The last 40 years of technological development (from open to closed) and its impact on society, coupled with the growing urgency of addressing #climatechange, highlight the need to fundamentally shift the way we approach technology back to open.
Key points:
Environmental Impact: The rapid growth of technology over the past few decades has come with a significant environmental cost. From the production and disposal of electronic devices to the energy consumption of data centres and digital infrastructure, the tech industry has contributed to greenhouse gas emissions, resource depletion, and environmental degradation. As we face the reality of #climatechaos, there’s a pressing need to develop and adopt technologies that minimize harm to the planet.
Social Inequality: While technology has the potential to connect people and empower communities, our embrace of the #dotcons has exacerbated social inequalities. Access to digital technologies, information, and opportunities, widening the gap between the privileged and marginalized. Moreover, #dotcons tech platforms are criticized for perpetuating discrimination, bias, and exclusion, further entrenching systemic injustices. Addressing these issues requires building “native” #openweb technology that prioritizes equity, inclusivity, and social justice.
Corporate Control and Surveillance: The dominance of large tech corporations raises concerns about corporate power. These companies wield immense influence over digital ecosystems, shaping the flow of information, controlling social access to platforms, and monetizing people’s data and metadata. To counteract corporate control and protect the #openweb, there’s a need for decentralized, community-driven alternatives.
Innovation and Collaboration: The current paradigm of technological development prioritizes profit-driven innovation over basic social and environmental responsibility. This mindset stifles collaboration, stifles open innovation, and limits collective problem-solving. To address complex challenges like #climatechange, we need to foster a #4opens culture of collaboration, knowledge sharing, and open-source development. By democratizing access to technology and promoting participatory design processes, we harness the collective intelligence and creativity of communities.
Political and Cultural Shifts: The intersection of technology, politics, and culture shapes societal norms, values, and behaviours. Over the past years, we’ve seen a growing awareness of the political implications of technology, from concerns about online disinformation and algorithmic bias to debates over platform governance and digital rights. As grassroots movements like Extinction Rebellion (#XR) mobilize to address #climatechange, there’s an opportunity to leverage technology as a tool for social and environmental activism. By challenging mainstream narratives, engaging in grassroots #openweb organizing, and amplifying community based voices, we harness technology to advance progressive causes and catalyse the needed systemic change and challenge.
The disaster that is #climatechaos necessitate a radical reimagining of technology and its role. By building sustainability, equity, collaboration, and activism, we can push the resilient and inclusive #openweb future that serves people and the planet. And yes this shift challenges entrenched power, confronts corporate interests, so we will need to mobilize collective action to create this more sustainable world.
The #dotcons are designed for greed and selfishness. Everything about them feeds this and, in turn, feeds off it. This negative path is hard-coded deep into their architecture. They cannot be fixed.
The rebooting of the #openweb is the path we have taken. Copying worked well for the first step — it let us get moving. But for the next step, we need to move past the simple replication of the current #mainstreaming mess. We cannot reboot alternatives by simply copying them in #FOSS, as we have too often done in the #Fediverse.
The next step needs to be more native to the #4opens path we have started down. Let’s thank the people who copied. Let’s give them statues and security – they did us all a service. They deserve gratitude for this first step, not hatred. But we cannot stop there.
The mess of the #dotcons. Take the example of Twitter’s devolution. What began as a #neoliberal platform – deregulated, market-driven, profit-focused – has slid into a space with growing fascist tendencies under Elon Musk. This is not an accident. It’s a stark reminder of the pitfalls of unchecked corporate #dotcons and their susceptibility to authoritarian capture.
Neoliberalism, with its emphasis on deregulation and market “solutions,” inevitably concentrates wealth and power into the hands of a few. That concentration erodes democratic norms and opens the door to authoritarianism. Twitter is just one case. The intertwining of neoliberalism and fascism underscores why we need vigilance: not only against economic inequality, but also against the erosion of the native #openweb projects we struggle to build and sustain.
The trap of nostalgia, in the reaction of neoliberal “common sense” to Twitter’s fascist turn is instructive. Despite the platform’s descent, many #mainstreaming users still engage with it, clinging to nostalgia for its earlier, more liberal incarnation. This highlights the tendency of #mainstreaming to adapt to life under oppressive regimes, out of self-preservation, habit, or a misguided sense of normalcy. It is a sobering reminder of the dangers of complacency and the urgency of resisting authoritarianism, especially in its early stages.
The lesson for the #openweb can be found in this transformation of Twitter from neoliberalism to fascism, which shows the interconnectedness of economic and political systems. It underlines the need for collective action to safeguard native #openweb values. By recognizing the warning signs of authoritarianism and refusing to normalize its spread, we can prevent the erosion of the commons we are trying to grow.
The next stage of the reboot cannot be a mirror of the #dotcons. It must be different, open, grounded, messy, and alive.
Centralization of Power: The dominant platforms in the #dotcons era are #closedweb, centralized, controlled by a handful of corporations.
Monopolistic Practices: The dominance of a few major players led to monopolistic practices that stifled “native” #openweb culture. These monopolies limit people choice and hindered the development of alternative paths that could offer more diverse and community-centric life.
