Grassroots Open Source Software (#FOSS) is a powerful example of anarchist organization in action, even if unintentionally. It’s a decentralized, cooperative model where people work together, driven by shared goals, not bosses or hierarchies. #FOSS has proven faster and more responsive than proprietary systems, cutting through bureaucracy to solve problems.
While not perfect (projects can fail due to poor organization or lack of interest), this path outpaces the traditional alternatives bogged down by debt, delay, or rigid management structures. It thrives because skilled teams self-manage, focusing on tasks that matter without over-management, a principle that resonates far beyond software.
Even in construction, this approach shows promise. Imagine crews self-managing their work, coordinating through elected foremen, and collaborating in federated councils with architects and community representatives. This isn’t just theoretical—it’s a practical path to efficiency, replacing the delays and over-budget failures of state-run or capitalist systems. The #OGB is a tool to push this out as a social tech path native to this.
Anarchist solutions don’t need to be perfect; they just need to be better than the deeply flawed paths we walk now. And #FOSS proves that they can be #KISS
The #NGO and #dotcons use of #FOSS is a whole another subject we do need to talk about.
The influence of postmodern thinking among #fashernistas—people more focused on appearances and trends than substance—has eroded the core purpose of activism: fostering positive social change rooted in love, solidarity, and mutual aid. Meanwhile, the rise of a new breed of right-wing “activists” using hate and fear to advance the agenda of neo-liberalism’s #deathcult highlights the stark difference between activism and fascism. It’s critical to reclaim language and purpose in this context to clarify and reinvigorate progressive movements.
Confusion, postmodernism’s emphasis on skepticism and deconstruction has undermined the unifying narratives that once drove collective action. While useful for critiquing power, it results in fragmented movements without clear goals. This confusion allows #fashernistas to dominate activism, prioritizing visibility and personal branding over systemic change.
Hate-based “activism”, where the right-wing movements use hate and fear to build “solidarity” based on this fear, by reinforce the “stupid” part of individualism, feeding off the #deathcult of neoliberalism. These movements weaponize the language of activism, but their actions serve fascist goals of division and destruction.
This is the core of #stupidindividualism poison that neoliberalism breeds, isolated people and erodes the collective bonds necessary for transformative activism. This individualism poisons movements, turning them into echo chambers of self-interest rather than engines of solidarity.
Even the conservatives think we are in a mess
Ideas for antidotes, reclaiming activism for progressive change:
* Redefine activism anchored in solidarity, and collective care, rejecting hate and fear as tactics. Clearly differentiate between activism (which builds and unites) and fascism (which destroys and divides).
* Center collective narratives, move beyond postmodern fragmentation by building shared stories and visions for the future. Activism that connects people to a larger purpose and community. Embrace horizontal structures, by foster decentralized and inclusive decision-making processes, thus reducing reliance on vertical, personality-driven leadership. This actively counters #stupidindividualism with collaborative frameworks like the #4opens.
* Focus on systems and paths, not individuals, shift away from individual heroics and saviour complexes. Build tools and strategies that empower communities rather than centring individuals.
* Reclaim language, use honest language to name problems and solutions. Call hate-based movements what they are, fascist. Avoid diluting terms like “activism” with actions that lack integrity and constructive purpose.
Building a liveable, humanistic future, needs us, to reclaiming activism, grounding in principles that resist the #mainstreaming influence and cultural by-products like #stupidindividualism. Movements that reject hate and fear as tactics, fostering instead the solidarity needed to challenge oppression and resulting environmental destruction. The antidote lies in collective care, shared purpose, and tools like the #4opens to ensure accountability and #KISS progress. We need foundations to build from, with this we counter the cultural decay of the #deathcult and take paths toward meaningful, sustainable change we really need.
The resurgence of grassroots radical media projects requires a return to foundational principles, particularly the embrace of #FOSS and #opensource practices. These principles align with the #4opens framework, which acts as both a lock and a key for building sustainable and accountable media networks.
The Basics, Activism vs. Mainstreaming, where activism aims to resist and redirect the mainstream toward progressive change. #Mainstreaming, on the other hand, often serves NGO agendas, softening resistance to maintain institutional stability and job creation for its participants. Recognizing this distinction helps grassroots projects avoid being co-opted into reducing systemic change to incremental tweaks.
