What is visionontv

#Visionontv is a grassroots media project that aims to provide an alternative to mainstream media by creating and distributing independent video content. The project has been running for over ten years and is based on the principles of openness, collaboration, and decentralization. It uses #FOSS open-source software and decentralized platforms to create and distribute activist video content. One of the key features of the project is its participation in the Open Media Network (#OMN), a decentralized network of media sites that share content and promote independent media that is not controlled by any single entity. The project emphasizes the importance of grassroots community-driven media, where people and groups can create and share their own content.

Introduction

Hamish Campbell is an #openweb organic intellectual and a core contributor to the #OMN (Open Media Network). He publishes at http://hamishcampbell.com, where he documents decades of radical media work, social tech projects, and reflections on activist culture. You’ll find him across the #Fediverse, on the #dotcons, and #YouTube – pushing for open dialogue around politics, technology, and media.

Over the years, Hamish has been central to meany grassroots tech and media initiatives, including:

  • Undercurrents – video activism documenting direct action and alternative culture.
  • Ruffcuts – Copy left (before, Creative Commons) licensed video CD-ROMs project distributed across UK and global activist networks.
  • UK Indymedia – part of the global Indymedia network, building open publishing platforms for activist journalism.
  • VisionOnTV – producing and distributing social movement video through peer-to-peer networks and open tools. Now in its fourth generation of FOSS tech, the project has been running on and off for nearly 20 years.
  • The PeoplesTV Project – creating low-cost, live-edit, and video aggregation tools for real-time, mobile grassroots reporting.
  • 4opens – a framework for ethical #FOSS tech development, demanding openness of code, data, standards, and governance.
  • OMN (Open Media Network) – building a trust-based federated media infrastructure for alternative publishing.
  • ActivityPub and the Fediverse – working with native protocols and community to develop open, decentralized publishing tools and outreach them. 
  • OGB (Open Governance Body) – prototyping grassroots governance models tailored to activist and Fediverse cultures.
  • Rebooting Indymedia – re-energising grassroots media infrastructure with fediverse tech and horizontal process. This Fediverse tech got to roll out before covid but did not survive the pandemic
  • MakingHistory – a new project under active development, exploring collective memory and storytelling.

Hamish approaches all of this through a political lens – believing that code is ideology made real. He is sharply critical of tech shaped by capitalism, which he sees as systemically extractive, closed, and hostile to real social change. His approach to “humane coding” centres on designing systems that embrace complexity, emergence, and care – tools that reflect human relationships rather than enforce control.

Beyond the tech world, Hamish has been involved in hundreds of activist campaigns and alternative life experiments. He’s written academically on vagabond culture and hitchhiking, and has produced and edited over 1,000 videos and documentaries in the last 20 years.

For the past decade, he has lived aboard a semi-off-grid lifeboat, navigating Europe’s canals and coasts, a real-world metaphor for the digital values he champions: autonomy, resilience, and mutual aid. #BoatingEurope

Building a better world, one link, one line of code at a time

Once upon a time, not so long ago… in a world dominated by the #dotcons, closed-source technology and centralized decision-making, a small group of passionate activists and developers came together to reboot an old way of building technology. They believed that technology should serve the needs of people, not only the profit of big corporations and governments. They called themselves the #4opens community.

The #4opens community believed that openness and trust were the path we need to take to creating technology that served the needs of people. They rallied round the codified existing #FOSS, open-source working practices as a process called the #4opens, which consisted of four #KISS principles: open data, open source, open “industrial” standards, and open process. They understand and valued that by embracing these principles, they could create technology that was more transparent, collaborative, and decentralized.

The first principle of the #4opens is #opendata. The community believed that data should be freely available to everyone, so that anyone could use it to build new tools and uses. They created a platform: #OMN where people could share data openly and collaborate on projects together.

The second principle of the #4opens is the #mainstreaming idea of #opensource. The #4opens community believed that software should be free and open for anyone to use, modify, and distribute. They created a library of #FOSS software that people and communities use to build grassroots tools and services.

