The #OGB (Open Governance Body) isn’t built around the smooth, efficient ideals of platform logic or institutional control. It’s messy by design, because it’s rooted in real-world activist practice. It draws from the hard-won experience of protest camp organising, where consensus, affinity, and trust are the foundations of action.
The #OMN governance model we’re working with doesn’t come from corporate boards or #NGO playbooks. It comes from the mud, the rain, the late-night meetings under tarps and tents, where people work through differences because they have to – because they’re doing something together that matters. This is people-to-people trust, built over time, grounded in shared struggle. We’re not designing for online autocracy. We’re designing for affinity groups.
So yes, the #OGB is trying to do what many others won’t. Not because it’s easier (it’s not), but because it’s necessary.
We already know this kind of organising works, not in theory, but in practice. Sometimes badly, sometimes slowly, but it works. People come together, they make decisions, they take action, and they build power without needing top-down control. But we also know it doesn’t scale well – that’s always been the limit of these methods. Consensus is powerful at small scales, but it breaks under weight if there’s no structure to hold it.
The #OGB is built on the idea that the horizontal protocols of the Fediverse can scale this kind of messy, native governance, not by centralising it, but by networking it. Federation isn’t just a technical model; it’s a political one. It mirrors the way affinity groups operate: autonomous, loosely coordinated, sharing enough common ground to work together without collapsing into uniformity.
This is what we mean when we say the #OGB is native. It’s growing from within the world we’re already in – not imposed from outside. It respects mess. It embraces friction. It understands that governance isn’t something you tack on later, it’s something you live through, build with, and struggle over, together.
If we’re going to have a real #openweb, we can’t keep mimicking the logic of platforms and empires. We have to build our own paths, grounded, imperfect, resilient.
A community is only viable if enough people care enough to keep it relevant. In this era of #stupidindividualism, most people don’t lift a finger to make that happen.
This is the norm across many #4opens spaces: a near-total lack of interest in building or maintaining shared paths. It’s a textbook case of right-wing Tragedy of the Commons. Developers show up when it suits them, use the space for their narrow needs, then drift off without contributing to the upkeep. They treat community like free infrastructure – something passive they can extract from – rather than a living, tended path.
This same pattern plays out across the grassroots and #FOSS world. Devs focus on their code, their projects, their timelines. Rarely do they look up and engage with the broader ecology that their work depends on. In the #Fediverse especially, most developers ignore shared infrastructure, governance, and the standards they rely on, until something breaks. Then they complain.
Same social dynamics, same outcome: a mess that keeps repeating itself. And until we break that pattern, we’re stuck.
On the alt path, it’s fair to ask for clarity. When we talk about “#openweb projects,” we mean efforts grounded in the values of the early web commons: transparency, decentralization, collective ownership. This includes things like the rebooted #Indymedia, the #OMN (Open Media Network), and the #OGB (Open Governance Body). These aren’t about building shiny platforms, they’re about building the structures and relationships that allow real alternatives to survive and grow outside the #mainstreaming mess.
This isn’t just evangelism, it’s hands-on work: shaping frameworks for local and federated publishing (like the original Indymedia), and now modelling governance and trust systems that resist hierarchy and #NGO capture.
As for government institutions joining the #Fediverse – What we pushed was a bottom-up, native process rooted in people and practice, not imposed solutions. But as is often the case, after we laid the groundwork, the institutional #PR and #NGO crowd moved in and took over.
The “community” we speak of does exist, even if it’s fragmented, marginal, and ignored. You’ll find it in squats, permaculture collectives, activist media spaces, messy corners of the #Fediverse, and in the hands of people still building trust and tools outside the #dotcons. It’s not centralized or funded, so it’s not visible like capitalist platforms are. But it’s real. I’ve lived inside it for decades.
You’re right that real code is needed. But it’s not about one perfect tool. It’s about the network of trust and shared values that can hold many tools and projects together. That’s slower to build, less flashy to show off, but far more resilient and necessary.
The #Fediverse is a good first step. But let’s be honest: we’ve lost the thread when it comes to building tech that walks off the beaten path. Most #mainstreaming energy, and much of the #NGO outreach, still flows into reinforcing the same old ruts: centralization, enclosure, obedience to capital. Anything that doesn’t follow those routes is starved of support and often treated as a threat, a curiosity, or a waste of time.
But it’s exactly that off-path infrastructure we need, not just to resist the current system, but to outlast it. To still be standing when the old ways collapse. That means supporting tools and systems that aren’t profitable, aren’t convenient, and aren’t slick. They’re harder to fund, harder to maintain, but they’re what let us keep moving forward through the coming storm of #climatechaos.
If we don’t build and sustain these alternative tracks, the dominant ones will keep absorbing or destroying everything new. It’s a recursive trap: we need better systems to make better tools, but we can’t build those tools without some of those better systems already in place.
So we need to hold space – with care, mess, and trust – for that in-between.
