The open web and the messy middle ground

This is a #fluffy response to this thread, about people feeling that some of the discourse surrounding the #openweb is too black and white, and that this is going to increase with the current pushing to the right political reality. Yes, supporting the #openweb doesn’t automatically make you “left-wing” or a “Marxist,” just as using platforms like X or Meta products doesn’t necessarily make you “right-wing nut job” or an out right “fascist.” The world is full of different shades, oversimplifying these issues from the mythical centre grows the polarisation that the people are very likely arguing against.

Building a business on open technologies is not inherently wrong, building exploitative #dotcons is clearly wrong. There is value in the middle ground between commercial success and the native #openweb paths. The challenge is finding the balance and ensuring businesses side respects the #4opens principles our people’s web is built on. Of course, there are risks. Commercial companies working on open technologies often push too far and betray trust. Meta’s entry into the #fediverse, for example, raises suspicions for good reason. Their track record shows a consistent prioritisation of profit over people.

However, that doesn’t mean we should dismiss the idea of building a business around open tech entirely. It’s about trust, accountability, and balance. Being critical doesn’t mean rejecting something outright; it means scrutinising the motives and actions behind it. The same #4opens principle applies whether you’re evaluating a tech startup or a massive corporation.

The bigger political mess the people in the thread are talking about isn’t open vs. closed or left vs. right, it’s the utter mess our middling political class has made with its hard shift to the right. This polarisation isn’t actually coming from the left, as many people assume when they’re critical of “extremes.” It’s a result of the “centre” being dragged further and further over decades. The balance has been lost, and it’s no wonder people are scrambling to find footing in such unstable paths.

I talk about this subject often from a radical progressive left perspective on this site (http://hamishcampbell.com), and yes, it is a mess in every way. The centre path, the one that should hold things together, has veered so sharply that even moderate discussions feel like battles over extremes.

For meany people in the centre, a shift back to something like the Bretton Woods, 20th century social democracy from the era before Reagan and Thatcher pushed us onto our knees to worship the #deathcult for the last 40 years. We do maybe have room for small business owners and local enterprise, a capitalism built on community, not monopolistic greed. Smaller capitalists, smaller systems, more balance.

This balance, and the conversation the #openweb needs to reflect, the larger struggle for balance. The goal isn’t only to polarise or pick sides, it’s to find a progressive “native” way forward that incorporates the best of different perspectives. A diversity of ideas, from Marxist critiques to social entrepreneurial innovation, so long as they operate within the #4opens framework of trust, openness, and accountability.

Yes, it’s a mess, but the way out is through this, shovels and composting come to mind and hopefully hands #OMN

Prodding a #dotcons flow

Let’s try a spiky reply to this tweet on the #mainstreaming #dotcons platform, keep in mind these spaces often reek of superficial analysis and throwing around half-baked ideas without engaging with the deeper structural issues.

On the subject: “the culture of spontaneity, and mass horizontalism.” Yes, these approaches have their flaws, particularly when they lack clear strategy or organisation, but the #mainstreaming dismissing of them as ineffective wholesale shows a lack of understanding of their historical context and value. Spontaneity and horizontalism emerged as responses to the failures of top-down bureaucratic models of the left, which stagnated under Cold War pressures and co-optation. To be claiming they “can’t really compete” without acknowledging why they arose or their ongoing relevance in decentralised movements is lazy analysis.

And then there’s the smug messaging that “that’s something almost everyone now agrees on.” Really? Who is “everyone”? This nothing more than an appeal to a nebulous consensus that doesn’t actually exist. Plenty of activists, organisers, and theorists still see value in horizontalism, just not in isolation or as an end in itself. Pretending the debate is over is the kind of rhetoric that shuts down critical thinking rather than advancing it.

Moving on to the second tweet, “Agree on need for organisation (…that are trade unions or trade union focused).” While trade unions are a valid path, especially in reclaiming workers’ rights in the face of rampant exploitation, reducing “organisation” to trade unions is a narrow view. Trade unions, while necessary, aren’t sufficient to address the wider cultural, ecological, and social crises we face. There’s a world of organising happening outside of unions, mutual aid networks, co-operatives, tenant unions, and the growing need for grassroots digital activism, to name a few, that is every bit as crucial. This is a kind of blinkered nostalgia for “the union, and nothing but the union” which is a poor fit for the of struggles we’re dealing with.

