Breaking the openweb won’t stop the bad bots

It’s interesting that #mainstreaming tech makes it easy to use you, while alternative tech makes it hard to use freedom. One is built for control – and works very well at it. The other is built for freedom – but often works badly at delivering it. That’s the real #techshit problem we face, we need to make freedom easier to use than control.

The latest #fashionista panic about AI scraping is exposing a real problem with how we understand and defend the #openweb. Faced with aggressive commercial data extraction by the #dotcons and #AI industry, the response from parts of the traditional media establishment and mainstreaming policymakers is to restrict automated access, demand identification and introduce new controls over who can collect #4opens available information. This is the wrong direction.

We have a genuine problem of #dotcons extracting open flows, enormous amounts of public information, imposing costs on the people who create, host and maintain it. They take the value generated by the #openweb, feed it into proprietary systems and then build closed commercial products that bypass the original sources. This is another round of enclosure.

But shutting down the tools that make the #openweb work is not a solution, it leads to destroying the infrastructure we need to challenge this enclosure. The native #openweb depends on open flows, automated crawling, scraping, indexing, archiving and redistribution are not some new abuse of the internet. They are fundamental parts of how the native #openweb develops.

Search engines, independent journalism, public-interest research, accessibility projects, security monitoring and archives all depend on the ability to collect and process publicly available information. The Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine has preserved more than a trillion web pages. Investigative journalists have used automated collection to expose conflicts of interest in government. Researchers use it to examine discrimination, misinformation and corporate behaviour.

These activities need the #KISS ability to follow information across the web without asking permission from every website owner. Sometimes anonymity is needed, if a journalist, researcher or activist investigating powerful interests has to identify themselves and explain what they are looking for, the investigation itself is compromised. An #openweb cannot depend on asking permission from every gatekeeper before we see, collect, preserve and share public information.

The problem is extraction, not openness – we need to distinguish between two very different things. There is grassroots, public-interest use of automated tools to make information accessible, preserve knowledge and connect communities. Then there is the #dotcons industrial-scale commercial extraction, the gray area were they take the collective output of the openweb, concentrate it into private databases and use it to build proprietary #closedweb services. These are not the same activity.

The problem is not that information flows freely, it is that the value created by those flows is being enclosed and privately captured. Making every crawler identify itself doesn’t solve this. A commercial scraper can identify itself and still overwhelm a server with requests. Meanwhile, an independent archivist or journalist could be deterred from doing legitimate work simply because they cannot safely disclose their identity. We need to regulate harmful behaviour, not criminalize the basic mechanisms of openness.

The #geekproblem is about trying to control the mess instead of fixing it. When faced with complex social and technical problem, the instinct is to introduce another layer of technical control, identification and permission. But the native #openweb was built on a different understanding: distributed participation, open protocols, independent servers and the ability to connect information across organizational boundaries.

We should be strengthening the infrastructure that allows independent websites, archives and communities to survive. What the #OMN adds is rebuilding the commons. The answer is not to retreat into closed platforms, private APIs, permission-based networks or another generation of corporate-controlled infrastructure. We need to rebuild the shared flows, it is not about pretending that every use of public information is harmless. It is about building the social and technical capacity to distinguish useful participation from destructive extraction.

Don’t repeat the mistake – for too long, we have allowed the #dotcons to take the value of the native #openweb while selling us increasingly closed replacements. Now, faced with the consequences, some people want to restrict the openness that made the internet useful in the first place. We cannot allow the response to commercial enclosure to become another round of enclosure. The native #openweb was never perfect, it has technical debt, weak governance, funding problems and social conflicts. But it gave us something we have largely lost, the possibility of building collective power through open information flows. We need to recover that.

The answer to bad bots is not to break the web, the answer to commercial extraction is not to close public information, the answer to platform power is not another platform with more controls. The path is simple, we need to reboot the #openweb, not shut it down. That means rebuilding the grassroots communities, shared infrastructure and collective governance that allow openness to grow real social value.

https://www.techpolicy.press/breaking-the-open-web-wont-stop-the-bad-bots

Oxford, academia and the problem of #mainstreaming

One thing I keep noticing around Oxford is how much academic culture is about building consensus on how to name things, rather than actually talking about the things themselves. Events become status games: establishing who has authority, who gets referenced, who belongs in the #mainstreaming hierarchy around whatever subject is being discussed. There is plenty of time spent establishing credibility, positioning and agreeing on language, but remarkably little time spent getting to grips with the actual mess we increasing face.

Of course, referencing and academic rigour have their uses. We cannot all discover everything from scratch, and taking some things on good authority is necessary. But there is a balance, at some point we need to get beyond repeating what other people have said and ask, what is your contribution? What are you actually doing with this knowledge?

This isn’t an attack on academia or academics, it’s about recognizing the limits of a culture that can become more concerned with its own status and legitimacy than with the subject it claims to be studying. Well, perhaps spending less time establishing who is allowed to talk about the problem and more time actually talking about it would be a good start. Oxford has no shortage of clever people. What we seem to lack is a culture that turns all that knowledge into collective agency and practical change. We don’t need more consensus about how to describe the mess. We need to start doing something about it.

#OMN angle is that economics became another form of chattering-class authority: a closed conversation where mathematical models and professional status gained more weight than lived experience, social relationships and the actual workings of human communities.

Modern economics has a strange problem. It has spent more than a century building an elaborate mathematical model of human behaviour, then started treating that model as if it were human nature itself. The people inside this model are called Homo economicus: perfectly rational, endlessly informed individuals who act only in their own self-interest. They have the memory of a supercomputer, the reasoning power of Einstein and the self-control of Gandhi. The problem? These people don’t exist.

Real human beings are social, emotional, cooperative, competitive, contradictory and shaped by the communities around them. We live through relationships, shared expectations, social norms and collective action. Evolution has spent millions of years shaping these behaviours. But the mainstreaming economic establishment pushed this messy reality aside because it was harder to fit into mathematics.

This is where the #chatteringclasses come in, an educated professional class builds its authority through specialist language, prestigious institutions, awards and internal agreement. The models become more important than the world they are supposed to describe. Dissent is tolerated at the edges, but the central assumptions remain protected.

Even Nobel-winning economists demonstrate that real people behave differently, the great theoretical machine carries on. What should be evidence that the model is wrong gets labelled a paradox that needs explaining away. The irony is that early economists like Adam Smith had a much richer understanding of human nature. Smith recognized that people care about reputation, fairness, social expectations and other people, not just their own monetary advantage. His invisible hand was about how social systems emerge from local interactions, not a magical proof that selfishness makes everything work.

This matters beyond economics, as it is a familiar pattern across our institutions: a professional class creates a simplified model, builds careers and authority around it, then treats the model as reality. When the real world refuses to behave, the response is to defend the model rather than learn from experience. We see the same #geekproblem in technology, the same #NGO problem in activism and the same #mainstreaming problem across pushing back grassroots movements. Process becomes paperwork, participation becomes consultation, and mathematical or professional legitimacy replaces any collective understanding.

For the #OMN, this is a central lesson. Human systems cannot be built from abstract models of isolated individuals. They grow through relationships, trust, shared practice, conflict, cooperation and the messy work of communities. We need to stop confusing the map with the territory, and stop giving the chattering classes a monopoly on describing the world. Less worship of abstract models, more attention to how people actually live, organize and work together.

