Closed systems protect individuals, but they rarely build movements

People fight against or/and ignore the #KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) approach in tech because simplicity exposes power. Complexity, jargon, and process give cover – they make control look like competence. When paths are simple and transparent, everyone can see who’s blocking, who’s hoarding, who’s acting in bad faith. Many “experts” and institutions are emotionally and professionally invested in keeping things complicated; simplicity threatens their authority, their funding, and their identity.

All the #OMN projects are not directly about social change – they’re about making social change possible. That distinction matters as people don’t step into change unless they first believe change can happen. If the world feels fixed, locked, inevitable, then nothing moves. Our role is simpler, and maybe more important, to open that door a crack, to show that different paths exist.

Think of #OMN as a helping hand, not dragging people forward, not telling them what to do – just making it easier for them to take that first step when they’re ready. But to do this, we need to think more clearly – and more fundamentally – about technology itself. As most of the current “open paths” are cosplay at best, we need a network that links them as flows for there use to be unlocked from the current limits of #stupidindividualism shaping them – to become a native part of the expanding #openweb reboot.

I’ve been working on this for over 20 years, and one thing keeps proving true: we need roughly 90% open and 10% closed, the balance matters. As the current push from the #encryptionists flips this – aiming for 90% closed and 10% open. That isn’t a solution, it’s a retreat. It breaks the social fabric that makes collective tools usable and meaningful. It fragments, isolates, and ultimately shrinks the space where shared culture can exist.

Yes, privacy matters, yes, some things should be closed, that’s the 10%. But the commons – the space where we meet, talk, organise, and build trust – has to be open. Without that, there is no network, just silos. Take a simple example: you’re reading this via #activitypub. That’s a system built on being mostly open, with just enough closure to function safely. And it works, people are here, conversations happen, networks grow.

Compare that to more closed, encryption-heavy systems like old school Diaspora. Technically interesting, sure, but socially? Empty, few people, little flow, no impact. That’s the core point: this isn’t just about functions or features, it’s about culture.

Open federated, networked systems create the possibility of shared culture, and from that, the possibility of social change. Closed systems protect individuals, but they rarely build movements. We need both – but we need to get the balance right. Right now, too many people are getting it the wrong way round.

This Isn’t New: Decentralisation Was the Point All Along

Decentralised servers – what we now call the #Fediverse – are often talked about as if they’re some new, radical innovation. They’re not, they’re a return to the original design of the network. The early internet wasn’t built to be controlled, it was built to survive. The core idea was simple: if parts of the network were destroyed – even something as extreme as a nuclear strike – the rest would keep functioning. No centre, single point of failure or “off switch.”

That’s what decentralisation actually means. And this thinking didn’t even start with the #openweb. Systems like Usenet already embodied this approach: distributed, federated, run by many, owned by none. Messy? Yes. But resilient, open, and hard to capture.

What we’ve been living through for the last 20+ years – the rise of the #dotcons – is the opposite of this. Centralised platforms with single points of control. Easy to use for control and monetise, easy to manipulate, easy to shut down. We didn’t lose the #openweb by accident, we blindly traded it away for this convenience.

What we’re seeing now with the #Fediverse, #ActivityPub, and related projects isn’t innovation in the common sense. It’s a reboot, a return to the path we were on before we derailed it. The difference is that now we’re trying to rebuild this in a world that has spent decades normalising centralisation and control. 40 years of death cult worship has changed people, institutions, social groups and our very internal selves. That’s where the friction comes from, people arrive expecting #dotcons platforms, what they find is networks. People expect control, what they get is responsibility. People expect “free” what they face is shared cost and care.

So, it was never about the tech, the mistake we keep making is ONLY thinking this is a technical shift, it’s not, it’s cultural. You can spin up a decentralised server in minutes, that’s not the hard part, the hard part is everything around it:

Who runs it

Who pays for it

How decisions are made

How conflict is handled

How trust is built and maintained

This is the work the #dotcons hide from us, they wrap control as “free services” paid for with surveillance, extraction, and control. Now that we’re back on the #openweb path, that work becomes visible again, and yes – it’s harder.

Why this matters (Again). Resilience isn’t an abstract idea anymore as we’re living through cascading crises: political instability, #climatechaos, infrastructure fragility. A centralised network fails catastrophically were a decentralised network degrades – but keeps going. That’s the difference between a system you depend on and a system you can trust.

We don’t need to overcomplicate this – Keep It Simple (#KISS)

The #openweb is decentralised

The #dotcons are centralised

One builds commons, the other extracts value, everything else is detail. And yes nobody thinks the Fediverse is not messy, uneven, (yet) match the polish of corporate platforms. That’s fine, mess is where growth happens – if we compost it properly.

The #OMN view, we’re not trying to invent something new. We’re trying to make what already works usable at scale for media, trust, and collective action. The infrastructure is there, the protocols exist, the history is long. What’s missing is the shared layer – the commons – where information flows in ways people can actually rely on, that’s what we’re building.

