Looking at building #OMN projects

An overview of projects

#Indymedia Classic

Most of the data is a common. Core flows:

Newswire (public, chronological): Anyone can post – and it will appear if they are trusted. It goes to moderation if they are not. This is mostly populated by editorial collective chosen trusted flows into the instance
Features (curated): Promoted stories written by the editorial collective from the newswire resources.
Hidden (private): Moderated view, not visible publicly unless let through by collective to newswire.

View Structure: Mostly fixed: Three flows, with some tag-based navigation as optional/secondary, so can think of this as a “fixed” news landing page with flows. A button to consume and create tag flows, the #makinghistory #UX

Editorial model: Collective moderation, through affinity group consensus.

Metaphor: Like a river (Newswire) feeding into a reservoir (Features), with a dam (Hidden) filtering out toxic waste.

#MakingHistory

Most of the data is a common. Core Structure:

Media object (any format) fragments?

Stories: Everything starts as a crafted piece (linked original fragments).
Tag-based flows: Rich tagging creates multiple dynamic timelines/streams of stories and fragments?
Moderation (private): Curators can review, prioritise, or archive
Interface: Inspired by Tweet Deck-style dashboards: multiple parallel tag/stream views.

Emphasis: Encourages narrative threading, historical context, and thematic clustering over time.

Metaphor: A garden of stories with paths (tags) between plots – some bloom, others get composted behind the scenes.

Shared DNA (and how #OMN fits)

Both: Are people-powered publishing systems. Use a public/private split for moderation and trust-building. Emphasize non-corporate, grassroots communication.

The #OMN acts as a bridge: letting projects like Indymedia and MakingHistory interoperate, share flows, and build trust networks across platforms – all within the ethos of the #4opens.

To be thought about:

The codebase/ActivityPub/OMN all have assumptions that likely need bridging.

Do we use groups to implement collective data – commons – we give admin rights over data by group membership? Then we keep legacy admin roles, but try and push them into the background and plan for them to fade away in the end.

Trusted/untrusted is this based on groups/instances/individuals/tag flow from source or general?

We need to add metadata to objects…

We need every object to be a wiki… This includes the articles – we end up with the Wikipedia of news based on organic trust groups and grassroots street news views rebuilding what it is to be #mainstreaming

The #OMN isn’t just about media, it’s about building the social soil

We need to keep highlighting an old but still urgent tension: the intersection of technology and social change. In this too often unspoken divide, one side leans heavily on practical, technical problem-solving. They want working code, functioning systems, and tangible results, not abstract debates. To them, critiques about capitalism shaping code sound like distractions from the “real work.” The other side insists that technical problems are social problems. They argue that all code is written by people, shaped by culture, power, and history. Ignoring the social dynamics behind technology guarantees we repeat the same failures.

This divide plays out constantly in movements trying to bridge the worlds of #AltTech and social transformation. You see it in tensions between the tech-focused “geek” communities and broader #mainstreaming society. And both sides have blind spots.

The geek camp often falls into the #geekproblem: over-prioritizing tech innovation while ignoring the human and social context. Meanwhile, the #mainstreaming crowd tends to embrace vague social ideals while underestimating the soft power – and necessity – of building real technical infrastructure to support those ideals. Neither side alone can solve anything meaningful, especially not something as vast as rebooting the #openweb or to even start to touch on #climatechaos.

We need bridges, that’s what projects like the #OMN (Open Media Network), #OGB, #IndymediaBack, and #MakingHistory are about: building trust-based, grounded, people-powered platforms that can span the divide between tech and society.

But let’s be honest, there’s a lot of very bad behaviour on all sides of the #openweb reboot. Blocking progress, gatekeeping, aggression, virtue signalling… it’s all too common. Let’s try not to become prats, it’s easy to start, and hard to stop. Mess breeds more mess, prat-ish behaviour comes in waves. It aligns with waves of #mainstreaming and the reactive “alt” backlash, these tides bring a lot of flotsam, it’s up to us to shovel and compost what we can.

Our biggest block right now? The culture war postmodernist fog that has drifted through radical spaces over the past decades. It’s slippery, full of “common sense” that doesn’t hold up, but hard to challenge because it feels right. Composting this will be difficult, but necessary.

The #Fediverse is built on people-to-people relationships. Trust, not just tech, is the foundation. That’s why there’s a healthy pushback against “tech fixes” that try to replace social trust, a path that is much more common in places like #Nostr and #Bluesky, where algorithms and cryptography are too often seen as the solution to everything.

