Why do we keep bringing this up?

If we want a better web, we have to stop pretending this is just about “bad tech companies doing bad things.” Of course, they are-that’s what capitalist incentives produce. The real question is: what are we doing differently?

That means accepting some uncomfortable truths. The better path will be less convenient, at least at first. We will have to socially support things that used to look free on the #dotcons. Because the cost we didn’t want to face is simple: the #openweb was always going to be harder, someone has to:

run the servers
maintain the software
fund development
handle abuse, moderation, and #UX

The fantasy wasn’t that this work didn’t exist. The fantasy was that the market – advertising – would cover it without consequences.

In the current mess in tech paths, this becomes visible again. Bluesky and #ATproto keep getting lumped in with #ActivityPub under the easy label of “open protocols, yay”… but that’s just not true. Yes, they both sit in the #openweb space, but there’s a real structural problem here, and we’re seeing it play out in real time.

At AtmosphereConf, the signal was stark:

“Why would anyone fund an Atmosphere project if Bluesky, with $100 million in the bank, might ship a competing feature at any moment?”

That’s not an ecosystem. That’s a platform with enough gravity to crush its own edges. And people are noticing. The old pattern is back:

invite the community in
let them build the value
then absorb and replace them

Same playbook, again and again. It feels open – but the centre still holds the power. The same dynamic we saw with Twitter. The DNA is obvious.

The difference really matters. #ActivityPub was built as a commons path from the start – messy, flawed, but natively open. #ATproto is something else: a platform-first model with openness layered on top. That’s why it keeps drifting this way. It’s not a bug, it’s the design.

Too much #techshit, and everything starts to stink. Why would anyone step into the #openweb if that’s the smell? This creates a bigger problem, that it’s a mess that keeps coming back, and as usual we’ll be the ones left to compost it, underfunded, unrecorded, and unthanked.

We’ve been here before – with the #encryptionists and the #blockchain mess. Big promises, lots of noise, overlapping hype cycles. Now there’s a clear overlap with #Bluesky and #AI. The risk isn’t just that this fails. It’s that when it fails, it leaves a miasma behind, making it harder for people to trust the actually working open paths. That’s the real damage.

Neglect is not innocence, this isn’t about blaming users instead of power. Power matters. Monopolies matter. Venture capital mess matters. But still, if the #openweb mattered, why didn’t we support it?

Why do people pay for streaming, cloud, and delivery, but not support publishing tools, independent media, hosting, or open infrastructure?

Why did so many #NGO organisations that talked about openness still push people onto closed platforms the moment growth and analytics are on the table? We keep choosing short-term convenience over long-term stewardship, not just a market failure, a cultural one.

So lets look at this mess again. I’ve been trying to find a way to express my view of the people who took over outreach in the #Fediverse, and in doing so helped shape the current #openweb reboot.

DRAFT: naïve, controlling, and self-interested.

They’ve left a mess that the people they pushed aside now have to compost. It’s really useful to look at how we got here.

In the early years, outreach was organised by a genuinely diverse, native crew. It was a good time – three open conferences, and even getting the EU to adopt the standard. But that group burned out, focus splintered, self-interest crept in, driven by the need to control resources. The balance shifted, and grifters gradually outnumbered them, eventually tearing it apart. In the space left behind, a new crew stepped in – filling the vacuum with centralised power and influence. And that’s where we are today.

We don’t fix this by arguing harder. We fix it by building – and holding – open spaces that don’t follow this pattern.

Let’s try and simplify the #OMN

It’s not about features. It’s about culture.

#ActivityPub comes out of the #openweb tradition.

#Bluesky comes out of a split lineage – #openweb roots, shaped by #dotcons incentives, with an #encryptionist upbringing.

Thinking of workshops to run at “Nodes On A Web” #NOAW unconference

Hamish Campbell is a long-time #openweb activist and technologist working on grassroots media and digital commons. He was involved in the early development of #Indymedia and continues this work through projects like the Open Media Network (#OMN), which works on how federated tools and community publishing supports public-interest media infrastructure. His focus is balancing building native platforms and on growing the social culture that makes the #openweb work: transparency, decentralisation, and horizontal collaboration. Through writing, workshops, and practical projects, he argues that the future of the Fediverse depends as much on culture, governance, and shared infrastructure as it does on code.

Workshop 01

The #Mainstreaming Problem in the Fediverse

Purpose is to open conversation that many people feel but rarely articulate: the tension between grassroots culture and institutional capture. Start with your simple distinction:

Good #mainstreaming → openweb values spreading outward

Bad #mainstreaming → corporate/NGO structures reshaping the Fediverse

Then ask: “Which direction are we currently moving?”

Discussion topics – funding and governance, foundations and institutional capture, developer vs user power, infrastructure vs platforms. How to avoid repeating Web 2.0

Activity is to ask participants to map layers: Grassroots – NGO / institutional – Corporate. To discuss where power currently sits and what healthy balance might look like.

Outcome is people leave with language to understand the tensions they are experiencing in the Fediverse.

Workshop 02

Maybe a second one on why #makeinghistory is needed? Translating #OMN from “activist infrastructure” into “missing public digital infrastructure.” That language is what this event is trying to figure out. The Open Media Network (#OMN) proposes a model where grassroots publishing, community moderation, and institutional participation are balanced. Participants can discuss how institutions support shared infrastructure rather than just deploying isolated platforms.

Many institutions are experimenting with the Fediverse as an alternative to #dotcons corporate social media. However, simply running institutional servers risks reproducing the same platform dynamics in a federated form. We need workshops that explore the broader ecosystem of public-interest media infrastructure.

“What happens after institutions join the Fediverse?” The #KISS answer is they need to support the commons infrastructure that makes it socially viable. Running Mastodon is not enough, institutions need to support the wider open media ecosystem.

Talking about #openweb culture in a constructive way is tricky because most #FOSS and Fediverse conversations default to technical framing: code quality, scalability, moderation tooling, and #UX. These things matter, but they are not the foundation that determines whether a network lives or dies.

Maybe a useful way to open the conversation is to shift the starting point. Instead of saying “culture is important too”, say something stronger but practical: The success or failure of open systems is primarily a cultural question, not a technical one. The code only expresses the culture behind it.

Start with a simple historical observation. Many technically strong systems failed because the social layer was weak, while some technically rough systems succeeded because the community culture worked.

Examples from the open web – early open source projects that thrived because communities shared norms of collaboration. Grassroots networks like Indymedia worked socially even when the software was messy. Corporate platforms that succeeded not because they were technically better, but because they built powerful social gravity.

The pattern is clear, that technology enables networks, but culture sustains them. This is the missing step in most Fediverse conversations. Right now to meany discussions focus on: scaling servers, moderation tools, interface design and onboarding. These are all necessary but insufficient.

What way to often goes missing is the deeper questions – What culture are we actually trying to grow? Without answering that, the system tends to drift toward the dominant internet culture, which today is shaped by the #dotcon platform model of engagement optimisation, algorithmic attention markets, influencer dynamics and centralised power. When that culture seeps into the Fediverse, the result is a federated copy of the same problems.

So why is culture harder than code? Code can be written by a few developers, culture requires shared understanding across thousands of people. To grow this we need native governance norms, trust networks, moderation values and expectations about ownership and participation to hold to native paths for how conflict is handled. These things cannot simply be implemented in software, they must be grown socially, fail to address this is why many technically strong projects fail, they assume the social layer will somehow emerge automatically. It rarely does.

