Food for thought for people trying to change the world. For the last ten years, activism has been trapped in a paradox: we speak of grassroots change, yet we reach for #dotcons and #geekproblem tools that are built for vertical control. The digital infrastructure we rely on is dominated by top-down structures, reinforcing the power dynamics we are claiming to be resisting. Meanwhile, the #4opens horizontal tools, the ones that grow collaboration, openness, and true grassroots organizing, sit unused at the bottom of the toolbox.
This isn’t a simple tech issue; it reflects how activism itself is structured. Most organizing still happens through #closed, opaque affinity groups, mirroring the exclusivity and hierarchy of the paths are pushing to dismantle. The language of activism, whether framed in utopian peace and love or rigid revolutionary rhetoric, masks this blunt reality. In truth, too much of what passes for activism today reproduces the same centralized power structures, just with different slogans.
Yet, we live in one of the most open and radical times for building real alternatives. The tools for horizontalism exist. The challenge isn’t a lack of technology, platforms or networks, it’s a failure to break free from ingrained habits that push control and gatekeeping. The real work isn’t about using better tools; it’s about shifting how we organize. Transparency, openness, and collective governance must move from the margins to the centre of our activism. With the #OMN the seeds of the tool set are there, what’s missing is the will to develop and use them.
The tension between control vs. trust in tech and society is a core to defining the success or failure of grassroots, open projects like #OMN and the #fediverse. The problem isn’t just technical, but deeply social: a struggle between hierarchical control (power over) and distributed, democratic trust (power within).
But we have the ongoing #geekproblem which keeps repeating, open projects fail because devs build control-based systems rather than trust-based ones. This results in endless cycles of #techchurn, producing #techshit instead of durable, humane tools. Metaphors matter, I like to try #datasoup or #witchescauldron (with the #goldenladle as the app interface) as a powerful way to frame how we should be thinking about tech, fluid, organic, adaptable rather than rigid, controlled, and top-down.
The #4opens approach is a solution to a thriving semantic web of transparency, grassroots processes, and tools that reflect the diversity of people using them—not centralizing power in closed systems. Balance is crucial, the #openweb decays when #mainstreaming pushes over the commons, just as the #dotcons did with the early web. If we don’t actively mediate power, we lose everything to enclosure. Spreading power widely through open democratic governance, combined with a real culture of diversity and autonomy, is the best balance we’ve found so far. The problem we face is that this in our current thinking, this is anti “common sense”.
The #Fediverse is a useful case study, its strength is accidental, not only in standards, code, or power politics, but in good UX and #4opens processes. The biggest danger is internal infighting and distractions, often fuelled by ego, control struggles, and lack of process. The chaos of #mainstreaming serves a purpose, but it’s not a good one. It fractures movements, undermines trust, and ultimately hands power back to the gatekeepers.
What’s next, how do we actively resist these cycles rather than just watching them play out again? The #OMN path makes sense, but what’s the next tangible step to anchor it in practice? Are there any spaces left where trust can be built at scale, or do we need to create them from scratch?
The video is bad quality VHS, but worth your time to see a progressive #openweb native capitalism, and to find grounding for post-capitalist with the #OMN project.
Mark S. Miller’s presentation on the Xanadu Hypertext System at George Mason University (GMU) in the early ’90s is good to reference when discussing the #OMN (Open Media Network). The ideas explored then were ahead of their time, but the web ultimately took a worse/better path, a “stupid” #KISS implementation rather than the more idealistic and complex vision of #Xanadu.
Why “Stupid” Wins Over “Perfect”, the lesson is clear: ✅ Nobody agrees on “perfect”, so it never gets built. ✅ “Stupid” solutions work because they let people do their own version. ✅ From diversity comes growth, from growth comes change. ✅ Change is what challenges the current #mainstreaming mess.