The importance of #FOSS and #4opens in keeping radical media transparent and accessible. The #4opens (open process, open data, open licenses, and open standards) ensure inclusivity and guard against #mainstreaming dilution. These principles help create paths accountable to people, not funders and institutions.
Core vs. Periphery: OMN prioritizes the 1% of technologies and workflows that align with human-focused projects, filtering out the shiny distractions of mainstream tech. Guided by the PGA Hallmarks, the project adheres to these anti-capitalist, anti-patriarchal, and grassroots-oriented principles to ensure alignment with long-term goals rather than fleeting trends. This challenges, right-wing coordination, the right has effectively leveraged #openweb media over the last decade, outpacing the left in cooperation and strategy. To counter this, the left must embrace collaborative frameworks like the #4opens and avoid falling into isolated #stupidindividualism. Verbiage and Focus is an issue, academia often overcomplicates the discourse, leading to a churn of ideas without actionable outcomes. Projects need clear plans that balance innovation with practical implementation.
Avoiding the #deathcult of neoliberalism, most mainstream tech assumes human nature is fixed by 40 years of neoliberalism, building reactionary systems. Grassroots projects reject this limitation and design tools that reflect the full spectrum of human potential. To move, we need to leverage experience, older activists should gently guide enthusiastic newcomers by asking, “How does this work with the #4opens?” and “Does this further the PGA hallmarks?” This approach fosters accountability and focus without stifling creativity. A core part of this is filtering technology, to avoid getting lost in the tech world’s “stinky, shiny fashions.” Focus on tools that genuinely empower communities rather than perpetuate #mainstreaming.
Build humanistic tools, to stop creating isolated, individualist solutions, tools fostering collaboration across diverse movements. Reboot proven models, starting new projects in a world dominated by #stupidindividualism leads to often to fragmentation. Instead, reboot and modernize successful past initiatives like #Indymedia, grounding them in the #4opens and #KISS federated governance.
The time is ripe for a #reboot of the alt/grassroots tech world. By centring projects on transparency, inclusivity, and collaboration, we can counter the forces of #deathcult neoliberalism and #mainstreaming. The #OMN is a framework for this sustainable and impactful radical media, to make us ready to sift through the tech pile and find the tools that serve humanity. Join the effort to help shape the future of grassroots media and governance. Learn more at OMN
Grassroots radical media has always sought to challenge and reshape dominant narratives. To do this effectively, it must adhere to principles of transparency, accessibility, and collaboration. This is why #FOSS (Free and Open Source Software) and the #4opens framework are foundational. They aren’t just technical choices, they’re philosophical commitments to building equitable and resilient systems.
Transparency, open-source tools allow communities to see and understand the code they rely on, ensuring no hidden mechanisms compromise privacy or autonomy. The #4opens—open process, open data, open standards, and open licences—extend this transparency to decision-making, information sharing, and collaboration.
Accessibility, #FOSS tools remove barriers to entry by being freely available, reducing dependency on corporate and proprietary platforms. Grassroots projects should not depend on tools controlled by the systems they seek to challenge.
Resilience and autonomy, open-source systems allow communities to adapt and maintain tools independently, ensuring sustainability without external reliance. This autonomy is key to resisting co-optation or suppression by powerful entities.
Activism aims to build resistance to the dominant flow of power, pushing progressive change. #Mainstreaming, often driven by NGOs, does the opposite, it smooths resistance, aligning activism with the status quo. While this alignment might bring short-term visibility and funding, it undermines radical #KISS goals. Understanding this distinction is crucial for grassroots projects.
Main streaming paths, focuses on making activism palatable to existing power structures. Often funded to perpetuate jobs and programs rather than systemic change.
Activism Goals, challenges and disrupts mainstream systems to create alternative pathways. Prioritizes systemic change over institutional comfort.
To take the activism and grassroots paths, we need help addressing verbiage and over-analysis. The challenge is in combining academia with activism is the risk of losing focus amid jargon and theory-heavy discourse. While these discussions are valuable, grassroots projects need clarity and actionable goals. A balanced approach is essential, to simplify communication use frameworks like the #4opens to distil complex ideas into accessible principles. Prioritize outcomes, ensure discussions translate into clear plans and measurable actions.
