It’s good to see more people turning their focus back to the #openweb. But for the past five years of the #reboot we’ve been distracted in a signal-to-noise mess from the #fashionistas. That waisted time needs to be over, we need to start looking clearly at both internal rot and the external threats.
A good first step to this is in balancing the realisation that we actually have far more direct power to deal with the internal mess than we do over the external #dotcons and their #closedweb “common sense” colonialisation. That’s why we need to put activism into composting the internal #blocking (see: https://hamishcampbell.com/?s=compost). Composting isn’t just a metaphor – it’s a way to recycle the piles of #techshit we’ve built up into soil that can grow new #openweb seeds we need to cultivate.
I understand the normal focus on the external #dotcons, yes, we need to balance this to keep pushing back against the external enclosures. But inside our own spaces, it’s clear that possessiveness, in code, in reputation, in control over projects, undermines cooperation and destroys trust. It wastes resources, it corrodes integrity – People often destroy what they love, not out of hate, but out of possession.
The lesson is simple: compost the blocking, keep the seeds alive, and make space for growth.
What can you do? Use the compost metaphors (#techshit, seeds, soil) into accessible non-branded messaging that sticks. You can help with editing to transform the long posts into shareable, short-form content for Mastodon, Fediverse, and allied networks.
Help is needed in curating and organizing existing #OMN writings into a structured wiki-style knowledge base. To build summaries, FAQs, and primers for newcomers who hit the projects cold. We need draft “composting guides” – how to deal with #blocking, #fashionistas, and #geekproblem inside communities. Moving this simple documentation to the Unite Forge and other new #OMN tools. Helping draft roadmaps that explain what’s built, what’s missing, and what needs contributors. Producing explainers on why #OMN is different from #dotcons and #NGO capture, why being grounded in #4opens matters.
Write out templates for horizontal decision-making (#OGB style) that projects can adapt. Suggest practical ways to “compost” blockers while keeping the wider network fertile. Help draft neticate rooted in #KISS + #4opens rather than #NGO-speak.
Each of these can be grown into living resources: wiki pages, blog posts, shareable guides, or activist toolkits – depending on where you want the energy to flow.
The geek answer (bad faith or blindness): “If only everyone learned to code, then society would be fairer.”
The activist answer: Code is part of the landscape, but culture, governance, and lived practice matter more. We don’t escape domination by teaching more people to type commands, we escape by changing what we do together with the tools.
Why “teach everyone to code” has become a dead-end slogan – it’s been tried, it’s been funded, and yet it hasn’t shifted power one bit. If anything, it’s reinforced the tech priesthood instead of breaking it.
The #geekproblem is exactly this blindness: geeks mistake tools for culture, skill for power, and training for change. They can’t see that the last 20 years of “learn to code” projects have failed precisely because they sidestep politics, trust, and social fabric. It’s comfortable, because it keeps power where it already is.
So, coding literacy might be useful, but it’s not transformative without social literacy – trust, collective governance, open processes. The real activist social tech path is to compost geek mess-making and build alt-cultures where tools serve the collective, not the priesthood.
Otherwise, “coding for all” is another flavour of #blocking – keeping us stuck, distracted, and blind. This is a useful example of the blinded #geekproblem. I use the word blinded to illustrate that people can’t see the sense in front of their faces. And I use the hashtag #blocking to show the outcome of this common “sense” blindness #KISS
Coding is not automatically social power, but in some contexts it does act as power, and understanding when/why helps unpack the #geekproblem.
When coding is not power
Most coding done in industry is low-level labour: writing scripts, fixing bugs, maintaining old systems. These programmers aren’t powerful; they’re workers. Their code serves capital.
Teaching kids to code (“everyone can make an app!”) rarely translates to actual power, because the infrastructure, distribution, and governance of platforms remain controlled by corporations.
Coding on its own doesn’t equal voice. A line of code in a corporate repo is no more socially powerful than a line in a personal diary if the person coding has no agency over how it’s used.
When coding is power
Coding becomes power when it bridges infrastructure + governance + culture.
Building #openweb infrastructure: If you can write the protocols or standards (e.g. ActivityPub, TCP/IP), you shape the possibilities for everyone downstream. That’s a kind of structural power.
