, and scarcity.
We are not outside these layers. We are embedded within them. So the questions become:
What does responsibility look like in a world where structural incentives shape collective outcomes?
Where do social thresholds appear when scale removes the natural limits that once kept us in balance?
How do we avoid treating symptoms while reinforcing the deeper forces producing them?
And if our instincts helped seed the early #Fediverse – when we for a time glimpsed a system that worked with human nature while balancing against #dotcons reality – how do we stay true to that path?
Because the tensions we see in the #fediverse today are not just about #blocking or governance disagreements. They are a microcosm of the larger scale problem of how human coordination patterns behave when they move from small, trust-based communities into larger networked infrastructures. The fediverse is not separate from this dynamic. It is one of the places where we should be actively trying to work it out.
To begin that work, we need to understand how the last #openweb reboot was enclosed. We can start by naming the #dotcons.
The #dotcons aren’t just “big tech companies.” They are a structural class of platforms that follow a repeatable pattern:
Present themselves as open, liberating, participatory spaces.
Attract huge numbers of people through network effects and free access.
Gradually enclose that activity.
Monetise attention by shaping reach, visibility, and behaviour.
The “con” isn’t that they charge money, it is the bait-and-switch:
First: open participation, organic reach, community.
You can swap leadership, branding, or tone, but if the core model is:
capture network → centralise control → monetise attention
… then it sits in the same class.
Naming them #dotcons isn’t moral outrage, it’s structural clarity. If we don’t name enclosure as a pattern, we end up debating personalities and features instead of structure. And this matters for the fediverse as if we don’t consciously build flows, commons, and #4opens practices into infrastructure and culture, the same enclosure dynamics will re-emerge, just more politely. The difference isn’t tone, it’s structure.
The real tension in the Fediverse is more about the idea and direction are broadly right:
But the institutional reality is hollow, not enough resources go into the “native,” messy, grassroots work that actually keeps things alive. People like Evan and others stepping into organisational roles are, from their perspective, trying to:
stabilise infrastructure
secure institutional funding
reduce fragmentation
make the ecosystem legible to funders and regulators.
From that side, the fear is clear that without coordination and institutional structure, the fediverse remains marginal or collapses under maintenance debt.
From the native grassroots perspective, however, that institutionalisation risks repeating Web 2.0 capture in softer form – NGO-isation, depoliticisation, mainstream drift, and soft #blocking control. Can be framed as:
stability vs autonomy
funding vs independence
coordination vs organic growth
But it’s more accurate to call it what it is, a resource bottleneck. “ZERO resources for what we actually need” is widely felt as funding currently flows to:
In short, technical sustainability gets funded, where social sustainability struggles, this is why the friction persists. Funding bodies – including ones like #NLnet – operate within a narrow philosophy:
But grassroots media and social organising don’t fit clean grant deliverables. Long-term community building is messy and hard to quantify. Native or openly political framing scares institutional funders. So money exists, but flows on balance toward the wrong layers for movement-building. #Blocking systems like this rarely change because people ask, they change when parallel practice makes the gap obvious. History shows this:
Indymedia didn’t wait for permission.
Early blogs didn’t wait for foundation approval.
Mastodon grew outside institutional planning.
The fediverse reboot itself began as parallel infrastructure.
How do we shift direction to balance resources to:
finding seed funding and affinity groups
building alternatives that demonstrate missing layers
experimenting with governance rooted in users/admins (#OGB)
reframing the fediverse as one implementation of a broader #openweb ecology.
Institutions may shift, they may not. They likely believe they are solving the resource problem – just at a different layer (protocol legitimacy, policy access). So the conflict isn’t simply “they are wrong.” It’s that they are solving a different problem than native actors see as urgent.
The real power map is that formal governance in the fediverse is weak. Influence networks are strong. Power =
maintainers (code gravity)
large instance admins (network gravity)
narrative shapers (discourse gravity)
funding flows (resource gravity)
UX defaults (silent governance)
momentum and path dependency.
Most people assume power = foundations. It doesn’t, and this mismatch creates frustration. Grassroots actors see norms solidifying without transparent process. Institutional actors see chaos and feel pressure to stabilise. Both misidentify where power actually sits. The deepest divide is not ideological. It’s psychological. People are defending different survival strategies inherited from earlier internet generations. Until that’s recognised, discussions loop.
This is a much shorter version of the last post worth reading that as well. What do you think – when you step back and look at it this way?
We need to look at counter common sense. Peter Kropotkin “In existing States a fresh law is looked upon as a remedy for evil.” Cuts straight into the #Fediverse tension, because the pattern is scale reflex: Problem appears → create rule → assume order emerges. It’s not stupidity, it’s institutional instinct, in spaces, when instability appears, the reflex is legislate, regulate, formalise and centralise. Law becomes the default instrument of repair.
