W3C fits into #OMN with shared origins and intentions

Let’s look at this from a prospective, both the W3C statement and the #OMN paths recognize that the early web was built with sharing, decentralization, and public good in mind. The #W3C calls for a web “respectful of all participants,” which aligns with the #OMN goal of building an open media infrastructure based on the #4opens: open data, open source, open standards, and open process.

Where this W3C #mainstreamin alt path falls short (and why #OMN matters). The W3C vision speaks of “taking responsibility” and “addressing the impact of our work” through technical standards, but in reality, the current web’s architecture has been co-opted by centralized, profit-driven platforms (#dotcons). As the funding and structure of the organisation its self.

In reaction to this, the #OMN is grounded in the reality that technical fixes alone won’t solve these social problems, we need working activist cultures, grassroots governance, and federated media networks to actively challenge #mainstreaming and its #deathcult values. The geeks can’t solve the problem themselves…

What #OMN brings is a social layer: W3C focuses on technology and ethics at the standards level. The #OMN focuses on the cultural and organizational infrastructure needed to build, sustain, and govern ethical activism.

Scaling what worked: The W3C admits we’ve lost the “openness” to misinformation and data abuse. The #OMN is about bringing back what worked (e.g., early #Indymedia, radical tech collectives) and scaling it using tools like #ActivityPub and the #fediverse.

Compost and regenerate: The W3C wants reform from within. The #OMN recognizes the need to compost the #techshit, grow anew, and create parole autonomous, federated spaces where community processes are native, embedded, not isolated.

A positive reboot (from within the #openweb) is needed, where the W3C gives us a narrative frame., the #OMN gives us a path to act. We need to reclaim the web not only through better standards, but through working, lived alternatives – composting what failed, and growing social tech based on what we know works.

We need bridging, if the W3C and groups like them are serious about rebuilding a humane web, then the #OMN path has much to offer:

A bridge to activist governance.
A working example of the Ethical Web Principles being practiced socially, not just technically.
A push for native, grassroots agency, not just safeguards built by the same #NGO centralizers who failed the first time.

Let’s do better, yes, but let’s also be native, that’s what the #OMN is about.

A thread on a different project on the same subject, “Open Source and Open Standards nerds like me, ought to know by now that the protocol is the least compelling thing about a service. Who cares if your home is built using only Stallman-blessed tools, when the walls are full of rats?” https://shkspr.mobi/blog/2025/07/im-never-going-back-to-matrix

Talking about the #geekproblem in #openweb funding

Let’s be honest: we have a real and ongoing #geekproblem in how funding is allocated in the alt-tech and #openweb space, and it’s holding us back. The current push for infrastructure is important, but it’s not enough.

Yes, backend infrastructure is vital. You can’t build sustainable alternatives to #dotcons without solid plumbing. Funding projects like mesh networks, free firmware, and decentralised protocols, as #NLnet and others often do, is necessary work. BUT… If no one uses the infrastructure, or if it simply gets absorbed back into corporate platforms, then we’re just building tools for the next round of tech enclosures. That’s the pattern we’ve been trapped in for 20+ years.

Take the example of #ActivityPub. It would have remained a marginal protocol if #Mastodon hadn’t wrapped it in good UX, approachable design, and a culture people actually wanted to be part of. It was this social work, not just the code, that made the #Fediverse grow. That success was accidental, not structural, and we’re now coasting off that one cultural leap forward while backend devs get all the attention and funding. Culture first, code second is the hard truth:

The Fediverse is a culture first, and a standard second.

Where is the real funding for building sustainable social tools, interfaces, and communities? Where is the funding for actual alternatives to #dotcons that real people can use? This is one of the things we mean by the #geekproblem, the over-prioritisation of backend infrastructure in a vacuum, without acknowledging the social, political, and cultural layers needed for real systemic change. What’s the Risk? It’s that we end up with:

Endless dev churn.

Great tech no one uses.

A cultural vacuum that’s quickly filled by bad actors or subsumed by corporate rebranding.

Sound familiar? So what do we do?

Balance the Funding. Yes to infrastructure, but also fund user-facing projects, UI/UX work, community engagement, moderation tooling, multilingual outreach, and federated editorial practices. In other words, fund culture-building.
Support “Soft” Projects That Matter. There’s very little funding for projects like #OMN, #indymediaback, or #openwebgovernancebody because they don’t look like “innovation.” But these are the organic, lived tools that connect radical tech to real social movements.
Fund social protocols, not just transport protocols.

#4opens, the #PGA hallmarks, and trust-based governance are protocols too, just not the kind that compile into binaries. They help mediate conflict, keep projects focused, and build human networks that last.

