The essence of #mainstreaming social media isn’t about fostering genuine communication or community—it’s about delivering digital drugs. Platforms like #Facebook, #Instagram, and #TikTok thrive by exploiting addictive design patterns, keeping users hooked with endless dopamine hits.
This addiction is why many people struggle to stay on native #openweb social media platforms. These alternatives, built with #4opens at their core, lack the engineered highs of the #dotcons. Without the “fix” of notifications, likes, and algorithmically curated content, people feel withdrawal and gravitate back to the platforms designed to exploit learned their impulses.
The challenge of real meaningful outreach on the #openweb, is to address this addiction cycle. It’s not enough to offer better tools or ethical platforms; we need to actively incorporate digital drug detox into the user experience (#UX). This means, designing for intentional use, replacing infinite scrolling, endless notifications with features that encourage mindful engagement. Rebuilding reward systems on genuine connections, creativity, and learning instead of shallow metrics like likes and shares. Educating people to recognize and break free from the addictive patterns perpetuated by #dotcons.
A detox-focused UX for the #openweb is shifting focus from passive content consumption to active participation in meaningful communities. This path to breaking free from digital addiction is no small task, but it’s needed for building any sustainable future. The #openweb can lead to this shift, offering not just an alternative, but a detox from the digital drug cycle that defines #mainstreaming social media mess.
The dominance of the free market, for the last 40 years personified by the #deathcult worship, has instilled in us a deep-rooted belief in the power of market-driven signals as a determinant of value and action. This belief system prioritizes capital and greed as the primary forces that drive progress and social development. However, as our world becomes increasingly digitized, it’s past time to rethink and replace these signals with something more sustainable and aligned with collective welfare: #opendata signalling based on the #4opens.
Market signalling, a core tenet of capitalism, operates on the assumption that prices, supply, and demand efficiently communicate the state of the economy. These signals guide decisions across industries, influencing everything from resource allocation to investment trends. While this system has propelled economic growth, it comes at a significant cost: environmental degradation, social inequality, and systemic exploitation. In resent years, our worship of this “free market” led to an economy built on misery—a #miseryeconomy where people and communities pay to escape the hardships imposed by the very system they are part of.
The open vs. closed data dichotomy is currently largely invisible, so good to bring focus on this path. When considering alternatives to market signalling, we need to explore the difference between open and closed data paths. The original #openweb was built on the #4opens principles —open source, open data, open standards, and open processes. These fostered transparency, collaboration, and equitable growth. However, the rise of the #dotcons (dominant tech corporations) over the past two decades introduced #closeddata silos that have stifled openness and thus blocked this native path. Closed data systems prioritize proprietary algorithms, user data and metadata hoarding, and opaque decision-making processes. This has been used to reinforcing capital-driven signals as the only path.
In the emerging #openweb ecosystem, there is a new model—one rooted in opendata signalling. Unlike market signals driven by profit, opendata signalling operates on transparent and shared data inputs that inform decision-making across communities. This shift prioritizes communal benefits, sustainability, and builds trust. This path can only be glimpsed in the messy fashernista 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 signaling looks like? In a practical sense, opendata signalling means that any institution or person running a Mastodon instance, for example, can access a significant portion of the Fediverse’s content as plain text in their database. This access allows communities to collaboratively analyse and act on data without the current corporate intermediaries distorting and monetizing it for control.
Imagine policymaking informed by real-time public discourse, free from the profit-driven filters of major platforms. Local governments could tap into decentralized data to plan infrastructure, health initiatives, or educational reforms that reflect actual community needs. Environmental policies could be shaped by transparent data on ecological impact, rather than suppressed by industry lobbyists protecting capital interests.
Challenges and Considerations? Transitioning to opendata signalling isn’t without challenges. Regulation and policy will need to adapt to safeguard open data’s integrity and prevent exploitation. The fear of spam and manipulation, which critics often raise, must be addressed with intelligent design and community moderation. Yet, these challenges are surmountable compared to the unsustainable trajectory of a market that fails to act collectively for basic servival let along the greater good.
Moving Beyond Worship. Our reverence for the “free market” as an ultimate arbiter has reached its limit. By embracing opendata signaling and shifting away from closed, profit-driven paths, we create a foundation where collaboration, sustainability, and shared progress are at the forefront. This is not only a technological shift but a cultural one, As we continue this transition, let’s recognize that our digital choices will dictate whether we uphold the values of the #openweb or fall back into the restrictive practices of #closeddata. Let’s try to have a real conversation about this, please.
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.
For meany people, the old #dotcons like #Instagram, #Facebook and #Twitter still dominate their online lives, shaping not only what we see but also how we think and interact. These platforms, with their complex algorithms, offer a seductive experience people find hard to resist. The allure is not just in the content they provide, but in the nature of how that content is delivered—tailored, curated, and designed to keep engagement to the point of dependency.