That’s where projects like #OMN, the rebooted #Indymedia, and the #4opens live. Not trying to escape friction, but embracing it. Mediating it. Letting it guide us toward what’s honest, what’s native, what lasts.
The new litmus test isn’t “Does it scale?” It’s: “Does it spread? Does it take root? Can it compost and regrow?”
It’s important to recognise that friction – the mess, the slowness, the need for constant negotiation – is not a flaw in native paths, it’s a virtue. It’s how trust, mutuality, and accountability are sustained over time. These are not bugs to be eliminated with slick #UX and #VC-funded convenience – they’re part of what keeps a community honest and rooted.
The problem arises when less-native, often externally imposed systems (driven by capitalist or institutional agendas) treat these messy, friction-full spaces as broken or backwards. This is the classic dynamic of imperialism and settler colonialism: imposing order, “fixing” things, extracting value, and in doing so erasing the lived, relational logic of native systems.
If you look through the lens of native/western histories – indigenous struggles vs colonial modernity, the same pattern plays out again and again: the native path is degraded, disrespected, overwritten. In tech, it’s no different. You see it when horizontal, trust-based networks get steamrolled by #NGO capture, institutional gatekeeping, or #VC-funded platforms that sell convenience and control.
So the real work is mediation. Not purity, not retreat, but balancing these tensions in practice: holding space where native paths can grow without being co-opted or crushed, while still reaching out to shift the wider terrain.
We need to stop seeing native approaches as “immature” or “inefficient.” They’re often the only thing holding the line against complete enclosure. The question isn’t “How do we fix the mess?”, it’s “How do we stay with it, tend it, and let it teach us how to do this differently?”
It’s an old but urgent problem: how do we support tech that walks outside the dominant paths long enough to clear new ones? Infrastructure that can challenge the mainstream only survives if we build support systems that reflect different values — trust, openness, and care over control, profit, and scale. Right now, we’ve stopped thinking seriously about this. If we don’t return to this work, building the path as we walk it, we’ll be stuck cycling through the same traps, watching each alternative collapse back into the old defaults.
We dig. Turn over the old soil. Question assumptions. Get honest about what’s working and what’s not. We plant. Build in the open. Share power. Let go of fear. We grow. Not towards scaling up, but spreading out, resilient, diverse, interconnected.
The Fediverse could still be a true commons. But we need to build it as one, together. Right now? Our thinking and common sense is building fenced off little kingdoms, each with its own rules, its own etiquette, and its own moderators-turned-monarchs. We wave our “federation” flags proudly, but let’s be honest, most of these flags are stitched from the same cloth: control, hierarchy, and a quiet hostility to anything really different.
Let’s stop pretending, the community side of the Fediverse is a mess. The instance as a community, was a good idea, but it never worked, the was no code that was needed to build the links that mattered, no mod tools, nothing. And it’s not a mystery why – it was built by the #geekproblem and marketed with white #PR lies. The developers who shaped this space were (and mostly still are) people who don’t understand, or worse, actively dislike, messy human social dynamics. They wanted control, moderation as containment, not mediation, identity as code, not culture.
This isn’t to blame them personally, many were doing their best. But structurally, the Fediverse was always going to build this current mess when it grew out of narrow foundations:
Built by people who think consensus means “do what I say.”
Designed in back rooms, then announced as done.
Sold as decentralised, while consolidating power around key projects.
Promoted with “diversity” stickers, while real diversity was culturly blocked or ignored.
No surprise the result is growing to be alienating, slow-moving, and hard to trust for actual social communities. So the question now is: how do we fix this? Here is my idea where to start:
Acknowledge the rot. No more polishing turds. Let’s call things what they are.
Shift governance from control to trust.The #OGB model exists to empower native communities, not gatekeepers.
Build openly. Work in the open. Use the #4opens.Transparency is the only path back to legitimacy.
Stop begging for NGO scraps. The #OMN is about building outside their logic. If they want in, they come on our terms.
Compost the techshit, but keep the compost. Acknowledge failures. Learn from them. Don’t drag them forward for brand reasons.
The Fediverse can still be a commons – but now we need to build it as one. Right now, we’re mostly fencing off little kingdoms, waving our “federation” flags. We’ve seen where this leads. It’s time to dig, plant, and grow something different.
Let’s look at this same issue from a different view, at the individual scale, self-hosting is pushed by the #geekproblem as the golden path to “being in control of my data.” But in reality, that’s a comforting illusion – like saying, “I grow a vegetable garden to be in control of my food.”
Yes, having a garden is valuable. It connects you with the land, the seasons, the rhythm of growth. But:
You can’t grow everything you need — rice, flour, salt, coffee?
You’re one bad season away from failure — drought, pests, illness, burnout.
It’s time-consuming, and often inefficient to go it alone — especially if you’re just trying to feed one household.
The same is true for self-hosting. Sure, it can be a great learning experience. You can run your own Mastodon instance, email server, or Nextcloud. You might feel a sense of autonomy and pride, “I’m off the cloud!”.