Funding only “safe” back-end tech guarantees it will either be: Irrelevant, co-opted, or turned into the next closed platform. We have to fund risky, visible, social alternatives if we want a different outcome. None of this is new, I like meany people been banging this drum since the #indymedia days and writing about it for decades. On this path, the #geekproblem isn’t about individuals, it’s a systemic blind spot. Let’s please take the time to balance funding tech AND the culture to finally move toward more humanistic paths.

What do you mean by “mainstreaming”?

At its core, #mainstreaming is how we, often unconsciously, uphold and reproduce the values of the dominant system. In our time, that system is #neoliberalism, or what I metaphorically call the #deathcult. It’s the air we breathe: shaping our politics, our economics, even the food we eat and how we relate to each other.

In activist terms, #mainstreaming too often means pushing this dominant worldview into alternative spaces, building careers and institutions that play progressive on the surface, but reproduce the system that’s driving the crisis. It’s what happens when people take grassroots energy and repackage it in #NGO boxes or #dotcon business plans. The result? We end up feeding the monster we’re supposed to be fighting.

This is the path to #stupidindividualism, where neoliberalism “common sense” didn’t just attack unions, welfare and public goods – it atomized our identities. Over the past 40 years, we’ve been trained to act as isolated economic units, individualism replaced solidarity, competition replaced care. This is what we metaphorically call #stupidindividualism – the corrosive belief that the only way forward is by looking after yourself, even when your actions are part of a system that destroys community and climate we realy on. And as history has shown us, when communities collapse, what rushes in to fill the vacuum is fear, resentment, and authoritarianism, in a word: #fascism.

In real-world examples, let’s take @NovaraMedia. They produce great content. But their distribution strategy is rooted in #dotcons (YouTube, Twitter, Instagram), and their cultural aspirations are aimed at becoming the next @Guardian – a new fresh node in the old crumbling system. They’re playing inside the media ecosystem of the #deathcult. Now, there’s nothing wrong with wanting to grow an audience. But if we don’t also invest in building and sustaining #grassroots alternatives, we’re just treading water in the mainstream’s tide.

Most NGO agendas follow this same logic: speak in respectable tones, aim for policy tweaks, never rock the boat too hard, and above all, protect your funding. This echos my experience of doing media training and its limits, I’ve spent 25+ years training thousands of people to create radical, grassroots media, through projects like #Undercurrents, #Indymedia, #visionontv, and now the #OMN. Here’s what happened: Most of those trained went on to have careers in mainstream journalism or #NGO communications. Almost none stayed with grassroots projects. And honestly, I kinda don’t blame them, it’s hard to survive outside the system. But that’s the problem: without long-term support for non-mainstreaming work, there’s no soil for alternatives to grow.

We trained them to change the world, but the world then trained them to change careers. So what do we do? If we don’t build real, working, alternatives, then the only future left is one where billions of people die or are displaced over the next 100 years, from accelerating #climatechaos, and the rise of digital authoritarianism and political fascism. That’s why we need to push back against mainstreaming, not with purity politics or infighting, but with tools and structures that offer real alternatives.

The #OMN (Open Media Network) is one such tool:

Technically solid

Politically grounded in the #4opens and #PGA hallmarks

Designed to resist co-option by the #NGO sector or #dotcon logic

Rooted in peer-to-peer cooperation instead of hierarchical control

This path is a seed of something better, not perfect, not finished, but growing from decades of experience. We can’t blame people for trying to survive, but still we can and must build and defend spaces that nurture something, different, better.

Otherwise, the #deathcult “wins” by default.

Organising in the 21st Century: What’s Beneath the Surface?

Let’s talk about how we actually organise, in grassroots movements, in radical alternatives, and yes, even in the broader currents of #mainstreaming. Like a river system, the real action is often happening under the surface in tributaries and the undercurrents that shape how power flows and decisions get made. We can roughly split organising methods into two broad categories:

The Horizontals (our grassroots tradition) is often celebrated, but rarely understood in practice. These organising streams look flat, but dig deeper, and you’ll find varying, often opaque, forms of power and coordination.

Organic Consensus

This is rare and usually fleeting. Think early Rainbow Gatherings, decisions emerge from shared myths, rituals, and a communal “vibe.” Beautiful when it works. Fragile and easily co-opted when tested or pushed.

Bureaucratic Consensus

Common in large activist spaces. Looks democratic on the surface, but to often masks actual power structures. Over time, it leads to ossification and burnout. See: late-stage #climatecamp or current versions of the Edge Fund.

