Native grassroots paths are at odds with institutionalized power

The #Fediverse and #FOSS communities stand in sharp contrast to Big Tech #dotcons platforms through their values, which are rooted in openness, decentralization, and community control. While Big Tech thrives on centralization, data extraction, and profit-driven control.

However, the grassroots path is always under threat. On the Fediverse, stagnation at #socialhub and a rise in #NGO influence, leaves the original ethos of decentralized and open governance stifled by the normal paths of fear and control. This shifting imbalance reflects tension within the #openweb, where native grassroots paths are often at odds with institutionalized power structures.

https://socialwebfoundation.org

The challenge now is how to reclaim and sustain these “native” values while avoiding the dilution that the spread of the #NGO mess brings. What strategies do you think could re-energize these communities while maintaining their grassroots authenticity?

The mainstream internet, #dotcons, seduces us with dopamine hits, saps our creativity, and turns us into sad, noisy, powerless complainers. It steals our time with endless distractions, buries the pathways that lead to real change, and, in the end, empties our wallets.

How to get dancing elephants and paper planes into a “foundation” model

Do something different – dancing elephants and paper planes.
Do something normal – control freekery and power politics games.
Do nothing – maybe it all just carries on or more likely decay and irrelevances.

#Activertypub is the first option, and this is why we love it and are having this conversation.

Some links on this https://socialhub.activitypub.rocks/t/what-would-a-fediverse-governance-body-look-like/1497/7

Corporate presence in the Fediverse?

All I can say is stop complaining, then please step away to help build alternatives like the #OMN

#openweb #dotcons #4opens #techshit

Opening a space to build alternatives #OMN

The mainstream internet, #dotcons, seduces us with dopamine hits, saps our creativity, and turn us into sad, noisy, powerless complainers. It steals our time with endless distractions, buries the pathways that lead to real change, and, in the end, empties our wallets.

We do need to stress how ingrained the #deathcult mentality has become. After decades of #neoliberal ideology, people have internalized the “no alternative” mindset, making it difficult to embrace radical solutions. Moving public opinion, especially outside the #dotcons bubble, requires patience and strategic optimism. It’s frustrating when potential allies focus too much on tearing things down instead of building up new, relevant/radical paths.

How do you think we can inspire collaborative and hopeful action movements, without them getting lost in the negativity?

There is a visible to some/invisible to meany split between isolationists and communicators in decentralized tech. This, if you can see it, highlights a tension that exists in these spaces: the drive for autonomy versus the desire to connect and build community. The isolationists tend to come from a place of distrust—towards government, society, and even other people, while the communicators are motivated by collaboration and the desire for the balance of freedom without “control”. This is from’ish this thread

To build a community of positive-minded, collaborative people around decentralized technology, it might help to frame it with a focus on inclusivity and openness, rather than a dogmatic political alignment. Positioning the project as radically progressive and inclusive can attract those who share ethical values without alienating people who might not identify with specific left-leaning ideologies, but do align with collectivism paths and community-building to make these paths real.

What can help build a project native to this, like the #OMN? We start with clear, shared values, like the #4opens then build these into strong myths and traditions, inclusive, mutual aid, transparency, and collaboration to hold the path, no matter how messy it gets. This might help to grow an affinity group of action to draw in, by holding the space open, people who want to contribute positively and filter out those who don’t share those #KISS goals.

Decentralized, communal governance, like the #OGB is a path to empower communities to moderate a healthy and welcoming space. Decentralized decision-making allows more voices to be heard and helps to mediate conflicts before they become toxic. This distributing power and responsibility, to build open, curated discussions and ensure these remain constructive and don’t descend into conspiracy and extremism. Yes, make it clear that free speech is valued, but the community is not tolerate of hate speech and fascist ideologies. On this native path various approaches and ideas, coexist in collaboration and messiness, a path to avoid dogmatism and the mess that ideological purity can so easily spread.

To build this we can use existing networks, the #fediverse is a great example of how decentralized tech work to scale, a good place to draw inspiration, an example of community building, moderation practices, and fostering healthy interactions. We can start with highlighting successful models of cooperation and interdependence that try and resolve conflicts organically.

The challenges are real, especially in keeping out toxic elements without being authoritarian or losing the balance of openness. By focusing on shared, values and building a community where contributions are judged by their alignment with the collective goals rather than personal politics, you create a space that encourages progressive ideas that fosters a sense of solidarity.

This is a real path to open a space to build alternatives #OMN

Stop complaining. Just step away to help build the alternative #OMN

#openweb #dotcons #4opens #techshit

The Panthers’ slogan “Power to the People” resonates on the #openweb

A forum thread on socialhub brought up a powerful parallel between the radical demands of the Black Panther Party (#BPP) and the underlying values of the #fediverse and #activitypub communities, especially in their attempts to build outside the corporate-controlled paths. The metaphor is striking because both seek liberation, self-determination, and the creation of alternatives to oppressive systems.