Then there’s the call for “a systematic approach to cultural work.” Absolutely, but what does this mean? As so often, these statements don’t explain or offer a path. Instead, we get the vague assertion that it should focus on “actually doing culture that is popular, not moralising and nostalgia.” While it’s true, moralising and nostalgia can cripple cultural efforts on the left, this critique feels like it’s slapping at a strawman. What is this “popular” culture we’re supposed to aim for? Affective work is not about chasing popularity for its own sake but creating counter-narratives that resonate with people’s lived experiences and inspire action. Popularity without substance is meaningless, just another form of hollow spectacle and #deathcult worship

Lastly, the tone throughout this thread is performative critique, pointing out issues without contributing to paths. If anything, this “chatter” mirrors the liberal commentary class it seeks to critique: smug, self-assured, and ultimately irrelevant to those who are actually deep in the trenches building alternatives.

If we’re serious about confronting the failures of the left, we need less posturing and more meaningful engagement with the grassroots challenges at hand. We need to embrace complexity, grapple with historical lessons, while building cultural, technological paths that balance appeal with radical substance. It’s sad to say, dismissing ideas with “memes” half-hearted quips and lazy assumptions gets us nowhere.

Now what would a #fluffy reply look like 🙂

What can we learn, what can we do?

People need to understand that the tension between different approaches to activism highlights the need for creative synthesis in our current broad social and ecological crises.

Fluffy vs. #Spiky is about a Diversity of Tactics. The idea that both working within the system (#fluffy) and challenging it directly (#spiky) are necessary to creating a robust and adaptive movement. On this native path, building “common ground” is crucial, but the left’s fragmentation under decades of #neoliberalism and #postmodernism has left it standing waist deep in a metaphorical swamp. Moving anywhere requires reclaiming a grounded, shared space – intellectually, socially, and ecologically.
Revisiting #Modernism, to return to modernist thinking – despite its flaws -can offer clarity and purpose, emphasizing structure, progress, and shared goals. Balancing this with the experimental potential of socialism and anarchism, especially on a distributed scale (enabled by #federation and #P2P technologies), creates room for growth outside the mainstream.
Liberal Social Democracy, yes, is a step back because while the goal may lie in more radical transformations. Maybe a return to liberal social democracy could serve as a stepping stone away from the creeping threat of fascism. This pragmatic approach might help to stabilize the ground for further progress.
Deathcult vs. #Lifecult is a Cultural Meta-Narrative. The #deathcult metaphor encapsulates a culture driven by greed, materialism, and ecological destruction. The #lifecult offers a messy but hopeful alternative, grounded in values like ecology, social justice, and collective care. The process of “composting” – transforming negative aspects into fertile ground – is a powerful metaphor for this shift.
The Role of Undercurrents True hope lies in the grassroots undercurrents of social movements that always challenge #mainstreaming culture to provide alternative narratives. These undercurrents, messy as they may be, are where transformative potential resides. A focus on “life-affirming values” helps to communicate with those who may be entrenched in rationality or blinded by the logic of the #deathcult.

Suggestions, focus on finding shared values between different activist approaches to grow solidarity while respecting diversity of tactics. Encourage scalable experimentation with alternative economic and social models, with federation and P2P tech. Storytelling using metaphors like #deathcult and #lifecult to reframe conversations and make complex issues relatable and actionable. Education and agitation to challenge apathy and #stupidindividualism by helping people reconnect with collective action and shared purpose. Thinking in an ecology of movements, can be helpful. . On this, recognize the importance of both reformist (#fluffy) and radical (#spiky) approaches as complementary rather than contradictory.

And most importantly, please try not to be a #blocking prat, thanks.

Outlining the “native” #openweb path

Honesty is about laying out a stark accurate critique of the current situation, particularly the barriers posed by #mainstreaming progressives, #NGO parasites, and the broader tech churn. We need to build on the vision for mediating this #blocking and advancing real change through the #OMN projects.

First step is to mediate the blocking, to compost the #shitpile by applying the #4opens rigorously as a filter to weed out the 90% of crap. Projects that don’t align with these principles should be sidelined. Then we need more trust networks, like #OGB and OMN to build trust-based paths, reducing noise and focusing on genuine contributions.

Shift focus from #fluffy to #spiky, by calling out #NGO parasites, to challenge and expose organizations that drain focus and energy without contributing to real change. Push for spiky agendas, embrace messy, hard, and meaningful work rather than safe, feel-good approaches that reinforce the status quo.

Simplify to build complexity, by simplicity first, start with clear tools and frameworks like the 4opens and grow complexity organically through collaborative work. Reject digital drugs, the dotcons’ attempts to lull movements into compliance with endless distractions and complexity masquerading as progress.