Kropotkin’s critique is that law treats symptoms while leaving underlying social relations intact. It stabilises the surface while preserving the structure that produced the harm. Mapped onto #NGO governance frameworks, we see as this as the cure for cultural conflict, moderation rules as cure for social breakdown, foundation structures as cure for coordination failure, compliance processes as cure for scale instability. The risk isn’t only law itself, it is in mistaking rule-production for structural transformation.
When scale increases, institutions reach for formalisation, as trust erodes, systems reach for control. That instinct once helped small groups survive, but at scale, it reinforces the dynamics causing instability. #openweb networked infrastructure like the Fediverse, this equivalent of “fresh law” is played out as new governance bodies, new codes of conduct, compliance layers, blocking norms and new funding gatekeeping mechanisms. While each framed as remedy instead they are increasing enclosure.
Kropotkin isn’t arguing for mess, he’s pointing toward something harder – If problems emerge from structural incentives and social relations, then layering rules on top of those incentives won’t solve them, it will entrench them.
That’s the deeper tension, do we solve #Fediverse instability by adding structure? Or by changing flows, commons, and material relations underneath? That question is the uncomfortable one for people who still common sense worship the #deathcult.
Scale changes everything as human behaviour does not stay the same as groups scale. The instincts that helped small tribes survive – loyalty, signalling belonging, defending boundaries, competing for status, consolidating influence – functioned well within natural limits. In small groups, feedback was immediate. Consequences were visible. Power was constrained by proximity and material reality.
But when those same instincts operate at contempery social scale, inside complex technological societies, like the current #NGO fediverse, they stop stabilising systems and begin to destabilise them. What once supported survival can amplify fragmentation. What once built cohesion can produce polarisation. What once protected the group can spiral into extraction and enclosure we start to see now. This is not a moral failure of the human species, it is a predictable outcome of scale.
We now live inside systems where ancient social instincts interact with global networks, algorithmic amplification, financial abstraction, and industrial metabolism. The more-than-human crisis – climatechaos , biodiversity collapse, geopolitical fracture – is not collection of surface problems, these are symptoms.
Beneath them are recurring systemic patterns, society-scale incentives. And beneath those incentives are deep assumptions about growth, control, competition, and scarcity. We are not outside these layers, we are embedded within them. So the question becomes what does responsibility look like in a world where powerful structural incentives shape collective outcomes? Where do social thresholds appear when scale removes the natural limits that once kept us in balance? How do we avoid only treating symptoms while reinforcing the deeper forces producing them?
And if our instincts once helped seed the current fediverse, we did see for a moment what a system look like that works with human nature while balancing it against #dotcons reality. This is the path we need to get back to, to understand how the current tensions I outline, in the fediverse makes sense. Because what we are seeing there is not just a #blocking governance disagreement. It is a microcosm of the larger scale problem: how human coordination patterns behave when they move from small, trust-based communities into bigger networked infrastructures.
The fediverse is not separate from this, it is one of the places where we are actively trying to work it out. To start down this path we need to look at how the last #openweb reboot was taken from us.
The #dotcons aren’t just “big tech companies.” They’re a structural class of platforms they follow the same pattern:
Present themselves as open, liberating, participatory spaces.
Attract huge numbers of people with network effects and free access.
Gradually enclose that activity.
Monetise attention by shaping reach, visibility, and behaviour.
The “con” isn’t that they charge money, the con is the bait-and-switch:
First: open participation, organic reach, community.
The “dot” is the monetisation layer – advertising markets, behavioural profiling, engagement engineering. Even the so-called ethical platforms operate on the same structural logic:
You can swap out leadership, branding, or tone, but if the core model is:
capture network → centralise control → monetise attention
… then it sits in the same class.
Naming them 20 years ago as #dotcons isn’t about moral outrage, it’s about clarity, because if we don’t name the enclosure pattern, we end up debating personalities and features instead of structure.
Where this matters for the fediverse is simple – If we don’t consciously build flows, commons, and #4opens practices into the infrastructure and culture, the same enclosure dynamics will re-emerge – just more politely.
The difference isn’t tone, it’s structure. And being clear about what the #dotcons are helps us see what we are trying not to reproduce.
The idea and direction are broadly right (decentralised social web, commons infrastructure, alternatives to #dotcons). but the institutional reality is hollow, not enough resources going into the “native” messy grassroots work that actually keeps things alive.
People like Evan and others stepping into fediverse organisational roles are, from their perspective, trying to stabilise infrastructure, secure insitunal funding streams, reduce fragmentation and make the ecosystem legible to funders, regulators, and mainstream paths. From this side, the fear tends to be that without some coordination and institutional structure, the fediverse stays marginal or collapses under maintenance debt.
Were from the native the grassroots/activist side institutionalisation risks repeating Web 2.0 capture light – NGO-isation, depoliticisation, and slow drift toward mainstreaming and soft #blocking control.
