A compass for the #openweb

In a world spiralling deeper into “post-truth,” we’re bombarded by complexity, much of it fuelled by #techchurn and the hollow distractions of #fashernist culture. To cut through noise, we need clarity, that starts with defining basic terms. From the #KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid) path, for a tech-focused lens:

Left = Open/Trust
Right = Control/Fear

This division isn’t only simple dogmatic political; it’s a foundational question of values. Do we build from paths rooted in trust and openness, or do we fall into the normal fear-driven hierarchies of control? The current complexity, without clear values, becomes a swamp, where movements stagnate, progressive progress collapses, and meaningful change evaporates. The mess we have been in for the last 20 years.

Complexity is a dead end, without #KISS clarity, much of the tech world, and by extension, in a world shaped by #dotcons, society, is locked in loops of “common sense” failure. Vertical hierarchies, even well-meaning ones, tend to falter when addressing horizontal, community-driven efforts. It’s less a question of structure and more about values. Without shared trust and openness, even the best technology will fail to create anything lasting or transformative.

Post-truth “common sense”, control and fear, feeds directly into the #deathcult of neoliberalism—a system that thrives on exploitation and reinforces itself as the ONLY viable path. This is the comfort zone for many: worshipping growth, power, and profit as if there’s no alternative. Building away from this with social truth, grounded in shared values and trust, is hard work, but it’s the only viable counterbalance. Without it, we’re just digging ourselves deeper into the pit of stinking social and #techshit.

The #OMN needs a crew with shovels, not worshippers, to work to compost this mess. To reboot the #openweb, we need tools, not temples. The Open Media Network (#OMN) is such a shovel. It’s a framework for creating fertile ground where horizontal values can thrive. Verticals often resist this because they’re entrenched in control structures. Yet, history has shown that without horizontal integration—grassroots participation, open governance, and shared ownership—movements fail to achieve meaningful, lasting impact.

We’ve spent too many years building on complexity, expecting it to fix the very problems it creates. Instead, let’s simplify. Define values clearly, prioritize openness and trust, and focus on practical tools like #OMN and #OGB. Yes, this is a messy process—shovelling always is—but it’s the only way to compost the “shit” of the #deathcult into something that can grow.

It’s time to stop chasing the distractions of #techchurn and #fashernist thinking. Pick up the shovel, embrace #KISS, and start digging. The future of the #openweb—and, frankly, the planet—depends on it.

Looking at some of the issues we need to fix

#NGO-driven approach to activism are a part of the challenges of #mainstreaming agendas in both tech and social movements. NGOs at best aim to “make the mess work a bit better” without addressing root causes of anything in an affective way. This band-aid path aligns them too much with the mainstreaming agenda rather than fostering a systemic change agenda. This need for maintaining “relevance” leads to shallow solutions rather than transformative action.

With activist projects, half entangled in this #NGO world, struggling to build shared objectives, collaboration becomes fragmented, and efforts fail to scale horizontally or vertically and sustain much impact. We have historical paths to mediate this, like the #PGA (Peoples’ Global Action) that aligning around clear hallmarks galvanizes collective action. With grassroots tech and user engagement, projects fail without people and communities. If people remain tethered to #dotcons, our work on grassroot projects die before they take off. Activists criticize dotcons but often fail to leave them, perpetuating the paths and systems they oppose, a symptom of the #deathcult worship.

Many radical/progressive tech initiatives focus on aesthetics (#fashernista) or isolated #geekproblem goals without contributing to broader movements like rebooting grassroots media, these efforts become distractions and dead ends, they waste time and focus. What is needed is to provide compelling alternatives to the dotcons that people can genuinely use and build upon to step away, so activism can play a bigger role. Leaving the #dotcons and embracing decentralized, ethical platforms is itself a form of activism, it’s a #KISS path that undermines the #deathcult and creates space for alternatives to thrive.

Composting pointless projects, we need to identify and “compost” projects that fail to contribute meaningfully to broader goals. This isn’t about cynicism, but about redirecting energy toward initiatives that matter. Use the energy of critique to inspire better efforts rather than dismiss entirely. Key question, how do we bridge the gap between critique and action to avoid losing people and momentum in the current mess, and not just create more mess? A first step is to challenge activists to step back, think critically, and act boldly, with a reminder that inaction—or misguided action—is a victory for the #deathcult.

