A practical path to balance the current “governance” mess in #FOSS

To build consensus processes in #FOSS (Free and Open Source Software), we need to apply principles from radical activism, embracing messy democracy and affinity group organization:

Messy Democracy: Encourage open discussions, differing perspectives. Keep open space for debates, ensuring that small, actionable steps are agreed upon, even if the path is not linear.
Affinity Groups: Small, self-organized teams focus on tasks and goals. These groups can collaborate but retain autonomy, allowing for flexibility and diverse approaches to problem-solving.
Focus: Start with a simple, shared purpose. Use tools like #KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid) to keep away from overcomplicating processes. Consensus should be loose but structured—avoid rigid hierarchies.

For example, in FOSS, we could implement a process where a proposal only moves forward if it gains a basic level of support (likes or votes), and participants have the ability to block with a justification, allowing for transparent pushback and refinement.

By fostering open processes (as in #4opens), trust is built, and solutions remain accessible and adaptable, promoting collective decision-making while keeping things practical.

To tackle the paralysis and distrust embedded in open communities after 40 years of neoliberal (#deathcult) worship, I propose a simple consensus-building process on SocialHub using the tools already available.

Proposal:

Add a prominent, reciprocal link between SocialHub and the #SWF.
Use a #KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid) process to ensure grassroots decisions reflect community values and paths.

Process:

Start a discussion on SocialHub based on a simple proposal.
Secure 10 likes for consensus; a block requires 5 likes on an explanation.
Review the decision in 3 months.

This approach emphasizes participation, native tools, and trust. It balances collective decision-making while avoiding bureaucratic paths that have failed in the past, such as #Indymedia’s formalized processes. By focusing on ruff, simple consensus, we can help compost the polarizing mess, rebuild trust, and empower the community to act effectively.

Let’s avoid repeating history and start a practical path to herding cats and fostering a decentralized, balanced approach! What do you think? Any ideas on how to improve the process?

#KISS is a key, democracy

With “liberal” democracy faltering, it’s essential to trust that ordinary people, when empowered, can make fewer harmful decisions than authoritarian or dogmatic social-political paths. The idea behind #KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid) is to create straightforward, accessible paths like the #OMN and #OGB that allow for minimal interference, ensuring that the grassroots can operate effectively. While people may create some messes, they are likely to produce less harm than the top-down control structures that dominate in authoritarian and corporate-driven paths. The key lies in trusting collective decision-making.

A core tension between alternative cultures and the #mainstreaming: the mainstream demands that alternative cultures conform in order to be effective, while the alt paths intentionally resist this push, aiming to remain distinct and radical. This clash creates a deeper issue—mainstreaming voices tend to block and reject the need for a bridge between these two spaces. The failure to recognize the importance of building such bridges leads to division and stagnation, perpetuating the current social and political mess.

The root problem lies in “common sense” blocking and an intolerance toward the very idea of bridging these divergent paths, hindering progress from both sides.

All the paths on this website are based on this.

A write-up worth reading to glimpse the mess we need to compost https://archive.is/60N0T and yes this is messy, it would help a lot to have grassroots tools #OMN #OGB etc to keep our hands clean, being dirty is an untrustworthy look in the era of #stupidindividualism – and yes this is a contradiction, more mess to compost.

The #deathcult we worship: Totalitarian Capitalism Consumes Everything

In the modern world, #neoliberalism penetrates every aspect of our lives. It commodifies not only goods and services but human relations, creativity, and increasingly the natural world. This historical #dathcult is designed to obscure its roots and operations, keeping people powerless and confused, while ensuring the prosperity of a greedy and nasty few. By stripping away regulations and protections, neoliberalism pushes into a rentier society that thrives on exploiting paths essential for survival.

After 40 years of this mess, people think this is natural, a natural law, but in reality it is an ideology engineered to strip away all barriers to capital. This system reconfigures societies, de-industrializing, privatizing, and commoditizing vital services while dismantling unions, which are key obstacles to capital’s control. As a result, wealth is funnelled upwards, creating vast inequality and social decay.