Gatekeeping: If you control the codebase of a popular project, you can decide what features exist, whose contributions get merged, and which voices are excluded. This is soft but real power.
Automation and scale: Writing code that automates tasks (e.g. bots, algorithms, moderation tools) gives leverage over many people’s experience, especially when hidden in the background.
Narrative + legitimacy: In activist or grassroots spaces, coders too often get treated as “high priests” because they appear to have magical abilities others lack. This cultural framing inflates their social weight.
Coders confuse technical power with social change. They think: “If I can write the tool, I can fix the politics.” But tools reflect cultures. Without collective governance, tools just reproduce existing hierarchies.
The illusion of inevitability: because software underpins modern life, geeks assume society must organize around them. That blindness is what we’re pointing to.
When geeks push “everyone must code” as the path, they miss that most people don’t need to code to have power, they need agency in decision-making and trust networks.
How it really works (coding + social power)
Coding has power when embedded in movements that control their infrastructure. Example: early #Indymedia coders had real social power because their code directly enabled publishing outside corporate media – and at the start they were accountable to activist collectives.
Coding has power when it’s used to mediate flows of attention, trust, and resources. For example, algorithms that boost or bury voices. In grassroots hands, that can be liberatory; in corporate hands, it’s oppressive.
Coding becomes shared power when it is paired with open process (#4opens), shared governance (#OGB), and cultural literacy. Otherwise, it’s generally more priesthood, likely for the #deatcult in the end.
So: coding is like fire. On its own, it’s just heat and light. In the hands of a few, it’s a weapon or a fortress. In the commons, with shared tending, it’s the hearth – collective power.
To recap, coding as social power: Myth vs Reality
Myth 1: Coding = empowerment We’ve been told that “if everyone learns to code, everyone will have power.” Twenty years of coding bootcamps, “learn to code” initiatives, and school programs prove otherwise. Most of this simply trains people to slot into corporate pipelines. The power stays where it always was.
Reality: Coding on its own is labour, not empowerment. The infrastructure, governance, and distribution layers decide where the power flows. Without culture and collective governance, coding is just fuel for someone else’s engine.
Myth 2: Coding makes you special Coders often act like priests, holding secret knowledge. In activist spaces, this creates the illusion that coders alone can “save” or “lead.” That’s the #geekproblem in action.
Reality: Tools are only as powerful as the cultures and processes around them. A coder without collective accountability is just another gatekeeper. A coder inside a collective, with open governance (#4opens, #OGB), can help shift power outward.
Myth 3: Coding will fix politics The geek fantasy: “If I build the right app, the politics will fix itself.” We’ve seen this with countless “alternative platforms” that end up reproducing the same hierarchies.
Reality: Politics is culture, trust, and process. Code can mediate, amplify, or automate, but it cannot replace politics. Tools without culture are empty shells; culture without tools is still possible.
The compost view is the task isn’t to make everyone a coder, but to compost the priesthood and grow cultures where coding is a part of the collective. That’s the #KISS answer: code can support social power, but it is not social power.
Build cultures, not just tools: Stop pretending apps fix politics. Tools only matter if they grow inside strong cultures. Put people first, tech second.
Open the process (#4opens): Keep everything open: code, data, governance, strategy. Power hides in shadows; openness dissolves the priesthood. If it’s not open, it’s not our path.
Practice collective governance (#OGB): It helps when decisions about infrastructure are made more horizontally. Coders are part of the collective, not above it. Shared governance turns coding from priesthood into common fire.
The path out of the #geekproblem is in composting geek blindness and building living cultures where coding is a part of growing the commons.
For an example, this post is relevant to the degeneration of the #SocialHub project, which for meany years was the place for #ActivityPub and #Fediverse#openweb reboot, but now what’s left of the social side is the few remaining active unthinking “problem” people.
This is a normal path and outcome, that we need to compost to keep growing seeds #KISS
For two decades, activist tech has been stuck in a defensive crouch. We’ve built bunkers (security tools, encryption layers, anonymity networks) but very few bridges. That’s left progressive paths fragmented, insular, and often unattractive to the people we’re supposedly trying to empower.
