The future of grassroots and decentralized media lies in federated trust networks, not merely replicating the centralized, broadcast-focused models of the #dotcons. There are problems with simply copying #dotcons as #FOSS that is replication without change, simply mimicking the #dotcons replicates their flaws, including centralized control and scalability issues that lead to degradation in quality and trust.
Broadcasting models focus on individual reach rather than collective, community-driven engagement. For example, #bluesky and #mastodon scale without accountability, over-scaling singular nodes results in reduced moderation quality, fostering misinformation and people’s dissatisfaction.
There is a strong case for human scale federated trust networks, with human moderation for quality. In the #OMN, every instance is moderated by a competent crew responsible for maintaining content standards. Expanding requires growing the moderation team to sustain quality. This path ensures people and communities gravitate toward smaller, well-moderated instances, balancing scale and trust.
Tag flows for better categorization, we need to create distinct admin tools for personal and news flows, so networks can handle content more effectively and avoid mixing purposes.
Decentralization with purpose, federated networks with #ActivityPub, allow instances to share content while maintaining autonomy. This prevents over-centralization and supports diverse community voices.
The #4opens—open process, open data, open licenses, and open standards—are baked into the #OMN to maintain transparency and community ownership.
An example of this is the #OMN is key to rebooting #Indymedia The #OMN project provides a framework to reboot alternative media, like #indymediaback, in a way that prioritizes the “native” quality, trust, and community moderation. The first steps toward a reboot will be integrating federated systems and trust-based governance to revitalize the platform. This is key, learning from the past, avoiding a rehash of dead indymedia, the #OMN emphasizes creating new structures based on lessons learned, particularly the importance of human-centered workflows. With the ultimate goal is to restore indymedia domains to active use while avoiding past pitfalls.
For those wanting an #indymedia reboot, supporting #OMN projects is crucial, as it is directly aligned with this vision. The #OMN and federated trust networks offer a roadmap for reclaiming decentralized media spaces. By focusing on trust, moderation, and the #4opens, we move beyond the failures of centralized #dotcons and create sustainable, community-driven alternatives. This isn’t just a revival of the old; it’s a necessary evolution to meet the challenges of today’s digital paths.
The blame, attack, and ban culture we’re seeing is not native to the #openweb. The principles that uphold the open web are built on the #4opens: open data, open source, open standards, and open process. These values encourage linking, transparency, and trust—qualities that are essential for constructive dialogue and a positive community atmosphere.
An example of why this matters: In recent months, reports have surfaced that developers associated with #bluesky, including those contributing to projects like #bridgy, have faced harassment. This behaviour runs contrary to the core path of the #openweb, #FOSS developers are humans too, with lives and responsibilities beyond their code, with #FOSS they provide their time to building #4opens free and open-source projects that benefit everyone. This kind of personal infighting can be not only unproductive but harmful. Yes, talk, argue about ideas and categories, but the focusing on individuals is often adding more mess to be composted.
A way out of this kinda mess is #netiquette, diversity, we need to foster spaces where diversity of thought and technology can coexist without wholesale blocking each other. A way to do this is for us to have conversations within our communities about netiquette and the standards we want to uphold. Yes, this is a challenging discussion, and it won’t be easy to reach a consensus. But even if the outcome is embracing our differences, that’s not a bad thing.
For more on my thinking on one of the strong roots of this mess subject
A part of this might be that it’s interesting to see that the right-wing are picking up the real problems and mess on the left and then using it to forward their own ideological agenda.
NOTE the things they are critical of are often real issues with the left, so we too likely need to address these ourselves, but to do this we should ignore the right agenda that comes with these right criticisms as this will be built of the normal right-wing lies and misinforming that their ideology paths are full of.
The dominance of the free market, for the last 40 years personified by the #deathcult worship, has instilled in us a deep-rooted belief in the power of market-driven signals as a determinant of value and action. This belief system prioritizes capital and greed as the primary forces that drive progress and social development. However, as our world becomes increasingly digitized, it’s past time to rethink and replace these signals with something more sustainable and aligned with collective welfare: #opendata signalling based on the #4opens.