Breaking the #mainstreaming trap, by creating focused campaigns targeting progressive allies to pull them out of the mainstream and into trust-based grassroots movements. Use storytelling, art, and direct action to expose the limitations of mainstreaming progressivism.

Build bridges to wider communities, start with small, resilient networks that are human-scale. Expand outward from these trusted cores to bring in diverse voices and new ideas. Avoid purity tests—recognize that we’re all smeared with dotcons culture and approach people where they are. The world we’re building with OMN—a future where simplicity leads to complexity—requires a shift in ideology. It’s about moving people from passive consumption under the #dotcons to active participation in building a better, progressive world.

On this path are there any humans out there? If so, the choice is simple but profound, join efforts like the #OMN. Embrace the tools and principles of the #4opens. Compost the shit and grow something real. The question isn’t whether change is needed—it’s whether we have the courage and wisdom to make it happen. For those ready to move past the #blocking, now’s the time to pick up the shovel. 🌱

The tension, grassroots movements and #NGO paths

The is a tension between grassroots movements and #NGO paths on the #Fediverse and wider #openweb projects. From a #fluffy point of view the NGO path, while often well-intentioned, can lead to forms of imperialism where outside forces-through funding, structure, and top-down approaches—unwittingly impose their agendas on communities. These actors often don’t realize they are replicating imperialist dynamics, but the impact can be profound: displacement of native grassroots efforts, co-option of local autonomy, and prioritization of centralized goals over the organic, bottom-up “native” development of projects.

Recognizing NGO Imperialism in the Fediverse:

Unconscious Imperialism: Many in the NGO sector fail to recognize the harm their actions cause because they see their work as inherently “good” or “neutral.” However, when they impose structures or funding models without deep collaboration with the grassroots, it replicates patterns of control and hierarchy. Imperialism here refers to a powerful entity, organization extending its control over others, often under the guise of ‘helping’ or ‘developing’ them. On our current Fediverse path, this manifest as NGOs exerting influence on decision-making, resource distribution and governance, overriding local or native voices in the fediverse.
Disconnection from native spaces: One telltale sign of this mess is the lack of linking to #socialhub or other grassroots-driven projects. If a NGO or organization is bypassing the platforms where the community itself is actively discussing and governing its own spaces, it signals a disconnect from native grassroots paths. #DIY spaces like #socialhub embody open, collaborative, and bottom-up approach to governance. Linking to these spaces signals an intention to engage with the community’s self-determination rather than imposing external structures.
When NGO-led initiatives fail to collaborate with the grassroots, the likely outcome is #techshit—technology that doesn’t serve the needs of the community, ends up being unsustainable, and ultimately becomes #techshit to compost for future efforts. The liberal history of imperialism, especially in the last few hundred years, is full of such failed interventions. This is part of the ongoing cycle in the openweb, where obviously crap and disconnected technological solutions (often driven by #fashernista agendas) fail and must then be broken down and repurposed by those still engaged in the space, composting techshit take time and focus which is the one thing in short supply.

Balancing NGO paths with grassroots movements that create value:

Creating Bridges is a good path, instead of rejecting the NGO path outright, there needs to be a focus on bridging the gap. NGOs can play a role, but need to be willing to diversify power to the community and respect the self-organizing nature of grassroots movements. This requires transparency, active listening, and a commitment to open process, the #4opens.

LINKING: Encouraging NGO Accountability a crucial step to make NGOs understand the historical context of their actions. By encouraging more self-reflection and linking their work back to grassroots spaces, NGOs can avoid falling into patterns of imperialism and instead work at balancing better openweb’s paths which is actually, often, there core stated mission.

Building Native Governance, native governance is currently a black hole in #DIY spaces, this is a problem we need to work on with projects like the #OGB. This is a space where the #NGO path with its access to funding could be a very real help to fill this hole.

For Grassroots, we need those involved in the Fediverse (at best with the support of the privileged #NGO crew) to create strong, independent governance models (like the #OGB) that are needed to push back against co-option. By making sure these paths are, built, linked and visible, it becomes easier to hold a healthy balance in place to bridge understanding without compromising autonomy. This approach preserves the Fediverse’s native path, ensuring it stays rooted in the ethos of trust, collaboration, and openness, the core values of the openweb itself.

