Tag: OGB

Let’s help people build grassroots communities in this fertile time for tech change and challenge

The #KISS framing of left and right as driven by emotional motivators—fear for the right and trust for the left—could be used as a simple, powerful tool to influence current #openweb paths and projects, especially amid the current pressures of #mainstreaming. By simplifying the underlying social dynamics, it helps cut through ideological complexities and focuses on the core emotional drivers behind decisions and structures. This will act as a guiding principle to shape how grassroots projects navigate the ongoing cycle of breakdown and renewal.

Trust is the foundation for collaboration, native projects in the openweb space thrive on trust-based collaboration. If we focus on this as a core value, we create affinity groups and networks that operate with openness, transparency, and a sense of shared purpose. This is in contrast to mainstream pressures that rely on fear-driven, control-oriented models (e.g., paywalls, exclusivity, or centralized decision-making). Practical Step, foster spaces where trust is built through process, a tool to cement this path in place. The focus on trust strengthens community bonds and keeps grassroots projects resilient against the constant “common sense” mainstream co-option.

We need to recognize fear-based structures so we can counter them. Mainstreaming pressures often introduce fear-driven structures (e.g., security concerns, exclusivity, monetization) under the guise of progress or sustainability. By identifying and naming these paths, grassroots people can resist the pull toward control-oriented paths and emphasize open, inclusive solutions. Practical Steps, analyses current openweb projects, identifying where fear-driven control mechanisms are creeping in. This could be as simple as asking, does this decision come from a place of trust or fear?

By using this simple path, affinity groups can form based on shared values, making it easier for people to align around common goals without getting bogged down by complex political debates. This grows organic collaboration and keeps the focus on productive action, rather than reactive division. Some practical first steps to take, would be trust building initiatives, for example creating open governance networks like the #OGB, and pushing for the wider use of FOSS tools. This approach can build momentum in the face of mainstreaming pressures.

Reclaiming the openweb path, the influx of mainstream people into the openweb reboot can feel overwhelming, but if grassroots projects focus on their native paths, they can create alternative spaces that resist the control-oriented, fear-based agenda as it tries to take root. By framing this struggle in emotional terms, it becomes easier to rally people around these #KISS ideas. A practical step is to frame this struggle not in terms of ideology but as a battle between fear and trust. People can easily grasp these emotional drivers, making the cause more relatable and less abstract. It becomes about protecting spaces of openness where people feel empowered, rather than driven by fear and control. And can help prevent paralysis in the face of complexity. Trust, openness, and collaboration should always be the focus, while fear, control, and exclusion should be recognized as threats to the native path.

Core to this is the creation of affinity groups around simple principles that are resistance to fear, crews that focus on pushing back against control-oriented features, especially in projects facing mainstreaming pressures. These groups can form the backbone of a renewed grassroots movement, even as the larger openweb undergoes changes. They can act as pillars of trust, providing stable spaces for experimentation and collaboration while resisting the fear-driven forces commercializing and enclose the commons. Let’s work together to help people build grassroots communities in this fertile time for tech change and challenge.

Fediverse, grassroots, native, trust, openness, and collaboration

One thing we really need to compost is the often invisible conflict between the native commons-based approach and the realities of capitalist infrastructure—particularly in how we fund, organize, and maintain spaces, for example #FediForum. It is hard to get across this invisible #blocking . The perspective, of ideological exclusion rather than the money itself being an issue, though of course it is. this captures a deeper issue about how certain approaches (like paywalls) alienate grassroots communities, even if the cost is minimal or scholarships are available.

We need to see the value in both native and #mainstreaming paths, the native path of the Fediverse and related #openweb movements grew organically from gift economies and volunteer-driven efforts. As did a lot of openweb work, including the ActivityPub standard, which was developed in such spaces, without the need for a paywall or corporate sponsorship. This ethos is central to the commons-building process, where trust, collaboration, and openness are valued more than monetization or statues in formal hard structures.

In the example of FediForum you can see contrast, mainstreaming, paywalls, closed applications, proprietary tools like Zoom and Eventbrite, etc. While they may argue that these tools and models are necessary to cover costs, they create barriers for those who have historically contributed to the commons, in this they are unthinkably enclosing, pushing these paths. The point that the paywall is an ideological barrier, not merely a financial one, is critical. For many in the grassroots community, the introduction of a paywall—even if it’s just $2 or $40—symbolizes a shift away from open, accessible organizing. It’s not just about affordability; it’s about how the space is structured and who it’s structured for.