Surveillance Capitalism: The #dotcons relies on business models built around surveillance capitalism, where data and metadata is harvested, monetized, and exploited for targeted advertising and social control without consent and transparency. This exploitation of people’s data undermines “society” and creates significant ethical concerns.
Filter Bubbles and Echo Chambers: The algorithms employed in the #dotcons are designed to prioritize content based on user engagement metrics, leading to the formation of filter bubbles and echo chambers. These push people to beliefs and preferences that limit exposure to diverse perspectives and contributing to growing and entrenching polarization and disinformation.
Erosion of Public Discourse: The rise of social media in the #dotcons facilitated the spread of misinformation, hate, and extremist right ideologies. These platforms prioritized engagement and virality over the quality and accuracy of content, leading to the erosion of public spaces based on trust.
Data Concerns: The collection and exploitation of user data by #dotcons raised significant concerns. People have limited to no control over their social data and metadata.
Digital Divide: Access to the internet and digital technologies remained unevenly distributed during the #closedweb era, exacerbating social and economic inequalities. Due to resource constraints, marginalized communities, faced barriers to access our #openweb reboot, limiting their ability to participate in our native paths and thus the wider digital economy and society we need to build.
To sum up, the dominance of centralized platforms, surveillance capitalism, algorithmic biases, erosion of social norms, and inequalities have been some of the most pressing issues associated with the #dotcons and #closedweb over the last two decades. Balancing this requires continuing efforts to promote decentralization, #4opens and “native” #openweb infrastructure and culture. You can help with this by working on projects like #OMN#OGB#makinghistory and #indymediaback
Funding application for the #OMN (Open Media Networking) project, an innovative initiative to revolutionize the landscape of media and communication. The project address the limitations and challenges posed by centralized social networks by developing an interconnected network that empowers people, fosters innovation, and promotes openness and decentralization.
What do you think about/Have you heard about project X? We are always interested in learning about other projects that aim to address similar challenges in the media landscape. Collaboration and cooperation are crucial in achieving the collective goal of creating a better internet and society.
Who are your competitors? While established networks like Facebook, Youtube, and Twitter are perceived as competitors, we view them as irrelevant, techshit to be composted. Cooperation partners are other decentralization efforts such as #ActivityPub etc. are also projects we aim to reach compatibility with.
How will you attract your first users? We plan to attract our first crew through various strategies, including leveraging the advantages of our system, collaborating with “content creators” and “influencers”, fostering change and linking, through leveraging our network of contacts.
Which programming language do you use? Our team has primarily engaged with the XXXX framework. However, we plan to explore existing open-source solutions in social networking to ensure compatibility with various technologies.
Who are potential users? Potential users of #OMN include social activists, frustrated users overwhelmed with managing multiple accounts, power users seeking greater control over their online presence, content creators and journalists, users with specific needs, decentralization enthusiasts, and anyone interested in an alternative to centralized networks.
How does #OMN make the internet more awesome?#OMN empowers people by offering them the freedom to choose their networks and applications freely, fostering fairness, promoting independent media, fostering creativity, and enhancing the peoples experience.
What are you building? We are building a new media experience that allows people to interact with different networks and applications seamlessly, offering greater flexibility and control over their society and local communertys.
Why do you want to bring micropayments to social media? Microgifts are essential for supporting community creators and networks, empowering people to support those they trust and enjoy with minimal effort.
What are the goals of #OMN? The goals of #OMN are to empower people and communertys, foster effectiveness in competition to #mainstreaming “common sense”, promote independent media, and enhance change and challenge in the communication space.
What does success look like? Success for #OMN includes the development of a working prototype, collaboration with various networks and applications, and widespread adoption of the #openweb “native” #OMN protocol and working practices as an internet/social standard.
What are the key deliverables of the prototyping phase? The key deliverables of the prototyping phase include the development of the #OMN#p2p client, User self-hosting, and Networks & Network Server prototypes, along with detailed documentation for developers and communertys.
Who will do the work? Our team, consisting of dedicated people committed to the vision of the #openweb, will primarily handle the work. With funding available, we plan to expand the team to expedite the prototyping phase.
What needs to be done now? We need funding support to commence the development of the prototype and advance the #OMN project to the next stage. This includes development, coordination, collaboration, and public outreach efforts.
How are you licensing any software or documentation you produce? We intend to make all our software openly available, encouraging collaboration and innovation in the open-source community.
How do you communicate publicly about your work? We communicate publicly through various channels, including videos, direct outreach to journalists and content creators, and engagement on media platforms like Mastodon and the #dotcons.
What do you hope to learn during the project? Throughout the project, we hope to learn about community project coordination, software collaboration, public outreach, software technologies, and other relevant fields, ultimately contributing to peoples growth and success.
What happens to #OMN if it does not get funded? If #OMN does not receive funding, we will continue our efforts to raise awareness and support for the project, confident in its value and potential impact on the communication landscape.
Thank you for considering our funding application for the #OMN project. We are excited about the opportunity to bring this “native” #openweb vision to life and look forward to the possibility of collaborating with you.
