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

We have a blinded dogma running our economic, social and environmental lives, 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 of every type. 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. You see this everyday life.

The open vs. closed data dichotomy is currently largely invisible, so good to bring focus to this. 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 the 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, the #closedweb is something we need to put energy into composting.

In the emerging #openweb ecosystem, there is a new model – one rooted in #opendata signalling. Unlike market signals driven for 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 currently 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 any intermediaries distorting and monetizing it for control.

Imagine policymaking informed by real-time public discourse, free from the profit-driven filters. 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 closed 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. The fear of spam and manipulation, which critics often raise, must be addressed with intelligent design and federated community moderation. Yet, these challenges are surmountable compared to the unsustainable trajectory of a market that fails to act collectively for evern basic survivability.

Moving beyond worship, with our reverence for the “free market” as an ultimate arbiter has reached its logical and moral 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 #closedweb. 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.

Shifting the #mainstreaming to the #openweb

We need to try and make the inrushing #mainstreaming agenda more functional in the #openweb reboot, how do we do this? One way is to strengthen community governance with native decentralized decision-making frameworks that involve more voices from the grassroots, like the #OGB project. This is self empowering, as tools based on federated models (like those used in the #Fediverse) empower people to participation in decision-making processes rather than normal top-down dictates.

But this is going to be very hard without developing a supportive ecosystem for builders with funding beyond the #fashernistas. To make this happen we need to shift funding mechanisms toward projects that align with the values of the #4opens (open data, open standards, open source, and open process). This means supporting those who build with the public good in mind, not pointless flashy, trendy ideas, and tech fashions. Empower developers with a community focus by highlighting projects that prioritize #UX and community needs rather than only tech novelty. Encourage #FOSS governance practices that are transparent and inclusive. Foster this inclusivity by bridging the current silos with cross-community dialogues, to facilitates discussions that bring together different paths in alt-tech, civic tech, and grassroots movements for cross-pollinate ideas and useful paths to take.

Ensure that platforms and networks being built do not simply cater to niche tech communities but are accessible and usable by the wider public, thus focus on practical relevance. This helps to empower people to understand the importance of decentralized tech and how it benefits them directly. We need to do this to break down the barriers posed by the #geekproblem and demystifies participation in the #openweb paths. A strong part of this is organizing hands-on workshops that engage people in contributing to shaping the projects.

We can’t do this without accept that failures are part of the process. Instead of discarding what doesn’t work, use these experiences as compost – breaking down what failed and learning from it to build stronger, more functional initiatives. This plays a role in shifting cultural narratives to challenge and change the storeys around the #openweb and wider #openculture to include cooperative problem-solving and mutual respect. Shifting the focus from tech utopianism to realistic, impactful change.

This process is about building tech paths that are adaptable and capable of evolving with peoples needs and global conditions, including #climatechaos and hard right socio-political shifts that are accelerating. A part of this is support for meany small tech paths that link and flow information and communities.

In this rebooting of the #openweb it becomes a part of a shifting #mainstreaming to better tolerate and promote messy participatory governance, redirect funding to genuine, community-oriented projects, and championing inclusive, sustainable paths. The composting analogy is usefull as it emphasizes learning from past mistakes and continuously building resilient, inclusive solutions #KISS

What can we do with our fashernistas?

How can we mediate the #NGO blocking?

A test, that we need to actively push is to look at people and projects to see if they link, a basic part is the act of linking, which goes far beyond a simple convenience; it forms the backbone of an interconnected, accessible, and transparent internet. Yet, many people overlook its importance or misunderstand its role, especially when transitioning from #dotcons (corporate-controlled platforms) to #openweb environments. To sustain the promise of an open, people-driven internet, we need to recognize and actively engage with the practice of sharing non-mainstream links #KISS

But yes we do need to mediate the current mess, don’t feed the trolls, keeps coming to mind, when looking at the liberal #mainstreaming #X influx, this is like waves washing on the shore, be the shore not the wave.

How can we mediate the #NGO blocking?