Freedom and self-determination, the #BPP’s call for freedom to determine their community’s paths, has a native overlap to the motivations behind the fediverse, which is a path to free people from #dotcons corporate control. This empowering of people to manage their communities, and engage in social media on their own terms, much like the BPP sought to control their community’s political and social future. But there is a problem, this self-determination is undermined by the “narrow and intolerant” behaviour, in the fediverse communities which are still shaped by power dynamics, gatekeeping, and elitism. Much like the BPP’s fight against internal and external forces, we need to challenge invisible embedded paths in tech spaces.
Ending exploitation and economic Injustice, the BPP’s demand to end capitalist robbery mirrors the desire within the fediverse to reject the exploitative model of #dotcons, profiting off users’ data, labour, and attention. Projects like #Mastodon and the wider #openweb reboot offer an alternative that resists the centralization, monetization and control of user information. Yet, despite this anti-capitalist ethos, there’s still a tendency for devs and leaders in these communities to pursue funding, recognition and status that mimics the capitalist incentives of the #dotcons. The challenge is to remain vigilant about how easily a “safe” or “open” community can be co-opted by external economic pressures, just as the Panthers struggled to protect their movement from state infiltration and capitalist influence.
Housing, education, and technology as commons, the BPP’s demands for housing and education highlight their belief in basic human rights, which could be translated into the tech metaphor as the right to access technology and information as commons. The #4opens represent this principle, ensuring that tools, processes, and knowledge remain transparent and accessible. It’s about creating “decent housing” for digital life and an “education” that uncovers the true nature of our technological paths. The struggle, many open communities drift toward becoming insular, where the tools and education are not readily accessible to newcomers. It requires more effort to lower the barriers and broaden participation beyond the #geekproblem to genuinely serve as commons, much like the Panthers sought to broaden political education beyond academic elites.
Community defense and police brutality, the Panthers’ emphasis on ending police brutality and defending their community aligns with the need for safe spaces in the digital world, spaces free from corporate surveillance, trolling, and abuse. In the fediverse, moderation and safety tools resemble a kind of “community defense” against harmful actors, trying to keep the space healthy and productive. This policing of communities within the fediverse can take a rigid, intolerant form, which creates an exclusionary culture where non #mainstreaming voices are marginalized. Just as the Panthers sought accountability and fairness in how their communities were policed, Fediverse communities need more humane and community-led governance models, like #OGB, to avoid replicating the authoritarian systems they’re fighting against.
Radical ideals vs. narrow paths, both the BPP and the fediverse, in their own ways, strive for radical change, whether it’s systemic racial justice or the liberation of the internet from corporate interests. But both face the dilemma of narrow paths, in the BPP’s case, the movement’s radical vision was met with state repression, which forced them into narrower, defensive stances. In the fediverse, the movement for open, decentralized media is constrained by internal divisions, ideological rigidity, and an intolerance of diverse views. The key here is not to narrow the vision to protect it, but to expand it, making space for more people and voices. This means mediating conflicts through trust and transparency, rather than exclusion and elitism, a struggle shared by both the BPP and the #openweb movement.
The path forward, to “compost the mess” in the fediverse, we need to apply some of the same principles the BPP fought for, building movements that are rooted in collective empowerment, community defence, and transparent, accountable governance. This means, challenging the internal hierarchies that mirror the social structures we’re resisting. Expanding participation and avoiding the elitism and exclusionary paths that choke out growth. Emphasizing practical tools (like #OGB and #4opens) to manage conflicts, maintain openness, and ensure the tech commons remains genuinely for the people.

Looking at the #BPP’s history, we see both a radical vision and the internal/external challenges that can derail a movement. The fediverse can learn from this, the threat to its growth isn’t just external corporate forces, but the narrow, rigid paths it sometimes enforces within. To stay on the “native” path of liberation, it has to embrace messiness, diversity, and openness. The Panthers’ slogan “Power to the People” resonates deeply here, digital power should truly belong to the people, not gatekeepers.

Navigating challenges: online governance, trolling, and privacy

It’s interesting and useful to look at the critical issue of online governance, community dynamics, and the problem of #mainstreaming trolling on both the #dotcons and open social platforms like #Mastodon, #Fediverse and the broader #openweb

Let’s start with mastodon, the complexity of (default) privacy settings leads to public conversations inadvertently shifting into private spaces, this is a UX problem, but it also points to a larger issue with how we handle communication, trust, and governance on decentralized platforms. And raises a question, are we on the right path? Confusing privacy settings are disempowering, the defaults in platforms like Mastodon pushing users toward privatized conversations, which are not combatable with #4opens media paths, of transparency and public dialogue. Yes, this is a subtle but important #UX issue, exacerbated by the complexities of decentralized platforms and different peoples preferences for engagement.

UPDATE: it’s about inheriting the settings of the thread, all my posts are #4opens as this is the core project, it’s unusual to send a DM or other setting though do this a little when needed. When having a public conversation and suddenly find this happening in a non-public space, at no point did I agree to this move, but it happens, due to others settings, it should default to one side public, my settings, and one side (semi) private the other person’s settings, as on my side it is VERY much a #4opens public conversation, it’s a form of corruption for this privatisation to happen… a mess I have to fix by republishing my side as a separate post – sub optional and bad #UX

This is in part the push for mainstreaming, both inside and outside, alternative platforms, creates pressure toward conformity and centralization. This undermines the grassroots nature of media networks like the Fediverse. In the end, we move towards the same governance and behavioral issues seen in #dotcons, corporate social media platforms. Left-wing and progressives need to resist these pressures to/by fostering a #4opens culture of diversity, and mutual aid.

Moving beyond this mess, a culture of empathy and understanding is needed for mediating trolling behavior. Listen before judging, then make judgements based on sound open process, so people have the space to change their paths if they can. A mindset of curiosity and openness, rather than rigid ideological adherence is needed for this to work, metaphors are fertile seeds to bring conversation into this path. This creates spaces where different perspectives can be heard and discussed constructively.

