Communities don’t adopt digital technologies—they adopt #KISS tools. People don’t think about TCP/IP or HTTP when browsing the web, or SMTP when sending emails. Similarly, they don’t think about #ActivityPub when using the #Fediverse. They interact with intuitive tools that simplify these layers.
One of the toughest challenges in grassroots #DIY tech is creating #FOSS tools that align with #4opens standards while offering good #UX. This isn’t just a technical issue; it’s a deeply social and political one.
The ongoing difficulty in having this conversation within #openweb and #FOSS spaces is part of the wider mess we’re in. We need to work collectively to compost this mess, what we can call the #geekproblem.
SocialHub has often tried to bridge this conversation, but there have been failures along the way. How can we do better moving forward?
This is a DRAFT as have not looked at this project deeply for a while.
Look past what they say, look at what they do #4opens.
The #4opens are a simple way to judge the value of an “alt/grassroots” tech project.
* Open data – is the basic part of a project. Without this openness, they cannot function. Open data is essential for transparency and collaboration.
- The are pretty open on this and use CC license, the are some RSS feeds. But input into the events is paywalled so closed, after the event videos are published as open. A full TICK or a half TICK
* Open source – refers to “free software.” This keeps development healthy by increasing interconnectedness and fostering serendipity. Open licences, such as Creative Commons. Open source FOSS encourages collaboration and innovation.
- am not sure what CMS they use but likely #FOSS. They use a a mashup of closed source #dotcons for the events. Half TICK or non?
* Open “industrial” standards – are foundational for the open internet and WWW Open standards ensure interoperability and compatibility, enabling diverse systems to work together seamlessly.
The are some RSS feeds on the sites but this is it, the #dotcons used for the events make this hard to give a tick so no TICK
* Open process – is the most nebulous part but crucial for collaboration and trust. Examples include wikis and activity streams. Open process ensures that project workflows are transparent and participatory.
- the organizing of events and process to organize the events are closed, the events themselves being unconferences are open. But are paywalled so ideologically closed to meany people.
Half a TICK to be positive
It’s easy to become a #4opens project and join the #openweb path:
So we have a wide spread for this project at worst, not a #4opens project with one TICK at best a bronze #4opens project with 2 TICKS that needs improvement.
The #4opens are a simple way to judge the value of an “alt/grassroots” tech project.
Open data – is the basic part of a project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_data without this open they cannot work.
You can get your data out with RSS and AP and vie user export, so TICK
Open source – as in “free software” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software this keeps development healthy by increasing interconnectedness and bringing in serendipity. The Open licences are the “lock” that keep the first two in place, what we have isn’t perfect, but they do expand the area of “trust” that a project needs to work, creative commons is a start here.
Open “industrial” standards – this is a little understood but core open, it’s what the open internet and WWW are built from. Here is an outline https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_standard
Here it’s problematic, it supports atom/RSS good, but is AP support is pushing broken HALF TICK
Open process – this is the most “nebulous” part, examples of the work flow would be wikis and activity streams. Projects are built on linking trust networks, so open process is the “glue” that binds the links together. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process
It uses #github a #dotcons platform, which kinda has open process but is in meany ways unresponsive to this #openprocessHALF TICK
Solidarity
It’s easy to become a #4opens project and join the #openweb family. Just show that your project fulfils 2 or more of the above “opens”.
This makes 3 opens, so Mastodon is a silver #4opens project, to become gold it needs to improve its standards competence and/or work at better open process.
The governance model of the Social Web Foundation (#SWF) aligns with oligarchy, where power is concentrated in the hands of a few, echoing the structures of monarchy normally seen within the broader #FOSS movement. Both oligarchic and monarchic may work for some traditional organizations, but they are not native to the organic, decentralized ethos of the #openweb, which has always been more anarchic in its path.
As we reboot the #openweb to resist and mediate the encroachment of corporate #dotcons, we need a governance path that is native to our space of fluid, decentralized movement. For this, we have been developing the Open Governance Body (#OGB) as a native tech and social solution, rooted in the same principles of federation that power the #Fediverse. It’s designed to be permissionless, allowing seamless adoption across platforms, enabling a truly open and resilient network that resists centralized control that is so strongly pushing into this #reboot.