This is exactly what the #OMN is doing, taking a simple, “stupid” approach that lets people build their own solutions, rather than arguing endlessly about abstract perfection. Just like the web succeeded by ignoring Xanadu’s “perfect” vision, the #OMN will thrive by avoiding over-engineering and focusing on real-world usability.
With the #Fediverse and the #Openweb, it helps to see the Fediverse as a half-decentralized #openweb project that allows people to communicate across different servers. Unlike centralized platforms, it shifts control back to people and community, but it inherits many of the same flawed assumptions from the #dotcons. Strengths of the Fediverse:
Decentralization – No single company controls it.
(Supposed) Privacy – While privacy is valued, it’s ultimately a #4opens project, meaning transparency is the real focus.
Freedom of Expression – No single authority to censor content, it has community moderation.
Control Over Data – People can move between servers (to some extent).
Customization – Communities can shape their own experience.
❌ It still copies the #dotcons too much. ❌ It struggles with large-scale collaboration. ❌ It isn’t designed for media or broadcasting.
The Fediverse is a big step in the right direction, but it lacks a strong foundation for alternative media and real working #DIY culture. The #OMN is designed to fill this gap, moving beyond microblogging clones and building real federated media networks.
The key to success in all these paths is leaving capitalism out, one of the biggest reasons the #Openweb worked while Xanadu fizzled is that it didn’t try to “fix” capitalism, it just ignored it. Many well-meaning open projects get stuck because they try to compromise with the existing system rather than building outside of it. This is where the #OMN takes its stand: Not trying to “reform” the #dotcons. Not chasing corporate funding or NGO approval. Building tools that actually work for grassroots communities.
If we take the #4opens and #DIY cultural path, we can create an alternative, something that doesn’t get swallowed by the #mainstreaming like so many past projects. In the end, if we don’t build these spaces, the corporate web will absorb everything. Let’s see the current mess as compost, we can either let it rot uselessly or turn it into the soil for something new. We are empowered to act on this, the choice is ours.
The geek path for tech and social change, was always a diverse view, though always full of the #geekproblem. It’s interesting that this all turned into monopoly capitalism with the #dotcons we have now. The problem is the #geekproblem, we need to do better.
One thing to be aware of is that encryption is largely used to introduce scarcity into natural post scarcity digital paths, in this it is about imposing the old on the new. Encryption as a tool of digital scarcity, a core problem of crypto/blockchain hype – it recreates capitalist control structures rather than abolishing them.
The blinding effect of mainstream ideology, whether it’s neoliberalism, conspiracy-laced #spirituality, or rigid #geekproblem worship. These all act as barriers to change, keeping people locked in reactive cycles instead of building something different.
The #deathcult (neoliberalism) ensures its survival by designing failure, carbon offsetting, cap-and-trade, plastic recycling, all engineered to look like solutions while maintaining the status quo. These weren’t mistakes; they were intentional. The same happens in tech, where #encryptionists believe they’re liberating people while locking them into opaque, controlled, isolated paths. Security as fear, rather than trust.
What do we do differently now? We have to stop playing by their rules, whether it’s cancel culture’s purity tests, the process geek bureaucracy, or liberal progressives too afraid to act outside the acceptable neoliberal framework. That means:
Break from #mainstreaming narratives – Stop looking to “official” solutions when they are structured to fail.
Stop feeding fear, cowardice, and greed – Recognize when “safe” choices are actually surrendering power to systems of control.
Step into federated, trust-based models – #openweb and #4opens approaches don’t just shift power; they change how power operates.
Mediating the #geekproblem is core, we have the tools to build alternatives, but the very people who have power to make the change happen are often blinded by their own logic traps, trapped in a false neutrality that serves power, or in rigid frameworks that make real-world change impossible. If we can challenge this blindness, we can bring them into broader movements instead of leaving them locked in their own subcultures.
Non-geeks need pathways to access, understand, and shape technology.
Decentralisation and federated trust models should be built with social movements, not just coders.
