Navigating the Dynamics of Alt-Projects

The landscape of alternative projects, or Alt-projects, is an evolving path where people with diverse motivations and backgrounds walk and converge to push shared goals. Over the course of more than 20 years of direct involvement in meany Alt-groups, I’ve seen recurring patterns and dynamics that shape the trajectory of these paths and projects. In this undated post from 2007, I provide insight into this and offer a frame for understanding the roles of different participants during stages of an Alt-project’s path.

Firstly, let’s define the terms used to think about (categorize) participants:

1. Getting Things Done People: These individuals and communities are driven by a desire to see real results and are focused on action rather than process. While they are instrumental in initiating projects, they may eventually transition to other roles as things progress.

2. Working People: Often overlooked, these people form the backbone of any alt-project, contributing tirelessly to its execution and maintenance. Despite their contributions, they receive minimal recognition for their efforts.

3. Bureaucrats: In a positive sense, bureaucrats are people skilled in creating and navigating structures within alt-projects. They play a crucial role in sustaining the project, but inadvertently perpetuate dysfunction when influenced by other groups.

4. Theorists: These people bring theoretical perspectives to alt-projects, often challenging/pushing conventional wisdom and advocating for alternative approaches. However, they struggle to find their voice within consensus decision-making processes, leading to marginalization.

5. Life Stylists: Emerging from the periphery of alt-projects, life stylists are drawn to successful initiatives but lack a clear commitment to sustained involvement. While some integrate into other roles, others contribute to a burgeoning lifestyle aspect within the project.

The evolution of an alt-project unfolds across several stages:

1. Initiation: Driven by “getting things done” people, projects begin with a burst of energy and enthusiasm.

2. Expansion: As projects grow, a mix of working people and bureaucrats join the effort, providing stability and structure.

3. Specialization: With the project’s scope widening, “getting things done” people branch out into parallel initiatives, placing greater responsibility on working people and bureaucrats.

4. Consolidation: Burnout among initial instigators leads to a shift in focus towards sustaining the project, with bureaucrats and working people assuming central roles.

5. Peak and Decline: At its zenith, the project faces the dual challenges of maintaining momentum while grappling with internal dynamics. Lifestyle groups emerge, exerting influence and potentially alienating new participants.

6. Reactivation Attempts: Recognizing signs of decay, a coalition of remaining “getting things done” people and long-standing bureaucrats seeks to revitalize the project. However, debates among theorists and lifestyle groups tend to stall progress.

7. Renewal Efforts: The Gathering is called to address project stagnation, participants confront the challenges of consensus decision-making. Despite goodwill, the exclusion of key voices perpetuates underlying issues.

This cyclical process underscores the complexities of alt-projects and the importance of practical action in sustaining engagement. As burnout and disillusionment set in, parallel initiatives emerge, drawing in fresh energy and redirecting the focus of participants. Ultimately, understanding these dynamics empowers people to make informed decisions about involvement in alt-projects, contributing to a more sustainable and effective activist landscape.

Thoughts on alt organising from 2007

A positive view of Postmodernism in tech

In the postmodernist mess of the last 40 years, this is a balanced positive from the negative view. In the context of projects of the #OMN (Open Media Network), #OGB (Open Governance Body), #indymediaback, and #makinghistory.

Postmodernism/modernism influences the approach to media, governance, and historical narratives:

Distributed and Decentralized Media: Postmodernism challenges the idea of centralized control over media and information. Projects like #OMN and #indymediaback embrace a decentralized model where content creation and distribution are open to communertys, rather than controlled by a select few. This approach reflects postmodern skepticism towards grand narratives and authority, allowing for diverse voices and perspectives to be heard.
Open Governance: Postmodernism’s emphasis on skepticism towards authority and power structures informs the approach to governance in projects like #OGB. Instead of traditional hierarchical structures, open governance bodies work for transparency, inclusivity, and participatory decision-making processes. This reflects a postmodern rejection of centralized authority in favour of distributed forms of power.
Alternative Historical Narratives: Postmodernism challenges dominant historical narratives and encourages the exploration of alternative perspectives and counter-histories. Projects like #makinghistory aim to democratize the production of historical knowledge by allowing communities to share their own stories and experiences. This approach recognizes the subjective nature of historical interpretation and emphasizes the importance of diverse voices in shaping our understanding of the past.
Emphasis on Multiplicity and Pluralism: Postmodernism rejects the idea of a single, objective truth in favour of multiplicity and plurality of perspectives. Projects like #OMN, #OGB, #indymediaback, and #makinghistory embrace this diversity by providing platforms for a wide range of voices and viewpoints. Rather than privileging one perspective over others, these projects aim to foster dialogue and exchange between different communities and individuals.

Overall, postmodernism shapes the philosophy and approach of these projects by challenging traditional notions of authority, truth, and history. By embracing decentralization, openness, and plurality, the projects seek to empower communities, promote inclusivity, and challenge dominant narratives in media, governance, and historical discourse.

The negative history of this movement and its role in the current #deathcult

The negative aspects of postmodernism, particularly when intertwined with #neoliberalism, have had detrimental effects on society, including influencing projects like #OMN, #OGB, #indymediaback, and #makinghistory:

Fragmentation and Atomization: Postmodernism’s emphasis on deconstruction and skepticism towards grand narratives has contributed to the fragmentation of society. Instead of fostering solidarity and collective action, it has led to atomization, where individuals prioritize their own experiences and perspectives over communal goals. In projects like #OMN and #OGB, this fragmentation can hinder effective collaboration and decision-making, as individuals prioritize their personal interests over the common good.
Relativism and Truth Decay: Postmodernism’s rejection of objective truth has paved the way for widespread relativism, where all beliefs and perspectives are considered equally valid. While diversity of thought is important, this extreme relativism leads to a breakdown in shared understanding and consensus. In the context of #indymediaback and #makinghistory, this can result in the proliferation of competing narratives and a lack of accountability for factual accuracy, undermining efforts to construct a progressive cohesive historical record or media landscape.
Crisis of Authority and Expertise: Postmodernism’s skepticism towards authority and expertise erodeds trust in social institutions and grassroots experts, leading to a crisis of legitimacy. In the absence of trusted sources of information, conspiracy theories, misinformation, and disinformation thrive, further contributing to societal polarization and distrust. In projects like #OMN and #indymediaback, this crisis of authority can undermine efforts to establish credible media platforms or governance structures, as participants may question the legitimacy of leadership or expertise.
Commodification of Identity: Postmodernism’s focus on individual identity and difference has been co-opted by neoliberal capitalism to commodify identity and diversity. In this neoliberal/postmodern paradigm, diversity and inclusivity are reduced to marketable commodities, used to sell products and services rather than challenge systemic inequalities. In projects like #OGB and #makinghistory, this commodification of identity can undermine efforts to address structural oppression and promote genuine social justice, as diversity and inclusivity become mere branding (lifestyle) exercises rather than catalysts for systemic change.

Overall, the negative aspects of postmodernism, exacerbated by its alignment with neoliberal ideology, have contributed to social/economic disintegration, truth decay, erosion of trust, and the commodification of identity. In the context of projects like #OMN, #OGB, #indymediaback, and #makinghistory, these dynamics hinder efforts to foster any genuine collaboration, construct meaningful historical narratives, and promote social justice. Recognizing and addressing these negative influences is crucial for building a working #openweb

We need to bridge the balance between these stresses, “don’t be a prat” is a start to this path.

We can work together?

The is occasional discussion surrounding the classification of different versions of the #web, such as #Web01, #Web02, #Web03, #Web04, or #Web05, this is not merely an academic exercise but an aspect of understanding the evolving nature of the digital landscape. However, the proliferation of these hashtags leads to confusion and contribute to the spread of fear, uncertainty, and doubt (#FUD) among users, people and communities.