The #NGO world has been both ally and obstacle for decades. Too often, NGOs smother movements with paperwork, reporting cycles, and status-quo compromises. They professionalize struggle into careers, replacing urgency with strategy documents, and radicalism with caring workshops. Survival of the institution becomes more important than the fight itself.

But if we are serious about an #openweb reboot, we cannot just reject the #NGO crew outright. They have resources, networks, legitimacy in the eyes of institutions, and people who genuinely want change. The task is to make them more functional – to mediate them into alignment with grassroots, horizontal, #4opens values.

Transparency vs. the black box. Most NGOs operate like closed castles. Decisions are opaque, wrapped in “internal processes” no one can see. This is poison for trust. The antidote: embed radical transparency. Decisions must be documented, accessible, and open to input. When governance is open, collaboration becomes possible. When it’s closed, suspicion festers and movements fracture.

Flexibility vs. Rigidity. NGOs love five-year plans, KPIs, and strategy frameworks that collapse on contact with reality. In a world spinning into #climatechaos and political instability, rigidity is suicide. The fix: embrace iterative, adaptive paths. Think agile. Test, fail, learn, pivot. If grassroots crews can adapt in the streets and on the fly, NGOs can damn well learn to adapt in their boardrooms.

Tech as Social, Not Specialist. One of the worst NGO habits is treating technology as a “separate department.” IT staff build tools no one uses while the campaigners rely on #dotcons because “that’s where people are.” This deepens dependency and undermines any autonomy. The answer: hard code social understandings into tech frameworks. Train staff in digital literacy. Break the barrier between “techies” and “non-techies.” Build tools with grassroots values at the core, not bolted on as an afterthought.

Decentralization vs. Dependence. NGOs instinctively centralize, but resilience comes from decentralization. #Fediverse and #P2P networks show the way: messy, federated, harder to control, but alive. NGOs need to step off the corporate #dotcons treadmill and start investing in distributed infrastructures that empower communities instead of platforms.

Funding without shackles. Follow the money, and you find the leash. #NGO agendas bend to donors, governments, and foundations. If your funding is tied to maintaining the status quo, radical change is impossible. Solution: diversify funding. Community crowdfunding. Partnerships with projects that share #openweb values. Build independence rather than dependency. Stop mistaking survival for success.

Beyond tokenism. Diversity statements, inclusion workshops, and endless identity branding have become the fig leaves of #NGO culture. It’s just box-ticking while real grassroots voices are sidelined. True inclusivity means messy organizing: bringing in voices you don’t control, valuing experience over credentials, connecting with movements like #XR and #OMN not to manage them but to amplify them. Tokenism builds silos; real inclusivity builds bridges.

The polemic. The NGO crew must choose: remain bureaucratic husks feeding on donor cycles, or transform into allies that enable radical grassroots change. We do not need their brands. We do not need their logos on banners. We need their structures to stop blocking and start enabling. That means adopting the #4opens, embracing federation, composting control culture, and learning from messy grassroots organizing.

The truth is simple:

NGOs that cling to their black boxes, their rigidity, their donor-driven agendas, will collapse into irrelevance.
NGOs that embrace openness, decentralization, and collaboration can play a real role in rebooting the #openweb.

This isn’t about saving NGOs. It’s about saving movements from being smothered by them.

#KISS #OMN #4opens

In part, the USA shift to the right is due to the #geekproblem in tech

The political power that Silicon Valley and Big Tech pushed over this election is a real #geekproblem threat, with the #dotcons leveraging technological and financial influence to shape society in ways that benefit the nasty few and undermine basic democratic paths we need to be fallowing to mediate #climatechaos

One path to balance this #mainstreaming mess making is the need for active and healthy critiques of the lack of institutional support for #openweb projects and paths that focus on humanistic alternatives to these Big Tech platforms. The problem we need to challange is that organizations theoretically supportive of democratic values, such as #NLNet and #NGI, sideline core “native” paths in tech as “too radical”, instead favouring safe narrow #geekproblem and #NGO tech paths which we know do not work. This is frustrating, and with the increasing authoritarianism spreading worldwide, it’s a part of the #deathcult we all worship.

