Year: 2024

The tension, grassroots movements and #NGO paths

The is a tension between grassroots movements and #NGO paths on the #Fediverse and wider #openweb projects. From a #fluffy point of view the NGO path, while often well-intentioned, can lead to forms of imperialism where outside forces-through funding, structure, and top-down approaches—unwittingly impose their agendas on communities. These actors often don’t realize they are replicating imperialist dynamics, but the impact can be profound: displacement of native grassroots efforts, co-option of local autonomy, and prioritization of centralized goals over the organic, bottom-up “native” development of projects.

Recognizing NGO Imperialism in the Fediverse:

  • Unconscious Imperialism: Many in the NGO sector fail to recognize the harm their actions cause because they see their work as inherently “good” or “neutral.” However, when they impose structures or funding models without deep collaboration with the grassroots, it replicates patterns of control and hierarchy. Imperialism here refers to a powerful entity, organization extending its control over others, often under the guise of ‘helping’ or ‘developing’ them. On our current Fediverse path, this manifest as NGOs exerting influence on decision-making, resource distribution and governance, overriding local or native voices in the fediverse.
  • Disconnection from native spaces: One telltale sign of this mess is the lack of linking to #socialhub or other grassroots-driven projects. If a NGO or organization is bypassing the platforms where the community itself is actively discussing and governing its own spaces, it signals a disconnect from native grassroots paths. #DIY spaces like #socialhub embody open, collaborative, and bottom-up approach to governance. Linking to these spaces signals an intention to engage with the community’s self-determination rather than imposing external structures.
  • When NGO-led initiatives fail to collaborate with the grassroots, the likely outcome is #techshit—technology that doesn’t serve the needs of the community, ends up being unsustainable, and ultimately becomes #techshit to compost for future efforts. The liberal history of imperialism, especially in the last few hundred years, is full of such failed interventions. This is part of the ongoing cycle in the openweb, where obviously crap and disconnected technological solutions (often driven by #fashernista agendas) fail and must then be broken down and repurposed by those still engaged in the space, composting techshit take time and focus which is the one thing in short supply.

Balancing NGO paths with grassroots movements that create value:

  • Creating Bridges is a good path, instead of rejecting the NGO path outright, there needs to be a focus on bridging the gap. NGOs can play a role, but need to be willing to diversify power to the community and respect the self-organizing nature of grassroots movements. This requires transparency, active listening, and a commitment to open process, the .
  • LINKING: Encouraging NGO Accountability a crucial step to make NGOs understand the historical context of their actions. By encouraging more self-reflection and linking their work back to grassroots spaces, NGOs can avoid falling into patterns of imperialism and instead work at balancing better openweb’s paths which is actually, often, there core stated mission.
  • Building Native Governance, native governance is currently a black hole in #DIY spaces, this is a problem we need to work on with projects like the #OGB. This is a space where the #NGO path with its access to funding could be a very real help to fill this hole.

For Grassroots, we need those involved in the Fediverse (at best with the support of the privileged #NGO crew) to create strong, independent governance models (like the #OGB) that are needed to push back against co-option. By making sure these paths are, built, linked and visible, it becomes easier to hold a healthy balance in place to bridge understanding without compromising autonomy. This approach preserves the Fediverse’s native path, ensuring it stays rooted in the ethos of trust, collaboration, and openness, the core values of the openweb itself.

By composting what doesn’t work and nurturing what does, we can continue to cultivate a healthier, more resilient network for the change and challenge we need for a liveable future. What steps do you think could be most effective in initiating this dialogue between NGOs and grassroots paths without compromising the integrity of grassroots spaces?

Not domination, the cultivation of many efforts, collectively, lead to significant change

We need a metaphor-rich vision for planting “gardens of hope” instead of falling into the trap of fear-based ideologies, as this “trust” path offers a profound way to rethink activism. By moving away from the factory-like, large-scale approaches that dominated much of the 20th century, we can focus on advocating for small, vibrant, community-focused projects that feed not just political outcomes but the spirit and imagination of those involved. This nurturing of hope, rather than a reactionary stance based on fear, can be a powerful antidote to both right-wing and left-wing stagnation.

How to escape the “straitjacket of fear” a first step is recognizing fear-based cycles. This is currently the dominate social path of contemporary politics, both right and left operates on fear. Understanding this cycle and making it more visible is the first step toward composting this mess we live in on the #mainstreaming path. Activist movements as well do fall into reactionary patterns, continuously responding to crises rather than building positive alternatives.