To make this constructive, it helps to clearly describe what we mean by #openweb culture. Some core values historically included public-first communication rather than platform ownership, decentralised responsibility instead of central moderation authority, commons thinking rather than product thinking to nurture horizontal participation rather than audience/influencer hierarchies, this need clear #4opens processes rather than opaque decision-making.

These values were never perfect, but they created a different social environment from today’s corporate social media. If we do not actively cultivate these values, the surrounding internet culture will slowly overwrite them. If the Fediverse continues to grow without addressing culture as it currently is, the most likely outcome is large institutional instances dominate, smaller community spaces struggle leading to more moderation being centralised. This all shifts user expectations toward platform-style experiences.

At that point, the system may still be technically federated, but the culture will have drifted back toward Web 2.0. The code will be open, but the social dynamics will not be.

So the “extra step” is simply, we must talk about culture as deliberately as we talk about software architecture. That means asking questions like: What social norms should Fediverse communities encourage? What governance models support open participation? How do we keep the ecosystem diverse rather than dominated by large actors? What responsibilities come with running infrastructure in a commons network?

These conversations are sometimes uncomfortable, because they move beyond engineering into politics, sociology, and ethics. But avoiding them does not make them disappear, it simply means the culture will be shaped by default forces instead of conscious choices.

A simple way to frame this – A phrase that often works well in discussion is – “Code builds the network, but culture decides what the network becomes.” If we want the #openweb to remain something different from the #closedweb platform internet, we need to invest as much thought into the culture as we do into the code and #UX. Otherwise, the technology may succeed technically, but the social project behind it will quietly fail.

Workshop 03

https://hamishcampbell.com/the-wall-of-funding-silence/ I am going to “Nodes On A Web” #NOAW to try and have this conversation in a polite way.

Public Money, Public Communication, Public Infrastructure

Public institutions are funded by taxpayers. Their role is to serve the public. So it should be obvious that their communication systems are open, accessible, and accountable to everyone -without requiring people to sign up to proprietary, for-profit platforms.

Yet this is not the world we live in. Today, much of public communication is effectively outsourced to the #dotcons. If you want to follow government updates, participate in consultations, or even access timely public information, you are often expected to create an account on a closed platform – designed for profit, data extraction, and behavioural manipulation. That alone should raise serious questions.

This contradiction is especially stark in Europe as they regularly speak about digital sovereignty, data protection and public accountability. And yet, at the same time, they rely on U.S.-based corporate platforms to communicate with their own citizens. It’s a strange situation:

Public institutions, funded by European taxpayers, using foreign, proprietary infrastructure to mediate public communication.

Not only does this create dependency, it also places public discourse inside systems that are not governed by public interest.

It’s not just ironic. It’s structurally broken, we should think about prosicuting the people who have made this happen.

The access problem, useing closed platforms to access public communication creates real barriers: Not everyone wants to create or maintain dotcons social media accounts. Some people are excluded for ethical, political, or practical reasons. Algorithms decide what is seen and what is not. Public information becomes entangled with advertising and engagement metrics. This undermines a basic democratic principle that public communication should be universally accessible, without conditions.

We already have an alternative to this curupt mess, the #DIY #OpenWeb comes from europe, it offers a different path. Instead of #closedweb platform dependency, it builds on open standards, interoperable systems with multiple access points, no user lock-in. This is not a new path, it is how the web was originally created to work in the EU.

An example project that contines this native mission and supports this is the #OMN whitch creates spaces where public institutions and public communities can meet on equal terms, without one dominating the other, and without relying on closed corporate systems. If institutions instead invest in and support the wider #OMN ecosystem, they help build something fundamentally different, a public communication infrastructure that is open by default, accessible to all, resilient and distributed and aligned with democratic values.

A simple principle, if it is funded by the public, it should be accessible to the public – without restriction. No accounts required, no platform dependency and no hidden gatekeepers.

We need to organise a call to act. Public institutions need to move beyond simply using the #Fediverse. They need to help build and sustain the commons that makes open communication possible. That means, supporting open infrastructure projects, funding shared ecosystems like the #OMN and building real, not facke PR commitment to public-first communication practices.

This is not just a technical shift, it is a political and cultural choice.

A simple #KISS way forward is to shift public social communication onto the #Fediverse. This is already a significant improvement on current platform dependency. However, I want to raise a point that may sound controversial at first, but is actually quite practical: public institutions should not rely exclusively on the existing codebases.

Most current Fediverse platforms have done vital groundwork – particularly in establishing shared protocols, interoperability, and a working culture of federation. That contribution is important and should be recognised. However, many of these tools evolved shaped by the same assumptions as #dotcons and constrained by #NGO project models. As a result, they can be complex, difficult to maintain, and not always well aligned with the long-term needs of public institutions or commons-based infrastructure.

A constructive path forward would be to fund the development of a small number of new, purpose-built codebases focused on commons publishing. Not one, but three parallel implementations.

Why three? Because diversity reduces risk. In practice, not every project will succeed – this is normal and expected. Funding multiple approaches ensures resilience, encourages innovation, and avoids over-reliance on a single solution. The cost of doing this would be minimal relative to existing public digital budgets, yet the potential long-term value is significant.

Importantly, this is not about replacing the existing ecosystem. Because the Fediverse is built on shared protocols, any new tools would remain fully interoperable with current platforms. This means users of existing services can still interact seamlessly, while the overall ecosystem becomes stronger, more diverse, and better aligned with public service values.

In short: build on what exists, but don’t be constrained by it. By investing modestly in new, commons-oriented infrastructure alongside the current tools, public institutions can shape a more robust, sustainable, and genuinely public digital communication space.

#KISS

Outreach to @newsmast interesting to see the #NGO view of the real alt path we need to take https://hamishcampbell.com/thinking-of-workshops-to-run-at-nodes-on-a-web-noaw-unconference/ you guys might be interested in working on the 3ed workshop outline. The 3 codebase need to be 1) mainstreaming, 2) radical #NGO and 3) native messy grassroots. You guys could be the second codebase. We do need diversity, best not to keep blindly messing up this path in the current globe mess.

Why It’s Difficult to Build the #OMN – and What We Can Do About It

Growing the #openweb – Notes for Composting the #dotcons (and growing an #OMN)

Stopped going to in-person general tech conferences around 15 years ago – they’d become beyond pointless. Since then, I’ve stuck to more focused online events.

Now heading back to an in-person one. Curious what I’ll actually find.

I have a feeling it’ll be about 75% pointless, 20% narrow geek, academic and #NGO-focused (slightly useful), and maybe 5% – probably less – actually useful.

Let’s see how that shifts after the event.

UPDATE: The event was posative, people were looking for change.

The #dotcons assume you want to be a techbro

One of the quiet assumptions built into almost every #dotcons platform is that the user secretly wants to become a #techbro. Not literally, of course, but culturally.

You are expected to optimise yourself by building your “personal brand” to track your metrics. Engage with algorithmic growth loops by understand platforms, feeds, APIs, monetisation tools, creator dashboards. You’re supposed to treat communication as a kind of performance engineering problem.

Most people never asked for this, they just wanted to talk to friends, share ideas, organise communities to publish things that matter. Instead, they got trapped inside systems designed around growth hacking and behavioural manipulation.

This is one of the reasons people are quietly, sometimes timidly, stepping away from the #dotcons, not always loudly, not always politically, but gradually. People feel something is wrong.

But when they look toward the #openweb, the path isn’t always easy either. Too often the tools we build assume something similar – just with a different flavour of geek culture. The user is expected to understand servers, protocols, instances, keys, forks, configuration files, federation quirks. In other words, the user is still expected to become a tech person.