But, you’re now your own sysadmin, responsible 24/7. Security patches? Backups? Downtime? You’re one bug or hard drive crash away from losing everything, no safety net. If you’re DDoSed or targeted, you’re alone in the storm. Most people don’t know how to balance security and useablierty of their systems, and the risk of leaks or exploits is real.
This doesn’t mean “don’t self-host.” Like gardening, it’s a good and meaningful thing. But it’s not meaningful and sufficient for control or resilience. And the more we pretend it is, the more we set people up to fail.
The solution? We need to balance collectivizing resilience. Just like with food, we need shared kitchens, food co-ops, and community gardens – not just individual allotments. For digital infrastructure, we need to balance working #OMN mobile #p2p bridging to:
Small community-run servers with shared responsibility (like tech collectives or co-ops).
Federated services that respect autonomy and provide mutual aid.
Redundant backups across trusted peers, not just one node.
Tools designed for social trust, not corporate extraction or lonely geek heroism.
Because real control over data isn’t about having a castle with a moat. It’s about living in a village where the roads are open, the wells are shared, and people have your back when things go wrong. Resilience and transparency cannot be achieved in isolation.
It’s a social problem, and we need to bring social solutions, built with care, trust, and collective #DIY responsibility. What too meany people push is “common sense” #stupidindividualism that is so obviously prat’ish behaviour, let’s step away from this mess making, please.
Do you ever stop and wonder, really wonder, why most of the codebases outside #Mastodon are languishing? It’s not a technical issue. It’s not “a lack of funding” (though that’s what they love to talk about). It’s not even about network effects, not really. It’s because they’re all following Mastodon’s lead, straight into the #NGO world.
This is a path paved in smiles and slow death. A warm bath of grant cycles, diversity reports, and performative panels. On this dead-end, the goal isn’t to grow, challenge, or change. The goal is to survive, to be tolerated, within existing institutional structures.
Let’s be honest: this is such an obviously pointless and self-defeating direction that it’s stunning more people aren’t calling it out. Why is it pointless? Because in the #NGO world, success isn’t the point. The hierarchy already has its chosen project. It has its darling. And surprise surprise – that’s Mastodon.
Everyone else is there to tick the diversity box. You’re the “alternatives” that prove there’s choice, even if there isn’t. You’re invited to speak, but not to decide. You’re encouraged to exist, but only if you don’t matter.
So these projects stall, not because they’re bad ideas, or bad code, or have no community. But because they’ve internalized powerlessness, shaped by institutions that reward conformity and punish genuine independence.
Here’s the bitter truth: If you want your project to thrive, you have to stop only begging at the gates of the palace. You have to stop only trying to be included, you have to also build outside their logic. That’s what the #OGB (Open Governance Body) is about, not building consensus at the top, building trust at the roots.
That’s what the #OMN is about, a web of native projects, not another hierarchy with a different brand. We don’t need to only “be taken seriously” by NGOs. We really need to #KISS build governance that works without them. And what we don’t need is more performative panels, we need compost, shovels, and seeds. Let #Mastodon be the flagship, in the long term, it’s likely to drift into irrelevance, or rot into compromise. Let the rest of us get on with building the working path.
You don’t have to only attack problems, you can also build round them and leave them to decay, then shovel over the mess to compost, the problem we face now is that we need a shovel, a first step is to build that #OMN
Some strategies to mediate the #blocking mess in a way that stays true to the #4opens:
1. Compost the Conflict. Don’t try to avoid the mess – use it.
Acknowledge blocking as an emotional reaction to risk/fear/powerlessness.
Create safe compost heaps where disagreements can break down slowly (forums, slow chat, moderated conversations).
Let things rot before replanting — time is part of the process.
2. Build Friction Where It Helps. Instead of forcing “smooth consensus,” engineer positive friction.
Let friction surface hidden assumptions early, but contain it constructively.
For example, structured disagreements (Yes/And).
Use #4opens to keep the process visible and trustworthy.
Tactic: “This disagreement stays open – until it breaks something or blooms something.”
3. Create Walkable Paths Around Blockers. If someone/some group blocks – don’t go through them, go around them.
Design with pluralism and forking paths as core strengths.
Accept divergence — allow others to fork rather than forcing them to bend.
Metaphor: Every open path has forks. We need more people walking, fewer people standing still yelling.
4. Bridge the ‘Trust Gap’ with Small, Lived Examples. Many people block because they don’t trust the process – they feel tricked, ignored, or co-opted.
Rebuild trust through visible, small-scale functioning examples — real communities doing real things with the #4opens.
Highlight stories where governance and code worked together.
Stay humble: don’t oversell the vision; show, don’t tell.
5. Normalize Changing Your Mind. Most blocking happens because people are afraid of losing face, status, or being co-opted.
Create spaces where changing your mind is not shameful — it’s rewarded.