Opaque Affinity Group

A small group is running things behind the scenes. You don’t know who they are, how to join, or how decisions get made. Common in alternative media and radical tech, including late-stage Indymedia and many “open” collectives.

Invisible Affinity Group

Stuff just magically happens. This is common in the early, energetic phase of projects like #climatecamp, #londonhackspace or early #indymedia. It feels great, until burnout hits, or when trust gets broken.

Open Affinity Group

Rare, but promising. A visible and accessible group makes decisions transparently and encourages participation. The tech crew at the Balcombe anti-fracking camp is a good example. This takes real work to maintain, the tendency is to slide into opacity or bureaucracy over time.

The other side of the balance

The Verticals (the legacy paths) are forms of organisation more familiar, and more obviously flawed, but still dominate much of the institutional and party-political terrain.

Democratic Centralism

SWP-style top-down “consensus.” Power is concentrated, often corrupt. These groups make noise, absorb new blood from the fringes, but produce little meaningful change.

Bureaucratic Democracy

The #NUJ model. Predictable, structured, and slow. This can create space for long-term work, but is often reactionary and sluggish to adapt to new challenges.

Career Hierarchies

Trade unions, legacy NGOs, the Labour Party, in theory democratic, in practice dominated by careerists and backroom deals. These can be captured by opaque or invisible affinity groups, as #NewLabour demonstrated.

In the flowing water of social change and challenge, reading the river, what you see on the surface rarely reflects what’s going on underneath. Almost all meaningful organising for social change happens through opaque or invisible affinity groups. The more stable and formal infrastructure, the parts that stick around, tend to fall into bureaucratic or hierarchical forms. And when those structures merge with the #mainstreaming, they’re usually co-opted by careerists and institutions seeking stability, not change.

We live in turbulent times, enjoy your ride down the choppy river, just make sure to understand the currents below. Know what you’re paddling, and where it’s likely to carry you. As some currents are much more useful than others for the change and challenge we so urgently need to happen.

Bringing #indymediaback: A Gentle Revival of Radical Media

The old flower beds of #Indymedia lie fallow, not dead. The seeds are still there, beneath layers of neglect, factionalism, and the noise of 20 years of failed “alternatives.” What we need now is not revolution or reinvention, but revival. A slow, careful re-rooting in the fertile ground of experience.

We don’t need to tear it down or rebuild from scratch. Almost all of what worked between 2000–2008 still works today, at least 90% of the original social structure is sound. Let’s focus instead on the missing 10%, the gaps that were never resolved. That’s where the real energy and creativity are needed. That’s where trust, experimentation, and diversity of tactics should guide us.

Change with Care: Soft Hands, Open Eyes – In today’s tech-social landscape, even the slightest structural changes can lead to rips and tears. And once those start, the momentum of destruction escalates. We’ve seen this over and over again: dogmatic reinvention, ego-driven platforms, over-complex redesigns, and every time, we’re left with more fragmentation and less power. Instead, we propose a path of slow change. Work with what already functions. Use the existing structure as a trellis to support new growth.

Let’s be clear:

#4opens is not dogma — it’s the distilled learning of 30 years of open-source and open-process practice.

#PGA Hallmarks are not just ideals — they’re the living legacy of thousands of grassroots organisers across decades and continents.

#Indymedia isn’t a romantic memory — it’s the real-world, working outcome of diverse radical media groups building something that worked.

Indymedia only fell when it forgot the principles it was built on. When the foundations faded, it couldn’t flex under pressure, from internal disagreements or external attack. Let’s not make that mistake again.

Old Tools, New Wisdom – We don’t need saviours with shiny ideas. We need comrades with shovels. We need “elders” who are kind and sharp, who know when to step forward and when to stay quiet. Let’s embrace our role in this: gently holding the centre path, not controlling it. When someone passionate comes forward with a “better” idea, let’s respond with:

“How does that work with the #4opens?”

“Does it move us toward the PGA hallmarks?”

If it does, let’s try it. If not, let’s compost it and try again. That’s the rhythm of real change.

Expect Mess. Build Anyway – Let’s not sugar-coat it. We live in a world collapsing under its own contradictions. #Brexit, #ClimateChaos, the digital enclosure of the commons, these aren’t trends, they’re symptoms of systemic failure. And into that storm, every grassroots effort will be met with confusion, conflict, and co-option.

Expect:

People driven by petty grudges and personal agendas.

NGOs smothering action with managerialism.

#Stupidindividualism hijacking community energy.

Waves of right-wing actors using open platforms better than the left.