You could see this as basically stability vs autonomy, funding vs independence, coordination vs organic growth. But better to see it for what it is a resource problem (the real bottleneck) “ZERO resources for what we actually need” is key, and honestly widely felt. Where funding currently goes to protocol development, interoperability standards, software maintenance grants and pointless governance experiments that look credible to funders.
Where resources don’t go on balence to “native” non #NGO community organising, onboarding and social infrastructure that is not mainstreaming. Seeding and growing local/regional native networks. Alternative governance experiments outside formal org structures and most importantly public-first infrastructure (like the #OMN direction) In short technical sustainability gets funded; social sustainability struggles to grow.
#NLnet and geekproblem, #NGO dynamics tend to operate with a narrow philosophy of fund discrete, bounded technical projects that avoid any political positioning to prioritise measurable outputs (code, specs, deployments). This creates structural friction because as infrastructure projects for grassroots media and social organising doesn’t fit neat grant deliverables. Long-term community building is messy and hard to quantify. Native radical or openly political framing scares institutional funders.
So we reinforce a path where money exists, but it flows toward the wrong layers for movement-building. So when dose this balance change? This is the hard truth: systems like this rarely change because people ask, they change when people push parallel practices that make the gap obvious.
What history teaches us in the #openweb is Indymedia didn’t wait for permission, early blogs didn’t wait for foundation approval and Mastodon itself grew outside institutional planning. Change tends to happen through parallel infrastructure, witch is how the fedivers reboot happened in the first place before our current shift to #NGO structures and people takeing over our shared direction.
So how do we get out of this mess? By finding seed funding and affinity groups to build/use alternatives that demonstrate missing pieces like public-first media networks (#OMN), social layer experiments and governance models rooted in users/admins, not foundations (#OGB). We need this narrative pressure, not just critique, re-framing “Fediverse” as one implementation of broader #openweb rather than the destination and shifting language from platform to ecology.
Resource routing from the current institutions if they are at all capable of this, or giving them a good, if polite, kicking if they are not. Not to knock them out, more to knock them aside, they are still native on balance. The uncomfortable reality we need to compost is the current institutional layer probably thinks they are solving the resource problem – just at a different level (protocol legitimacy, policy access, etc). So the conflict isn’t only “they are wrong” but they are solving a different problem than the one native actors see as urgent.
Where leverage might actually exist if our goal is shifting direction rather than just venting (which is understandable 🙂), leverage tends to come from building cross-admin alliances (server operators are a missing power bloc, framing needs in operational terms (“X infrastructure gap causes Y burnout/failure” and linking fediverse survival explicitly to native grassroots media use-cases.
To work on this it helps to see the factions currently shaping Fediverse governance., a long sometimes over lapping list
The Greybeards of every genda (early web + protocol veterans) worldview The fediverse is the continuation of the original web ethos. Protocols matter more than platforms. Stability and interoperability come first. Cultural roots are early blogging, RSS, XMPP, open standards culture and the early activist web. They are guardians of continuity.
Protocol Purists / Engineering Minimalists (Sometimes overlap with greybeards but culturally distinct.) Tend to dismiss governance and social design as “out of scope.” and tus risk reproducing libertarian-style “neutral infrastructure” assumptions. They protect the protocol but sometimes ignore the ecosystem.
NGO Pragmatists / Institutionalizers (This is likely most of current leadership structures. Think the Fediverse needs to be legible to regulators, funders, and #mainstreaming users. There cultural roots are foundation models, EU funding ecosystems and digital rights etc. Motivationed by legitimacy, policy and funding stability (for them selves, and thus the system, with them running it). There power is they can unlock resources, build bridges outside tech circles and reduce chaos perception. But suffer from very bad bind spots that affectively block by depoliticising radical roots, (un)intentionally reproduce top-down structures and prioritise optics over native needs. They are trying to make fediverse “safe enough” for mainstream adoption.
Grassroots Builders / Commons Activists (Closest to #OMN framing.) Build and support the Fediverse as a social movement, not just infrastructure with native paths. Community governance and mutual aid are core so technology must serve social transformation. Roots sprin from early Indymedia, anarchist/left activist tech, free culture and early autonomous networks. Tere mission is native to te fedives of reclaiming media infrastructure, resist #dotcons capture to rebuild collective spaces. They bring real world experience of community building, lived experimentation and resilience outside funding cycles. But have there own blind spots with resource scarcity, fragmentation and continuing mess internal ideological conflict. They carry the original radical energy but struggle with institutional power.
Instance Admins (The Hidden Power Layer) are often overlooked but crucial. Thy are te fedivers, keep servers running, manage moderation chaos, with ractical solutions over ideology spiky or fluffy. Being motivated by sustainability, reducing burnout and keeping communities healthy. Tey ave the only real operational experience and work with native distributed authority. But tend to be to blind to organising as a collective political voice as there influence is diffuse. If they coordinated, they could reshape governance overnight.