Public “reconsideration threads,” “I changed my view” badges, etc.
Use organic intellectuals who model doubt and curiosity, not just certainty.
Reframe the debate using values: trust vs. fear, openness vs. control, native vs. extractive.
You don’t solve #blocking by trying to make everyone agree, you solve it by making space for disagreement to stay open and generative – not as a problem, but as part of the compost from which better paths grow.
This mainstreaming/alt mess making is not about real disagreement or dynamic ideas. It’s about channelling noise that flatters the existing structures and silences anything genuinely alternative. This isn’t controversy, it’s signal-to-noise warfare. And right now, the noise is winning.
Let’s be blunt. On the subject of this site, nearly every so-called “alternative” tech event funded or structured by #NGO culture is riddled with parasites – projects more interested in their next grant or their place at the conference table than building anything outside the status quo. They’re not evil – just placated, softly herding us back into the polite cages we were trying to escape.
They block by doing nothing, block by talking too much, block by looking away when real change knocks. They block by turning real signal into noise.
The actual energy, the radical possibility, is elsewhere. The #OGB (Open Governance Body) is designed with this in mind: not to convince the already-compromised, but to build something permissionless and let it loose. Let people feel the value, or not. No “hard” hand-holding, no pre-approval, no gatekeepers.
It’s a #KISS project: Keep It Simple, Stupid. We’re building for the people up shit creek without a paddle, not the people arguing about paddle aesthetics on a conference panel. We don’t need more “controversy” to win attention in the #NGO#PR-sphere. We need real signal, real builds, real grassroots governance to share power.
And yes, we do have a problem with apathy and Laissez-faire “common sense” that lets this cycle repeat. So let’s stop waiting for the right moment or the perfect audience. We build with this problem in mind. We design #DIY structures that can work in the real mess.
Let’s take a step back. In an old thread about online governance, I found it revealing – and a bit frustrating – that almost nobody actually engaged with what the thread was about: building a lightweight, federated, working governance layer.
We were writing a funding proposal to take a simple, well-tested social workflow (which we already know doesn’t scale in its current form), and federate it, to scale through distribution, not centralization. Think of it like this, we already have a proof-of-concept that this can work. It’s called the #Fediverse. Yes, there will be a lot of “smoke”, confusion, distraction, bureaucratic inertia. But we’ve got practice cutting through it, and could use the funding to bring in more people who see clearly and act with purpose.
A cultural problem, not just a technical one. This isn’t about personal attacks, it’s about recognizing a systemic cultural issue. Many people (often, but not exclusively, middle-aged white men) simply can’t see that some projects have value despite being outside their frameworks or institutional comfort zones. It’s a kind of intellectual and emotional poverty endemic to the late capitalist #deathcult era.
“Distilled, grassroots, radical governance is a good fit for the fediverse.”
And that’s what we’re doing. This work comes from decades of experience, 30+ years of distilled practice from social change spaces:
Squats and protest camps
Climate camps and Reclaim the Streets
Indymedia, XR, and even Occupy
And Rainbow Gatherings — still running on consensus-based governance born from the Vietnam-era anti-war movement (not “hippy dippy” utopias, as some imagine)
What we’re doing is embedding this lived practice into the tools and frameworks of the #openweb, giving people digital tools that reflect real-world collective experience. These are bottom-up, permissionless, and rooted in doing and trust built through doing. This is not about technical fixes. It’s about giving people the space to get messy and find their own path to cooperation.
Why we don’t use #processgeek paths like “Sociocracy”? Some suggest alternatives like sociocracy. And sure, if that works for your group, go for it. But from our side, sociocracy is often the equivalent of a well-meaning hippy round the campfire saying “can’t we all just get along?” while someone pisses on the garden they planted and another person ignores the washing-up rota they just taped up. It’s a structure that presumes goodwill and compliance, and that’s not enough. We’re building for mess, for people who don’t agree, for trust that emerges through doing, not rules imposed from above.
Multi-stakeholder Co-ops? Yes, but not from your typical bureaucratic blueprint. What we’re proposing looks like a multi-stakeholder co-op at times, but it’s far more grounded in anarchist and community-based models. It’s not about creating legalistic enclosures or hierarchical enforcement, we deliberately ignore that logic.
About centralization, Yes, Mastodon’s >90% of instances are in five countries. Yes, some instances hold way more users than others. And yes, that’s an issue. But we address this differently, we recognize centralization as a problem and create space for alternatives by encouraging small, local, resilient hosting.
If you run an instance in the #Fediverse, you already understand, It’s your voice, there’s a positive feedback loop here, the more care you give to your space, the more your voice matters. No need for complicated representation schemes. This is the natural governance of federation. You don’t get a vote unless you actually show up, that’s fair, if you want influence, spin up an instance, participate in the culture, do the work.
Governance isn’t something you build from scratch. It’s something you distill from lived experience.