Events organized without paywalls, based on voluntary contributions, have historically worked because they maintained a native, commons-based ethos. They relied on the trust and collaboration of participants, who donated time, energy, and resources to make things happen without needing to resort to gatekeeping mechanisms like paywalls. With this in mind, we need to try and move conversations that can so easily turn nasty and negative into building bridges, not undermining foundations. The solution lies in acknowledging the strengths of both paths, native and mainstreaming, and finding a way to link them, rather than blindly pushing for one path to dominate and enclose the other.

Actions for Bridge-Building: Ideas and actions for how we might approach this challenge pragmatically, without compromising on the core values of the native common’s path:

  • Transparent Linking: Start by linking to other paths. Our example FediForum can openly acknowledge and link to grassroots spaces like SocialHub, recognizing that both are part of the larger network. This small step would create a bridge rather than a division.
  • FOSS Infrastructure is absolutely basic. Push for the use of open-source alternatives to #dotcons tools like Zoom and Eventbrite. This could include tools we have successfully used before , BigBlueButton, Jitsi or other FOSS video conferencing platforms, alongside commons-based event platforms. Even if these tools mean volunteers agreeing to host, the ideological message is different: they are part of the #openweb rather than a concession to the #dotcons proprietary mess.
  • Open Scholarship Programs: While some financial costs are unavoidable, events could offer open, transparent scholarship programs, as FediForum did at the first event, not just token offerings but significant pathways for those in the grassroots to attend for free. This can help balance the ideological exclusion of paywalls.
  • Co-organization with Grassroots: Instead of the mainstreaming path of dominating, events really need to engage in co-organization with grassroots communities, ensuring a balance of perspectives. The #OGB would help this issue, as for example, fediforum could be an affiliate stakeholder. This would be a step toward more commons-based governance and event management.
  • Decentralized Organizing Models: An option (am this is NOT compulsory) would be to take a cue from successful decentralized networks like the Fediverse itself, where governance and organizing can be shared across multiple nodes. In our example, FediForum could adopt a more structurally decentralized organizing model, where grassroots actors have a say in how the event is structured, funded, and run.

What we are talking about here is recognizing different realities, yes we do live in capitalist societies, and sometimes the realities of funding and infrastructure cannot be ignored. However, recognizing this doesn’t mean fully conceding to the #mainstreaming path. Instead, there can be a balance where the native commons ethos is preserved while finding sustainable ways to support events and initiatives. This is actually how the THING we are talking about was originally built, this is what I am calling “native”.

The commons-based path is not simply about ideals; it’s about creating structures that are inclusive, accessible, and genuinely collaborative. While mainstream forces may argue for pragmatism (paywalls, proprietary tools), we do need to push back for a #KISS solution, transparent linking and FOSS tools, offers a simple yet profound bridge. This is how we can grow diversity and ensure that the Fediverse remains a grassroots, native space where trust, openness, and collaboration thrive.

Let’s try a #fluffy path:

An important point about the invisible barriers that people face, which aren’t always immediately understood by others involved in conversation like this. For many grassroots contributors, the imposition of a paywall feels like an act of enclosure, a kind of taking of space that they had a hand in building. This is often not visible to those who approach these events from a more #mainstreaming or #NGO mindset.

To address this “invisible problem” We need to keep emphasizing the importance of recognizing this divide, not as an attack but as an opportunity for mutual understanding. The more people on the mainstreaming path can see how their actions might be excluding core contributors, the more likely bridges can be built. Encourage people to step into the shoes of those who feel excluded, and help them understand that this isn’t just about access or money—it’s about respecting the ethos and history of the movement.

The #mainstreaming is always filled with imperialism, we need to mediate this mess making

The imperialism visible in FediForum is a part of the broader critique of the culture surrounding it, that can help to highlight a core issue in the evolution of the openweb and grassroots activism: the tension between #mainstreaming (enclosure) and grassroots commons (open, decentralized commons paths).

The Cultural Divide, the culture around FediForum is #NGO and #liberal, #dotcons-friendly, a path that tends to centralize control and enclosure, even in discussions about decentralization. The use of #closedsource tools like Zoom and Eventbrite highlights this contradiction. This cultural divide is significant, grassroots communities, including those on SocialHub, reject participation in spaces dominated by tools and processes that contradict the values. While this isn’t necessarily about whether the individuals involved are “good or bad,” it’s crucial to acknowledge the cultural influence of #NGO and corporate models, that seek to enclose and professionalize what should remain a grassroots, commons-based path, we need to do this so as not to simply end up enclosing the commons in ignorant “common sense” paths. Now that’s a mouth twister 😉

Lack of a Bridge, suggests a commons-oriented solution—a bridge between these two cultural approaches through transparent linking and collaboration between different projects (e.g., FediForum and SocialHub) which would respect the decentralized nature of the #openweb. I personally talk to them about this at the first event, unfortunately, this advice was ignored, and the #NGO path continued, leading to the ideological exclusion of grassroots participants who have been building the Fediverse and the openweb for years at this paywalled event


The is useful to highlight what for meany people is an invisible, thus unimportant divide:

Applying the framework is a helpful way to assess the project’s alignment with the openweb’s foundational values. Here’s a quick DRAFT breakdown of how FediForum fares:

Open Data: They are somewhat open, using Creative Commons licenses and publishing event videos openly, but the paywall during the events limits input and participation, reducing the openness. Partial TICK.