That’s part of rebuilding the #openweb, not just better technology, but better ways of understanding and organizing our shared social reality. #4opens

The rot of Couchsurfing is mainstreaming decay in #openweb paths

From hospitality exchange to venture capital, from grassroots community to corporate platform. The story of #Couchsurfing is a warning about what happens when we confuse building a network with building a community. The story of Couchsurfing is more interesting than a failed social network, it is a history of what happened to native #openweb paths when grassroots roots are overtaken by #NGO turns, startup culture and eventually the fantasies of the #dotcons.

There are lessons here for anyone trying to rebuild an open, grassroots internet today.. The roots were always social, not technological. Hospitality exchange didn’t begin with the internet, networks like Servas, founded in 1949, built on a simple human idea: people open their homes, share resources and create relationships across cultural and national boundaries. Later came Esperanto networks, Hospitality Club, Couchsurfing and more. The internet didn’t invent this, but it gave an existing movement new tools to organize, communicate and grow. This is a native lesson, the technology grows from existing human relationships and grassroots practice, not pretending we create community from nothing.

Hospitality Club, founded in 2000, was built through voluntary programming, translation, moderation, member support and organizing. Couchsurfing (#CS) grew from volunteers organizing local groups, hosting travellers, running potlucks, to built relationships and created a culture that no software company could have manufacture. The website was a small part of the infrastructure, the network was people.

The first failure on this path, was confusing community goodwill with ownership. Couchsurfing’s 2006 database crisis showed the strength of original model. Volunteers helped raise money and rebuilt the platform in ten days, think about that. A community mobilize people, money and technical skills to rescue shared infrastructure because people believed in what they were building.

But this created a fundamental question that the native #openweb has repeatedly failed to answer, who owns the value created by community? The volunteers had supplied labour, expertise, relationships and trust, yet they had no reliable guarantee that the resulting infrastructure would remain under community control. Disputes over volunteer code, NDAs and management transparency exposed this.

BeVolunteer and BeWelcome emerged from this wider conflict, attempting to build the same community based on more formal nonprofit organization and participation. This was an #NGO fork in the road, one path treated community participation as the foundation of a shared resource, the other treated it as an asset that could be managed, controlled and eventually sold.

The #CS NGO turn was replacing grassroots power with professional management, this is where the story connects to the wider #openweb, as grassroots networks grew, they increasingly encounter the world of professional nonprofits, foundations, institutional funding and eventually venture capital. The promise was sustainability, reality was a transfer of power.

Instead of building stronger grassroots governance, projects began importing management structures from the institutions they were supposed to offer alternatives to. Consultants, boards, executives, funding applications, professional communications and organizational hierarchies. The people who actually made the networks were pushed towards the edges. #CS move towards private commercial ownership in 2011 was a example of this mess.

A reported $7.6 million investment round, followed by further venture funding, transformed a community-oriented network into a privately controlled company. Members were not meaningfully consulted about the transfer, the wiki disappeared, community information became private, volunteer structures changed and growth became a corporate priority. The language of community remained, the community’s power did not.

This is the #NGO problem, hollowing out grassroots relationships that brings the value. Not every nonprofit follows this path, #BeWelcome and other alternatives demonstrate that different organizational choices are possible. The problem is not paying people or raising money, the problem is allowing the funding structure to displace the community’s purpose and control.

Couchsurfing eventually became a example of the #dotcons business fantasy of growth, not community. The assumption was that the vertical scaling of more members, more investment, more marketing and more professional management would produce a stronger network. And yes for a time, the network might grow while its social purpose disappeared.

This is the contradiction of the #dotcons, they measure growth in accounts, engagement, traffic and financial value, while the thing that has value, the human network comes from trust, participation, reciprocity and relationships. You can buy growth, you cannot buy the social fabric that makes a network work in meaningfully ways.

In 2020, Couchsurfing introduced mandatory contributions in many countries, making access conditional on payment. People who had spent years building the network were now being forced to pay to access the relationships and infrastructure they had create. The problem behind this was a normal mainstreaming one, it wasn’t only that the network needed money, the problem was who controlled it, who decided how it was funded and who benefited from the value it generated.

This fall is when the community starts to leave, the platform is already dead, the failure of Couchsurfing wasn’t a particular CEO, funding round or paywall, it was the gradual destruction of the reciprocal relationship between the platform and its community. This is an important distinction for the #openweb, a network can remain technically online long after its community has disappeared.

A project can have excellent open-source software while having no meaningful grassroots movement around it. The native #openweb was never just about publishing code, it was about building shared infrastructure through shared practice. When you remove that practice, you are left with an increasingly hollow technical shell.

What we can learn from this dead native #openweb project? This might be useful for current projects like the #fedivers, there are some of the lessons:

Build the community before scaling the technology. Start with existing relationships, local groups, shared practices and real needs. Software should strengthen these relationships, not replace them.
Make governance part of the infrastructure. Don’t leave governance until after the software is built. Open code without open processes still produce closed power structures. Participation, transparency, accountability and the ability to challenge decisions need to be designed into the project from the beginning.
Don’t confuse funding with sustainability. Money is necessary for developers, hosting, administration and maintenance. But funding should support the community rather than turn the community into a resource for funders.
Build networks, not platforms. A platform concentrates control, a network of interoperable, independently maintained communities distributes it. Shared data, open standards, portable identities and federated infrastructure make it harder for one organization to capture the network.
Value participation, not just numbers. A few hundred active people who trust each other, maintain the infrastructure and take collective responsibility can be worth more than millions of inactive accounts.

This is why we need the #OMN, history is relevant to what we are trying to build, the #OMN, #OGB and #indymediaback. The native #openweb had the right instincts: open standards, voluntary participation, shared resources, grassroots organization and trust between people. But it repeatedly failed to build durable structures to protect those values when projects grew, funding arrived and professional management took over.

We need to learn from that history rather than keep repeating it. The #OMN starts from a different place, not another social media platform competing for accounts and attention, it is a path to grow a shared network of media flows, where communities can publish, subscribe, moderate, curate and maintain their own connections to information. The technical foundation is important, but it is only one part of the work.

#4opens: Open data, open source, open standards and open process.

#OGB: Grassroots governance that makes collective ownership and accountability practical.

#indymediaback: Rebuilding community-based publishing and local media.

#MakingHistory: Building shared, federated archives where communities participate in preserving and interpreting their histories.

The working path is to make the social relationships, data and infrastructure reinforce each other rather than allowing one organization to capture the value of the whole network. This is also why we need to resist the #NGO turn and the #dotcons fantasy. Both encourage us to hand over grassroots power in exchange for promises of professional delivery, scale and sustainability. #Couchsurfing shows where that road can lead, we shouldn’t build big networks, rather we need to build the grassroots foundations that allow networks to grow without losing their purpose.

And that’s what we mean by the #OMN.

The #OMN path is about the stories we tell to make technology acceptable

The #OMN path is about the stories we tell to make technology acceptable, the institutions that repeat those stories, and the grassroots work left waiting while the money follows the next “miracle” story. A useful tool gets wrapped in a grand narrative, funding follows the narrative rather than community need, and the people building alternatives are pushed to the margins. When the story finally weakens, the underlying technology may remain – but the promised social transformation never arrives.

