The #mainstreaming project is visibly failing. Worse, it is set to catastrophically fail over the next 30 years as #climatechaos escalates. The signs are everywhere: environmental collapse, political instability, and the hollow nature of mainstream culture. Yet, large parts of liberal society continue to bow to the #deathcult, a path of power, greed, and control over life, community, and sustainability. The end result we can now clearly see is the rule of big, dumb, ugly men with guns, a world driven by violence and fear rather than cooperation and creativity.
But we do still have a choice, on the internet we can build and support alternative projects and paths. Instead of kneeling before the #deathcult, we could embrace a #lifecult dedicated to nurturing the #grassroots, growing resilient communities, and reclaiming our collective autonomy. This path is not easy, nor is it comfortable, but it is one of the humane outcomes we can hope for. Am not up for cults my self, but if this is what people won’t let’s make it life rather than death.
The challenge of change, is that this does not emerge from #mainstreaming circles without friction. When alternative movements gain traction, they are both rejected outright and then co-opted and diluted until they become meaningless. The #OMNhashtag story highlights this process, and pushes back the rejection, to balance the struggle, and the slow but real impact on agendas we need.
The question is whether people can engage with this, in the needed #4opens processes. The #4opens is a completely obverse “social” restating of the #FOSS development process, with a crucial addition: #openprocess. Over the last decade, much of this transparency has been lost as activist communities and developers shifted towards encrypted chat for process, locking away vital discussions from needed public discourse.
The weaponization of process, in my experience, whenever we create rigid structures, people inevitably pick them up and start hitting each other with them. This pattern has repeated over decades, killing countless effective grassroots social challenge/change projects. Nearly all of them, in fact. The result? Communities that should be working together end up tearing each other apart over minor ideological differences, procedural disagreements, or personal conflicts. This cycle of infighting and stagnation serves the interests of those in power, it ensures that no real alternative ever gains momentum.
Food for thought is how do we break this cycle? One path is rebuilding the commons, which is currently possible in the digital spaces. Yes, more evaluation than revolution. It’s not about grand theoretical debates or ideological purity, it’s about doing the work by getting involved in your communities. By gather a group together to take practical steps towards #stepaway to move to the #openweb and start rebuilding commons outside the #dotcons.
From a growing network of people and groups doing this, we might get real social change, or we might not. But at least we’ll be doing something practical, rather than simply feeding the current corporate machine.
Seeding the #OMN is a solution to a universal problem, the shit nature of both mainstream/traditional media and the #dotcons that dominate the media landscape. Our lives, economies, and governments are now totally embedded in these corporate-controlled spaces, leaving us little room to manoeuvre. The #OMN offers an alternative, but the biggest barrier is not technology, it’s people’s capture and passivity. Right now, the ONLY thing holding us back is the mass acceptance of despair. The #mainstreaming system breeds apathy. It tells us there’s no alternative, that change is impossible, that resistance is futile. But we know that’s a lie.
The question is: will we act before it’s too late?
The #geekproblem has been an ongoing issue in the development of radical and open internet paths. This is particularly evident in the influx of #mainstreaming users into the #Fediverse, bringing with them behaviors that, for us #openweb natives, are easy to recognize as part’ish, a mix of good intentions and ingrained habits that common sense uphold the status quo. Our response needs to be one of patience, hand-holding rather than outright biting, because if we want real change, we need to build bridges, not gates.
In the #geekproblem worldview, technical infrastructure is about CONTROL. The metaphor they use for protocols and interactions is a gateway, something that can be opened or closed at will, something that allows some people in and keeps others out. The #OMN, by contrast, understands this infrastructure in terms of TRUST. Our metaphor is a bridge, something that facilitates free movement, allowing people to interact organically, without arbitrary restrictions. This fundamental difference in perspective is crucial. In real life, bridges don’t have gates. This should be obvious, but it is entirely non-obvious to the geek mindset and its rigid coding paths.
The root of the problem is the lack of social thinking. One of the driving forces behind the constant tech churn, the never-ending cycle of new projects, new code, new systems that never seem to lead anywhere, is a fundamental lack of respect for joined-up social thinking. In the #geekproblem worldview, technology exists in a vacuum, disconnected from the wider social context. They believe they can invent from their limited social experience and simply ignore the history of radical movements that shapes the flows they supposedly code for.
This is why so many geek-led projects fail to align with humane agendas. Without social grounding, their work reinforces the dominant, pointless, and extractive tech industry culture rather than challenging it. The irony is that this problem isn’t just limited to #dotcons; it also infects the alt-tech sphere, where supposedly radical projects fall into the same patterns of CONTROL rather than TRUST.
Open vs. closed, is the same old struggle: #openweb vs. #closedweb, TRUST vs. CONTROL. It is the spirit of the age, a battle that has now become a worldwide issue affecting both corporate platforms and alternative technology movements alike. What we need is a radical shift in thinking. We need to move from a mindset of CONTROL, of hard blocks, of gatekeeping, of rigid protocol enforcement, to one of TRUST. This requires unlearning deeply ingrained habits and embracing the messy, leaky, social reality of real-world interaction. The #4opens provide a clear path out of this mess, but the geek world’s obsession with control constantly obstructs that path.
Breaking the blocks to shift this balance? The first step is to recognize that the current approach is failing. The narrow #DoOcracy model, which has dominated for the last five years, is not working. With the #dotcons bringing an influx of new people to the #Fediverse, the problem is only going to get worse if we don’t address it. And it’s useful to remember that to do nothing is to actively block progress.
Solutions, challenge the orthodoxies, that the dominant thinking in tech culture is not set in stone. We need to push back against the assumption that CONTROL is the only way to maintain order.