The #4opens is a path, the commons-based approach to software is an example of an alternative that works. The stagnant ideology of capitalism blocks innovation that already exists in open, federated models. What we need to compost is the blinded majority keeps trying to push radical tech back into the broken frameworks they understand instead of embracing real alternatives. That’s the cycle we need to break.
If we don’t step outside our own ideological traps, we won’t see the paths that already exist. The world doesn’t have to be this way, but we need to start living the alternatives, not just critiquing the failures.
The world we live in as been shaped by 40 years of #neoliberalism and #postmodernism, both of which have systematically dismantled radical change and challenge paths that used to exist. Its now pastime to reclaim these paths, to do this we now need to reject the illusions of “common sense” fed to us by the #deathcult and reboot our social view from a place of clarity. This is where the #hashtags come into use, acting as linking/flow tools for navigating, understanding, and breaking free from the mess we’re all in.
The #nothingnew hashtag is a simple and effective (#KISS) framework for understanding where we went wrong and how to start moving forward again. It rejects the dominant neoliberal and postmodern ideologies that have smothered radical politics for four decades. Instead, it seeks to reboot social change by returning to the original modernist path, rooted in progress, structure, and tangible social transformation.
Once we re-establish this foundation, we can move beyond it to build #somethingnew. But without a starting point, all attempts at change remain trapped in the same mess and fog that has been #blocking to preserve the current status quo for too long. The modernist approach of clarity, direct action, and meaningful social structures needs to replace the disorienting, fragmented logic of postmodern cynicism that has paralysed social movements and left the field open for growing fascist dominance.
#geekproblem – Technology, Control, and the Worship of Power
The #geekproblem is a complex challenge, one that sits at the heart of many of our current struggles. While technology could be a liberating force, it has instead been shaped into a tool for control, both in the hands of capitalist class and within geek culture itself. The problem stems from, that, geeks, historically, have been builders and problem solvers. But many have a deeply ingrained need for CONTROL, which is fundamentally out of balance with the collaborative ethos of modernism. Over the last 40 years, as technology has concentrated power, geek culture has been co-opted by the #deathcult, prioritising power, profit, and authoritarianism over openness and freedom.
To fix this, we need to take the “problem” out of the “geek.” That means confronting the fetishisation of control, hierarchy, and technocratic elitism that pervades much of tech culture. This is not a #KISS problem, it requires real and deep reflection, social engagement to bring back into focus the reclamation of technology as a force for liberation.
The #deathcult is a blunt and direct metaphor for neoliberalism, the ideology of destruction that has dominated the world for the last 40 years. This is a #KISS idea because it’s simple, it tells the story that Neoliberalism isn’t about building, it’s about extraction, enclosure, and control. That yes, it disguises itself as common sense, but in reality, it is an economic death spiral, for the planet, for workers, for public services, and for communities. Every time you hear markets presented as the solution to our problems, you are hearing the voice of the #deathcult.
For an example of this, just look at #UN COP process, where the world’s response to climate catastrophe was to double down on markets and profit-driven “solutions.” We are in a truly nasty mess because we have spent decades blindly worshipping a system destined to destroy us.
Breaking free from the mess, understanding and using the #hashtags can push clarity to conversations, as it hard to talk “common sense” with such a clear rejection of the confusion and stagnation that has kept us locked into #mainstreaming dogma.
Using these frameworks, we begin to rebuild a movement that is rooted in reality, not neoliberal delusions. The question is, are we ready to do this work?
Open source was always political, the very idea of #FOSS was always a radical, left-leaning stance.
Let’s be honest, you’re giving away your labour. Not for profit, not for career points, but because you believe we’d all be better off together if we stopped rewriting the same bits of code in isolation and started building commons instead of empires.
That’s not apolitical – that’s solidarity.
The #openweb was never just about better software. It was about building a world where cooperation beats competition, where transparency outlasts control, and where freedom comes from sharing, not hoarding.
