Is the OMN tech complex

Published Date 8/14/16 7:46 PM

There is a hard-to-understand idea that the technology behind the OMN (open media network) is complex. At a base level it is not, it’s the same tech that has been written 1000s of times in the past and uses nearly 20-year-old technology.

What is complex is the ideas and social understandings behind the ideas of using this “stupidly simple” technology in the OMN.

Firstly, it’s needed to understand that Alt-media and the open web in general is F**cked. Once past this point, it becomes easier. Secondly an understanding of the forces that F**cked is both on their side: the #dotcons, Facebook, uber, Amazon etc and on our-side, our encryptionist geeks, NGO social media gurus, process vampires etc.

We don’t currently have power to affect their side, so let’s look at our side, in the sense of understanding the OMN. It’s based on the #4opens and none of our guys like this combination for different reasons. It’s based on KISS – our geeks don’t like building on the old and our politicos are pushing the #fashionista of the vapours avant-garde, so both reject the “old” foundation ideas/tech of the #OMN.

The idea is very simple – that we get alt-media groups and sites to be part of a network so they become bigger than their parts. And a very basic issue is solved, they link to each other, which currently the isolated silos do not consistently do. The link is the currency of the web, in this we all become richer and have wider outreach on the “#openweb”.

The “innovation” of the OMN is the use of RSS articles as a database exchange format. We thus create a redundant, distributed network of databases holding and displaying (linking) to our collective history. Why RSS? Without it, we have to get agreement and write custom code for every site that wants to join. With RSS, it’s copy/paste and go on 98% of existing sites on the open web. The first is self limiting and impossible to grow, the second just works. There is no complexity at all at this basic level and no need for site agreements etc.

Troubleshooting this rollout there are issues, but nothing that can’t be solved by tweaking and bodging. The next stage is a little more complex, synchronising these databases and keeping articles up-to-date and exchanging tagged metadata so that the “curating of the flows works”. This will need thinking and programming for real, but nothing that throwing some bandwidth and processing power can’t solve in an “inefficient way” – again, #KISS.

Build it first, scale it second. We are running this out in the small world of alt-media, so geeks keep it KISS. There is a philosophical and design issue that will cause bottlenecks, the CMS’s we will be using are designed as portals/silos not data rivers/media flow sites. Some creative thought can help here. And there is the opening for innovation and new CMS’s at a later time.

To conclude, the blocks on building out the OMN are within our own geeks and politicos and have to be overcome. That is the tech is relatively easy, the social side is complex, Ideas for this? My idea is to form a wide;y skilled affinity group and go for it, lead by example. Other paths, ideas, welcome.

To escape our silo thinking

Published Date 3/10/16 12:01 PM

“A river that needs crossing political and tech culture – On the political side, the is arrogance and ignorance, on the Geek side the is naivety and over-complexity”

Right now, there’s a widening gap between political organising culture and technical development culture, and neither side is entirely wrong, but both are incomplete.

On the political side, there can be a strong understanding of power, institutions, and social dynamics – but sometimes limited understanding of the underlying technical structures that shape digital reality.

On the technical side, there is deep expertise in systems and architecture – but often a tendency to treat social problems as purely technical challenges, leading to over-complex solutions that struggle to survive real-world communities.

Both cultures end up building silos. Not because they intend to fragment the ecosystem, but because silos offer clarity, autonomy, and a sense of control. Unfortunately, isolated projects – whether political or technical – cannot compete with the continental-scale infrastructures built by the #dotcons.

The deeper issue is that we are collectively neglecting the shared infrastructure beneath all of this: the #openweb itself. Returning to simple shared ground, if we want to rebuild cooperation, we need to start from principles both sides can recognise. The web is fundamentally made of relationships:

  • Articles are data objects.
  • Data moves through flows.
  • Feeds are living links that carry those flows across networks.
  • Links – not platforms – are where long-term value accumulates.
  • Synchronisation and redundancy are what create resilience, memory, and continuity.

This isn’t a political claim or a technical ideology, it’s simply how the web works when it is healthy. For political organisers, this means understanding that content alone isn’t enough; influence comes from shaping flows and networks. For engineers, this means recognising that technical architecture always encodes social assumptions – and usability, trust, and governance cannot be abstracted away.