Q. how do you envision the #4opens and #OMN evolving? What can you do to make this happen?

Let’s build tools that reflect human flourishing

One of the strong #blocking forces is #mainstreaming objectives being imposed on non-mainstream projects. This is a strong recurring issue in alternative tech spaces like the #openweb and #Fediverse. This happens because people perceive mainstreaming as “common sense,” mistaking it for adding value. Over time, this mess erodes the radical, decentralizing paths, feeding people back into the centralization of #dotcons and perpetuating the #stupidindividualism we are trying to overcome.

Define and defend non-mainstream objectives with strong clarity of purpose. Clearly articulating the goals and principles of #openweb projects, emphasizing the value of non-mainstreaming paths. This needs to be anchored in frameworks like the #4opens and ethical guidelines such as the #PGA Hallmarks. Build the community agreements to hold these in place to ensure contributors understand and commit to these principles. Actively use documents, onboarding materials, and collective discussions to signpost these paths.
Strengthen “native” culture against #stupidIndividualism by balancing the push for collective governance, we need federated and decentralized governance structures like #OGB (Open Governance Body). These prevent individuals from overriding group objectives with personal agendas. Emphasize trust by fostering a culture that prioritizes relationships and trust over competition and self-interest.
Build post-scarcity #FOSS tools that focus on simplicity and functionality, avoid overloading projects with unnecessary features (#techshit) that complicate usability and dilute the #KISS vision. Prioritize accessibility, with tools that empower communities without requiring heavy technical expertise, making them usable and scalable without compromising their radical foundations. Use the #4opens to anchor technology in open processes, data, licences, and standards to ensure transparency and prevent co-optation.
Compost the stinking pile of #techshit. Shovels are a metaphor for composting, to open spaces for critique and push back #mainstreaming attempts constructively. Use feedback loops to identify and counteract behaviours that undermine these paths. Use real-world examples to illustrate the long-term harm. To combat the “common sense” myths, highlight how #mainstreaming benefits centralized systems and reinforces the #deathcult that meany people worship.
Resilience in the #fediverse and beyond is grown by practical limiting node scalability, in federated flows, understand scalability limits based on moderation and quality. This prevents overgrowth and maintains trust within smaller, more accountable communities. Encourage decentralization, by supporting the diversity of smaller instances rather than a few dominant ones. This ensures resilience and reduces the risk of centralization.

We need to be building tools for flourishing, in a large part to counteract #stupidindividualism and mainstreaming, for this we need affinity groups that focus on post-scarcity tech and tools that foster trust, collaboration, and grassroots empowerment. To make this happen, we need these affinity groups to use the #4opens as a guiding framework and the #OGB to organize collective governance. By prioritizing these non-mainstreaming flows, we expand the #openweb sustainably while preserving its radical, human-centered roots. Let’s build tools that reflect human flourishing, not corporate consolidation. It’s hard work, but it’s the only path forward that can work.

Federated Trust Networks: A Path

The future of grassroots and decentralized media lies in federated trust networks, not in the current, 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 licences, 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-centred 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.

Open-source and #FOSS as everyday anarchism

Grassroots Open Source Software (#FOSS) is a powerful example of anarchist organization in action, even if unintentionally. It’s a decentralized, cooperative model where people work together, driven by shared goals, not bosses or hierarchies. #FOSS has proven faster and more responsive than proprietary systems, cutting through bureaucracy to solve problems.

While not perfect (projects can fail due to poor organization or lack of interest), this path outpaces the traditional alternatives bogged down by debt, delay, and rigid management structures. It thrives because skilled teams self-manage, focusing on tasks that matter without over-management, a path and principle that resonates far beyond software.

Anarchist solutions don’t need to be perfect; they just need to be better than the deeply flawed paths we walk now. And #FOSS proves that they can be #KISS

The #OGB is a tool to push this out as a social tech path native to this.

The #NGO and #dotcons use of #FOSS is a whole another subject we do need to talk about.

Why radical media embrace’s #FOSS and the #4opens

Grassroots radical media has always sought to challenge and reshape dominant narratives. To do this effectively, it must adhere to principles of transparency, accessibility, and collaboration. This is why #FOSS (Free and Open Source Software) and the #4opens framework are foundational. They aren’t just technical choices, they’re philosophical commitments to building equitable and resilient systems.