The Radical VisionOntv project has a rich and varied history spanning over a 15 years. Here’s a timeline highlighting some key milestones and achievements:
Inception: The project began over 15 years ago with a vision to create an alternative media platform that prioritized grassroots reporting and activism over mainstream narratives. It initially focused on utilizing RSS and peer-to-peer technologies to distribute video content widely.
Mainstream Social Networks: Despite the project’s focus on alternative media, it has also gained significant traction on mainstreaming #dotcons. With over 32 million video views across nine video streaming sites, including Undercurrents and Blip, VisionOntv has demonstrated its ability to reach diverse audiences.
Original Content Production: VisionOntv has produced over 1000 original video reports and studio shows, covering a wide range of topics and events in support of campaigning groups. This includes coverage of tech events, climate camps, and legal campaigns.
Training Workshops: The project has conducted nearly 100 free training workshops on grassroots video journalism, empowering people to become citizen journalists and contribute to the alternative media landscape.
Live Streaming: VisionOntv has facilitated live-streaming at conferences and events, providing real-time coverage and amplifying the voices of activists and organizers.
Technological Innovation: The project has been at the forefront of technological innovation, experimenting with solar-powered live edit TV shows at climate camps and embracing alternative hosting solutions to avoid reliance on mainstream platforms.
Community Engagement: VisionOntv has actively supported local campaigns, legal battles, and land reclamation efforts, amplifying the voices of marginalized communities and highlighting issues that are often overlooked by #mainstreaming media.
Partnerships and Collaborations: The project has collaborated with a diverse range of organizations and initiatives.
Through its commitment to openness, grassroots activism, and technological innovation, the Radical #VisionOntv project has made significant contributions to the alternative media landscape, empowering communities, challenging mainstream narratives, and fostering dialogue and collaboration across diverse social movements.
The path we need to take in technology is social, rooted in the recognition that technology, at its core, is a tool created and used by humans to address social needs and challenges. While technological advancements have the potential to bring about benefits and progress, they also have the capacity to perpetuate existing inequalities, exacerbate social divides, and undermine democratic paths.
The #4opens framework provides a useful lens through which to evaluate and assess technology projects, particularly in the #openweb and #dotcons. By emphasizing openness, transparency, collaboration, and decentralization, the #4opens offer a set of guiding principles that prioritize social utility and collective benefit over corporate profit and (stupid) individual gain.
Why the social dimension of technology is crucial:
* Empowerment: Technology has the power to empower people and communities by providing access to information, resources, and opportunities. By focusing on the social utility of technology, we ensure that it is designed and deployed in ways that promote inclusivity, participation, and empowerment to balance the current push for control.
* Equity and Justice: In a world characterized by systemic inequalities, technology is either reinforcing existing power structures or serve as a tool for challenging and transforming them. By centring social considerations in tech development, we can work towards growing more equitable and just societies.
* Community Building: Technology has the potential to foster connections, collaboration, and community-building on a global scale. By prioritizing social utility, we can harness technology to strengthen social bonds, facilitate dialogue, and mobilize collective action around #KISS shared goals and values.
* Sustainability: In an era of environmental crisis and resource depletion, it is essential to consider the social and environmental impacts of technology. By prioritizing sustainability and social responsibility in tech design and deployment, we can work towards systems and solutions that are environmentally sound and socially responsible.
The social dimension of technology is a balance, because it determines how technology is designed, deployed, and used to address social needs and challenges. By embracing principles, we can ensure that technology serves the collective good and contributes to building a more sustainable future we need.
#P2P projects keep failing socially because adoption is tiny. The #Fediverse succeeds socially because it keeps social #UX familiar. The path forward is a half-step strategy: bridge #fediverse + #p2p in real, usable ways until decentralised clients are socially relevant.
We need: Bridges & killer apps, seamless UX that makes federated + p2p content feel like one stream. A server that reads from both channels without making the user care about protocols.
A. what is happening with protocols:
* The #nostr crew are the children of #web3 mess, they are a bit reformed, let’s see. * Then the #BlueSky are the reformed children of the #dotcons * The #fediverse is the child of the #openweb * #dat is a child of the #geekproblem if it is reformed or not, you can maybe tell me? * #SSB was a wild child, now sickly/lonely with the #fashionable kids gathering round #nostr * #p2p was the poster child of the era of the #openweb it was caught in the quicksand of legal issues, the shadow that was left was eclipsed by “free to use” #dotcons Now finds it hard to come back due to mobile devices not having an IP address, thus most people not actually able to use p2p reliably.
