Tag: FOSS

Programming mission: Let’s fix the Fediverse discovery gap

Here’s a small but powerful challenge for #openweb builders – and a perfect #DIY project if you’re fed up with the current #geekproblem. I’ve been trying to find #Fediverse instances that actually cover my town, Oxford, UK, so I can help promote and grow them locally. You’d think this would be simple, right? But… nope.

Tried the standard “instance pickers”? Dead ends. Tried generic web searches? Useless #SEO sludge. Tried maps like this one, a good start https://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/fediverse-near-me_828094#7/52.076/-1.714, but nothing covering Oxford.

Why is this happening? Because our current tools focus only on technical facts (server specs, software used, uptime, etc.) and ignore the uncontrolled (dangerous) metadata that actually makes discovery meaningful:

  • What’s the instance for?
  • Who does it serve?
  • What community does it represent?
  • Where is it rooted geographically or socially?

This is the #geekproblem in action: great code, but no way to find things people actually want to use. What’s the fix? Someone (maybe you?) creates a community-focused discovery tool that:

  • Encourages instance admins to tag with location, community, topics, etc.
  • Provides search/filter UI that works for real people, not sysadmins
  • Uses the Fediverse’s open standards (#ActivityPub + #microformats) to pull this info in
  • Maybe even integrates with OpenStreetMap or a simple opt-in geo-tagged registry
  • Outputs something friendly – like “Find your Fediverse community in your town”

This is not a hard project, it’s a weekend hack for someone who cares, but it has social value as it helps bridge infrastructure to lived communities. This need to be at the core of the #openweb reboot.

So for people who can’t see why this matter. If we want the Fediverse to grow beyond techies and Twitter refugees, we need to help people find their people, local discovery is key. Place-based communities are still powerful, especially when rebuilding trust, mutual aid, and shared media in a collapsing world.

So, want a simple mission? Build a tool that helps people find #Fediverse instances by town, city, or region. Start with Oxford, but make it global. Make it open. Make it federated. And when you do? I’ll be the first to push it out.

#Fediverse #OMN #openweb #4opens #FediverseDiscovery #programmingchallenge #Geekproblem #MutualAid #CodeForGood #FOSS #localweb #trustnotcontrol #KISS

Update: my suggestion of path, a simple UX:

A few dropdowns over the map,

  • Region (countries are regions, anti-nationalistic)
  • City/area (a county or city)
  • local (village, area in city)
  • Them maybe latter hyper local (but not for now)

Then we have subject – it would be normal to have a multi subject hashtag map, that updates on each click – adding the clicks to a list on the side – with “new button” to jump back to start.

Then you have advanced for the normal tech stuff… which currently is the front end on most pickers. This would also be displayed on the info box for each instance on the map, so still central, just not AT THE FRONT.

UPDATE: can just pull all the existing data out of the current sites like https://instances.social/list#lang=en&allowed=&prohibited=&min-users=&max-users= as these are all #4opens. So the projected site could be up and running with full data in little time. Yes, you would have to ask people to tag their installs to geolocate their instances. This could be done a hard way or a simple #KISS way like any admin in the instance adding a #hashtag with a geolocation hashtag after it. Then periodically go through the instance list and spider all admins on each instance if you find the hashtag – add the next hashtag as a geolocation or something as #KISS simple as this. What is your idea?

Ideas in comments, please.

UPDATE: this is this one https://fediverse.observer/map works better still nothing in Oxford – it seems to be pretty random with little relevance to subject and area, is it by IP address eo location, that would be #geekproblem

Why Doesn’t Every City Have a Fediverse Server?