There is a central role for grassroots media: Librarians, historians, and grassroots media makers are essential for documenting, archiving, and telling the stories of hope that are often forgotten. This is critical for escaping the activist memory hole. Curating and sharing the successes of past movements, we provide the building blocks for new projects. The #OMN has a project for this, #makeinghistory, a tool to create open archives, digital networks, and libraries dedicated to past and present activist movements. These archives can focus on what worked and why, so future movements can learn from them.

With these tools we can start to composting failures, particularly those based on fear, which then become the compost that nourishes future projects. Rather than seeing these failures as losses, they become resources that fertilize new growth. A practical step for this is encouraging transparency in activist circles about what didn’t work, and build spaces for reflection and critique.

Gardens instead of factories, a shift from large, impersonal systems to smaller, community-based, human-scale networks and projects. These gardens are not just metaphorical, they represent real, localized efforts to create change to challenge the current mess. Let’s focus on launching many small projects rather than one big, one path. Use tools like the to encourage unity in this diversity, experimentation at the grassroots level, where communities can grow organically and learn from each other. These “gardens” could be physical spaces, like urban farms or community centers, or they could be digital networks fostering open dialogue and collaboration. We can use technological federation to scale horizontally, as we know this works after the last 5 years of the #fediverse.

The is a core role for storytelling as nourishment, in these gardens, the stories we tell are as important as the physical outcomes. Stories inspire, sustain, and spread hope. Media bees, buzzing around and pollinating, represent the crucial role of communication in activism (#indymediaback). Let’s make storytelling central to every project. Whether through podcasts, blogs, social media, or video, ensure that every small success is documented and shared. This is basic linking to spread a culture of hope.

Pests as balance, just as gardens need a balance of insects and pests, movements need their challenges to stay healthy. This means embracing the struggles and pushback that inevitably comes, without letting them derail the movement. Accept conflict as part of the process. Instead of viewing internal or external challenges as wholly negative, see them as opportunities to strengthen the movement and build its resilience.

Planting 100s of gardens, rather than trying to create one monolithic left-wing solution, advocate for planting hundreds of small projects. This is a native path to build a body of knolage, myths, traditions and lessons about what works and what doesn’t. This decentralized approach aligns with the creation of affinity groups and grassroots organizing. Let’s focus on diversity in both method and scale. Some might be focused on local food production, others on tech solutions, media, or community care. The key is to document and share what works in each context. So we can start to build the common bridges that we need to hold us together during the onrush crises.

This strategy avoids the trap of overwhelming scale that can easily lead to burnout or co-option by #mainstreaming forces. The goal is not domination but the cultivation of many efforts that, collectively, lead to significant change. This approach is more sustainable, more adaptable, and more rooted in human connections and hope.

Let’s help people build grassroots communities in this fertile time for tech change and challenge

The #KISS framing of left and right as driven by emotional motivators—fear for the right and trust for the left—could be used as a simple, powerful tool to influence current #openweb paths and projects, especially amid the current pressures of #mainstreaming. By simplifying the underlying social dynamics, it helps cut through ideological complexities and focuses on the core emotional drivers behind decisions and structures. This will act as a guiding principle to shape how grassroots projects navigate the ongoing cycle of breakdown and renewal.

Trust is the foundation for collaboration, native projects in the openweb space thrive on trust-based collaboration. If we focus on this as a core value, we create affinity groups and networks that operate with openness, transparency, and a sense of shared purpose. This is in contrast to mainstream pressures that rely on fear-driven, control-oriented models (e.g., paywalls, exclusivity, or centralized decision-making). Practical Step, foster spaces where trust is built through process, a tool to cement this path in place. The focus on trust strengthens community bonds and keeps grassroots projects resilient against the constant “common sense” mainstream co-option.

We need to recognize fear-based structures so we can counter them. Mainstreaming pressures often introduce fear-driven structures (e.g., security concerns, exclusivity, monetization) under the guise of progress or sustainability. By identifying and naming these paths, grassroots people can resist the pull toward control-oriented paths and emphasize open, inclusive solutions. Practical Steps, analyses current openweb projects, identifying where fear-driven control mechanisms are creeping in. This could be as simple as asking, does this decision come from a place of trust or fear?