In response to this confusion, proofer to use the hashtags #openweb and #closedweb which offer a clear and concise way to delineate between platforms that embrace openness, transparency, and community control (#openweb) and those that prioritize proprietary technology, centralized control, and lack transparency (#closedweb). By using these hashtags, we foster a better understanding of the ideological and technical underpinnings of different web platforms and paths.

Projects like #indymediaback and #OMN exemplify grassroots efforts to promote decentralized, community-controlled media and communication platforms. These initiatives can become vital in challenging the dominance of large corporations in shaping the digital paths and in offer an inclusive, diverse, and community-controlled approach to technology development.

At the heart of this discussion lies the #geekproblem, which highlights the tendency among technologically people to prioritize technical solutions without considering their broader social implications or the needs of ordinary people. By recognizing the #geekproblem, we begin to address the inherent biases and limitations of tech-centric paths to problem-solving and can then move to advocating for solutions that are inclusive and community-driven.

The solution to this “problem” lies in developing social tech that transcends the #geekproblem and focuses on the needs and perspectives of communities. This needs a diverse group of people in the development and decision-making process and promoting open-source code, open standards, open governance, and open data in technology development. By embracing this #KISS path and principles, we create a more equitable, transparent, and collaborative #4opens ecosystem.

However, this requires overcoming challenges, including the resistance of the status quo and the fear of change. By actively using the #4opens to judge projects, we challenge the prevailing narrative, call out pointless technologies, and compost the #techshit that contributes to the perpetuation of harmful social dynamics.

Moreover, it is essential to recognize that the struggle for a more sustainable future is inherently political. The dominance of large corporations and the perpetuation of #neoliberal ideologies pose significant barriers to any progress. Therefore, it is imperative to mobilize collective action and advocate for policies and initiatives that prioritize, balance the needs and well-being of communities over these profit-driven interests. Without this, the progressive tech dev will fall on barren ground.

In conclusion, the use of hashtags such as #openweb, #closedweb, and #4opens serves as powerful tools for organizing and mobilizing grassroots efforts to challenge the status quo. By embracing these hashtags and the values they represent, we work towards a future where technology serves the interests of the many rather than the few.

Let’s try harder, please.

The universal mandate of SSL – We need a pragmatic approach to #openweb security

The story around universal #SSL has been presents as a purely technical and inevitable improvement, make everything encrypted and the problem is solved. But technology is not separate from the social systems around it. SSL/TLS encryption improves security, the question here is not whether encryption is useful – it clearly is. The question is what happens when one technical approach is treated as a universal requirement, and what that tells us about the changing culture of the web.

The distinction matters because the original #openweb was built around accessibility, decentralization, linking, experimentation and the ability of ordinary people and communities to publish their own material. The #closedweb, by contrast, concentrates infrastructure, ownership and control in #dotcons platforms and technical institutions. From this view, the universalisation of SSL raises an interesting #openweb question – when does a useful security technology become part of the centralizing infrastructure?

This is where the #geekproblem enters, not as an argument against technical expertise, technical knowledge is essential. The problem comes when technical solutions are treated as if they exist outside social context – when a technically elegant answer becomes more important than accessibility, participation, resilience or the paths of ordinary people.

Universal SSL becomes an example of this thinking. For a technically confident organization, obtaining and maintaining certificates may be straightforward. For a small community project, #DIY server operator or someone trying to put a simple service onto the web, the accumulated requirements becomes another layer of technical knowledge, infrastructure and administration. Each individual requirement may appear reasonable, the cumulative effect can still be exclusionary.

There is also a deeper infrastructure question – security versus centralization. Modern web encryption depends on certificate authorities and a chain of trust. That creates powerful intermediaries between the person running a website and the person visiting it. Let’s Encrypt is an important part of this ecosystem and has made HTTPS certificates easier and cheaper to obtain. That is a genuine achievement.

But concentration still deserves scrutiny. If large parts of the web depend on a relatively small number of organizations and technical systems for establishing trust, then those systems become important points of power and potential failure. The isse is whether security has to mean centralization, a very #openweb question – that the more interesting issue is not SSL itself but the cultural shift – from voluntary tool to universal rule “This is a useful security tool.” to “Everything must work this way.”

