“Bad Faith” Arguments Dominate Social Media

Social media is a cacophony of voices, opinions, and debates. It was supposed to democratize communication, providing a network where people could have their say. But instead, to often, it’s become on one hand an addictive drug to plassify and indoctrinate people and on the other a battlefield where “bad faith” arguments thrive. This isn’t a coincidence; it’s a feature of how these platforms are designed from the last 40 years of mess making. The algorithms of the #dotcons like Reddit, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and their ilk, are built to prioritize engagement over truth, sensationalism over sincerity, and division over understanding. The prevalence of bad faith arguments on social media is a glaring symptom of a deeper problem, the way these platforms are fundamentally structured to reward the worst aspects of human behaviour.

Why we must act on this. A bad faith argument is not a desire to seek truth or understanding, rather to manipulate, deceive, and derail a conversation. The goal is not dialogue or progress, but to “win” the conversation to maintain dominance in the social media space. These tactics are rampant on platforms driven by metrics like shares, likes, and comments, which measure engagement but not the quality or sincerity. This mess includes straw man tactics, misrepresentation, abd outright lies.

The dotcons centralized platforms are controlled by corporate interests, built from the #deathcult, this revenue and control comes from keeping users engaged for as long as possible, usually through sensationalist content that triggers emotional responses. Outrage, fear, and anger are potent engagement tools; they make people comment, share, and return to the platform to see what happens next. Bad faith arguments are perfect for this model because they often incite strong reactions.

In this addiction economy, every comment, share, and retweet is currency. This economy thrives on polarization, controversy, and conflict. Users are encouraged to build their own “brands,” around strong opinions or divisive stances. This devalues nuanced discussions and good faith engagement, and is how bad faith arguments not only survive but thrive on these networks.

This is particularly damaging for people and movements trying to push meaningful social change to challenge the current mess. Meaningful conversations are drowned out by bad faith noise, making it easy to lose direction. People who want to build alternatives are caught up in the quagmire of defending themselves against disingenuous attacks rather than advancing the conversation and developing practical paths away from the very mess they are stuck in.

On the people to people #openweb, community-oriented path, this problem is not as bad. Decentralized, community-run spaces, offer a refuge from the dynamics of the dotcons, but this balance also needs work. This is still a side show, the reality, for many, these alternatives seem fringe or unnecessary as this mess spills over into constant nasty and exhausting social media firefights. People burn out, lose focus, and become cynical, feeding back mess to drive people to not sustain the move to the #openweb, all outcomes that benefit the status quo.

The dominance of bad faith arguments on dotcons social media is not an accident; it’s a product of platforms designed for profit and control rather than social good. The challenge for the openweb is to foster spaces where dialogue can thrive. This needs effort, both in technical development and social engagement, it requires a shift away from the toxic paths of the #dotcons and toward a more humane, decentralized, and open online and offline paths. Let’s take the first step by acknowledging the mess and then get to work composting this #OMN.

Looking at this, it’s understandable that critical voices are met with resistance for speaking plainly about the gravity of our environmental and social crises. Many people struggle with the harsh reality we are highlighting because it’s easier to maintain a hopeful or neutral stance than to confront the depths of the crisis. By addressing these issues directly, we do push people to think critically about the precarious state of the world, even if that message isn’t well-received.

The discomfort some feel in response to this pushing reflects a broader cultural tendency to avoid confronting grim truths. However, it’s often the uncomfortable truths that spur meaningful change. Acknowledging the severity of environmental breakdown, rising authoritarianism, and fascism is crucial to forming strategies that can address them. In essence, this message challenges the status quo, which is why it’s met with resistance, but it’s that very challenge that fosters a much-needed awakening in others. Let’s keep pushing for that realism; it’s part of the solution.

The #openweb, the #commons, the real-world spaces we build are where the future lies

Resilience is community and trust, this resilience grows by connecting the actions of today to the possibilities of tomorrow, even when that future is unknowable. It’s rooted in community, and community thrives on mutual trust. Trust isn’t about keeping a ledger; it’s about giving freely without expectation. Money is not the foundation of resilience. Across the world, billions live resilient lives by supporting each other, because if they don’t, they all go under. From our privileged view, we often forget that resilience is nurtured in these commons.

We need to think about this: The idea of dual power isn’t new. It goes back to revolutionary moments when people realized the need to build alternatives to existing oppressive structures rather than only confronting them head-on. In the current political climate, where the failures of state and capitalist control are glaring, we need to revisit and reframe this idea of “dual power”. This isn’t a utopian dream or a naïve belief that we can merely build around the edges while the world burns. It’s about creating practical, grounded alternatives that directly challenge the existing system by living outside of it and dismantling it from the inside.

The current mess, look around. We are surrounded by a mess of our own making. The relentless march of #neoliberalism has commodified every aspect of our lives, and the #dotcons have taken over our social spaces, transforming genuine human interaction into data points for corporate profit and control. The state, meant to serve the people, is a tool of the greedy and nasty, maintaining control through fear, surveillance, and repression. It doesn’t take much to see that the paths we are currently on are leading to #climatechaos, widespread inequality, social and ecological breakdown.

But here’s the problem: most people still think we have choices within this mess. They talk about reforming the system, fixing capitalism, or making dotcons tech more ethical while continuing to operate on the same lost paths. This is delusion, a comfortable delusion for some, but a delusion nonetheless.

On the #DIY path, dual power is about creating parallel paths that coexist with the current ones but serve entirely different functions. Instead of asking for scraps from the masters’ table, we build our own tables, with food that nourishes everyone. It’s about constructing alternative social, economic, and political structures that are directly in opposition to the current hierarchies and power dynamics.

It’s not just about building alternative structures, though. It’s more important for actively delegitimizing and dismantling the existing power structures of capitalism and the state. This involves #directaction, solidarity, and collective organizing to challenge and change state and capitalist control in all its forms. It’s about a two-fold strategy: building the new while composting the old.

