Tag: Mastodon

Stepping away from #Mainstreaming: Building a Radical #OMN Through Clear, Grounded Communication

In the world shaped by corporate control, liberal co-option, and empty activism, the language we use is a battleground. The push for this #mainstreaming has dulled radical discourse, replacing it with sanitized, #NGO-friendly language that avoids real social change and challenge. If we are serious about building an alternative, we need to rethink how we communicate—not just what we say, but how we say it.

An example that I have been developing for the last ten years is the #OMN (Open Media Network) hashtag story—a project rooted in direct action, radical media, and bottom-up organizing. It’s a path away from corporate-controlled narratives and into messy, human, and effective grassroots communication.

The problem with #mainstreaming language, NGO-driven approach to activism and media has a core flaw, it seeks acceptance rather than transformation.

This blunts radical movements, it dilutes the message, #mainstreaming turns radical ideas into soft, palatable soundbites. Instead of speaking clearly about power, control, and oppression, it replaces them with vague, feel-good language designed for funding applications and media appearances.

Example: Instead of saying, “Capitalism is a #deathcult destroying the planet,” we get, “We need sustainable economic growth and green investments.”.

The result? The core critique is lost. The real causes of oppression are left untouched. It shifts focus to liberal activism that places too much trust in institutions—governments, tech corporations, and NGOs—assuming that change can happen from within. Instead of building our own autonomous networks, we waste time begging for reforms that never come.

Example: Instead of rebuilding grassroots media, activists push for more regulations on social media companies—keeping power centralized rather than challenging the #dotcons path itself.

The result? Big tech still controls everything, and alternative voices get pushed to the margins. It avoids direct conflict and struggle, as real social change is messy. It requires taking risks, building new paths, and confronting power. #Mainstreaming, on the other hand, prefers safe conversations and endless dialogue over real action.

Example: Instead of fighting for community-controlled spaces, NGOs organize panels and workshops on “inclusion”—without actually shifting power.

The result? We #blindly talk while the same power structures remain intact. The #OMN path for real communication for real change. For this to be real we want to escape the #NGO liberal mess, we need to reclaim radical communication. That means, speaking in clear, direct language:

Say this: “The internet is controlled by #dotcons—giant corporations profiting from our data and attention. We need to take back control.” or “The #deathcult of neoliberalism is driving us to #climatedisaster.” and “#NothingNew: Stop wasting time chasing tech hype—fix what already works.”

Language should be sharp, memorable, and rooted in everyday experience. But this is not only about talking, building alternative structures, not just critiquing the system is needed. Talking is not enough. We need to build. The #OMN project is about creating a real alternative to corporate-controlled media through grassroots, federated networks.

  • Instead of: Complaining about Facebook’s censorship… Build: A network of ActivityPub-powered, self-hosted media hubs that can’t be shut down.
  • Instead of: Asking Twitter to fact-check misinformation… Build: A trust-based network of independent journalists and aggregators.

The Fediverse and #OMN are already moving in this direction. We #KISS need to push harder.

Recognizing that change comes from conflict and challenge, social movements succeed when they agitate. That means, calling out power structures instead of begging them to change. Defending radical voices instead of silencing them to fit liberal narratives. Using technology as a tool for liberation, not just convenience.

The biggest lie of #mainstreaming is that change happens by playing nice. History tells a different story: The labour movement won rights through strikes and resistance. The civil rights movement succeeded because of direct action, not just speeches. Open-source software survived because of forks, fights, and refusal to comply. If we want a free and open internet, we need to fight for it.

The #OMN is a practical vision of a radical media network for the future, decentralization – Breaking free from corporate control. Autonomy – Creating trust-based networks instead of top-down paths. Action over talk – Building real alternatives, not just complaining about problems.

This is the path forward. If we want to escape the bland, corporate-friendly language of the liberal web, we need to reclaim radical, direct, and effective communication.

You can get involved by joining the Fediverse (#Mastodon, #PeerTube, #Pixelfed etc).
If you have resources or skill, then support and develop the #OMN. Then help build #OMN-powered media hubs. Spread the principles. Push back against the #NGO takeover of the #openweb.

It’s past time to take back control of our narratives, our media, and our future.

Bridging the gap: Building a human-first #openweb

Many years ago, I wrote on my website sidebar: “A river that needs crossing—political and tech blogs: On the political side, there is arrogance and ignorance; on the geek side, there is naivety and over-complexity.” Decades later, we still to often find ourselves standing on opposite shores of this river, struggling to bridge the understanding gap between human-centric communities and the techno-centric mindset of the “geek class.” This divide is a core challenge for anyone invested in building a better, decentralised #openweb.

This battle isn’t just about technology—it’s a deeper, unspoken struggle between openness and control. It’s about whether our social networks and communities will empower human trust and collaboration, or continue to be shaped by closed systems that reduce people to passive users.

To touch on this, it’s worth looking at a tale of two projects: Diaspora vs Mastodon

The history of the #openweb provides stark lessons. Consider #Diaspora and #Mastodon, two decentralised platforms with very different outcomes.

  • Diaspora had significant funding, public attention, and a large team of coders. Yet, it failed completely. Why? It was built with a #FOSS closed mindset—trying to replicate the control features of corporate platforms but within a decentralised framework.
  • Mastodon, by contrast, had no funding, minimal publicity, and just one dedicated coder. It succeeded because it embraced openness—allowing communities to organically grow and evolve based on shared principles rather than top-down control.

The lesson is clear: projects rooted in openness thrive, while those built on closed fail.

The #OMN path is human trust networks over algorithms. One of the core goals is to learn from these past successes and failures. From these focuses on growing federated human communities by prioritising openness, trust, and collaboration over technical “perfection.”

A counterintuitive path – Why Spam and “Bad Content” Matter. It might sound counterintuitive, but spam and irrelevant posts are a necessary part of building communities. Without the challenge of sorting and filtering content, there’s no reason for humans to reach out, form trust networks, and collaborate on moderation. Geeks often see spam as a technical problem to be solved with algorithms, but this approach misses where the value is.

Algorithms centralise power, when we rely on black-box technology to handle content moderation, control shifts to the people who design and manage these “boxes”. This creates invisible hierarchies, as seen with #Failbook and other #dotcons platforms. By relying on human moderation and trust-building, communities become stronger and more self-sustaining. People are motivated to engage, connect, and contribute to a path they help shape.

Spam and low-quality content must flow into the network as part of the process, but the network itself should flush this out to organically push valuable content to the top through human effort. Of course there is a balance here, this decentralised approach keeps power in the hands of the community balanced with the coders. With this flow of data and metadata established, we put some federated structure in place.

Scale through federation creates organic grow.

  • Base Sites: These are narrow, local, or subject-focused publishing sites where content creation happens. They are small and community-driven, and their true value lies in their specificity and grassroots community engagement.
  • Middle Sites: This aggregate content from the base sites, adding value by curating, tagging, and filtering. They act as the core of the network, sifting through content to ensure quality and relevance.
  • Top Sites: These are broad outreach platforms designed for #mainstreaming content. They are easy to set up and administer but add little original value. Instead, they highlight and amplify the best content from the base and middle layers. These sites are the change and challenge.

This structure reverses the traditional value pyramid, where top-down platforms dominate. In the #OMN model, the true value resides at the grassroots base, while the top merely reflects the collective effort below.

Moderation as a feature, not a problem, for the network to thrive, it must scale through human connections and trust, moderation is the fuel for building the trust networks.

  • Trusted Links: Content flows through trusted networks, where moderators ensure quality.
  • Moderation Levels: New contributors are moderated until trust is established. Over time, as trust builds, moderation becomes less/unnecessary.
  • Failure Modes: Without trust-building, sites will either become overwhelmed by irrelevant content or collapse under the weight of unmanageable workloads.

The only way to maintain a useful site is to build, either a large, healthy community with diverse moderators and administrators, or a small, focused group based on high-quality, trusted connections. Both outcomes are desirable and reinforce the decentralised ethos of the #OMN.

Why automation fails, the temptation to automate everything is a hallmark of the #geekproblem. While algorithms might make a network “technically” better, they erode the human element, which is the entire point of decentralisation. Automation creates middling-quality networks with mediocre outcomes, leading to Signal-to-Noise problems, reduced motivation, if everything is automated, why bother forming trust networks and engaging deeply?

Less is more should be a guiding principle. By focusing on simplicity and human collaboration, the #OMN avoids the pitfalls of over-engineering and maintains the integrity of its community-driven mission to build a better future. The #OMN isn’t just about technology; it’s about creating spaces where people can connect, collaborate, and build trust. It’s about empowering communities to take ownership of their networks and their narratives.

This road won’t be easy. We’ll need to fight against the inertia of the #dotcons and resist the urge to repeat the mistakes of the last decade’s failed alt-tech projects. But by embracing the principles, we can create a web that serves people, not corporations. The tools are already here. The open internet still exists, for now. The choice is clear, build for humans, not for algorithms. Trust people, not black boxes. Decentralise, federate, and grow organically. The #OMN provides a roadmap—now it’s time to follow it.

Public Social Media: The Choice is Clear

As the #fashernista and #geekproblem “debate” over social media platforms intensifies, the choice between truly public, decentralised networks and corporate-controlled #dotcons has never been clearer. Let’s look at a simple example:

  • Mastodon is owned by no one and everyone (community-driven). Its structure is public non-profit. Number of distributed nodes are in the thousands (fully decentralised). Post length: 500 characters and more. Can edit? Yes. Mastodon represents the native #openweb. It’s built on decentralised principles, where people and communities own and control their spaces. There’s no central authority dictating rules or exploiting for profit.
  • Bluesky is owned by Venture Capitalists, Its structure is corporate for-profit. Number of “distributed” nodes: One (centralised in practice) Post length: 300 characters Can edit? No. Bluesky, despite its claims of decentralisation, is owned and operated as a for-profit venture. Its structure centralises power and prioritises profit over people’s control, offering a polished but limited alternative to #mainstreaming paths.

The choice between #Mastodon and #Bluesky reflects a broader conflict between decentralisation and #dotcons corporate control. It should, but often is not easy to see that networks like the #fedivers are native to the #openweb where Bluesky is an interloper, though they are both .

Projects like the #OMN, , and the #Fediverse itself, offering freedom, community ownership, and transparency. Bluesky, on the other hand, represents the same closed, profit-driven ethos of the #dotcons, repackaged in a new “shiny” wrapper.

When you choose a network, you’re not just choosing where to post, you’re choosing what kind of internet you want to build. The open, public internet is still within reach. The choice is clear.

Seed from a toot and image from @FediTips

Application 2025-02-032 Open Governance Body #OGB

Application 2025-02-032 Open Governance Body #OGB received

The following submission was recorded by NLnet. Thanks for your application, we look forward to learning more about your proposed project.
Contact

name
hamish campbell
phone
email
hamish@visionon.tv
organisation name
OMN
country
UK
consent
You may keep my data on record

Project

code
2025-02-032
project name
Open Governance Body #OGB
fund
Commons_Fund
requested amount
€ 50000
website

    https://unite.openworlds.info/Open-Media-Network/openwebgovernancebody

synopsis

A project designed to create a trust-based, decentralized framework for governance within grassroots networks and communities. Rooted in the principles—open data, open source, open processes, and open standards—the #OGB seeks to mediate human-to-human collaboration by fostering trust, transparency, and simplicity (#KISS).

Its primary focus is addressing the #geekproblem by bridging technical and social flows, creating tools that empower people to organize effectively without falling into hierarchical or centralized traps. The #OGB builds on trust to sift through noise, allowing genuine contributions to rise, moving from complexity to simplicity and back to complexity organically.

The expected outcomes include:

Strengthened grassroots governance: Tools for decision-making and collaboration that are inclusive and scalable.
A thriving #openweb ecosystem: Platforms and networks that prioritize trust and social value over profit.
Mediation of mainstreaming and NGO influence: Keeping progressive activism focused on spiky, meaningful change rather than fluffy distractions.

The #OGB aims to create sustainable digital commons that nurture resilience, diversity, and real-world impact.

experience

Yes, I’ve been involved in projects and communities aligned with the ethos and goals of the #OGB. My contributions span technical development, advocacy, and fostering open governance frameworks, all rooted in the principles of trust, transparency, and collaboration.

  1. Indymedia, I was an active contributor to the global Indymedia movement, which played a pivotal role in grassroots media and decentralized collaboration. My contributions focused on: Open publishing workflows to empower communities to share their stories. Advocating for the “trust at the edges” model to ensure decision-making remained grassroots-driven. Bridging technical and social challenges by helping develop and maintain tools that aligned with the movement’s values.
  2. OMN (Open Media Network), As one of the key proponents of the #OMN, I’ve worked to reboot grassroots media using trust-based networks and federated tools. My contributions include: Developing the concept of (open data, open source, open processes, open standards) to serve as a foundational framework. Advocating for federated tools like #ActivityPub and #RSS to enable media flows across decentralized networks. Organizing collaborative spaces to design tools that prioritize human-to-human trust rather than algorithms or centralized control.
  3. Fediverse Advocacy, Within the Fediverse, I’ve championed the importance of grassroots governance and resisting the co-option of these spaces by corporate or NGO interests. Contributions include: Participating in discussions to shape decentralized protocols like #ActivityPub. Pushing for #KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid) principles to ensure accessibility and scalability. Highlighting the dangers of #mainstreaming and proposing strategies to mediate its impact on the #openweb.
  4. Open Governance Experiments, I’ve collaborated on smaller experimental governance projects aimed at exploring new ways of mediating human collaboration. For example: Designing trust-based moderation systems to reduce #geekproblem domination in decision-making processes. Implementing open-process methodologies to ensure transparency in workflows. Mediating conflicts between technical and social contributors, fostering productive collaboration.

Core Contributions Across Projects, across all these initiatives, my primary focus has been on bridging the technical and human aspects of governance. This involves: Developing frameworks that enable decentralized decision-making while maintaining trust. Advocating for simplicity to combat the paralysis caused by unnecessary complexity. Building alliances and mediating the challenges posed by #dotcons, #NGO dominance, and #geekproblem tendencies.

Through these efforts, I’ve gained insights into the challenges of building sustainable governance models in decentralized spaces, and the #OGB embodies the culmination of this work. It’s a step forward in creating robust, trust-based networks that empower communities to take control of their digital and social spaces.

usage

Budget Allocation for #OGB Project

The requested budget will be allocated strategically to ensure the project’s foundational development and long-term sustainability. An outline of key areas:

  1. Technical Development and Infrastructure (40%) Development of Core Tools: Funding will support developers to build the initial version of the #OGB code, focusing on simplicity, accessibility, and scalability. Server Infrastructure: Setting up and maintaining federated servers for testing, development, and early adoption. Integration with Existing Standards: Work to align with protocols like #ActivityPub, #Nostr and #RSS, ensuring seamless interoperability with the broader #openweb ecosystem.
  2. Community Building and Outreach (25%) Workshops and Training: Organizing sessions to train communities on the #OGB framework, focusing on trust-based governance and open-process workflows. Content Creation: Developing accessible documentation, tutorials, and guides to demystify the #OGB model for diverse audiences. Engagement Campaigns: Reaching out to grassroots organizations, activists, and communities to onboard early adopters.
  3. Research and Iterative Design (20%) User Feedback Loops: Conducting trials with early adopters to gather insights and refine the tools and processes. Governance Framework Refinement: Exploring different trust-based models to ensure inclusivity and adaptability to various contexts. Conflict Mediation Strategies: Testing and integrating mechanisms for conflict resolution and power balance within the #OGB framework.
  4. Administrative and Miscellaneous Costs (15%) Project Coordination: Funding part-time coordinators to manage timelines, resources, and community engagement. Operational Expenses: Covering software donations, events, domain hosting, and other minor but essential operational costs.

Past and Present Funding Sources. The #OGB project is currently unfunded in a formal sense, operating entirely through volunteer contributions. However, it is rooted in a history of collaborative efforts from related initiatives, which have benefited from in-kind support rather than direct funding.

Past Sources: #OMN and #Indymedia Communities: Provided foundational concepts and voluntary contributions of time, skills, and infrastructure. Fediverse and #Activertypub Advocates: Offered insights and testing environments for early experimentation with governance ideas.

challenges

Present Sources: Volunteer Contributions: Core contributors are donating their time and resources to push the project forward. Allied Projects: Informal support from related decentralized tech communities, sharing knowledge, feedback, and occasional resources.

Future Vision, while external funding is vital to accelerate the project’s development, we aim to maintain independence and adhere to the principles. By minimizing reliance on corporate or NGO funding, we ensure that the #OGB remains a grassroots-driven initiative. Our long-term goal is to establish a self-sustaining model through community contributions and shared ownership, embodying the trust-based governance the project seeks to promote.

Detailed budget breakdown can be attached if required.

comparison

The #OGB (Open Governance Body) project stands on the shoulders of both historical and contemporary efforts, drawing lessons from their successes and failures to craft a novel path to decentralized governance.

A comparative analysis: Historical Projects and Their Influence

Indymedia (Independent Media Centers) Overview: Indymedia was a global network of grassroots media collectives that emerged in the late 1990s to provide a platform for independent journalism. It embodied principles of openness, decentralization, and non-hierarchical governance. Comparison: Like Indymedia, #OGB aims to empower communities through open and decentralized structures. However, Indymedia struggled with governance conflicts and centralization of power in some regions. The #OGB addresses these issues through trust-based networks, conflict mediation mechanisms, and scalable governance tools. Key Takeaway: The #OGB builds on the ethos of Indymedia while implementing technological solutions to mitigate governance bottlenecks.

Occupy Movement’s General Assemblies. Overview: Occupy’s assemblies were experiments in direct democracy, emphasizing inclusivity and consensus-based decision-making. However, the lack of structured governance led to inefficiency and internal conflicts. Comparison: The #OGB shares Occupy’s commitment to participatory governance but incorporates trust-based models to build the decision-making. Instead of full consensus, the #OGB employs trust networks to delegate decisions while retaining accountability and inclusivity. Key Takeaway: The #OGB leverages structured trust-based governance to overcome the decision-making paralysis often seen in consensus-driven movements.

Contemporary Projects and Their Relationship to #OGB. Fediverse and #ActivityPub. Overview: The Fediverse is a decentralized network of federated platforms like Mastodon, powered by the ActivityPub protocol it is pushing user autonomy and grassroots control but has faced challenges around governance and moderation.
Comparison: The #OGB complements the Fediverse by providing governance structures for federated projects, addressing the ongoing issues of moderation and decision-making. The #OGB’s trust networks align with the decentralized ethos of the Fediverse, offering a scalable solution for community self-governance. Key Takeaway: The #OGB enhances the governance layer missing in many Fediverse projects, fostering resilience and collaboration across federated networks.

NGO-Led Open Source Initiatives. Overview: Many open-source projects are managed by NGOs, which often prioritize stability and funding over grassroots participation. This has led to criticism of centralized decision-making and “corporate capture.” Comparison: The #OGB resists NGO-style top-down management, instead prioritizing the principles: open data, open source, open process, and open standards. Unlike NGO-driven projects, the #OGB is inherently community-first, ensuring power remains with the users and contributors. Key Takeaway: The #OGB rejects the NGO-centric model, emphasizing trust-based grassroots governance to avoid co-option by external actors.

Lessons from Historical Failures. CouchSurfing’s Decline. Overview: CouchSurfing transitioned from a grassroots volunteer-driven project to a for-profit company, alienating its core community and undermining trust. Comparison: The #OGB guards against such shifts by embedding trust and open governance at its core, ensuring the project remains community-owned and operated. Key Takeaway: Trust-based governance prevents mission drift and maintains alignment with the community’s original values.

P2P Projects and Overengineering. Overview: Many P2P initiatives have failed due to technical complexity and a lack of user-friendly interfaces, alienating non-technical users. Comparison: The #OGB adheres to the #KISS principle (Keep It Simple, Stupid), ensuring accessibility and ease of adoption without sacrificing functionality. Key Takeaway: Simplicity is essential for widespread adoption and long-term viability.

Key Differentiators of the #OGB Trust-Based Networks. Unlike purely consensus-driven or hierarchical models, the #OGB employs trust-based networks to enable efficient and inclusive decision-making at scale. The Framework. The #OGB is grounded in the principles, ensuring transparency, accountability, and openness across all aspects of the project. Focus on Digital Commons. The #OGB is designed to nurture digital commons, creating a space for grassroots innovation, collaboration, and governance that resists corporate capture. Composting the #TechShit, creating fertile ground for genuine social innovation.

Expected Outcomes. The #OGB aims to fill the governance gap left by historical and contemporary efforts, fostering a resilient, open, and trust-based framework for digital collaboration. By learning from the past and building on existing technologies, we seek to empower communities to reclaim the #openweb, bridging the gap between technology and grassroots activism.

The #OGB project faces significant challenges in implementing scalable trust-based governance systems. Key technical hurdles include:

Interoperability: Ensuring seamless integration with existing open protocols like #ActivityPub and the widening #openweb reboot.
Usability: Creating user-friendly interfaces to make complex governance processes accessible to non-technical people.
Resilience: Building systems resistant to malicious actors and spam within decentralized networks.

Are a few issues.

ecosystem

The #OGB project is rooted in a diverse ecosystem of grassroots organizations, decentralized communities, and open-source initiatives.

Ecosystem Description

  1. Grassroots Communities: Activist groups, independent media collectives, and community-driven initiatives seeking alternatives to hierarchical decision-making.
  2. FOSS Developers: Open-source software developers invested in decentralized tools, such as #ActivityPub, #Mastodon, and related protocols.
  3. NGOs and Advocacy Groups: Organizations interested in participatory governance and transparency tools for improving their operations.
  4. Tech Enthusiasts: People exploring ethical and sustainable technology beyond the centralized #dotcons paradigm.
  5. Academic and Research Institutions: Scholars studying governance, social movements, and decentralized technologies.

Engagement Strategies

  1. Collaborative Development: Open, participatory development processes underpinned by the philosophy (open data, source, process, and standards).
  2. Workshops and Webinars: Educating target audiences about trust-based governance and the project’s tools.
  3. Partnerships: Building alliances with aligned organizations, including community networks and FOSS projects.
  4. Documentation and Guides: Creating accessible materials to help communities adopt #OGB principles and tools.
  5. Pilot Projects: Collaborating with grassroots organizations to implement and refine governance systems, ensuring practical impact.

Promotion of Outcomes

  • Demonstration Projects: Showcasing successful case studies of #OGB governance in action.
  • Fediverse Integration: Leveraging federated platforms for dissemination and collaboration.
  • Open Events: Participating in conferences, hackathons, and public forums to share insights and foster adoption
GOVERNANCE-BODY_REV-March-2022.pdf
OGB-dev.png

Federated Trust Networks: A Path

The future of grassroots and decentralized media lies in federated trust networks, not merely replicating the centralized, broadcast-focused models of the #dotcons. There are problems with simply copying #dotcons as #FOSS that is replication without change, simply mimicking the #dotcons replicates their flaws, including centralized control and scalability issues that lead to degradation in quality and trust.

Broadcasting models focus on individual reach rather than collective, community-driven engagement.
For example, #bluesky and #mastodon scale without accountability, over-scaling singular nodes results in reduced moderation quality, fostering misinformation and people’s dissatisfaction.

There is a strong case for human scale federated trust networks, with human moderation for quality. In the #OMN, every instance is moderated by a competent crew responsible for maintaining content standards. Expanding requires growing the moderation team to sustain quality. This path ensures people and communities gravitate toward smaller, well-moderated instances, balancing scale and trust.

  • Tag flows for better categorization, we need to create distinct admin tools for personal and news flows, so networks can handle content more effectively and avoid mixing purposes.
  • Decentralization with purpose, federated networks with #ActivityPub, allow instances to share content while maintaining autonomy. This prevents over-centralization and supports diverse community voices.
  • The #4opens—open process, open data, open licenses, and open standards—are baked into the #OMN to maintain transparency and community ownership.

An example of this is the #OMN is key to rebooting #Indymedia The #OMN project provides a framework to reboot alternative media, like #indymediaback, in a way that prioritizes the “native” quality, trust, and community moderation. The first steps toward a reboot will be integrating federated systems and trust-based governance to revitalize the platform. This is key, learning from the past, avoiding a rehash of dead indymedia, the #OMN emphasizes creating new structures based on lessons learned, particularly the importance of human-centered workflows. With the ultimate goal is to restore indymedia domains to active use while avoiding past pitfalls.

For those wanting an #indymedia reboot, supporting #OMN projects is crucial, as it is directly aligned with this vision. The #OMN and federated trust networks offer a roadmap for reclaiming decentralized media spaces. By focusing on trust, moderation, and the , we move beyond the failures of centralized #dotcons and create sustainable, community-driven alternatives. This isn’t just a revival of the old; it’s a necessary evolution to meet the challenges of today’s digital paths.

Replacing market signalling with #opendata signalling

The dominance of the free market, for the last 40 years personified by the #deathcult worship, has instilled in us a deep-rooted belief in the power of market-driven signals as a determinant of value and action. This belief system prioritizes capital and greed as the primary forces that drive progress and social development. However, as our world becomes increasingly digitized, it’s past time to rethink and replace these signals with something more sustainable and aligned with collective welfare: #opendata signalling based on the .

Market signalling, a core tenet of capitalism, operates on the assumption that prices, supply, and demand efficiently communicate the state of the economy. These signals guide decisions across industries, influencing everything from resource allocation to investment trends. While this system has propelled economic growth, it comes at a significant cost: environmental degradation, social inequality, and systemic exploitation. In resent years, our worship of this “free market” led to an economy built on misery—a #miseryeconomy where people and communities pay to escape the hardships imposed by the very system they are part of.

The open vs. closed data dichotomy is currently largely invisible, so good to bring focus on this path. When considering alternatives to market signalling, we need to explore the difference between open and closed data paths. The original #openweb was built on the principles —open source, open data, open standards, and open processes. These fostered transparency, collaboration, and equitable growth. However, the rise of the #dotcons over the past two decades introduced #closeddata silos that have stifled and blocked this native path. Closed data systems prioritize proprietary algorithms, user data and metadata hoarding, and opaque decision-making processes. This has been used to reinforcing capital-driven signals as the only path.

In the emerging #openweb ecosystem, there is a new model—one rooted in opendata signalling. Unlike market signals driven by profit, opendata signalling operates on transparent and shared data inputs that inform decision-making across communities. This shift prioritizes communal benefits, sustainability, and builds trust. This path can only be glimpsed in the messy #fashionista driven #openweb reboot we are a part of. Consider the surge in decentralized networks such as #Mastodon, the broader #Fediverse, #BlueSky, and #Nostr. Over the past years, these have grown from a few hundred thousand users to tens of millions, highlighting an appetite for more community-driven paths. Open-source platforms like WordPress are integrating ActivityPub to support decentralization, extending open data practices to a quarter of the web. Even #dotcons corporations like #Facebook (with its #Threads initiative) are adapting to this movement, albeit with a corporate agenda.

What opendata signaling looks like? In a practical sense, opendata signalling means that any institution or person running a Mastodon instance, for example, can access a significant portion of the Fediverse’s content as plain text in their database. This access allows communities to collaboratively analyse and act on data without the current corporate intermediaries distorting and monetizing it for control.

Imagine policymaking informed by real-time public discourse, free from the profit-driven filters of major platforms. Local governments could tap into decentralized data to plan infrastructure, health initiatives, or educational reforms that reflect actual community needs. Environmental policies could be shaped by transparent data on ecological impact, rather than suppressed by industry lobbyists protecting capital interests.

Challenges and Considerations? Transitioning to opendata signalling isn’t without challenges. Regulation and policy will need to adapt to safeguard open data’s integrity and prevent exploitation. The fear of spam and manipulation, which critics often raise, must be addressed with intelligent design and community moderation. Yet, these challenges are surmountable compared to the unsustainable trajectory of a market that fails to act collectively for basic ssurvivallet along the greater good.

Moving beyond worship, with our reverence for the “free market” as an ultimate arbiter has reached its limit. By embracing opendata signaling and shifting away from closed, profit-driven paths, we create a foundation where collaboration, sustainability, and shared progress are at the forefront. This is not only a technological shift but a cultural one, As we continue this transition, let’s recognize that our digital choices will dictate whether we uphold the values of the #openweb or fall back into the restrictive practices of #closeddata. Let’s try to have a real conversation about this, please.

Sorting the wheat from the chaff

If you currently can’t see beyond #mainstreaming then jump anywhere from the #dotcons, a little step is better than non, if you are a bit radical then please think where you are stepping to.

As the world flees from X (formerly #Twitter) to look for viable social media alternatives, platforms like #BlueSky and #Threads come into view pushed by #mainstreaming agendas. But please lift the lid to see that while these platforms appear promising, scrutiny reveals issues with ownership, funding, and community values that show they are on the same #dotcons path that people are fleeing. This compromises long-term independence and user-centricity. In contrast, the #fedivers exemplifies the principles, a truer, more sustainable #openweb alternative for social networking, it’s here and it works.

  • BlueSky’s #VC funded roots, there is a difference between what people say and what they do, this one presented itself as a beacon for decentralized social networking, advocating user control and a light-touch moderation. The project’s founding under Jack Dorsey promised a platform engineered to transcend limitations in social media governance. However, its venture-funded path tells a more conventional story. With investments from entities like Blockchain Capital LLC, co-founded by crypto magnate Brock Pierce, the concerns about centralization are unavoidable. Historically, VC backing brings pressured for profitability and pushes investor interests, at odds with maintaining decentralized, user-first ideals the project keeps talking about. This is a mess soon down the road, it’s a dead-end for people to jump to. For a tech view of this and the VC and culture side. A good tech/social write-up https://dustycloud.org/blog/how-decentralized-is-bluesky/
  • Threads is native to the #dotcons and corporate agenda’s. Threads, developed by #Meta (#Facebook), promises much, but it is firmly on the Meta’s path, rooted in data monetization, algorithmic control driving ad revenue. While Threads appears more user-friendly, its development trajectory inevitably follows Meta’s historical focus: ad-heavy strategies and extensive moderation policies that prioritize corporate interests over user freedom they talk about now. And a long writeup How decentralized is Bluesky really? A post on the #dotcons out reach to the #openweb mess. Why is Meta adding fediverse interoperability to Threads?
    https://fediversereport.com/why-is-meta-adding-fediverse-interoperability-to-threads/ What is the stress? What is the game?
  • The #Fediverse and #Mastodon are the #openweb’s champions, built for people, not profit. This path is in stark contrast, firmly, on the path of the openweb. From its decentralized structure to its open-source foundation. Managed by non-profit people and communerties, funded through voluntary donations and support from like-minded organisations, not venture capital or private investment. This independence ensures that people networking is never beholden to shareholders and subjected to the profit motives that drive centralized platforms. This embodies the principle that social media should amplify what people value, not what maximizes revenue.

Choosing platforms and paths that align with #openweb values is more than just a preference; it’s a stand for a future where digital spaces are driven by transparency, user empowerment, and shared stewardship. #BlueSky’s reliance on venture funding and Threads’ adherence to Meta’s corporate motives demonstrate the limitations of profit-oriented social media. We need a path where we prioritize community, collective action and autonomy over corporate growth.

In the pursuit of genuine alternatives, platforms like the Fediverse do more than fill the void left by ; they embody the promise of a decentralized, people first internet—the very essence of the #openweb.

#Openweb: This refers to the original, decentralized ethos of the internet, built on openness, freedom, and people’s autonomy. Linking enhances knowledge sharing, amplifies lesser-known voices, and enables people to explore varied content freely.

#Closedweb: This describes platforms dominated by algorithms, corporate interests, and paywalls. On dotcons, linking is often spam and is penalized or buried, precisely because it can disrupt the curated control these platforms wield over what people see.

Don’t feed the trolls, keeps coming to mind, when looking at the influx, this is like waves washing on the shore, be the shore not the waves.

The Panthers’ slogan “Power to the People” resonates on the #openweb

A forum thread on socialhub brought up a powerful parallel between the radical demands of the Black Panther Party (#BPP) and the underlying values of the #fediverse and #activitypub communities, especially in their attempts to build outside the corporate-controlled paths. The metaphor is striking because both seek liberation, self-determination, and the creation of alternatives to oppressive systems.

  1. Freedom and self-determination, the #BPP’s call for freedom to determine their community’s paths, has a native overlap to the motivations behind the fediverse, which is a path to free people from #dotcons corporate control. This empowering of people to manage their communities, and engage in social media on their own terms, much like the BPP sought to control their community’s political and social future. But there is a problem, this self-determination is undermined by the “narrow and intolerant” behaviour, in the fediverse communities which are still shaped by power dynamics, gatekeeping, and elitism. Much like the BPP’s fight against internal and external forces, we need to challenge invisible embedded paths in tech spaces.
  2. Ending exploitation and economic Injustice, the BPP’s demand to end capitalist robbery mirrors the desire within the fediverse to reject the exploitative model of #dotcons, profiting off users’ data, labour, and attention. Projects like #Mastodon and the wider #openweb reboot offer an alternative that resists the centralization, monetization and control of user information. Yet, despite this anti-capitalist ethos, there’s still a tendency for devs and leaders in these communities to pursue funding, recognition and status that mimics the capitalist incentives of the #dotcons. The challenge is to remain vigilant about how easily a “safe” or “open” community can be co-opted by external economic pressures, just as the Panthers struggled to protect their movement from state infiltration and capitalist influence.
  3. Housing, education, and technology as commons, the BPP’s demands for housing and education highlight their belief in basic human rights, which could be translated into the tech metaphor as the right to access technology and information as commons. The represent this principle, ensuring that tools, processes, and knowledge remain transparent and accessible. It’s about creating “decent housing” for digital life and an “education” that uncovers the true nature of our technological paths. The struggle, many open communities drift toward becoming insular, where the tools and education are not readily accessible to newcomers. It requires more effort to lower the barriers and broaden participation beyond the #geekproblem to genuinely serve as commons, much like the Panthers sought to broaden political education beyond academic elites.
  4. Community defense and police brutality, the Panthers’ emphasis on ending police brutality and defending their community aligns with the need for safe spaces in the digital world, spaces free from corporate surveillance, trolling, and abuse. In the fediverse, moderation and safety tools resemble a kind of “community defense” against harmful actors, trying to keep the space healthy and productive. This policing of communities within the fediverse can take a rigid, intolerant form, which creates an exclusionary culture where non #mainstreaming voices are marginalized. Just as the Panthers sought accountability and fairness in how their communities were policed, Fediverse communities need more humane and community-led governance models, like #OGB, to avoid replicating the authoritarian systems they’re fighting against.
  5. Radical ideals vs. narrow paths, both the BPP and the fediverse, in their own ways, strive for radical change, whether it’s systemic racial justice or the liberation of the internet from corporate interests. But both face the dilemma of narrow paths, in the BPP’s case, the movement’s radical vision was met with state repression, which forced them into narrower, defensive stances. In the fediverse, the movement for open, decentralized media is constrained by internal divisions, ideological rigidity, and an intolerance of diverse views. The key here is not to narrow the vision to protect it, but to expand it, making space for more people and voices. This means mediating conflicts through trust and transparency, rather than exclusion and elitism, a struggle shared by both the BPP and the #openweb movement.
  6. The path forward, to “compost the mess” in the fediverse, we need to apply some of the same principles the BPP fought for, building movements that are rooted in collective empowerment, community defence, and transparent, accountable governance. This means, challenging the internal hierarchies that mirror the social structures we’re resisting. Expanding participation and avoiding the elitism and exclusionary paths that choke out growth. Emphasizing practical tools (like #OGB and ) to manage conflicts, maintain openness, and ensure the tech commons remains genuinely for the people.

Looking at the #BPP’s history, we see both a radical vision and the internal/external challenges that can derail a movement. The fediverse can learn from this, the threat to its growth isn’t just external corporate forces, but the narrow, rigid paths it sometimes enforces within. To stay on the “native” path of liberation, it has to embrace messiness, diversity, and openness. The Panthers’ slogan “Power to the People” resonates deeply here, digital power should truly belong to the people, not gatekeepers.

Navigating challenges: online governance, trolling, and privacy

It’s interesting and useful to look at the critical issue of online governance, community dynamics, and the problem of #mainstreaming trolling on both the #dotcons and open social platforms like #Mastodon, #Fediverse and the broader #openweb

Let’s start with mastodon, the complexity of (default) privacy settings leads to public conversations inadvertently shifting into private spaces, this is a UX problem, but it also points to a larger issue with how we handle communication, trust, and governance on decentralized platforms. And raises a question, are we on the right path? Confusing privacy settings are disempowering, the defaults in platforms like Mastodon pushing users toward privatized conversations, which are not combatable with media paths, of transparency and public dialogue. Yes, this is a subtle but important #UX issue, exacerbated by the complexities of decentralized platforms and different peoples preferences for engagement.

UPDATE: it’s about inheriting the settings of the thread, all my posts are as this is the core project, it’s unusual to send a DM or other setting though do this a little when needed. When having a public conversation and suddenly find this happening in a non-public space, at no point did I agree to this move, but it happens, due to others settings, it should default to one side public, my settings, and one side (semi) private the other person’s settings, as on my side it is VERY much a public conversation, it’s a form of corruption for this privatisation to happen… a mess I have to fix by republishing my side as a separate post – sub optional and bad #UX

This is in part the push for mainstreaming, both inside and outside, alternative platforms, creates pressure toward conformity and centralization. This undermines the grassroots nature of media networks like the Fediverse. In the end, we move towards the same governance and behavioral issues seen in #dotcons, corporate social media platforms. Left-wing and progressives need to resist these pressures to/by fostering a culture of diversity, and mutual aid.

Moving beyond this mess, a culture of empathy and understanding is needed for mediating trolling behavior. Listen before judging, then make judgements based on sound open process, so people have the space to change their paths if they can. A mindset of curiosity and openness, rather than rigid ideological adherence is needed for this to work, metaphors are fertile seeds to bring conversation into this path. This creates spaces where different perspectives can be heard and discussed constructively.

A first step is to be “intolerant of intolerance” with as a guide. The problem is that this is a right-wing path https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance so we add the , ethics, to turn this to the left/progressive #KISS path.

The #openweb has always been, under the surface, built on strong communities rooted in mutual aid to provide a buffer against the toxic effects of trolling and infighting. When people feel connected to a shared mission, they are less likely to engage in destructive behavior. The strength of grassroots movements lies in their ability to offer this solidarity and care as an affective path of change and challenge. You acturly can’t have one without the other, in this conflict in moderation can be healthy or not.

We need structural social solutions to governance, the work on the #OMN and #OGB is a promising step toward creating decentralized, open governance paths that can mediate trolling and other negative behaviors. “the rule of an enlightened “philosopher-king” (cf. Noocracy) is preferable to the tyranny of majority” is the bases and fear unthinkingly in #FOSS governance paths. Much of the trolling comes from this unthinking. By embedding trust, transparency, and community in the path of these networks, we create environments that foster collaboration and experimentation, rather than pointless ongoing conflicts.

Navigating these challenges: online governance, trolling, and common sense privacy is no small step. However, with the paths like the , a focus on mutual aid, and a commitment to progressive, decentralized governance, it’s possible to create a healthier, more resilient online and offline progressive ecosystem. The work done through the #OMN and #OGB projects reflects this path where spaces (online or offline) are inclusive, productive, and capable of handling the messes that inevitably arise in all “open” communities.

Navigating the Trolls

The “public first” paths of the #OMN faces steep hurdles without the necessary support, focus, and funding. Achieving diversity in these spaces requires more than just a philosophical commitment—it needs active engagement from a variety of voices, technical expertise, and resources to push the project into wider use.

The current dominant “safe first” path in projects like Mastodon does create a certain type of functionality, but it also stifles innovation and radical potential by prioritizing safety in ways that ultimately encourage more privatized interactions. For grassroots, #openweb movements to thrive, they need both tech development and community support that embraces complexity rather than pushing toward conservative #mainstreaming defaults.

Ideas please to pull in the necessary dev focus and resources to make the public-first #OMN a reality? Can we build ways to attract contributors outside traditional #blockeing funding paths?

The Open Media Network (#OMN) is a set of tools to empower communities

What is “mess” in the hashtag story?

In this 20 year hashtag story, it’s important to understand chaos as a creative force for change. But it’s also important to see that the path of the #openweb and the ongoing struggle for a more decentralized, human-centered internet, makes this idea of “mess” into meany “bad faith” arguments. For #mainstreaming, people to often hear, images of disorder, confusion, and breakdown, things we are taught to avoid in our neatly structured lives. Yet, from the “native” perspective, mess is not only a negative state to be avoided; it is an essential part of the process of growth, creativity, and radical change to challenge the current mess making, it’s a messy process we need to live through, this is positive as to avoid this mess would be negative.

The mess is not just a state of disarray but also fertile ground for thinking, growth, and alt pathways to emerge. In a world dominated by the #dotcons and their “clean”, control-driven algorithms, we need to reclaim the value of messiness as a useful path to walk. When we talk about “mess,” we’re referring to the tangled, often uncomfortable realities of grassroots organizing, alternative tech development, and the daily work of trying to “natively” build something in the ruins of the old. It’s the disorganized, contentious, and chaotic space where ideas clash, projects falter, and consensus is hard to come by. This mess is unavoidable and, importantly, it is productive.

Mess is where real conversations happen, where people get angry, feel frustrated, make mistakes, and crucially, learn from those mistakes. It’s where things break, and we figure out how to fix them, or better yet, build something that doesn’t have the same flaws. In this, mess is not a symptom of failure but a part of the creative process.

The problem with “clean” solutions pushed by centralized #dotcons like Facebook, Twitter, and Google, is the relentless push for paths, seamless, frictionless experiences that prioritize convenience and profit over human engagement. This creates spaces that discourage messiness, complexity, and deviation from the norm. This experience translates into algorithms that filter out dissent, controversy, and alternative perspectives. It smooths out the rough edges of human interaction, leading to echo chambers and a narrowing of the public spaces we live in.

Our #geekproblem is a part of this dotcons mess, that, spreads into our needed openweb reboot, the sanitized, controlling path is not conducive to real social change. Our natural desire for control (thus safety) is a social problem of “tidying up,” where anything that doesn’t fit into a blinded #mainstreaming categories is thrown out.

The native openweb path is based on ideas and movements that stand in stark contrast to the polished, walled, gated gardens of the dotcons. It’s about creating spaces where mess is not only tolerated but celebrated. Why? Because mess is where serendipity happens. It’s where people come together in unpredictable ways, where different perspectives collide and, through that collision, new and unexpected spaces are opened up for people and communities to take different paths.

When we think about projects on the openweb, whether it’s decentralized social networks like #Mastodon or collaborative platforms like #Wiki’s, they are often messy spaces. They are places where people bring their full, complex selves—warts and all—into the conversation. And that’s what makes them so powerful. Unlike the mainstream platforms, which control and filter, the openweb is alive with the possibility of serendipity. It’s a place where things are being broken down and rebuilt, where people are open to change, so they can challenge the #mainstreaming.

The challenge for those of us working in building the openweb is to learn to love mess, to see it not as a problem to be solved but as a healthy part of the journey. This means accepting that there will be conflict, misunderstandings, and periods of chaos. It means recognizing that there will be little perfect if any polished solution, and that’s okay. Mess is fertile ground, as composting transforms waste into soil, mess is compost for new ideas. We take the scraps, the discarded parts, and the failures and turn them into new connections, new networks, that have the potential to grow into a more equitable digital paths both online and offline.

Mess is resistance, a way of saying that we refuse to be tidied up, categorized, and sanitized. We are messy, complicated, and unpredictable, and this is where our strength lies. Mess is human, at the centre of this path is a simple truth, humans are messy. Our lives are messy. Our relationships are messy. And any system or platform that pretends otherwise is denying this human experience. The openweb should be a place that reflects the full spectrum of human life, not just the neatly packaged version that the dotcons want to sell us.

To turn the chaos, conflict, and complexity into a fertile ground for growth, involves developing better tools for mediation, conflict resolution, and collaborative decision-making within our communities, the #OGB is such a project. It means creating paths and “commons” where different voices can be heard #indymediaback is a media project for this, where disagreements can be worked through constructively, and where there is room for both dissent and consensus #OMN if the overarching project.

The idea of composting the mess is not about eliminating it but transforming it. Just like in nature, where decomposing matter is essential for new growth, our digital and social ecosystems need a process for turning the old, the broken, and the chaotic into the new and vibrant #makeinghistory is a project for this.

The journey to a better openweb is not going to be straight. It will be full of twists and turns, false starts, and breakdowns. But in that mess lies the potential for real, meaningful change. The polished, controlled environments of the #dotcons cannot offer this; they are too invested in maintaining the status quo.

With the committent to the #openweb, the challenge is to embrace the mess, to see it not as a hindrance but as an opportunity. It is in this mess that we will find energy, creativity, and resilience to build a more human-centered internet. Let’s roll up our sleeves, get our hands dirty, and start composting. The future is messy, and that’s exactly why it’s worth fighting for.

The #openweb, the #commons, the real-world spaces we build are where the future lies

Resilience is community and trust, this resilience grows by connecting the actions of today to the possibilities of tomorrow, even when that future is unknowable. It’s rooted in community, and community thrives on mutual trust. Trust isn’t about keeping a ledger; it’s about giving freely without expectation. Money is not the foundation of resilience. Across the world, billions live resilient lives by supporting each other, because if they don’t, they all go under. From our privileged view, we often forget that resilience is nurtured in these commons.

We need to think about this: The idea of dual power isn’t new. It goes back to revolutionary moments when people realized the need to build alternatives to existing oppressive structures rather than only confronting them head-on. In the current political climate, where the failures of state and capitalist control are glaring, we need to revisit and reframe this idea of “dual power”. This isn’t a utopian dream or a naïve belief that we can merely build around the edges while the world burns. It’s about creating practical, grounded alternatives that directly challenge the existing system by living outside of it and dismantling it from the inside.

The current mess, look around. We are surrounded by a mess of our own making. The relentless march of #neoliberalism has commodified every aspect of our lives, and the #dotcons have taken over our social spaces, transforming genuine human interaction into data points for corporate profit and control. The state, meant to serve the people, is a tool of the greedy and nasty, maintaining control through fear, surveillance, and repression. It doesn’t take much to see that the paths we are currently on are leading to #climatechaos, widespread inequality, social and ecological breakdown.

But here’s the problem: most people still think we have choices within this mess. They talk about reforming the system, fixing capitalism, or making dotcons tech more ethical while continuing to operate on the same lost paths. This is delusion, a comfortable delusion for some, but a delusion nonetheless.

On the #DIY path, dual power is about creating parallel paths that coexist with the current ones but serve entirely different functions. Instead of asking for scraps from the masters’ table, we build our own tables, with food that nourishes everyone. It’s about constructing alternative social, economic, and political structures that are directly in opposition to the current hierarchies and power dynamics.

It’s not just about building alternative structures, though. It’s more important for actively delegitimizing and dismantling the existing power structures of capitalism and the state. This involves #directaction, solidarity, and collective organizing to challenge and change state and capitalist control in all its forms. It’s about a two-fold strategy: building the new while composting the old.

Why dual power matters, for too long, the left and radical movements have been stuck in reactionary paths, fighting battles on terrain chosen by the state and capital. We need to change this by recreating a new path, a space where we shape the traditions and myths that shape us. This is not just some theoretical exercise; it’s already happening in many parts of the world.

We see it in the #fediverse, on #mastodon, #bluesky and #noster networks, in grassroots mutual aid networks springing up during the current crises when the state and corporate structures fail. We see it in community run food cooperatives, decentralized digital spaces, and local assemblies where decisions are made collectively, rather than by a few in power. This is not an abstract idea, it’s lived practice, a shift from fighting against the system to creating something new and more humane.

Building dual power in a digital age, the #openweb and federated networks offer a glimpse of what dual power can look like. Unlike the #dotcons that feed on greed and manipulation, the openweb is rooted in principles that serve the community, , transparency, open collaboration, and autonomy. But even here, we often fall into the trap of merely copying the structures we’re trying to replace, creating the same mess under a different banner. The next step needs to be truly native to the 4opens path, transparent, open, and accountable, rejecting the commodification that the dotcons have normalized.

But digital spaces alone won’t save us. They are tools, important ones, no doubt, but we need a broader focus. We need to create real-world spaces of resistance and creation. Think community gardens that also serve as meeting points for local decision-making. Think of decentralized energy cooperatives that break free from corporate control. Think of neighbourhood assemblies that replace the hollow, bureaucratic local governments that most people have lost faith in. This is dual power in practice.

The roadblocks, the #Geekproblem and #Fasherista paths, let’s not romanticize this process. We need to acknowledge the challenges within our movements, the #geekproblem and the #fashernista paths that unconsciously block the change we need. The geekproblem is the obsession with technical solutions over social and political ones, while the fashernista path focuses on trendy but superficial activism that serves as more of a social club, careerism, than a serious challenge to power. Both paths have their place, but they should not dominate our paths. We need to keep our focus on the bigger picture.

Moving beyond the noise, to those who say, “Now is not the time,” I ask, “When will it be?” The crisis is here. We are all worshiping the #deathcult, masking 40 years of #neoliberal ideology, pretending we have choices that simply don’t exist. Now is precisely the time to dig in, get our hands dirty, and start composting this mess we’ve been dragged into. The work ahead isn’t easy, and there will be mistakes, missteps, and mess-ups along the way. But that’s okay. Composting is messy work, and so is building a more open and sustainable world.

If you’re waiting for someone to tell you what to do, you’ve already missed the point. Dual power isn’t a blueprint; it’s a living practice. It’s a call to start building the new and composting the old, right now, where you are. Lift your head, look at the mess, and start digging. Together, we can build something better than the scraps we’ve been given. Join us on this humanistic adventure in social technology and direct action. The #openweb, the #commons, and the real-world spaces we build are where the future lies. Let’s make it happen #OMN

Talking #openweb or #Fediverse, I have to talk about #Mastodon

Let’s look at this “#branding” issue. The tech world is changing as there is a #reboot of the #openweb happening, yes a lot of people don’t see this, so worth talking about a bit. If you are interested in this subject, every day you likely hear another big player joining the #fediverse. What does that mean? It is not complex, there is a chance you are already on this path, if you are on #dotcons sites like #meta #Threads or #WordPress etc.

It’s actually something we already know about, a network of websites that interact with each other through a shared protocol, just like #email has worked for the last 50 years. The term #Fediverse is a mash-up of two words: federate and universe. To federate means to form an alliance, so the Fediverse is an alliance of websites or apps that federate content with each other. It’s a federated universe, a part of the #openweb we all grew up on if we are over our teenage years.

This network is decentralized, meaning no #dotcons controls it, people and communities have control over their information, news and data flows. While most are run by communities and individuals, a few are run by corporations. Some may have thousands of users, while others have just a few.

Each of these websites has their own myths and traditions to shape their local feeds, but people on one site can easily interact with people on another site because they’re using the same protocol, an open-source tool that connects websites into a “native” #openweb global network. How Does It Work? The protocol is called #ActivityPub, which you might’ve heard of because it powers apps like Mastodon. But it also powers #Peertube, #Pixelfed, #Lemmy, and our own #OMN etc, and even the #dotcons are sharing this space, with #meta’s #Threads. It’s extremely popular. When you publish a post on your website, it gets federated to all the people who follow you on other websites that are based on this protocol. They can like, share, or comment on your posts. That’s the path of federation and what the #openweb is about https://fediverse.party/en/miscellaneous/

The process that governs the culture of this path is simple in abstract, If the website admins notice a ton of spam coming from another website, they can either block that individual user or they can block that whole website. If that server is sending too much spam, it’s a problematic server. You can defederate from that server so you’re no longer hit with spam until they clean up their act. This is a horizontal path of how moderation works on this path, it works as an individual and as a community.

Like email, when the first thing you do is pick a username that’s available on that website. To do this, find a site that fits your interest, pick a username that’s available on that server. Your Fediverse handle is going to look like an email address: It’s going to be username@server, for example info@hamishcampbell.com for this blog’s #ActivityPub feed.

When I talk to people about the #openweb or mention the #Fediverse, I have to talk about #Mastodon for them to get an understanding on the subject, this is a non-native issue, thus the need for this blog post to try and fix this blindness. While Mastodon is a decentralized microblogging platform similar to Twitter. If you’re looking for a Twitter alternative, this is probably the one you’ve heard of. It’s one of the largest applications on the Fediverse. But Mastodon is not the Fediverse https://fediverse.observer/map look wider there are meany interesting projects.