It’s good to see more people turning their focus back to the #openweb. For the past five years of the #reboot we’ve been distracted in a signal-to-noise mess from the #fashionistas. That time needs to be over, we need to start looking clearly at both internal rot and the external threats.
A good first step is in balancing the realisation that we actually have far more direct power to deal with the internal mess than we do over the eternal #dotcons and their #closedweb “common sense”. That’s why we need to put activism into composting the internal #blocking (see: https://hamishcampbell.com/?s=compost). Composting isn’t just a metaphor – it’s a way to recycle the piles of #techshit we’ve built up into soil that can grow new #openweb seeds. #KISS
I understand the focus on the external #dotcons, yes, we also need to keep pushing back against the external enclosures. But inside our own spaces, it’s clear that possessiveness, in code, in reputation, in control over projects, undermines cooperation. It destroys trust, it wastes resources, it corrodes integrity. People often destroy what they love, not out of hate, but out of possession.
Drafting blog posts, polemics, and rallying calls to sharpen the #OMN narrative. Use the compost metaphors (#techshit, seeds, soil) into accessible messaging that sticks. Editing to transform the long posts into shareable, short-form content for Mastodon, Fediverse, and allied networks.
Curating and organizing existing #OMN writings into a structured wiki-style knowledge base. Building summaries, FAQs, and primers for newcomers who hit the projects cold. Draft “composting guides” – how to deal with #blocking, #fashionistas, and #geekproblem inside communities.
Writing simple documentation for the Unite Forge and other #OMN tools. Helping draft roadmaps that explain what’s built, what’s missing, and what needs contributors. Produce explainers on why #OMN is different from #dotcons and #NGO capture, grounded in #4opens.
Write out templates for horizontal decision-making (#OGB style) that projects can adapt. Suggest practical ways to “compost” blockers while keeping the wider network fertile. Help draft neticate rooted in #KISS + #4opens rather than #NGO-speak.
Each of these can be grown into living resources: wiki pages, blog posts, shareable guides, or activist toolkits – depending on where you want the energy to flow.
The geek answer (bad faith or blindness): “If only everyone learned to code, then society would be fairer.”
The activist answer: Code is part of the landscape, but culture, governance, and lived practice matter more. We don’t escape domination by teaching more people to type commands, we escape by changing what we do together with the tools.
Why “teach everyone to code” has become a dead-end slogan – it’s been tried, it’s been funded, and yet it hasn’t shifted power one bit. If anything, it’s reinforced the tech priesthood instead of breaking it.
The #geekproblem is exactly this blindness: geeks mistake tools for culture, skill for power, and training for change. They can’t see that the last 20 years of “learn to code” projects have failed precisely because they sidestep politics, trust, and social fabric. It’s comfortable, because it keeps power where it already is.
So, coding literacy might be useful, but it’s not transformative without social literacy – trust, collective governance, open processes. The real activist social tech path is to compost geek mess-making and build alt-cultures where tools serve the collective, not the priesthood.
Otherwise, “coding for all” is another flavour of #blocking – keeping us stuck, distracted, and blind. This is a useful example of the blinded #geekproblem. I use the word blinded to illustrate that people can’t see the sense in front of their faces. And I use the hashtag #blocking to show the outcome of this common “sense” blindness #KISS
Coding is not automatically social power, but in some contexts it does act as power, and understanding when/why helps unpack the #geekproblem.
When coding is not power
Most coding done in industry is low-level labour: writing scripts, fixing bugs, maintaining old systems. These programmers aren’t powerful; they’re workers. Their code serves capital.
Teaching kids to code (“everyone can make an app!”) rarely translates to actual power, because the infrastructure, distribution, and governance of platforms remain controlled by corporations.
Coding on its own doesn’t equal voice. A line of code in a corporate repo is no more socially powerful than a line in a personal diary if the person coding has no agency over how it’s used.
When coding is power
Coding becomes power when it bridges infrastructure + governance + culture.