For many, life feels empty, alienated, and devoid of meaning. Stripped of communities of trust, disconnected from nature, and instrumentalized relationships, turning humanists into consumers. The result is widespread disenchantment and mental health crises as people struggle to find purpose beyond our worship of this #deathcult of cold logic, profit.

On this #mainstreaming path, nature itself is commodified, with the “natural capital” agenda aiming to put a price on ecosystems, further pushing exploitation rather than preservation. This soulless, anti-humanistic calculation drains the “spiritual” value from the world, creating an environment where everything, including human beings, are treated as a resource to be mined, used and exploited until they collapse.

The allure of this system is its false promise of simplicity, we can point to external forces, like an enemy or a far-off political struggle, and believe the problem is out of our hands. This form of disengagement is a hallmark of neoliberal control, preventing the collective action required to reclaim #KISS power and meaning in our lives.

The antidote is not only in dismantling neoliberalism but in rediscovering our sense of agency, rebuilding social bonds, and fostering a grassroots vision of community and solidarity. This is where resistance begins, by recognizing that another world is possible and actively working to reclaim the future from those who profit from the present decay.

In doing so, we must compost the rot in the current path and plant seeds of hope and collective action, like the #OMN, #OGB and #indymediaback to build paths that ensuring that the systems of tomorrow are built with people and planet in mind, not only profit.

You can see a #mainstreaming view of this https://chrishedges.substack.com/p/the-secret-history-of-neoliberalism

Communities Adopt #KISS Tools, Not Technologies

Communities don’t adopt digital technologies—they adopt #KISS tools. People don’t think about TCP/IP or HTTP when browsing the web, or SMTP when sending emails. Similarly, they don’t think about #ActivityPub when using the #Fediverse. They interact with intuitive tools that simplify these layers.

One of the toughest challenges in grassroots #DIY tech is creating #FOSS tools that align with #4opens standards while offering good #UX. This isn’t just a technical issue; it’s a deeply social and political one.

The ongoing difficulty in having this conversation within #openweb and #FOSS spaces is part of the wider mess we’re in. We need to work collectively to compost this mess, what we can call the #geekproblem.

SocialHub has often tried to bridge this conversation, but there have been failures along the way. How can we do better moving forward?

Recognizing the Failure of the Center

A crucial question, that speaks to the frustration many people feel toward the ongoing crises—political, environmental, social—that is not only the failure of the center but also the collapse of the system itself. The center, blindly sees itself as a space of compromise and stability, but has been propped up for decades by a neoliberal ideology that promised endless growth, market solutions, and moderation, yet we are witnessing the disintegration of that “stability”.

Recognizing the Failure of the Center:

Erosion of Trust: People are aware that the centre—the moderate, mainstream establishment—has failed to deliver on its promises. Political polarization, the rise of populism, and a loss of faith in democratic institutions signal, the so-called center is unable to address the mess people face. Economic inequality, climate breakdown, and social injustice are not marginal concerns but #mainstreaming crises.
The System is Not Working: The underlying system—whether it’s neoliberal capitalism, representative democracy, or technocratic governance—are visibly incapable of dealing with the crises they have created and exacerbated. The #climatecrisis is intensifying, the wealth gap widens, and the erosion of civil liberties in the name of security shows that the current paths prioritizes control and profit over human well-being. Some are starting to admit that the system itself is fundamentally broken.
Center Did Not Hold: The idea that the path of endless growth, individualism, and market-driven solutions would bring prosperity for all, but, the reality is starkly different. The collapse of consensus politics, the weakening of institutions, and the rise of extreme right-wing movements are native to this “center” path. It could not hold because it was never stable to begin with.

Why Haven’t We Admitted It?

