The #Open Path vs The #Closed Path – Why Simplicity Matters

The #mainstreaming success of #Bluesky means we have a crew who keep pushing the idea of creating a “native” #AP federated codebase/platform that captures its simplicity and ease of use. The problem they focus on is complexity vs. accessibility, the #open path is inherently more complex than the #closed path, and that’s a good thing in an open society. It allows for diversity, resilience, and decentralization. But in a closed society (which is what we’re working with), complexity hinders adoption. In this, the problem isn’t just technical, it’s social.

Bluesky thrives because it prioritizes usability (#closed). What these people keep brining up is what if we had a #AP federated equivalent that did the same? As a new entry point for the #Fediverse? The idea that keeps coming back, and sometimes pushed is the normal #dotcons path of imaging a platform designed for non-technical users, with #Bluesky-like simplicity in setup and everyday use, a sleek, intuitive interface that doesn’t overwhelm, built-in discovery features to easily find content and people. With seamless onboarding for users unfamiliar with federation

This “new” path wouldn’t replace #Mastodon, and the wider #Fediverse apps, it would complement them. Mastodon remains the power-user platform, while they think that the new space could serve as a gateway for mainstream adoption of the Fediverse.

Questions to consider: Is there a genuine need for such a platform, or is this just another #techcurn distraction? What key features from Bluesky (or other platforms) would be essential to replicate on this path? How do we simplify federation without sacrificing its core values? What social and technical challenges stand in the way of making this happen? Why do we not simply continue down the existing #openweb path of pushing cultural change.

What do you think? Is this a #techcurn distraction, or could it be the missing path for wider Fediverse outreach and adoption? What I think about this is discussed here http://hamishcampbell.com

#Fediverse #Bluesky #Mastodon #OpenWeb #4opens

The #fashernistas poisoned the well of alt-media

This has been going on for more than ten years, I have been at the heart of this movement, at many of the steps, I meet defeatism and negativity. It’s frustrating, especially now, when the mainstream is visibly stepping away from the #dotcons and looking for a place to land. We should be building that landing space, but instead, we’re tangled in the wreckage of failed ideas and cynical inertia.

Yes, stupid fashionable ideas have failed again and again, but that doesn’t mean the basics no longer work. The #openweb grew from simple, powerful principles: decentralization, collaboration, and a belief that media should be in the hands of the people, not locked behind corporate walls. It worked then, and it can work now.

The #blocking wall, the #dotcons built to dam this flow, just might be crumbling, but I don’t think people realize just how much defeatist noise we had and still have to break through:

“Old tech. Nobody uses torrents anymore.”
“That’s been tried — it failed.”
“This is better, nobody’s interested in that.”
“You should be using XYZ instead. I have a better idea...”

It’s an endless cycle of negativity, driven by a #geekproblem that values novelty over function, and a #fashernista culture that chases trends rather than tending to the messy, necessary work of composting old ideas to grow something real. The #openweb tools still work, If we use them. The core tools of the #openweb are still powerful:

#RSS feeds for simple, open distribution.
#Torrents for decentralized, resilient file sharing.
#Fedivers networks like #Peertube, #Mastodon, and #Wordpress for publishing and connection.
Mesh networks and local-first tech to break dependence on centralized infrastructure.

None of these are new, that’s the point, they work. The failure wasn’t in the tech, it was in our inability to hold space against the relentless creep of the #deathcult. Reclaiming the compost heap is a first step, we need to stop chasing the next shiny thing and start digging through the muck. The #OMN, #indymediaback, and #4opens are all rooted in the idea that we can rebuild from what we already know works, not by reinventing the wheel but by getting our hands dirty and composting the failures into fertile ground for the future.

The defeatism is loud, but it’s not unbeatable. We’ve been here before. We know the way out.

Decentralize.
Publish.
Connect.
Trust the process.

We (re)build the #openweb one small, stubborn step at a time.

Deep breath. Take a step.

#openweb vs #closedweb is the battle for the Internet

The internet’s origins are tangled with the military-industrial complex, designed for resilience in the face of catastrophe. But the protocols themselves, once set loose, created a playground for anarchistic experimentation. The lack of centralized control allowed people to build without permission, and that openness birthed the wild, decentralized internet we briefly glimpsed.

