#OMN demonstrates the values that dead ideologies refuse to acknowledge

The #fashernista common sense path—driven by trends, appearances, and surface-level thinking—is always a reflection of the dominant ideology. In today’s world, this means it perpetuates the neo-liberal #deathcult, which pushes profit over people and the environment. This ideology a motivation of #stupidindividualism, where the focus is on personal gain, consumerism, and competition rather than solidarity, cooperation, and collective well-being.

This same mentality is mirrored in the #geekproblem, where technologists to often design and promote tools and systems that replicate and reinforce neo-liberal values, rather than challenge them. By framing technology as “neutral” or purely functional, they ignore the broader social impact of their work, allowing it to serve as an uncritical extension of the #deathcult’s values. This is why so much of modern technology amplifies isolation, surveillance, and exploitation instead of fostering connection, community, and empowerment.

Challenging these people and their ideas is crucial if we want to break free from the current cycles of destruction. However, ignoring them and focusing our energy elsewhere may be the more practical and effective path. Engaging with them to often leads to frustration and burnout as their ideological framework is deeply ingrained, and their reflexive defensiveness derails productive efforts.

As with composting, when there’s too much “shit” to shoval, the resulting stink can make the change we need feel unpleasant and off-putting. The sheer negativity and hostility of challenging entrenched ideologies creates a barrier to engagement for those who might otherwise join or support transformative movements. If the alternative to the #deathcult seems unappealing or toxic, it risks alienating the very people and communertys we need to build a better path away from the current mess.

Instead of wasting time trying to convince the entrenched or defending against their reactionary attacks, we could focus on building practical, grounded alternatives? By creating spaces, tools, and communities that embody the “native” #openweb values, we can offer a tangible, appealing contrast to the hollow shadow of the #deathcult worshipping. The goal is to show—not just tell—that another world is possible, and that it is not only necessary but desirable.

By doing this, the stink of the current dead ideology will become irrelevant. When people experience the benefits of living and working in paths that lead to commons, mutual aid, and flourishing, the death spiral of #stupidindividualism and the #geekproblem will lose its appeal. In the end, it’s not about fighting their ideas directly—it’s about making those ideas obsolete by building something far better.

To dive deeper into this , we need to look at the underlying mechanisms of how the #fashernista mindset, the neo-liberal #deathcult, #stupidindividualism, and the #geekproblem perpetuate themselves—and, more importantly, look at how this interlocking mess hinder progress while pretending to advance it.

The #Fashernista mindset is a reflection of dominance, as it operates as a mirror to dominant ideologies. By nature, it does not challenge power structures but absorbs and reflects their values, often in a more palatable or “trendy” form.

Aesthetic over substance, the prioritisation of appearances—what looks progressive, innovative, or ethical—over what actually is. For example, this neo-liberal “common sense” can be dressed up in “sustainable” or “inclusive” branding, while the underlying paths remain exploitative.
Tokenistic activism leads to shallow forms of activism, where symbolic gestures (#dotcons posting, slogans, memes and corporate-sponsored campaigns) replace meaningful systemic action. It gives the illusion of progress while leaving the core issues untouched.
Gatekeeping change is more about chasing trends rather than structural transformation, the #fashernista mindset creates a kind of cultural gatekeeping. True progress, which often appears “messy” and challenges comfort zones, is sidelined in favour of ideas that are easier to sell to the mainstream.

A Devotion to self-destruction, at the core of the neo-liberal mess, is the worship of market forces as the ultimate solution to all human problems. This drives society toward environmental collapse, social disintegration, and increasing inequality, all while proclaiming itself as the only rational way to organise the world.

Market “common sense” holds that markets are inherently efficient, fair, and inevitable, even as they consistently fail to address systemic crises like climate change, economic inequality, and resource depletion.
Individualism as control, framing individuals as isolated, rational actors responsible for their own success or failure, the #deathcult deflects attention from structural oppression. This isolates people, making collective action more difficult and reinforcing the system’s power.
Growth at all costs is an obsession with endless economic growth, even on a finite planet. This suicidal drive underpins its “deathcult” nature: it sacrifices long-term survival for short-term profits.

#StupidIndividualism is isolation masquerading as freedom

Alienation is growing with the idea that people should rely solely on themselves, #stupidindividualism leaves people disconnected from community support systems. This alienation feeds despair and reinforces compliance with the status quo.
Consumerism is identity, with people being encouraged to define themselves by what they consume rather than what they contribute to society. This distracts from collective struggles and entrenches a culture of passivity.
Weaponised identity politics, while this postmodern movment started as a way to empower marginalised groups, in the hands of #stupidindividualism, it becomes a tool of division. Individuals focus on personal grievances rather than uniting across identities to address systemic oppression.

The #geekproblem is often technology without politics, which emerges from a belief that technology is inherently neutral and that its development can exist separately from politics, ethics, or social power structures. This naivety—or wilful blindness—results in tools that perpetuate the very problems they claim to solve.

Apolitical engineering, where technologists focus on building “innovative” tools without considering their social impacts. For instance, surveillance technologies are marketed as safety solutions while eroding privacy and empowering authoritarianism.
Centralisation in disguise when #FOSS, open-source and decentralised projects replicate centralised power dynamics as their creators fail to address underlying social issues. A decentralised system run by a different few is still elitist.
Failure to address root causes as the #geekproblem thrives on quick fixes and clever hacks rather than systemic paths leading to solutions. It too often assumes that technology alone can solve problems like poverty or climate change, ignoring the need for social, political and economic transformation.

We do need balence, why ignoring these messy forces may be the smarter path as confronting the #fashernista mindset, neo-liberal #deathcult, #stupidindividualism, and the #geekproblem head-on often feels like trying to swim against a tidal wave. These ideologies are deeply ingrained, and challenging them directly can result in burnout, frustration, and thus further entrenchment of the status quo.

The “shit-to-compost ratio” is a thing when engaging with these entrenched paths we end up uncovering a lot of “shit”—toxic debates, defensive reactions, and wasted energy. If this overwhelms the capacity to turn these challenges into productive change, the effort can become self-defeating. Sometimes instead of fighting these paths on their terms, it may be more effective to focus on building alternatives like the #OMN. By creating functioning, appealing models of community, solidarity, and sustainability, we can then push to make the current systems obsolete, this is “our” path not theres

Building alternatives is a #KISS path to counter the destructive ideologies and to demonstrate the viability of better paths. This means focusing on practical, community-driven tools and solutions that embody the values we want to see in the world.

An important question is why people can’t see this? The inability to recognise these dynamics stems from decades of cultural conditioning and structural manipulation.

Simple propaganda, The priest’s of neo-liberalism has spent decades shaping public perception, presenting it as the only viable path. Its dominance is so pervasive that many cannot imagine alternatives.
Cultural individualism, when people are taught to see themselves as isolated individuals rather than interconnected members of a society. This blinds them to the power of collective action.
Distractions built into consumer culture, social media, and the 24-hour news cycle keep people distracted and disengaged from any real systemic issues and paths.
Fear of change with the unknown being scary, and the idea of steping away from entrenched paths can feel overwhelming or even impossible.

