Mediating the damage from #fashernistas

“The problem with most fashernistas is that they are completely untrustworthy. Yet, people trust them because they push #mainstreaming “common sense” this is the definition of evil, what to do? Ideas please?”

The problem with most #fashernistas lies in their prioritizing of style, superficial appeal, and “common sense” #mainstreaming over substance and integrity. Their actions are too often driven by appearances and short-term gains, rather than the principled foundations necessary for long-term trust and genuine change and challenge that we need. This creates a facade of credibility, enabling them to gain influence while undermining collective efforts. How to compost this mess:

Expose the tension between trust and Influence by highlight the contradictions. Make clear how focus on mainstreaming compromises values, transparency and inclusivity. Use storytelling and case studies to show how #fashernistas to often derail projects.
Embed trust in processes over personality, that is, build systems where influence is based on contributions and adherence to principles rather than charisma or status. Use the #4opens to ensure actions align with open processes, open data, open standards, and open licenses. These principles can create accountability that individuals find hard to circumvent.
Empower alternatives, by actively amplify contributors who are trustworthy, even if their approach lacks the flashiness of fashernistas. Build in feedback loops to create mechanisms for communities to critique and shape direction collectively, minimizing the impact of any one individual’s agenda.
Combat the “Common Sense” mythos. Point out where “common sense” solutions fail to address deeper issues, emphasizing the need for critical thinking and alternative paths. Encourage discourse to grow, environments where questioning and dissent are valued rather than sidelined.
Strengthen the focus on horizontal structures to minimize opportunities for top-down influence. One path to this is transparent moderation to ensure that editorial and moderation processes are open to scrutiny, preventing backdoor manipulation.

A balanced approach is needed. The issue with #fashernistas isn’t just their untrustworthiness—it’s that their appeal distracts from meaningful work. Addressing this requires paths, systems and cultures that embed core values into projects like the #OMN or #Fediverse, you reduce reliance on individuals and focus on collective empowerment. Its #KISS

Thinking about news on the #fediverse

To tackle the challenges of #stupidindividualism and the #techshit it pushes on the #Fediverse, we need to keep focus on balance, collaboration, and meaningful process. Let’s look at one path away from this mess making, an example of the roadmap for #indymediaback and what do we mean by a #newswire. Looking at the current use of #AP on the #Fediverse with this in mind:

Repeats: Strengthen syndication between instances for better information flow.

Replies: Integrate as comments on newswire posts and features to foster engagement.

Likes/Stars: Define their roles to signal endorsements or importance, avoiding redundant or unclear actions.

DMs: Focus these on moderation or editorial inquiries to streamline communication.

Enforce a balance between creativity and structure, use editorial collectives to curate content based on established journalistic standards (e.g., the 5Ws of news reporting). Apply consistent moderation to maintain the newswire as a valuable resource for grassroots reporting, minimizing off-topic or non-news contributions.

Building a robust newswire needs clear editorial guidelines, beginning with strict adherence to “newsworthiness,” rejecting non-news posts (up to 99% initially) to establish quality standards. Over time, this threshold can relax with user education and feedback. Focus on first-hand reports that embody the 5Ws of journalism (Who, What, Where, When, Why).

The feature process, highlights the synthesize of the best grassroots reports into cohesive narratives, combining text, images, audio, and video for impactful storytelling. Develop the features through editorial consensus, growing diversity of perspectives and adherence to the #4opens.

Federation via #activitypub to share content across the organic spreading network, building interconnectivity without duplicating efforts. Allow comments and replies to appear across instances, growing dialogue while maintaining strong editorial oversight.

Dealing with the “Nutter” problem by focus on process, not outcomes. Push the project forward with clear processes built on shared principles, understanding that life and society evolve over time. Avoid getting bogged down by demands for “perfect” solutions – basic, functional systems are a strong start. Reduce misinformation and #FUD by establish user education paths to combat misinformation and clarify project goals. Use editorial tools to label, moderate, and remove false content.

The OMN vision is strong defaults by #KISS hardcoded values and embedding the #4opens at every level of the project to resist the push for dilution by #mainstreaming pushing. Maintaining a grassroots, horizontal path to development to ensure inclusivity and resilience, this will need a cultural shift, to address the reliance on #fashernistas and those who push “common sense” a part of this is emphasizing long-term, principled growth over short-term popularity. This path keeps the focus on trust, process, and grassroots collaboration, building a stronger, more resilient #Fediverse and revitalizing #indymediaback as a platform for meaningful, community-driven media. For more information, resources, the OMN wiki is a good place to start.

