#Mainstreaming Social Media: Digital Drugs, Not Social Connection

The essence of #mainstreaming social media isn’t about fostering genuine communication or community—it’s about delivering digital drugs. Platforms like #Facebook, #Instagram, and #TikTok thrive by exploiting addictive design patterns, keeping users hooked with endless dopamine hits.

This addiction is why many people struggle to stay on native #openweb social media platforms. These alternatives, built with #4opens at their core, 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 their impulses.

The challenge of real meaningful outreach on the #openweb, is to address this addiction cycle. 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 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 perpetuated by #dotcons.

A detox-focused UX for the #openweb is shifting focus from passive content consumption to active participation in meaningful communities. This path to breaking free from digital addiction is no small task, but it’s needed for building any sustainable future. 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

What can we do with our fashernistas?

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

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

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

The solution lies in finding a balance that mediates between the superficiality of fashernistas and the closed nature of the geekproblem. This involves, promoting diverse voices, so that the #openweb aren’t monopolized by any tiny group. Building bridges between projects and communities, to facilitate communication between technical experts and those involved in creating actionable steps that align with #4opens paths we need to take. Developing a culture that values tangible outcomes and collaborative input over performative dialogue and gatekeeping. Amplifying onboarding, by making entry points into #opentech accessible, so people outside traditional tech ghettoes can contribute meaningfully.

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

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

Ideas please?

Shifting the #mainstreaming to the #openweb

To make the #mainstreaming agenda more functional in an #openweb reboot, we need to address issues of inclusion, governance, and sustainable development while ensuring that the openweb embodies participatory paths. How do we do this?

Strengthen community governance decentralized and transparent decision-making by createing frameworks for governance that involve more voices from the grassroots, like the #OGB project. Tools based on federated models (like those used in the #Fediverse) empower people to participation in decision-making processes. Collaborative standards, working groups that draw from a mix of tech experts, community members, and non-expert voices to create paths that reflect collective needs rather than top-down dictates.

Develop a supportive ecosystem for builders with funding beyond the #fashernistas. Shift funding mechanisms toward projects that align with the values of the #4opens (open data, open standards, open source, and open process). This means supporting those who build with the public good in mind, not just flashy, trendy ideas, and tech fashions. Empower developers with a community focus by highlighting developing projects that prioritize #UX and community needs rather than tech novelty. Encourage #FOSS governance practices that are transparent and inclusive. Foster this inclusivity by bridging silos with cross-community dialogues, this can facilitate discussions that bring together different sectors of alt-tech, civic tech, and grassroots movements to cross-pollinate ideas and useful paths to take.

Ensure that platforms being built do not only cater to niche tech communities but are accessible and usable by the public, to focus on practical relevance. This helps to empower people to understand the importance of decentralized tech and how it benefits them directly. Thus helping to break down the barriers posed by the #geekproblem and demystifies participation in the openweb paths. A strong part of this is organizing hands-on workshops that engage people in contributing to and shaping the projects.

Accept that failures are part of the process. Instead of discarding what doesn’t work, use these experiences as compost—breaking down what failed and learning from it to build stronger initiatives.
This plays a role in shifting cultural narratives to challenge and change the stores around the #openweb and wider #openculture to include cooperative problem-solving and mutual respect. Shifting the focus from tech utopianism to realistic, impactful change.

Build tech paths that are adaptable and capable of evolving with peoples needs and global conditions, including #climatechaos and socio-political shifts that are accelerating. A part of this is support for meany small tech paths that link and flow information and communities.

To reboot the #openweb to become a part of a shifting mainstream, we need to promote messy participatory governance, redirect funding to genuine, community-oriented projects, and champion inclusive, sustainable paths. The composting analogy emphasizes learning from past mistakes and continuously building resilient, inclusive solutions #KISS

What can we do with our fashernistas?

How can we mediate the #NGO blocking?

The act of linking goes far beyond a simple convenience; it forms the backbone of an interconnected, accessible, and transparent internet. Yet, many people overlook its importance or misunderstand its role, especially when transitioning from #dotcons (corporate-controlled platforms) to #openweb environments. To sustain the promise of an open, people-driven internet, we need to recognize and actively engage with the practice of sharing non-mainstream links #KISS

Don’t feed the trolls, keeps coming to mind, when looking at the #X influx, this is like waves washing on the shore, be the shore not the wave.

