What should be closed? And what should never be?

A conversation about ideology, sociology, and the #openweb. Let’s start with a basic liberal framework: “Most social interactions should happen in the open. Some personal interactions should remain private.” Seems reasonable, right? That’s the position many of us think we agree on. Yet when we look at how our technology, and by extension, our society, is being built, that balance is totally out of whack. Today, more and more of life is CLOSED:

Closed apps.

Closed data.

Closed social groups.

Closed algorithms.

Closed hardware.

Closed governance.

And on the flip side, the things that should be protected, our intimate conversations, our location, our health data, are often wide open to surveillance capitalism and state control. What the current “common sense” dogma gets wrong? What is missing is the idea that mainstream tech culture, privacy absolutists, and many crypto/anarchist types:

Almost all good social power comes from OPEN.
Most social evils take root in CLOSED spaces.

When people organize together in the open, they create commons, accountability, and momentum. They make movements. When decisions are made behind closed doors, they breed conspiracy, hierarchy, abuse, and alienation.

It’s not just about what is open or closed, it’s about who controls the boundary, and what happens on each side. If we close everything… If we follow the logic of total lockdown, of defaulting to encryption, of mistrust-by-design… then what we’re left with is only the closed. This leads to a brutal truth, the powers that dominate in closed systems are rarely the good ones.
Secrecy benefits the powerful far more than the powerless. Always has.

So when we let the #openweb collapse and treat it as naive, we’re not protecting ourselves. We’re giving up the last space where power might be accountable, where ideas might circulate freely, where we might build something together.

Examples: When openness was lost. Let’s talk about a real-world case of #Diaspora vs. #RSS. 15 years ago, Diaspora emerged with crypto-anarchist hype as the alternative to Facebook. It was secure, decentralized, and… mostly closed. It emphasized encryption and privacy, but lacked network effects, openness, and simple flows of information.

In the same era, we already had #RSS, a beautifully open, decentralized protocol. It powered blogs, podcasts, news aggregators, without permission or centralized control. But the “Young #fashionistas ” of the scene shouted down RSS as old, irrelevant, and too “open.” They wanted to start fresh, with new protocols, new silos, new power. They abandoned the working #openweb to build “secure” ghost towns.

Fast-forward a decade, and now we’re rebuilding in the Fediverse with RSS+ as #ActivityPub. The same functionality. The same ideals, just more code and more complexity. That 10-year gap is the damage caused by the #geekproblem, the failure to build with the past, and for real people.

So what is the #geekproblem? At root, it’s a worldview issue. A failure to think about human beings in real social contexts. Geeks (broadly speaking) assume:

People are adversaries or threats (thus: encrypt everything),
Centralization is evil, but decentralization is always pure (thus: build silos of one),
Social complexity can be reduced to elegant protocols (thus: design first, use later).
But technology isn’t neutral. It reflects ideologies. And if we don’t name those ideologies, they drive the project blindly.

A place to start is to map your ideology, want to understand how you think about openness vs. closedness? Start by reflecting on where you sit ideologically, not in labels, but in instincts. A quick sketch:

Conservatism: Assumes order, tradition, and authority are necessary. Values stability, hierarchy, and often privacy.

Liberalism: Believes in open society, individual freedom, transparency, and market-based solutions.

Anarchism: Rejects imposed authority, promotes mutual aid, horizontal structures, and often radical openness.

None of these are “right,” but understanding where you lean helps clarify why you walk, build or support certain tools. If you’re building tools for the #openweb, these questions matter:

Do you default to closed and secure, or open and messy?

Who do you trust with knowledge—individuals or communities?

Do you believe good things come from control, or emergence?

These are sociological questions, not just technical ones, maybe start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociology and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_ideologies. Where do we go from here? Let’s bring this back to the openweb and the projects we’re trying to build, like:

#OMN (Open Media Network)

#MakingHistory

#indymediaback

#Fediverse

#P2P tools (DAT, Nostr, SSB, etc.)

All of these projects struggle with the tension between openness and privacy, between usability and purity, between federation and anarchy. But if we start with clear values, and an honest reflection on the world we want to create, we can avoid the worst traps. Let’s say it plainly:

Not everything should be open. But if we close everything, we lose what’s worth protecting.