The approach: Focus and fertility – The Open Media Network (#OMN) exists to nourish, not replace. It’s a shovel to compost the piles of #techshit and #NGO mess. It’s a network for linking what already works and rediscovering the strength of shared infrastructure.

This is what makes #IndymediaBack different from other “radical” tech revivals?

It’s built on lived practice, not theory.

It’s structured for diversity, not conformity.

It’s based on human trust, not techno-fetishism.

It’s deeply political — anti-capitalist, anti-authoritarian, rooted in care and collaboration.

Yes, this is slow work, there will be times when things get ugly, when howling mobs throw shit, metaphorically and otherwise. Our job is to stay calm, stay focused, and keep the compost warm. Reviving Indymedia is not about nostalgia. It’s about learning from what worked, and building with care on that foundation. Let’s dig in. Let’s grow something together.

4Opens

Why most radical tech is pointless, and why #indymediaback isn’t

Almost everything built in today’s alt-radical tech scene is, bluntly, pointless. Despite good intentions, most of it ends up feeding the endless cycle of #fashernista churn, flashy new platforms, bleeding-edge protocols, or encrypted communication tools nobody uses, built by isolated teams disconnected from real-world needs or history. This is the #geekproblem: a culture where novelty is fetishized, and social usefulness is an afterthought, if it appears at all.

Examples:

Secure scrolling tools: Every few months we see new chat apps, usually cryptographic fortresses with no communities. No one’s asking what these tools are for beyond vague abstractions like “privacy” or “freedom.” Tools without context.
Peer-to-peer silos: Projects like Secure Scuttlebutt (SSB) or many DAT spin-offs build entirely new social ecosystems that demand complete buy-in, rather than integrate into existing networks. What results is islands of lonely idealists yelling into empty timelines.
Protocol over people: Many Fediverse projects argue endlessly over specs like #ActivityPub or #Nostr, often prioritizing purity over pragmatism. What good is a protocol if no one actually uses it beyond a few devs congratulating themselves?

Why #indymediaback isn’t a pointless tech project, it offers something truly different. It is not “new.” It doesn’t pretend to invent a whole new ecosystem. It is an act of digital memory, a revival of the still-needed infrastructure that once helped build radical networks globally. #Indymedia worked. It published resistance. It distributed power. It was embedded in real communities and real movements. This is #nothingnew done right.

The #nothingnew approach mediates against the churn by reusing workflows, social trust, and existing cultural practices. It doesn’t ignore tech, it grounds tech. Examples:

#indymediaback uses simple publish-form-comment workflows, already familiar. No #AI, no #blockchain, no obscure identity layer. Just people posting and curating stories.

It connects to existing radical spaces: housing co-ops, street kitchens, climate camps—places where digital tools are needed right now, and where the point isn’t building a unicorn startup but having a place to publish the truth when the cops are lying again.

Why copying #dotcons isn’t enough, in the #fediverse we so far have replicate Twitter, YouTube, and Instagram — Mastodon, PeerTube, PixelFed. This is useful, to a point. But all code is ideology. Copying capitalist infrastructure dose smuggle in capitalist logic. Copying invites the #deathcult right back in through the side door.

indymediaback avoids this trap. It doesn’t replicate any#dotcons logic or UX patterns. It revives a publishing common that worked before Silicon Valley captured this path. And more importantly, it’s embedded in a set of radical social practices: the #PGA hallmarks, the #4opens, and the messy, beautiful legacy of grassroots movements who already knew how to organize.

The value of #indymediaback isn’t just in tech. It’s in trust-based social continuity, the hidden glue of any working movement. Without this, you don’t have a radical tech project. You have a ghost repo on GitHub. That’s the central point, without real community, without continuity, without trust, radical tech is a dead end.

This is the carrot and stick we need now. If you care about the #openweb as a human value network, not just a protocol playground, you have to build things people can use today, and that people want to use, not because it’s encrypted or federated, but because it serves a purpose they already have.

This is where the wider #OMN (Open Media Network) comes in. It’s not another protocol war. It’s a shovel to compost the inhuman mess we’ve inherited. It’s a framework built with the #4opens, to grow digital commons that don’t depend on VC, control freaks, or fashion. It’s where we build bridges between radical tech projects, rather than isolate ourselves in yet another Git-based castle.

In short, it’s a path of people over product, process over platform. We don’t need more “solutions.” We need to stop being prats, pick up the tools we already have, and start rebuilding.

Food for thought, and action.