People are talking about this subject

From an Oxford talk I attended recently https://hamishcampbell.com/blavatnik-book-talks-the-forever-crisis/

Governance both horizontal, federated and #FOSS native is a hot subject at the moment. It’s a good time for people to look at this. Over the last 5 years we have been developing the outline of the native Open Governance Body (#OGB) project is an innovative approach for developing native #FOSS governance, grounded in years of on-the-ground organizing and community-oriented technology like the #Fediverse and #ActivityPub protocols. This initiative emerged from a #4opens social process, aiming to create a governance path that is genuinely open, transparent, and collaborative. The project particularly focuses on involving developers who are not only skilled technically but who also prioritize community collaboration and user experience (#UX)—a challenging yet needed requirement for success in a horizontal, scalable tech paths.

The OGB leverages ActivityPub, the protocol powering decentralized social platforms like Mastodon, to create structures that are adaptable to scale horizontally. To make this project happen, we need outreach to finding developers who can operate within a community-first structure. This means finding those with technical skill in FOSS and ActivityPub, but who are also committed to open, horizontal collaboration and can engage constructively with non-technical communities and paths. Often, highly technical projects attract developers who prefer isolated, independent work, so highlighting the collaborative nature of the OGB from the start is important.

For those interested in making a meaningful impact on #openweb governance and who can commit to community-entered development, the #OGB project is a compelling opportunity to be a part of the change and challenge we need.

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

Communities Adopt #KISS Tools, Not Technologies

Communities don’t adopt digital technologies—they adopt #KISS tools. People don’t think about TCP/IP or HTTP when browsing the web, or SMTP when sending emails. Similarly, they don’t think about #ActivityPub when using the #Fediverse. They interact with intuitive tools that simplify these layers.

One of the toughest challenges in grassroots #DIY tech is creating #FOSS tools that align with #4opens standards while offering good #UX. This isn’t just a technical issue; it’s a deeply social and political one.

The ongoing difficulty in having this conversation within #openweb and #FOSS spaces is part of the wider mess we’re in. We need to work collectively to compost this mess, what we can call the #geekproblem.

SocialHub has often tried to bridge this conversation, but there have been failures along the way. How can we do better moving forward?

Navigating challenges: online governance, trolling, and privacy

It’s interesting and useful to look at the critical issue of online governance, community dynamics, and the problem of #mainstreaming trolling on both the #dotcons and open social platforms like #Mastodon, #Fediverse and the broader #openweb

Let’s start with mastodon, the complexity of (default) privacy settings leads to public conversations inadvertently shifting into private spaces, this is a UX problem, but it also points to a larger issue with how we handle communication, trust, and governance on decentralized platforms. And raises a question, are we on the right path? Confusing privacy settings are disempowering, the defaults in platforms like Mastodon pushing users toward privatized conversations, which are not combatable with #4opens media paths, of transparency and public dialogue. Yes, this is a subtle but important #UX issue, exacerbated by the complexities of decentralized platforms and different peoples preferences for engagement.

UPDATE: it’s about inheriting the settings of the thread, all my posts are #4opens as this is the core project, it’s unusual to send a DM or other setting though do this a little when needed. When having a public conversation and suddenly find this happening in a non-public space, at no point did I agree to this move, but it happens, due to others settings, it should default to one side public, my settings, and one side (semi) private the other person’s settings, as on my side it is VERY much a #4opens public conversation, it’s a form of corruption for this privatisation to happen… a mess I have to fix by republishing my side as a separate post – sub optional and bad #UX

This is in part the push for mainstreaming, both inside and outside, alternative platforms, creates pressure toward conformity and centralization. This undermines the grassroots nature of media networks like the Fediverse. In the end, we move towards the same governance and behavioral issues seen in #dotcons, corporate social media platforms. Left-wing and progressives need to resist these pressures to/by fostering a #4opens culture of diversity, and mutual aid.