This is the #geekproblem showing up again, if the #openweb is going to be a real alternative, we need to take this seriously. The vast majority of people do not want to be #techbros, sysadmins, protocol engineers or crypto specialists. They want tools that work socially, tools that support community rather than demanding narrow blind identity.

This doesn’t mean hiding the technology. The power of the #openweb comes from openness, the #4opens of open data, open source, open process and open standards. But openness should not mean unfriendly #UX.

The challenge for #FOSS and #openweb projects is to build tools with human-first design: Interfaces that feel welcoming rather than intimidating, workflows that reflect how communities actually organise with systems that support trust and relationships, not optimisation and metrics. We need onboarding that doesn’t require a technical worldview

In short: non-techbro #UX. This doesn’t mean dumbing things down, it means remembering what the web was originally good at, simple tools that let people publish, connect, and collaborate without needing permission or expertise.

Right now there is a real opportunity as people step away from the #dotcons, slowly, unevenly, sometimes reluctantly, but the shift is happening. If the #openweb meets them with only complicated tools and insider culture, they’ll drift back to the platforms they know. If we meet them with simple, social, welcoming infrastructure, the shift becomes something much bigger.

So the question for #FOSS developers is simple: Are we building tools for techbros? Or tools for people? If we want the #openweb to grow, the answer matters.

We fucked up… and that matters because we still have agency

Let’s start with the uncomfortable truth: we fucked up the last 20 years of #openweb tech. Not “they” fucked it up. Not only #BigTech, not only venture capital, not only governments and surveillance states. We did, especially those of us who were closest to the tools, the protocols, the decisions – the geeks, developers, architects, and maintainers who shaped how this stuff actually worked in practice.

That matters, because it means we still have direct power over what happens next. Too often, external forces are used as an excuse. “Capital captured everything.” “Users don’t care.” “The network effects are too strong.” These stories become a form of #blocking – a way to avoid the harder work of change and challenge that is still possible inside our own communities.

The #geekproblem role in the #techmess is one of the hardest things to admit, that much of the current #techmess wasn’t imposed on us – it was designed by us. We built systems that privileged scale over care, efficiency over use, protocol purity over social process. We treated governance as a technical problem and social mess as something to be engineered away. We told ourselves that decentralisation alone would save us, while quietly centralising power in code repos, foundation boards, and informal hierarchies.

This is the #geekproblem in action: the blindness to social value, to lived use, to human mediation. The result is vast piles of #techshit – technically impressive, socially hollow systems that decay quickly because nobody actually owns them in a meaningful way.

And when these systems fail, the blame gets pushed outward. “The market did this.” “Users misused it.” “NGOs ruined it.” Sometimes those things are true – but they are never the whole story.

Then we have the # fashionistas default worship of the #deathcult which is the part people really don’t like hearing: most of us default-worship the #deathcult. #Neoliberalism doesn’t need true believers to function. It survives perfectly well on habit, convenience, careerism, and fear. We reproduce it every time we copy the UX patterns of the #dotcons, every time we design for engagement instead of meaning, every time we prioritise respectability over rupture.

At this point, polite critique is not enough. The climate is collapsing. Social trust is eroded. Institutions are hollowed out facades. We do not have the luxury of endless moderation and tone-policing.

Let’s be clear, it is well past time to hold active worshippers of the #deathcult in contempt – not as individuals to be cancelled, but as ideas and practices to be openly rejected. And more importantly, to challenge our own default compliance with those values.

Time is the one thing we don’t have. Yes, this shift will happen. Over the last few years, more people have abandon #dotcons, more will rediscover collective tools, more will rebuild local, horizontal networks.

The #OMN is precisely about that internal power: what we do together, how we organise, how we build, and crucially, what we refuse to reproduce. But here’s the problem #climatechaos does not wait for cultural maturation. Ecological breakdown, authoritarian drift, and economic precarity are accelerating now. If the #openweb is going to matter, it has to matter in this decade – not as a promise, but as lived infrastructure.

That means pushing change and challenge now, even when it’s uncomfortable, even when it breaks consensus, even when it costs status. We cannot keep living inside copies of the #dotcons is one of the clearest failures of the last 10 years is this: we kept rebuilding copies of corporate platforms and calling them alternatives. The same feeds. Same metrics. Same influencer dynamics. Same UX assumptions. Just with better politics in the bio. That will never be enough.

For projects like #OMN to become real, we need to invest serious resources and energy into good #UX for #openweb projects – not slickness, not branding, but clarity, legibility, and human-scale control. Interfaces that normal people can understand. Systems that work in mess. Tools that support mediation instead of suppression. This is not about perfection. It’s about use-value over #blocking.

The next step is obvious and unavoidable, it’s not more think pieces, more foundations, more grant cycles. It’s rebuilding social-technical systems that people can actually use together, under pressure, without surrendering control. We already know this. Deep down, everyone reading this does.

The question is whether we act on it – or whether we keep hiding behind inevitability while the world burns. The #OMN is not a guarantee. It’s a refusal: to keep worshipping the #deathcult,
to keep copying the #dotcons, to keep pretending we have more time than we do.

The work is here. The tools are here. What’s missing is the will to stop fucking around.

Human tech – OMN

What are you doing today that is not pointless? Not a rhetorical question, a line in the sand. As too much contemporary “activism” is still busywork inside the #dotcons – visible, branded, career-friendly, and structurally harmless. Our old activist circles took the healthy internal tensions that once kept projects like #indymedia honest and fed them upward into a #fashernista vampire class: NGOs, foundations, panels, consultancies. For twenty years, they’ve drained grassroots energy to build CVs and gain access to “power”. That’s not radical, it’s capture.

Now, if we are serious about surviving #climatechaos and confronting the #deathcult, we have to stop doing pointless #techshit and start rebuilding outside the platforms that profit from our failure.

We need projects that doesn’t need permission, we need a #DIY crew. That means gathering like-minded people off the #dotcons, working collectively, not performatively, building small, useful things that actually publish, connect, and persist, following the #4opens: open process, open governance, open code, open data to accept mess, conflict, and compost as signs of life

The Open Media Network (#OMN) is not a brand or career ladder, not a #NGO pitch deck.
It’s unfinished work from the original #openweb – work that was paused, captured, and now needs rebooting.

So again, plainly – What are you doing today that is not pointless? If the answer is “posting”, “networking”, or “waiting for funding”, that’s a bad answer. If the answer is building with others, publishing outside capture, sharing control, doing the unglamorous work, welcome back.

#indymediaback #OMN #4opens #makeinghistory #OGB

A guide for staying honest and native

It needs to be said, a community is only viable if enough people care enough to keep it relevant. In this era of #stupidindividualism, most people don’t lift a finger to make that happen.

This is the norm across many #4opens spaces: a near-total lack of interest in building or maintaining shared paths. It’s a textbook case of right-wing Tragedy of the Commons. Developers show up when it suits them, use the space for their narrow needs, then drift off without contributing to the upkeep. They treat community like free infrastructure – something passive they can extract from – rather than a living, tended path we need.

This same pattern plays out across the grassroots and #FOSS world. Devs focus on their code, their projects, their timelines. Rarely do they look up and engage with the broader ecology that their work depends on. In the #Fediverse especially, most developers ignore shared infrastructure, governance, and the standards they rely on, until something breaks. Then they complain.

Same social dynamics, same outcome: its a mess that keeps repeating. And until we break that pattern, we’re stuck.

