Tag: openweb

A compass for the #openweb

In a world spiralling deeper into “post-truth,” we’re bombarded by complexity, much of it fuelled by #techchurn and the hollow distractions of #fashernist culture. To cut through noise, we need clarity, that starts with defining basic terms. From the #KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid) path, for a tech-focused lens:

  • Left = Open/Trust
  • Right = Control/Fear

This division isn’t only simple dogmatic political; it’s a foundational question of values. Do we build from paths rooted in trust and openness, or do we fall into the normal fear-driven hierarchies of control? The current complexity, without clear values, becomes a swamp, where movements stagnate, progressive progress collapses, and meaningful change evaporates. The mess we have been in for the last 20 years.

Complexity is a dead end, without #KISS clarity, much of the tech world, and by extension, in a world shaped by #dotcons, society, is locked in loops of “common sense” failure. Vertical hierarchies, even well-meaning ones, tend to falter when addressing horizontal, community-driven efforts. It’s less a question of structure and more about values. Without shared trust and openness, even the best technology will fail to create anything lasting or transformative.

Post-truth “common sense”, control and fear, feeds directly into the #deathcult of neoliberalism—a system that thrives on exploitation and reinforces itself as the ONLY viable path. This is the comfort zone for many: worshipping growth, power, and profit as if there’s no alternative. Building away from this with social truth, grounded in shared values and trust, is hard work, but it’s the only viable counterbalance. Without it, we’re just digging ourselves deeper into the pit of stinking social and #techshit.

The #OMN needs a crew with shovels, not worshippers, to work to compost this mess. To reboot the #openweb, we need tools, not temples. The Open Media Network (#OMN) is such a shovel. It’s a framework for creating fertile ground where horizontal values can thrive. Verticals often resist this because they’re entrenched in control structures. Yet, history has shown that without horizontal integration—grassroots participation, open governance, and shared ownership—movements fail to achieve meaningful, lasting impact.

We’ve spent too many years building on complexity, expecting it to fix the very problems it creates. Instead, let’s simplify. Define values clearly, prioritize openness and trust, and focus on practical tools like #OMN and #OGB. Yes, this is a messy process—shovelling always is—but it’s the only way to compost the “shit” of the #deathcult into something that can grow.

It’s time to stop chasing the distractions of #techchurn and #fashernist thinking. Pick up the shovel, embrace #KISS, and start digging. The future of the #openweb—and, frankly, the planet—depends on it.

The Evolution of SocialHub

“the crew gathered around #SocialHub worked remarkably well for a while, organising good gathering, conferences and very useful outreach of #ActivityPub to the #EU that seeded much of the current #mainstreaming. But yes, it was always small and under utilised due to the strong forces of #stupidindividalisam that we need to balance. Ideas?“

From grassroots origins, #SocialHub emerged as a community-driven platform, rooted in the #openweb principles, focusing on the interplay of technology and “native” social paths. Its initial success lay in its collaborative ethos, free from mainstream interference. This promising start has since failed, due to lack of core consensuses and the active #blocking of any process to mediate this mess making.

Current challenges are from the influx of non-native perspectives, The twitter migrants and rapid #Fediverse expansion has diluted what was left of the original focus. Then in reaction to this the has been a retreat to tech paths over the social paths. This shift toward technical priorities has marginalized the social aspects that initially defined the community, this is a mirroring broader #geekproblem struggles that are core to the original failing.

What actually works is always grassroots messiness and constructive processes, that is messy in a good way, authentic, grassroots movements are inherently untidy, this ordered/chaos is where real social value is born. Attempts to overly structure or mainstream these paths risks losing their soul. Lifestyleism, and fragmented tribalism, distract from meaningful change. These behaviours breed from #stupidindividualism, a core product of the #deathcult culture that undermines collective action. There is a role for activism, based on learning from history to avoid repeating mistakes. This can lead to wider social engagement, and an embrace of messiness to counteract the stifling tendencies of rigid mainstreaming and isolated tech focus.