Why silos fail. Many alternative media and grassroots tech projects emerge with strong intentions, but remain isolated. Without shared protocols, interoperability, and common infrastructure, each becomes another temporary island. Meanwhile, legislation and platform enclosure continue shrinking the open internet, reinforcing dependency on centralised systems.

The question is not whether we build alternatives, we already are. The question is whether those alternatives connect into a living ecosystem or remain fragmented experiments. The bridge is federation as social and technical practice. Projects rooted in federation – like ActivityPub and related #openweb work – offer a path, because they align technical architecture with social values: decentralised but connected, autonomous but interoperable and “native” diverse without fragmentation.

The #OMN approach tries to extend this principle beyond software into social organisation with shared commons instead of platform ownership, collaboration instead of central coordination and replication instead of scaling hierarchies. This isn’t anti-engineering or anti-politics. It’s an attempt to integrate both.

Crossing the river together, political organisers bring understanding of power, context, and collective action. Engineers bring understanding of systems, resilience, and infrastructure, neither alone is enough.

The challenge is to move away from siloed thinking toward shared stewardship of the #openweb – treating it not as a product or ideology, but as a living ecosystem that requires ongoing care.

We don’t need perfect agreement to start building bridges. We just need enough shared understanding to reconnect the flows. Because ultimately, the goal isn’t to build another island, it’s to rebuild the river.

Looking back looking forward Village Hall or Church Hall

Published Date 2/1/16 6:52 PM

I’m writing this for people who are actively stepping away from the mainstream 9–5 world and moving into disreputable subcultures to live their lives differently.

One issue that comes up again and again in these spaces is group organisation. It usually comes up at moments of stress, and it is usually handled badly. The result is familiar: drained energy, burnt-out people, accumulated bad will, and long trails of failed groups.

For most people passing through these subcultures, this isn’t a pressing concern. Many dip in and out of the shifting social soup. The mainstream remains an easy fallback. They don’t stay long enough to notice the deeper patterns of growth and decay – and by the time they do, they’re often ready to retreat back to the (dulling) safety of “normal life”.

Rinse and repeat.

Each short generation leaves behind another layer of wreckage, and the result is predictable: alternative culture acquires a bad reputation in the mainstream, which then feeds back into the next cycle of failure.

Over the next few posts, I want to look at several groups I’m involved in that are currently at different stages of what might politely be called “crisis”. Before doing that, it’s useful to look at two organising models that emerged in the 19th and 20th centuries and still quietly shape how we think about shared space today.

Village Hall

Small, less-radical groups have traditionally organised around structures like the village hall.

A village hall is a non-commercial space for community events – an open space for the social, political, and cultural activities a community holds in common. It’s a neutral space, designed to support cohesion rather than impose values. Typically, it’s run by an elected committee drawn from an active and open local membership.

The strength of the village hall model is its openness: it assumes that difference exists and that the role of the space is to hold that difference together rather than filter it.

Church Hall

A church hall often looks similar on the surface and shares many practical uses, but the underlying logic is different.

Church halls tend to be more narrowly focused, shaped by the moral and ideological positions of the institution that owns them. A Catholic church is unlikely to host meetings supporting abortion rights. More conservative churches won’t host young socialists, anarchist legal support groups, or black-flag collectives. Other religions may also be excluded.

In short, access is conditional.

While there may be a local management committee, the final authority usually rests with the church hierarchy, often mediated through the vicar or equivalent figure. The space highlights some parts of the community while marginalising others.

Why We Had Both

The reason villages often had both village halls and church halls should now be obvious. They served different social functions and embodied different values. One aimed for neutrality and shared ownership; the other for moral guidance and ideological boundaries.

In the mid-20th century, a third model emerged, particularly in urban areas: the community centre.

Community centres grew out of ideas about social justice, public culture, and collective empowerment. They expanded the role of the village hall while explicitly moving away from church-centred moral authority.

This wiki page is worth reading, it’s the most developed of the three.

Decline and Degradation

By the late 20th century, community centres were steadily degraded.