On the alt path, it’s fair to ask for clarity. When we talk about “#openweb projects,” we mean efforts grounded in the values of the early web commons: transparency, decentralization, collective ownership. This includes things like the rebooted #Indymedia, the #OMN (Open Media Network), and the #OGB (Open Governance Body). These aren’t at all about building shiny platforms, they’re about building the structures and relationships that allow real alternatives to survive and grow outside the normal #mainstreaming mess.

This isn’t simple evangelism, it’s hands-on work: shaping frameworks for local and federated publishing (like the original Indymedia), and now modelling governance and trust systems that resist hierarchy and #NGO capture.

As for government institutions joining the #Fediverse – What we pushed was a bottom-up, native process rooted in people and practice, not imposed solutions. But as is often the case, after we laid the groundwork, the institutional #PR and #NGO crowd moved in and took over.

The “community” we speak of does exist, even if it’s fragmented, marginal, and ignored. You’ll find it in squats, permaculture collectives, activist media spaces, messy corners of the #Fediverse, and in the hands of people still building trust and tools outside the #dotcons. It’s not centralized or funded, so it’s not visible like capitalist platforms are. But it’s real. I’ve lived inside it for decades.

You’re right that real “native” code is still needed. But this not about one perfect tool. It’s about the network of trust and shared values that can hold many tools and projects together. That’s slower to build, less flashy to show off, but far more resilient and necessary in the end.

The #Fediverse is a good first step. But let’s be honest: we’ve lost the thread when it comes to building tech that walks off the beaten path. Most #mainstreaming energy, and much of the #NGO outreach, still flows into reinforcing the same old ruts: centralization, enclosure, obedience to capital. Anything that doesn’t follow those routes is starved of support and often treated as a threat, a curiosity, or a waste of time.

But it’s exactly that off-path infrastructure we need, not just to resist the current system, but to outlast it. To still be standing when the old ways collapse. That means supporting tools and systems that aren’t profitable, aren’t convenient, and aren’t slick. They’re harder to fund, harder to maintain, but they’re what let us keep moving through the oncoming storm of #climatechaos.

If we don’t build and sustain these alternative tracks, the dominant mess will keep absorbing or destroying everything new. It’s a recursive trap: we need better systems to make better tools, but we can’t build those tools without some of those better systems already in place.

So we need to hold space – with care, mess, and trust – for that in-between.

That’s where projects like #OMN, the rebooted #Indymedia, and the #4opens live. Not trying to escape friction, but embracing it. Mediating it. Letting it guide us toward what’s honest, what’s native, what lasts.

The new litmus test isn’t “Does it scale?” It’s: “Does it spread? Does it take root? Can it compost and regrow?”

It’s important to recognise that friction – the mess, the slowness, the need for constant negotiation – is not a flaw in native paths, it’s a virtue. It’s how trust, mutuality, and accountability are sustained over time. These are not bugs to be eliminated with slick #UX and #VC-funded convenience – they’re part of what keeps a community honest and rooted.

The problem arises when less-native, often externally imposed systems (driven by capitalist or institutional agendas) treat these messy, friction-full spaces as broken or backwards. This is the classic dynamic of imperialism and settler colonialism: imposing order, “fixing” things, extracting value, and in doing so erasing the lived, relational logic of native systems.

If you look through the lens of native/western histories – indigenous struggles vs colonial modernity, the same pattern plays out again and again: the native path is degraded, disrespected, overwritten. In tech, it’s no different. You see it when horizontal, trust-based networks get steamrolled by #NGO capture, institutional gatekeeping, or #VC-funded platforms that keep selling convenience as control.

So the real work is mediation. Not purity, not retreat, but balancing these tensions in practice: holding space where native paths can grow without being co-opted or crushed, while at the same time still reaching out to shift the wider terrain.

We need to stop seeing native approaches as “immature” or “inefficient.” They’re often the only thing holding the line against complete enclosure. The question isn’t “How do we fix the mess?”, it’s “How do we stay with it, tend it, and let it teach us how to do this differently?”

So, it’s an old but urgent problem: how do we support tech that walks outside the dominant paths long enough to clear new ones? Infrastructure that can challenge the mainstream only survives if we build support systems that reflect different values – trust, openness, and care over control, profit, and scale. Right now, we’ve stopped thinking seriously about this. If we don’t return to this work, building the path as we walk it, we’ll be stuck cycling through the same traps, watching each alternative collapse back into the old defaults.

People keep asking for my history, so a link https://hamishcampbell.com/introduction/

Capitalism is a hostage situation -Not an economy

There are meany sides to the current mess, it’s worth looking at them. An example the #mainstreaming path of paywalls stacked on paywalls isn’t any real life, it’s a trap, which we need a way out. In our everyday lives, we’ve come to accept the absurd:

You pay to eat food grown on land you don’t own,
Pay to sleep under a roof that someone profits from,
Pay to drink water privatized by corporations,
Pay to breathe, because the air is poisoned by industries that sell you both the problem and the solution.

And if you miss a payment? Game over (inspired by). That is not a functioning economy, it’s not in any way freedom, it’s a hostage situation, where every basic human need is held behind a transactional barrier, and the meter is always running.

This #deathcult is late capitalism: an endless stack of paywalls enclosing what used to be public, shared, and free. It isn’t just about money, it’s about control, dependency, and isolation. It’s a system that need to engineer artificial scarcity, so a #nastyfew can profit while the many just try to survive.

But it wasn’t always like this, for most of human history, people lived within commons-based paths, where land was collectively stewarded, food was grown and shared within communities, tools and knowledge were passed down, not patented and governance was sometimes local and participatory.

The last 200 years of “common sense” capitalism is an enclosure of these commons, first the physical ones (land, water, food), and now the digital and social ones (communication, culture, identity). The #openweb, like the open land before it, is being digitally fenced off. Platform by platform. App by app. Cookie banner by paywall.

This enclosure now defines much of our tech infrastructure, in this #mainstreaming every scroll, click, and share is now mediated by profit-driven platforms. Even activism – once vibrant and messy – is being swallowed by slick interfaces and the same throttled feeds. Resistance is filtered, shadowbanned, deboosted, and pushed to monetize. And “our” #NGOs fighting platform power… are doing so on those same platforms.

It’s an absurdity, and worse: it’s a trap. We need alternatives, real ones. We’re not going to “ethics workshop” our way out of this. We need to rebuild the tools of everyday life – economically, digitally, socially – from the grassroots up.

Commons-based systems, let’s turn some “common sense” on it head, instead of private ownership: stewardship. Instead of scarcity: abundance through sharing. This is where projects, like The Open Media Network (#OMN) come in as a practical framework for grassroots media infrastructure:

Built on the #4opens: open data, source, standards, and governance.

Designed to decentralize publishing, and return control to local communities.

Uses both client-server and P2P bridges for accessibility and resilience.

Encourages trust-based networks over extractive platforms.

OMN is not just theory, it’s active code, messy dev, and practical tools for people to tell their own stories, host their own content, and build alternative knowledge systems outside corporate media. These technologies make community hosting the default – not the exception. They reduce reliance on fragile or compromised #dotcons infrastructure. They’re imperfect, but they’re a step out of the enclosure.

The point isn’t just tech, It’s power, capitalism doesn’t only gate resources. It enforces relationships of power. That’s why rebuilding tech without addressing governance, ownership, and access won’t get us far. The #geekproblem is real: tech that nobody can use isn’t liberation, it’s just another dead-end.