The metaphor of “shovels” is useful to turn the current pile of social and technical “shit” into compost is apt. Grassroots communities nurture a healthier ecosystem that balances tech and social. The imbalance favouring tech over social must be addressed. Reinvigorating the core social crew with a focus on community-oriented discussions and actions can restore equilibrium.

For this, it can be useful to challenge neoliberal narratives, use the #openweb/#closedweb framework to critique and dismantle neoliberal “common sense”. Highlight how these ideologies breed the individualistic and exploitative tendencies that undermine collective progress. The need for vigilance against co-option and the importance of nurturing the messy authenticity of grassroots movements. The path forward requires not just shovelling but planting seeds of collaboration, transparency, and collective action. By embracing the chaos and keeping the focus on social value, the #openweb can flourish as a genuine alternative to the #closedweb.

#KISS

The “social shit” story is raw, real, and relatable

The metaphor of “shit” as both the cause of decay and a potential source of renewal is provocative and insightful. It captures the essence of the challenge we face in addressing #mainstreaming culture, where conversations to often get stuck in defensive and rigid negative thinking.

Why social change online fails, is in part that terms are barriers, people cling to #mainstreaming “common sense” because it feels safe and familiar. Talking outside these norms triggers defensiveness, making constructive dialogue nearly impossible. This is amplified by post-modern relativism (on the left) and authoritarian rigidity (on the right), which block ideas and meaningful conversations.

The role of #BLOCKING, dismissing or shutting down alternative perspectives perpetuates the #techshit mess and reinforces #deathcult values. It stifles creativity and solutions by keeping discussions within narrow boundaries. Social shit as the status quo, both left, and right ideological contribute to the decay, creating a world smeared in “shit” where truth is either denied or imposed. This leads to stagnation, not growth.

The plan and the , focus on action, “just keep working” is pragmatic. By creating and demonstrating the value of #openweb tech like #OMN, we can sidestep unproductive arguments and focus on planting seeds of change. Turning shit into compost, the metaphor of composting is powerful. Social decay (shit) can be transformed into fertile ground for growth, but it requires tools (shovels) and effort. This aligns with need for grassroots action and collective responsibility.

Reframing conversations is core, to break through defensive and angry reactions. For this to work, maybe we need to start with shared values, frame discussions about universal concerns like community, fairness, and sustainability this could build common ground. To balance relatable language alongside the “truth” metaphors, which are both vivid and compelling, sometimes it’s good to simplify for audiences to draw people in. Focus on demonstration, not debate, showcasing working examples of tech and grassroots projects to inspire people to engage.

Planting flowers, the imagery of strong women and sensible men wielding shovels to compost the mess and plant flowers, is an optimistic vision. It emphasizes collective action and the potential for beauty to emerge from decay. The open invitation for collaboration is key, maintaining this openness, we can hold open space for those ready to step away from the pile and start helping with the shovelling.

The “social shit” story is raw, real, and relatable. It smells like the mess we’re in, but also hints at the possibility of transformation. The challenge lies in inspiring people to pick up the shovel and join in the composting work. Maybe with persistence, transparency, and focus on action, this work will catalyse meaningful change.

Keep planting seeds—some will bloom in unexpected ways. 🌱

#4opens vs. #4closed

The critical paths between governance, activism, and the ideological underpinnings of #FOSS, #opensource, and the #openweb. The problem, governance without “politics” which FOSS and opensource often ignore and block the politics, leading to governance models resembling feudalism where “better kings” may emerge, but the underlying structure remains inequitable. Without addressing systemic issues, projects replicate the very power imbalances they aim to escape.

Decentralization is a post-capitalist concept, as decentralization eliminates middlemen, undermining the foundations of capitalism. However, capitalism co-opts decentralization, selling illusions while embedding scarcity (e.g., #encryptionist projects). Recognizing and resisting this is vital to preserving the openweb. Composting the shit, current activism often worsens the “shit pile” by pouring misaligned efforts and unclear priorities into an already broken paths. Instead, we need shovels for composting—tools and frameworks like #OMN and the to transform waste into fertile ground for radical change.