A first step is to be “intolerant of intolerance” with #4opens as a guide. The problem is that this is a right-wing path https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance so we add the #4opens, ethics, to turn this to the left/progressive #KISS path.

The #openweb has always been, under the surface, built on strong communities rooted in mutual aid to provide a buffer against the toxic effects of trolling and infighting. When people feel connected to a shared mission, they are less likely to engage in destructive behavior. The strength of grassroots movements lies in their ability to offer this solidarity and care as an affective path of change and challenge. You acturly can’t have one without the other, in this conflict in moderation can be healthy or not.

We need structural social solutions to governance, the work on the #OMN and #OGB is a promising step toward creating decentralized, open governance paths that can mediate trolling and other negative behaviors. “the rule of an enlightened “philosopher-king” (cf. Noocracy) is preferable to the tyranny of majority” is the bases and fear unthinkingly in #FOSS governance paths. Much of the trolling comes from this unthinking. By embedding #4opens trust, transparency, and community in the path of these networks, we create environments that foster collaboration and experimentation, rather than pointless ongoing conflicts.

Navigating these challenges: online governance, trolling, and common sense privacy is no small step. However, with the paths like the #4opens, a focus on mutual aid, and a commitment to progressive, decentralized governance, it’s possible to create a healthier, more resilient online and offline progressive ecosystem. The work done through the #OMN and #OGB projects reflects this path where spaces (online or offline) are inclusive, productive, and capable of handling the messes that inevitably arise in all “open” communities.

Navigating the Trolls

The “public first” paths of the #OMN faces steep hurdles without the necessary support, focus, and funding. Achieving diversity in these spaces requires more than just a philosophical commitment—it needs active engagement from a variety of voices, technical expertise, and resources to push the project into wider use.

The current dominant “safe first” path in projects like Mastodon does create a certain type of functionality, but it also stifles innovation and radical potential by prioritizing safety in ways that ultimately encourage more privatized interactions. For grassroots, #openweb movements to thrive, they need both tech development and community support that embraces complexity rather than pushing toward conservative #mainstreaming defaults.

Ideas please to pull in the necessary dev focus and resources to make the public-first #OMN a reality? Can we build ways to attract contributors outside traditional #blockeing funding paths?

The Open Media Network (#OMN) is a set of tools to empower communities

Socialhub needs rebooting as grassroots, its drifting

What went wrong with this is a classic case of the tension between grassroots ideals and the pressure of existing within a larger system that is fundamentally at odds with those ideals. The #fediverse, along with other #openweb movements, succeeds in small, meaningful ways but struggles to scale in a world built on capitalist structures, centralization, and competition. This tension is particularly evident in how projects, despite being technologically sound and #4opens, ideologically aligned with decentralization and openness, gets bogged down in internal messes, conflicts, miscommunication, leading to fragmentation. The messy social side, neglected in tech projects, ends up undermining the success of the broader mission. People focus on code but forget about the human aspects like collaboration, motivation, and building long-term trust, which are equally essential.

As I suggested, the idea to codify some form of “netiquette” or community values, inspired by the #fluffy and #spiky traditions of past projects, is crucial. If we don’t address these human and social issues, the technology alone will not be enough. The problem is that by default these communities don’t prioritize this, and that’s where the breakdown occurs. What we have now is that the fediverse’s very existence is a victory, but that doesn’t mean the battle is over. The grassroots growth, driven by passion rather than profit, shows that alternatives to #dotcons capitalist, centralized tech are possible, but in-till we find a way to address the underlying social fracture, gatekeeping, burnout, #blocking and conflicts, we’ll continue to push the same mess.

The victory is not in “winning” in capitalist terms, but in maintaining spaces where alternatives can thrive and where people can connect based on shared #4opens values, rather than imposed structures. The real challenge is to keep these spaces open, resilient, and focused, for this to balance we need to address not just the tech, but the people behind it. We could, and should reboot #socialhub to be this space, It’s where it started, and did a good job for a while.

Or not, but it would be good to stop the drift.

We need to reclaim focus and energy wasted on current failing systems

We need to reclaim focus and energy wasted on current failing systems

Many years ago, I stopped going to most tech events and supporting “ethical” business. the #NGO tech events are mere talking shops, spaces filled with endless discussions but no outcomes. They suck up time, energy, and focus, acting as gatekeepers that reinforce the status quo while masquerading as spaces of change. These events are part of a semi-hidden #deathcult, worshiping, the failing structures of the present rather than imagining and building of alternatives. Next time you see one of these events pop up in your feed, ask yourself: Is this contributing to actual change, or just taking up space?

Then we have the same problem with the way people, too often, set up “soft green alt businesses” that can’t “pay their way” within the current capitalist system. If you can’t challenge capitalism’s rules, why not consider working to overthrow them first? Only then will we have the non “pay-to-play” spaces where real alternative projects can grow.

We got into this mess by accommodating these structures rather than challenging them. As Marx said:

“Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past. The tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living. And just as they seem to be occupied with revolutionizing themselves and things, creating something that did not exist before, precisely in such epochs of revolutionary crisis they anxiously conjure up the spirits of the past to their service, borrowing from them names, battle slogans, and costumes in order to present this new scene in world history in time-honoured disguise and borrowed language.” Karl Marx, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonapart

In simple words, we must be realistic about the conditions we face but also bold in our strategies to change them. To take this path, we need to navigate past the blocks of power politics, the stupidity, fear, control freakery, cowardice, and overwork that consistently stymie technological and social change. It’s past time to move aside from this mess. We need to reclaim the focus and energy wasted on maintaining the current failing systems and redirect/balances this to building #openweb and resilient #community spaces for change and challenge.

