The challenge for #OMN & #openweb

There are a lot of mental health issues that are pushed over us in what remains of our open alt spaces, we need ways to mediate the damage, to help the people who spread this mess. The path of the #mainstreaming is corrosive to the alt cultures it feeds on. The cycle is always the same:

Radical ideas emerge → They are raw, open, and challenging.
Mainstreaming co-opts them → Dilutes them into something marketable.
They become performative → Used as branding by the #fashernista left, while the right weaponises the left’s discarded tools (like direct action).
The original movement is discredited → The real alternatives get buried under a mess of victimhood narratives, NGO bureaucracy, and “respectable” gatekeeping.

Composting this mess, one way is radical openness, but in a way that is intentional rather than naïve:

#4opens as a grounding principle → The more we expose the internal workings of a movement, the harder it is for power politics and NGO rot to take hold.
Affinity-based organising → Trust-based, decentralised, and responsive, avoiding the traps of rigid structures that get hijacked.
Resisting the urge to close → Every time a movement feels under attack, there’s a knee-jerk reaction to centralise and control. That’s how we lose.
Recognising how #dotcons manipulate OPEN/CLOSED → They’ve mastered open for them, closed for us, and turned it into a system of social control.

To take these step we need to admit we live in a gatekeepered world, yes the old media gatekeepers are gone, but what we have now is worse. The illusion of openness in the #dotcons masks a totalitarian model of control that makes traditional media censorship look almost quaint. Until we acknowledge that, every alt project will keep getting swallowed or broken from within.

The challenge for #OMN & #openweb is that we need to rebuild media and organising from a place of resilience, not just reaction. The #geekproblem, the #NGO mess, and the left’s failure to defend its own tools have left us in a weak position, but there’s still compost to grow something from. So, who’s ready to get their hands dirty?

Cutting through 99% of the #techshit

The #openweb is a much better framing than #fediverse when trying to break out of the tribal bubbles. It speaks to something broader and historical, whereas #fediverse is just one (flawed) expression of those ideas.

Why #openweb matters, it’s not new, which is actually a strength, this is the original internet vision before it got hijacked by #dotcons. It avoids the self-referential nature of the #fediverse, which often turns into a closed loop of devs talking to devs. It’s a term that can bridge communities rather than reinforcing in-group/out-group dynamics.

The limits of mirroring #dotcons, the first stage of the #fediverse, was largely about copying corporate social media platforms but without the profit motive. That was useful, but it’s hit a ceiling. Why? Lack of real community support – Devs build stuff, but actual social infrastructure is missing. Scaling the wrong way – Just copying individualist, engagement-driven models doesn’t actually create an open, healthy network. Reinforcing the #geekproblem – Developers remain in control, not communities, which leads to predictable NGO-style behaviour creeping in.

Shifting the balance in tech, we can’t just keep replicating the #mainstreaming mess in different codebases. The tech itself needs to reflect the values of the #openweb, decentralised in governance, not just code, community-led, not dev-controlled, process transparency, not just ‘open-source’ performatively.

Dealing with the #geekproblem, devs are used to solving problems in isolation, but society isn’t a coding challenge. They often bring #NGO behaviour into the #fediverse, expecting deference to their authority—and then act surprised when there’s kickback.

Being #openweb native, if you’re coming from the NGO world, you’ll have a much better time if you actually engage with the native culture of the #openweb rather than trying to impose external hierarchies. Otherwise, you’ll just recreate the same socially and self-destructive patterns that have wrecked everything else. So yeah, to boost this thinking, we need to start using #openweb more and move beyond the #fediverse branding trap.

The #4opens and #nothingnew both cut through 99% of the crap so the few people who are going to do something can do something that would be useful rather than unless. From useful you get a few more people, rinse and repeat, and you get social change and challenge, even if this is repressed or implodes, it will be more fun, and interesting than the current mess making.