The dependency on these algorithms has become a digital addiction. This is even more true for the next generation of digital drugs from fallow on generations of #dotcons. The algorithm decides what to show people, shaping perceptions and influencing decisions. Over time, this erodes people’s ability to make choices independently, undermining the freedom that the internet was initially supposed to offer. This loss of autonomy is frightening, as it suggests a surrender of our agency to the invisible hand of the algorithm, which prioritizes engagement over well-being.
The Algorithmic trap, how we got here? The business model of these “#closedweb” social media platforms, the #dotcons, is #KISS based on addiction. The more time people spend on the platforms, the more data they collect, and the more targeted the ads become—leading to increased profits. This cycle creates a powerful incentive for these companies to make their platforms as addictive as possible. The more we rely on them, the more they control us, and the less freedom we have to think and choose for ourselves.
What is particularly messy about this model is how it normalizes digital dependency. For meany people, the idea of switching back to the #openweb, to federated, decentralized social media—where algorithms do not dictate what you see—is unappealing precisely because it does not offer the same instant gratification. These platforms do not feed the addiction in the same way, making them less attractive to those who have grown accustomed to algorithmic curation.
To break free from this spiral, people need digital detoxification, but It’s hard to know how to go about this? This is not just about reducing screen time; it’s about reclaiming the capacity to make choices independently of what an algorithm suggests. It’s about learning to engage with content on your own terms, rather than being passively fed by a machine designed to keep you hooked.
Driving this mess is our worshipping of the #deathcult for the last 40 years, the social shift towards practices and systems that, while profitable for a few, are destructive for the many. The #dotcons have built their empires on this model, creating digital paths that prioritize profit over people, engagement over enlightenment. This mess extends beyond social media. It speaks to a broader critique of how our paths in technology and #neoliberal ideology have shaped our lives. Neoliberalism, with its focus on free markets and minimal government intervention, seeped into our thinking, making us blind to the ways in which we are being manipulated and controlled. This ideology is so ingrained that it has become “invisible” to many, making it difficult to see any potability of a different path we could take.
To see beyond the ideological veil, we need to help people see the invisible—to recognize the ideological frameworks that shape their perceptions and actions. Many people find it difficult to appreciate perspectives outside their own, particularly when those perspectives challenge deeply held beliefs. This is why so many people are #blocking by dismiss paths that try to explain these concepts from different ideological viewpoints. For those of us who try to view the world through multiple lenses, it can be frustrating to see how limited the #mainstreaming narrative is. Liberal media, pushes a narrow view of the world, that reinforces rather than challenges the status quo.
Activists and thinkers who have long warned of the dangers of these systems are frequently sidelined or ignored. This is why it’s crucial to keep telling these stories, even if they are not always heard or understood. We must continue to highlight the ways in which our digital lives are being shaped by forces that do not have our best interests at heart. We must strive to make the invisible visible, to reveal the ideological underpinnings of the systems we interact with daily.
This is a needed but difficult story, the story of digital addiction and the #deathcult is a necessary one, but it’s also a hard story to tell. It requires us to confront uncomfortable truths about how we live our lives online and how we’ve allowed ourselves to be manipulated by the tools that were supposed to set us free. That the way we engage with technology is not a matter of personal choice but is shaped by the economic and ideological systems in which we are all a part. It’s a story that needs to be told from multiple perspectives, not just those of the chattering classes or the liberal media. A story that should include the voices of activists, technologists, and everyday people struggling to reclaim humanistic paths.
In the end, if we want to have any future—let alone one that is truly open, decentralized, and free—we need to recognize the dangers of digital addiction and the ideologies that sustain it. We need to support the #openweb and the technologies that empower people rather than control them. This is a first step to break free from the #deathcult mentality by creating an online and offline world that we might like to live in.
Hamish Campbell, 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. It was a time when the power of connectivity and innovation was shared and wielded by people rather than confined to corporate silos. This openweb we cherished was built at a human scale, with real conversations and decisions made not by algorithms or profit-driven entities, but by human beings with a vision for a decentralized and inclusive digital space.
However, those pioneering days of the openweb seem distant now. The landscape rapidly shifted, favoring echo chambers over open forums, transforming the dream of a 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 societal 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 fostering a true alternative, led us to a dead end. #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 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 can 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 centered 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 blog 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
#Indymedia was a decentralized, grassroots media network that emerged in the late 1990s and early 2000s. It was founded on the principles of open publishing, direct democracy, and anti-authoritarianism. The project eventually experienced a split in the UK, with one side, the #fashernista, building an aggregating site and the other #geekproblem building a centralized silo. The split was supposedly over technical disagreements, but was driven by doctrinal and tribal disputes. The decision-making process, like much activism at the time grew to rely on #formalconsensus, become ossified and unfixable, so no decisions could be made to mediate this.
