Governance both horizontal, federated and #FOSS native is a hot subject at the moment. It’s a good time for people to look at this. Over the last 5 years we have been developing the outline of the native Open Governance Body (#OGB) project is an innovative approach for developing native #FOSS governance, grounded in years of on-the-ground organizing and community-oriented technology like the #Fediverse and #ActivityPub protocols. This initiative emerged from a #4opens social process, aiming to create a governance path that is genuinely open, transparent, and collaborative. The project particularly focuses on involving developers who are not only skilled technically but who also prioritize community collaboration and user experience (#UX)—a challenging yet needed requirement for success in a horizontal, scalable tech paths.
The OGB leverages ActivityPub, the protocol powering decentralized social platforms like Mastodon, to create structures that are adaptable to scale horizontally. To make this project happen, we need outreach to finding developers who can operate within a community-first structure. This means finding those with technical skill in FOSS and ActivityPub, but who are also committed to open, horizontal collaboration and can engage constructively with non-technical communities and paths. Often, highly technical projects attract developers who prefer isolated, independent work, so highlighting the collaborative nature of the OGB from the start is important.
For those interested in making a meaningful impact on #openweb governance and who can commit to community-entered development, the #OGB project is a compelling opportunity to be a part of the change and challenge we need.
Over the last few decades, the web’s evolution has been shaped by competing ideals. Early on, we witnessed the shift from the “better” #closedweb corporate controlled paths to an #openweb#DIY explosion—a time when collaborative, decentralized approaches thrived. #Mainstreaming efforts to recapture this #4opens spirit failed for years, but eventually, corporate-driven dot-coms platforms captured the majority of people. Activist voices were muffled as #dotcons pushed mainstream interests, pulling away the community-driven power the web once enabled. This phase was a bait-and-switch operation, leading to surveillance capitalism and making it harder to stand up for collective, public-first internet paths.
A key aspect here is that this decline wasn’t caused by isolated figures but by broader, recurring social forces, like #fahernistas and the #geekproblem, who fell into patterns of adopting dominant narratives by failing to recognize the alt values of “native” open tech paths. As this happened, the #NGO world came in with “nice funding,” which subtly aligned activist tech initiatives with liberal, watered-down approaches. This pushed and promoted co-option over the power of change. The result was tech stagnation, with communities gradually losing their voice and control, the mess we were in 5 years ago.
The current openweb revival is due to protocols like #ActivityPub, coinciding with the rise of #web03, which was about re-implements #closedweb paths. This presents both a challenge and an opportunity, especially as the rotting of dotcons reveals the hollowness of centralization. While this #reboot has potential, it’s often bogged down by the same forces that hindered past movements. The #fahernistas focus on transient tech trends and individualistic coding projects that ignore the power of collective working, and the #web03 uncritical push of #encryption as a solution without a broader social strategy results in mountains of #techshit.
What works? Building from simple foundations: As digital activists and #DIY tech communities try to reboot the web, it’s essential to start with simplicity: #KISS principles (Keep It Simple, Stupid) offer a practical foundation. Instead of complex, flashy approaches, this mindset prioritizes clarity, accessibility, and collective agency. Each simple, intentional step creates a more durable basis to counter #mainstreaming forces.
What do we need: Self-organization tools within community are needed to reshape the path. Hashtags, for instance, have devolved into self-branding tools (fashernista), whereas they originally provided decentralized organizing power. Reclaiming these tools for grassroots purposes helps bring DIY activism to the forefront and build cohesive networks across digital paths.
What needs balance: The #VC poison of “nice funding” and #NGO co-option, are the big challenges facing the #openweb movement. Often, well-intentioned tech initiatives accept NGO money to sustain themselves, but this financial support is not neutral. The NGO world, embedded in liberal agendas, steers projects toward safe, palatable solutions that appeal to funders rather than fostering the radical shifts needed for real change. This sugar-coated poison draws tech initiatives away from their roots and into a cycle of compromise, weakening the collective power that grassroots projects depend on.
What can we do? As we look at ways to reignite a meaningful openweb, these lessons from history are crucial. Without seeing these patterns, we are repeating the same mistakes and allowing corporate and liberal to dictate the paths we take to build our shared digital commons. How we actually make this work is not obverse, but the current #fedivers reboot is a seed that is in the ground and growing.