Build bridges, not gates: The infrastructure we create must facilitate movement and exchange, not gatekeeping and restriction. We must actively design for TRUST rather than CONTROL.
Reject the #fashernista trap: Many existing solutions are just old ideas dressed up in new clothes. If we want real change, we must strip away the façade and get to the core of what actually works.
Trust-based coding: We need to find and support #FOSS coders who are willing to build systems based on trust, rather than reinforcing the culture of control. The #OGB is one example of an initiative attempting to do this.
Learn from history: We need to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past. For a #mainstreaming example, the Soviet Union’s control-based economic system ultimately failed, and we should be wary of replicating its top-down approach in our tech movements.
A non-mainstreaming movement, is a truly radical path to break free from the invisible constraints that now seem like common sense. We need to go back in time, before these blocks solidified, and build up from there. Non-mainstreaming tech must be SOCIAL and COMMUNITY-driven. To achieve real social change, we step away from the current narrow geek agendas and refocus on the needs of people rather than the diversity of protocols. let’s treat them as simple flows.
The #OMN project is a answer to this problem. By using the #4opens as a foundation, we build a open and transformative alternative to both #dotcons and alt-tech dead ends. But to get there, we must first overcome the #geekproblem’s obsession with control. The bottom line is the desire for CONTROL in both code and culture is a dead-end. It is part of the #deathcult ideology that underpins both corporate and alternative tech spaces. If we want to break free from this cycle, we must embrace TRUST, social thinking, and real-world complexity. We must compost the old ways of thinking and build something new.
The solution is clear, stop hard-blocking progress, embrace messiness as a necessary part of building real alternatives, design systems that prioritize TRUST over CONTROL. If we can do this, we have a chance to build the future we actually want. If not, we will remain trapped in an endless cycle of reinvention, failure, and stagnation.
Much of academia post-1990s is just a shadow of the #deathcult, stripped of radicalism and repackaged into careerist, bureaucratic loops. It became another self-referential path, detached from real world struggles. The privatization of knowledge through paywalled journals, corporate funding, and NGO capture made sure of this.
The same thing happened with #FOSS and #opensource, once about radical openness, it was watered down when organizing shifted to closed chat systems and corporate-friendly platforms. We lost the #openprocess that made early public archives powerful.
Then you have, Modern Art, once revolutionary, was quickly absorbed into the cultural arm of the #deathcult, turning radical expression into a commodity for the #nastyfew. It’s the same cycle over and over:
A movement starts as a real challenge to power.
It gains momentum.
Power co-opts it, waters it down, and sells it back to us.
People will keep doing stupid things, that’s inevitable. The job is to call it out, push better paths, and make sure they don’t repeat the same mistakes. It’s not glamorous, and it won’t get you applause, but that’s how real social change works.
The cat meowing, the #fashionistas, whether intentionally or not, keep blocking the left’s paths by turning everything into aesthetics and performance rather than actual power-building. They chase whatever is trending, constantly rebrand, and ultimately reinforce the #mainstreaming forces they claim to resist.
Meanwhile, the right organizes, funds, and builds real infrastructure, they don’t waste time on purity politics and endless internal fights. That’s why they keep winning.
So what do we do?
Stop trend-hopping, we need long-term strategies, not just momentary viral moments.
Build real alternatives, tech, media, organizing spaces that serve movements, not just “woke” branding.
Own our narratives, not get trapped in the spectacle of liberal discourse and right-wing outrage cycles.
Get our hands dirty, shovel through the #techshit, compost the failures, and grow something real.
This is about taking control back, not only reacting to the crises the nasty few push us to manufacture. Radical media, the #openweb, grassroots organizing, these are the things that cut through the noise and shift power back to where it belongs.
The #4opens act as a foundation to hold back the tide of the post-truth world, they enforce transparency, accountability, and community control. Without them, everything drifts into manipulation, closed power structures, and co-option by #dotcons.
It’s a chicken-and-egg issue because we need social trust and active participation to maintain the #4opens, but those same values are constantly eroded by the #mainstreaming forces of the #deathcult.
The #OMN is crucial because it builds digital commons as a form of social technology. It’s not just about the tech, it’s about the relationships, trust networks, and shared values that make it work. Once we have this space, what we do with it is up to us, but it has to be grounded in real, radical alternatives, not just another tech silo.
That’s where the rebooted #indymedia project comes in. It’s built on the #PGA hallmarks, which means it’s explicitly anti-capitalist, decentralized, and activist-driven. It can’t function within the corporate media sphere, so it has to exist in a #TAZ (Temporary Autonomous Zone)—a liberated, self-organized space outside of state and market control.
Wikipedia gives a decent artsy take on #TAZ, but in practice, it’s about creating spaces where radical alternatives can actually live and grow. #PGA is the backbone, an old grassroot global framework for direct action and real-world resistance.
The key is building trust-based networks that aren’t easily co-opted. If we don’t do this, the cycle repeats: good projects get absorbed, neutralized, or just fade into irrelevance.
The problem with #closedweb paths on the internet isn’t just “greedy” Big Tech, it’s the inevitable outcome of #capitalism itself. Where companies endlessly grow or die, grabbing profits from every possible source. This in the end leads to tricking users into handing over their data, treating them with contempt, and ultimately dehumanizing them.
Criticizing the #dotcons and pointing to #FOSS copies as a solution is a simple first step. But only doing this is like blaming #BP for abandoning green goals while ignoring the paths that reward environmental destruction. Big Tech’s, the #dotcons, behaviour is a symptom of the #deathcult, a dead economic system where profit trumps people. Copies of the #dotcons no matter how well meaning carry some of this DNA into the #openweb reboot.