You can fund the projects here

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

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

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

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

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

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

#indymediaback

We need a positive path for tech

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The #blocking of #openweb funding

The #fashernistas and #geekproblem interact to work in unintentional tandem

In part, the current challenges faced by the #openweb and grassroots reboot movements can be traced back to two cultural and structural problems: the influence of #fashernistas and the deeply ingrained #geekproblem. Both of these contribute to active blocking of meaningful change, hindering the progress needed for an openweb reboot. To walk this “native” landscape effectively, it’s needed to understand these barriers and how they block change and challenge.

The fashernistas and their echo chambers, the term refers to a subset of people who are highly engaged in performative discussions, centred on trending topics and social posturing without substantive engagement in grassroots real world problem-solving. While they are adept at identifying and amplifying transient issues, their conversations stay within insular bubbles. This creates a cycle where attention and focus are pulled toward repetitive discourse that never leads to any outcomes.

This taking up space with little and most often no follow-through is detrimental. Fashernistas thrive in spaces where the appearance of awareness is valued over the hard, real, messy action that is needed. In this #manstraming bubble, dialogue is focused on social capital—who knows what, who said what—rather than collaborative problem-solving. The result? The conversation around the openweb becomes cluttered, attention splinters, and meaningful action is overshadowed by a constant churn of noise.

The role of #fahernistas in blocking change is their ability to dominate platforms and narratives. This domination becomes active blocking when their presence leaves little room for discussions rooted in genuine collaboration and open progress. They inadvertently (or sometimes deliberately) creates environments where the needed ideas and radical challenges to the status quo struggle to gain traction, let along attention. If the openweb is to flourish, this culture of self-referential chatter needs to be mediated.

What can we do with our fashernistas?

The #geekproblem is a different barrier, which is the cultural divide within tech communities that leans heavily toward deterministic, technical solutions at the expense of accessible, inclusive approaches. The geekproblem manifests when developers and technologists become gatekeepers, framing issues in ways that reinforce their control, preserving existing narrow structures rather than opening them up for collective problem-solving.

For example, in the #openweb and #fediverse projects, the drive for good #UX runs parallel to an implicit exclusivity of bad UX dressed in “privacy”, “security”, “safety” etc. Technical jargon, complex onboarding processes, and a lack of user-friendly interfaces are a barrier to entry and community building. This exclusivity prevents the broader range of participants from engaging meaningfully, turning potentially revolutionary spaces into “specialized” silos, that reinforce this very #blindness.

#fashernistas and #geekproblem interact and often work in unintentional tandem. While the former distracts and fractures attention with endless (pointless, narrow and repeating) discourse, the latter locks down practical pathways for change through gatekeeping and technological insularity. The result is a failing “native” path, where critical mass, and the needed community, fails to grow—one part is too busy talking, and the other is too busy coding in isolation. The broader culture of the #openweb suffers as a consequence, making the needed change far more difficult to achieve than it needs to be.

The solution lies in finding a balance that mediates between the superficiality of fashernistas and the closed nature of the geekproblem. This involves, promoting diverse voices, so that the #openweb aren’t monopolized by any tiny group. Building bridges between projects and communities, to facilitate communication between technical experts and those involved in creating actionable steps that align with #4opens paths we need to take. Developing a culture that values tangible outcomes and collaborative input over performative dialogue and gatekeeping. Amplifying onboarding, by making entry points into #opentech accessible, so people outside traditional tech ghettoes can contribute meaningfully.

The #geekproblem might kill meany of us, mediating it matters

The path we need for the openweb, is more than only technological solutions; it needs a culture shift. Both fashernistas and those contributing to the geekproblem need to recognize their roles and adjust their approaches, for the #openweb to thrive. The has been to meany years of pratish behaver in the paths we need, it’s pastime for #KISS focus. The current moment presents a fresh opportunity for change. With the fediverse and platforms like mastodon growing exponentially, there is a path to free the native spirit of the internet as a collaborative, #openspace with trust, transparency, and action as core motivators. Let’s try and make this work, and not squandered it by letting the voices of the few block the work we need to do.

Ideas please?

Replacing market signalling with #opendata signalling

The dominance of the free market, for the last 40 years personified by the #deathcult worship, has instilled in us a deep-rooted belief in the power of market-driven signals as a determinant of value and action. This belief system prioritizes capital and greed as the primary forces that drive progress and social development. However, as our world becomes increasingly digitized, it’s past time to rethink and replace these signals with something more sustainable and aligned with collective welfare: #opendata signalling based on the #4opens.

Market signalling, a core tenet of capitalism, operates on the assumption that prices, supply, and demand efficiently communicate the state of the economy. These signals guide decisions across industries, influencing everything from resource allocation to investment trends. While this system has propelled economic growth, it comes at a significant cost: environmental degradation, social inequality, and systemic exploitation. In resent years, our worship of this “free market” led to an economy built on misery—a #miseryeconomy where people and communities pay to escape the hardships imposed by the very system they are part of.