To shine light we need to compost the stink of the dominant ideologies — reflected in the everyday #fashernista mindset, neo-liberal #deathcult, #stupidindividualism, and the #geekproblem. But yes this needs to be balenced as directly fighting these entrenched paths can often feel futile and counterproductive. Instead, we need to also focus on building the alternatives we want to see, like the #OMN, cooperative, community-driven, and grounded in solidarity.

By creating working paths of a diffrent future, we make the failures of the current path self-evident and offer a clear, appealing alternative path. The change won’t come from confrontation alone—it will come from living and demonstrating the values that these dead ideolgys refuse to acknowledge.

A social tech path out of the current mess

A look at the paths we need to take to balance the current #mainstreaming. Mess begets more mess, embrace It, but strategically is the starting point of the #OGB project, recognising that solving crises will inevitably create new complications. This isn’t defeatist but pragmatic. Understanding that “messy consensus” is a natural state of grassroots activism both online and offline allows us to embrace imperfection while striving for progress. How can we build tools to work with this balance, we need paths that don’t eliminate mess but help us navigate it constructively.

Messy consensus vs. formal consensus, is basic, that “almost nothing that works, works with formal consensus” is both an indictment of rigidity and a call to trust human intuition and collective messiness. Formal consensus processes prioritise idealised decision-making frameworks over functional, timely action. Messy consensus in practice, decisions that evolve through ongoing dialogue, negotiation, and iterative adjustments. A focus on getting things done rather than endlessly perfecting processes.

The #OGB Project approach is based on #KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid) by documenting messy consensus in action rather than try to force-fit solutions into rigid structures. The wider #OMN is about building software tools that reflect this dynamic, fluid, adaptive, and capable of handling the inherent unpredictability of real world grassroots organising.

Grassroots movements need patience and realism, activism is hard work, rife with delays, frustrations, and the risk of spiralling into unproductive behaviours. The example of delays being full of “shittiness all round” is all too common. The solution is to focus, implement basic accountability and communication tools to reduce friction (e.g., clear timelines, transparent updates). Design paths where delays can’t derail core progress (e.g., smaller, autonomous working groups with clear boundaries).

The #geekproblem and governance failures, technologists operate under the illusion that technology is apolitical, seeing themselves as neutral actors. This leads to tools and systems that perpetuate power imbalances rather than address them, then governance struggles inside this #techshit. On the more #NGO paths, governments and corporations alike fail because they attempt to apply dated paradigms (territorial governance, Soviet-style technocracy, and unchecked market competition) to globally networked paths.

#OGB and the #openweb native paths are about building politically aware technologies that understand their social impact and are actively shaped by the communities they serve. This is about moving beyond individualistic thinking to balance paths where decisions are made collectively and equitably, guided by progressive shared values and principles.

Metadata isn’t trivial, it’s often more revealing than the data itself. Governments and corporations weaponise it for control. However, this control relies on perpetuating individual isolation and the illusion that society doesn’t exist. A core path is challenging the #deathcult mentality and this death spiral of isolationism. The idea that individuals are isolated entities, disconnected from society, aligns with the deeply reactionary mindset of the #deathcult. It’s this ideology that drives surveillance capitalism, authoritarian governance, and ecological collapse.

The #OMN is about countering the death spiral by build networks and technologies that grow solidarity, collective agency, and a sense of shared purpose. To make this happen, we need to call out reactionary ideologies wherever they manifest, but with patience and a focus on education. The Internet is a commons, not an empire. The internet’s potential is currently squandered by treating it as a platform for profit-driven empires. With the #OMN instead, we cultivate a shared common, reflecting the principles of the #openweb. With commons-based governance, we move away from corporate models and toward federated, community-led governance. Interoperable ecosystems, prioritise open standards that allow diverse communities to connect without being locked into monopolistic kingdoms.

The #OMN contribution, is about documenting the failures of current systems and demonstrate the viability of federated, grassroots alternative paths. And from this building the cultural and technical infrastructure necessary to support an internet that is truly by and for the people. Practical steps are acknowledging the mess, start with the reality of our messy paths and systems rather than pretending they don’t exist. Then use this understanding as the foundation for solutions. Promote realistic timelines, by accepting that grassroots organising moves slower than we’d like, but ensure delays are constructive rather than paralysing. Focus on education, misunderstandings stem from a lack of digital literacy and political awareness, we need patience and persistence to mediate messy processes through practice.

In conclusion, how can we shape the world without being covered in shit. Yes, the path is messy, imperfect, and filled with hard work, but that’s no reason to despair. The #OMN projects offers a grounded approach that prioritises doing over theorising, embracing messy consensus as a strength rather than a weakness. By rejecting the #deathcult of individualism and building on the principles of the #openweb, we create paths that reflect the reality of grassroots organising: chaotic, collaborative, and, ultimately, transformative.

“Solutions” pushed for the #Fediverse are #stupidindividualism which comes from #deathcult worship

The is real frustration with “solutions” for the #Fediverse leaning toward #stupidindividualism and the normal #deathcult path, especially as these approaches undermine the foundational ethos of the “native” #openweb. What different paths do we need to take:

Re-centre on cooperation and interdependence. This should be obverse, instead of treating the #Fediverse as a platform for fragmented individualism, we need to foster a commons-first approach. Mutual Aid Networks are a path by to encourage instances to form federated clusters based on solidarity, shared values, and collaborative governance. Instance Interdependence needs tools that make cooperation between instances smoother and beneficial, such as shared moderation practices, resource sharing, or even federated funding paths.

Reject platformification, one of the Fediverse’s strengths is that it doesn’t need to mimic the dynamics of corporate platforms. To ensure its future path is native, not corporate we need to stick to the alt path of protocols over platforms, to stay on this path and not get distracted by new shiny #techshit For this we need to prioritise the development of open, robust protocols like ActivityPub that support interoperability over creating “Fediverse apps” that compete to centralise users. Standardised tools for moderation and discovery, create federated discovery and moderation tools that don’t funnel people into centralised algorithms or trending feeds but support meaningful and self-determined connections.

Community-driven innovation instead of for profit and status, communities need to be more involved in defining what needs to be built. We need to mediate the power of tech communities and non-technical people. This ensures the solutions reflect diverse realities, not just the #geekproblem technocratic priorities. Public-good funding paths, to build sustainable funding for open-source tools without relying on venture capital or individual donations. Cooperative crowdfunding, grants from public institutions, or taxation-based paths could work.