The Fediverse dilemma is efficiency vs. values. Some people argue that the Fediverse isn’t “efficient” or capable of “capturing market share” like big tech platforms. While scalability and usability are important, it’s crucial to remember that the Fediverse’s success comes not from corporate metrics like profit margins or user acquisition, but from grassroots movements, affinity groups, and real needs. The challenge lies in creative “stitching”, in building networks that scale while maintaining the core #4opens values of openness, decentralization, and permissionlessness.
Big tech’s model is horribly efficient at addiction and control, but at the loss of community, autonomy, and creativity. We don’t need to replicate their model. Instead, we #KISS focus on the values that make the #openweb unique: cooperation, shared governance, and, most importantly, people’s agency.
Why OGB and OMN Matter, the Open Governance Body (#OGB) is built from decades of activist organizing, and like the #OMN (Open Media Network), it’s designed for the public good. Both projects are rooted in the belief that we already have working models, proven over 200 years of social activism—that can guide us in building alternative tech solutions to resist the corrosive influence of corporate power
If you’re interested in how we can compost the current tech mess, have a read about the concepts of #composting on this site and learn more about the #OGB and #OMN. We can’t keep creating the same #techshit mess, by understanding these alternative paths can we walk together, a path toward a truly #openweb that is so needed in this era of #climatechaos
The metaphor of cat herding is a useful and fitting when working with decentralized, independent actors who are resistant to collective action, especially in grassroots tech and activist communities. It reflects the challenge of getting people to focus, organize, and work toward common goals without losing their autonomy or devolving into chaos.
With projects like #OMN and the broader #openweb movement, this “cat behavior” is part of the problem, people (especially in the tech and activist communities) are often independent to a fault. Many resist structure, preferring to focus on their individual projects without acknowledging the necessity for governance and collaboration. It’s not enough to be open; without some kind of balance, “open” becomes vulnerable to co-option by corporate interests with #mainstreaming or at the grassroots paralysed by fragmentation.
Let’s look at some examples of balancing the “Common Sense” #mainstreaming mess:
The term #socialweb is a perfect example of an inadequate framing. It doesn’t hold the critical, oppositional power needed to counter the problems caused by mainstream platforms and narratives. The #openweb, clarified through the #4opens, offers a path to activism that balances the inevitable co-option by corporations and the path of NGOs like the #SWF (Social Web Foundation). But this balance only works if we acknowledge the simple reality: that both grassroots actors and corporations have access to these spaces.
The invisible power of #FOSS is another key aspect here. The foundation of corporate tech stacks is built on open-source projects, yet the social and political value of this is lost on many people who don’t see beyond the technical aspects. The same applies to the #geekproblem, which ties directly into the cat-herding analogy—people in the geek world to often miss the bigger picture and the need for broader, political engagement beyond coding or individual technical projects.
Cats vs. Humans in Governance
When grassroots movements fail to build their own governance structures, external actors step in. This is where NGOs or other “grown-up humans” take over. They come in to “pet the cats”—offering bowls of food and the “safety”, and the control of care, but ultimately exerting direction over a process that needs to be native, organic and grassroots-driven. This infantilises the community, pacifying it rather than empowering it.
The problem is that the “cats” let this happen because they are incapable of building the structures necessary to avoid it. If we don’t step up with human solutions, if we don’t create governance models that fit our ideals, we’re always losing control to external forces that don’t share our values and paths.
It’s beyond urgent to move from cat behaviour to human solutions, we are in an era of #climatechaos, where incrementalism and complacency are paths we can no longer take. We can’t keep trying to herd cats who refuse to collaborate on meaningful, systemic change. Instead, we need humans who can engage with the mess we’ve made and work together to clean it up.
To make this move from cat behaviour to human solutions:
Build Native Governance: Grassroots projects need to establish their own governance from the start. This avoids outsiders stepping in and co-opting the movement. The #OGB is a solid step in this direction.
Clarify Language and Values: Words like #socialweb lack the critical edge to inspire action. Framing like #openweb and #4opens make the values explicit and point to the political and social power of the alternative we’re built.
Acknowledge Power Dynamics: Open means open for everyone, including corporations. But grassroots actors need to reclaim the open spaces they helped create rather than let these be dominated by corporate inflowing interests. Balance can only come from political awareness and active mediation.
Move Beyond Individualism: The metaphor of herding cats also speaks to the issue of #stupidindividualism. We need to get beyond this and rebuild collectives, focusing on shared governance and goals rather than isolated actions.