Building #openweb infrastructure: If you can write the protocols or standards (e.g. ActivityPub, TCP/IP), you shape the possibilities for everyone downstream. That’s a kind of structural power.
Gatekeeping: If you control the codebase of a popular project, you can decide what features exist, whose contributions get merged, and which voices are excluded. This is soft but real power.
Automation and scale: Writing code that automates tasks (e.g. bots, algorithms, moderation tools) gives leverage over many people’s experience, especially when hidden in the background.
Narrative + legitimacy: In activist or grassroots spaces, coders too often get treated as “high priests” because they appear to have magical abilities others lack. This cultural framing inflates their social weight.
Coders confuse technical power with social change. They think: “If I can write the tool, I can fix the politics.” But tools reflect cultures. Without collective governance, tools just reproduce existing hierarchies.
The illusion of inevitability: because software underpins modern life, geeks assume society must organize around them. That blindness is what we’re pointing to.
When geeks push “everyone must code” as the path, they miss that most people don’t need to code to have power, they need agency in decision-making and trust networks.
How it really works (coding + social power)
Coding has power when embedded in movements that control their infrastructure. Example: early #Indymedia coders had real social power because their code directly enabled publishing outside corporate media – and at the start they were accountable to activist collectives.
Coding has power when it’s used to mediate flows of attention, trust, and resources. For example, algorithms that boost or bury voices. In grassroots hands, that can be liberatory; in corporate hands, it’s oppressive.
Coding becomes shared power when it is paired with open process (#4opens), shared governance (#OGB), and cultural literacy. Otherwise, it’s generally more priesthood, likely for the #deatcult in the end.
So: coding is like fire. On its own, it’s just heat and light. In the hands of a few, it’s a weapon or a fortress. In the commons, with shared tending, it’s the hearth – collective power.
To recap, coding as social power: Myth vs Reality
Myth 1: Coding = empowerment We’ve been told that “if everyone learns to code, everyone will have power.” Twenty years of coding bootcamps, “learn to code” initiatives, and school programs prove otherwise. Most of this simply trains people to slot into corporate pipelines. The power stays where it always was.
Reality: Coding on its own is labour, not empowerment. The infrastructure, governance, and distribution layers decide where the power flows. Without culture and collective governance, coding is just fuel for someone else’s engine.
Myth 2: Coding makes you special Coders often act like priests, holding secret knowledge. In activist spaces, this creates the illusion that coders alone can “save” or “lead.” That’s the #geekproblem in action.
Reality: Tools are only as powerful as the cultures and processes around them. A coder without collective accountability is just another gatekeeper. A coder inside a collective, with open governance (#4opens, #OGB), can help shift power outward.
Myth 3: Coding will fix politics The geek fantasy: “If I build the right app, the politics will fix itself.” We’ve seen this with countless “alternative platforms” that end up reproducing the same hierarchies.
Reality: Politics is culture, trust, and process. Code can mediate, amplify, or automate, but it cannot replace politics. Tools without culture are empty shells; culture without tools is still possible.
The compost view is the task isn’t to make everyone a coder, but to compost the priesthood and grow cultures where coding is a part of the collective. That’s the #KISS answer: code can support social power, but it is not social power.
Build cultures, not just tools: Stop pretending apps fix politics. Tools only matter if they grow inside strong cultures. Put people first, tech second.
Open the process (#4opens): Keep everything open: code, data, governance, strategy. Power hides in shadows; openness dissolves the priesthood. If it’s not open, it’s not our path.
Practice collective governance (#OGB): It helps when decisions about infrastructure are made more horizontally. Coders are part of the collective, not above it. Shared governance turns coding from priesthood into common fire.
The path out of the #geekproblem is in composting geek blindness and building living cultures where coding is a part of growing the commons.
For an example, this post is relevant to the degeneration of the #SocialHub project, which for meany years was the place for #ActivityPub and #Fediverse#openweb reboot, but now what’s left of the social side is the few remaining active unthinking “problem” people.