Denial of Alternatives: For the last 40 years, the mantra of #neoliberalism has been “there is no alternative” (#TINA), so as the system crumbles, people and institutions cling to the belief that it’s the only path. This ideological blindness has so far prevented the meaningful change we need from taking root, as alternatives are either dismissed as utopian or subverted into market-friendly forms.
Fear of Uncertainty: The collapse of the system brings with it the fear of uncertainty. People, even those disillusioned with the status quo, fear what might come next when the system fails. This fear manifests as apathy, #blocking or retreat into isolation, the scale of the problems seems overwhelming.
Perpetuation by the few greedy, nasty people who “benefit”. The #deathcult worship still works—though only for a small, powerful few who benefit from this deteriorating status quo. As long as they control much of the media, politics, and economy, the narrative of the center and the system’s viability will continue to be pushed. This gatekeeping prevents #KISS acknowledgment of systemic failure.

What Happens Next?

Collapse of “Legitimacy”: We are already witnessing a growing collapse of the respect for the priests of the #deathcult and their propping up of “legitimacy” in institutions across the globe, from governments to corporations. We can also see the rise of decentralized movements, from the #Fediverse to local grassroots activism, people are looking for alternative ways to organize outside the path that has failed them.
Emergence of New Stories: One of the tasks ahead is to (re)create narratives that challenge the current paths, offering visions of sustainable, cooperative, and inclusive futures. Where grassroots movements, #4opens technology, and environmental justice play a role in this shift, offering both practical solutions and different ideological frameworks that counter the fear-driven status quo.
Radical Imagination: Admitting the system didn’t work requires embracing a radical imagination, to think beyond the limitations of the normal political and economic paths. This means reconnecting with hope, while recognizing the balance of collective action over individualism.

In so many ways, people are already admitting the failure of the center and the “common sense” that supports this, though often not explicitly. The challenge is how to move from recognition to practical #DIY grassroots action, from seeing the collapse to building what comes next. That requires tapping into the potential in grassroots networks, tech communities, and activist spaces to foster a viable path. You can see a part of this path in the work done on the #OMN for the last ten years.

When do you think we reach a critical mass where this failure is acknowledged widely, and what role do you see for grassroots #DIY movements in driving that change?

https://opencollective.com/open-media-network

Let’s help people build grassroots communities in this fertile time for tech change and challenge

The #KISS framing of left and right as driven by emotional motivators—fear for the right and trust for the left—could be used as a simple, powerful tool to influence current #openweb paths and projects, especially amid the current pressures of #mainstreaming. By simplifying the underlying social dynamics, it helps cut through ideological complexities and focuses on the core emotional drivers behind decisions and structures. This will act as a guiding principle to shape how grassroots projects navigate the ongoing cycle of breakdown and renewal.

Trust is the foundation for collaboration, native projects in the openweb space thrive on trust-based collaboration. If we focus on this as a core value, we create affinity groups and networks that operate with openness, transparency, and a sense of shared purpose. This is in contrast to mainstream pressures that rely on fear-driven, control-oriented models (e.g., paywalls, exclusivity, or centralized decision-making). Practical Step, foster spaces where trust is built through #4opens process, a tool to cement this path in place. The focus on trust strengthens community bonds and keeps grassroots projects resilient against the constant “common sense” mainstream co-option.

We need to recognize fear-based structures so we can counter them. Mainstreaming pressures often introduce fear-driven structures (e.g., security concerns, exclusivity, monetization) under the guise of progress or sustainability. By identifying and naming these paths, grassroots people can resist the pull toward control-oriented paths and emphasize open, inclusive solutions. Practical Steps, analyses current openweb projects, identifying where fear-driven control mechanisms are creeping in. This could be as simple as asking, does this decision come from a place of trust or fear?

By using this simple path, affinity groups can form based on shared values, making it easier for people to align around common goals without getting bogged down by complex political debates. This grows organic collaboration and keeps the focus on productive action, rather than reactive division. Some practical first steps to take, would be trust building initiatives, for example creating open governance networks like the #OGB, and pushing for the wider use of FOSS tools. This approach can build momentum in the face of mainstreaming pressures.