Commercialisation hollowed them out: “community empowerment” became “must pay your way”. At the same time, bureaucratisation suffocated them – a legacy of mid-20th-century managerial thinking that prioritised control, reporting, and risk avoidance over living social use.

So today, we’re left with three traditional, mainstream approaches to “space for the community”, all carrying the assumptions and limits of their time.

Rebooting for the 21st Century

There’s a current romantic tendency to look backwards – to reboot village halls, and in more conservative circles, to revive church halls. This instinct isn’t wrong, but it’s incomplete.

These institutions were products of their historical moment. They worked because they matched the social realities of their time. If we want spaces that actually support 21st-century subcultures, post-mainstream lives, and horizontal organising, then we need to reboot the underlying ideas, not just recreate the forms.

The question isn’t which old model we choose. The question is: what kind of shared space fits the society we’re actually living in now?

UPDATE: That’s where things get interesting. With online spaces, the #OMN if you want, next we can:

  • map these models directly onto #OMN / #indymediaback spaces, or
  • talk about where horizontal projects rot and how to slow that rot, or
  • sketch what a post-village-hall model might actually look like in practice.

The tech manifesto of the OMN

Published Date 3/20/14 4:27 PM

In technology development, there are many possible paths. Some of these lead to far more fertile ground for cultivating the open internet and open society approach that the #OMN is built on.

What We Reject

We clearly reject:

  • Pure client–server relationships
  • Closed security cultures
  • Geek-only design aesthetics and insular “vanilla” tech culture
  • Data ownership models and closed licensing

What We Support

We actively support:

  • Peer-to-peer relationships, alongside hybrid federated client–server infrastructure
  • An open security culture, with carefully limited use of closed peer-to-peer security where appropriate
  • A balance between technical usability and simple outreach – with the ability to switch between these modes within the same application
  • Geek culture that embraces and mixes with other cultures, rather than isolating itself
  • Open data formats and Creative Commons licensing

Approach

The #OMN is open to any project that aligns with open-source, open-data, and open-licensing principles. There are several existing tools and platforms that point in useful directions:

  • Liferay — Built on a strong standards-based approach, but constrained by being owned by a profit-driven company with controlling interests
  • RetroShare — An open-source peer-to-peer client that already covers many needs for personal security and communication

Opportunities for Integration

A key question is whether we can meaningfully combine these approaches into a more open, global platform:

  • Could we bridge a standards-based system (like Liferay) with a peer-to-peer network (like RetroShare) to create a federated, secure, hybrid infrastructure?
  • Could we build a cross-platform system that combines APIs, federation, and peer-to-peer trust networks?

There are also interesting experiments to consider:

  • Popcorn Time-style distribution – Using torrent-based streaming models
  • Could this be combined with open archives (e.g. Archive.org APIs) to support distributed video hosting and seeding?

OMN Stack Direction

Within this ecosystem, #OMN can be understood as:

  • A network built on RSS style flows
  • A federation layer for content sharing and discovery
  • A bridge between distributed storage, streaming, and publishing tools

Front-End Possibilities

Finally, the growing power of HTML5 web apps – especially on smartphones – provides a flexible and accessible interface layer. This allows us to build user-friendly tools on top of complex distributed infrastructure without locking users into closed platforms.

The goal is not to build everything from scratch, but to stitch together existing open tools into a coherent, trust-based ecosystem.

UPDATE: both Liferay and Retroshare failed in this dev path, the first is the normal blocking of open core as a #FOSS path and the second simply failed due to complexity and #UX. Popcorn time we never found a crew to build the coding. Then web apps were silently blocked by the #dotcons app stores focus. What can we learn from this now?

The Stupidly Simple Open Media Network

A common database of media metadata exchanged by RSS in and out, using open industrial standards and neutral unbranded widgets.

Is anyone doing something like this now, and how is your project different?

There are many aggregators of news (eg http://daveriver.scripting.com/, or http://ignoregon.com) but they aggregate with whole #RSS feeds not tags, and new tag feeds cannot be created out of them. Closed-source project #vodpod works by tag only as a premium feature.