The story is always bigger than the technology, and when the story collapses, the people trying to build something useful are left to compost the mess. The AI hype is beginning to meet this reality that caught up with so many previous waves of technology. The promises were enormous: artificial general intelligence, automated abundance, the end of work as we know it, and machines that would solve the problems we have failed to solve ourselves. Trillions in investment followed the story.

But beneath the #PR claims the practical uses remain much more ordinary. Large language models (#LLM) do have useful capabilities. But they are not evidence that we have created a new form of human intelligence, nor do they justify meany of the promises made in their name. The interesting question is not whether the technology has some value, it clearly does. The question is why we keep wrapping useful tools in stories of technological salvation, and why so much of our social and political life gets pulled into those stories.

Every technology comes with a story, we have seen this cycle meany times. The #dotcons, social media promised to connect the world. #Web3 promised to decentralize it. #Blockchain promised to rebuild trust. Now #AI promises to automate intelligence itself. Each wave arrives with a familiar script, first, a genuine technical development, then a much bigger story about what it means for humanity. Blinded investors pour in money, bureaucratic businesses scramble to adopt it, governments fear being left behind, and the traditional media repeats the promise until it starts to feel like transentery common sense.

The technology becomes almost impossible to discuss outside its mythology, is how the #deathcult works, it turns a economic and political path into an inevitable dead end future. We are told to adapt, adopt and accelerate, because questioning the direction means falling behind. But as always, the question of who benefits disappears beneath the pressure to keep up. To compost this mess we need to separate what the technology can actually do from the stories being sold around it, as if we accept the industry’s framing that today’s language models are becoming digital people, even our criticism ends up strengthening that framing. The task is to compost the mythology, the failed dreams of #mainstreaming.

But we face is what happens when the story’s collapse, who pays? The AI industry sold different stories to different audiences. Consumers were promised an intelligent assistant. Businesses were promised efficiency and reduced labour costs. Governments were warned that they must join a geopolitical race. Workers were told they were participating in a historic mission. Investors were promised extraordinary returns. These stories reinforced one another. Government investment legitimized the industry. Corporate adoption made it appear inevitable. Financial speculation funded further expansion. Media attention turned uncertainty into spectacle.

And when this investment bubble deflates, the damage will not be limited to shareholders. Public resources have been committed to speculative infrastructure. Workers have lost jobs in anticipation of automation that never delivered as promised. Communities may be left with more centralized infrastructure and less control over the information systems they depend on. Yes, the technology will continue in some form, the question is more who ends up owning it, who benefits from it and who is left holding the bill.

There are are likely useful things we can do with language models. They can help people process information, translate material, assist with coding and make some technical tasks more accessible. We should assess those uses honestly, including their limitations and costs. But we do not need to pretend these tools will create a new civilization, we do not need to build our communities around corporate #dotcons products, by handing over public knowledge to private platforms to replace human judgement with automated output.

We do need to ask what tools can contribute to collective work, and what relationships must remain human, accountable and open to challenge. For #OMN, this means keeping our focus on shared media flows, grassroots publishing, archives and the commons. The work is to help communities create, discover, moderate and maintain their own information systems. On this path the #4opens offer a practical test: open data, open source, open standards and open processes. These do not magically guarantee a good outcome, but they make it easier to inspect, reuse, challenge and improve the systems we build.

The #AI story needs compost, not another hype cycle. There is a useful ecological metaphor here, composting does not mean pretending that everything discarded is worthless. It means separating what can nourish future growth from what needs to break down. The AI boom contains technical developments, useful tools, accumulated knowledge and some worthwhile experiments. It also contains inflated promises, speculative finance, extractive business models and a great deal of #techchurn.

That means, focus, shifting our attention away from chasing the next big story and towards the less glamorous work of building things people actually use. Shared infrastructure. Open processes. Community maintenance. Human trust. The ability to disagree, adapt and walk away. This work will not attract the same speculative billions. It may never produce a spectacular demonstration or a promise of god-like intelligence. Good.

We need less technological theatre and more collective capability, less dependency and more participation, less worship of the #deathcult and more practice of the #lifecult. The AI bubble will deflate, or the industry may keep finding new ways to keep the story alive. Either way, the underlying choice remains, do we build alternatives or keep chasing the next #mainstreaming day dream, or maybe better, do we practically use the wreckage of these failed promises to grow something more useful?

The #OMN path is to compost the hype, keep the useful tools, expose the power relationships and build the commons. Not one perfect platform, not one miracle technology, a living ecosystem of tools, communities and shared practices that grow beyond the control of the #dotcons.

There is no magic, there is only work.

#AI mythology is currently more of the same

Our failure to mediate the mess

The #openweb is #4opens, where dues this place the current #AI path?

The #openweb is a network of links, not islands

Ten years ago, I wrote about a problem that was already undermining the #openweb, that nobody was linking to anybody, and that the incentives were all moving in the wrong direction. #Mainstreaming platforms had little reason to send people towards alternative sources, while grassroots projects were left struggling to build connections with each other. Even when people wanted to cooperate, there were plenty of reasons to avoid linking, sharing audiences or giving another project visibility.

The result was an increasingly fragmented web. Lots of websites, lots of content, lots of people doing useful work, but fewer if any meaningful connections between them. Ten years later, the technology has changed, the underlying problem has not gone away. In some ways, it has become worse, as the attention economy has eaten the #openweb. The commercial internet is built around capturing attention, the more time people spend inside a platform, the more valuable that audience becomes to its owners. External links interrupt this process, they send people somewhere else, towards another publisher, another community or another source of information.

From the perspective of the #dotcons, this is a problem to manage, as their business model rewards keeping people inside their own environments, controlling discovery and turning the activity of users into something that can be measured, monetized and sold. Likewise search engines increasingly provide answers directly, social platforms prioritize their own feeds and recommendation systems and publishers compete for visibility inside systems they do not control.

The #openweb still has hyperlinks, but the “common sense” culture surrounding them has changed. The problem is not that links have disappeared, it is that the common sense dominating online life have weak incentives to support an open, reciprocal network of independent publishers. This matters because the web was never supposed to be a collection of isolated destinations. Its strength came from the connections between them: people following sources, discovering unexpected ideas, checking evidence, finding communities and building on each other’s work. Take those connections away, and the web becomes a collection of competing islands.

We have been building better technology, but federation is not enough, over this last ten years, the #Fediverse has grown, ActivityPub has become more visible, and more websites connect with decentralized social networks. This is real progress, we now have more technical possibilities for building an alternative to the centralized paths. But there is #blocking, we to often grow federated social networks that still reproduce the habits of closed #dotcons social media.

Federation connects systems, it does not create solidarity these systems need to work. The same applies to #FOSS, open-source software. Open code is important, but it does not guarantee that projects will cooperate, share audiences or build lasting relationships. Technical openness is necessary, but it is not sufficient. This is where the #4opens become useful: open code, open data, open standards and open processes. They can be used to give us a practical foundation for cooperation, but we still have to build the culture that makes that cooperation meaningful.

The mainstreaming trap… ten years ago, I described the difficulty of getting #mainstreaming alternatives to link to each other. This underlying tension remains, grassroots projects need reach, resources and recognition, mainstream organizations have their own priorities, reputation concerns and institutional incentives. They will link externally when it serves their purposes, the problem is that those links are selective and instrumental rather than part of a wider commitment to an open information commons.