People forget this because the #dotcons spent twenty years repackaging #4opens code into the thin layer of closed platforms, wrapping our collective labour in corporate branding, and calling it “innovation.” They turned our commons into their capital.
But the roots of the movement, the #4opens, the free software ethos, the hacker culture of mutual aid – were never neutral. They were radical acts of refusal. Refusal to sell out creativity. Refusal to turn knowledge into property. Refusal to let gatekeepers define what freedom means.
So yes, the open source community is political. It always has been. Every act of collaboration is a quiet rebellion against the isolation and control of the #deathcult.
When you write open code, you’re not just solving problems – you’re composting capitalism. You’re proving that another way of working exists, that cooperation scales better than greed, and that shared tools make freer people.
That’s why projects like the #OMN (Open Media Network) matter. They’re not just technical, they’re social, cultural, revolutionary. They remind us that freedom isn’t built on code alone, but on the courage to share, to trust, and to keep things open when everything around us screams for control.
Open source was always political, it’s time we remembered what side it was on.
To look at why this is important, we need to move outside the comfort zones of #mainstreaming thinking. Let’s start by touching on the role of #protestcamps in direct action: protest camps are temporary activist spaces set up in public areas to bring attention to social, environmental, and political issues. These camps create a direct action environment where people gather, discuss, and demonstrate. They range from #fluffy (peaceful and symbolic) to #spiky (disruptive and confrontational), depending on the nature of the cause and the activists involved.
This raises the question of who uses these strategies and spaces, some examples of protest movements: #Occupy Movement – Challenged economic inequality and corporate influence. #ClimateCamp – A radical grassroots direct action movement to counter #climatechaos through awareness, policy pressure, and direct disruption. Climate camp was active in multiple countries, it peaked in the late 2000s and early 2010s, influencing both public debate and government action. #CriticalMass – A decentralized cycling activism movement, founded in 1992, that uses monthly mass bike rides to reclaim public space and challenge car culture.
These examples are all of grassroots politics operates from the bottom up, empowering people to engage directly rather than relying on mediating political parties or institutions. This long traditional path give communities a voice and enable change outside the #blocking power of traditional structures. Direct action & grassroots politics is always the working change and challenge when activism bypasses traditional political intermediaries, using disruptive tactics like strikes, sit-ins, and blockades.
Together, these methods provide the non #mainstreaming democratic, practical paths to challenge authority, disrupt harmful policies, and drive real change. Let’s look at another example, the debate around #XR (Extinction Rebellion), founded in 2018, #XR uses nonviolent civil disobedience to push governments to act on the #climatecrisis. The movement is divisive, some see it as #spiky, using direct action to force political change. Others argue it’s too #fluffy, adhering to liberal ideas of legality and nonviolence, that limits its real radical potential. Whether #XR is a radical or liberal movement remains an active debate, but the impact it has had on public discourse and activism is undeniable. This living active fluffy/spiky debate is core to affective grassroots activism.
This experience is what we need to pass onto the current #4opens alternatives & horizontalist paths in tech, which to often, have the assumption that liberal legality alone will fix systemic problems, which is an easy to see #geekproblem fantasy we need to focus on balancing. A path to do this is learning from the above history of activism, native #FOSS and #4opens structures, which, yes are not without challenges, are needed to build alternatives that avoid the false hope that #mainstreaming institutions will voluntarily dismantle themselves.
As I keep highlighting, activism isn’t separate from tech development, with the #FOSS traditions coming from tech activism already. Movements like #Indymedia, #Fediverse, and #OMN show that #FOSS paths can be built with social movements in mind. In the end, if we don’t shape our own digital tools, they will be co-opted by #dotcons and restricted #mainstreaming “common sense”. The solution? Rebuild tech from the ground up, not just by resisting, but by actively creating the alternatives we want to see.