Open Source: The CMS might be FOSS, but the reliance on closed-source platforms for the events themselves (Zoom, Eventbrite) contradicts the open-source ethos. Half TICK or none.

Open Industrial Standards: Limited to some RSS feeds, but the integration of proprietary platforms makes it hard to give full credit here. No TICK.

Open Process: Organizing is closed, with paywalled events, though the unconference format allows for more open discussions. However, the ideological closure to many grassroots participants remains. Half TICK.

At best, this makes FediForum a bronze project with significant room for improvement. At worst, it’s not aligned with the , thus the #openweb at all.

Moving Forward, what’s missing is a mediation space where these different paths can intersect without one side dominating the other. This space could look like the #OGB with each participant being an affiliate stakeholder https://unite.openworlds.info/Open-Media-Network/openwebgovernancebody

The path that keeps “commons” open is activism, which is about making it hard for these values to be ignored. In this case, we could start this by pushing for the adoption of simple steps like linking and transparency (#KISS). This can begin to rebuild bridges that better reflects the diverse contributions of all involved, without closing doors on those who helped build it in the first place.

We need to build more bridges

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).

Oligarchy, Monarchy, and the Future of Governance of the #OpenWeb

The governance model of the Social Web Foundation (#SWF) aligns with oligarchy, where power is concentrated in the hands of a few, echoing the structures of monarchy normally seen within the broader #FOSS movement. Both oligarchic and monarchic may work for some traditional organizations, but they are not native to the organic, decentralized ethos of the #openweb, which has always been more anarchic in its path.

As we reboot the #openweb to resist and mediate the encroachment of corporate #dotcons, we need a governance path that is native to our space of fluid, decentralized movement. For this, we have been developing the Open Governance Body (#OGB) as a native tech and social solution, rooted in the same principles of federation that power the #Fediverse. It’s designed to be permissionless, allowing seamless adoption across platforms, enabling a truly open and resilient network that resists centralized control that is so strongly pushing into this #reboot.

The Fediverse dilemma is efficiency vs. values. Some people argue that the Fediverse isn’t “efficient” or capable of “capturing market share” like big tech platforms. While scalability and usability are important, it’s crucial to remember that the Fediverse’s success comes not from corporate metrics like profit margins or user acquisition, but from grassroots movements, affinity groups, and real needs. The challenge lies in creative “stitching”, in building networks that scale while maintaining the core values of openness, decentralization, and permissionlessness.

Big tech’s model is horribly efficient at addiction and control, but at the loss of community, autonomy, and creativity. We don’t need to replicate their model. Instead, we #KISS focus on the values that make the #openweb unique: cooperation, shared governance, and, most importantly, people’s agency.

Why OGB and OMN Matter, the Open Governance Body (#OGB) is built from decades of activist organizing, and like the #OMN (Open Media Network), it’s designed for the public good. Both projects are rooted in the belief that we already have working models, proven over 200 years of social activism—that can guide us in building alternative tech solutions to resist the corrosive influence of corporate power

If you’re interested in how we can compost the current tech mess, have a read about the concepts of #composting on this site and learn more about the #OGB and #OMN. We can’t keep creating the same #techshit mess, by understanding these alternative paths can we walk together, a path toward a truly #openweb that is so needed in this era of #climatechaos

How to think about governance https://lovergine.com/foss-governance-and-sustainability-in-the-third-millennium.html

The metaphor of cat herding

The metaphor of cat herding is a useful and fitting when working with decentralized, independent actors who are resistant to collective action, especially in grassroots tech and activist communities. It reflects the challenge of getting people to focus, organize, and work toward common goals without losing their autonomy or devolving into chaos.

With projects like #OMN and the broader #openweb movement, this “cat behavior” is part of the problem, people (especially in the tech and activist communities) are often independent to a fault. Many resist structure, preferring to focus on their individual projects without acknowledging the necessity for governance and collaboration. It’s not enough to be open; without some kind of balance, “open” becomes vulnerable to co-option by corporate interests with #mainstreaming or at the grassroots paralysed by fragmentation.