By using this simple path, affinity groups can form based on shared values, making it easier for people to align around common goals without getting bogged down by complex political debates. This grows organic collaboration and keeps the focus on productive action, rather than reactive division. Some practical first steps to take, would be trust building initiatives, for example creating open governance networks like the #OGB, and pushing for the wider use of FOSS tools. This approach can build momentum in the face of mainstreaming pressures.

Reclaiming the openweb path, the influx of mainstream people into the openweb reboot can feel overwhelming, but if grassroots projects focus on their native paths, they can create alternative spaces that resist the control-oriented, fear-based agenda as it tries to take root. By framing this struggle in emotional terms, it becomes easier to rally people around these #KISS ideas. A practical step is to frame this struggle not in terms of ideology but as a battle between fear and trust. People can easily grasp these emotional drivers, making the cause more relatable and less abstract. It becomes about protecting spaces of openness where people feel empowered, rather than driven by fear and control. And can help prevent paralysis in the face of complexity. Trust, openness, and collaboration should always be the focus, while fear, control, and exclusion should be recognized as threats to the native path.

Core to this is the creation of affinity groups around simple principles that are resistance to fear, crews that focus on pushing back against control-oriented features, especially in projects facing mainstreaming pressures. These groups can form the backbone of a renewed grassroots movement, even as the larger openweb undergoes changes. They can act as pillars of trust, providing stable spaces for experimentation and collaboration while resisting the fear-driven forces commercializing and enclose the commons. Let’s work together to help people build grassroots communities in this fertile time for tech change and challenge.

Fediverse, grassroots, native, trust, openness, and collaboration

One thing we really need to compost is the often invisible conflict between the native commons-based approach and the realities of capitalist infrastructure—particularly in how we fund, organize, and maintain spaces, for example #FediForum. It is hard to get across this invisible #blocking . The perspective, of ideological exclusion rather than the money itself being an issue, though of course it is. this captures a deeper issue about how certain approaches (like paywalls) alienate grassroots communities, even if the cost is minimal or scholarships are available.

We need to see the value in both native and #mainstreaming paths, the native path of the Fediverse and related #openweb movements grew organically from gift economies and volunteer-driven efforts. As did a lot of openweb work, including the ActivityPub standard, which was developed in such spaces, without the need for a paywall or corporate sponsorship. This ethos is central to the commons-building process, where trust, collaboration, and openness are valued more than monetization or statues in formal hard structures.

In the example of FediForum you can see contrast, mainstreaming, paywalls, closed applications, proprietary tools like Zoom and Eventbrite, etc. While they may argue that these tools and models are necessary to cover costs, they create barriers for those who have historically contributed to the commons, in this they are unthinkably enclosing, pushing these paths. The point that the paywall is an ideological barrier, not merely a financial one, is critical. For many in the grassroots community, the introduction of a paywall—even if it’s just $2 or $40—symbolizes a shift away from open, accessible organizing. It’s not just about affordability; it’s about how the space is structured and who it’s structured for.

Events organized without paywalls, based on voluntary contributions, have historically worked because they maintained a native, commons-based ethos. They relied on the trust and collaboration of participants, who donated time, energy, and resources to make things happen without needing to resort to gatekeeping mechanisms like paywalls. With this in mind, we need to try and move conversations that can so easily turn nasty and negative into building bridges, not undermining foundations. The solution lies in acknowledging the strengths of both paths, native and mainstreaming, and finding a way to link them, rather than blindly pushing for one path to dominate and enclose the other.

Actions for Bridge-Building: Ideas and actions for how we might approach this challenge pragmatically, without compromising on the core values of the native common’s path:

  • Transparent Linking: Start by linking to other paths. Our example FediForum can openly acknowledge and link to grassroots spaces like SocialHub, recognizing that both are part of the larger network. This small step would create a bridge rather than a division.
  • FOSS Infrastructure is absolutely basic. Push for the use of open-source alternatives to #dotcons tools like Zoom and Eventbrite. This could include tools we have successfully used before , BigBlueButton, Jitsi or other FOSS video conferencing platforms, alongside commons-based event platforms. Even if these tools mean volunteers agreeing to host, the ideological message is different: they are part of the #openweb rather than a concession to the #dotcons proprietary mess.
  • Open Scholarship Programs: While some financial costs are unavoidable, events could offer open, transparent scholarship programs, as FediForum did at the first event, not just token offerings but significant pathways for those in the grassroots to attend for free. This can help balance the ideological exclusion of paywalls.
  • Co-organization with Grassroots: Instead of the mainstreaming path of dominating, events really need to engage in co-organization with grassroots communities, ensuring a balance of perspectives. The #OGB would help this issue, as for example, fediforum could be an affiliate stakeholder. This would be a step toward more commons-based governance and event management.
  • Decentralized Organizing Models: An option (am this is NOT compulsory) would be to take a cue from successful decentralized networks like the Fediverse itself, where governance and organizing can be shared across multiple nodes. In our example, FediForum could adopt a more structurally decentralized organizing model, where grassroots actors have a say in how the event is structured, funded, and run.

What we are talking about here is recognizing different realities, yes we do live in capitalist societies, and sometimes the realities of funding and infrastructure cannot be ignored. However, recognizing this doesn’t mean fully conceding to the #mainstreaming path. Instead, there can be a balance where the native commons ethos is preserved while finding sustainable ways to support events and initiatives. This is actually how the THING we are talking about was originally built, this is what I am calling “native”.

The commons-based path is not simply about ideals; it’s about creating structures that are inclusive, accessible, and genuinely collaborative. While mainstream forces may argue for pragmatism (paywalls, proprietary tools), we do need to push back for a #KISS solution, transparent linking and FOSS tools, offers a simple yet profound bridge. This is how we can grow diversity and ensure that the Fediverse remains a grassroots, native space where trust, openness, and collaboration thrive.

Let’s try a #fluffy path:

An important point about the invisible barriers that people face, which aren’t always immediately understood by others involved in conversation like this. For many grassroots contributors, the imposition of a paywall feels like an act of enclosure, a kind of taking of space that they had a hand in building. This is often not visible to those who approach these events from a more #mainstreaming or #NGO mindset.

To address this “invisible problem” We need to keep emphasizing the importance of recognizing this divide, not as an attack but as an opportunity for mutual understanding. The more people on the mainstreaming path can see how their actions might be excluding core contributors, the more likely bridges can be built. Encourage people to step into the shoes of those who feel excluded, and help them understand that this isn’t just about access or money—it’s about respecting the ethos and history of the movement.

The #mainstreaming is always filled with imperialism, we need to mediate this mess making

The imperialism visible in FediForum is a part of the broader critique of the culture surrounding it, that can help to highlight a core issue in the evolution of the openweb and grassroots activism: the tension between #mainstreaming (enclosure) and grassroots commons (open, decentralized commons paths).

The Cultural Divide, the culture around FediForum is #NGO and #liberal, #dotcons-friendly, a path that tends to centralize control and enclosure, even in discussions about decentralization. The use of #closedsource tools like Zoom and Eventbrite highlights this contradiction. This cultural divide is significant, grassroots communities, including those on SocialHub, reject participation in spaces dominated by tools and processes that contradict the values. While this isn’t necessarily about whether the individuals involved are “good or bad,” it’s crucial to acknowledge the cultural influence of #NGO and corporate models, that seek to enclose and professionalize what should remain a grassroots, commons-based path, we need to do this so as not to simply end up enclosing the commons in ignorant “common sense” paths. Now that’s a mouth twister 😉

Lack of a Bridge, suggests a commons-oriented solution—a bridge between these two cultural approaches through transparent linking and collaboration between different projects (e.g., FediForum and SocialHub) which would respect the decentralized nature of the #openweb. I personally talk to them about this at the first event, unfortunately, this advice was ignored, and the #NGO path continued, leading to the ideological exclusion of grassroots participants who have been building the Fediverse and the openweb for years at this paywalled event


The is useful to highlight what for meany people is an invisible, thus unimportant divide:

Applying the framework is a helpful way to assess the project’s alignment with the openweb’s foundational values. Here’s a quick DRAFT breakdown of how FediForum fares:

Open Data: They are somewhat open, using Creative Commons licenses and publishing event videos openly, but the paywall during the events limits input and participation, reducing the openness. Partial TICK.

Open Source: The CMS might be FOSS, but the reliance on closed-source platforms for the events themselves (Zoom, Eventbrite) contradicts the open-source ethos. Half TICK or none.