We don’t want complexity. We want clarity, action, and real tools that reflect how people already cooperate.
#KISS wins — every time.
The project matters more for what it refuses to do, than for what it builds.
The #OGB path is not #mainstreming, it’s a counter current, it is about building shared governance for the #openweb, grounded in the #4opens and real-world collective experience. Want to help? Step out of your institutional box, get your hands dirty, help make governance useful again.
Let’s begin from a traditional liberal framing: Most social interactions should be OPEN, some private or sensitive interactions may be CLOSED.
This isn’t radical. It’s been a functional principle across free societies. But in our current digital culture, this simple framing is often flipped or ignored. Many developers, activists, and even funders uncritically push for closure, often in the name of privacy, safety and control, without recognizing what’s lost when everything becomes closed.
The power of OPEN is all good forms of social power and progress come from open processes:
Transparency builds trust.
Sharing creates knowledge and community.
Federation gives us alternatives to centralized control.
From the printing press to Wikipedia, openness has always been a powerful force for liberation, creativity, and justice. Meanwhile, much of the worst abuse and corruption festers in the dark:
Hidden surveillance (NSA/Five Eyes).
Closed algorithms (Facebook/YouTube).
Closed decision-making in opaque NGOs and foundations.
If we push everything into private silos or lock it behind paywalls, we kill the very culture that allows us to challenge and change the system. We are left with only the closed, and that’s not a world we want to live in.
A real-world example is needed? Let’s talk about the Diaspora project, 15 years ago, in response to Facebook’s rise, a group of well-meaning devs built a “privacy-first” social network. They rejected the openness of RSS and federated tech like XMPP and Atom. They wanted to start from scratch, build their own private network, and lock down data flows, for safety.
The result was a very predictable mess, Diaspora burned brightly and briefly, but never built a vibrant network. In contrast, existing open networks were shouted down, de-funded, and ignored. Ten years passed. Then, we had to reinvent the same open path with ActivityPub to get back to what #RSS and other open tools were already doing.
This is the #geekproblem, the idea that you can throw away working social infrastructure because it’s not “clean” or “cool”, and replace it with abstract, closed systems… usually ends in failure. Worse, it delays progress by a decade. Encryptionism, privacy dogma, and the closing of the commons.
Yes, privacy is important, nobody is arguing otherwise, but what many #encryptionists miss is that building only for privacy is building only for fear. You can’t build a shared culture on fear alone, you need to balance this with trust, transparency, and cooperation too. These require openness. When everything defaults to closed, the commons dies, and without the commons, there is no #openweb.
A politics of openness, is not just technical. it’s deeply social and political. It touches on human nature, ideology, and power. If you’re new to these ideas, start with some reading of the basics of Sociology (Wikipedia) and Political ideologies then ask what assumptions are built into this tech? Who does it empower? Who does it exclude?
Where to begin, to understand motivations and outcomes in #openweb development, it helps to name the ideological currents at play:
Conservatism → favors stability, hierarchy, closure.
Liberalism → favors rights, transparency, and balance.
Anarchism → favors decentralization, autonomy, and openness.
Much of the Fediverse, despite the tech mess, is functionally anarchist in ethos. But this is rarely understood or spoken aloud. We have the A (Anarchy) but not yet the O (Order). Let’s fix this by building the O in the Fediverse, rather than let the default path be imposed, where #NGOs and #foundations bring closed governance models wrapped in the fig leaf of “participation”, we should be working now to build native, open forms of governance.
That’s what the Open Governance Body (#OGB) is trying to do, to creating soft structure for an open culture. That’s what the #4opens help guide: basic principles for transparency and shared power. Let’s support these paths, as if we default to closure – either because of fear, control, or ideology – we kill the #openweb before it can grow.
Let’s remember, we are the stewards of the future commons, let’s keep the doors opens. Thoughts? Examples? Let’s keep this conversation alive, in the open.
In the face of mounting crisis – social breakdown, political polarization, ecological collapse – many people turn inward. And in this turn, they mistake passivity, irony and detachment for resistance. But hopelessness is not radical, it’s deeply conservative. It says: “Nothing can change.” “Everything is corrupt.” “Why bother?”
This isn’t rebellion, it’s surrender. And it’s the exact emotional state that power systems – what we call the #deathcult of neoliberalism – need us to be in. It feeds on your hopelessness, it wants your sarcasm, it loves that you’re “above it all.”
Meme culture & irony: Subversion or sedation? What started as absurdist and ironic commentary devolves into a feedback loop of reaction over reflection. Sarcasm and irony dominate, and this can be useful satire, but more often it’s deflection. You’ll see it in:
The snide quote-tweets with no solution.
The endless “vibes” critiques in social threads.
The collapse of political dialogue into aesthetics and shitposting.
This “cool detachment” doesn’t move us any were toward change, it actively blocks it. We saw this in the decline of many #Occupy offshoots, where internal meme culture replaced organising. Or more recently in parts of climate circles, where #doomposting pushes people into nihilism instead of movement.