Reclaiming the openweb path, the influx of mainstream people into the openweb reboot can feel overwhelming, but if grassroots projects focus on their native paths, they can create alternative spaces that resist the control-oriented, fear-based agenda as it tries to take root. By framing this struggle in emotional terms, it becomes easier to rally people around these #KISS ideas. A practical step is to frame this struggle not in terms of ideology but as a battle between fear and trust. People can easily grasp these emotional drivers, making the cause more relatable and less abstract. It becomes about protecting spaces of openness where people feel empowered, rather than driven by fear and control. And can help prevent paralysis in the face of complexity. Trust, openness, and collaboration should always be the focus, while fear, control, and exclusion should be recognized as threats to the native path.

Core to this is the creation of affinity groups around simple principles that are resistance to fear, crews that focus on pushing back against control-oriented features, especially in projects facing mainstreaming pressures. These groups can form the backbone of a renewed grassroots movement, even as the larger openweb undergoes changes. They can act as pillars of trust, providing stable spaces for experimentation and collaboration while resisting the fear-driven forces commercializing and enclose the commons. Let’s work together to help people build grassroots communities in this fertile time for tech change and challenge.

Fediverse, grassroots, native, trust, openness, and collaboration

One thing we really need to compost is the often invisible conflict between the native commons-based approach and the realities of capitalist infrastructure—particularly in how we fund, organize, and maintain spaces, for example #FediForum. It is hard to get across this invisible #blocking . The perspective, of ideological exclusion rather than the money itself being an issue, though of course it is. this captures a deeper issue about how certain approaches (like paywalls) alienate grassroots communities, even if the cost is minimal or scholarships are available.

We need to see the value in both native and #mainstreaming paths, the native path of the Fediverse and related #openweb movements grew organically from gift economies and volunteer-driven efforts. As did a lot of openweb work, including the ActivityPub standard, which was developed in such spaces, without the need for a paywall or corporate sponsorship. This ethos is central to the commons-building process, where trust, collaboration, and openness are valued more than monetization or statues in formal hard structures.

In the example of FediForum you can see contrast, mainstreaming, paywalls, closed applications, proprietary tools like Zoom and Eventbrite, etc. While they may argue that these tools and models are necessary to cover costs, they create barriers for those who have historically contributed to the commons, in this they are unthinkably enclosing, pushing these paths. The point that the paywall is an ideological barrier, not merely a financial one, is critical. For many in the grassroots community, the introduction of a paywall—even if it’s just $2 or $40—symbolizes a shift away from open, accessible organizing. It’s not just about affordability; it’s about how the space is structured and who it’s structured for.

Events organized without paywalls, based on voluntary contributions, have historically worked because they maintained a native, commons-based ethos. They relied on the trust and collaboration of participants, who donated time, energy, and resources to make things happen without needing to resort to gatekeeping mechanisms like paywalls. With this in mind, we need to try and move conversations that can so easily turn nasty and negative into building bridges, not undermining foundations. The solution lies in acknowledging the strengths of both paths, native and mainstreaming, and finding a way to link them, rather than blindly pushing for one path to dominate and enclose the other.

Actions for Bridge-Building: Ideas and actions for how we might approach this challenge pragmatically, without compromising on the core values of the native common’s path:

Transparent Linking: Start by linking to other paths. Our example FediForum can openly acknowledge and link to grassroots spaces like SocialHub, recognizing that both are part of the larger network. This small step would create a bridge rather than a division.
FOSS Infrastructure is absolutely basic. Push for the use of open-source alternatives to #dotcons tools like Zoom and Eventbrite. This could include tools we have successfully used before , BigBlueButton, Jitsi or other FOSS video conferencing platforms, alongside commons-based event platforms. Even if these tools mean volunteers agreeing to host, the ideological message is different: they are part of the #openweb rather than a concession to the #dotcons proprietary mess.
Open Scholarship Programs: While some financial costs are unavoidable, events could offer open, transparent scholarship programs, as FediForum did at the first event, not just token offerings but significant pathways for those in the grassroots to attend for free. This can help balance the ideological exclusion of paywalls.
Co-organization with Grassroots: Instead of the mainstreaming path of dominating, events really need to engage in co-organization with grassroots communities, ensuring a balance of perspectives. The #OGB would help this issue, as for example, fediforum could be an affiliate stakeholder. This would be a step toward more commons-based governance and event management.
Decentralized Organizing Models: An option (am this is NOT compulsory) would be to take a cue from successful decentralized networks like the Fediverse itself, where governance and organizing can be shared across multiple nodes. In our example, FediForum could adopt a more structurally decentralized organizing model, where grassroots actors have a say in how the event is structured, funded, and run.