Open Industrial Standards: Limited to some RSS feeds, but the integration of proprietary platforms makes it hard to give full credit here. No TICK.

Open Process: Organizing is closed, with paywalled events, though the unconference format allows for more open discussions. However, the ideological closure to many grassroots participants remains. Half TICK.

At best, this makes FediForum a bronze project with significant room for improvement. At worst, it’s not aligned with the , thus the #openweb at all.

Moving Forward, what’s missing is a mediation space where these different paths can intersect without one side dominating the other. This space could look like the #OGB with each participant being an affiliate stakeholder https://unite.openworlds.info/Open-Media-Network/openwebgovernancebody

The path that keeps “commons” open is activism, which is about making it hard for these values to be ignored. In this case, we could start this by pushing for the adoption of simple steps like linking and transparency (#KISS). This can begin to rebuild bridges that better reflects the diverse contributions of all involved, without closing doors on those who helped build it in the first place.

We need to build more bridges

This thinking came out of this thread on the subject of the relationship between #WC3 and the grassroots #socialhub over the “governance” of #ActivityPub and the wider #Fediverse.

A bridge rather than ownership would look like a collaborative, flexible, and trust-based system, rather than one based on control and dominance. In the context of the Fediverse and openweb spaces, this would mean moving away from territorial battles between the #NGO mainstreaming approach and the grassroots #openweb communities, toward a recognition that both paths have value, and that these different paths can coexist and complement each other.

The “commons” path is fundamentally about shared responsibility and decentralized governance. It’s the idea that instead of fighting for ownership and control—whether that’s who gets to steer the Fediverse or dominate the standards—we build systems that mediate the different flows, allowing both the formal and the grassroots approaches to contribute and grow together.

This could manifest in practical ways like:

  • Shared Infrastructure: The infrastructure becomes a part of the commons—no one owns it, but everyone can use and contribute to it.
  • Collaboration Over Competition: Instead of viewing the relationship between the more formal W3C-style governance and grassroots communities like SocialHub as adversarial, we acknowledge that they bring different strengths. The W3C formalism provides structure, while SocialHub’s grassroots, #DIY ethos brings innovation. Each benefits the other, and the bridge is recognizing this value without the need to “own” it.
  • Mediation and Decision-Making Processes: We need native tools for transparent governance. A commons model for governance like the #OGB which was developed on socialhub. Think of it as a flexible process where everyone has a voice, but no one dominates.
  • Value in Diversity: The goal is not to impose a singular vision, but to recognize that the messy, bottom-up humanistic creativity from the grassroots and the more polished, structured contributions from #NGOs both have value. The bridge would allow ideas to cross and enrich each other without needlessly flattening their differences.

The key to this is not ownership but bridging the different paths. If we see ourselves as gardeners of the #openweb commons, rather than owners of a “slice” of it, the mindset shifts from control to care, recognizing the power in collaboration rather than domination.

By building these bridges, rather than the normal “common sense” fighting over territory, we create an open network where people and communities can flourish. This bridging needs care, #KISS, trust-based paths, that recognize the shared value and avoid pushing #mainstreaming “common sense” driven artificial divides. It’s about cooperation and connection. #KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid).

Is #fediforum a #4opens project?

This is a DRAFT as have not looked at this project deeply for a while.

Look past what they say, look at what they do .

The are a simple way to judge the value of an “alt/grassroots” tech project.

* Open data – is the basic part of a project. Without this openness, they cannot function. Open data is essential for transparency and collaboration.

- The are pretty open on this and use CC license, the are some RSS feeds. But input into the events is paywalled so closed, after the event videos are published as open. A full TICK or a half TICK

* Open source – refers to “free software.” This keeps development healthy by increasing interconnectedness and fostering serendipity. Open licences, such as Creative Commons. Open source FOSS encourages collaboration and innovation.

- am not sure what CMS they use but likely #FOSS. They use a a mashup of closed source #dotcons for the events. Half TICK or non?

* Open “industrial” standards – are foundational for the open internet and WWW Open standards ensure interoperability and compatibility, enabling diverse systems to work together seamlessly.

The are some RSS feeds on the sites but this is it, the #dotcons used for the events make this hard to give a tick so no TICK

* Open process – is the most nebulous part but crucial for collaboration and trust. Examples include wikis and activity streams. Open process ensures that project workflows are transparent and participatory.

