Why fund the reboot of the #Indymedia project

In the midst of global upheaval and a growing disconnect between people and the media that claims to represent them, the #Indymedia project emerged as a beacon of hope. It was a grassroots effort to reclaim storytelling and provide a platform and network for voices marginalized by #traditionalmedia outlets. #Indymedia wasn’t just a website — it was a movement that lived the principles of the #openweb: a tool for people and communities to share their realities, amplify voices, and challenge the narratives shaped by powerful institutions.

The Legacy of indymedia is more than an isolated experiment. It became a global network of activists, journalists, and engaged citizens committed to truth and transparency. It transcended geographical boundaries, connecting people across continents and cultures in a shared struggle for social justice and equality. From covering anti-globalization protests to spotlighting local struggles, Indymedia served as a vital conduit for stories that would otherwise go untold.

Yet, like many grassroots movements, #Indymedia faced significant challenges. As the digital landscape evolved, maintaining the infrastructure and community support required to sustain the project became increasingly difficult. The rise of #dotcons and centralized social media platforms further marginalized independent media, diverting attention and resources away from alternative voices. These platforms promised connection but delivered algorithmic silos, favouring profit over public good.

The need for a reboot, despite its decline, the spirit of Indymedia persists, a testament to the enduring need for grassroots media in an era dominated by corporate control. To reclaim the narrative and challenge the status quo, we must breathe new life into this project. A reboot of #Indymedia represents an opportunity to rekindle the flame of grassroots activism and rebuild pathways to the #openweb. By leveraging emerging technologies and decentralized networks, we can create a resilient, community-driven space where voices are heard, stories are shared, and truths prevail.

Why fund the reboot? This isn’t just about reviving an old platform, it’s about investing in democracy, transparency, and social justice. Here’s why this matters:

Amplifying Marginalized Voices: Indymedia provides a platform for communities often ignored by #mainstreaming media, giving people the space to share their stories and experiences without gatekeepers.

Challenging Dominant Narratives: By offering an alternative to corporate media, Indymedia encourages critical thinking and pushes back against the manufactured consensus, growing a more informed and engaged public.

Building Community: Indymedia nurtures connections between activists, journalists, and everyday citizens committed to social change, creating a global network of solidarity and support.

Promoting Transparency: Unlike profit-driven platforms, Indymedia is committed to open processes and accountability, ensuring that information flows freely and ethically.

Empowering Individuals: Indymedia inspires people to become active participants in shaping their media landscape, encouraging citizen journalism and grassroots organizing as tools for collective action.

In a world increasingly dominated by centralized control and #dotcons corporate interests, rebooting the Indymedia project offers a powerful counterpoint, a chance to reclaim the #openweb for the people. This is an opportunity to create a space where authentic voices rise, truths prevail, and communities thrive. By supporting this initiative, we can reignite the spirit of progressive grassroots media and build a future where people, not profits, shape the public discourse.

The need for an independent, people-powered media ecosystem has never been greater. Let’s pick up the shovel, tend to the roots, and grow something new from the compost of the past. Together, we can cultivate a more just, inclusive, and vibrant media landscape — one story at a time.

Rebooting Indymedia: Restoring the OpenWeb and Grassroots Technology

Hamish Campbell, looking at the past and future of “native” grassroots media.

In the last three decades, the digital landscape has undergone dramatic changes. I have witnessed its evolution firsthand, working in radical media and engaging with grassroots technology. But this journey hasn’t been without its challenges and setbacks.

The Dawn of the OpenWeb

The early years of the #openweb were a golden age. It was a time when the power of connectivity and innovation was shared and wielded by people rather than confined to corporate silos. This openweb we cherished was built at a human scale, with real conversations and decisions made not by algorithms or profit-driven entities, but by human beings with a vision for a decentralized and inclusive digital space.

However, those pioneering days of the openweb seem distant now. The landscape rapidly shifted, favoring echo chambers over open forums, transforming the dream of a participatory digital spaces into commercialized pockets designed to commodify our data and society

The Rise and Fall of .Coms

The term #dotcons, inspired by the .com boom, exposes the underlying deceit in this new era of the internet. Companies emerged with the aim of capitalizing on our online presence, turning every click and keystroke into a financial opportunity. Social media platforms like #Facebook—aptly dubbed #Failbook and others have become disasters for both our personal mental health and societal construct.

The Encryptionist Agenda

In response to the corporatization of the web, alternative technology, especially within radical grassroots movements, began to focus heavily on encryption. Yet this #encryptionist agenda, instead of fostering a true alternative, led us to a dead end. #Indymedia, which once stood as a beacon of open, participatory journalism, eventually succumbed to this closed technology approach.

The Plight of Progressive Technology

#Fashionista politics—those which blindly follow trends without questioning the underlying systems—have dominated the progressive tech landscape, often embracing the very platforms that stand contrary to open standards. The ideals that spurred movements and created spaces for change have been eroded, leaving us in a technological quagmire that stifles creativity and real progress.