By composting what doesn’t work and nurturing what does, we can continue to cultivate a healthier, more resilient network for the change and challenge we need for a liveable future. What steps do you think could be most effective in initiating this dialogue between NGOs and grassroots paths without compromising the integrity of grassroots spaces?

Fediverse, grassroots, native, trust, openness, and collaboration

One thing we really need to compost is the often invisible conflict between the native commons-based approach and the realities of capitalist infrastructure – particularly in how we fund, organize, and maintain spaces, for example #FediForum. It is hard to get across this invisible #blocking . The perspective, of ideological exclusion rather than the money itself being an issue, though of course it is. this captures a deeper issue about how certain approaches (like paywalls) alienate grassroots communities, even if the cost is minimal or scholarships are available.

We need to see the value in both native and #mainstreaming paths, the native path of the Fediverse and related #openweb movements grew organically from gift economies and volunteer-driven efforts. As did a lot of openweb work, including the ActivityPub standard, which was developed in such spaces, without the need for a paywall or corporate sponsorship. This ethos is central to the commons-building process, where trust, collaboration, and openness are valued more than monetization or statues in formal hard structures.

In the example of FediForum you can see contrast, mainstreaming, paywalls, closed applications, proprietary tools like Zoom and Eventbrite, etc. While they may argue that these tools and models are necessary to cover costs, they create barriers for those who have historically contributed to the commons, in this they are unthinkably enclosing, pushing these paths. The point that the paywall is an ideological barrier, not merely a financial one, is critical. For many in the grassroots community, the introduction of a paywall—even if it’s just $2 or $40—symbolizes a shift away from open, accessible organizing. It’s not just about affordability; it’s about how the space is structured and who it’s structured for.

Events organized without paywalls, based on voluntary contributions, have historically worked because they maintained a native, commons-based ethos. They relied on the trust and collaboration of participants, who donated time, energy, and resources to make things happen without needing to resort to gatekeeping mechanisms like paywalls. With this in mind, we need to try and move conversations that can so easily turn nasty and negative into building bridges, not undermining foundations. The solution lies in acknowledging the strengths of both paths, native and mainstreaming, and finding a way to link them, rather than blindly pushing for one path to dominate and enclose the other.

Actions for Bridge-Building: Ideas and actions for how we might approach this challenge pragmatically, without compromising on the core values of the native common’s path:

Transparent Linking: Start by linking to other paths. Our example FediForum can openly acknowledge and link to grassroots spaces like SocialHub, recognizing that both are part of the larger network. This small step would create a bridge rather than a division.
FOSS Infrastructure is absolutely basic. Push for the use of open-source alternatives to #dotcons tools like Zoom and Eventbrite. This could include tools we have successfully used before , BigBlueButton, Jitsi or other FOSS video conferencing platforms, alongside commons-based event platforms. Even if these tools mean volunteers agreeing to host, the ideological message is different: they are part of the #openweb rather than a concession to the #dotcons proprietary mess.
Open Scholarship Programs: While some financial costs are unavoidable, events could offer open, transparent scholarship programs, as FediForum did at the first event, not just token offerings but significant pathways for those in the grassroots to attend for free. This can help balance the ideological exclusion of paywalls.
Co-organization with Grassroots: Instead of the mainstreaming path of dominating, events really need to engage in co-organization with grassroots communities, ensuring a balance of perspectives. The #OGB would help this issue, as for example, fediforum could be an affiliate stakeholder. This would be a step toward more commons-based governance and event management.
Decentralized Organizing Models: An option (am this is NOT compulsory) would be to take a cue from successful decentralized networks like the Fediverse itself, where governance and organizing can be shared across multiple nodes. In our example, FediForum could adopt a more structurally decentralized organizing model, where grassroots actors have a say in how the event is structured, funded, and run.

What we are talking about here is recognizing different realities, yes we do live in capitalist societies, and sometimes the realities of funding and infrastructure cannot be ignored. However, recognizing this doesn’t mean fully conceding to the #mainstreaming path. Instead, there can be a balance where the native commons ethos is preserved while finding sustainable ways to support events and initiatives. This is actually how the THING we are talking about was originally built, this is what I am calling “native”.

The commons-based path is not simply about ideals; it’s about creating structures that are inclusive, accessible, and genuinely collaborative. While mainstream forces may argue for pragmatism (paywalls, proprietary tools), we do need to push back for a #KISS solution, transparent linking and FOSS tools, offers a simple yet profound bridge. This is how we can grow diversity and ensure that the Fediverse remains a grassroots, native space where trust, openness, and collaboration thrive.