Yes, in reality, we need a balance of both. The debate is fluffy in places, spiky in others. But if we build tech-bridges to span this messy social terrain, we might actually get somewhere. This brings us to the hard green question: how do you scale local, eco-conscious solutions to a disinterested – and sometimes hostile – global population? Green progressives often promote small-scale, ethical living. That’s great for the 1% who can afford to live that way. But what about the other 99%?

Let’s be blunt: some people will die from #climatechaos. Maybe 9%, maybe more. But 90% will still be here, and they will need different kinds of solutions. Right now, the options on the table look like this: A rebooted, green-infused social democracy (the old Corbyn project was an example). A slide into eco-fascism and top-down “solutions” (the Trump path). Or doing nothing, and let #climatechaos run wild (the current #mainstreaming).

One thing is likely, a wartime economy is coming within 20 years, where there’s will be little room for the last 40 years of #neoliberalism, and “soft” liberalism will likely play a secondary role at best, the political landscape is shifting fast. The new #mainstreaming question is which side will you be on?

Because we need more than clean branding and good vibes – we need bold, practical, radical action rooted in both tech and human trust. We don’t just need freedom from the state and the #dotcons – We need freedom from our own dogmas.

The #OMN isn’t just about media, it’s about building the social soil where openness can grow, thrive, and renew. We need compost, and not just as a metaphor.

Dev test work for Makinghistory application

The #makinghistory project is a decentralized, open-source archiving and storytelling network designed to preserve and amplify grassroots histories. It’s founded on the idea that history isn’t written by the winners – it’s made by those who resist, build, and care. Using digitized collections like the CampbellFamily archive as a seed, the project invites communities to reclaim their narratives through shared, federated networks. This isn’t just another data repository – it’s a living, breathing ecosystem where collective memory is gathered, enriched, and kept accessible for future generations and movements.

The application functions as a community-installable tool that allows anyone to host their own archive node. These nodes, whether local or remote, connect into a wider peer-to-peer network of storytellers, archivists, and activists. Core features include uploading and organizing digital files, enriching metadata flows, and linking material to broader narratives using human-created tags and annotations. The platform follows a participation-first path, encouraging affinity groups to contribute not just data, but context, weaving a rich web of interlinked histories.

But #makinghistory goes further than archiving. It’s a space for collaborative storytelling, publishing, and public exhibition. Its narrative layer draws from the archive to trace connections between people, places, and events, transforming scattered fragments into stories of solidarity, resistance, and change. These outputs feed both digital commons and real-world installations like the Resistance Exhibition, where history is brought to life in public, participatory spaces. This is the infrastructure for radical memory work, a composting system for movement knowledge. Developers are not just needed to build features, they’re invited to help shape the very flows and protocols that keep history in the hands of those who live it.

Developer Roadmap: #makeinghistory – Testing & Prototyping

Phase 1: Core Object Listing
- Implement a single-column interface that lists objects (text, image, link).
- Set up two test instances that can post and sync objects between them.
- Default view lists objects by most recent. Super simple.
Phase 2: Hashtag Columns
- Add support for hashtag-based columns (inspired by Mastodon’s Tweetdeck interface).
- Reuse and adapt existing open-source implementations where possible.
Phase 3: Story Objects
- Introduce a new “Story” object that composes and links existing media objects, with added narrative context.
- These stories are published through collective/community accounts (discussion needed on access/trust models).
Phase 4: Federation & Flows
- Begin mapping and testing how edits, hashtags, comments, and objects flow across federated instances.
- Align this with the #OMN trust model and the work from the #indymediaback reboot (estimated 90% overlap).
User Interfaces
- Desktop: Use a Tweetdeck-style interface, similar to Mastodon’s current layout.
- Mobile: Build a simplified UI with a single-column scroll. Objects open fullscreen with sideways swiping (like Tusky for Mastodon).
Every Object
- Has edit capabilities (if user has login/auth).
- Editable hashtags.
- Comment threads.
- All changes sync across instances via federation/trust flows (option 4).

The current test interface and images will need refreshing, as they’re based on early-stage mockups. But the concept remains: keep the interface minimal, usable, and focused on narrative composting. This project is both infrastructure and imagination, grounded in the old but reaching toward the new.

These images need an update as they were based on the dev work from back in the day. This is the very basic interface for testing. The mobile user facing interface is a flick sideways basic interface.