This is a normal path and outcome, that we need to compost to keep growing seeds #KISS
Over the last few years, we’ve been watching a familiar story unfold, we’ve seen repeat itself in radical spaces, tech movements, and grassroots networks for decades. It starts in the grassroots with “progressive” #fashernistas (yes, them) pushing themselves into the front to speak for “us.” They talk the talk of decentralisation, care, community, and #FOSS ethics. They wear all the right hashtags: #opensocialmedia, #Fediverse, #commons, #techforgood. But when you look at how power is actually exercised behind the scenes, it’s something else entirely. This is a story of power, plain and simple. Not in the dramatic “revolutionary” sense. But in the subtle creep of careerism, institutional capture, and “safe” social capital games that flatten the radical and uplifts the “palatable”.
Let’s take a few examples from the #activertypub world, first with the #SocialHub stagnation, this open space was originally created by the grassroots crew to shape the standards of the decentralised web, It was originally a commons, protocol-building and governance exploration space. So, what happened? The people now “leading” came from lifestyle #fashionista activism and wannabe NGO circuits, who in the end were all trying to be embedded in the institutional funding environments, or visiting from the safe academic bubble. And thus they brought with them the dogmas of safe spaces, of “emotional consensus,” “hidden affinity group governance,” and “(ex)inclusive dialogue”… that JUST SO happened to exclude the radical and messy paths that are actually native to the #openweb, the bad mess they then made, ended up only pushing the dogma of the #geekprolem as it was the ONLY path they could imagine controlling in a way that would not threaten the thin connection to the institutions they were feeding from. This behaviour so often slips into forms of parasitism, which is not a good thing at all.
Then we have the current #Fediverse outreach infrastructure capture, where we’ve seen the same class of actors attach themselves to the most visible projects – like Mastodon, ActivityPub standards, and now “Fediverse governance.” They secure seats on boards. They host conferences with glossy branding and friendly logos. They use these controlled spaces to then push out “code of conduct” documents and “safe space” branding… while closing and excluding the very messy native infrastructure of discussion and direction that is both native and needed.
Examples? #Mastodon’s GitHub, issue tracking, and moderation are all tightly controlled by a small clique around the project founder. Community voices are kinda tolerated at best, discarded at worst. The project is moving onto the #NGO path, no bad thing in its self, but with its years of pushing its own branding as THE Fediverse, it becomes a bad thing. In this, there is a very real debt of damage they need to pay back – as a part of a functioning gift economy – saying sorry and admitting mistakes would be a good first step.
Then we have the example of the #FediForum events, pushing into the space blindly, with zero historical context or any actual knowledge, to represent the #activertypub ecosystem. The problem is they paywalled, which lead “naturally” to increasingly gate keeping with #NGO commercial interests being pushed to the front to represent “us”. When the radical and experienced grassroots voices obviously don’t get involved, as they simply refuse to step over the paywall. This is an ongoing mess, that we do need to compost and not only with #fashionista outrage but with real working paths, we used to do this, but we can’t any more – why?
Over the last few years we have had proposals for genuine horizontal governance, that could have been used to shift this mess making and to actually shifts power outward – but these were labelled “too messy,” “too political,” or “not the right time.” This is not accidental, it is liberalism functioning as control – with a smile. So… what can we do? Let’s be clear: This is a power issue. It’s not about bad intentions. It’s about how power is used, and then abused, even in the so-called “horizontal” paths.
The first thing we have to do is recognise the smell of #NGO-style liberalism that so easily hides itself in good intentions, grants, DEI language, and “process.” But it then ends up:
Disempowering community autonomy
Replacing radical potential with “professionalism”
Marginalising away activists and messy real-world projects
Recreating the same vertical hierarchies, just with better “open” branding
Composting this mess is needed to break the cycle:
Build and back native projects. The only way to push back against capture is to grow infrastructure from within our communities, like: #OMN (Open Media Network) #OGB (Open Governance Body). These must be trust-based, not credential-based. That means supporting those doing the work without demanding they translate it into pointless and most importantly powerless NGO-speak to be taken seriously.