I use the #4opens as a tool to do this as it’s simply #foss development with #openprocess added on, a useful tool to get past what people say their projects are about. And what they are actually about https://unite.openworlds.info/Open-Media-Network/4opens we need tools like this to compost the piles of #techshit people keep creating, if we are to have soil to grow tech seeds of hope, like #Activertypub
The path is simple, who is coming down it with me and meany others?
From a left-wing perspective, identity politics and class-based politics feel like competing ideologies. Identity politics focus on individual identities (race, gender, sexuality, etc.), while leftist movements emphasize collective struggle against class-based oppression under capitalism and neoliberalism. Both approaches aim to address inequality but through different paths. For the #geekproblem we can view them like competing tech standards (e.g., #Bluesky, #Nostr, #ActivityPub), in that they risk fragmenting movements unless there’s an effort to bridge them, balancing specific identity struggles with broader systemic change.
An example of this is #Postmodernism, which often leaves us questioning even the most basic aspects of life, and frankly, it can be exhausting. A recent example is the ongoing debate around biological sex. While it’s true that some people are born with disorders of sexual development, these cases are rare, just like being born colorblind or with physical disabilities. However, the overwhelming majority of the 80 billion humans that have ever lived were born from the combination of an XX and XY chromosome pairing.
The postmodern argument blurs these distinctions unnecessarily, but common sense tells us that reproduction still fundamentally relies on this biological reality. It’s not about denying people’s rights to live as they choose—people should love and live however they wish—but recognizing that certain basic truths shouldn’t be muddled by this long dead ideology. We need to move past the confusion and return to a clearer understanding of biology, while still fostering respect and dignity for all different people, regardless of how they choose to express themselves. Let’s focus on a healthier balance between respecting diversity and understanding the realities of the world we live in.
This is just one example, alongside #neoliberalisam in the economic path we have has 40 years of this mess shaping us, we need to step away from this #fashernista mess making. What would this look like?
Stepping away from the 40-year #fashernista mess shaped by consumer culture involves rejecting the shallow, surface-level trends and embracing deeper, systemic change rooted in sustainability and community. It means focusing on long-term, grassroots action instead of the trendy or performative activism that shapes us now. Practically, this would mean rebuilding independent, open media (#OMN), fostering, commons, collective ownership of resources, and rejecting the commodification of everything. It’s about creating social paths based on trust, openness, and shared values rather than profit-driven, corporate-controlled structures.
This path emphasizes:
Local Action: Rebuilding local communities around shared resources and sustainable practices, ensuring they operate autonomously from mainstream corporate structures.
Open Processes: Utilizing the #4opens as a framework to ensure transparency and collective engagement in both technology and activism.
Resistance to Co-optation: Staying vigilant against the dilution of radical movements by “common sense” #fashernista#NGO “market-friendly” paths which push for wider acceptance by abandoning the core values, we need to care to maintaining their original values and integrity.
Education and Awareness: Promoting knowledge-sharing and political education to empower people to resist superficial solutions and embrace affective and meaningful changes.
Ultimately, it’s about rewiring social values to cooperation, resilience, and ecological balance over competition, consumption, and power accumulation, It’s rebalancing our sense of self both individual and social.
From a left-wing perspective, the critique of identity politics, in the example at the beginning of this post, is that it fragments social movements by focusing on individuals or inward looking group identities rather than uniting around shared economic and outward class struggles. The #fashernista path driven by the current mess emphasizes personal identity over collective action, leading to the dilution of the solidarity needed to challenge systemic structures like neoliberalism (#deathcult). This #mainstreaming path leads to division within movements, creating competition for recognition rather than fostering collaboration and addressing structural inequalities
Let’s share the activism fire place, rather than fight over it, leaving only a cold smoky damp mess. #KISS
People often vilify and attack people in progressive projects:
Fear of change: Radical ideas threaten the status quo, leading to backlash.
Internal divisions: Disagreements within movements about strategy, purity, or priorities cause infighting.
Co-optation and sabotage: External forces, including media or political interests, intentionally discredit or sow discord in progressive groups.
Fragile egos and clashing ideals: Differing views on identity, politics, and tactics spark personal conflicts, leading to attacks.
These reflect broader social divisions and insecurities. Both of these paths are kinda progressive, but one is based on fear and the need for control, and the other on openness and building of trust paths.
