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.
In this noise, there is much sense, but no grown-up action. In a children’s playground, it is the adults who are in control, the ones who bind everything together, the ones who make the decisions.
The children play, yes, with noise and creativity, true, which can be beautiful to see.
But this playground noise has little relevance to the world of adults—the ones who do the work of change and challenge, so the children can be free to play.
OK, that’s a right-wing view. But how do we bridge this to a left-wing path? You can find grounded thinking, plans, and native projects linked from hamishcampbell.com that balance this mess we make.
Back to the right-wing metaphor: the subject of this post, the #SocialWebFoundation (#SWF), are the grown-ups. Yes, there are real questions about whether we trust the path they are taking, but it’s the only grown-up path right now. We, in this context, are still the children in the playground.
Question: Do you guys prefer the cats metaphor or the child and playground metaphor? Which one do you think could work its way around the #geekproblem and hyper-individualism (#stupidindividualism) that blocks the change and challenge we URGENTLY need?
People ask, so It’s good to remind my self about this, my journey of working to compost this mess goes back a long way, as you can see from the snapshots of history I’ve written about here: https://hamishcampbell.com/?s=history. It’s a light touch on nearly 30 years of work. It all started with the Sinclair Spectrum, where I was part of a development team working on games and applications. I was also one of the first wave of users of the #WWW when it arrived at the computer centre in Oxford. For the last two decades, I’ve been at the heart of grassroots #openweb activism, working on countless projects—some flourished, many did not.
Ten years ago, I bought a lifeboat and sailed away, attempting to step back from the endless noise. But, as the world is round, I’ve come full circle and find myself back in the fray. And yes, it’s still a mess.
It’s important to keep asking questions, and one that comes up often is, “What are you doing now?” It’s easy to list the things I’ve done, but what’s happening right now? Currently, I’m in conversations with people about responsibility within the #openweb, though I’m not sure how much is really being heard. Still, it’s worth trying.
On the personal side, I’m fitting out a bigger lifeboat. If we keep making this mess, we may all end up needing one to survive the tide of #climatechaos. As for tech, maybe I’m entering the grumpy old man stage, but I increasingly feel that the next generation should stop creating more #techshit. It’s time for shovels and composting—the messy, necessary work of turning the rot into fertile ground for something better.
The current path in “governance” of the #Fediverse is a few people and money, where other people live and create the value of our native #openweb path. This is oligarchy at best, if you think about this, is this what we won’t? How can we, actuary, tell what we won’t, if not what can we do about this?
A critical issue with #SocialWebFoundation is that they’re avoiding real change and challenge, which by default leads to a “safe path” of the commercialization of the #Fediverse. This #NGO path is about keeping a seat at the table, but history tells us it is always unproductive without engaging in deeper structural shifts.
The current lack of user and admin representation on the SWF board clearly signals elitism, which diminishes the collaborative, grassroots potential for native decentralized networks of “governance”. Which without this, we move to a corporate entrenchment rather than fostering the liberating potential of the #openweb we have spent the last 5 years building.
One potential solution is embracing #openprocess, backed by activism, as a way forward. While it may be an uncomfortable path for the wannabe establishment, this path is necessary to preserve the integrity of decentralized platforms and our reboot in the openweb space. Open governance and participatory, maintain transparency and avoid the top-down elitist structures currently being reinforced by the “common sense” #NGO default being imposed.
To start this conversation, we could actively push for deeper community engagement, cultivating dialogues around representation, and organizing inclusive spaces where server admins, users, and activists can voice concerns and meaningfully influence decision-making processes. However, a key challenge lies in whether it’s even worth pushing this path, as many within the establishment will block any understanding or discussion about the need for such structural shifts.
It’s worth reflecting on how many early #dotcons initially tried to be #openweb native, but found it impossible to reconcile with the profit-driven structures of dotcons. The same is happening now, and it’s important to ask: Can we forge a better path this time around? Clearly, the NGO-driven model isn’t the answer. Exploring frameworks like the #OGB (Open Governance Body) would provide a more transparent, accountable, and community-driven alternative, avoiding the pitfalls we’ve seen before.
Question, where do you see the best opportunity to initiate these dialogues and get past the resistance to real change to walk the path we acturly are walking.
We need to compost, meany of the replies to these subjects as they often exemplify the #stupidindividualism that plagues conversations. Instead of engaging in collective, systemic thinking, people fall back on dismissive, reactionary attitudes: “I’ll wait and see,” or “If they mess up, I’ll just ignore them.” This approach sidesteps the responsibility we have to shape the #Fediverse and #openweb decentralized networks. It’s not about waiting for corporations like #Meta to make a move or some #NGO driven entity to fail, it’s about organizing from the ground up and mediating these incursions before they can set deep roots.