Q. ssb has technical shortcomings. It cant sparsely replicate data and verify it. It needs to download all data ever created by a user to verify, which makes it infeasible for many use cases. The main underlying data format is also hard to fix and leads to performance bottlenecks. The main founder moved on and it seems most ssb people are also looking for a new home. dat’s time has not yet started as it approached things from a much more fundamental perspective. The initial vision was “git for any kind of data”, which means “version control for any kind of data” (peer to peer). The stack only now reached maturity to build proper tools on top of it. You have the dat-ecosystem with 2-3 dozen projects. You have the holepunch/pears project which built a phenomenal “never on a server” desktop/mobile p2p video conferencing messenger with built in file sharing. The app works flawless on mobile and is called https://keet.io Also https://dat-ecosystem.org just now released it’s new website. The https://pears.com runtime will be live in 5 days from now on the 14th of February for anyone to start hacking on p2p apps and some time later, the plan is to integrate it into the dat-ecosystem website, so anyone can start using p2p from within dat-cosystem page (which is an open source static website anyone can fork to get to the same) …no back ends required. pears 🍐will only start working on the 14th of february. You can set a reminder. The revolution starts then 🙂
A. will have a look, there are a few new #p2p projects reaching use at mo – the issue is none of them link to each other and likely thus non inter-op. This is the #geekproblem
Q. I don’t think there are any mature projects out there other than dat and ipfs. The former made by open source devs, self funded with a bit of help from public funding bodies, while the latter is the poster child of venture capitalists and got gazillions from investors. It’s the “big tech” of p2p. Then you have a few less general purpose p2p projects which popped into existence in the last few years, but both dat and ipfs go back all the way to 2013 and it takes a lot to get things smooth and stable and support all use cases and get enough critical adoption and nodes to make the p2p network work. That is why dat-ecosystem has a lot of existing projects that work and why it is reliable to build on top of it. I do think the new more recent p2p projects in research state might become mature as well, but it will easily take them a few more years. Many of those newer projects have people working on them part time only or focus on really special use cases and only time will tell if their approaches will bring something new to the table or not. 2024 will definitely be the year of dat, especially after February 14th, when pears.com goes live. This has been years in the making. What started 2013 as (git for data) will now finally become it’s own independent p2p runtime. Goodbye nodejs & co. …and soon goodbye github & npm 🙂
A. https://holepunch.to/ its a very sparse website with no company info or #4opens process – it looks and feels like meany #dotcons if these projects do not link to each other or inter-op then they will fail like the hundreds I have seen fail over the last 20 years of this mess making. it’s a problem we can’t keep doing this shit, but we do. #4opens is a shovel to help compost this, can you do a write-up for these projects please.
Q. dat-ecosystem is a 501c3 It’s Code for Science and Society And it is https://opencollective.com/dat And it is governed by a Manifesto. It is all on the website next to the “Info” button in the upper left corner. If you mean pears.com ….that will change on February 14th I didn’t mention holepunch. Holepunch is just one of the many dat-ecosystem projects. It is special, because one of the core developers of dat started it after he got a lot of funding and is currently maintaining many of the important code that powers dat and the dat-ecosystem projects. But it doesn’t matter too much. The stack is open source under MIT and Apache 2.0 License for anyone to use. If holepunch would ever decide to stop maintaining the stack (which we do not think), dat-ecosystem can find other maintainers.
A. they are the owners of https://keet.io always look for ownership in #dotcons 🙂 a few of the ones I have been looking at over the last few years https://www.eff.org/deep…/2023/12/meet-spritely-and-veilid and the was a another one funded by NLNET they recently whent live, but can’t find the link. None of them link or interop, not even bridges. This is the #geekproblem
Q. Spritely is a great project. It embraces the ocap security model (Object Capabilities). It does apply it in lisp/scheme, which is a great fit with GNU Guix. Their foundation is led by Randy Farmer. Randy Farmer co-created Habitat with Chip Morningstar (an MMORPG) in the 1980s. Chip Morningstar works with Mark Miller (Mentor of Christine Lemmer Webber). Their project is called “Agoric”, which is a blockchain projcet funded by Salesforce. They have their own Token and build a “Market Place”. They as well work with ocap security model (but in JavaScript). The JavaScript ocap version is what is known as SES and Endojs. They regularly talk to make sure things are interoperable. Ocap security is also what dat-ecosystem is embracing to pair it with peer to peer and bring it to the post-web. A version of the web not dominated anymore by big tech and big standard bodies.
#Veilid is a young and interesting project as well with a focus on anonymity over performance. This is a great use case that needs support, but dat was always about performance and any size of data and anonymity and privacy at all costs. I’m not saying that is an unimportant use case, but there are plenty of solutions for extreme cases where anonymity and privacy are at utmost importance. What is vastly more important imho is to have a p2p technology able to replace mainstream big tech services such as youtube, facebook, instagram, tiktok, google & co. because it won’t help us if we have a special niche technology that cant actually tackle big tech and surveillance capitalism but gives people some way to hide from it. …we need it too, but we also need a foundation on which to actually outcompete big tech imho.
Keet is a closed source peer to peer messenger & video conferencing app (might be open source in the future) and it is built on top of the dat stack. The dat stack is very modular and in it’s core consists of a few main modules. – hypercore, hyprebee & hyperdrive – hyperdht & hyperswarm – autobase Those modules are maintained by holepunch, an organisation started by one of the core dat developers afte rreceiving a lot of funding to develop keet and now the pear runtime, which will be open source and public under https://pears.com after February 14th 2024 (Valentine’s Day ❤) Keet itself is one of many apps, all part of the dat-ecosystem. Most projects are open source, but not all, but they are all built on top of the MIT/Apache licenses p2p stack, which started as `dat` in 2013 and matured many years ago. The stack is battle tested and really works. Of course – we all want everything open source and one day we might find a model, but if some closed source apps help bring in funding, it benefits the open source core. Basically, you can think of “keet” as some fancy UI/UX on top of the open source software stack. Now sure – would be sweet if the UI/UX was open source as well, but then again, it’s not essential and until we transition into fully automated luxury Communism or whatever else works, something pays the bills and enables the open source core to be maintained 🙂 At least it works without any “Cloud Landlords”. No servers, never on a server. No more cloud lords, a.k.a. Big Tech or #dotcons
A. The best we have currently is #ActivityPub DIY federated – this is community based (but fails in code to actually be this) which in meany ways is complemtery to #p2p based approaches – they are better together and if the can bridge or interop this is MUCH better, the #OMN is native to this.
