Bridging the gap: Building a human-first #openweb

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scale through federation creates organic grow.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Public Social Media: The Choice is Clear

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

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

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

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

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

Seed from a toot and image from @FediTips

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.

A world we see as normal

The dead ideology of Neo-liberalism is everywhere. It’s in everything we look at, everything we touch. And yes while it might feel uncomfortable, we should actively feel distaste when we look at it and revulsion when we touch it, this is the reality of living under a #deathcult. For the past 40 years, we’ve been immersed in a system that most people still worship as if there’s no alternative.

But where is the path out? Where is the vision for something different, something rooted in solidarity and sustainability rather than profit and exploitation? Take a moment to look at this example of a #4opens project from a simpler time: Wikipedia revision history from 2011. Note the commitment to “strict scrutiny”, which required that any security measures serve a compelling community interest and be narrowly focused to achieve that and nothing else.

Compare that principle to the current state of tech, where the #encryptionsist agenda overshadows transparency and community accountability. The shift has been stark, away from openness, away from scrutiny, and towards the path where security becomes a shield for entrenched power and control.

We need to confront this, the #deathcult thrives on our passive acceptance of #neoliberal norms. Revulsion isn’t just justified; it’s necessary. The path we need to take is in rejecting this #blocking to build the #4opens alternatives we so desperately need.

OMN #indymediaback #openweb #makehistory #OGB

let’s look at an example of this in our current lives. People have been living in the shadow of neoliberalism for so long that worshipping the #deathcult has become their nature. The values of exploitation, competition, and #stupidindividualism are baked into what’s considered “normal” behaviour. In contrast, embracing a #lifecult, based on collaboration, community, and sustainability—feels alien, even threatening, to many “normal” people.

This is one of the reasons the #Fediverse and alternative social media platforms have struggled to gain traction. The Fediverse embodies #lifecult principles: decentralisation, mutual aid, and the rejection of exploitative corporate models. While these are positive ideals, they feel too far removed from the familiar patterns of the #deathcult for most people to take the leap.

A cynical path we could take is to meet people halfway. Instead of demanding they abandon their comfort zone entirely, we could make the Fediverse appear less like a #lifecult at first glance by presenting it in ways that feel more approachable and less intimidating, more like the #deathcult they are used to. On this compromise path, yes, the Fediverse should stay true to its principles, but making it less of an overt #lifecult and more of a practical, attractive alternative, #deathcult could be the “common sense” step we need to bring people over. Once they’re in, the actually, hopefully still existing culture, the values of the Fediverse will begin to work their magic.

What do you think? Should we focus on shadowing the approach to reach more people, or would that risk diluting the values that make the #Fediverse what it is? How do we live this balance in our #openweb reboot.

How we Orchestrate Regime Change

Let’s look at a different view: The “colour revolutions” have been a strategy of orchestrated regime change, typically pushed by powerful foreign actors, most often the United States. These operations are presented as grassroots democratic uprisings, but in reality, they are heavily funded, pre-planned, and driven by external interests. While the surface story is about promoting democracy and human rights, the outcomes almost always serve the economic and geopolitical priorities of the US and the global capitalist fuckwits.

Step 1: The first move is to weaken a target nation’s economy through sanctions, trade embargoes, and manipulation of international financial institutions. This creates widespread hardship, targeting ordinary citizens, to fuel discontent and unrest. Examples would be: Nicaragua, Chile, Venezuela etc. This erodes public trust in the government, creating the conditions for protest and rebellion.

Step 2: Media manipulation and propaganda, controlling the narrative is critical. The US uses propaganda to frame opposition figures as heroes and targeted governments as corrupt and authoritarian. This is achieved through CIA-backed media like Voice of America which spreads anti-government messaging, planted stories in western media to manufactures consent, that portrays regime change as a moral imperative while obscuring the external orchestration.