If decentralisation feels radical, it’s only because we’ve spent so long inside systems that forgot #OMN #openweb #KISS

We keep making mess, then wondering why everything smells

A big part of this is the language we use, when we unthinkingly spread #mainstreaming terms, we push the worldview that comes with them, and that worldview is usually rooted in fear, control, and market logic.

Take “digital sovereignty.” it sounds solid, sensible, progressive. But, it’s a made-up term trying to frame the internet in nation-state and market terms – ownership, borders, competition. It’s a liberal answer to a fear-based economy: “how do we control this thing so it doesn’t threaten us?” That framing is the problem, because the #openweb was never built on control. It was built on trust, shared standards, and open process – the #4opens:

open data
open source
open standards
open process

That’s the native soil, when we blindly shift to language like “sovereignty,” we drag in assumptions that don’t belong. We start thinking in terms of ownership instead of participation, control instead of collaboration. And that creates mess – conceptual, political, and technical Then we spend years trying to “fix” that mess, composting it.

But it’s much better if we don’t make that mess in the first place #KISS, by staying grounded in #openweb values. We don’t need to retrofit control structures onto something that was designed to work without them. We don’t need layers of governance theatre to simulate trust, we can build trust directly through open processes.

This is why clarity, clear language matters, if we keep pushing borrowed language from the #deathcult, we’ll keep rebuilding its logic, no matter how good our intentions are. So yes, we need to talk more clearly about stopping importing broken concepts, stop framing open systems in closed terms and stop making more mess we then have to compost.

Start from the roots, grow from there, please.

The #dotcons, #mainstreaming, and Build to Walk Away

Three years ago I was trying to explain something simple in language liberals might actually hear. They talk about “platform capitalism.” Fine. But I’ve been calling it the #dotcons for 20 years – because that’s what it is – a con.

The last 30 years of tech hasn’t just drifted into this mess. It’s been shaped, step by step, enclosure by enclosure, into systems designed to extract value from us. What we now call the internet is, in large part, a machine built to manipulate, capture, and profit.

The old #openweb got fenced in, and most people, especially polite liberal society, went along with it. So we need to talk about the return and the problem. Now we have a shift of the #mainstreaming is flowing back toward the #openweb, that should be a good thing. But there is a problem: people don’t leave the #dotcons behind when they move, they bring the culture with them.

What we’re seeing is a flood of the same patterns – extractive behaviour, ego performance, status games. Not from one “side,” but from everywhere. The habits built inside the #dotcons don’t magically disappear just because the platform changes.

So the real issue isn’t technical, it’s cultural. If we don’t actively mediate this influx, we won’t rebuild the #openweb – we’ll just recreate the same broken systems in slightly different code.

So why do I talk so much about compost, and mess not being the problem. Mess is necessary, but only if it composts – if it breaks down into something fertile. Right now, we’re mostly just piling it higher.

This is where projects like #indymediaback and #OGB matter. They’re not perfect, but they are native to the #openweb path: grounded in trust, process, and the #4opens rather than control, branding, and capture.

The question isn’t whether #mainstreaming is good or bad. The question is: how do we hold the cultural line so that what grows is something genuinely different? Because if we don’t, the #dotcons don’t need to defeat us. We’ll blindly rebuild them ourselves.

So why do I argue we can’t just leave the #dotcons? This is where people get it wrong, every time the #dotcons tighten control – censoring, tweaking algorithms, shifting rules – the reaction is the same: leave, build the #openweb.

Yes, build the #openweb, but the idea that we should stop organizing inside the #dotcons right now? That’s a trap, because billions of people are still there. The conversations, the communities, the movements, they haven’t magically migrated. Walking away doesn’t free those people, it abandons them, leaving the space to be shaped entirely by the #deathcult and the forces already in control.

This is #nothingnew. The #dotcons are #closedweb infrastructure. They serve power because they were built to serve power. Expecting anything else is misunderstanding the system. The real question has never been: are these platforms good? It’s: what do we do, given that this is where people are?

The #geekproblem and the exodus fantasy, is a persistent fantasy – a classic #geekproblem – that if we just build better tools, people will come. They won’t, not on their own. A clean exodus to the #fediverse or any #openweb space doesn’t happen because we post about it. Movement-building has never worked like that, people move through relationships, trust, and shared struggle – not technical superiority.

So if you abandon the spaces where people already are, you cut those pathways. The #OMN approach has always been simple to use the #dotcons as a bridge, not a home, seed organizing where people already are while focusing energy on building the #openweb in parallel to clearly keep your foundations in the #4opens.

This isn’t about purity, it’s about effectiveness, don’t fall into #stupidindividualism, the idea that personal withdrawal is more important than collective reach. This is about infrastructure and grounding, if the #dotcons can switch you off at any moment, they cannot be your foundation.