Reframe individualism as collective empowerment, the problem isn’t individual creativity; it’s when it becomes detached from collective good. Some ideas to balance this is by highlighting and rewarding people who contribution to the wider social enhance of the #Fediverse e.g., not just code contributions, but admins, moderation etc. One path could be to develop ways to celebrate shared milestones across the network, rather than competitive “likes” or algorithmic trends.

Education and advocacy are a core part of the #openweb to building awareness of the stakes and educating people about the principles of the #Fediverse and the #openweb. Some paths might be: Digital literacy campaigns to educate people about how the #Fediverse operates, its native values, and why it must avoid the #dotcons #closedweb’s pitfalls. Highlight success stories by amplify case studies of community-owned and commons-driven Fediverse instances to inspire others.

Design for long-term sustainability, any system that focuses on short-term growth or clout is doomed to fail. To build something durable, we need resilient federation models to address the scaling challenges that come with growing instances without resorting to centralised solutions. Decentralised governance is core, we need to explore and adopt models like the #OGB for instance and network governance.

Resist the #deathcult narratives, which thrives on competition, exploitation, and the idea that scarcity is inevitable. This needs constant push back, with abundance-oriented design to build paths centred on care, trust, and generosity – rejecting the zero-sum thinking of extractive systems. Radical openness is a good native path for, tools like the #4opens are core.

This “native” thinking are based on ideas to anchor the #Fediverse in the principles of mutuality, solidarity, and the commons while resisting the pull of #stupidindividualism and centralisation.

This is about the failed liberal class, with their heads bowed in worship of the #deathcult for the last 40 years, have abandoned critical thought. Their unacknowledged postmodernist complacency has pushed us away from class struggle, leaving us isolated and alone. Meanwhile, the last two decades of left identity politics have allowed the right wing to co-opt and weaponise progressive narratives, filling them with fear and hate.

Yet, amidst this bleak shift towards fascism, there is a potential positive: a return to #KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid) class-based left-wing movements. These movements need to reclaim the ground from the current #mainstreaming crew, who continue to blindly worship neo-liberal “common sense,” while #blocking out and refusing to acknowledge its failures. It’s well past time to consign these dead ideologies to the compost heap of history.

What comes next is up to us. As a community, we face the real challenge of surviving the next generation of #climatechaos pushing social breakdown while driving forward the systemic changes these crises demand. It’s not as if we have a choice—change is no longer optional, and action is overdue.

Fuck Off to the #Bitcoin Bros and Their Cult of Scarcity

Let me say it loud and clear—again—for the ones in the back: P2P systems that tether their tech to encryptionsist/blockchain coin economy are a dead end. Full stop. Tying this native #openweb path of distributed technology to the idea of selling “resources” doesn’t just miss the point; it’s like engineering a system that’s designed to fail from the start. It’s self-sabotage on a systemic level, shooting yourself in the foot while you’re still lacing up your boots.

Why? Because these systems, heralded by the #Bitcoinbros and their ilk, are about enforcing artificial scarcity into spaces that could—and should—be models of abundance. Instead of embracing the revolutionary potential of #P2P networks to unlock and distribute resources equitably, they double down on the same tired “deathcult” economics of scarcity that brought us to the current mess in the first place.

Coding scarcity into abundance, is the fatal flaw, the beauty of distributed systems lies in their ability to facilitate abundance, bypassing the bottlenecks and hoarding inherent in centralized paths. Yet, what do these “geniuses” do? They take this fertile ground for innovation and graft onto it the same broken logic of capitalism that created the problem. Artificial Scarcity, instead of using resources efficiently and equitably, they introduce a transactional economy that prioritizes profit and competition over collaboration and sharing. Death by design paths embed scarcity into their structure, ensuring they will eventually choke out their own potential. What could and needs to be a fertile cooperative garden becomes a battlefield of extraction and exploitation.

The Bitcoin and crypto crew, with their get-rich-quick schemes, aren’t building the future—they’re pushing us all back into the past, rehashing old hierarchies in a new digital wrapper. Their vision of the world isn’t radical or liberating; it’s just #techshit wearing a suit made of gold leaf and bad ideas.

Then we have the #encryptionistas and their “Common Sense” cult, with the mantra of 90% closed, 10% open might sound like “common sense” to those steeped in fear and control, but what they’re really peddling is the same #deathcult ideology to lock down innovation, stifle collaboration, and strangles the potential of the #openweb path.

Both are enforcing scarcity as though it’s inevitable, despite all evidence to the contrary.
They frame their closed systems as “security,” but what they’re really doing is hoarding power and excluding voices. This isn’t progress; it’s regression. It’s the equivalent of building a massive wall in the middle of the commons and selling tickets to access what was already there for everyone.

The radical alternative is abundance by design, where we don’t need scarcity baked into our systems, we need abundance. We need tools and networks designed to share resources, knowledge, and opportunities without the artificial barriers of token economies and closed ecosystems.

P2P systems should empower cooperation, not competition
Decentralization should facilitate access, not introduce new forms of gatekeeping.
Abundance is the point: The beauty of distributed networks lies in their ability to amplify sharing, not enforce scarcity.

This is where the Open Media Network (#OMN) comes in—a vision rooted in the values of the #4opens: Open Data, Open Source, Open Process, and Open Standards. This isn’t about creating a new “elite” made up of the nasty few or another #dotcons “marketplace” policed by the #geekproblem. It’s about building #DIY networks, radically inclusive and genuinely liberatory.

What are we to do with the Bitcoin bros, the #encryptionistas, and their #deathcult economics? Compost them. Take their #techshit, strip it of its toxic scarcity mindset, and use it to fertilize better systems. Systems that prioritize people over profit, collaboration over competition, and abundance over fear.

To those still clinging to the Bitcoin fantasy: Grab a shovel. You’re going to need it—not to mine more tokens, but to bury the bloated corpse of your scarcity-driven ideology. It’s dead weight, and it’s holding us all back. The future belongs to those who can imagine abundance, build it, and share it. Let’s stop walking down the “common sense” dead-end paths and start digging our way out of this mess, composting matters, you likely need a shovel #OMN

Challenging “liberal trolls” and #encryptionist blindness

Addressing liberal trolls and the #openweb tensions, the influx of users following the #X (#TwitterMigration) has illuminated tensions on the #openweb, particularly the behaviour of “liberal trolls.” Who often advocate for performative inclusivity and impose hierarchical thinking, creating friction in existing decentralized paths. Their presence derails conversations, inhibit grassroots growth, and introduce mainstream patterns of control. What can we do with this mess making:

Reframing the debate: 90% Open, 10% Closed offers a balanced vision. It contrasts sharply with the #encryptionists’ push for 90% closed systems that prioritize secrecy over collaboration. To mediate this, we need to promote openness as resilience to foster diversity, adaptability, and innovation. This “native” path resists co-optation by authoritarian forces, a core concern of #encryptionists. Highlight success stories, examples where openness has thrived, such as Mastodon’s ability to scale post-Twitter Migration without compromising its ethos. Build Bridges to encourage conversations between open and closed proponents. Identify shared values, while challenging “common sense” that hinder collaboration.