Q. Yes. dat is very low level. It would be cool to see somebody implement an activity pub based tool on top of it. One dat-ecosystem project did it for nostr, but no activity pub yet. I’m personally more interested into a desktop, terminal, version controlled data and software packages. “Social” tools are just one type of tools to built on top of the more fundamental p2p network and p2p system infrastructure. I do think dat is good for laying these foundations, but “social” tools are a layer that dat as a stack will probably never focus on, but instead dat-ecosystem projects will hopefully take on that challenge 🙂
A. Some people are community based federated (the start of this conversation) others are individual, the #p2p world you talk about. This is not a fight they are both valid. As you say what we don’t won’t is more #dotcons 🙂 Good conversation on the state of #p2p I used to be much more involved in this side, but it failed with the move to #dotcons so got re-engaged when ActivityPub came alone the rebooting of web 1.5 😉 are you happy for me to copy this to my blog, can credit you or just use AQ anonymous format?
Q. any way you want. I dont think p2p has failed. the p2p of the past was naive kids playing and it took a decade of adults and all the law enforcement they had at their disposal to bring it down and despite that torrents still run and even the piratebay continues to operate, although heavily censored. Back then it was a few devs and a majority of users. This time p2p is back and will enter mainstream open source developers after February 14th 2024 (5 days now). This empowers an entire generation and anyone who wants to dive into p2p to build any kind of tool. What was once hard and reserved to a few will be available to everyone. We might see another nodejs/npm movement. It loads a bit slow, but load this and check “all time” This is the largest open source ecosystem humanity has ever experienced. http://www.modulecounts.com/ And while npm/github have been hijacked by microsoft, we will claw it all back soon Btw. regarding Spritely and the backstory behind OCap, even though extremely technical in description, here is a summary of the work by Mark Miller et. al. https://erights.org/history/index.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_S._Miller > Miller has returned to this issue repeatedly since the Agoric Open Systems Papers from 1988 Mark Miller is Christine Lemmer Webbers Mentor. He works with Chip Morningstar (who with Randy Farmer did Habitat in the 80s) Randy Farmer is Executive Director of the Spritely Institute. Agoric is the Cosmos Framework based Blockchain now. https://agoric.com/team
A. Interesting to look back at all this stuff, reminds me I had dinner with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Nelson in Oxford 20 years ago, he was a little eccentric with a clip on digital recording device, every convention had to be record. good to catch up with history https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-t405_JAJA that is more relevant today.
Q. Yes – peer to peer is hard. Not as a user, it is actually easy enough, but as a developer. Building p2p is not taught anywhere and there aren’t online learning resources the same way you can learn how to set up your react app, etc… This will change after February 14th 2024 when the pears.com runtime is released. It is powered by the same p2p stack that developed with dat since 2013. If anyone of you is a developer or has friends who are, you are all invited to dip your toes into the dat water 😛 …and start a new p2p project and join the dat-ecosystem 🙂 It will get quite easy in 4 days from now and it will again get a lot easier in the coming weeks when more examples and docs are publishes and others build as well. The Storyline around Mark Miller, Randy Farmer & Chip Morningstar is totally separate from it, but it is also important, because it is what powers 1. the Spritely project and Christine Lemmer Webber 2. the Agoric Blockchain Project backed by Salesforce 3. the Ethereum Metamask Wallet and Co. It also influences the big standards bodies and I see it two fold. It’s a story about philosophy, values and vision driven by the specific people in it. It is also a story about “object capabilities” which is a powerful perspective on security and will enable and inform a lot of p2p interaction which without would require some sort of centralized servers, but with ocap can do it on it’s own p2p
A lightly edited conversation between Hamish Campbell (A) and Alexander Praetorius (Q)
The #nostr crew are the children of #web3 mess, they are a bit reformed, let’s see.
Then the #BlueSky are the reformed children of the #dotcons
The #fediverse is the child of the #openweb
Q. Where would you put #dat or #ssb and in general the #p2p post-web tools?
A.
#dat is a child of the #geekproblem if it is reformed or not, you can maybe tell me? #SSB was a wild child, now sickly/lonely with the #fahernable kids gathering round #nostr #p2p was the poster child of the era of the #openweb it was caught in the quicksand of legal issues, the shadow that was left was eclipsed by “free to use” #dotcons Now finds it hard to come back due to mobile devices not having an IP address, thus most people not actually able to use p2p reliably.