Once a technical standard becomes mandatory through browsers, hosting providers, search engines, platforms and infrastructure, the choice is no longer being made by the person running the website. The web becomes easier for some people and harder for others, large #dotcons platforms absorb the complexity were the small community projects have to learn another system.

The corporate developer gets another abstraction layer, the DIY operator gets another thing that can break. This is how the #openweb slowly become a #closedweb without anyone explicitly deciding to close it. Nobody has to say “Ordinary people shouldn’t run websites.” instead, we simply keep adding requirements until doing so becomes difficult.

This is the problem for the fear-based path to security, were security is presented through fear: Hackers – Attack – .Surveillance – Identity theft – Compromise – Catastrophe. Yes, some of those threats are real, but fear paths produce a particular response: more control, more centralization and more dependence on trusted authorities. That is a conservative path to security, were the assumption becomes that safety comes from putting more infrastructure between ordinary people and the systems they use.

The #openweb asks a different question – can we create security through distributed trust, understandable systems and resilient communities rather than simply adding more layers of authority? That doesn’t mean abandoning encryption, it means refusing to treat encryption as the whole answer. A healthy #openweb needs encryption, it needs transparency, it needs understandable infrastructure with multiple paths to trust. It needs decentralization, it needs people who can actually participate – this is where the #4opens idea of trust becomes useful.

The #openweb needs systems that can fail locally without taking huge parts of the web down with them. Secure, open, understandable and resilient infrastructure that ordinary people and communities can use. We need to be able to ask – Who controls the infrastructure? Who gets to participate? Who gets excluded? Where are the points of failure? Who decides what counts as trusted? Can communities maintain their own systems? Can ordinary people understand enough of the infrastructure to control it? And what happens when the trusted intermediary fails?

These are not only technical questions, they are questions about power. The #openweb should not become a place where security means handing more control to increasingly centralized technical institutions. We need a different balance: encryption where it is useful, open standards wherever possible, decentralized infrastructure, transparent processes and multiple forms of community trust.

The criticism is of the assumption that one technical solution should become universal without considering the social and infrastructural consequences. Security should protect the #openweb, not become another mechanism for closing it down. That is the #4opens challenge and why the debate about universal #SSL is ultimately not just about SSL, it is about what kind of web we are building.

A look at where we are at in our #openweb reboot

It’s helpful to reflect on the list at Fortifying the Fediverse: Decentralized Trust and Safety 2024 as it reveals the values of the groups they represent. Importantly, it also provides a glimpse of where our shared #openweb reboot might be heading.