The web started as an open ecosystem, a collection of independent applications and communities connected by common protocols and stories. The walls went up in the name of profit and convenience, and now it’s time to tear them down. For the #OMN and the #4opens to thrive, we need to break this cycle. To do this we need tools that make self-hosting accessible to everyone, reconnect people to the value of the commons, and dismantle the tech oligarchies piece by piece. At the moment this is way too hard and the change to make this possible is being #blocked by the #geekproblm.
To move past this blocking we need to recognise that the scaffolding is tech, but the building is people, mythos, and traditions. Let’s get back to work with our shovels and compost the social and tech mess. ✊
With the hard shift to the right in US tech, Europe can no longer afford to sit idly by in tech development. The myth of neutrality has always been a convenient lie—if we don’t actively counterbalance this shift, we risk watching the #FOSS and #openweb movements collapse, taking with them a core pillar of our democratic and digital future. These movements aren’t just about code; they are the foundation of a fair, open, and just society. Now is the time to step up, not stand by.
For the past five years, I’ve been applying for funding for native #openweb projects—projects rooted in real, grassroots needs rather than corporate gatekeeping and academic abstraction. The problem? #NLnet and the wider #EU funding landscape lack people who can actually judge #FOSS projects in this space. The results are predictable:
Bureaucratic checklists
Conservative, incremental funding
Projects chosen based on who fills out forms best, not who builds the tech we actually need
So the real question is: has this changed? Because right now, I see the same mistakes repeating. We have proposals like:
#MakingHistory – Restoring a radical, federated approach to storytelling and digital archiving.
#IndymediaBack – Rebooting independent media with the lessons of past failures baked in.
#OGB (Open Governance Body) – A vital step toward decentralised, federated governance—something we desperately need to keep tech in the hands of communities, not corporations.
These proposals should not be niche. They should not be afterthoughts. They should be a part of the core of NGI funding strategy, the checks and balance on the bigger tech projects, if the EU is to be at all affective about counterbalancing the rightward shift in global tech.
So let’s ask again: Has #NLnet and the #EU stepped up this time? Are we funding the future, or are we just shuffling papers while the #deathcult eats our humanistic heritage and the last remains of the #openweb?
The risk, as always, is that the funding just shifts to the next well-polished pitch deck, rather than the real, messy work of change. But hey, one can but prod—because without that, nothing moves at all.
To look at why this is important, we need to move outside the comfort zones of current #mainstreaming thinking. Let’s start by touching on the role of #protestcamps in direct action: protest camps are temporary activist spaces set up in public areas to bring attention to social, environmental, and political issues. These camps create a direct action environment where people gather, discuss, and demonstrate. They range from #fluffy (peaceful and symbolic) to #spiky (disruptive and confrontational), depending on the nature of the cause and the activists involved.
This raises the question of who uses these strategies and spaces, some examples of protest movements: #Occupy Movement – Challenged economic inequality and corporate influence. #ClimateCamp – A radical grassroots direct action movement to counter #climatechaos through awareness, policy pressure, and direct disruption. Climate camp was active in multiple countries, it peaked in the late 2000s and early 2010s, influencing both public debate and government action. #CriticalMass – A decentralized cycling activism movement, founded in 1992, that uses monthly mass bike rides to reclaim public space and challenge car culture.
These examples are all of grassroots politics operates from the bottom up, empowering people to engage directly rather than relying on mediating political parties or institutions. This long traditional path give communities a voice and enable change outside the #blocking power of traditional structures. Direct action & grassroots politics is always the working change and challenge when activism bypasses traditional political intermediaries, using disruptive tactics like strikes, sit-ins, and blockades.
Together, these methods provide the non #mainstreaming democratic, practical paths to challenge authority, disrupt harmful policies, and drive real change. Let’s look at another example, the debate around #XR (Extinction Rebellion), founded in 2018, #XR uses nonviolent civil disobedience to push governments to act on the #climatecrisis. The movement is divisive, some see it as #spiky, using direct action to force political change. Others argue it’s too #fluffy, adhering to liberal ideas of legality and nonviolence, that limits its real radical potential. Whether #XR is a radical or liberal movement remains an active debate, but the impact it has had on public discourse and activism is undeniable. This living active fluffy/spiky debate is core to affective grassroots activism.
This experience is what we need to pass onto the current #4opens alternatives & horizontalist paths in tech, which to often, have the assumption that liberal legality alone will fix systemic problems, which is an easy to see #geekproblem fantasy we need to focus on balancing. A path to do this is learning from the above history of activism, native #FOSS and #4opens structures, which, yes are not without challenges, are needed to build alternatives that avoid the false hope that #mainstreaming institutions will voluntarily dismantle themselves.
As I keep highlighting, activism isn’t separate from tech development, with the #FOSS traditions coming from tech activism already. Movements like #Indymedia, #Fediverse, and #OMN show that #FOSS paths can be built with social movements in mind. In the end, if we don’t shape our own digital tools, they will be co-opted by #dotcons and restricted #mainstreaming “common sense”. The solution? Rebuild tech from the ground up, not just by resisting, but by actively creating the alternatives we want to see.
Many years ago, I wrote on my website sidebar: “A river that needs crossing—political and tech blogs: On the political side, there is arrogance and ignorance; on the geek side, there is naivety and over-complexity.” Decades later, we still to often find ourselves standing on opposite shores of this river, struggling to bridge the understanding gap between human-centric communities and the techno-centric mindset of the “geek class.” This divide is a core challenge for anyone invested in building a better, decentralised #openweb.
This battle isn’t just about technology—it’s a deeper, unspoken struggle between openness and control. It’s about whether our social networks and communities will empower human trust and collaboration, or continue to be shaped by closed systems that reduce people to passive users.
