Scaling federated networks and codebases: A human-centred balance

To put this into a social path, scaling is a double-edged sword – it can be both good and bad, depending on how it’s done.

Good, because when things scale well, people don’t have to worry, systems run smoothly, communities thrive, and services become accessible.
Bad, because the strength of a healthy network lies in staying small-scale, transparent, and human. The moment something becomes too big, it starts to lose the relational dynamics that gave it value in the first place.

So, how do we balance this? The idea is that codebases and networks need to scale just enough, not infinitely, but to the point where they can support a human-scale community. After that point, it’s not only acceptable but preferable if they start to strain or fail under pressure. That friction is a feature, not a bug, it nudges people to move to federate rather than stay and centralize.

What does “enough” mean? “Enough” isn’t a fixed number, but a pattern, a community of a few hundred to a few thousand accounts. Of these, perhaps 15–25% are very active, contributing most of the content, moderation, and tagging. This scale is large enough for rich conversation and diverse activity, but still small enough for shared context and trust, low moderation overhead, organic relationships and accountability. Once a community grows beyond this range, organic moderation and social cohesion break down, leading to noise, exploitation, or the #mainstreaming call for reliance on impersonal algorithmic solutions, the very things OMN path wants to avoid.

Federation is the healthy scaling path we need to take. Rather than “scaling up” in a single, monolithic instance, the sustainable way is to scale, is out through federation. That is, build many interconnected human-scale communities, each managing itself. Using shared protocols, metadata flows, and trust tagging to connect communities meaningfully. Respect local autonomy, while allowing content, trust, and culture to flow between nodes. This model mirrors healthy ecosystems, small habitats working together rather than being swallowed by a single “concrete” system.

Why this matters for #FOSS codebases? Software should be designed to reflect and reinforce this human-scale path. Keeping systems lightweight and maintainable for small teams, to enable interoperability and modular design, so communities can fork, adapt, or remix code to suit local needs. It’s core to this path to accept that codebases don’t need to scale infinitely, they only need to scale enough to support the next healthy layer of federation.

The right question isn’t “Can this scale to millions?” but “Can this be easily cloned, modified, and federated by others?” By embracing “ENOUGH” as a limit and a guide, we ensure our networks stay rooted in trust, flexible in form, and resilient by design. Growth becomes a matter of spreading seeds, not building towers.

Don’t be a prat, please try and recognize the roots of issues

Horizontal people always get fucked over by vertical people. This is normal, why? Because horizontals give away power to build social fabric, while verticals hoard and concentrate power to extract and dominate. Every. Single. Time.

And the only thing that makes horizontals work, in the face of such mess making, is shared worldview, which we currently lack. Instead, we’ve got swarms of #stupidindividualism, where everyone thinks they’re the centre of the universe, interpreting everything as if their personal “common sense” whims are political strategy. And then, surprise! We keep getting steam rolled.

An example, let’s bring in the rot of #postmodernism, the #pomo guy proudly clams that “Ah, but classification requires a classifier!” This is what #postmodernism does to your brain. It unplugs you from reality while pretending it’s insight. It’s true that classifiers precede categories linguistically. But the material world precedes both. Rocks didn’t need a PhD to be granite.

This kind of derangement isn’t just stupid, it’s systemically useful to the #deathcult. Because if you believe that value only exists if humans assign it, then a tree has no value unless it can be turned into toilet paper. A whale has no value unless it can be monetized or aestheticized. Nature becomes valueless. And so it’s obliterated.

Meanwhile, people in the #fediverse are still pretending codebases matter more than people. No. The value of the Fediverse is in the humans running the instances and inhabiting them. Not the bloody Git repos. Without people, the code is just more maths.

On this #FOSS path, don’t be a prat. Recognize the root issue:

The #geekproblem
The collapse of shared worldview
The enshrinement of individual narcissism over collective meaning
The complete #deathcult worship of self pushed by our #nastyfew

Let’s compost this mess. #OMN #OGB #4opens #indymediaback

Can people engage with #4opens process?

The #4opens is a completely obverse social restating of the #FOSS development model, but with a critical edition: The return of #openprocess, something we’ve lost over the last 10 years due to the shift from public email archives to our reliance on encrypted chat.

