Tag: foundations

The greybeards and the second sell-out of the #openweb

There is a familiar voice resurfacing in today’s debates about the future of the web, its measured, reflective, earnest, often grey-bearded., and it has funding. These are the people who were there in the Web 2.0 era. The #Flickr builders. The early platform designers. The conference speakers who once talked about “community”, “social objects”, and “public infrastructure”. Many of them now occupy foundations, NGOs, advisory boards, and policy circles.

And they are doing something dangerous, as their thinking is too trapped inside capitalism. They are selling the #openweb reboot for a second time. Not maliciously. Not cynically. But from a place of deeply internalised capitalist thinking that they cannot – or will not – step outside.

The original Web 2.0 was built on a powerful lie, one many progressive people wanted to believe: That privately owned platforms could become public infrastructure. “social” media might actually mean social in a public, civic sense, that venture capital could somehow birth commons. As one of the original designers of Flickr puts it:

“We had sort of deluded ourselves into thinking in Web 2.0 that we were building public infrastructure.”

Yes. Exactly. But that delusion wasn’t accidental, it was structural, it came from trying to build public goods inside a system whose legal obligation is to maximise shareholder value. The moment scale arrived, the moment infrastructure emerged, the public was quietly enclosed. This wasn’t a failure of design, it was a failure of basic political economy.

The problem isn’t insight – it’s the frame – what makes the current moment frustrating isn’t that these voices lack insight. On the contrary: their analysis of algorithmic control, enclosure, loss of stewardship, and extractive business models is often sharp. The problem is where their thinking stops.

Again and again, the horizon of possibility remains trapped inside capitalism:

  • Regulation instead of abolition
  • Better governance instead of collective ownership
  • NGOs instead of grassroots power
  • “Public–private partnerships” instead of commons

Even when they correctly identify that platforms have become infrastructure, the proposed solutions remain managerial, institutional, and polite. The unspoken assumption is always the same, capitalism stays, “we” sand the sharp edges. This is the limit of their self-imposed view, and the danger we need to see is that this mirrors of the original sell-out and what makes this especially dangerous is that this thinking now takes up far more space than it deserves.

Just like in the Web 2.0 era, these voices dominate conferences, funding channels, policy conversations, and media narratives. Grassroots alternatives are marginalised as “naïve”, “unscalable”, or “too political”. This is abusive sidelining where the outcome at best is: Once again, we are told to be patient. Once again, we are told to trust institutions. Once again, the radical edges are smoothed away.

Fediverse – What actually happened (no bullshit version)

This mirrors the original sell-out:

  • Then: “Let’s build community on platforms.”
  • Now: “Let’s fix platforms with better policy.”

Different language, same enclosure. We see this agen with the #NGO trap and the illusion of stewardship, ones agen #foundations and #NGOs are presented as the solution. “Public product organisations”. “Stewardship entities”. Carefully designed governance models that still orbit state and capital power. The mess we need to see to compost is that NGOs are not the commons, they are buffers.

They absorb dissent, professionalise resistance, and translate radical demands into grant-safe language. They reproduce hierarchy while speaking the language of participation. This is not an accident, it is how capitalism metabolises critique.

This is why bridges keep collapsing, I have said my self: “Let’s build bridges. We need these people on side.” Yep, we’ve tried that, the problem is that when challenged – when the underlying mess is named – the response is not dialogue, its #blocking, muting, institutional silence, invitations withdrawn and funding evaporates.

This mess keeps tells us what we need to know, bridge-building only works when both sides are willing to move. When one side controls the platforms, the conferences, and the purse strings, “bridges” become assimilation pipelines.

So yes the path we need to take is compost, not deference, not cancellation, not personal attack. But refusing to let this thinking dominate the space again. Compost is how dead ideas become fertile ground for new growth. It is messy, uncomfortable, and necessary.

We don’t need another generation of politely regulated enclosures. We don’t need a warmed up Web 2.0, reboot with better language and worse outcomes.

We need:

  • Commons, not platforms
  • Collective ownership, not stewardship theatre
  • Grassroots infrastructure, not NGO mediation

We need the #4opens, not “ethical-ish” branding. The #openweb will not be rebooted by the same people, using the same frameworks, who helped bury it the first time.