The time to #reboot grassroots tech. The current over-reliance on proprietary #dotcons platforms controlled by corporate interests stifles radical change. A #reboot is needed to reinvigorate open tech communities by reviving collaboration around #FOSS and federated tools like #ActivityPub to build decentralized, people-controlled media ecosystems. To make this happen, we need to focus on the Basics and rebuilding solidarity. The question isn’t whether we should reboot grassroots tech, but how. By staying grounded in principles like the #4opens, we can reboot lasting alternatives to the status quo.
The important tension in the current state of social change efforts: individualism vs. collectivism, vertical vs. horizontal structures, and the challenges of maintaining fragile consensus. These dynamics have direct implications for how we approach systemic problems like #climatechaos and the creation of alternatives through projects like the #OMN.
On this subject, it’s important to understand why #stupidIndividualism is dangerous, which can be seen in the failure of individual solutions. Relying on individual action (e.g., recycling, personal carbon offsets) shifts focus from the systemic nature of crises. The climate emergency, for example, is primarily driven by industrial-scale emissions and unsustainable policies—not individual behaviour. This emphasis on individualism undermines collective action, which is the only scale at which meaningful change and challenge can occur.
Blind spots in vertical thinking, hierarchical (“vertical”) structures dismiss and fail to understand the dynamics of decentralized (“horizontal”) systems. Vertical systems are focused on control and clarity, at the expense of collaboration and diversity, which horizontal structures thrive on.
The dangers of certainty, consensus vs. certainty, pushing for “certainty”, rigid clarity often destroys consensus. Consensus, while fragile and imperfect, is the foundation of all functioning societies. It is built on compromise, flexibility, and mutual understanding. The insistence that “my view is right” fractures the trust necessary for cooperative systems to thrive.
Why this is destructive, the breakdown of consensus leads to polarization and inaction, both of which are catastrophic in the face of crises like #climatechange. Certainty-driven narratives ignore the complexity and nuance required to address interconnected, systemic issues.
Ideas for moving forward, focus on processes, rather than direct outcomes:
Build systems (like the #OMN) that prioritize open, participatory processes over prescriptive solutions. The #4opens—open process, open data, open licences, and open standards—offer a starting point for structuring this.
Encourage horizontal thinking, foster decentralized systems where power and decision-making are distributed. This creates resilience and allows diverse voices to contribute meaningfully.
Embrace ambiguity and iteration, instead of pushing for rigid clarity, accept that solutions evolve through experimentation and iteration. Social change is a dynamic process, not a static goal.
Reframe certainty as trust, replace the need for certainty with a culture of trust-based collaboration. Trust allows for flexibility and creativity within systems, enabling them to adapt and respond to changing circumstances.
Use crises as opportunities for solidarity, crises often push societies toward authoritarian responses. Instead, frame crises as opportunities to build solidarity, emphasizing shared struggles and collective goals.
This is why ideas matter, the urgency of the #climatecrisis, paired with the inertia of entrenched systems, makes it tempting to lean on familiar, hierarchical solutions. However, transformation comes from collective, decentralized efforts that prioritize flexibility, trust, and inclusion over individualism and rigid control. Projects like #OMN and frameworks like the #4opens are tools for navigating these challenges while staying grounded in the #KISS principles of solidarity and mutual aid.
The Seven Stages of climate denial:
1. It’s not real 2. It’s not us 3. It’s not that bad 4. We have time 5. It’s too expensive to fix 6. Here’s a fake solution 7. It’s too late: you should have warned us earlier
Trolls use all of these stages to deny the reality of #climatechaos
“The problem with most fashernistas is that they are completely untrustworthy. Yet, people trust them because they push #mainstreaming “common sense” this is the definition of evil, what to do? Ideas please?”
The problem with most #fashernistas lies in their prioritizing of style, superficial appeal, and “common sense” #mainstreaming over substance and integrity. Their actions are too often driven by appearances and short-term gains, rather than the principled foundations necessary for long-term trust and genuine change and challenge that we need. This creates a facade of credibility, enabling them to gain influence while undermining collective efforts. How to compost this mess:
Expose the tension between trust and Influence by highlight the contradictions. Make clear how focus on mainstreaming compromises values, transparency and inclusivity. Use storytelling and case studies to show how #fashernistas to often derail projects.