Let’s look at some examples of balancing the “Common Sense” #mainstreaming mess:

The term #socialweb is a perfect example of an inadequate framing. It doesn’t hold the critical, oppositional power needed to counter the problems caused by mainstream platforms and narratives. The #openweb, clarified through the , offers a path to activism that balances the inevitable co-option by corporations and the path of NGOs like the #SWF (Social Web Foundation). But this balance only works if we acknowledge the simple reality: that both grassroots actors and corporations have access to these spaces.

The invisible power of #FOSS is another key aspect here. The foundation of corporate tech stacks is built on open-source projects, yet the social and political value of this is lost on many people who don’t see beyond the technical aspects. The same applies to the #geekproblem, which ties directly into the cat-herding analogy—people in the geek world to often miss the bigger picture and the need for broader, political engagement beyond coding or individual technical projects.

Cats vs. Humans in Governance

When grassroots movements fail to build their own governance structures, external actors step in. This is where NGOs or other “grown-up humans” take over. They come in to “pet the cats”—offering bowls of food and the “safety”, and the control of care, but ultimately exerting direction over a process that needs to be native, organic and grassroots-driven. This infantilises the community, pacifying it rather than empowering it.

The problem is that the “cats” let this happen because they are incapable of building the structures necessary to avoid it. If we don’t step up with human solutions, if we don’t create governance models that fit our ideals, we’re always losing control to external forces that don’t share our values and paths.

It’s beyond urgent to move from cat behaviour to human solutions, we are in an era of #climatechaos, where incrementalism and complacency are paths we can no longer take. We can’t keep trying to herd cats who refuse to collaborate on meaningful, systemic change. Instead, we need humans who can engage with the mess we’ve made and work together to clean it up.

To make this move from cat behaviour to human solutions:

  • Build Native Governance: Grassroots projects need to establish their own governance from the start. This avoids outsiders stepping in and co-opting the movement. The #OGB is a solid step in this direction.
  • Clarify Language and Values: Words like #socialweb lack the critical edge to inspire action. Framing like #openweb and make the values explicit and point to the political and social power of the alternative we’re built.
  • Acknowledge Power Dynamics: Open means open for everyone, including corporations. But grassroots actors need to reclaim the open spaces they helped create rather than let these be dominated by corporate inflowing interests. Balance can only come from political awareness and active mediation.
  • Move Beyond Individualism: The metaphor of herding cats also speaks to the issue of #stupidindividualism. We need to get beyond this and rebuild collectives, focusing on shared governance and goals rather than isolated actions.
  • Challenge Corporate Co-Option: Just as #FOSS underpins corporate tech, we need to build movements that are resilient to corporate takeover. This involves structures and cultural values that resist domination and control.

It should not need to be repeated so often, the shift we need is cultural as much as it is technical. We can’t keep going down paths we know do not work and only lead us back to the current mess. We need to rethink what it means to be part of a collective and how to build governance that reflects our values, instead of relying on outside forces to define them for us #KISS

PS. I am thinking this could get messy, we need shovels #OMN

The path out of this mess is in part social tech, we need to build this path

The current path of distraction’s and #stupidindividualism push the cycle of pointless noise that is feeding into our inability to focus on real change. People are busy, swept up in these distractions, and pointless pursuits to be the change and challenge they need to be. It’s a cycle of complacency with a bad outcome. Agitation, anger, and disturbance are powerful motivators, but we need to focus into something meaningful, to avoid drowning in the noise, we need to focus on what’s actually going on. But, in this mess, how do we push people to grow up and focus without falling into the trap of more #blocking or just offering more distractions or ‘better bling’?

The answer is simple and #KISS, by recreating collectives. We’ve seen first hand how hyper individualism (#stupidindividualism) isolates people, leaving them powerless against larger systemic issues. Rebuilding real, engaged, and active communities is key. Movements like #OMN, #OGB, #indymediaback, and are examples of initiatives that become the change and challenge we need. These projects draw from undercurrents of ideas that we know work, combining them with the best of #openweb tech to grow from small seeds into real change.

But it’s also essential to dig at the roots of the mess: #pomo (#postmodernism) and the #deathcult (#neoliberalism), ideologies that have shaped the mess we’re in, cynicism and cutting off collective alternatives. If we don’t address these root issues, they will keep returning, and we’ll remain stuck in the same cycles of decay.

The #geekproblem is real, it’s the problem of domination and control born out of geek culture shaped by “common sense” paths. Look at the decline of the #dotcons like #failbook and Google, where #fashionista optimism gave way to corporate greed. Then look at early days of #openweb projects like #couchsurfing and #indymedia, we had healthy, thriving native cultures that weren’t obsessed with control. The key is to recognize what went wrong and build on a path that doesn’t repeat those mistakes.