Challenge Corporate Co-Option: Just as #FOSS underpins corporate tech, we need to build movements that are resilient to corporate takeover. This involves structures and cultural values that resist domination and control.
It should not need to be repeated so often, the shift we need is cultural as much as it is technical. We can’t keep going down paths we know do not work and only lead us back to the current mess. We need to rethink what it means to be part of a collective and how to build governance that reflects our values, instead of relying on outside forces to define them for us #KISS
PS. I am thinking this could get messy, we need shovels #OMN
The announcement from the #SocialWebFoundation is a corporate vision rather than something native, grassroots or revolutionary. Describing people as “users” who follow “influencers and brands” is a social mess, the commercialized, top-down paths that clash with the #4opens of collaboration, activism, and mutual aid path we build. On its current path this is a delusional dream from corporate America trying to coopt the #4opens network we built from community, solidarity and radical change. On the #mainstreaming#NGO current path this is not the kind of project to engage with or be a part of building, we do not won’t a space dominated by brands and influencers, it isn’t the future anyone actually wants or needs.
On mainstream paths, there is an unspoken disconnect between “volunteerism”, philanthropy, and “entrepreneurship” in the paths #opensource and decentralized tech people take. In #FOSS when people contribute their time and skills, there’s an assumption that their work is for the public good, but many are actually hoping for recognition or a way to generate financial stability. It’s not a contradiction to expect support for work that holds social value, though when this manifests as “entrepreneurship” we see the #deathcult path, underlining expectation for funding and sustainability. This is a hard path to tread and stay “native” to the #openweb
This ties into the mess with philanthropy and funding. For initiatives to gain traction and financial support, they need a compelling story, but many in the #FOSS and #fediverse communities struggle with this social storytelling part. They underestimate how few people aligned with their “native” vision, and how difficult it is to convey, outreach, the non-mainstream paths to a broader audience and the people who hold the money. The concept of “sustainability” for organizations becomes convoluted, with an overemphasis on replicating “common sense” venture capital models. It’s a mess that philanthropic groups have significant resources but fail in distributing them meaningfully, focusing instead on mimicking pointless tech startup mess. This is very likely a problem with #SocialWebFoundation path, the question is how to mediate this, for better outcomes.
This tension between grassroots movements, the expectations of funding, and the structural constraints of both the tech and non-profit paths. An example of this is the #NLnet and #EU tech funding fits this conversation of how philanthropy and volunteerism fail to mix due to flawed execution and basic storytelling problems on all sides.
More of my thinking on this https://hamishcampbell.com/?s=funding It’s hard to find a path to mediate, especially with the growing corporate presence in our #openweb spaces like the Fediverse. Ideas please?
“Power only understands power, so, we might need something that looks like “power” without all the power politics that involves… this is bluesky thinking to this end. If #activertypub is taken up by the #dotcons this WILL BE IMPOSED ON US anyway.”
“its trying to think outside this traditional path, so we think BEFORE we inevitably go down it this kinda crap path.”
“As I said here in the end this will be IMPOSED as a governance model dressed in “community clothes” if we do not build something else with dancing elephants and paper planes.”
“Our current working models of “governance” in open-source projects are Monarchy (the dictator for life), Aristocracy (the devs), oligarchy (the NGO, funders) and finally way out on the edge Democracy (the users).” This above is a move from current feudalism to NGO, the funders.
“…all the existing power structures BEFORE Democracy. As we are “permissionless” we can’t stop them from doing this. We just have to do better, and being native to the fedivers is a big help here.”
“Power… in the Fediverse path comes from different places than a corporation, a government, courts, police etc. we need to think and build with this difference and NOT try and drag the Fediverse back to the normal path. REMEMBER, the Fediverse works BECAUSE it’s different. It’s easy to forget this important thing when #mainstreaming agender, grab and hold.”
#OGB “It’s the correct word Governance – Wikipedia “Governance is the way rules, norms and actions are structured, sustained, regulated and held accountable”
“Yep, the liberal foundation model will be forced onto us if the Fediverse is taken up buy large Burocratic orgs like the #EU and yes there will be a fig leaf of “democracy” placed over the self-selecting oligarchy that will be put into place by “power politics” that this path embeds. Yes this path is the default outcome.”
The #Fediverse and #FOSS communities stand in sharp contrast to Big Tech #dotcons platforms through their values, which are rooted in openness, decentralization, and community control. While Big Tech thrives on centralization, data extraction, and profit-driven control.