With this in mind, what is still #blocking the #openweb reboot? One thing I’ve learned from the last five years of this reboot is this: The #geekproblem is inadequate for the scale of change and challenge we face. Currently, the #geekproblem is HARD #blocking, obstructing both, funding, and tech direction. Think: #NLNet, #NGIZero, #SummerOfProtocols, #InvestInOpen, they say the right words, have potential, but are actually #blindly caught in a loop of the same limiting #blocking patterns.

This is why we need activism, this can be #spiky, sometimes all it takes Is a rock or a stick. Think of Greek shepherd dogs in the mountains, they come at you like wolves. But just bending down to pick up a rock or stick? They back off. No violence. Just clarity and intention. Think of the #4opens like this when facing #mainstreaming, suddenly, it starts to make sense.

Nuts and nutters, Yes ]- you’re right, this can sound like blinded ideology. But remember: Humans are meaning-creating creatures. One word for that is ideology – there are others: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synonym

If we can compost this mess, that’s a big if, will the #OMN Work? Simple answer: Yes.
Complex answer: No. My answer to that riddle? We find the complex by implementing the simple. That’s the #KISS principle in action. Walk the simple path, we discover our way through the complex path by implementing and walking the simple #KISS.

#Mainstreaming = #Deathcult Worship

Most mainstream agendas are pointless. Why? Because they’re built on “common sense”. Which today often just means #deathcult worship. Something to keep in mind… whenever you’re doing anything that matters. Hope this slight poetry piece helps. One thing I keep saying, please don’t be a prat, thanks.

Rebooting the #openweb in a good way

The #Fediverse exists, and more than that, it’s alive and kicking. Sure, it might be a messy, chaotic, a bit fragmented, and yes, still niche. But let’s not underplay it, this is the healthiest corners of the internet we’ve got. Tens of million accounts, hundreds of thousands active people, and some are sometimes talking about how we build our digital spaces from the bottom up.

Yep, there are the cat videos, the #fluffys and the #spikys. But also an in-group debate is bubbling away about who speaks for the Fediverse? What defines it? Is it the standard #ActivityPub that binds us only technically? Or is the value in the community that’s formed it, the living web of relationships, servers, instances, and admins making this work day-in-day-out? Truth is, it’s both. #activitypub without community is just code. Community without #activitypub is just another silo waiting to collapse. They are not the same, but they are inseparable. To build something real, we need to nurture both the tech and the people.

What works in the #Fediverse is decentralisation with purpose, it works because it resists centralisation. It gives people choices, want a cat picture, instance? A political instance? A hyper-local or themed space? You install and build it, and people might come. This is #DIY grassroots digital culture in motion. Standards support this growth, #ActivityPub, like #RSS before, may not be perfect, but it’s open, extensible, and functional. It allows platforms and networks to talk to one another. This is a real #4opens foundation for collaboration, not control. That’s the kind of architecture we need in the #openweb reboot.

What doesn’t currently work is the over-reliance on hard blocking as a solution, with the common approach to problems is too often to block, users, instances, entire classes of servers like the #dotcons. While this kinda makes sense in the short term, it’s not a long-term strategy. It’s the digital equivalent of putting your head in the sand. You’re not solving the problem, you’re just not looking at it any more. This has the strong tendency to feed the “Cave Mentality” where some corners of the Fediverse are in defensive mode, retreating into smaller and smaller bubbles, avoiding engagement, trying to build perfection behind walls. But hiding from the mess doesn’t clean it up. If the #openweb becomes too closed, it dies from within. Openness is a value, not just a setting.

This is in part due to a lack of collective strategy, yes we’ve got the passion. We’ve got the tools. What we’re missing is a shared direction. The is currently too much reinventing the wheel, too many forks without purpose, not enough joining the dots. A thousand flowers bloom, but the garden needs tending.

#nothingnew is a basic tool about this, then there is the use of the #4opens, we need to make the #Fediverse and every layer of the #openweb, measurably open. That means: Open Data: accessible and remixable content. Open Source: transparent and forkable codebases. Open Standards: like #ActivityPub, that let different platforms interconnect. Open Process: decision-making in public, with participation and accountability.