Communities don’t adopt digital technologies—they adopt #KISS tools. People don’t think about TCP/IP or HTTP when browsing the web, or SMTP when sending emails. Similarly, they don’t think about #ActivityPub when using the #Fediverse. They interact with intuitive tools that simplify these layers.
One of the toughest challenges in grassroots #DIY tech is creating #FOSS tools that align with #4opens standards while offering good #UX. This isn’t just a technical issue; it’s a deeply social and political one.
The ongoing difficulty in having this conversation within #openweb and #FOSS spaces is part of the wider mess we’re in. We need to work collectively to compost this mess, what we can call the #geekproblem.
SocialHub has often tried to bridge this conversation, but there have been failures along the way. How can we do better moving forward?
This thinking came out of this thread on the subject of the relationship between #WC3 and the grassroots #socialhub over the “governance” of #ActivityPub and the wider #Fediverse.
A bridge rather than ownership would look like a collaborative, flexible, and trust-based system, rather than one based on control and dominance. In the context of the Fediverse and openweb spaces, this would mean moving away from territorial battles between the #NGO mainstreaming approach and the grassroots #openweb communities, toward a recognition that both paths have value, and that these different paths can coexist and complement each other.
The “commons” path is fundamentally about shared responsibility and decentralized governance. It’s the idea that instead of fighting for ownership and control—whether that’s who gets to steer the Fediverse or dominate the standards—we build systems that mediate the different flows, allowing both the formal and the grassroots approaches to contribute and grow together.
This could manifest in practical ways like:
Shared Infrastructure: The infrastructure becomes a part of the commons—no one owns it, but everyone can use and contribute to it.
Collaboration Over Competition: Instead of viewing the relationship between the more formal W3C-style governance and grassroots communities like SocialHub as adversarial, we acknowledge that they bring different strengths. The W3C formalism provides structure, while SocialHub’s grassroots, #DIY ethos brings innovation. Each benefits the other, and the bridge is recognizing this value without the need to “own” it.
Mediation and Decision-Making Processes: We need native tools for transparent governance. A commons model for governance like the #OGB which was developed on socialhub. Think of it as a flexible process where everyone has a voice, but no one dominates.
Value in Diversity: The goal is not to impose a singular vision, but to recognize that the messy, bottom-up humanistic creativity from the grassroots and the more polished, structured contributions from #NGOs both have value. The bridge would allow ideas to cross and enrich each other without needlessly flattening their differences.
The key to this is not ownership but bridging the different paths. If we see ourselves as gardeners of the #openweb commons, rather than owners of a “slice” of it, the mindset shifts from control to care, recognizing the power in collaboration rather than domination.
By building these bridges, rather than the normal “common sense” fighting over territory, we create an open network where people and communities can flourish. This bridging needs care, #KISS, trust-based paths, that recognize the shared value and avoid pushing #mainstreaming “common sense” driven artificial divides. It’s about cooperation and connection. #KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid).
A forum thread on socialhub brought up a powerful parallel between the radical demands of the Black Panther Party (#BPP) and the underlying values of the #fediverse and #activitypub communities, especially in their attempts to build outside the corporate-controlled paths. The metaphor is striking because both seek liberation, self-determination, and the creation of alternatives to oppressive systems.
Freedom and self-determination, the #BPP’s call for freedom to determine their community’s paths, has a native overlap to the motivations behind the fediverse, which is a path to free people from #dotcons corporate control. This empowering of people to manage their communities, and engage in social media on their own terms, much like the BPP sought to control their community’s political and social future. But there is a problem, this self-determination is undermined by the “narrow and intolerant” behaviour, in the fediverse communities which are still shaped by power dynamics, gatekeeping, and elitism. Much like the BPP’s fight against internal and external forces, we need to challenge invisible embedded paths in tech spaces.
Ending exploitation and economic Injustice, the BPP’s demand to end capitalist robbery mirrors the desire within the fediverse to reject the exploitative model of #dotcons, profiting off users’ data, labour, and attention. Projects like #Mastodon and the wider #openweb reboot offer an alternative that resists the centralization, monetization and control of user information. Yet, despite this anti-capitalist ethos, there’s still a tendency for devs and leaders in these communities to pursue funding, recognition and status that mimics the capitalist incentives of the #dotcons. The challenge is to remain vigilant about how easily a “safe” or “open” community can be co-opted by external economic pressures, just as the Panthers struggled to protect their movement from state infiltration and capitalist influence.