Two paths, one bridge: Seceding under capitalism vs. seceding toward change

In our media and tech projects, we’re walking two very different paths – often without any or partly realising the tension between them. On one side, we’re seceding under capitalism. That means navigating funding applications, #NGO partnerships, grant cycles, and institutional compromises. It’s where projects get trimmed down to what’s legible to funders. It’s survival, maybe even minor success, inside the system.

On the other side, we’re seceding toward the change we want and need. Building alternatives with radical trust, open governance, mutual aid, and grounded peer-to-peer systems. It’s messy, difficult. But it’s actually outside the system, what we used to call prefigurative politics, what we now build as #openweb infrastructure, federated networks, and horizontal institutions.

These two paths are not the same. And if we pretend they are, we lose. What we need is a #4opens bridge between them:

Open data to keep control in the commons.

Open source to prevent black boxes of power.

Open process so anyone can inspect and challenge decisions.

Open standards to build actual interoperability - not walled gardens in disguise.

But here’s the problem we are currently blind to – that bridge doesn’t stay up on its own. It has to be maintained through deliberate political will, through active resistance to co-option, through remembering why we started building in the first place.

The mainstream will always try to absorb the open, turn it into a sandbox, a product, a brand. That’s the nature of #mainstreaming and #NGO logic. We’ve seen it again and again – #FOSS, #indymedia, #activism – all turned into funding pipelines and branding opportunities if not defended.

So our task is not just technical, it’s political infrastructure work to hold the bridge. Guard the open paths, so that we can compost what’s broken. And always build forward.

Composting the confusion: A critical response to the misreading of the #Openweb

“It’s fascinating to see how the #OpenWeb ideology was formed in the late aughts... Open Web evangelists criticizing early Facebook for being too private is an incredible heap of irony.”
— [Someone missing the point entirely]

Let’s be clear, this is a historical and political mess, and one worth composting. The original #openweb vision, was wide, from the original European social vs the American libertarian, the person quoted is taking the view from inside the #blinded USA path rather than the original #WWW #mainstreaming of the more native social European path.

The idea on both paths was never about exposing personal data, that’s a strawman born of today’s #dotcons-common-sense, where everything gets flattened into privacy = good, openness = bad. It’s a deeply ahistorical take, infected by the post-Snowden wave of #encryptionism mess that conflates liberation with hiding, and assumes the only threat is surveillance by “them,” never enclosure by “us.”

Yes, the original more native #4opens path – Open Data, Open Source, Open Standards, Open Process – is still a radical project rooted in trust, transparency, and collective power. It is about creating shared public spaces and protocols to collaborate, self-organize, and break the silos, both big, built by tech monopolies and small built by our own #encryptionists dogmas. This original path draws from traditions of anarchist publishing and autonomous tech. And yes, it explicitly distinguished between publishing and privacy.

Early Facebook wasn’t “too private.” It was already a walled garden – a corporate trap disguised as a community. The real critique from #openweb folks was that it centralized control, commodified interaction, and locked users in. That’s why people built alternatives like #Indymedia, #RSS networks, (sudo)federated blogging, and early #P2P social tools.

To say the openweb led to surveillance capitalism is like blaming bicycles for car crashes. What happened wasn’t in any way openness going too far, it was openness being abandoned, subsumed, and bastardized by closed platforms under the guise of “convenience” and “safety.” And now, people are rewriting history to serve the logic of today’s bloated encryption silos and #NGO-funded moderation paths. This is not just wrong, it’s dangerous, because without remembering what native open tech looked like, we’ll keep mistaking the problem for the solution.

So yes, this quote we started with, and the worldview it represents, is a mess. But we don’t throw it in the fire, we compost it, break it down, extract the nutrients, and grow something better from the rot. The #openweb was never about exposing people, it was about building shared power. Don’t confuse this in any way with the platforms that sold us out, and don’t mistake critique for irony when it’s actually prophecy.

Don’t push prat thinking, please.

Trying to Remember: A Personal Reflection on Activist Histories and Memory Holes

Looking back on the activist groups I’ve been part of over the past few decades, I find myself drawn into the messy business of memory. Not nostalgia, something more grounded than that. A desire to trace what actually happened: why things unfolded the way they did, what they meant politically and personally, and what we can still learn from them.

But this work isn’t easy. Many of the people I worked alongside carry completely different versions of events. They remember different turning points, attribute success or failure differently, or sometimes choose to forget altogether. Writing about this – even carefully – risks reopening wounds. It challenges settled myths. It can feel uncomfortable, even unkind.

So the question keeps coming back: is it worth trying? I think the answer is yes. Painful, imperfect, but necessary. As George Santayana famously wrote: “Those who forget their history are doomed to repeat it.”

