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.

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.

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.

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.

“Solutions” pushed for the #Fediverse are #stupidindividualism which comes from #deathcult worship

The is real frustration with “solutions” for the #Fediverse leaning toward #stupidindividualism and the normal #deathcult path, especially as these approaches undermine the foundational ethos of the “native” #openweb. What different paths do we need to take:

Re-centre on cooperation and interdependence. This should be obverse, instead of treating the #Fediverse as a platform for fragmented individualism, we need to foster a commons-first approach. Mutual Aid Networks are a path by to encourage instances to form federated clusters based on solidarity, shared values, and collaborative governance. Instance Interdependence needs tools that make cooperation between instances smoother and beneficial, such as shared moderation practices, resource sharing, or even federated funding paths.

Reject platformification, one of the Fediverse’s strengths is that it doesn’t need to mimic the dynamics of corporate platforms. To ensure its future path is native, not corporate we need to stick to the alt path of protocols over platforms, to stay on this path and not get distracted by new shiny #techshit For this we need to prioritise the development of open, robust protocols like ActivityPub that support interoperability over creating “Fediverse apps” that compete to centralise users. Standardised tools for moderation and discovery, create federated discovery and moderation tools that don’t funnel people into centralised algorithms or trending feeds but support meaningful and self-determined connections.

Community-driven innovation instead of for profit and status, communities need to be more involved in defining what needs to be built. We need to mediate the power of tech communities and non-technical people. This ensures the solutions reflect diverse realities, not just the #geekproblem technocratic priorities. Public-good funding paths, to build sustainable funding for open-source tools without relying on venture capital or individual donations. Cooperative crowdfunding, grants from public institutions, or taxation-based paths could work.

Reframe individualism as collective empowerment, the problem isn’t individual creativity; it’s when it becomes detached from collective good. Some ideas to balance this is by highlighting and rewarding people who contribution to the wider social enhance of the #Fediverse e.g., not just code contributions, but admins, moderation etc. One path could be to develop ways to celebrate shared milestones across the network, rather than competitive “likes” or algorithmic trends.

Education and advocacy are a core part of the #openweb to building awareness of the stakes and educating people about the principles of the #Fediverse and the #openweb. Some paths might be: Digital literacy campaigns to educate people about how the #Fediverse operates, its native values, and why it must avoid the #dotcons #closedweb’s pitfalls. Highlight success stories by amplify case studies of community-owned and commons-driven Fediverse instances to inspire others.

Design for long-term sustainability, any system that focuses on short-term growth or clout is doomed to fail. To build something durable, we need resilient federation models to address the scaling challenges that come with growing instances without resorting to centralised solutions. Decentralised governance is core, we need to explore and adopt models like the #OGB for instance and network governance.

Resist the #deathcult narratives, which thrives on competition, exploitation, and the idea that scarcity is inevitable. This needs constant push back, with abundance-oriented design to build paths centred on care, trust, and generosity – rejecting the zero-sum thinking of extractive systems. Radical openness is a good native path for, tools like the #4opens are core.

This “native” thinking are based on ideas to anchor the #Fediverse in the principles of mutuality, solidarity, and the commons while resisting the pull of #stupidindividualism and centralisation.

This is about the failed liberal class, with their heads bowed in worship of the #deathcult for the last 40 years, have abandoned critical thought. Their unacknowledged postmodernist complacency has pushed us away from class struggle, leaving us isolated and alone. Meanwhile, the last two decades of left identity politics have allowed the right wing to co-opt and weaponise progressive narratives, filling them with fear and hate.

Yet, amidst this bleak shift towards fascism, there is a potential positive: a return to #KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid) class-based left-wing movements. These movements need to reclaim the ground from the current #mainstreaming crew, who continue to blindly worship neo-liberal “common sense,” while #blocking out and refusing to acknowledge its failures. It’s well past time to consign these dead ideologies to the compost heap of history.

What comes next is up to us. As a community, we face the real challenge of surviving the next generation of #climatechaos pushing social breakdown while driving forward the systemic changes these crises demand. It’s not as if we have a choice—change is no longer optional, and action is overdue.

Activating the Open Media Network

The essence of the challenges we face in activism, can be expressed by the tension between the “fluffy” and “spiky” paths, which shape the progress and direction of movements. It’s vital to resist the dogmatic tendencies that stifle this dynamic tension, as both are necessary for a balanced and effective path forward.