It was an accident, but an accident we can repeat. The #dotcons crushed that brief era of freedom, but the same dynamics that let the early #openweb flourish still exist. The #4opens, the #Fediverse, #OMN — these are our tools to recreate the “mistake” deliberately this time.

What if we embrace the idea that technology can escape its creators? Maybe we can compost the current #techshit and let something even more resilient grow. What do you think? Should we lean into the idea of building “mistakes” on purpose?

It’s well past time to pick a side. For decades, the internet has been being enclosed. The one’s living decentralized network of commentary sites, blogs, forums has been corralled into a handful of paved prison yards controlled by the #dotcons. With most people’s attention and thus freedom being in the hands of a #nastyfew oligarchs. Every post, every ‘friend,’ every creative work is locked behind closed doors, and when push comes to shove as it is now, you will increasingly find that you don’t have the keys.

But the keys still exist, and it’s not so hard for you to pickup them up. There has been a #openweb digital jailbreak going on for the last 5 years, if you value your humanity you need to become a part of this blackout, put the key in the lock and turn it.

OK, yes, maybe a little strong, the #openweb isn’t a utopia, but it’s the closest thing we’ve got to freedom online. It’s built on the #4opens: Open Source: The code is public, hackable, and accountable. Open Data: Information flows freely, not hoarded for control. Open Standards: Interoperability beats lock-in monopolies. Open Process: Transparent governance, not shadowy boardrooms.

This #fediverse path is an escape hatch from the #closedweb. It’s not a product. It’s not something you can buy stock in. It’s a network of interconnected platforms like #Mastodon, #Lemmy, and #PeerTube to name a few, all running on the open protocol #activertypub. It’s messy. It’s human. And it’s yours if you take it.

It should be easy to see that the #closedweb is a digital prison, a mausoleum for human creativity, dressed up like a theme park. It’s run by billionaire-controlled #dotcons and polished by the illusion of safety sold by the #encryptionists. Who keep misshaping our paths. What did they offer? Control: Your identity, your data, your connections — all owned by them. Manipulation: Your timeline, your reach, your visibility — dictated by algorithmic gods. Exploitation: Every interaction, every word, every click — another drop in their profit bucket. We’ve eaten their lie that the internet had to be this way. That Meta, Google, and the hollow husk of Twitter are the price of admission to digital society. But simply, it was never true.

OK, I get your apathy, why does it matter? Because when we blur the lines, we lose the fight. People pour energy into platforms that wear the clothes of progress but are stitched with threads of control. We need to clearly label projects as #openweb or #closedweb, so people can choose where to dig in and build. The #4opens are our shovels, and the remnants of failed #web03 promises are good compost to start on. Let’s turn the decay of false hope into fertile ground for real digital commons.

The internet wasn’t built to be a machine for ad revenue. It was built to connect the paths for radical, collective steps we need in today’s mess.

Grab a spade. Let’s start digging. #OMN

This post is inspired by this #fluffy post to add to the #hashtagstory

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 #4opens 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 #4opens 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 #4opens.

Projects like the #OMN, #4opens, 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 #4opens 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.

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.
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 #4opens (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.
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.
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:

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.
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.
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.
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 #4opens 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 #4opens 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 #4opens Framework. The #OGB is grounded in the #4opens 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

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

Engagement Strategies

Collaborative Development: Open, participatory development processes underpinned by the #4opens philosophy (open data, source, process, and standards).
Workshops and Webinars: Educating target audiences about trust-based governance and the project’s tools.
Partnerships: Building alliances with aligned organizations, including community networks and FOSS projects.
Documentation and Guides: Creating accessible materials to help communities adopt #OGB principles and tools.
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 #4opens, 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 #4opens.

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 #4opens 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 #4opens 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 #4opens 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 #4opens 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 #X; 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 #X 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.

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.
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.
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 #4opens 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.
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.
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.
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 #4opens) 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 #4opens 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 #4opens 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 #4opens 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 #4opens 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 #4opens 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 #4opens, 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 #4opens 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 #4opens, 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