The alternative? Keep it #KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid), prioritize social usability over technical elegance, build bridges, not silos, return to shared ownership and open processes. Capitalism is a hostage situation, but we can walk out the door – if we build the exit together.

You’re not powerless, and this isn’t about purity or escape. It’s about building real infrastructure for real life, so when the capitalist system keeps crumbling (as it will), we’re not left scrambling. We’ll already be living differently.

#OMN #MakingHistory #4opens #openweb #p2p #indymediaback #geekproblem #commons #decentralize #cooperative #foss #degrowth #resilience

UPDATE the seed of this post was from a toot, but can’t find the original to link to due to the #UX of mastodon updating and no functioning search on my instance to find history, sorry, add in comments if you find the original. Updated

Collaborative futures “Go Outside”

A brief literary diversion to get back to our coding and #UX design. In the book News from Nowhere, William Morris invites us to dream, but more than that, he asks us to build. Written in 1890, this visionary novel imagines a world beyond capitalism: no money, no bosses, no state, just people living together in beauty and cooperation, with practical labour, shared resources, and a deep reverence for the land.

For the Open Media Network (#OMN), Morris’s imagined future is not a quaint artifact of socialist utopianism. It offers living lessons, tools, for those of us rebuilding the balance of collective systems of media, communication, and trust from the ground up.

But these lessons come with a challenge, theory is easy, communication is hard. Morris wasn’t naïve about the criticisms he’d face. In News from Nowhere, he playfully mocks the kind of rigid, #mainstreaming or book-bound political thinking that critiques from a distance. In one scene, a bookish character is told off:

“You have so muddled your head with mathematics, and with grubbing into those idiotic books about political economy (he he!), that you scarcely know how to behave… It is about time for you to take some open-air work, so that you may clear away the cobwebs from your brain.”

This is more than a literary joke. It’s a call to stop abstracting and start relating, to the world, to each other, to the work in front of us.

Let’s get back to focusing on coding in grassroots tech and media paths where we are trying to move beyond the current #mainstreaming, we face a similar issue: we to often fall back on rewriting. If a project doesn’t make sense, or if it feels messy or “badly coded,” we’re tempted to scrap it and start over. It’s always easier to build something from scratch than to understand and contribute to a shared vision.

But that instinct, while human, is deadly to collaboration. Reading code is like reading a community, you’re presented with a program someone else wrote, and for whatever reason, you need to understand it, whether to fix something or build something bigger, it will likely be painful. Their choices, habits, or style might seem opaque or even “wrong” to you. But if you rewrite instead of understand, you lose something deeper than code: you lose continuity, you lose trust, you lose the opportunity to actually work together.

This problem isn’t just about software, it’s cultural, it runs through all grassroots movements, including the #OMN. We don’t need another polished platform or a perfect protocol. What we need is the maturity and humility to read each other’s work – whether it’s code, writing, media, or mutual aid projects – and find ways to extend it, rather than erase it.

Morris never intended News from Nowhere to be a literal map of the future. It was always a provocation, a reminder that theory must live in the real world, among people with needs, desires, and contradictions. His “utopia” isn’t managed by frameworks or protocols. It’s governed by relationships. Trust and care are its foundation, not abstract “rules.”

This is crucial for how we approach governance in the #openweb and the society it needs to shape. Rather than getting stuck in ideological loops or trying to design the “perfect” horizontal system, we need to stay grounded. We must treat organising like reading someone else’s program: with patience, attention, and empathy. Don’t rewrite from scratch, build on what’s already alive, collaborative maturity is radical.

The #OMN isn’t about shiny apps or new stacks. It’s about a culture of maintenance and shared ownership, of federated messiness. To get there, we have to often let go of (stupid) individual ego, the idea that our code, our writing, our instance is the one that will “win.” Instead, we aspire to be the kind of people who can join a network not by dominating it, but by understanding it. By reading what came before, by contributing to a path that strengthens the whole.

As in Morris’s world, the future doesn’t arrive through force. It grows in the commons. It thrives when people take the time to learn each other’s language, even if that language is clumsy, half-broken, or unfamiliar. This is the path from utopia to everyday practice, what News from Nowhere offers the #OMN and any grassroots horizontal movement today:

Understand before rewriting. Your time is better spent in solidarity than in solitude.
Theory without practice is noise. Go outside. Apply ideas in real communities.
Culture matters more than code. Values, trust, and shared rituals hold systems together.
Slow is not bad. Messy is not failure. These are signs of life, not dysfunction.

Let’s be very clear, building any shared future isn’t easy. But if we can move past the reflex to rewrite, and instead read, listen, and extend first, then we’re not just writing better code or building better media, we’re building the kind of world past thinkers like Morris dreamed of. One worth the hard, meaningful work that is at the centre of the value streams in his book. This can be fun.

Bridging alt and mainstreaming: A note on the shape of resistance

There’s a nice post by Elena Rossini’s, “This is what resistance to the digital coup looks like.” she is commitment to the #Fediverse, #FOSS tools, and open publishing solutions, and her critique of #VC-funded platforms like #Substack and #Bluesky is needed. At the same time, it’s worth pausing to reflect on how we talk about these things, particularly when we’re speaking to an emerging audience, still navigating the gap between centralized tech and more native, grassroots tools. Because while we do need clarity, we also need care. Otherwise, we risk turning signal into noise.

Rossini’s article is a good example of how alternative infrastructure begins to reach broader consciousness. Many of the platforms she champions – Ghost, Beehiiv, and even certain curated Mastodon experiences – fall within or adjacent to the broad #4opens networks. They are a part of the solution. But they also carry baggage. Some are corporate-lite. Some depend on foundation funding. Some straddle a line between truly open and VC-sanitized.

This isn’t a problem per se, but it’s important to be transparent about it, many of us in the radical grassroots space, nurturing compost heaps of alternative media, peer publishing, and federated community infrastructure – have seen what happens when clarity is lost. The #NGO-ization of resistance. The capture of the #openweb by polite #PR. The story gets smoothed out, the risk disappears, and the power we need to shift change and challenge can simply be adapted and absorbed.

Let’s name the agendas, kindly. We’re not calling anyone out, quite the opposite, this is a call in. A reminder that it’s polite and politically grounded to acknowledge the agenda and position of the tools we use, even more so the ones we promote. Are they native to the grassroots? Are they part of a transitional bridge? Are they compromised in some ways?

Rossini’s argument – that using Substack and Bluesky while denouncing Big Tech sends a mixed message – is fair. But the same critique could be gently extended to Ghost and Beehiiv, too. These aren’t immune from #mainstreaming pressures. If we want to build a truly alternative infrastructure, we have to be honest about what’s native, what’s transitional, and what’s being branded as “alternative” without any roots in the alt.

The #4opens as compass, is a tool that helps us make these distinctions: open source, open data, open process, and open standards. It’s not a purity test, nothing ever should be, but it gives us a compass. A way to orient ourselves as we navigate the mess. A platform might look open because it feels different from Big Tech. But if it lacks open process, if its governance is closed or opaque, then it’s not truly part of the alt path. If it uses open source code but locks users into proprietary hosting or hidden metrics, that’s worth noteing too.

This doesn’t mean we throw out every tool that doesn’t tick all four boxes. It means we contextualize. At best, we practice a kind of digital literacy that includes politics, power, and history, not just #UX user experience. Clarity is compost, Rossini’s voice is part of a broader chorus rising in defence of a better “native” web. That’s good news, but let’s make sure that as more people join this space, we compost the confusion, not spread more of it. Some things we might use to balance this good practice:

Choosing native language when we can (use “open publishing” or “independent Fediverse platforms” rather than brand names as default). #openweb is a powerful statement in itself as it contrasts to #closedweb.
Naming the agendas behind the platforms we use or promote.
Valuing bridges, but not confusing them for destinations.
Practicing digital humility, so we can learn without defensiveness.