Market signalling, a core tenet of capitalism, operates on the assumption that prices, supply, and demand efficiently communicate the state of the economy. These signals guide decisions across industries, influencing everything from resource allocation to investment trends. While this system has propelled economic growth, it comes at a significant cost: environmental degradation, social inequality, and systemic exploitation. In resent years, our worship of this “free market” led to an economy built on misery—a #miseryeconomy where people and communities pay to escape the hardships imposed by the very system they are part of.
The open vs. closed data dichotomy is currently largely invisible, so good to bring focus on this path. When considering alternatives to market signalling, we need to explore the difference between open and closed data paths. The original #openweb was built on the #4opens principles —open source, open data, open standards, and open processes. These fostered transparency, collaboration, and equitable growth. However, the rise of the #dotcons (dominant tech corporations) over the past two decades introduced #closeddata silos that have stifled openness and thus blocked this native path. Closed data systems prioritize proprietary algorithms, user data and metadata hoarding, and opaque decision-making processes. This has been used to reinforcing capital-driven signals as the only path.
In the emerging #openweb ecosystem, there is a new model—one rooted in opendata signalling. Unlike market signals driven by profit, opendata signalling operates on transparent and shared data inputs that inform decision-making across communities. This shift prioritizes communal benefits, sustainability, and builds trust. This path can only be glimpsed in the messy fashernista driven #openweb reboot we are a part of. Consider the surge in decentralized networks such as #Mastodon, the broader #Fediverse, #BlueSky, and #Nostr. Over the past years, these have grown from a few hundred thousand users to tens of millions, highlighting an appetite for more community-driven paths. Open-source platforms like WordPress are integrating ActivityPub to support decentralization, extending open data practices to a quarter of the web. Even #dotcons corporations like #Facebook (with its #Threads initiative) are adapting to this movement, albeit with a corporate agenda.
What opendata signaling looks like? In a practical sense, opendata signalling means that any institution or person running a Mastodon instance, for example, can access a significant portion of the Fediverse’s content as plain text in their database. This access allows communities to collaboratively analyse and act on data without the current corporate intermediaries distorting and monetizing it for control.
Imagine policymaking informed by real-time public discourse, free from the profit-driven filters of major platforms. Local governments could tap into decentralized data to plan infrastructure, health initiatives, or educational reforms that reflect actual community needs. Environmental policies could be shaped by transparent data on ecological impact, rather than suppressed by industry lobbyists protecting capital interests.
Challenges and Considerations? Transitioning to opendata signalling isn’t without challenges. Regulation and policy will need to adapt to safeguard open data’s integrity and prevent exploitation. The fear of spam and manipulation, which critics often raise, must be addressed with intelligent design and community moderation. Yet, these challenges are surmountable compared to the unsustainable trajectory of a market that fails to act collectively for basic servival let along the greater good.
Moving Beyond Worship. Our reverence for the “free market” as an ultimate arbiter has reached its limit. By embracing opendata signaling and shifting away from closed, profit-driven paths, we create a foundation where collaboration, sustainability, and shared progress are at the forefront. This is not only a technological shift but a cultural one, As we continue this transition, let’s recognize that our digital choices will dictate whether we uphold the values of the #openweb or fall back into the restrictive practices of #closeddata. Let’s try to have a real conversation about this, please.
If you currently can’t see beyond #mainstreaming then jump anywhere from the #dotcons, a little step is better than non, if you are a bit radical then please think where you are stepping to.
As the world flees from X (formerly #Twitter) to look for viable social media alternatives, platforms like #BlueSky and #Threads come into view pushed by #mainstreaming agendas. But please lift the lid to see that while these platforms appear promising, scrutiny reveals issues with ownership, funding, and community values that show they are on the same #dotcons path that people are fleeing. This compromises long-term independence and user-centricity. In contrast, the #fedivers exemplifies the #4opens principles, a truer, more sustainable #openweb alternative for social networking, it’s here and it works.