Grassroots projects end up supplying stories, ideas, research and community knowledge to organizations that gain the attention while the original producers receive little in return. This is one of the quieter forms of #mainstreaming. The grassroots become useful contributors to somebody else ‘s system without building the independent relationships needed to sustain their own. The answer to this smell is not to refuse every mainstream connection, that would be another kind of isolation. It is a balancing act, work with wider institutions when useful, but maintain independent infrastructure, reciprocal relationships and the ability to carry on without their permission. We need bridges, not gateways that leave us dependent on whoever controls the other end.

Why don’t the grassroots simply link to each other? This is where the problem becomes more uncomfortable, as it is easy to blame the #dotcons as their incentives are obvious. It is harder to look at the habits and assumptions within our own communities. Grassroots projects compete for the same funding, audiences, volunteers and recognition. People worry about sending attention elsewhere. Organizations protect their own identities, developers build separate platforms, campaigns create separate communication channels.

Sometimes this mess happens for understandable reasons. Projects have limited time and resources, trust has to be earned, not every source is reliable, and not every relationship is useful. But too often, we reproduce the same competitive logic we claim to oppose. We talk about solidarity while treating our own websites as little territories. We talk about commons while keeping our work disconnected. We talk about decentralization while building social and technical systems that make cooperation harder than it needs to be.

This is the #geekproblem in a wider social form, the assumption that if we build the right technology, the human relationships will somehow follow. They won’t – a network is made through practice, people have to link, share, maintain, argue, repair and work together. The technology should support those activities rather than pretend to replace them. The OMN is about mediating this mess by making linking part of the infrastructure – the OMN is not another social-media platform competing to own an audience. It is a network of flows, a way to connect independent publishers, community archives, grassroots news projects and other sources through shared data and open protocols.

The basic technical model is straightforward.

SUB – flow in. Nodes subscribe to RSS, ActivityPub and other feeds, collecting public information from independent sources.

Shared data objects – connect the information. Nodes maintain local copies of text and metadata, preserving links to the original sources and recording provenance.

PUB – flow out. Nodes publish selected information through feeds that other projects can reuse, with attribution and links back to the original material.

FAT-PING – synchronize the metadata. Participating nodes share tags, classifications and relationships, allowing communities to connect information without requiring one central authority to control the whole network.

This #KISS technical path creates the possibility of something more useful than a collection of disconnected websites.

A local news project could publish reporting that appears in a community feed. An archive could connect that reporting to historical material. Another community could add relevant location or subject tags. Different frontends could present the same information for different purposes.

The original publisher remains visible. The information becomes more useful through connection. The wider network gains value as more people participate, the objective is not to scrape everybody’s content and republish it without permission. It is to build a practical commons around open feeds, clear attribution, appropriate licensing and community control.

The technology should make it easier to send attention outwards, not capture it inwards, we need to move from reciprocal links to reciprocal infrastructure. The original proposal is simple: if linking is going to become central to the #openweb again, the grassroots have to make it happen.

We need to take that idea further – reciprocal linking should be part of a broader practice of reciprocal infrastructure. That means:

Linking to relevant work from other independent projects.

Citing original sources rather than stripping information of its provenance.

Sharing feeds and making independent publishers easier to discover.

Connecting community news with historical archives and local knowledge.

Maintaining directories and cross-project indexes.

Supporting open standards so that information can move between different systems.

Building shared infrastructure without requiring every project to surrender its independence.

This is not about #SEO of creating artificial link exchanges or rewarding websites for linking to one another. Nor is it about pretending that every source deserves equal trust. It is about recognizing that the value of an open network comes from useful connections, not isolated ownership. Trust still matters, moderation still matters, communities need to decide what they publish and which sources they rely on. But these decisions should help build better flows rather than turn every community into another closed silo.

The political choice is simple (#KISS) – we have spent years watching the commercial internet turn relationships into engagement metrics, communities into audiences and information into a resource to be enclosed. The #openweb offers another possibility, but only if we are willing to practise it. This is not about abandoning individual projects, it is about making them part of a living commons. A river does not become powerful by keeping every drop in a separate container. It becomes powerful through the connections between its springs, streams and tributaries. The same is true of the #openweb.

Ten years ago, the problem was that nobody was linking to anybody. Today, we have more technical ways to connect, but we still need the social practice that makes those connections matter. The #OMN is one path to build that practice into the infrastructure itself, not another platform, not another silo. A network of flows, built by the people who need to begin to rebuild the #openweb.

I should LINK from this post, please post URLs in the comments.

#OMN #openweb #4opens #Fediverse #ActivityPub #RSS #indymedia #commons

The Tragedy of Soviet Market Economists: Civilizing Russia, or whitewashing Neoliberalism?

Dr Tobias Rupprecht’s seminar at St Antony’s College was The Tragedy of Soviet Market Economists: The Failed Quest to Civilise Russia, 1972–2022. But sitting through the discussion, I was left wondering whose tragedy we were really talking about, and who gets to define what it means to civilize a country. The nitpicking Oxford event kinda made sense, but pull back and my impression was that this was an apologetic account of the #neoliberal project in Russia: a story that gives market liberalism respectable historical roots while leaving too many of its own political responsibilities unexplored.

This guy looks so uncomfortable presenting his book, not surprising as his book is about rejuvenation of shock doctrine neoliberalism in Russia. This should feel uncomfortable, as for the last 20 years this same mess has ripped apart the global economy and society. Its a mess we need to compost not something to nitpick thought as liberal apology.

One of the striking things was the attempt to present Chicago School economics as something that grew naturally out of Russian experience. What was missing was any account of the international circulation of neoliberal ideas, the networks promoting them, and the ideological project that had been developing since the late 1940s. #Neoliberalism did not emerge from Russian soil, it had a history, a political purpose and powerful international connections.

The discussion of perestroika seemed equally uncomfortable. Liberalism was presented as having little or no role in the process, which was instead framed as purely Communist. But this leaves the central question hanging: how did market liberalism become such a powerful force in the transformation of the Soviet system?

Then there was the constitutional crisis, the bombing of parliament and the question of political responsibility. The impression he gives was that the liberals had clean hands. Anatoly Chubais was presented sympathetically, despite his central role in the “reforms” and upheavals of the period. The liberals helped bring Putin to power, then found themselves pushing back against the system they had helped create. The Chechen wars and the retreat of democratic liberalism formed part of this story, but the larger political responsibility seemed to dissolve into the narrative.

The Russian liberals were not simply neutral democrats caught in somebody else’s tragedy. They were also participants in a project of internal imperialism: a vision of modernization that treated Russian society as something to be managed, reorganised and disciplined from above. Chubais was described as a democrat while simultaneously expressing deep distrust of the Russian people. That contradiction deserves more judgement than it received in the talk

The comparison with China raised another uncomfortable question. Russia’s industrial development and social security were presented as obstacles to the transformation being attempted, while China’s large peasant population and overseas connections offered different conditions for market reform. But if the argument is that existing social protections made a country harder to reshape for the market, perhaps we should ask what kind of progress this version of liberalism actually represents.

At one point, a question about soviet algorithms prompted laughter in the room. Yet the wider discussion seemed to leave the basic assumptions of neoliberalism untouched. That was the most revealing part of the event for me. The room was bowing before the #deathcult, the belief that the market is the inevitable measure of progress, that societies must be remade in its image, and that the damage caused along the way is a regrettable but necessary price.