This is a story of power, plain and simple

The state of the world, over the last few years, we’ve been watching a familiar story unfold, we’ve seen repeat itself in radical spaces, tech movements, and grassroots networks for decades. It starts in the grassroots with “progressive” #fashernistas (yes, them) pushing themselves into the front to speak for “us.” They talk the talk of decentralisation, care, community, and #FOSS ethics. They wear all the right hashtags: #opensocialmedia, #Fediverse, #commons, #techforgood. But when you look at how power is actually exercised behind the scenes, it’s something else entirely. This is a story of power, plain and simple. Not in the dramatic “revolutionary” sense. But in the subtle creep of careerism, institutional capture, and “safe” social capital games that flatten the real radical and uplifts the fake “palatable”.

Let’s take a few examples from the #activertypub world, first with the #SocialHub stagnation, this open space was originally created by the grassroots crew to shape the standards of the decentralised web. On the surface It was a working common, protocol-building and governance exploration space. So, what happened? The people now “leading” came from lifestyle #fashionista activism and wannabe #NGO circuits, who in the end were all trying to be embedded in the institutional funding environments, or visiting from the safe academic bubble. And thus they brought with them the dogmas of safe spaces, of “emotional consensus,” “hidden affinity group governance,” and “(ex)inclusive dialogue”… that JUST SO happened to exclude the radical and messy paths that are actually native to the #openweb flows, the bad mess they then made, ended up only pushing the dogma of the #geekprolem as it was the ONLY path they could imagine controlling in a way that would not threaten the thin connection to the institutions they were feeding from. This behaviour so often slips into forms of parasitism, that is not a good thing at all.

Then we have the current #Fediverse outreach infrastructure capture, where we’ve seen the same class of actors attach themselves to the most visible projects – like Mastodon, ActivityPub standards, and now “Fediverse governance.” They secure seats on boards. They host conferences with glossy branding and friendly logos. Not only that, but they use these controlled spaces to then push out “code of conduct” documents and “safe space” branding… while closing and excluding the real working infrastructure of discussion and direction that is should be native and needed.

Examples? #Mastodon’s GitHub, issue tracking, and moderation are all tightly controlled by a small clique around the project founder. Community voices are kinda tolerated at best, discarded at worst. The project is moving onto the #NGO path, no bad thing in its self, but with its years of pushing its own branding as THE Fediverse, it becomes a bad thing. In this, there is a very real debt of damage they need to pay back – as a part of a functioning gift economy – saying sorry and admitting mistakes would be a good limited first step.

Then we have the example of the #FediForum events, pushing into the space blindly, with zero historical context or any shared knowledge, to talk over, “represent” the #activertypub ecosystem. The problem is beyond this mess, they paywalled, which lead “naturally” to increasingly gate keeping with #NGO commercial interests being pushed to the front to represent “us”. When the radical and experienced grassroots voices obviously don’t get involved, as they simply refuse to step over the paywall. This is now an ongoing mess, that we do need to compost and not only with #fashionista outrage but with real working paths, we used to do this, but we can’t any more – why?

Over the last few years we have had proposals for genuine horizontal governance, that could have been used to shift this mess making and to actually shifts power outward – but these were labelled “too messy,” “too political,” or “not the right time.” This is not accidental, it is #liberalism functioning as control – with a smile. So… what can we do? Let’s be clear: This is a power issue, it’s not only about bad intentions. It’s about how power is used, and then abused, even in the so-called “horizontal” paths.

The first thing we have to do is recognise the smell of #NGO-style liberalism that so easily hides itself in good intentions, grants, DEI language, and “process.” But it then ends up:

  • Disempowering community autonomy
  • Replacing radical potential with “professionalism”
  • Marginalising away activists and messy real-world projects
  • Recreating the same vertical hierarchies, just with better “open” branding

Composting this is needed to break the cycle:

  1. Build and back native projects. The only way to push back against capture is to grow infrastructure from within our communities, like: #OMN (Open Media Network) #OGB (Open Governance Body). These must be trust-based, not credential-based. That means supporting those doing the work without demanding they translate it into pointless and most importantly powerless NGO-speak to be taken seriously.
  2. Use the #4opens as a filter, this simple social retelling of #FOSS is designed precisely to push out the 95% of #techshit and focus energy on projects with: Open source Open data Open standards Open governance. Apply these consistently, and the parasite class will struggle to keep and find a foothold.
  3. Push for messy, lived governance, stop waiting for perfect systems. We need to prototype imperfect, transparent, accountable governance now. It should be: Based on trust, not rules-lawyering Driven by use, not representation Grounded in solidarity, not status
  4. Refuse the “leader class”, just because someone has a title, a grant, or a #dotcons following, doesn’t mean they speak for us. Call out the unaccountable influence. Politely or not. Let’s not let careerists write our futures, please.

The Fediverse path could be the most important #openweb reboot of the commons of this decade. But it will only be that if we keep it rooted in social power, not polished #PR and #NGO mess. We don’t need new kings. We need more gardeners, to work together to compost the piles of #techshit and keep the space open and safe.

I think when our #fahernistas say to us “what have we done, please be nice to us, you’re not welcoming.” We need to reply: Am happy to be nice #KISS, just stop being a prat in this space please.

It’s really simple, please stop being (an often nasty) prat.

The Mess We Make (Again… and again)

Getting through this era of collapse with anything humane intact

The discussions on sovereignty at #NGIForum2025 make me wonder: what year are we in? It’s as if we’re rebooting grassroots conversations we’ve had for decades – but without the mess, memory, or movement that gave them meaning in the first place.

A breath of clarity came from @renchap, who said it plainly:

We need to focus our efforts on funding and supporting public value network infrastructure… THAT CANNOT BE BOUGHT. 💪

Absolutely. If that idea resonates with you, try starting with the #4opens – a pragmatic path to build tech with real accountability and openness. It’s not a utopia, it’s a filter designed to push out 95% of the #techshit we’re constantly drowning in. The rest? That’s the work: compromise, community, governance.

For those curious about mapping this stuff, I appreciate the attempt to formalize governance components of digital commons here: https://commons.mattischneider.fr/2-constituants It’s useful, but my take? Still not messy enough to reflect how real-world horizontal projects actually work. As the site rightly says:

“If you already have experience in operating commons, you or your organisation will probably have specific practices that are more appropriate to your context.”

Exactly, why context matters, and why real commons need trust-based governance, not just metrics and diagrams. Let’s remember:

Tools are only useful if people use them.
And that’s our real problem right now.

Take this audience question as a clear example: What should we do when a US company acquires an EU one – like Cisco buying Slido? It hits the core issue:

Centralized, vertical control is always the endgame of VC funding and the mainstream tech stack.

What’s the mainstream response? Push more AI. Push more “innovation.” Push more #stupidindividualism. This story is heavily funded and constantly amplified. Why? Because it keeps us distracted, divided, and demobilized. We need to compost this garbage.

Let’s stop pretending #opensource is the goal. It’s only useful if it lives in common infrastructure, owned and governed collectively, with embedded solidarity, not slogans. Yes, someone pointed out that:

"Open source licensing permits continued operation of the software with an EU provider."

That’s technically true, but in practice, how many such transitions actually happen? How many of these tools become hollowed-out ghost projects after the buyout? We need the EU to fund #4opens #FOSS and commons-native projects directly, not startups chasing exit strategies.

And yes, I’ll be blunt here: 

There’s likely a whole class of people who should be prosecuted for fraud.

Because the current “innovation” circuit is knowingly wasting public money on private gain under “our” banner of openness. It’s a con. A parasitic class living off the #countercultures they parasitise. So let’s call this out, not to “disrupt” for disruption’s sake, but to open up space for what actually matters:

  • Native projects with shared roots in code, care, and community.
  • Activism that isn’t tacked on for #PR, but central to the infrastructure itself.
  • Horizontal governance that embraces mess, rather than paving over it.