Housing, education, and technology as commons, the BPP’s demands for housing and education highlight their belief in basic human rights, which could be translated into the tech metaphor as the right to access technology and information as commons. The #4opens represent this principle, ensuring that tools, processes, and knowledge remain transparent and accessible. It’s about creating “decent housing” for digital life and an “education” that uncovers the true nature of our technological paths. The struggle, many open communities drift toward becoming insular, where the tools and education are not readily accessible to newcomers. It requires more effort to lower the barriers and broaden participation beyond the #geekproblem to genuinely serve as commons, much like the Panthers sought to broaden political education beyond academic elites.
Community defense and police brutality, the Panthers’ emphasis on ending police brutality and defending their community aligns with the need for safe spaces in the digital world, spaces free from corporate surveillance, trolling, and abuse. In the fediverse, moderation and safety tools resemble a kind of “community defense” against harmful actors, trying to keep the space healthy and productive. This policing of communities within the fediverse can take a rigid, intolerant form, which creates an exclusionary culture where non #mainstreaming voices are marginalized. Just as the Panthers sought accountability and fairness in how their communities were policed, Fediverse communities need more humane and community-led governance models, like #OGB, to avoid replicating the authoritarian systems they’re fighting against.
Radical ideals vs. narrow paths, both the BPP and the fediverse, in their own ways, strive for radical change, whether it’s systemic racial justice or the liberation of the internet from corporate interests. But both face the dilemma of narrow paths, in the BPP’s case, the movement’s radical vision was met with state repression, which forced them into narrower, defensive stances. In the fediverse, the movement for open, decentralized media is constrained by internal divisions, ideological rigidity, and an intolerance of diverse views. The key here is not to narrow the vision to protect it, but to expand it, making space for more people and voices. This means mediating conflicts through trust and transparency, rather than exclusion and elitism, a struggle shared by both the BPP and the #openweb movement.
The path forward, to “compost the mess” in the fediverse, we need to apply some of the same principles the BPP fought for, building movements that are rooted in collective empowerment, community defence, and transparent, accountable governance. This means, challenging the internal hierarchies that mirror the social structures we’re resisting. Expanding participation and avoiding the elitism and exclusionary paths that choke out growth. Emphasizing practical tools (like #OGB and #4opens) to manage conflicts, maintain openness, and ensure the tech commons remains genuinely for the people.
By looking at the #BPP’s history, we see both a radical vision and the internal/external challenges that can derail a movement. The fediverse can learn from this, the real threat to its growth isn’t just external corporate forces, but the narrow, rigid paths it sometimes enforces within. To stay true to the “native” path of liberation, it must embrace messiness, diversity, and openness. The Panthers’ slogan “Power to the People” resonates deeply here, digital power should truly belong to the people, not gatekeepers.
Back then, we were teetering on the edge of a digital cliff, with the open internet hanging in the balance. There were two insightful perspectives capturing the crossroads we are at: Phil Windley argued that the open internet was a historical fluke, while Dave Winer suggests that what we were seeing was merely the ebb before the next wave of the #openweb arrived.
The Enclosure of the Digital Commons, #PhilWindley perspective, is a sobering one. Though he has updated his post, he used to see the internet early open nature as an anomaly—an accident of history. In this view, the open internet as we knew it is essentially finished. That once-thriving commons have been systematically enclosed by corporate silos—the #dotcons like Facebook, Google, and Amazon—that now dominate the digital landscape. What remains outside these silos is, according to this perspective, withering and dying. The vision of a decentralized, user-controlled internet has been overwhelmed by the centralized, profit-driven motives of these tech giants.
His argument is that decentralization is hard, perhaps too hard for most people to handle. This reality, combined with the fact that these silos provide convenience, user-friendliness, and perceived safety, has led people to choose them over the messy and challenging world of a truly openweb. People have traded freedom for convenience, security for walled gardens, and the vibrant chaos of the commons for the curated safety of #dotcons. The digital commons have been enclosed, and it was a bleak view.
On the other side, Dave Winer offered a more hopeful perspective. He believes that the history of the internet and the web comes in waves—periods of openness followed by enclosure, which then recede to allow for another wave of openness. In his view, Phil Windley’s observation might not be wrong, but it’s not the end of the story. Rather, it’s the ebb of the tide before a new wave of the #openweb surges forward. The potential for decentralized, and open paths is always there, and it’s a mistake to assume that the current moment is the end of the line.