What the #dotcons think the future is, from meta

The challenge is that many within geek culture can’t see the value of projects like #OMN, as it exists outside their narrow, “common sense” world-views. We need to help people see beyond the obvious, look for non-mainstream alternatives, and recognize that the solutions aren’t in the corporate web but in the decentralized, open spaces, commons, we create ourselves.

Now is the time to reboot our own media and to be wary of #fashionista agendas that hijack and dilute the change we need. The way forward is messy, organic, and rooted in collective action. What we can do:

  • Agitate and Disturb: Use media, art, and culture to push people out of their comfort zones and make them question the status quo. The hashtag story is a tool to do this.
  • Build Collectives: Recreate spaces where people can work together meaningfully, paths that empower communities to balance the current #stupidindividualism. The OMN are projects for this.
  • Focus on the Roots: Don’t only address symptoms, dig deep into the core ideologies that keep returning and haunting us, like #pomo and the #deathcult. This website is a tool for this
  • Reboot Media: We need to take back control of our media, using open technology to create alternatives that aren’t based on capitalist greed but on #KISS shared values. There is a native project for this indymediaback
  • Stay Wary of Distractions: Resist the temptation of ‘better bling.’ The solution is not to make the distractions shinier, but to focus on what matters.

The path out of this mess is in part social tech, which we need to build. It’s time to grow up, pay attention, and start building the world we actually want to live in. A shovel is need to compost the current mess #OMN. But I don’t have the focus to do this, we need a crew.

The key part of this is WHO decides, this is a political and democratic issue, not a tech “problem” we need to build with this strongly in mind.

What am I doing now?

People ask, so It’s good to remind my self about this, my journey of working to compost this mess goes back a long way, as you can see from the snapshots of history I’ve written about here: https://hamishcampbell.com/?s=history. It’s a light touch on nearly 30 years of work. It all started with the Sinclair Spectrum, where I was part of a development team working on games and applications. I was also one of the first wave of users of the #WWW when it arrived at the computer centre in Oxford. For the last two decades, I’ve been at the heart of grassroots #openweb activism, working on countless projects—some flourished, many did not.

Ten years ago, I bought a lifeboat and sailed away, attempting to step back from the endless noise. But, as the world is round, I’ve come full circle and find myself back in the fray. And yes, it’s still a mess.

It’s important to keep asking questions, and one that comes up often is, “What are you doing now?” It’s easy to list the things I’ve done, but what’s happening right now? Currently, I’m in conversations with people about responsibility within the #openweb, though I’m not sure how much is really being heard. Still, it’s worth trying.

Where do you see the opportunity for these dialogues

In practical terms, all the recent projects I’ve worked on are on standby for now. The most relevant one to this #SocialWebFoundation conversation is the #OGB (Open Governance Body), which you can learn more about here: https://unite.openworlds.info/Open-Media-Network/openwebgovernancebody. The quotes from this project remain telling, especially in light of today’s struggles: https://hamishcampbell.com/corporate-presence-in-the-fediverse/, deeply relevant as we discuss the corporate encroachments we face today.

On the personal side, I’m fitting out a bigger lifeboat. If we keep making this mess, we may all end up needing one to survive the tide of #climatechaos. As for tech, maybe I’m entering the grumpy old man stage, but I increasingly feel that the next generation should stop creating more #techshit. It’s time for shovels and composting—the messy, necessary work of turning the rot into fertile ground for something better.

On the subject: We talked about this here, What would a fediverse “governance” body look like? And then here Working and thinking on “native” #openweb aproches to governance and agen here where the conversation goes off the rails OGB Means Open Governance Body

A video on the ogb project that came out of us outreaching AP to the EU, the last time we did manage to herd the “cats” for a good outcome.

OGB video

This is a “native” path that we know will work to both empower “us” and disempower “them” it’s easy and simple and native.

The #SWF would have a voice, they simply become an affiliate stakeholder, like meany others.

I don’t have the focus to push this any more, so it will need a crew.

The conversation continues here

Where do you see the opportunity for these dialogues

The current path in “governance” of the #Fediverse is a few people and money, where other people live and create the value of our native #openweb path. This is oligarchy at best, if you think about this, is this what we won’t? How can we, actuary, tell what we won’t, if not what can we do about this?

A critical issue with #SocialWebFoundation is that they’re avoiding real change and challenge, which by default leads to a “safe path” of the commercialization of the #Fediverse. This #NGO path is about keeping a seat at the table, but history tells us it is always unproductive without engaging in deeper structural shifts.

The current lack of user and admin representation on the SWF board clearly signals elitism, which diminishes the collaborative, grassroots potential for native decentralized networks of “governance”. Which without this, we move to a corporate entrenchment rather than fostering the liberating potential of the #openweb we have spent the last 5 years building.