We can’t keep simply repeating this mess

The last 40 years of #mainstreaming has been nothing but a slow, suffocating descent into #climatechaos, driven by a #deathcult logic that normalised destruction as “common sense.” The worst part? A lot of our critical thinking is still shaped by the corresponding #postmodernism, which has left us floundering in relativism, unable to take action beyond fragmented, individualist gestures.

We’ve utterly failed to build functional alternatives in the last decades. The social, political, and technological landscapes have been co-opted, watered down, and turned into managed dissent. Now, we’re stuck in the wreckage, watching the same people who pushed these failed agendas still setting the terms of debate. Time to #KISS name it, challenge it, and compost it.

Open vs Closed is the core struggle, when activism falls into a shitty, stinking process, it’s always because of control-freakery, and there are only two paths:

Open Process

If a project is meant to be open, then trying to close things down and hide the dysfunction will only make things worse. The stink seeps out, poisoning everything, the project’s core, its relationships, and every decision made. The dysfunction becomes baked into the structure, leading to a downward spiral of more control, more secrecy, more rot. Eventually, you’re left with an entirely closed project, despite all the performative openness.

Closed Process

If a project is meant to be closed, then it survives by kicking out dissent, tightly controlling information, and maintaining hierarchical power until it either runs out of funding or loses public goodwill. Trying to “open up” a closed project without a total upheaval is nearly impossible, the repressed dysfunction will explode the moment it’s exposed.

NGOs & Activists: The false open, most NGOs and activist groups operate in a messy hybrid of open/closed. NGOs pretend to be open with consultations and focus groups, but the real decisions happen in closed rooms to maintain funding and careers. Activist groups start open, but as they grow, they close up due to power consolidation, internal conflict, and scale limitations. Trust-based affinity group organising remains one of the few viable models that doesn’t automatically lead to closure, but that’s a whole other discussion.

The “Dogma” of open, we need to be unapologetically clear, open projects must stay open, or they rot. Closed projects will never be meaningfully opened without collapse. NGOs & fake-open activism serve as control mechanisms, not movements for real change. This is the core challenge we keep running into: Open vs Closed. How do we stop repeating the same mistakes?

Just to remind you, the last 40 years of #mainstreaming has been a #deathcult when you look at our slow drift into #climatechaos, we can’t keep simply repeating this mess.

Let’s try a #spiky view of #fluconf

Am sure these are all “nice people”, but they are also the parasite class https://fluconf.online/program/ events like this are as much problem as solution – likely more so in the current mess. Nice as a facade, hiding small-minded, petty, nasty, invisible rot of the commons as a community.

What a mess we keep making. Yeah, it’s the same old cycle—polite, well-meaning polishing the surface while the rot spreads underneath. These kinds of events present themselves as solutions, but they’re a part of the problem, consolidating small influence, reinforcing the same tired invisible hierarchies, and sidelining anything truly change and challenge that we need.

They build in closed, insular circles, focusing on their own comfort and tiny carriers rather than the actual struggle happening outside their “curated spaces”. It’s all managed dissent—safely disrespectable, and ultimately toothless. They won’t rock the leaky boat because they are the leaky boat, floating uncomfortably along the wreckage of our tech paths

The invisible rot is the worst part. It’s not just individuals being “bad” people; it’s how structures of control creep in through do-bureaucracy, funding dependencies, and #fashernista gatekeeping. What starts as an open, messy movement shrinks, institutionalised, and turned into #techchurn at best or a cog in the #NGO machine at worst.

Meanwhile, real alternatives, we need, the commons, the #openweb, grassroots movements are not here, the cycle repeats. That’s a #spiky view what would a #fluffy view look like, we need more composting #fluconf

A #fluffy view, is more that the problem is less “them” than “us”, we are not creating the spaces that they could be better people though. So we fucked up here, what are “we” going to do about this mess making?

The difference between struggle and #fashernista ethics. The latter is comfortable. The former matters.