Inward-looking tribalism in a globalising world, the creeping tribalism of identity performance, the tendency to build ever-smaller circles of agreement and define yourself against the world instead of with it. On the surface, this might seem like radical rejection of the #mainstreaming. But it’s the opposite, a deeply conforming reaction to consumer individualism.
“Build your brand.”
“Curate your followers.”
“Find your niche.”
“Be your own revolution.”
This is #stupidindividualism, a self-defeating survival mode learned from decades of #neoliberal collapse. But there is no individual path through #climatechaos, only collective ones. We see this mess when grassroots media creators ignore collaboration and #4opens publishing, instead choosing to grow their own follower count on YouTube, TikTok or Substack. We see it when radical tech projects are siloed by pride and petty grudges, while the #dotcons eat their functionality alive.
This performative tribalism ends in isolation, not revolution. All of this is the problem, not the solution, let’s be clear:
Spaces where we speak with doubt, and listen with care.
Structures of cooperation, not only critique (#indymediaback).
We don’t need perfect answers, we need open processes, and we need to reclaim hope, not as naïve optimism, but as active engagement. So pick up your shovel, join a group of composters, feed the soil of a future worth living in.
And what would that actually look like? Let’s be honest about what the #Fediverse is, despite all the code and standards talk, the heart of the Fediverse is anarchism – not in the chaos sense, but in the older meaning:
The letter A for anarkhia (‘without ruler’), circled by an O that stands for order or organization.
We have plenty of the A with decentralization, voluntary cooperation and resistance to imposed authority. But where’s the O? Of clear coordination, transparent process and federated trust and mediation?
Right now, we’re herding cats – each server, dev group, and community running off on their own, building tools and protocols, often without clear ways to connect, share governance, or defend against capture. This worked when we were small, it will not work now the big boys have arrived.
Warning from experience: The #EU outreach failure, we had a direct taste of this during the 2023–24 EU outreach process. It worked, but was quickly transitioned to the infrastructure of the #Fediverse without its soul. This isn’t theoretical, it is what happened to #FOSS transitioning to #opensource in the 2010s. This is what happens if we keep doing nothing? If we don’t act:
The foundation model is imposed — not built.
The fig leaf of “community governance” will be ignored.
A self-selecting oligarchy will form — friendly faces, perhaps, but still an eliteist power cleqe.
The Fediverse will be co-opted — just like we watched Google and Microsoft do to open source over the last 20 years.
Yes, #ActivityPub is “open” but openness alone doesn’t stop capture. Ask the #FSF, or look at meany #NGO paths in tech.
What would “native” governance look like? Built from our values, not imported from the institutions we’re resisting.
Soft Structure – Not no structure. The #OGB (Open Governance Body) project is one possible model: https://unite.openworlds.info/Open-Media-Network/openwebgovernancebody It’s based on the #4opens and rooted in the real history of grassroots organising, not rigid control, but visible, participatory trust-based structure.
Real federation of trust -Imagine something like “trust instances”, each instance or org can choose to endorse certain process and values (e.g., 4opens, PGA hallmarks), creating a visible network of aligned projects. Not a central body, but a web of consent, the #OMN is an example of this.
Self-accountability + Diversity of tactics. Everyone agrees to transparency and openness. Everyone chooses their own path. Nobody is forced, but the community can see what you’re doing. This is essential for resisting #NGO co-option without creating more gatekeeping elitists
Are Platform Co-ops the Answer? Maybe, but… proceed with caution. Many tech co-op projects I’ve seen:
Become ossified in bureaucratic process
Elevate process geeks over users and communities
Reproduce #NGO behaviours under a different name
We’ve seen this in the #techcoop movement, especially in the UK, where platform co-ops often start with radical aims and drift into “doing B2B consulting for ethical startups.” Fine, but not the revolution we worked for. The stakes are real, we’re not just talking about tech here, we’re talking about:
Climate collapse
Social fragmentation
The rise of digital authoritarianism
We need an #openweb that reflects our values, #fediverse governance that protects the commons, and to move from just the A to the full A inside the O – the anarchist circle of voluntary structure. Let’s not wait for another hijacking, we need to build something native to the Fediverse before it’s too late.
The signal-to-noise problem of our #geekproblem in the #fediverse and the wider #openweb. Let’s be clear: platforms like #Mastodon and the #Fediverse are native openweb projects. They embody the values of the #4opens — open data, open source, open process, and open standards.
The value here is not in hardening and securing these systems to the teeth. People who are pushing for hyper-“security” are missing the point entirely. This isn’t about “common sense” dev practice. It’s about use-case. Public media content should be open — and that’s what the Fediverse is good at. It’s media. It’s conversation. It’s public dialogue. That’s what #ActivityPub is designed for. For private communication, we already have mature and well-tested encrypted tools: #Matrix, #Briar, #Signal, etc. Use those for whistleblowing, direct action, or anything sensitive.