Embed trust in processes over personality, that is, build systems where influence is based on contributions and adherence to principles rather than charisma or status. Use the #4opens to ensure actions align with open processes, open data, open standards, and open licenses. These principles can create accountability that individuals find hard to circumvent.
Empower alternatives, by actively amplify contributors who are trustworthy, even if their approach lacks the flashiness of fashernistas. Build in feedback loops to create mechanisms for communities to critique and shape direction collectively, minimizing the impact of any one individual’s agenda.
Combat the “Common Sense” mythos. Point out where “common sense” solutions fail to address deeper issues, emphasizing the need for critical thinking and alternative paths. Encourage discourse to grow, environments where questioning and dissent are valued rather than sidelined.
Strengthen the focus on horizontal structures to minimize opportunities for top-down influence. One path to this is transparent moderation to ensure that editorial and moderation processes are open to scrutiny, preventing backdoor manipulation.
A balanced approach is needed. The issue with #fashernistas isn’t just their untrustworthiness—it’s that their appeal distracts from meaningful work. Addressing this requires paths, systems and cultures that embed core values into projects like the #OMN or #Fediverse, you reduce reliance on individuals and focus on collective empowerment. Its #KISS
To tackle the challenges of #stupidindividualism and the #techshit it spawns on the #Fediverse, it’s essential to refocus efforts on balance, collaboration, and meaningful process. Let’s look at one path away from this mess, making, an example of the roadmap for #indymediaback and what do we mean by a #newswire. Looking at the current use of #AP on the #Fediverse with this in mind:
Repeats: Strengthen syndication between instances for better information flow.
Replies: Integrate as comments on newswire posts and features to foster engagement.
Likes/Stars: Define their roles to signal endorsements or importance, avoiding redundant or unclear actions.
DMs: Focus these on moderation or editorial inquiries to streamline communication.
Enforce a balance between creativity and structure, use editorial collectives to curate content based on established journalistic standards (e.g., the 5Ws of news reporting). Apply consistent moderation to maintain the newswire as a valuable resource for grassroots reporting, minimizing off-topic or non-news contributions.
Building a robust newswire needs clear editorial guidelines, beginning with strict adherence to “newsworthiness,” rejecting non-news posts (up to 99% initially) to establish quality standards. Over time, this threshold can relax with user education and feedback. Focus on first-hand reports that embody the 5Ws of journalism (Who, What, Where, When, Why).
The feature process, features synthesize the best grassroots reports into cohesive narratives, combining text, images, audio, and video for impactful storytelling. Develop features through editorial consensus, ensuring diversity of perspectives and adherence to the #4opens.
Federation via #activitypub to share content across the network, building interconnectivity without duplicating efforts. Allow comments and replies to appear across instances, fostering dialogue while maintaining strong editorial oversight.
Dealing with the “Nutter” problem by focus on process, not outcomes. Push the project forward with clear processes built on shared principles, understanding that life and society evolve over time. Avoid getting bogged down by demands for “perfect” solutions—basic, functional systems are a strong start. Reduce misinformation and #FUD by establish user education paths to combat misinformation and clarify project goals. Use editorial tools to label, moderate, and remove false content.
The OMN vision is strong defaults by #KISS hardcoded values and embedding the #4opens at every level of the project to resist the push for dilution by #mainstreaming. Maintaining a grassroots, horizontal approach to development to ensure inclusivity and resilience will need a cultural shift, to address the reliance on #fashernistas and those who push “common sense” a part of this is emphasizing long-term, principled growth over short-term popularity. This path keeps the focus on trust, process, and grassroots collaboration, building a stronger, more resilient #Fediverse and revitalizing #indymediaback as a platform for meaningful, community-driven media. For more information, resources, the OMN wiki is a good place to start.
The #nothingnew hashtag offers a straightforward and bold #KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid) approach to rejecting the prevailing ideologies of the past 40 years: #neoliberalism and #postmodernism. These ideologies have shaped the current “common sense” to push individualism, relativism, and market-driven solutions, at the expense of collective action and systemic change we so urgently need.