Use the #4opens as a filter, this simple social retelling of #FOSS is designed precisely to push out the 95% of #techshit and focus energy on projects with: Open source Open data Open standards Open governance. Apply these consistently, and the parasite class will struggle to keep and find a foothold.
Push for messy, lived governance, stop waiting for perfect systems. We need to prototype imperfect, transparent, accountable governance now. It should be: Based on trust, not rules-lawyering Driven by use, not representation Grounded in solidarity, not status
Refuse the “leader class”, just because someone has a title, a grant, or a #dotcons following, doesn’t mean they speak for us. Call out the unaccountable influence. Politely or not. Let’s not let careerists write our futures.:
The Fediverse path could be the most important #openweb reboot of the commons of this decade. But it will only be that if we keep it rooted in social power, not polished #PR and #NGO mess. We don’t need new kings. We need more gardeners, to work together to compost the piles of #techshit and keep the space open and safe.
I think when our #fahernistas say to us “what have we done, please be nice to us, you’re not welcoming.” We need to reply: Am happy to be nice #KISS, just stop being a prat in this space please.
It’s really simple, please stop being (an often nasty) prat.
#mainstreaming#liberalism has lost its way. For the past 20 years, many self-described liberals have spewed out bilge water disguised as “common sense.” But when pressure mounts, they reveal themselves as dogmatic and intolerant, almost as if they aren’t truly liberal at all.
How did we end up in this mess? The #deathcult, #stupidindividualism, and the rise of #dotcons shaped the dominant version of “common sense,” warping it away from collective care and into something narrow and self-destructive. It’s worth reflecting on this if we want to reclaim a liberal liberalism, rooted in genuine openness and social good.
In practice, we can compost this mess by focusing on #nothingnew paths. Two longstanding cultural projects already embody this, working in non-federated ways for over a century. Now, we can add technical federation to the mix, building on 5+ years of #ActivityPub rollout.
This gives us two powerful, #openweb-native paths forward:
Grassroots #DIY culture — Local, self-organized, and messy, but thriving outside corporate control.
Technical federation — Interconnected systems designed to distribute power and ownership.
Both of these paths lead somewhere meaningful:
#indymediaback (part of the #OMN project) to rebuild radical grassroots media.
#OGB (based on #EU outreach on #socialhub) to create open, federated governance.
These aren’t pointless projects, they’re a chance to break free from the suffocating grip of the #deathcult and build something resilient, human, and actually free.
Shall we pick up the shovels and start composting? 🌱
“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 the 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 marginalized the social aspects that initially empowered and defined the community, this is a mirroring of broader #geekproblem struggles that are a continuing of the fading of the project.
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 and nurtured. Attempts to overly structure or mainstream these paths risks losing the path, this together with lifestyleism, and fragmented tribalism, distract from meaningful change. These behaviours breed from #stupidindividualism, a core outcome of the #deathcult we pray to, the culture that undermines collective action.
There is a needed 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 needs to 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 pushing of #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 messiness and keeping the focus on social value, the #openweb can flourish as a genuine alternative to the #closedweb.
What we call #NGO’s in the hashtag story. The Non-Profit Industrial Complex (NPIC) entanglement of non-profits, big businesses, governments, and social activism can, leads to mess we need to compost. While nonprofits can fund crucial tech and activist work, their reliance on corporate-linked foundations dilutes this, to keep receiving money, the is STRONG presser to softening critiques to align with business interests, ultimately limiting transformative change. This power dynamic mirrors critiques of the Prison-Industrial and Military-Industrial Complexes, highlighting how funding sources shape the scope and direction of activism and the #FOSS tech we build.
In the grassroots #DIY world, it’s critical to remain aware, and work to mediate these influences, ensuring that the needed systemic challenges are not compromised by external funding interests.