BlueSky’s #VC funded roots, there is a difference between what people say and what they do, this one presented itself as a beacon for decentralized social networking, advocating user control and a light-touch moderation. The project’s founding under Jack Dorsey promised a platform engineered to transcend limitations in social media governance. However, its venture-funded path tells a more conventional story. With investments from entities like Blockchain Capital LLC, co-founded by crypto magnate Brock Pierce, the concerns about centralization are unavoidable. Historically, VC backing brings pressured for profitability and pushes investor interests, at odds with maintaining decentralized, user-first ideals the project keeps talking about. This is a mess soon down the road, it’s a dead-end for people to jump to. For a tech view of this and the VC and culture side. A good tech/social write-up https://dustycloud.org/blog/how-decentralized-is-bluesky/
Threads is native to the #dotcons and corporate agenda’s. Threads, developed by #Meta (#Facebook), promises much, but it is firmly on the Meta’s path, rooted in data monetization, algorithmic control driving ad revenue. While Threads appears more user-friendly, its development trajectory inevitably follows Meta’s historical focus: ad-heavy strategies and extensive moderation policies that prioritize corporate interests over user freedom they talk about now. And a long writeup How decentralized is Bluesky really? A post on the #dotcons out reach to the #openweb mess. Why is Meta adding fediverse interoperability to Threads? https://fediversereport.com/why-is-meta-adding-fediverse-interoperability-to-threads/ What is the stress? What is the game?
The #Fediverse and #Mastodon are the #openweb’s champions, built for people, not profit. This path is in stark contrast, firmly, on the path of the openweb. From its decentralized structure to its #4opens open-source foundation. Managed by non-profit people and communerties, funded through voluntary donations and support from like-minded organisations, not venture capital or private investment. This independence ensures that people networking is never beholden to shareholders and subjected to the profit motives that drive centralized platforms. This embodies the principle that social media should amplify what people value, not what maximizes revenue.
Choosing platforms and paths that align with #openweb values is more than just a preference; it’s a stand for a future where digital spaces are driven by #4opens transparency, user empowerment, and shared stewardship. #BlueSky’s reliance on venture funding and Threads’ adherence to Meta’s corporate motives demonstrate the limitations of profit-oriented social media. We need a path where we prioritize community, collective action and autonomy over corporate growth.
In the pursuit of genuine alternatives, platforms like the Fediverse do more than fill the void left by #X; they embody the promise of a decentralized, people first internet—the very essence of the #openweb.
#Openweb: This refers to the original, decentralized ethos of the internet, built on openness, freedom, and people’s autonomy. Linking enhances knowledge sharing, amplifies lesser-known voices, and enables people to explore varied content freely.
#Closedweb: This describes platforms dominated by algorithms, corporate interests, and paywalls. On dotcons, linking is often spam and is penalized or buried, precisely because it can disrupt the curated control these platforms wield over what people see.
Don’t feed the trolls, keeps coming to mind, when looking at the #X influx, this is like waves washing on the shore, be the shore not the waves.
It’s clear there are differing perspectives on whether #BlueSky, now backed by Blockchain Capital, aligns with the values of #openweb or is moving to the #dotcons path. Blockchain Capital’s focus on decentralized technologies includes investments beyond cryptocurrency, yet the question remains about how much this continuing VC involvement influences BlueSky’s direction. In the hashtag story the “#dotcons” refers to corporations profiting under a facade of openness, potentially undermining grassroots and community-led standards.
Good to understand removing posts isn’t the goal; instead, fostering, community, transparency and critical dialogue around these paths is crucial. Ensuring open communication about motivations and funding helps prevent co-option by profit-centric interests—something I am arguing the #openweb aims to avoid. Yes, not everyone agrees on this, so we need to hold a balance, where this balance is, is a consensus, we need to find if we are to hold this community together.
The core issue isn’t blockchain technology itself but its common role in enabling corporatization within decentralized tech, shifting focus from community control to venture-driven paths and how these goals align or diverge from #openweb principles shapes the ongoing debate.