Step 3: Empower opposition movements, once public discontent is stoked, the US funds and equips opposition groups to act as the vanguard of regime change. These groups are often chosen for their willingness to align with US interests, regardless of their domestic popularity or legitimacy. Examples: The US recognised Juan Guaidó, a wildly unpopular opposition figure, as president despite his lack of electoral legitimacy in Venezuela. In Guatemala the CIA armed exiled opposition leaders to stage a coup against Jacobo Árbenz, using hired pilots to bomb Guatemala City and spread chaos. Through organisations like USAID and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), the US provides financial and logistical support to opposition groups, ensuring they have the resources to disrupt and destabilise.

Step 4: Mobilise mass protests, to create the appearance of widespread popular dissent. These are often #astroturfed, with covert funding and guidance from foreign operatives. The symbolism of these movements, colours, slogans, and branded imagery, makes them easy for international media to amplify, framing them as democratic uprisings.

Step 5: Neutralise security forces, for regime change to succeed, a government’s security forces must be undermined. This is achieved through bribery, threats, or outright assassination. Examples: in Chile: The CIA orchestrated the assassination of General René Schneider, a constitutionalist who opposed a coup against Allende. This paved the way for Pinochet’s military takeover. In Guatemala, staged violence and disinformation campaigns created a climate of fear, allowing the US-backed military to seize power. By dividing and destabilising security forces, the US ensures that the government cannot effectively defend itself.

Step 6: Install pro-US leadership, the final step is consolidating power under a regime that aligns with US interests. This involves hand-picking leaders who prioritise corporate and geopolitical goals over their nation’s sovereignty. Examples, In Chile: after Allende’s overthrow, the US provided intelligence and resources to Pinochet’s dictatorship, ensuring compliance with American interests. In Guatemala the US installed a pro-American government to protect United Fruit Company’s monopoly and suppress land reform efforts. These new regimes are rarely democratic or stable, often descending into authoritarianism and neoliberal exploitation.

The consequences of colour revolutions, while sold as democracy-building efforts, the reality is generally far more destructive. Economic collapse from the sanctions and neoliberal reforms that devastate local economies, leading to poverty and inequality. Ongoing political instability with installed governments plagued by factionalism, corruption, and authoritarianism. Global distrust in the US’s repeated interference undermines credibility, in the end pushing nations towards alternative paths, the cycle then repeats, yes it’s a mess. These interventions normalise the erosion of sovereignty and democracy, leaving lasting scars on the nations they target.

There is a strong need for accountability, the US’s playbook for regime change, disguised as democracy promotion, is a tool of imperialism that pushes corporate and geopolitical interests over basic human rights and stability. It’s a path that thrives on economic hardship, media manipulation, and the subversion of local institutions.

A note on the side – the #OMN approach, grounded in decentralisation, #4opens principles, and collective action, offers a stark contrast. Rather than destabilising societies for profit, we grow resilient paths that empower communities and foster genuine self-determination #KISS

The Open Web and the Messy Middle Ground

This is a #fluffy response to this thread, about people feeling that some of the discourse surrounding the #openweb is too black and white, and that this is going to increase with the current political reality. Yes, supporting the #openweb doesn’t automatically make you “left-wing” or a “Marxist,” just as using platforms like X or Meta products doesn’t necessarily make you “right-wing nut job” or an out right “fascist.” The world is full of different shades, oversimplifying these issues from the mythical centre can become the polarisation that the people are very likely arguing against.

Building a business on open technologies is not inherently wrong, building exploitative #dotcons is clearly wrong. There is value in the middle ground between commercial success and the native #openweb paths. The challenge is finding the balance and ensuring businesses side respects the #4opens principles our people’s web is built on. Of course, there are risks. Commercial companies working on open technologies often push too far and betray trust. Meta’s entry into the #fediverse, for example, raises suspicions for good reason. Their track record shows a consistent prioritisation of profit over people.