A solution can be found in 4opens and #OGB, this creates a permissionless path, framework for decentralized, equitable governance. The Open Governance Body (OGB) fosters participatory decision-making, breaking away from feudal hierarchies and cultivating more of a balance of collective ownership. The path is building together, the Open Media Network (OMN) embodies this ethos by emphasizing “you and me” over “just me.” A core part of this path is that activist media must embrace discomfort as a catalyst for change, balancing inspiration, information, and critique to challenge the status quo.

A world in flux, old paths are gone, there’s no going back, reboots are imminent—social upheavals (#Trump, #Brexit) and environmental crises signal the need for systemic transformation. The 4opens promote transparency, participation, and shared ownership. By contrast, the represent secrecy, exclusivity, control, and commodification—aligning with the #dotcons and the #deathcult’s vision of the future. Words as power, the spell of repetition, the 4opens is more than a mantra, it’s a way of embedding ethical, decentralized values into public consciousness. This “spell” counters the pervasive narratives of the 4closed and offers a tangible path for the needed transformation.

Let’s build tools that reflect human flourishing

One of the strong #blocking forces is #mainstreaming objectives being imposed on non-mainstream projects, is a recurring issue in alternative tech spaces like the #openweb and #Fediverse. This happens because people perceive mainstreaming as “common sense,” mistaking it for adding value. Over time, this mess erodes the radical, decentralizing paths, feeding people back into the centralization of #dotcons and perpetuating the #stupidindividualism we are trying to overcome.

  1. Define and defend non-mainstream objectives with strong clarity of purpose. Clearly articulating the goals and principles of #openweb projects, emphasizing the value of non-mainstreaming paths. This needs to be anchored in frameworks like the and ethical guidelines such as the #PGA Hallmarks. Build the community agreements to hold these in place to ensure contributors understand and commit to these principles. Actively use documents, onboarding materials, and collective discussions to signpost these paths.
  2. Strengthen “native” culture against #stupidIndividualism by balancing the push for collective governance, we need federated and decentralized governance structures like #OGB (Open Governance Body). These prevent individuals from overriding group objectives with personal agendas. Emphasize trust by fostering a culture that prioritizes relationships and trust over competition and self-interest.
  3. Build post-scarcity #FOSS tools that focus on simplicity and functionality, avoid overloading projects with unnecessary features (#techshit) that complicate usability and dilute the #KISS vision. Prioritize accessibility, with tools that empower communities without requiring heavy technical expertise, making them usable and scalable without compromising their radical foundations. Use the to anchor technology in open processes, data, licenses, and standards to ensure transparency and prevent co-optation.
  4. Compost the stinking pile of #techshit. Shovels are a metaphor for composting, to open spaces for critique and push back #mainstreaming attempts constructively. Use feedback loops to identify and counteract behaviours that undermine these paths. Use real-world examples to illustrate the long-term harm. To combat the “common sense” myths, highlight how #mainstreaming benefits centralized systems and reinforces the #deathcult that meany people worship.
  5. Resilience in the #fediverse and beyond by practical limiting node scalability, in federated flows, understand scalability limits based on moderation and quality. This prevents overgrowth and maintains trust within smaller, more accountable communities. Encourage decentralization, by supporting the diversity of smaller instances rather than a few dominant ones. This ensures resilience and reduces the risk of centralization.

We need to be building tools for flourishing, in a large part to counteract #stupidindividualism and mainstreaming, for this we need affinity groups that focus on post-scarcity tech and tools that foster trust, collaboration, and grassroots empowerment. To make this happen, we need these affinity groups to use the as a guiding framework and the #OGB to organize collective governance. By prioritizing these non-mainstreaming flows, we expand the #openweb sustainably while preserving its radical, human-centered roots. Let’s build tools that reflect human flourishing, not corporate consolidation. It’s hard work, but it’s the only path forward that can work.