Combatting liberal troll dynamics, liberal trolls to often wield performative outrage and self-righteousness as tools for control, sidelining radical ideas. To mitigate their impact: Community moderation with clear values, with moderation policies rooted in grassroots principles—collaboration, inclusion, and respect for dissent. Make these values explicit and widely understood. Empower the margins by supporting voices from underrepresented radical communities to counterbalance dominant narratives. Ignore the noise, trolls thrive on attention. Strategic non-engagement, combined with clear policies, reduce their disruptive influence.

Addressing the #geekproblem and blocking energy, the #geekproblem is characterized by a resistance to radical ideas and community-focused solutions, creating unspoken barriers to progress in tech spaces. We need strategies to overcome this by making tech accessible to non-geeks with user-friendly designs and intuitive experiences. This diminishes the gatekeeping power of overly technical communities. Distributed Leadership encourages non-hierarchical, collective decision-making. This prevents a few individuals from exerting outsized influence over grassroots tech projects. Education and outreach, equip newcomers with the tools and knowledge to navigate #openweb spaces, reducing reliance on geek-centric paths.

Resisting destructive cult paths, #NGO-driven power grabs and for “cult-like” behaviour needs to safeguard against by fostering decentralized power structures. Encourage healthy conflict by normalize constructive disagreements as part of openweb culture. This reduces the potential for groupthink and authoritarian tendencies. Recognize and resist co-optation by staying vigilant against efforts to co-opt grassroots movements for institutional and corporate interests.

Building radical resilience, to mediate the blocking energy and empower radical tech, we need proactive strategies. Create paths for experimentation, this might include enclaves where radical ideas can be tested without suppression and co-optation. Foster allyship by building alliances between radical movements and pragmatic reformers to amplify shared goals. Challenge “Common Sense” imposition of “practical” solutions that dilute grassroots paths and values. Embrace creative, “mad and bad” ideas to disrupt this status quo blocking.

In conclusion, the path of the #openweb depends on striking a balance between openness and security, grassroots experimentation and mainstream scalability, and decentralization and coordination. By mediating the mess brought into our spaces by liberal trolls, encryptionist ideologies, and the #geekproblem, we can create a more resilient digital ecosystem that is a path of radical innovation and community-driven change and challenge we need in the era of #climatechaos and social brack down. On this path, radical ideas are not only welcomed but celebrated #KISS

Embracing “messiness” is a feature in effective tech solutions

Embracing “messiness” as a feature, not a bug, in creating humane and effective tech solutions.
Why messiness matters, real-world social paths are inherently messy. Attempting to design tech solutions that are rigid, “perfect” systems leads to failure because they cannot adapt to human complexity and unpredictability. Projects that actually work in messy environments prioritize flexibility, openness, and adaptability over strict control and rigid frameworks.

Wikipedia is a messy, decentralized project that thrives because it prioritizes community and collaboration over technical perfection. The #Fediverse, with its federated nature, allows for diverse approaches and experimentation, embracing a level of messiness to resist centralization and foster creativity.

Code is a tool, not the goal, the value of software lies in its social impact—how people use it—not in the technical complexity or “cleverness” of the code itself. Over emphasizing code at the expense of social “use” creates #techchurn and decay. Projects without meaningful use end up abandoned, despite the sometimes impressive technical work. The practical path we argue for, is to prioritize designing for social utility, not only technical performance.

The #geekproblem we need to mediate is the churn of #techshit, of developers focusing too heavily on technical aspects, ignoring the social context and long-term utility of their work. This results in churn—continuous cycles of development with little lasting value—adding to the pile of decaying, unused code.

What are #KISS paths to avoid this, a simple first step is involving non-technical voices early in the process to ensure social relevance and usability. Use iterative development methods that prioritize real-world feedback over technical perfection. Embracing the #4opens: Open Data, Open Source, Open “industrial” standards, Open Process. Build for use, not show, with simplicity and usability over technical complexity. Engage people in testing and iterating early and often. Embrace the mess, imperfections and unpredictability are part of the process.

Strategies to build messy, human-centric projects: Start with the “Why”, clearly define the social purpose of the project before writing any code. What problem are you solving? Who benefits, and how?

#KISS

The clear and urgent challenge, to step away from entrenched thinking

There are deep cultural and structural problem in our social world, here I concentrate on the #openweb and tech spaces, which are shaped by entrenched hierarchical thinking (#feudalism) and the inability to embrace horizontal governance models. This #geekproblem represents a persistent resistance to the solutions necessary for the meaningful change we need, and defaults to patterns that reinforce the status quo (#deathcult worshipping).

Horizontal solutions have proven foundations, community-driven models like #OGB (Open Governance Body) reflects a grounded understanding of what works. The last five years of work in the decentralized #Fediverse shows that horizontal technology can scale without succumbing to the mess of centralized, hierarchical control.

#Nothingnew is about combining what works. The creative task now is to integrate these proven social and technical approaches into cohesive systems: #OMN (Open Media Network): A decentralized framework for building media networks based on trust, transparency, and shared governance. #OGB: A governance model for the open web, ensuring horizontal decision-making structures that resist co-option by hierarchical or neoliberal influences. #Indymediaback: Reviving radical, grassroots media projects that embody these principles, amplifying voices outside the mainstream.

To do any of these project we need to break the #blocking cycle, when discussions about radical or progressive changes are met with #blocking, the result is to often a stagnant cycle of unresolved issues that eroded goodwill. This stagnation is a direct threat to the social commons. To break this cycle, we can use, and, think inside the Fluff/Spiky debate to encourage broad, inclusive paths while not shying away from hard truths and unpopular calls for accountability. Reject #fashernista worship to push back against superficial trends that align with neoliberal and #mainstreaming values, which are ultimately harmful to the #openweb.

The language trap, #liberalism, and by extension #neoliberalism dominate conversations, we need a constant low level critical examination of this misalignment with the goals of the #openweb. Then calling this out is uncomfortable but necessary, to recognize and challenge how these frameworks perpetuate the #deathcult. The question remains, will others step up to help make this happen? Are they ready to take on this challenge?

#Indymediaback Funding Application 2025-02-036 indymediaback received

The following submission was recorded by NLnet. Thanks for your application, we look forward to learning more about your proposed project.
Contact

name
hamish campbell
phone
email
hamish@visionon.tv
organisation name
OMN
country
UK
consent
You may keep my data on record

Project

code
2025-02-036
project name
indymediaback
fund
Commons_Fund
requested amount
€ 50000
website

    https://unite.openworlds.info/indymedia

synopsis

The #indymediaback is a Fediverse project about rebooting the radical grassroots media network, Indymedia, by anchoring it in trust-based #4opens (Open Data, Source, Process, and Standards). It prioritizes local, collective publishing as the foundation for global solidarity and counter-narratives. The project resists the co-option of #mainstreaming and #dotcons by decentralized, democratic governance and focusing on native, horizontal structures.