What we are talking about here is recognizing different realities, yes we do live in capitalist societies, and sometimes the realities of funding and infrastructure cannot be ignored. However, recognizing this doesn’t mean fully conceding to the #mainstreaming path. Instead, there can be a balance where the native commons ethos is preserved while finding sustainable ways to support events and initiatives. This is actually how the THING we are talking about was originally built, this is what I am calling “native”.

The commons-based path is not simply about ideals; it’s about creating structures that are inclusive, accessible, and genuinely collaborative. While mainstream forces may argue for pragmatism (paywalls, proprietary tools), we do need to push back for a #KISS solution, transparent linking and FOSS tools, offers a simple yet profound bridge. This is how we can grow diversity and ensure that the Fediverse remains a grassroots, native space where trust, openness, and collaboration thrive.

Let’s try a #fluffy path:

An important point about the invisible barriers that people face, which aren’t always immediately understood by others involved in conversation like this. For many grassroots contributors, the imposition of a paywall feels like an act of enclosure, a kind of taking of space that they had a hand in building. This is often not visible to those who approach these events from a more #mainstreaming or #NGO mindset.

To address this “invisible problem” We need to keep emphasizing the importance of recognizing this divide, not as an attack but as an opportunity for mutual understanding. The more people on the mainstreaming path can see how their actions might be excluding core contributors, the more likely bridges can be built. Encourage people to step into the shoes of those who feel excluded, and help them understand that this isn’t just about access or money—it’s about respecting the ethos and history of the movement.

The #mainstreaming is always filled with imperialism, we need to mediate this mess making

The imperialism visible in FediForum is a part of the broader critique of the culture surrounding it, that can help to highlight a core issue in the evolution of the openweb and grassroots activism: the tension between #mainstreaming (enclosure) and grassroots commons (open, decentralized commons paths).

The Cultural Divide, the culture around FediForum is #NGO and #liberal, #dotcons-friendly, a path that tends to centralize control and enclosure, even in discussions about decentralization. The use of #closedsource tools like Zoom and Eventbrite highlights this contradiction. This cultural divide is significant, grassroots communities, including those on SocialHub, reject participation in spaces dominated by tools and processes that contradict the #4opens values. While this isn’t necessarily about whether the individuals involved are “good or bad,” it’s crucial to acknowledge the cultural influence of #NGO and corporate models, that seek to enclose and professionalize what should remain a grassroots, commons-based path, we need to do this so as not to simply end up enclosing the commons in ignorant “common sense” paths. Now that’s a mouth twister 😉

Lack of a Bridge, suggests a commons-oriented solution—a bridge between these two cultural approaches through transparent linking and collaboration between different projects (e.g., FediForum and SocialHub) which would respect the decentralized nature of the #openweb. I personally talk to them about this at the first event, unfortunately, this advice was ignored, and the #NGO path continued, leading to the ideological exclusion of grassroots participants who have been building the Fediverse and the openweb for years at this paywalled event

The #4opens is useful to highlight what for meany people is an invisible, thus unimportant divide:

Applying the #4opens framework is a helpful way to assess the project’s alignment with the openweb’s foundational values. Here’s a quick DRAFT breakdown of how FediForum fares:

Open Data: They are somewhat open, using Creative Commons licenses and publishing event videos openly, but the paywall during the events limits input and participation, reducing the openness. Partial TICK.

Open Source: The CMS might be FOSS, but the reliance on closed-source platforms for the events themselves (Zoom, Eventbrite) contradicts the open-source ethos. Half TICK or none.