The split was ultimately driven by a focus on control on both sides. The two sides were more interested in their own tribal agendas than in working together to build a diverse and #4opens#OMN. The silo eventually built an aggregating site, with RSS feeds, but in a very controlling way. The stress was always on control as “security” and this ultimately led to the decline of the #Indymedia project. The #dotcons took over the space, and the project became irrelevant.
I was working on the project, the person working in the middle, saying “don’t be a prat” as each side tore and tore and tore I continued in the grassroots, saying that the culture is the key and that the value is in open media network, not control. The split in Indymedia was a shit show, but we can learn from it in the reboot of the project.
The plan now is to reboot the project before the split happened, around 2008 with a focus on the #fashernitas path of the two splinter groups. This path emphasizes openmedia and decentralized structures, rather than control and centralization. However, with the reboot there is still a very real risk that some members of the community will push for a control/#encryptionist path, which could lead to another split in focus. The challenge is to find a way to walk this path without succumbing to the same tribalism and power politics that led to the decline of the original project.
The use of hashtags and semantic web technologies did not exist at the time. Tags and metadata were not core to the start original Indymedia project, but they were later being added as a way to help organize and categorize content, the idea of building a structure with #RSS feeds was being discussed and enacted.
At the time, Interestingly, the silo path recognized that their approach was wrong and came back to aggregation, with moderated control of RSS flows. This is reflected in the #OMN’s choice of “trusted flow” and “moderated flow.” We are building both sides of the split of the original project and yes, criticizing the fashernista path a little, which only had trust, which would not likely work in today’s world. It’s important we do not make this decision for people. We let them decide and build both. The key is to avoid building pointless messes and to resist the #mainstreaming urge to make a mess. We are not #mainstreaming, and we must not be prats about this.
Looking at what happened to the web after this time, the last ten years of tech history, the grassroots silo path went on to build #Diaspora, while the grassroots #fashernista path went on to build the #Fediverse. However, despite these developments, there was still no news based open media network being built yet. This led to the creation of the #OMN project and the current #indymediaback reboot path.
Unfortunately, in today’s world of liberation “cats” due to the last 20 years of worship of the #deathcult, nobody sees any value in the “open” part of the #OMN. Everyone is still fixated on the silo path of control, we have to work against this #mainstreaming blindness. Over the last 20 years, the #mainstreaming as a whole took the silo/encryptionst path of the Indymedia split. Contemporary social media took #fahernista side of the #open path, the #dotcons, took the ideas and sold us back a facsimile of this that they could control, such as #Facebook and other algorithms based #dotcons
To make the reboot work , we have to tiptoe around the legacy of #Indymedia, focus on rebooting the project in its 2008 state, where the social process were still working. The silos’ path still controls the old domains, they took as a part of the ripping apart. We are building something that looks like the fashernista path they fought against, so we need to build two projects in one: control and trust. We need to get the domains back in use, which would be a huge boost to the #reboot project. At the same time, we need to build trust with everyone else, as this is the power of open. It’s complicated, but everyone wants it back. However, the history is challenging, and the two sides are still fighting: Fediverse vs. silos as we see this old mess today.
There are hundreds (over the last 20 years likely thousands) of news, aggregation sites. It’s a common #dotcons model to inclose the “commons” people see free content and think I can capture that. The problem is news content looks like it’s free, but that’s because it’s “free” to spread, but it’s VERY expensive in human (and thus money) to produce the content. This side is never addressed in these failed projects.
We currently have #traditionalmedia all round the world pushing to be paid for aggregation and even search of their “product”. At #OMN and #indymediaback, we get round these issues as we add “value” by the #DIY labour of the meany people involved in the shared “commons” space. We are producing rather than “stealing” in the #mainstreaming view.
It’s normal that the top-down news aggregators are seen as parasites, and the bootm up aggregators as adding value. For a few years of #indymedia growth, #traditionalmedia was using #indymedia as a “news” source, this shaped the #mainstreaming agenda, adding value to both paths.
When the #openweb we were building was ripped apart by internal and external pressers and agenders, the #DIY value was captured by the #dotcons such as #Facebook and later #twitter (when it left it’s open’ish path).
The first step away from the current mess is to recreate the “commons” to bring the value back from the #dotcons capture, this should be more possible now as we are building from the #Fediverse where this has already happened. What we do with this recreated “commons” is up to meany different groups/people, but let’s hold the #4opens and #PGA strongly in place to stop “common sense” enclosing attempts, which are constant pointless damage we need to work around.