Let’s talk: What do you think should be closed? What must be kept open at all costs? What’s your ideological instinct, and how does it shape your view of the #openweb?

Bridging the gap: Building a human-first #openweb

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scale through federation creates organic grow.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shifting tech to collaboration, accountability, and sustainability

For a nuanced take on the #geekproblem, we need to highlight challenges and cultural dynamics in tech development. A starting point is the support for standards as foundations, everything in tech is built upon layers of “open industrial standards,” which provide value and interoperability. Ignoring these foundations to create isolated systems is akin to “building sandcastles”—fragile and ephemeral. The process of defining standards, however, is itself flawed and sometimes exclusionary, reflecting broader social issues like tribalism or nationalism.

Tribalism in tech can be seen as innovation and community-building but can also create fragmentation, gatekeeping, and resistance to collaboration. Comparisons to nationalism suggest that, like nations, large #dotcons (e.g., Facebook, Google) exert power rivalling traditional states, creating their own “tribes” with significant social influence. Tribalism in tech isn’t inherently bad; it can build strong, purpose-driven communities. However, when it turns exclusionary and disconnected from real-world issues, it becomes counterproductive.

Critique of dotcons and deathcult focues on the dominance of for-profit platforms (#dotcons) and the neoliberal ideology (#deathcult) underpin much of the dysfunction in society, including within the tech world. Life “inside the dotcons” involves uncritical participation in harmful systems, perpetuating cycles of #stupidindividualism and environmental degradation (#climatechaos). Platforms like Facebook and Google exemplify prioritizing profit over public good. Moving away from this requires alternatives rooted in the #4opens: Open data, Open source, Open standards, Open processes. Projects like the #OMN exemplify this shift.

Mediating harm in tech development with the broader social and environmental impacts of technology, pushing against #stupidindividualism and toward collective, sustainable solutions. Much of the “blocking energy” comes from entrenched systems and social inertia rather than active conspiracies, though intent exists in places like #traditionalmedia. Developers have a responsibility to build systems that mediate harm and foster collective well-being. This means rejecting solutions that exacerbate individualism and embracing technologies that empower communities and address systemic issues like climatechaos.

The #geekproblem as dysfunction, the geekproblem reflects a 20th-century tribalism that fails to embrace the ethical, collaborative potential of the #openweb. Examples include failed projects like #Diaspora, which had technical merit but struggled due to cultural and governance issues. The dysfunction stems from a narrow focus on technical solutions without considering social or ethical dimensions. Bridging this gap requires integrating diverse perspectives into tech development, emphasizing simplicity and human-centric design.

We do need a call for change to address these challenges head-on, we need ethical interventions rather than drawn-out or overly complex common sense “solutions”. The geekproblem highlights the limitations of tech communities to balance technical expertise with broader social responsibility. Ultimately, the solution lies in rekindling the spirit of the openweb while actively composting the “shit heap” of the dotcons. One path is addressing the geekproblem, to shift tech culture toward collaboration, accountability, and sustainability, to create tools that serve people rather than profit #KISS

My indymedia story

#Indymedia was a decentralized, grassroots media network that emerged in the late 1990s and early 2000s. It was founded on the principles of open publishing, direct democracy, and anti-authoritarianism. The project eventually experienced a split in the UK, with one side, the #fashernista, building an aggregating site and the other #geekproblem building a centralized silo. The split was supposedly over technical disagreements, but was driven by doctrinal and tribal disputes. The decision-making process, like much activism at the time grew to rely on #formalconsensus, become ossified and unfixable, so no decisions could be made to mediate this.

outline of the #reboot project

The split was ultimately driven by a focus on control on both sides. The two sides were more interested in their own tribal agendas than in working together to build a diverse and #4opens #OMN. The silo eventually built an aggregating site, with RSS feeds, but in a very controlling way. The stress was always on control as “security” and this ultimately led to the decline of the #Indymedia project. The #dotcons took over the space, and the project became irrelevant.