Rebuilding from the Roots

Despite these challenges, hope remains for a resurgence of grassroots media. By revisiting the core principles that made #Indymedia a force in its early days, we can steer the movement back on course.

A Simple Federated Network

I consider Oxford IMC, which I co-founded, as a blueprint for this revival. Through a network of trust-based content sharing, we can create a federated model that allows information to flow freely yet responsibly.

Think of it as a series of nodes: activist news websites, Mastodon instances, peertube channels, and local blogs, all interlinked by trust and moderated collaboration, governed by a simple yet effective set of controls—including link subscribe, moderate/trusted flow, and rollback functions to maintain the integrity of our content.

Trust First, Moderate Later

By focusing on trust-first networking, where content flows are based on established relationships, we not only streamline communication but also protect against the pitfalls of a closed, controlled web. This approach allows for open, decentralized storytelling, with an organic curation system that respects the diversity and autonomy of each node.

Reclaiming and Reshaping Security

Recognizing the need for secure communication without sacrificing openness, the reboot incorporates both bridges to other #4opens network publishing and guidelines for pseudo-anonymous contributions through Tor.

These measures provide a balanced approach, enabling activists to share their stories without fear of repercussion while maintaining a spirit of openness and community-driven journalism.

Foundations of the Reboot

Central to this reboot are the #PGA hallmarks and the #4opens—open data, open source, open standards, and open process. This framework, informed by the lessons from #Indymedia’s past, will ensure that we do not repeat the same mistakes.

Moreover, by adopting federated databases and leveraging tags and flows of news objects, this network will function as a vibrant, resilient web of news, accessible at different levels and capable of adapting to the ever-changing demands of radical grassroots journalism.

Be Part of the Open Media Reboot

I invite you to join us as we embark on this journey to reclaim our digital commons. If you share the vision for an open, grassroots-powered web, visit http://unite.openworlds.info and contribute your expertise. With a commitment to the #4opens and a collaborative spirit, we can usher in a new era of the fediverse centered on truth, empowerment, and community.

This is more than a project—it’s a movement. Let’s create a network that stands as a testament to our collective power, one that honors our past achievements while forging a future that lives up to our highest aspirations. Let’s make history, again.

The open web is not just a concept; it’s our birthright. Together, let’s bring it back to life.

This blog post is a call to action. It’s a bid to revive the original spirit of #Indymedia and extend a hand to those willing to contribute to the future of open, grassroots media.

# Introduction
– Hamish Campbell’s background in grassroots and radical media
– The open web’s early potential for alternative media

# The Failure of Alternative Media
– Rise of big tech like Facebook led to closed and monopolized systems
– Encryptionist agenda went nowhere over the past decade
– Climate crisis shows need for societal alternatives

# The Open Media Network
– Explaining the decentralized federated network model
– Trusted flows of content based on open standards

# Rebooting Indymedia
– Rebuilding the local community news site with focus areas
– Approaches for enabling secure anonymous publishing

# Why Indymedia Failed
– Early successes but internal disputes over openness
– Problems with incompatible customized systems
– Control desires led to user-hostile encryption

# Lessons Learned
– Open standards critical for networks
– Loose flexible processes over rigid bureaucracy
– Explicitly embedding the “four opens” philosophy

# Project Overview
– Building a web of trusted news flows
– Agnostic decentralized network via protocols like ActivityPub
– Get involved to help create alternative media

A Old Video

Navigating Grassroots Evolution in Tech Communities: Challenges and Paths

The landscape of technological evolution often traverses a spectrum between grassroots innovation and mainstream integration. Within this spectrum walks #Socialhub, a space that was born as a grassroots alternative—a bastion of the activertypub reboot’s integrity within its “native” framework. This trajectory from its inception in #activertypub is a distinctive approach in the technological path.

The emergence of the #openweb reboot unfolded serendipitously during the #WC3 proceedings. In an atypical scenario where mainstream stakeholders were absent, the reins of definition were firmly grasped by an alternative cohort, paving an advantageous, albeit less conventional, path for the #openweb community’s progression.

Initially, Socialhub thrived as a nurturing ground for a vibrant community, exemplified by the impactful outreach endeavors to the EU within the Fediverse. However, recent years have introduced complexities. The influx of people lacking a ‘native’ #openweb perspective has precipitated a divergence from the community’s original focus, largely due to the significant influence of Twitter immigrants and Fediverse expansion. This shift presents both challenges and opportunities, marking a departure from the initial vision towards a less intricate and diverse community.

Notably, a pronounced shift towards the technical aspects has eclipsed the attention to its social dimensions, critical for a functional alt, with a reduction in the core social-oriented crew and an influx of technically inclined new members. This transition mirrors the WC3 process reboot, necessitating a delicate, respectful balance of responsibilities between the two facets.

The delineation between a community-driven space and a platform steered by a specific technical viewpoint and agenda has become increasingly visible. This deviation from the original ethos poses challenges, signalling a transition from happenstance to intentionality, necessitating a more democratic approach to reconcile these shifts.