- the organizing of events and process to organize the events are closed, the events themselves being unconferences are open. But are paywalled so ideologically closed to meany people.

Half a TICK to be positive

It’s easy to become a project and join the #openweb path:

2 opens: Bronze badge
3 opens: Silver badge
4 opens: Gold badge

So we have a wide spread for this project at worst, not a project with one TICK at best a bronze project with 2 TICKS that needs improvement.

DRAFT

We need to balance this mess making

The paywalled #FediForum, while billed as “the unconference for those moving the Fediverse forward,” is thin on the ground when it comes to real, impactful “native” voices. The grassroots actors who are notably absent from these spaces are far more significant in shaping the #openweb path than the #NGO and #dotcons interests pushing #mainstreaming.

It’s important to notice this and remember where you stand in this network. Yes, we’re struggling and making a mess on our grassroots path, but we’re still here. On the other hand, those on the #mainstreaming path are few but make up for their lack of presence by generating noise and occupying space.

This is still a grassroots project, and we, the “native” people on the #openweb, are the vibrant threads in the tapestry. #NGOs and even the #dotcons can join in, but they are not at the core. We are the core. Balancing the signal-to-noise ratio, while noisy forces try to drown us out, requires active mediation—activism, plain and simple.

Stay engaged, stay noisy in a good way, and keep pushing the #4opens path.

Is Mastodon a #4opens project

The are a simple way to judge the value of an “alt/grassroots” tech project.

Open data – is the basic part of a project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_data without this open they cannot work.

You can get your data out with RSS and AP and vie user export, so TICK

Open source – as in “free software” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software this keeps development healthy by increasing interconnectedness and bringing in serendipity. The Open licences are the “lock” that keep the first two in place, what we have isn’t perfect, but they do expand the area of “trust” that a project needs to work, creative commons is a start here.

It has a #FOSS licence TICK

Open “industrial” standards – this is a little understood but core open, it’s what the open internet and WWW are built from. Here is an outline https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_standard

Here it’s problematic, it supports atom/RSS good, but is AP support is pushing broken HALF TICK

Open process – this is the most “nebulous” part, examples of the work flow would be wikis and activity streams. Projects are built on linking trust networks, so open process is the “glue” that binds the links together. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process

It uses #github a #dotcons platform, which kinda has open process but is in meany ways unresponsive to this #openprocess HALF TICK

Solidarity

It’s easy to become a project and join the #openweb family. Just show that your project fulfils 2 or more of the above “opens”.

2 opens - Bronze badge
3 opens - Silver badge
4 opens - Gold badge

This makes 3 opens, so Mastodon is a silver project, to become gold it needs to improve its standards competence and/or work at better open process.

The victim card in activism

There’s a pervasive and damaging cycle in activist and alternative communities that we need to recognize and break, the victimhood narrative. This is not about dismissing genuine struggles or the real problems we face (and let’s be clear, we all have these in abundance on alternative paths). What I’m talking about is the deliberate use of victimhood as a tactic, a card played to push an agenda or gain sympathy at the expense of collective progress.

When someone plays the victim card, it sets off a feedback loop. Others pick up on this narrative, and whether they mean to or not, they reinforce it. Before long, the person who played the card becomes trapped in their own creation. They become victims of the very narrative they set in motion. Those who latch onto this story to push their own agendas also fall into the trap, ultimately damaging the causes they claim to support.

This tactic does more harm than good. It doesn’t address the actual issues we’re facing; instead, it creates a toxic distraction that undermines real work that we need to do. By focusing on the victim narrative, we lose sight of the bigger picture, the subjects we should be addressing with urgency and clarity.

Let’s stop and think. Let’s step away from this destructive loop. We need to be clear about the real issues and not allow this negative narrative to cloud our judgment and derail our efforts.

Please, don’t reinforce this mess.

On the other hand, there are real victims, but these people aren’t playing card games, recognizing the difference should not be so hard for people.

The victimhood narrative needs composting

The process of challenging this mess making runs into the #mainstreaming of safety culture, we can reflect on Douglas Gwyn’s famous quote about Unix:

“Unix was not designed to stop people from doing stupid things, because that would also stop them from doing clever things.”

This is a powerful insight into the dangers of blinded regulation and unthinking control in tech and social paths. The quote speaks to the value of bindings of strong process in design, which allows for creativity, experimentation, and the change and challenge we need to build trust, yes there is the cost of occasional mistakes it’s a price we pay for taking this path.