Why dual power matters, for too long, the left and radical movements have been stuck in reactionary paths, fighting battles on terrain chosen by the state and capital. We need to change this by recreating a new path, a space where we shape the traditions and myths that shape us. This is not just some theoretical exercise; it’s already happening in many parts of the world.

We see it in the #fediverse, on #mastodon, #bluesky and #noster networks, in grassroots mutual aid networks springing up during the current crises when the state and corporate structures fail. We see it in community run food cooperatives, decentralized digital spaces, and local assemblies where decisions are made collectively, rather than by a few in power. This is not an abstract idea, it’s lived practice, a shift from fighting against the system to creating something new and more humane.

Building dual power in a digital age, the #openweb and federated networks offer a glimpse of what dual power can look like. Unlike the #dotcons that feed on greed and manipulation, the openweb is rooted in principles that serve the community, #4opens, transparency, open collaboration, and autonomy. But even here, we often fall into the trap of merely copying the structures we’re trying to replace, creating the same mess under a different banner. The next step needs to be truly native to the 4opens path, transparent, open, and accountable, rejecting the commodification that the dotcons have normalized.

But digital spaces alone won’t save us. They are tools, important ones, no doubt, but we need a broader focus. We need to create real-world spaces of resistance and creation. Think community gardens that also serve as meeting points for local decision-making. Think of decentralized energy cooperatives that break free from corporate control. Think of neighbourhood assemblies that replace the hollow, bureaucratic local governments that most people have lost faith in. This is dual power in practice.

The roadblocks, the #Geekproblem and #Fasherista paths, let’s not romanticize this process. We need to acknowledge the challenges within our movements, the #geekproblem and the #fashernista paths that unconsciously block the change we need. The geekproblem is the obsession with technical solutions over social and political ones, while the fashernista path focuses on trendy but superficial activism that serves as more of a social club, careerism, than a serious challenge to power. Both paths have their place, but they should not dominate our paths. We need to keep our focus on the bigger picture.

Moving beyond the noise, to those who say, “Now is not the time,” I ask, “When will it be?” The crisis is here. We are all worshiping the #deathcult, masking 40 years of #neoliberal ideology, pretending we have choices that simply don’t exist. Now is precisely the time to dig in, get our hands dirty, and start composting this mess we’ve been dragged into. The work ahead isn’t easy, and there will be mistakes, missteps, and mess-ups along the way. But that’s okay. Composting is messy work, and so is building a more open and sustainable world.

If you’re waiting for someone to tell you what to do, you’ve already missed the point. Dual power isn’t a blueprint; it’s a living practice. It’s a call to start building the new and composting the old, right now, where you are. Lift your head, look at the mess, and start digging. Together, we can build something better than the scraps we’ve been given. Join us on this humanistic adventure in social technology and direct action. The #openweb, the #commons, and the real-world spaces we build are where the future lies. Let’s make it happen #OMN

The #openweb and #fediverse is anti-viral?

DRAFT

There is #mainstreaming criticism that the #fediverse has “anti-viral” features, as there is no central algorithm promoting specific content to go viral, but this is not entirely accurate. What this actually points to is a deeper issue within the social path of the #openweb itself. The notion of “anti-viral” isn’t about a lack of features; it’s about how certain structures and behaviours are actively discouraging people with larger reach from thriving in these “native” spaces.

It’s a people to people web, so huge accounts can’t and don’t talk back, so can’t be “native” to this path. It’s not a question of choice, rather a question of path. It might be useful to think about this, as these conversations being #blind to thinking outside their current #dotcons path, and thus unknowingly bring it into the openweb reboot.

The problem with the talk of “Anti-Viral” is pushed up by current outreach. When people say that the Fediverse lacks virality, they are focusing on the absence of centralized algorithms, found on corporate platforms (the #dotcons). On those, algorithms drive engagement by amplifying sensational and emotionally charged content, at the cost of meaningful discourse and ethical considerations. In contrast, the Fediverse is praised for being different, more community focused, more human scale, and more about interaction rather than manipulation by algorithms, however, this is still a perspective missing a crucial point.

What we are actually seeing is that the Fediverse has developed social norms and features that end up pushing away people who “go viral” or have large followings. The problem isn’t just that the platform lacks virality; it’s that it lacks the infrastructure and culture to support people with large followings in a way that feels sustainable and meaningful. Large Accounts don’t thrive, by design.

The #openweb and #fediverse are built on the principles of decentralization and #DIY community, which are fantastic for fostering small, intimate interactions. However, this structure makes it difficult for larger accounts to function. Why? Because the social architecture is inherently hostile to large-scale influence based on one way broadcasting.

Large accounts can’t engage meaningfully with their followers in a people-to-people web. When you have thousands of people interacting with your posts, it becomes impossible to engage in a way that aligns with the native path that is part of the code of the #fediverse.
Without centralized moderation, content moderation is a community effort. This can mean that people who attract controversy, whether deserved or not, increase the instance workload, creating a practical culture that is inhospitable to “big voices” paths and agendas.

The “People-to-People” Web is set up to favour small-scale interactions and communities over larger, more influential voices who are more normally broadcast media focused. This is both good and bad, yes it can be a problem when we think about the kind of impact we want the #openweb to have. In this, It’s not about changing the current path but creating parallel ones, the solution, we need to move beyond the #stupidindividualism of copying the microblogging of the #dotcons and think of balancing with “native” oprochs to media, the #indymediaback project is an example of this path, which we do need to take.

Broadcast media is not social media, we need to build out the Fediverse with this in view.