However, the grassroots path is always under threat. On the Fediverse, stagnation at #socialhub and a rise in #NGO influence, leaves the original ethos of decentralized and open governance stifled by the normal paths of fear and control. This shifting imbalance reflects tension within the #openweb, where native grassroots paths are often at odds with institutionalized power structures.
The challenge now is how to reclaim and sustain these values while avoiding the dilution that the spread of the #NGO mess brings. What strategies do you think could re-energize these communities while maintaining their grassroots authenticity?
How to get dancing elephants and paper planes into a “foundation” model
Do something different – dancing elephants and paper planes.
Do something normal – control freekery and power politics games.
Do nothing – maybe it all just carries on or more likely decay and irrelevances.
#Activertypub is the first option, and this is why we love it and are having this conversation.
The mainstream internet, #dotcons, seduces us with dopamine hits, saps our creativity, and turns us into sad, noisy, powerless complainers. It steals our time with endless distractions, buries the pathways that lead to real change, and, in the end, empties our wallets.
All I can say is stop complaining. Just, please step away to help build alternatives like the #OMN
Balancing the #mainstreaming mess by focusing on what’s “native” is a useful step in rebooting the #openweb. Rather than outright rejecting things that don’t fit, the goal is to actively engage and mediate through pushback, ensuring that the core values are preserved while allowing space for broader participation. This path helps prevent the dilution of the original ideals while embracing diversity in a constructive way.
To centre this conversation, we create frameworks that ensure any new developments align with principles like the #4opens and facilitate ongoing dialogue to maintain a shared direction. The key here is to keep it simple (#KISS), ensuring the tools are accessible and intuitive.
The metaphor of composting the mess to seed radical movements is an evocative one, emphasizing the importance of turning waste and negativity into something productive. It aligns with the path of movements growing from rich, grounded beginnings, rather than from the toxic, divisive environment that emerges with negativity spreading unchecked.
The use of these hashtags helps to frame the broader narrative, adding depth to the conversation about the failings of the digital world and how to move beyond them. With the hashtags like #deathcult, #dotcons, and #techcurn clearly defining the toxic systems at play, while others like #openweb and #4opens point toward solutions based on transparency and decentralization.
The metaphors are a powerful comparison between ecological composting and the cultivation of social and technological movements, particularly in the context of grassroots media and openweb activism and culture.
Seeds and compost, describe movements as seeds that grow in rich compost, meaning that movements need nurturing environments to thrive. The compost represents the ideas, collaboration, and foundational work that allow movements to grow organically.
Spreading shit, a metaphor about how we are distracted by “spreading shit on each other,” negativity, conflict, and infighting hampers collective efforts. While conflict and criticism are part of human interaction, too much negativity leads to a foul atmosphere, where movements struggle to grow.
Composting the shit, is from the phrase “shit is good for compost”, that negative experiences, bad ideas, and even failures can be turned into useful lessons, helping to enrich the soil for future movements. Rather than discarding everything, the key is to transform the bad into something productive.
Tools for change, the shovel, symbolize practical action. You need real tools (both literally and metaphorically) to work the compost, to nurture change, and to dig into the mess. Tools like openness, transparency, and collaboration are vital to making the compost to actually lead to growth.
The #Hashtags are anchors, a way of framing complex social, political, and technological issues into digestible themes. The #OMN tags define the broad spectrum of the struggles and the critiques of current paths:
#Deathcult: Neoliberalism, a system that prioritizes profit and narrow economic growth over human and environmental well-being.
#Fashernista: The interplay of fashion, trends, and social relations, highlighting the superficiality in political movements.
#Openweb: The original vision of the web, built on openness, collaboration, and free exchange.
#Closedweb: The pre-internet and post-open-web eras dominated by corporate control (the #dotcons).
#4opens: A principle-driven framework to ensure transparency, openness, and collaboration, inspired by the #FOSS and grassroots activism.
#Encryptionists: A critique of those who advocate for excessive encryption without considering its broader social cost.
#Dotcons: The commercialization of the internet and how it is leading to environmental and social collapse.
#Geekproblem: The ongoing debate between determinism and free will, and its relationship to technological culture.
#Techshit: Refers to the waste that technology produces—both physically and socially—which can be repurposed into something useful.
#Techcurn: The technological churn, the constant cycle of “innovation” that leads to more problems than solutions.