The logic and workflow are all based on the OMN project and have likely a 90% overlap with the indymediaback project

DEV of the #OMN projects

At the core of the #makinghistory infrastructure lies the Open Media Network (#OMN) – a trust-based, human-moderated, #4opens project that offers a decentralized, federated database shared across peers. What makes the OMN unique isn’t just what it does – but what it refuses to do. Rather than chasing complexity or abstract “AI-powered” solutions, the OMN focuses on simplicity and social cohesion, using technology to support and grow human networks. Its structure is purposefully minimal, with only five essential functions:

These core functions are: Publish (to share a story as an object into a stream); Subscribe (to people, pages, groups, or subjects); Moderate (to express trust or disapproval by pushing or pulling content); Rollback (to remove content from your stream based on trust flows); and Edit (to collaboratively change metadata across federated nodes where you’re authenticated). This framework serves as the back-end engine for building a grassroots, DIY semantic web. The front-end can take many forms: city-based or subject-specific sites like a modern reboot of Indymedia, regional storytelling platforms, or thematic archives like #makinghistory. Protocols like ActivityPub form the connective tissue of this system, the plumbing.

In practice, this means people can build meaningful media spaces that reflect local struggles and solidarities without being dependent on corporate platforms or NGO gatekeeping. The data cauldron of the OMN stores the shared knowledge, and every community holds a golden ladle – a way to draw out, remix, and republish what matters to them. If you’re interested in supporting this effort financially, you can do so via Open Collective. And if you’re ready to dive deeper, we need to make this #KISS project work. Let’s build tools for memory, not marketing, infrastructure for resistance, not careerism. Let’s be #makeinghistory together, not sit bord looking at a screen.

This #OMN path is “native” built on a simple, powerful truth: “This is the Internet”:

GET
PUT
POST
DELETE
–MERGE–

These basic actions — close to the core HTTP verbs every website uses — are all you need to create, share, remix, and grow.
(From RFC 7231 and RFC 5789.)

Then you have the #4opens which are about reclaiming the grassroots social power of the web:

Open data

Open source

Open process

Open standards

No gatekeepers. No #dotcons middlemen. No closed silos. Just people, building together. This is what #openweb reboot looks like.

A letter from the margins of the #openweb

All the #OMN projects I’ve worked on over the years, from #OGB to #indymediaback, are not directly about social change. They are about creating the possibility of social change. A subtle, but critical difference.

We don’t claim to have the answers. What we do offer are tools, networks, and processes that make it easier for people to imagine that the world can be different, and then help them to take the first step.

Yet still, here’s the mess that keeps being pushed over us. We are told this work is “too high up the stack,” “too fuzzy,” or “too political.” But in reality, the same topics and themes do receive #NGO funding, just safely sanitized within the logic of the #deathcult. In this, the “shadow” keeps geting funded, but the light source is ignored.

When we say “the world can be different,” we’re not talking about abstract theory. We mean literally:

Media that people control from the grassroots up
Governance that isn’t locked behind elitist gates
A web that grows through trust not platforms
Protocols that reflect values, not just efficiency

But the funding, even in the so-called ‘alternative’ spaces, is trapped in a conservative loop. People working in these orgs are either too captured by their own #geekproblem funding logic, or too afraid to support anything that might really challenge their place in the status quo, by threatening the funding flows they live in.

Some of the real replies to the over 20 funding applications I have put in for the last ten years: “This kind of effort is very hard to seek grants for…” “I don’t have an obvious candidate for you to go to, either.” What these polite deferrals mask is a structural failure of imagination. The fear of change is so strong that even funders tasked with enabling alternatives end up only supporting work that conforms to existing institutional logics and barely deviates in meaningful ways from the normal #mainstreaming paths.

So, where does that leave those of us pushing for a real #openweb reboot? We get silence or slow-walked rejections. We burn out or pivot to “safer” projects. Or worst of all, we get absorbed by the very forces we wanted to challenge. And look, maybe that’s the plan. Maybe co-option is the endgame for the #openweb: a slick, tamed version of rebellion, friendly enough for NGOs and palatable to #EU bureaucrats.

But that’s not our plan. Not the plan we’ve been composting all these years. The challenge:

Funders: If you want the future to be different, stop only funding imitation’s, fund the real thing, step outside the safety of compliance. Trust radical imaginations.
Builders: If you’re still holding the compost shovel, don’t drop it. The real garden will grow, but only if we stop watering the plastic plants.
Everyone else, demand more. Not just better bling, but better foundations.

We don’t need more advice, we do need courage. The #openweb is not dead, but it is at risk of becoming another façade unless we build the possibility of real change into its #rebooting core.