In the midst of global upheaval and a growing disconnect between people and the media that claims to represent them, the #Indymedia project emerged as a beacon of hope. It was a grassroots effort to reclaim storytelling and provide a platform and network for voices marginalized by #traditionalmedia outlets. #Indymedia wasn’t just a website — it was a movement that lived the principles of the #openweb: a tool for people and communities to share their realities, amplify voices, and challenge the narratives shaped by powerful #mainstreaming institutions.
25 years on, the Legacy of indymedia is more than an isolated experiment. It became a global network of activists, journalists, and engaged citizens committed to truth and transparency. It transcended geographical boundaries, connecting people across continents and cultures in a shared struggle for social justice and equality. From covering anti-globalization protests to spotlighting local struggles, #Indymedia served as a vital conduit for stories that would otherwise go untold.
Yet, like many grassroots movements, #Indymedia faced significant challenges. As the digital landscape evolved, maintaining the infrastructure and community support required to sustain the project became increasingly difficult. The rise of #dotcons and centralized social media platforms further marginalized independent media, diverting attention and resources away from alternative voices. These platforms promised connection but delivered algorithmic silos, favouring profit over any public good.
The is a clear need for a reboot, despite its decline, the spirit of Indymedia persists, a testament to the enduring need for grassroots media in an era dominated by corporate control. To reclaim the story and challenge the status quo, we must breathe new life into this project. A reboot of #Indymedia represents an opportunity to rekindle the flame of grassroots activism and rebuild pathways to the #openweb. By leveraging emerging technologies and decentralized networks, we create a resilient, community-driven space where voices are heard, stories are shared, and truths prevail.
Why fund the reboot? This isn’t just about reviving an old platform, it’s about investing in democracy, transparency, and social justice. Here’s why this matters:
Amplifying Marginalized Voices: a platform for communities often ignored by #mainstreaming media, giving people the space to share their stories and experiences without gatekeepers.
Challenging Dominant Narratives: By offering an alternative to corporate media, Indymedia encourages critical thinking and pushes back against the manufactured consensus, growing a more informed and engaged public.
Building Community: by nurtures connections between activists, journalists, and everyday citizens committed to social change, creating a global network of solidarity and support.
Promoting Transparency: Unlike profit-driven platforms, Indymedia is committed to open processes and accountability, ensuring that information flows freely and ethically.
Empowering Individuals: this path inspires people to become active participants in shaping their media landscape, encouraging citizen journalism and grassroots organizing as tools for collective action.
In a world increasingly dominated by centralized control and #dotcons corporate interests, rebooting the project offers a powerful counterpoint, a chance to push the reclaiming of the #openweb for the people. This is an opportunity to create a space where authentic voices rise, truths prevail, and communities thrive.
The need for an independent, people-powered media ecosystem has never been greater. Let’s pick up the shovel, tend to the roots, and grow something new from the compost of the past. Together, we can cultivate a more just, inclusive, and vibrant media landscape, one story at a time.
This site is about, looking at the past and future of “native” grassroots media. In the last three decades, the digital landscape has undergone dramatic changes. I have witnessed its evolution firsthand, working in radical media and engaging with grassroots technology. But this journey hasn’t been without its challenges and setbacks.
The Dawn of the OpenWeb
The early years of the #openweb were a golden age, a time when the power of connectivity and innovation was shared and wielded by people rather than confined to corporate silos, built at a human scale, with real conversations and decisions made not by algorithms or profit-driven entities, but by human beings.
However, those pioneering days of the openweb seem distant now. The landscape rapidly shifted, favouring echo chambers over open forums, transforming the working participatory digital spaces into commercialized pockets designed to commodify our data and society
The Rise and Fall of .Coms
The term #dotcons, inspired by the .com boom, exposes the underlying deceit in this new era of the internet. Companies emerged with the aim of capitalizing on our online presence, turning every click and keystroke into a financial opportunity. Social media platforms like #Facebook -aptly dubbed #Failbook and others have become disasters for both our personal mental health and social construct.
The Encryptionist Agenda
In response to the corporatization of the web, alternative technology, especially within radical grassroots movements, began to focus heavily on encryption. Yet this #encryptionist agenda, instead of growing a true alternative, led us to a dead end. An example #Indymedia, which once stood as a beacon of open, participatory journalism, eventually succumbed to this closed technology approach.
The Plight of Progressive Technology
#Fashionista politics – those which blindly follow trends without questioning the underlying systems – have dominated the progressive tech landscape, often embracing the very platforms that stand contrary to open standards. The ideals that spurred movements and created spaces for change have been eroded, leaving us in a technological quagmire that stifles creativity and any real progress.
Rebuilding from the Roots
Despite these challenges, hope remains for a resurgence of grassroots media. By revisiting the core principles that made #Indymedia a force in its early days, we can steer the movement back on course.
A Simple Federated Network
I consider Oxford IMC, which I co-founded, as a blueprint for this revival. Through a network of trust-based content sharing, we create a federated model that allows information to flow freely yet responsibly.
Think of it as a series of nodes: activist news websites, Mastodon instances, peertube channels, and local blogs, all interlinked by trust and moderated collaboration, governed by a simple yet effective set of controls – including link subscribe, moderate/trusted flow, and rollback functions to maintain the integrity of our content.