The third principle of the #4opens is open “industrial” standards. This principle was a little more complex, but it basically meant that technology should be built using open, standardized protocols that anyone could use. This would ensure that technology was interoperable and that people could easily switch between different tools and services to push the projects that grow in the most healthy way.

The fourth and final principle of the #4opens is open process. This was perhaps the most important of all. The #4opens community believed that technology should be developed using transparent, collaborative processes that anyone could participate in. They organized on a platform https://unite.openworlds.info/ where people could share ideas, collaborate on projects, and make decisions together.

Over time, the #4opens community grew and expanded. They built new tools and services based on openness and trust. They created an ecosystem of developers, designers, and users who worked together to create technology that served the needs of people, and pushed back the profit greed of big corporations and governments and the people who server them.

And so the #4opens community continued to grow and evolve, creating a more healthy vision for technology. They knew that their work was just the start, they were determined to keep pushing, to keep building a better world, one link, one line of code at a time.

Nurturing community’s – tech is not going to do this

On the #fediverse, we need to work/think about the need to cross-link the subject instance.

As, the idea of as instance as a community is lightly built into the code of mastodon. So individuals and groups need to push this into existence, then add issues to the #ygithub mastodon tracker to try and get this into the code (hard job due to #feudalism as governance in #FOSS).

As a first step, we need to build flows between subject instances by individually fallowing people cross subject instance, to leak the content into timelines. Then encourage people to look at the global and local timelines, not just their personal timeline, which is likely pretty empty.

Nurturing community’s – the tech is not going to do this for us, is my thinking. This is a problem as community’s have the power for social change/challenge we need to get out of this mess.

I am asking people to try working round the poor “community” side of the hard coded ideas of community in mastodon.

Why so many manure piles online?

Who does your code actually empower? (#FOSS reality check for #openweb builders). In web application development there are broadly three groups you can empower. Every architectural decision – whether you acknowledge it or not – shifts power toward one of these groups.

Understanding which group your system empowers is probably the single most important design question in social technology. In the “fluffy thinking” the three power centres:

1) Users, people who consume, participate, and live inside the system. They care about usability, safety, autonomy, continuity and real-world outcomes. Users are rarely technical, but they are the reason the system exists. If users lack agency, your project is a toy or a control mechanism – not infrastructure.

2) Producers are people who create content, knowledge and value. Examples: writers, organisers, artists, moderators and community builders. These are the people who make platforms meaningful. Without empowered producers networks stagnate, communities collapse and content becomes algorithmic sludge.

3) Geeks (developers/admins). The builders, maintainers, infrastructure operators who care about architecture, performance, elegance, security and scalability. This group is essential – but historically, especially in #FOSS and federated spaces, it becomes the dominant power holder.

This is the #geekproblem. Most #openweb projects “accidentally” empower the third group above all others. Why? Because developers build tools primarily for themselves, #UX is treated as secondary, social dynamics are assumed to be solvable through technical controls and complexity becomes a gatekeeping mechanism.

The result is systems that might be technically impressive, but socially brittle, unusable by normal humans. The tiny group of unthinking “elitists” end up deciding what is good for everyone else, not because they are evil – but because the system structurally centres their perspective. Good #UX in social technology is extremely hard precisely because it requires humility about what engineers don’t know.

The #dotcons model works much “better”, as corporate platforms take a different path. They empower capital which then hires geeks to serve producers, extract from users and optimise engagement and surveillance.

Power structure is: Capital → Developers → Producers → Users. The users become the product, producers become dependent and developers become instruments of extraction. It’s an efficient machine – and a socially destructive one.

The missing model is basic democracy of user empowerment, an uncomfortable truth in practically all the current mess is that users are rarely genuinely empowered. Some partial attempts that worked in the past are early #Indymedia (open publishing + collective moderation. Wikipedia (community governance + editable commons), email protocols (user portability, decentralised identity) and RSS/blogosphere era (subscription over algorithm). None are perfect – but they shift power closer to participants.