OK, this is a bit off subject. So back to the actual thread: “The consensus process is about us being the community we talk about – it’s likely the only thing that can work at the moment-can we focus please.”
The focus on consensus in SocialHub is embodying the collaborative, community-driven spirit native to grassroots and openweb paths. In discussions about governance and decision-making, consensus helps ensure that the process reflects shared values rather than any single, dominant voice. It’s practical, particularly now, as it aligns with the decentralized nature of the projects within SocialHub. Staying focused on building consensus is a path to achieving functional, inclusive community, reflecting the community “ethos” rather than replicating corporate or hierarchical structures we are so used to work in.
It’s a path for us to become what we often say we want to be.
This is what I am talking about, the rest, the “subject” is food for this path.
For forty years, we’ve been steeped in a dominant, and largely invisible ideology I call the #deathcult, a metaphor for the relentless spread of neoliberalism that has reshaped our social, economic, and technological systems in destructive ways. Alongside this, the rise of #dotcons (corporate, centralized tech platforms) over the past twenty years has distorted the path of the internet and #openweb, steering it away from #4opens collaboration and into monopolized, extractive business models. We’re have been living the fallout now for the last ten years: a fractured digital landscape built on artificial scarcity and closed systems. This article explores the roots of this ideological mess and touches on the return to community-oriented solutions, rooted in collective ideals, through projects like the #fediverse and a renewed openweb.
Neoliberalism, is the driver of our current crisis, is anti-social at its core, cutting shared resources and social spaces in favour of so-called “efficiency” and profit, leading to what I call in the hashtag stories the deathcult—a mindset where profit pushes over life, social well-being, and environmental health. This ideological control permeates our sense of “common sense,” bending it to fit a world where exploitation is not just tolerated but expected. With our worship, we’ve been pushed to accept social and environmental sacrifices as the price of “progress”, instead of recognizing them as a sign of systemic failure.
The #dotcons and digital enclosure of our commons. The internet was built to be an open and decentralized platform. Yet, the past two decades of “dotcom” culture transformed it into a centralized, corporate-controlled ecosystem that discourages innovation and subverts people’s and community autonomy. Companies like Google, Facebook, and Amazon thrive by enclosing the commons, creating walled gardens where data and attention are commodities for sale and control. This shift, which we all played a role in, has stifled alternative voices and projects, pushing out grassroots initiatives in favour of profit-driven silos.
The dotcons path exploits not just users’ data but the very concept of community, turning every interaction into controlling people for private profit. At long last, we’re now seeing a response in the form of projects like the #fediverse and #activertypub, which decentralize and reclaim digital space from these corporate giants. However, without collective action and a shared vision, this new path remains under threat of co-option from these corporate interests, with #dotcons and #VC funded #threads and #bluesky both being pushed into this “commons” we have spent years opening.
On a parallel path of the last 20 years, we have been suffering from a #geekproblem: a cultural fixation within the tech community on solving social issues through purely technical means, in ways that exclude non-technical people. Encryption, for instance, is a valuable tool for privacy but isn’t a universal solution to all social or technological issues. The “more encryption” mindset neglects the importance of building trust and understanding in online communities, focusing instead on individual security in isolation.
For example, with projects like #nostr when encryption becomes the end-all solution, we’re left with technology that is impenetrable to regular people, creating more barriers than it removes. The challenge isn’t just technical; it’s social. We need to mediate the geek-centric approach with practical, accessible solutions that empower people, not only a few tech-savvy minorities.
A #KISS and #nothingnew path, can help to mediate these issues, concepts that encourage us to revisit old, tried-and-true solutions rather than reinventing the wheel in ways that add complexity. Complexity and “innovation for innovation’s sake” leads to, too much, #techshit—overly complicated tech that serves no one but its creators. The KISS path reminds us that simplicity fosters inclusivity. If we want more people to engage with the openweb, we need to create tools that prioritize accessibility and usability over complex features. The nothingnew philosophy supports this by encouraging us to look to the past for inspiration, reviving old ideas that worked instead of constantly chasing the latest #fashernista trends.