Neoliberalism is an ideology that emphasizes free markets, deregulation, and privatization, by eroding social safety nets and collective power. It normalizes austerity, wage suppression, and the commodification of public goods, making systemic exploitation appear inevitable and unchangeable. This is the mess we have made over the last 40 years.
Postmodernism, is rooted in scepticism and relativism, which undermines the belief in truths and collective narratives. While it does critique power structures, it leaves people without a path forward, reinforcing apathy and fragmentation which our economic system has spread.
Together, these ideologies create a world-view where large-scale social change is dismissed as impossible, reinforcing a status quo that benefits the few. We are past the time when we need to reboot social change back to a more action orientated modernism path. This is how #nothingnew sets the stage for this #somethingnew.
The #nothingnew framework advocates revisiting modernism, which championed progress, reason, and collective solutions to social challenges. Modernism’s optimism and belief in systemic change are powerful antidotes to the paralysing scepticism of postmodernism. By rejecting the last 40 years’ intellectual and economic inertia, #nothingnew seeks to create a foundation for practical, action-oriented social movements we need to mediate the building crises.
Building #somethingnew, is about recentring collective action with a shift of focus from isolated individual efforts to collaborative, community-driven paths. This path needs simplicity and accessibility by keeping frameworks clear, actionable, and rooted in shared goals, avoiding over-complication. to make this happen we need to build trust in progress, by advocate for meaningful growth—improvements in living conditions, equality, and sustainability that serve humanity rather than the profits of the few.
The #nothingnew project isn’t about nostalgia—it’s about learning from the past to chart a clear, modernist-inspired course for a future that values fairness, collaboration, and systemic change over stagnation and skepticism. It lays the groundwork for a transformative shift to #somethingnew and is an important part of the #hashtag story and #OMN
The #geekproblem highlights a recurring issue within tech-driven movements, the overemphasis on control and complexity at the expense of accessibility, community, and collective goals. This “problem” arises from the intersection of tendencies toward hierarchy, a blind reverence for technology as inherently powerful (#deathcult worship), and the unchecked growth of technical complexity over the last few decades. This diverges from the principles of #KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid).
Control as an Obsession is the invisible insecurity that blinds this path. The desire for control has deep roots, where order, precision, and predictability are prioritized above all else. In tech communities, this translates into over-engineering, with complex solutions that are difficult for non-technical people to engage with. Leading to exclusion and often to gatekeeping through jargon, obscure processes, and rigid technical hierarchies. This is tech #Fetishism, and leads to a belief in technology’s ability to solve any problem, with almost no understanding of the side lining social or political paths this come with.
This fixation, and resulting intolerance, leads to systems that might be technically impressive but fail to serve any broader community, producing another wave of #techshit that then needs work to compost In this path, the #deathcult represents the blind worship of systems and ideologies that lead to direct harm to us.
The #KISS principal advocates for simplicity and accessibility, ensuring systems are intuitive and usable by the wider community groups that need them. The #geekproblem runs counter to this, by alienating the very communities tech projects are meant to serve and widening the gap between technical experts and everyday people, perpetuating inequality in access and understanding.
Taking the “problem” out of geek, we must rebalance priorities by shifting dev focus on people over technology. Build systems and networks that empower and include rather than control and exclude. Embrace simplicity, with #4opens, prioritizing usability, transparency, and community feedback to make tools accessible. Actively challenge tech fetishism by pushing of technology as a tool, not an end in itself.
Solutions must address social and political dimensions by decentralize, this can be hard as all the code is in the end is about centralize authority in the hands of a few technical “elites”. But, the #geekproblem is not insurmountable, solving it simply requires a shift in mindset. By rejecting control-driven hierarchies and embracing collaborative simplicity, we build systems and networks that serve the people they’re meant to empower.
The mainstream economic system, which underpins the current globe mess, is facing a deep and escalating crisis. This isn’t just about isolated single issues, it’s rooted in fundamental contradictions within the path we are on. Understanding these dynamics helps us see why our lives are shaped by austerity, inequality and endless war, leading to the current ecological claps.