Trust First, Moderate Later
By focusing on trust-first networking, where content flows are based on established relationships, we not only streamline communication but also protect against the pitfalls of a closed, controlled web. This approach allows for open, decentralized storytelling, with an organic curation system that respects the diversity and autonomy of each node.
Reclaiming and Reshaping Security
Recognizing the need for secure communication without sacrificing openness, the reboot incorporates both bridges to other #4opens network publishing and guidelines for pseudo-anonymous contributions through Tor.
These measures provide a balanced approach, enabling activists to share their stories without fear of repercussion while maintaining a spirit of openness and community-driven journalism.
Foundations of the Reboot
Central to this reboot are the #PGA hallmarks and the #4opens – open data, open source, open standards, and open process. This framework, informed by the lessons from #Indymedia’s past, will ensure that we do not repeat the same mistakes.
Moreover, by adopting federated databases and leveraging tags and flows of news objects, this network will function as a vibrant, resilient web of news, accessible at different levels and capable of adapting to the ever-changing demands of radical grassroots journalism.
Be Part of the Open Media Reboot
I invite you to join us as we embark on this journey to reclaim our digital commons. If you share the vision for an open, grassroots-powered web, visit http://unite.openworlds.info and contribute your expertise. With a commitment to the #4opens and a collaborative spirit, we can usher in a new era of the Fediverse centred on truth, empowerment, and community.
This is more than a project, it’s a movement. Let’s create a network that stands as a testament to our collective power, one that honors our past achievements while forging a future that lives up to our highest aspirations. Let’s make history, again.
The open web is not just a concept; it’s our birthright. Together, let’s bring it back to life.
This post is a call to action. It’s a bid to revive the original spirit of #Indymedia and extend a hand to those willing to contribute to the future of open, grassroots media.
# Introduction – Hamish Campbell’s background in grassroots and radical media – The open web’s early potential for alternative media
# The Failure of Alternative Media – Rise of big tech like Facebook led to closed and monopolized systems – Encryptionist agenda went nowhere over the past decade – Climate crisis shows need for societal alternatives
# The Open Media Network – Explaining the decentralized federated network model – Trusted flows of content based on open standards
# Rebooting Indymedia – Rebuilding the local community news site with focus areas – Approaches for enabling secure anonymous publishing
# Why Indymedia Failed – Early successes but internal disputes over openness – Problems with incompatible customized systems – Control desires led to user-hostile encryption
# Lessons Learned – Open standards critical for networks – Loose flexible processes over rigid bureaucracy – Explicitly embedding the “four opens” philosophy
# Project Overview – Building a web of trusted news flows – Agnostic decentralized network via protocols like ActivityPub – Get involved to help create alternative media
A paper on the Fediverse by Thomas Struett, American University – School of Communication, Aram Sinnreich, American University – School of Communication, Patricia Aufderheide, American University – School of Communication, Rob Gehl, York University.
Interesting #mainstreaming look, that bypasses the grassroots it’s actually talking about, this is a common issue with academic writing, am at Oxford this winter so have everyday “organic” expirence of this.
So to sum up, what we need is for “us” the collective to get up from our knees and become the change we would like to see. This is actually not a hard thing to do “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed, citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.”
Let’s look at this PDF:
This thread and our failing in general in “governance” is to do with the fluffy and spiky debate, or much more obviously the failing of this debate to actually be held in place.
“Potential benefits of the fediverse are at risk of being subverted, either by commercial
competitors or through structural dysfunction.”
Dealing with both commercial and structural dysfunction here.
Commercial – funding has shifted from distributed to centralized over the last few years, this is driving core dysfunctions – interesting and useful subject to discus.
Structural – we have not moved anywhere towards “native” governance approaches, this is building crises Legitimacy (political) – Wikipedia
“hold promise as human-scale, democratically-run platforms for civil discourse within and between these groups of users.”
We aspire to this, but with no democracy in any formal or informal sense. And secondly we lack “groups of users” as the coding being copies of #dotcons are strongly “individualized” which pushed our #mainstreaming “common sense” over this openweb “native” space.
“challenges inherent to distributed governance, commercial platform capture, inclusive
access, moderation at scale, reputational assaults by commercial competitors, and the tacitly
neoliberal techno-Romanticism familiar from previous digital innovations. ”
The is a long working (activist) history of mediating these problems that we are ignoring here. A first step to addressing this is the fluffy spiky debate being held in place #KISS
“Developers, entrepreneurs, institutions, and users of these technologies
must also work collectively and proactively to help the fediverse avoid these historical threats
and maximize its civic potential.”
This is the bit we need to talk more about, as it’s key to not fucking up agen.
“However, the fediverse is more than a technical system; it is also a political structure (Mansoux
& Roscam Abbing, 2020). ”
“the structure of platform governance and moderation is both reflective of and integral to the
functioning of democratic processes in digital networks, and much of the proverbial “devil in the
details” comes down to arcane and obscure questions about transparency, control, and
information flow at any given chokepoint or sociotechnical layer.”