A #KISS step is compost the #techshit to create space to build networks based on #4opens—#OpenData, #OpenSource, #OpenProcess, and #OpenStandards. In the current #fediverse the pathways are there; it’s up to us to walk them.

You likely need a shovel #OMN

The Open Media Network (#OMN) is a set of tools to empower communities

A project we need to build together as a path”native” to the #openweb

let’s recap, as you likely missed half the story the first time round. This speaks directly to the core of why meaningful change is so hard to achieve within the current mess of tech and “ethical” business. Most #NGO tech events, which claim to be about fostering change and innovation, have become places of inertia. They are “talking shops” paths where people discuss endlessly with no concrete action or achieving “real “native” outcomes. These spaces take up limited time, energy, and focus, which could be directed toward building real alternatives. They are gatekeepers, reinforcing the status quo while pretending to be progressive and transformative.

These paths only “exist” if they play by the rules of capitalism, rules that are designed to extract value rather than support meaningful, sustainable alternatives. So, instead of challenging these rules, people waste time trying to work within them, missing the bigger picture. If we want to create real change, we need to challenge the foundations of the system itself, not simply try to adapt to it.

Marx’s quote emphasizes that while people make their own history, they do so within the constraints of circumstances handed down from the past. In other words, we carry the weight of outdated structures and ideologies that continue to stifle transformation. The history of failed strategies and the perpetuation of ineffective methods weigh us down, preventing us from taking different paths to different possibilities.

The power dynamics within these spaces—be it #NGO tech events and “ethical” businesses are filled with control, fear, overwork, and cowardice, which block progress. Real change is movement beyond this mess, to reclaim energy wasted propping up failing systems, to redirect it toward building #openweb and resilient communities to use this freed up space for change and challenge. The #fediverse and other decentralized networks already provide pathways; we just need to be brave enough to walk them.

In short, this matters, for a radical shift in focus from superficial actions to systemic change to compost the #techshit and build truly transformative from the ground up. And yes, we need a shovel #OMN.

Yes, we are in a mess, we need a path

Recognizing the cracks in the current path

This is an overview, the path we need to try is to focus on #commons and #cooperation for building tools and communities, then to use these tools to challenge the current structures of power. This is a very different path than the #stupidindividualism (as some people say #hyperindividualism) of the current #mainstreaming capitalist path. The way isn’t through more fragmentation, but by connecting these fragments into a more coherent whole, something the #OMN (Open Media Network) is working towards. We need #solidarity and #mutualaid to build these tools, which can then be used to build the communities to use them.

The issues are wide, is not just the #dotcons enclosing the commons, but the way people get sucked into the #NGO culture/control paths, which reinforces the very systems of oppression, that on the surface they claim to fight. We can’t keep putting plasters on these problems. In the media/tech world the path is actually not that hard, real change comes from #grassroots efforts that prioritize #4opens: OpenData, OpenSource, OpenProcess, and OpenStandards. These create transparency and accountability, and help us compost the #techshit that has built up over decades of bad practice.

I outline this in the OMN project, which provides a structure to link these disparate actions and paths together, creating a “native” #NetworkOfNetworks where flows of trust and information/data and metadata can be built on solid, open foundations. By strongly focusing on principles, we foster #communities that are resilient, self-sufficient, #DIY and capable of defending against the enclosures that happen by default on the #mainstreaming path most of us are currently on.

It’s time to turn away from the (stupid)individualistic mindset that capitalism cultivates and return to a more healthy balance with #CollectiveEmpowerment. This isn’t about returning to a naive vision of the past but evolving our tactics for the present, using what’s left of the openweb to build something more robust and deeply rooted, we have started down this path with the #fediverse

The #OMN project is building from this first step, a path that is usefully as it’s native to create a #reboot for the #openweb. It’s about recognizing the cracks in the current system and knowing where pressure can make the cracks grow to open up space to compost the old and nourish the fresh shoots of alternative tech and media that we need. This nurtures communities that then builds better tech, a simple circle, with likely a better outcome than the current #deathcult

Individualism isn’t the problem, the “stupid” part is the problem

There is a lot on this subject on this website

Meany people write on this change of path

The patriarchs of the early #openweb

We face a digital cliff the open internet may be over

I wrote this post nearly ten years ago.

Back then, we were teetering on the edge of a digital cliff, with the open internet hanging in the balance. There were two insightful perspectives capturing the crossroads we are at: Phil Windley argued that the open internet was a historical fluke, while Dave Winer suggests that what we were seeing was merely the ebb before the next wave of the #openweb arrived.

With this enclosure of the digital commons, #PhilWindley perspective, is a sobering one. Though he has updated his post, he used to see the internet early open nature as an anomaly—an accident of history. In this view, the open internet as we knew it is essentially finished. That once-thriving commons have been systematically enclosed by corporate silos—the #dotcons like Facebook, Google, and Amazon—that now dominate the digital landscape. What remains outside these silos is, according to this perspective, withering and dying. The vision of a decentralized, user-controlled internet has been overwhelmed by the centralized, profit-driven motives of these tech giants.