However, that doesn’t mean we should dismiss the idea of building a business around open tech entirely. It’s about trust, accountability, and balance. Being critical doesn’t mean rejecting something outright; it means scrutinising the motives and actions behind it. The same #4opens principle applies whether you’re evaluating a tech startup or a massive corporation.

The bigger political mess the people in the thread are talking about isn’t open vs. closed or left vs. right, it’s the utter mess our middling political class has made with its hard shift to the right. This polarisation isn’t actually coming from the left, as many people assume when they’re critical of “extremes.” It’s a result of the “centre” being dragged further and further over decades. The balance has been lost, and it’s no wonder people are scrambling to find footing in such unstable paths.

I talk about this subject often from a radical progressive left perspective on this site (http://hamishcampbell.com), and yes, it is a mess in every way. The centre path, the one that should hold things together, has veered so sharply that even moderate discussions feel like battles over extremes.

For meany people in the centre, a shift back to something like the Bretton Woods, 20th century social democracy from the era before Reagan and Thatcher pushed us onto our knees to worship the #deathcult for the last 40 years. We do maybe have room for small business owners and local enterprise, a capitalism built on community, not monopolistic greed. Smaller capitalists, smaller systems, more balance.

This balance, and the conversation the #openweb needs to reflect, the larger struggle for balance. The goal isn’t only to polarise or pick sides, it’s to find a progressive “native” way forward that incorporates the best of different perspectives. A diversity of ideas, from Marxist critiques to social entrepreneurial innovation, so long as they operate within the #4opens framework of trust, openness, and accountability.

Yes, it’s a mess, but the way out is through this, shovels and composting come to mind and hopefully hands #OMN

The #OMN path is building the #openweb infrastructure

The #OpenMediaNetwork (#OMN) offers a clear, practical path to building the #openweb, grounded in #4opens. It does this by leveraging open protocols like #ActivityPub (#AP) and #RSS, alongside #FOSS software, to create a distributed network of media platforms where anyone can join, participate, and contribute. This, like the #Fediverse, is a direct challenge to the centralised, corporate-dominated structures that define so much of the current internet landscape.

Step-by-Step Building Blocks: The #OMN prioritises simplicity and humanistic coding rather than over-engineered complexity we often see in tech today.

Start with the client-server model. The initial focus is on building a robust client-server architecture to create a stable foundation for media sharing and participation. This forms the “hot” storage layer, data that is live, accessible, and regularly used.
Introduce an offline cold store: Once the client-server infrastructure is operational, a secondary layer of offline cold storage is added. This acts as a backup system, providing high redundancy to safeguard against data loss. Cold storage is cheap, offline, and relies on human interaction for maintenance and retrieval, ensuring resilience and sustainability.
P2P connections to cold storage: The final stage introduces peer-to-peer (#P2P) connections to integrate the offline cold storage with the broader network. This allows people to share and retrieve data across the network, even in decentralised or disconnected environments.
Iterative learning and improvement: The process is intentionally iterative, encouraging learning from practical experience. The system is designed to evolve and improve over time, informed by real-world use rather than theoretical perfection.

The success of the #OMN depends on its commitment to #4opens. These principles allow for the free sharing and reuse of content, breaking down barriers to collaboration and fostering innovation. By storing most data unencrypted (as the majority of it is not private), the system reduces overhead and complexity, keeping the project aligned with the “Keep It Simple, Stupid” (#KISS) philosophy.

Separating privacy from the #openweb: One critical aspect of the #OMN approach is recognising that encrypted privacy tools are a separate project. Mixing these with the development of the #openweb #Fediverse leads to unnecessary complexity and division. Privacy tools are vital, but are developed in parallel rather than tangled with the foundational infrastructure. This separation allows each project to focus on its strengths while maintaining a clear, streamlined design philosophy.

At its core, the #OMN empowers “normal” people to store and manage their own data. By using a mix of hot and cold storage, people gain control over their digital lives without relying on corporate platforms. The focus on redundancy, backed by tools to search and reimport old data into hot storage, ensures resilience and accessibility.