Expected outcomes include a revived independent media landscape that amplifies marginalized voices, balancing corporate and state narratives, and builds resilience against #posttruth misinformation. By composting the #geekproblem and embracing simplicity (#KISS), the project empower communities with sustainable, open tools for storytelling, activism, and solidarity. The goal is to seed a flourishing, cooperative #openweb native media as a part of the current activertypub based web reboot.

experience

I’ve been actively engaged in #FOSS and #openweb projects for over 20 years, focusing on building grassroots, community-driven alternatives to centralized and corporate-controlled platforms. My work emphasizes creating and sustaining open, democratic, and resilient digital paths.

In the early days of the Fediverse, I ran five instances for the first five years, helping to seed the decentralized ecosystem that has since grown into a viable and widely recognized alternative to the #dotcons. This hands-on involvement gave me a deep understanding of the technical, social, and governance challenges of decentralized networks.

Since the launch of the ActivityPub standard, I’ve contributed to shaping the underlying paths that enable decentralized social networking. My work has facilitated discussions, advocating for grassroots perspectives, to ensure that the voices of smaller, community-oriented projects are heard amid broader efforts to standardize and scale the Fediverse.

My involvement includes engaging in advocacy, community building, and technical implementation, ensuring that open standards remain open and accessible. By bridging technical expertise with grassroots activism, I work to mediate the #geekproblem and bring human-centered, trust-based solutions to the forefront.

These experiences directly feed into the #indymediaback project, where I bring not only technical skills but also a rich history of working within collaborative, open frameworks. By combining lessons from past successes and challenges, we plan on contributing to building a robust #openweb ecosystem that stands resilient in these fragile social, ecological and technical times.

usage

The budget for the #indymediaback project will be allocated to support the development, outreach, and sustainability of the initiative. Drawing on code from Ibis 0.2.0 https://ibis.wiki/article/Ibis_release_0.2.0_-_Federated_Wiki_with_Shiny_Redesign

Platform Development: Core Infrastructure: Building a lightweight, federated publishing platform that aligns with #openweb principles, based on a federated wiki approach like Ibis. This includes robust ActivityPub integration for seamless interconnectivity with the Fediverse. UI/UX enhancements on top of this to show and shape the media flows.
Community Support and Training: Workshops: Conducting training sessions to onboard activists, journalists, and developers onto the platform, focusing on decentralized publishing and governance. Documentation: Creating clear, multilingual resources to empower communities to use and extend the platform independently.
Outreach and Advocacy: Network Building: Expanding the grassroots network by collaborating with existing projects in the Fediverse and the broader #FOSS ecosystem. Awareness Campaigns: Promoting the importance of independent media and the dangers of the #closedweb to engage both activists and potential contributors.
Maintenance and Sustainability: Hosting Costs: Providing stable hosting for early adopters and community-managed hubs. Ongoing Development: Allocating resources for iterative updates, security improvements, and adapting/building code and UX from user feedback.

Past and Present Funding Sources: Historically, the #indymediaback project has operated with minimal funding, relying on volunteer efforts and community goodwill to sustain its activities. Some aspects, such as initial platform experimentation and hosting small-scale instances in the Fediverse, were supported by personal contributions and donations from allied groups.

While the project has not yet received large-scale institutional funding, it has benefited from the collaborative ethos of the #FOSS and #openweb communities. Moving forward, the project seeks to diversify funding sources by exploring grants, grassroots crowdfunding, and partnerships with aligned organizations. However, maintaining independence from corporate or agenda-driven funding remains a core principle to safeguard the radical and democratic essence of the initiative.

The requested budget will act as a seed, enabling the #indymediaback project to transition from concept to sustainable implementation.

comparison

Comparison with Historical Indymedia: #Indymediaback: builds on the original ethos of news publishing and grassroots participation but adapts to modern needs with more robust and user-friendly technology. The project focuses on federated systems and decentralized governance to avoid the bottlenecks and centralization that hindered the original Indymedia.

Technology: early Indymedia used custom-built CMS platforms like DadaIMC, which were groundbreaking at the time but eventually became outdated. The lack of resources for updates and scalability led to significant challenges as the internet evolved.

Indymediaback: Leverages ActivityPub and the Fediverse, building on existing protocols and infrastructure while maintaining an open and adaptable architecture. This ensures scalability, security, and relevance in the evolving landscape of decentralized web technologies.

Comparison with Existing Fediverse Media Projects

Mastodon and Pixelfed, Flagships of the Fediverse project focused on microblogging, popularized ActivityPub and brought decentralized platforms into mainstream conversations. However, this success has also led to “NGO-style” #mainstreaming tendencies, with decisions catering to wider audiences rather than grassroots paths. Pixelfed: A decentralized alternative to Instagram, Pixelfed focuses on visual storytelling but often lacks the “news” path that #indymediaback seeks to prioritizes.

Indymediaback, unlike Mastodon or Pixelfed, explicitly targets “news” communities and grassroots content. Its focus is on collective storytelling and action, ensuring that it serves as a platform for organizing, not just broadcasting.

Lemmy and Kbin: Are Reddit-style platforms for community-driven forums, Lemmy demonstrates the potential for federated discussion but lacks the tools for journalistic workflows or media dissemination.

Bonfire Networks, is a federated platform emphasizing modularity, Bonfire aims to provide tools for diverse community needs. However, its roots in the #NGO space mean it struggles to align with actually reverent to grassroots paths.

Expected Outcome: The #indymediaback project revitalize “native” media by combining the best aspects of the original Indymedia—open publishing, grassroots participation, and activist focus—with the technological and governance advancements of the Fediverse. The outcome is a resilient, federated news network that empowers communities to create, share, and amplify their stories, freed from the constraints of corporate platforms and institutional agendas. This reboot provides a necessary counterbalance to the #closedweb and an avenue for meaningful news in these trubaled “post truth” times.

challenges

The #indymediaback project faces some challenges:

Federated Open Publishing: Developing a robust, ActivityPub-compatible open-publishing system to handle collaborative content creation and moderation at scale.

Scalability and Usability: Ensuring the platform can support diverse communities while remaining accessible to non-technical users.

Trust and Governance: Implementing transparent moderation tools and decentralized governance to balance openness with accountability.

Interoperability: Seamlessly integrating with existing Fediverse platforms while providing unique activist-focused features.

ecosystem

The ecosystem focus on empowering local activists, citizen journalists, and independent media organizations, providing them with tools for collaborative storytelling, decentralized publishing, and grassroots governance.

Key Ecosystem Actors:

Fediverse Platforms: Like Mastodon, Pixelfed, Peertube form the foundation for connecting and amplifying diverse communities. #indymediaback interoperates with these platforms, enriching the Fediverse with news-focused capabilities while leveraging their existing user bases.