Trying to bolt high-security models onto public communication tools breaks the value of the #Fediverse – its simplicity, accessibility, and low barrier to entry. Right now, the #Fediverse is a functional part of the #OMN – it’s a mesh of many small pieces, loosely joined, low-barrier, easy to host, easy to adapt, easy to grow. This is a fragile ecosystem, not a fortress. By pushing unnecessary “security” requirements, this #geekproblem are:
Scaring away potential users and admins
Raising technical barriers
Spreading #FUD
And most dangerously — undermining real-world activists who rely on open visibility and reach, not secrecy.
The #geekproblem, pushing complexity, abstraction, and fear over usability and trust, has been blocking the alt-tech world for over 20 years, it’s happening again. Let’s not let them smother this moment, the open web works when it’s messy, simple, and human.
This is an old and familiar problem: people who say they want change but consistently choose the path that neutralises it. Welcome to the “common sense” #NGO worldview, currently being repackaged in the #Fediverse as things like the Fedi Foundation. It’s not new. It’s not empowering. It’s a tired institutional gravity that drags every radical project into a fog of bureaucracy, branding, and paid careers.
In contrast, we have the “nativist” #openweb crew – grassroots people working with messy horizontalism and free tools, trying to keep the fire alive. See the more grounded reflections like What would a fediverse “governance” body look like?.
And then, sitting awkwardly in between, we have the #geekproblem, coders who are working hard on technical processes like the FEPs (Fediverse Enhancement Proposals) but who avoid touching anything political. They’ve been pushing the #fep process for years now, and while technically interesting, they often ignore the deep political questions of governance and power. That’s fine. But it leaves a vacuum.
The risk: If native paths don’t move, the NGO model will win by default is the hard truth, if the “native” #openweb people don’t move beyond our tired leftist divisions and infinite internal critique, then the #NGO model will be imposed. History tells us this, over and over again. Nature abhors a vacuum. Institutions are always waiting to fill the space with “best practices,” dull forms, and “inclusive” hierarchy. It’s just what happens when there’s a failure to organise from below.
And here’s the problem, the argument between “structure” and “lack of structure” is largely a strawman. Most functioning grassroots projects have lots of structure, it’s just soft structure: relational, implicit, culturally encoded, emergent. The #OGB project (Open Governance Body), for instance, grew from the #EU outreach work and shows this kind of structure in action. It’s not rigid like an NGO. It’s not anarcho-chaos either. It’s #KISS structure, small, practical, and adaptable. But people often miss this because they’ve been taught to only see hard structure: constitutions, charters, legal entities, chairs, and trustees. This blindness is a serious block.
On coops, NGOs, and the shadows of the #Deathcult. A note on coops: They’re often cited as a model alternative. And yes, coops can be good. But many have been co-opted. They function more like bureaucratic relics than vibrant counter-systems.
Examples:
The Coop supermarket hired Tesco managers to “turn it around,” resulting in soviet-style shopping and a full embrace of corporate logics.
The Coop Bank? Try dealing with them — they’re functionally broken through bureaucracy.
1970s wholefood coops had potential — many evolved into neoliberal health shops in the 1990s, selling overpriced turmeric capsules to middle-class wellness seekers.
In contrast, activist organising – even when messy, clumsy, and exhausting – is a better bet. It rarely becomes the shadow of the #deathcult because it is in active struggle against that system. NGOs and formalised coops often become the shadow by default.
What should we do?
Name the problem without being prats about it. People drift into #mainstreaming by habit, not usually by conspiracy. But habits can kill movements. Name them. Push back gently but firmly.
Embrace diversity of organising models. Don’t push coops or NGOs as a one-size-fits-all. Sometimes a loose affinity group or soft network is better. Sometimes a coop makes sense. But don’t dogmatise structures that we know often fail.
Build soft structure, not rigid rules. Ask simple questions like “How does this work with the #4opens?” or “Does this strengthen the PGA Hallmarks?” This builds accountability without shutting down creativity.
Support native projects like #indymediaback, #OGB, and the #OMN, these are based on working structures, rooted in radical history, and built by people with lived experience of doing the work.
Don’t confuse visibility with substance. Just because a foundation or NGO gets press or looks shiny, doesn’t mean they’re doing anything real. Look under the hood.
Compost what needs composting. Don’t let failed or flawed projects keep clogging up energy space. Say goodbye, thank them for their lessons, and move on. We have enough shit to shovel already.
In summary, we don’t need to choose between chaos and bureaucracy. There’s a third path of soft, relational, rooted organising with shared values, proven history, and practical tools. But we have to fight for it. Because if we don’t, the NGO train will keep rolling through, colonising everything with HR-speak and grant metrics. And we’ll be stuck rebuilding, again and again. Let’s not waste more time on that.