This human-centric approach contrasts sharply with the corporate and #geekproblem obsession with control and perfection. It’s a more humane vision of technology, based on trust and collaboration rather than surveillance and control.

A history rooted in activism, the #OMN isn’t just a theoretical project; it’s grounded in decades of real-world activism. From the work of Undercurrents in the 1990s (http://www.undercurrents.org/about.html) to the global mobilisation of the Carnival Against Capitalism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnival_Against_Capital), this approach draws on over 20 years of direct, on-the-ground experience. The lessons from this history inform every aspect of the OMN, ensuring it stays true to its activist roots.

Dealing with the #geekproblem and #fashernistas: One of the biggest challenges in progressive tech is the dominance of the #geekproblem, projects driven by technologists who prioritise complexity and self-interest over usability and impact. Coupled with the influence of #fashernistas, who chase trends without substance, many projects are doomed from the start

The #OMN cuts through this, yes, we can’t solve this mess pushing, but we are a critical step in the right direction which encourages us to get out the shovels and compost these failures. The goal is to build a system that works, not one that dazzles investors with hype while failing to deliver.

The #openweb won’t (re)build itself. It requires us to reject the endless noise of pointless projects and focus on practical, sustainable solutions. By supporting and growing the #OMN path, grounded in #KISS simplicity, #4opens principles, and decades of activism, we create a resilient infrastructure that empowers people and communities.

The future of the #openweb is in our hands. Dig deep, embrace trust, and start building.

OMN #openweb #OGB #Indymediaback #makehistory

“Solutions” being pushed for the future of the #Fediverse are starkly #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.

We Need to Live Differently – And This Time, It Needs to Work

On this site I have been reflecting deeply on the way we live – not merely as individuals but as communities and as a species. It is difficult not to feel overwhelmed by the numerous challenges we face: #ClimateChange, #Inequality, and #Loneliness, the last 20 years of #techshit to name a few. Yet, a simple but profound idea continues to resurface: What if we chose to live differently? What if we focused on building paths, like the #OMN project, that works harmoniously for people and the planet, rather than the normal path of attempting to repair what is broken?

This is not a new, humanity has long dreamed of utopias and alternative ways of living. Numerous communities have attempted to bring these visions to life, and admittedly, many have failed or faded away. However, these past efforts have left us with invaluable lessons, which is why, with the current #openweb reboot, I believe this time can be different.

The key lies in the technological and social path we collectively take. We are not striving for perfection because perfection is unattainable. Instead, we aim to create something real and adaptable. This is not about rejecting modernity or pretending the world’s issues will vanish if everyone adopts ethical consumption or #DIY self-sufficiency. It is about establishing spaces where people can collaboratively create, grow and adapt—striking a balance between #Innovation and #Simplicity, as well as between #IndividualFreedom and #CommunityCare.

This path is not simply my own. It is shaped by countless conversations with people from diverse backgrounds: #Developers, #Activists, #Educators, both online and offline. What stands out is the shared sentiment that our current way of life no longer makes sense. There is a collective yearning for something better—not to escape the world, but to build a way of living that reconnects us with each other, with nature, and with ourselves.

The path we can take, what makes this feel achievable, is that it does not require starting from scratch. It involves building on existing foundations—acknowledging both successes and failures—and asking critical questions: “What has worked in the past, what is currently working? What is not? How can we approach this differently?” This willingness to experiment, learn, and grow together is what sets this path apart from the normal #deathcult worshipping mess.

Yes, this might sound idealistic, and in some ways, it is. However, bold ideas are often the catalyst for meaningful change. If this resonates with you, I encourage you to share your thoughts. What changes would you like to see in how we live? What would it take for you to feel like you are contributing to something greater than yourself? These questions hold potential—not necessarily in the answers, but in the act of asking them. If you feel inspired to engage with this path, feel free to add to this thread. #openweb #4opens #collectivechange

#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 of 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 via RSS.

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 activertypub 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 an RSS 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.