Let’s focus here on planting seeds of real change, beyond the comfortable narratives of the #NPIC that the #SWF has to compromise with, this is what we are doing on #socialhub
The is a tension between grassroots movements and #NGO paths on the #Fediverse and wider #openweb projects. From a #fluffy point of view the NGO path, while often well-intentioned, can lead to forms of imperialism where outside forces-through funding, structure, and top-down approaches—unwittingly impose their agendas on communities. These actors often don’t realize they are replicating imperialist dynamics, but the impact can be profound: displacement of native grassroots efforts, co-option of local autonomy, and prioritization of centralized goals over the organic, bottom-up “native” development of projects.
Recognizing NGO Imperialism in the Fediverse:
Unconscious Imperialism: Many in the NGO sector fail to recognize the harm their actions cause because they see their work as inherently “good” or “neutral.” However, when they impose structures or funding models without deep collaboration with the grassroots, it replicates patterns of control and hierarchy. Imperialism here refers to a powerful entity, organization extending its control over others, often under the guise of ‘helping’ or ‘developing’ them. On our current Fediverse path, this manifest as NGOs exerting influence on decision-making, resource distribution and governance, overriding local or native voices in the fediverse.
Disconnection from native spaces: One telltale sign of this mess is the lack of linking to #socialhub or other grassroots-driven projects. If a NGO or organization is bypassing the platforms where the community itself is actively discussing and governing its own spaces, it signals a disconnect from native grassroots paths. #DIY spaces like #socialhub embody open, collaborative, and bottom-up approach to governance. Linking to these spaces signals an intention to engage with the community’s self-determination rather than imposing external structures.
When NGO-led initiatives fail to collaborate with the grassroots, the likely outcome is #techshit—technology that doesn’t serve the needs of the community, ends up being unsustainable, and ultimately becomes #techshit to compost for future efforts. The liberal history of imperialism, especially in the last few hundred years, is full of such failed interventions. This is part of the ongoing cycle in the openweb, where obviously crap and disconnected technological solutions (often driven by #fashernista agendas) fail and must then be broken down and repurposed by those still engaged in the space, composting techshit take time and focus which is the one thing in short supply.
Balancing NGO paths with grassroots movements that create value:
Creating Bridges is a good path, instead of rejecting the NGO path outright, there needs to be a focus on bridging the gap. NGOs can play a role, but need to be willing to diversify power to the community and respect the self-organizing nature of grassroots movements. This requires transparency, active listening, and a commitment to open process, the #4opens.
LINKING: Encouraging NGO Accountability a crucial step to make NGOs understand the historical context of their actions. By encouraging more self-reflection and linking their work back to grassroots spaces, NGOs can avoid falling into patterns of imperialism and instead work at balancing better openweb’s paths which is actually, often, there core stated mission.
Building Native Governance, native governance is currently a black hole in #DIY spaces, this is a problem we need to work on with projects like the #OGB. This is a space where the #NGO path with its access to funding could be a very real help to fill this hole.
For Grassroots, we need those involved in the Fediverse (at best with the support of the privileged #NGO crew) to create strong, independent governance models (like the #OGB) that are needed to push back against co-option. By making sure these paths are, built, linked and visible, it becomes easier to hold a healthy balance in place to bridge understanding without compromising autonomy. This approach preserves the Fediverse’s native path, ensuring it stays rooted in the ethos of trust, collaboration, and openness, the core values of the openweb itself.
By composting what doesn’t work and nurturing what does, we can continue to cultivate a healthier, more resilient network for the change and challenge we need for a liveable future. What steps do you think could be most effective in initiating this dialogue between NGOs and grassroots paths without compromising the integrity of grassroots spaces?
This thinking came out of this thread on the subject of the relationship between #WC3 and the grassroots #socialhub over the “governance” of #ActivityPub and the wider #Fediverse.