That’s why we need:

indymediaback as publishing roots
activitypub and the #fediverse as distributed infrastructure
OMN as a bridge between cultures and spaces

This is the practical expression of the #4opens: not just open code, but open process and open trust. Don’t build your house on someone else’s land, but don’t stop talking to the people still living there either. Stay in the fight, when the #dotcons clamp down, it’s not a surprise, it’s a signal of what they are, and what they’ve always been.

The answer isn’t to run away, it’s to root ourselves somewhere that can’t be shut down, while continuing to show up where the people are.

Build the #openweb, stay in the fight, keep it simple #KISS

Toward Healthier Digital Public Spaces: A Cultural and Structural Challenge

From a practical perspective, the challenges in digital and social technology are not technical, they are cultural. This may seem obvious, but it is often overlooked in policy and implementation. At a basic level, there are two broad approaches to handling disagreement and complexity in online spaces:

Exclusion-focused approaches (e.g. blocking, filtering, silencing), which reduce immediate friction but reinforce fragmentation and polarisation.

Engagement approaches (e.g. dialogue, questioning, listening, and iterative response), which are more demanding but can, over time, reduce conflict and build shared understanding.

In the current mess – shaped by strong norms of individualism and personal optimisation – the first dysfunctional approach dominates. This grows increasingly fragmented discourse, where communities become isolated and less resilient.

Understanding this we can start to show the limits of “Common Sense” in today’s mess, were governance relies on this “common sense.” Over the past four decades, economic and cultural frameworks – market-driven individualism – has controlled how we design and use digital systems contributing to:

Increased social fragmentation

Growing economic inequality

Incentive structures prioritising engagement over well-being

Environmental and social externalities (including visible #climatechaos impacts)

These outcomes tell us that existing models are not sufficient for building sustainable digital public spaces, so we need to #KISS revisit platform dynamics and structural Incentives.

The dominant digital platforms (the #dotcons) operate on business models that prioritise data extraction, engagement metrics, and advertising revenue. These incentives shape what information is amplified, how users interact and which behaviours are rewarded. While these systems are effective at scaling control, they are not in any way aligned with public interest outcomes such as trust, accountability, or democratic participation.

Current trends – ranging from disinformation to polarisation and environmental stress – highlight the limits of systems based purely on competitive, self-interested models. At the same time, alternative approaches – such as the #openweb and federated systems – offer more aligned values but face basic challenges of coordination, usability, and governance. So we need to move from fragmentation to constructive engagement, to reframe the problem, from crisis to stewardship.

This more sustainable approach emphasises stewardship over extraction, collaboration over isolation to help build resilience over short-term optimisation. This does not mean abandoning innovation or individual freedom, but rather #KISS balancing these with responsibility for shared outcomes. As the current challenges in digital spaces are not only the result of “bad actors” or isolated failures. In simple terms we need to move from systems that amplify division toward systems that support understanding and the common good.

To compost this mess we need a willingness to engage with complexity and a commitment to building systems (technical and social) that prioritise long-term public value over short-term individual gains. This is not easy work – but it is necessary if digital infrastructure is to support healthy, democratic societies.

KISS – Keep it simple, sustainable, and focused on the common good.

Beyond Blocking: Building Trust Infrastructure for the Open Web

A Policy Case for Commons-Based Moderation in the Fediverse

The problem with the current approach

The normal response to harmful content and behaviour on federated social platforms today is the block. Instance administrators block other instances. Users block other users. Communities build blocklists and share them. This is understandable – it is the tool available – but it is not a solution. It is, at best, a temporary containment strategy.

Blocking is the digital equivalent of closing the curtains. The problem does not go away. The harmful actor does not change. The tension, between open participation and community safety, between freedom of expression and protection from harm, is not resolved. It is deferred, and at a cost to the openness that makes the Fediverse worth defending in the first place.

When entire instances are blocked, legitimate users on those instances lose access to communities they value. When blocklists are the primary moderation infrastructure, the communities that maintain them acquire disproportionate power over what the network sees. The default is isolation, the Fediverse fragments, not because of any external threat, but because of its own defensive reflexes.

This matters beyond the technical community. The Fediverse represents the largest functioning alternative to corporate social media. It is, in the most literal sense, public digital infrastructure owned by nobody and available to everyone. How it handles the tension between openness and safety determines whether it can scale to serve democratic societies, or if it remains a technically interesting experiment for a self-selecting community.

The #4opens principle and why it matters for policy

The Fediverse is built on a set of principles called the #4opens: open data, open source, open standards, and open process. These are not just technical preferences, they are a statement about what public digital infrastructure should look like – transparent, accountable, forkable, improvable by anyone.

The fourth open – open process – is the most politically significant and the most underdeveloped. It means that governing our communities, including how we handle conflict and harm, should be visible, contestable, and collectively grown. Not handed down by a platform’s trust and safety team or enforced by an opaque algorithm, not dependent on the goodwill of a instance administrator.