If the aim is to push social change and challenge rather than just survive, here’s what I think needs building:
#4opens-native infrastructure Open data → not just sharing docs, but making activist knowledge queryable, remixable, reusable. Open source → tools that anyone can template and that are designed for non-geek participation. Open process → transparent decision-making, recorded and accessible, not locked in Discord chats and private Signal groups. Open standards → making sure our platforms talk to each other rather than becoming new silos.
Right now, most “secure” activist tools violate at least two of these, which is why they don’t scale socially.
Defensive tools keep activists inside – whisper networks, encrypted groups – but change needs broadcast, infrastructure for:
Collaborative publishing (like a modern Indymedia, federated rather than centralised)
Native-to-activist communities, not corporate platforms with activist skins
Embeddable media flows that any group can plug into their own site and feed back into the commons
Bridges between the “geek” and the “street”
In our tech dev, we keep losing people at the handover point between coders and campaigners. This means:
Building social UX: not just “usable” but welcoming, narrative, and easy to onboard without a training camp
Open governance for projects, so they don’t ossify into closed dev clubs
Mixing online and offline organising so the tech is embedded in the movement, not floating outside it
Most activist tech projects fail when the original team burns out or falls out. We need:
Federated governance where each node makes its own calls but can still coordinate
Lightweight, transparent conflict resolution instead of exile-by-moderator
Structures that reward contribution over gatekeeping
Narrative + polemic
Tech alone doesn’t move people, stories do. The #4opens path should be wrapped in cultural work: films, podcasts, political memes, all pointing back to live, working tools people can use today.
Why this matters: If all we do is encrypt ourselves into tiny norms, we’ve already lost – the social fabric will rot away outside those. Encryption is necessary for many struggles, but it’s not sufficient as positive activist tech must be porous, messy, and visible, change needs an audience and a route for people to join.
Bridges: An activist tech roadmap
We’ve made excellent hiding places – but the point was never to hide. What we need to stop building. (Let it compost – it’s done its job, or more likely it was a dead-end from the start)
Paranoid toys for the already paranoid. Endless “yet another secure messenger” forks for people who already have six installed.
Security fetishism that confuses obscurity with safety.
Crypt bro sandcastles. Blockchain “liberation” projects that replicate Silicon Valley greed, gated by tokens and VC hype.
Anything that smells like replacing corporate overlords with slightly more smug overlords.
Single-issue encryption fortresses. Tools so focused on privacy that they have zero public presence or outreach capacity. Result: the tech survives, but the movement starves for connection.
Endless horizontal-but-empty governance “frameworks” Looming Google Docs full of aspirational process that nobody follows in practice. No real community roots, just “process cosplay.”
What to start building (This is the real #4opens + #OMN work)
Social-first tech stacks. Start with people, not protocols.
Build interfaces that encourage conversation, collaboration, and collective memory.
#4opens principles applied to UX, governance, and hosting — not just the code repo.
Native governance baked into the stack. #OGB-style decision-making visible and accessible to every user. Influence exercised in the open, with accountable stewardship, not backroom admin chat.
Open media networks that publish first, secure second. #OMN-style federated publishing where public content flows freely, while personal data defaults to private. Focus on amplifying radical stories instead of just hiding them better.
Tools that make bridges not walls. Mediating the signal-to-noise rather than blocking at the first whiff of disagreement. Spaces where trust can grow between different grassroots tribes without falling into the #NGO/#dotcons gravity well.
Composable, messy, repairable tech. #KISS principles, with the option for local hacks and templates. Document the how and why so that when projects die, others can compost them into new growth.
The call-out is we can’t code our way out of the #deathcult with bunker software. The way forward is messy, social, and built in the open. Let’s please stop pretending that better locks will save us, and start making better streets for our movements to meet, cooperate, and work together.
The #4opens + #OMN path is the stepping stone back into the open, light path. Take it, or stay buried is a choice we need to talk more about.
It turns out that what hackers yearn for is not raw power but security – not just the technical kind, but an emotional security that is harder to admit to, so it gets dressed up in the language and posture of technology.
Because many in these paths and spaces operate with narrow social and political horizons, shaped by individualist tech culture, a distrust of messy collective life, and little grounding in movement history, their insecurity rarely finds healthy expression. Instead, it gets channelled into #mainstreaming patterns: centralising control, hoarding decision-making, gatekeeping access. The feeling of safety comes not from trust, but from control.