We need focus for change, we must balance introspection (“how to make us better”) with external action (“how to change them”). The interplay between these perspectives builds strength and adaptability within movements. Recognising this balance avoids falling into the traps of arrogance or despair.

Reframing extremism, the right and centre as extremists, with the left as the moderates, is a #KISS powerful narrative. It challenges the status quo bias embedded in #traditionalmedia and shifts the perception of who holds reasonable positions. Activism can amplify this narrative to make it more widespread and disarm the usual accusations of left-wing “radicalism.”

Avoiding fear and darkness, fear is the weapon of the right and centre-right. Activists need to resist being drawn into their framing. Instead, they focus on, light, building trust, encouraging openness, and showing tangible progress that can inspire people.

Tools for the fight, the #4opens provide a framework for clarity and accountability, while the shovel metaphor reminds us of the hard, unglamorous work of composting the mess. These tools help create fertile ground for growth, even amid the chaos of conflicting stories.

Activating the Open Media Network (#OMN) can play a crucial role in shifting this narrative. By showcasing grassroots voices and bypassing gatekeepers, it challenges the #traditionalmedia and #dotcons while building a network of trust, openness, and collaboration.

#OMN a practical response to the failures of greed-based paths

The #OMN (Open Media Network) introduces a transformative model that replaces the traditional free-market system driven by greed with an open/gift/use market grounded in cooperation and shared values. This experimental social tech path reimagines the digital commons by prioritizing the free flow of digital “objects,” which can encompass a wide range of resources—media, tools, data, or creative works.

The OMN’s open/gift/use market: Resources and information flow freely, breaking down barriers created by proprietary systems and monetized exchanges. Collaboration thrives on transparency and inclusivity, embodying the values of the #4opens.

Gift economy with digital “objects” shared without the expectation of direct compensation, fostering a culture of generosity and mutual aid. The value lies not in profit, but in the collective benefit derived from shared resources. With the shift to use-oriented distribution, the focus shifts from ownership to utility, emphasizing the practical application and communal use of resources. This aligns with sustainable practices, reducing waste and promoting reusability.

Advantages of the OMN path are decentralized control, grassroots participation and reduces reliance on centralized, profit-driven entities. Community empowerment prioritizes collective decision-making and strengthens local and global networks. Sustainability moves away from extractive economic practices, supporting an equitable and ecological path.

Challenges, transitioning mindsets from profit-driven to cooperative models requires hard and dangurus cultural shifts. Navigating the balance between openness and exploitation in a “native” digital common’s path will be challenging, as most people worship the #deathcult

Opportunities, establishing a resilient digital common, will inspire similar transformations in wider social paths. Leveraging #openweb technology to scale and optimize the flow of digital “objects,” is a new and to an extent “proven” path with the last 5 years of the Fediverse.

The #OMN experiment is more than a theoretical framework; it’s a practical response to the failures of greed-based paths. By growing cooperation through an open/gift/use market, it offers a hopeful and actionable pathway for a real, sustainable future.

Open Media Network (OMN): An Overview

It’s past time to stop trying to own the river and start learning how to navigate it.

Principles of the #OMN

Simplicity: Keeping the network and its tools straightforward allows for greater accessibility and usability.
Decentralization: Empowering people and communities to control their narratives by avoiding reliance on centralized platforms and corporate algorithms.
#4opens: Building around open data, source, process, and standards to grow trust and collaboration.
Participatory and Transparent Processes: The network grows organically with a focus on grassroots engagement rather than top-down control.

This is a reformatted and updated text from 8 years ago:

The Open Media Network (#OMN) is a reboot of the “indymedia” project, reimagined as an open, decentralized network for sharing and aggregating content across websites. Guided by the principles of the #4opens and motivated by the PGA hallmarks, OMN creates a people-to-people trust-based tagging system for collaboration and ethical aggregation.

What Are OMN Nodes?

OMN nodes are the backbone of the network. These nodes perform specific functions to enable the sharing and dissemination of content within the OMN ecosystem:

Hosting Content Flows: Nodes curate and host flows of content based on tags from other OMN sites on subjects that interest them.