We don’t need more products, we don’t need more platforms, we don’t need more panels pushing safe #neoliberal “common sense.” What we do need is to build and protect infrastructure that can’t be bought, captured, or silenced. Because that’s the only way we’re getting through this era of collapse with anything humane intact.

#NGIForum #NGIForum25 #4opens #OMN #openweb #techshit #commonsnotplatforms #mutualaid #FOSS #trustnotcontrol #liberalcapture #activismtech #geekproblem

Oxford: Going with The Flow

A call-out for collective tech with teeth

It’s important to be honest about the messy world we’re working in. Just about every so-called “alternative tech” or #opensocialweb event, especially the ones run under #NGO banners, ends up riddled with institutional parasites. They talk endlessly about ethics, governance, decentralisation, and community, but their real role is to capture energy rather than release it. The value produced in these spaces is minimal, a few worthwhile corridor conversations, maybe a useful contact or two, but structurally they overwhelmingly reproduce the status quo rather than challenge it.

What we’re watching is the #mainstreaming of dissent itself. Change gets reshaped into something passive, safe, marketable, and grant-friendly. The focus shifts from building to branding, from autonomy to funding cycles, the result – performative process replacing meaningful action.

At the same time, many people inside these spaces are so used to the #feudalism baked into current #FOSS governance models – gatekeepers, toxic meritocracy, invisible hierarchies, and endless procedural blocking – that they struggle to imagine moving beyond them. Instead of recognising the limits of these structures, they double down on them, in practice, becoming a culture of #blocking disguised as principled caution.

This is why the #OGB project (Open Governance Body) takes a radically different path of build it permissionlessly and let it loose. No waiting for approval, no begging institutions for funding, no asking gatekeepers to validate the work before it can begin. Just creating space where people can actually do things together, openly and socially. If something works, people will use it and build on it. If it fails, we compost it and try another approach. What matters is breaking out of the dead ritual cycle of conferences, grant applications, strategy decks, and carefully managed “community engagement”.

The insight we need is that there is a much larger group of people beyond the usual tech and activist circles who can be empowered by technology – if the structures are simple, social, and human enough. Most people do not want to spend their lives fighting inside issue trackers, governance debates, or foundation politics. They want tools that help them cooperate, share resources, build resilience, and support each other in practical ways.

The technical side matters, of course. The tools need to exist. But many of the ideas already exist. What has been missing is a path that does not instantly collapse back into control, capture, and institutional inertia.

That’s why #OGB follows a #KISS approach. It is not about designing perfect systems. It is about creating simple enough structures that communities can actually pick them up, use them, and evolve them over time. Living processes rather than frozen frameworks. Something grounded enough to function socially instead of becoming another endless GitHub argument or abandoned grant proposal.

And honestly, people are up shit creek without a paddle right now. Most of what gets presented as “innovation” or “solutions” is simply more #techshit wrapped in cleaner UX and polished #fashionista language. If we want people to find different ways forward, we need to build different places for them to stand. That means creating tech ecosystems rooted in social trust, creativity, mutual aid, and practical autonomy – not more extractive platforms or professionalised NGOs performing change while maintaining dependency.

There is also the deeper cultural problem of apathy and laissez-faire fatalism. People know the system is failing, but many no longer believe meaningful change is possible. Decades of neoliberalism and #deathcult politics have trained people to internalise defeat before they even begin. This means we need to design structures that can survive low energy, inconsistency, and uneven participation. Systems that do not depend on constant enthusiasm or perfect behaviour to keep functioning. Systems that can hold space through both momentum and exhaustion.

This is where there is real room for creativity and care – not just in what we build, but in how we build it, and who we build it with. Not glossy pitch decks not self-promoting conferences, not another round of empty institutional networking. Compost piles and messy gardens are a better metaphor.

Things that live.
Things that adapt.
Things that root themselves in everyday needs.
Things that people can actually inhabit together.

That is the path worth building.

The #OGB project is just one shovel. But there are others. Pick one up, the ground’s ready.