A bridge rather than ownership would look like a collaborative, flexible, and trust-based system, rather than one based on control and dominance. In the context of the Fediverse and openweb spaces, this would mean moving away from territorial battles between the #NGO mainstreaming approach and the grassroots #openweb communities, toward a recognition that both paths have value, and that these different paths can coexist and complement each other.
The “commons” path is fundamentally about shared responsibility and decentralized governance. It’s the idea that instead of fighting for ownership and control—whether that’s who gets to steer the Fediverse or dominate the standards—we build systems that mediate the different flows, allowing both the formal and the grassroots approaches to contribute and grow together.
This could be done in practical ways like:
Shared Infrastructure: The infrastructure becomes a part of the commons—no one owns it, but everyone can use and contribute to it.
Collaboration Over Competition: Instead of viewing the relationship between the more formal W3C-style governance and grassroots communities like SocialHub as adversarial, we acknowledge that they bring different strengths. The W3C formalism provides structure, while SocialHub’s grassroots, #DIY ethos brings innovation. Each benefits the other, and the bridge is recognizing this value without the need to “own” it.
Mediation and Decision-Making Processes: We need native tools for transparent governance. A commons model for governance like the #OGB which was developed on socialhub. Think of it as a flexible process where everyone has a voice, but no one dominates.
Value in Diversity: The goal is not to impose a singular vision, but to recognize that the messy, bottom-up humanistic creativity from the grassroots and the more polished, structured contributions from #NGOs both have value. The bridge would allow ideas to cross and enrich each other without needlessly flattening their differences.
The key to this is not ownership but bridging the different paths. If we see ourselves as gardeners of the #openweb commons, rather than owners of a “slice” of it, the mindset shifts from control to care, recognizing the power in collaboration rather than domination.
By building these bridges, rather than the normal “common sense” fighting over territory, we create an open network where people and communities can flourish. This bridging needs care, #KISS, trust-based paths, that recognize the shared value and avoid pushing #mainstreaming “common sense” driven artificial divides. It’s about cooperation and connection. #KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid).
UPDATE: We failed with our grassroots path with socialhub
We are seeing a flood of #dotcons making their way into spaces built on our #4opens principles. Their arrival forces us to consider the future we want, and if we can mediate this encroachment for a better path. How can we work to keep this positive?
Some perspectives on this:
Bridging the Gap: Some advocate that we can mediate the space between the #openweb and the incoming corporate influence. This camp believes in building bridges that allow for coexistence and negotiation between the two worlds.
Inevitable Takeover: Others feel that the corporate takeover of these spaces is inevitable. They believe we are powerless to stop it, and perhaps the best we can do is find ways to adapt.
Bunkering Down: Then there are those who think we should focus entirely on the native path, resisting and weathering the storm. By sticking to our principles and building resilient spaces, we can outlast the wave of corporate interest.
Survivalists: Surprisingly, a large number of people fall into the camp of pragmatism—those who need grants and funding to survive. For them, the path we take is secondary to personal survival, though this motivation is often hidden, leading to unhelpful or diluted activism.
Tech Activism: And finally, there’s a group dedicated to leveraging the native #openweb path to challenge the status quo. They seek to compost the current mess, using activism to bring about the meaningful change we need.
Please add more perspectives in the comments…
The #SocialWebFoundation (SWF) seems to fit into the first category, attempting to mediate between these worlds. Meanwhile, spaces like #SocialHub are a mix of the rest, where different perspectives clash and combine.
It’s clear that this situation is messy, and we’re unlikely to reach a consensus, this diversity of thought is the real native path. But with this clearly in mind, action is still needed. The question remains: how do we build a consensus that is necessary to take effective action on the #DIY, openweb? If we fail as we are now, it’s the #SWF and the #dotcons who will walk the paths we build and talk about, leaving us as increasingly bystanders in our own spaces.
Let’s talk about how we have power in this narrative to keep the #openweb native path at the centre of these shifts and turns, and this is a real partnership, not a nasty walk over.
The #Fediverse and #FOSS communities stand in sharp contrast to Big Tech #dotcons platforms through their values, which are rooted in openness, decentralization, and community control. While Big Tech thrives on centralization, data extraction, and profit-driven control.