#Nothingnew: A philosophy of slowing down technological development to reflect and correct the negative outcomes of rapid progress.
These are used as a call to action, to encourage a shift to the #KISS values of the openweb and to building humanistic paths. By understanding this, and acting on the metaphors and hashtags, we better navigate the challenges of today’s online and offline mess to work toward meaningful, open, and progressive alternatives to the #deathcult we have worshipped for way too long, way to long.
It’s interesting and useful to look at the critical issue of online governance, community dynamics, and the problem of #mainstreaming trolling on both the #dotcons and open social platforms like #Mastodon, #Fediverse and the broader #openweb
Let’s start with mastodon, the complexity of (default) privacy settings leads to public conversations inadvertently shifting into private spaces, this is a UX problem, but it also points to a larger issue with how we handle communication, trust, and governance on decentralized platforms. And raises a question, are we on the right path? Confusing privacy settings are disempowering, the defaults in platforms like Mastodon pushing users toward privatized conversations, which are not combatable with #4opens media paths, of transparency and public dialogue. Yes, this is a subtle but important #UX issue, exacerbated by the complexities of decentralized platforms and different peoples preferences for engagement.
UPDATE: it’s about inheriting the settings of the thread, all my posts are #4opens as this is the core project, it’s unusual to send a DM or other setting though do this a little when needed. When having a public conversation and suddenly find this happening in a non-public space, at no point did I agree to this move, but it happens, due to others settings, it should default to one side public, my settings, and one side (semi) private the other person’s settings, as on my side it is VERY much a #4opens public conversation, it’s a form of corruption for this privatisation to happen… a mess I have to fix by republishing my side as a separate post – sub optional and bad #UX
This is in part the push for mainstreaming, both inside and outside, alternative platforms, creates pressure toward conformity and centralization. This undermines the grassroots nature of media networks like the Fediverse. In the end, we move towards the same governance and behavioral issues seen in #dotcons, corporate social media platforms. Left-wing and progressives need to resist these pressures to/by fostering a #4opens culture of diversity, and mutual aid.
Moving beyond this mess, a culture of empathy and understanding is needed for mediating trolling behavior. Listen before judging, then make judgements based on sound open process, so people have the space to change their paths if they can. A mindset of curiosity and openness, rather than rigid ideological adherence is needed for this to work, metaphors are fertile seeds to bring conversation into this path. This creates spaces where different perspectives can be heard and discussed constructively.
The #openweb has always been, under the surface, built on strong communities rooted in mutual aid to provide a buffer against the toxic effects of trolling and infighting. When people feel connected to a shared mission, they are less likely to engage in destructive behavior. The strength of grassroots movements lies in their ability to offer this solidarity and care as an affective path of change and challenge. You acturly can’t have one without the other, in this conflict in moderation can be healthy or not.
We need structural social solutions to governance, the work on the #OMN and #OGB is a promising step toward creating decentralized, open governance paths that can mediate trolling and other negative behaviors. “the rule of an enlightened “philosopher-king” (cf. Noocracy) is preferable to the tyranny of majority” is the bases and fear unthinkingly in #FOSS governance paths. Much of the trolling comes from this unthinking. By embedding #4opens trust, transparency, and community in the path of these networks, we create environments that foster collaboration and experimentation, rather than pointless ongoing conflicts.
Navigating these challenges: online governance, trolling, and common sense privacy is no small step. However, with the paths like the #4opens, a focus on mutual aid, and a commitment to progressive, decentralized governance, it’s possible to create a healthier, more resilient online and offline progressive ecosystem. The work done through the #OMN and #OGB projects reflects this path where spaces (online or offline) are inclusive, productive, and capable of handling the messes that inevitably arise in all “open” communities.
The “public first” paths of the #OMN faces steep hurdles without the necessary support, focus, and funding. Achieving diversity in these spaces requires more than just a philosophical commitment—it needs active engagement from a variety of voices, technical expertise, and resources to push the project into wider use.
The current dominant “safe first” path in projects like Mastodon does create a certain type of functionality, but it also stifles innovation and radical potential by prioritizing safety in ways that ultimately encourage more privatized interactions. For grassroots, #openweb movements to thrive, they need both tech development and community support that embraces complexity rather than pushing toward conservative #mainstreaming defaults.
Ideas please to pull in the necessary dev focus and resources to make the public-first #OMN a reality? Can we build ways to attract contributors outside traditional #blockeing funding paths?