One potential solution is embracing #openprocess, backed by activism, as a way forward. While it may be an uncomfortable path for the wannabe establishment, this path is necessary to preserve the integrity of decentralized platforms and our reboot in the openweb space. Open governance and participatory, maintain transparency and avoid the top-down elitist structures currently being reinforced by the “common sense” #NGO default being imposed.

To start this conversation, we could actively push for deeper community engagement, cultivating dialogues around representation, and organizing inclusive spaces where server admins, users, and activists can voice concerns and meaningfully influence decision-making processes. However, a key challenge lies in whether it’s even worth pushing this path, as many within the establishment will block any understanding or discussion about the need for such structural shifts.

It’s worth reflecting on how many early #dotcons initially tried to be #openweb native, but found it impossible to reconcile with the profit-driven structures of dotcons. The same is happening now, and it’s important to ask: Can we forge a better path this time around? Clearly, the NGO-driven model isn’t the answer. Exploring frameworks like the #OGB (Open Governance Body) would provide a more transparent, accountable, and community-driven alternative, avoiding the pitfalls we’ve seen before.

You can find more details about the OGB here: Open Governance Body (OGB).

Question, where do you see the best opportunity to initiate these dialogues and get past the resistance to real change to walk the path we acturly are walking.

We need to compost, meany of the replies to these subjects as they often exemplify the #stupidindividualism that plagues conversations. Instead of engaging in collective, systemic thinking, people fall back on dismissive, reactionary attitudes: “I’ll wait and see,” or “If they mess up, I’ll just ignore them.” This approach sidesteps the responsibility we have to shape the #Fediverse and #openweb decentralized networks. It’s not about waiting for corporations like #Meta to make a move or some #NGO driven entity to fail, it’s about organizing from the ground up and mediating these incursions before they can set deep roots.

I use the hashtag #stupidindividualism as it illustrates what the “ignoring” means, that damage has already been done. Once corporate influence is in place, it’s harder to reclaim grassroots paths, which is why we need collective action now, not after bad decisions have been made. The “I’ll just ignore them if I don’t like it” mindset is dangerously passive, and has a very bad history. It’s not good to hope the right decisions will be made by those in power while reserving judgment until it’s too late.

The #fediverse was never meant to bow unquestioned to the corporate agenda or chase explosive growth at the expense of native paths. The focus needs to be on building a diverse, sustainable, and resilient ecosystem from the bottom up. In this we can’t afford to stand by, waiting for others to decide our fate, if we do, we’ll end up entangled in the same corporate mess the #openweb was originally meant to avoid. If you have any thought, the time to act on this was yesterday, not keeping watching from the sidelines.

Please try not to be a prat about this, thanks.

Corporate presence in the Fediverse?

The announcement from the #SocialWebFoundation is a corporate vision rather than something native, grassroots or revolutionary. Describing people as “users” who follow “influencers and brands” is a social mess, the commercialized, top-down paths that clash with the of collaboration, activism, and mutual aid path we build. On its current path this is a delusional dream from corporate America trying to coopt the network we built from community, solidarity and radical change. On the #mainstreaming #NGO current path this is not the kind of project to engage with or be a part of building, we do not won’t a space dominated by brands and influencers, it isn’t the future anyone actually wants or needs.

On mainstream paths, there is an unspoken disconnect between “volunteerism”, philanthropy, and “entrepreneurship” in the paths #opensource and decentralized tech people take. In #FOSS when people contribute their time and skills, there’s an assumption that their work is for the public good, but many are actually hoping for recognition or a way to generate financial stability. It’s not a contradiction to expect support for work that holds social value, though when this manifests as “entrepreneurship” we see the #deathcult path, underlining expectation for funding and sustainability. This is a hard path to tread and stay “native” to the #openweb

This ties into the mess with philanthropy and funding. For initiatives to gain traction and financial support, they need a compelling story, but many in the #FOSS and #fediverse communities struggle with this social storytelling part. They underestimate how few people aligned with their “native” vision, and how difficult it is to convey, outreach, the non-mainstream paths to a broader audience and the people who hold the money. The concept of “sustainability” for organizations becomes convoluted, with an overemphasis on replicating “common sense” venture capital models. It’s a mess that philanthropic groups have significant resources but fail in distributing them meaningfully, focusing instead on mimicking pointless tech startup mess. This is very likely a problem with #SocialWebFoundation path, the question is how to mediate this, for better outcomes.

This tension between grassroots movements, the expectations of funding, and the structural constraints of both the tech and non-profit paths. An example of this is the #NLnet and #EU tech funding fits this conversation of how philanthropy and volunteerism fail to mix due to flawed execution and basic storytelling problems on all sides.