Hashtags are tools for #DIY community organization, but in this era of #stupidindividualism, hashtags get dismissed as tools for self-expression or “fashion statements” (#fashernista). Yet, hashtags can serve a deeper purpose in organizing and connecting people around shared ideas and goals. Instead of using hashtags to show off, we can use them to build flows of mutual support and collaboration. The DIY ethos is central to this: organizing from the bottom up, using digital tools to strengthen offline communities and collective action.
Embracing collective paths, one of the main issues that fractured early movements, like #indymedia, was the inability to work collectively. The culture of individualism championed by neoliberalism crept into activist spaces, weakening them from within. Reclaiming the openweb means reclaiming collective processes, where shared resources and collaborative decision-making are balanced with individual control. We need native digital spaces where communities work together, rather than being siloed into “users” isolated by individualistic platforms.
Moving forward: Composting the #Techshit. We’re now on a path to compost the tech detritus of the past two decades—the techshit accumulated through#NGO funding of misguided projects and closed systems. Just as composting turns organic waste into fertile soil, we can take the lessons of past failures to create a thriving, resilient commons reboot. By fundamentally abandoning the pursuit of artificial scarcity and focusing on shared abundance, we foster this better, more humane path.
For this to work, we need to address the #geekproblem to place as much value on social solutions as we do on technical ones, to create tech that supports community needs rather than hindering them. This path values process over product, relationships over transactions, and social well-being over profit.
Ultimately, the choice is clear: continue worshiping at the altar of the #deathcult, or support the “native” path with the openweb. The former is the path we are on now, of escalating, isolation, environmental destruction, and social disintegration, while the latter offers a chance at connection, collaboration, and resilience. This path won’t be easy, but it’s worth the effort to avoid being subsumed by the dominant, #deathcult story we repeat to ourselves.
As we work to reboot old systems and build better ones, let’s ask ourselves: What are we helping to reboot today? By choosing collective action over individualism, KISS over complexity, and cooperation over control, we can step away from the current mess and plant the seeds for hope and survival.
Lift your head, dirty your hands we have a world to plant
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.
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.
“But the principal objection will doubtless refer to the plain language used. My excuse, if indeed excuse be needed for saying just what I mean, is, that it is impossible to clothe in delicate terms the intolerable nastiness which I expose, and at the same time to press the truth home to those who are most in need of it; I might as well talk to the winds as veil my ideas in sweet phrases when addressing people who it seems cannot descry the presence of corruption until it is held in all its putridity under their very nostrils.”
On the of alt-tech path, I’ve been navigating this messy terrain of decentralized, grassroots technology for a long time. From this experience, I can say with some authority that we have taken a step away from the current mess with the growing #activertypub open web reboot. But we still need to mediate some of the ongoing #fashionistas#blocking, which is not helping us compost this mess into fertile soil for the fresh shoots of alternative technology that we so desperately need. This ongoing mess needs more composting, if we leave this in place to continue down this path, we risk strangling the growth we’re trying to cultivate.
The #4opens is a useful tool to recognizing the parasite #NGO and #Fashernista tech projects, that we keep stumbling over. The way genuinely grassroots tech projects—those born from communities, those driven by necessity and vision—are repeatedly being pushed aside by parasite tech projects. These feed from our grassroots efforts, taking the buzzwords and aesthetics without understanding or respecting the underlying principles and socially embedded paths.
This isn’t a fringe occurrence; it’s a pattern that has repeated itself over the last 30 years in meany cases I’ve come across. From social media alternatives to community-focused platforms, time and again, well-intentioned grassroots efforts are overshadowed by the glossy, polished facades of #VC funded or #NGO-backed, fashion-driven tech initiatives that lack, depth and commitment to the actual communities they purport to serve. These projects can be seen as they are more concerned with optics, funding, and their own visibility than with fostering genuine, sustainable alternatives.
There is a role for the #4opens in composting this #techshit, this is a framework that helps to expose and compost this kind of mess at its source. For those unfamiliar, the #4opens are:
Open Data: Data must be accessible, reusable, and modifiable.