Let’s try a #fluffy path:

An important point about the invisible barriers that people face, which aren’t always immediately understood by others involved in conversation like this. For many grassroots contributors, the imposition of a paywall feels like an act of enclosure, a kind of taking of space that they had a hand in building. This is often not visible to those who approach these events from a more #mainstreaming or #NGO mindset.

To address this “invisible problem” We need to keep emphasizing the importance of recognizing this divide, not as an attack but as an opportunity for mutual understanding. The more people on the mainstreaming path can see how their actions might be excluding core contributors, the more likely bridges can be built. Encourage people to step into the shoes of those who feel excluded, and help them understand that this isn’t just about access or money—it’s about respecting the ethos and history of the movement.

Mastodon, Meta and Threads

For people who focus on working with the #dotcons there are meany traps, and a lot of dead-ends. This is less of an issue for people fighting them, the problem here is “common sense” #blocking this second useful path, which is a much less lucrative and a thank less task. So we will continue to have more people on the first mess path. A post that grew from a toot seed, I wonder if Mastodon is to Meta what Firefox once was to Google a small but significant project that big corporations can point to whenever regulators start murmuring about monopolies.

In the early #openweb days, #Firefox was seen as the open-source challenger to the #dotcons of Internet Explorer and later Google Chrome. The NGO #PR represented it as a scrappy, independent alternative, championing the openweb against the increasing dominance of corporate-controlled browsers. But over time, and a lot of funding, Firefox became a tool for companies like Google to gesture toward whenever their monopolistic practices were questioned., “Look, there’s competition! We’re not the only game in town.” The blotted NGO that Firefox became, let the dotcons who funded them, maintain the appearance of a healthy, diverse internet while consolidating power and control.

Today, Mastodon, the corporation, and new NGO projects like the #SWF are likely, unthinkingly, to end up playing a similar role for Meta (#Failbook). With #Meta’s monopoly and influence across social media, platforms like Mastodon offer a symbolic counterpoint. The wider #Fediverse, decentralized, federated model, the alternative “nativist” path, that rejects the data-harvesting, surveillance capitalism model perfected by Meta and the rest of the #dotcons. But in a world where Meta dominates user attention, advertising dollars, and social engagement, the existence of Fediverse when we push #NGO agenda, as people will, like most people did with Firefox could feel more like a token gesture toward competition than a real threat that it needs to be.

The danger on the NGO paths is that Mastodon, and the Fediverse becomes a shield for Meta, just as Firefox was for Google. With the regulators knocking, Meta points to Mastodon and say, “See? There’s healthy competition in the market.” Meanwhile, our grassroots #DIY path will continue to struggle with the challenges that come from operating, outside the #mainstreaming, on the margins, limited resources, scalability, and the constant threat of being drowned out by the sheer weight of the dotcons inflow into our grassroots #openweb reboot.

The truth is, while #4opens decentralized paths like Fediverse are vital to the change and challenge we need, not to mention keeping the spirit of the #openweb alive, they’re still pushing hard for space in a corporate-dominated internet. If we only take the #mainstreaming and NGO path, the existence of projects could be used by the dotcons to maintain their monopoly while paying lip service to “competition.”

The question, can we really afford to be only the ‘token alternative’ when the stakes are so high? Or do we need to find a way to build native projects that not only stands apart from the #dotcons, but also changes and challenges them on equal ground? It’s time to think beyond being the counterculture, and start focusing on how we grow and sustain real #4opens alternatives. If we don’t, if we cop out on #fluffy only paths, there is a danger that we’ll just keep serving as convenient props in mainstream monopoly charade.

Let’s try very hard not to be irrelevant in the fight for humanity and ecological sustainability in the era of #climatechaos and social brake down being pushed by the #mainstreaming mess making, we are composting.

The #openweb, a partnership, not a nasty walk over

On the subject of #NGO foundations for the #openweb what do they do with this money https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/262852431 this one is shutting down, and this one is in trouble https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/200097189 This kinda funding could cover the costs of the #Fediverse hundreds of times over…. what do they do exactly?

#Fediverse, Definitions, and Building Activist Communities

The question of definitions, particularly around the “Fediverse” and its relationship with the ActivityPub protocol (AP), has become messy due to the influx of #mainstreaming people, this has sparked a lot of mostly unhelpful debate. Let’s be clear, there is no real “Fediverse” without #AP. Since Mastodon’s shift to AP, the entire Fediverse has been built around this protocol. Trying to separate the two or debating the definition at this point feels a reactionary and more noise than signal.