Grassroots initiatives inherently embody a level of messiness that distinguishes their authenticity. Constructive feedback and improvement strategies are pivotal in the “native” FEP process, while the underlying ideas in this are commendable, the outcomes remain questionable, requiring refinement in the process. Volatile yet essential debates to fortify the FEP’s legitimacy, particularly in the unspoken political sphere. Proposals for procedural enhancements aimed at bolstering legitimacy within the FEP necessitate a non-technical, social explanation of proposed changes and their wider implications.

The absence of broader social context and buy-in inhibits legitimacy, necessitating a proactive approach by the community to elucidate and democratize these processes. Currently entrenched as ‘black boxes’, both the FEP and the W3C demand transparency and community involvement to garner support and avoid being ignored sidelined by #mainstreaming dev.

Without proactive measures rooted in activism and learning from historical effective activism, this cycle of ignorance towards these processes will persist. Therein lies the importance of integrating wider social buy-in, understanding the social implications of technical changes, and engaging in transparent, #4opens processes—key tenets for the evolution and legitimacy of tech communities like Socialhub in the digital age.

To note for people who are not familer with this way of looking at the world, the ansear to the question is always more alt grassroots vs less mainstreaming, of course this is always a balance so best not to get into a #ragecircle on this mess making.

#Socialhub originated as a grassroots alternative space specifically designed to maintain the integrity of the activertypub reboot within its inherent framework. Initially stemming from #activertypub itself, the forum embarked on this trajectory. The emergence of the current #openweb reboot was more serendipitous than deliberate. Amidst the #WC3 proceedings, the absence of the typical mainstream participants allowed our alternative cohort to drive and solidify the definition through this “native” #4opens technological pathway an uncommon yet advantageous route for our community to follow.

Socialhub fostered a genuine and thriving community. The pinnacle of this community’s strength was witnessed during the outreach efforts to the EU within the Fediverse. However, recent years have brought challenges; the influx of individuals without a “native” #openweb view has led to a divergence from the spaces initial focus, primarily due to the significant impact of Twitter immigrants and the expansion of the Fediverse. This is good and bad, we have moved a long way from where we started, and have to make the best of this more messy community.

Over the last year we have had a (strong dogmatic) shift to the tech side of activertypub working and away from the social side that is needed for making a working #openweb reboot. In the forum we have had a reduction of the core crew, and an influx of the tech focused new members, this is likely a mirror in the expansion and the rebooting of the WC3 process and the two have a balancing act of responsibility.

“To use the forum, you must agree to these terms with Petites Singularités, the company that runs the forum.” This has become more visible and the owner has a point of view and agenda, this is actually not a space for/by “community” in the sense it was originally sold… shifting from “serendipitous to deliberate” the solution to this shift/issue is likely not easy and involves democracy in some form.

Grassroots are always messy, that’s how you can judge if It’s grassroots or NOT 🙂

Let’s try some constructive comments on this to improve the fep process.

What we have here is a classic activism 3 steps forward 3 steps back process, this is a recurring issue.

The ideas behind this are good, the outcome is questionable, and the process still needs work.

There is a current undeclared fight in the FEP → W3C email list, that is likely unresolvable which is a fine example of the fluffy spiky debate, the only good outcome from my prospective and likely socialhub is making the fep more Legitimacy (political) this is a post with ideas for process to help that happen.

To be a valid fep they should have a non-technical (social) explanation on why it’s needed and what are the social implications of this purely technical change.

As we are NOT only talking about technical points here, most are based on social ideas and have social outcomes for social networking. We need this wider buy in to make this process legitimate.

This process is simple and can be started by the original poster, then carried on by the wider community to build buy in and legitimacy.

Currently, both the fep and the W3C are too many black boxes to have any path to build buy in, thus are being ignored defacto.

This will likely continue without some basic activism as outlined above, the is much to learn from this long history of affective activism.

What is Socialhub – in the activertypub world

The emergence of the current #openweb reboot was more serendipitous than deliberate. Amidst the #WC3 proceedings, the absence of the typical mainstream participants allowed our alternative cohort to drive and solidify the definition through this “native” technological pathway—an uncommon yet advantageous route for our community to follow.

Socialhub fostered a genuine and thriving community. The pinnacle of this community’s strength was witnessed during the outreach efforts to the EU within the Fediverse. However, recent years have brought challenges; the influx of individuals without a “native” #openweb view has led to a divergence from our initial focus, primarily due to the significant impact of Twitter immigrants and the expansion of the Fediverse. This is good and bad, we have moved a long way from where we started, and have to make the best of this more messy communerty.

Over the last year we have had a (strong dogmatic) shift to the tech side of activertypub working and away from the social side that is needed for making a working #openweb reboot. In the codebase we have had a reduction of the core crew, and an influx of the tech focused new members, this is likely a mirror of the rebooting of the WC3 process and the two have had a rocky balancing act of responsibility.

Grassroots are always messy, that’s how you can judge if It’s grassroots or not 🙂

Mess making is a breakdown in communication – ideas please

Interesting #mainstreaming look, that bypasses the grassroots it’s actually talking about, this is a common issue with academic writing, am at Oxford this winter so have every day “organic” expirence of this.