Safety culture, particularly as it gets pushed into more regulated, closed systems, stifles the our humanistic experimentation we need to tackle the challenges ahead. The push to make everything safe, moderated, and controlled risks, creating paths where nothing truly transformative can happen. It feeds into the #mainstreaming #deathcult path of conformity, where other paths are sacrificed for the sake of avoiding “mistakes”.

By maintaining an process, as with Unix, we create spaces where people are allowed to fail and, in doing so, come up with new solutions, something that’s becoming more and more vital in the context of our ongoing struggles against #climatechaos, #dotcons dominance, and other meany systemic issues we face.

We need to balance this tension between safety and creativity, recognizing that without the latter, we inadvertently push the very problems we’re trying to solve.

To get past people being lost and thus pointless, It’s useful to frame left and right as driven by fundamental emotional motivators—fear for the right and trust for the left, a way to cut through the complexities of political debates. This lens highlights how cycles of fear perpetuate control-oriented agendas, while trust foster openness and collaboration. It’s a powerful way to step outside the immediate mess, recognizing the #KISS dynamics at play.

Do you think this could be used to influence current #openweb projects and the paths they take amidst #mainstreaming pressures?

Federating Metadata Flows: Bridging Folksonomy and Categories for the #OMN

These native #openweb activism based projects have been around for the last ten years. In the reboot of #Indymedia and the development of the Open Media Network (#OMN), the challenge of federating metadata flows sits at the heart of how people organize, distribute, and consume media in a decentralized, grassroots-driven native path. We’re navigating the space between #folksonomy (bottom-up, organic tagging) and categories (top-down, structured organization). Each approach offers advantages, but bridging them creatively is key to an effective and open media landscape.

What this #indymedia reboot video leave out is this:

Folksonomy vs. Categories:

#Folksonomy is a people and community -driven method of tagging content, allowing communities to organically build a taxonomy that reflects their interests and needs. It’s flexible, dynamic, and rooted in grassroots culture.
* Advantage: Captures the diversity and fluidity of bottom-up organizing.
* Disadvantage: Can be messy, inconsistent, and hard to scale across diverse instances.

#Categories are a structured, hierarchical way of organizing information, providing clarity and consistency.
* Advantage: Easier to search, sort, and maintain across larger networks.
* Disadvantage: Top-down imposition is restrictive and alienate grassroots contributors.

The OMN path: Combining Folksonomy with Categories

The #OMN and the Indymedia reboot are grounded in bottom-up grassroots projects, so we obviously start with a folksonomy approach. However, we recognize there’s some practical use for categories as well. Here’s a draft proposal for how to bridge the divide:

  1. Folksonomy First: Every media object enters the OMN network with a set of user-generated tags (folksonomy). These tags represent the grassroots nature of the content—open, fluid, and community-driven.
  2. Category Grouping: Allow instances to group folksonomy tags into category clusters. These clusters could be shared across instances, making it easy to adopt community-agreed categories while respecting the folksonomy origin. This means that folksonomy items are not discarded, but instead enhanced by grouping them into more structured categories. The folksonomy items, now part of category groups, flow through the network and can be treated as extra tags, maintaining transparency and openness.
  3. Metadata Flow is the project: The OMN is not just a content distribution network but also a metadata flow tool. It allows media objects to move across instances, while each instance can enhance the object’s metadata (tags/categories) in a transparent and open way. The magic here is in building a path where meaning, the media, tags, and categories are fully federated and can flow effortlessly between decentralized nodes.
  4. Subscription to Category Flows: Instances can subscribe to category flows, essentially saying, “I want to see all media tagged under a specific category or tag group.” This gives structure without forcing it, enabling diversity of content flow while still benefiting from categorization. This flexible subscription system empowers the grassroots while creating a bridge to more top-down consumption or categorization models.
  5. Trust-Based Growth: The entire system is built on trust networks. Instances that trust each other’s tagging and categorization can share media freely, with the assumption that the metadata accompanying it adds value, not friction.

The Philosophy: “Transparency is the New Objectivity”

The OMN is rooted in the philosophy of transparency over objectivity. The flows of metadata, whether from folksonomy or categories, are transparent for to see, remix, and improve upon. This radical openness, guided by the , ensures that the system remains flexible, accessible, and grounded in the needs of people not corporations. Truth bubbles up from this, lies exist, but they are pushed to their own spaces, which people can choose to ignore.

Conclusion: Building the Age of Creative Anarchy

On a positive, we could say that the 19th century was the age of capitalism, the 20th century was the age of social democracy, and the 21st century could be shaping up to be the age of creative anarchy. In this era, the challenge is to embrace diversity while building tools that help us collaborate across differences. The OMN is a practical tool to move media objects and metadata around in a way that encourages creativity, transparency, and bottom-up control, all while allowing some degree of organization through category flows. This is a positive future for media, that is native to our current openweb reboot as our #fashernista like to call this #opensocialweb but the problem it is what we are doing is not social media… bad choice of naming.

The future is messy, but we can compost this mess into a thriving, decentralized media path. Let’s start with trust, folksonomy, and the #openweb, and grow from there #KISS who is coding this, who is funding this, help needed please as I don’t have the focus to see this through, it needs crew and funding, that might be you.

Why We Need the Open Media Network (#OMN)

Mastodon, Meta and Threads

For people who focus on working with the #dotcons there are meany traps, and a lot of dead-ends. This is less of an issue for people fighting them, the problem here is “common sense” #blocking this second path which is a much less lucrative and a thank less task. So we will continue to have more people on the first path. A post that grew from a toot seed, I wonder if Mastodon is to Meta what Firefox once was to Google a small but significant project that big corporations can point to whenever regulators start murmuring about monopolies.

In the early #openweb days, #Firefox was seen as the open-source challenger to the #dotcons of Internet Explorer and later Google Chrome. The NGO #PR represented it as a scrappy, independent alternative, championing the openweb against the increasing dominance of corporate-controlled browsers. But over time, and a lot of funding, Firefox became a tool for companies like Google to gesture toward whenever their monopolistic practices were questioned., “Look, there’s competition! We’re not the only game in town.” The blotted NGO that Firefox became, let the dotcons who funded them, maintain the appearance of a healthy, diverse internet while consolidating power and control.

Today, Mastodon, the corporation, and new NGO projects like the #SWF are likely, unthinkingly, to end up playing a similar role for Meta (#Failbook). With #Meta’s monopoly and influence across social media, platforms like Mastodon offer a symbolic counterpoint. The wider #Fediverse, decentralized, federated model, the alternative “nativist” path, that rejects the data-harvesting, surveillance capitalism model perfected by Meta and the rest of the #dotcons. But in a world where Meta dominates user attention, advertising dollars, and social engagement, the existence of Fediverse when we push #NGO agenda, as people will, like most people did with Firefox could feel more like a token gesture toward competition than a real threat that it needs to be.

The danger on the NGO paths is that Mastodon, and the Fediverse becomes a shield for Meta, just as Firefox was for Google. With the regulators knocking, Meta points to Mastodon and say, “See? There’s healthy competition in the market.” Meanwhile, our grassroots #DIY path will continue to struggle with the challenges that come from operating, outside the #mainstreaming, on the margins, limited resources, scalability, and the constant threat of being drowned out by the sheer weight of the dotcons inflow into our grassroots #openweb reboot.

The truth is, while decentralized paths like Fediverse are vital to the change and challenge we need, not to mention keeping the spirit of the #openweb alive, they’re still pushing hard for space in a corporate-dominated internet. If we only take the #mainstreaming and NGO path, the existence of projects could be used by the dotcons to maintain their monopoly while paying lip service to “competition.”

The question, can we really afford to be only the ‘token alternative’ when the stakes are so high? Or do we need to find a way to build native projects that not only stands apart from the #dotcons, but also changes and challenges them on equal ground? It’s time to think beyond being the counterculture, and start focusing on how we grow and sustain real alternatives. If we don’t, if we cop out on #fluffy only paths, there is a danger that we’ll just keep serving as convenient props in mainstream monopoly charade.

Let’s try very hard not to be irrelevant in the fight for humanity and ecological sustainability in the era of #climatechaos and social brake down being pushed by the #mainstreaming mess making, we are composting.

The #openweb, a partnership, not a nasty walk over

On the subject of #NGO foundations for the #openweb what do they do with this money https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/262852431 this one is shutting down, and this one is in trouble https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/200097189 This kinda funding could cover the costs of the #Fediverse hundreds of times over…. what do they do exactly?