Grassroots Radical Media: A #4opens Path

The resurgence of grassroots radical media projects requires a return to foundational principles, particularly the embrace of #FOSS and #opensource practices. These principles align with the framework, which acts as both a lock and a key for building sustainable and accountable media networks.

The Basics, Activism vs. Mainstreaming, where activism aims to resist and redirect the mainstream toward progressive change. #Mainstreaming, on the other hand, often serves NGO agendas, softening resistance to maintain institutional stability and job creation for its participants. Recognizing this distinction helps grassroots projects avoid being co-opted into reducing systemic change to incremental tweaks.

The importance of #FOSS and in keeping radical media transparent and accessible. The (open process, open data, open licenses, and open standards) ensure inclusivity and guard against #mainstreaming dilution. These principles help create paths accountable to people, not funders and institutions.

This is the #OMN mission:

Core vs. Periphery: OMN prioritizes the 1% of technologies and workflows that align with human-focused projects, filtering out the shiny distractions of mainstream tech. Guided by the PGA Hallmarks, the project adheres to these anti-capitalist, anti-patriarchal, and grassroots-oriented principles to ensure alignment with long-term goals rather than fleeting trends. This challenges, right-wing coordination, the right has effectively leveraged #openweb media over the last decade, outpacing the left in cooperation and strategy. To counter this, the left must embrace collaborative frameworks like the and avoid falling into isolated #stupidindividualism. Verbiage and Focus is an issue, academia often overcomplicates the discourse, leading to a churn of ideas without actionable outcomes. Projects need clear plans that balance innovation with practical implementation.

Avoiding the #deathcult of neoliberalism, most mainstream tech assumes human nature is fixed by 40 years of neoliberalism, building reactionary systems. Grassroots projects reject this limitation and design tools that reflect the full spectrum of human potential. To move, we need to leverage experience, older activists should gently guide enthusiastic newcomers by asking, “How does this work with the ?” and “Does this further the PGA hallmarks?” This approach fosters accountability and focus without stifling creativity. A core part of this is filtering technology, to avoid getting lost in the tech world’s “stinky, shiny fashions.” Focus on tools that genuinely empower communities rather than perpetuate #mainstreaming.

Build humanistic tools, to stop creating isolated, individualist solutions, tools fostering collaboration across diverse movements. Reboot proven models, starting new projects in a world dominated by #stupidindividualism leads to often to fragmentation. Instead, reboot and modernize successful past initiatives like #Indymedia, grounding them in the and #KISS federated governance.

The time is ripe for a #reboot of the alt/grassroots tech world. By centring projects on transparency, inclusivity, and collaboration, we can counter the forces of #deathcult neoliberalism and #mainstreaming. The #OMN is a framework for this sustainable and impactful radical media, to make us ready to sift through the tech pile and find the tools that serve humanity. Join the effort to help shape the future of grassroots media and governance. Learn more at OMN

We need historical paths to reboot the #openweb with the #fediverse

The #Indymedia network was a groundbreaking independent, grassroots journalism project, born from the #DIY ethos and the global anti-globalization movements of the late 1990s and early 2000s. It was a network where anyone anywhere could publish stories, videos, and photos, challenging mainstream narratives. However, it eventually fragmented and became less relevant, then died as a functional network. let’s look at why this happened:

Internal factors, where conflict among the crew and contributors, let’s highlight the #encryptionists and #processgeeks, with disputes over priorities (e.g., security and processes) causing friction. Some pushed for hard encryption that complicated usability, while others emphasized bureaucratic formal consensus governance, stifling decision-making​. Consensus breakdown, the decentralized decision-making path, made it hard to resolve disagreements, especially as the network grew and diversified in ideology​ with the influx of more #mainstreaming people. Dogmatism and fragmentation, groups became rigid in their views, leading to infighting and a lack of unity. The inability to balance diverse perspectives led to splintering.​ Burnout and loss of purpose, as activists struggled to maintain momentum as the network ossified.

