Challenging “liberal trolls” and #encryptionist blindness

Addressing liberal trolls and the #openweb tensions, the influx of users following the #X (#TwitterMigration) has highlighted tensions on the #openweb, particularly the behaviour of “liberal trolls.” Who often advocate for performative inclusivity and impose hierarchical thinking, creating friction in existing decentralized paths. Their presence derails conversations, inhibit grassroots growth, and introduce mainstream patterns of control. What can we do with this mess making:

Reframing the debate: 90% Open, 10% Closed offers a balanced vision. It contrasts sharply with the #encryptionists’ push for 90% closed, that prioritize secrecy over collaboration. To mediate this, we need to promote openness as resilience to foster diversity, adaptability, and innovation. This “native” path has power, it resists co-optation by authoritarian forces, a core concern of #encryptionists. We need to highlight success stories, examples where openness has thrived, such as Mastodon’s ability to scale post-Twitter Migration without compromising its ethos. Then build bridges to encourage conversations between open and closed proponents. Identify shared values, while challenging “common sense” that to often hinders collaboration.

Combatting liberal troll dynamics, liberal trolls to often wield performative outrage and self-righteousness as tools for control, sidelining the “friction” of radical ideas. To mitigate this deadening. We need community moderation with clear values, with moderation policies rooted in grassroots principles – collaboration, inclusion, and respect for dissent. Make these values explicit and widely understood. Empower the margins of radical communities to counterbalance dominant narratives. Ignore the noise, trolls thrive on attention. Strategic non-engagement, combined with clear policies, reduce their disruptive influence.

Addressing the #geekproblem blocking energy, the #geekproblem is characterized by a resistance to radical ideas and community-focused solutions, creating unspoken barriers to progress in tech spaces. We need strategies to overcome this by making tech accessible to non-geeks with user-friendly with intuitive experiences. This diminishes the gatekeeping power of overly technical #UX for our communities. Distributed Leadership encourages non-hierarchical, collective decision-making. This prevents a few individuals from exerting outsized influence over grassroots tech projects. Education and outreach, equip newcomers with the tools and knowledge to navigate #openweb spaces, reducing reliance on geek-centric paths.

Resisting destructive cult paths, #NGO-driven power grabs and “cult-like” behaviour needs to be safeguarded against by seeding decentralized power structures. Encourage healthy conflict by normalize constructive disagreements as part of openweb culture. This reduces the potential for groupthink and “common sense” authoritarian tendencies. Recognize and resist co-optation by staying vigilant against efforts to co-opt grassroots movements for institutional and corporate interests.

Building radical resilience, to mediate the blocking energy and empower radical tech, we need proactive strategies. Creating paths for experimentation, this might include enclaves where radical ideas can be tested without suppression and co-optation. Foster allyship by building alliances between radical movements and pragmatic reformers to amplify shared goals. Challenge “Common Sense” imposition of “practical” solutions that dilute grassroots paths and values. Embrace creative, “mad and bad” ideas to disrupt this status quo blocking.

In conclusion, the path of the #openweb depends on striking a balance between openness and security, grassroots experimentation and mainstream scalability, and decentralization and coordination. The core thing we need is active mediating the mess brought into our spaces by liberal trolls, encryptionist ideologies, and the #geekproblem, if we do this we can create a more resilient digital ecosystem that is a path of radical innovation and community-driven change, challenge we need in the era of #climatechaos and social brack down. On this grassroots path, radical ideas are not only welcomed but celebrated #KISS

Application 2025-02-040 Makeinghistory 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
2025-02-040
project name
Makeinghistory
fund
Commons_Fund
requested amount
€ 50000
website

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

synopsis

The MakingHistory project is a collaborative initiative to create a decentralized, participatory network for documenting and sharing grassroots movements, historical events, and underrepresented narratives. Rooted in the ethos of the #openweb and leveraging Fediverse technologies like ActivityPub, the project empowers communities to take control of their stories, ensuring they are preserved and amplified outside corporate-controlled paths.

The project focuses on enabling user-generated timelines, multimedia integration, and collaborative curation to document history in real-time or retrospectively. By prioritizing transparency, inclusivity, and grassroots participation, it provides tools for meany voices to be heard and for diverse perspectives to be shared. It combines modern federated tech with the collective spirit of earlier grassroots media movements.

experience

I have been involved in projects that align with the ethos and goals of the MakingHistory project, particularly through my work with Indymedia and the Open Media Network (#OMN).

Indymedia: Building the Foundations for Grassroots Media. I was an active participant in the global network, a pioneering grassroots media project launched in the late 1990s. Indymedia provided a decentralized platform for activists, communities, and independent journalists to report on issues overlooked by mainstream media. It was one of the first major digital efforts to democratize media creation and distribution, fostering participatory and collective storytelling. This work underpins much of the MakingHistory vision, highlighting the importance of grassroots participation, robust federated technologies, and transparent governance. I bring 20+ years of experience to this native path of open, community-driven initiatives, blending technical expertise with a deep commitment to empowering underrepresented voices. MakingHistory is the next step in a long journey to reclaim narrative power and ensure our collective history is preserved and accessible for future generations.

usage

The MakingHistory project’s requested budget is strategically allocated to ensure its success, focusing on building the infrastructure, fostering community engagement, and maintaining sustainable growth. Below is a breakdown of how the budget will be utilized, along with a discussion of funding sources:

Budget Allocation:

Technical Development: Platform Infrastructure: Funding will support server hosting, domain management, and storage for federated platforms that form the backbone of MakingHistory.
Software Development: Resources will be allocated to improving and customizing tools, the Federated Wiki and other ActivityPub systems to meet the project’s goals.
Testing and Maintenance: Ongoing efforts to ensure platform stability, security, and scalability as the user base grows.

Content Creation and Archiving: Collaborative Storytelling Tools: Developing features to empower communities to collaboratively document and share historical narratives, aligning with the MakingHistory vision. Digital Archiving: Ensuring long-term preservation of user-generated content, with open access to historical narratives and multimedia resources.

Community Engagement and Education: Workshops and Training: Organizing events and online sessions to onboard contributors and familiarize them with the platform and principles of decentralized storytelling. Outreach Campaigns: Promoting the project within the Fediverse and other relevant networks to build a diverse and engaged user base.

Administrative and Governance Support: Project Coordination: Supporting a small team to manage the day-to-day operations, oversee development, and facilitate community governance.
Documentation and Reporting: Creating transparent records of decision-making processes and project progress in alignment with the #4opens framework.

Contingency and Scaling: Allocating funds for unexpected challenges and ensuring the project can scale effectively as adoption increases.

Funding Sources: Past and Present: The project has drawn inspiration and lessons from prior initiatives like Indymedia and OMN, which were largely self-funded and supported through volunteer efforts. While MakingHistory does not currently have additional external funding sources, it builds on a history of successful resource pooling and community-driven contributions.

Key Historical Context: Indymedia relied heavily on grassroots funding models, including small donations from community members and solidarity events.

The Open Media Network (#OMN) has been developed on a minimal funding approach, emphasizing open-source collaboration and volunteer labor to maintain independence.

Future Plans: The project aims to diversify funding sources by: Pursuing small grants from organizations aligned with open culture and grassroots storytelling. Encouraging direct community contributions through crowdfunding campaigns and donation drives. Partnering with like-minded initiatives within the Fediverse to share resources and minimize overhead costs.

The budget will enable the project to blend technical excellence with grassroots participation, ensuring the MakingHistory network becomes a sustainable and impactful resource for communities worldwide. This path emphasizes independence and aligns with the principles of transparency, collaboration, and decentralization.

comparison

The MakingHistory project stands apart from traditional #NGO-funded efforts by addressing the systemic failures that have often plagued similar initiatives, while also building on the successes and lessons from historical grassroots and open-source projects.

Comparison of MakingHistory focusing on how it diverges from typical #NGO approaches and aligns with the ethos of the #openweb and #4opens principles.

Indymedia: Historical Example: Indymedia was a pioneering grassroots initiative that provided a decentralized platform for citizen journalism and activism during the early 2000s. It thrived on community-driven content and a federated approach to publishing. Strengths: Empowered local voices, operated transparently, and embraced grassroots values. Weaknesses: Over time, it struggled with sustainability, internal conflicts, and adapting to technological shifts, leading to fragmentation and decline. MakingHistory builds on Indymedia’s ethos of storytelling but modernizes the approach with ActivityPub based technology, collaborative wiki tools, and stronger focus on sustainability through decentralized governance.

Comparison with Typical #NGO-Funded Paths: Top-Down Structures: Many #NGO-funded media initiatives operate within rigid, hierarchical structures. Decision-making is centralized and driven by donor priorities rather than community needs. Result: This approach frequently alienates grassroots participants, undermining the authenticity and trust necessary for lasting impact. MakingHistory Difference: Operates on a bottom-up, decentralized governance model, allowing communities to shape their own narratives and priorities. It values trust and humanity over external control. Funding Dependency: #NGO projects are heavily reliant on external funding, which leads to shifts in focus, bureaucratic inefficiencies, and an overemphasis on metrics that satisfy donors rather than serving people. Result: Projects fail to adapt once funding dries up or priorities change, leaving behind fragmented and abandoned ecosystems.

Overemphasis on Professionalization: #NGO efforts prioritize professional content creation and institutional partnerships, sidelining grassroots contributors and reducing community engagement.
Result: The platforms may appear polished but lack genuine participation and long-term relevance to their target communities. MakingHistory Difference: Prioritizes participatory storytelling, encouraging communities to create and share their own historical narratives. The focus is on tools that are accessible to everyone, regardless of technical expertise.

Technological Approaches: Many #NGO-funded media projects adopt proprietary or siloed technologies, limiting interoperability and peoples autonomy. These systems tend to mimic corporate #dotcons paths, prioritizing control over collaboration. Result: This creates dependency on centralized systems, contradicting the principles of decentralization and the #openweb.
MakingHistory Difference: Built entirely on open standards and federated technologies like ActivityPub, ensuring interoperability and communerty control. It actively resists the commodification of user data and narratives.

Why Historical #NGO Paths Fail: Mission Drift: Over time, #NGO projects shift away from their original grassroots objectives due to donor pressure and institutional inertia. Lack of Community Ownership: Decision-making and content creation are often detached from the communities they aim to serve, resulting in low engagement and eventual obsolescence. Inability to Adapt: Tied to rigid funding cycles and institutional agendas, projects struggle to respond to changing technological and social landscapes.

Conclusion: The MakingHistory project avoids these pitfalls by embracing a grassroots-first approach, rooted in transparency, participation, and adaptability. It rejects the typical #NGO path of hierarchical control and funding dependency, focusing instead on empowering communities to collaboratively document their own histories. By leveraging modern federated technologies and the lessons of historical efforts like Indymedia and the #OMN, MakingHistory creates a sustainable and impactful #openweb native path that reflects the diversity and richness of grassroots storytelling. This path ensures the project remains relevant, resilient, and rooted #KISS

challenges

The MakingHistory project faces significant (social) technical challenges, many of which are intertwined with the development and implementation of overlapping initiatives such as the Ibis Wiki, Indymediaback, the Open Media Network (#OMN), and the Open Governance Body (#OGB). These challenges arise from the #KISS goal of creating a cohesive path that supports decentralized storytelling, collaboration, and governance while addressing the limitations of existing tools and technologies.
Key Technical Challenges: Seamless Integration of Federated Tools:

The MakingHistory project will utilize ActivityPub to enable federated communication between platforms, such as wikis, blogs, and media repositories.
Challenge: Ensuring compatibility and seamless data exchange across diverse platforms in the Fediverse, while maintaining high performance and user-friendly interfaces.
Solution: Building upon the open standards demonstrated in Ibis Wiki, integrating its federated wiki approach with other #OMN tools for decentralized content creation and sharing.

Decentralized Content Management:

Like Indymediaback, the project requires a robust system for managing decentralized content, including publishing, moderation, and archiving.
Challenge: Implementing decentralized moderation and curation tools that respect user autonomy while maintaining trust and quality within the network.
Solution: Leveraging mastodons dynamic federated design and adapting it for the needs of grassroots media communities.

Scalability and Resilience:

The system must scale to accommodate growing user bases and diverse use cases, while ensuring resilience against platform failures or external attacks.
Challenge: Designing systems that balance decentralization with scalability, ensuring reliable performance even in resource-limited environments.
Solution: Building lightweight, modular tools inspired by existing Fediverse codebase and architecture, optimized for grassroots deployments. Most of the solutions already exist.

User Experience for Non-Technical Audiences:

Engaging grassroots communities requires networks that are easy to use, even for people with limited technical expertise.
Challenge: Simplifying complex federated technologies like ActivityPub into intuitive interfaces and workflows.
Solution: Enhancing exiting fedivers codebase #UX usability to integrate accessible tools for storytelling and collaboration, making a practical path for community organizers and activists.

Interoperability Across Projects:

The MakingHistory project shares common goals and infrastructure with Indymediaback, #OMN, and #OGB. Creating a unified codeing ecosystem.
Challenge: Coordinating development across projects to avoid duplication, resolve conflicts, and maximize synergy.
Solution: Developing shared APIs and data models, ensuring interoperability and a cohesive user experience across all initiatives.

Governance and Trust Models:

Governance structures must align with #OGB principles of transparency, inclusivity, and grassroots control.
Challenge: Implementing governance mechanisms that can operate effectively in a federated environment, balancing peoples autonomy with collective decision-making.
Solution: Using the OGB framework to prototype and test governance models within MakingHistory, adapting them to meet the needs of federated storytelling communities.

Preservation and Archiving:

As with Indymediaback, preserving the history created by people and commneties is essential for future generations.
Challenge: Developing decentralized archiving methods that ensure content longevity without relying on centralized infrastructure.
Solution: Utilizing distributed redundant storage solutions and metadata tagging for efficient archiving and retrieval.

Overlap and Synergies: The MakingHistory project serves as a bridge between Indymediaback, #OMN, and #OGB, leveraging shared infrastructure and principles:

From Ibis Wiki: A federated, collaborative wiki system that lays the foundation for decentralized storytelling.
From Indymediaback: Grassroots media publishing tools and workflows for content creation and moderation.
From #OMN: A federated media ecosystem rooted in the #4opens principles of transparency, inclusivity, and collaboration.
From #OGB: Governance models that empower communities to take ownership of their narratives.

By addressing these challenges, MakingHistory will provide an effective tool for documenting grassroots stories but also strengthen the broader ecosystem of decentralized and federated media, demonstrating a scalable, trust-based model for community-driven storytelling, simply put making history.

ecosystem

The ecosystem of the MakingHistory is rooted in the broader framework of the Open Media Network (#OMN) and the decentralized social web of the Fediverse. Combining principles of openness, decentralization, and grassroots engagement, MakingHistory creates a vibrant and interconnected path for collaborative storytelling and historical documentation. This ecosystem will leverage existing platforms, tools, and communities while fostering new connections to build a sustainable network for grassroots DIY media.

Ecosystem Overview, Core Components:

OMN: A federated media network built on the #4opens principles of open data, open source, open processes, and open standards. MakingHistory will integrate seamlessly with #OMN tools to allow decentralized content sharing and collaboration.

Fediverse: Using ActivityPub and other open standards, the project will connect with established platforms like Mastodon, PeerTube, WriteFreely, and Ibis Wiki to ensure compatibility and engagement across the decentralized web.
Grassroots Media: Building on the ethos of Indymedia, the project will provide tools for activists, journalists, and communities to document and share their history without reliance on centralized platforms or corporate control.

Key Actors: Grassroots Communities: Local organizations, activists, and storytellers who document and share their narratives. Fediverse Developers and Admins: Collaborating with developers and instance administrators to ensure technical interoperability and promote the project within the Fediverse. Allies in the FOSS Ecosystem: Engaging with free and open-source software projects that share the goals of decentralization and people empowerment. Educational and Historical Institutions: Partnering with groups interested in archiving and preserving grassroots stories for future generations.

Engagement Strategies

Community Outreach: Host workshops, webinars, and meetups within grassroots networks and Fediverse communities to introduce MakingHistory and its tools. Collaborate with existing activist networks to co-develop and test features that meet their specific needs.

Promotion on the Fediverse: Actively use Fediverse platforms like Mastodon and Lemmy to share updates, gather feedback, and engage with the wider decentralized social web. Publish guides and tutorials to encourage adoption by Fediverse users and admins.

Collaboration with Developers: Work with ActivityPub crew and SocialHub communities to align technical development with existing standards and best practices. Share code, documentation, and progress transparently on platforms like federated Git’s to invite contributions from the wider FOSS ecosystem.

Building Trust Through #4opens: Promote the project’s adherence to the #4opens principles to build trust and credibility among users and partners. Use open processes for decision-making and feature prioritization to ensure inclusivity and accountability.

Showcasing Outcomes: Develop case studies and success stories from pilot deployments to demonstrate the project’s impact and potential. Highlight how MakingHistory complements and extends the capabilities of existing Fediverse and #OMN tools.

Promoting Outcomes

Federation with Existing Tools: Integrate with platforms like Mastodon (for updates), PeerTube (for video storytelling), and WriteFreely (for blogs) etc to ensure content is accessible and sharable across the Fediverse. Collaborate with other #OMN initiatives, such as Indymediaback and OGB, to strengthen the ecosystem and amplify shared goals. Grassroots Campaigns: Encourage communities to create and share content, documenting local histories and movements, to build awareness and participation organically.

By nurturing a collaborative and inclusive ecosystem, MakingHistory amplifies the voices of grassroots actors and create a sustainable foundation for decentralized storytelling, aligned with the wider OMN and Fediverse vision #KISS

#Indymediaback Funding Application 2025-02-036 indymediaback 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
2025-02-036
project name
indymediaback
fund
Commons_Fund
requested amount
€ 50000
website

    https://unite.openworlds.info/indymedia

Synopsis

The #indymediaback is a Fediverse project about rebooting the radical grassroots media network, Indymedia, by anchoring it in trust-based #4opens (Open Data, Source, Process, and Standards). It prioritizes local, collective publishing as the foundation for global solidarity and counter-narratives. The project resists the co-option of #mainstreaming and #dotcons by decentralized, democratic governance and focusing on native, horizontal structures.

Expected outcomes include a revived independent media landscape that amplifies marginalized voices, balancing corporate and state narratives, and builds resilience against #posttruth misinformation. By composting the #geekproblem and embracing simplicity (#KISS), the project empower communities with sustainable, open tools for storytelling, activism, and solidarity. The goal is to seed a flourishing, cooperative #openweb native media as a part of the current activertypub based web reboot.

Experience

I’ve been actively engaged in #FOSS and #openweb projects for over 20 years, focusing on building grassroots, community-driven alternatives to centralized and corporate-controlled platforms. My work emphasizes creating and sustaining open, democratic, and resilient digital paths.

In the early days of the Fediverse, I ran five instances for the first five years, helping to seed the decentralized ecosystem that has since grown into a viable and widely recognized alternative to the #dotcons. This hands-on involvement gave me a deep understanding of the technical, social, and governance challenges of decentralized networks.

Since the launch of the ActivityPub standard, I’ve contributed to shaping the underlying paths that enable decentralized social networking. My work has facilitated discussions, advocating for grassroots perspectives, to ensure that the voices of smaller, community-oriented projects are heard amid broader efforts to standardize and scale the Fediverse.

My involvement includes engaging in advocacy, community building, and technical implementation, ensuring that open standards remain open and accessible. By bridging technical expertise with grassroots activism, I work to mediate the #geekproblem and bring human-centered, trust-based solutions to the forefront.

These experiences directly feed into the #indymediaback project, where I bring not only technical skills but also a rich history of working within collaborative, open frameworks. By combining lessons from past successes and challenges, we plan on contributing to building a robust #openweb ecosystem that stands resilient in these fragile social, ecological and technical times.

Usage

The budget for the #indymediaback project will be allocated to support the development, outreach, and sustainability of the initiative. Drawing on code from Ibis 0.2.0 https://ibis.wiki/article/Ibis_release_0.2.0_-_Federated_Wiki_with_Shiny_Redesign

Platform Development: Core Infrastructure: Building a lightweight, federated publishing platform that aligns with #openweb principles, based on a federated wiki approach like Ibis. This includes robust ActivityPub integration for seamless interconnectivity with the Fediverse. UI/UX enhancements on top of this to show and shape the media flows.
Community Support and Training: Workshops: Conducting training sessions to onboard activists, journalists, and developers onto the platform, focusing on decentralized publishing and governance. Documentation: Creating clear, multilingual resources to empower communities to use and extend the platform independently.
Outreach and Advocacy: Network Building: Expanding the grassroots network by collaborating with existing projects in the Fediverse and the broader #FOSS ecosystem. Awareness Campaigns: Promoting the importance of independent media and the dangers of the #closedweb to engage both activists and potential contributors.
Maintenance and Sustainability: Hosting Costs: Providing stable hosting for early adopters and community-managed hubs. Ongoing Development: Allocating resources for iterative updates, security improvements, and adapting/building code and UX from user feedback.

Past and Present Funding Sources: Historically, the #indymediaback project has operated with minimal funding, relying on volunteer efforts and community goodwill to sustain its activities. Some aspects, such as initial platform experimentation and hosting small-scale instances in the Fediverse, were supported by personal contributions and donations from allied groups.

While the project has not yet received large-scale institutional funding, it has benefited from the collaborative ethos of the #FOSS and #openweb communities. Moving forward, the project seeks to diversify funding sources by exploring grants, grassroots crowdfunding, and partnerships with aligned organizations. However, maintaining independence from corporate or agenda-driven funding remains a core principle to safeguard the radical and democratic essence of the initiative.

The requested budget will act as a seed, enabling the #indymediaback project to transition from concept to sustainable implementation.

Comparison

Comparison with Historical Indymedia: #Indymediaback: builds on the original ethos of news publishing and grassroots participation but adapts to modern needs with more robust and user-friendly technology. The project focuses on federated systems and decentralized governance to avoid the bottlenecks and centralization that hindered the original Indymedia.

Technology: early Indymedia used custom-built CMS platforms like DadaIMC, which were groundbreaking at the time but eventually became outdated. The lack of resources for updates and scalability led to significant challenges as the internet evolved.

Indymediaback: Leverages ActivityPub and the Fediverse, building on existing protocols and infrastructure while maintaining an open and adaptable architecture. This ensures scalability, security, and relevance in the evolving landscape of decentralized web technologies.

Comparison with Existing Fediverse Media Projects

Mastodon and Pixelfed, Flagships of the Fediverse project focused on microblogging, popularized ActivityPub and brought decentralized platforms into mainstream conversations. However, this success has also led to “NGO-style” #mainstreaming tendencies, with decisions catering to wider audiences rather than grassroots paths. Pixelfed: A decentralized alternative to Instagram, Pixelfed focuses on visual storytelling but often lacks the “news” path that #indymediaback seeks to prioritizes.

Indymediaback, unlike Mastodon or Pixelfed, explicitly targets “news” communities and grassroots content. Its focus is on collective storytelling and action, ensuring that it serves as a platform for organizing, not just broadcasting.

Lemmy and Kbin: Are Reddit-style platforms for community-driven forums, Lemmy demonstrates the potential for federated discussion but lacks the tools for journalistic workflows or media dissemination.

Bonfire Networks, is a federated platform emphasizing modularity, Bonfire aims to provide tools for diverse community needs. However, its roots in the #NGO space mean it struggles to align with actually relaverent to grassroots paths.

Expected Outcome: The #indymediaback project revitalize “native” media by combining the best aspects of the original Indymedia—open publishing, grassroots participation, and activist focus—with the technological and governance advancements of the Fediverse. The outcome is a resilient, federated news network that empowers communities to create, share, and amplify their stories, freed from the constraints of corporate platforms and institutional agendas. This reboot provides a necessary counterbalance to the #closedweb and an avenue for meaningful news in these trubaled “post truth” times.

Challenges

The #indymediaback project faces some challenges:

Federated Open Publishing: Developing a robust, ActivityPub-compatible open-publishing system to handle collaborative content creation and moderation at scale.

Scalability and Usability: Ensuring the platform can support diverse communities while remaining accessible to non-technical users.

Trust and Governance: Implementing transparent moderation tools and decentralized governance to balance openness with accountability.

Interoperability: Seamlessly integrating with existing Fediverse platforms while providing unique activist-focused features.

Ecosystem

The ecosystem focus on empowering local activists, citizen journalists, and independent media organizations, providing them with tools for collaborative storytelling, decentralized publishing, and grassroots governance.

Key Ecosystem Actors:

Fediverse Platforms: Like Mastodon, Pixelfed, Peertube form the foundation for connecting and amplifying diverse communities. #indymediaback interoperates with these platforms, enriching the Fediverse with news-focused capabilities while leveraging their existing user bases.

Citizen journalists: community reporters, and activists will be the core creaters of the platform. The project will provide tools for collaborative content creation, transparent moderation, and open publishing to ensure their voices are heard.

Developers and technologists: open-source developers and technologists in the Fediverse and ActivityPub communities will play a critical role in refining and scaling the platform. The project will actively engage with forums like SocialHub to share progress, seek feedback, and align with broader Fediverse standards.

Grassroots organizations: Non-profits, collectives, and activist networks will be key collaborators. By building a decentralized news outlet, the project amplifys their impact while fostering cross-community solidarity.

Engagement Strategies: Collaborative development, hosting regular open sprints, hackathons, and discussions within the Fediverse to build a strong, participatory development culture.

Community support: Dedicated onboarding and user support resources will ensure seamless adoption by non-technical people and communities. Tutorials, workshops, and community-led training will help bridge the digital divides.

Outreach and partnerships: The project will engage with existing Fediverse admins, moderators, and activists to build a coalition for shared goals, promoting the outcomes through federated content streams and cross-platform collaborations.

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

Outlining the “native” #openweb path

Honesty is about laying out a stark accurate critique of the current situation, particularly the barriers posed by #mainstreaming progressives, #NGO parasites, and the broader tech churn. We need to build on the vision for mediating this #blocking and advancing real change through the #OMN projects.

First step is to mediate the blocking, to compost the #shitpile by applying the #4opens rigorously as a filter to weed out the 90% of crap. Projects that don’t align with these principles should be sidelined. Then we need more trust networks, like #OGB and OMN to build trust-based paths, reducing noise and focusing on genuine contributions.

Shift focus from #fluffy to #spiky, by calling out #NGO parasites, to challenge and expose organizations that drain focus and energy without contributing to real change. Push for spiky agendas, embrace messy, hard, and meaningful work rather than safe, feel-good approaches that reinforce the status quo.

Simplify to build complexity, by simplicity first, start with clear tools and frameworks like the 4opens and grow complexity organically through collaborative work. Reject digital drugs, the dotcons’ attempts to lull movements into compliance with endless distractions and complexity masquerading as progress.

Breaking the #mainstreaming trap, by creating focused campaigns targeting progressive allies to pull them out of the mainstream and into trust-based grassroots movements. Use storytelling, art, and direct action to expose the limitations of mainstreaming progressivism.

Build bridges to wider communities, start with small, resilient networks that are human-scale. Expand outward from these trusted cores to bring in diverse voices and new ideas. Avoid purity tests—recognize that we’re all smeared with dotcons culture and approach people where they are. The world we’re building with OMN—a future where simplicity leads to complexity—requires a shift in ideology. It’s about moving people from passive consumption under the #dotcons to active participation in building a better, progressive world.

On this path are there any humans out there? If so, the choice is simple but profound, join efforts like the #OMN. Embrace the tools and principles of the #4opens. Compost the shit and grow something real. The question isn’t whether change is needed—it’s whether we have the courage and wisdom to make it happen. For those ready to move past the #blocking, now’s the time to pick up the shovel. 🌱

What we need to do

Mainstreaming, compost, and the #4opens shovel. There is a direct line between the challenges of the #mainstreaming of the #openweb and the critical need for tools like the #4opens.

Mainstreaming brings visibility and energy – but it also risks flooding the space with shallow “common sense” that undermines the deep, messy values the #openweb was built on. Without mediation, the very soil of our ecosystem is poisoned by glossy #NGO spin, corporate capture, and the empty cult of innovation.

This is where the #4opens comes in, not just a checklist, but your shovel. A tool to crack open the rot, compost the #techshit, and grow something better. Tools to shift the balance, every project and platform can be held to account:

Open data

Open source

Open standards

Open processes

This framework lets us evaluate and pressure projects drifting into capture by #dotcons, NGOs, and “thought leaders.” If we keep using the shovel, community-led governance becomes the natural path – control stays in the hands of people, not hierarchies.

But we must face the #geekproblem. Geeks often already have the solutions, but without social frameworks, those solutions rot unused. The paradox deepens systemic failure: we get brilliant tools, but no collective way to wield them. That’s why we must move from #stupidindividualism to collectivism. Shift the focus away from “my project, my brand, my innovation” towards collaboration, shared responsibility, and proven paths.

Root our work in #nothingnew, stop reinventing wheels, compost them instead. Embed ecological awareness, tech must walk the same path as the planet. Embrace the slow, messy shovel work, turning rot into fertile ground for robust, community-driven ecosystems.

The call to action is simple: Use or Lose. The healthy #openweb won’t survive on hope alone – it needs active engagement. Contribute to projects. Advocate for the #4opens. Resist the co-option of open spaces. There’s no magic. Just work. The #OMN and the #4opens give us the tools and the framework. Now it’s time to pick up the shovel and start digging – before we’re buried under the weight of mainstream “common sense.”

Looking at some of the issues we need to fix

#NGO-driven approach to activism are a part of the challenges of #mainstreaming agendas in both tech and social movements. NGOs at best aim to “make the mess work a bit better” without addressing root causes of anything in an affective way. This band-aid path aligns them too much with the mainstreaming agenda rather than fostering a systemic change agenda. This need for maintaining “relevance” leads to shallow solutions rather than transformative action.

With activist projects, half entangled in this #NGO world, struggling to build shared objectives, collaboration becomes fragmented, and efforts fail to scale horizontally or vertically and sustain much impact. We have historical paths to mediate this, like the #PGA (Peoples’ Global Action) that aligning around clear hallmarks galvanizes collective action. With grassroots tech and user engagement, projects fail without people and communities. If people remain tethered to #dotcons, our work on grassroot projects die before they take off. Activists criticize dotcons but often fail to leave them, perpetuating the paths and systems they oppose, a symptom of the #deathcult worship.

Many radical/progressive tech initiatives focus on aesthetics (#fashernista) or isolated #geekproblem goals without contributing to broader movements like rebooting grassroots media, these efforts become distractions and dead ends, they waste time and focus. What is needed is to provide compelling alternatives to the dotcons that people can genuinely use and build upon to step away, so activism can play a bigger role. Leaving the #dotcons and embracing decentralized, ethical platforms is itself a form of activism, it’s a #KISS path that undermines the #deathcult and creates space for alternatives to thrive.

Composting pointless projects, we need to identify and “compost” projects that fail to contribute meaningfully to broader goals. This isn’t about cynicism, but about redirecting energy toward initiatives that matter. Use the energy of critique to inspire better efforts rather than dismiss entirely. Key question, how do we bridge the gap between critique and action to avoid losing people and momentum in the current mess, and not just create more mess? A first step is to challenge activists to step back, think critically, and act boldly, with a reminder that inaction—or misguided action—is a victory for the #deathcult.

Q. how do you envision the #4opens and #OMN evolving? What can you do to make this happen?

Open-source and #FOSS as everyday anarchism

Build trust structures early. Keep processes open (#4opens). Anchor everything in the commons. Make it harder for outsiders to extract value by building shared meaning instead of market value.

Grassroots Open Source Software (#FOSS) is a powerful example of anarchist organization in action, even if unintentionally. It’s a decentralized, cooperative model where people work together, driven by shared goals, not bosses or hierarchies. #FOSS has proven faster and more responsive than proprietary systems, cutting through bureaucracy to solve problems.

While not perfect (projects can fail due to poor organization or lack of interest), this path outpaces the traditional alternatives bogged down by debt, delay, and rigid management structures. It thrives because skilled teams self-manage, focusing on tasks that matter without over-management, a path and principle that resonates far beyond software.

Anarchist solutions don’t need to be perfect; they just need to be better than the deeply flawed paths we walk now. And #FOSS proves that they can be #KISS

The #OGB is a tool to push this out as a social tech path native to this.

The #NGO and #dotcons use of #FOSS is a whole another subject we do need to talk about.

How can we mediate the #NGO blocking?

The #NGO world has been both ally and obstacle for decades. Too often, NGOs smother movements with paperwork, reporting cycles, and status-quo compromises. They professionalize struggle into careers, replacing urgency with strategy documents, and radicalism with caring workshops. Survival of the institution becomes more important than the fight itself.

But if we are serious about an #openweb reboot, we cannot just reject the #NGO crew outright. They have resources, networks, legitimacy in the eyes of institutions, and people who genuinely want change. The task is to make them more functional – to mediate them into alignment with grassroots, horizontal, #4opens values.

Transparency vs. the black box. Most NGOs operate like closed castles. Decisions are opaque, wrapped in “internal processes” no one can see. This is poison for trust. The antidote: embed radical transparency. Decisions must be documented, accessible, and open to input. When governance is open, collaboration becomes possible. When it’s closed, suspicion festers and movements fracture.

Flexibility vs. Rigidity. NGOs love five-year plans, KPIs, and strategy frameworks that collapse on contact with reality. In a world spinning into #climatechaos and political instability, rigidity is suicide. The fix: embrace iterative, adaptive paths. Think agile. Test, fail, learn, pivot. If grassroots crews can adapt in the streets and on the fly, NGOs can damn well learn to adapt in their boardrooms.

Tech as Social, Not Specialist. One of the worst NGO habits is treating technology as a “separate department.” IT staff build tools no one uses while the campaigners rely on #dotcons because “that’s where people are.” This deepens dependency and undermines any autonomy. The answer: hard code social understandings into tech frameworks. Train staff in digital literacy. Break the barrier between “techies” and “non-techies.” Build tools with grassroots values at the core, not bolted on as an afterthought.

Decentralization vs. Dependence. NGOs instinctively centralize, but resilience comes from decentralization. #Fediverse and #P2P networks show the way: messy, federated, harder to control, but alive. NGOs need to step off the corporate #dotcons treadmill and start investing in distributed infrastructures that empower communities instead of platforms.

Funding without shackles. Follow the money, and you find the leash. #NGO agendas bend to donors, governments, and foundations. If your funding is tied to maintaining the status quo, radical change is impossible. Solution: diversify funding. Community crowdfunding. Partnerships with projects that share #openweb values. Build independence rather than dependency. Stop mistaking survival for success.

Beyond tokenism. Diversity statements, inclusion workshops, and endless identity branding have become the fig leaves of #NGO culture. It’s just box-ticking while real grassroots voices are sidelined. True inclusivity means messy organizing: bringing in voices you don’t control, valuing experience over credentials, connecting with movements like #XR and #OMN not to manage them but to amplify them. Tokenism builds silos; real inclusivity builds bridges.

The polemic. The NGO crew must choose: remain bureaucratic husks feeding on donor cycles, or transform into allies that enable radical grassroots change. We do not need their brands. We do not need their logos on banners. We need their structures to stop blocking and start enabling. That means adopting the #4opens, embracing federation, composting control culture, and learning from messy grassroots organizing.

The truth is simple:

NGOs that cling to their black boxes, their rigidity, their donor-driven agendas, will collapse into irrelevance.
NGOs that embrace openness, decentralization, and collaboration can play a real role in rebooting the #openweb.

This isn’t about saving NGOs. It’s about saving movements from being smothered by them.

#KISS #OMN #4opens

In part, the USA shift to the right is due to the #geekproblem in tech

The political power that Silicon Valley and Big Tech pushed over this election is a real #geekproblem threat, with the #dotcons leveraging technological and financial influence to shape society in ways that benefit the nasty few and undermine basic democratic paths we need to be fallowing to mediate #climatechaos

One path to balance this #mainstreaming mess making is the need for active and healthy critiques of the lack of institutional support for #openweb projects and paths that focus on humanistic alternatives to these Big Tech platforms. The problem we need to challange is that organizations theoretically supportive of democratic values, such as #NLNet and #NGI, sideline core “native” paths in tech as “too radical”, instead favouring safe narrow #geekproblem and #NGO tech paths which we know do not work. This is frustrating, and with the increasing authoritarianism spreading worldwide, it’s a part of the #deathcult we all worship.

The “geekproblem” in tech is about challenges arising from the culture and mindset within technical communities, particularly around developers and engineers. It is associated with an overemphasis on technical solutions, insularity, and a tendency to prioritize technological efficiency or novelty over broader social and ethical considerations.

Overemphasis on Technical Solutions: People involved in tech prioritize creating or improving technical features while overlooking social impacts or peoples needs. This leads to “solutionism,” where every problem is assumed to have a tech-based answer, neglecting simpler, social, or policy-based solutions.
Insularity and Group Think: The tech world is insular, with tight-knit subcultures that resist input from outside communities and dismiss perspectives that don’t align with technical paths. This leads to narrow solutions and a resistance to the needer wider perspectives, ultimately #blocking the social change and challenge we need.
Focus on Control over Collaboration: Tech communities are often defacto hierarchical, top-down in the paths of design and governance, leading to a “we know best” paths. This often alienates non-technical people and discourages cooperative and participatory input, making it hard to integrate open, community-based governance in to the narrow paths that are imposed.
Ignoring and Dismissing Social Issues: Focused on technical work overlook social issues the tech is supposed to be addressing and solving. By focusing only on engineering, they overlook who has access to the technology, who benefits from it, and what ethical implications it brings, perpetuating the disconnect between technology and the communities it made for.
Resistance to Broadening Perspective: Tech creators actively resist moving beyond their own narrow areas of expertise and interest, they block ideas and initiatives that don’t fit within their immediate understanding, inhibiting growth and the needed experimentation. This resistance limits meaningful progress, community needs, and alternative technologies.

In sum, the #geekproblem stems from a blend of narrow technical focus, resistance to diverse input, and lack of attention to social impact. Addressing it involves building more inclusive, collaborative, and socially aware tech paths that embrace #4opens broader perspectives beyond the purely technical.

We now need to compost these piles of #techshit

Composting the social mess to balance the change we need

In the online spaces I navigate, there’s no shortage of #fashernistas crowding the conversation, diverting focus from the native #openweb paths we urgently need to explore. They take up space and ultimately block more than they build. Then there’s the #geekproblem: while geeks get things done within narrow boundaries, they’re rigidly resistant to veering beyond their lanes, dogmatically shutting down alternatives to the world they’re so fixated on controlling. This produces a lot of #techshit, occasionally innovations, but with more that needs composting than the often limited value they create.

Then there are the workers, many of whom default to the #NGO path. Their motivations lean toward self-interest rather than collective good, masking this in liberal #mainstreaming dressed up as activism. At worst, they’re serving the #deathcult of neoliberalism; at best, they’re upholding the status quo. This chaotic mix dominates alternative culture, as it always has, and the challenge is one of balance. Right now, we have more to compost than we have to plant and build with.

What would a functioning alternative to this current mess in alt paths look like? Well we don’t have to look far as there is a long history of working alt culture, and yes I admit it “works” in messy and sometimes dysfunctional ways, but it works. What can we learn and achieve from taking this path and mating it with modern “native #openweb technology, which over the last five years has managed in part to move away from the #geekproblem with #ActivityPub and the #Fediverse.

Blending the resilience and collective spirit of historical alternative cultures with the new strengths of federated, decentralized tech solutions like ActivityPub and the Fediverse, the path we need to take:

Community-Centric Design: Historically, alternative cultures prioritize more communal, open, and egalitarian paths. The path out of this mess need to be rooted in this ethos, a new alt-tech landscape could leverage federated technology to avoid centralization and corporate control, emphasizing community ownership. The Fediverse, with its decentralized model, embodies this shift, each instance is a unique community with shared norms, which helps to protect against centralized censorship and allows diversity without imposing a single dominant path.
Resilient, Messy, and Organic Growth: A #KISS lesson from traditional alternative spaces is that success doesn’t require perfect order. Alt-culture spaces thrive on a degree of chaos and adaptability, which enables rapid response to new challenges and paths. This messiness aligns with how decentralized systems function: they’re, resilient, while letting communities develop their own norms and structures while remaining connected to a larger network.
Mediating the #Geekproblem: A key challenge in the tech space is overcoming the “problem” geeks, where technical cultures focus narrowly on technical functionality at the expense of accessibility and inclusiveness. ActivityPub and Fediverse have shifted this by prioritizing people-centric design and by being open to non-technical contributions. Integrating more roles from diverse social paths—designers, community, activists—can bridge gaps between tech-focused and community-focused paths.
Using #4opens Principles: The “#4opens” is native to #FOSS philosophy—open data, open source, open process, and open standards—guide this ecosystem. By adopting transparency in governance and development, communities foster trust and accountability. This openness discourages monopolistic behavior, increases collaboration, and enables #KISS accountability.
Sustainable Engagement Over Growth: Unlike the current #dotcons model that focuses on endless growth and engagement metrics, the alternative path prioritizes quality interactions, trust-building, and meaningful contributions. This sustainable engagement path values people’s experience and community health over data extraction and advertising revenue.
Leveraging Federated Technology for Cross-Pollination: ActivityPub has shown that federated systems don’t have to be isolated silos; they can be connected in a openweb of interlinked communities. Just as historical alt-cultures drew strength from diversity and exchange, the Fediverse path allows for collaboration and cross-pollination between communities while maintaining autonomy.

By integrating these native #openweb principles, we create an alt-tech ecosystem that is democratic, inclusive, and resistant to the mess that currently plague #mainstreaming and some alt-tech paths. This hybrid path allows tech to serve communities authentically, fertilising sustainable growth and meaningful, collective agency that we need in this time to counter the mainstream mess.

Blavatnik Book Talks: The Forever Crisis

This is my reaction from the talk, have not read the book.

In The Forever Crisis, the author presents complex systems thinking as a framework for addressing the world’s intractable challenges at the level of global governance. The book critiques the traditional top-down approaches pushed by powerful institutions like the #UN, highlighting how these solutions are a mismatched for complex, interwoven issues like #climatechange, security, finance, and digital governance.

One of the core issues raised is that global governance structures are failing to keep pace with the crises they are supposed to address. Traditional approaches “silo” issues, handling them in isolation, which makes it hard for messy interconnected challenges to be addressed in a holistic way. For example, while climate change is universally recognized as a priority, the complex “network of governance” is fragmented, leaving institutions like the UN and #IPCC struggling to effectively drive any change. These traditional, siloed paths reflect a short-term vision, prioritizing superficial “silver bullet” solutions over more, transformative approaches.

A complex systems approach, likening effective governance to networks such as the “mushrooms under the forest floor”, resilient, interconnected, and adaptable. Rather than rigid, top-down mandates, this metaphor supports creating flexible, networked governance structures that adapt to shifting crises. The notion of “cascading solutions” ripple across systems in a way that amplifies positive outcomes, rather than relying on isolated, large-scale interventions.

The talk highlights how unready we are for institutional preparedness and adaptive governance, particularly in preparing for shocks, both anticipated and unanticipated. Using COVID-19 as an example, he critiques the over-reliance on “luck” rather than robust structures, suggesting that governance systems must be nimble and interconnected enough to absorb shocks without collapsing. Currently, we have a fasard, the UN and other agencies are trying to act as “confidence boosters,” convincing themselves of their own effectiveness.

Challenges to implementing complexity in governance, despite the potential of complexity theory, the talk raises questions about implementation. Power structures are entrenched in traditional governance systems, making it difficult to shift away from rigid, reactive models. Further, financial systems tend to funnel resources into quick-fix solutions rather than funding long-term, adaptive responses.

My though, about the talk on mainstream solutions, touches on an essential question: can the existing structures within the “#deathcult” of neoliberalism actually provide the transformation we need? This perspective aligns with the book’s critique, questioning whether today’s dominant structures can truly embrace a complexity-oriented approach to governance. To solve this I focus on #Indymediaback, #OMN, and #OGB as grassroots projects which underlines an alternative that builds out local, networked, and community-driven solutions, a departure from the centralized and out-of-touch responses typical of global governance.

The book’s focus on complexity theory as a tool to facilitate self-organizing, resilient paths could be a powerful argument for the decentralized work I advocate. This framework validates the idea that change might be more effectively driven from the grassroots, where diverse actors work in networked patterns that reflect the natural resilience seen in ecosystems.

The talk:

Join Thomas Hale, Professor in Public Policy at the Blavatnik School of Government, and Adam Day, Head of UN University Centre for Policy Research in Geneva, as they discuss Day’s newest book The Forever Crisis.

The Forever Crisis is an introduction to complex systems thinking at the global governance level. It offers concepts, tools, and ways of thinking about how systems change that can be applied to the most wicked problems facing the world today. More than an abstract argument for complexity theory, the book offers a targeted critique of today’s highest-profile proposals for improving the governance of our environment, security, finance, health, and digital space. It suggests that we should spend less effort and resources on upgrading existing institutions, and more on understanding how they (and we) relate to each other.

My thinking and notes.

Its the #NGO crew talking about my subject, this is a professor and the #UN secretary generals adviser. Start with basic complexity, telling a normal story.

Globalisation drives complexity, the nudge theory, the network of governance which we have to manage. Use the IPCC as a tool, but this is a mess. The argument for big solutions, top down is a bad fit for complexity thinking. The solution is tendicalse? Or the mushrooms under the forest floor, network metaphor.

Shifting tipping point, to shift change

Long problems demand complexity, current risk is undervalued

Transformative global governance, or our current global governance could go extinct.

We have a anufe data, for AI to be used as early warning “advising” governance.

So this is main-streaming looking at change and mediating the challenge. Whether it works at all is an open question, looking unlikely looking around the room.

He says we can’t co-operate, and in his terms this is correct. The solution is to try and “trick” the current systems to work together, don’t think he gets beyond this.

UN women calls the current path a failer, and that this is ongoing, but MUCH more urgent now.

In the report, the silos were knitted together, but nobody understood this, so then it was unpacked into sloes so that people could accept it.

The conference that did this report, was in a large part a confidence booster that the current systems could actually work. This is a very small step. No war was won.

The is a consensus that the current process is failing, and needs to change to challenge the current structures. The problem of re-siloing, the crumbling of bridges as they are being built, the outcome the establishment is still blocking the needed bridging.

For him, the ideas don’t create transformation. They spent a year going over old agreements, the new issues were not focused on. This was a problem of trust and transparency. So the whole process was knocked back a year.

Is this change easer or harder during crises? We tend to think that crises creates flexibility, but he argues they hold together stronger when change might be happening? She points to the defence crotch, that change is being blocked by the crises, it’s complex.

Are any of the current institutions fit to governing #AI

Finance funds silver bulite solutions rather than long term solutions. Quick fix, fixes nothing, its funding pored down the drain. His solution is a real cost on carbon if we can get the spyware command and control right to make this work.

On chip verification, hardcoded spy and control in our chips… now this is a very #geekproblem idea.

Can the states raise to work, she says we hope so 🙂 as the is no alternative 🙁 we won’t states to work, in partnership with the private secturer… we need the UN to preform its function, that partners with other actors, private structure, civil society etc.

Capacity building is 10% of the climate budget, this is about writing PDF’s, the people doing the change are simply not there.

Q. on the time to act, with the example of Gorbertrov and the claps of the Soviet Union.

Resilience is not a good thing, if the thing that is resilients are paths are not working.

Can we bake in a long term path into current decisions?

How can we change the existing system so that it balances?

The word leadership, that individuals playing a role, to be the change, is a subject that excites them.

My question would have been, the #deathcult – is the any actors or forces outside this cult – that you see could be the change we need?

He, Cascading solutions across the system fast enough to be the change we need?

She, better preparedness for the shocks, so we can pull together. To deal with issues we have not anticipated. We are not there yet.

COVID was an example of luck not structures.

#oxford