Telegram messaging app is dieing

Telegram partnering with Elon’s #AI to distribute #Grok inside chats is a clear line crossed. This matters because private data ≠ training fodder, bringing Grok (or any #LLM) into messaging apps opens the door to pervasive data harvesting and normalization of surveillance.

This is an example of platform drift: Telegram was always sketchy (proprietary, central control, opaque funding), but this is active betrayal of its user base, especially those in repressive regions who relied on it.

Any #LLM like Grok in chats = always-on observer: Even if “optional,” it becomes a trojan horse for ambient monitoring and a normalization vector for AI-injected communication.

“Would be better if we had not spent 20 years building our lives and societies around them first.”

That’s the #openweb lesson in a sentence, that the #dotcons will kill themselves. This is what we mean by “use and abuse” of these platforms which have been driven by centralization, adtech, and data extraction, that they inevitably destroy the trust that made them popular. It’s entropy baked into their #DNA. As Doctorow calls this #enshitification, the tragedy is how much time, emotion, and culture we invested in them – only to have to scramble for alternatives once they inevitably betray us.

What to do now, first step, remove data from your account then delete telegram app, not just for principle, but for your own safety. Move to alternatives – #Signal for encrypted, centralized messaging (trusted but closed server). There are other more #geekproblem options in the #FOSS world but like #XMPP, #RetroShare, or good old email+GPG can work too, but they can be isolating, so stick to #signal if you’re at all #mainstreaming.

Then the second step, build parallel #4opens paths by supporting and develop alt infrastructure like the #Fediverse (Mastodon, Lemmy, etc.), #OMN (Open Media Network – decentralized media), XMPP and #p2p-first protocols, #DAT/#Hypercore, #IPFS, or #Nostr etc.

Yeah, things will get worse before they get better, what we’re seeing now is the terminal phase of the #dotcons era. These companies are devouring themselves and will eventually collapse under the weight of their contradictions. The question is, will we have built anything to replace them?

If not, authoritarian tech (like Elon’s empire) fills the void. That’s why we rebuild the “native” #openweb, even if it’s slow, messy, and underground. That’s why projects like #OMN and #Fediverse matter. If you’re reading this, you’re early to the rebuild, welcome, let’s do better this time.

The #OMN View – The Dogma of Anti-Dogma: Rainbow Gatherings

In the alt paths we need to talk about a circler familiar mess: when movements that are open, non-hierarchical, and anti-authoritarian end up recreating the hierarchical problems they set out to escape. This is the “dogma of anti-dogma”, and you see it everywhere, the example I am using here is in groups like the Rainbow Gatherings.

The Rainbow Gatherings have deep roots in 1970s counterculture. Born from the peace and ecology movements, it emerged with a back-to-the-land, anti-establishment, peace-and-love spirit. Think spiritual communes, consensus meetings, and gatherings deep in the forest – far from the control of the state or #mainstreaming system. For #FOSS tech, this sound familiar? It mirrors much of “native” internet culture and resonates strongly with what we’re trying to grow through the #openweb today, in projects like the #OMN.

In the 50-year history of Gathering’s, there are no leaders, no money, no official permissions. People just show up. Communal kitchens are built, spaces are created for kids, elders, ceremonies, workshops. At the heart is the “Open Centre,” where anyone can speak, sing, or simply be. It’s grassroots in its purest form. When it balances, it becomes a lived example of radical inclusivity and cooperation. But as in any movement, issues emerge, beneath the surface freedom lie 50 years of mythos and informal traditions shaping this nomadic utopia.

This openness recurringly becomes a tangled mess for more vertical-minded people. While there’s no formal leadership, some long-timers – “elders” of any age – naturally hold more sway. And while there are no written laws, there’s a strong social tradition to follow certain paths and perform a kind of functional “openness.” When more #mainstreaming folks arrive and try to “suggest” (read: impose) better structures or force their way into consensus processes, the friction can soon become dysfunction. Often, after creating much mess, their well-meaning input ends up having to be set aside, in #OMN terms #rolledback.