The current state of Fediverse moderation largely fails this test. Moderation decisions are made locally, inconsistently, and without shared infrastructure for collective reasoning. The result on balance is less freedom, more a patchwork of micro-kingdoms, each with its own rules, enforced by blocking the kingdoms whose rules they disagree with. This is not a stable foundation for the kind of digital public sphere that European democratic values require.

The commercial platforms are not the solution – but they are in the room talking loudly

Commercial social media platforms – what we call the #dotcons, shorthand for the dot-com era corporations that monetised public digital space, are present in or adjacent to the Fediverse. Meta’s Threads now implements ActivityPub, the protocol underlying Fediverse federation. This means that the same open standard that allows community-run instances to talk to each other also allows a platform with three billion users and an advertising-driven engagement model to participate in the same network.

The response in parts of the Fediverse community has been, predictably, to block Threads at the instance level. This is coherent as a local decision. As a strategy for the #openweb, it is kinda self-defeating. Blocking Meta does not make Meta go away, it does not change Meta’s incentives. It does not protect users who remain on Meta from the harms of algorithmic amplification. And it does little to build the alternative infrastructure that would give those users somewhere better to go.

The principled response to commercial platform encroachment on the openweb is not isolation, it is to build commons infrastructure so robust, so trustworthy, and so genuinely useful that the value proposition of centralised platforms diminishes. That means solving the moderation problem properly, not routing around it.

What trust-based flows offer that blocking cannot

The research and development work at projects like the Open Media Network (#OMN) points toward a different model: moderation not as exclusion but as flow management. In a trust-based flow architecture, content does not move through the network based on algorithms optimising for engagement, nor is it blocked at the border by administrators making binary decisions. Instead, it flows – or slows, or stops – based on trust relationships that communities build and maintain themselves. Trust is local, it is composable, different communities will apply different trust filters to the same content without requiring global consensus or any centralised authority.

This model has several properties that should interest European policymakers directly:

Accountability without centralisation. Trust relationships are explicit and auditable. When a community decides not to propagate certain content, that decision is visible and contestable within the community. This is categorically different from both corporate content moderation (opaque, unaccountable) and simple blocking (binary, irreversible).

Resilience against capture. Because trust is distributed and local, there is no single chokepoint that a bad actor – commercial, state, or otherwise – can capture to control information flows across the network. This is critical infrastructure resilience in the same sense that distributed energy grids are resilient against single points of failure.

Reversibility. The rollback function – the ability to re-evaluate historical content visibility based on updated trust relationships – is something no current platform offers at scale. It means that moderation decisions can evolve as communities learn, rather than being permanently encoded in block lists that few people maintain.

Scalability without hierarchy. Top-down moderation breaks down as communities grow. Moderators experience burnout and trauma. Rules based decision making become inconsistent. The trust-based model scales horizontally – as the network grows, the trust infrastructure grows with it, because it is built into the relationships between nodes rather than concentrated in any central authority.

The culture question is not separate from the technical question

It is a constant mistake to read this as purely a technical, you cannot build a healthy online culture without infrastructure – and you cannot build the working infrastructure without clear visions of what culture looks like.

The Fediverse community is currently navigating this without adequate tools. The result is a recurring cycle: a wave of new users arrives, often fleeing a crisis on commercial platforms. The existing community debates how to handle them. Blocking becomes the instrument of cultural negotiation. Fragmentation follows. The cycle repeats.

What is needed is not better blacklists, we need infrastructure that makes constructive engagement the path of least resistance, where trust can be extended incrementally, withdrawn proportionally, and rebuilt over time. Where communities are not forced to choose between openness and safety because the tools exist to manage both simultaneously.

This is a social and political problem that has a technical component. The Open Media Network project is one concrete path to solving it, building on mature existing infrastructure, proven open standards, and a decade of practical experience in grassroots on the ground and online federated media.

What European public investment can achieve here

European public funding for digital commons infrastructure has a strong track record. The NGI Zero programme has supported foundational work on everything from secure routing protocols to private messaging to federated video platforms. This investment compounds: open source outputs are reused, extended, and built upon by developers and institutions across the continent and beyond.

The case for investing in trust-based moderation infrastructure for the Fediverse is straightforward as the problem is real, well-documented, and getting worse. The Fediverse is growing, but without better tools for managing harmful content and building coherent information flows, its growth will hit a ceiling defined by the limits of volunteer moderator capacity and the inadequacy of binary blocking as a governance tool.

The solution is technically tractable, the components exist, the protocol exists, the codebases exist, the community exists. What is missing is the focused R&D investment to implement trust-based flows as working, deployable, open infrastructure.

The alternative is worse, if the Fediverse fails to solve this problem, the vacuum will be filled either by commercial platforms extending their reach into the federated space on their own terms, or by the continued fragmentation of the #openweb into isolated communities talking only to themselves. Neither outcome serves European democratic values or European digital sovereignty.