This is why in so many “open” projects we see:
Root admin privileges treated like a personal bunker.
Technical gatekeeping replacing collaborative stewardship.
Social disagreements re-coded as “technical issues” so they can be “resolved” by force rather than dialogue.
The power they wield is a symptom, the insecurity is the cause, lack of balance is the disease. The problem is that command/control cultures make insecurity worse, they turn every challenge into a threat, every new contributor into a risk, and every disagreement into a test of dominance. Over time, this drives out the very diversity and collaboration that could create true resilience.
The #4opens – open data, open code, open standards, open process – is not just a governance checklist. It’s a practical, everyday discipline that forces a shift from control to collaboration. It changes the emotional terrain.
Open data dissolves the hoarding instinct, because nothing critical is locked away in one person’s vault.
Open code forces the bunker doors open, making it normal for others to touch “your” work.
Open standards create interdependence rather than dependency, reducing the fear of losing control.
Open process makes decisions visible, accountable, and shared, replacing the hidden backchannel with a transparent commons.
By practising the #4opens, even the most control-driven hacker can start to find a different kind of security, rooted in trust, redundancy, and collective stewardship rather than in solitary power.
The #4opens doesn’t magically fix emotional insecurity, but it creates a scaffolding of transparency and accountability where balance can grow. It turns projects from personal fiefdoms into shared ecosystems, and in doing so, helps people unlearn the reflex to seek safety only through domination.
The way out is not to strip hackers of influence, but to build cultures where influence is exercised in the open, with care, and where security comes from community rather than technological control.
A #fluffy view – Think of a self-hosted community chat platform, something small, privacy-focused, run by a handful of volunteer hackers. The core devs are brilliant, but they see every problem as a technical one: security means encryption upgrades, stability means more containerization, and governance means a GitHub permissions list.
When disagreements arise over moderation, they don’t trust open discussion. Instead, they quietly add admin-only tools that can hide messages or boot users without notice. From their perspective, this is “security”, keeping the platform stable and safe. But because the process is invisible and unilateral, it breeds mistrust. The community feels controlled, not cared for.
Now imagine this same project embracing the #4opens:
Open Data – Moderation actions are logged and visible to everyone.
Open Source – The code that runs moderation tools is public, so no hidden powers exist.
Open Process – Policy changes are discussed in a shared forum where everyone can contribute.
Open Standards – The platform can interoperate with others, so no one is locked in.
This changes the emotional root of the hackers’ insecurity: their “power” no longer depends on guarding the system against imagined chaos, but on participating in a transparent culture where the community itself holds the system together. Security is now mutual care, not technological control. The hackers still have influence, but it’s exercised in the open, grounded in trust, and shared with the people they serve.
A spiky view of this – The problem with too many hackers is that they mistake root access for moral authority. They wrap their emotional fragility in layers of SSH keys and sudo privileges, then strut around acting like benevolent dictators for life. You see it in the endless “code is law” sermons, in the backroom channel decisions, in the smug dismissal of “non-technical” people as if empathy were a bug. They lock down wikis “for security,” gatekeep repos “to avoid chaos,” and implement moderation tools that work like secret police. This is not liberation, it’s digital landlordism, the same power-hoarding rot we see in the #mainstreaming mess, just with a Linux hoodie instead of a corporate badge.
#KISS it’s best not to be either a dogmatic #fluffy or a #spiky prat about this need for balance.
“You’re preaching an idealised ‘community’ that doesn’t exist. You criticise the mainstream (fair enough) but keep pushing alternatives without showing a tangible model that works. It feels like you’re looking for an audience, not a conversation.”
And here’s my side of this:
I was part of the team that got multiple governments in Europe to adopt the Fediverse — working on the outreach that took the tech to the European Union.
I co-ran 5 Fediverse instances with thousands of users in its early years. We eventually had to shut them down — an experience I now talk about openly because we need to make this work better next time.
I’ve worked on meany of #openweb projects going back to the birth of the WWW. That history is here: https://hamishcampbell.com
Projects include UK #Indymedia, #VisionOnTV, the Open Media Network (#OMN), the #4opens framework, and the #OGB — all aimed at building governance, infrastructure, and culture outside corporate control.