Describe the network with which you intend to build or work.

visionOntv (a project for distributing social change video) already smart-aggregates 18,000 videos by RSS. Working with this already curated database, we can build an exemplar node with de facto open standards. The project is a distributed database of the human-moderated metadata of user-generated subject areas, making the choice of this exemplar database appropriate.

Why will it work?

  • Aims to build a big network, but starts small.
  • Has multiple redundancy by sharing data via RSS in/out.

Incentives for users

  • They can publish once on their own site, and the content appears on a range of other appropriate subject sites.
  • No single hub, no single owner, but rather a horizontal network of nodes. Every node can be a hub (an aggregator). This social/psychological understanding of the need to give people ownership means the project can spread easily.
  • Spam is user-policed out of networks.

Open industrial standards

  • RSS and atom are used as the database exchange format, as it is almost universally implemented. The leveraging of existing open standards means that 3/4 of the web can already talk to it. Thus, we can build a scalable, common, decentralised database.
  • We implement both of the real-time RSS standards PubSubHubbub and RSSCloud
  • End-users view videos through auto-updating video player widgets driven by boolean logic.
  • In the future, it would be possible to radically decentralise where the content is itself hosted, using p2p media-serving in parallel with traditional corporate streaming.

Who is working on it?

What part of the project have you already built?

We already have the content and much of the metadata for exemplar node visionOntv. There is a database of 18,000 curated and tagged films. Beginning with this node which we control, we can test solutions to UI / security / spam etc issues. And have a practical outcome with embedded media players. We already have one on every page of UK based New Internationalist magazine’s site, http://newinternationalist.org

How would you sustain the project after the funding expires?

#Flattr is implemented on every page. As a distributed project, it has very low running costs. It would be up to the individual nodes to solve this for themselves. We have a test micro-(hyperlocal) advertising model for funding the visionOntv node.

UPDATE: This project is the seed for the current #OMN project

Diaz Don’t clean up this blood

The Genoa G8 Summit protests, held from July 18 to 22, 2001, were a turning point in the global justice movement. More than 200,000 people converged on the medieval port city to block the summit and challenge the concentrated power of the world’s richest nations. A gathering of the priests of the #deathcult, grinding the planet into dust for profit.

For many of us, the G8 represented everything wrong with the world: an unelected body shaping economic and social policy for billions without legitimacy, accountability, or consent. We traveled to Genoa not as isolated activists but as a flowing living ecosystem of movements, anarchists, trade unionists, farmers, climate campaigners, media collectives, migrants’ rights groups, students, pacifists, the lot. We were there to resist and to build alternatives in the cracks protest pushes wider.

Arriving in a besieged city, Genoa a few days before the demonstrations to help set up the Media Center, for grassroots reporting. Genoa, though, felt nothing like a holiday town. Police were everywhere. Riot vans on street corners. Helicopters thudding overhead. The protest convergence center was being built on the beach; just 100 yards away from the stadium, where police forces were massing in their thousands. Walking around felt like moving inside a tightening fist.

We slept in the camper van that first night, tucked beside a half-built marquee. At dawn, we joined the organisers at the Diaz school, the building that housed both the Genoa Social Forum and the Media Centre.

We requisition two PCs from other rooms, installed video editing softwer, and turned them into the only two shared editing stations in the building. One was upgraded with a new hard drive and FireWire card for DV footage, not that it mattered, because it broke on day two and never recovered. The analogue capture system we had brought did most of the work that went online.

On one of our first reporting trips, filming outside the police barracks beside the convergence centre, we were detained by undercover cops. More arrived. Then more. Ten or twelve by the end. They demanded our tapes. I refused. They checked our documents, questioned us for hours, and released us without charge. I secretly filmed some of them; two would resurface later outside the IMC on the night of the raid.

Driving around the city to document the expanding “red zone” – the militarised area blocking off the summit – we were detained twice more. Civil rights meant nothing here. The police behaved like a sovereign power unto themselves. That Orwellian twinge – the sense that you are inside a lawless machine – grew stronger every day.