The “geekproblem” in tech is about challenges arising from the culture and mindset within technical communities, particularly around developers and engineers. It is associated with an overemphasis on technical solutions, insularity, and a tendency to prioritize technological efficiency or novelty over broader social and ethical considerations.

Overemphasis on Technical Solutions: People involved in tech prioritize creating or improving technical features while overlooking social impacts or peoples needs. This leads to “solutionism,” where every problem is assumed to have a tech-based answer, neglecting simpler, social, or policy-based solutions.
Insularity and Group Think: The tech world is insular, with tight-knit subcultures that resist input from outside communities and dismiss perspectives that don’t align with technical paths. This leads to narrow solutions and a resistance to the needer wider perspectives, ultimately #blocking the social change and challenge we need.
Focus on Control over Collaboration: Tech communities are often defacto hierarchical, top-down in the paths of design and governance, leading to a “we know best” paths. This often alienates non-technical people and discourages cooperative and participatory input, making it hard to integrate open, community-based governance in to the narrow paths that are imposed.
Ignoring and Dismissing Social Issues: Focused on technical work overlook social issues the tech is supposed to be addressing and solving. By focusing only on engineering, they overlook who has access to the technology, who benefits from it, and what ethical implications it brings, perpetuating the disconnect between technology and the communities it made for.
Resistance to Broadening Perspective: Tech creators actively resist moving beyond their own narrow areas of expertise and interest, they block ideas and initiatives that don’t fit within their immediate understanding, inhibiting growth and the needed experimentation. This resistance limits meaningful progress, community needs, and alternative technologies.

In sum, the #geekproblem stems from a blend of narrow technical focus, resistance to diverse input, and lack of attention to social impact. Addressing it involves building more inclusive, collaborative, and socially aware tech paths that embrace #4opens broader perspectives beyond the purely technical.

We now need to compost these piles of #techshit

Composting the social mess to balance the change we need

In the online spaces I navigate, there’s no shortage of #fashernistas crowding the conversation, diverting focus from the native #openweb paths we urgently need to explore. They take up space and ultimately block more than they build. Then there’s the #geekproblem: while geeks get things done within narrow boundaries, they’re rigidly resistant to veering beyond their lanes, dogmatically shutting down alternatives to the world they’re so fixated on controlling. This produces a lot of #techshit, occasionally innovations, but with more that needs composting than the often limited value they create.

Then there are the workers, many of whom default to the #NGO path. Their motivations lean toward self-interest rather than collective good, masking this in liberal #mainstreaming dressed up as activism. At worst, they’re serving the #deathcult of neoliberalism; at best, they’re upholding the status quo. This chaotic mix dominates alternative culture, as it always has, and the challenge is one of balance. Right now, we have more to compost than we have to plant and build with.

What would a functioning alternative to this current mess in alt paths look like? Well we don’t have to look far as there is a long history of working alt culture, and yes I admit it “works” in messy and sometimes dysfunctional ways, but it works. What can we learn and achieve from taking this path and mating it with modern “native #openweb technology, which over the last five years has managed in part to move away from the #geekproblem with #ActivityPub and the #Fediverse.

Blending the resilience and collective spirit of historical alternative cultures with the new strengths of federated, decentralized tech solutions like ActivityPub and the Fediverse, the path we need to take:

Community-Centric Design: Historically, alternative cultures prioritize more communal, open, and egalitarian paths. The path out of this mess need to be rooted in this ethos, a new alt-tech landscape could leverage federated technology to avoid centralization and corporate control, emphasizing community ownership. The Fediverse, with its decentralized model, embodies this shift, each instance is a unique community with shared norms, which helps to protect against centralized censorship and allows diversity without imposing a single dominant path.
Resilient, Messy, and Organic Growth: A #KISS lesson from traditional alternative spaces is that success doesn’t require perfect order. Alt-culture spaces thrive on a degree of chaos and adaptability, which enables rapid response to new challenges and paths. This messiness aligns with how decentralized systems function: they’re, resilient, while letting communities develop their own norms and structures while remaining connected to a larger network.
Mediating the #Geekproblem: A key challenge in the tech space is overcoming the “problem” geeks, where technical cultures focus narrowly on technical functionality at the expense of accessibility and inclusiveness. ActivityPub and Fediverse have shifted this by prioritizing people-centric design and by being open to non-technical contributions. Integrating more roles from diverse social paths—designers, community, activists—can bridge gaps between tech-focused and community-focused paths.
Using #4opens Principles: The “#4opens” is native to #FOSS philosophy—open data, open source, open process, and open standards—guide this ecosystem. By adopting transparency in governance and development, communities foster trust and accountability. This openness discourages monopolistic behavior, increases collaboration, and enables #KISS accountability.
Sustainable Engagement Over Growth: Unlike the current #dotcons model that focuses on endless growth and engagement metrics, the alternative path prioritizes quality interactions, trust-building, and meaningful contributions. This sustainable engagement path values people’s experience and community health over data extraction and advertising revenue.
Leveraging Federated Technology for Cross-Pollination: ActivityPub has shown that federated systems don’t have to be isolated silos; they can be connected in a openweb of interlinked communities. Just as historical alt-cultures drew strength from diversity and exchange, the Fediverse path allows for collaboration and cross-pollination between communities while maintaining autonomy.

By integrating these native #openweb principles, we create an alt-tech ecosystem that is democratic, inclusive, and resistant to the mess that currently plague #mainstreaming and some alt-tech paths. This hybrid path allows tech to serve communities authentically, fertilising sustainable growth and meaningful, collective agency that we need in this time to counter the mainstream mess.

Building #FOSS bridges

There is a divide in #FOSS between #openculture and #opensource that is becoming more visible and a significant tension is growing, with each movement originating from different perspectives on sharing and collaboration, even though they overlap in the broad mission of making knowledge and technology accessible. You can see this in the AI debates and in grassroots “governance” in the #Fediverse and the issues this brings up as current examples. The differences are in focus and motivation:

Value path: Open Source focuses on the technical, structured development of software, with licences that ensure people can access, modify, and redistribute code. It tends to be practical, driven by the necessity to create robust, community-driven technology.
Open Culture, however, extends beyond software to include media, art, and knowledge. It centres around the idea that cultural paths – art, literature, music, and other media – should be accessible and adaptable by more people. It values knowledge sharing in all forms, encompassing the ethical path that information and culture should be democratized.
Legal frameworks and licences: Open Source relies on licences like GPL, Apache, and MIT licenses that set clear boundaries on how code can be used and ensure that software modifications remain open. This fosters collaboration but also keeps contributions within a strong structured framework.
Open Culture, leans on Creative Commons (CC) licences, which are more flexible in terms of content usage and address a broader range of creative and educational materials. These licences vary widely, allowing authors to shape how much or how little freedom people have to use their contributions, which can lead to different interpretations of “openness.”
#FOSS and Open Source communities are more driven by practical needs and more standardized approach to governance, which function at times as gatekeeping and can be seen as restrictive by Open Culture advocates. There’s often an emphasis on the meritocratic and structured contributions, rather than the more messy cultural paths.
Open Culture communities are more fluid, valuing inclusivity, encouraging contributions from broader groups. This can create tension with Open Source projects that prioritize hard structured paths.

Today, we see this division in action with increasing calls from the Open Culture side for a more inclusive, less restrictive approach. Open Culture argue that #FOSS and Open Source can be too rigid, excluding many types of cultural contributions and voices that don’t fit neatly into software development paths. Conversely, Open Source proponents view Open Culture as lacking in the clear boundaries that have shaped Open Source to work in structured technological development paths.

Bridging the gap: For #openweb projects, addressing this divide to respect a path for both technical standards and the inclusiveness Open Culture calls for. Projects like #OMN and #4opens navigate this divide, building on community-driven networks where technical governance is balanced with cultural openness. We push the building of tools that emphasize accessibility and collaboration – while being technically robust and community-driven to bridge the gap, aligning Open Source rigour with Open Culture’s inclusiveness.