———————————–

The Myth of “Anti-Viral” Fediverse: A Path Problem, Not a Feature Problem

There is a common #mainstreaming criticism that the #Fediverse has “anti-viral” features—meaning it lacks a central algorithm that promotes content to go viral. While this may seem accurate on the surface, it actually points to a deeper issue within the social path of the #openweb itself.

The notion of “anti-viral” isn’t just about missing features; it’s about how the social structures and behaviors of the Fediverse actively discourage large accounts from thriving in these “native” spaces. It is a people-to-people web, which means that huge accounts—those with thousands or millions of followers—cannot meaningfully engage with people at scale. It’s not a matter of choice but of structural design.

This is important to understand because much of the conversation around “anti-viral” fails to step outside the #dotcons path. People coming from corporate social media unknowingly bring their assumptions with them, expecting the Fediverse to function in the same way.

What “anti-viral” really means, critics, focus on the absence of centralized engagement-driving algorithms—the kind found on corporate platforms (#dotcons). These algorithms prioritize sensational, emotionally charged, and controversial content to maximize user engagement. In contrast, the Fediverse is structured to be more community-focused, human-scale, and interaction-driven rather than manipulated by algorithms.

However, this framing misses a crucial point, the issue isn’t just about missing algorithmic amplification, the Fediverse has developed social norms and features that actively discourage large accounts from thriving. Large accounts don’t fail due to a lack of virality—they fail because the culture and infrastructure aren’t designed to support them.

Why large accounts struggle on the fediverse, the #openweb and #Fediverse are rooted in decentralization and #DIY community-building, which are fantastic for fostering small, intimate interactions. However, this same structure makes it difficult for large accounts to function, because:

The People-to-People Web Doesn’t Scale for One-Way Broadcasts, Large accounts cannot engage meaningfully with followers in a way that aligns with the native interaction path of the Fediverse.
If thousands of people interact with a post, it’s impossible to respond in a way that fits the small-scale, community-driven ethos.
Content Moderation Is a Collective Effort, Not a Centralized One, Without centralized moderation, controversial accounts create workload pressure on individual instance admins. More controversy = more moderation burdens, making the Fediverse structurally inhospitable to high-profile users.
The “People-to-People” Web Prioritizes Small-Scale Interactions, The architecture favours small, engaged communities over mass broadcasting. This is great for community resilience but limits the ability for larger voices to exist organically.

Beyond #StupidIndividualism: Creating Parallel Paths Instead of Copying #Dotcons

If we want the #openweb to have an impact, we can’t just copy the microblogging model of the #dotcons and expect a different outcome. The Fediverse doesn’t need to change its current path, but it does need to parallel paths that allow different media approaches to thrive alongside it.

One solution? #Indymediaback.

The #IndymediaBack project provides an alternative approach to publishing that isn’t locked into the “social media” framing of the #dotcons. Instead of trying to make the Fediverse work like Twitter, we need to build native, federated broadcast media that works within the #openweb values.

Broadcast Media ≠ Social Media. To build a thriving #openweb, we need to stop treating broadcast media and social media as the same thing. Instead, we should:

Develop media models that work at different scales rather than forcing one system to do everything. Support federated, trust-based networks where large voices can operate in ways that fit the architecture. Think beyond the “individual” model of content production—this isn’t about one person going viral, it’s about building resilient, collective media structures.

The Fediverse isn’t broken—it just isn’t designed for the kind of viral engagement that corporate platforms push. If we want large-scale influence on the #openweb, we need to build native alternatives instead of trying to force the wrong models onto it.

Free Software is Political

In progressive discussions about technology and open source, there is intolerant pushing of mess from people who say “just focus on the code” without the politics. This is an understandable outlook, but it is also stupid, based on a misunderstanding of what is Free/Open Source Software (#FOSS). This everyday pushing of mess making comes from #blinded #mainstreaming people claiming that FOSS is “a-political” or should be kept that way, and shows a lack of any understanding of this movement.

As this article highlights, the idea of “a-political” Free Software is not only incorrect; it’s historically nonsense. Free Software is intrinsically and unavoidably political. It is not simply about code; it is about who controls the code and, therefore, who controls the user. This is why the path that many projects take, to jam FOSS into capitalism without addressing these core issues, is a mess and failing path.

The roots of free software are in a political and ethical movement that just happens to focus on software. “Computer users should be free to modify programs to fit their needs, and free to share software, because helping other people is the basis of society.” This is not just a technical stance; it is a moral, ethical, and political one. The idea that users should have the right to control their own digital lives and help others do the same is at the heart of Free Software. This #KISS foundation opposes proprietary software, where users are legally prevented from helping their neighbours, thus restricting their freedom.

“Computer users should be free to modify programs to fit their needs, and free to share software, because helping other people is the basis of society.”

The emergence of the “Open Source” in the late 1990s pushed change on this “native” path, into a more #mainstreaming direction by shifting focus to development benefits, pushing out the ethical and political core. This, however, does not change the foundational politics of Free Software, it merely tries to mask it, to hide it, by pushing out of sight the political core, this is mess making and the normal mainstream “common sense” when it comes to taking up any Alt paths, this is a history we need to stop.

The difference between Free Software and Open Source: “Open source is a development methodology; free software is a social movement.” For the #opensource path, non-free software is a suboptimal technical solution. For the FOSS path, non-free software is a social problem that needs challenging and changing. This is a distinction that some who try to take this path fail to recognize, leading to the meany messy social and coding projects we try to make work today.

As the #dotcons world builds crises of privacy, control, and trust, the relevance of these distinctions, hopefully, becomes more into focus. From tech giants abusing data to governments exploiting backdoors, the ethical foundation that Free Software rests upon is needed, not optional.