Content is imported via RSS from external sites and by #ActivityPub from #Fediverse and OMN sites.

Tagging and Retagging: Nodes can tag and retag objects within content flows to direct them to other nodes or to specific sections, such as sidebars/pages on websites.

Providing Tagged Content: Nodes offer tagged content flows to other sites, which can embed the content using codes as needed.

Content Archiving (Optional): Nodes may choose to archive content locally.

The roles and functionality of nodes will evolve organically as the network develops.

Types of Sites in the OMN

OMN sites serve different purposes within the network:

Publishing Sites: The original sources of content. Typically, provide an #RSS feed and ActivityPub flow for the network.

Aggregating Sites: Focus on specific subjects, localities, or themes. Receive feeds from publishing sites and curate high-quality, trusted content for distribution to higher-level nodes.

News/Link Portals: Regional, national, or major subject sites. Aggregate trusted feeds from intermediate aggregating sites and select publishing sites.

The Human Element of OMN

The OMN emphasizes human moderation and relationship building:

Trust: Relationships between node administrators, content providers, and users form the foundation of the network.

Decentralization: Unlike traditional centralized models, OMN’s structure encourages openness and collaboration.

Ethical Aggregation: Content is networked respectfully to create a robust alternative to failing commercial platforms (#dotcons).

Key Features of Ethical Aggregation

Prominent display of OMN links on participating sites.

Links are live and direct users to the original host site for reading and commenting.

Original sources are credited under content titles.

Aggregation behaviour (e.g., full content in apps) is agreed upon by both parties, with opt-out options available.

Ad placements near Creative Commons non-commercial content require explicit agreement.

Building the Network

OMN leverages existing web standards to build an open “data soup” that enables many new possibilities:

Legacy Web Integration: Uses RSS for backward compatibility.

Semantic Web Transition: Moves towards a peer-to-peer semantic web with more p2p protocols.

User Stories: Articles published on one site can appear on many other sites, always linking back to the original source.

User Contributions

OMN encourages continuous improvement and collaboration:

Content remains open-ended to invite contributions and dialogue.

Tags and semantic data added by aggregators enhance the content flow for others.

Joining the OMN

Participation is voluntary and flexible:

Existing sites can continue operating independently while sharing content.

Posting can be done through personal blogs, group sites, or portals like #indymedia.

For “news” – A New Indymedia

Aggregating hubs/nodes in OMN represent the “new indymedia”:

These hubs may focus on subjects, countries, regions, or cities.

Unlike the centralizing elements of traditional networks, OMN’s open model reduces the need for centralized control.

Licensing and Openness

OMN adheres to open licensing principles:

Content is shared freely within the network.

Licensing ensures respect for contributors and promotes ethical usage.

Encouraging Collaboration

OMN thrives on contributions and engagement:

Leave questions or incomplete ideas to inspire participation.

Create linking overviews or summary articles that highlight stories within content flows.

Encourage human relationships to grow the trust-based network.

Conclusion

The Open Media Network (OMN) is an ambitious and open-ended project that refocuses decentralized media sharing for the modern web. By collaboration, trust, and ethical practices, OMN empowers participants to grow a sustainable and impactful alternative to the dieing corporate media platforms.

Open Media Network (OMN): A second view

What Are OMN Nodes?

OMN nodes are the backbone of the network. Anyone can run one, the flows between them are based on trust. These nodes perform specific functions to enable the sharing and dissemination of content within the OMN ecosystem:

Hosting Content Flows: Nodes curate and host flows of content based on tags from other OMN sites on subjects that interest them.
- Content is imported via RSS from external sites and by ActivityPub from OMN sites.
Tagging and Retagging: Nodes can tag and retag objects within content flows to direct them to other nodes or to specific sections, such as sidebars on websites.
Providing Tagged Content: Nodes offer tagged content flows to other sites, which can embed the content using codes as needed.
Content Archiving (Optional): Nodes may choose to archive content locally.

The roles and functionality of nodes will evolve organically as the network develops.

Types of Sites in the OMN

OMN sites serve different purposes within the network:

Publishing Sites:
- The original sources of content.
- Typically provide a feed for the network.
Aggregating Sites:
- Focus on specific subjects, localities, or themes.
- Receive feeds from publishing sites and curate high-quality, trusted content for distribution to higher-level nodes.
News/Link Portals:
- Regional, national, or major subject sites.
- Aggregate trusted feeds from intermediate aggregating sites and select publishing sites.