The #4opens framework is a guide, not to perfection, but to direction. It’s a map toward trust, decentralisation, and sustainability. On this path, we need to build culture, not only code. Healthy communities don’t just appear, they’re built. Instead of building tech features, let’s also build social norms. Encourage, informative, welcome messages, transparent moderation, shared spaces for discussion. Moderation and admin is labour, support it, reward it and most importantly decentralise it.

To build community, don’t shy away from engagement. It’s tempting to block and move on. But sometimes, the hard work is worth it, call things out, talk things through, escalate when needed, but don’t disengage by default. We need active participation, not digital ghost towns. If we want the #Fediverse to grow, we need to build bridges, not walls. Let’s weave human trust networks to grow spaces that are porous, where new people can enter, learn, contribute, and stay. This is the work of social federation, which is just as important as technical federation.

There is a bigger picture if you are interested and are motivated to look, the #OMN, Open Media Network project is a vision and collective path for this kind of social architecture. It’s a federated network of media hubs, rooted in community, powered by open standards, and guided by human trust. It doesn’t seek control, it offers #KISS tools to build trust, add value, and create meaningful networks from the ground up. On this “native” path, rather than rejecting “bad actors” by exclusion, we build systems that surface good actors through collective tagging, trusted feeds, and editorial flows. Moderation becomes a feature, not a bug.

Final thought, let’s not repeat the mistakes of the past. The last 20 years of alt-tech is a graveyard of well-meaning platforms that failed because they forgot one thing, the humans. The #geekproblem has been building “perfect” systems with no one in them. That’s not the #openweb we want. We need less abstraction, more interaction. Less control, more cooperation. And above all, we need to recognise that openness requires work, but it also delivers freedom. So yes, the Fediverse exists. It’s healthy. But it can and needs to be more. Let’s stop hiding. Let’s start building. Together.

#Fediverse #OMN #4opens #OpenWeb #IndymediaBack #SocialTechnology #AltTech #Decentralisation #FOSS #MakeHistory #ActivityPub #OGB #SocialCoding

What software do social justice activists need?

First we need to look at the core problem for the last 20 years has been that most activists were locked into #dotcons (corporate social media silos) because open alternatives were either too difficult to use, lack network effects, or fail to meet their practical needs. With the current reboot of the #openweb with the #fedivers based on #ActivityPub we have already taken a step away from this mess.

From my experience, here’s what’s needed from a software development perspective to break out of this mess. Open & accessible publishing networks. Activists need easy ways to publish and share information outside corporate-controlled platforms. Right now, #Fediverse is a first step, tools like #Mastodon and #PeerTube exist, but they are still largely copies of centralized platforms rather than native alternatives that work for any working grassroots media.

To take the second step in alt tech we need a native decentralized, trust-based publishing network (#OMN is the example I am working on) Bridging tools to syndicate content between #dotcons and open platforms. Better “unbranded” discovery tools for surfacing trusted grassroots content (think of a federated search engine that’s not controlled by Google)

The third step of secure yet open communication, is already mostly in place. Activists do need to secure yet transparent communication tools that balance privacy with accessibility. Right now, many are stuck using encrypted corporate platforms like #WhatsApp and #Telegram, which create spy silos and exclude people who purposely don’t have the apps. Projects like #Signal and XMPP chat kinda work in this space, so this is not a strong social tech focus, but is a social issue to work on getting people to use the tools.

Finally, the type of project we do need #indymediaback, #makeinghistory, #OGB and the base #OMN coding. There is a continuing need for resilient infrastructure, hosting and sysadmin alongside sustainable funding tools for activists’ websites, blogs, and tools. Currently, these tools often get taken down due to coordinated attacks and lack of resources. On the more dev side of this path, hybrid peer-to-peer hosting solutions (so sites can stay online even under attack) could be useful to bridge current client server tools.

There’s a roadmap, but the problem is developer focus and funding. If you’re serious about helping, check out the stalled dev work on https://unite.openworlds.info and see how it can be set in motion, please. If you’re a dev who wants to make a real impact, this is a good place to look.

The issue, we need to work more on, with #FOSS tech development, the failure of many #FOSS projects, is a failure to move from theory to practice. The issue is that developers work in isolation, disconnected from grassroots needs, and get lost in perfectionism rather than delivering functional prototypes.