More of my thinking on this https://hamishcampbell.com/?s=funding It’s hard to find a path to mediate, especially with the growing corporate presence in our #openweb spaces like the Fediverse. Ideas please?

UPDATE: its very #mainstreaming As the open social web grows, a new nonprofit looks to expand the ‘fediverse’ | TechCrunch

Some quotes from my prier work:

“Power only understands power, so, we might need something that looks like “power” without all the power politics that involves… this is bluesky thinking to this end. If #activertypub is taken up by the #dotcons this WILL BE IMPOSED ON US anyway.”

“its trying to think outside this traditional path, so we think BEFORE we inevitably go down it this kinda crap path.”

“As I said here in the end this will be IMPOSED as a governance model dressed in “community clothes” if we do not build something else with dancing elephants and paper planes.”

“Our current working models of “governance” in open-source projects are Monarchy (the dictator for life), Aristocracy (the devs), oligarchy (the NGO, funders) and finally way out on the edge Democracy (the users).” This above is a move from current feudalism to NGO, the funders.

“…all the existing power structures BEFORE Democracy. As we are “permissionless” we can’t stop them from doing this. We just have to do better, and being native to the fedivers is a big help here.”

“Power… in the Fediverse path comes from different places than a corporation, a government, courts, police etc. we need to think and build with this difference and NOT try and drag the Fediverse back to the normal path. REMEMBER, the Fediverse works BECAUSE it’s different. It’s easy to forget this important thing when #mainstreaming agender, grab and hold.”

#OGB “It’s the correct word Governance – Wikipedia “Governance is the way rules, norms and actions are structured, sustained, regulated and held accountable”

“Yep, the liberal foundation model will be forced onto us if the Fediverse is taken up buy large Burocratic orgs like the #EU and yes there will be a fig leaf of “democracy” placed over the self-selecting oligarchy that will be put into place by “power politics” that this path embeds. Yes this path is the default outcome.”

Likely more…

Peoples views:

https://flamedfury.com/posts/a-social-web

https://bix.blog/posts/holy-hell-the-social-web-did-not-begin-in-2008

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41644267

https://lemmy.world/post/20160202

Opening a space to build alternatives #OMN

The mainstream internet, #dotcons, seduces us with dopamine hits, saps our creativity, and turn us into sad, noisy, powerless complainers. It steals our time with endless distractions, buries the pathways that lead to real change, and, in the end, empties our wallets.

We do need to stress how ingrained the #deathcult mentality has become. After decades of #neoliberal ideology, people have internalized the “no alternative” mindset, making it difficult to embrace radical solutions. Moving public opinion, especially outside the #dotcons bubble, requires patience and strategic optimism. It’s frustrating when potential allies focus too much on tearing things down instead of building up new, relevant/radical paths.

How do you think we can inspire collaborative and hopeful action movements, without them getting lost in the negativity?

There is a visible to some/invisible to meany split between isolationists and communicators in decentralized tech. This, if you can see it, highlights a tension that exists in these spaces: the drive for autonomy versus the desire to connect and build community. The isolationists tend to come from a place of distrust—towards government, society, and even other people, while the communicators are motivated by collaboration and the desire for the balance of freedom without “control”. This is from’ish this thread

To build a community of positive-minded, collaborative people around decentralized technology, it might help to frame it with a focus on inclusivity and openness, rather than a dogmatic political alignment. Positioning the project as radically progressive and inclusive can attract those who share ethical values without alienating people who might not identify with specific left-leaning ideologies, but do align with collectivism paths and community-building to make these paths real.

What can help build a project native to this, like the #OMN? We start with clear, shared values, like the then build these into strong myths and traditions, inclusive, mutual aid, transparency, and collaboration to hold the path, no matter how messy it gets. This might help to grow an affinity group of action to draw in, by holding the space open, people who want to contribute positively and filter out those who don’t share those #KISS goals.

Decentralized, communal governance, like the #OGB is a path to empower communities to moderate a healthy and welcoming space. Decentralized decision-making allows more voices to be heard and helps to mediate conflicts before they become toxic. This distributing power and responsibility, to build open, curated discussions and ensure these remain constructive and don’t descend into conspiracy and extremism. Yes, make it clear that free speech is valued, but the community is not tolerate of hate speech and fascist ideologies. On this native path various approaches and ideas, coexist in collaboration and messiness, a path to avoid dogmatism and the mess that ideological purity can so easily spread.

To build this we can use existing networks, the #fediverse is a great example of how decentralized tech work to scale, a good place to draw inspiration, an example of community building, moderation practices, and fostering healthy interactions. We can start with highlighting successful models of cooperation and interdependence that try and resolve conflicts organically.