#DaveWiner argument rests on the idea that the desire for openness and freedom is cyclical. When centralized systems become oppressive, restrictive, or exploitative, there will be a counter-movement that pushes back. The nature of technology, innovation, and humanistic creativity ensures that “native” paths, and protocols will emerge to challenge the status quo.
There is a logic to the digitization of everything. The internet and #openweb built on top of it, is a living example of what happens when this logic is let loose: a tsunami that crashes over every part of our cultures, breaking old structures and opening up possibilities. The storm is not over. Just as the early web opened up commons that were later enclosed, the current wave of enclosure is broken by a new wave of #4open decentralization paths.
What Has Changed in the Last Decade? Looking back at what I wrote nearly ten years ago, the fundamental dynamics haven’t changed. The dotcons have only grown more powerful and more entrenched, but at the same time, the counter-forces have also begun to stir vigorously. Movements like the #Fediverse, based on #ActivityPub, #Nostor and to a lesser extent #Bluesky have grown into real usable decentralized social paths, together with this, we are dipping our toes back into peer-to-peer technologies, this wave is evidence that the storm of digitization is still alive.
Yes, the #dotcons did enclose the first wave of commons, when we stupidly took their digital algorithmic drugs. But the defences of the dotcons are very weak, the only thing holding most people is their addictions, nobody thinks they are healthy any more. The logic of digitization continues, and as long as there are waves, there is hope for the current openweb reboot.
The #Fediverse, short for Federated Universe, is a part of the #openweb made of human connections through #4opens computer networks. Its value is not a collection of software packages, much more about the flows of human community that build relationships across diverse groups and regions. Imagine the Fediverse as a web of communities, each represented as a node. These nodes are not defined by the software they use, but by the people and groups that form them:
Affinity Groups in Activism: communities of action and social movements
Local Governments: Municipalities using the Fediverse to communicate with residents, share public announcements, and gather feedback.
Universities: Academic institutions fostering collaboration among students, faculty, and researchers, enabling the sharing of resources and knowledge.
Families: Family members staying connected, sharing updates, photos, and maintaining family bonds regardless of geographical distances.
Friend Groups: Friends interacting and sharing moments in a private, ad-free space, organizing events, and maintaining their social ties.
Companies: Businesses collaborating internally and with their customers, providing customer support, and sharing company news.
Interests: People and communities expressing themselves, sharing their thoughts, hobbies, and connecting with like-minded individuals around the world.
These communities interact seamlessly across the #openweb, regardless of the specific codebase they grow in. Yes it’s important to understand the good #UX of the software that makes these connections possible plays a part, and that each of these nodes use a common protocol, #ActivityPub, to communicate, forming the backbone of “native” #openweb flows. This #4opens interoperability allows people on one codebase to interact with users on another, creating a unified, yet decentralized, social network.
“The Fediverse isn’t about connecting software packages. It’s about connecting communities and people. If you make a Fediverse explainer, try to show some real communities as the nodes in the network, rather than using software packages and their logos. Companies, local governments, universities, families, friend groups, individuals. You can explain what software makes those networks possible in your next slide.” https://mastodon.social/deck/@evan@cosocial.ca/112847724644046695
Though, what meany in our #fashernista and #geekproblem paths miss is this thrives because of the human element. It’s about the people who use these platforms to connect, share, and build spaces that reflect their values and needs. It’s the people and the communities of use that make this real, let’s talk about them #KISS
Let’s look at this “#branding” issue. The tech world is changing as there is a #reboot of the #openweb happening, yes a lot of people don’t see this, so worth talking about a bit. If you are interested in this subject, every day you likely hear another big player joining the #fediverse. What does that mean? It is not complex, there is a chance you are already on this path, if you are on #dotcons sites like #meta#Threads or #WordPress etc.
It’s actually something we already know about, a network of websites that interact with each other through a shared protocol, just like #email has worked for the last 50 years. The term #Fediverse is a mash-up of two words: federate and universe. To federate means to form an alliance, so the Fediverse is an alliance of websites or apps that federate content with each other. It’s a federated universe, a part of the #openweb we all grew up on if we are over our teenage years.