Power in tech isn’t neutral, and our issue over the last 20 years is that we have allowed the #dotcons to hoarded and weaponised it. The answer to our failer isn’t to retreat or seek more “ethical” enclosures, it’s to reclaim our power through radical, commons-based networks like #indymediaback and the #OMN.

This argument is #nothingnew, we don’t need endless reinvention, we need continuity. The #openweb isn’t about mimicking #dotcons; it’s about breaking their privatisation model and returning power to collective hands. Hashtags, metadata, and federated networks help on this path, but the real strength is social, not just technical.

Examples of this: #Indymediaback isn’t just a project, it’s a continuation of a proven model that worked before the #dotcons stole the narrative. It was a social technological project embedded in radical movements, used real-world trust systems, and functioned outside of state/corporate control. Rebuilding it isn’t nostalgia; it’s a practical step toward rebalancing power.

We need ongoing arguments about power, opting out or running to “better” #dotcons just dodges the issue. Power is always there. The question is who holds it, and for what purpose? Right now, the #dotcons wield it for social control, profit, and policing. The #openweb flips that, if we build it as a “native” path.

The fight isn’t about making people “feel good” about tech choices, it’s about removing power from enclosures and putting it back into the commons. That’s the difference between real struggle and #fashernista ethics. The latter is comfortable. The former matters.

Paranoia is one of the biggest blockers in alt-tech and radical spaces. It breeds mistrust, isolation, and internal sabotage, making collective action impossible. While some caution is necessary, too much just feeds into stasis and control, mirroring the systems activists are trying to break away from.

The #4opens is a direct antidote to this. Transparency counters paranoia, when decisions, processes, and networks are open, there’s less space for suspicion to fester. Trust isn’t built by secrecy but by consistent, open, and accountable action.

The irony is that a lot of these paranoid actors think they’re resisting control, but by shutting everything down, they’re just self-sabotaging. The solution isn’t more walls—it’s more flows. The #4opens provides the framework to move past the paranoia blockade and rebuild trust in practice, not just theory.

The victimhood narrative is often a trap, weaponised by the right and co-opted by the #fashernista left to shut down alternatives. It can be used as a tool of control, not liberation. Composting the mess, in part, by refuse to play their game, victimhood, is in part real and in part is used to create moral authority without real action. If we engage on those terms, we just get dragged into performative battles.

Expose the power dynamics, by asking who benefits from this? In the negative sense, it’s often gatekeepers who want to control the narrative. NGOs do it for funding, #dotcons for engagement, and #mainstreaming activists for status. A path out of this is reclaiming direct action, which sadly meany in the left abandoned, and the right picked up. We need to take it back, not through reactionary purity politics, but by actually doing the work outside their controlled spaces. A healing path is shifting from identity to process, the current model is all about who is speaking, not what is being built. That’s a dead end. We need #4opens process-driven organising, not personality cults or gatekept “safe spaces.” Make failure visible, one of the biggest weapons against alt movements is pointing out their failures, while #mainstreaming projects hide their rot. If we embrace messy openness, we take that power away.

Breaking the cycle:

The right weaponises grievance → to mobilise.
The liberal left weaponises grievance → to control and suppress real challenge.
The alt-left needs to weaponise transparency → to break gatekeeping and rebuild trust.

So the question is: how do we make “openness” an effective tool in this? The #4opens is a step.

Songs that matter, in our times

The La Marseillaise, the French national anthem, one of the bloodiest and most revolutionary anthems ever written. It’s a war song, a call to arms from the French Revolution, dripping with the spirit of resistance and rage against tyranny. Unlike the polite, polished nationalism of modern times, this one doesn’t hold back. It’s about rising up, fighting back, and paying the price in blood when necessary.

And yes, we need this for the coming #climatechaos. The urgency is the same, an existential crisis, the threat of total destruction, and the need for people to move rather than just mourn. So where’s our battle cry? Where’s our marching song for an age of collapsing ecosystems and corporate #feudalism?

Who are the bad guys? Same as always: the kings, the traitors, the plotting tyrants, only today they wear suits instead of crowns. The CEOs, the oil barons, the lobbyists, the financiers, the politicians who smile while signing our death warrant. The #deathcult that prioritises profit over people, extraction over regeneration, and control over cooperation.

The fight isn’t just climate collapse, it’s against the entire path we are on. The enemy isn’t just rising seas, but the hands gripping the wheel as we drive off the cliff.

So yes. It’s time to start singing again. Loudly.

The Digger Song is a call to action, that still matters now as we try to compost the mess of capitalism, climate collapse, and broken politics. It’s about taking back what was stolen, land, resources, autonomy, by working together, not waiting for permission from those in power.

The Diggers weren’t dreamers, they were doers. In 1649, they squatted land, grew food, and built communities outside feudal control. They understood that private property is violence, that hoarding land and resources is the root of inequality.

Fast-forward 400 years, and we’re in the same fight. The enclosures never ended, they just shifted from fields to data, ideas, culture, and technology. The #dotcons fence off the #openweb, billionaires hoard wealth while people freeze and starve, and everything, from social movements to ecology, is turned into a commodity.

“We come in peace, they said, to dig and sow…”

We need this spirit in today’s fight, whether it’s radical media, grassroots organising, or the battle against #climatecollapse. Instead of begging for scraps, we take what we need. We compost the rotting systems of control and plant something better.

“You lords and you ladies, so proud of the earth,
Think that you maintain us in power and mirth;
But down with your fences, all nature reclaim,
For the earth was made a common treasury for all!”

The Diggers weren’t waiting for permission. Neither should we.

The English equivalent is Jerusalem, we are drowning in defeatism, nihilism, and passive despair. Blake’s words, set to Parry’s soaring melody, are a defiant call to build, to resist the decay and corruption, to forge something better with our own hands.

Blake wasn’t celebrating the past, he was raging against the present. Against the industrial hellscape replacing the green and pleasant land. Against the exploitation, the greed, the machine of empire grinding people into dust. Sound familiar? The climate is collapsing, communities are atomised, and the rich build fortresses while the rest drown, burn, and starve. Yet, we are told to accept it, to sit down, be reasonable, and wait for the same path that caused the disaster to save us. This is a call for activism:

“I will not cease from mental fight,
Nor shall my sword sleep in my hand…”

We need this spirit, this refusal to surrender. Not just in politics, but in how we rebuild the #openweb, how we fight the #deathcult, how we create spaces outside of corporate and state control. This isn’t about nostalgia; it’s about taking up the hammer and the spade, writing the code and stepping into the storm, to make something better.

Please add more in the comments.

Crossing the River: Tech & Politics

Most tech and political projects are pointless. They churn in circles, endlessly repeating the same mistakes. The river that needs crossing—where tech meets politics—is blocked on both sides. On the political side: arrogance and ignorance. On the geek side: naivety and over-complexity.

A solution? #NothingNew. Most of the problems we face have already been solved, or at least mediated. Instead of chasing the latest shiny, we should be composting the old and using what already works. The #4opens is a way of stepping away from the current tech mess, cutting through the churn, and building something that lasts.

Politics, of course, is messier. As always, “people are afraid of what they do not understand.” But that fear has been weaponised. Thatcher and Reagan’s children, raised on market dogma, are hopeless at cooperation. They can’t think beyond #stupidindividualism, and that’s a serious problem when trying to build #openweb projects.

If we want real change, we need to stop trying to own everything and start learning how to work together. Otherwise, we’ll keep drowning in the same river.

Rethinking Technology

A lot of the post on this site are based on this thinking. Technology is how a society interacts with physical reality. It’s how we feed, clothe, shelter, and heal ourselves. It’s the material stuff that makes life possible, from cooking fires to solar panels, from flint knives to AI algorithms. The idea that only ‘hi-tech’ counts as technology is an absurdity born from a century and a half of industrial brainwashing.

We’ve been so numbed by endless ‘progress’ that we assume only things as complex as computers and jet bombers qualify as technology. As if paper, ink, wheels, clocks, and aspirin pills weren’t tech—just things that exist, like trees and rivers. As if steel saucepans with copper bottoms and fleece vests spun from recycled glass grew on trees, ripe for the picking.

The false divide of ‘hi-tech’ and ‘low-tech’ is a con. Try lighting a fire without matches—realise that even so-called primitive tech takes skill and knowledge. Try making a fishhook, a shoe, or a simple tool—realise how much has been lost in the rush towards hyper-specialised consumerism.

Tech isn’t just what we consume—it’s what we can learn to do. That’s the point. And all science is, at its core, technological, whether or not we understand this.

A lot of what the #geekproblem thinks as social is just as much technology, as the hard blinded modernism they tend to worship, cults are as much a problem as a “solution”. Our social structures that we use to shape the world our geeks tend to “blindly” worship is technology #KISS

Post inspired by https://www.ursulakleguin.com/a-rant-about-technology

The idea that technology is not politics (which is a technology) is an echo of the myth that is at the very heart of our predicament.

#Technology #NothingNew #TechShit #OpenWeb #4Opens #DeathCult #DIY #CompostTheFuture

Bridging the gap: Building a human-first #openweb

Many years ago, I wrote on my website sidebar: “A river that needs crossing—political and tech blogs: On the political side, there is arrogance and ignorance; on the geek side, there is naivety and over-complexity.” Decades later, we still to often find ourselves standing on opposite shores of this river, struggling to bridge the understanding gap between human-centric communities and the techno-centric mindset of the “geek class.” This divide is a core challenge for anyone invested in building a better, decentralised #openweb.

This battle isn’t just about technology—it’s a deeper, unspoken struggle between openness and control. It’s about whether our social networks and communities will empower human trust and collaboration, or continue to be shaped by closed systems that reduce people to passive users.

To touch on this, it’s worth looking at a tale of two projects: Diaspora vs Mastodon

The history of the #openweb provides stark lessons. Consider #Diaspora and #Mastodon, two decentralised platforms with very different outcomes.

Diaspora had significant funding, public attention, and a large team of coders. Yet, it failed completely. Why? It was built with a #FOSS closed mindset—trying to replicate the control features of corporate platforms but within a decentralised framework.
Mastodon, by contrast, had no funding, minimal publicity, and just one dedicated coder. It succeeded because it embraced openness—allowing communities to organically grow and evolve based on shared principles rather than top-down control.

The lesson is clear: projects rooted in openness thrive, while those built on closed fail.

The #OMN path is human trust networks over algorithms. One of the core goals is to learn from these past successes and failures. From these focuses on growing federated human communities by prioritising openness, trust, and collaboration over technical “perfection.”

A counterintuitive path – Why Spam and “Bad Content” Matter. It might sound counterintuitive, but spam and irrelevant posts are a necessary part of building communities. Without the challenge of sorting and filtering content, there’s no reason for humans to reach out, form trust networks, and collaborate on moderation. Geeks often see spam as a technical problem to be solved with algorithms, but this approach misses where the value is.

Algorithms centralise power, when we rely on black-box technology to handle content moderation, control shifts to the people who design and manage these “boxes”. This creates invisible hierarchies, as seen with #Failbook and other #dotcons platforms. By relying on human moderation and trust-building, communities become stronger and more self-sustaining. People are motivated to engage, connect, and contribute to a path they help shape.

Spam and low-quality content must flow into the network as part of the process, but the network itself should flush this out to organically push valuable content to the top through human effort. Of course there is a balance here, this decentralised approach keeps power in the hands of the community balanced with the coders. With this flow of data and metadata established, we put some federated structure in place.

Scale through federation creates organic grow.

Base Sites: These are narrow, local, or subject-focused publishing sites where content creation happens. They are small and community-driven, and their true value lies in their specificity and grassroots community engagement.
Middle Sites: This aggregate content from the base sites, adding value by curating, tagging, and filtering. They act as the core of the network, sifting through content to ensure quality and relevance.
Top Sites: These are broad outreach platforms designed for #mainstreaming content. They are easy to set up and administer but add little original value. Instead, they highlight and amplify the best content from the base and middle layers. These sites are the change and challenge.

This structure reverses the traditional value pyramid, where top-down platforms dominate. In the #OMN model, the true value resides at the grassroots base, while the top merely reflects the collective effort below.

Moderation as a feature, not a problem, for the network to thrive, it must scale through human connections and trust, moderation is the fuel for building the trust networks.

Trusted Links: Content flows through trusted networks, where moderators ensure quality.
Moderation Levels: New contributors are moderated until trust is established. Over time, as trust builds, moderation becomes less/unnecessary.
Failure Modes: Without trust-building, sites will either become overwhelmed by irrelevant content or collapse under the weight of unmanageable workloads.

The only way to maintain a useful site is to build, either a large, healthy community with diverse moderators and administrators, or a small, focused group based on high-quality, trusted connections. Both outcomes are desirable and reinforce the decentralised ethos of the #OMN.

Why automation fails, the temptation to automate everything is a hallmark of the #geekproblem. While algorithms might make a network “technically” better, they erode the human element, which is the entire point of decentralisation. Automation creates middling-quality networks with mediocre outcomes, leading to Signal-to-Noise problems, reduced motivation, if everything is automated, why bother forming trust networks and engaging deeply?

Less is more should be a guiding principle. By focusing on simplicity and human collaboration, the #OMN avoids the pitfalls of over-engineering and maintains the integrity of its community-driven mission to build a better future. The #OMN isn’t just about technology; it’s about creating spaces where people can connect, collaborate, and build trust. It’s about empowering communities to take ownership of their networks and their narratives.

This road won’t be easy. We’ll need to fight against the inertia of the #dotcons and resist the urge to repeat the mistakes of the last decade’s failed alt-tech projects. But by embracing the #4opens principles, we can create a web that serves people, not corporations. The tools are already here. The open internet still exists, for now. The choice is clear, build for humans, not for algorithms. Trust people, not black boxes. Decentralise, federate, and grow organically. The #OMN provides a roadmap—now it’s time to follow it.

Public Social Media: The Choice is Clear

As the #fashernista and #geekproblem “debate” over social media platforms intensifies, the choice between truly public, decentralised networks and corporate-controlled #dotcons has never been clearer. Let’s look at a simple example:

Mastodon is owned by no one and everyone (community-driven). Its structure is public non-profit. Number of distributed nodes are in the thousands (fully decentralised). Post length: 500 characters and more. Can edit? Yes. Mastodon represents the native #openweb. It’s built on decentralised principles, where people and communities own and control their spaces. There’s no central authority dictating rules or exploiting for profit.
Bluesky is owned by Venture Capitalists, Its structure is corporate for-profit. Number of “distributed” nodes: One (centralised in practice) Post length: 300 characters Can edit? No. Bluesky, despite its claims of decentralisation, is owned and operated as a for-profit venture. Its structure centralises power and prioritises profit over people’s control, offering a polished but limited alternative to #mainstreaming paths.

The choice between #Mastodon and #Bluesky reflects a broader conflict between decentralisation and #dotcons corporate control. It should, but often is not easy to see that networks like the #fedivers are native to the #openweb where Bluesky is an interloper, though they are both #4opens.

Projects like the #OMN, #4opens, and the #Fediverse itself, offering freedom, community ownership, and transparency. Bluesky, on the other hand, represents the same closed, profit-driven ethos of the #dotcons, repackaged in a new “shiny” wrapper.