Commercial Entrants / Platform Builders with the #NGO paths becoming more powerful. They tend to a narrow non native view of the fediverse as infrastructure for scalable products and interoperability as competitive advantage. Examples would be venture-backed or startup-aligned platforms motivated by growth, monetisation models compatible with federation and early positioning before governance can settle. They have power and voice due to resources, UX focus and marketing reach. But being non native they lack “users”. Tey are blind to the risk of slow platform capture and are anatanistic to the tension with grassroots values. They introduce gravity toward mainstream web patterns.
The Silent Majority (Users) are often ignored in governance discussions. In this #NGO push they are seen as needing usable, safe social spaces and not deeply ideological. This leads to adoption patterns shaping the ecosystem more than debates do witch deeper cultural fault lines.
Large Instance Admins (network gravity), they are admins of large or historically central servers, culturally influential communities have some power with federation choices shape network topology. Blocking decisions define social boundaries. They can indirectly decide which communities thrive, what norms spread and what software gains adoption. No vote, but impact.
Narrative Shapers (discourse power) mostly the more fluffy, #NO frendly bloggers, long-term fediverse personalities, visible commentators and conference speakers define what problems are “real”, what language becomes default and try and define what counts as native and reasonable. Some example might be shifting conversation from “openweb” to “socialweb”, framing decentralisation as safety vs freedom. These narratives shape funding, developer interest, and user expectations.
Funders (hard coded steering) for most people this is slight and not seen as direct control, for others more strong directional influence. Examples include: grant bodies, research funding ecosystems, EU-aligned digital infrastructure programs. On balance the vast majority of this funding goes to corrupt insiders and is thus simply poured directly down the drain. But the stuff that works, like #NLnet has real power, funding doesn’t dictate outcomes, but it decides which problems get resourced to indirectly defines priorities. But if this is not balenced by social governance funding it quietly becomes invisible.
Bridge Figures (social connectors) are hugely underestimated. They are people with experience across multiple factions of dev + activist hybrids, long-term organisers and translators between tech and social communities. There power is in balanceing conflict, helping which conversations cross boundaries and legitimize ideas by engagement. Without them, silos harden.
Default Software UX (silent governance) The interface itself shapes behaviour were Mastodon UX norms influence culture more than policy debates, defaults create expectations. Examples: content warnings, quote-post absence/presence, moderation tools. UX becomes governance.
Momentum and path dependency is possibly the biggest hidden power. Once a protocol interpretation, a moderation norm or a deployment pattern gains early momentum… it becomes hard to change, regardless of governance discussions.
These factions aren’t just political, they divide along deeper axes.
Infrastructure vs Movement. Protocol purists + many greybeards → infrastructure-first. Grassroots → movement-first.
Legibility vs Autonomy. NGOs seek legibility for funding/policy. grassroots value messiness and effective autonomy.
Governance vs Emergence. institutionalists want hard (oftern invisable) governance frameworks. Others believe governance should emerge (visably) organically
The insight meany people miss is that the biggest conflict is NOT what they might think left vs right or tech vs social, it is people trying to make the fediverse safe for scale vs People trying to keep it open enough for transformation. Both believe they are saving it. This is where things actually make sense, because formal governance in the fediverse is weak compared to influence networks. Most frustration comes from people arguing about structures that “don’t actually hold power”, while missing the forces that shape direction.
We need a more realistic map of the unspoken power dynamics shaping the fediverse, these are not generaly official roles – they’re influence patterns. Maintainers as gatekeepers (code gravity), who are core maintainers of major projects (Mastodon, Akkoma/Pleroma forks, Pixelfed, Lemmy, PeerTube, etc.). Protocol implementers of what ships shapes reality. What doesn’t get merged doesn’t exist. without formal authority they define the roadmap simply by deciding what is worth implementing. This has a strong hidden effect that governance debates often become irrelevant if maintainers don’t prioritise them. Some example dynamics are social governance features get ignored because they’re “not technical”. UX decisions shaping culture without explicit discussion etc.
The core dynamic that is hidden is most people assume power = foundations or organisations. Where the reality is power = maintainers + large instances + narratives + funding gravity. Formal structures, and the little native governance we have mostly follow these forces, not in any way balance them in.
So were dose the stress come from and why this creates frustration. Grassroots actors often see decisions emerging without any transparent process, norms solidifying without any affective debate and institutions appearing to “take over”.
Where institutional actors see chaos without coordination and feel deep phsicological, and self serving need for pressure to stabilise. Both misidentify where decisions actually originate. The deepest unspoken divide is people are defending different emotional survival strategies, until this is recognised, discussions loop endlessly.
What do you think, if you think about this at all?