The core of the crisis is economics, capitalism is grappling with a crisis of profitability and overproduction, the extract of maximum profit has built-in limits. As industries mature, squeezing out new profits becomes harder, stagnation sets in, driving drastic measures. In overproduction, capitalism produces far more than can be profitably sold, not because people don’t need these goods, but because they can’t afford them. These contradictions are now global, leaving nowhere for capital to expand without significant upheaval. To address this, the burden is systematically offloaded onto the working class, that’s us. The austerity path they talk about and impose is making us pay for their crisis.
One way the system tries to “fix” its profitability problem is through austerity. Cutting wages, both direct wages (our pay) and indirect wages (social spending on healthcare, education, infrastructure) are slashed to divert funds into profits. This erodes social support, when the infrastructure and public goods are gutted under the guise of “fiscal responsibility.” For the capitalist class, the greedy few, every penny spent on social upkeep is a penny not turned into profit. By shifting these costs onto the working class, they temporarily prop up their system while deepening the inequality we live in.
War, restoring profit through violence, when austerity isn’t enough, capitalism turns to war. Armed conflicts serve as a means to seize resources. Wars open up new sources of raw materials and markets, essential for restarting stagnating economies, create demand when military spending boosts industry and generates profits in the short term, regardless of human cost. War isn’t about peace or democracy—it’s about economic expansion at the expense of others. The casualties are collateral damage to the pursuit of profits.
Growth doesn’t serve us, the obsession with “growth” hides that under the current mess, capitalism, growth benefits the few, not the many. While corporations grow profits, ordinary people see stagnant wages, rising costs, and dwindling quality of life. Degrowth are often dysfunctional myths, anti-growth rhetoric can target the working class, accusing them of overconsumption. In reality, the poorest consume far less than they need, while the wealthy hoard resources, this liberal thinking sometimes is not helping. What we need isn’t anti-growth, but a reorientation of “growth”, investing in the means of subsistence for all, improving quality of life, and addressing urgent global needs by pushing hard to mediate the environmental catastrophe to focus on sustainably.
Dividing us to conquer us, to maintain control, the system relies on division, racism and nationalism. These ideologies pit workers against each other, distracting from the cause of shared struggles. Exploiting despair, with decades of deindustrialization and neglect levering entire communities in despair, creating fertile ground for reactionary politics that feed on this. By keeping us fragmented and focused on fighting among ourselves, the current #mainstreaming path ensures we don’t unite to challenge this mess.
What we need is more solidarity and system change that highlights how the contradictions are unsustainable. While the current path enriches a tiny few, it leaves billions struggling for survival and our ecology pushed out of a liveable balance, this is while producing enough resources to meet everyone’s needs. The solution isn’t austerity or war—it’s collective action to build paths that prioritize humanity over profit #KISS
To achieve this, we need to mediate the (stupid)individualistic narratives that blame “us” for systemic failures and instead embrace solidarity, demanding change and challenge. We need to focus on blaming “them”, yes, it’s daunting, and a little dangerous, but history has shown that when people organize, they can dismantle even the most entrenched systems. Let’s make that history again, please.
In part, the current challenges faced by the #openweb and grassroots reboot movements can be traced back to two cultural and structural problems: the influence of #fashernistas and the deeply ingrained #geekproblem. Both of these contribute to active blocking of meaningful change, hindering the progress needed for an openweb reboot. To walk this “native” landscape effectively, it’s needed to understand these barriers and how they block change and challenge.
The fashernistas and their echo chambers, the term refers to a subset of people who are highly engaged in performative discussions, centred on trending topics and social posturing without substantive engagement in grassroots real world problem-solving. While they are adept at identifying and amplifying transient issues, their conversations stay within insular bubbles. This creates a cycle where attention and focus are pulled toward repetitive discourse that never leads to any outcomes.
This taking up space with little and most often no follow-through is detrimental. Fashernistas thrive in spaces where the appearance of awareness is valued over the hard, real, messy action that is needed. In this #manstraming bubble, dialogue is focused on social capital—who knows what, who said what—rather than collaborative problem-solving. The result? The conversation around the openweb becomes cluttered, attention splinters, and meaningful action is overshadowed by a constant churn of noise.