To touch on this, it’s worth looking at a tale of two projects: Diaspora vs Mastodon
The history of the #openweb provides stark lessons. Consider #Diaspora and #Mastodon, two decentralised platforms with very different outcomes.
Diaspora had significant funding, public attention, and a large team of coders. Yet, it failed completely. Why? It was built with a #FOSS closed mindset—trying to replicate the control features of corporate platforms but within a decentralised framework.
Mastodon, by contrast, had no funding, minimal publicity, and just one dedicated coder. It succeeded because it embraced openness—allowing communities to organically grow and evolve based on shared principles rather than top-down control.
The lesson is clear: projects rooted in openness thrive, while those built on closed fail.
The #OMN path is human trust networks over algorithms. One of the core goals is to learn from these past successes and failures. From these focuses on growing federated human communities by prioritising openness, trust, and collaboration over technical “perfection.”
A counterintuitive path – Why Spam and “Bad Content” Matter. It might sound counterintuitive, but spam and irrelevant posts are a necessary part of building communities. Without the challenge of sorting and filtering content, there’s no reason for humans to reach out, form trust networks, and collaborate on moderation. Geeks often see spam as a technical problem to be solved with algorithms, but this approach misses where the value is.
Algorithms centralise power, when we rely on black-box technology to handle content moderation, control shifts to the people who design and manage these “boxes”. This creates invisible hierarchies, as seen with #Failbook and other #dotcons platforms. By relying on human moderation and trust-building, communities become stronger and more self-sustaining. People are motivated to engage, connect, and contribute to a path they help shape.
Spam and low-quality content must flow into the network as part of the process, but the network itself should flush this out to organically push valuable content to the top through human effort. Of course there is a balance here, this decentralised approach keeps power in the hands of the community balanced with the coders. With this flow of data and metadata established, we put some federated structure in place.
Scale through federation creates organic grow.
Base Sites: These are narrow, local, or subject-focused publishing sites where content creation happens. They are small and community-driven, and their true value lies in their specificity and grassroots community engagement.
Middle Sites: This aggregate content from the base sites, adding value by curating, tagging, and filtering. They act as the core of the network, sifting through content to ensure quality and relevance.
Top Sites: These are broad outreach platforms designed for #mainstreaming content. They are easy to set up and administer but add little original value. Instead, they highlight and amplify the best content from the base and middle layers. These sites are the change and challenge.
This structure reverses the traditional value pyramid, where top-down platforms dominate. In the #OMN model, the true value resides at the grassroots base, while the top merely reflects the collective effort below.
Moderation as a feature, not a problem, for the network to thrive, it must scale through human connections and trust, moderation is the fuel for building the trust networks.
Trusted Links: Content flows through trusted networks, where moderators ensure quality.
Moderation Levels: New contributors are moderated until trust is established. Over time, as trust builds, moderation becomes less/unnecessary.
Failure Modes: Without trust-building, sites will either become overwhelmed by irrelevant content or collapse under the weight of unmanageable workloads.
The only way to maintain a useful site is to build, either a large, healthy community with diverse moderators and administrators, or a small, focused group based on high-quality, trusted connections. Both outcomes are desirable and reinforce the decentralised ethos of the #OMN.
Why automation fails, the temptation to automate everything is a hallmark of the #geekproblem. While algorithms might make a network “technically” better, they erode the human element, which is the entire point of decentralisation. Automation creates middling-quality networks with mediocre outcomes, leading to Signal-to-Noise problems, reduced motivation, if everything is automated, why bother forming trust networks and engaging deeply?
Less is more should be a guiding principle. By focusing on simplicity and human collaboration, the #OMN avoids the pitfalls of over-engineering and maintains the integrity of its community-driven mission to build a better future. The #OMN isn’t just about technology; it’s about creating spaces where people can connect, collaborate, and build trust. It’s about empowering communities to take ownership of their networks and their narratives.
This road won’t be easy. We’ll need to fight against the inertia of the #dotcons and resist the urge to repeat the mistakes of the last decade’s failed alt-tech projects. But by embracing the #4opens principles, we can create a web that serves people, not corporations. The tools are already here. The open internet still exists, for now. The choice is clear, build for humans, not for algorithms. Trust people, not black boxes. Decentralise, federate, and grow organically. The #OMN provides a roadmap—now it’s time to follow it.
The web wasn’t built by solo tech geniuses, finance firms, or flashy luminaries making illusionary promises. It was grown by the collective time, energy, and creativity of millions of grassroots people and communities working together to create something greater than themselves. The internet as we know it emerged not from the top-down visions of elites, but from decentralised, collaborative efforts. This same collective energy will be what propels us into the next era of the #openweb, a web that remains true to its native principles of accessibility, freedom, and inclusivity.
For the last 20 years, however, we’ve been stuck in the corporate-controlled ecosystem of the #dotcons. Platforms like Meta, Google, and Amazon have dominated the landscape, turning the internet into a commodity to be bought, sold, and controlled. Their vision has led to the rise of the #closedweb, where profit and surveillance trump openness and collaboration. This #mainstreaming path is deeply concerning because it fundamentally contradicts what the web was meant to be, a space for sharing, learning, and connecting without the old gatekeepers.
There is a movement to reverse this trend, the #Fediverse, but like meany reboots it’s floundering as it grows through the inrushing of “common sense”. What we need is native #KISS foundations for a thriving #openweb, A path to this is to embrace the #4opens as guiding principles:
Open Data: Ensuring that information can be freely shared and reused.
Open Source: Building tools and platforms that anyone can access, modify, and improve.