Nobody was willing to challenge the underlying framework directly, nobody in the room had any clothes on – the ideological assumptions were exposed – but the performance of respectable scholarship continued. Only one question near the end felt genuinely sane: an older woman asking something that cut through the comfortable narrative.

The tragedy is not that Soviet market economists failed in their quest to “civilise” Russia, it is more that the idea of civilizing a society through market discipline was part of the problem from the beginning. Liberalism presents itself as common sense, modernization and freedom. But when its advocates distrust the people they claim to liberate, excuse the violence of transformation, and treat social protections as barriers to progress, we should ask whose freedom is actually being served.

This is the wider problem with our worship of the #deathcult,turning blinded ideology into an unquestionable reality. Once that happens, the discussion examines every historical detail except the assumptions that hold the whole story together. We need to stop treating neoliberalism as the neutral destination of history. We need to examine the power behind it, the social damage it leaves behind, and the alternatives that have been pushed aside.

That means building from the grassroots, through open processes and shared power, rather than imagining that societies can be perfected by economists, markets and elitists who do not trust the people they govern. The question is not whether Russia was sufficiently civilised for the market, it is whether the market’s self-appointed civilisers were ever willing to recognize the people whose lives they were reshaping.

The event was about teaching the young people that liberalism was not responsible for the mess… and the polite youth lap it up, no critical questions from them in the Q&A

END.

#Oxford #Talk #Event

Composting and the Commons: Oxford’s Riverbank and the Fediverse

Two stories, one struggle – on the Oxford riverbank, live-aboard boaters are caught in a struggle over mooring, access, responsibility and who gets to decide how shared space is used. In the #Fediverse grassroots communities face a related struggle over digital space, moderation, ownership and who gets to shape the networks we depend on.

At first glance, these look like different problems. One is about boats, land and the river; the other is about servers, software and online communities. But both expose the same underlying question – How do we organize shared life when private ownership, institutional control and grassroots needs collide?

The hard-right argument is straightforward: the riverbank is private property, and the owner has the right to decide who can moor there. Unlicensed mooring is the problem, not the solution. Years of tolerance, this argument goes, have allowed neglected boats, environmental damage and conflict over public access to accumulate. Rules must be enforced, and order restored.

Translated into digital politics, this becomes the argument that a commons without clear ownership and enforceable rules inevitably descends into disorder. The answer is stronger control, stricter boundaries and someone with the authority to make people comply.

There is a real issue buried in this position. Shared spaces need maintenance, responsibility and boundaries. Ignoring environmental damage or the consequences of unmanaged use does not make a community more radical. It makes the problems harder to solve. But this “common sense” argument leaves out the other half of the story. The progressive argument is enclosure is not the same as care.

The progressive-left view starts somewhere different, by asking who has the power to make decisions, who bears the costs, and whose needs are being ignored. When public agencies, private landowners and local authorities pass responsibility between themselves, communities ends up paying the price for decisions they never controlled. For live-aboard boaters, a mooring is not simply a piece of land or a place to park a vessel. It is a home, a social network and a practical system of mutual aid.

The same applies to the Fediverse – the #dotcons, platform capitalism concentrated ownership and control over much of our digital life. The #Fediverse offers another possibility were people run their own instances, communicate across organisational boundaries and build shared infrastructure without handing everything to a single corporate owner.

Yet federation alone does not guarantee a commons. A network can be technically decentralised while its culture, funding and decision-making become increasingly centralised. Professionalised activism, institutional priorities and informal hierarchies recreate the same exclusions that grassroots projects originally set out to challenge.

The progressive answer is collective stewardship, the people who depend on a shared space should have meaningful power in shaping it, maintaining it and deciding how it develops. That requires more than defending access. It requires building the social relationships and practical paths that make shared responsibility possible. The trap of choosing one side as both arguments identify something real. The hard-right position recognises that unmanaged problems have consequences. The progressive position recognises that rules and ownership become instruments of exclusion. The mistake is to imagine that we must choose between control from above and freedom from responsibility.

A functioning commons needs boundaries, but those boundaries must be accountable to the community. It needs maintenance, but maintenance cannot become an excuse for dispossessing the people who sustain it. It needs moderation, but moderation must not become a mechanism for concentrating power in the hands of a few.

Balance does not mean splitting the difference, it means understanding which parts of each argument reveal a real problem, and which parts reproduce the system that created it. This is where the #OMN approach becomes useful, rather than treating the argument as a contest between competing blindness, we ask what practical arrangements would help people live together, share resources and resolve conflict. We need to move from abstract claims about property, freedom and authority towards the everyday work of building a commons.

The positive and negative are both information – Look at what persists despite the difficulties. #Oxfordboaters continue to help one another with broken engines, share equipment and look out for neighbouring boats during floods. These practices matter because they demonstrate that collective life is not merely an idea. It is something people already do. In the #Fediverse, millions of posts continue to move across independently operated servers. Communities maintain software, moderate discussions and keep infrastructure running without requiring one central owner to control the entire network.

These are not perfect paths as they contain conflict, unequal labour, poor decisions and failures of responsibility. But their persistence is evidence that the underlying need for cooperation is real. The negative side matters too. Blockers, internal conflicts, careerism, purity tests and institutional capture all tell us something about where a project is vulnerable. They reveal weaknesses in its decision-making, its distribution of work and its ability to balance disagreement.

The mistake is to treat every negative experience as contamination to be removed, if we eliminate everyone who creates friction, we can end up with a compliant monoculture: pleasant until the first serious challenge arrives. Equally, we cannot romanticise conflict or excuse destructive behaviour in the name of diversity as some patterns genuinely undermine collective work. The task is to understand what is happening, address it openly and change the conditions that allow it to continue.

This is social composting – turning the material of failure into the ground for better practice. In meetings, keep the whole picture visible, grassroots meetings easily become dominated by whatever is going wrong. Equally, some groups protect a positive image by refusing to discuss failure. Both approaches distort reality.

A useful practice is to grow space for what is working and what is broken. Celebrate the person who has kept the shared infrastructure running, but also discuss why the workload falls on them. Recognise the value of community cooperation, but do not ignore the unresolved conflicts that threaten it. The path is not artificial fifty-fifty balance, it is that neither success nor failure disappears from view.

In participation – value practical contribution – grassroots projects need ideas, but they also need people who maintain servers, repair equipment, organise meetings, document decisions and do the repetitive work that keeps projects alive. In our fashernista world, too often, the culture rewards visibility over contribution. The person who produces the polished explanation of a problem receives more recognition than the person who quietly fixes it.

People are complicated, they make mistakes, change their minds and sometimes contribute something valuable even when they are difficult to work with. That does not mean every behaviour should be accepted, a recurring pattern of using collective labour to build personal status, avoiding shared responsibilities or quietly capturing decision-making needs to be named and challenged. We need warmth towards messy human beings and a clear-eyed approach to extractive patterns. Without the first, we reproduce exclusion, without the second, we allow the commons to be hollowed out from within.

From riverbanks to digital commons, yes the Oxford riverbank and the #Fediverse are not identical. Physical moorings involve land rights, housing needs, environmental obligations and the practical limits of river space. Digital networks involve infrastructure, software, moderation and the distribution of information. We should not pretend that one simple solution can resolve both. But they share a question that the #OMN is trying to medate, how do we move from individual ownership and institutional control towards shared participation and accountable collective stewardship?