For governance, we have a widely discussed project on this forum that is “native” to address all the issues outline in the article Open-Media-Network/openwebgovernancebody: ON STANDBY due to waiting for funding – (OGB) This is a space for working through Governance of horizontal projects – using #KISS online tools. – openwebgovernancebody – Open Media Network 4

Then for fighting the capture we have an “organic” path the #4opens if used is a strong defence Home – 4opens – Open Media Network

So to sum up, what we need is for “us” the collective to get up from our knees and become the change we would like to see. This is actually not a hard thing to do “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed, citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.”

——————————————————————-

Continuing the discussion from Can This Platform Survive? Governance Challenges for the Fediverse 2:

Dear @hamishcampbell,

although we already had this discussion several times, you keep posting external links to your website every time you have an opportunity to do so, which is quite a lot, since you are very attentive to responding to any new topic with such links.

What it achieves is that your posts rarely bring anything to the conversation and rather look out of place, and barely get any response. Do you realize that all these links have rel="nofollow" attached to them, which means no search engine will index them in relation to this site?

I’m reacting to this specific message because you, being in Oxford, could have made a much better contribution by summarizing the findings of this paper rather than waving your opinion as a pretext to add two more links to your site.

Should I resort to simply unlinking all such references to it so you have an incentive to bring more useful comments? You have been warned repeatedly that your posting style feels spammy, and I would not like to have to kick you out, because when you want you can make interesting contributions. But most of the time, I feel that it’s a waste of time.

What do others think?

Use the mute feature on this user
Flag posts as spam
Unlink openworlds.info
Leave Hamish alone

——————————————————-

#ragecircle the assumption this is spamming is troubling, and we likely need to look at this assumption? What would be the mod process to start this?

Linking is how ideas are addressed on the openweb

UPDATE: to be clear, this is a mod question here, please can the mods address it, thanks.

————————————————————————

This conversation is getting beyond silly, here is what Is Link Spam: Definition and Types of Link Spamming – Kontely link spamming is.

It SHOULD be obvious the post is not doing any of these things.

I would like the current mods, on this open and community driven forum, to stop this please.

And I ask, repeat (and the risk of this being seen as SPAM) for the 3ed time, can we get some process put in place to mediate mod behaver, thanks.

I think this space is increasingly lacking Legitimacy (political) – Wikipedia it was the subject of the post in question. This is a difference of social/tech path of me and the two mods, not some something to be pushed out of view, thanks.

Please stop this.

https://socialhub.activitypub.rocks/t/can-this-platform-survive-governance-challenges-for-the-fediverse/3727/6?u=hamishcampbell

This mess making from our mods is bringing the lack of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy_(political) in this “community site” into view. This is the subject of the original post

I call the subject post #mainstreaming to describe that it’s a reflective post of the chatting classes, not to say this has no value, just it’s not “native” to the grassroots internet some of us want to build.

Then link this to my personal experience, I have 20 years of dealing with this of mess making in #openweb tech/funding so have a lot to say on this PS. this link is not SPAMMING take note, it’s a weblink so you can fallow it to find out more about what I am talking about, if you are interested in clicking on the link.

Next link to the about page of a project that directly addresses the issue the original post is about, with context. I post a link rather than simply copy and past the intro, as this is how the #WWW is supposed to work.

Then I describe how we can fight affectively to push the grassroots “native” internet some of us would like to see, and link to a tool that can be used to affect the needed change. Native to the WWW people can click on the link if interested.

Finally, there is a bit of a spike in the tail, that yes is indirectly pointing at our mods and an inclination on this forum. Take NOTE this is done in a polite way without naming names, so no issue with the CVP etc.

Ok, I understand you don’t like this aproch, this has been made clear the last few years, what exactly is wrong with these posts mods #KISS

Cyber capacity and strategic advantage: resilience, influence, and control

Julia Carver is a DPhil candidate in International Relations at the University of Oxford and Nuffield College. Her work explores cyber-foreign policymaking and strategic thinking in the current era of great power competition, particularly the relationship between digital infrastructure, capacity building, and strategic advantage. In 2021, she founded the Changing Character of War Centre’s Cyber Strategy and Information Operations Working Group, and she currently holds a stipendiary lectureship in Politics at Magdalen College (#Oxford). Her research is jointly funded by the Economic and Social Research Council and Nuffield College.

These people are the wannabe technocrats in training and waiting on the sides. In this event, we have the assumption that we need to push back our internet to before the #openweb took over the world and economic growth for the last 20 years. All they talk is about control locked down “national” intranets, ie what we had before the #openweb, a lossy circle we should not keep going round if we can help ourselves.

In all the sectors there is a split between open and closed. These events are the “common sense” of the closed.