I am still digging #makinghistory #OMN #indymediaback #OGB

#RIPENCC #NGI #NLnet

The #OMN is not a product — It’s a path you walk

The #OMN project is #DIY, it only works if we build it together. This isn’t a startup pitch. It’s not a platform that magically appears out of nowhere to fix everything. It’s not a product to consume, it’s a path you walk. The direction is participatory, not passive. You don’t get to sit back and clap… or boo from the sidelines. If you do, the system won’t collapse, but it sure as hell won’t grow.

Let’s be direct, there is no saviour coder, no NGO white knight, no perfectly designed protocol that will do the real work for us. If you’re waiting for a polished solution wrapped in a branded bow, you’re already on the wrong side of history.

And if our current (stupid)individualism keeps #blocking, even if we don’t build any of this now, the work still matters. There’s deep value in memory, the rough notes, the abandoned wikis, the half-built tools, the strange and beautiful conversations scattered across the #fediverse. These are the seeds and scraps that future builders can compost. If we can’t get our act together now, the next wave might. But only if we leave something living behind.

Right now, for me, that “something” is #makinghistory, the #OMN archiving project. It’s not just nostalgia or backup, it’s a living memory layer, a scaffolding of knowledge and intention that gives us a place to stand. Without memory, we circle the same old #techshit heap, repeating mistakes, retelling the same half-lost stories, falling into the same social and technical traps.

That’s not progress. That’s rot.

So we’re starting where we might get funding, bootstrapping the archive. It’s step one. It’s doable. And it matters. If we don’t remember soon, many of us, and the histories we’ve made, will be lost in the rising storm of #climatechaos and social fragmentation.

In the end, it’s simple, if we don’t build, we don’t change. If we don’t remember, we’ll never learn.
And if we don’t act, this moment becomes compost for someone else’s future.

That’s fine, but I’d rather build that future when we need it most now. Wouldn’t you?

Ah, the cockerel crows and the full moon glows, a fine moment to scratch at the compost pile.

You’re right, most are merrily skipping through walled gardens, hashtagging selfies and feeding the #dotcons. But seeds don’t need mass attention, they just do need rich compost. That’s what we need to build. Slow, damp, a bit smelly, but fertile.

The #sheeple are not my flock, they belong to the algorithmic shepherds. We’re feeding the stray goats and curious crows.

You don’t convert people by preaching. You do it by making better paths, ones they choose when the old ones crumble. We don’t sell the #openweb like snake oil — we show it, live in it, fix it when it breaks, and compost the crap. It’s #DIY, not #DRM

As for silos and skips, good compost needs oxygen, not airtight boxes. So yeah, a messy open pile — full of half-rotten ideas, posts, drama, even the occasional troll turd.

We trust in tools not gatekeepers, the #4opens are the shovels, rakes, and sieves. The people bring the scraps, and over time, it breaks down into something usable.

No army of mods, no paywalls, simple trust, process, and a lot of patience. Think rural anarchism, not startup governance.

On scaling… Ah, the eternal #techshit question, “Does it scale?” That’s the wrong frame. Nature doesn’t scale, it sprawls.

We’re not building an empire. We’re nurturing a network. Think mycelium, not megastructure.

The #OMN isn’t about numbers. It’s about resilience and agency. If it sprouts in some cracks, the monoculture breaks. And yes, nettles welcome

The #Kolektivas, the #fashernista paradoxes, the semi-anarchic infighting, it all goes in the pile. Break it down, stir it up, give it time…

And what do you get? Fluffy, fertile humus — ready for new growth. That’s the cycle. That’s the plan.

#makinghistory an example workflow

For the last 20 years, we’ve worshipped the #deathcult of #neoliberalism, blind to the collapse unfolding around us. Every institution that promised to guide and protect us has failed. The ruling classes, in every hue of politics, have abandoned us. Our media and entertainment elites distract and distort. #NGOs, once trusted, have betrayed the very causes they claimed to champion. Academia and business alike have clutched at power, dithering while the world burns.

We face #climatechaos naked and disjointed — at war with ourselves and lost in consumerism. Yet, in this wreckage, there is a choice: step away from the #mainstreaming, let go of false promises, and dive into the #undercurrents. Compost the mess. Build anew.

The #makinghistory project is a seed for this rebuilding. It offers a way to reclaim our narratives, digitizing archives like the Campbell Family collection to preserve grassroots histories of resistance and hope. I use this as an example here. This is more than data collection — it’s a living, breathing ecosystem of collective memory.

Setting up the Application: Communities install the #makinghistory app on local machines or hosted instances, creating a decentralized network of storytellers.