In digital media, this means building around shared data flows rather than locking communities into individual codebases. It means making content portable, moderation accountable and decisions open to scrutiny. It means allowing different communities to organise themselves while remaining connected through common standards and shared infrastructure. The #4opens provide a practical starting point: open data, open source, open standards and open processes. They are not a guarantee of good politics, but they help make the workings of a project visible and give communities a better foundation for collective action.

The same principle applies beyond technology. A commons cannot survive on good intentions alone. It needs working practices, clear responsibilities, accessible information and ways to resolve conflict without handing all power to an owner or a self-appointed elitists. That is the difference between merely defending a commons and actively building one.

Compost the old ground, grow something better – The compost heap that works is one where the rot and the new roots are visible at the same time. If we see only rot, we walk away and abandon the possibility of change, if we see only roots, we ignore the problems until they undermine the balance. We need to keep looking at both, preserving what works, confronting what fails and changing the conditions that allow useful practices to grow.

The hard right offers control as the answer to disorder. Parts of the progressive left offer collective care as the answer to enclosure. The practical challenge is to build forms of collective care that can deal with disorder, and forms of accountability that do not become new systems of enclosure. This is not a call to find a comfortable middle ground, it is a call to do the harder work of building alternatives that function in the real world.

For the #OMN, that means turning grassroots experience into usable tools, connecting communities through open media flows and making collective participation easier than it is today. For Oxford’s boaters, it means taking mutual aid, environmental responsibility and the realities of living on the river seriously in any attempt to mediate shared spaces.

In both cases, the work begins when we stop waiting for a perfect path, a benevolent authority or a heroic individual to solve everything. We need shovels, not saviours. We need to compost the failures, protect the roots and keep building the commons together.

#OMN #4opens #OpenWeb #Commons #OxfordBoaters #Indymedia #MakingHistory #KISS

The uncomfortable question

Art is individualism, a disturbing, disintegrating force. That’s where its value lies. It breaks the shared mould, unsettles common sense, and opens cracks in the world we take for granted. The trick is to compost individualism into collective creativity, not let it rot into #stupidindividualism.

Oscar Wilde, with an #OMN twist

Why do people nowadays defend systems that make their own lives worse? Why do movements that begin by challenging authority end up creating new authority’s? Why do communities built around freedom develop gatekeepers, purity tests and informal leaders who become impossible to question? Why do people who oppose #dotcons corporate control still spend their time copying corporate platforms, business models and organizational habits? These are not isolated contradictions, they point towards an invisible issue of how power works.

We tend to imagine oppression as something imposed from above, a ruling class, a government, a corporation or an institution that wants to control us. The solution then seems obvious: expose the injustice, remove the people responsible, and replace the system with something better. But what happens when people actively participate in reproducing the same relationships they claim to oppose?

Power does not operate through force alone, it also shapes what we want, what we admire, what we fear and what we consider normal. We become attached to the #mainstreaming because those systems also provide identity, status, security and a sense of belonging. The problem is not simply power controls us, it is that we learn to desire the very world power has built for us. This is one of the hardest lessons for grassroots paths to absorb – that the #deathcult is not something outside us. We live inside it, in the dominant logic organized around endless economic growth, competition, commodification and control, even when these undermine the ecological and social conditions on which life it self depends.

It is easy to point at the visible mess: corporate monopolies, extractive business, environmental destruction and political movements built around fear. But the #deathcult survives more because it is an economic system, pushed over us the last 50 years as a culture, a set of habits and a way of understanding ourselves. our worship is where we learned to measure success through individual achievement, compete for attention and recognition. it is were we treat relationships as opportunities for advancement and look for personal solutions to collective problems. We imagine that security comes from controlling our own little corner of the world, even when that control depends on the same blinded paths that make everyone else less secure.

We might oppose capitalism while still measuring our worth through its ideas of productivity and success, oppose authoritarianism while insisting that our own opinions should never be challenged. We talk about community while treating collective projects as platforms for personal status. The system reproduces itself through these everyday behaver, this is mess even among people who sincerely want something different. That is why changing the #nastyfew people at the top is never enough, if the common sense relationships remain unchanged, the new leadership inherits the old system and reproduce it with maybe a different vocabulary.

This is why oppression feels comfortable – people do not attach themselves to oppressive systems simply because they are foolish or malicious, the reality is more complicated. #Mainstreaming established systems offer familiar routines, clear identities and ready-made explanations for a confusing world. They tell us who belongs, who is responsible, what success looks like and where to direct our anger. A competitive society promises that individual effort will bring individual rewards, hierarchical organization promises that someone competent is in charge, rigid thinking promises certainty. A charismatic leader promises to take responsibility for decisions that would otherwise require difficult collective work, promises can be attractive, especially when people feel insecure and overwhelmed.

The catch is that the comfort comes at a very real price, individual success depends on collective failure. Certainty require silencing disagreement, strong leadership become unaccountable power and belonging can to often depend on excluding outsiders. Fear and control become self-reinforcing, as the more insecure people feel, the more attractive rigid authority becomes. The more authority concentrates, the less opportunity people have to develop the confidence and relationships needed to govern their own lives in any working grassroots paths.

This is one way authoritarianism becomes embedded in everyday life without requiring most people to openly support fascism. People oppose a particular dictator, corporation or political party while reproducing the same “common sense” habits of obedience, exclusion and domination in their own communities. The lesson from this mess is not that everyone is secretly fascist, it is that authoritarian patterns survive inside movements and institutions that sincerely oppose them.

The left is not immune, grassroots and progressive movements begin with a desire to create open and humane societys, but good intentions do not often produce good processes. A movement opposed to hierarchy can still developing invisible hierarchies that nobody is allowed to discuss. They might demand democratic participation while allowing a small group of insiders to control the agenda. Celebrate diversity while pushing blinded conformity or criticize celebrity culture while building its own #fashionista cults of personality.

Sometimes the problem appears as endless internal conflict, sometimes as a demand for unity that suppresses diversity of disagreement. Sometimes it appears as a professionalised activist culture in which visibility, funding and institutional access are more important than the original purpose of the work. These are different expressions of the same danger – the collective project becomes a means of reproducing the status and security of those who push the easy common sense mess.

This is where mixed metaphor of #mainstreaming becomes important. Grassroots projects do sometimes seek funding, recognition and wider influence because they need resources to survive and space to grow. There is nothing inherently wrong with this, the danger comes when adapting to the blinded common sense of established institutions that use there control to change what the project is able to do. A movement that began by building alternatives ends up competing for a place inside the system it wanted to change.

Then we have the #geekproblem building freedom with tools of control – this contradiction is particularly visible in social technology. The #openweb offers the possibility of shared infrastructure people use, adapt and maintain together. Open standards, open data and open-source software help communities escape dependence on the #dotcons. But still #blocking this path is the #geekproblem, the assumption that technical system can solve social problems without changing the relationships through which people use and govern these systems. We build software that makes certain behaviours easy and others difficult, we create interfaces that reward some forms of participation and obscure others, we choose what is measured, what can be moderated and who has permission to make changes. These choices shape the #FOSS culture that grows around the technology.

The path we need is #KISS, resistance means changing what we reward – oppressive systems survive partly because people become attached to their habits and rewards – resistance must involve more than criticism. We need to create practical alternatives that make different ways of living and working possible: rewarding cooperation rather than competition, recognizing maintenance alongside innovation, care alongside visibility, and collective achievement alongside individual contribution.