The #geekproblem dominates, with coders prioritize control, abstract debates, and self-contained experiments over practical, usable tools for real-world communities. This is why projects stall: they are not built with activists in mind. Meanwhile, centralized platforms continue to consolidate power, because they offer simple, accessible, and functional solutions, despite their deep and nasty flaws.

To break this cycle, we need:

Practical iteration, build rough, working solutions rather than endless theorizing.
#4opens culture, embrace open process, standards, and real collaboration.
Bridging solutions, tech that activists can actually use, not just developer-driven experiments.
Funding models beyond #NGO traps, so projects remain independent and sustainable.

The fight for the #openweb is not only about resisting #dotcons but creating alternatives people can and will use. Can we move beyond abstraction and actually make history?

Please.

The #mainstreaming mess

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 #OMN hashtag 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 is soft blocking change and challenge in tech

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 behaviours 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 we are trying to move away from. 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 to often rigid coding paths.

The root 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 useful to see this as the spirit of the age, a battle that has become a worldwide issue affecting both corporate platforms and alternative technology movements alike. To move away from tis mess, 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. What can people do practically, the #4opens provide a clear path out of this mess, but the geek world’s obsession with control constantly obstructs this path.

Let’s look at our current work on this, how breaking the blocks is needed to shift this balance. The first step in this movement is to recognize that the current approach in the #Fediverse 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, are about challenging 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, not simply recreate the same mess, with shiny coverings.

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.

We need this non-mainstreaming movement, a truly radical path to break free from the invisible constraints that now seem like common sense to to meany people. One way is 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 an answer to this problem. By using the #4opens as a foundation, we build open and transformative alternative to both #dotcons and alt-tech dead ends. But to get there, we must first overcome the 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 shapes 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, #KISS 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.

The choice is ours. Let’s make it wisely.

A shift back to radical values and paths

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.

#KISS

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.

Why grassroots hosting and the #openweb matter

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. ✊

This post is in reply to @alberto@albertoventurini.com

#NLnet #EU #NGI #NGIzero – Will we get it right this time?

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.

UPDATE: they did not

Activism for tech development and #FOSS paths

Open source was always political, the very idea of #FOSS was always a radical, left-leaning stance.

Let’s be honest, you’re giving away your labour.
Not for profit, not for career points,
but because you believe we’d all be better off together
if we stopped rewriting the same bits of code in isolation
and started building commons instead of empires.

That’s not apolitical – that’s solidarity.

The #openweb was never just about better software.
It was about building a world where cooperation
beats competition,
where transparency outlasts control,
and where freedom comes from sharing, not hoarding.

People forget this because the #dotcons spent twenty years
repackaging #4opens code into the thin layer of closed platforms,
wrapping our collective labour in corporate branding,
and calling it “innovation.”
They turned our commons into their capital.

But the roots of the movement, the #4opens,
the free software ethos, the hacker culture of mutual aid –
were never neutral.
They were radical acts of refusal.
Refusal to sell out creativity.
Refusal to turn knowledge into property.
Refusal to let gatekeepers define what freedom means.

So yes, the open source community is political.
It always has been.
Every act of collaboration is a quiet rebellion
against the isolation and control of the #deathcult.

When you write open code, you’re not just solving problems –
you’re composting capitalism.
You’re proving that another way of working exists,
that cooperation scales better than greed,
and that shared tools make freer people.

That’s why projects like the #OMN (Open Media Network) matter.
They’re not just technical, they’re social, cultural, revolutionary.
They remind us that freedom isn’t built on code alone,
but on the courage to share, to trust, and to keep things open
when everything around us screams for control.

Open source was always political, it’s time we remembered what side it was on.

To look at why this is important, we need to move outside the comfort zones of #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.

#KISS

Bridging the gap: Building a human-first #openweb

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 is why we focus on the #OMN path, human trust networks over algorithms. One of the core goals is to learn from these past successes and failures. From these focus on growing federated human communities by prioritising openness, trust, and collaboration over any 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 real 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 working federated structure in place.

Scale through federation creates organic growth.

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 we value.

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 VALUE point of decentralisation. Automation creates middling-quality networks with mediocre outcomes, leading to Signal-to-Noise problems that, in the end, reduces 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 path 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 “common sense” 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.