The investment required is modest. The upside, is a functioning commons layer for federated media distribution, owned by nobody, available to everyone, accountable to the communities it serves, is large. The time to build it is now, before the structural problems of the current moment ossify into the permanent architecture of the next generation internet.

What happened over the last ten years on our Fediverse path

The first steps were good. #Socialhub emerged as a genuinely grassroots space, shaped to maintain the integrity of the #activertypub native reboot. It grew directly out of the #activertypub affinity group itself – rooted in lived practice rather than imposed structure.

So what motivated this native path? The current #openweb reboot wasn’t exactly planned – it was, in many ways, serendipitous. During the #WC3 process, the usual mainstream players were largely absent. That gap created space for an alternative cohort to step in and shape things in a more “native” way. This is rare. Normally, these processes are dominated by institutional and corporate interests, but for a moment, we had something different – and it worked.

From that strong beginning, #Socialhub grew into a real, functioning community. Its high point was during the Fediverse outreach to the EU, when there was a sense of shared purpose and direction. The social and technical sides were in balance, and the space felt alive, open, and productive. But over time, things shifted.

The rapid growth of the Fediverse brought in many people without any grounding in “native” #openweb culture. The influx – particularly from Twitter – changed the tone and priorities. This wasn’t entirely negative; growth always brings energy and diversity. But it also brought confusion, and a drift away from the original focus.

At the same time, there was a strong, increasingly dogmatic shift toward the technical side of #activertypub, at the expense of the social layer that made it meaningful. The balance tipped. The core crew thinned out, and newer, more tech-focused contributors filled the space. This mirrored the rebooting of the #WC3 process, and the two together created a difficult, often unspoken tension over direction and responsibility. Governance also became an issue. The line:

“To use the forum, you must agree to these terms with Petites Singularités, the company that runs the forum.”

Made visible something that had been quietly present for a while: this was not, in practice, a community-owned space. It had an owner, with an agenda. What had been presented as a shared, grassroots commons was, structurally, something else?

This marks a deeper shift – from serendipitous emergence to more deliberate control.

A short update: how we are failing

We didn’t fail because of bad intent. We fail because we didn’t hold onto the balance that made the space work.

We allowed the social layer to be sidelined by the technical.
We didn’t build clear, native governance while we still had the chance.
We mistook growth for success, without mediating the cultural shift it brought.
We let ownership and control consolidate quietly, instead of addressing it openly.
And when tensions emerged, we defaulted to avoidance and #BLOCKING, rather than doing the messy work of resolution.

In short, we lost the thread of the #openweb path by not actively maintaining it.

Where that leaves us now? We are now in a more complex, more conflicted space. The community is bigger, but less coherent. The vision is more diluted, but still present, if we choose to pick it up again.

The solution isn’t simple. It likely involves some form of real, lived democracy, and a return to explicitly valuing the social processes alongside the technical ones. And maybe the only solid ground we still have is this: Grassroots is always messy, that mess isn’t a flaw – it’s how you know it’s real. The challenge is not to remove the mess, but to hold it together well enough that it can still grow.

The value of the #Fediverse comes from its cultural roots in the #openweb

The Digital Commons: The Ground We Already Stand On

So how do we mediate this fear?

Who would have though this would sum up our needed path for the #Oxfordboaters and the #fedivers?

You would have to be an #asshole to unthinkingly disagree with what we are doing and pretty wise to thinkingly disagree with the path. Which one are you? So why are we in such a mess? Because people are acting from fear. Not always consciously, not always honestly – but fear is the driver.

Fear of losing control.
Fear of losing status.
Fear of uncertainty.
Fear of each other.

And when fear leads, people grasp for control. They close things down, centralise, gatekeep, and default to the safe, known paths of the #closedweb and institutional power. That’s how we get the current mess – top-down structures trying to manage what was meant to be lived, messy, and shared.

In #OMN terms, this isn’t a technical failure, it’s a cultural one. A failure to hold open processes in the face of discomfort. So how do we mediate this fear?

Not by pretending it isn’t there. And not by fighting it head-on – that just feeds it. We mediate fear by building trust through practice:

Keep things open (#4opens): transparency reduces fear of hidden agendas. When people can see what’s happening, they relax.

Lower the stakes: small, reversible steps instead of big, risky commitments. Let people edge in rather than jump.

Normalise mess: show that not everything has to be controlled to work. Messy, lived processes are not failure, they’re how real communities function.

Create shared doing: fear shrinks when people work together on tangible tasks. Composting, media, infrastructure – doing builds trust faster than talking.

Hold both fluffy and spiky: the fluffy path makes space for people to come in; the spiky path protects that space from being captured or hollowed out. You need both, visibly and honestly.

Refuse false clarity: the #dotcons sell certainty and simplicity. The #openweb is different, it’s about holding complexity without collapsing into control.