The politics of software, the idea that software can be a-political, is a misunderstanding of what software does and represents. As Larry Lessig says – “Our choice is not between ‘regulation’ and ‘no regulation.’ The code regulates. It implements values, or not. It enables freedoms, or disables them. It protects privacy, or promotes monitoring.” Every decision in software development, from what features to include, to how data is handled, to what kind of accessibility is provided, is a political one. There is no “neutral” code. Decisions about prioritizing user rights, security, and privacy are political decisions, and they shape the wider digital networks we live within.

All code is ideology solidified into action – thus most contemporary code is capitalism, this is hardly a surprise if you think about this at all. Yes, you can try and act on any ideology path from this code, but the outcome and assumptions are preprogramed. If we continue to pretend that the software and platforms can be devoid of politics, we are, taking a side, and actively contributing to the mainstream mess that dotcons push, and this is the mess we urgently need to move away from. As outlined on my website, we need to focus on building a #openweb projects that respect people, rather than merely mimicking corporate platforms with a veneer of openness as we do so often, on the #Fediverse, #Bluesky etc.

Conclusion: stop pretending and start building, to those who wish to “just code” without the politics, it needs to be continually pointed out strongly that is impossible in the path of impactful software development. Every piece of software carries with it values, ethics, and political implications. Acknowledging this is the first step toward building digital networks that serves the people, rather than controlling them. We need to walk a path away from the mess of #mainstreaming towards a more open and humanistic internet.

This is not a hard path to take #OMN

The problem with fragmentation

The #openweb is inherently social, as it’s a people to people network, so pushing the term Open Social Web and resulting hashtag #opensocialweb or #socialweb by NGOs and #fashernista groups is adding mess at best and real damage at worst. While the intention might be well-meaning, it introduces confusion and fragmentation, by unthinking mirroring #dotcons thinking. We need to be more creative with how we label and focus our efforts, especially in grassroots and community-driven movements like the openweb which is already people to people, so the is no need for the #dotcons term “social” in this naming.

The problem with fragmentation of focus, where the openweb is a clear and powerful term that encapsulates the vision of a decentralized, user-controlled internet built on #4opens software. The adding of more confusing hashtags like #opensocialweb dilute these values and attention, creating complexity in #KISS movement messaging. When there are multiple competing narratives and names for the same or similar movements, pushed by misalignment of goals, different agendas, these feed the draining, infighting and confusion. Reducing efforts better spent building, maintaining, and promoting “native” paths and projects. It’s very easy to get sidetracked into debates over terminology, brand-building, and differentiation, we are doing exactly this here.

The need for mediation and focus, It helps to have a unified message that resonates across all levels of engagement, from developers and activists to end-users. The openweb as a concept is comprehensive enough to encompass social, technical, and ethical aspects without needing to create splinter terms. Together with the existing “native” 4opens, we really should not be pushing and focusing on vague or nebulous terms, we should double down on the 4opens, an actionable framework that guides our development, organization, and communication. This clear foundation allows for KISS coherent and effective advocacy, outreach, and development work.

Let’s try and moving on this by encourage honest reflection, critically examine our use of terms and reflect on whether they align with the broader goals. The path we need is the support of community driven efforts, prioritize grassroots projects and initiatives that adhere to the 4opens rather than being swayed by NGO-driven and funding narratives that dilute this simple path.

The focus should remain clear and strong on building a robust, decentralized, and user-controlled #openweb. With diversity in unity and clarity in disagreements, not a proliferation of “fluffy” terms that distract from the #KISS path. Mediating these tendencies towards jargon and fragmentation is important to the momentum needed for real change. Ideas please?

The Slow Evaporation of FOSS value

The article “The Slow Evaporation of the FOSS Surplus” by Baldur Bjarnason discusses the gradual decline in the effectiveness and sustainability of Free and Open Source Software (#FOSS) within, unspoken context of a capitalist economy. The argument is that FOSS, once a thriving ecosystem driven by community effort and collaboration, is now being drained of its vitality by the growing dominance of corporate interests.

Bjarnason points out that the initial “surplus” of creativity, time, and resources that allowed FOSS to grow is being consumed as #dotcons extract value from open-source projects without reinvesting in their development or maintenance. The maintaining of these central projects is thus falling on unpaid or underpaid developers, leading to burnout and stagnation. This mess leads to a less diverse and less vibrant FOSS ecosystem, with projects struggling to sustain themselves without the good will, resources and community support they once had.

This current path highlights a fundamental issue, trying to fit the ethos of FOSS with in the framework of capitalism is a losing battle. FOSS is based on principles of collaboration, sharing, and community effort, its values are a very bad fit with capitalism’s focus on profit maximization, competition, and market control. Attempting to push FOSS, for example the open-source movement, to work better in the mess is not only unsustainable but also counterproductive.

There is an increasing untenable cost to #mainstreaming FOSS within capitalist norms. In simple terms, burnout and decline of community projects. The commercialization of FOSS compromises its fundamental principles—collaboration, freedom, and shared knowledge. Instead of serving the public good, projects are twisted to serve corporate agendas, often at the expense of the communities that built them. This leads to a loss of sustainability, to a decline in quality, security vulnerabilities, and eventually, the abandonment of core projects.

The main problem we face is few people believe there is any viable alternative to this current mess. To ansear this I have been writing for more than 20 years on my website, that there is, clearly showing the pressing need to move away from the #mainstreaming, capitalist path, and how the solution is not to “fix” FOSS within the capitalist framework but to use FOSS as a tool to step away from the current mess.

In the face of global crises like onrushing #climatechaos and resulting social and ecological break down, it becomes clear that we don’t have the choices we pretend we do. We can’t keep perpetuating the myth that we can, or should, bend open-source and collaborative technologies to fit the current capitalist path without real repercussions. With this strongly in mind, we need to use activism to mediate the #mainstreaming pretence, to shift resources and focus to explore alternative paths that align better with the values of #FOSS and the #openweb. The project I talk about a lot, the #OMN is such a path.