Balancing this is active openness – it’s about pushing back against #mainstreaming orthodoxy being imposed without care, without consent. That tension mirrors what we’ve seen again and again in #mainstreaming “horizontal” movements, from Occupy camps to DIY tech spaces to alt-social networks. The desire to avoid hierarchy doesn’t eliminate power – but in a recurring circle it risks making it invisible. The problem isn’t structure itself, it’s unaccountable structure.

With the #OMN (Open Media Network), we face this contradiction head-on. We draw on the “native” mythos of the #4opens – Open Data, Open Source, Open Standards, Open Process – as living traditions. Not just to #KISS build tools and platforms, but to build trust networks. We’re not pretending hierarchy doesn’t exist. We aim to make it visible, accountable, and, crucially, temporary. It’s not only about flattening decision-making, but ensuring it flows through real human relationships, not hidden power or #geekproblem black-box tech.

Rainbow Gatherings walk a nomadic path, grounded in mutual aid, shared meals, and rich social ritual. When we reboot the #openweb, we have to learn from paths like this. Radical inclusivity isn’t just about keeping the doors open – it’s about building shared social mythos and working traditions. And it’s about staying alert to how exclusion creeps back in: through silence, through pressure, and often through the #mainstreaming crowd who refuse to let go of their blindness.

Movements need memory, they need culture, but they also need self-awareness and space for dissent – space to reflect on the paths we’re walking together. A better #Fediverse, a real #openweb, has to be built by communities that can see their own shadows, name their own contradictions, and keep evolving together, link by link.

Because we don’t just need freedom from the state or the #dotcons, we also need freedom from our own dogmas. The #OMN isn’t just about media, it’s about building the social tech, the soil where openness can grow, thrive, and renew. And it needs compost, stinky and alive, not just metaphor.

#OMN #4opens #RainbowGathering #OpenWeb #AltTech #ActivistTech #Dogma #AntiDogma #IndymediaBack #TrustNetworks #MakeHistory #Fediverse

Mythos and traditions are needed for revolutions to grow roots

Compost lies using #4opens horizontal networks

Pull conflict into shared space (#openprocess #4opens #trustflows). Poison thrives in private channels, so you gently but consistently move things:

from DMs → into group threads
from whispers → into meetings
from vague → into specific

This doesn’t eliminate conflict, it grounds it. Sunlight doesn’t solve everything, but it stops the worst rot. From “how do we stop bad behaviour?” To “how do we stop bad behaviour from breaking the commons?”. The #4opens makes many people uncomfortable. Why? Because it cuts through the bullshit. Think about it: #FOSS already runs most of the world’s information flows. Servers, networks, phones, clouds – all built on open code, open standards, open processes. The world already depends on openness.

Yet, when we bring this into activism, NGOs, or “progressive” tech, people recoil. They prefer managed openness – consultations, workshops, endless talk – while the real decisions stay hidden, careers protected, power intact, but that’s not open, that’s control.

The #4opens is seen as dangerous because it removes the masks:

Open Data: no hoarding.

Open Code: no black boxes.

Open Standards: no silos.

Open Process: no backrooms.

When you have this second look, it’s common sense, but for meany it kills the comfort of #mainstreaming, when the soft power of gatekeepers shrivels under sunlight, that’s why they hate it.

We already live in a world powered by #FOSS. The only question is whether we keep pretending otherwise, or compost the mess and take openness seriously. Why does this matter? On the wider picture, we’re past the point where the #mainstreaming paths have effectively given up on mediating #climatechaos and social break down.

What we’re seeing now is ONLY the performance of action – flashy, expensive, technocratic distraction to keep business-as-usual afloat a little longer. It’s not any longer about preventing catastrophe, or even mediating catastrophe. What we have now is managed #PR and keeping in place elitist continuity as the small #nastyfew and their sycophants visibly retreat from the growing mess.