Fear and control
Trust and open

The mission of the NGI is to re-imagine and re-engineer the Internet

We ask that #NGI use “native” approaches and tools at future #openweb events

“The mission of the NGI is to re-imagine and re-engineer the Internet… Committed to open source (both hardware and software) and open data… Build an Internet of Trust, empowering end-users… the concept of the Digital Commons, which is particularly crucial for Europe, as it fosters equitable access to information… the transition to the future internet…”

We ask that #NGI use at future openweb events:

FOSS video streaming solution

Simple open tools for audiences chat, one to meany and one to one

A open to edit shared doc (for links and notes) for the online participants to use, for each session.

This is a #4opens basic path for people to people internet based on trust, for a European #openweb

“When it comes to important ideas that can help improve our society, there really are no boundaries. The challenge is to turn those opportunities into reality. Great ideas just come, but they are gone in a breeze as well. Let’s make good use of them.”

The quotes are from https://ngiforum2023.eu/ , https://www.ngi.eu/ and https://nlnet.nl/ lets together ask/help the #EU to be more openweb native.

———————-
The mission of the NGI is to re-imagine and re-engineer the Internet… Committed to open source (both hardware and software) and open data… Build an Internet of Trust, empowering end-users… the concept of the Digital Commons, which is particularly crucial for Europe, as it fosters equitable access to information… the transition to the future internet…

We ask that #NGI use at online events:

* FOSS video streaming solution
* Simple open tools for audiences chat, one to many and one to one
* A open to edit shared doc (for links and notes) for the online participants to use, for each session.

This is a #4opens basic path for people to people internet based on trust, for a European #openweb

Upton Lecture 2023: Fake News: Learning from Spinoza

Tonight a touch of philosophy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_James_(philosopher)

I wonder what the is to learn from this, it’s my subject #openweb and the media.

Upton Lecture 2023: Fake News: Learning from Spinoza

Susan James is Professor of Philosophy at Birkbeck, University of London. She has held faculty positions at the University of Connecticut and the University of Cambridge, and visiting positions at many other prestigious institutions.

Throughout her work, Professor James tries to bring the history of philosophy into conversation with its contemporary counterpart. Her historical studies aim to illuminate contemporary philosophical problems. In this lecture, Professor James will explore how the work of 17th century Dutch-born philosopher Baruch Spinoza can help us to examine questions of truth in our own time.

It was humanism, nice but with same answer on agency, ask people in power to change.

#Oxford

Talking about #hashtags

We need to think of a serendipity view of how #hashtags work and how our coder kings implement them (#feudalism). Not saying this is a good aproch… i don’t know… but spelling hashtags “wrong” makes their use in categorization and sorting work differently. Might be worth thinking if this could add value or is purely negative? This depends on different views on federation and ideas of a universal truth or messy “truths”. Composting thought on this.

In the #OMN coding project, currently offline (unite.openworlds.info) we add word grouping flows, so you can say one hashtag is the same as another, ie. you can group different “meanings” to build category flows. This makes misspelled hashtags functional, and our current coding broken from the #OMN point of view.

It’s not implemented, is a speck projects so can’t test this. Over the last year I have put 5 #FOSS funding applications in to try and get this built, 3 turned down so far 2 more to be turned down (cross fingers and toes not) soon. Our #AP #openweb reboot is being destroyed by our #fahernistas and #geekproblem nothing new here, but we do need to do better.

That’s what we set out to fix 20 years ago, with the #OMN still digging, but my shovel has no handeal nor a head… says the man on his knees hands covered in shit… composting worthwhile however you do it, I could not make this shit up… but we keep making more #techshit

#OGB – what is the project

The purpose and vision for our #OGB project is to address challenges and conflicts that currently existwithin grassroots organizations and assist in the management of those that arise. By creating a tool set for’Do It Yourself’ (DIY) governance. We aim to develop a ‘Keep It Simple Stupid’ (#KISS) standard frameworkand process. This will become #OGB which can be used in future solutions, organically evolving throughtime.

Human organization and governance are inherently complex and messy. Standard approaches to solving such, tend to enforce rigid structure. Software built to facilitate this reflects such rigidity – attempting to force messy processesinto being ‘cleaner’, ‘neater’ and ‘tidier’ – and thus through such forced behaviour, inevitably fail their purpose. Existing means of decision making tend to lead to ill-fitting outcomes for the actual problems at hand. Too often led by the loudest voice rather than the most suitable solution. The #OGB serves a real need by addressing these problems. Problems identified through past projects and experiences. #OGB further draws on comprehensive experience gained from greater than five years of active involvement in hands-onorganization within #Mastodon instances and the wider #Fediverse. This experience provides valuable insight into the challenges and obstacles that arise in digital grassroots governance.The #OGB project aims to create a decentralized democratic system for grassroots governance, available for any collective or community, with a focus on producers and consumers. The #Fediverse is used as a test case.This project does not seek to create a single organization that dictates protocols or standards. Rather it enables the organiccreation of synthesis, where competing arguments are broached to formulate corrective procedure and proposals for implementation.The #OGB project emphasizes voluntary collaboration. It prioritizes sortition and ‘messy consensus’ to achieve decision-making and a more equitable power distribution.

