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 Non-Profit Industrial Complex (#NPIC): A Double-Edged Sword in #FOSS and Activism

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 tension, grassroots movements and #NGO paths

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?

We need to build more bridges

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 manifest 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).

The #openweb, a partnership, not a nasty walk over

We are seeing a flood of #dotcons making their way into spaces built on #4opens principles. Their arrival forces us to consider the future we want, and if we can mediate this encroachment for a better path.

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, diversity of thought is a 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 path? If we fail to do this, 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.

Oligarchy, Monarchy, and the Future of Governance of the #OpenWeb

Native grassroots paths are at odds with institutionalized power

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 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?

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.

Some links on this https://socialhub.activitypub.rocks/t/what-would-a-fediverse-governance-body-look-like/1497/7

Corporate presence in the Fediverse?

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.

All I can say is stop complaining. Just, please step away to help build alternatives like the #OMN

#openweb #dotcons #4opens #techshit

Thoughts on the mess we made on #socialhub and the wider #openweb reboot

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.

Socialhub needs rebooting as grassroots, its drifting

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.

Or not, but it would be good to stop the drift.

We need to reclaim focus and energy wasted on current failing systems

Grassroots in Tech Communities: Challenges and Paths

The discussions surrounding grassroots movements within tech communities intersects with broader social themes, such as #neoliberalism and #postmodernism. These ideologies shape what is considered “common sense” and can create real barriers to introducing alternative viewpoints and practices. Within this context, progressive grassroots initiatives aim to counteract these dominant paradigms, but they frequently face challenges both from within and outside their communities.

The concept of #mainstreaming refers to the process where dominant ideologies and practices become the accepted norm, marginalizing alternative perspectives. This current mainstreaming is driven by the forces of neoliberalism, emphasizes market-driven solutions and (stupid) individualism, and (zombie) postmodernism, that foster a sense of scepticism and relativism. Together, these forces create a “common sense” that is actively hostile to grassroots progressive initiatives.

Let’s look at a few of the “surface issue” faced by Grassroots Movements:

Perception of Spam: As highlighted in #socialhub experiences, grassroots advocates face accusations of spamming when they consistently share links and resources to support #KISS arguments. This perception can stem from a misunderstanding of the intent behind sharing information, which is to provide context and facilitate basic understanding.
Resistance to Alternative Views: When #mainstreaming ideas are challenged, the response is often, hostile, defensive or dismissive. This resistance is rooted in cognitive dissonance and the threat to personal and collective identities that alternative viewpoints pose.
Governance Issues: Effective governance within tech communities is crucial for fostering inclusivity and legitimacy. However, governance processes become contentious, particularly when there are differing visions for the community’s direction and priorities. This is a problem with much of the #feudalism in #FOSS thinking.

Some projects that are designed to mediate these issues

The Open-Media-Network (#OMN) and its associated projects, such as the Open Web Governance Body (#OGB) and the #4opens framework, represent grassroots efforts to address these challenges. These initiatives aim to create a more democratic and inclusive “trust” based internet by emphasizing transparency, open governance, and community-driven development.

Open Web Governance Body (#OGB): Project focuses on creating governance structures for horizontal projects using simple online tools. By promoting open and inclusive governance, the OGB mitigates the issues caused by #mainstreaming and ensure that grassroots voices are heard and valued.
The #4opens Framework: Advocates for open data, open source, open standards, and open processes. By adhering to these principles, grassroots movements can create robust defences against co-optation and maintain their autonomy and integrity.

What can you do to help:

Build Community and Solidarity: Strengthening ties within the community and fostering a sense of shared purpose to help counteract the fragmentation often caused by dominant ideologies.
Educate and Inform: Providing accessible and compelling information about the benefits of alternative viewpoints and practices to shift perceptions and reduce resistance.
Engage in Dialogue: Creating spaces for open and respectful dialogue can help bridge divides and foster mutual understanding.
Leverage Technology: Utilizing #openweb tools and platforms like the #OMN and wider #Fediverse empower grassroots movements to organize effectively and promote their message to escape the #dotcons echo chambers.

The struggle to establish and maintain grassroots movements within tech communities is ongoing and very messy. By understanding the dynamics of #mainstreaming and employing strategies to counteract its effects, these movements can create more inclusive and democratic spaces. The initiatives by the Open-Media-Network offer real grassroots frameworks and tools for achieving these goals, demonstrating that a small group of thoughtful, committed people can indeed change the world.

Become a part of this movement https://opencollective.com/open-media-network

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 🙂

#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.