I was working on the project, the person working in the middle, saying “don’t be a prat” as each side tore and tore and tore I continued in the grassroots, saying that the culture is the key and that the value is in open media network, not control. The split in Indymedia was a shit show, but we can learn from it in the reboot of the project.

The plan now is to reboot the project before the split happened, around 2008 with a focus on the #fashernitas path of the two splinter groups. This path emphasizes openmedia and decentralized structures, rather than control and centralization. However, with the reboot there is still a very real risk that some members of the community will push for a control/#encryptionist path, which could lead to another split in focus. The challenge is to find a way to walk this path without succumbing to the same tribalism and power politics that led to the decline of the original project.

The use of hashtags and semantic web technologies did not exist at the time. Tags and metadata were not core to the start original Indymedia project, but they were later being added as a way to help organize and categorize content, the idea of building a structure with #RSS feeds was being discussed and enacted.

At the time, Interestingly, the silo path recognized that their approach was wrong and came back to aggregation, with moderated control of RSS flows. This is reflected in the #OMN’s choice of “trusted flow” and “moderated flow.” We are building both sides of the split of the original project and yes, criticizing the fashernista path a little, which only had trust, which would not likely work in today’s world. It’s important we do not make this decision for people. We let them decide and build both. The key is to avoid building pointless messes and to resist the #mainstreaming urge to make a mess. We are not #mainstreaming, and we must not be prats about this.

Looking at what happened to the web after this time, the last ten years of tech history, the grassroots silo path went on to build #Diaspora, while the grassroots #fashernista path went on to build the #Fediverse. However, despite these developments, there was still no news based open media network being built yet. This led to the creation of the #OMN project and the current #indymediaback reboot path.

Unfortunately, in today’s world of liberation “cats” due to the last 20 years of worship of the #deathcult, nobody sees any value in the “open” part of the #OMN. Everyone is still fixated on the silo path of control, we have to work against this #mainstreaming blindness. Over the last 20 years, the #mainstreaming as a whole took the silo/encryptionst path of the Indymedia split. Contemporary social media took #fahernista side of the #open path, the #dotcons, took the ideas and sold us back a facsimile of this that they could control, such as #Facebook and other algorithms based #dotcons

To make the reboot work , we have to tiptoe around the legacy of #Indymedia, focus on rebooting the project in its 2008 state, where the social process were still working. The silos’ path still controls the old domains, they took as a part of the ripping apart. We are building something that looks like the fashernista path they fought against, so we need to build two projects in one: control and trust. We need to get the domains back in use, which would be a huge boost to the #reboot project. At the same time, we need to build trust with everyone else, as this is the power of open. It’s complicated, but everyone wants it back. However, the history is challenging, and the two sides are still fighting: Fediverse vs. silos as we see this old mess today.

An example of the #geekproblem

Everything we do is built on “standards” though we do have a problem of the defining bodies.

Some people like building sandcastles, it is what you are doing if you just make shit up in tech.

Actually this is fantasy as ANYTHING you are already building is already on top of a whole pile of standards.

I think people are expressing tribalism and not talking tech in practical sense at all.

What do you think?

#openweb #4opens

“open industrial standards” nebulous and problematic things, but everything in tech is built on top of a pile of them, It’s where the value is.

Nationalism is a nablus thing as well, and its where the violence is.

Tribalism can be beautiful, it can also be a problem.

Some #dotcons are bigger than nations, so maybe it’s a good metaphor?

The geek “problem” is a 20th century dysfunctional part of a tribe that is damaging to us all, think #climatechaos think #failbook think #diaspora

Talking about real issues I have been fighting for 20 years… The #stupidindividualism that treats this as personal is what am sadly talking about much of the time.

Yes, it becomes a boring circle, but it’s always about the importance of the #geekproblem as a block on the change/challenge that we need #XR

I wrote this in 2005 what has changed:

“Its going slow but we are getting there… One of the main problems seams to be a dysfunctional idea of a division of labour – ie. Every one seams to think I should do everything – as I am pretty useless at many things its no wonder it is going so slow… If you wona see something miracles happen you gota wave year arms around a bit and mutter some arcane words… Go on you can do something… Just look at the blog page to see what”

Http://HamishCampbell.com