Transparency, open-source tools allow communities to see and understand the code they rely on, ensuring no hidden mechanisms compromise privacy or autonomy. The #4opens—open process, open data, open standards, and open licences—extend this transparency to decision-making, information sharing, and collaboration.
Accessibility, #FOSS tools remove barriers to entry by being freely available, reducing dependency on corporate and proprietary platforms. Grassroots projects should not depend on tools controlled by the systems they seek to challenge.

Resilience and autonomy, open-source systems allow communities to adapt and maintain tools independently, ensuring sustainability without external reliance. This autonomy is key to resisting co-optation or suppression by powerful entities.

Activism aims to build resistance to the dominant flow of power, pushing progressive change. #Mainstreaming, often driven by NGOs, does the opposite, it smooths resistance, aligning activism with the status quo. While this alignment might bring short-term visibility and funding, it undermines radical #KISS goals. Understanding this distinction is crucial for grassroots projects.

Main streaming paths, focuses on making activism palatable to existing power structures. Often funded to perpetuate jobs and programs rather than systemic change.
Activism Goals, challenges and disrupts mainstream systems to create alternative pathways. Prioritizes systemic change over institutional comfort.

To take the activism and grassroots paths, we need help addressing verbiage and over-analysis. The challenge is in combining academia with activism is the risk of losing focus amid jargon and theory-heavy discourse. While these discussions are valuable, grassroots projects need clarity and actionable goals. A balanced approach is essential, to simplify communication use frameworks like the #4opens to distil complex ideas into accessible principles. Prioritize outcomes, ensure discussions translate into clear plans and measurable actions.

The time to #reboot grassroots tech. The current over-reliance on proprietary #dotcons platforms controlled by corporate interests stifles radical change. A #reboot is needed to reinvigorate open tech communities by reviving collaboration around #FOSS and federated tools like #ActivityPub to build decentralized, people-controlled media ecosystems. To make this happen, we need to focus on the Basics and rebuilding solidarity. The question isn’t whether we should reboot grassroots tech, but how. By staying grounded in principles like the #4opens, we can reboot lasting alternatives to the status quo.

We need historical paths to reboot the #openweb with the #fediverse

The #Indymedia network was a groundbreaking independent, grassroots journalism project, born from the #DIY ethos and the global alt-globalization movements of the late 1990s and early 2000s. It was a network where anyone anywhere could publish stories, videos, and photos, challenging #mainstreaming narratives. However, it eventually fragmented and became less relevant, then died as a functional network. Let’s look at why this happened:

The internal factors, where conflict among the crew and contributors, highlights the #encryptionists and #processgeeks, with disputes over priorities (e.g., security and processes) causing friction. Some pushed for hard encryption that complicated usability, while others emphasized bureaucratic formal consensus governance, stifling decision-making. Consensus breakdown, the decentralized decision-making path, made it hard to resolve disagreements, especially as the network grew and diversified in ideology with the influx of more #mainstreaming people. Dogmatism and fragmentation, groups became rigid in their views, leading to infighting and a lack of unity. The inability to balance diverse perspectives led to splintering. Burnout and loss of purpose, as activists struggled to maintain momentum as the network ossified.

External pressures with the rise of commercial platforms. The explosion of the #dotcons, corporate platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube drew users away from the failing Indymedia project. These platforms offered easier interfaces and massive audiences, undermining the narrowing, dogmatic grassroots appeal. Challenges with moderation, was a growing issue, dealing with fake news, spam, and inflammatory content became overwhelming. The “open publishing” model, once a strength, became a liability as it required extensive moderation. State Pushback with governments targeting Indymedia for its critical reporting, using surveillance, raids, and legal pressures to disrupt operations. This systematic marginalization contributed to its decline

Lessons for new #openweb projects. Balance simplicity and security, by avoiding overcomplicating platforms with technical measures that alienate non-technical people and communities. Strengthen trust-based governance, by adopting trust-driven models like those proposed by the Open Media Network (#OMN) to grow inclusive, mess and functional decision-making. Integrate feedback loops, to insure constant input from diverse people to adapt to evolving needs and combat creeping dogmatism. Compete on accessibility, by design platforms that are intuitive and engaging to counter the allure of #dotcons social media.

Indymedia’s legacy offers critical insights into building resilient, people-centric, and trust-based media networks that can withstand internal and external challenges. We need these historical paths to reboot the #openweb with the #Fediverse.