Open Source: Code should be freely available for anyone to use, modify, and share.
Open Standards: Interoperability is key; data and code should work together, not against each other.
Open Process: The decision-making process should be transparent and inclusive, not hidden behind closed doors.
By applying the #4opens in grassroots tech projects, we can help to make visible the manipulations and shortfalls of parasitic NGO and fashernista power grabs. This works best when the process is open, so people see who is contributing to the ecosystem and who is simply feeding off it. This visibility is crucial because, without it, these actors are allowed to thrive unchecked, feeding off our work and energy while providing little in return. The open process serves as a powerful tool to expose those who claim to be fostering change but are merely replicating the same hierarchical and closed structures that led us into the current tech mess. It’s about shining a light on the hidden agendas and pushing for accountability and transparency in what this reveals.
How can our #NGO crew actually help? This is harder than it seems as the is strong #blocking to overcome, so the first step is overcoming this blocking, need ideas please?
My idea: Celebrate the mess, understanding that change is messy, and in this mess that new ideas form, where unexpected connections are made, and where real, lasting change takes root. We need to change and challenge the world dominated by the #dotcons and take our alternatives out of the hands of stale paths of dead-end NGO and fashernista tech. We do need composting as a regenerative path.
Motivation for moving away from this mess. The fact that people are rebooting the #openweb by building the #fediverse in a #DIY, grassroots way, without millions in VC funding, is one of the most remarkable feats of contemporary digital resistance. It’s not about “winning” in the capitalist sense—dominating the market, scaling endlessly, or achieving monopoly status in the image of the #dotcons and big tech path. The fediverse powerful from being built on #4opens principles of decentralization, community effort, it’s a native path, outside the norms that capitalism dictates to us as essential.
#NGO platforms like #Bluesky can be fertilised by $12 million in backing and a fully-paid team, the fediverse is growing grassroots from the ground up. It’s powered by people and communities working in their spare time, without corporate salaries and benefits. The coding and creating is driven by belief and belonging, not because a corporation paying to hit growth targets. That’s a different motivation, and it has strength.
The thing we need to see here is that the fediverse exists and thrives, standing as a living counter culture to the idea of competition, capital and centralized control. It’s running against the grain of what’s considered “necessary” in tech, it’s rewriting the rules back to the “native” #openweb path. This openweb reboot shows that people can build non #mainstreaming alternatives, with no paywalls, no ad-tracking, no surveillance, just open collaboration and shared values.
That it’s running at all, while not on the capitalism’s, path and ignoring its “rules”, is the victory. It doesn’t have to become the dominant social media platform. It’s already proved that another way is possible. And that, in itself, is a powerful statement that we need to build from #OMN
Resilience is community and trust. Resilience grows by connecting the actions of today to the possibilities of tomorrow, even when that future is unknowable. It’s rooted in community, and community thrives on mutual trust. Trust isn’t about keeping a ledger; it’s about giving freely without expectation. Money is not the foundation of resilience. Across the world, billions live resilient lives by supporting each other, because if they don’t, they all go under. From our privileged view, we often forget that resilience is nurtured in the commons.
The idea of dual power isn’t new. It goes back to revolutionary moments when people realized the need to build alternatives to existing oppressive structures rather than only confronting them head-on. In the current political climate, where the failures of state and capitalist control are glaring, we need to revisit and reframe this idea of “dual power”. This isn’t a utopian dream or a naïve belief that we can merely build around the edges while the world burns. It’s about creating practical, grounded alternatives that directly challenge the existing system by living outside of it and dismantling it from the inside.
The current mess, look around. We are surrounded by a mess of our own making. The relentless march of #neoliberalism has commodified every aspect of our lives, and the #dotcons have taken over our social spaces, transforming genuine human interaction into data points for corporate profit and control. The state, meant to serve the people, is a tool of the greedy and nasty, maintaining control through fear, surveillance, and repression. It doesn’t take much to see that the paths we are currently on are leading to #climatechaos, widespread inequality, social and ecological breakdown.