The open vs. closed data dichotomy is currently largely invisible, so good to bring focus on this path. When considering alternatives to market signalling, we need to explore the difference between open and closed data paths. The original #openweb was built on the #4opens principles —open source, open data, open standards, and open processes. These fostered transparency, collaboration, and equitable growth. However, the rise of the #dotcons over the past two decades introduced #closeddata silos that have stifled and blocked this native path. Closed data systems prioritize proprietary algorithms, user data and metadata hoarding, and opaque decision-making processes. This has been used to reinforcing capital-driven signals as the only path.

In the emerging #openweb ecosystem, there is a new model—one rooted in opendata signalling. Unlike market signals driven by profit, opendata signalling operates on transparent and shared data inputs that inform decision-making across communities. This shift prioritizes communal benefits, sustainability, and builds trust. This path can only be glimpsed in the messy #fashionista driven #openweb reboot we are a part of. Consider the surge in decentralized networks such as #Mastodon, the broader #Fediverse, #BlueSky, and #Nostr. Over the past years, these have grown from a few hundred thousand users to tens of millions, highlighting an appetite for more community-driven paths. Open-source platforms like WordPress are integrating ActivityPub to support decentralization, extending open data practices to a quarter of the web. Even #dotcons corporations like #Facebook (with its #Threads initiative) are adapting to this movement, albeit with a corporate agenda.

What opendata 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 ssurvivallet along the greater good.

Moving beyond worship, with 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.

Sorting the wheat from the chaff

If you currently can’t see beyond #mainstreaming then jump anywhere from the #dotcons, a little step is better than non, if you are a bit radical then please think where you are stepping to.

As the world flees from X (formerly #Twitter) to look for viable social media alternatives, platforms like #BlueSky and #Threads come into view pushed by #mainstreaming agendas. But please lift the lid to see that while these platforms appear promising, scrutiny reveals issues with ownership, funding, and community values that show they are on the same #dotcons path that people are fleeing. This compromises long-term independence and user-centricity. In contrast, the #fedivers exemplifies the #4opens principles, a truer, more sustainable #openweb alternative for social networking, it’s here and it works.

BlueSky’s #VC funded roots, there is a difference between what people say and what they do, this one presented itself as a beacon for decentralized social networking, advocating user control and a light-touch moderation. The project’s founding under Jack Dorsey promised a platform engineered to transcend limitations in social media governance. However, its venture-funded path tells a more conventional story. With investments from entities like Blockchain Capital LLC, co-founded by crypto magnate Brock Pierce, the concerns about centralization are unavoidable. Historically, VC backing brings pressured for profitability and pushes investor interests, at odds with maintaining decentralized, user-first ideals the project keeps talking about. This is a mess soon down the road, it’s a dead-end for people to jump to. For a tech view of this and the VC and culture side. A good tech/social write-up https://dustycloud.org/blog/how-decentralized-is-bluesky/
Threads is native to the #dotcons and corporate agenda’s. Threads, developed by #Meta (#Facebook), promises much, but it is firmly on the Meta’s path, rooted in data monetization, algorithmic control driving ad revenue. While Threads appears more user-friendly, its development trajectory inevitably follows Meta’s historical focus: ad-heavy strategies and extensive moderation policies that prioritize corporate interests over user freedom they talk about now. And a long writeup How decentralized is Bluesky really? A post on the #dotcons out reach to the #openweb mess. Why is Meta adding fediverse interoperability to Threads?
https://fediversereport.com/why-is-meta-adding-fediverse-interoperability-to-threads/ What is the stress? What is the game?
The #Fediverse and #Mastodon are the #openweb’s champions, built for people, not profit. This path is in stark contrast, firmly, on the path of the openweb. From its decentralized structure to its #4opens open-source foundation. Managed by non-profit people and communerties, funded through voluntary donations and support from like-minded organisations, not venture capital or private investment. This independence ensures that people networking is never beholden to shareholders and subjected to the profit motives that drive centralized platforms. This embodies the principle that social media should amplify what people value, not what maximizes revenue.

Choosing platforms and paths that align with #openweb values is more than just a preference; it’s a stand for a future where digital spaces are driven by #4opens transparency, user empowerment, and shared stewardship. #BlueSky’s reliance on venture funding and Threads’ adherence to Meta’s corporate motives demonstrate the limitations of profit-oriented social media. We need a path where we prioritize community, collective action and autonomy over corporate growth.

In the pursuit of genuine alternatives, platforms like the Fediverse do more than fill the void left by #X; they embody the promise of a decentralized, people first internet—the very essence of the #openweb.

#Openweb: This refers to the original, decentralized ethos of the internet, built on openness, freedom, and people’s autonomy. Linking enhances knowledge sharing, amplifies lesser-known voices, and enables people to explore varied content freely.