There are a lot of mental health issues that are pushed over us in what remains of our open alt spaces, we need ways to mediate the damage, to help the people who spread this mess. The path of the #mainstreaming is corrosive to the alt cultures it feeds on. The cycle is always the same:
Radical ideas emerge → They are raw, open, and challenging.
Mainstreaming co-opts them → Dilutes them into something marketable.
They become performative → Used as branding by the #fashernista left, while the right weaponises the left’s discarded tools (like direct action).
The original movement is discredited → The real alternatives get buried under a mess of victimhood narratives, NGO bureaucracy, and “respectable” gatekeeping.
Composting this mess, one way is radical openness, but in a way that is intentional rather than naïve:
#4opens as a grounding principle → The more we expose the internal workings of a movement, the harder it is for power politics and NGO rot to take hold.
Affinity-based organising → Trust-based, decentralised, and responsive, avoiding the traps of rigid structures that get hijacked.
Resisting the urge to close → Every time a movement feels under attack, there’s a knee-jerk reaction to centralise and control. That’s how we lose.
Recognising how #dotcons manipulate OPEN/CLOSED → They’ve mastered open for them, closed for us, and turned it into a system of social control.
To take these step we need to admit we live in a gatekeepered world, yes the old media gatekeepers are gone, but what we have now is worse. The illusion of openness in the #dotcons masks a totalitarian model of control that makes traditional media censorship look almost quaint. Until we acknowledge that, every alt project will keep getting swallowed or broken from within.
The challenge for #OMN & #openweb is that we need to rebuild media and organising from a place of resilience, not just reaction. The #geekproblem, the #NGO mess, and the left’s failure to defend its own tools have left us in a weak position, but there’s still compost to grow something from. So, who’s ready to get their hands dirty?
How we describe things matters, in this our #fashionistas “common sense” needs work to compost. The #openweb is a much better framing than #fediverse when trying to break out of the tribal bubbles. It speaks to something broader and historical, whereas #fediverse is just one (flawed) expression of those ideas.
Why #openweb matters, it’s not new, which is actually a strength, this is the original internet vision before it got hijacked by #dotcons. It avoids the self-referential nature of the #fediverse, which often turns into a closed loop of devs talking to devs. It’s a term that can bridge communities rather than reinforcing in-group/out-group dynamics.
The limits of mirroring #dotcons, the first stage of the #fediverse, was largely about copying corporate social media platforms but without the profit motive. That was useful, but it’s hit a ceiling. Why? Lack of real community support – Devs build stuff, but actual social infrastructure is missing. Scaling the wrong way – Just copying individualist, engagement-driven models doesn’t actually create an open, healthy network. Reinforcing the #geekproblem – Developers remain in control, not communities, which leads to predictable NGO-style behaviour creeping in.
Shifting the balance in tech, we can’t just keep replicating the #mainstreaming mess in different codebases. The tech itself needs to reflect the values of the #openweb, decentralised in governance, not just code, community-led, not dev-controlled, process transparency, not just ‘open-source’ performatively.
Dealing with the #geekproblem, devs are used to solving problems in isolation, but society isn’t a coding challenge. They often bring #NGO behaviour into the #fediverse, expecting deference to their authority—and then act surprised when there’s kickback.
Being #openweb native, if you’re coming from the NGO world, you’ll have a much better time if you actually engage with the native culture of the #openweb rather than trying to impose external hierarchies. Otherwise, you’ll just recreate the same socially and self-destructive patterns that have wrecked everything else. So yeah, to boost this thinking, we need to start using #openweb more and move beyond the #fediverse branding trap.
The #4opens and #nothingnew both cut through 99% of the crap so the few people who are going to do something can do something that would be useful rather than unless. From useful you get a few more people, rinse and repeat, and you get social change and challenge, even if this is repressed or implodes, it will be more fun, and interesting than the current mess making.