And maybe most importantly, stay present. Fear thrives in abstraction, it weakens in lived, grounded relationships. In the end, mediating fear isn’t about convincing people with arguments. It’s about creating environments where fear has less reason to exist.

This is the same dynamic you can see with Oxford boaters. The river culture is native, messy, negotiated, based on lived practice and mutual understanding. People want the freedom to move, to live lightly, and not be bound by rigid landlord rules. But when outside structures push in – formal control, ownership models, enforcement – they reshape that culture into something else. The tension isn’t really about rules or functions; it’s about which culture gets to define the space.

That’s the real work of #OMN: not only building tools, but growing the social soil where people feel able to act without retreating into control.

Individual fears

How things can change

Hope this helps compost some of the mess building up. It’s something we all need to do and have responsibility for.

Groups don’t usually fail because of external pressure, they fail because they turn inward and burn energy on themselves. If you want a calm, #KISS path that actually holds diversity without collapsing, we need a few simple lived – traditions and mythos – not heavy governance, not ideology battles, just grounded #KISS practice:

Keep the core action very small and clear – a shared purpose. If people can’t easily answer “what are we doing?”, drift and conflict creep in.

In twine “doing” with “talking” Most infighting comes from too much abstract discussion. Doing space – Talking space – Don’t let one swamp the other.

Protect focus like it’s fragile (because it is), the biggest risk isn’t disagreement – it’s distraction. When things start spiralling bring it back to “what are we building this week?” if it doesn’t help, park it

Default to trust, but design for friction, diversity is strength. But unbalanced diversity = chaos. So let people approach things differently, but require shared outputs – If it doesn’t produce something, it doesn’t dominate attention.

No purity tests, this is where diversity dies. People will come with different politics, paths (fluffy vs spiky) and have different priorities, that’s fine – as long as they don’t block others doing the work.

Make conflict low-energy, not zero-conflict – we won’t avoid disagreements. Trying repression = explosion later. Instead, keep arguments short, move unresolved tension into parallel paths (“try both”) and let results decide, not personalities. This is the “compost” approach we need to talk about – don’t fight the mess, process it.

Grow by doing, not convincing, you don’t need everyone to agree. You need visible, working examples. Let people see it working – that’s what grows a community of action.

What we are sketching and building is the hard middle path of not rigid control (kills growth) and not total openness (creates chaos). But a light structure that keeps things moving.

#Oxford example:
Oxford boaters are sovereign, keeping the free-flowing life of the river, not bound by the old rules of the landlords.

#Fediverse example:
The Fediverse is native to the #openweb path. We judge by the #4opens, and walk with power.

Why do we keep bringing this up?

If we want a better web, we have to stop pretending this is just about “bad tech companies doing bad things.” Of course, they are-that’s what capitalist incentives produce. The real question is: what are we doing differently?

That means accepting some uncomfortable truths. The better path will be less convenient, at least at first. We will have to socially support things that used to look free on the #dotcons. Because the cost we didn’t want to face is simple: the #openweb was always going to be harder, someone has to:

run the servers
maintain the software
fund development
handle abuse, moderation, and #UX

The fantasy wasn’t that this work didn’t exist. The fantasy was that the market – advertising – would cover it without consequences.

In the current mess in tech paths, this becomes visible again. Bluesky and #ATproto keep getting lumped in with #ActivityPub under the easy label of “open protocols, yay”… but that’s just not true. Yes, they both sit in the #openweb space, but there’s a real structural problem here, and we’re seeing it play out in real time.

At AtmosphereConf, the signal was stark:

“Why would anyone fund an Atmosphere project if Bluesky, with $100 million in the bank, might ship a competing feature at any moment?”

That’s not an ecosystem. That’s a platform with enough gravity to crush its own edges. And people are noticing. The old pattern is back:

invite the community in
let them build the value
then absorb and replace them

Same playbook, again and again. It feels open – but the centre still holds the power. The same dynamic we saw with Twitter. The DNA is obvious.

The difference really matters. #ActivityPub was built as a commons path from the start – messy, flawed, but natively open. #ATproto is something else: a platform-first model with openness layered on top. That’s why it keeps drifting this way. It’s not a bug, it’s the design.

Too much #techshit, and everything starts to stink. Why would anyone step into the #openweb if that’s the smell? This creates a bigger problem, that it’s a mess that keeps coming back, and as usual we’ll be the ones left to compost it, underfunded, unrecorded, and unthanked.

We’ve been here before – with the #encryptionists and the #blockchain mess. Big promises, lots of noise, overlapping hype cycles. Now there’s a clear overlap with #Bluesky and #AI. The risk isn’t just that this fails. It’s that when it fails, it leaves a miasma behind, making it harder for people to trust the actually working open paths. That’s the real damage.

Neglect is not innocence, this isn’t about blaming users instead of power. Power matters. Monopolies matter. Venture capital mess matters. But still, if the #openweb mattered, why didn’t we support it?

Why do people pay for streaming, cloud, and delivery, but not support publishing tools, independent media, hosting, or open infrastructure?