On the current path there’s little clarity to begin with, let’s help each other work through the compost, with bare feet and open minds, toward something truly rooted in the commons. And yes this will mean dirty feet and hands 🙂

#TED – A Community of Delusions

Digging over the rot and planting something more real

Q: People are angry about #AI scrapers and that this is exploiting everything for “free” – our art, our words, our data. But let’s be honest, we’ve spent the last 40 years gorging on “free” content online, music, games, video, writing, without paying for a thing unless forced to with a paywall. Yes. We block the ads, we hate the tracking, and we very rarely donate. So… with the idea that everything has to be paid for, are we really that different from the AI scraping machine?

A: The current “common sense” frames this as a moral issue, but it’s better seen as a systematic one. And that’s where people keep getting lost in talking about this.

We live in a society rooted in greed and extraction. That’s the baseline. It’s called capitalism, and for the last 40 years it’s been accelerated by the neoliberal #deathcult, where today “ethics” is bought in plastic tubs of organic yogurt at our local supermarket.

What grows out of this shit heap? #Stupidindividualism, people demanding everything for free while shouting about their personal rights to consume. They want to save the planet, but only with next-day delivery and zero commitment. Then you’ve got the #fashionistas – the “good people” who “perform” care while feeding the same destructive paths. It’s not irony, it’s the logic of the path we take.

No, I don’t want tracking ads. No, I don’t want my ideas and writing turned into #AI sludge. But I’m also not pretending this is a matter of “personal choice”, when we need to shout loudly and continually that it’s a system built to turn “creators” into social shit and call it innovation, when better to speak truth and call it compost.

We don’t fix this by feeling guilty, we fix it by building something else. That’s what #OMN is for, that’s why #4opens matter. Public media, open processes, radical trust, of native #openweb paths, not just another polished platform for exploitation with feel good #UX

It’s not about blame. It’s about digging over the rot and planting something more real #KISS

Challenging “liberal trolls” and #encryptionist blindness

Addressing liberal trolls and the #openweb tensions, the influx of users following the #X (#TwitterMigration) has highlighted tensions on the #openweb, particularly the behaviour of “liberal trolls.” Who advocates for performative inclusivity and impose hierarchical thinking, creating friction in existing working decentralized paths. Their inflowing presence derails conversations, inhibit grassroots growth, and introduce #mainstreaming patterns of control. So what can we do with this mess making:

Reframing the debate: 90% Open, 10% Closed offers a sorted balanced vision. It contrasts sharply with the #encryptionists’ damaging push for 90% closed, that prioritizes secrecy over collaboration. To mediate this mess, we need to promote openness as resilience to grow diversity. This “native” path has power, it resists co-optation by authoritarian forces, a core concern of #encryptionists. We need to highlight success stories, examples where openness has thrived, such as Mastodon’s ability to scale post-Twitter Migration with little compromise. Then build bridges to encourage conversations between open and closed proponents. Identify shared values, while challenging “common sense” that to often blocks any collaboration.

Combatting liberal troll dynamics that wield performative outrage and self-righteousness as tools for control, sidelining the “friction” of radical workin paths. To mitigate this deadening, we need community moderation with clear values, with moderation policies rooted in grassroots principles – collaboration, inclusion, and respect for dissent. A first step is to make these values explicit and widely understood. Empower the margins of radical communities to counterbalance dominant narratives. Ignore the noise, trolls thrive on attention, so strategic non-engagement, combined with clear policies, reduce their disruptive influence.

Addressing the #geekproblem blocking, a resistance to radical ideas and community-focused solutions, creating unspoken barriers to progress in tech spaces. We need strategies to overcome, by making tech accessible to non-geeks with user-friendly with intuitive experiences to diminish the gatekeeping power of overly technical #UX. Distributed leadership encourages non-hierarchical, collective decision-making to prevent a few individuals from exerting outsized influence over grassroots tech projects. Education and outreach is needed to equip newcomers with the tools and knowledge to navigate #openweb spaces, reducing reliance on the blocking geek-centric paths.

Resisting destructive cult paths, #NGO-driven power grabs and “cult-like” behaviour. This is done by seeding decentralized power structures to encourage healthy conflict and normalize constructive disagreements as part of openweb culture. To reduce the potential for groupthink and “common sense” authoritarian tendencies. We need to recognize and resist co-optation by staying vigilant against efforts to co-opt grassroots movements for institutional and corporate interests.

We need proactive strategies to building radical resilience, to mediate the blocking energy and empower radical tech. Creating paths for experimentation, this might include enclaves where radical ideas can be tested without suppression and co-optation. Foster allyship by building alliances between radical movements and pragmatic reformers to amplify shared goals. Challenge “Common Sense” imposition of “practical” solutions that dilute grassroots paths and values. Embrace creative, “mad and bad” ideas to disrupt this status quo blocking.

In conclusion, the path of the #openweb depends on striking a balance between openness and security, grassroots experimentation and mainstream scalability, decentralization and coordination. The paths we need is to active mediate the mess brought into our spaces by liberal trolls, encryptionist ideologies, and the #geekproblem. If we do this we can create a more resilient digital ecosystem that we need in the era of #climatechaos and social brake down.

Currently, we have too much prat energy on these paths, so a bit of composting is needed.

#Mainstreaming social media: Digital drugs, not social connection

UPDATE: https://www.nationalreview.com/news/meta-researchers-privately-compared-instagram-to-addictive-drug-bombshell-court-filing-shows/

We still have not found our way out of the mess of stepping away from the #mainstreaming #dotcons. For meany people, the current #dotcons social media isn’t about genuine communication or community, it’s about delivering digital drugs. Platforms like #Facebook, #Instagram, and #TikTok thrive by exploiting addictive design patterns, keeping people and communities hooked with endless dopamine hits to fill the holes in their empty lives.

This addiction is why many people struggle to stay on native #openweb social media platforms. These alternatives, built with #4opens, lack the engineered “highs” of the #dotcons. Without the “fix” of notifications, likes, and algorithmically curated content, people feel withdrawal and gravitate back to the platforms designed to exploit learned dysfunctional impulses.

The challenge of needed real meaningful outreach on the #openweb, is to address this addiction cycle. As a first step, it’s not enough to offer better tools or ethical platforms; we need to actively incorporate digital drug detox into the user experience (#UX). This means, designing for intentional use, replacing infinite scrolling, endless notifications with features that encourage creative and mindful engagement. Rebuilding reward systems on genuine connections, creativity, and learning instead of shallow metrics like likes and shares. Educating people to recognize and break free from the addictive patterns that hold the #dotcons in place.

A detox-focused UX for the #openweb is shifting focus from passive content consumption to active participation in meaningful communities. This path is core to breaking free from digital addiction, it is no small task, but it’s needed for any sustainable future. Our outreach of the #openweb can lead to this shift, offering not just an alternative, but a detox from the digital drug cycle that defines #mainstreaming social media mess.

A detox-focused UX for the #openweb isn’t about another shiny platform. It’s about breaking addiction. The #dotcons are digital drugs: infinite scroll, dopamine loops, algorithmic junk food.

#Bsky is digital methadone – a softer addiction, but still dependency.

The #Fediverse is cold turkey – messy, uncomfortable, but the only real way out.