Moving beyond this mess, a culture of empathy and understanding is needed for mediating trolling behavior. Listen before judging, then make judgements based on sound open process, so people have the space to change their paths if they can. A mindset of curiosity and openness, rather than rigid ideological adherence is needed for this to work, metaphors are fertile seeds to bring conversation into this path. This creates spaces where different perspectives can be heard and discussed constructively.

A first step is to be “intolerant of intolerance” with #4opens as a guide. The problem is that this is a right-wing path https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance so we add the #4opens, ethics, to turn this to the left/progressive #KISS path.

The #openweb has always been, under the surface, built on strong communities rooted in mutual aid to provide a buffer against the toxic effects of trolling and infighting. When people feel connected to a shared mission, they are less likely to engage in destructive behavior. The strength of grassroots movements lies in their ability to offer this solidarity and care as an affective path of change and challenge. You acturly can’t have one without the other, in this conflict in moderation can be healthy or not.

We need structural social solutions to governance, the work on the #OMN and #OGB is a promising step toward creating decentralized, open governance paths that can mediate trolling and other negative behaviors. “the rule of an enlightened “philosopher-king” (cf. Noocracy) is preferable to the tyranny of majority” is the bases and fear unthinkingly in #FOSS governance paths. Much of the trolling comes from this unthinking. By embedding #4opens trust, transparency, and community in the path of these networks, we create environments that foster collaboration and experimentation, rather than pointless ongoing conflicts.

Navigating these challenges: online governance, trolling, and common sense privacy is no small step. However, with the paths like the #4opens, a focus on mutual aid, and a commitment to progressive, decentralized governance, it’s possible to create a healthier, more resilient online and offline progressive ecosystem. The work done through the #OMN and #OGB projects reflects this path where spaces (online or offline) are inclusive, productive, and capable of handling the messes that inevitably arise in all “open” communities.

Navigating the Trolls

The “public first” paths of the #OMN faces steep hurdles without the necessary support, focus, and funding. Achieving diversity in these spaces requires more than just a philosophical commitment—it needs active engagement from a variety of voices, technical expertise, and resources to push the project into wider use.

The current dominant “safe first” path in projects like Mastodon does create a certain type of functionality, but it also stifles innovation and radical potential by prioritizing safety in ways that ultimately encourage more privatized interactions. For grassroots, #openweb movements to thrive, they need both tech development and community support that embraces complexity rather than pushing toward conservative #mainstreaming defaults.

Ideas please to pull in the necessary dev focus and resources to make the public-first #OMN a reality? Can we build ways to attract contributors outside traditional #blockeing funding paths?

The Open Media Network (#OMN) is a set of tools to empower communities

What is the #openweb

A fresh look at this path. The #openweb is a decentralized, people-centric internet that contrasts sharply with the centralized #closedweb being pushed by major #dotcons platforms. The openweb is founded on principles of openness, transparency, and community empowerment, it is not just about technology, but also about fostering a different kind of social relationship online, one that is rooted in collaboration, diversity, and mutual aid.

Core Principles:

Decentralization: Unlike the centralized structure of the pre Internet silos and current app based dotcons paths, where a few companies control vast swathes of our space, the openweb promotes a distributed architecture where no single entity has overarching control, it’s a “commons” for all of us.
The openweb is built that people and communities have more control their data, metadate and online experiences. It rejects the practice of data extraction and surveillance that is prevalent on the current corporate platforms.
Transparency and Openness, the openweb embraces openness in all its forms—open source software, open standards, open data, and open processes. This transparency ensures that technology is accountable and accessible, fostering trust based on the #4opens which is a simple core path we need to take.
Community and collaboration, the current openweb reboot is about people coming together to create, share, and collaborate. It moves away from the competitive, profit-driven nature of the dotcons and towards a more cooperative, community-oriented approach where diverse voices can contribute and be heard.
Interoperability is core to this space, this means “native” tools and protocols that allow different systems to communicate and work together, reducing dependence on any one company or technology stack.
Resistance to mainstreaming and #deathcult mentality, it needs strong resistants to the push towards #mainstreaming and the #deathcult mentality to mediate the relentless profit-seeking and homogenization. To hold to the path of celebrating diversity, alternative thinking, and radical approaches to building online communities.