External pressures with the rise of commercial platforms. The explosion of the #dotcons, corporate platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube drew users away from the failing Indymedia project. These platforms offered easier interfaces and massive audiences, undermining the narrowing, dogmatic grassroots appeal​. Challenges with moderation, was a growing issue, dealing with fake news, spam, and inflammatory content became overwhelming. The “open publishing” model, once a strength, became a liability as it required extensive moderation​. State Pushback with governments targeting Indymedia for its critical reporting, using surveillance, raids, and legal pressures to disrupt operations. This systematic marginalization contributed to its decline​

Lessons for new #openweb projects. Balance simplicity and security, by avoiding overcomplicating platforms with technical measures that alienate non-technical people and communities. Strengthen trust-based governance, by adopting trust-driven models like those proposed by the Open Media Network (#OMN) to foster inclusive, mess and functional decision-making​. Integrate feedback loops, by insure constant input from diverse people to adapt to evolving needs and combat dogmatism. Compete on accessibility, by design platforms that are intuitive and engaging to counter the allure of #dotcons social media.

Indymedia’s legacy offers critical insights into building resilient, people-centric, and trust-based media networks that can withstand internal and external challenges. We need these historical paths to reboot the #openweb with the #Fediverse.

#indymediaback

The #blocking of #openweb funding

For meaningful #openweb funding we need projects that are native and align with critical social needs for the evolution of the internet, balancing openness/trust based tech with funding for outreach and feedback mechanisms.

  1. Shifting Funding From “Fear/Control” to “Open/Trust” The Problem, current funding paths for internet projects focus on security, control, and compliance, perpetuating systems of centralized authority. This approach stifles trust-based collaboration, which are essential for the #openweb path.
    Action: help to advocate for dedicated funding streams for projects explicitly focused on decentralization, trust-building, and open governance structures like the Open Media Network (#OMN) and #OGB. Incorporate trust-based metrics into funding criteria, rewarding projects that demonstrate sustainable, human-centered governance.
  2. Bridging hard tech and soft use. The Problem: Hard tech (protocols, platforms) develop in isolation from people, leading to tools that fail to meet real-world social needs. Action: Allocate funds for programs to bridge developers and user communities, ensuring reciprocal feedback between tech builders and real life communities. Establish mechanisms to incorporate insights from “soft use” (how people interact with tools) into the iterative development of “hard tech.” Support user-led design initiatives for communities to directly shape the platforms they use.
  3. Governance: The Problem: Existing tech networks prioritize technical over social design, exacerbating the #geekproblem of over-complexity and alienating the change we need. Action: Fund projects like the OMN that flip this dynamic, prioritizing human networks as the foundation for technical systems. This creates tools that reflect and support the needs of grassroots communities. Promote protocols like #ActivityPub to enhance interoperability and people/community autonomy across networks.
  4. The OMN is a lightweight framework with five core functionalities aimed at building a trust-based semantic web:
    * Publish: Share content as objects.
    * Subscribe: Follow streams of interest (people, organizations, topics).
    * Moderate: Manage trust by endorsing or rejecting content flows
    * Rollback: Remove historical flows content from the point trust is broken.
    * Edit Metadata: Improve the discoverability and context of content.
    These tools enable people to control their digital spaces and data flows while fostering collaboration and accountability

This native #openweb path requires systemic support with funding to promote tools and frameworks that build human agency and trust. By doing this, we create resilient and equitable paths in tech, moving away from the limitations of the #open and #closed web mess we keep repeating

On this subject, it’s worth looking at this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_law

This ends very badly

It’s easy to see now that the world is a mess, and we have made this mess, we have collectively ripped apart our common humanist path. On part of this I talk about is that we have spent 20 years squandering the #openweb tools of liberation and connection. In our hyper-connected era, attention has become the currency of capitalism The #dotcons tools we were pushed in to believing were empowering—apps, platforms, systems—were always instruments of control. They’re not just tools for us, they’re manipulative mechanisms engineered to shape focus and erode our autonomy, they are tools of social control.