Uploading Digital Files: Activists and archivists upload historical files, adding metadata and context.

Building a Community: By inviting family, affinity groups, and wider activist circles, the archive grows into a collaborative space, nurturing participation.

Interacting with Data: Users engage directly with the history, categorizing, tagging, and enriching it with new insights.

Storytelling Features: The enriched data flows into narratives, connecting seemingly isolated events into cohesive stories of struggle, solidarity, and change.

Public Sharing: These stories aren’t locked away — they’re shared openly, contributing to a global commons of knowledge.

Impact: In reclaiming history, people find inspiration and strength. Grassroots stories challenge the top-down narratives, showing that change comes not from a nasty few (elites) but from those who dare to dream and act.

The ‘Resistance Exhibition’ was started to extend this vision, turning physical spaces into participatory hubs where visitors become archivists and storytellers themselves.

This is not passive consumption. It’s collective action. It’s the compost from which new movements grow. It’s #makeinghistory — not as an abstract concept, but as a living, evolving reality. Let’s step away from the wreckage and start building something real.

#NLnet #EU #NGI #NGIzero – Will we get it right this time?

With the hard shift to the right in US tech, Europe can no longer afford to sit idly by in tech development. The myth of neutrality has always been a convenient lie—if we don’t actively counterbalance this shift, we risk watching the #FOSS and #openweb movements collapse, taking with them a core pillar of our democratic and digital future. These movements aren’t just about code; they are the foundation of a fair, open, and just society. Now is the time to step up, not stand by.

For the past five years, I’ve been applying for funding for native #openweb projects—projects rooted in real, grassroots needs rather than corporate gatekeeping and academic abstraction. The problem? #NLnet and the wider #EU funding landscape lack people who can actually judge #FOSS projects in this space. The results are predictable:

Bureaucratic checklists
Conservative, incremental funding
Projects chosen based on who fills out forms best, not who builds the tech we actually need

So the real question is: has this changed? Because right now, I see the same mistakes repeating. We have proposals like:

#MakingHistory – Restoring a radical, federated approach to storytelling and digital archiving.
#IndymediaBack – Rebooting independent media with the lessons of past failures baked in.
#OGB (Open Governance Body) – A vital step toward decentralised, federated governance—something we desperately need to keep tech in the hands of communities, not corporations.

These proposals should not be niche. They should not be afterthoughts. They should be a part of the core of NGI funding strategy, the checks and balance on the bigger tech projects, if the EU is to be at all affective about counterbalancing the rightward shift in global tech.

So let’s ask again: Has #NLnet and the #EU stepped up this time? Are we funding the future, or are we just shuffling papers while the #deathcult eats our humanistic heritage and the last remains of the #openweb?

The risk, as always, is that the funding just shifts to the next well-polished pitch deck, rather than the real, messy work of change. But hey, one can but prod—because without that, nothing moves at all.

The Path Beyond #Neoliberalism

On the path of the current climate and systemic crises, it becomes realistic to see that #neoliberalism, with its free-market orthodoxy and the pushing of minimal state intervention, is fundamentally an inadequate path that is ill-equipped to address #climatechaos and social challenges we face. This failure means a radical shift in perspective and approach is going to happen, with this we might need to shift our “common sense” to being “Revolutionary Realism.”

The current #mainstreaming of false promises of #Neoliberalism over the last 40 years has pushed the fundamentalist free market path as the engine of prosperity, wealth and efficiency. However, since the 2008 financial crisis, these promises have increasingly rung hollow. The empirical evidence—rising inequality, decreasing life expectancy, and environmental degradation—exposes the limitations and failures of this economic model.

From our turn of the century Alt globalization movement, we have Mark Fisher’s concept of “capitalist realism”, which describes the pervasive belief that capitalism is the only viable economic system. This invisible dogma has fostered a sense of fatalism, particularly on the left, where a resignation to critique and protest has replaced active efforts to envision and construct alternatives. This defeatism perpetuates the status quo, as it undermines belief in the possibility of systemic change.

The need for revolutionary path in the imminent collapse of capitalism, contrary to the notion that capitalism is indestructible, we are witnessing its destabilization under the weight of its inherent contradictions and the accelerating climate mess. This realization prompts a shift from capitalist realism to revolutionary realism, acknowledging the inevitability of capitalism’s decline and the necessity of preparing for what comes next.

The climate crisis is a catalyst, a primary driver of this impending transformation. From droughts affecting global trade to natural disasters disrupting economies, the environmental impacts of #climatechaos are compounding the systemic vulnerabilities. These disruptions necessitate a move towards a different way of organizing economic systems, this could be a controlled and planned economic system or more a balance of grassroots federated democracy.