One thing that these #mainstreaming people find hard to understand, thus except, is that the Fediverse isn’t an organized movement but rather a disorganized space full of mythos and traditions. The only solid thing, for better or worse, is the badly implemented ActivityPub protocol, and even that is a work in progress, and not without issues. Outside of AP, there are meany different protocols and projects that bridge into this a loose, difficult to define neatly #openweb path. Yes, things are changing, and let’s engage with these changes, focusing on fighting over abstract definitions is not very productive.

Now, onto the tricky topic of the “dominance of white, techno-libertarian guys” in the space. While it’s an issue worth acknowledging, it’s not practically very central, it’s a part of the messy path. The Fediverse is built on #4opens and #DIY principles. It is best to ignore if you can or tolerate the presence of techno-libertarian individuals, as these people are largely noise rather than core to the project. The real barriers to entry are basic technical skills and community-building. This space is actually perfect for the #fluffy side of any activist movement, including a potential #BPP (Black Panther Party) reboot that needs to happen.

Then there’s the idea of “protocol supremacists” using ActivityPub to reinforce their dominance. Yes, you can smell a bit of this, but it’s not actually important or widespread as some people push. The Fediverse was built with almost no money and very little power, so there’s not much for people to hold onto in terms of control. The gatekeeping you see is real from a few players, but they’re not too bad (so far). However, you’re right that things are likely to change as more institutional power and #NGO types enter the space.

Our internal fixations on insider language like “Eternal September” and “Eternal November” is just this, insider language that’s not particularly useful for most people. The focus remains on the core issues of community-building and the challenges of maintaining the decentralized, #openweb ethos in the face of outside pressures.

As for the racism and toxicity that exists, in huge amounts in the #dotcons and in some corners of the Fediverse, the key is this: Don’t go looking for the worst people, and if they find you, block them quickly. The community is built on #4opens and #DIY principles, meaning you have control over community spaces. Building a supportive network takes time, but once established, you can block out the toxicity effectively. It’s a chicken-and-egg problem—build your community first, then deal with the bad actors as they come.

Finally, let’s talk about the lack of digital drugs—those addictive elements you find on #dotcons like Facebook or Twitter. The Fediverse doesn’t have these hooks, so getting people to stay when things turn messy is harder than you might expect. This is why community-building is so crucial. Activist communities need to focus on strong #4opens process and then support networks and positive action based paths to create spaces people want to stay in, despite the inevitable challenges.

The #Fediverse is messy, yes. But within that mess, there’s a lot of potential. It’s up to us to cultivate it.

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

Why are people OCCUPYING WINDSOR CASTLE #XR

DRAFT

The recent #XR event at Windsor received little meaningful media coverage, well not in my filter bubble, it was totally invisible, which is disappointing considering the importance of the action. The video I made of last year’s London event is still relevant and illustrates the same core issues, even though this time they did take the step of staging an occupation. You can watch last year’s video: XR “is this all the is” 2023.

An example of the limits of #fluffy protest

This brings us to an important point: the balance between fluffy (non-confrontational, peaceful protest) and #spiky (more direct, disruptive action) tactics. Both approaches have their place and, when used in tandem, they can be very effective. The key is understanding that they complement each other—#fluffy actions draw in broad support and media attention, while #spiky actions put real pressure on the power structures by creating disruption that cannot be ignored.

It’s crucial to recognize that with increased effectiveness comes a cost: repression. That’s the paradox of impactful activism. The presence of repression is a useful indicator that what you’re doing is working, a sign that you are challenging the status quo in a way that makes those in power uncomfortable. If there is no repression, then it likely means your actions are not having any impact.

So, we must continue to push this balance and accept that some degree of repression is a natural outcome of effective resistance. If we want to see real change, we need to be prepared for the response that comes when you genuinely challenge entrenched power. The goal is not to avoid repression, but to balance it in a way that sustains the movement and keeps up the pressure.

Mediating the prat’ish behaviour and #deathcult mentality

When alternatives bridge to #mainstreaming in our #openweb movement and the broader #dotcons landscape, we find ourselves confronting a troubling dynamic—a rise in prat’ish behaviour, characterized by ego-driven conflict, divisiveness, and resistance to meaningful change, this threatens to undermine the real progress we urgently need.

At the heart of this issue is the 40 years of #deathcult mentality—a mindset defined by #neoliberal values, the relentless pursuit of profit, and a shallow adherence to the mess of the current status quo. This mentality permeates not just the big tech giants, but also, unfortunately, seeps into our own #4opens movements, like the #fediverse, when we become entangled in reproducing their “common sense” paths.