Here’s the crux: building outside the mainstream is messy, fragile, and uncertain. There’s no guarantee that any of this will “win.” But the alternative – doing nothing and letting every commons be enclosed – guarantees failure.
The work is #DIY culture. If you don’t want to build, you don’t have to. But if you do, you have to accept the risk, the mess, and the fact that you won’t get the same dopamine hits as shipping a VC-backed app. You also have to resist the slide into trolling when frustration builds.
The real challenge is cultural: how to support tech that walks outside the dominant paths long enough to make new ones. That means building infrastructure that runs on trust, openness, and care, not just control, profit, and scale. If we stop doing this, every alternative will keep collapsing back into the defaults.
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 app 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, embraces friction, 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 #dotcons, or #NGO platforms and empires. We have to build our own paths, grounded, imperfect, resilient.
It needs to be said, 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 we need.
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: its a mess that keeps repeating. 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 at all about building shiny platforms, they’re about building the structures and relationships that allow real alternatives to survive and grow outside the normal #mainstreaming mess.
This isn’t simple 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 “native” code is still needed. But this 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 in the end.
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 through the oncoming storm of #climatechaos.
If we don’t build and sustain these alternative tracks, the dominant mess 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 keep selling convenience as 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 at the same time 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?”
So, 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 by spreading out, resilient, diverse, interconnected.
The #Fediverse path could still be a better commons, but for this we need to build it as one, together. But right now, we still on balance have #blocking? 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 “common sense” hostility to anything really different.
Let’s stop pretending, we need tobe honest, the community side of the Fediverse is a mess. The instance as a community, was a good idea, but just that an idea, it never worked, as 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 current #Fediverse crew was always going to build this mess when it grew out of its 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 the #OMN 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 working 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 better commons – but now we need to grow it as one. Right now, we’re mostly fencing off little kingdoms, waving our “federation” flags. We’ve seen where this leads, it boring and inhuman. It’s past time to dig, plant, and grow something more “natural”.
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 blinded 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 #dotcons 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 resilience – the more we pretend it is, the more we set people up to fail. The solution is 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 digging of wells is shared, and people have your back when things go wrong. It should be simple to understand that resilience and transparency cannot be achieved in isolation. It’s a social problem, we need to 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 we need to step away from.
In this #openweb reboot, 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 #NGI grant cycles, #NGO 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 linked forking paths as core strengths.
Accept divergence — allow others to #4opens 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.
These people have a role in the balance of the #openweb reboot, the middle class, careerists, petty capitalist, “privileged” #NGO and co-op crew. But they need pushing themselves, when they push over this balance role… and they do become, when they don’t have any idea or understanding for the need for the balance. This is a very common problem that we need to compost.
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. The project in question is the OpenWeb Governance Body (#OGB): https://unite.openworlds.info/Open-Media-Network/openwebgovernancebody/
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.
What we are working on is 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, creating 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 using tech to open spaces for people to get messy and find their own path to cooperation.
Why we don’t use #processgeek paths like “Sociocracy”? The “problem people we touch on at the start of this article suggest alternatives like sociocracy. And sure, if that works for your group, go for it. But from the native grassroots 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 the enlightened #blocking crew 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 mostly irrelevant 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 native path is not #mainstreming, it’s a #KISS counter current, 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 for the last century. 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 closes.
The power of OPEN is in all good forms of social power, and progress comes 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 ideas of 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 funding foundations.
If we push everything into private silos or locked behind paywalls, we kill the culture that allows us to challenge and change the systems we live and die under. We are left with only 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 exiting paths like #RSS and federated tech like #XMPP. 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 paths, we had shut out, with ActivityPub to get back to what #RSS and other open tools had already done.
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… a path that usually ends in failure. Worse, it delayed progress by a decade. Encryptionism, privacy dogma, and the closing of the commons, where mess we now need to compost
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 die, 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 tech? Who does it empower? Who does it exclude?
This is about 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). A job people could take on is to fix this by building the O in the Fediverse, rather than let the default path be imposed, by the natural flow 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 outlined 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 back.
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.