His argument is that decentralization is hard, perhaps too hard for most people to handle. This reality, combined with the fact that these silos provide convenience, user-friendliness, and perceived safety, has led people to choose them over the messy and challenging world of a truly #openweb. People have traded freedom for convenience, security for walled gardens, and the vibrant chaos of the commons for the curated safety of #dotcons. The digital commons have been enclosed, and it was a bleak view.

On the other side, Dave Winer offered a more hopeful perspective. He believes that the history of the internet and the web comes in waves—periods of openness followed by enclosure, which then recede to allow for another wave of openness. In his view, Phil Windley’s observation might not be wrong, but it’s not the end of the story. Rather, it’s the ebb of the tide before a new wave of the #openweb surges forward. The potential for decentralized, and open paths is always there, and it’s a mistake to assume that the current moment is the end of the line.

#DaveWiner argument rests on the idea that the desire for openness and freedom is cyclical. When centralized systems become oppressive, restrictive, or exploitative, there will be a counter-movement that pushes back. The nature of technology, innovation, and humanistic creativity ensures that “native” paths, and protocols will emerge to challenge the status quo.

There is a logic to the digitization of everything. The internet and #openweb built on top of it, is a living example of what happens when this logic is let loose: a tsunami that crashes over every part of our cultures, breaking old structures and opening up possibilities. The storm is not over. Just as the early web opened up commons that were later enclosed, the current wave of enclosure is broken by a new wave of #4open decentralization paths.

What Has Changed in the Last Decade? Looking back at what I wrote nearly ten years ago, the fundamental dynamics haven’t changed. The dotcons have only grown more powerful and more entrenched, but at the same time, the counter-forces have also begun to stir vigorously. Movements like the #Fediverse, based on #ActivityPub, #Nostor and to a lesser extent #Bluesky have grown into real usable decentralized social paths, together with this, we are dipping our toes back into peer-to-peer technologies, this wave is evidence that the storm of digitization is still alive.

Yes, the #dotcons did enclose the first wave of commons, when we stupidly took their digital algorithmic drugs. But the defences of the dotcons are very weak, the only thing holding most people is their addictions, nobody thinks they are healthy any more. The logic of digitization continues, and as long as there are waves, there is hope for the current openweb reboot.

#OMN #makeinghistory #OGB #indymediaback

The Open Media Network (#OMN) is a set of tools to empower communities

People find it hard to understand the “unique” selling point of the #OMN beyond the tech, which is “common sense”. And this is, drum roll, reveal, that people and content are data objects in the “commons” by default and only private/owed by exception. This is the basic #KISS “unique” selling point of the #OMN there we are, I said it was simple.

It’s interesting with all the talk about the project over the last ten years this was never talked about. This is a direct result of the agenda blocking of the #geekproblem, #fashernista agenda and #NGO control mess. We never actually get to the bits that matter as we are so fussed talking about the bits that don’t matter, the ones the groups above push. This is a mess that we urgently need to compost.

The Open Media Network (OMN) is a set of tools to empower YOU to change and challenge the world we live (and die) in. The OMN is about opening up the flow of information and breaking down the silos that keep data locked in walled gardens. It’s an “anything in and anything out” network, operating through mediated trust database/flows that puts power back into the hands of grassroots paths. This framework is built from the #fediverse to flow freely, with control in the hands of the users.

The OMN is a “data soup”—a blend of tagged data objects flowing through channels. These flows are mediated by trust, which means that users can depend on the reliability of sources and content within the network. This isn’t just about blind trust; it’s about a dynamic, evolving network of trust relationships where both content creation and consumption are guided by the principles of openness and integrity.

Within the OMN, people are free to choose their own level of engagement—whether they want to be active participants contributing content and trust, or more passive consumers curating what they see and share. The choice is yours, the network’s design supports autonomy. Embracing the messiness of data, the OMN has several unconventional features that might be seen as “problems” by those entrenched in traditional geekproblem tech paths.

Lossy Data: Accepting that not all data needs to be perfect or complete. The world is messy, and our data can reflect that reality.
Redundancy: Multiple instances of the same data help to ensure that information isn’t lost and allows the network to be more resilient.
Trust: It is integral to the network’s design. Users navigate this “data soup” based on trust relationships rather than on algorithms or centralized authority.

By mediating the #geekproblem, which will view these attributes as flaws, we open up perspectives on how data and communities can interact and thrive. This network is built on the #4opens principles to ensure that the OMN is not another closed-off tech experiment but a genuinely open and collaborative path. It’s not about reinventing the wheel or creating something entirely new from scratch. Instead, it’s about leveraging existing tools and technologies to build a decentralized media/news network that is “permissionless” for anyone to use and contribute to, it’s up to them if they trust other people.

What makes the OMN exciting is the potential it offers for “flows of trust” to develop. Communities and people are encouraged to build their own projects on top of the simple OMN framework, allowing a wide range of alternative media, news, and social projects to emerge. The focus is on using these flows to cultivate healthy, vibrant communities where trust is a core currency, and where diverse perspectives can coexist and grow.

The goal is empowerment through decentralizing control and empowering communities that allow people to take control of their media, their data, and their interactions. The #OMN provides a good user interface (UX) to facilitate easy navigation and interaction within the network, making it accessible for tech-savvy developers to everyday users to create meaning and shared spaces.