For an alt #mainstreaming view

Solutions? Take this example: https://heimildin.is/grein/24581/climeworks-capture-fails-to-cover-its-own-emissions/ #Climeworks, a flagship carbon-capture initiative, is so inefficient it fails to offsetting its own emissions. This is the #techshit path the #mainstreaming are backing to get us through the next few centuries? This is beyond a mess, it’s ideological collapse. These fake solutions are the logical outcome of continuing with #neoliberal ideology, where systemic change and thus challenge is avoided at all costs, and techno-fixes are sold to us by #PR as silver bullets, the #deathcult in action, profit-driven stalling wrapped in light green branding.

Let’s be clear on this: Carbon capture is currently not scalable, not ethical, and not even functional. It is not a climate solution – what it is, is a delay tactic, an obscuring hedge for polluting industries. It’s backed by the same #nastyfew class of institutions that told us markets would fix inequality, that endless growth was compatible with ecology, that privatization would bring prosperity. The truth is simple, they, the #nastyfew we keep putting into power, have no plan. They are playing at engineering the social and ecological collapse while, at this final stage, simply pretending to be managing it.

So what do we do? We #KISS hard stop trusting in any elitist-managed futures. We collectively refuse to be spectators in the mess of the #mainstreaming paths. Instead, we compost these lies and build #4opens, rooted, local, horizontal networks of resistance and renewal. Projects like the #OMN (Open Media Network) don’t pretend to “solve” everything, but they create space for people to act together, share knowledge, mediate and hold power to account, and thus build trust for action outside the collapsing verticals.

This isn’t about hope in the abstract, it’s about practical solidarity in the spreading ruins. No one is coming to save us, but maybe we can still save each other. Let’s build the seeds of the next world, before this one burns everything down around us.

OMN, best not to get distracted, this isn’t about purity, it’s about direction
Composting the fiendlyenemy’s

The #4opens framework is best understood not as ideology or branding, but as a simple set of engineering heuristics for evaluating whether a project will remain usable, forkable, and resilient over time.

Most long-lived #FOSS projects already follow some version of these practices implicitly. The value of #4opens is making those assumptions explicit, so people can quickly understand how a project works, who controls it, and whether it will survive beyond its original maintainers or funding cycle.

In practical terms, the #4opens ask a few straightforward questions:

  • Is the development process visible and reviewable?
  • Are data formats and interfaces documented and reusable?
  • Can someone else run this independently without permission?
  • Are governance and decision-making transparent enough that forks remain viable if needed?

These aren’t abstract political goals, they’re lessons learned from decades of broken platforms, abandoned repositories, and “open” projects that centralised control.

For developers and sysadmins, applying the #4opens as a lightweight checklist helps reduce risk:

  • Less lock-in to fragile ecosystems.
  • Easier collaboration across projects.
  • Better long-term maintainability.
  • Clearer expectations for contributors and downstream users.

A shared registry or index based on these criteria functions much like early open source directories or package repositories – not as gatekeeping, but as a map. Projects could self-declare alignment and provide verifiable signals about openness, interoperability, and governance structure.

The goal isn’t purity tests or badges for their own sake. It’s about improving signal-to-noise so builders can quickly identify tools that are likely to remain open, portable, and maintainable.

In a landscape where systems drift toward centralisation and corporate capture, the #4opens simply provide a shorthand for practices that help keep the commons viable, without requiring anyone to agree on ideology.

Keep group doing real things. (#praxis #indymediaback #buildstuff). Endless talk spaces breed toxicity. Shared work diffuses it. When people are:

publishing
fixing
organising
building

There’s less energy for backbiting, and more grounding in reality. Practice cuts through a lot of bullshit.