Open Standards: Creating interoperable systems that work across platforms and communities.
Open Process: Making decisions transparently and inclusively to foster trust and collaboration.
This is a simple retelling of the #FOSS process with the addition of #openprocess as is used in the best projects, this is a part of the #nothingnew path we are on.
It’s not enough to critique the #dotcons, we need to actively build alternatives, the #Fediverse has already taken the first set on this path. The next step is focusing our energy on “native” projects like #OMN (Open Media Network), #IndyMediaBack, and #OGB (Open Governance Body), on this path we can create a decentralised, human-centred web that prioritises communities over corporations. These projects are not about recreating the same flawed systems in a slightly different guise; they’re about fundamentally rethinking how we engage with technology, governance, and communication. This rethink is #nothingnew as it’s copying the working structure of grassroots activism.
The time is now to come together and make history by working on these alternatives. The #openweb is not just an ideal; it’s a necessity for a sustainable, democratic future. Let’s reject the illusions of the #closedweb and instead build a web that truly belongs to everyone.
The #OpenMediaNetwork (#OMN) offers a clear, practical path to building the #openweb, grounded in #4opens. It does this by leveraging open protocols like #ActivityPub (#AP) and #RSS, alongside #FOSS software, to create a distributed network of media platforms where people and groups can join, participate, and contribute. This, like the #Fediverse, is a direct challenge to the centralised, corporate-dominated structures that define so much of the current internet landscape.
Step-by-Step Building Blocks: The #OMN is simplicity and humanistic coding, rather than over-engineered complexity we often see in tech today.
Start with the client-server model. The initial focus is on building a robust client-server architecture to create a stable foundation for media sharing and participation. This forms the “hot” storage layer, data that is live, accessible, and regularly used.
Introduce an offline cold store: Once the client-server infrastructure is operational, a secondary layer of offline cold storage is added. This acts as a backup system, providing high redundancy to safeguard against data loss. Cold storage is cheap, offline, and relies on human interaction for maintenance and retrieval, ensuring resilience and sustainability.
P2P connections to cold storage: The final stage introduces peer-to-peer (#P2P) connections to integrate the offline cold storage with the broader network. This allows people to share and retrieve data across the network, even in decentralised or disconnected environments.
Iterative learning and improvement: The process is intentionally iterative, encouraging learning from practical experience. The system path is designed to evolve and improve over time, informed by real-world use rather than theoretical perfection.
The success of the #OMN depends on its commitment to #4opens. These principles allow for the free sharing and reuse of content, breaking down barriers to collaboration and growing innovation. By storing most data unencrypted (as the majority of it is not private), the system reduces overhead and complexity, keeping the project aligned with the “Keep It Simple, Stupid” (#KISS) philosophy.
Separating privacy from the #openweb: One critical aspect of the #OMN approach is recognising that encrypted privacy tools are a separate project. Mixing these with the development of the #openweb and #Fediverse leads to unnecessary complexity and division. Privacy tools are vital, but are developed in parallel rather than tangled with the foundational infrastructure. This separation allows each project to focus on its strengths while maintaining a clear, streamlined design philosophy.
At its core, the #OMN empowers “normal” people to store and manage their own data. By using a mix of hot and cold storage, people gain control over their digital lives without relying on corporate platforms. The focus on redundancy, backed by tools to search and reimport old data into hot storage, ensures resilience and accessibility.
This human-centric approach contrasts sharply with the corporate and #geekproblem obsession with control and perfection. It’s a more humane vision of technology, based on trust and collaboration rather than surveillance and control.
This builds from a history rooted in activism, the #OMN isn’t just a theoretical project; it’s grounded in decades of real-world activism. From the work of Undercurrents in the 1990s (http://www.undercurrents.org/about.html) to the global mobilisation of the Carnival Against Capitalism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnival_Against_Capital), this draws on over 30 years of direct, on-the-ground experience. The lessons from this history inform every aspect of the OMN, ensuring it stays true to its activist roots.
The current #block on this needed project is dealing with the #geekproblem and #fashernistas: One of the biggest challenges in progressive tech is the dominance of the #geekproblem, projects driven by technologists who prioritise complexity and self-interest over usability and impact. Coupled with the influence of #fashernistas, who chase trends without substance, many projects are doomed from the start
The #OMN cuts through this, yes, we can’t solve this mess pushing, but we are a critical step in the right direction to mediate this mess, by encouraging us to get out the shovels and compost these pushing failures. The goal is to build a system that works, not one that dazzles investors with hype while failing to deliver.
The #openweb won’t (re)build itself. It requires us to reject the endless noise of pointless projects and focus on practical, sustainable solutions. By supporting and growing the #OMN path, grounded in #KISS simplicity, #4opens principles, and decades of activism, we create a resilient infrastructure that empowers people and communities.
The #fashernista common sense path, driven by trends, appearances, and surface-level thinking, is always a reflection of the dominant ideology. In today’s world, this means it perpetuates the neo-liberal #deathcult, which pushes profit over people and the environment. This ideology a motivation of #stupidindividualism, where the focus is on personal gain, consumerism, and competition rather than solidarity, cooperation, and collective well-being.
This same mentality is mirrored in the #geekproblem, where technologists to often design and promote tools and systems that replicate and reinforce neo-liberal values, rather than challenge them. By framing technology as “neutral” or purely functional, they ignore the broader social impact of their work, allowing it to serve as an uncritical extension of the #deathcult’s values. This is why so much of modern technology amplifies isolation, surveillance, and exploitation instead of fostering connection, community, and empowerment.