The #deathcult is a useful metaphor to use, representing a blind adherence to systems that are actively destroying our planet, eroding our communities, and undermining our humanistic values. When we speak of current #mainstreaming as a killer problem, we are talking about this neoliberalism, and that while this is not a part of our culture, it feeds into it. It’s not only a problem with “them”—the dotcons—but is also reflected within our movements. Even in the openweb and #fediverse, spaces built to resist such values, we see tendencies toward this #mainstreaming creeping in, the huge influxes of liberals, bring the replications of patterns of hierarchy, exclusion, and competition, even as they claim to oppose them.

We need practical steps to mediate this and move to a constructive path:

Embrace radical honesty and reflection, we need to start with radical honesty about our own roles in perpetuating the problems we face. Are we unconsciously replicating the patterns of the #dotcons? Are we engaging in excluding grassroots native paths by that prioritize ego over community? Reflecting on these questions is crucial.
Promote transparent and open dialogue by creating spaces both online and offline for open and honest communication, like the #OMN. We need to move away from secretive, behind-the-scenes decisions and instead encourage a culture of transparency where disagreements are aired constructively. Use the #4opens (Open Data, Open Source, Open Standards, and Open Process) as guiding principles helps us pick better tools for this.
Encourage diversity of thought and approach, let’s challenge the #mainstreaming impulse by embracing a diversity of thought and approaches. Different strategies and solutions flourish, even if they seem unconventional or counter to prevailing norms. On the progressive path, encourage people to experiment, fail, and try again without fear of ridicule or exclusion.
Use shovels and compost as metaphors for action, instead of shovelling dirt on each other’s efforts, we need to shovel it into the compost heap—taking what doesn’t work or what has failed and turning it into fertile ground for new growth. This means consciously choosing to see conflict and disagreement as opportunities for transformation rather than threats.
Reject the #deathcult mentality, that is deeply ingrained but not unchangeable. Reject the idea that we must always be in competition, that progress is a zero-sum game, or that only the fittest deserve to survive. Instead, let’s balance cooperation, mutual aid, and community over profit, power, and exclusion.
Build real alternatives, not only #FOSS copies, many of our attempts to build alternatives have, so far, merely replicated the models of the #dotcons. It’s time to balance this copying of systems we oppose and instead start to create native alternatives, there are meany good histories we can build from, an example #indymediaback is more truly embodied in the principles we value.

Composting this mess, we need a way to mediate the prat’ish behavior and the pervasive #deathcult mentality. We cannot afford to be the ones saying, “Now is not the time.” To those who say this, I say: Get off your knees, lift your head, and look at the mess we have made. It’s time to confront this problem head-on and work hard to compost it.

If we are to get anywhere with the messy #openweb reboot we need to be nice when calling prats, prats, do it a lot, but try and keep this #fluffy

UPDATE: this is a difficult path, will use this space to LINK to the problem resources:

https://fediverse-governance.github.io/images/fediverse-governance.pdf this report is focused on #NGO #fashernista and to a lesser extent #geekproblm, the is useful information from this limited view path.

https://infrastructureinsights.fund the outreach text on this is nice, but look at who makes up the Review Board and you see the funding at best is poured down the drain, and, at worst, will misshape the #openweb native path.

And meany more, to help post links in comment for me to add and comment on, thanks.

The Forgotten Story of Social Technology: Why It Matters

All code is ideology solidified into action – thus most contemporary code is capitalism, this is hardly a surprise if you think about this for a moment. Yes you can try and act on any ideology on top of this code, but the outcome and assumptions are preprogrammed, with this in mind let’s look at a path outside this current mess.

In the original “native” grassroots growth digital wilderness of the #openweb, our use of technology paths were seen as something esoteric—a domain of hackers, activists, and tech-savvy individuals who speak in code and operate in the margins. But beneath this perception lies a fundamental truth: social technology is not just for the few; it’s for everyone. It’s about how we connect, share, and build communities. And this matters more now than ever.

In the early days there was the path of open connections, let’s dip into this story in the early 2000s with an example, the rise of #Indymedia, a global network of #openweb independent media centres that emerged as a response to corporate control over #traditionalmedia. Indymedia pioneered social technology, using the internet to democratize information and give voice to those silenced by traditional media. Indymedia wasn’t only about the content; it was more the active community of people. This new social reality was revolutionary because it allowed communities to create their own paths to share media in wider public spaces without relying on corporate platforms. It was a glimpse into what the internet could be— decentralized, user and community controlled space for collaboration and free expression.