Your attention, once an inherent to you, is now a resource being siphoned without your consent or in most people’s understanding any attention. In the #mainstreaming path, it’s as if you’re holding an account you never opened, and every time you try to tap into your own focus, you find it already spent. The result? A hollowed-out version of yourself: overwhelmed, perpetually distracted, unknowingly complicit in your own digital and social exploitation. Welcome to the ‘obsession economy,’ where the most valuable product is you.

This isn’t some unintended consequence; it’s by design. Every endless scroll, every notification, every “you might like” pop-up is a calculated move designed to map your behaviour, desires, and unconscious tendencies. The current #mainstreaming path is clear: make you a predictable machine that clicks, buys, and reacts—repeatedly. And these #dotcons systems have perfected their craft of control.

The science is well known: our dopamine pathways are hijacked and held hostage. Each surrender refines the technique, locking us into feedback loops that make each swipe feel both essential and unsatisfying. The distraction is by design; the purpose is to keep you from noticing who is profiting from this economy of fractured attention.

We still cling to the illusion of control, this is a core definition of the #geekproblem, believing ourselves to be savvy navigators of our own choices. But put your phone down for a day, and you’ll feel the “phantom itch” of notifications that never came. Try to watch a show without scrolling through social media, and you’ll feel the discomfort of a single, unshared thought. The system is built to make us fear boredom and flee from stillness because those rare moments are where self-awareness could break through. And self-awareness? That’s bad for our worship of this #deathcult.

The #deathcult is not hard to understand

So, how do we start to reclaim what has been taken? You don’t need to start big, but you do need to start relentless. Think of it as a focus detox. Eliminate all non-essential notifications. Reclaim your mornings—don’t let them be dictated by a screen. Cultivate moments of true presence, where attention isn’t an asset being exploited but a gift to be savoured. Then bring this fresh focus to create a community around the change and challenge that we so obviously need.

Lift your heads from worshipping this deathcult. In a world obsessed with monetizing every moment of focus, remember: your attention is yours to guard. Without it, the real ‘you’ is another asset on someone else’s balance sheet. This ends very badly #climatechaos is a small part of the mess we have made and are making.

The #fashernistas and #geekproblem interact to work in unintentional tandem

In part, the current challenges faced by the #openweb and grassroots reboot movements can be traced back to two cultural and structural problems: the influence of #fashernistas and the deeply ingrained #geekproblem. Both of these contribute to active blocking of meaningful change, hindering the progress needed for an openweb reboot. To walk this “native” landscape effectively, it’s needed to understand these barriers and how they block change and challenge.

The fashernistas and their echo chambers, the term refers to a subset of people who are highly engaged in performative discussions, centred on trending topics and social posturing without substantive engagement in grassroots real world problem-solving. While they are adept at identifying and amplifying transient issues, their conversations stay within insular bubbles. This creates a cycle where attention and focus are pulled toward repetitive discourse that never leads to any outcomes.

This taking up space with little and most often no follow-through is detrimental. Fashernistas thrive in spaces where the appearance of awareness is valued over the hard, real, messy action that is needed. In this #manstraming bubble, dialogue is focused on social capital—who knows what, who said what—rather than collaborative problem-solving. The result? The conversation around the openweb becomes cluttered, attention splinters, and meaningful action is overshadowed by a constant churn of noise.

The role of #fahernistas in blocking change is their ability to dominate platforms and narratives. This domination becomes active blocking when their presence leaves little room for discussions rooted in genuine collaboration and open progress. They inadvertently (or sometimes deliberately) creates environments where the needed ideas and radical challenges to the status quo struggle to gain traction, let along attention. If the openweb is to flourish, this culture of self-referential chatter needs to be mediated.

