Not to punish the individuals, but to highlight the groups to compost

In tech, the last 20 years have been a mess of #fashernista trends and the ongoing #geekproblem, a compost heap of broken promises and abandoned projects. It’s obvious if you lift the lid and really look. The glossy hype fades fast, the rot underneath remains.

Much of what we call “innovation” ended up as #techshit – rushed, bloated, short-sighted code that needs serious composting if we’re going to grow anything real. #Openweb dreams have been buried under a #dotcons landfill.

The real challenge now isn’t just pointing at the pile (fun as that can be), it’s handing the next generation proper shovels – real tools, real critical thinking, real spaces for building rooted, resilient, open tech.

One of the most corrosive problems on the path to rebooting the #openweb is the nasty, unconscious blocking that seeps through all #mainstreaming and careerist #NGO spaces. It’s not usually overt, it doesn’t come with a clear “no.” It comes with silence, with being ignored. With polite nods and a quick pivot back to safe, fundable, middle-of-the-road ideas that don’t rock the boat. This is how real change is smothered, how compost we need becomes concrete we are trying to break up.

Whenever something grassroots or genuinely native pushes into these spaces, say, someone trying to move beyond the stale copycat platforms, or raising the obvious problems with #dotcons being repackaged as “innovation”, the response is a passive-aggressive wall of non-engagement. These spaces are deeply allergic to anything that makes the comfort of #mainstreaming uncomfortable.

And you don’t shut up? If you insist on making the mess visible and pushing for something that might actually shift the culture? That’s when it escalates.

Ad hominem attacks begin — you’re “angry,” “difficult,” “not constructive.”

Technical blocking follows — defederation, closed chat groups, funding gatekeeping.

Eventually, it cycles back to the default tactic: ignoring you again.
Because ignoring is easy. Ignoring doesn't threaten careers or grant cycles. Ignoring keeps the status quo safe.

But this leaves the real mess in place, the rot stays buried under layers of “positive vibes,” #PR-driven governance proposals, and performative inclusivity that actually excludes anyone who doesn’t play within broken systems.

This creates perfect conditions for the rise of the #fashernistas, the well-meaning tech influencers, safe radicals, and trendy projects that suck up time, focus, and resources while producing little more than reheated versions of things that already failed. And the cycle repeats:

Grassroots tries to engage.
Gets blocked.
#Fashernistas fill the vacuum.
Compost becomes glittery sludge.

We’ve need to more loudly name this cycle for what it is, a defence mechanism for comfort and careerism, not care or community. And it’s antithetical to the kind of messy, living compost that grows something new. The #openweb needs real pushback, we need native tools, radical simplicity, open processes, and yes – a tolerance for discomfort. Because without discomfort, there is no transformation. Let’s keep making the mess visible. Let’s stop being “ignored” quietly. Let’s build outside the polite paths, where nothing changes.

After working in this area for 20 years, am tempted to list the people I have worked with, outlining good and bad paths they have pushed projects in. do you think this might be useful, not to punish the individuals, but to highlight and illustrate the groups we need to compost on going.

A hopeful note: some #fashernistas are starting to apologize and acknowledge the mess. That’s good compost material too. Let’s keep composting. Let’s keep planting.

We need to shape native paths, not recreate #fashionista ones with shinier branding

We’ve got a new bunch of #mainstreaming tech devs flooding into the #Fediverse. Some from burned-out Big Tech, some from the academic funding circuits, some just looking for the next shiny project after the #AI hype wore thin.

Now, this could be good. IF even a few of them started working on native, grassroots tech – tools built for and by the communities who actually use them, not just more #dotcons platform clones.

Right now, we’re at a turning point. The first wave of the Fediverse was all about copying the #dotcons:

#Mastodon as “ethical Twitter”

#PeerTube mimicking YouTube

#Mobilizon as a Facebook Events replacement

#Lemmy doing Reddit but federated

All of this was necessary, it helped people jump ship and start imagining life beyond the dotcons. But that wave is peaking, and the second step is overdue. That next step? It’s about original, grassroots infrastructure. A federated trust graph instead of reinventing karma points or like-buttons. Protocols for local-first publishing, like the #p2p side of the #OMN or radical #4opens-inspired news and tools for community trust flows, moderation and accountability, rooted in values, not corporate TOS and PR management. Infrastructure for interoperability and redundancy, so projects don’t die when a maintainer burns out or a server goes down

But here’s the risk, if the new #devs only copy the #dotcons AGAIN, it’s a fail. Worse still, if they get sucked into the #NGO vampire nests, the slow, bureaucratic funding black holes of the worst paths of #nlnet and #NGI, we’ll just see more “safe” projects that burn grant money building tools nobody uses.

Let’s be clear, these institutions do some small good, on basic infrastructure, but their #NGO sides are hoovering up resources by pushing for risk-free deliverables, and ignore the actual needs of grassroots groups. This funding is way too often shaped by #mainstreaming politics and careerism, not lived practice. We’ve seen it before, and we’re seeing it again.

What we need now are tools that grow from compost, not code sprints. Tools built from social use, not tech fashion. We need radical simplicity, transparency, and flexibility, tech that can’t be easily co-opted by the forces we’re trying to move beyond.

So if you’re a dev stepping into this space, welcome. But please don’t make another Mastodon, but with more “privacy” or #AI features. Instead, work with those who’ve been composting here for years. Build with the messy, weird, and beautiful people who need to shape new paths, not, boringly, recreate the old ones with shinier branding.

Messy language feeds back into our messy culture

The #blocking of current action, the constant stalls, confusion, and fragmentation, has a lot to do with the mess our use of language makes. And the deeper issue is how this messy language feeds back into our culture, which then loops back to make the language even murkier. It’s a feedback loop that clouds meaning, erodes trust, and paralyses collective action.

The last 40 years of postmodernism and neoliberalism have made this worse. #Postmodernism chipped away at the idea of shared reality, leaving us with endless interpretation and “personal truths.” #Neoliberalism, on the other hand, commodified everything, including language itself, into marketing, spin, and #PR. Together, we have hollowed out words like “community,” “freedom,” and even “change,” to the point that we barely recognize what they mean any more.

Take “mutual aid” for example, a term grounded in deep solidarity and reciprocal responsibility. Now, on both #dotcons and #openweb platforms, it gets reduced to casual crowdfunding and anonymous asks, with little relational context. Not bad, but far from what it could and needs to be.

If we want affinity-based action to work, if we want people to come together and trust and act together, then we have to compost this mess. And the way to do that might be surprisingly simple #KISS – Keep It Simple, Stupid, not stupid as in naive, but stupid as in clear.

We need to reclaim simple language that carries shared meaning. This is exactly what we’re trying to seed with the positive side of the #hashtag story. Hashtags act as anchors in this storm of abstraction. They cut through noise, bring us back to the root meaning, and allow collective orientation without needing corporate gatekeepers or institutional filters.

Think:

#4opens — a shorthand for open code, open data, open governance, open standards.
#deathcult — pointing to the suicidal path of #neoliberalism.
#techshit — composting the mess, not throwing it away.
#nothingnew — slowing tech churn, reclaiming meaningful pace and paths.

Each of these tags points to deeper, shared narratives that are simple, but not simplistic. They invite action, not confusion. Composting the abstraction, regrow clarity, reclaim trust paths in both tech and social spaces. Speak simply, act clearly, hashtag wisely with intention.

On this working path, It is important for the progressives and radicals to come together and focus on the real issues and challenges facing society, rather than fighting among ourselves. Finding this balance between being “nice” and being “nasty” is key to being effective in bringing about any lasting social change.

The #hashtags embody a story and worldview rooted in a progressive and critical perspective on technology and society. They highlight the destructive impact of neoliberalism (#deathcult) and consumer capitalism (#fashernista) on our shared lives, while promoting the original ideals of the World Wide Web and early internet culture (#openweb).

The #closedweb critiques the for-profit internet and its harmful social consequences, while #4opens advocates for transparency, collaboration, and open-source principles in tech development.

The #geekproblem tag draws attention to a cultural tendency in tech: where geeks, absorbed in their tools and logic, overlook the broader social effects of their creations. This feeds into #techshit, where layers of unnecessary complexity pile up, further distancing people from tech’s social roots. Meanwhile, #encryptionists critiques the knee-jerk reaction that “more encryption” is always the answer, reinforcing control and scarcity, rather than liberating people and community.

Together, hashtags tell a coherent and powerful story. They call for a more humane, collaborative, and transparent approach to both technology and society.

#nothingnew asks whether constant innovation is the right path — or if we need to slow down and improve what already works.

#techchurn names the cycle of flashy, redundant tech that fails to solve core issues.

#OMN and #indymediaback point toward an Open Media Network — and a revival of the radical, decentralized media that once rivalled corporate media on the early web.

#OGB stands for Open Governance Body, an invitation to practice grassroots, transparent, community-led decision-making.

It’s an ambitious but needed path and goal, to build and grow social tech that “fails well”, meaning they fail in a way that can be fixed by the people, through trust and collective action, not closed-source patches and corporate updates. The #OMN’s focus is human-first. Tech comes second, as a mediator, a tool, not the destination.

Yes, the #geekproblem is real. Technical expertise becomes a gatekeeping mechanism. But tech can also empower, if we design for simplicity, accessibility, and community-first paths and values. The only working path is simple, trust-based, and human. That’s why we keep coming back to #KISS.

Why haven’t we been doing this for the last 10 Years? Over the past decade, we’ve lived in a state of quiet paralysis. Climate change, ecological collapse, technological overreach, all of it loomed. And instead of digging in, we froze. Well-meaning people chose fear over action. Understandably. But fear is a poor foundation for building anything sustainable.

We’re not on this site to only blame – we’re here to compost. The problem? We stopped critiquing. We stopped examining the tools in our hands. Not only that, but we bought into the illusion that #NGO paths and tech would save us. That shiny apps and startup culture could greenwash a better future. And when the results disappointed, we turned inward, stopped questioning, and left things to rot.

But what if that rot could be composted? By using the #4opens – open data, open code, open standards for open governance, we have a practical framework to call out and compost the layers of #techshit that have built up. Tech that divides us, tech that distracts us, tech that damages the planet and calls it progress. Yes, like gardening, composting takes time. It smells at first. It’s messy. But give it care, and you get soil. Soil to plant better ideas in. Soil for hope.

One of the reasons we haven’t made progress is the #geekproblem, a narrow slice of technically-minded culture made up of (stupid)individuals, which so far have dominated the design and direction of our tools. They, often, mean well. But in their obsession with technical elegance and “solutions,” they’ve sidelined the social and the ecological. What’s left is a brittle, sterile infrastructure, constantly churning out newness without any substance.

Meanwhile, #stupidindividualism has flourished, encouraged by #dotcons social media systems built for engagement, not connection. These silos encourage performance over solidarity, branding over community, and endless scrolling over doing. We’ve all felt it.

And most activist groups, instead of resisting this tide, drank the #NGO poison, chased funding, watering down their goals, professionalizing their resistance until it became another logo in a funding application. We’ve lost a decade to fear, distraction, and capture. But it’s maybe not too late.

We have the tools, in the #ActivityPub based #Fediverse. We have the frameworks, the #4opens can guide us to rebuild with transparency, collaboration, and care. The hashtags like #geekproblem, #techshit, #nothingnew, and #OMN give us a shared vocabulary for critique and regeneration. They point to a web where people, not platforms, hold power, and where technology serves life, not control. Let’s stop being afraid to critique. Let’s stop outsourcing responsibility and get on with composting.

Because that’s where the soil of a better path will come from.

A letter from the margins of the #openweb

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

#RIPENCC #NGI #NLnet

This is what the #OGB is aiming for

The leadership model of the #Fediverse has long mirrored the “aristocracy” of many open-source projects. At the centre stands the developer “king”, a benevolent dictator model that, while functional to a point, is fundamentally limited. Now, we see a shift towards the #NGO-style of governance, and ironically, this may be an even worse model.

Let’s be honest: the day-to-day of the Fediverse is more like elephants stampeding while people throw paper planes at each other. It’s messy, chaotic, but truthfully native to what the Fediverse is. And that’s the point.

Democracy is always messy. Bureaucracy, on the other hand, is tidy—but dead. The problem is that what people wish for—neat structures, clear hierarchies, clean governance—is often exactly what kills the real vitality of alternative spaces. When you introduce money and institutional status into a grassroots organization, power politics follow. Every time. If you want to avoid this, you need some form of lived, messy democracy, rooted in shared trust and open process.

The real question is: how do we build structures that are native to the Fediverse? Ones that reflect its radical difference rather than force it back into broken moulds? I’ve watched hundreds of projects fail over the last 20 years by doing just that—reverting to what’s familiar, what seems “common sense.” But this “common sense” is the enemy of growing grassroots movements. Especially when you’re trying to build something outside the gravitational pull of the #mainstreaming machine.

The Fediverse works because it’s radically different. That difference is fragile, and we need to protect and deepen it, not dilute it with NGO logic or replicate Silicon Valley’s pyramid schemes. What we need is trust, messiness, and actual grassroots process. This is what the #OGB is aiming for. Let’s not throw that away for a seat at the wrong table.

Where this came from Open Governance Body

Regime change in the West

There’s a “normal” dangerous illusion still clinging to liberal democracies: that we’re in a time of political turbulence, but the foundations remain intact. That, somehow, we’ll “course correct.” But this needs to be seen as blinded thinking.

What is obvious is that we’re actually experiencing regime change, not in some distant land, but right here in the West. And it’s not coming from tanks or coups, but through the ballot box, boardrooms, social media algorithms, and #NGO “common sense”. It’s a sometimes hard sometimes soft, systemic shift rightward, authoritarian, nationalistic, and wrapped in the aesthetics of democracy.

From the U.S. to the UK, the EU to Australia, this right-on-right push is becoming the new normal. Neoliberal “centrism” no longer holds the centre, it’s morphing, accommodating and enabling hard-right politics, law-and-order, border control, national identity, anti-progress, pro-surveillance, anti-labour, the #deathcult is adapting to survive.

The #mainstreaming left is either co-opted, defanged, or fragmented. The radical left, where it exists, is distracted, performative, and lost in a fog of internal squabbles. Meanwhile, the far-right is disciplined, funded, and in motion. They’re winning not just in elections, but in narrative, shaping what is possible, what is sayable, and what is unthinkable.

The mainstream was never a neutral space, it’s a battleground, and we are losing it. Every time we dismiss a new policy as “just politics,” or think this is just another swing of the pendulum, we miss the simple truth that a new regime is consolidating, one that sees basic rights, justice, and truth as obstacles, not goals.

We need to name this clearly. We need to organize outside the institutions, because those institutions were never neutral. The work is not just advocacy or lobbying, it’s resistance and reconstruction. We need to rebuild from the bottom up. Projects like the #OGB, the #OMN, and a rebooted #Indymedia are small seeds. But they matter. Because if we don’t grow our own ecosystems, we’ll be forced to live under theirs.

This is not alarmism. It’s the world as it is. Let’s not wait for the full lock-in before we act, please.

#regimechange #rightshift #geekproblem #openweb #deathcult #grassroots #buildalternatives #OGB #OMN

For a radical liberal view, https://www.theindex.media/america-the-isolated of this same issue.

Mainstreaming: Building Grassroots Balance

Our history of involvement in #EU digital outreach and policy meetings has made one thing starkly clear, our #openweb is deeply entangled in the process of #mainstreaming, a messy, often co-optive dynamic where grassroots voices are softened, diluted, and redirected into bureaucracy, then in the end they are simply #blocked. Yes, while there is value in taking part, it’s also a wake-up call.

The push to shape digital paths from above is strong. But without active grassroots alternatives, there will be no balance that is needed. The building of a so-called “commons” is reshaped to fit into #NGO boxes, filled with #dotcons-friendly language, and stripped of any radical potential. This is why our #openweb projects now matter more than ever.

At the heart of this approach must be #KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid) in both technology and user experience. We don’t need more convoluted tools or platforms weighed down by geek prestige. We need simple, effective frameworks and networks that allow users-as-producers to build the social complexity on their own terms. Complexity should come from people, not code.

And this brings us to the elephant in the room, the #geekproblem. Our own grassroots digital spaces are still shaped by a narrow, deterministic culture that lacks wider social understanding. In the path we need to be on, we cannot code our way to liberation if the ideology behind the code is warped, and currently, it is. As we often say: all code is ideology solidified, and it has real social effects.

Right now, way too much of that ideology stems from the #deathcult, hidden behind kind words, progressive branding, and empty buzzwords. This disconnect between stated values and real-world outcomes is dangerous, and disturbingly common.

This is why we’re pushing the #OGB, an online Open Governance Body for the #fediverse and beyond. Built around the #4opens and grounded in social paths, the OGB is designed to be a real voice for grassroots communities. It’s an open project, a no-permissions outreach tool, use it if you find value in it.

We’re currently looking for funding support and collaborators, particularly developers who are attracted to this vision. If you have links, networks, or skills to offer, get in touch.

The time is urgent. The mainstreaming machine is rolling forward. Let’s compost the #techshit, reclaim our spaces, and grow better from the bottom up.

The Failure of #Mainstreaming – What Comes Next?

It should be painfully obvious by now that all the current #mainstreaming paths have failed. Whether we look at politics, technology, media, or activism, the same patterns emerge, co-option, stagnation, and eventual collapse under their own mess and self-destructive contradictions.

The valid question isn’t whether mainstreaming has failed, it has. The real question is – What do we do about it? This applies just as much to our efforts to reboot the #openweb as it does to broader struggles in the “real world”.

The failure of mainstreaming in the #openweb, the openweb, in its original form, was about freedom, transparency, and grassroots empowerment. But as it became “mainstreamed,” it was gradually stripped of its radical paths and potentials. We’ve seen co-option by corporate interests, with Big Tech adopting the language of openness while building walled gardens. #NGO bureaucracy, with funding models turning radical ideas into managed, defanged projects that no longer challenge power. Gatekeeping by the #geekproblem with overcomplicated, insular development processes alienate the people the #openweb was meant to be for.

This leads to fragmentation and infighting, instead of building a strong, collective movement, energy is wasted on internal disputes and purity tests. What is the alternative? This is simple, if we don’t want to repeat the same old failures, we need to do things differently. For an #openweb reboot to work, it needs to balance:

Rejecting the mainstreaming path, this means resisting corporate and #NGO capture while keeping the web decentralized and grassroots-driven.
Building real alternatives, not only endless discussion, but practical, working tools that people can actually use.
Embrace the organic intellectual, knowledge should come from real-world experience, not echo chamber theory and academic bubbles.
Find a balance between structure and openness to avoiding bureaucracy, which doesn’t mean avoiding organization. We need cooperative governance models like #OGB to navigate this.

This isn’t only about tech, it’s about power. If we keep letting traditional power structures dictate how things develop, we will always end up back in the same mess. The mainstream has failed. It’s time to build something that works. Read more: hamishcampbell.com

#DIYculture #4opens #nothingnew #OMN #OGB #openweb

Building #OGB is about power without #powerpolitics

If we want the #openweb to survive and thrive, we need new forms of power, ones that can defend the community and challenge traditional power dynamics without falling into the traps of control, hierarchy, and co-option.

The problem is clear: If we follow traditional power politics, which are built on control, manipulation, and exclusion, we will fail. We’ve seen this play out repeatedly, grassroots movements spark change, only to be then sold out and absorbed, neutralized by the #mainstreaming flows of #blinded personal and institutional power.

The #blocking issues, what’s stopping us building the #OGB? This is about the “Silo Path” vs. the “Aggregation Path”. Centralized control (the silo path) is easier to manage, but it kills autonomy and leads to gatekeeping. A decentralized, organic approach (the aggregation path) requires more effort but keeps power in the hands of the community. The #OGB needs to be built on open trust networks, not locked-down institutions. This leads to perception of a lack of “perceived power” and currently people, default to following power. It’s a chicken-and-egg issue, If we don’t look like power, we will struggle to attract participation. But power doesn’t have to mean hierarchy, it can mean influence, legitimacy, and real impact. We need to keep building structures that feel like power while staying true to open, bottom-up values.

This brings up issues of funding and recognition of grassroots growth, which is where almost all valuable social and technological change, comes from, ONLY grassroots movements, not the #mainstreaming institutions that later co-opt them and claim ownership and CONTROL. The problem is that these CONTROL institutions default to sucking up resources, draining the energy and focus from grassroots projects, leaving hollowed out shells, undervalued and underfunded. To fix this, we need a cultural shift that recognizes and invests in decentralized, community-driven alternatives.

An important change is needed before we can be coming the change and challenge, to actually make this work. This is the path of supporting “Organic Intellectuals with Muddy Feet”, Change happens on the ground, not in #NGO meetings or #dotcons boardrooms. We need to elevate people who are actively engaged in building solutions, not just talking, or co-opting them.

To learn from effective grassroots paths, the #OGB draws from real-world activist organizing, not abstract theories or #fashernista posturing. Let’s look at some examples, in coding, loose scrum for open source dev leads to adapting flexible, iterative structures for governance. In culture, Burning Man’s self-organizing, mutated from Rainbow Gatherings, illustrating that radical decentralization works at scale, though this dose brining issues. And in tech federated networks (like the #Fediverse), show that distributed, non-hierarchical systems can replace corporate monopolies.

To take a few steps, we need to avoid the trap of fighting over power, where internal battles drain energy and distract from the real mission. This is needed to keep the focus on building the native path, not arguing over control. In this #KISS path, the #OGB must function as a shared infrastructure, not a battleground for egos.

The Path isn’t to directly destroy existing power structures, it’s to build alternatives that are too effective to ignore. The #OGB isn’t just another governance tool; it’s a blueprint for creating sustainable, community-led power without falling into the traps of traditional politics.

Let’s work together as if we are at a turning point. We can either follow the same old paths of control, stagnation, and eventual failure, or we can build something new that actually works. The choice is ours. Let’s make it happen, please.

#4opens #nothingnew #DIYculture #openweb #grassroots

Paranoid individualism creates mess

Fighting the #mainstreaming is pointless if you don’t have anything to replace it with #KISS. With this central in our minds, we need to present a sharp critique, that current funding structures not only shape but often stall #openweb development. The issue is that #NGO funding models divert energy away from real grassroots alternatives, trapping projects in bureaucracy rather than fostering a thriving #DIY culture.

The rise of full-scale, paranoid individualism – born from #stupidindividualism and fuelled by the #deathcult’s mainstream influence – further entrenches these issues. NGO funding mechanisms consume real alternatives, replacing them with sanitized, ineffective projects that lack transformative potential. The missing link is a genuine #DIY culture, yet structural forces keep suppressed this needed counterbalance.

The #OMN and #OGB offer a possible escape, but without more organic intellectuals actively engaging, the cycle of stagnation will only repeat. The challenge is clear: can the #OGB carve out a space where real alternatives can grow, or will it become just another casualty of the NGO soft blocking machine?

For the #OMN and #OGB to succeed, they must open a genuine alternative path, but the battle is uphill. The key lies in the organic intellectual: grounded, engaged, and practical, this stands in stark contrast to the alt-tech “chatting classes,” who recycle uninspired narratives instead of building any real solutions.

What software do activists need?

The core problem for the last 20 years has been that most activists were locked into #dotcons (corporate social media silos) because open alternatives were either too difficult to use, lack network effects, or fail to meet their practical needs. With the current reboot of the #openweb with the #fedivers based on #ActivityPub has already taken a step away from this mess.

Here’s what’s needed from a software development perspective to break out of this mess. Open & accessible publishing networks. Activists need easy ways to publish and share information outside corporate-controlled platforms. Right now, #Fediverse tools like #Mastodon and #PeerTube exist, but they are still largely copies of centralized platforms rather than native alternatives that work for grassroots media.

To take the second step in alt tech we need a native decentralized, trust-based publishing network (#OMN is the example I am working on) Bridging tools to syndicate content between #dotcons and open platforms. Better “unbranded” discovery tools for surfacing trusted grassroots content (think of a federated search engine that’s not controlled by Google)

Secure yet open communication, is already mostly in place. Activists do need secure yet transparent communication tools that balance privacy with accessibility. Right now, many are stuck using encrypted corporate platforms like #WhatsApp and #Telegram, which create silos and exclude people who don’t have the apps. Projects like #Signal and XMPP based chat kinda work in this space, so this is not a strong tech focus, but is a social issue to work on.

The type of project we do need #indymediaback, #makeinghistory, #OGB and the base #OMN coding. There is a continuing need for resilient infrastructure, hosting and sysadmin alongside sustainable funding tools for activists’ websites, blogs, and tools often get taken down due to coordinated attacks or lack of resources. On the more dev side of this path, hybrid peer-to-peer hosting solutions (so sites can stay online even under attack) could be useful to bridge client server tools.

There’s a roadmap, but the problem is developer focus and funding. If you’re serious about helping, check out the stalled dev work on https://unite.openworlds.info and see how it can be set in motion agen. If you’re a dev who wants to make a real impact, this is a good place to look.

The issue with #FOSS tech development

The failure of many #FOSS projects is a failure to move from theory to practice. The issue is that developers work in isolation, disconnected from grassroots needs, and get lost in perfectionism rather than delivering functional prototypes.

The #geekproblem dominates, many coders prioritize control, abstract debates, or self-contained experiments over practical, usable tools for real-world communities. This is why projects stall: they are not built with activists in mind. Meanwhile, centralized platforms continue to consolidate power, because they offer simple, accessible, and functional solutions, despite their deep flaws.

To break this cycle, we need:

Practical iteration—build rough, working solutions rather than endless theorizing.
#4opens culture—embrace open process, standards, and real collaboration.
Bridging solutions—tech that activists can actually use, not just developer-driven experiments.
Funding models beyond #NGO traps—so projects remain independent and sustainable.

The fight for the #openweb is not only about resisting #dotcons but creating alternatives people can and will use. Can we move beyond abstraction and actually make history?

The #NGO mess is hard blocking

We need to talk, again, about how the #NGO world pushes HARD BLOCKING over the native #openweb paths we need to take. This isn’t some new issue; we’ve been having the same conversation for years. And yet, here we are, watching the same bad behaver and the same mistakes repeating, only now, with the #mainstreaming flooding in, with more funding and institutional interference.

The simple antidote to this incompetence? Listen. Think. And stop blocking. Seriously, it’s not that complicated. If the #NGO crowd could grasp this, we might actually find a compromise that builds bridges instead of walls. What do we currently get? More #BLOCKING, more CONTROL, and an ongoing refusal to engage with the people working on the paths we need for digital commons building.

The example I keep talking about is the #OMN approach, which is messy, leaky, and human. At the #OMN, we have a different view: if it’s not messy, it’s not worth doing. And by messy, we don’t mean technological chaos, we mean social messiness. Because here’s the #KISS truth: Social change is messy, The best ideas leak and evolve, Security and CONTROL in the social realm are just dressed-up gatekeeping. If you try to lock everything down, what you’re really doing is blocking creativity, trust, and progress. We need a leaky system where communication and data flow in ways that benefit community needs, when we don’t have an idea of what the community is.

The #geekproblem has spent years pushing CONTROL and SECURITY as the primary solutions, because they don’t understand social reality. The cult of CONTROL is why the #geekproblem is still a very real problem. This isn’t a personal attack, it’s just a fact. Many of these folks see the world in mechanical terms, where every problem has a technical fix. But social trust isn’t a tech problem, it’s a human one. And let’s be clear: while CONTROL can create functioning systems, it also creates bad societies.

Fear-based governance has always led to failure, whether in tech, politics, or history. Look at the Soviet Union: they built an economy on CONTROL and FEAR, and it collapsed under its own weight. If we blindly follow this same path in the #Fediverse, we’re going to end up in the same place.

Who organizes the #Fediverse? For the last few years, there’s been a struggle for control over who organizes the #Fediverse. Most want it to be a #DIY but some, this is described by our #fashionista as a #DoOcracy, where whoever does the work makes the decisions. Where the more native path is parallel communities cooperating, as is outlined in the #OGB social tech project. The two, are currently blocking each other, it’s a mess that needs composting.

One thing we can be shore is that the #twittermigration and #mainstreaming influx isn’t going to magically fix this. And the current path of doing nothing is itself a form of BLOCKING, by refusing to change, we entrench the same old power structures.

We need to be #KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid) about this:

No more dressing up old CONTROL structures in #fashernista cloth

No more gatekeeping disguised as governance

No more pretending that fear and CONTROL will lead to a better society

What will unblock this needed path? How do we shift the balance from CONTROL back to TRUST?

1️) Stop treating the #Fediverse like a product to be managed, it’s a social movement.
2️) Shift from CONTROL-based structures to TRUST-based ones, this means radical transparency and the #4opens.
3️) Stop repeating #mainstreaming mistakes, if we follow the centralized web’s path, we will be consumed by the same mess.
4️) Find and fund coders who actually understand TRUST, not just software engineers, but community builders who can work in code.

The first step on this path is the need to move beyond #geekproblem agendas and build something that actually has power for social change. The #OMN is one such path, but only if people stop blocking and start listening, understanding and building. So, the question is simple: Are you on the side of CONTROL or TRUST? Because one leads to stagnation, and the other leads to a real alternative future we say we need.

Find out more about this