The shift is from passive consumption, to active participation. From being fed content, to tending relationships, building meaning, and shaping our own media environment. Detox is not easy, but it’s the only path to collective social and environmental health.

The importance of words and ideology

Application 2025-02-040 Makeinghistory received

The following submission was recorded by NLnet. Thanks for your application, we look forward to learning more about your proposed project.
Contact

name
hamish campbell
phone
email
hamish@visionon.tv
organisation name
OMN
country
UK
consent
You may keep my data on record

Project

code
2025-02-040
project name
Makeinghistory
fund
Commons_Fund
requested amount
€ 50000
website

    https://unite.openworlds.info/Open-Media-Network/MakingHistory

synopsis

The MakingHistory project is a collaborative initiative to create a decentralized, participatory network for documenting and sharing grassroots movements, historical events, and underrepresented narratives. Rooted in the ethos of the #openweb and leveraging Fediverse technologies like ActivityPub, the project empowers communities to take control of their stories, ensuring they are preserved and amplified outside corporate-controlled paths.

The project focuses on enabling user-generated timelines, multimedia integration, and collaborative curation to document history in real-time or retrospectively. By prioritizing transparency, inclusivity, and grassroots participation, it provides tools for meany voices to be heard and for diverse perspectives to be shared. It combines modern federated tech with the collective spirit of earlier grassroots media movements.

experience

I have been involved in projects that align with the ethos and goals of the MakingHistory project, particularly through my work with Indymedia and the Open Media Network (#OMN).

Indymedia: Building the Foundations for Grassroots Media. I was an active participant in the global network, a pioneering grassroots media project launched in the late 1990s. Indymedia provided a decentralized platform for activists, communities, and independent journalists to report on issues overlooked by mainstream media. It was one of the first major digital efforts to democratize media creation and distribution, fostering participatory and collective storytelling. This work underpins much of the MakingHistory vision, highlighting the importance of grassroots participation, robust federated technologies, and transparent governance. I bring 20+ years of experience to this native path of open, community-driven initiatives, blending technical expertise with a deep commitment to empowering underrepresented voices. MakingHistory is the next step in a long journey to reclaim narrative power and ensure our collective history is preserved and accessible for future generations.

usage

The MakingHistory project’s requested budget is strategically allocated to ensure its success, focusing on building the infrastructure, fostering community engagement, and maintaining sustainable growth. Below is a breakdown of how the budget will be utilized, along with a discussion of funding sources:

Budget Allocation:

Technical Development: Platform Infrastructure: Funding will support server hosting, domain management, and storage for federated platforms that form the backbone of MakingHistory.
Software Development: Resources will be allocated to improving and customizing tools, the Federated Wiki and other ActivityPub systems to meet the project’s goals.
Testing and Maintenance: Ongoing efforts to ensure platform stability, security, and scalability as the user base grows.

Content Creation and Archiving: Collaborative Storytelling Tools: Developing features to empower communities to collaboratively document and share historical narratives, aligning with the MakingHistory vision. Digital Archiving: Ensuring long-term preservation of user-generated content, with open access to historical narratives and multimedia resources.

Community Engagement and Education: Workshops and Training: Organizing events and online sessions to onboard contributors and familiarize them with the platform and principles of decentralized storytelling. Outreach Campaigns: Promoting the project within the Fediverse and other relevant networks to build a diverse and engaged user base.

Administrative and Governance Support: Project Coordination: Supporting a small team to manage the day-to-day operations, oversee development, and facilitate community governance.
Documentation and Reporting: Creating transparent records of decision-making processes and project progress in alignment with the #4opens framework.

Contingency and Scaling: Allocating funds for unexpected challenges and ensuring the project can scale effectively as adoption increases.

Funding Sources: Past and Present: The project has drawn inspiration and lessons from prior initiatives like Indymedia and OMN, which were largely self-funded and supported through volunteer efforts. While MakingHistory does not currently have additional external funding sources, it builds on a history of successful resource pooling and community-driven contributions.

Key Historical Context: Indymedia relied heavily on grassroots funding models, including small donations from community members and solidarity events.

The Open Media Network (#OMN) has been developed on a minimal funding approach, emphasizing open-source collaboration and volunteer labor to maintain independence.

Future Plans: The project aims to diversify funding sources by: Pursuing small grants from organizations aligned with open culture and grassroots storytelling. Encouraging direct community contributions through crowdfunding campaigns and donation drives. Partnering with like-minded initiatives within the Fediverse to share resources and minimize overhead costs.

The budget will enable the project to blend technical excellence with grassroots participation, ensuring the MakingHistory network becomes a sustainable and impactful resource for communities worldwide. This path emphasizes independence and aligns with the principles of transparency, collaboration, and decentralization.

comparison

The MakingHistory project stands apart from traditional #NGO-funded efforts by addressing the systemic failures that have often plagued similar initiatives, while also building on the successes and lessons from historical grassroots and open-source projects.

Comparison of MakingHistory focusing on how it diverges from typical #NGO approaches and aligns with the ethos of the #openweb and #4opens principles.

Indymedia: Historical Example: Indymedia was a pioneering grassroots initiative that provided a decentralized platform for citizen journalism and activism during the early 2000s. It thrived on community-driven content and a federated approach to publishing. Strengths: Empowered local voices, operated transparently, and embraced grassroots values. Weaknesses: Over time, it struggled with sustainability, internal conflicts, and adapting to technological shifts, leading to fragmentation and decline. MakingHistory builds on Indymedia’s ethos of storytelling but modernizes the approach with ActivityPub based technology, collaborative wiki tools, and stronger focus on sustainability through decentralized governance.

Comparison with Typical #NGO-Funded Paths: Top-Down Structures: Many #NGO-funded media initiatives operate within rigid, hierarchical structures. Decision-making is centralized and driven by donor priorities rather than community needs. Result: This approach frequently alienates grassroots participants, undermining the authenticity and trust necessary for lasting impact. MakingHistory Difference: Operates on a bottom-up, decentralized governance model, allowing communities to shape their own narratives and priorities. It values trust and humanity over external control. Funding Dependency: #NGO projects are heavily reliant on external funding, which leads to shifts in focus, bureaucratic inefficiencies, and an overemphasis on metrics that satisfy donors rather than serving people. Result: Projects fail to adapt once funding dries up or priorities change, leaving behind fragmented and abandoned ecosystems.

Overemphasis on Professionalization: #NGO efforts prioritize professional content creation and institutional partnerships, sidelining grassroots contributors and reducing community engagement.
Result: The platforms may appear polished but lack genuine participation and long-term relevance to their target communities. MakingHistory Difference: Prioritizes participatory storytelling, encouraging communities to create and share their own historical narratives. The focus is on tools that are accessible to everyone, regardless of technical expertise.

Technological Approaches: Many #NGO-funded media projects adopt proprietary or siloed technologies, limiting interoperability and peoples autonomy. These systems tend to mimic corporate #dotcons paths, prioritizing control over collaboration. Result: This creates dependency on centralized systems, contradicting the principles of decentralization and the #openweb.
MakingHistory Difference: Built entirely on open standards and federated technologies like ActivityPub, ensuring interoperability and communerty control. It actively resists the commodification of user data and narratives.

Why Historical #NGO Paths Fail: Mission Drift: Over time, #NGO projects shift away from their original grassroots objectives due to donor pressure and institutional inertia. Lack of Community Ownership: Decision-making and content creation are often detached from the communities they aim to serve, resulting in low engagement and eventual obsolescence. Inability to Adapt: Tied to rigid funding cycles and institutional agendas, projects struggle to respond to changing technological and social landscapes.