What can we do with our fashernistas?

The #geekproblem is a different barrier, which is the cultural divide within tech communities that leans heavily toward deterministic, technical solutions at the expense of accessible, inclusive approaches. The geekproblem manifests when developers and technologists become gatekeepers, framing issues in ways that reinforce their control, preserving existing narrow structures rather than opening them up for collective problem-solving.

For example, in the #openweb and #fediverse projects, the drive for good #UX runs parallel to an implicit exclusivity of bad UX dressed in “privacy”, “security”, “safety” etc. Technical jargon, complex onboarding processes, and a lack of user-friendly interfaces are a barrier to entry and community building. This exclusivity prevents the broader range of participants from engaging meaningfully, turning potentially revolutionary spaces into “specialized” silos, that reinforce this very #blindness.

#fashernistas and #geekproblem interact and often work in unintentional tandem. While the former distracts and fractures attention with endless (pointless, narrow and repeating) discourse, the latter locks down practical pathways for change through gatekeeping and technological insularity. The result is a failing “native” path, where critical mass, and the needed community, fails to grow—one part is too busy talking, and the other is too busy coding in isolation. The broader culture of the #openweb suffers as a consequence, making the needed change far more difficult to achieve than it needs to be.

The solution lies in finding a balance that mediates between the superficiality of fashernistas and the closed nature of the geekproblem. This involves, promoting diverse voices, so that the #openweb aren’t monopolized by any tiny group. Building bridges between projects and communities, to facilitate communication between technical experts and those involved in creating actionable steps that align with paths we need to take. Developing a culture that values tangible outcomes and collaborative input over performative dialogue and gatekeeping. Amplifying onboarding, by making entry points into #opentech accessible, so people outside traditional tech ghettoes can contribute meaningfully.

The #geekproblem might kill meany of us, mediating it matters

The path we need for the openweb, is more than only technological solutions; it needs a culture shift. Both fashernistas and those contributing to the geekproblem need to recognize their roles and adjust their approaches, for the #openweb to thrive. The has been to meany years of pratish behaver in the paths we need, it’s pastime for #KISS focus. The current moment presents a fresh opportunity for change. With the fediverse and platforms like mastodon growing exponentially, there is a path to free the native spirit of the internet as a collaborative, #openspace with trust, transparency, and action as core motivators. Let’s try and make this work, and not squandered it by letting the voices of the few block the work we need to do.

Ideas please?

The need for #netiquette to mediate hostility on the #openweb

The blame, attack, and ban culture we’re seeing is not native to the #openweb. The principles that uphold the open web are built on the : open data, open source, open standards, and open process. These values encourage linking, transparency, and trust—qualities that are essential for constructive dialogue and a positive community atmosphere.

An example of why this matters: In recent months, reports have surfaced that developers associated with #bluesky, including those contributing to projects like #bridgy, have faced harassment. This behaviour runs contrary to the core path of the #openweb, #FOSS developers are humans too, with lives and responsibilities beyond their code, with #FOSS they provide their time to building free and open-source projects that benefit everyone. This kind of personal infighting can be not only unproductive but harmful. Yes, talk, argue about ideas and categories, but the focusing on individuals is often adding more mess to be composted.

A way out of this kinda mess is #netiquette, diversity, we need to foster spaces where diversity of thought and technology can coexist without wholesale blocking each other. A way to do this is for us to have conversations within our communities about netiquette and the standards we want to uphold. Yes, this is a challenging discussion, and it won’t be easy to reach a consensus. But even if the outcome is embracing our differences, that’s not a bad thing.

For more on my thinking on one of the strong roots of this mess subject

A part of this might be that it’s interesting to see that the right-wing are picking up the real problems and mess on the left and then using it to forward their own ideological agenda.

