Tag: datasoup

Looking at working with legacy media thinking – silo vs flow

Every so often I answer the out reach calls from more traditional alt/progressive media orgs, let’s look at some of the very illustrative “common sense” knock backs. The recent examples are Freedom’s reaction and Good Internet’s submission call – As their reaction is useful to illustrate the fault line of “radical publishing” in a federated media path.

Here’s a sketch of how it can (and arguably should) work if we’re serious about, #openweb, and soft-communing infrastructure:

  1. Radical publishing vs content marketing

Linking, promiscuous citation, and remixing are not “self-promotion,” they are the currency of commons media. The #deathcult “common sense” (silo good, linking bad) flips this into “spam” because it serves enclosure. A federated media path re-asserts: to link is to share; the work which is often missing is to normalize this against the #geekproblem hostility.

  1. Federated magazine model

Think of Good Internet or Freedom not as final silos but as temporary, themed hubs: Each issue/edition is an editorial filter over the wider #datasoup. Every piece lives in at least two places: Original home (blog, Fediverse post, OMN node, site). Curated home (magazine issue, zine, aggregator). Citation = federation: linking outward is a feature, not a weakness.

  1. Protocols over Silos

ActivityPub / OMN: an article = Note or Article with links, tags, signatures. Bridging: same content can be pulled into Good Internet’s site, Freedom, an OMN feed, or a #p2p archive. Editorial collectives act as curators, not gatekeepers: they federate, contextualize, and remix.

  1. Radical editorial practice

News vs. Narrative: anarchist/left publishers still to often mimic #mainstreaming news style. But radical publishing can foreground process stories (assemblies, conflicts, federations, mistakes) as valuable. The “native common sense” is that embedded links aren’t a vice; they’re a form of solidarity economy. Columns / paths: rather than stand-alone “takes,” recurring voices build a long-form conversation thread across issues.

  1. Overcoming the spam accusation

Transparency: declare openly, “this piece first appeared on hamishcampbell.com – we federate because knowledge is commons.” Reciprocity: every time you link out, you also lift other projects, so the “flow” is visible. Editorial notes: curators can preface with: “We include links because they build the #openweb – federation isn’t promotion, it’s solidarity.”

  1. Practical workflow (2026-ish)

Write a blog/site piece on your own, or community domain (independent anchor). Publish simultaneously to Fediverse (AP Article). Flag it with #OMN metadata (topic, source, tags). Editorial collectives subscribe to flows/feeds – curate into magazine/zine/weekly digest. Federation tools track lineage: where did this piece appear, when, how remixed. Readers move from curated hubs back to source domains (and sideways to other linked nodes).

  1. Why it matters to anarchists

Free software is political; so is free publishing. Federation prevents capture by the #nastyfew – no central owner can throttle which radical voices appear. Linking promiscuously creates a mutual aid economy of attention, the opposite of platform/silo enclosure. Each zine/collective/magazine is an affinity group node; federation = council of nodes. It encodes horizontalism in media.

So when you bump against “not news enough” or “too self-promotional,” that’s the clash between #mainstreaming editorial common sense and federated radical publishing practice. One assumes scarcity (guard the pages); the other assumes abundance (share the flow).

We do need to compost some of this mess #KISS

Let’s build the shovels: #OMN #indymediaback #makeingstory #OGB

Are the currently spaces trust is built at scale, or do we need to create them from scratch?

The tension between control vs. trust in tech and society is a core to defining the success or failure of grassroots, open projects like #OMN and the #fediverse. The problem isn’t just technical, but deeply social: a struggle between hierarchical control (power over) and distributed, democratic trust (power within).

But we have the ongoing #geekproblem which keeps repeating, open projects fail because devs build control-based systems rather than trust-based ones. This results in endless cycles of #techchurn, producing #techshit instead of durable, humane tools. Metaphors matter, I like to try #datasoup or #witchescauldron (with the #goldenladle as the app interface) as a powerful way to frame how we should be thinking about tech, fluid, organic, adaptable rather than rigid, controlled, and top-down.

The #4opens approach is a solution to a thriving semantic web of transparency, grassroots processes, and tools that reflect the diversity of people using them—not centralizing power in closed systems. Balance is crucial, the #openweb decays when #mainstreaming pushes over the commons, just as the #dotcons did with the early web. If we don’t actively mediate power, we lose everything to enclosure. Spreading power widely through open democratic governance, combined with a real culture of diversity and autonomy, is the best balance we’ve found so far. The problem we face is that this in our current thinking, this is anti “common sense”.

The #Fediverse is a useful case study, its strength is accidental, not only in standards, code, or power politics, but in good UX and #4opens processes. The biggest danger is internal infighting and distractions, often fuelled by ego, control struggles, and lack of process. The chaos of #mainstreaming serves a purpose, but it’s not a good one. It fractures movements, undermines trust, and ultimately hands power back to the gatekeepers.

What’s next, how do we actively resist these cycles rather than just watching them play out again? The #OMN path makes sense, but what’s the next tangible step to anchor it in practice? Are there any spaces left where trust can be built at scale, or do we need to create them from scratch?