The #OGB project is a set of software tools and processes that embody a grassroots activism-based governance model. We envision both an online and offline tool suite to fully embolden accessibility. Specifically, this project has the objective of preventing polarization within online communities whilst obtaining an understanding into how such effects amount. Polarization refers to the division and fragmentation of society into opposing groups with conflicting beliefsand values. Leading to breakdowns and disruptions in communication, increases in hostility, and an eventual lack of understanding between perspectives. The #OGB project aims to counteract polarization by promoting trust-based dialogue and governance within the #openweb.The project provides a framework for open and inclusive conversations, enabling people and groups to engage in meaningful dialogue within common ground and allowing the bridging of differences to be better understood. The project enables active body members to shape their own governance structures using tools that facilitate problem-solving and decision-making.

The #OGB project brings added value and innovation. Leveraging decades of first-hand experience fromgrassroot organizations. In identifying and addressing systemic failures that often hinder social change initiatives. We highlight and recognize valuable knowledge and experiences obtained. Years of endurance should not go to waste, nor be repeated in the field of online governance and trust-based conversations, there are existing initiatives and developments that aim through formal consensus to address similar challenges. However, these initiative shave never worked beyond small expert groups online. Adversely hindering offline activist groups throughloss of inertia and ossification.What sets the #OGB project apart is our focus point. By emphazing learning from past experiences and incorporating these into the development solution, all valuable insights gained are not lost or forgotten. Scaffolding upon this knowledge, #OGB will overcome the common pitfalls and challenges that dilute effective governance and trust-based conversations.The #OGB focusses on building active trust based groups – people who get involved, solve and initiate change to go out and get things done. When a community communicates effectively and efficiently,decisions and right actions come naturally.

The #OGB project also distinguishes itself by emphasizing the importance of recognizing power dynamics within online communities. It acknowledges that the #Fediverse as a decentralized network, operates differently from traditional institutions and mainstream platforms. Instead of trying to conform to mainstreaming paths. The project seeks to embrace the unique characteristics of itself and build with focus having these differences clear in mind. The #OGB brings the #Fediverse notion of technological decentralization, moderation and horizontal scaling into the world of action, organization and governance. Results from #OGB processes may then feed backinto the #Fediverse anew.

The #OGB project aims to achieve several concrete and measurable outcomes:

1. Implementation of natural, horizontal governance: The project intends to establish agovernance structure that promotes horizontal decision-making and empowers a diverserange of voices. This can be measured by the number of participants involved in decision-making processes and the level of inclusivity achieved.

2. Prevention of polarization within groups: The #OGB project seeks to preventpolarization by facilitating constructive conversations and ensuring that decision-makingtakes into account a wide range of perspectives and values. The success of this outcomecan be measured by assessing the level of polarization within groups using the #OGB,KISS framework.

3. Ethical decision-making and progressive development: The project aims to prioritizeethical considerations and focus on the primary needs of people within the community as awhole.

The measure of success here would be the extent to which ethical principles are integrated into decision-making processes and the impact of these decisions on progressive development. The success of this outcome can be measured by the number of people and communities that actively install instances of the #OGB. The success of all of these outcomes will be measured through quantitative indicators such as the number of participants, levels of inclusiveness and adoption rates.

The #OGB project is relevant to a diverse range of people and groups who are interested in alternative technology, open governance, with the vision of creating a more equitable and just society.

Here are some examples of the people and groups that the project is relevant to:

1. Fediverse Users: The project is directly relevant to people and groups who are already part of the #Fediverse, including users of platforms like Mastodon, Pleroma, Peertube and Pixelfed. These users are likely to be interested in the project’s goals of trust-based conversations and governance within the #openweb.

2. Tech Activists: The project is relevant to tech activists who are passionate about promoting decentralized, open-source, and user-controlled technologies. These people can contribute their technical expertise, provide feedback, and help spread awareness about the project within their networks.

3. Social Justice Advocates: The project aligns with the interests of social justice advocates who are committed to creating a more equitable and just society. By involving these people, the project can benefit from their insights, experiences, and knowledge in addressing wider social issues.

To involve people and groups in the realization of the project, the #OGB project will adopt the following approaches:

1. Open Collaboration
2. Community Engagement:
3. Co-creation and Co-design

To effectively reach the target audience, the project can utilize various #openweb native networks, media,and channels.

Fediverse Platforms: The #OGB project can leverage existing platforms within the #Fediverse such as Peertube, Mastodon, Pleroma and Pixelfed. These platforms provide adecentralized and open alternative to mainstream social media, aligning with #OGB values.

Social Media: Utilizing mainstreaming social media platforms like Twitter, Facebook, or LinkedIn can help reach a wider audience beyond the #Fediverse. Sharing updates,announcements, and engaging in discussions can help raise awareness and attract individuals interested in alternative tech and governance.

Development Blog: Maintaining a dedicated blog for the #OGB project serves as a centralhub for information, updates, and resources. Futhermore through publications such as articles, case studies, and success stories to additionally aide understanding and help educate the greater public with an aim to engage a further audience.Online

Communities and Forums: Participating in relevant online communities such as #SocialHub and other forums or activist networks, to help connect with like-minded peoplewho may be interested in the project’s goals and principles.