When you choose a network, you’re not just choosing where to post, you’re choosing what kind of internet you want to build. The open, public internet is still within reach. The choice is clear.

Seed from a toot and image from @FediTips

How we got into this mess

The true extremists in today’s society are the right-wing and the centrists, while the left-wing represents the moderates. This may seem counterintuitive, but when you examine the dynamics of power and ideology, it becomes clear. The past 40 years of neo-liberal dogma, embedded in every corner of our institutions, have pushed society apart. This deliberate fragmentation created fertile ground for extreme reactions.

In the 20th century, we understood why soft social democracy was necessary. It provided a buffer, a compromise that kept society from tearing itself apart. But the neoliberal project, championed by the so-called “centrist elites”, dismantled that social compact in pursuit of unregulated markets and corporate power. They planted and ploughed this mess, blinded by their own hubris. And now, those same centrists, the article-writing class, weep over the chaos they sowed.

Our liberals, many of them lovely and fluffy, and a few still hard and spiky, do not have the answers to today’s crises. Their “thinking,” rooted in this mess, is the problem. They can’t see past the path they’ve perpetuated, systems that have led us to this breaking point.

The reality is stark: for the next 40 years, it’s either the right or the left. There’s no neutral ground anymore, no room for centrist dithering. It’s time to take a side and buckle in for the ride. At the end of this upheaval, we might claw our way back to a social democratic compromise—or we might not.

The choice is clear, but the path will not be easy. The centrists and right-wingers won’t relinquish power without a fight, and the left will need to be bold, clear-eyed, and united to counter their influence. Whether we end up with a more equitable society or descend further into chaos depends on where we plant our feet today.

The web wasn’t built by solo tech geniuses

The web wasn’t built by solo tech geniuses, finance firms, or flashy luminaries making illusionary promises. It was grown by the collective time, energy, and creativity of millions of grassroots people and communities working together to create something greater than themselves. The internet as we know it emerged not from the top-down visions of elites, but from decentralised, collaborative efforts. This same collective energy will be what propels us into the next era of the #openweb, a web that remains true to its native principles of accessibility, freedom, and inclusivity.

For the last 20 years, however, we’ve been stuck in the corporate-controlled ecosystem of the #dotcons. Platforms like Meta, Google, and Amazon have dominated the landscape, turning the internet into a commodity to be bought, sold, and controlled. Their vision has led to the rise of the #closedweb, where profit and surveillance trump openness and collaboration. This #mainstreaming path is deeply concerning because it fundamentally contradicts what the web was meant to be, a space for sharing, learning, and connecting without the old gatekeepers.

There is a movement to reverse this trend, the #Fediverse, but like meany reboots it’s floundering as it grows through the inrushing of “common sense”. What we need is native #KISS foundations for a thriving #openweb, A path to this is to embrace the #4opens as guiding principles:

Open Data: Ensuring that information can be freely shared and reused.
Open Source: Building tools and platforms that anyone can access, modify, and improve.
Open Standards: Creating interoperable systems that work across platforms and communities.
Open Process: Making decisions transparently and inclusively to foster trust and collaboration.

This is a simple retelling of the #FOSS process with the addition of #openprocess as is used in the best projects, this is a part of the #nothingnew path we are on.

It’s not enough to critique the #dotcons, we need to actively build alternatives, the #Fediverse has already taken the first set on this path. The next step is focusing our energy on “native” projects like #OMN (Open Media Network), #IndyMediaBack, and #OGB (Open Governance Body), on this path we can create a decentralised, human-centred web that prioritises communities over corporations. These projects are not about recreating the same flawed systems in a slightly different guise; they’re about fundamentally rethinking how we engage with technology, governance, and communication. This rethink is #nothingnew as it’s copying the working structure of grassroots activism.

The time is now to come together and make history by working on these alternatives. The #openweb is not just an ideal; it’s a necessity for a sustainable, democratic future. Let’s reject the illusions of the #closedweb and instead build a web that truly belongs to everyone.