#indymediaback

https://unite.openworlds.info/indymedia

The #blocking of #openweb funding

Funders, #NGOs, and the #mainstreaming crew are trapped in fixed truths, while real change comes from dynamic thinking. That’s why they keep failing us. So, how do we break this cycle and move forward? For meaningful #openweb funding, we need projects that are native and align with critical social needs for the evolution of the internet, balancing openness/trust based tech with funding for outreach and feedback mechanisms.

Shifting Funding From “Fear/Control” to “Open/Trust” The Problem, current funding paths for internet projects focus on security, control, and compliance, perpetuating systems of centralized authority. This approach stifles trust-based collaboration, which are essential for the #openweb path. Action: help to advocate for dedicated funding streams for projects explicitly focused on decentralization, trust-building, and open governance structures like the Open Media Network (#OMN) and #OGB. Incorporate trust-based metrics into funding criteria, rewarding projects that demonstrate sustainable, human-centered governance.
Bridging hard tech and soft use. The Problem: Hard tech (protocols, platforms) develop in isolation from people, leading to tools that fail to meet real-world social needs. Action: Allocate funds for programs to bridge developers and user communities, ensuring reciprocal feedback between tech builders and real life communities. Establish mechanisms to incorporate insights from “soft use” (how people interact with tools) into the iterative development of “hard tech.” Support user-led design initiatives for communities to directly shape the platforms they use.
Governance: The Problem: Existing tech networks prioritize technical over social design, exacerbating the #geekproblem of over-complexity and alienating the change we need. Action: Fund projects like the OMN that flip this dynamic, prioritizing human networks as the foundation for technical systems. This creates tools that reflect and support the needs of grassroots communities. Promote protocols like #ActivityPub to enhance interoperability and people/community autonomy across networks.
The OMN is a lightweight framework with five core functionalities aimed at building a trust-based semantic web:
* Publish: Share content as objects.
* Subscribe: Follow streams of interest (people, organizations, topics).
* Moderate: Manage trust by endorsing or rejecting content flows
* Rollback: Remove historical flows content from the point trust is broken.
* Edit Metadata: Improve the discoverability and context of content.
These tools enable people to control their digital spaces and data flows while horizontally growing collaboration and accountability

This native #openweb path requires systemic support with funding to promote tools and frameworks that build human agency and trust. By doing this, we create resilient and equitable paths in tech, moving away from the limitations of the #open and #closed web mess we keep repeating

On this subject, it’s worth looking at this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_law

The funding crisis for the #openweb isn’t just about money—it’s about values. Right now, too much funding goes into coding copies of #dotcons, replicating the same social centralized, mess under a different name. This doesn’t fix anything—it just locks us into the same broken patterns.

We need to push for native #openweb approaches—ones rooted in decentralisation, trust, and open process. History is full of projects that did this right—#indymediaback being just one example. But the real challenge isn’t just building the tech; it’s getting people to value this diversity.

Funding bodies like #NGI, #nlnet, and #ngizero could play a key role if they prioritize projects that challenge, rather than copy, the status quo. But beyond grants, we need a cultural shift—one that recognises the importance of public digital infrastructure and collective ownership over our tools.

So what can we do?

Demand funding for actual #openweb projects, not more social silos.
Build bridges between funders and radical grassroots tech.
Create our own support networks outside traditional funding models.
Shift the conversation—value the diversity, not just the tech.

If we don’t push, the funding will keep flowing into the wrong places, and we’ll be stuck recycling the same failures. Let’s compost the mess and grow something real.

#4Opens #OMN #DIY

We need a positive path for tech

The Fediverse, decentralized social networking, path is fundamentally built on trust and collaboration. This emphasizes that interactions, platform developments, and community guidelines prioritize shared values and respect, rather than being dictated by centralized controls, fear paths and governance.

Why trust matters, it’s distributed, the #Fediverse’s open protocol, #activitypub thrives because people and platforms choose to interconnect based on shared values and trust. By focusing on trust, the “ecosystem “native” path builds inclusivity, creativity, and resilience. Where #dotcons and #geejproblem fear-based strategies (e.g., excessive regulation and distrustful moderation) alienate people and fragments the network.

But we have not been very competent on this path. The plea “don’t be a prat” is a reminder for crew of all flavers to avoid overreacting and resorting to authoritarian measures when conflicts and challenges arise. Over-policing (#blocking) and adopting fear-driven paths and controls undermine the community’s trust-based flows and will push people away.

To sustain the #fediverse, we need transparent governance to encouraging open dialogue and consensus-driven decision-making. And we need strong stories that highlight the ecosystem’s reliance on collaboration over coercion. This is needed to resist co-opting by fear, to avoid fearmongering narratives that overemphasis the threats, leading to centralization and over-regulation, the very things we are stepping away from.