Conclusion: The MakingHistory project avoids these pitfalls by embracing a grassroots-first approach, rooted in transparency, participation, and adaptability. It rejects the typical #NGO path of hierarchical control and funding dependency, focusing instead on empowering communities to collaboratively document their own histories. By leveraging modern federated technologies and the lessons of historical efforts like Indymedia and the #OMN, MakingHistory creates a sustainable and impactful #openweb native path that reflects the diversity and richness of grassroots storytelling. This path ensures the project remains relevant, resilient, and rooted #KISS

challenges

The MakingHistory project faces significant (social) technical challenges, many of which are intertwined with the development and implementation of overlapping initiatives such as the Ibis Wiki, Indymediaback, the Open Media Network (#OMN), and the Open Governance Body (#OGB). These challenges arise from the #KISS goal of creating a cohesive path that supports decentralized storytelling, collaboration, and governance while addressing the limitations of existing tools and technologies.
Key Technical Challenges: Seamless Integration of Federated Tools:

The MakingHistory project will utilize ActivityPub to enable federated communication between platforms, such as wikis, blogs, and media repositories.
Challenge: Ensuring compatibility and seamless data exchange across diverse platforms in the Fediverse, while maintaining high performance and user-friendly interfaces.
Solution: Building upon the open standards demonstrated in Ibis Wiki, integrating its federated wiki approach with other #OMN tools for decentralized content creation and sharing.

Decentralized Content Management:

Like Indymediaback, the project requires a robust system for managing decentralized content, including publishing, moderation, and archiving.
Challenge: Implementing decentralized moderation and curation tools that respect user autonomy while maintaining trust and quality within the network.
Solution: Leveraging mastodons dynamic federated design and adapting it for the needs of grassroots media communities.

Scalability and Resilience:

The system must scale to accommodate growing user bases and diverse use cases, while ensuring resilience against platform failures or external attacks.
Challenge: Designing systems that balance decentralization with scalability, ensuring reliable performance even in resource-limited environments.
Solution: Building lightweight, modular tools inspired by existing Fediverse codebase and architecture, optimized for grassroots deployments. Most of the solutions already exist.

User Experience for Non-Technical Audiences:

Engaging grassroots communities requires networks that are easy to use, even for people with limited technical expertise.
Challenge: Simplifying complex federated technologies like ActivityPub into intuitive interfaces and workflows.
Solution: Enhancing exiting fedivers codebase #UX usability to integrate accessible tools for storytelling and collaboration, making a practical path for community organizers and activists.

Interoperability Across Projects:

The MakingHistory project shares common goals and infrastructure with Indymediaback, #OMN, and #OGB. Creating a unified codeing ecosystem.
Challenge: Coordinating development across projects to avoid duplication, resolve conflicts, and maximize synergy.
Solution: Developing shared APIs and data models, ensuring interoperability and a cohesive user experience across all initiatives.

Governance and Trust Models:

Governance structures must align with #OGB principles of transparency, inclusivity, and grassroots control.
Challenge: Implementing governance mechanisms that can operate effectively in a federated environment, balancing peoples autonomy with collective decision-making.
Solution: Using the OGB framework to prototype and test governance models within MakingHistory, adapting them to meet the needs of federated storytelling communities.

Preservation and Archiving:

As with Indymediaback, preserving the history created by people and commneties is essential for future generations.
Challenge: Developing decentralized archiving methods that ensure content longevity without relying on centralized infrastructure.
Solution: Utilizing distributed redundant storage solutions and metadata tagging for efficient archiving and retrieval.

Overlap and Synergies: The MakingHistory project serves as a bridge between Indymediaback, #OMN, and #OGB, leveraging shared infrastructure and principles:

From Ibis Wiki: A federated, collaborative wiki system that lays the foundation for decentralized storytelling.
From Indymediaback: Grassroots media publishing tools and workflows for content creation and moderation.
From #OMN: A federated media ecosystem rooted in the #4opens principles of transparency, inclusivity, and collaboration.
From #OGB: Governance models that empower communities to take ownership of their narratives.

By addressing these challenges, MakingHistory will provide an effective tool for documenting grassroots stories but also strengthen the broader ecosystem of decentralized and federated media, demonstrating a scalable, trust-based model for community-driven storytelling, simply put making history.

ecosystem

The ecosystem of the MakingHistory is rooted in the broader framework of the Open Media Network (#OMN) and the decentralized social web of the Fediverse. Combining principles of openness, decentralization, and grassroots engagement, MakingHistory creates a vibrant and interconnected path for collaborative storytelling and historical documentation. This ecosystem will leverage existing platforms, tools, and communities while fostering new connections to build a sustainable network for grassroots DIY media.

Ecosystem Overview, Core Components:

OMN: A federated media network built on the #4opens principles of open data, open source, open processes, and open standards. MakingHistory will integrate seamlessly with #OMN tools to allow decentralized content sharing and collaboration.

Fediverse: Using ActivityPub and other open standards, the project will connect with established platforms like Mastodon, PeerTube, WriteFreely, and Ibis Wiki to ensure compatibility and engagement across the decentralized web.
Grassroots Media: Building on the ethos of Indymedia, the project will provide tools for activists, journalists, and communities to document and share their history without reliance on centralized platforms or corporate control.

Key Actors: Grassroots Communities: Local organizations, activists, and storytellers who document and share their narratives. Fediverse Developers and Admins: Collaborating with developers and instance administrators to ensure technical interoperability and promote the project within the Fediverse. Allies in the FOSS Ecosystem: Engaging with free and open-source software projects that share the goals of decentralization and people empowerment. Educational and Historical Institutions: Partnering with groups interested in archiving and preserving grassroots stories for future generations.

Engagement Strategies

Community Outreach: Host workshops, webinars, and meetups within grassroots networks and Fediverse communities to introduce MakingHistory and its tools. Collaborate with existing activist networks to co-develop and test features that meet their specific needs.

Promotion on the Fediverse: Actively use Fediverse platforms like Mastodon and Lemmy to share updates, gather feedback, and engage with the wider decentralized social web. Publish guides and tutorials to encourage adoption by Fediverse users and admins.

Collaboration with Developers: Work with ActivityPub crew and SocialHub communities to align technical development with existing standards and best practices. Share code, documentation, and progress transparently on platforms like federated Git’s to invite contributions from the wider FOSS ecosystem.

Building Trust Through #4opens: Promote the project’s adherence to the #4opens principles to build trust and credibility among users and partners. Use open processes for decision-making and feature prioritization to ensure inclusivity and accountability.

Showcasing Outcomes: Develop case studies and success stories from pilot deployments to demonstrate the project’s impact and potential. Highlight how MakingHistory complements and extends the capabilities of existing Fediverse and #OMN tools.

Promoting Outcomes

Federation with Existing Tools: Integrate with platforms like Mastodon (for updates), PeerTube (for video storytelling), and WriteFreely (for blogs) etc to ensure content is accessible and sharable across the Fediverse. Collaborate with other #OMN initiatives, such as Indymediaback and OGB, to strengthen the ecosystem and amplify shared goals. Grassroots Campaigns: Encourage communities to create and share content, documenting local histories and movements, to build awareness and participation organically.

By nurturing a collaborative and inclusive ecosystem, MakingHistory amplifies the voices of grassroots actors and create a sustainable foundation for decentralized storytelling, aligned with the wider OMN and Fediverse vision #KISS