This network is decentralized, meaning no #dotcons controls it, people and communities have control over their information, news and data flows. While most are run by communities and individuals, a few are run by corporations. Some may have thousands of users, while others have just a few.
Each of these websites has their own myths and traditions to shape their local feeds, but people on one site can easily interact with people on another site because they’re using the same protocol, an open-source tool that connects websites into a “native” #openweb global network. How Does It Work? The protocol is called #ActivityPub, which you might’ve heard of because it powers apps like Mastodon. But it also powers #Peertube, #Pixelfed, #Lemmy, and our own #OMN etc, and even the #dotcons are sharing this space, with #meta’s #Threads. It’s extremely popular. When you publish a post on your website, it gets federated to all the people who follow you on other websites that are based on this protocol. They can like, share, or comment on your posts. That’s the path of federation and what the #4opens#openweb is about https://fediverse.party/en/miscellaneous/
The #4opens process that governs the culture of this path is simple in abstract, If the website admins notice a ton of spam coming from another website, they can either block that individual user or they can block that whole website. If that server is sending too much spam, it’s a problematic server. You can defederate from that server so you’re no longer hit with spam until they clean up their act. This is a horizontal path of how moderation works on this path, it works as an individual and as a community.
Like email, when the first thing you do is pick a username that’s available on that website. To do this, find a site that fits your interest, pick a username that’s available on that server. Your Fediverse handle is going to look like an email address: It’s going to be username@server, for example info@hamishcampbell.com for this blog’s #ActivityPub feed.
When I talk to people about the #openweb or mention the #Fediverse, I have to talk about #Mastodon for them to get an understanding on the subject, this is a non-native issue, thus the need for this blog post to try and fix this blindness. While Mastodon is a decentralized microblogging platform similar to Twitter. If you’re looking for a Twitter alternative, this is probably the one you’ve heard of. It’s one of the largest applications on the Fediverse. But Mastodon is not the Fediverse https://fediverse.observer/map look wider there are meany interesting projects.
This is from the view of progressive, grassroots and Alt media in the UK:
Silo, definition: Closed data systems hoarding information. Impact: Data vanishes when projects end, diminishing the effectiveness of alternative media. Most alt/grassroots media projects are silos, capturing data without open licensing for reuse.
Portal, definition: Attempts to be the dominant site, locking users into their ecosystem. Impact: Builds projects that trap users, contrary to the #openweb’s logic. In alt/grassroots media, this resembles a one-party state approach of the 20th century.
#Dotcons, definition: For-profit data silos and pseudo-networked portals. Impact: Many alt media projects mimic #dotcons, aspiring to their closed models.
Link, definition: Fundamental to the #openweb, giving content value. Impact: The absence of linking in alt media reduces the content’s value.
#Activitypub, definition: is a protocol and open standard for decentralized networking, a tool for commons building. Impact: this is growing in use.
#RSS, definition: An open web standard that adds value through data sharing. Impact: RSS is underutilized in alt media, overshadowed by silo and portal models.
Geek Culture, definition: A subculture focused on control and technical solutions. Impact: Often closes open projects, contributing to the failure of alt media initiatives, ca use the hashtag #geekproblem
#Fashionista Culture, definition: An unthinking pursuit of innovation and conformity. Impact: Churns through alt/grassroots projects, preventing them from growing.
#NGO, definition: Bureaucratic entities consuming resources. Impact: Push agendas that overshadow grassroots initiatives, often invisibly counterproductive.
Network, definition: Both technical (wires, frequencies) and mutual aid (diversity of strategy). Impact: Essential for alt media but underutilized.
#4opens, definition: Open source, open data, open standards, open process. Impact: Exemplified by projects like Wikipedia; foundational to just and effective media projects.
To sum, up, we are still in the process of moving away from the mess of most UK alt/grassroots media projects, who are focused on silos, on capturing data and users rather than linking and sharing to build commons. Emphasizing the #4opens and fostering a culture of linking and openness help’s to break this cycle and build a more interconnected and effective alternative media landscape.
Design for Abuse: The #AP protocol is vulnerable to abuse, particularly in terms of Distributed Denial of Service (#DDOS) attacks.
Push-Based Model: The push-based notification model leads to overloading servers, especially when a popular account generates a large amount of activity.
Harassment Concerns: There is a perceived inadequacy in control issues to address the worry of harassment, with issues like the inability to disable replies not being implemented.