I use the hashtag #stupidindividualism as it illustrates what the “ignoring” means, that damage has already been done. Once corporate influence is in place, it’s harder to reclaim grassroots paths, which is why we need collective action now, not after bad decisions have been made. The “I’ll just ignore them if I don’t like it” mindset is dangerously passive, and has a very bad history. It’s not good to hope the right decisions will be made by those in power while reserving judgment until it’s too late.
The #fediverse was never meant to bow unquestioned to the corporate agenda or chase explosive growth at the expense of native paths. The focus needs to be on building a diverse, sustainable, and resilient ecosystem from the bottom up. In this we can’t afford to stand by, waiting for others to decide our fate, if we do, we’ll end up entangled in the same corporate mess the #openweb was originally meant to avoid. If you have any thought, the time to act on this was yesterday, not keeping watching from the sidelines.
The announcement from the #SocialWebFoundation is a corporate vision rather than something native, grassroots or revolutionary. Describing people as “users” who follow “influencers and brands” is a social mess, the commercialized, top-down paths that clash with the #4opens of collaboration, activism, and mutual aid path we build. On its current path this is a delusional dream from corporate America trying to coopt the #4opens network we built from community, solidarity and radical change. On the #mainstreaming#NGO current path this is not the kind of project to engage with or be a part of building, we do not won’t a space dominated by brands and influencers, it isn’t the future anyone actually wants or needs.
On mainstream paths, there is an unspoken disconnect between “volunteerism”, philanthropy, and “entrepreneurship” in the paths #opensource and decentralized tech people take. In #FOSS when people contribute their time and skills, there’s an assumption that their work is for the public good, but many are actually hoping for recognition or a way to generate financial stability. It’s not a contradiction to expect support for work that holds social value, though when this manifests as “entrepreneurship” we see the #deathcult path, underlining expectation for funding and sustainability. This is a hard path to tread and stay “native” to the #openweb
This ties into the mess with philanthropy and funding. For initiatives to gain traction and financial support, they need a compelling story, but many in the #FOSS and #fediverse communities struggle with this social storytelling part. They underestimate how few people aligned with their “native” vision, and how difficult it is to convey, outreach, the non-mainstream paths to a broader audience and the people who hold the money. The concept of “sustainability” for organizations becomes convoluted, with an overemphasis on replicating “common sense” venture capital models. It’s a mess that philanthropic groups have significant resources but fail in distributing them meaningfully, focusing instead on mimicking pointless tech startup mess. This is very likely a problem with #SocialWebFoundation path, the question is how to mediate this, for better outcomes.
This tension between grassroots movements, the expectations of funding, and the structural constraints of both the tech and non-profit paths. An example of this is the #NLnet and #EU tech funding fits this conversation of how philanthropy and volunteerism fail to mix due to flawed execution and basic storytelling problems on all sides.
More of my thinking on this https://hamishcampbell.com/?s=funding It’s hard to find a path to mediate, especially with the growing corporate presence in our #openweb spaces like the Fediverse. Ideas please?
“Power only understands power, so, we might need something that looks like “power” without all the power politics that involves… this is bluesky thinking to this end. If #activertypub is taken up by the #dotcons this WILL BE IMPOSED ON US anyway.”
“its trying to think outside this traditional path, so we think BEFORE we inevitably go down it this kinda crap path.”
“As I said here in the end this will be IMPOSED as a governance model dressed in “community clothes” if we do not build something else with dancing elephants and paper planes.”
“Our current working models of “governance” in open-source projects are Monarchy (the dictator for life), Aristocracy (the devs), oligarchy (the NGO, funders) and finally way out on the edge Democracy (the users).” This above is a move from current feudalism to NGO, the funders.
“…all the existing power structures BEFORE Democracy. As we are “permissionless” we can’t stop them from doing this. We just have to do better, and being native to the fedivers is a big help here.”
“Power… in the Fediverse path comes from different places than a corporation, a government, courts, police etc. we need to think and build with this difference and NOT try and drag the Fediverse back to the normal path. REMEMBER, the Fediverse works BECAUSE it’s different. It’s easy to forget this important thing when #mainstreaming agender, grab and hold.”
#OGB “It’s the correct word Governance – Wikipedia “Governance is the way rules, norms and actions are structured, sustained, regulated and held accountable”
“Yep, the liberal foundation model will be forced onto us if the Fediverse is taken up buy large Burocratic orgs like the #EU and yes there will be a fig leaf of “democracy” placed over the self-selecting oligarchy that will be put into place by “power politics” that this path embeds. Yes this path is the default outcome.”