However, the grassroots path is always under threat. On the Fediverse, stagnation at #socialhub and a rise in #NGO influence, leaves the original ethos of decentralized and open governance stifled by the normal paths of fear and control. This shifting imbalance reflects tension within the #openweb, where native grassroots paths are often at odds with institutionalized power structures.
The challenge now is how to reclaim and sustain these “native” values while avoiding the dilution that the spread of the #NGO mess brings. What strategies do you think could re-energize these communities while maintaining their grassroots authenticity?
The mainstream internet, #dotcons, seduces us with dopamine hits, saps our creativity, and turns us into sad, noisy, powerless complainers. It steals our time with endless distractions, buries the pathways that lead to real change, and, in the end, empties our wallets.
How to get dancing elephants and paper planes into a “foundation” model
Do something different – dancing elephants and paper planes.
Do something normal – control freekery and power politics games.
Do nothing – maybe it all just carries on or more likely decay and irrelevances.
#Activertypub is the first option, and this is why we love it and are having this conversation.
The frustration of navigating the mess of activism, tech, and grassroots movements, especially when they get co-opted and sidetracked by personal interests, #NGO agendas, or broader #mainstreaming mess. We need ways to process, compost, and turn this mess into productive paths, which better balance burnout and disillusionment with actual progressive outcomes.
A part of this is the parasite #NGO and #fashionista paths, how NGOs and big parts of tech can parasitically latch onto grassroots movements, commodifying and diverting them from their own paths. These non-native ways end up taking the paths they claim to oppose, and are a part of the broader #deathcult problem. Mediating this deathcult and pratish behaviour is needed, that challenges the individualistic, egotistical people who are always a part of grassroots movements. If left unchecked, these people will derail collective efforts and reduce movements to infighting rather than the path of change and challenge we need to be on.
Composting the mess, is perhaps the most hopeful metaphor to turn #mainstreaming shit into something more fertile. This metaphor is about processing what went wrong, reflecting, and turning that energy into a better path, sustainable, and rooted in the core values of the #openweb and #4opens grassroots efforts. The mess is undeniable, but with native openweb tools and paths, composting, mediation, linking, and decentralization there’s still hope to turn this #reboot into something productive. We really need to make this work.
The normal problem, the trajectory of #SocialHub, and the broader #openweb community, simply went off course due to factors that we need to talk about:
Shrinking of the crew, led to the forced narrowing of focus, limiting the community’s ability to engage widely and creatively. As fewer people became involved, the flexibility and potential of the project shrank.
Chasing funding, is a recurring poison in many grassroots projects. The moment funding enters the picture, the focus can shift from mission driven goals to survival driven ones, leading to compromises and sell outs.
The #geekproblem, is a recurring issue where the culture of arrogance and ignorance within tech communities blocks collaborative, inclusive problem-solving. Tech culture ignores the social dimensions of community building, exacerbating problems instead of solving them.
Failed governance, feudal-like governance structures hindered the ability to mediate these issues, turning leadership into top-down control rather than fostering horizontal collaboration. Attempts like the #OGB (Open Governance Body) were/are being blocked by the systems they set out to fix, leading to a self-reinforcing mess.
What can we do, next steps:
Composting the mess, rather than seeing the failure as terminal, it’s about turning the decay into fertile ground for new growth. This composting metaphor is apt—it’s about taking what didn’t work, reflecting on it, and using it as the soil for new, better-structured efforts.
Recognizing people over code: The issue lies with people, not technology, the main barriers are social—ego, power dynamics, and lack of collaboration. Governance structures, community engagement, and shared values need to take centre.
Defining and defending the #openweb, people will inevitably sell out for funding and status. To mediate this, a clear, shared understanding, of what the openweb stands for, an articulation of principles like the #4opens is crucial. The community needs a strong value framework to guide decisions and prevent the erosion of ideals and paths.