And in our small corner of the world – radical media, grassroots tech, DIY networks – repetition is a real problem. The cycle of reinvention is one of the most frustrating aspects of media activism. We keep rebuilding the same tools, replaying the same conflicts, falling into familiar traps. Why? Because we don’t do history well.

More precisely, we don’t keep our history. Websites disappear, servers shut down, backups are lost, and mailing lists become unreadable. Entire communities vanish almost overnight, leaving little trace beyond broken links and half-remembered stories. The next wave arrives thinking they are starting from zero.

This amnesia isn’t accidental; it’s cultural. There’s an ingrained tendency within activism to assume: “We invented this. This is new. We’re the first.” I’ve heard this countless times from people who are thoughtful and brilliant. It’s not arrogance, it’s isolation. A lack of intergenerational knowledge transfer. The result is predictable. Each new cycle repeats the mistakes of the last, often with shinier tools and worse outcomes.

Another reason to document our own histories is simple: if we don’t, someone else will, and they may not understand what actually mattered. Academic and institutional accounts often rely on authoritative sources: funded projects, named leaders, official reports, and neat case studies. That’s understandable, but it means messy grassroots realities frequently disappear from the record.

Grassroots work rarely fits institutional narratives. It’s decentralised, anonymous, improvised, sometimes deliberately undocumented for safety or principle. Yet when official histories are written, these messy spaces are where the real change happened. In truth, many of the most effective projects I’ve been part of were born in squats, kitchens, backrooms, chaotic email threads, and improvised hacklabs. They weren’t polished; they were alive.

Take #Indymedia, I was there to helped build and maintain parts of it. It transformed online publishing and participatory journalism. For a time, it worked remarkably well, until it didn’t. Its decline wasn’t just about technical debt or burnout. We lacked strong practices for documenting process and preserving institutional memory. When fragmentation came, there was no shared record to return to, only fragments, myths, and personal recollections.

That experience is part of why I later focused on projects like #OMN (Open Media Network), alongside #indymediaback and #makinghistory. These are attempts to embed memory into infrastructure itself: to preserve process as well as outcomes, to balance individual and collective histories, and to resist co-option by institutional gatekeeping and #NGO driven narratives.

So should we document activist histories? Yes, because we keep losing what we build. Yes, because new generations deserve shoulders to stand on, not endless reinvention. And yes, because remembering is a political act.

But we need to do this carefully. With plural narratives rather than single heroes. With archives that hold disagreement instead of smoothing it away. We need to document failure alongside success, not as shame, but as compost for future growth.

And we need to stop assuming the truth will speak for itself, it won’t, we have to speak it, even when memories clash or perspectives diverge. This isn’t about gatekeeping, it’s about keeping gates open for those who come next.

If you were part of these histories, write your piece, even if it contradicts mine, especially if it does. If you’re building now, take time to look back. Find the old code, talk to the elders, search for the backups, document what you’re doing as you go.

History isn’t just the past, it’s infrastructure.

Let’s build some together.

Rise and Fall of Grassroots #OpenWeb

The #fashionistas are coming https://yewtu.be/embed/u_Lxkt50xOg? It’s time to become more real before this inflow swamps our “native” reboot, if we let them they will consume it and shit it out as more mess. To mediate this shit storm, it’s time to act, please, feel free to repost these web posts, thanks.

To understand where the #Fediverse and the #OpenSocialWeb are heading, and how not to lose our way, we need to reflect on where we’ve come from. The history of grassroots #openweb activism offers both inspiration and hard lessons.

Foundations are built by real people, social movements start local, they begin with people on the margins – those directly affected by injustice – taking action with the tools they have. In the late ’90s and early 2000s, tech projects like #Indymedia were the blueprint: decentralized, radically open, and run by volunteers who trusted each other and worked horizontally. It worked, for a while.

Today, projects like #OMN (Open Media Network), #indymediaback, and #makeinghistory try to learn from that past. They aim to reboot media infrastructure and historical memory, powered by the #4opens: open data, open source, open standards, and open process. We need to remember that this kind of work doesn’t scale by magic, it grows from grounded trust and native infrastructure, not from #VC injections or #NGO grants.

The trap of #NGO thinking is one of the biggest reasons grassroots projects fail, co-optation. When grassroots groups chase funding, they start shifting agendas to fit the funder’s priorities. Slowly, the mission gets neutralized. Culture changes, risk-taking of change and challenge vanishes, the projects to often become empty shells wearing yesterday’s slogans.