Citizen journalists: community reporters, and activists will be the core creaters of the platform. The project will provide tools for collaborative content creation, transparent moderation, and open publishing to ensure their voices are heard.

Developers and technologists: open-source developers and technologists in the Fediverse and ActivityPub communities will play a critical role in refining and scaling the platform. The project will actively engage with forums like SocialHub to share progress, seek feedback, and align with broader Fediverse standards.

Grassroots organizations: Non-profits, collectives, and activist networks will be key collaborators. By building a decentralized news outlet, the project amplifys their impact while fostering cross-community solidarity.

Engagement Strategies: Collaborative development, hosting regular open sprints, hackathons, and discussions within the Fediverse to build a strong, participatory development culture.

Community support: Dedicated onboarding and user support resources will ensure seamless adoption by non-technical people and communities. Tutorials, workshops, and community-led training will help bridge the digital divides.

Outreach and partnerships: The project will engage with existing Fediverse admins, moderators, and activists to build a coalition for shared goals, promoting the outcomes through federated content streams and cross-platform collaborations.

Blindness and Compost

Let’s look fresh at an old idea, and useful path that is currently being blocked. Ideologies are frameworks for interpreting and navigating the world, the #mainstreaming “common sense” of rejecting them amounts to rejecting structured understanding. When people claim to eschew ideology, they default to the dominant paradigm, the #deathcult of #neoliberalism, without realizing it. This uncritical stance isn’t radical or alternative; it’s a by-product of mainstreaming and the disorienting effects of #postmodernism.

The act of composting this mess is acknowledging and breaking down these entrenched, harmful systems, for the needed, cultivating healthier, more grounded alternatives. Keeping it simple (#KISS) and reaching for that metaphorical shovel is the first step in transforming decayed ideas into fertile ground for the #OMN and other grassroots projects.

So yes, it’s time to dig deep, break it down, and build anew. Let’s shovel together. 🌱

What can you do? Some actions to reclaim the #openweb and refocus on its core principles of trust, humanity, and grassroots democracy is a good first step. The #posttruth era has eroded the integrity of our media, and tools like #Google—once a gateway to knowledge—have been reduced to serving the agendas of #dotcons and more recently the state, leaving us stranded in a desert of noise and distraction.

To take the different path, we need:

Composting the #geekproblem: Our tech culture has long been trapped in deterministic, myopic paths that prioritize tools over people. This “#techshit” needs to be broken down and repurposed, with a focus on social and democratic values rather than isolated, insular designs.
Pushing aside the #dotcons: These thrive on extraction, disconnection, and control. By putting them aside, we free ourselves to create paths and projects that genuinely serve communities, fostering collaboration rather than competition.
Rebooting the #openweb: Grassroots democracy must be central to this effort, with social technologies incorporating human and social needs into their design, ensuring they empower rather than alienate. The #OGB and projects like it offer a tangible path by embedding democratic processes and open collaboration into the fabric of the web.

A simple path is the on i take on this site, the invitation to “click on the hashtags and think” to challenge and break out of default paths of disengagement and passivity. The #OMN isn’t only a tech project; it’s a rallying cry for those who want to see through the mess of the #mainstreaming culture and the #deathcult of neoliberalism.

If you’re reading this and feel the pull, it’s time to act. Visit Statements of Support, sign up, and let’s compost the mess to grow a flourishing, democratic #openweb together. Don’t be shy—this is our moment. 🌱

Critique the ideological blindness of the tech world

The story often revolves around the #geekproblem and deeper ideological and structural issues in the tech world. There are internal conflicts in open movements. An example i like to talk about is the UK Indymedia project as a case study of ideological and technical battles between groups with different visions for open media. #Encryptionists: Advocated for security and privacy at the expense of openness, blocking aggregation efforts like RSS. #Fashernistas, sought control over media flows through proprietary yet “better” alternatives to open standards, undermining compatibility. #Openweb advocates promoted aggregation and widely adopted standards like RSS but were sidelined by other factions. The result was a self-destructive cycle that caused the UK Indymedia project to become irrelevant, exemplifying a broader failure to embrace shared, open solutions.

The broader #geekproblem, refers to the cultural and ideological blind spots of the tech community. A fetishization of privacy, encryption, and individualism, which serve market-driven ideologies rather than societal good. A failure to address systemic social and environmental issues (e.g., #climatechaos, #deathcult worship) in favour of isolated, tech-first solutions. The division between “open” (sharing power) and “closed” (hoarding power) reflects fundamental tensions between altruistic and exploitative visions of technology.

Society and technology, the story draws parallels between historical ideologies (e.g., capitalism’s greed vs. socialism’s altruism) and the current state of tech. Examples: Closed systems reinforce inequality, greed, and control. Open systems, guided by #4opens principles, prioritize cooperation, connection, and societal benefit. The problem of dogmatism on both sides of progressive tech (spiky vs. fluffy) hinders collaboration and slows progress.

Working grassroots projects need to return to basics, embrace openness, foster flow rather than blocking, and reject the destructive patterns embedded in neoliberal tech culture. The #4opens framework is a shovel to compost the ideological and technical mess, enabling meaningful technological change. Social movements and tech must integrate this change and challenge to prevent centralization and co-option.

It’s good to critique the ideological blindness of the tech world and suggests that only by fostering trust and openness can we build a sustainable future #KISS

Shifting tech to collaboration, accountability, and sustainability

For a nuanced take on the #geekproblem, we need to highlight challenges and cultural dynamics in tech development. A starting point is the support for standards as foundations, everything in tech is built upon layers of “open industrial standards,” which provide value and interoperability. Ignoring these foundations to create isolated systems is akin to “building sandcastles”—fragile and ephemeral. The process of defining standards, however, is itself flawed and sometimes exclusionary, reflecting broader social issues like tribalism or nationalism.

Tribalism in tech can be seen as innovation and community-building but can also create fragmentation, gatekeeping, and resistance to collaboration. Comparisons to nationalism suggest that, like nations, large #dotcons (e.g., Facebook, Google) exert power rivalling traditional states, creating their own “tribes” with significant social influence. Tribalism in tech isn’t inherently bad; it can build strong, purpose-driven communities. However, when it turns exclusionary and disconnected from real-world issues, it becomes counterproductive.

Critique of dotcons and deathcult focues on the dominance of for-profit platforms (#dotcons) and the neoliberal ideology (#deathcult) underpin much of the dysfunction in society, including within the tech world. Life “inside the dotcons” involves uncritical participation in harmful systems, perpetuating cycles of #stupidindividualism and environmental degradation (#climatechaos). Platforms like Facebook and Google exemplify prioritizing profit over public good. Moving away from this requires alternatives rooted in the #4opens: Open data, Open source, Open standards, Open processes. Projects like the #OMN exemplify this shift.