Why did so many #NGO organisations that talked about openness still push people onto closed platforms the moment growth and analytics are on the table? We keep choosing short-term convenience over long-term stewardship, not just a market failure, a cultural one.

So lets look at this mess again. I’ve been trying to find a way to express my view of the people who took over outreach in the #Fediverse, and in doing so helped shape the current #openweb reboot.

DRAFT: naïve, controlling, and self-interested.

They’ve left a mess that the people they pushed aside now have to compost. It’s really useful to look at how we got here.

In the early years, outreach was organised by a genuinely diverse, native crew. It was a good time – three open conferences, and even getting the EU to adopt the standard. But that group burned out, focus splintered, self-interest crept in, driven by the need to control resources. The balance shifted, and grifters gradually outnumbered them, eventually tearing it apart. In the space left behind, a new crew stepped in – filling the vacuum with centralised power and influence. And that’s where we are today.

We don’t fix this by arguing harder. We fix it by building – and holding – open spaces that don’t follow this pattern.

Let’s try and simplify the #OMN

It’s not about features. It’s about culture.

#ActivityPub comes out of the #openweb tradition.

#Bluesky comes out of a split lineage – #openweb roots, shaped by #dotcons incentives, with an #encryptionist upbringing.

News culture on the Fediverse

We have a real problem in Fediverse journalism: almost all linking flows upwards – to established sources and wannabe establishment voices, while there is a strong aversion to linking horizontally (to peers) or downwards (to smaller and emerging voices).

This behaviour isn’t native to the #openweb. It’s inherited from mainstream media culture, where authority, visibility, and trust are assumed to come from the top. In that model, linking becomes a form of validation, and people are cautious about offering that validation outside established hierarchies.

But this creates a real bottleneck by limiting discovery, reinforces existing power structures, and prevents the kind of rich, networked understanding that the Fediverse should enable. If we want a genuinely decentralised and trustworthy news/media ecosystem, we need to shift this pattern. Linking should reflect context, relevance, and trust, not just perceived status.

That means actively encouraging:

Horizontal linking between peers and communities
Downward linking to new, local, and less visible sources
Clear pathways to trace stories across the network, not just back to “authoritative” nodes

The challenge is cultural more than technical. This “linking upwards only” habit comes from fear – fear of losing credibility, of amplifying something unreliable, of stepping outside accepted narratives.

So the task isn’t to attack or block this behaviour, but to compost it – to transform it into something more useful. We do that by:

Making trust visible and contextual, rather than assumed
Supporting practices that reward good linking in all directions
Building tools that make it easy to follow and verify flows across networks

In short, we need to move from hierarchical validation to networked understanding. That’s how we make Fediverse journalism more truly native to the #openweb.

PS. I did not add any links as at this first step its judgmental and thus distracting.

Rebuilding Journalism as Commons (not a product)

Rebuilding Journalism as Commons (not a product)

News culture on the Fediverse

It should be obvious that we need a path back to good journalism – journalism that sheds light on facts, connects the dots, and lets people trace those dots back to sources. This is what allows us to share, question, and discuss within our own trusted communities, and then spread that knowledge outward through federation, always linking back to the source.

Right now, the #mainstreaming path is broken. It’s sometimes hard for people to see this because the decline has been slow, a gradual death of journalism. Since the early days of the internet, we’ve been told the same story: “People expect news for free, so quality journalism is no longer economically viable.” There’s truth in that. Good journalism is expensive. It takes time, skill, trust, and institutional memory.

But that’s only half the story. What actually happened is this: people kept consuming familiar “news brands,” and those brands were bought, consolidated, and financialised until shareholder value replaced any sense of public value. Slowly, investigative journalists were cut and sidelined, editorial independence eroded, and content shifted toward ads, PR, and narrative management. What we now call “news” is marketing, agenda-setting, and reputation management – a distraction. Journalism, as a public good, has been hollowed out, in part through our own passive acceptance of this shift.

Today, we can see more clearly that if you do real journalism – the kind that challenges power – you have no real career path and face risks: #dotcons blocking, right-wing co-option, and at worst, isolation, exile, prison, or worse. The result is a broken landscape: corporate media that won’t tell the truth, and under-resourced independent media that carries high risk for little or no reward. In that situation, who chooses journalism as a life path?

The deeper problem is articulation and power. The world is complex, most people don’t have the time, energy, or tools to fully articulate what they see, feel, and experience. Into that gap step politicians, corporations, and #fashernista influencers. They have the resources – especially through the #dotcons – to articulate reality, but in ways that divide people, flatten complexity into conflict, and steer perception to serve power and profit. This isn’t just misinformation. It’s structured narrative control.

Why the old models won’t come back, we can’t simply “fix” legacy media. It is structurally tied to advertising, concentrated ownership, and political influence. And we can’t rely on heroic individuals either, that path is too fragile, too dangerous, and too easy to suppress. If journalism is going to survive, it won’t look like the past.