#Closedweb: This describes platforms dominated by algorithms, corporate interests, and paywalls. On dotcons, linking is often spam and is penalized or buried, precisely because it can disrupt the curated control these platforms wield over what people see.

Don’t feed the trolls, keeps coming to mind, when looking at the #X influx, this is like waves washing on the shore, be the shore not the waves.

Shifting the #mainstreaming to the #openweb

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

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

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

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

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

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

What can we do with our fashernistas?

How can we mediate the #NGO blocking?

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

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

How can we mediate the #NGO blocking?

To make the #NGO crew more functional in an #openweb reboot, we need to focus on changing organizational culture and integrating principles that align with the #4opens and “native” grassroots, collaborative values. How can we do this?

Emphasize transparency and open governance to mediate the NGO minded people, who suffer from opaque decision-making processes, that come from the inefficiencies of traditional institutions. By embedding transparency and open governance—where decisions are documented, accessible, and participatory—we create a culture that supports this trust and collaboration.

Encourage flexibility and adaptability, as many NGOs have rigid structures that make it hard to adapt to new information and strategies. Embracing a more flexible, iterative approach—similar to agile practices in tech—helps organizations pivot when necessary and stay responsive to a rapidly changing world

Bridge technological and social gaps by mediating the common sense NGO temptation to treat tech as a separate realm, run by a select few tech-savvy individuals. Instead, hard code social understandings within technical frameworks. This involves training NGO workers in basic digital literacy and fostering collaboration between tech and non-tech teams to build solutions that are both functional and socially impactful.

Adopt the decentralized paths inspired by #Fediverse and #P2P networks to enhances resilience and empower local paths. This shifts them from dependency on corporate #dotcons and reduces susceptibility to the influence of #mainstreaming. Work for the ethical use of technology, the NGO crew need to prioritize the use of #FOSS tools and technologies. This involves building and partnering with developers who focus on sustainable, community-driven tech projects.

Rethinking funding and independence is core, NGO minded people frequently become entangled with funding streams that align with mainstream, Status Quo agendas, making it hard for them to support any radical change. To avoid this, NGOs can be incureaged to explore diversified funding models, such as community crowdfunding and partnerships that align with #openweb values, avoiding entanglement with the normal restrictive, top-down paths.

NGOs need to be wary of falling into the trap of ‘NGO-ism,’ where the focus shifts from addressing root causes to perpetuating their existence for funding and visibility. This shift is countered by adopting the values of community-first accountability and ensuring that work leads to substantial change rather than superficial engagement.

Foster inclusivity beyond tokenism, NGOs are fixated on ensuring diversity and exclusivity, but this needs to be more than a box-ticking exercise. This means more messy organizing, truly valuing input from a range of community voices, fostering dialogue, and incorporating grassroots activism into their agenda to stay aligned with the real needs of those they aim to serve. Connecting with existing grassroots movements like #XR, #OMN, and others, and sharing expertise, resources, and platforms amplify voices and catalyse change. Building bridges instead of silos and encouraging co-creation are needed for revitalizing movements toward collective goals.

By taking these paths, NGOs and the crew that think in this stream, can become more functional allies in rebooting the #openweb, we do need to focus on this #KISS

Composting the social mess to balance the change we need

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

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

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

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

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

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

People are talking about this subject

From an Oxford talk I attended recently https://hamishcampbell.com/blavatnik-book-talks-the-forever-crisis/

Governance both horizontal, federated and #FOSS native is a hot subject at the moment. It’s a good time for people to look at this. Over the last 5 years we have been developing the outline of the native Open Governance Body (#OGB) project is an innovative approach for developing native #FOSS governance, grounded in years of on-the-ground organizing and community-oriented technology like the #Fediverse and #ActivityPub protocols. This initiative emerged from a #4opens social process, aiming to create a governance path that is genuinely open, transparent, and collaborative. The project particularly focuses on involving developers who are not only skilled technically but who also prioritize community collaboration and user experience (#UX)—a challenging yet needed requirement for success in a horizontal, scalable tech paths.

The OGB leverages ActivityPub, the protocol powering decentralized social platforms like Mastodon, to create structures that are adaptable to scale horizontally. To make this project happen, we need outreach to finding developers who can operate within a community-first structure. This means finding those with technical skill in FOSS and ActivityPub, but who are also committed to open, horizontal collaboration and can engage constructively with non-technical communities and paths. Often, highly technical projects attract developers who prefer isolated, independent work, so highlighting the collaborative nature of the OGB from the start is important.

For those interested in making a meaningful impact on #openweb governance and who can commit to community-entered development, the #OGB project is a compelling opportunity to be a part of the change and challenge we need.

https://unite.openworlds.info/Open-Media-Network/openwebgovernancebody

Building #FOSS bridges

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

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

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

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

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

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