Mediating harm in tech development with the broader social and environmental impacts of technology, pushing against #stupidindividualism and toward collective, sustainable solutions. Much of the “blocking energy” comes from entrenched systems and social inertia rather than active conspiracies, though intent exists in places like #traditionalmedia. Developers have a responsibility to build systems that mediate harm and foster collective well-being. This means rejecting solutions that exacerbate individualism and embracing technologies that empower communities and address systemic issues like climatechaos.

The #geekproblem as dysfunction, the geekproblem reflects a 20th-century tribalism that fails to embrace the ethical, collaborative potential of the #openweb. Examples include failed projects like #Diaspora, which had technical merit but struggled due to cultural and governance issues. The dysfunction stems from a narrow focus on technical solutions without considering social or ethical dimensions. Bridging this gap requires integrating diverse perspectives into tech development, emphasizing simplicity and human-centric design.

We do need a call for change to address these challenges head-on, we need ethical interventions rather than drawn-out or overly complex common sense “solutions”. The geekproblem highlights the limitations of tech communities to balance technical expertise with broader social responsibility. Ultimately, the solution lies in rekindling the spirit of the openweb while actively composting the “shit heap” of the dotcons. One path is addressing the geekproblem, to shift tech culture toward collaboration, accountability, and sustainability, to create tools that serve people rather than profit #KISS

Application 2025-02-032 Open Governance Body #OGB

Application 2025-02-032 Open Governance Body #OGB received

The following submission was recorded by NLnet. Thanks for your application, we look forward to learning more about your proposed project.
Contact

name
hamish campbell
phone
email
hamish@visionon.tv
organisation name
OMN
country
UK
consent
You may keep my data on record

Project

code
2025-02-032
project name
Open Governance Body #OGB
fund
Commons_Fund
requested amount
€ 50000
website

    https://unite.openworlds.info/Open-Media-Network/openwebgovernancebody

synopsis

A project designed to create a trust-based, decentralized framework for governance within grassroots networks and communities. Rooted in the #4opens principles—open data, open source, open processes, and open standards—the #OGB seeks to mediate human-to-human collaboration by fostering trust, transparency, and simplicity (#KISS).

Its primary focus is addressing the #geekproblem by bridging technical and social flows, creating tools that empower people to organize effectively without falling into hierarchical or centralized traps. The #OGB builds on trust to sift through noise, allowing genuine contributions to rise, moving from complexity to simplicity and back to complexity organically.

The expected outcomes include:

Strengthened grassroots governance: Tools for decision-making and collaboration that are inclusive and scalable.
A thriving #openweb ecosystem: Platforms and networks that prioritize trust and social value over profit.
Mediation of mainstreaming and NGO influence: Keeping progressive activism focused on spiky, meaningful change rather than fluffy distractions.

The #OGB aims to create sustainable digital commons that nurture resilience, diversity, and real-world impact.

experience

Yes, I’ve been involved in projects and communities aligned with the ethos and goals of the #OGB. My contributions span technical development, advocacy, and fostering open governance frameworks, all rooted in the principles of trust, transparency, and collaboration.

Indymedia, I was an active contributor to the global Indymedia movement, which played a pivotal role in grassroots media and decentralized collaboration. My contributions focused on: Open publishing workflows to empower communities to share their stories. Advocating for the “trust at the edges” model to ensure decision-making remained grassroots-driven. Bridging technical and social challenges by helping develop and maintain tools that aligned with the movement’s values.
OMN (Open Media Network), As one of the key proponents of the #OMN, I’ve worked to reboot grassroots media using trust-based networks and federated tools. My contributions include: Developing the concept of #4opens (open data, open source, open processes, open standards) to serve as a foundational framework. Advocating for federated tools like #ActivityPub and #RSS to enable media flows across decentralized networks. Organizing collaborative spaces to design tools that prioritize human-to-human trust rather than algorithms or centralized control.
Fediverse Advocacy, Within the Fediverse, I’ve championed the importance of grassroots governance and resisting the co-option of these spaces by corporate or NGO interests. Contributions include: Participating in discussions to shape decentralized protocols like #ActivityPub. Pushing for #KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid) principles to ensure accessibility and scalability. Highlighting the dangers of #mainstreaming and proposing strategies to mediate its impact on the #openweb.
Open Governance Experiments, I’ve collaborated on smaller experimental governance projects aimed at exploring new ways of mediating human collaboration. For example: Designing trust-based moderation systems to reduce #geekproblem domination in decision-making processes. Implementing open-process methodologies to ensure transparency in workflows. Mediating conflicts between technical and social contributors, fostering productive collaboration.

Core Contributions Across Projects, across all these initiatives, my primary focus has been on bridging the technical and human aspects of governance. This involves: Developing frameworks that enable decentralized decision-making while maintaining trust. Advocating for simplicity to combat the paralysis caused by unnecessary complexity. Building alliances and mediating the challenges posed by #dotcons, #NGO dominance, and #geekproblem tendencies.

Through these efforts, I’ve gained insights into the challenges of building sustainable governance models in decentralized spaces, and the #OGB embodies the culmination of this work. It’s a step forward in creating robust, trust-based networks that empower communities to take control of their digital and social spaces.

usage

Budget Allocation for #OGB Project

The requested budget will be allocated strategically to ensure the project’s foundational development and long-term sustainability. An outline of key areas:

Technical Development and Infrastructure (40%) Development of Core Tools: Funding will support developers to build the initial version of the #OGB code, focusing on simplicity, accessibility, and scalability. Server Infrastructure: Setting up and maintaining federated servers for testing, development, and early adoption. Integration with Existing Standards: Work to align with protocols like #ActivityPub, #Nostr and #RSS, ensuring seamless interoperability with the broader #openweb ecosystem.
Community Building and Outreach (25%) Workshops and Training: Organizing sessions to train communities on the #OGB framework, focusing on trust-based governance and open-process workflows. Content Creation: Developing accessible documentation, tutorials, and guides to demystify the #OGB model for diverse audiences. Engagement Campaigns: Reaching out to grassroots organizations, activists, and communities to onboard early adopters.
Research and Iterative Design (20%) User Feedback Loops: Conducting trials with early adopters to gather insights and refine the tools and processes. Governance Framework Refinement: Exploring different trust-based models to ensure inclusivity and adaptability to various contexts. Conflict Mediation Strategies: Testing and integrating mechanisms for conflict resolution and power balance within the #OGB framework.
Administrative and Miscellaneous Costs (15%) Project Coordination: Funding part-time coordinators to manage timelines, resources, and community engagement. Operational Expenses: Covering software donations, events, domain hosting, and other minor but essential operational costs.

Past and Present Funding Sources. The #OGB project is currently unfunded in a formal sense, operating entirely through volunteer contributions. However, it is rooted in a history of collaborative efforts from related initiatives, which have benefited from in-kind support rather than direct funding.