But here’s the problem: most people still think we have choices within this mess. They talk about reforming the system, fixing capitalism, or making dotcons tech more ethical while continuing to operate on the same lost paths. This is delusion, a comfortable delusion for some, but a delusion nonetheless.
On the #DIY path, dual power is about creating parallel paths that coexist with the current ones but serve entirely different functions. Instead of asking for scraps from the masters’ table, we build our own tables, with food that nourishes everyone. It’s about constructing alternative social, economic, and political structures that are directly in opposition to the current hierarchies and power dynamics.
It’s not just about building alternative structures, though. It’s more important for actively delegitimizing and dismantling the existing power structures of capitalism and the state. This involves #directaction, solidarity, and collective organizing to challenge and change state and capitalist control in all its forms. It’s about a two-fold strategy: building the new while composting the old.
Why dual power matters, for too long, the left and radical movements have been stuck in reactionary paths, fighting battles on terrain chosen by the state and capital. We need to change this by recreating a new path, a space where we shape the traditions and myths that shape us. This is not just some theoretical exercise; it’s already happening in many parts of the world.
We see it in the #fediverse, on #mastodon, #bluesky and #noster networks, in grassroots mutual aid networks springing up during the current crises when the state and corporate structures fail. We see it in community run food cooperatives, decentralized digital spaces, and local assemblies where decisions are made collectively, rather than by a few in power. This is not an abstract idea, it’s lived practice, a shift from fighting against the system to creating something new and more humane.
Building dual power in a digital age, the #openweb and federated networks offer a glimpse of what dual power can look like. Unlike the #dotcons that feed on greed and manipulation, the openweb is rooted in principles that serve the community, #4opens, transparency, open collaboration, and autonomy. But even here, we often fall into the trap of merely copying the structures we’re trying to replace, creating the same mess under a different banner. The next step needs to be truly native to the 4opens path, transparent, open, and accountable, rejecting the commodification that the dotcons have normalized.
But digital spaces alone won’t save us. They are tools, important ones, no doubt, but we need a broader focus. We need to create real-world spaces of resistance and creation. Think community gardens that also serve as meeting points for local decision-making. Think of decentralized energy cooperatives that break free from corporate control. Think of neighbourhood assemblies that replace the hollow, bureaucratic local governments that most people have lost faith in. This is dual power in practice.
The roadblocks, the #Geekproblem and #Fasherista paths, let’s not romanticize this process. We need to acknowledge the challenges within our movements, the #geekproblem and the #fashernista paths that unconsciously block the change we need. The geekproblem is the obsession with technical solutions over social and political ones, while the fashernista path focuses on trendy but superficial activism that serves as more of a social club, careerism, than a serious challenge to power. Both paths have their place, but they should not dominate our paths. We need to keep our focus on the bigger picture.
Moving beyond the noise, to those who say, “Now is not the time,” I ask, “When will it be?” The crisis is here. We are all worshiping the #deathcult, masking 40 years of #neoliberal ideology, pretending we have choices that simply don’t exist. Now is precisely the time to dig in, get our hands dirty, and start composting this mess we’ve been dragged into. The work ahead isn’t easy, and there will be mistakes, missteps, and mess-ups along the way. But that’s okay. Composting is messy work, and so is building a more open and sustainable world.
If you’re waiting for someone to tell you what to do, you’ve already missed the point. Dual power isn’t a blueprint; it’s a living practice. It’s a call to start building the new and composting the old, right now, where you are. Lift your head, look at the mess, and start digging. Together, we can build something better than the scraps we’ve been given. Join us on this humanistic adventure in social technology and direct action. The #openweb, the #commons, and the real-world spaces we build are where the future lies. Let’s make it happen #OMN
In progressive discussions about technology and open source, there is intolerant pushing of mess from people who say “just focus on the code” without the politics. This is an understandable outlook, but it is also stupid, based on a misunderstanding of what is Free/Open Source Software (#FOSS). This everyday pushing of mess making comes from #blinded#mainstreaming people claiming that FOSS is “a-political” or should be kept that way, and shows a lack of any understanding of this movement.