Open Industrial Standards: Limited to some RSS feeds, but the integration of proprietary platforms makes it hard to give full credit here. No TICK.

Open Process: Organizing is closed, with paywalled events, though the unconference format allows for more open discussions. However, the ideological closure to many grassroots participants remains. Half TICK.

At best, this makes FediForum a bronze #4opens project with significant room for improvement. At worst, it’s not aligned with the #4opens, thus the #openweb at all.

Moving Forward, what’s missing is a mediation space where these different paths can intersect without one side dominating the other. This space could look like the #OGB with each participant being an affiliate stakeholder https://unite.openworlds.info/Open-Media-Network/openwebgovernancebody

The path that keeps “commons” open is activism, which is about making it hard for these values to be ignored. In this case, we could start this by pushing for the adoption of simple steps like linking and transparency (#KISS). This can begin to rebuild bridges that better reflects the diverse contributions of all involved, without closing doors on those who helped build it in the first place.

We need to build more bridges

This thinking came out of this thread on the subject of the relationship between #WC3 and the grassroots #socialhub over the “governance” of #ActivityPub and the wider #Fediverse.

A bridge rather than ownership would look like a collaborative, flexible, and trust-based system, rather than one based on control and dominance. In the context of the Fediverse and openweb spaces, this would mean moving away from territorial battles between the #NGO mainstreaming approach and the grassroots #openweb communities, toward a recognition that both paths have value, and that these different paths can coexist and complement each other.

The “commons” path is fundamentally about shared responsibility and decentralized governance. It’s the idea that instead of fighting for ownership and control—whether that’s who gets to steer the Fediverse or dominate the standards—we build systems that mediate the different flows, allowing both the formal and the grassroots approaches to contribute and grow together.

This could be done in practical ways like:

Shared Infrastructure: The infrastructure becomes a part of the commons—no one owns it, but everyone can use and contribute to it.
Collaboration Over Competition: Instead of viewing the relationship between the more formal W3C-style governance and grassroots communities like SocialHub as adversarial, we acknowledge that they bring different strengths. The W3C formalism provides structure, while SocialHub’s grassroots, #DIY ethos brings innovation. Each benefits the other, and the bridge is recognizing this value without the need to “own” it.
Mediation and Decision-Making Processes: We need native tools for transparent governance. A commons model for governance like the #OGB which was developed on socialhub. Think of it as a flexible process where everyone has a voice, but no one dominates.
Value in Diversity: The goal is not to impose a singular vision, but to recognize that the messy, bottom-up humanistic creativity from the grassroots and the more polished, structured contributions from #NGOs both have value. The bridge would allow ideas to cross and enrich each other without needlessly flattening their differences.

The key to this is not ownership but bridging the different paths. If we see ourselves as gardeners of the #openweb commons, rather than owners of a “slice” of it, the mindset shifts from control to care, recognizing the power in collaboration rather than domination.

By building these bridges, rather than the normal “common sense” fighting over territory, we create an open network where people and communities can flourish. This bridging needs care, #KISS, trust-based paths, that recognize the shared value and avoid pushing #mainstreaming “common sense” driven artificial divides. It’s about cooperation and connection. #KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid).

The victim card in activism

There’s a pervasive and damaging cycle in activist and alternative communities that we need to recognize and break, the victimhood narrative. This is not about dismissing genuine struggles or the real problems we face (and let’s be clear, we all have these in abundance on alternative paths). What I’m talking about is the deliberate use of victimhood as a tactic, a card played to push an agenda or gain sympathy at the expense of collective progress.

When someone plays the victim card, it sets off a feedback loop. Others pick up on this narrative, and whether they mean to or not, they reinforce it. Before long, the person who played the card becomes trapped in their own creation. They become victims of the very narrative they set in motion. Those who latch onto this story to push their own agendas also fall into the trap, ultimately damaging the causes they claim to support.

This tactic does more harm than good. It doesn’t address the actual issues we’re facing; instead, it creates a toxic distraction that undermines real work that we need to do. By focusing on the victim narrative, we lose sight of the bigger picture, the subjects we should be addressing with urgency and clarity.