The role of #fahernistas in blocking change is their ability to dominate platforms and narratives. This domination becomes active blocking when their presence leaves little room for discussions rooted in genuine collaboration and open progress. They inadvertently (or sometimes deliberately) creates environments where the needed ideas and radical challenges to the status quo struggle to gain traction, let along attention. If the openweb is to flourish, this culture of self-referential chatter needs to be mediated.
The #geekproblem is a different barrier, which is the cultural divide within tech communities that leans heavily toward deterministic, technical solutions at the expense of accessible, inclusive approaches. The geekproblem manifests when developers and technologists become gatekeepers, framing issues in ways that reinforce their control, preserving existing narrow structures rather than opening them up for collective problem-solving.
For example, in the #openweb and #fediverse projects, the drive for good #UX runs parallel to an implicit exclusivity of bad UX dressed in “privacy”, “security”, “safety” etc. Technical jargon, complex onboarding processes, and a lack of user-friendly interfaces are a barrier to entry and community building. This exclusivity prevents the broader range of participants from engaging meaningfully, turning potentially revolutionary spaces into “specialized” silos, that reinforce this very #blindness.
#fashernistas and #geekproblem interact and often work in unintentional tandem. While the former distracts and fractures attention with endless (pointless, narrow and repeating) discourse, the latter locks down practical pathways for change through gatekeeping and technological insularity. The result is a failing “native” path, where critical mass, and the needed community, fails to grow—one part is too busy talking, and the other is too busy coding in isolation. The broader culture of the #openweb suffers as a consequence, making the needed change far more difficult to achieve than it needs to be.
The solution lies in finding a balance that mediates between the superficiality of fashernistas and the closed nature of the geekproblem. This involves, promoting diverse voices, so that the #openweb aren’t monopolized by any tiny group. Building bridges between projects and communities, to facilitate communication between technical experts and those involved in creating actionable steps that align with #4opens paths we need to take. Developing a culture that values tangible outcomes and collaborative input over performative dialogue and gatekeeping. Amplifying onboarding, by making entry points into #opentech accessible, so people outside traditional tech ghettoes can contribute meaningfully.
The path we need for the openweb, is more than only technological solutions; it needs a culture shift. Both fashernistas and those contributing to the geekproblem need to recognize their roles and adjust their approaches, for the #openweb to thrive. The has been to meany years of pratish behaver in the paths we need, it’s pastime for #KISS focus. The current moment presents a fresh opportunity for change. With the fediverse and platforms like mastodon growing exponentially, there is a path to free the native spirit of the internet as a collaborative, #openspace with trust, transparency, and action as core motivators. Let’s try and make this work, and not squandered it by letting the voices of the few block the work we need to do.
The blame, attack, and ban culture we’re seeing is not native to the #openweb. The principles that uphold the open web are built on the #4opens: open data, open source, open standards, and open process. These values encourage linking, transparency, and trust—qualities that are essential for constructive dialogue and a positive community atmosphere.
An example of why this matters: In recent months, reports have surfaced that developers associated with #bluesky, including those contributing to projects like #bridgy, have faced harassment. This behaviour runs contrary to the core path of the #openweb, #FOSS developers are humans too, with lives and responsibilities beyond their code, with #FOSS they provide their time to building #4opens free and open-source projects that benefit everyone. This kind of personal infighting can be not only unproductive but harmful. Yes, talk, argue about ideas and categories, but the focusing on individuals is often adding more mess to be composted.
A way out of this kinda mess is #netiquette, diversity, we need to foster spaces where diversity of thought and technology can coexist without wholesale blocking each other. A way to do this is for us to have conversations within our communities about netiquette and the standards we want to uphold. Yes, this is a challenging discussion, and it won’t be easy to reach a consensus. But even if the outcome is embracing our differences, that’s not a bad thing.
For more on my thinking on one of the strong roots of this mess subject
A part of this might be that it’s interesting to see that the right-wing are picking up the real problems and mess on the left and then using it to forward their own ideological agenda.
NOTE the things they are critical of are often real issues with the left, so we too likely need to address these ourselves, but to do this we should ignore the right agenda that comes with these right criticisms as this will be built of the normal right-wing lies and misinforming that their ideology paths are full of.