To move forward, both communities benefit from dialogues focused on shared values, finding where their paths complement each other, but with clear strengthens and weakness to both paths. This issue is important as we confront the composting of #techshit and #dotcons and in the wider world the onrushing #climatechaos that all require technological, cultural, and social reshaping to adapt.

Then there is this issue to think about https://lovergine.com/foss-governance-and-sustainability-in-the-third-millennium.html

The Activist History of the Web: Lessons we can learn

Over the last few decades, the web’s evolution has been shaped by competing ideals. Early on, we witnessed the shift from the “better” #closedweb corporate controlled paths to an #openweb #DIY explosion—a time when collaborative, decentralized approaches thrived. #Mainstreaming efforts to recapture this #4opens spirit failed for years, but eventually, corporate-driven dot-coms platforms captured the majority of people. Activist voices were muffled as #dotcons pushed mainstream interests, pulling away the community-driven power the web once enabled. This phase was a bait-and-switch operation, leading to surveillance capitalism and making it harder to stand up for collective, public-first internet paths.

A key aspect here is that this decline wasn’t caused by isolated figures but by broader, recurring social forces, like #fahernistas and the #geekproblem, who fell into patterns of adopting dominant narratives by failing to recognize the alt values of “native” open tech paths. As this happened, the #NGO world came in with “nice funding,” which subtly aligned activist tech initiatives with liberal, watered-down approaches. This pushed and promoted co-option over the power of change. The result was tech stagnation, with communities gradually losing their voice and control, the mess we were in 5 years ago.

The current openweb revival is due to protocols like #ActivityPub, coinciding with the rise of #web03, which was about re-implements #closedweb paths. This presents both a challenge and an opportunity, especially as the rotting of dotcons reveals the hollowness of centralization. While this #reboot has potential, it’s often bogged down by the same forces that hindered past movements. The #fahernistas focus on transient tech trends and individualistic coding projects that ignore the power of collective working, and the #web03 uncritical push of #encryption as a solution without a broader social strategy results in mountains of #techshit.

What works? Building from simple foundations: As digital activists and #DIY tech communities try to reboot the web, it’s essential to start with simplicity: #KISS principles (Keep It Simple, Stupid) offer a practical foundation. Instead of complex, flashy approaches, this mindset prioritizes clarity, accessibility, and collective agency. Each simple, intentional step creates a more durable basis to counter #mainstreaming forces.

What do we need: Self-organization tools within community are needed to reshape the path. Hashtags, for instance, have devolved into self-branding tools (fashernista), whereas they originally provided decentralized organizing power. Reclaiming these tools for grassroots purposes helps bring DIY activism to the forefront and build cohesive networks across digital paths.

What needs balance: The #VC poison of “nice funding” and #NGO co-option, are the big challenges facing the #openweb movement. Often, well-intentioned tech initiatives accept NGO money to sustain themselves, but this financial support is not neutral. The NGO world, embedded in liberal agendas, steers projects toward safe, palatable solutions that appeal to funders rather than fostering the radical shifts needed for real change. This sugar-coated poison draws tech initiatives away from their roots and into a cycle of compromise, weakening the collective power that grassroots projects depend on.

What can we do? As we look at ways to reignite a meaningful openweb, these lessons from history are crucial. Without seeing these patterns, we are repeating the same mistakes and allowing corporate and liberal to dictate the paths we take to build our shared digital commons. How we actually make this work is not obverse, but the current #fedivers reboot is a seed that is in the ground and growing.

I use the #4opens as a tool to do this as it’s simply #foss development with #openprocess added on, a useful tool to get past what people say their projects are about. And what they are actually about https://unite.openworlds.info/Open-Media-Network/4opens we need tools like this to compost the piles of #techshit people keep creating, if we are to have soil to grow tech seeds of hope, like #Activertypub

The path is simple, who is coming down it with me and meany others?

Trying to build a bridge

Parasite #NGO and #fashionista tech

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.