State control of the economy is one path. Historically, state intervention has proven effective in times of crisis, as seen during World War II and the COVID-19 pandemic. State control of the economy does not inherently mean totalitarianism; it can involve a balanced approach, with both top-down planning and bottom-up participation.

Effective planning is a path we might need to take, being crucial for managing resources and ensuring equitable distribution. This could involve simplifying economic processes, such as reducing the variety of consumer goods and localizing production to reduce dependency on international trade. Digital #4opens technology can enhance this planning by providing real-time #opendata and facilitating more responsive governance.

Democratic Participation is a path to avoid the pitfalls of authoritarianism, any new system must incorporate democratic mechanisms, such as #OGB path of building the power of citizens’ assemblies, to legitimize state actions and ensure accountability. This grassroots participatory approach mitigates the risk of corruption and foster a sense of collective responsibility.

Practical steps for transition, free basics and rationing. A key element of a new system would be the socialization of essential services—healthcare, housing, and food production—to ensure that everyone’s basic needs are met. Rationing of luxuries and non-essential goods can help to push some sustainability and equity on this mediation path.

Encouraging worker participation in decision-making using projects like the #OGB and perhaps supporting small businesses, as a path out of the current #mainstreaming, can humanize the economy and maintain a degree of market diversity to push the needed transition. This hybrid approach blends state control with “entrepreneurial” social freedom, making the path through the coming mess by balancing efficiency with innovation to shift our dogmatic common sense.

But fundamentally we need a cultural shift towards valuing sustainability, community, and collective well-being over the #stupidindividualism of individual consumerism. This can be promoted through, empowering #DIY education, radical media (#indymediaback), and grassroots movements. There is a long history of this (#makinghistory) which we need to remind our selves about.

The transition from current #mainstreaming to a more sustainable and equitable system requires revolutionary realism—a pragmatic recognition of the imminent collapse of the current system and a proactive approach to growing its successor. This might involve embracing state control, and or fostering grassroots democratic participation, to push the cultural shift towards sustainability and collective well-being. Can we navigate the complexities of this transition to take the path to building a more resilient and just society is the most important question for today?

Activist History: A Balanced Approach

Activist history is often marred in sectarianism. This fragmentation means that often the most contentious and least effective voices dominate the narrative, overshadowing the efforts of those who were diligently work on the ground.

Addressing the Challenges

To tell the story of activist history accurately and fairly, we need to work to overcome the following challenges:

Sectarianism and Ideological Divisions: Recognize and address the ideological differences that have historically divided movements. While acknowledging these differences, it is important to focus on the common goals and achievements of all the activists.
Visibility of Voices: Ensure that the voices of those who are/were actively engaged in the work are heard. Often, these individuals are too busy with their activism to document their contributions, resulting in a skewed historical record contributed by the academics and #fahernistas who do have the time.
Comprehensive Documentation: Create a balanced and inclusive archive that captures the diversity of experiences and contributions within the movement. This includes documenting the perspectives of those who were on the frontlines, as well as those who played supporting roles.

Strategies for a Balanced Historical Record

Inclusive Archiving: Encourage all activists, regardless of their role or prominence, to contribute to the archive. This can be facilitated through workshops and training sessions on how to document and share their experiences.
Oral Histories and Podcasts: Record oral histories and podcasts with activists who may not have had the time or resources to document their contributions. These recordings can provide valuable first-hand accounts and insights into the movement.
Decentralized Storytelling: Allow multiple narratives to coexist within the archive. By decentralizing the storytelling process, we can ensure that no single faction or ideology dominates the historical record.
Focus on Issues: Highlight the issues and achievements rather than the personalities within the movement. This helps to shift the focus from individual egos to the collective goals and successes of the movement.
Community Involvement: Involve the community in the archiving process. By engaging a diverse group of people in the documentation effort, we can capture a more holistic and representative history.

By addressing the challenges of sectarianism and ensuring the inclusion of diverse voices, #MakingHistory can create a rich and balanced archive that accurately reflects the efforts and achievements of past and present activists.