Building a hub for meaningful engagement, #SocialHub was once this place, but it’s now too narrow and constrained by the #NGO. #fashernista and #geekproblem interests. If the community is to thrive, it needs a revitalizing, a broader range of voices participating, where governance is open, and where people are empowered to contribute without the weight of gatekeepers and blinded apathy and intolerance blocking we to often have now.
Infrastructure and funding, the practical path of supporting the infrastructure also needs addressing. The lack of funding is damage that shifts, the code itself, into became unresponsive to the community’s needs. Finding sustainable, non-exploitative funding models is needed. Could a cooperative or mutual aid model be a path forward, that aligns with the values of the #openweb while providing the necessary resources?
Immediate Actions:
Broaden governance: If we return to SocialHub or a similar network, start by widening the admin and mod team to ensure it represents more than just the narrow confines of #NGO, #fashernista and #geekproblem interests. This inclusivity prevents drift.
Articulate values clearly, by creating a visible and accessible page for the #4opens, making it a cornerstone for paths and discussions, decisions, and collaborations. People need to understand and agree on the principles driving the openweb, #KISS
Revive discussions, reignite meaningful discussions about the purpose and direction of the openweb. This needs to happen on networks where all voices are welcomed, and consensus building isn’t seen as a hindrance but a pathway forward.
Explore funding models, as the current mess is feeding this #blocking. Look into alternative funding mechanisms—cooperatives, community-supported models, or decentralized funding structures that align with openweb values. Chasing VC or NGO funding leads to the same patterns of co-optation and control.
By addressing these issues—people, governance, values, and sustainability—the community can begin to rebuild, with a “native” approach, it’s possible to compost the mess into fertile soil for future growth.
UPDATE the thread on this turned into a mess then a part of it vanished, likely someone blocked, so posting the last update here:
” I just don’t see SocialHub as likely to evolve into the kind of place for the broader discussions focusing on social issues.”
The problem we are talking about. This is exactly what #socialhub was “broader discussions focusing on social issues” for the first 3 years or so, we had the path we now need in place as native grassroots.
A tiny number of people used the #geekproblem to narrow this open space down to focus EXCLUSIVELY on the #FAP. Why and how this happens is where the value is, so we don’t keep adding to this mess, in the future.
PS, this mastodon mess of jumping from public to semi private all the time is a mess.
What went wrong with this is a classic case of the tension between grassroots ideals and the pressure of existing within a larger system that is fundamentally at odds with those ideals. The #fediverse, along with other #openweb movements, succeeds in small, meaningful ways but struggles to scale in a world built on capitalist structures, centralization, and competition. This tension is particularly evident in how projects, despite being technologically sound and #4opens, ideologically aligned with decentralization and openness, gets bogged down in internal messes, conflicts, miscommunication, leading to fragmentation. The messy social side, neglected in tech projects, ends up undermining the success of the broader mission. People focus on code but forget about the human aspects like collaboration, motivation, and building long-term trust, which are equally essential.
As I suggested, the idea to codify some form of “netiquette” or community values, inspired by the #fluffy and #spiky traditions of past projects, is crucial. If we don’t address these human and social issues, the technology alone will not be enough. The problem is that by default these communities don’t prioritize this, and that’s where the breakdown occurs. What we have now is that the fediverse’s very existence is a victory, but that doesn’t mean the battle is over. The grassroots growth, driven by passion rather than profit, shows that alternatives to #dotcons capitalist, centralized tech are possible, but in-till we find a way to address the underlying social fracture, gatekeeping, burnout, #blocking and conflicts, we’ll continue to push the same mess.
The victory is not in “winning” in capitalist terms, but in maintaining spaces where alternatives can thrive and where people can connect based on shared #4opens values, rather than imposed structures. The real challenge is to keep these spaces open, resilient, and focused, for this to balance we need to address not just the tech, but the people behind it. We could, and should reboot #socialhub to be this space, It’s where it started, and did a good job for a while.