What we need more of is non-extractive incentives, as good #openweb projects try to do, real grassroots projects empower users AND producers together. Not by removing structure, but by #4opens distributing power through federation, open standards, collective moderation and visible process.

These are still rare because they are harder to build. They require solving social problems, not just technical ones. It’s why we keep repeating the same failure, oscillate between two broken patterns of #geekproblem systems → technically elegant, socially inaccessible and #dotcons systems → socially addictive, structurally extractive. The problem we now need to compost is that both have produced piles of stinking manure across the tech landscape of the last 20 years.

The #OMN approach is not perfection, it is #KISS shifting the default power alignment to infrastructure that empowers users to participate without needing technical expertise. Producers retain agency over their work and context and most importantly developers build frameworks that decentralise their own authority over time.

In short, build systems where developers are gardeners, not rulers. Questions for #FOSS developers are, before writing code, ask:

  • Who can say “no” inside this system? Who owns the data?
  • Who can leave without losing their social graph?
  • Who defines moderation rules? Who can fork socially, not just technically?
  • Questions like these help reveal where power really sits.

You have a shovel, we really don’t need more abstract debate. We need people willing to compost the failures and build differently. That means accepting messiness, designing for humans, not idealised users, building structures where power flows outward rather than upward. That’s the path #OMN is trying to walk.

The tech manifesto of the OMN

Published Date 3/20/14 4:27 PM

In technology development, there are many possible paths. Some of these lead to far more fertile ground for cultivating the open internet and open society approach that the #OMN is built on.

What We Reject

We clearly reject:

  • Pure client–server relationships
  • Closed security cultures
  • Geek-only design aesthetics and insular “vanilla” tech culture
  • Data ownership models and closed licensing

What We Support

We actively support:

  • Peer-to-peer relationships, alongside hybrid federated client–server infrastructure
  • An open security culture, with carefully limited use of closed peer-to-peer security where appropriate
  • A balance between technical usability and simple outreach – with the ability to switch between these modes within the same application
  • Geek culture that embraces and mixes with other cultures, rather than isolating itself
  • Open data formats and Creative Commons licensing

Approach

The #OMN is open to any project that aligns with open-source, open-data, and open-licensing principles. There are several existing tools and platforms that point in useful directions:

  • Liferay — Built on a strong standards-based approach, but constrained by being owned by a profit-driven company with controlling interests
  • RetroShare — An open-source peer-to-peer client that already covers many needs for personal security and communication

Opportunities for Integration

A key question is whether we can meaningfully combine these approaches into a more open, global platform:

  • Could we bridge a standards-based system (like Liferay) with a peer-to-peer network (like RetroShare) to create a federated, secure, hybrid infrastructure?
  • Could we build a cross-platform system that combines APIs, federation, and peer-to-peer trust networks?

There are also interesting experiments to consider:

  • Popcorn Time-style distribution – Using torrent-based streaming models
  • Could this be combined with open archives (e.g. Archive.org APIs) to support distributed video hosting and seeding?

OMN Stack Direction

Within this ecosystem, #OMN can be understood as:

  • A network built on RSS style flows
  • A federation layer for content sharing and discovery
  • A bridge between distributed storage, streaming, and publishing tools

Front-End Possibilities

Finally, the growing power of HTML5 web apps – especially on smartphones – provides a flexible and accessible interface layer. This allows us to build user-friendly tools on top of complex distributed infrastructure without locking users into closed platforms.

The goal is not to build everything from scratch, but to stitch together existing open tools into a coherent, trust-based ecosystem.

UPDATE: both Liferay and Retroshare failed in this dev path, the first is the normal blocking of open core as a #FOSS path and the second simply failed due to complexity and #UX. Popcorn time we never found a crew to build the coding. Then web apps were silently blocked by the #dotcons app stores focus. What can we learn from this now?