A lot of the posts on this site are based on the thinking that technology is how a society interacts with physical reality. It’s how we feed, clothe, shelter, and heal ourselves. It’s the material stuff that makes life possible, from cooking fires to solar panels, from flint knives to AI algorithms. What is so messy today is the common sense embedded in this thinking, that only ‘hi-tech’ counts as technology which is an absurdity born from a century and a half of industrial brainwashing.
We’ve been so numbed by endless ‘progress’ that we assume only things as complex as computers and jet bombers qualify as technology. As if paper, ink, wheels, clocks, and aspirin pills weren’t tech, just things that exist, like trees and rivers. As if steel saucepans with copper bottoms and fleece vests spun from recycled plastic grew on trees, ripe for the picking.
The false divide of ‘hi-tech’ and ‘low-tech’ is a bad illusion that we need to see through. Try lighting a fire without matches, realise that even so-called primitive tech takes skill and knowledge. Try making a fishhook, a shoe, or a simple tool, realise how much has been lost in the rush towards hyper-specialised consumerism.
Tech isn’t just what we consume, it’s what we can learn to do. That’s the point. And all science is, at its core, technological, whether we understand this or not. A lot of what the #geekproblem thinks as social is just as much technology, as the hard blinded modernism they tend to worship, the cults are as much a problem as a “solution”. The social structures that we use to shape the world our geeks tend to “blindly” worship is technology, too.
Many years ago, I wrote on my website sidebar: “A river that needs crossing—political and tech blogs: On the political side, there is arrogance and ignorance; on the geek side, there is naivety and over-complexity.” Decades later, we still to often find ourselves standing on opposite shores of this river, struggling to bridge the understanding gap between human-centric communities and the techno-centric mindset of the “geek class.” This divide is a core challenge for anyone invested in building a better, decentralised #openweb.
This battle isn’t just about technology—it’s a deeper, unspoken struggle between openness and control. It’s about whether our social networks and communities will empower human trust and collaboration, or continue to be shaped by closed systems that reduce people to passive users.
To touch on this, it’s worth looking at a tale of two projects: Diaspora vs Mastodon
The history of the #openweb provides stark lessons. Consider #Diaspora and #Mastodon, two decentralised platforms with very different outcomes.
Diaspora had significant funding, public attention, and a large team of coders. Yet, it failed completely. Why? It was built with a #FOSS closed mindset—trying to replicate the control features of corporate platforms but within a decentralised framework.
Mastodon, by contrast, had no funding, minimal publicity, and just one dedicated coder. It succeeded because it embraced openness—allowing communities to organically grow and evolve based on shared principles rather than top-down control.
The lesson is clear: projects rooted in openness thrive, while those built on closed fail.
The #OMN path is human trust networks over algorithms. One of the core goals is to learn from these past successes and failures. From these focuses on growing federated human communities by prioritising openness, trust, and collaboration over technical “perfection.”
A counterintuitive path – Why Spam and “Bad Content” Matter. It might sound counterintuitive, but spam and irrelevant posts are a necessary part of building communities. Without the challenge of sorting and filtering content, there’s no reason for humans to reach out, form trust networks, and collaborate on moderation. Geeks often see spam as a technical problem to be solved with algorithms, but this approach misses where the value is.
Algorithms centralise power, when we rely on black-box technology to handle content moderation, control shifts to the people who design and manage these “boxes”. This creates invisible hierarchies, as seen with #Failbook and other #dotcons platforms. By relying on human moderation and trust-building, communities become stronger and more self-sustaining. People are motivated to engage, connect, and contribute to a path they help shape.
Spam and low-quality content must flow into the network as part of the process, but the network itself should flush this out to organically push valuable content to the top through human effort. Of course there is a balance here, this decentralised approach keeps power in the hands of the community balanced with the coders. With this flow of data and metadata established, we put some federated structure in place.
Scale through federation creates organic grow.