  • If you want to bridge, comment and engage honestly.
  • If you want to defend the mess, expect compost.

That’s where new growth actually comes from.

#KISS

The video flow that sparked this post

PS: I kinda like the strong metaphor of house slaves and field slaves, these people are the metaphorical house slaves.

If we close everything, we are left with the evil – A bad outcome

What should be open? What is okay to be closed?

Let’s begin from a traditional liberal framing: Most social interactions should be OPEN, some private or sensitive interactions may be CLOSED.

This isn’t radical. It’s been a functional principle across free societies for the last century. But in our current digital culture, this simple framing is often flipped or ignored. Many developers, activists, and even funders uncritically push for closure, often in the name of privacy, safety and control, without recognizing what’s lost when everything closes.

The power of OPEN is in all good forms of social power, and progress comes from open processes:

Transparency builds trust.

Sharing creates knowledge and community.

Federation gives us alternatives to centralized control.

From the printing press to Wikipedia, openness has always been a powerful force for liberation, creativity, and ideas of justice. Meanwhile, much of the worst abuse and corruption festers in the dark:

Hidden surveillance (NSA/Five Eyes).

Closed algorithms (Facebook/YouTube).

Closed decision-making in opaque NGOs and funding foundations.

If we push everything into private silos or locked behind paywalls, we kill the culture that allows us to challenge and change the systems we live and die under. We are left with only closed, and that’s not a world we want to live in.

A real-world example is needed? Let’s talk about the Diaspora project, 15 years ago, in response to Facebook’s rise, a group of well-meaning devs built a “privacy-first” social network. They rejected the openness of exiting paths like #RSS and federated tech like #XMPP. They wanted to start from scratch, build their own private network, and lock down data flows, for “safety”.

The result was a very predictable mess, Diaspora burned brightly and briefly, but never built a vibrant network. In contrast, existing open networks were shouted down, de-funded, and ignored. Ten years passed. Then, we had to reinvent the same open paths, we had shut out, with ActivityPub to get back to what #RSS and other open tools had already done.

This is the #geekproblem, the idea that you can throw away working social infrastructure because it’s not “clean” or “cool”, and replace it with abstract, closed systems… a path that usually ends in failure. Worse, it delayed progress by a decade. Encryptionism, privacy dogma, and the closing of the commons, where mess we now need to compost

Yes, privacy is important, nobody is arguing otherwise, but what many #encryptionists miss is that building only for privacy is building only for fear. You can’t build a shared culture on fear alone, you need to balance this with trust, transparency, and cooperation too. These require openness. When everything defaults to closed, the commons die, and without the commons, there is no #openweb.

A politics of openness, is not just technical. It’s deeply social and political. It touches on human nature, ideology, and power. If you’re new to these ideas, start with some reading of the basics of Sociology (Wikipedia) and Political ideologies then ask what assumptions are built into tech? Who does it empower? Who does it exclude?

This is about where to begin, to understand motivations and outcomes in #openweb development, it helps to name the ideological currents at play:

Conservatism → favors stability, hierarchy, closure.

Liberalism → favors rights, transparency, and balance.

Anarchism → favors decentralization, autonomy, and openness.

Much of the Fediverse, despite the tech mess, is functionally anarchist in ethos. But this is rarely understood or spoken aloud. We have the A (Anarchy) but not yet the O (Order). A job people could take on is to fix this by building the O in the Fediverse, rather than let the default path be imposed, by the natural flow where #NGOs and #foundations bring closed governance models wrapped in the fig leaf of “participation”, we should be working now to build native, open forms of governance.

That’s what the Open Governance Body (#OGB) is outlined to do, to creating soft structure for an open culture. That’s what the #4opens help guide: basic principles for transparency and shared power, let’s support these paths. As if we default to closure – either because of fear, control, or ideology – we kill the #openweb before it can grow back.

Let’s remember, we are the stewards of the future commons, let’s keep the doors opens. Thoughts? Examples? Let’s keep this conversation alive, in the open.