Need for Defensive Model: A #geekproblem call for abandoning the working “native” #openweb path and push a “native” #closedweb path, with a complete overhaul of the protocol to incorporate defensive measures from the outset.
The Critique
From an #openweb and #4opens perspective, the critique highlights a different mindset that is clearly incompatible with the current path. But yes, there are questions about the balance between openness and security. Let’s not get lost in the #geekproblem and look at them:
Design for Abuse
Critique: The assertion that the protocol is designed for abuse is an overstatement, but it highlights genuine vulnerabilities. The open “trust” based nature of #ActivityPub and the #Fediverse, promotes decentralization and federation, but can indeed be exploited by malicious actors, people do brake “trust”. Transparency in code is crucial. Vulnerabilities should be openly discussed and addressed through community collaboration, most can be fixed by social norms rather than hardcoding. Data sharing is core, there should be as little as possible “private data” to abuse. Protocols should work with slow revisions to improved community feedback. Decision-making processes around security, should be based on social rather than coding, #openprocess is a core part of this.
Push-Based Model
Critique : The push-based model can indeed lead to server overloads. Popular accounts generating a lot of traffic can unintentionally cause DDOS-like situations. This is a normal lossy part of the “native” #openweb, we should work on this. Implementing caching strategies and lossy notification systems should be developed and tested within the community. Efficient data handling techniques should balance ease of hosting and speed of application, with ease of hosting first. Exploring hybrid models (push/pull) with RSS backup can lead to more resilient protocols use. Real time is less important than the app keeps working. Part of this is about ensuring that changes to the protocol are hard and slow, with debate and consensus.
Harassment Concerns
Critique : The constant talking about harassment tools and features such as disabling replies is a concern. Yes open networks are just that open, it’s the social norms of federation that make them a safe space, we need to build up our communes of trust. Developing robust moderation tools and anti-harassment features should balance with building strong social instances, who in the end do the work, be very careful of #closedweb paths in coding these features. Socialise data on harassment patterns helps to improve trust based moderation tools. The stories we tell and the way we work for moderation and anti-abuse measures should be developed collaboratively. Including diverse voices in the social decision-making process for instances is crucial.
Need for Defensive Model
Critique: Starting with a defensive model is the wrong path. Many security and abuse issues can be mitigated with a trust-first approach. A good culture should be built into the core from the beginning, with active community involvement. Developing norms of behaver through community consensus helps build a more resilient system.
Conclusion
The #closedweb path tries to raise points about vulnerabilities and shortcomings of the current #ActivityPub and #Mastodon implementations. From an #openweb and #4opens perspective, the solution lies not in suggesting we abandon the native path and implemented protocol but in addressing these issues through open, collaborative, and transparent social processes. By leveraging the strengths of the #4opens framework, the community can work to create resilient, and user-friendly networks that are already on the successful native #openweb path.
The term #openweb refers to an internet ecosystem characterized by decentralized, interoperable, and community-driven platforms and protocols. It emphasizes #4opens principles of openness, inclusivity, and user control over data and online experiences. The “openweb” contrasts with the #dotcons centralized and proprietary nature, the mainstream internet platforms, thus offering an alternative vision for the future of the internet, and the society this shapes.
Meanwhile, #Fediverse refers to a specific decentralized social networking ecosystem built on interoperable protocols (#ActivityPub), allowing people on different platforms to interact and share content seamlessly. It encompasses a variety of codebases such as #Mastodon, #PeerTube, and #Pixelfed, offering alternatives to centralized social media giants like #Twitter, #YouTube, and #Instagram.
#web1.5 is a more technical term used in geeky conversations, this can be useful as a buffer to the #ecryptionist mess that talks about #web3
Talking about the fediverse can be hard, for broader, #mainstreaming audiences, simply using #mastodon can be sufficient, as Mastodon is one of the most well-known platforms within the Fediverse. This term may resonate more with individuals who are less familiar with the technical nuances of decentralized web architectures but are interested in exploring alternative social media platforms.
The choice of terminology depends on the context and audience. Whether you’re engaging in technical discussions with the “tribe” or introducing newcomers to decentralized internet paths, using the appropriate term can help facilitate understanding and communication.
Tribalism can make this harder than it needs to be, “don’t be a prat” comes to mind.