Base Sites: These are narrow, local, or subject-focused publishing sites where content creation happens. They are small and community-driven, and their true value lies in their specificity and grassroots community engagement.
Middle Sites: This aggregate content from the base sites, adding value by curating, tagging, and filtering. They act as the core of the network, sifting through content to ensure quality and relevance.
Top Sites: These are broad outreach platforms designed for #mainstreaming content. They are easy to set up and administer but add little original value. Instead, they highlight and amplify the best content from the base and middle layers. These sites are the change and challenge.
This structure reverses the traditional value pyramid, where top-down platforms dominate. In the #OMN model, the true value resides at the grassroots base, while the top merely reflects the collective effort below.
Moderation as a feature, not a problem, for the network to thrive, it must scale through human connections and trust, moderation is the fuel for building the trust networks.
Trusted Links: Content flows through trusted networks, where moderators ensure quality.
Moderation Levels: New contributors are moderated until trust is established. Over time, as trust builds, moderation becomes less/unnecessary.
Failure Modes: Without trust-building, sites will either become overwhelmed by irrelevant content or collapse under the weight of unmanageable workloads.
The only way to maintain a useful site is to build, either a large, healthy community with diverse moderators and administrators, or a small, focused group based on high-quality, trusted connections. Both outcomes are desirable and reinforce the decentralised ethos of the #OMN.
Why automation fails, the temptation to automate everything is a hallmark of the #geekproblem. While algorithms might make a network “technically” better, they erode the human element, which is the entire point of decentralisation. Automation creates middling-quality networks with mediocre outcomes, leading to Signal-to-Noise problems, reduced motivation, if everything is automated, why bother forming trust networks and engaging deeply?
Less is more should be a guiding principle. By focusing on simplicity and human collaboration, the #OMN avoids the pitfalls of over-engineering and maintains the integrity of its community-driven mission to build a better future. The #OMN isn’t just about technology; it’s about creating spaces where people can connect, collaborate, and build trust. It’s about empowering communities to take ownership of their networks and their narratives.
This road won’t be easy. We’ll need to fight against the inertia of the #dotcons and resist the urge to repeat the mistakes of the last decade’s failed alt-tech projects. But by embracing the #4opens principles, we can create a web that serves people, not corporations. The tools are already here. The open internet still exists, for now. The choice is clear, build for humans, not for algorithms. Trust people, not black boxes. Decentralise, federate, and grow organically. The #OMN provides a roadmap—now it’s time to follow it.
As the #fashernista and #geekproblem “debate” over social media platforms intensifies, the choice between public, decentralised networks and corporate-controlled #dotcons has never been clearer. Let’s look at a simple example:
Mastodon is owned by no one and everyone (community-driven). Its structure is public non-profit. Number of distributed nodes are in the thousands (fully decentralised). Post length: 500 characters and more. Can edit? Yes. Mastodon represents the native #openweb. It’s built on decentralised principles, where people and communities own and control their spaces. There’s no central authority dictating rules or exploiting for profit.
Bluesky is owned by Venture Capitalists, Its structure is corporate for-profit. Number of “distributed” nodes: One (centralised in practice) Post length: 300 characters Can edit? No. Bluesky, despite its claims of decentralisation, is owned and operated as a for-profit venture. Its structure centralises power and prioritises profit over people’s control, offering a polished but limited alternative to #mainstreaming paths.
The choice between #Mastodon and #Bluesky reflects a broader conflict between decentralisation and #dotcons corporate control. It should, but often is not easy to see that networks like the #Fediverse are native to the #openweb where Bluesky is an interloper, though they are both #4opens. Projects like the #OMN, #4opens, and the #Fediverse itself, offering freedom, community ownership, and transparency. Bluesky, on the other hand, represents the same closed, profit-driven ethos of the #dotcons, repackaged in a new “shiny” wrapper.