As this article highlights, the idea of “a-political” Free Software is not only incorrect; it’s historically nonsense. Free Software is intrinsically and unavoidably political. It is not simply about code; it is about who controls the code and, therefore, who controls the user. This is why the path that many projects take, to jam FOSS into capitalism without addressing these core issues, is a mess and failing path.
The roots of free software are in a political and ethical movement that just happens to focus on software. “Computer users should be free to modify programs to fit their needs, and free to share software, because helping other people is the basis of society.” This is not just a technical stance; it is a moral, ethical, and political one. The idea that users should have the right to control their own digital lives and help others do the same is at the heart of Free Software. This #KISS foundation opposes proprietary software, where users are legally prevented from helping their neighbours, thus restricting their freedom.
“Computer users should be free to modify programs to fit their needs, and free to share software, because helping other people is the basis of society.”
The emergence of the “Open Source” in the late 1990s pushed change on this “native” path, into a more #mainstreaming direction by shifting focus to development benefits, pushing out the ethical and political core. This, however, does not change the foundational politics of Free Software, it merely tries to mask it, to hide it, by pushing out of sight the political core, this is mess making and the normal mainstream “common sense” when it comes to taking up any Alt paths, this is a history we need to stop.
The difference between Free Software and Open Source: “Open source is a development methodology; free software is a social movement.” For the #opensource path, non-free software is a suboptimal technical solution. For the FOSS path, non-free software is a social problem that needs challenging and changing. This is a distinction that some who try to take this path fail to recognize, leading to the meany messy social and coding projects we try to make work today.
As the #dotcons world increasingly face crises of privacy, control, and trust, the relevance of these distinctions, hopefully, becomes more into focus. From tech giants abusing data to governments exploiting backdoors, the ethical foundation that Free Software rests upon is needed, not optional.
The politics of software, the idea that software can be a-political, is a misunderstanding of what software does and represents. As Larry Lessig says – “Our choice is not between ‘regulation’ and ‘no regulation.’ The code regulates. It implements values, or not. It enables freedoms, or disables them. It protects privacy, or promotes monitoring.” Every decision in software development, from what features to include, to how data is handled, to what kind of accessibility is provided, is a political one. There is no “neutral” code. Decisions about prioritizing user rights, security, and privacy are political decisions, and they shape the wider digital networks we live within.
All code is ideology solidified into action – thus most contemporary code is capitalism, this is hardly a surprise if you think about this at all. Yes, you can try and act on any ideology path from this code, but the outcome and assumptions are preprogramed. If we continue to pretend that the software and platforms can be devoid of politics, we are, taking a side, and actively contributing to the mainstream mess that dotcons push, and this is the mess we urgently need to move away from. As outlined on my website, we need to focus on building a #openweb projects that respect people, rather than merely mimicking corporate platforms with a veneer of openness as we do so often, on the #Fediverse, #Bluesky etc.
Conclusion: stop pretending and start building, to those who wish to “just code” without the politics, it needs to be continually pointed out strongly that is impossible in the path of impactful software development. Every piece of software carries with it values, ethics, and political implications. Acknowledging this is the first step toward building digital networks that serves the people, rather than controlling them. We need to walk a path away from the mess of #mainstreaming towards a more open and humanistic internet.
The #nostr crew are the children of #web3 mess, they are a bit reformed, let’s see.
Then the #BlueSky are the reformed children of the #dotcons
The #fediverse is the child of the #openweb
Q. Where would you put #dat or #ssb and in general the #p2p post-web tools?
A.
#dat is a child of the #geekproblem if it is reformed or not, you can maybe tell me? #SSB was a wild child, now sickly/lonely with the #fahernable kids gathering round #nostr #p2p was the poster child of the era of the #openweb it was caught in the quicksand of legal issues, the shadow that was left was eclipsed by “free to use” #dotcons Now finds it hard to come back due to mobile devices not having an IP address, thus most people not actually able to use p2p reliably.