This involves, reinvigorating community-driven development by prioritizing projects that serve public interests and are maintained by communities of action. To create new economic models, such as cooperatives, public funding, and community-supported software to feed a culture of resilience to take the dangers paths of then next century.

In this widened view of the original post, “the slow evaporation of the FOSS surplus” I try and make visible the broader systemic failure we need to think about for change and challenge. We are running out of time and resources to take different paths, it’s crucial to recognize that the challenges we face, from software sustainability to climate change. We need to stop pretending that patching up the current system will work and start building new pathways that are true to the “native” #openweb values, to demand a radical departure from the status quo #KISS

What is the #openweb

A fresh look at this path. The #openweb is a decentralized, people-centric internet that contrasts sharply with the centralized #closedweb being pushed by major #dotcons platforms. The openweb is founded on principles of openness, transparency, and community empowerment, it is not just about technology, but also about fostering a different kind of social relationship online, one that is rooted in collaboration, diversity, and mutual aid.

Core Principles:

Decentralization: Unlike the centralized structure of the pre Internet silos and current app based dotcons paths, where a few companies control vast swathes of our space, the openweb promotes a distributed architecture where no single entity has overarching control, it’s a “commons” for all of us.
The openweb is built that people and communities have more control their data, metadate and online experiences. It rejects the practice of data extraction and surveillance that is prevalent on the current corporate platforms.
Transparency and Openness, the openweb embraces openness in all its forms—open source software, open standards, open data, and open processes. This transparency ensures that technology is accountable and accessible, fostering trust based on the #4opens which is a simple core path we need to take.
Community and collaboration, the current openweb reboot is about people coming together to create, share, and collaborate. It moves away from the competitive, profit-driven nature of the dotcons and towards a more cooperative, community-oriented approach where diverse voices can contribute and be heard.
Interoperability is core to this space, this means “native” tools and protocols that allow different systems to communicate and work together, reducing dependence on any one company or technology stack.
Resistance to mainstreaming and #deathcult mentality, it needs strong resistants to the push towards #mainstreaming and the #deathcult mentality to mediate the relentless profit-seeking and homogenization. To hold to the path of celebrating diversity, alternative thinking, and radical approaches to building online communities.

What the #openweb is not

Not a copy of the #dotcons, while some openweb projects have attempted to replicate the features of the major platforms (like Facebook or Twitter) in open-source form, the openweb vision goes further. To create something fundamentally different, not just a #FOSS (Free and Open Source Software) version of existing corporate models.
Not a walled garden, the #openweb opposes the concept of walled gardens, closed environments that limit people expression and force them to live within controlled ecosystems. It promotes open standards and protocols that allow people to move freely, based on trust, to connect across different spaces.

How can you become a part of this and contribute to building the #openweb

Support and use Open-Source Tools, contribute, what you can, to open-source alternatives that respect people.
Promote interoperable solutions by advocate for tools and technologies that work together seamlessly. Encourage developers to use open standards to ensure their software can communicate across different networks.
Educate and advocate by raise awareness about the problems with the current #dotcons path and the benefits of a decentralized, people controlled web. Share knowledge and resources to help more people transition too good #UX openweb alternatives.
Build community led networks, this need to focus on developing code that prioritize community needs and values over profit. Encourage collaborative governance models where people and communities have a say in how platforms are run and developed.
Experiment with new networks, to look beyond simply copying existing platforms and think creatively about what a genuinely #4opens people centred internet could look like. Explore new forms of social interaction, data sharing, and content creation that are native to this path.

The #openweb path is about “composting the mess” created by the #dotcons, taking what is broken or harmful in our current digital environment and transforming it into something healthy and sustainable. This means acknowledging the flaws in the current system and actively working to build something better. This path is a tool for empowerment, creativity, and connection, rather than exploitation and control, are you ready to pick up the shovel and start composting the mess? The path is here, and it’s open to to people willing to take part in this humanistic adventure in social technology.

Linking on the #OpenWeb: Why It Matters

If you are interested in outreaching this #openweb reboot on the #dotcons to bring more people in, there is a group on Reddit for this outreach https://www.reddit.com/r/openweb/ had to set up a new group as the post doing this are being removed from other subject groups, yes it’s a mess, but outreach to hand hold people stepping away from the #dotcons matters, thanks for your help in this path.

Mediating the prat’ish behaviour and #deathcult mentality

When alternatives bridge to #mainstreaming in our #openweb movement and the broader #dotcons landscape, we find ourselves confronting a troubling dynamic—a rise in prat’ish behaviour, characterized by ego-driven conflict, divisiveness, and resistance to meaningful change, this threatens to undermine the real progress we urgently need.

At the heart of this issue is the 40 years of #deathcult mentality—a mindset defined by #neoliberal values, the relentless pursuit of profit, and a shallow adherence to the mess of the current status quo. This mentality permeates not just the big tech giants, but also, unfortunately, seeps into our own #4opens movements, like the #fediverse, when we become entangled in reproducing their “common sense” paths.

The #deathcult is a useful metaphor to use, representing a blind adherence to systems that are actively destroying our planet, eroding our communities, and undermining our humanistic values. When we speak of current #mainstreaming as a killer problem, we are talking about this neoliberalism, and that while this is not a part of our culture, it feeds into it. It’s not only a problem with “them”—the dotcons—but is also reflected within our movements. Even in the openweb and #fediverse, spaces built to resist such values, we see tendencies toward this #mainstreaming creeping in, the huge influxes of liberals, bring the replications of patterns of hierarchy, exclusion, and competition, even as they claim to oppose them.