What the #openweb is not

Not a copy of the #dotcons, while some openweb projects have attempted to replicate the features of the major platforms (like Facebook or Twitter) in open-source form, the openweb vision goes further. To create something fundamentally different, not just a #FOSS (Free and Open Source Software) version of existing corporate models.
Not a walled garden, the #openweb opposes the concept of walled gardens, closed environments that limit people expression and force them to live within controlled ecosystems. It promotes open standards and protocols that allow people to move freely, based on trust, to connect across different spaces.

How can you become a part of this and contribute to building the #openweb

Support and use Open-Source Tools, contribute, what you can, to open-source alternatives that respect people.
Promote interoperable solutions by advocate for tools and technologies that work together seamlessly. Encourage developers to use open standards to ensure their software can communicate across different networks.
Educate and advocate by raise awareness about the problems with the current #dotcons path and the benefits of a decentralized, people controlled web. Share knowledge and resources to help more people transition too good #UX openweb alternatives.
Build community led networks, this need to focus on developing code that prioritize community needs and values over profit. Encourage collaborative governance models where people and communities have a say in how platforms are run and developed.
Experiment with new networks, to look beyond simply copying existing platforms and think creatively about what a genuinely #4opens people centred internet could look like. Explore new forms of social interaction, data sharing, and content creation that are native to this path.

The #openweb path is about “composting the mess” created by the #dotcons, taking what is broken or harmful in our current digital environment and transforming it into something healthy and sustainable. This means acknowledging the flaws in the current system and actively working to build something better. This path is a tool for empowerment, creativity, and connection, rather than exploitation and control, are you ready to pick up the shovel and start composting the mess? The path is here, and it’s open to to people willing to take part in this humanistic adventure in social technology.

Linking on the #OpenWeb: Why It Matters

If you are interested in outreaching this #openweb reboot on the #dotcons to bring more people in, there is a group on Reddit for this outreach https://www.reddit.com/r/openweb/ had to set up a new group as the post doing this are being removed from other subject groups, yes it’s a mess, but outreach to hand hold people stepping away from the #dotcons matters, thanks for your help in this path.

Communities and People are the #Openweb

The #Fediverse, short for Federated Universe, is a part of the #openweb made of human connections through #4opens computer networks. Its value is not a collection of software packages, much more about the flows of human community that build relationships across diverse groups and regions. Imagine the Fediverse as a web of communities, each represented as a node. These nodes are not defined by the software they use, but by the people and groups that form them:

Affinity Groups in Activism: communities of action and social movements
Local Governments: Municipalities using the Fediverse to communicate with residents, share public announcements, and gather feedback.
Universities: Academic institutions fostering collaboration among students, faculty, and researchers, enabling the sharing of resources and knowledge.
Families: Family members staying connected, sharing updates, photos, and maintaining family bonds regardless of geographical distances.
Friend Groups: Friends interacting and sharing moments in a private, ad-free space, organizing events, and maintaining their social ties.
Companies: Businesses collaborating internally and with their customers, providing customer support, and sharing company news.
Interests: People and communities expressing themselves, sharing their thoughts, hobbies, and connecting with like-minded individuals around the world.

These communities interact seamlessly across the #openweb, regardless of the specific codebase they grow in. Yes it’s important to understand the good #UX of the software that makes these connections possible plays a part, and that each of these nodes use a common protocol, #ActivityPub, to communicate, forming the backbone of “native” #openweb flows. This #4opens interoperability allows people on one codebase to interact with users on another, creating a unified, yet decentralized, social network.

“The Fediverse isn’t about connecting software packages. It’s about connecting communities and people. If you make a Fediverse explainer, try to show some real communities as the nodes in the network, rather than using software packages and their logos. Companies, local governments, universities, families, friend groups, individuals. You can explain what software makes those networks possible in your next slide.” https://mastodon.social/deck/@evan@cosocial.ca/112847724644046695

Though, what meany in our #fashernista and #geekproblem paths miss is this thrives because of the human element. It’s about the people who use these platforms to connect, share, and build spaces that reflect their values and needs. It’s the people and the communities of use that make this real, let’s talk about them #KISS

State Funding of #FOSS and Open Source: Is it a Good Idea or a Bad Idea?