When you choose a network, you’re not just choosing where to post, you’re choosing what kind of internet you want to build. The open, public internet is still within reach. The choice should be clear.
The #OpenMediaNetwork (#OMN) offers a clear, practical path to building the #openweb, grounded in #4opens. It does this by leveraging open protocols like #ActivityPub (#AP) and #RSS, alongside #FOSS software, to create a distributed network of media platforms where people and groups can join, participate, and contribute. This, like the #Fediverse, is a direct challenge to the centralised, corporate-dominated structures that define so much of the current internet landscape.
Step-by-Step Building Blocks: The #OMN is simplicity and humanistic coding, rather than over-engineered complexity we often see in tech today.
Start with the client-server model. The initial focus is on building a robust client-server architecture to create a stable foundation for media sharing and participation. This forms the “hot” storage layer, data that is live, accessible, and regularly used.
Introduce an offline cold store: Once the client-server infrastructure is operational, a secondary layer of offline cold storage is added. This acts as a backup system, providing high redundancy to safeguard against data loss. Cold storage is cheap, offline, and relies on human interaction for maintenance and retrieval, ensuring resilience and sustainability.
P2P connections to cold storage: The final stage introduces peer-to-peer (#P2P) connections to integrate the offline cold storage with the broader network. This allows people to share and retrieve data across the network, even in decentralised or disconnected environments.
Iterative learning and improvement: The process is intentionally iterative, encouraging learning from practical experience. The system path is designed to evolve and improve over time, informed by real-world use rather than theoretical perfection.
The success of the #OMN depends on its commitment to #4opens. These principles allow for the free sharing and reuse of content, breaking down barriers to collaboration and growing innovation. By storing most data unencrypted (as the majority of it is not private), the system reduces overhead and complexity, keeping the project aligned with the “Keep It Simple, Stupid” (#KISS) philosophy.
Separating privacy from the #openweb: One critical aspect of the #OMN approach is recognising that encrypted privacy tools are a separate project. Mixing these with the development of the #openweb and #Fediverse leads to unnecessary complexity and division. Privacy tools are vital, but are developed in parallel rather than tangled with the foundational infrastructure. This separation allows each project to focus on its strengths while maintaining a clear, streamlined design philosophy.
At its core, the #OMN empowers “normal” people to store and manage their own data. By using a mix of hot and cold storage, people gain control over their digital lives without relying on corporate platforms. The focus on redundancy, backed by tools to search and reimport old data into hot storage, ensures resilience and accessibility.
This human-centric approach contrasts sharply with the corporate and #geekproblem obsession with control and perfection. It’s a more humane vision of technology, based on trust and collaboration rather than surveillance and control.
This builds from a history rooted in activism, the #OMN isn’t just a theoretical project; it’s grounded in decades of real-world activism. From the work of Undercurrents in the 1990s (http://www.undercurrents.org/about.html) to the global mobilisation of the Carnival Against Capitalism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnival_Against_Capital), this draws on over 30 years of direct, on-the-ground experience. The lessons from this history inform every aspect of the OMN, ensuring it stays true to its activist roots.
The current #block on this needed project is dealing with the #geekproblem and #fashernistas: One of the biggest challenges in progressive tech is the dominance of the #geekproblem, projects driven by technologists who prioritise complexity and self-interest over usability and impact. Coupled with the influence of #fashernistas, who chase trends without substance, many projects are doomed from the start
The #OMN cuts through this, yes, we can’t solve this mess pushing, but we are a critical step in the right direction to mediate this mess, by encouraging us to get out the shovels and compost these pushing failures. The goal is to build a system that works, not one that dazzles investors with hype while failing to deliver.
The #openweb won’t (re)build itself. It requires us to reject the endless noise of pointless projects and focus on practical, sustainable solutions. By supporting and growing the #OMN path, grounded in #KISS simplicity, #4opens principles, and decades of activism, we create a resilient infrastructure that empowers people and communities.