Blacksky: This project, created by the crypto crew for the #NGO liberal types, is firmly rooted in the #dotcons sphere. While it claims to align with #openweb values, its foundation leans towards control and capital rather than grassroots paths. Yes it adds diversity to the ecosystem but will likely become another messy experiment that feeds into the compost pile. Support it if you feel inclined, but be prepared with a shovel to deal with the outcomes.
Bonfire Networks: A project from the #NGO world trying to push into grassroots territory. However, history is littered with similar efforts that fail repeatedly due to their inability to adapt to the #openweb’s native ethos. While it contributes to diversity, its trajectory reflects a pattern of missteps.
Darius Kazemi: A #mainstreaming grassroots figure who has a notable presence but seems more focused on occupying space rather than producing actionable outcomes. While there might be potential utility here, none has been apparent thus far.
db0: This one remains a mystery for now; no further insight is available.
Emelia Smith (@ThisIsMissEm): I’ve had conversations with Emelia, but their contributions seemed incoherent and mostly negative. They might align with the #fashernista tendency—style over substance. Time will tell if they add value or continue in this vein.
Erin Kissane: A figure from the NGO and academic world who shows an appreciation for grassroots efforts but is not inherently part of that ecosystem. There may be some utility here, but needs meaningful contributions.
Fediseer: An intriguing but unclear initiative. It’s worth keeping an eye on to understand its objectives and implications for the #openweb.
Independent Federated Trust and Safety (IFTAS): This group has ambitions to play a core role in trust and safety, but has yet to approach this responsibility with the respect or engagement needed for genuine collaboration. As with similar #NGO projects, it’s wise to have a shovel ready to compost any emerging mess.
Lemmy: Originally a Reddit clone, this project has taken an interesting turn by decentralizing its focus towards forums and wikis. It’s an intriguing experiment that deserves continued observation as it evolves.
Mastodon: A truly native grassroots project that has been instrumental in expanding the fediverse and the adoption of ActivityPub. However, as the project grew, it gravitated towards an #NGO-like structure and began engaging in #mainstreaming. This shift is a natural but challenging path for projects as they scale.
Newsmast Foundation: An #NGO initiative centred around liberal #mainstreaming of news flows. While it adds diversity to the ecosystem, there remains an urgent need for native grassroots media projects to balance this narrow perspective.
Pixelfed: A companion project to Mastodon with a similar ethos. While it’s a positive addition to the ecosystem, its path leans towards #mainstreaming. It’s sometimes positioned as a token example of diversity by the Mastodon team, which could become problematic if this narrative goes unchallenged.
Social Web Foundation: An #NGO-backed initiative with some grassroots influence from its current leadership. However, in vertical structures like this, leadership tends to shift with changes in funding, which will alter its trajectory.
Spritely Institute: A strong technical project focused on a more peer-to-peer (#p2p) approach. While the technology is promising, its messaging and outreach need significant improvement to achieve broader understanding and any adoption.

This list reflects the diversity and challenges within the #openweb space. It underscores the need to balance different approaches, highlight the very real lack of native grassroots efforts, and the need to remain vigilant against co-option by #dotcons and #NGO mainstreaming paths.

Or an earlier draft:

It’s helpful to look at a list from https://about.iftas.org/2024/12/23/fortifying-the-fediverse-decentralised-trust-and-safety-2024/ as it reflects the values of the groups they represent. And more importantly where our shared #openweb reboot is going.

Blacksky is a #dotcons being built by the crypto crew for the #NGO liberal types, it is native to the #openweb so part of diversity, but, in the end likely more mess to compost, support it if you like but have a shovel handy.
Bonfire Networks comes from the #NGO world pushing into the grassroots, not native and like all projects with this motivation there is a long history they fail, and fail, and fail. It’s a problem flow in the #openweb so a part of diversity.
Darius Kazemi a #mainstreaming grassroots person, who talks and takes up space, might have some use but not as far as I know.
db0 do not know this one.
Emelia Smith (@ThisIsMissEm) I talked to this one, but they did not make sense and were largely negative, #fashernista maybe. Who knows, let’s see.
Erin Kissane NGO and academic guy who likes grassroots, but is not. Might have some use, but not so far as far as I know
Fediseer This is a strange one, what is this about?
Independent Federated Trust and Safety (IFTAS) An in-group pushing into a core role, not respectfully so far, but let’s see where they go. Have a shovel at hand to compost the mess.
Lemmy Has an interesting history, a clone of Reddit, then pushing the core coding out to forums and wikis, it’s interesting and worth watching.
Mastodon a native grassroots project that pushed the fediverse and activitypub wider. With this move, as the project grew, they shifted to the #NGO path and engaged in #mainstreaming as people do.
Newsmast Foundation a #NGO project of liberal #mainstreaming news flows, fine as a part of diversity, but we also need native grassroots.
Pixelfed is a companion to mastodon, a good project, if soft and #mainstreaming in its path. Is kinda used as meto project by the mastodon crew to say the is diversity, this could be a problem if unchallenged.
Social Web Foundation is a #NGO backed project, it has a bit of grassroots to it from its current leadership, but leadership changes in vertical structures when funding flows changes.
Spritely Institute a good tech project, a more p2p path, but hard to understand, needs actual outreach.