We have a #OMN tech project for this https://opencollective.com/open-media-network/projects/makinghistory

Images of protest posters

Thalia and Ian Campbell have been #makinghistory throughout their life’s, by collecting an amazing collection of posters that we have divided into categories below:

Peace Posters
https://photos.app.goo.gl/Csvttwcur7hzkH6HA

Labour and Trade Union Posters
https://photos.app.goo.gl/Csvttwcur7hzkH6HA

Feminist Posters
https://photos.app.goo.gl/LMCQHpJYkj4GUXog8

Counter Culture
https://photos.app.goo.gl/8V4S2skG15EDcrBh9

The mess we made with the dotcons

The #dotcons are designed for greed and selfishness, everything about them feeds this and in turn feeds off this negative path. This is coded deep into them, they cannot be fixed, and we cannot reboot alternatives to this by simply copying them in #FOSS as we have done too much in the #Fediverse.

The rebooting of the #openweb is the path we have taken, this copying worked well for the first step, for the next step we need to move past this, simply copying of the current #mainstreaming mess. The next step needs to be more “native” to the #4opens path that we have started down. Let’s thank the people who copied, give them the gifts of statues and security, they did us all a service, they deserve thanks for this first step not hatred.

To understand why let’s look at the #dotcons mess, an example, is the devolution of #Twitter from a neoliberal space to one with growing fascist tendencies under Elon Musk’s, this is a stark reminder of the pitfalls of unchecked corporate #dotcons and the susceptibility of these platforms to authoritarian control.

One aspect is the complicity of #neoliberal actors in pushing the rise of fascism. #Neoliberalism, with its emphasis on deregulation and market-driven solutions, pushes for the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a few. This concentration eventually leads to the erosion of democratic norms and the rise of authoritarianism, as seen in the case of Twitter’s transformation. Thus, the intertwining of neoliberalism and fascism underscores the need for vigilance in combating both economic inequality and the erosion of “native” #openweb democratic projects we try and build and sustain.

Moreover, the reaction of neoliberal peoples “common sense” to the shift towards fascism on the #dotcons like Twitter is instructive. Despite the platform’s descent into authoritarianism, many #mainstreaming users continue to engage with it, clinging to nostalgia for its earlier, more liberal incarnation. This phenomenon highlights the tendency of #mainstreaming to adapt to life under oppressive regimes, often out of a desire for self-preservation or a misguided sense of normalcy. It serves as a sobering reminder of the dangers of complacency and the importance of resisting authoritarianism, aspesherly in its early stages.

In essence, the transformation of Twitter from a neoliberal to a fascist space underscores the interconnectedness of economic and political systems and the need for collective action to safeguard “native” #openweb democratic values and the paths we take. By recognizing the warning signs of authoritarianism and refusing to acquiesce to its normalization, people can prevent the erosion of the #openweb

The #dotcons and #closedweb of the last 20 years have clear problems:

Centralization of Power: The dominant platforms in the #dotcons era and #closedweb are centralized, controlled by a handful of corporations.
Monopolistic Practices: The dominance of a few major players led to monopolistic practices that stifled “native” #openweb culture. These monopolies limit people choice and hindered the development of alternative paths that could offer more diverse and community-centric life.
Surveillance Capitalism: The #dotcons relies on business models built around surveillance capitalism, where data and metadata is harvested, monetized, and exploited for targeted advertising and social purposes without consent and transparency. This exploitation of people’s data undermines “society” and creates significant ethical concerns.
Filter Bubbles and Echo Chambers: The algorithms employed in the #dotcons are designed to prioritize content based on user engagement metrics, leading to the formation of filter bubbles and echo chambers. These push people to beliefs and preferences that limit exposure to diverse perspectives and contributing to growing and entrenching polarization and disinformation.
Erosion of Public Discourse: The rise of social media in the #dotcons facilitated the spread of misinformation, hate, and extremist right ideologies. These platforms prioritized engagement and virality over the quality and accuracy of content, leading to the erosion of public discourse and trust.
Data Concerns: The collection and exploitation of user data by #dotcons raised significant concerns. People have limited to no control over their social data and metadata.
Digital Divide: Access to the internet and digital technologies remained unevenly distributed during the #closedweb era, exacerbating social and economic inequalities. Marginalized communities, faced barriers to access our #openweb reboot, limiting their ability to participate in our native paths and thus the wider digital economy and society we need to build.

To sum up, the dominance of centralized platforms, surveillance capitalism, algorithmic biases, erosion of social norms, and inequalities have been some of the most pressing issues associated with the #dotcons and #closedweb over the last two decades. Addressing this requires concerted efforts to promote decentralization, #4opens and “native” #openweb infrastructure and culture. You can help with this by working on projects like #OMN #OGB #makinghistory and #indymediaback

This post is a reaction https://mastodon.ar.al/@aral/112098724636424845

Please donate here is you can https://opencollective.com/open-media-network to make this path happen.

A positive view of Postmodernism in tech

In the postmodernist mess of the last 40 years, this is a balanced positive from the negative view. In the context of projects of the #OMN (Open Media Network), #OGB (Open Governance Body), #indymediaback, and #makinghistory.

Postmodernism/modernism influences the approach to media, governance, and historical narratives:

Distributed and Decentralized Media: Postmodernism challenges the idea of centralized control over media and information. Projects like #OMN and #indymediaback embrace a decentralized model where content creation and distribution are open to communertys, rather than controlled by a select few. This approach reflects postmodern skepticism towards grand narratives and authority, allowing for diverse voices and perspectives to be heard.
Open Governance: Postmodernism’s emphasis on skepticism towards authority and power structures informs the approach to governance in projects like #OGB. Instead of traditional hierarchical structures, open governance bodies work for transparency, inclusivity, and participatory decision-making processes. This reflects a postmodern rejection of centralized authority in favour of distributed forms of power.
Alternative Historical Narratives: Postmodernism challenges dominant historical narratives and encourages the exploration of alternative perspectives and counter-histories. Projects like #makinghistory aim to democratize the production of historical knowledge by allowing communities to share their own stories and experiences. This approach recognizes the subjective nature of historical interpretation and emphasizes the importance of diverse voices in shaping our understanding of the past.
Emphasis on Multiplicity and Pluralism: Postmodernism rejects the idea of a single, objective truth in favour of multiplicity and plurality of perspectives. Projects like #OMN, #OGB, #indymediaback, and #makinghistory embrace this diversity by providing platforms for a wide range of voices and viewpoints. Rather than privileging one perspective over others, these projects aim to foster dialogue and exchange between different communities and individuals.

Overall, postmodernism shapes the philosophy and approach of these projects by challenging traditional notions of authority, truth, and history. By embracing decentralization, openness, and plurality, the projects seek to empower communities, promote inclusivity, and challenge dominant narratives in media, governance, and historical discourse.

The negative history of this movement and its role in the current #deathcult

The negative aspects of postmodernism, particularly when intertwined with #neoliberalism, have had detrimental effects on society, including influencing projects like #OMN, #OGB, #indymediaback, and #makinghistory:

Fragmentation and Atomization: Postmodernism’s emphasis on deconstruction and skepticism towards grand narratives has contributed to the fragmentation of society. Instead of fostering solidarity and collective action, it has led to atomization, where individuals prioritize their own experiences and perspectives over communal goals. In projects like #OMN and #OGB, this fragmentation can hinder effective collaboration and decision-making, as individuals prioritize their personal interests over the common good.
Relativism and Truth Decay: Postmodernism’s rejection of objective truth has paved the way for widespread relativism, where all beliefs and perspectives are considered equally valid. While diversity of thought is important, this extreme relativism leads to a breakdown in shared understanding and consensus. In the context of #indymediaback and #makinghistory, this can result in the proliferation of competing narratives and a lack of accountability for factual accuracy, undermining efforts to construct a progressive cohesive historical record or media landscape.
Crisis of Authority and Expertise: Postmodernism’s skepticism towards authority and expertise erodeds trust in social institutions and grassroots experts, leading to a crisis of legitimacy. In the absence of trusted sources of information, conspiracy theories, misinformation, and disinformation thrive, further contributing to societal polarization and distrust. In projects like #OMN and #indymediaback, this crisis of authority can undermine efforts to establish credible media platforms or governance structures, as participants may question the legitimacy of leadership or expertise.
Commodification of Identity: Postmodernism’s focus on individual identity and difference has been co-opted by neoliberal capitalism to commodify identity and diversity. In this neoliberal/postmodern paradigm, diversity and inclusivity are reduced to marketable commodities, used to sell products and services rather than challenge systemic inequalities. In projects like #OGB and #makinghistory, this commodification of identity can undermine efforts to address structural oppression and promote genuine social justice, as diversity and inclusivity become mere branding (lifestyle) exercises rather than catalysts for systemic change.

Overall, the negative aspects of postmodernism, exacerbated by its alignment with neoliberal ideology, have contributed to societal disintegration, truth decay, erosion of trust, and the commodification of identity. In the context of projects like #OMN, #OGB, #indymediaback, and #makinghistory, these dynamics hinder efforts to foster genuine collaboration, construct meaningful historical narratives, and promote social justice. Recognizing and addressing these negative influences is crucial for building a working #openweb

We need to bridge the balance between these stresses, “don’t be a prat” is a start to this.