If you’ve ever tried to build something radical, collective, and actually useful, you’ve run into these forces. They’re not just annoying. They’re dangerous, structural, and they always show up. This post is about naming those, calling them what they are, and understanding how they’re entangled in the wider problem:
A culture that valorizes individualism, feeds on careerism, and bows to the false “common sense” of the neoliberal #deathcult.
The #NGO agenda: Careerism in activist clothing. Too many grassroots projects are co-opted by well-meaning (or not-so-well-meaning) NGOs and their functionaries, who come waving grant forms and talking about partnerships. But really, they’re selling a diluted, bureaucratic version of change that fits inside capitalist institutions, with jobs and funding flows to protect.
At best, they water down radicalism into “deliverables.” At worst, they actively trample grassroots horizontality to build careers. They normalize the #dotcons. They manage, rather than transform. This isn’t conspiracy. It’s structure. And we need to build outside this model.
Petty politics and personal grudges: Micro-level sabotage. Let’s be honest, some people would burn the future to win a petty feud. This is the everyday rot of #stupidindividualism, where narrow self-preservation and shallow ego become more important than collective progress.
Projects like #indymediaback, which depend on shared vision and mutual respect, break down when people refuse to grow beyond grudges. These behaviours reflect deeper cultural damage, we’ve been trained to see each other as threats, not collaborators. We can’t build anything real if we don’t actively mediate this. That means talking it through, holding space, calling it in, before it derails the work.
The liberal trap: Dogma masquerading as “common sense”. I’ll say something unfashionable, I have respect for old-school liberalism. It gave us social safety nets, education, some rights, a lot of good stuff came out of liberal traditions. But today’s dogmatic liberals, clinging to broken institutions and smearing “common sense” over radical action, are a drain on movement energy. Their default is always compromise, always moderation, even when the world is on fire. We’re stuck negotiating with people who believe the future is a reformed version of the past. It isn’t. We need to move forward, not beg to stay where we are.
The #geekproblem: Control, complexity, and disconnection. We’ve talked about this before, and it keeps coming up. The #geekproblem is when technologists build tools for control rather than empowerment, for complexity rather than access, for themselves rather than people. Often dressed in “neutral” language or “perfect systems,” these tools lock out users, deny social context, and kill collaboration with arrogant assumptions. The fix? Build for people, not machines. Use the #4opens. Work from #DIY practice, not just theory. Centre community. Make it work for the bottom, not the top.
The path we need is compost, this isn’t about perfection. We’ve all played roles in the mess. The key is naming it, owning it, and moving differently. Tools like #OMN, #indymediaback, and #OGB are not shiny new things. They’re grounded in lived practice, built to solve real problems. They don’t pretend to be magic fixes. But they are shovels, to compost the current mess, and grow something better.
We don’t need another app, another platform, another paper. We need to build trust-based networks, support each other, and get our hands dirty together. A humanistic, future is still possible, if we stop feeding the #deathcult and start feeding the soil.
Add yours: What Blocks the progressive path? We need to name these issues clearly, not to shame individuals, but to make them visible as systemic patterns we all get caught in. So tell me: what else is holding us back? What sabotages collective projects from within? Let’s document the patterns so we can start composting them.
There’s a common confusion, pushed by well-meaning #fashernistas, about how change actually happens. They love theory. They love to talk about change. But when it comes to doing, things go sideways. Why? Because good horizontalists know: theory must emerge from practice, not the other way around.
At the root of radical practice is #DIY culture. We don’t wait for perfect theory or academic approval. We get our hands dirty. We try things, we fail, we try again. Through this, we build theory that is grounded in reality, not floating above it.
The Problem with top-down theory is that when you start from theory alone, disconnected from lived experience, you go ground and round in abstract circles. Then, inevitably, someone tries to apply this neatly wrapped theoretical package as a “solution” to the mess we’re in… and it breaks everything.
At best, this leads to another layer of #techshit to compost. At worst, it becomes academic wank, beautifully phrased but practically useless, imposed on grassroots organisers trying to get real work done. We’re tired of clearing up after these failed interventions. Focus matters. Resources are scarce. Energy is precious. The practice-first approach, is why we’re doing something different with projects like:
#OMN (Open Media Network): building tools from the bottom up, with open metadata flows and radical trust.
#Indymediaback: rebooting a proven model of grassroots publishing that worked, updated for today.
#OGB (Open Governance Body): prototyping governance based on lived collaboration, not abstract debate.
All of this is theory grown from practice. None of it came from think tanks or grant-funded consultants. It came from kitchens, camps, squats, TAZs, mailing lists, and dirty hands. If you want to be part of this work, great. But please engage with it as it is. Bring your experience, your skills, your curiosity. But don’t dump disconnected theory on it. Don’t smother the flow with top-down frameworks or overthought abstractions.
We need people to join the flow of practice. Let the theory emerge where it’s needed, like compost, growing what feeds us. So: Start where your feet are. Build from what works. Trust the process of doing. And please, don’t push mess our way. We’ve got enough of that already.