We need practical steps to mediate this and move to a constructive path:

Embrace radical honesty and reflection, we need to start with radical honesty about our own roles in perpetuating the problems we face. Are we unconsciously replicating the patterns of the #dotcons? Are we engaging in excluding grassroots native paths by that prioritize ego over community? Reflecting on these questions is crucial.
Promote transparent and open dialogue by creating spaces both online and offline for open and honest communication, like the #OMN. We need to move away from secretive, behind-the-scenes decisions and instead encourage a culture of transparency where disagreements are aired constructively. Use the #4opens (Open Data, Open Source, Open Standards, and Open Process) as guiding principles helps us pick better tools for this.
Encourage diversity of thought and approach, let’s challenge the #mainstreaming impulse by embracing a diversity of thought and approaches. Different strategies and solutions flourish, even if they seem unconventional or counter to prevailing norms. On the progressive path, encourage people to experiment, fail, and try again without fear of ridicule or exclusion.
Use shovels and compost as metaphors for action, instead of shovelling dirt on each other’s efforts, we need to shovel it into the compost heap—taking what doesn’t work or what has failed and turning it into fertile ground for new growth. This means consciously choosing to see conflict and disagreement as opportunities for transformation rather than threats.
Reject the #deathcult mentality, that is deeply ingrained but not unchangeable. Reject the idea that we must always be in competition, that progress is a zero-sum game, or that only the fittest deserve to survive. Instead, let’s balance cooperation, mutual aid, and community over profit, power, and exclusion.
Build real alternatives, not only #FOSS copies, many of our attempts to build alternatives have, so far, merely replicated the models of the #dotcons. It’s time to balance this copying of systems we oppose and instead start to create native alternatives, there are meany good histories we can build from, an example #indymediaback is more truly embodied in the principles we value.

Composting this mess, we need a way to mediate the prat’ish behavior and the pervasive #deathcult mentality. We cannot afford to be the ones saying, “Now is not the time.” To those who say this, I say: Get off your knees, lift your head, and look at the mess we have made. It’s time to confront this problem head-on and work hard to compost it.

If we are to get anywhere with the messy #openweb reboot we need to be nice when calling prats, prats, do it a lot, but try and keep this #fluffy

UPDATE: this is a difficult path, will use this space to LINK to the problem resources:

https://fediverse-governance.github.io/images/fediverse-governance.pdf this report is focused on #NGO #fashernista and to a lesser extent #geekproblm, the is useful information from this limited view path.

https://infrastructureinsights.fund the outreach text on this is nice, but look at who makes up the Review Board and you see the funding at best is poured down the drain, and, at worst, will misshape the #openweb native path.

And meany more, to help post links in comment for me to add and comment on, thanks.

Navigating the Trolls

There is a shifting of social and political paths underway, we will have a move to the left or the right, the centre path has made itself irrelevant through, with not having any valid path to mediate, growing social divisions and ecological breakdown. On the left in our efforts to find meaningful change, we often encounter the phenomenon of “trolling” a problem that has become more prevalent and divisive in recent years. The trolls, emboldened by the anonymity and reach of the #dotcons, try to act as gatekeepers of thought, determined to shut down any ideas or alternatives that fall outside their narrow, and often mean-spirited, views of the world. No matter which political ideology they think they are pushing, this is a right-wing path driven by fear and the need for control. It can be useful to look at these individuals as being drawn from two distinct but overlapping groups: #geekproblem and #fashionista.

The geekproblem, is normally a technical path, but on the social side they often approach activism with a rigid mindset, fixated on technological solutions or unthinking, thus #blinded ideological frameworks. These people are generally well-versed in their specialized areas – be it coding, digital security, or political theory – but are quick to dismiss any ideas that don’t conform to their existing dogmatic and blinded beliefs. Pushing themselves as guardians of “the truth” or the “right way”, but this is from their world they can see, and thus way to often so narrow as to be irrelevant in the messy world we actually live in and have to navigate our way through.

This attitude manifests as trolling behaviour, attacking, undermining, and deriding people who suggest different approaches and alternatives. They forget that the goal is not to dominate the conversation, but to build a collective path that embraces diversity and complexity. Their (blinded) rigidity becomes a barrier to experimentation and cooperation, stifling the messy but working solutions we desperately need.

On the other #blocking path, we have the #fashionistas who are more concerned with appearances, trends, and social currency within activist spaces and wider #mainstreaming society. This group prioritizes being seen as part of the “right” movements, using the “right” language, or following the “right” trends over actually engaging in real meaningful, substantive work. They engage in social gatekeeping, where deviations from the accepted norms or language lead to ostracization and public shaming. This too is trolling, shutting down anything that is outside their blind #deathcult fed #stupidindividualism. Adding to the mess, not composting it, unconsciously replicate the exclusionary tactics they sometimes claim to fight against, creating a culture of fear and conformity instead of openness, debate and the needed paths of diversity.

The consequence of this is the current lack of alternatives, the stifling mess where any alternative outside narrow definitions is attacked, ridiculed, then ignored. This prevents the growth of diverse solutions by marginalizing, then #blocking voices that think differently, and ultimately reinforces the status quo. In effect, the trolls on the internet, whether consciously or unconsciously, are blocking the change and challenge we need. This is a very right-wing path, what ever you might like to call this.

The sad and bad paradox is that these groups can share a genuine desire for social justice and systemic change, yet the inadequacy of their behaviour serves to uphold the paths and systems of oppression and exclusion they seek to dismantle. Trolling thrives on conflict and negativity, which feeds this mess so they can feed off it, it’s a nasty and negative circle.

What paths can we take? How do we move beyond this mess?

We can try and mediate this by focusing on compassionate communication, listening without instant judgment, speaking with some empathy, and seeking to understand rather than only to dominate—we can create spaces that are more inclusive and productive to find path to disagree without being disagreeable. Are we shutting down ideas too quickly? Are we dismissing people who don’t fit neatly into our ideological boxes? By staying open to self-critique, we can prevent ourselves from falling into the trap of this kind of narrow thinking. We can substance this path by building communities that have deepening roots in mutual aid and support.