A different path: journalism as networked commons. At #OMN, we’re outlining a different approach decentralised, collective path. Think of it as a second coming of #Indymedia, but more resilient, more sustainable, and better integrated with current networks.

This is where the #openweb and the #Fediverse matter. With protocols like ActivityPub, we already have the foundations for distributed publishing, shared visibility, and cross-community discussion. But tech alone isn’t enough, the missing layer is trust and flow. To rebuild journalism, we need to focus on how information flows socially, not just how it’s published.

This is where #OMN comes in:

Content flows between communities
Trust is applied locally, not imposed globally
Metadata (tags, context, sources, warnings) travels with stories
People can trace information back through the flow

Instead of one “authoritative source,” we get many sources, with visible relationships between them, shaped through community trust and discussion. This is journalism people can actually use to follow a story back to its sources, add context and local knowledge and share and challenge it within trusted spaces.

That’s how we rebuild public understanding – not just publish articles – but from product to process. Journalism should not be a product to consume, it needs to be a process we participate in. When it’s treated as a product it’s optimised for clicks, shaped by incentives and in the end controlled by owners. When it becomes a process it becomes collective, accountable and thus resilient.

So composting the mess, we’re not starting from nothing, we have the ruins of legacy media, the lessons of projects like #Indymedia and the living infrastructure of the #Fediverse. This is compost, from it, we can grow something new – grounded in the #4opens, simple enough to understand (#KISS), and social at its core, not just technical.

The real question isn’t “How do we save journalism?” It’s: How do we rebuild the social systems that make truth-telling possible? Because without those paths, journalism doesn’t just struggle –
it disappears.

Gates vs Bridges: the obscure politics of the #geekproblem

In the #geekproblem mindset, crossing a protocol flow is a gateway were in #openweb terms, it’s a bridge. That difference is not technical – it’s social – the difference between CONTROL and TRUST. A gate is something you lock, permission, authentication, enforcement were a bridge is something you cross, connection, flow, relationship. In the physical world, we don’t put gates on bridges as a default, but in software, we keep rebuilding them, and then wondering why things fragment.

RSS is a bridge.

Closed APIs are gates.

This should be obvious, but it keeps getting lost inside coding culture.

This isn’t just a #mainstreaming problem, if this critique only applied to Big Tech (#dotcons), it would be easy, but it doesn’t. From 30 years of building in alt-tech spaces – hundreds of projects, no bosses, no corporate control – the same pattern keeps reappearing. Control creeps in, what’s striking is that this cuts across both mainstreaming “professional” engineering culture and radical, horizontal, “alternative” tech spaces. That’s why it’s an overarching #geekproblem, the shared cultural bias toward CONTROL in both code and community design.

The deeper issue is social blindness, at the root of this is something uncomfortable – A lack of joined-up social thinking – when a relatively small technical minority designs systems based on limited social experience, abstract models of human behaviour and little grounding in historical or grassroots movements.

When these systems scale globally, the result is tools fail to support humane, collective use, and undermine trust instead of building it, they reproduce the same power dynamics they claim to escape. This feeds the wider #dotcons worldview – even when the intent is “alternative”. It’s not just “the spirit of the age” it’s a worldview of a narrow culture that has become infrastructural. We’re all, to some extent, still operating inside this #deathcult logic, even when we think we’re critiquing it.

So a good first step is looking at who is funding the problem, this is where foundations and FOSS funding bodies need to look closely. A lot of funding unintentionally reinforces gate-based architectures, complexity that centralises control and abstract innovation over lived social practice. We keep funding new gates, then asking why the #openweb doesn’t grow. It #KISS that if people cannot mentally model a system, they cannot govern it, if they cannot govern it, power centralises every time.

A different path is bridges and flows. Projects like #OMN and #indymediaback take this different approach of start with flows, not platforms, building bridges, not gateways. The focus is on keeping systems simple enough to understand (#KISS) to grow trust as social and visible, not hidden in code. Using the #4opens as grounding, not branding, we understand none of this is new, that’s the value of #nothingnew. As I keep pointing out it’s how RSS worked, early Indymedia worked and large parts of the existing Fediverse still work (when not over-engineered).

On #blocking and conflict – Yes, it’s sometimes necessary, but often it’s a symptom of deeper failure of rigid, internalised worldviews, lack of shared mediation tools and systems designed for exclusion rather than negotiation. It’s easy to block, it’s much harder to build bridges, so the real question is how do we design systems that reduce pointless conflict without exhausting the people inside them? Food for thought (and compost).

We’re all carrying some of this mess, it’s fine – it’s compost. But if we don’t consciously shift from gates to bridges, we’ll keep rebuilding the same broken systems, just with nicer branding. As bridges scale trust – Gates scale control, to mediate this mess, the hard question we need to ask the #mainstreaming is which one are they funding?

#openweb #4opens #OMN