The main complaint, the blunt language I use. My reason for speaking plainly, is that it’s impossible to dress up the disgusting things I’m exposing in polite terms and still make the point clear to those who need to hear. I might as well be talking to the wind if I try to sugarcoat my words when addressing people who can’t seem to recognize corruption until it’s right under their noses in all its rottenness.
Hello, You have been permanently banned from participating in r/foss because your comment violates this community’s rules. You won’t be able to post or comment, but you can still view and subscribe to it.
openmedianetwork, this comment may have fully or partially contributed to your ban:
“A bad faith argument is not a genuine desire to seek truth or understanding, rather to manipulate, deceive, or derail a conversation. The goal is not dialogue or progress, but to “win” the conversation or maintain dominance in the social media space. These tactics are rampant on platforms driven by metrics like shares, likes, and comments, which measure engagement but not the quality or sincerity.”
If you have a question regarding your ban, you can contact the moderator team by replying to this message.
Reminder from the Reddit staff: If you use another account to circumvent this subreddit ban, that will be considered a violation of the Content Policy and can result in your account being suspended from the site as a whole.
Likely the same person in both case:
Hello, You have been permanently banned from participating in r/opensource because your comment violates this community’s rules. You won’t be able to post or comment, but you can still view and subscribe to it.
openmedianetwork, this comment may have fully or partially contributed to your ban:
The post is about activism, as this is at the centre of #FOSS as you say “a think piece, nothing practical to apply here” is what the article is about, and the mess this blocking of “thinking” is making, both small and big in the real world, our lives.
“For those who wish to “just code” without the politics, it must be made clear that this is impossible in the realm of impactful software development. Every piece of software carries with it values, ethics, and political implications. Acknowledging this is the first step toward building a digital network that serves people rather than controlling them. We need to walk a path away from the mess of #mainstreaming toward a genuinely open and humanistic internet. The time for pretending is over; the time for conscious, ethical coding has arrived.
As Larry Lessig poi”
If you have a question regarding your ban, you can contact the moderator team by replying to this message.
humm… messaged them to clarify why, but they will likely see this as trolling… so this work of composting is blocked.
In progressive discussions about technology and open source, there is intolerant pushing of mess from people who say “just focus on the code” without the politics. This is an understandable outlook, but it is also stupid, based on a misunderstanding of what is Free/Open Source Software (#FOSS). This everyday pushing of mess making comes from #blinded#mainstreaming people claiming that FOSS is “a-political” or should be kept that way, and shows a lack of any understanding of this movement.
As this article highlights, the idea of “a-political” Free Software is not only incorrect; it’s historically nonsense. Free Software is intrinsically and unavoidably political. It is not simply about code; it is about who controls the code and, therefore, who controls the user. This is why the path that many projects take, to jam FOSS into capitalism without addressing these core issues, is a mess and failing path.
The roots of free software are in a political and ethical movement that just happens to focus on software. “Computer users should be free to modify programs to fit their needs, and free to share software, because helping other people is the basis of society.” This is not just a technical stance; it is a moral, ethical, and political one. The idea that users should have the right to control their own digital lives and help others do the same is at the heart of Free Software. This #KISS foundation opposes proprietary software, where users are legally prevented from helping their neighbours, thus restricting their freedom.
“Computer users should be free to modify programs to fit their needs, and free to share software, because helping other people is the basis of society.”
The emergence of the “Open Source” in the late 1990s pushed change on this “native” path, into a more #mainstreaming direction by shifting focus to development benefits, pushing out the ethical and political core. This, however, does not change the foundational politics of Free Software, it merely tries to mask it, to hide it, by pushing out of sight the political core, this is mess making and the normal mainstream “common sense” when it comes to taking up any Alt paths, this is a history we need to stop.
The difference between Free Software and Open Source: “Open source is a development methodology; free software is a social movement.” For the #opensource path, non-free software is a suboptimal technical solution. For the FOSS path, non-free software is a social problem that needs challenging and changing. This is a distinction that some who try to take this path fail to recognize, leading to the meany messy social and coding projects we try to make work today.
As the #dotcons world builds crises of privacy, control, and trust, the relevance of these distinctions, hopefully, becomes more into focus. From tech giants abusing data to governments exploiting backdoors, the ethical foundation that Free Software rests upon is needed, not optional.