Past Sources: #OMN and #Indymedia Communities: Provided foundational concepts and voluntary contributions of time, skills, and infrastructure. Fediverse and #Activertypub Advocates: Offered insights and testing environments for early experimentation with governance ideas.

challenges

Present Sources: Volunteer Contributions: Core contributors are donating their time and resources to push the project forward. Allied Projects: Informal support from related decentralized tech communities, sharing knowledge, feedback, and occasional resources.

Future Vision, while external funding is vital to accelerate the project’s development, we aim to maintain independence and adhere to the #4opens principles. By minimizing reliance on corporate or NGO funding, we ensure that the #OGB remains a grassroots-driven initiative. Our long-term goal is to establish a self-sustaining model through community contributions and shared ownership, embodying the trust-based governance the project seeks to promote.

Detailed budget breakdown can be attached if required.

comparison

The #OGB (Open Governance Body) project stands on the shoulders of both historical and contemporary efforts, drawing lessons from their successes and failures to craft a novel path to decentralized governance.

A comparative analysis: Historical Projects and Their Influence

Indymedia (Independent Media Centers) Overview: Indymedia was a global network of grassroots media collectives that emerged in the late 1990s to provide a platform for independent journalism. It embodied principles of openness, decentralization, and non-hierarchical governance. Comparison: Like Indymedia, #OGB aims to empower communities through open and decentralized structures. However, Indymedia struggled with governance conflicts and centralization of power in some regions. The #OGB addresses these issues through trust-based networks, conflict mediation mechanisms, and scalable governance tools. Key Takeaway: The #OGB builds on the ethos of Indymedia while implementing technological solutions to mitigate governance bottlenecks.

Occupy Movement’s General Assemblies. Overview: Occupy’s assemblies were experiments in direct democracy, emphasizing inclusivity and consensus-based decision-making. However, the lack of structured governance led to inefficiency and internal conflicts. Comparison: The #OGB shares Occupy’s commitment to participatory governance but incorporates trust-based models to build the decision-making. Instead of full consensus, the #OGB employs trust networks to delegate decisions while retaining accountability and inclusivity. Key Takeaway: The #OGB leverages structured trust-based governance to overcome the decision-making paralysis often seen in consensus-driven movements.

Contemporary Projects and Their Relationship to #OGB. Fediverse and #ActivityPub. Overview: The Fediverse is a decentralized network of federated platforms like Mastodon, powered by the ActivityPub protocol it is pushing user autonomy and grassroots control but has faced challenges around governance and moderation.
Comparison: The #OGB complements the Fediverse by providing governance structures for federated projects, addressing the ongoing issues of moderation and decision-making. The #OGB’s trust networks align with the decentralized ethos of the Fediverse, offering a scalable solution for community self-governance. Key Takeaway: The #OGB enhances the governance layer missing in many Fediverse projects, fostering resilience and collaboration across federated networks.

NGO-Led Open Source Initiatives. Overview: Many open-source projects are managed by NGOs, which often prioritize stability and funding over grassroots participation. This has led to criticism of centralized decision-making and “corporate capture.” Comparison: The #OGB resists NGO-style top-down management, instead prioritizing the #4opens principles: open data, open source, open process, and open standards. Unlike NGO-driven projects, the #OGB is inherently community-first, ensuring power remains with the users and contributors. Key Takeaway: The #OGB rejects the NGO-centric model, emphasizing trust-based grassroots governance to avoid co-option by external actors.

Lessons from Historical Failures. CouchSurfing’s Decline. Overview: CouchSurfing transitioned from a grassroots volunteer-driven project to a for-profit company, alienating its core community and undermining trust. Comparison: The #OGB guards against such shifts by embedding trust and open governance at its core, ensuring the project remains community-owned and operated. Key Takeaway: Trust-based governance prevents mission drift and maintains alignment with the community’s original values.

P2P Projects and Overengineering. Overview: Many P2P initiatives have failed due to technical complexity and a lack of user-friendly interfaces, alienating non-technical users. Comparison: The #OGB adheres to the #KISS principle (Keep It Simple, Stupid), ensuring accessibility and ease of adoption without sacrificing functionality. Key Takeaway: Simplicity is essential for widespread adoption and long-term viability.

Key Differentiators of the #OGB Trust-Based Networks. Unlike purely consensus-driven or hierarchical models, the #OGB employs trust-based networks to enable efficient and inclusive decision-making at scale. The #4opens Framework. The #OGB is grounded in the #4opens principles, ensuring transparency, accountability, and openness across all aspects of the project. Focus on Digital Commons. The #OGB is designed to nurture digital commons, creating a space for grassroots innovation, collaboration, and governance that resists corporate capture. Composting the #TechShit, creating fertile ground for genuine social innovation.

Expected Outcomes. The #OGB aims to fill the governance gap left by historical and contemporary efforts, fostering a resilient, open, and trust-based framework for digital collaboration. By learning from the past and building on existing technologies, we seek to empower communities to reclaim the #openweb, bridging the gap between technology and grassroots activism.

The #OGB project faces significant challenges in implementing scalable trust-based governance systems. Key technical hurdles include:

Interoperability: Ensuring seamless integration with existing open protocols like #ActivityPub and the widening #openweb reboot.
Usability: Creating user-friendly interfaces to make complex governance processes accessible to non-technical people.
Resilience: Building systems resistant to malicious actors and spam within decentralized networks.

Are a few issues.

ecosystem

The #OGB project is rooted in a diverse ecosystem of grassroots organizations, decentralized communities, and open-source initiatives.

Ecosystem Description

Grassroots Communities: Activist groups, independent media collectives, and community-driven initiatives seeking alternatives to hierarchical decision-making.
FOSS Developers: Open-source software developers invested in decentralized tools, such as #ActivityPub, #Mastodon, and related protocols.
NGOs and Advocacy Groups: Organizations interested in participatory governance and transparency tools for improving their operations.
Tech Enthusiasts: People exploring ethical and sustainable technology beyond the centralized #dotcons paradigm.
Academic and Research Institutions: Scholars studying governance, social movements, and decentralized technologies.

Engagement Strategies

Collaborative Development: Open, participatory development processes underpinned by the #4opens philosophy (open data, source, process, and standards).
Workshops and Webinars: Educating target audiences about trust-based governance and the project’s tools.
Partnerships: Building alliances with aligned organizations, including community networks and FOSS projects.
Documentation and Guides: Creating accessible materials to help communities adopt #OGB principles and tools.
Pilot Projects: Collaborating with grassroots organizations to implement and refine governance systems, ensuring practical impact.

Promotion of Outcomes

Demonstration Projects: Showcasing successful case studies of #OGB governance in action.
Fediverse Integration: Leveraging federated platforms for dissemination and collaboration.
Open Events: Participating in conferences, hackathons, and public forums to share insights and foster adoption

GOVERNANCE-BODY_REV-March-2022.pdf
OGB-dev.png