It means creating organizations where people can question decisions without being treated as enemies. It means making power visible, distributing responsibility and developing ways to correct mistakes without destroying the people who make them. It also means accepting that there is no perfect community and no final control that will eliminate conflict. People will disagree, projects will fail, some participants will behave badly, others will make mistakes while trying to do something worthwhile.

What history tells us is the working path is not in creating pure community’s free from contradiction, its is more in balancing the processes that can recognize and work through contradiction without turning every difficulty into a struggle for domination. This is the practical meaning of moving beyond #stupidindividualism, we do not abandon individual agency, we develop the collective conditions that allow the path to become something more than competition between isolated individuals.

So, what dose this means for projects like the #OMN, attempts to put this path into practice through grassroots media, shared data and federated communication. Were the starting point is that people should be able to publish, share, organize and moderate media through open processes rather than depending on a central platform to determine what is visible and who has power. Technical openness is necessary for the kind of commons we want to grow, but, yes, it is not sufficient.

The #OMN path is #KISS, shared flows of information rather than locked-in applications – content moves between communities and instances. Stories gain visibility through trust and linking. Local moderation can respond to local needs without requiring a central authority to control the network. It is an path to support a different social relationship with information, less ownership, more participation, less central control, more distributed responsibility.

As we highlight, the work is about confronting our own contradictions, were we avoid turning open standards into rigid dogma, grassroots leadership into personal empires, or collective projects into another competition for recognition. We need to build these paths that help people work together, while remaining open to criticism and change. From the #deathcult to the #lifecult, by changing the everyday practices the current system reproduces, recognizing that our desire for certainty, status and individual security sometimes pull us back towards the very systems we want to escape.

The #deathcult tells us that competition is human nature, that everything must be owned, that markets should decide what matters and that collective problems require stronger systems of control. The #lifecult begins with a different possibility, people can build trust, share resources, care for one another and create institutions that support life rather than undermine it.

Neither possibility becomes real through words alone, the difference emerges through practice. Most importantly, it means building alternatives that work well enough for people to experience the difference. That is the work of grassroots paths, it is why projects like the #OMN and communities like #Oxfordboaters could matter. And that is why we need to keep digging, composting the failures and growing something different together.

#OMN: WHERE NEXT? WE HAVE SEED FUNDING, NOW COMES WORK

At the root of the mess we face is the worship of the #deathcult, the idea that competition, individualism, control and endless growth are simply human nature, they are not, they are systems we keep reproducing, even when it is making society unlivable.

We now have seed funding for the #OpenMediaNetwork projects. That gives us a chance to move beyond endlessly talking about the problems and start building practical tools for a different path. Were next? The #4opens gives us a basic test for the technology. The #OGB points towards grassroots governance. Together, these are part of a DIY toolkit for moving power away from the #dotcons, the #geekproblem and the #NGO mainstreaming that keep reproducing the same mess in supposedly alternative paths.

But funding is only a beginning, the real challenge is social – how do we compost the recurring cycles of paranoia, status games, dogmatic individualism of people pushing themselves towards the top? How do we build trust, shared responsibility and structures for people to work together without recreating the hierarchies we claim to be opposing?

To compost this mess, we need to look at the current arguments about the left and right paths. Yes, people understandably want to escape institutions they no longer trust, some retreat into private life, nature and their own projects, others double down on leadership and control. But walking away from society doesn’t make the wider problems disappear, replacing one set of bosses with another isn’t an alternative.

We need to think horizontally, by growing trust, keeping processes open, sharing power and making space for people to participate without demanding that they surrender their independence. So what can you do? Follow the hashtags, read the ideas, ask questions, find a part of the project you can contribute to – you don’t need to understand everything before taking this first step.

And yes, bring a shovel, social composting is messy work, we have plenty of accumulated shit to turn into something useful. A simple first test for #stupidindividualism, can you find your way into a shared project without demanding that it revolve around you? Can you help build something that benefits people beyond yourself?

If not, that’s not a reason to give up, it’s a place to start digging. The #openweb won’t rebuild itself, we need people, practical tools and grassroots structures that make cooperation possible. A little seed funding gives us a chance, the next step is building the crew to do the work to grow the commons.

At #OMN, we’re working to compost the #techdebt problem using federation and the #4opens. The idea is simple, build apps around shared data flows, not locked-in codebases. Keep the data useful across projects, while the code becomes a golden ladle in a #witchescauldron, a tool for shaping and serving the commons, not a container that owns it.

New codebase? Let the data flows move across. Less tech debt, less churn, more reuse. Build on what we have, rather than endlessly starting again.

Why does this matter? The #mainstreaming path, represented by projects like https://blog.joinmastodon.org/, is becoming narrow through #NGO capture and institutional funding priorities.

The problem is that five years of funding have helped create a poor diversity of codebases and approaches. We need to mediate this blinded #geekproblem and grow more working grassroots paths that people can spread out across, rather than keep funneling everyone into the same few #openweb codebases.

Yes, there’s a lot of #techshit to compost. And yes, we need people with shovels to do the work of clearing the ground, reusing what’s useful, and planting seedlings along more native #openweb paths.

Less tech churn, more shared flows. Less lock-in, more commons.

#OMN #4opens #OGB #OpenWeb #KISS #MakingHistory #indymediaback

A Lesson in Social Composting

History has a lot to teach people today, lets look at an example from activism, back in October 2013, a urgent message from the very lively Balcombe Anti Fracking Camp set out a familiar dilemma for grassroots activism. The fallow on smaller Wisborough Green anti-fracking camp was being established on private land, with limited amenities. It was a step camp, for people to recover there energy to pass on the skills and equipment. The landowners wanted it to remain focused on stopping fracking, rather than becoming a general travellers’ site or party space. A space for building unity with the local community and maintaining the trust of landowners to help create a precedent for next camp.

The intention was understandable, protect the space, build local support and prepare for the many other sites where resistance would be needed. But there is a sadly normal side to this story, the camp was soon torn apart by a disruptive individuals. The damage was demoralizing and hindered preparations for the next camp in Manchester. Then, in a separate incident, equipment gathered for the Manchester camp was taken and scattered by another group of activists. This knocked the growing #actavisttech project that cam from the tech space at Balcombe backwards, despite its earlier pioneering success of building solar power and practical infrastructure.

This is an example of the hidden costs of grassroots failure, were the damage goes beyond one camp. Equipment disappears, preparation time is lost, trust breaks down and people who have put in months of work become exhausted or leave. Projects lose the capacity to carry lessons and practical skills from one campaign to the next.

It is a recurring issue of how grassroots projects lose years of work in a short time. People build useful things together, but unresolved tensions, destructive behaviour and a lack of effective ways to deal with conflict soon undermine the effort. But the problem isn’t simply a few difficult people – it is tempting to tell this story as a battle between the committed activists and a few #loons but sometimes people really do behave destructively, and communities do need ways to protect themselves. But if we keejerk response is to blame individuals, we miss the recurring wider lesson.

Grassroots organizing brings together people with different needs, expectations and ideas about freedom. Some priorities the political campaign and relationships with local communities. Others want open spaces with fewer restrictions. Some focus on practical infrastructure and long-term preparation; others are drawn to the immediate energy of protest, then the is the party crew, these differences do not automatically make a project fail. The trouble starts when we have no shared way to discuss them, balance boundaries, resolve disputes and then respond when someone damages the work of others.