The questioning over state funding of Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) and open-source initiatives revolves around invisible ideological debates about benefits and drawbacks. Let’s look at this from a few specific examples: #NLnet, #NGI, and the European Union (#EU), to understanding the implications and effectiveness of this funding path.

The #NLnet Foundation is a notable example of an organization that provides funding to open-source projects. Supported by private and public funds, including significant contributions from the #EU, NLnet focuses on promoting a free, open, and secure internet.

The #NGI initiative, funded by the #EU, aims to shape the development of the internet of tomorrow. By supporting a range of open-source projects, NGI tries to foster innovation, privacy, and security. It emphasizes human-concentric technology, ensuring that the future internet respects humanistic values and needs.
The #EU has been a significant proponent of FOSS, providing funding through programs such as Horizon 2020 and Horizon Europe. The EU’s supports digital sovereignty, reduce dependency on non-European technologies through promoting open standards.

The is some democratization as these state-funded FOSS projects ensure software is accessible to wider groups, thus reducing the digital divide. For instance, NGI-funded projects are supposed to focus on inclusivity and user empowerment. At best, this transparency brings public overview to these processes.

There are some economic benefits and cost savings in using and supporting FOSS instead of expensive proprietary software. Funding initiatives like NGI stimulate innovation by allowing developers to build upon existing open-source projects, fostering a collaborative environment. Though, there are unspoken issues of sustainability in a pure capitalist path, thus the question of balance in state funding.

Open-source software allows for independent security audits, reducing the risk of vulnerabilities. The EU’s investment in secure communication tools underlines this advantage. Reducing reliance on a few large proprietaries #dotcons software vendors enhances national security and control. The EU’s support for open-source projects aims to bolster humanistic digital sovereignty.

For example, #NLnet’s diverse (though #geekproblem) funding portfolio highlights this limited community-driven development. The collaboration between public institutions, the private sector, and community contributors helps #NGI projects bring together diverse stakeholders to work on common goals. #FOSS projects thrive on community contributions, leading to continuous improvement and support and thus in theory community needs, though due to the dogmatic #geekproblem this is currently failing.

Funding Continuity: Projects become dependent on government funding, which currently is not stable or continuous. For example, sudden policy shifts in the EU affect long-term project sustainability. Without a sustainable funding, FOSS projects struggle with long-term maintenance and support.

Most #FOSS projects are too idiosyncratic to meet quality #UX standards. Thus, the current #geekproblem dominated process means that state funding inadvertently support meany unusable and thus pointless, subpar projects. Effective diversity and oversight of these mechanisms are crucial to mitigate this failing path.

Government involvement leads to bureaucracy, slowing down and ossifying development cycles, currently we do not work though this path well, The balance between oversight, diversity and agility is critical. With the #EU path this is a huge problem leading to almost all the current funding bring poured down the drain.

For #mainstreaming capitalism the issue of “Market Distortion”, the idea of competition raises the issue of state funding distorting “market” dogmas to disadvantage private companies and startups that don’t receive government support. For instance, EU funding can overshadow smaller #dotcons, capitalist thinking sees this as a risk that government-backed projects might stifle innovation by shaping the market landscape.

Political and ideological biases influence which projects receive funding, this is currently pushing a #blocking of the needed “native” #openweb path. How to move past this to ensuring diversity and “impartiality” in funding decisions need real work. How can we shift this “common sense” focus that government priorities do not align with the wider needs of the #openweb community and end-users. Aligning funding priorities with community needs is needed to address this concern, how can we make this happen with funding like #NLnet and #NGI?

To sum up, #NLnet are doing some good work, but this is focused on feeding the #geekproblem and building #fashionista careers, evern then on balance they do a better job than most. Then the wider #NGI funding is going into the #dotcons and #NGO mess, thus being poured directly down the drain. Over all, it’s fantastic that the #EU is funding the #openweb even if it is doing it very badly by funding very little that is native or useful.