To sustain these communities we need to focus on concrete actions, not only words, both the #geekproblem and #fashernista paths get bogged down in theoretical debates or performative displays of activism. Instead, we prioritize concrete actions that make tangible differences in our communities, whether through, building alternative networks to create spaces for messy dialogue and collaboration.

A first important step is to move outside the bindings of the dotcons, this is basic, the current internet infrastructure, dominated by social media giants (the #dotcons), is designed to amplify division, outrage, and addiction. To start to build meaningful alternatives, we need to step away from these platforms and cultivate the #openweb—decentralized, community-driven paths where we can experiment with new forms of social organization and communication.

For the last 20 years the has been a historic project, the #OMN, that is based on a culture that values diverse approaches, where multiple strategies and ideas can coexist, and where there is room for trial and error. To do this project requires a fundamental shift in an affinity group to move from rigid dogmas to a more flexible, #4opens approaches that encourage learning from the grassroot history mistakes and successes alike.

We can compost the negativity—the trolling, the rigid thinking, the performative posturing—to find fertile ground for new ideas to grow. To keep on this path we must remain open to different possibilities, willing to take risks, and courageous enough to challenge not just the status quo, but also ourselves. The trolls will always be there, but we don’t have to feed them. Instead, let’s focus on creating the world we want to see. The humanistic adventure in social technology, an Open Media Network of diverse voices and ideas. Let’s embrace the mess, compost it, and use it to grow something new. The path is open, and it can be a more happy one.

https://opencollective.com/open-media-network

Composting the mess

We live in a world surrounded by the mess we’ve created, both online and offline. Whether it’s the toxic influence of social media giants, the #dotcons, or the broader social issues we face, it’s easy to feel overwhelmed by the sheer scale of the problems. But what if, instead of despairing, we saw this mess as an opportunity? What if we could compost this mess, turning it into fertile ground for something new and beautiful?

Yes, the mess is everywhere, in our fractured communities, in the endless scrolling through algorithm-driven feeds, in the loss of meaningful connections, and in the environmental degradation that threatens our basic survival. This mess is the result of systems built on 40 years of greed, selfishness, and exploitation, paths that prioritize profit over people and the planet. It’s the #deathcult we have all been worshipping.

Our use of the #dotcons for the last 20 years, designed for maximum addiction for profit, have amplified this mess. They feed off our attention, our data, and our emotions, creating a cycle of dependency that pulls us further away from the open, decentralized web path we once envisioned. This mess is not just digital; it’s a reflection of the deeper social and environmental crises we face.

But there is a different path, messes can be cleaned up, and better yet, they can be composted. Just as composting turns organic waste into rich soil, we can transform the mess we’ve made into the nutrients to grow a better future. This isn’t about ignoring the mess or pretending it doesn’t exist—it’s about acknowledging it, learning from it, and using it to push positive change.

History matters, recognize the value in the mess: Every mistake, every problem, and every bit of chaos holds valuable lessons. The mess we’ve made online and in our communities reveals what doesn’t work and points us towards what could. By understanding the root causes of the mess, we can begin to address them in meaningful ways.
Reimagine to rebuild: The first step in composting the mess is to lift our heads from our current path. In the digital realm, this means supporting and taking a part in the current moving away from centralized, profit-driven platforms and towards decentralized, community-focused alternatives native to the #openweb path. It means mediating the #stupidindividualism that feeds the mess and embracing a more balanced, collective, cooperative approach to problem-solving.
Act locally, think globally: Composting the mess isn’t just a grand, abstract idea, it’s something we can all do in our everyday lives. By supporting local communities, participating in #4opens projects, and engaging in meaningful, real-world connections, we start to build the foundations for a healthier, more sustainable world.
Celebrate the journey: Composting is a slow, deliberate process, but it’s also incredibly rewarding. As we begin to see the fruits of our labour, stronger grassroots communities, healthier ecosystems, and a more open, democratic web, we can take pride in the fact that we’ve turned a mess into something beautiful. This is a journey worth celebrating, with all its challenges and resulting mess.

The happy path to a fertile future, the mess we’ve made, doesn’t have to define us. By choosing to compost it, we can create a future that’s richer with possibilities. Imagine a world where communities are connected and empowered, where the web is a place of openness and collaboration. This isn’t just a dream, it’s a reality that we can build together, one small step at a time. The mess is real, but so is our capacity to turn it into something better. Let’s roll up our sleeves, grab our shovels, and get to work composting the mess #OMN

And that, my friends, is a happy ending worth striving for. 🌱

Linking on the #OpenWeb: Why It Matters

The concept of linking is fundamental to the structure and philosophy of the web. Links are not simply a technical feature; they are the social connective tissue of the internet of people, enabling decentralized and interconnected paths where information is shared and accessed. However on the internet, as centralized platforms, the #dotcons, gained dominance, the social art and purpose of linking has unthinkingly been forgotten by current #fashionistas and is often actively blocked by the #geekproblem crew.

Let’s look back so we can look forward, linking is core to the path of creating a decentralized web of knowledge and wisdom. When you link to another site or resource, you’re effectively creating a pathway that connects knowledge and experience across different domains and cultures. This is how the web was originally envisioned, as a space where documents interlinked, allowing people to navigate from one piece of information to another seamlessly. This decentralized path contrasts sharply with the #closed ecosystems of current social media platforms, in which linking is discouraged, and knowledge and wisdom are siloed, controlled, for profit and power by closed algorithms.

Linking encourages collaboration and the sharing of knowledge. When you link to another’s work, you’re both acknowledging their contribution, and amplify their voice. This grows a cultural “commons”, a space where ideas and information are freely exchanged, built upon, and improved. The link is a gesture of trust and respect, integral to the “native” cooperative path of the openweb.