This is why link to the #4opens, and it’s use to judge if a project or group are “native” or not – to make transparent in groups and most impotently OUT-GROUPS. A technical/social membrane, as this quote say “devil in the details”
“1. Distributed governance failures
Previous decentralized social platforms have sometimes failed to deliver on their civic potential
because of challenges emerging from the governance process: the norms, institutions, and
technologies that determine who gets to say what to whom, under which circumstances,”
This is the subject of responses to this thried, illustrating the issues, so think of it as the spiky in the fluffy spiky debate. Notice, we are currently failing to hold this debate in place.
“it introduces other risks that must be addressed and mitigated, including new threats such as accountability and liability crises, forking… Corporate actors may also exploit these challenges, by posing themselves as solutions to distributed governance frictions (Marshall, 2006).”
This is likely in part one of the underling issues we are not talking about here.
“Examples of distributed platforms falling prey to these governance challenges in the past are
legion”
We have much to learn and address on this, I talk about this a lot as it’s a key subject we need to move away from “common sense” approaches. Yes this is seen as spiky, but it’s needed, let’s hold this debate open please.
“Not all platform governance is alike. Though corporate platforms emulate traditional media
structures by centralizing power (Napoli & Caplan, 2017), the fediverse has a more distributed
governance structure. This decentralization is not just an aspect of the underlying software but also a core tenet of the governance philosophy of the fediverse itself.”
This is a subject I talk about a lot and have been working on for the last few years with the ogb as a “native” approache. In general, these “native” approaches are still being #blocked by #mainstreaming “common sense” approaches. This needs to change if the openweb reboot is not to wither and die.
“Benjamin Mako Hill (2018) describes this corporate capture of OSS projects as “strategic closedness.””
This is in easy view with a lot of our tech and fashionable crew pushing #closedweb ideas as “common sense” verse “native” openweb approaches. This is a problem with no obverse solutions, the #4opens project is one way to mediate this insolvable/unspoken issue that is everywhere in our dev crew.
“2. Commercial capture
Another challenge that has undermined the health and strength of previous decentralized or
open platforms is commercial capture. Proprietary, value-added features that enhance the user
experience are used to bring more users onto the platform, ”
We currently have few tools to push this back, our strongest tool is likely our “culture” but this itself is fractured, full of infighting and unspoken. Speaking this out load while creating tension is likely nessersery for any good outcome. Hiding from this is #fail
“This means that only a continuing commitment to interoperability by developers, and not merely the existence of an open technological standard, can ensure an open ecosystem within the fediverse.”
It’s social/political NOT a technical problem, so our current fixation on ONLY tech and avoidance of the social/political is a easy to see and act on #fail
“Eternal September is not that new users simply need to be taught the social norms of the space they are joining, but that norms policing is a form of gatekeeping that can exclude new and more diverse users from joining.”
This is both true and a #fashernista problem, we need a better path, this should be easy, it’s not.
“it is important to critique calls for technological approaches to user-friendliness, which are often couched in rhetoric of democratization of technology, while simultaneously undermining decentralized
power relations… making the platform easier to join and use,
while also limiting users’ agency to make choices about the underlying infrastructure that will
best foster their communities”
We are going to see this from every side for and agenst, we need a balances’ path through this mess, we are not currently talking about this path, we need to.
“the fediverse currently relies on the goodwill of countless volunteer moderators and self-funded instances, this goodwill can’t last indefinitely, and a workable approach to funding and compensation has yet to emerge.”
This one is a can of worms, the current “best” solution is to keep instances small and voluntary run, our ongoing disagreements on this path is likely to continue to do damage… one path out of this is legitimate “governance”.
“The reputational anti-halo is already cropping up in discourse about the fediverse and Mastodon, which have been tainted by their uses among the “alt-right” (Makuch, 2019) and for child abuse (Thiel & DiResta, 2023).”
This comes down to voice and power, as “libertarian cats” we have little of either… it’s a bad path to stay on, what path would be better and more “native” is a good question to talk about.
“techno-Romanticism works to obscure the labor, networks, and institutions that are key to supporting technological development while elevating the simplistic view of the great men of history… the fediverse is particularly vulnerable to techno-Romanticism”
This is an endemic issue, and most people are chasing the tech equivalent of the American dream that they will become the top dev… this is not a native approach to the openweb, but it’s currently a dominating view. This is mess making.
“Technical language and the assumption of baseline technical expertise may also present unintended obstacles to adoption. Conversely, the fediverse also faces the threat that the rhetoric of “user friendliness” will justify the curtailing of user agency, or re-centralization of the network… messy, and continuous practice of maintaining a healthy and inclusive space for civic discourse…
Techno-Romantism’s utopian discourse poses a threat to the fediverse because it distracts from the importance of social action in the development of technology… discussion about how to
identify them and limit their impact, is a critical step toward reaching those civic and
technosocial goals together.”
In conclusion, the roadmap for the fediverse’s future must transcend the confines of technicality and delve deep into the socio-political fabric. Holding the fluffy-spiky debate firm, nurturing ‘native’ approaches, mitigating commercial capture, addressing governance challenges, and fostering a culture of inclusivity and sustainability—these constitute the keystones for nurturing the true potential of the fediverse.
You are seeing a different world back to #opendata, if you run a mastodon instance you will have a large part of the content of the Fediverse sitting in your database in plan text….
Take this into account with policy and regulation please