This has happened time and again, from later #Indymedia nodes to #EU-funded tech projects that are now more about kickbox reports than what any “user” wonts or the needed basic radical change. We can’t afford to go down this path again in the current #openweb reboot, the Fediverse.

We need Spiky/Fluffy balance, mutual aid that’s not just charity, but infrastructure. That’s where the #Fediverse shines: not just as an alternative platform, but as a parallel public space for organizing, sharing, and then resisting. It has to support both spiky (radical, disruptive) and fluffy (care-focused, relational) approaches.

On these paths, memory matters, projects like #makeinghistory remind us: if we don’t remember our wins and losses, we’ll keep repeating the same mistakes. Documenting not just content but working practice, how decisions were made, what trust looked like, what failed and why – is crucial. History is not just a mirror; it’s compost.

No monoculture, today, #Mastodon is becoming the monoculture of the Fediverse. It’s not evil. But it is dominating to the point of distortion. It’s following NGO-friendly paths and watering down the radical possibilities the #openweb offers. That’s a problem. We need more balance, more useful codebases, more governance experiments. This space is meant to be a garden, not a plantation.

Security isn’t paranoia, it’s culture, security on the #openweb isn’t about creating another bureaucratic nightmare of permissions and logins. It’s about cultural practices, trust, openness, moderation by consent, and keeping things simple. Most of all, it’s about not building what you don’t need, complexity is the enemy of security.

Final thought, to build real alternatives, we need to stop chasing virality and start building resilience. Less hype, more humility. Less “engagement,” more entanglement. And always, a ruthless focus on not becoming the thing we were trying to replace. Let’s not feed the mess. Let’s compost it and grow something better.

Get Out of the Money Economy – Rediscover the Gift Economy

To have any hope of stepping outside the current mess, we need to step away from the money economy. This isn’t abstract ideology or lifestyle branding, it’s a practical question about how we live, relate, survive, and build together.

The best path we already have is the gift economy – In the cash economy, value becomes transactional, every action gets measured, every relationship becomes a potential market, every creative act turns into “content”. We are trained to calculate instead of care, to compete instead of cooperate, to protect instead of share, this is the emotional logic of capitalism, the logic of scarcity.

The result is isolation, burnout, and endless low-level fear. People become customers, audiences, brands, influencers, service providers – anything except communities. The gift economy works differently, in a gift economy, value comes from reciprocity, trust, and social connection. You give what you can because you are part of a living network. You receive what you need because others are too, no receipts, no invoices, no endless accounting. The wealth is in the relationships themselves.

This isn’t utopian fantasy, as large parts of human society worked this way for thousands of years, and fragments of it still exist everywhere around us despite capitalism constantly trying to enclose and monetize them. Think about the moments where life actually feels human:

A neighbour helping repair your roof.

Friends fixing each other’s bikes.

People sharing tools instead of everyone buying new ones.

Community gardens growing food collectively.

Food co-ops reducing dependency on supermarkets.

Free kitchens at protests and festivals.

Mutual aid groups helping people survive winters, floods, or repression.

Open-source developers building software for shared use.

Pirate radio stations.

Grassroots media collectives.

Towpath film screenings with shared food and conversation under the evening sky.

Oxford boater towpath screening, with food and communerty

The Oxford boater communities screening films beside the river while cooking together is a good example. Nobody is extracting profit, nobody is optimizing engagement metrics. The value comes from the social fabric created through participation itself. That’s the thing the money economy cannot understand, that some of the most valuable human experiences become weaker when monetized.

The #openweb originally grew through gift economy logic, people built websites because they cared, they shared code because sharing was useful, they wrote blogs, moderated forums, translated software, hosted servers, and organized communities largely outside direct financial extraction. Projects like #FOSS, #Indymedia, and the early #fediverse emerged from this culture and the #OMN path grows from the same roots.

Of course, money still exists, people still need food, housing, healthcare, infrastructure. Nobody is pretending we can simply opt out tomorrow. The point is direction, not purity. Every hour spent building mutual aid instead of consumer dependency matters. Every skill shared freely matters.

Every community meal matters.

Every commons project matters.

Every local repair network matters.

Every bit of infrastructure held in common matters.

Because each one reduces dependence on extraction systems. This is why so much #fashernista activism fails. It stays trapped inside the logic of the money economy while pretending to resist it. NGOs compete for grants. Influencers monetize radical aesthetics. Startups brand themselves as “ethical disruption”. Conferences sell access to “community”. Even resistance becomes another market sector. The system absorbs opposition by turning it into careers, branding, and content.