In conclusion, the OMN is not just a project; it’s a framework for interacting with information and with each other to invite us to rethink our relationship with media, data, and trust. So, let’s get involved. Let’s build, experiment, and trust. The #OMN is an opportunity to shape a truly #openweb where you have the power to change the world by challenging the current statues quo.

The patriarchs of the early #openweb

Parasite #NGO and #fashionista tech

“But the principal objection will doubtless refer to the plain language used. My excuse, if indeed excuse be needed for saying just what I mean, is, that it is impossible to clothe in delicate terms the intolerable nastiness which I expose, and at the same time to press the truth home to those who are most in need of it; I might as well talk to the winds as veil my ideas in sweet phrases when addressing people who it seems cannot descry the presence of corruption until it is held in all its putridity under their very nostrils.”

On the of alt-tech path, I’ve been navigating this messy terrain of decentralized, grassroots technology for a long time. From this experience, I can say with some authority that we have taken a step away from the current mess with the growing #activertypub open web reboot. But we still need to mediate some of the ongoing #fashionistas #blocking, which is not helping us compost this mess into fertile soil for the fresh shoots of alternative technology that we so desperately need. This ongoing mess needs more composting, if we leave this in place to continue down this path, we risk strangling the growth we’re trying to cultivate.

The #4opens is a useful tool to recognizing the parasite #NGO and #Fashernista tech projects, that we keep stumbling over. The way genuinely grassroots tech projects—those born from communities, those driven by necessity and vision—are repeatedly being pushed aside by parasite tech projects. These feed from our grassroots efforts, taking the buzzwords and aesthetics without understanding or respecting the underlying principles and socially embedded paths.

This isn’t a fringe occurrence; it’s a pattern that has repeated itself over the last 30 years in meany cases I’ve come across. From social media alternatives to community-focused platforms, time and again, well-intentioned grassroots efforts are overshadowed by the glossy, polished facades of #VC funded or #NGO-backed, fashion-driven tech initiatives that lack, depth and commitment to the actual communities they purport to serve. These projects can be seen as they are more concerned with optics, funding, and their own visibility than with fostering genuine, sustainable alternatives.

There is a role for the #4opens in composting this #techshit, this is a framework that helps to expose and compost this kind of mess at its source. For those unfamiliar, the #4opens are:

Open Data: Data must be accessible, reusable, and modifiable.
Open Source: Code should be freely available for anyone to use, modify, and share.
Open Standards: Interoperability is key; data and code should work together, not against each other.
Open Process: The decision-making process should be transparent and inclusive, not hidden behind closed doors.

By applying the #4opens in grassroots tech projects, we can help to make visible the manipulations and shortfalls of parasitic NGO and fashernista power grabs. This works best when the process is open, so people see who is contributing to the ecosystem and who is simply feeding off it. This visibility is crucial because, without it, these actors are allowed to thrive unchecked, feeding off our work and energy while providing little in return. The open process serves as a powerful tool to expose those who claim to be fostering change but are merely replicating the same hierarchical and closed structures that led us into the current tech mess. It’s about shining a light on the hidden agendas and pushing for accountability and transparency in what this reveals.

How can our #NGO crew actually help? This is harder than it seems as the is strong #blocking to overcome, so the first step is overcoming this blocking, need ideas please?

My idea: Celebrate the mess, understanding that change is messy, and in this mess that new ideas form, where unexpected connections are made, and where real, lasting change takes root. We need to change and challenge the world dominated by the #dotcons and take our alternatives out of the hands of stale paths of dead-end NGO and fashernista tech. We do need composting as a regenerative path.

Motivation for moving away from this mess. The fact that people are rebooting the #openweb by building the #fediverse in a #DIY, grassroots way, without millions in VC funding, is one of the most remarkable feats of contemporary digital resistance. It’s not about “winning” in the capitalist sense—dominating the market, scaling endlessly, or achieving monopoly status in the image of the #dotcons and big tech path. The fediverse powerful from being built on #4opens principles of decentralization, community effort, it’s a native path, outside the norms that capitalism dictates to us as essential.

#NGO platforms like #Bluesky can be fertilised by $12 million in backing and a fully-paid team, the fediverse is growing grassroots from the ground up. It’s powered by people and communities working in their spare time, without corporate salaries and benefits. The coding and creating is driven by belief and belonging, not because a corporation paying to hit growth targets. That’s a different motivation, and it has strength.

The thing we need to see here is that the fediverse exists and thrives, standing as a living counter culture to the idea of competition, capital and centralized control. It’s running against the grain of what’s considered “necessary” in tech, it’s rewriting the rules back to the “native” #openweb path. This openweb reboot shows that people can build non #mainstreaming alternatives, with no paywalls, no ad-tracking, no surveillance, just open collaboration and shared values.

That it’s running at all, while not on the capitalism’s, path and ignoring its “rules”, is the victory. It doesn’t have to become the dominant social media platform. It’s already proved that another way is possible. And that, in itself, is a powerful statement that we need to build from #OMN

The Activist History of the Web: Lessons we can learn

The #openweb, the #commons, the real-world spaces we build are where the future lies

Resilience is community and trust, this resilience grows by connecting the actions of today to the possibilities of tomorrow, even when that future is unknowable. It’s rooted in community, and community thrives on mutual trust. Trust isn’t about keeping a ledger; it’s about giving freely without expectation. Money is not the foundation of resilience. Across the world, billions live resilient lives by supporting each other, because if they don’t, they all go under. From our privileged view, we often forget that resilience is nurtured in these commons.