Conclusion, state funding for FOSS and open-source initiatives, in our examples #NLnet, #NGI, and the #EU, has potential for creating real change and challenge, but this path presents both opportunities and challenges. When implemented thoughtfully, it can foster “native” paths, innovation, reduce costs, and enhance community and security to challenge the current worshipping of the #deathcults by our widespread use of the #dotcons. The question is the will and understanding to balancing this path to ensures that state funding positively contributes to the #4opens FOSS ecosystem, driving forward a free, open digital future or just leads to the capitalistic criticism of waste and distortion? At best and at worst, we see some real change and a lot of poring funding down the drain to feed some #geekproblem and build the careers of a few #fashernistas

The is much to compost in the current mess, can we get funding for shovels please #OMN

#dotcons push consumerism as propaganda

In the United States, propaganda is intertwined with consumerism. Edward Bernays working in the US is the father of modern propaganda, he believed that humans were driven by instincts and animal desires. His work was used to harness these instincts through advertisements (propaganda) to create inner desires within people, to feed consumerism, which corporations could then satisfy with their products. This is known as the “engineering of consent” which he created to #blocking social change and challenge, this “sweet, sickly mess” was pushed to keep society aligned with the aim of social control.

This strategy you can find in plain language in his books, it clearly shows the path of advertising and propaganda to push corporate and political goals. The objects advertised and sold were used as symbols of government propaganda, for example, the American Department of State funded exhibits at the Museum of Modern Art to showcase American consumerism as a symbol of progress and superiority over communism. This legacy of propaganda is alive and flowing in all our disasters youse of #dotcons to shape perceptions and dictate behaviour and algorithmically manipulate and control. This has played a core role in building up the current mess, this technology has shaped our collective consciousness over the last 20 years. This “sweet and addictive” digital intervention pulled us off the social disruptive “native” path of anarchy, of the #openweb

How do we get outside this mess, the power of design in propaganda lies in its ability to convey meaning in symbolic, abstract terms that go beyond words. Whether through #dotcons #UX pushing overt displays of authority or subtle bureaucratic defaults, design influences our thoughts and perceptions, hiding brutal truths behind a veil of ordinary, boring bureaucracy. As we navigate the digital world around us, it helps to remain curious and question the narratives our “common sense” paths serve, if we are to push change, challenge we need to recognize the responsibility that comes with this power.

https://hamishcampbell.com/tag/dotcons

Who gets to decide what this place is? How are we being represented

“An important distinction is slowly being uncovered about the definition of the term “#Fediverse.” Who is it that gets to decide what this place is? How are we being represented?”

https://mastodon.social/deck/@fdrc_ff@www.foxyhole.io/112435833670527639

The lack of discussion about the nature of the space the #fediverse occupies raises questions about representation and identity within this #openweb “native” network.

Ownership by Communities: The fediverse offers a way to build the internet by communities, in contrast to centralized #dotcons social networks that prioritize monetization over community well-being. By decentralizing governance, the fediverse empowers people to take control of their online spaces and relationships.
Audience and Adoption: The fediverse is valuable for those who are hostile and disillusioned with monetized social networks and seek ways to connect with real change/challenge comunertys. While some are eager to explore alternatives, others face limitations or challenges in transitioning to the fediverse. Nonetheless, the slow growth of communities within the fediverse is essential for building a strong “native” foundation for decentralized networking.
Governance and Community: A key distinction of the fediverse lies in its shared governance model, where people have a say in how their communities are shaped. This contrasts with centralized social networks, where governance decisions are made by a central authority that does not align with community interests. People are drawn to the fediverse for its emphasis on inclusivity and people’s agency, allowing individuals and social groups to express themselves without fear of censorship or coercion.
Coexistence with Centralized Networks: The fediverse does not require people to opt out of centralized social networks entirely. Instead, people can maintain connections on both networks while stepping to decentralized networking. This allows people to become familiar with the fediverse’s culture and its advantages.
Website Design and Accessibility: With the foundational #4opens principles of the fediverse defined, the focus shifts to website design that reflects these values. Accessibility, both in terms of physical access and cultural understanding, is prioritized to ensure that the platform is inclusive and user-friendly, in sharp contrast to too much of the bad #UX history of #FOSS coding.

The fediverse represents a shift towards community-driven, decentralized networking, offering an alternative to #dotcons. By prioritizing people’s and community agency, inclusivity, and accessibility, the fediverse creates spaces where people can connect and express themselves. Let’s reboot the #openweb as a start, we could try calling this #web1.5

On the subject of activism, “don’t be a prat” is a good start.