The gift economy is harder to absorb because it produces relationships instead of products. This is also why the gift economy scares power structures. A population that can feed itself, organize itself, repair things together, share knowledge, and communicate outside commercial platforms becomes harder to manage through fear and scarcity.

That doesn’t mean abandoning structure or responsibility. Healthy gift economies depend on trust, reputation, contribution, and long-term relationships. People notice who gives and who only takes, social accountability matters, the difference is that accountability stays rooted in human connection rather than abstract transactions.

The challenge now is rebuilding these cultures after decades of neoliberal atomization and #stupidindividualism. Capitalism teaches us to ask “What can I get?” were the the gift economy teaches us to ask: “What can we build together?” That shift sounds small, but it changes everything.

The more time, care, skills, and energy we invest in commons and gift relationships, the less trapped we become inside systems of extraction and artificial scarcity. And the freer we become to imagine futures beyond the current #deathcult.

Build the gift economy not as charity, not as moral purity and not as nostalgia. As survival, resistance and a way to start living again.

Toxic Positivity and the Lies We’re Pushed to Live By

Actors, Power, and Collective Publishing: Rethinking Fediverse Architecture for Grassroots Media

We recently had an extended and thoughtful discussion on signal between collaborators working on #IndymediaBack and #MakingHistory, a key issue emerged: how should we structure “actors” (ActivityPub identities) in a network where the focus is collective action, not individual performance? This question isn’t just technical. It’s political, and central to the success or failure of rebooting radical grassroots media within the #Fediverse.

The tension is about balancing the individual and the collective. In most current Fediverse platforms (like Mastodon or PeerTube), each user is an “actor” with their own inbox/outbox, mirroring the logic of the mainstream #socialweb where identity and expression are deeply individual. But for platforms rooted in collective publishing, such as a revived #Indymedia, this doesn’t map neatly.

“We are trying to balance individualism with collectivism. People already have all the individualism they can take, we need a structure to support the collective.”

That means maybe moving away from assuming every account needs to be a visible, subscribable actor. Working model: Per-instance actors first, a consensus is emerging around per-instance actors – e.g., the Newswire and Features flows of a local Indymedia site act as the primary publishable entities in the Fediverse. These represent the editorial collective’s curated output – not just anyone shouting into the void.

External trusted contributors (like info@hamishcampbell) would publish content from their own Fediverse accounts using hashtags like #oxfordindymedia, which the local Indymedia instance detects, vets, and republishes.

This brings three key benefits:

Curation over chaos – Stories don’t just flood in via hashtags; they’re filtered through trust relationships.
Permissioned federation – Only trusted flows (or untrusted but manually reviewed ones) are accepted. Hashtag spam is naturally blocked.
Maintaining editorial identity – Subscribing to an Indymedia instance means subscribing to its judgement, not just raw firehose feeds.

Do we need per-user actors? Here’s where things get messy, and interesting. Three models were debated:

Classic Fediverse model: Each user has their own actor. This supports full transparency and traceability of actions, but risks returning to individualist norms and opens the door to abuse or platform drift.
Invisible user accounts: Users exist internally for moderation or curation roles, but aren’t visible in the Fediverse as actors.
Controlled per-user actors: Users do have actors, but these are only used to publish activity logs, not posts. Think: “Editor X approved story Y”, useful for building transparency and trust within an open process.

Option 3 sits nicely with the principles of the #4opens, particularly open process and open governance. It provides a transparent audit trail without pushing users into the spotlight.

UX vs backend architecture, what becomes clear is that the user experience should foreground collective flows – Features, Newswire, Tags – while any per-user mechanics operate in the background, supporting moderation, traceability, or edge-case publishing. Whether those background accounts are AP actors or not might depend on implementation details.

“It’s not about the actors per se — it’s about what shows up in the front-end UX, and how we build trust in the process.”

Final considerations, networks like #IndymediaBack default to collective-first publishing, with user actor functionality off unless needed. #MakingHistory, by contrast, might enable user actor publishing to support mass collaborative storytelling. Both platforms rely on whitelist federation, meaning only trusted instances and users can feed directly into the editorial stream. Abuse prevention comes not just from code, but from the politics of moderation, curation, and shared norms.

We probably need per-user actors, but used sparingly and carefully.
We definitely need per-instance actors for trusted collective outputs.
Hashtags are a start, but the flow must be curated and accountable.
UX should put collectives front and centre, with user identity in the background.
This is a political choice, not just a technical one, and that’s a good thing.

For more on how this fits into the broader reboot of radical media infrastructure, see:
Rebooting Radical Media (YouTube)
Programming: Open Media Network

Dev test work for Makinghistory application