The challenges are real, especially in keeping out toxic elements without being authoritarian or losing the balance of openness. By focusing on shared, values and building a community where contributions are judged by their alignment with the collective goals rather than personal politics, you create a space that encourages progressive ideas that fosters a sense of solidarity.

This is a real path to open a space to build alternatives #OMN

Stop complaining. Just step away to help build the alternative #OMN

#openweb #dotcons #techshit

The Panthers’ slogan “Power to the People” resonates on the #openweb

A forum thread on socialhub brought up a powerful parallel between the radical demands of the Black Panther Party (#BPP) and the underlying values of the #fediverse and #activitypub communities, especially in their attempts to build outside the corporate-controlled paths. The metaphor is striking because both seek liberation, self-determination, and the creation of alternatives to oppressive systems.

  1. Freedom and self-determination, the #BPP’s call for freedom to determine their community’s paths, has a native overlap to the motivations behind the fediverse, which is a path to free people from #dotcons corporate control. This empowering of people to manage their communities, and engage in social media on their own terms, much like the BPP sought to control their community’s political and social future. But there is a problem, this self-determination is undermined by the “narrow and intolerant” behaviour, in the fediverse communities which are still shaped by power dynamics, gatekeeping, and elitism. Much like the BPP’s fight against internal and external forces, we need to challenge invisible embedded paths in tech spaces.
  2. Ending exploitation and economic Injustice, the BPP’s demand to end capitalist robbery mirrors the desire within the fediverse to reject the exploitative model of #dotcons, profiting off users’ data, labour, and attention. Projects like #Mastodon and the wider #openweb reboot offer an alternative that resists the centralization, monetization and control of user information. Yet, despite this anti-capitalist ethos, there’s still a tendency for devs and leaders in these communities to pursue funding, recognition and status that mimics the capitalist incentives of the #dotcons. The challenge is to remain vigilant about how easily a “safe” or “open” community can be co-opted by external economic pressures, just as the Panthers struggled to protect their movement from state infiltration and capitalist influence.
  3. Housing, education, and technology as commons, the BPP’s demands for housing and education highlight their belief in basic human rights, which could be translated into the tech metaphor as the right to access technology and information as commons. The represent this principle, ensuring that tools, processes, and knowledge remain transparent and accessible. It’s about creating “decent housing” for digital life and an “education” that uncovers the true nature of our technological paths. The struggle, many open communities drift toward becoming insular, where the tools and education are not readily accessible to newcomers. It requires more effort to lower the barriers and broaden participation beyond the #geekproblem to genuinely serve as commons, much like the Panthers sought to broaden political education beyond academic elites.
  4. Community defense and police brutality, the Panthers’ emphasis on ending police brutality and defending their community aligns with the need for safe spaces in the digital world, spaces free from corporate surveillance, trolling, and abuse. In the fediverse, moderation and safety tools resemble a kind of “community defense” against harmful actors, trying to keep the space healthy and productive. This policing of communities within the fediverse can take a rigid, intolerant form, which creates an exclusionary culture where non #mainstreaming voices are marginalized. Just as the Panthers sought accountability and fairness in how their communities were policed, Fediverse communities need more humane and community-led governance models, like #OGB, to avoid replicating the authoritarian systems they’re fighting against.
  5. Radical ideals vs. narrow paths, both the BPP and the fediverse, in their own ways, strive for radical change, whether it’s systemic racial justice or the liberation of the internet from corporate interests. But both face the dilemma of narrow paths, in the BPP’s case, the movement’s radical vision was met with state repression, which forced them into narrower, defensive stances. In the fediverse, the movement for open, decentralized media is constrained by internal divisions, ideological rigidity, and an intolerance of diverse views. The key here is not to narrow the vision to protect it, but to expand it, making space for more people and voices. This means mediating conflicts through trust and transparency, rather than exclusion and elitism, a struggle shared by both the BPP and the #openweb movement.
  6. The path forward, to “compost the mess” in the fediverse, we need to apply some of the same principles the BPP fought for, building movements that are rooted in collective empowerment, community defence, and transparent, accountable governance. This means, challenging the internal hierarchies that mirror the social structures we’re resisting. Expanding participation and avoiding the elitism and exclusionary paths that choke out growth. Emphasizing practical tools (like #OGB and ) to manage conflicts, maintain openness, and ensure the tech commons remains genuinely for the people.

Looking at the #BPP’s history, we see both a radical vision and the internal/external challenges that can derail a movement. The fediverse can learn from this, the threat to its growth isn’t just external corporate forces, but the narrow, rigid paths it sometimes enforces within. To stay on the “native” path of liberation, it has to embrace messiness, diversity, and openness. The Panthers’ slogan “Power to the People” resonates deeply here, digital power should truly belong to the people, not gatekeepers.