We need to think about this: The idea of dual power isn’t new. It goes back to revolutionary moments when people realized the need to build alternatives to existing oppressive structures rather than only confronting them head-on. In the current political climate, where the failures of state and capitalist control are glaring, we need to revisit and reframe this idea of “dual power”. This isn’t a utopian dream or a naïve belief that we can merely build around the edges while the world burns. It’s about creating practical, grounded alternatives that directly challenge the existing system by living outside of it and dismantling it from the inside.

The current mess, look around. We are surrounded by a mess of our own making. The relentless march of #neoliberalism has commodified every aspect of our lives, and the #dotcons have taken over our social spaces, transforming genuine human interaction into data points for corporate profit and control. The state, meant to serve the people, is a tool of the greedy and nasty, maintaining control through fear, surveillance, and repression. It doesn’t take much to see that the paths we are currently on are leading to #climatechaos, widespread inequality, social and ecological breakdown.

But here’s the problem: most people still think we have choices within this mess. They talk about reforming the system, fixing capitalism, or making dotcons tech more ethical while continuing to operate on the same lost paths. This is delusion, a comfortable delusion for some, but a delusion nonetheless.

On the #DIY path, dual power is about creating parallel paths that coexist with the current ones but serve entirely different functions. Instead of asking for scraps from the masters’ table, we build our own tables, with food that nourishes everyone. It’s about constructing alternative social, economic, and political structures that are directly in opposition to the current hierarchies and power dynamics.

It’s not just about building alternative structures, though. It’s more important for actively delegitimizing and dismantling the existing power structures of capitalism and the state. This involves #directaction, solidarity, and collective organizing to challenge and change state and capitalist control in all its forms. It’s about a two-fold strategy: building the new while composting the old.

Why dual power matters, for too long, the left and radical movements have been stuck in reactionary paths, fighting battles on terrain chosen by the state and capital. We need to change this by recreating a new path, a space where we shape the traditions and myths that shape us. This is not just some theoretical exercise; it’s already happening in many parts of the world.

We see it in the #fediverse, on #mastodon, #bluesky and #noster networks, in grassroots mutual aid networks springing up during the current crises when the state and corporate structures fail. We see it in community run food cooperatives, decentralized digital spaces, and local assemblies where decisions are made collectively, rather than by a few in power. This is not an abstract idea, it’s lived practice, a shift from fighting against the system to creating something new and more humane.

Building dual power in a digital age, the #openweb and federated networks offer a glimpse of what dual power can look like. Unlike the #dotcons that feed on greed and manipulation, the openweb is rooted in principles that serve the community, #4opens, transparency, open collaboration, and autonomy. But even here, we often fall into the trap of merely copying the structures we’re trying to replace, creating the same mess under a different banner. The next step needs to be truly native to the 4opens path, transparent, open, and accountable, rejecting the commodification that the dotcons have normalized.

But digital spaces alone won’t save us. They are tools, important ones, no doubt, but we need a broader focus. We need to create real-world spaces of resistance and creation. Think community gardens that also serve as meeting points for local decision-making. Think of decentralized energy cooperatives that break free from corporate control. Think of neighbourhood assemblies that replace the hollow, bureaucratic local governments that most people have lost faith in. This is dual power in practice.

The roadblocks, the #Geekproblem and #Fasherista paths, let’s not romanticize this process. We need to acknowledge the challenges within our movements, the #geekproblem and the #fashernista paths that unconsciously block the change we need. The geekproblem is the obsession with technical solutions over social and political ones, while the fashernista path focuses on trendy but superficial activism that serves as more of a social club, careerism, than a serious challenge to power. Both paths have their place, but they should not dominate our paths. We need to keep our focus on the bigger picture.

Moving beyond the noise, to those who say, “Now is not the time,” I ask, “When will it be?” The crisis is here. We are all worshiping the #deathcult, masking 40 years of #neoliberal ideology, pretending we have choices that simply don’t exist. Now is precisely the time to dig in, get our hands dirty, and start composting this mess we’ve been dragged into. The work ahead isn’t easy, and there will be mistakes, missteps, and mess-ups along the way. But that’s okay. Composting is messy work, and so is building a more open and sustainable world.

If you’re waiting for someone to tell you what to do, you’ve already missed the point. Dual power isn’t a blueprint; it’s a living practice. It’s a call to start building the new and composting the old, right now, where you are. Lift your head, look at the mess, and start digging. Together, we can build something better than the scraps we’ve been given. Join us on this humanistic adventure in social technology and direct action. The #openweb, the #commons, and the real-world spaces we build are where the future lies. Let’s make it happen #OMN

The #openweb and #fediverse is anti-viral?

There is #mainstreaming criticism that the #fediverse has “anti-viral” features, as there is no central algorithm promoting specific content to go viral, but this is not entirely accurate. What this actually points to is a deeper issue within the social path of the #openweb itself. There is a social push in this “native” path, that “anti-viral” isn’t about a lack of features; it’s about how certain structures and behaviours are actively discouraging people with larger reach from thriving in these “native” spaces.

It’s a people to people web, so huge accounts can’t and don’t talk back, so can’t be “native” to this path. It’s not a question of choice, rather a question of path. It might be useful to think about this, as these conversations being #blind to thinking outside their current #dotcons path, and thus unknowingly bring it into the openweb reboot.