To sum up, a key part of the #OMN is to recreate the data “commons” then it’s up to meany other groups to find useful things to do with this free to use non-commercial value. And yes lots of people will see the stupid path of enclosing this to capture the value for themselves, this is damage.
In capitalism, any non-owned value is seen as an opportunity to capture, enclosed and profit from. This is why we have copyleft licences in code, which is visibly failing and why we extend this to the #4opens to fail less 😉
This all comes down to the question of what we value. And for meany people, this is a blindness.
While the commercial web is dominated by large corporations, the #dotcons are what most people are familiar with, there is another side to the internet – the #openweb. In this article, we will explore what the #openweb is and why it matters.
The #openweb refers to the part of the internet that is not owned by corporations. Unlike the commercial web, where large tech companies like #Google, #Facebook, and #Amazon dominate the landscape, the #openweb is a decentralized space where people can create, share, and access content without restrictions.
The openweb is built on #4opens standards and protocols, which means that everyone can develop software or services that work seamlessly with existing tools and platforms. One of the primary benefits of the openweb is that it fosters humane creativity. Because we can all contribute to the open web, it encourages a diverse, liberal, range of voices and perspectives. Openweb technologies like blogs, wikis, and federated social networks have enabled people to connect and collaborate, leading to the emergence of new norms and social movements.
Another important aspect of the openweb is its commitment to transparency, it is a critical tool for promoting #freespeech and #democracy. Because it is not owned by any single entity or government, the openweb is a place where people can express themselves without fear of censorship or repression.
In recent years, the openweb has come under threat from the rise of the dominating #dotcons of the commercial web and the growing power of big tech companies. The commercial web is dominated by a few large corporations that control vast amounts of user data and use it to extract profit. This has led to concerns about, social control, and the concentration of power in the hands of a few tech giants and their agenders.
Despite these challenges, there are many organizations and individuals working to preserve the #openweb. From #grassroots groups such as #OMN to #NGO’s like the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) an international community that develops open standards for the web, while #mainstreaming organizations like the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and the Google funded #Mozilla Foundation are dedicated to promoting a liberal #mainstreaming open and accessible internet.
In conclusion, the openweb is a critical part of the internet that promotes, creativity and free society. It is a space where anyone can contribute and participate without restrictions, and it has played a vital role in social movements and democracy. While the openweb faces many challenges in the face of the commercial web and big tech, it is essential to work together to ensure that the internet remains an open and accessible space.
Hamish Campbell, a veteran in radical media for the past 30 years, discusses the failure of current technology and mainstream culture. He highlights how the #dotcon boom commodified our data, resulting in closed technology silos like #Facebook and #Instagram that capture our attention and data for their own profit. Campbell argues that alternative technology built around an #encryptionist agenda has gone nowhere and that the world is dominated by these tech giants. He argues for the importance of the #openweb, which was born open but is dying closed over the last 20 years, and advocates for rebooting grassroots media as a solution. Campbell uses the Oxford #IMC as an example of how a simple federated network can work by sharing content, using trusted link flows, and allowing content to be moderated or rolled back. He believes that the beauty of the #openweb is based on free flowing links, unlike the #closedweb of our current dominating technology. Campbell concludes that the #OMN project is more important for what it does not do than for what it does, and highlights the need to take small steps towards a solution by rebooting grassroots media as a example project.
What you can do
In the last few years there have been events and gatherings in the US, Portugal, and Madrid, discussing the possibility of #rebooting#Indymedia. The current history of Indymedia has been primarily written by academics and is very Americanized, so there is a need to retell the stories and provide a wider perspective. To successfully reboot Indymedia, I think it needs to return to its open and serendipitous roots, rather than the bureaucratic and closed structure it became. Fortunately, most of the technical tools needed for a decentralized and federated system, such as ActivityPub and Scuttlebutt, already exist. To maintain its radical grassroots philosophy, the #4opens principles should be used to ensure openness and accessibility. To get involved, one can search for #indymediaback or “reboot Indymedia” and find useful links #OMN
It’s time to #reboot many parts of the #openweb With the “visibility” of the failing of #dotcons such as #failbook privacy/obscured agronomic control of you, #uber and the race to the bottom culture.
The will be a plausible “class” of people who come up with convincing sounding solutions, these #fashionista are not part of any solution and are a clear and historical core to our failers in the past.
I understand it’s hard to see the differences of tech projects, what is worth supporting and what not. We have issues from two different directions that have to at least a little understood to have a hope of supporting projects that have the possibility to be part of a real LINKING alt.
They will dis-empower the worst of the #fashionista thinking by shining light on their actions and mediate to a better outcome the “closing push” of the #geekproblem by keeping the LINKING in place.
Simple and sweet, a first step solution in a hashtag 😉