Mailing Lists and Newsletters: Creating a mailing list or newsletter specifically for the #OGB project can allow for direct communication with interested individuals. Regular updates, project highlights, and opportunities for involvement can be shared via email.

Online Events and Webinars: Organizing online events, webinars, or live streams can provide opportunities for the project team to present their work, share and collaborate insights and engage in discussions with the target audience.

The #OGB project will actively seek ongoing funding. However, once the project reaches a stable state, it envisions a cycle of funding through donations. This funding will be distributed among the project’s foundations and further research and development projects. The project is creating a multi-tier structure where the development stages of each tier will progress sequentially. This implies that as one tier completesits development stage, the next tier will begin. This approach aligns with competent program managementcycles and indicates a plan for the project’s continued development and sustainability beyond the periodcovered by the requested grant.

The #OGB is fundamentally rooted to the open sharing of knowledge and results, including all source codedeveloped as part of it.The #OGB intends to provide valuable outcomes including innovative approaches for governance, trust-based conversations, and democratic decision-making processes within the #openweb and the greaterworld.The code base is not specific to the #Fediverse but can be applied to any community with stakeholders,both on and offline.The project is committed to the #4opens principles, which advocate for openness, transparency, andaccessibility in technology.

1. Open data : refers to the availability of data to the public, free of charge and without anyrestriction on its use. This is considered a basic requirement for a project to be consideredopen.

2. Open source : software that is free to use, modify, and distribute. This promotes healthydevelopment and increases interconnectedness, allowing for serendipity. Open licensesare used to ensure the project remains open and free to use.

3. Open standards : technical standards that are open to the public and are not controlled byany one organization. This is essential for the open internet and the World Wide Web, andallows for interoperability between different systems.

4. Open process : transparency and openness of the project’s decision-making anddevelopment process. This can include the use of #Wiki’s and activity streams, and isconsidered a ‘glue’ that binds together the trust based networks that make up a project.

The #Fediverse has developed good technology and social norms around disability and minority groups.The intention is to incorporate these principles into our code base for #OGB project. The aim is to have strong documentation that focuses on consensus building and horizontal processes, which will promoteworking diversity among people with different abilities. The project plans to prioritize the development ofcomprehensive documentation for further use within instructional design as an aide for education and training. These principles are the core process of the project. This indicates a commitment to inclusiveness and accessibility within the #OGB project. The #OGB code and documentation is to be designed with accessibility as a first-class citizen, being compatible across everything we currently utilize with existing norms. Screen readers are a perfect goal toset our mind to.

Team Founder – Hamish Campbell: Hamish has 30 years of experience in building and running grassroots socialtech projects. He has been involved with projects such as Undercurrents, Visionontv, and the #OMN. Currently he is working on multiple projects within the SocialHub community, including outreach of ActivityPub to the European Union. Hamish has a strong understanding of what works and what doesn’t inboth social and technological contexts.

Founder/Lead Programmer – Saunders: Saunders is an experienced software engineer with expertise in C++, Python, and other programming languages. He has been responsible for managing the Linux-based #OMN servers for the past 5 years. Having a foundation in permaculture design and training, his programming skills have been utilized within grassroots social aid projects across several continents.

Project Manager – Nicholas Matheson: Nicholas has more than 20 years experience in project management, initially focusing within the hotel/tourism and hospitality sector in Australia/New Zealand. Hebegan consulting in China following the Beijing Olympics. Pursuing training and development workshopsacross the sector and the creation/assistance of importation logistics following client’s recommendations.

Privacy – As stated within the ‘Security’ section the project emphasizes a clear separation between personal and public communication. Being a #4opens project with an #openprocess at its core, we will not be handling private data outside of passwords. Additionally, the project plans to support pseudo-anonymous accounts via Tor usage. These accounts will operate on a trust-based system similar to any other account within the project. This approach highlights the project’s commitment to transparency and privacy while providing options for users to engage with the platform in a way that aligns with their chosen preferences.

The #OGB project will involve activities that contribute to the intended outcome of developing improved ways for trust-based dialogue, governance, and problem-solving within the #openweb. These activities include:

1. Developing a Framework: The project aims to create a framework that demonstrates improved ways for trust-based dialogue and governance within the #openweb. This framework will provide guidelines and principles for fostering open and inclusive conversations, decision-making processes, and governance structures.

2. Building Cooperative Alliances: The project seeks to establish a true cooperative andcollaborative alliance that is native to the #Fediverse and #openweb. These alliances will bring together people and groups who share a common vision of promoting trust,openness, and decentralization within online spaces.

3. Recognizing Power Dynamics: The project emphasizes the importance of recognizing where power originates in the context of the #Fediverse and #openweb. By understanding power dynamics, the project aims to challenge and change vertical power structures,promoting more equitable and democratic forms of governance.

4. Developing Technological Tools: The project aims to develop improved technologicaltools that address problems arising from social organization within the #openweb. These tools will enable problem-solving in a native grassroots activist manner, empowering people and groups to navigate and shape their online and offline experiences.