Challenging these people and their ideas is crucial if we want to break free from the current cycles of destruction. However, ignoring them and focusing our energy elsewhere may be the more practical and effective path. Engaging with them to often leads to frustration and burnout as their ideological framework is deeply ingrained, and their reflexive defensiveness derails productive efforts.
As with composting, when there’s too much “shit” to shoval, the resulting stink can make the change we need feel unpleasant and off-putting. The sheer negativity and hostility of challenging entrenched ideologies creates a barrier to engagement for those who might otherwise join or support transformative movements. If the alternative to the #deathcult seems unappealing or toxic, it risks alienating the very people and communertys we need to build a better path away from the current mess.
Instead of wasting time trying to convince the entrenched or defending against their reactionary attacks, we could focus on building practical, grounded alternatives? By creating spaces, tools, and communities that embody the “native” #openweb values, we can offer a tangible, appealing contrast to the hollow shadow of the #deathcult worshipping. The goal is to show—not just tell—that another world is possible, and that it is not only necessary but desirable.
By doing this, the stink of the current dead ideology will become irrelevant. When people experience the benefits of living and working in paths that lead to commons, mutual aid, and flourishing, the death spiral of #stupidindividualism and the #geekproblem will lose its appeal. In the end, it’s not about fighting their ideas directly, it’s about making those ideas obsolete by building something far better.
To dive deeper into this , we need to look at the underlying mechanisms of how the #fashernista mindset, the neo-liberal #deathcult, #stupidindividualism, and the #geekproblem perpetuate themselves—and, more importantly, look at how this interlocking mess hinder progress while pretending to advance it.
The #Fashernista mindset is a reflection of dominance, as it operates as a mirror to dominant ideologies. By nature, it does not challenge power structures but absorbs and reflects their values, often in a more palatable or “trendy” form.
Aesthetic over substance, the prioritisation of appearances—what looks progressive, innovative, or ethical—over what actually is. For example, this neo-liberal “common sense” can be dressed up in “sustainable” or “inclusive” branding, while the underlying paths remain exploitative.
Tokenistic activism leads to shallow forms of activism, where symbolic gestures (#dotcons posting, slogans, memes and corporate-sponsored campaigns) replace meaningful systemic action. It gives the illusion of progress while leaving the core issues untouched.
Gatekeeping change is more about chasing trends rather than structural transformation, the #fashernista mindset creates a kind of cultural gatekeeping. True progress, which often appears “messy” and challenges comfort zones, is sidelined in favour of ideas that are easier to sell to the mainstream.
A Devotion to self-destruction, at the core of the neo-liberal mess, is the worship of market forces as the ultimate solution to all human problems. This drives society toward environmental collapse, social disintegration, and increasing inequality, all while proclaiming itself as the only rational way to organise the world.
Market “common sense” holds that markets are inherently efficient, fair, and inevitable, even as they consistently fail to address systemic crises like climate change, economic inequality, and resource depletion.
Individualism as control, framing individuals as isolated, rational actors responsible for their own success or failure, the #deathcult deflects attention from structural oppression. This isolates people, making collective action more difficult and reinforcing the system’s power.
Growth at all costs is an obsession with endless economic growth, even on a finite planet. This suicidal drive underpins its “deathcult” nature: it sacrifices long-term survival for short-term profits.
Alienation is growing with the idea that people should rely solely on themselves, #stupidindividualism leaves people disconnected from community support systems. This alienation feeds despair and reinforces compliance with the status quo.
Consumerism is identity, with people being encouraged to define themselves by what they consume rather than what they contribute to society. This distracts from collective struggles and entrenches a culture of passivity.
Weaponised identity politics, while this postmodern movment started as a way to empower marginalised groups, in the hands of #stupidindividualism, it becomes a tool of division. Individuals focus on personal grievances rather than uniting across identities to address systemic oppression.
The #geekproblem is often technology without politics, which emerges from a belief that technology is inherently neutral and that its development can exist separately from politics, ethics, or social power structures. This naivety—or wilful blindness—results in tools that perpetuate the very problems they claim to solve.
Apolitical engineering, where technologists focus on building “innovative” tools without considering their social impacts. For instance, surveillance technologies are marketed as safety solutions while eroding privacy and empowering authoritarianism.
Centralisation in disguise when #FOSS, open-source and decentralised projects replicate centralised power dynamics as their creators fail to address underlying social issues. A decentralised system run by a different few is still elitist.
Failure to address root causes as the #geekproblem thrives on quick fixes and clever hacks rather than systemic paths leading to solutions. It too often assumes that technology alone can solve problems like poverty or climate change, ignoring the need for social, political and economic transformation.
We do need balence, why ignoring these messy forces may be the smarter path as confronting the #fashernista mindset, neo-liberal #deathcult, #stupidindividualism, and the #geekproblem head-on often feels like trying to swim against a tidal wave. These ideologies are deeply ingrained, and challenging them directly can result in burnout, frustration, and thus further entrenchment of the status quo.
The “shit-to-compost ratio” is a thing when engaging with these entrenched paths we end up uncovering a lot of “shit”—toxic debates, defensive reactions, and wasted energy. If this overwhelms the capacity to turn these challenges into productive change, the effort can become self-defeating. Sometimes instead of fighting these paths on their terms, it may be more effective to focus on building alternatives like the #OMN. By creating functioning, appealing models of community, solidarity, and sustainability, we can then push to make the current systems obsolete, this is “our” path not theres
Building alternatives is a #KISS path to counter the destructive ideologies and to demonstrate the viability of better paths. This means focusing on practical, community-driven tools and solutions that embody the values we want to see in the world.
An important question is why people can’t see this? The inability to recognise these dynamics stems from decades of cultural conditioning and structural manipulation.