The problem with the talk of “Anti-Viral” is pushed up by current outreach. When people say that the Fediverse lacks virality, they are focusing on the absence of centralized algorithms, found on corporate platforms (the #dotcons). On those, algorithms drive engagement by amplifying sensational and emotionally charged content, at the cost of meaningful discourse and ethical considerations. In contrast, the Fediverse is praised for being different, more community focused, more human scale, and more about interaction rather than manipulation by algorithms, however, this is still a perspective missing a crucial point.

What we are actually seeing is that the Fediverse has developed social norms and features that end up pushing away people who “go viral” or have large followings. The problem isn’t just that the platform lacks virality; it’s that it lacks the infrastructure and culture to support people with large followings in a way that feels sustainable and meaningful. Large Accounts don’t thrive, by design.

The #openweb and #fediverse are built on the principles of decentralization and #DIY community, which are fantastic for fostering small, intimate interactions. However, this structure makes it difficult for larger accounts to function. Why? Because the social architecture is inherently hostile to large-scale influence based on one way broadcasting.

Large accounts can’t engage meaningfully with their followers in a people-to-people web. When you have thousands of people interacting with your posts, it becomes impossible to engage in a way that aligns with the native path that is part of the code of the #fediverse.
Without centralized moderation, content moderation is a community effort. This can mean that people who attract controversy, whether deserved or not, increase the instance workload, creating a practical culture that is inhospitable to “big voices” paths and agendas.

The “People-to-People” Web is set up to favour small-scale interactions and communities over larger, more influential voices who are more normally broadcast media focused. This is both good and bad, yes it can be a problem when we think about the kind of impact we want the #openweb to have. In this, It’s not about changing the current path but creating parallel ones, the solution, we need to move beyond the #stupidindividualism of copying the microblogging of the #dotcons and think of balancing with “native” oprochs to media, the #indymediaback project is an example of this path, which we do need to take.

Broadcast media is not social media, we need to build out the Fediverse with this in view.

———————————–

The Myth of “Anti-Viral” Fediverse: A Path Problem, Not a Feature Problem

There is a common #mainstreaming criticism that the #Fediverse has “anti-viral” features—meaning it lacks a central algorithm that promotes content to go viral. While this may seem accurate on the surface, it actually points to a deeper issue within the social path of the #openweb itself.

The notion of “anti-viral” isn’t just about missing features; it’s about how the social structures and behaviors of the Fediverse actively discourage large accounts from thriving in these “native” spaces. It is a people-to-people web, which means that huge accounts—those with thousands or millions of followers—cannot meaningfully engage with people at scale. It’s not a matter of choice but of structural design.

This is important to understand because much of the conversation around “anti-viral” fails to step outside the #dotcons path. People coming from corporate social media unknowingly bring their assumptions with them, expecting the Fediverse to function in the same way.

What “anti-viral” really means, critics, focus on the absence of centralized engagement-driving algorithms—the kind found on corporate platforms (#dotcons). These algorithms prioritize sensational, emotionally charged, and controversial content to maximize user engagement. In contrast, the Fediverse is structured to be more community-focused, human-scale, and interaction-driven rather than manipulated by algorithms.

However, this framing misses a crucial point, the issue isn’t just about missing algorithmic amplification, the Fediverse has developed social norms and features that actively discourage large accounts from thriving. Large accounts don’t fail due to a lack of virality—they fail because the culture and infrastructure aren’t designed to support them.

Why large accounts struggle on the fediverse, the #openweb and #Fediverse are rooted in decentralization and #DIY community-building, which are fantastic for fostering small, intimate interactions. However, this same structure makes it difficult for large accounts to function, because:

The People-to-People Web Doesn’t Scale for One-Way Broadcasts, Large accounts cannot engage meaningfully with followers in a way that aligns with the native interaction path of the Fediverse.
If thousands of people interact with a post, it’s impossible to respond in a way that fits the small-scale, community-driven ethos.
Content Moderation Is a Collective Effort, Not a Centralized One, Without centralized moderation, controversial accounts create workload pressure on individual instance admins. More controversy = more moderation burdens, making the Fediverse structurally inhospitable to high-profile users.
The “People-to-People” Web Prioritizes Small-Scale Interactions, The architecture favours small, engaged communities over mass broadcasting. This is great for community resilience but limits the ability for larger voices to exist organically.

Beyond #StupidIndividualism: Creating Parallel Paths Instead of Copying #Dotcons

If we want the #openweb to have an impact, we can’t just copy the microblogging model of the #dotcons and expect a different outcome. The Fediverse doesn’t need to change its current path, but it does need to parallel paths that allow different media approaches to thrive alongside it.

One solution? #Indymediaback.

The #IndymediaBack project provides an alternative approach to publishing that isn’t locked into the “social media” framing of the #dotcons. Instead of trying to make the Fediverse work like Twitter, we need to build native, federated broadcast media that works within the #openweb values.

Broadcast Media ≠ Social Media. To build a thriving #openweb, we need to stop treating broadcast media and social media as the same thing. Instead, we should:

Develop media models that work at different scales rather than forcing one system to do everything. Support federated, trust-based networks where large voices can operate in ways that fit the architecture. Think beyond the “individual” model of content production—this isn’t about one person going viral, it’s about building resilient, collective media structures.

The Fediverse isn’t broken—it just isn’t designed for the kind of viral engagement that corporate platforms push. If we want large-scale influence on the #openweb, we need to build native alternatives instead of trying to force the wrong models onto it.