For many social change activists and technologists, Indymedia was much more than a tool; it was a focus, a feedback loop of power. It provided a way to organize, mobilize, and communicate outside the #blocking and watchful eyes of governments and corporations. But the significance of Indymedia and similar projects extended beyond this activism ghetto. The technical and social path represented a different vision of what the internet could be, that prioritized #4opens, community control, and freedom over “common sense” profit and surveillance.

What came after the implosion of this path, was the rise of the #dotcons and betrayal of the openweb. As the internet grew, so did the corporate interest in controlling it. Enter the #dotcons the tech giants like Google, Facebook, and Amazon, which have come to dominate the online landscape. These corporations offered free services that were easy to use and quickly became ubiquitous. But there was a catch: these services were free because the users themselves were the product. The #dotcons built their empires by harvesting data, selling ads, and creating silos that encouraged mindless scrolling rather than meaningful interaction. The openweb, the vision of a decentralized, user-controlled internet, was quickly replaced by a walled garden of corporate platforms that prioritized profit and control over people and #DIY culture.

This shift had implications, it wasn’t only about losing control over shared digital commons, it was about losing control over our communities, our communications, and our society. The internet, once a positive space for creativity and intervention, become an evil tool of surveillance and manipulation. The promise of social technology as a force for social good was eroded by the platforms that had once seemed so empowering.

Let’s talk about our worship of the #deathcult the #mainstreaming system that consumes everything. The ideology that underpins the dotcons and the broader #neoliberal system they are part of. This deadened path of endless growth, profit at any cost, and the concentration of power in the hands of a #nastyfew. An ideology that consumes everything in its path – communities, environments, and even our own sense of self.

This is not only a problem for activists; it’s a problem for everyone. The #deathcult turns us into consumers rather than citizens, prioritizing #stupidindividualism over community and short-term profit over long-term sustainability. An ideology that leads us to the environmental crisis, the erosion of social trust, and the ending of democracies. For anarchists and activists, the deathcult is the enemy to be fought. But for the average person, it’s the water we swim in, the invisible system that shapes our lives in ways we don’t even notice. Understanding this is crucial if we are to reclaim the internet, our communities, and any liveable future.

Reclaiming these commons is a role for the #4opens, if the deathcult is the problem, then the 4opens is part of the solution. The #4opens—opendata, opencode, openprocess, and openstandards—are #KISS paths to build a better internet. These principles are not only for activists; they are for anyone who sees the need to empower community and the importance of basic democracy.

Open data means that information should be accessible to all, not hoarded by corporations. Open code means that software should be transparent and modifiable, not a black box controlled by a few. Open governance means that decisions about how platforms are run should be made by the community, not imposed from above. And open standards mean that different systems should be able to work together, rather than being locked into proprietary formats. These principles are the foundation of the #openweb that empowers people, grows creativity, and builds communities, the foundation of a good society.

The Open Media Network (#OMN) is a path to create a native digital network based on the #4opens. The OMN is not only a technical project; it’s a social one. It’s about spaces where people can connect, share, and build without being subject to the whims of corporate control. It’s a reboot of the original web, learning from projects like #indymedia. The #OMN is a response to the failures of our use of the #dotcons and the worshipping of the deathcult. A way to reclaim the internet as a tool of good, rather than an evil weapon of control. It’s a way to rebuild the commons, the shared resources and spaces that are core to the path of the healthy society.

For #spiky hardcore progressives and anarchists, the OMN is a direct path we need to take to create the world we might want to see, where power is decentralized, and communities have control over their destinies. But for the #fluffy, everyone else, the OMN is a way to take back what has been lost in the corporate takeover of the internet. It’s a way to reconnect the original promise of the internet as free expression, collaboration, and community.

Why this social technology matters, at its core, social technology is how we connect with each other. It’s the tools we use to build relationships, share information, and create communities. These things matter for everyone, not only activists or anarchists. In the current mess dominated by corporate platforms, the openweb native path of social technology offers a way to reclaim our agency away from this mess. It offers a way to build systems that work for us, rather than against us. The story of social technology, as told by Hamish Campbell on this site, is a story of hope and possibility. It’s a story of what the internet could have been, and what it still can be.

The journey won’t be easy, but it is a journey worth taking. In the end, the #openweb is about more than technology; it’s about the kind of society we want to build, and the kind of people we want to be #KISS