Simple propaganda, The priest’s of neo-liberalism has spent decades shaping public perception, presenting it as the only viable path. Its dominance is so pervasive that many cannot imagine alternatives.
Cultural individualism, when people are taught to see themselves as isolated individuals rather than interconnected members of a society. This blinds them to the power of collective action.
Distractions built into consumer culture, social media, and the 24-hour news cycle keep people distracted and disengaged from any real systemic issues and paths.
Fear of change with the unknown being scary, and the idea of steping away from entrenched paths can feel overwhelming or even impossible.
To shine light we need to compost the stink of the dominant ideologies — reflected in the everyday #fashernista mindset, neo-liberal #deathcult, #stupidindividualism, and the #geekproblem. But yes this needs to be balenced as directly fighting these entrenched paths can often feel futile and counterproductive. Instead, we need to also focus on building the alternatives we want to see, like the #OMN, cooperative, community-driven, and grounded in solidarity.
By creating working paths of a diffrent future, we make the failures of the current path self-evident and offer a clear, appealing alternative path. The change won’t come from confrontation alone—it will come from living and demonstrating the values that these dead ideolgys refuse to acknowledge.
The #fediverse is a glimpse of a radically kind of society through decentralized and community-driven models of governance and organization. This path can be used to challenge traditional hierarchies and power structures, making it possible to resist the imposing liberal “common sense” solutions which align with existing control. On this very different path we need tools like #OGB (Open Governance Bodies) to grow native governance that is transparent, participatory, and empowering.
But one of the issues that is used to block the wider project move is the role of #fediverse, branding, while “common sense” sees as a unifying force, actually is as often imposes barriers to community ownership and agency. When centralized branding dictates the identity of a project, it stifles participation and creativity. To counteract this negative default path, we can:
Shift to Community Branding, with communities running instances to create their own visual and cultural identities. This empowers localized expressions while fostering ownership and pride.
Standardize for collaboration, develop shared guidelines for a cohesive experience, while maintaining flexibility for local adaptation.
Minimize branding barriers, by avoiding overly strong branding in open-source codebases to make technology easier for people and communities to adopt and customize.
This focus leads to a decentralized and inclusive ecosystem, where control is balanced with the communities rather than only developers and funders. Core to this is the path of challenging #StupidIndividualism, in this context the hashtag critiques the focus on individualistic thinking and self-serving branding in #openweb projects. To start to challenge this, we need to hold in place open dialogue on the power dynamics of branding and its impact on participation.
To keep flourishing, we need to focus on decentralized trust-based networks that amplify grassroots voices. Encourage messy, iterative approaches to activism that embrace the complexity of social change. Build #FOSS tools that empower communities to take control of their narratives, reclaiming native paths from centralized systems and corporate algorithms.
We need to counteract the entrenched despair of #mainstreaming paths to compost the mess for real, impactful change.
The following submission was recorded by NLnet. Thanks for your application, we look forward to learning more about your proposed project. Contact
name hamish campbell phone email hamish@visionon.tv organisation name OMN country UK consent You may keep my data on record
Project
code 2025-02-036 project name indymediaback fund Commons_Fund requested amount € 50000 website
https://unite.openworlds.info/indymedia
Synopsis
The #indymediaback is a Fediverse project about rebooting the radical grassroots media network, Indymedia, by anchoring it in trust-based #4opens (Open Data, Source, Process, and Standards). It prioritizes local, collective publishing as the foundation for global solidarity and counter-narratives. The project resists the co-option of #mainstreaming and #dotcons by decentralized, democratic governance and focusing on native, horizontal structures.
Expected outcomes include a revived independent media landscape that amplifies marginalized voices, balancing corporate and state narratives, and builds resilience against #posttruth misinformation. By composting the #geekproblem and embracing simplicity (#KISS), the project empower communities with sustainable, open tools for storytelling, activism, and solidarity. The goal is to seed a flourishing, cooperative #openweb native media as a part of the current activertypub based web reboot.
Experience
I’ve been actively engaged in #FOSS and #openweb projects for over 20 years, focusing on building grassroots, community-driven alternatives to centralized and corporate-controlled platforms. My work emphasizes creating and sustaining open, democratic, and resilient digital paths.
In the early days of the Fediverse, I ran five instances for the first five years, helping to seed the decentralized ecosystem that has since grown into a viable and widely recognized alternative to the #dotcons. This hands-on involvement gave me a deep understanding of the technical, social, and governance challenges of decentralized networks.
Since the launch of the ActivityPub standard, I’ve contributed to shaping the underlying paths that enable decentralized social networking. My work has facilitated discussions, advocating for grassroots perspectives, to ensure that the voices of smaller, community-oriented projects are heard amid broader efforts to standardize and scale the Fediverse.
My involvement includes engaging in advocacy, community building, and technical implementation, ensuring that open standards remain open and accessible. By bridging technical expertise with grassroots activism, I work to mediate the #geekproblem and bring human-centered, trust-based solutions to the forefront.
These experiences directly feed into the #indymediaback project, where I bring not only technical skills but also a rich history of working within collaborative, open frameworks. By combining lessons from past successes and challenges, we plan on contributing to building a robust #openweb ecosystem that stands resilient in these fragile social, ecological and technical times.
Usage
The budget for the #indymediaback project will be allocated to support the development, outreach, and sustainability of the initiative. Drawing on code from Ibis 0.2.0 https://ibis.wiki/article/Ibis_release_0.2.0_-_Federated_Wiki_with_Shiny_Redesign
Platform Development: Core Infrastructure: Building a lightweight, federated publishing platform that aligns with #openweb principles, based on a federated wiki approach like Ibis. This includes robust ActivityPub integration for seamless interconnectivity with the Fediverse. UI/UX enhancements on top of this to show and shape the media flows.