The politics of software, the idea that software can be a-political, is a misunderstanding of what software does and represents. As Larry Lessig says – “Our choice is not between ‘regulation’ and ‘no regulation.’ The code regulates. It implements values, or not. It enables freedoms, or disables them. It protects privacy, or promotes monitoring.” Every decision in software development, from what features to include, to how data is handled, to what kind of accessibility is provided, is a political one. There is no “neutral” code. Decisions about prioritizing user rights, security, and privacy are political decisions, and they shape the wider digital networks we live within.
All code is ideology solidified into action – thus most contemporary code is capitalism, this is hardly a surprise if you think about this at all. Yes, you can try and act on any ideology path from this code, but the outcome and assumptions are preprogramed. If we continue to pretend that the software and platforms can be devoid of politics, we are, taking a side, and actively contributing to the mainstream mess that dotcons push, and this is the mess we urgently need to move away from. As outlined on my website, we need to focus on building a #openweb projects that respect people, rather than merely mimicking corporate platforms with a veneer of openness as we do so often, on the #Fediverse, #Bluesky etc.
Conclusion: stop pretending and start building, to those who wish to “just code” without the politics, it needs to be continually pointed out strongly that is impossible in the path of impactful software development. Every piece of software carries with it values, ethics, and political implications. Acknowledging this is the first step toward building digital networks that serves the people, rather than controlling them. We need to walk a path away from the mess of #mainstreaming towards a more open and humanistic internet.
The article “The Slow Evaporation of the FOSS Surplus” by Baldur Bjarnason discusses the gradual decline in the effectiveness and sustainability of Free and Open Source Software (#FOSS) within, unspoken context of a capitalist economy. The argument is that FOSS, once a thriving ecosystem driven by community effort and collaboration, is now being drained of its vitality by the growing dominance of corporate interests.
Bjarnason points out that the initial “surplus” of creativity, time, and resources that allowed FOSS to grow is being consumed as #dotcons extract value from open-source projects without reinvesting in their development or maintenance. The maintaining of these central projects is thus falling on unpaid or underpaid developers, leading to burnout and stagnation. This mess leads to a less diverse and less vibrant FOSS ecosystem, with projects struggling to sustain themselves without the good will, resources and community support they once had.
This current path highlights a fundamental issue, trying to fit the ethos of FOSS with in the framework of capitalism is a losing battle. FOSS is based on principles of collaboration, sharing, and community effort, its values are a very bad fit with capitalism’s focus on profit maximization, competition, and market control. Attempting to push FOSS, for example the open-source movement, to work better in the mess is not only unsustainable but also counterproductive.
There is an increasing untenable cost to #mainstreaming FOSS within capitalist norms. In simple terms, burnout and decline of community projects. The commercialization of FOSS compromises its fundamental principles—collaboration, freedom, and shared knowledge. Instead of serving the public good, projects are twisted to serve corporate agendas, often at the expense of the communities that built them. This leads to a loss of sustainability, to a decline in quality, security vulnerabilities, and eventually, the abandonment of core projects.
The main problem we face is few people believe there is any viable alternative to this current mess. To ansear this I have been writing for more than 20 years on my website, that there is, clearly showing the pressing need to move away from the #mainstreaming, capitalist path, and how the solution is not to “fix” FOSS within the capitalist framework but to use FOSS as a tool to step away from the current mess.
In the face of global crises like onrushing #climatechaos and resulting social and ecological break down, it becomes clear that we don’t have the choices we pretend we do. We can’t keep perpetuating the myth that we can, or should, bend open-source and collaborative technologies to fit the current capitalist path without real repercussions. With this strongly in mind, we need to use activism to mediate the #mainstreaming pretence, to shift resources and focus to explore alternative paths that align better with the values of #FOSS and the #openweb. The project I talk about a lot, the #OMN is such a path.
This involves, reinvigorating community-driven development by prioritizing projects that serve public interests and are maintained by communities of action. To create new economic models, such as cooperatives, public funding, and community-supported software to feed a culture of resilience to take the dangers paths of then next century.
In this widened view of the original post, “the slow evaporation of the FOSS surplus” I try and make visible the broader systemic failure we need to think about for change and challenge. We are running out of time and resources to take different paths, it’s crucial to recognize that the challenges we face, from software sustainability to climate change. We need to stop pretending that patching up the current system will work and start building new pathways that are true to the “native” #openweb values, to demand a radical departure from the status quo #KISS