5. Removing Hard Coded Defaults: The project seeks to remove current hard-coded defaults by providing a standardized set of KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid) tools. These tools will empower active body members to utilize them deeply and instruct others on their use,enabling more flexible governance structures.

6. Permission-less Structure: The project aims to create a permission-less structure allowing the active groups to decide who is a part of their group or groups, promoting inclusivity.

Projects that need to work to help #reboot the #openweb

The #OGB is important to develop better ways of having “trust” based conversations and “trust” based “governance” in the #openweb. It is built on years of on-the-ground organizing and emphasizes the need for voluntary cooperation and collaboration. The project recognizes the problems in alternative tech, starting with the #4opens to remove complexity to building governance structures that are native to the #fediverse. The #OGB address the limitations of #mainstreaming approaches.

The #OMN (Open Media Network), is a decentralized network of media sites that share content and promote independent media. It aims to provide an alternative to mainstream media by creating a network of interconnected sites that prioritize openness, collaboration, and decentralization.

The #OMN project emphasizes the importance of grassroots community-driven media, where people and groups can create and share their own content. It seeks to challenge the dominance of #mainstreaming media and promote a more equitable and just society.

The project has been running for over ten years and operates with an #openprocess. Users can become mods after being involved for a certain period of time. The modding process is based on a clear project statement and encourages a respectful and inclusive community.

The #OMN project is closely related to the #visionontv project, which is a grassroots media project that creates and distributes independent video content. The two projects share similar values and goals in promoting alternative media and challenging mainstream narratives.

The #indymediaback project is a reboot of the original #Indymedia project, which was a decentralized, grassroots media network that emerged in the late 1990s and early 2000s. The project aims to learn from the mistakes and challenges faced by the original Indymedia, particularly the split between the #fashernitas and #geekproblem factions.

The focus of the #indymediaback reboot is to return to the path of the #fashernista, which emphasizes open media and decentralized structures, rather than control and centralization. The project aims to build an open media network (#OMN) that promotes direct democracy, open publishing, and anti-authoritarianism.

The reboot also acknowledges the risk of another split within the community, particularly if some members push for a control/encryptionist path. The challenge is to find a way to navigate this without succumbing to tribalism and power politics.

The #indymediaback project recognizes the importance of hashtags and semantic web technologies, which were not core to the original Indymedia project. Tags and metadata are being used to help organize and categorize content.

Overall, the #indymediaback project aims to revive the spirit of open media and grassroots activism, while learning from past mistakes and embracing new technologies and approaches.

A scrypt for the #OGB video

[Background music playing]

Narrator: In a world dominated by #mainstreaming narratives and centralized control, there is a project that dares to think differently. Introducing the #OGB project, an initiative focused on developing trust-based conversations and governance in the #openweb.

[Visual of people engaging in conversations and collaborating]

Narrator: The OGB project is built upon years of on-the-ground organizing, shaped by long expirence of on the ground organization and a Keep It Simple and Sustainable (KISS) approach. To kick this off lets look at it as a native way of working within the #Fediverse, a decentralized social media network.

[Visual of Fediverse logo]

Narrator: The goal of the OGB project is not to dictate protocols and standards to the Fediverse, but rather to create voluntary cooperative and collaborative alliances. It aims to overcome the challenges faced by existing social platforms and build a platform that truly serves social good.

[Visual of diverse group of people working together]

Narrator: The OGB project believes in the power of self-organization and user-driven processes. It draws inspiration from the example of Couchsurfing, where a redesign that removed DIY tools led to disappointment among members. The OGB project advocates for letting members shape their own processes, in the #4opens path, to overcome the #geekproblem and foster hope for alternative technology to shape society.

[Visual of people using DIY tools]

Narrator: Governance is a key focus of the OGB project. It aims to build governance structures that are accountable, sustainable, and inclusive. The current governance of the Fediverse can at best be described as “herding cats,” but the OGB project seeks to change that by providing a sortation based framework for effective governance.

[Visual of people discussing and making decisions]

Narrator: The OGB codebase is not limited to the Fediverse; it can be used to democratically run any structure with stakeholders. For example, it can be applied to govern a local street market, with stallholders, shoppers, and affiliated groups all having a say in decision-making.

[Visual of a street market]

Narrator: The OGB project recognizes the unique power dynamics within the Fediverse and aims to build upon its differences rather than conforming to mainstreaming agendas. It emphasizes the need to empower people to do better in alternative technology and socierty.

[Visual of people breaking free from chains]

Narrator: The OGB project acknowledges that there are problems in alt-tech but believes that starting with the #4Opens principles can remove much of the mess and unlock the true potential for positive outcomes.

[Visual of 4 Opens principles]

Narrator: Ultimately, the OGB project is about challenging the status quo, questioning the mainstreaming narratives, and from this pushing to creating a more equitable and just society. It invites those who can think outside the box and are willing to challenge mainstreaming to join this movement.

[Visual of people joining hands]

Narrator: The OGB project is a call to action, a call to build a better future for the openweb.

[Visual fades out]

[Background music fades out]