The #OMN story of the “inspiring organic path for tech” emphasizes grassroots, decentralized, and inclusive approaches to technology and governance:

The Open Media Network (OMN): This project focuses on decentralizing media and data flow, breaking silos, and fostering peoples control through trust-based systems. #OMN leverages the Fediverse and tools built on the #4opens framework (open data, source, standards, and processes) to create a collaborative ecosystem that resists traditional centralized controls.
Challenging Mainstream Tech Norms: The OMN and associated projects like the Open Governance Body (#OGB) address the dominance of neoliberal ideologies in tech, promoting governance that pushes community needs over hierarchical and market-driven models. It critiques paths that perpetuate #stupidindividualism and other barriers to collective action.
Empowering Grassroots Movements: Advocates for simple, accessible frameworks (e.g., the KISS principle) and strategic use of tools like #hashtags to build visibility, cohesion, and support for grassroots initiatives.

By focusing on transparency, openness, and community-led development, these paths, grow the #fediverse in to a resilient, democratic tech ecosystem. For deeper insights, you can explore Hamish Campbell’s website for more about these initiatives and their practical applications.

There is a movement growing on this path https://blog.elenarossini.com/a-new-way-to-describe-the-fediverse-and-its-opposition-to-big-tech/ and we do need this.

The #blocking of #openweb funding

This ends very badly

It’s easy to see now that the world is a mess, and we have made this mess, we have collectively ripped apart our common humanist path. On part of this I talk about is that we have spent 20 years squandering the #openweb tools of liberation and connection. In our hyper-connected era, attention has become the currency of capitalism The #dotcons tools we were pushed in to believing were empowering—apps, platforms, systems—were always instruments of control. They’re not just tools for us, they’re manipulative mechanisms engineered to shape focus and erode our autonomy, they are tools of social control.

Your attention, once an inherent to you, is now a resource being siphoned without your consent or in most people’s understanding any attention. In the #mainstreaming path, it’s as if you’re holding an account you never opened, and every time you try to tap into your own focus, you find it already spent. The result? A hollowed-out version of yourself: overwhelmed, perpetually distracted, unknowingly complicit in your own digital and social exploitation. Welcome to the ‘obsession economy,’ where the most valuable product is you.

This isn’t some unintended consequence; it’s by design. Every endless scroll, every notification, every “you might like” pop-up is a calculated move designed to map your behaviour, desires, and unconscious tendencies. The current #mainstreaming path is clear: make you a predictable machine that clicks, buys, and reacts—repeatedly. And these #dotcons systems have perfected their craft of control.

The science is well known: our dopamine pathways are hijacked and held hostage. Each surrender refines the technique, locking us into feedback loops that make each swipe feel both essential and unsatisfying. The distraction is by design; the purpose is to keep you from noticing who is profiting from this economy of fractured attention.

We still cling to the illusion of control, this is a core definition of the #geekproblem, believing ourselves to be savvy navigators of our own choices. But put your phone down for a day, and you’ll feel the “phantom itch” of notifications that never came. Try to watch a show without scrolling through social media, and you’ll feel the discomfort of a single, unshared thought. The system is built to make us fear boredom and flee from stillness because those rare moments are where self-awareness could break through. And self-awareness? That’s bad for our worship of this #deathcult.

The #deathcult is not hard to understand

So, how do we start to reclaim what has been taken? You don’t need to start big, but you do need to start relentless. Think of it as a focus detox. Eliminate all non-essential notifications. Reclaim your mornings—don’t let them be dictated by a screen. Cultivate moments of true presence, where attention isn’t an asset being exploited but a gift to be savoured. Then bring this fresh focus to create a community around the change and challenge that we so obviously need.

Lift your heads from worshipping this deathcult. In a world obsessed with monetizing every moment of focus, remember: your attention is yours to guard. Without it, the real ‘you’ is another asset on someone else’s balance sheet. This ends very badly #climatechaos is a small part of the mess we have made and are making.

Replacing market signalling with #opendata signalling

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 over the past two decades introduced #closeddata silos that have stifled and 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 #fashionista 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 signalling 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 survivability.

Moving beyond worship, with our reverence for the “free market” as an ultimate arbiter has reached its limit. By embracing opendata signalling 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.

Sorting the wheat from the chaff

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.