Community Support and Training: Workshops: Conducting training sessions to onboard activists, journalists, and developers onto the platform, focusing on decentralized publishing and governance. Documentation: Creating clear, multilingual resources to empower communities to use and extend the platform independently.
Outreach and Advocacy: Network Building: Expanding the grassroots network by collaborating with existing projects in the Fediverse and the broader #FOSS ecosystem. Awareness Campaigns: Promoting the importance of independent media and the dangers of the #closedweb to engage both activists and potential contributors.
Maintenance and Sustainability: Hosting Costs: Providing stable hosting for early adopters and community-managed hubs. Ongoing Development: Allocating resources for iterative updates, security improvements, and adapting/building code and UX from user feedback.
Past and Present Funding Sources: Historically, the #indymediaback project has operated with minimal funding, relying on volunteer efforts and community goodwill to sustain its activities. Some aspects, such as initial platform experimentation and hosting small-scale instances in the Fediverse, were supported by personal contributions and donations from allied groups.
While the project has not yet received large-scale institutional funding, it has benefited from the collaborative ethos of the #FOSS and #openweb communities. Moving forward, the project seeks to diversify funding sources by exploring grants, grassroots crowdfunding, and partnerships with aligned organizations. However, maintaining independence from corporate or agenda-driven funding remains a core principle to safeguard the radical and democratic essence of the initiative.
The requested budget will act as a seed, enabling the #indymediaback project to transition from concept to sustainable implementation.
Comparison
Comparison with Historical Indymedia: #Indymediaback: builds on the original ethos of news publishing and grassroots participation but adapts to modern needs with more robust and user-friendly technology. The project focuses on federated systems and decentralized governance to avoid the bottlenecks and centralization that hindered the original Indymedia.
Technology: early Indymedia used custom-built CMS platforms like DadaIMC, which were groundbreaking at the time but eventually became outdated. The lack of resources for updates and scalability led to significant challenges as the internet evolved.
Indymediaback: Leverages ActivityPub and the Fediverse, building on existing protocols and infrastructure while maintaining an open and adaptable architecture. This ensures scalability, security, and relevance in the evolving landscape of decentralized web technologies.
Comparison with Existing Fediverse Media Projects
Mastodon and Pixelfed, Flagships of the Fediverse project focused on microblogging, popularized ActivityPub and brought decentralized platforms into mainstream conversations. However, this success has also led to “NGO-style” #mainstreaming tendencies, with decisions catering to wider audiences rather than grassroots paths. Pixelfed: A decentralized alternative to Instagram, Pixelfed focuses on visual storytelling but often lacks the “news” path that #indymediaback seeks to prioritizes.
Indymediaback, unlike Mastodon or Pixelfed, explicitly targets “news” communities and grassroots content. Its focus is on collective storytelling and action, ensuring that it serves as a platform for organizing, not just broadcasting.
Lemmy and Kbin: Are Reddit-style platforms for community-driven forums, Lemmy demonstrates the potential for federated discussion but lacks the tools for journalistic workflows or media dissemination.
Bonfire Networks, is a federated platform emphasizing modularity, Bonfire aims to provide tools for diverse community needs. However, its roots in the #NGO space mean it struggles to align with actually relaverent to grassroots paths.
Expected Outcome: The #indymediaback project revitalize “native” media by combining the best aspects of the original Indymedia—open publishing, grassroots participation, and activist focus—with the technological and governance advancements of the Fediverse. The outcome is a resilient, federated news network that empowers communities to create, share, and amplify their stories, freed from the constraints of corporate platforms and institutional agendas. This reboot provides a necessary counterbalance to the #closedweb and an avenue for meaningful news in these trubaled “post truth” times.
Federated Open Publishing: Developing a robust, ActivityPub-compatible open-publishing system to handle collaborative content creation and moderation at scale.
Scalability and Usability: Ensuring the platform can support diverse communities while remaining accessible to non-technical users.
Trust and Governance: Implementing transparent moderation tools and decentralized governance to balance openness with accountability.
Interoperability: Seamlessly integrating with existing Fediverse platforms while providing unique activist-focused features.
Ecosystem
The ecosystem focus on empowering local activists, citizen journalists, and independent media organizations, providing them with tools for collaborative storytelling, decentralized publishing, and grassroots governance.
Key Ecosystem Actors:
Fediverse Platforms: Like Mastodon, Pixelfed, Peertube form the foundation for connecting and amplifying diverse communities. #indymediaback interoperates with these platforms, enriching the Fediverse with news-focused capabilities while leveraging their existing user bases.
Citizen journalists: community reporters, and activists will be the core creaters of the platform. The project will provide tools for collaborative content creation, transparent moderation, and open publishing to ensure their voices are heard.
Developers and technologists: open-source developers and technologists in the Fediverse and ActivityPub communities will play a critical role in refining and scaling the platform. The project will actively engage with forums like SocialHub to share progress, seek feedback, and align with broader Fediverse standards.
Grassroots organizations: Non-profits, collectives, and activist networks will be key collaborators. By building a decentralized news outlet, the project amplifys their impact while fostering cross-community solidarity.
Engagement Strategies: Collaborative development, hosting regular open sprints, hackathons, and discussions within the Fediverse to build a strong, participatory development culture.
Community support: Dedicated onboarding and user support resources will ensure seamless adoption by non-technical people and communities. Tutorials, workshops, and community-led training will help bridge the digital divides.
Outreach and partnerships: The project will engage with existing Fediverse admins, moderators, and activists to build a coalition for shared goals, promoting the outcomes through federated content streams and cross-platform collaborations.