The Human Element of OMN

The OMN emphasizes human moderation and relationship building:

Trust: Relationships between node administrators, content providers, and users form the foundation of the network.
Decentralization: Unlike traditional centralized models, OMN’s structure encourages openness and collaboration.
Ethical Aggregation: Content is networked in a respectful way to create a robust alternative to failing commercial platforms (#dotcons).

Key Features of Ethical Aggregation

Prominent display of OMN links on participating sites.
Links are live and direct users to the original host site for reading and commenting.
Original sources are credited under content titles.
Aggregation behavior (e.g., full content in apps) is agreed upon by both parties, with opt-out options available.
Ad placements near Creative Commons non-commercial content require explicit agreement.

Building the Network

OMN leverages existing web standards to build an open “data soup” that enables many new possibilities:

Legacy Web Integration: Uses RSS for backward compatibility.
Semantic Web Transition: Moves towards a peer-to-peer semantic web with technologies like ActivityPub, Nostr, ATprotocol etc.
User Stories: Articles published on one site can appear on many other sites, always linking back to the original source.

User Contributions

OMN encourages continuous improvement and collaboration:

Content remains open-ended to invite contributions and dialogue.
Tags and semantic data added by aggregators enhance the content flow for others.

Joining the OMN

Participation is voluntary and flexible:

Existing sites can continue operating independently while sharing content via RSS.
Posting can be done through personal blogs, group sites, or portals like indymedia.

A New Indymedia

Aggregating hubs/nodes in OMN could be represented as the “new indymedia”:

These hubs may focus on subjects, countries, regions, or cities.
Unlike the centralizing elements of traditional networks, OMN’s open path reduces the need for centralized control.

Licensing and Openness

OMN adheres to open licensing principles:

Content is shared freely within the network.
Licensing ensures respect for contributors and promotes ethical usage.

Encouraging Collaboration

OMN thrives on contributions and engagement:

Leave questions or incomplete ideas to inspire participation.
Create linking overviews or summary articles that highlight stories within content flows.
Encourage human relationships to grow the trust-based network.

Conclusion

The Open Media Network (OMN) is an ambitious and open-ended project that reimagines decentralized media sharing for the modern web. By fostering collaboration, trust, and ethical practices, OMN empowers participants to build a sustainable and impactful alternative to corporate media platforms.

A call to action, clear diagnosis

What a waste of public money, this #fashernista career-building projects.

When you think using social media is “natural,” remember you’re feeding #dotcons—platforms built on the worst parts of human nature. If you want civilization and society to have a future, you cannot keep supporting this. The #encryptionists sit at the heart of our current grassroots media tech disaster, while careerist #mainstreaming pisses from the other side. But shit makes good compost—and we have the shovels.

OMN is a path forward. Pessimism may travel faster than optimism, but only optimism holds the potential for real change. Feed the problem or solve the problem. There is no mythical “third way” out of this mess. What we have are shovels, #OMN, and shit for compost. Work hard enough, and you’ll get flowers and tasty vegetables.

It’s well past time for composting. Let’s grow flowers.

Meany of our old friends in activism took the healthy internal stresses that once challenged projects like #indymedia and fed them to a #fashernista vampire class, building careers by draining the grassroots for 20 years. This is not a good look, and these are likely the people you have to talk through when you talk to “power.”

First step, clearly #stepaway from the #dotcons and return to the #openweb for our communication and news. #indymediaback and #OMN are solutions worth posting about, worth sharing, and worth doing. The #openweb lacks addiction algorithms. It will only thrive if you make it work. Gather like-minded people outside the #dotcons—it’s a solid first step.

We must stop pouring energy into pointless #techshit if we want a chance of surviving #climatechaos and escaping the grip of the #deathcult. Basic #KISS statement: What are you doing today that isn’t pointless?

On this, #indymediaback, #OMN, and the #4opens need more crew to make the rollout work. For decades, we’ve allowed the #dotcons to dominate our communication. Trump and Brexit aren’t the causes—they’re symptoms. We made this mess together, fuelled by unhealthy digital feedback loops.

Let’s compost this mess and seed real change.