Allow edges, but not endless drain (#boundaries #care #collectivehealth). Not every conflict needs full resolution. Some people:

won’t shift
don’t want to shift
feed on disruption

So you need soft limits:

time boundaries
attention boundaries
sometimes exclusion

Not as punishment, but as protecting the commons.

Balance fluffy and spiky (#fluffy #spiky #debate).

Too fluffy:

nothing gets challenged
toxicity goes underground

Too spiky:

everything becomes conflict
people burn out

You need both, care + challenge and openness + pushback. Held together, not split apart.

Bridging alt and mainstreaming: A note on the shape of resistance

There’s a nice post by Elena Rossini’s, “This is what resistance to the digital coup looks like.” she is commitment to the #Fediverse, #FOSS tools, and open publishing solutions, and her critique of #VC-funded platforms like #Substack and #Bluesky is needed. At the same time, it’s worth pausing to reflect on how we talk about these things, particularly when we’re speaking to an emerging audience, who are still navigating the gap between centralized tech and more native, grassroots tools. Because while we do need clarity, we also need care. Otherwise, we risk turning signal into noise.

Rossini’s article is a good example of how alternative infrastructure begins to reach broader consciousness. Many of the platforms she champions – Ghost, Beehiiv, and even certain curated Mastodon experiences – fall within or adjacent to the broad #4opens networks. They are a part of the solution, but they also carry baggage. Some are corporate-lite, some depend on foundation funding. And some straddle a line between truly open and VC-sanitized.

This isn’t a problem per se, but it’s important to be transparent about it, many of us in the radical grassroots space, nurturing compost heaps of alternative media, peer publishing, and federated community infrastructure – have seen what happens when clarity is lost. The #NGO-ization of resistance. The capture of the #openweb by polite #PR. The story gets smoothed out, the risk disappears, and the power we need to shift change and challenge can simply be adapted and absorbed.

Let’s name the agendas, kindly. We’re not calling anyone out, quite the opposite, this is a call in. A reminder that it’s polite and politically grounded to acknowledge the agenda and position of the tools we use, even more so the ones we promote. Are they native to the grassroots? Are they part of a transitional bridge? Are they compromised in some ways?

Rossini’s argument – that using Substack and Bluesky while denouncing Big Tech sends a mixed message – is fair. But the same critique could be gently extended to Ghost and Beehiiv, too. These aren’t immune from #mainstreaming pressures. If we want to build a truly alternative infrastructure, we have to be honest about what’s native, what’s transitional, and what’s being branded as “alternative” without any roots in the alt.

The #4opens as compass, is a tool that helps us make these distinctions: open source, open data, open process, and open standards. It’s not a purity test, nothing ever should be, but it gives us a compass, a way to orient ourselves as we navigate the mess. A platform might look open because it feels different from Big Tech, but if it lacks open process, if its governance is closed or opaque, then it’s not truly part of the alt path. If it uses open source code but locks users into proprietary hosting or hidden metrics, that’s worth noteing too.

This doesn’t mean we throw out every tool that doesn’t tick all four boxes. It means we contextualize. At best, we practice a kind of digital literacy that includes politics, power, and history, not just #UX user experience. Clarity is compost, Rossini’s voice is part of a broader chorus rising in defence of a better “native” web. That’s good news, but let’s make sure that as more people join this space, we compost the confusion, not spread more of it. Some things we might use to balance this good practice:

  • Choosing native language when we can (use “open publishing” or “independent Fediverse platforms” rather than brand names as default). #openweb is a powerful statement in itself as it contrasts to #closedweb.
  • Naming the agendas behind the platforms we use or promote.
  • Valuing bridges, but not confusing them for destinations.
  • Practicing digital humility, so we can learn without defensiveness.

On the current path there’s little clarity to begin with, let’s help each other work through the compost, with bare feet and open minds, toward something truly rooted in the commons. And yes this will mean dirty feet and hands 🙂

#TED – A Community of Delusions

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 #closedweb 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