NOTE the things they are critical of are often real issues with the left, so we too likely need to address these ourselves, but to do this we should ignore the right agenda that comes with these right criticisms as this will be built of the normal right-wing lies and misinforming that their ideology paths are full of.

Can we do this #KISS

Replacing market signalling with #opendata signalling

The dominance of the free market, for the last 40 years personified by the #deathcult worship, has instilled in us a deep-rooted belief in the power of market-driven signals as a determinant of value and action. This belief system prioritizes capital and greed as the primary forces that drive progress and social development. However, as our world becomes increasingly digitized, it’s past time to rethink and replace these signals with something more sustainable and aligned with collective welfare: #opendata signalling based on the .

Market signalling, a core tenet of capitalism, operates on the assumption that prices, supply, and demand efficiently communicate the state of the economy. These signals guide decisions across industries, influencing everything from resource allocation to investment trends. While this system has propelled economic growth, it comes at a significant cost: environmental degradation, social inequality, and systemic exploitation. In resent years, our worship of this “free market” led to an economy built on misery—a #miseryeconomy where people and communities pay to escape the hardships imposed by the very system they are part of.

The open vs. closed data dichotomy is currently largely invisible, so good to bring focus on this path. When considering alternatives to market signalling, we need to explore the difference between open and closed data paths. The original #openweb was built on the principles —open source, open data, open standards, and open processes. These fostered transparency, collaboration, and equitable growth. However, the rise of the #dotcons (dominant tech corporations) over the past two decades introduced #closeddata silos that have stifled openness and thus blocked this native path. Closed data systems prioritize proprietary algorithms, user data and metadata hoarding, and opaque decision-making processes. This has been used to reinforcing capital-driven signals as the only path.

In the emerging #openweb ecosystem, there is a new model—one rooted in opendata signalling. Unlike market signals driven by profit, opendata signalling operates on transparent and shared data inputs that inform decision-making across communities. This shift prioritizes communal benefits, sustainability, and builds trust. This path can only be glimpsed in the messy fashernista driven #openweb reboot we are a part of. Consider the surge in decentralized networks such as #Mastodon, the broader #Fediverse, #BlueSky, and #Nostr. Over the past years, these have grown from a few hundred thousand users to tens of millions, highlighting an appetite for more community-driven paths. Open-source platforms like WordPress are integrating ActivityPub to support decentralization, extending open data practices to a quarter of the web. Even #dotcons corporations like #Facebook (with its #Threads initiative) are adapting to this movement, albeit with a corporate agenda.

What opendata signaling looks like? In a practical sense, opendata signalling means that any institution or person running a Mastodon instance, for example, can access a significant portion of the Fediverse’s content as plain text in their database. This access allows communities to collaboratively analyse and act on data without the current corporate intermediaries distorting and monetizing it for control.

Imagine policymaking informed by real-time public discourse, free from the profit-driven filters of major platforms. Local governments could tap into decentralized data to plan infrastructure, health initiatives, or educational reforms that reflect actual community needs. Environmental policies could be shaped by transparent data on ecological impact, rather than suppressed by industry lobbyists protecting capital interests.

Challenges and Considerations? Transitioning to opendata signalling isn’t without challenges. Regulation and policy will need to adapt to safeguard open data’s integrity and prevent exploitation. The fear of spam and manipulation, which critics often raise, must be addressed with intelligent design and community moderation. Yet, these challenges are surmountable compared to the unsustainable trajectory of a market that fails to act collectively for basic servival let along the greater good.

Moving Beyond Worship. Our reverence for the “free market” as an ultimate arbiter has reached its limit. By embracing opendata signaling and shifting away from closed, profit-driven paths, we create a foundation where collaboration, sustainability, and shared progress are at the forefront. This is not only a technological shift but a cultural one, As we continue this transition, let’s recognize that our digital choices will dictate whether we uphold the values of the #openweb or fall back into the restrictive practices of #closeddata. Let’s try to have a real conversation about this, please.