When the city turned red, one protester, Carlo Giuliani, was shot dead by police. Fear rippled across the city. The #IMC became a space threaded with arguments about what to do. People drifted away, hour by hour, some deciding the risks were too great. By midnight the centre had half emptied.

Then the screams came: “THE POLICE ARE COMING!”

Looking out the window, I saw nothing at first. Panic surged anyway, people barricading doors, grabbing bags, racing up staircases. Marion moved the archive tapes to the hiding place I’d scouted earlier: the water tower on the roof.

From the rooftop I filmed carabinieri smashing into the building next door, the Diaz Pertini school, with vans and sledgehammers. Chairs were used to break windows. Tables became battering rams. It was happening fast, shockingly fast. Then I saw them entering our stairwell.

The Diaz Raid: Running for our lives. I headed downstairs to check if the Media Center itself was being stormed. Turning the stairwell corner, I came face-to-face with a fully armoured carabiniere charging upward, truncheon raised, panting with adrenaline. I spun and bolted. Two flights up, shouting, “They’re in the building!” I sprinted to the roof and slipped into the tower.

Inside the darkness, I whispered for Marion. No answer. I crept through the corridor of water tanks, lit only by the IR beam from my camera. Finally, a small, terrified voice: “Turn the light off.” She had hidden behind the last tank, clutching tapes and equipment.

For hours, three, maybe four, we lay silent as the helicopter’s spotlight swept the windows. Police boots thudded across the roof. Below us, the city echoed with screams, crashes, and the chanted word “ASSASSINI.”

When the helicopter finally left, we emerged. The rooftop was scattered with stunned survivors. Downstairs, the destruction was total. Computers smashed. Hard drives ripped out. Doors hanging loose. The walls of the Diaz school across the street were painted with blood. Skin and hair stuck to corners. Piles of clothing soaked red. People moving like ghosts.

The Carabinieri had left their calling card.

What happened inside that school, was not policing. It was torture, humiliation, and fascist ritual. Ninety-three sleeping demonstrators were beaten so badly that the floors resembled a slaughterhouse. People hiding under tables or sleeping in bags were clubbed unconscious. A 65-year-old woman’s arm was broken. One student needed surgery for brain bleeding. Others had their teeth kicked out. One officer cut clumps of hair from victims as trophies.

Those who survived were taken to Bolzaneto detention centre, where the abuse continued: beatings, stress positions, pepper spray, threats of rape, and forced chants of “Viva il Duce!” and “Viva Pinochet!” A systematic, organised brutality. This wasn’t loss of control, it was ideology.

Aftermath: Truth in the Ruins. The Italian state tried to bury it all. But survivors, lawyers, journalists, and prosecutors fought for years. The European Court of Human Rights eventually ruled that Italy had committed grave human rights violations. But almost none of the officers served jail time. Politicians escaped entirely.

The police weren’t out of control. They were following a logic, the logic of protecting elitists power against democratic dissent. The logic of the #deathcult. The logic that treats people as obstacles, not citizens. Genoa showed the world what happens when movements gain too much momentum: the mask drops.

And still, in that chaos, seeds were planted – #indymedia, #OMN, the global justice movement, the early #openweb – messy, hopeful, compost for future uprisings.

Technology and Social Change Working with the Facebook Generation

This generation is a complete mess, no surprise after 20 years of submission to the #deathcult:

  • #Neoliberalism hollowing out economies, replacing solidarity with consumerism.
  • #Postmodernism fragmenting identity politics into a battlefield of individualism over collective action.
  • #Dotcons centralizing control, turning the internet into a corporate surveillance machine.

Stepping away from the mess, the real question is: How do we break free?

Our #fashernistas still dodge this conversation, stuck in cycles of performative activism, corporate co-option, and distraction. Instead of chasing the next trendy tech or ideological bandwagon, we need to refocus a #KISS path:

  • #OMN (Open Media Network) – Building grassroots, independent media outside corporate control.
  • #4opens – Prioritizing transparency, collaboration, and openness in our tools and governance.
  • Reclaiming #DIY activism – Moving beyond digital spectacle to real-world action and organizing.

The path isn’t more #geekproblem tech fixes or empty branding exercises, it’s a radical grassroots step to collective agency. Time to move.