The example of Balcombe legacy raised a real question about who the camp are for and what responsibilities came with using land. But to balance this restrictions imposed without meaningful discussion create resentment, just as a refusal to accept any boundaries destroys the trust projects depends on. Neither blanket control nor unlimited individual freedom is enough to sustain a commons.

In the case of #actavisttech, the work at #Balcombe demonstrated that activists can build useful solar power and infrastructure. That knowledge and capacity should have been a foundation for future camps. Instead, conflict and the loss of equipment set the project back. This is a form of social waste, when we keep rebuilding things we have already learned how to build because we struggle to maintain the relationships and shared responsibilities that allow the work to continue.

It is one of the recurring problems of grassroots activism, we can be good at mobilizing against an outside threat but much less capable of dealing with tensions inside our own communities. So how do we mediate this? how do we move beyond the false choice between authoritarian control and letting everything descend into personality conflict. The answer is #KISS development of practical, shared ways of dealing with everyday conflicts before they destroy the work we need.

First, agree on the purpose of the space, be clear about what the camp is trying to achieve, who it serves and what responsibilities come with participation. These agreements should be discussed openly, not left to emerge through arguments and informal power.
Second, make boundaries accountable. Landowners, organizers, infrastructure crews and camp participants may have different responsibilities. But those differences need to be visible, decisions about access, safety and shared equipment should be proportionate, explainable and open to challenge.

Third, create ways to mediate disagreements early, by trusting people to find ways to raise concerns before tensions become public confrontations. Use facilitators or mediators that are accepted by the people involved, make space for different accounts of what happened, and seek workable agreements. Mediation does not mean excusing destructive behaviour; it means trying to resolve conflict before they spread.

Fourth, protect shared resources – equipment, solar systems, tools and supplies represent collective labour. Agree who is responsible for them, how they can be borrowed or moved, and what happens if they are damaged or removed without consent. Where there is a serious risk of theft or harm, practical safeguards and clear consequences matter.

Finally, learn collectively, after a conflict, record what happened, what worked, what failed and what needs to change. The point is not to create a bureaucracy or a permanent committee of gatekeepers. It is to make sure the next camp does not have to learn the same lessons through another round of damage.

This is where the idea of composting becomes useful, we need to break down the failures, recover the lessons and turn them into something that can nourish the next project. We should not pretend the damage did not happen, but neither should we let it become the only story we tell. The challenge is to build grassroots communities that can handle disagreement without destroying their own capacity to act. That means combining openness with responsibility, autonomy with mutual aid, and clear boundaries with meaningful participation.

The #OMN approach is to make those relationships and processes visible, rather than imagining that either technology or blinded goodwill will solve everything. The #4opens can help us keep the data, tools, standards and decision-making open to scrutiny, while the human work of trust and mediation makes the infrastructure usable.

Grassroots power is not just our ability to gather, protest and build. It is our ability to work through conflict, protect what we create together and pass that capacity on to the next generation of action. That is how move past composting the same failures over and over, and start growing something more durable that we need.

Please get off your knees and pick up a shovel

Our choice for the last 20 years has been between the #deathcult and #fascism, how the hell did we get into this mess? And how do we find a way out? To build a path we need shovels, not saviours. We need to dig through the shit, compost failures and regrow paths to grassroots collective power. To work on this we need to stop waiting for someone else to fix things and start rebuilding the ground beneath our feet.

Politics is the human condition, you’d have to be mad as a hatter, or a liberal, to imagine we can somehow escape it. We live in messy times, and they’re getting dirtier. Politics isn’t going away, the question is whether we organize collectively to shape it, or leave the field to the #nastyfew people already digging our collective graves.

To be clear, what I’m putting forward doesn’t solve any single problem. What it does is take a practical step towards solving many problems, by changing how we work together. What we don’t need is market-based “green” solutions, elitist control or any more left-wing hero worship – as all feed into the same trap – the #deathcult of #neoliberalism. That common sense keeps us looking upwards for leadership, waiting for markets to save us or hoping the next hero will finally get things right, meanwhile, our uncommon sense collective ability to act decays.

To use a shovel we need is to move beyond fear and control towards trust, open processes and grassroots power. And yes, this isn’t the normal #blinded path about finding another perfect ideology to worship, it’s messy, its about growing practical tools and relationships to allow us to act together, to learn from failure and make change possible.

I should not HAVE to keep saying this, but this is what the #4opens process is about – moving beyond #stupidindividualism, beyond copying the #dotcons, and towards a path we can actually walk together. Open data, open source, open standards and open processes are practical starting points for shared responsibility. They test us, to build in public, hold power to account and create commons that belong to participation rather than private ownership.

The last 50 years of common sense monetization of everything is the #deathcult, as is the endless me, me, me that fragments our ability to act collectively. We won’t compost this mess by repeating the same individualistic habits with a few new slogans, we have to change the practices that keep reproducing it.

At #OMN, we’re turning to decades of grassroots experience of practical tools for collective action. #OGB, #indymediaback, #MakingHistory people have been working on for years. But, they’ve been stuck at the development stage for far too long. The challenge now is to get them moving, connect the people and skills involved, and turn activist traditions into working infrastructure for grassroots media, shared knowledge and collective organization.

This isn’t a magic solution, it’s a way to start growing many solutions from the ground up, rather than waiting for the market, the state or another self-appointed hero to deliver them. Please get off your knees, pick up a shovel, the ground is covered in mess, but that’s exactly why we need to start composting. We have plenty of shit to work with, and plenty of seeds worth saving.

And if you need a shovel, ask in the comments.

#OpenWeb #FOSS #4opens #OMN

A reminder, what is the #OMN

In the Open Media Network (#OMN), the commons represents both the foundation and the destination of the native #openweb. Rather than relying on #closedweb corporate #dotcons or top-down state power, re-framing the commons as a practical, lived alternative – what you might call a “quiet” form of collective ownership and mutual aid grown into daily social infrastructure.

The OMN makes a distinction between native and non-native technology paths. A native path starts from the commons: open, federated, participatory, interoperable, and community-controlled. Conversely, non-native paths import corporate assumptions – turning participation in a network into a commercial product, creating paywalled event cultures, or establishing centralized platform hierarchies. The OMN always asks whether technical infrastructure is being built to maintain a commons or to turn participation into an industry.

The OMN sees technology as a way to secure the commons, but it should never become a substitute for the commons itself. The OMN cautions against the #geekproblem and #encryptionist mindsets trying to replace human trust and accountability with hard code or cryptography. True commons require human relationships, transparent governance, shared memory, and mutual aid – technology is merely the piping that supports these social processes.

Rather than engaging in endless ideological debate or waiting for top-down system shifts, the OMN views growing the commons as a quiet, everyday practice. This happens through minimal viable structures – such as working groups, shared resource bases (like the #NGO #OpenCollective), federated media flows, and shared archives. By applying the #4opens (Open Data, Open Source, Open Standards, Open Process), communities keep their resources public and accountable without relying on private profit or blinded #stupidindividualist survivalism.

To grow a healthy digital commons, the OMN works on social composting: breaking down the “dead material” and toxic habits of both #FOSS and corporate tech. By taking the lessons and failures of past projects and turning them into organic material, communities build the collective capacity and trust needed to sustain shared networks long-term.

Let’s try and simplify the #OMN