From a technical point of view, this path creates serendipitous discoverability, links are crucial for making information discoverable. The dotcons search engines like Google rely heavily on links to index content and determine its relevance. When your content is linked to by others, it signals that your content is valuable, this is used to raise its rank in search results. This is the essence of organic growth on the web, content becomes more visible as more people find it useful and link to it #KISS

Linking directly to sources and references maintains the basic integrity of the openweb. It allows people to verify facts, trace the origins of ideas, and explore related content. This is particularly important in an era where algorithmic pushing of misinformation spreads rapidly. On the KISS openweb, links provide the context and credibility needed to evaluate the trustworthiness of information.

The basics of how linking works on the native openweb:

Hypertext and hyperlinks, the web is built on the concept of hypertext—text that contains links (hyperlinks) to other text or resources. These hyperlinks are embedded within a webpage and, when clicked, take the user to a different location, whether it’s another page on the same site or an entirely different website. This simple mechanism allows the horizontal building of complex networks of information.
HTML and URLs, At a technical level, links are created using HTML (HyperText Markup Language), the standard language for creating web pages. A basic link is formed with the <a> tag, where href specifies the URL (Uniform Resource Locator) of the destination. For example: html <a href=”https://www.example.com”>Visit Example</a> This would create a clickable link that says “Visit Example” and takes you to the specified URL.
Inbound links, or backlinks, links from other websites pointing to your content. Outbound links are the links you create that point to external content. Both types of links are important.

We need to revive linking in the #openweb reboot. As for the last 20 years in the era of the dotcons, content was trapped inside walled gardens and the native path of linking was diminished. These “social media platforms” discourage, and then punished external linking, if you put a URL in a post the algorithm will hardly show that post at all, this keepa people and communities trapped to maximize addiction for profit and control. This has led to a fragmented web where content is invisible, less connected, and much less reliable. We lived for 20 years in shrinking echo chambers, feeding our rage and building ignorance.

Linking is much more than a technical function; it’s basic to the #4opens. By rejuvenating and embracing linking, we resist the centralizing forces of the #dotcons and walk the path towards a humanistic web that is open, accessible, and democratic. It’s time to remember what linking is for and to use this native path to build a better internet.

Let’s not continue to be prats on this, please. You can support this work https://opencollective.com/open-media-network

Humanistic adventures in social technology

The #dotcons are designed for greed and selfishness, everything about them feeds this and in turn feeds off this. This is coded into them and thus cannot be simply fixed, the problem we need to look at now is that we cannot reboot alternatives by simply copying them in #FOSS as we have done so far in the #Fediverse. This worked well for the first step, for the next step we need to move past simply copying the current #mainstreaming mess. The next step needs to be “native” to the #4opens path that we have started down. Let’s thank the people who copied, give them the gifts of statues and security, they did us all a service, they deserve thanks for this not hatred.

Let’s have a deeper look at this mess, the dotcons—centralized platforms like Facebook, Google, and Twitter—are built on principles of greed, selfishness, and the relentless pursuit of profit. These platforms thrive by exploiting people’s data, feeding addictive behaviours, and amplifying divisions. Their design is rooted in extracting value from people and communities while feeding the addiction, giving back only enough to keep people in their flow, this extraction is hard coded in their architecture. With this knolage we can understand that they cannot be “fixed” by merely tweaking their features or policies. The problem is systemic, and attempts to create alternatives by simply copying their models in Free and Open Source Software (#FOSS) falls short of addressing this.

We collectively need to breaking free from the dotcons, this is already well underway, through initiatives like the Fediverse, which attempt to decentralize control and return power to the users. While this is a commendable effort and important, it’s still largely a replication of existing social media structures with a different governance model. To create a sustainable and humanistic alternative, we must go beyond imitation. We need to build “native” to the values embodied in the #4opens: open data, open source, open standards, and open processes.

Designing for community, unlike the dotcons, which encourage individualism and competition, new networks to balance this need to prioritize community and collective action. Features that encourage collaboration, mutual aid, and the sharing of resources, rather than self-promotion and accumulation of followers or likes. Embracing the #4opens guides every aspect of this technological path and coding development, to ensures that the platforms remain transparent, accountable, and adaptable, rather than fallback in to being driven by profit motives and the resulting feeding of “common sense” #stupidindividualism

There are meany ways out of this mess, one is that rather than simply copying the features of the dotcons, we can learn from different paths, histories, for example what works in the unsung world of grassroots activism. This has been a central path to the of liberalism over the 20th century, these traditions won all our social rights we now take for granted, though yes, we do need better “songs” on this path to motivate people.

This means avoiding venture capital funding, the same profit-driven dynamics that plague the dotcons. Instead, we should explore, affinity group and more formal cooperative ownership models, crowdfunding, and other forms of collective investment. When moving out from the current path, it’s important to recognize the pioneers in the reboot of our networks, to acknowledge and thank those who have worked hard to replicate the dotcons in FOSS, in the #Fediverse. These efforts have laid the groundwork for the #openweb and demonstrated that alternatives are possible. They deserve recognition and security for their contributions, as they have provided a needed first step in this journey.

After thanking these people and groups, we need crews to move forward the humanistic adventure in social technology who remember our history to act collaboratively. It’s not just about building new #FOSS tools, but about remembering the “native” ethos of online interaction—that prioritizes human well-being over corporate profit, and collective empowerment over simple individual gain.

The #OMN (Open Media Network) is a path that embody these principles and history to create a decentralized network of open media to empower people and communities. This journey will not be easy, but it is necessary. Who will join in this adventure? This is not fully mapped out, the is creative space to grow from the history of what has worked for the last few hundred years.

We need real alternative to the last 20 years of toxic #dotcons culture and capture https://opencollective.com/open-media-network

Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution