Funding structures are built for #NGO nonsense, not grassroots projects where actual value is created. The #OMN, #indymediaback, and #OGB challenge this, but funders can’t grasp it because they don’t understand value outside institutional framing.
Fixing the funding #blocking, funders need to THINK, not just UNDERSTAND. Right now, they “understand” in the framework of existing institutions, which means they miss the metaphor-driven, emergent nature of the #OMN. Our #Hashtag story is for THINKING, not passive understanding. They are useful tools to push the conversation forward, not dogma to be accepted or rejected. The two often treating them as fixed truths leads to #blocking the needed real change.
We need to break out of this cycle, 20 years of #techshit which is still strengthening the gatekeepers, we can’t keep playing by these rules. The biggest realization here is that truth and metaphor are not the same. Funders, #NGOs, and the #mainstreaming crew think in terms of fixed truths, while real change comes from dynamic thinking. That’s why they keep failing us.
Funders, #NGOs, and the #mainstreaming crew are trapped in fixed truths, while real change comes from dynamic thinking. That’s why they keep failing us. So, how do we break this cycle and move forward? For meaningful #openweb funding, we need projects that are native and align with critical social needs for the evolution of the internet, balancing openness/trust based tech with funding for outreach and feedback mechanisms.
Shifting Funding From “Fear/Control” to “Open/Trust” The Problem, current funding paths for internet projects focus on security, control, and compliance, perpetuating systems of centralized authority. This approach stifles trust-based collaboration, which are essential for the #openweb path. Action: help to advocate for dedicated funding streams for projects explicitly focused on decentralization, trust-building, and open governance structures like the Open Media Network (#OMN) and #OGB. Incorporate trust-based metrics into funding criteria, rewarding projects that demonstrate sustainable, human-centered governance.
Bridging hard tech and soft use. The Problem: Hard tech (protocols, platforms) develop in isolation from people, leading to tools that fail to meet real-world social needs. Action: Allocate funds for programs to bridge developers and user communities, ensuring reciprocal feedback between tech builders and real life communities. Establish mechanisms to incorporate insights from “soft use” (how people interact with tools) into the iterative development of “hard tech.” Support user-led design initiatives for communities to directly shape the platforms they use.
Governance: The Problem: Existing tech networks prioritize technical over social design, exacerbating the #geekproblem of over-complexity and alienating the change we need. Action: Fund projects like the OMN that flip this dynamic, prioritizing human networks as the foundation for technical systems. This creates tools that reflect and support the needs of grassroots communities. Promote protocols like #ActivityPub to enhance interoperability and people/community autonomy across networks.
The OMN is a lightweight framework with five core functionalities aimed at building a trust-based semantic web: * Publish: Share content as objects. * Subscribe: Follow streams of interest (people, organizations, topics). * Moderate: Manage trust by endorsing or rejecting content flows * Rollback: Remove historical flows content from the point trust is broken. * Edit Metadata: Improve the discoverability and context of content. These tools enable people to control their digital spaces and data flows while horizontally growing collaboration and accountability
This native #openweb path requires systemic support with funding to promote tools and frameworks that build human agency and trust. By doing this, we create resilient and equitable paths in tech, moving away from the limitations of the #open and #closed web mess we keep repeating
The funding crisis for the #openweb isn’t just about money—it’s about values. Right now, too much funding goes into coding copies of #dotcons, replicating the same social centralized, mess under a different name. This doesn’t fix anything—it just locks us into the same broken patterns.
We need to push for native#openweb approaches—ones rooted in decentralisation, trust, and open process. History is full of projects that did this right—#indymediaback being just one example. But the real challenge isn’t just building the tech; it’s getting people to value this diversity.
Funding bodies like #NGI, #nlnet, and #ngizero could play a key role if they prioritize projects that challenge, rather than copy, the status quo. But beyond grants, we need a cultural shift—one that recognises the importance of public digital infrastructure and collective ownership over our tools.
So what can we do?
Demand funding for actual#openweb projects, not more social silos.
Build bridges between funders and radical grassroots tech.
Create our own support networks outside traditional funding models.
Shift the conversation—value the diversity, not just the tech.
If we don’t push, the funding will keep flowing into the wrong places, and we’ll be stuck recycling the same failures. Let’s compost the mess and grow something real.
The path I am advocating is rooted in a few core principles: a return to grassroots governance, prioritizing community-driven technology, and composting failed ideas for new growth. To enable this, we need to develop tools and frameworks that uphold transparency, empower collective action, and keep the focus on sustainable, open alternatives.
I believe to try and balance much of the current mess, people should focus on grassroots activism and building alternative systems to combat the current social, ecological, and technological mess. With a strong emphasis on open processes (#4opens), fostering collective action, to challenge the #neoliberal status quo (#deathcult) through direct engagement, rebooting independent media, and creating sustainable, community-driven alternatives to #mainstreaming structures. The path is to reclaim agency and work toward positive, systemic change from the grassroots up.
I am thus critical of #NGOs and #mainstreaming paths, as they often compromise their radical potential by seeking funding and approval from larger institutions and establishment hierarchies. This to oftern leads to co-optation and dilution of grassroots values of “native” paths, turning them into tools for maintaining the status quo rather than challenging it. We need to actively resist this corruption and ensuring that alternative, community-driven projects can thrive without becoming fatally entangled in mainstreaming mess.
I have extensive experience navigating radical activism and grassroots media projects. Having been involved in open technology movements, such as #Indymedia and #OMN (Open Media Network) and more recently the Fediverse and ActivityPub movement, emphasizing trust-based, DIY approaches. Thus, the critique of the #NGO sector for undermining radical efforts through the influence of funding and institutionalization, having witnessed how NGO paths often lead to stagnation or failure. In reaction to this, the creating and championing of decentralized solutions that remain faithful to their grassroots origins while resisting co-optation by the #mainstreaming.
My #boatingeurope life reflects a life outside the #mainstreaming, a simpler”native” more sustainable #DIY lifestyle, away from the chaos of every day #deathcult worship. Living on the water is a metaphor for self-reliance, resilience, and independence, while offering life connected with nature. The lifeboat is a metaphor for #climatechaos, I sailed away ten years ago, after campaigning agenst #climatchange and ecological destruction for 20 years, continuing the path to live outside conventional structures, a little away from the stress of activism. However, the world is round, so have since returned, re-engaging with tech activism, a remainder that retreat won’t solve the broader systemic issues facing the world and the people that live in it
I see a core tension between alternative cultures and the mainstream: the mainstream demands that alternative cultures conform in order to be effective, while the alt paths intentionally resist this push, aiming to remain distinct and radical. This clash creates a deeper issue—#mainstreaming voices tend to block and reject the need for a bridge between these two spaces. The failure to recognize the importance of building such bridges leads to division and stagnation, perpetuating the current social and political mess. The root problem lies in “common sense” blocking and an intolerance toward the very idea of bridging these divergent paths, hindering progress from both sides.
This thinking came out of this thread on the subject of the relationship between #WC3 and the grassroots #socialhub over the “governance” of #ActivityPub and the wider #Fediverse.
A bridge rather than ownership would look like a collaborative, flexible, and trust-based system, rather than one based on control and dominance. In the context of the Fediverse and openweb spaces, this would mean moving away from territorial battles between the #NGO mainstreaming approach and the grassroots #openweb communities, toward a recognition that both paths have value, and that these different paths can coexist and complement each other.
The “commons” path is fundamentally about shared responsibility and decentralized governance. It’s the idea that instead of fighting for ownership and control—whether that’s who gets to steer the Fediverse or dominate the standards—we build systems that mediate the different flows, allowing both the formal and the grassroots approaches to contribute and grow together.
This could be done in practical ways like:
Shared Infrastructure: The infrastructure becomes a part of the commons—no one owns it, but everyone can use and contribute to it.
Collaboration Over Competition: Instead of viewing the relationship between the more formal W3C-style governance and grassroots communities like SocialHub as adversarial, we acknowledge that they bring different strengths. The W3C formalism provides structure, while SocialHub’s grassroots, #DIY ethos brings innovation. Each benefits the other, and the bridge is recognizing this value without the need to “own” it.
Mediation and Decision-Making Processes: We need native tools for transparent governance. A commons model for governance like the #OGB which was developed on socialhub. Think of it as a flexible process where everyone has a voice, but no one dominates.
Value in Diversity: The goal is not to impose a singular vision, but to recognize that the messy, bottom-up humanistic creativity from the grassroots and the more polished, structured contributions from #NGOs both have value. The bridge would allow ideas to cross and enrich each other without needlessly flattening their differences.
The key to this is not ownership but bridging the different paths. If we see ourselves as gardeners of the #openweb commons, rather than owners of a “slice” of it, the mindset shifts from control to care, recognizing the power in collaboration rather than domination.
By building these bridges, rather than the normal “common sense” fighting over territory, we create an open network where people and communities can flourish. This bridging needs care, #KISS, trust-based paths, that recognize the shared value and avoid pushing #mainstreaming “common sense” driven artificial divides. It’s about cooperation and connection. #KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid).
The paywalled #FediForum, while billed as “the unconference for those moving the Fediverse forward,” is thin on the ground when it comes to real, impactful “native” voices. The grassroots actors who are notably absent from these spaces are far more significant in shaping the #openweb path than the #NGO and #dotcons interests pushing #mainstreaming.
It’s important to notice this and remember where you stand in this network. Yes, we’re struggling and making a mess on our grassroots path, but we’re still here. On the other hand, those on the #mainstreaming path are few but make up for their lack of presence by generating noise and occupying space.
This is still a grassroots project, and we, the “native” people on the #openweb, are the vibrant threads in the tapestry. #NGOs and even the #dotcons can join in, but they are not at the core. We are the core. Balancing the signal-to-noise ratio, while noisy forces try to drown us out, requires active mediation—activism, plain and simple.
Stay engaged, stay noisy in a good way, and keep pushing the #4opens path.
Asked him, “Have you taken a moment or two to think this might be seen, on balance, as damage rather than helping the #openweb culture of the communers who built the spaces you are going to be pushing at? It’s important not to be doing blinded Imperialism – Wikipedia coming into a “commons” space.”
Issues on this here Activism can we try and address these issues, to mediate the balance of damage/good before you push the project out, thanks.
#openweb culture comes from the principles and values of the early internet, where open standards and decentralized systems were prioritized over closed, proprietary ones. This culture is based on the idea of a free and open internet, where anyone can participate and create without the need for gatekeepers.
#Slacktivism is a term used to describe online activism that requires minimal effort or engagement, such as signing an online petition or changing your social media profile picture. While these actions can raise awareness about an issue, they are criticized for being insincere and ineffective in creating real change.
#NGOs, or non-governmental organizations, are involved in social activism and advocacy work. However, they are criticized for promoting their own agendas rather than empowering the communities they claim to serve. This can create a power imbalance, where the voices and needs of the community are not heard or prioritized.
We need to think about the #mainstreaming of these issues’ due to the increasing visibility and attention they are pushing in the wider public, move back to the #openweb.
With this shift in attention comes the risk of co-optation or watering down of the original values and principles. It is important to be on guard and maintain a healthy balance, ensuring that the voices and needs of communities are prioritized and that efforts are not insincere or ineffective.
The new #spreadmastodon project needs to balance the damage with the good it does with its outreach project.
The wider #Fediverse relying heavily on a single platform, mastodon or instance https://mastodon.social, can have negative consequences. Leading to a concentration of power and influence in the hands of a few individuals and entities. This can result in issues such as censorship, lack of innovation, and a loss of privacy for users.
Additionally, if a single server or platform is responsible for hosting a significant portion of user data or activity, it could become a target for cyberattacks or data breaches.
One of the ways the world of technology is in a mess is due to the problem with institution’s limited funding of the social side of #openweb. Unfortunately, much of the funding that is given ends up feeding parasitic NGOs, which does little to nothing to solve the problems. The existing funding for functional coding also contributes to the #geekproblem by not pushing anything outside the basics. It’s up to people with shovels to clean up this mess, but the question remains – who funds them?
Technology has become an important part of our daily lives. We rely on the internet for everything from communication and entertainment to work and education. However, despite the many benefits that technology offers, there is a growing problem in the industry. Many of the software programs that we rely on are failing because they are built on the wrong foundation.
The #geekproblem software that dominates the tech industry today is built on a foundation of “control”. Developers focus on creating systems that regulate the user’s experience, from how they access information to how they interact with others. However, what many fail to realize is that good societies are built on a foundation of “trust”. When we trust the people and institutions around us, we are more likely to cooperate and work together on common goals.
Unfortunately, the current commercial approach to technology development is leading to piles of #techshit. People don’t trust these #dotcons programs, and they don’t trust the people who create them. This lack of trust can lead to a breakdown in society, that is accelerating the break-down of our environment
The problem is compounded by the fact that the tech industry struggles to communicate this simple understanding to the wider public. Developers are so focused on narrow #geekproblem agenda, technical jargon and complex systems that they often struggle to explain their ideas to others.
One way to address this problem is to fund the social side of tech. By focusing on the human aspects of technology, we can create programs that are not only technically sound, but also easy to use and trustworthy. We need to bridge the gap between the technical and social aspects of tech and create a more holistic approach to technology development.
However, there are very few institutions that fund the social side of #openweb tech. Many of these institutions focus support on parasitic #NGOs that don’t understand the technical side of things and are not interested in building trust. If we continue down this path, we will only feed the #techshit pile.
To make a difference, we need to fund the social side of tech in a way that supports both technical expertise and social understanding. We need to create programs that are not only technically sound but also easy to use and trustworthy. We need to invest in initiatives like the #OMN and #4opens that promote communication, cooperation, and trust within the tech industry.
Ultimately, the solution to the #geekproblem is to realize that good societies are built on trust, not control. We need to build technology that reflects this reality and invest in the social side of tech. By doing so, we can ensure that technology continues to serve us and not the other way around.
Almost all our #geekproblem software fails because they are building “control”, where all good societies are built on “trust”. We keep making piles of #techshit because we can’t communicate about this simple understanding #techchurn one way to address this is to fund the social side of tech.
The problem which we need to solve is the institutions funding of the social side of #openweb tech, if we do this now most of this funding will feed parasite #NGO’s rather than anything useful. This is also a problem of the existing funding for coding, it pushes the #geekproblem when it funds anything outside the basics.
We have a mess because our world is messy, current funding plays little role in composting this mess.
That’s the job of people with shovels – who funds them.
Most of our software fails because it is built with a focus on “control”, rather than “trust”, which is the foundation of a good society. This leads to an endless cycle of creating useless technology that we can’t communicate about. To address this problem, we need to invest in the social side of technology.
The challenge lies in funding the social aspect of #openweb technology. Currently, most funding goes to non-governmental organizations (#NGOs) that are not always effective. Additionally, the existing funding for coding primarily focuses on the basics, which perpetuates the problem of the #geekproblem.
Our world is messy, and the current funding plays little role in cleaning up this mess. People with shovels – those who do the work – need funding to make a difference.
* Lack of accountability: They operate without being transparent about their funding, goals, and methods.
* Dependence on funding: NGOs rely on funding from governments, corporations, or private individuals, this dependence compromises their agenda and integrity.
* Ineffectiveness: #NGOs are not equipped to solve complex social and economic problems, and that their interventions can do more harm than good.
* Overlap and duplication of efforts: With so many NGOs operating in the same areas, there can be a lot of overlap and duplication of efforts, which can be inefficient and ineffective.
* Cultural insensitivity: #NGOs are criticized for imposing #mainstreaming ideas and values on other cultures, and for not taking into account local customs, traditions, and beliefs.