Let’s stop and think. Let’s step away from this destructive loop. We need to be clear about the real issues and not allow this negative narrative to cloud our judgment and derail our efforts.

Please, don’t reinforce this mess.

On the other hand, there are real victims, but these people aren’t playing card games, recognizing the difference should not be so hard for people.

The victimhood narrative needs composting

The process of challenging this mess making runs into the #mainstreaming of safety culture, we can reflect on Douglas Gwyn’s famous quote about Unix:

“Unix was not designed to stop people from doing stupid things, because that would also stop them from doing clever things.”

This is a powerful insight into the dangers of blinded regulation and unthinking control in tech and social paths. The quote speaks to the value of bindings of strong #4opens process in design, which allows for creativity, experimentation, and the change and challenge we need to build trust, yes there is the cost of occasional mistakes it’s a price we pay for taking this path.

Safety culture, particularly as it gets pushed into more regulated, closed systems, stifles the our humanistic experimentation we need to tackle the challenges ahead. The push to make everything safe, moderated, and controlled risks, creating paths where nothing truly transformative can happen. It feeds into the #mainstreaming #deathcult path of conformity, where other paths are sacrificed for the sake of avoiding “mistakes”.

By maintaining an #4opens process, as with Unix, we create spaces where people are allowed to fail and, in doing so, come up with new solutions, something that’s becoming more and more vital in the context of our ongoing struggles against #climatechaos, #dotcons dominance, and other meany systemic issues we face.

We need to balance this tension between safety and creativity, recognizing that without the latter, we inadvertently push the very problems we’re trying to solve.

To get past people being lost and thus pointless, It’s useful to frame left and right as driven by fundamental emotional motivators—fear for the right and trust for the left, a way to cut through the complexities of political debates. This lens highlights how cycles of fear perpetuate control-oriented agendas, while trust foster openness and collaboration. It’s a powerful way to step outside the immediate mess, recognizing the #KISS dynamics at play.

Do you think this could be used to influence current #openweb projects and the paths they take amidst #mainstreaming pressures?

Federating Metadata Flows: Bridging Folksonomy and Categories for the #OMN

These native #openweb activism based projects have been around for the last ten years. In the reboot of #Indymedia and the development of the Open Media Network (#OMN), the challenge of federating metadata flows sits at the heart of how people organize, distribute, and consume media in a decentralized, grassroots-driven native path. We’re actively navigating the space between #folksonomy (bottom-up, organic tagging) and categories (top-down, structured organization). Each approach offers advantages, but bridging them creatively is key to an effective and open media landscape.

What this #indymedia reboot video leave out is this:

Folksonomy vs. Categories:

#Folksonomy is a people and community -driven method of tagging content, allowing communities to organically build a taxonomy that reflects their interests and needs. It’s flexible, dynamic, and rooted in grassroots culture.
* Advantage: Captures the diversity and fluidity of bottom-up organizing.
* Disadvantage: Can be messy, inconsistent, and hard to scale across diverse instances.

#Categories are a structured, hierarchical way of organizing information, providing clarity and consistency.
* Advantage: Easier to search, sort, and maintain across larger networks.
* Disadvantage: Top-down imposition is restrictive and alienate grassroots contributors.

The OMN path: Combining Folksonomy with Categories

The #OMN and the Indymedia reboot are grounded in bottom-up grassroots projects, so we obviously start with a folksonomy approach. However, we recognize there’s some practical use for categories as well. Here’s a draft proposal for how to bridge the divide:

Folksonomy First: Every media object enters the OMN network with a set of user-generated tags (folksonomy). These tags represent the grassroots nature of the content—open, fluid, and community-driven.
Category Grouping: Allow instances to group folksonomy tags into category clusters. These clusters could be shared across instances, making it easy to adopt community-agreed categories while respecting the folksonomy origin. This means that folksonomy items are not discarded, but instead enhanced by grouping them into more structured categories. The folksonomy items, now part of category groups, flow through the network and can be treated as extra tags, maintaining transparency and openness.
Metadata Flow is the project: The OMN is not just a content distribution network but also a metadata flow tool. It allows media objects to move across instances, while each instance can enhance the object’s metadata (tags/categories) in a transparent and open way. The magic here is in building a path where meaning, the media, tags, and categories are fully federated and can flow effortlessly between decentralized nodes.
Subscription to Category Flows: Instances can subscribe to category flows, essentially saying, “I want to see all media tagged under a specific category or tag group.” This gives structure without forcing it, enabling diversity of content flow while still benefiting from categorization. This flexible subscription system empowers the grassroots while creating a bridge to more top-down consumption or categorization models.
Trust-Based Growth: The entire system is built on trust networks. Instances that trust each other’s tagging and categorization can share media freely, with the assumption that the metadata accompanying it adds value, not friction.

The Philosophy: “Transparency is the New Objectivity”

The OMN is rooted in the philosophy of transparency over objectivity. The flows of metadata, whether from folksonomy or categories, are transparent for to see, remix, and improve upon. This radical openness, guided by the #4opens, ensures that the system remains flexible, accessible, and grounded in the needs of people not corporations. Truth bubbles up from this, lies exist, but they are pushed to their own spaces, which people can choose to ignore.

Conclusion: Building the Age of Creative Anarchy

On a positive, we could say that the 19th century was the age of capitalism, the 20th century was the age of social democracy, and the 21st century could be shaping up to be the age of creative anarchy. In this era, the challenge is to embrace diversity while building tools that help us collaborate across differences. The OMN is a practical tool to move media objects and metadata around in a way that encourages creativity, transparency, and bottom-up control, all while allowing some degree of organization through category flows. This is a positive future for media, that is native to our current openweb reboot as our #fashernista like to call this #opensocialweb but the problem it is what we are doing is not social media… bad choice of naming.

The future is messy, but we can compost this mess into a thriving, decentralized media path. Let’s start with trust, folksonomy, and the #openweb, and grow from there #KISS who is coding this, who is funding this, help needed please as I don’t have the focus to see this through, it needs crew and funding, that might be you.

Why We Need the Open Media Network (#OMN)

A Path of Destruction: The Middle East’s Endless Conflict and Global Consequences

A #KISS post on the messy ideas behind this current real world mess.

The current events in Gaza feel familiar, a replay of the tragic historical cycle that has been spinning for decades. Israel occupies Gaza. Gaza resists this occupation by attacking to retake occupied land, Israel responds by obliterating swaths of Gaza in brutal retaliation. The Arab countries, bound by, dark agendas, and historical and religious ties, half-heatedly come to Gaza’s defence. In response, Israel attacks Hezbollah in Lebanon, and then Iran steps in to defend Lebanon. This pulls the U.S. and U.K. into defending Israel.

It’s the same history we’ve seen before, and it’s the same history we’ll likely see again.

But what could happen next, the mess that’s looming: Israel escalates its conflict with Iran, triggering a regional implosion. The Middle East is thrown into chaos. People die, displaced by war and destruction. Refugees flood into Europe, triggering a far-right political backlash as governments shift further into the current nationalist, isolationist, and authoritarian politics in response to the refugee crisis.

On the current path, if it’s not this, it will be the next crises. Amid all of this turmoil, what happens to climate change? #Climatechaos marches on, unaddressed, with billions of lives at stake. While increasingly right-wing and failing liberal governments are preoccupied with wars and managing waves of displaced people, no significant action is taken on the climate front. The consequences are catastrophic, with more mass death and displacement on the horizon.

The key point here is that this is a mess, a mess we’ve seen unfold before and one that’s almost certain to play out again unless we find a different path to take. A part of this different path is we need to tie the ongoing conflicts directly to the larger global failures, not just politically but existentially, as the real crisis of #climatechaos continues to be ignored, masked by the drama and horror of the endless cycles of war and dead end power struggles.

We can’t stay on this path #KISS

A radical view of the Palestine