What software do social justice activists need?

First we need to look at the core problem for the last 20 years has been that most activists were locked into #dotcons (corporate social media silos) because open alternatives were either too difficult to use, lack network effects, or fail to meet their practical needs. With the current reboot of the #openweb with the #fedivers based on #ActivityPub we have already taken a step away from this mess.

From my experience, here’s what’s needed from a software development perspective to break out of this mess. Open & accessible publishing networks. Activists need easy ways to publish and share information outside corporate-controlled platforms. Right now, #Fediverse is a first step, tools like #Mastodon and #PeerTube exist, but they are still largely copies of centralized platforms rather than native alternatives that work for any working grassroots media.

To take the second step in alt tech we need a native decentralized, trust-based publishing network (#OMN is the example I am working on) Bridging tools to syndicate content between #dotcons and open platforms. Better “unbranded” discovery tools for surfacing trusted grassroots content (think of a federated search engine that’s not controlled by Google)

The third step of secure yet open communication, is already mostly in place. Activists do need to secure yet transparent communication tools that balance privacy with accessibility. Right now, many are stuck using encrypted corporate platforms like #WhatsApp and #Telegram, which create spy silos and exclude people who purposely don’t have the apps. Projects like #Signal and XMPP chat kinda work in this space, so this is not a strong social tech focus, but is a social issue to work on getting people to use the tools.

Finally, the type of project we do need #indymediaback, #makeinghistory, #OGB and the base #OMN coding. There is a continuing need for resilient infrastructure, hosting and sysadmin alongside sustainable funding tools for activists’ websites, blogs, and tools. Currently, these tools often get taken down due to coordinated attacks and lack of resources. On the more dev side of this path, hybrid peer-to-peer hosting solutions (so sites can stay online even under attack) could be useful to bridge current client server tools.

There’s a roadmap, but the problem is developer focus and funding. If you’re serious about helping, check out the stalled dev work on https://unite.openworlds.info and see how it can be set in motion, please. If you’re a dev who wants to make a real impact, this is a good place to look.

The issue, we need to work more on, with #FOSS tech development, the failure of many #FOSS projects, is a failure to move from theory to practice. The issue is that developers work in isolation, disconnected from grassroots needs, and get lost in perfectionism rather than delivering functional prototypes.

The #geekproblem dominates, with coders prioritize control, abstract debates, and self-contained experiments over practical, usable tools for real-world communities. This is why projects stall: they are not built with activists in mind. Meanwhile, centralized platforms continue to consolidate power, because they offer simple, accessible, and functional solutions, despite their deep and nasty flaws.

To break this cycle, we need:

Practical iteration, build rough, working solutions rather than endless theorizing.
#4opens culture, embrace open process, standards, and real collaboration.
Bridging solutions, tech that activists can actually use, not just developer-driven experiments.
Funding models beyond #NGO traps, so projects remain independent and sustainable.

The fight for the #openweb is not only about resisting #dotcons but creating alternatives people can and will use. Can we move beyond abstraction and actually make history?

Please.

The #GeekProblem is why so much open development is stuck in a dead end

It’s not sin to have to submit to the #dotcons overlords – we all do it, whether we like it or not. Just recently, I found myself installing that vile spyware known as #Whatsapp because this was the only way to talk to the people I needed to talk to. That bitter swipe to hide the app from view brought a momentary sense of agency, but the reality remains: we are still often failing at building out the #openweb that normal people find useful

The fundamental question is: why? It’s too easy blaming users. After all, if they just cared more, if they just tried harder to use open tools, we wouldn’t be in this mess. But let’s be honest: this isn’t on them, the fault lies with the so-called “open developers” who have spent the last 20 years failing to make open tools actually work for normal people. And before anyone objects, yes, I’ve been in the trenches, I’ve been building, testing, promoting, and using these tools for decades. I’ve seen what works, and more often, what doesn’t.

The truth is stark: “open development” is too often a dead end and few of the current paths are going anywhere useful. There are way to meany dysfunctional ecosystems of half-built projects, overcomplicated interfaces, and insular communities that gatekeep instead of welcoming. Meanwhile, the #dotcons corporate silos grow stronger, locking out alternatives at every turn. And what do the open devs do? They tinker endlessly on the backend, build for themselves rather than for real people, and when questioned they retreat into identity purity rather than engaging in practical bridge-building. The #geekproblem is not just one of incompetence, it’s one of misplaced priorities and an aversion to social reality.

Control vs. Trust is the divide, the heart of the #geekproblem lies a real misunderstanding of social dynamics. The #OMN sees the solution as building bridges, while the dominant geek mindset sees it as erecting gates. A gate is about control: who gets in, who stays out, who holds the keys. A bridge is about trust: connecting communities, facilitating movement, and breaking down barriers. Yet, the geek worldview, deeply shaped by corporate structures, #neoliberal ideology, and a toxic engineering mindset, defaults to control every time.

This is why open projects fail. They mimic the structures of the #dotcons without the resources to sustain them. They chase security and rigidity at the expense of usability and social flow. Then see failure as an inevitable technical problem, rather than a failure of community engagement and human-centred design. And worst of all, they refuse to recognize that openness isn’t just about code, it’s about social process. So what needs to change:

Stop building for yourself, the #openweb won’t be rebooted by developers coding for their own niche needs and narrow interests. Grow, it needs to serve real people, communities in real contexts.
Embrace messiness, if it’s not messy, it’s not worth doing. The corporate mindset is about tidiness and control. The #openweb must be about adaptability and flexibility.
Then the is leaky by design – Data and communication should leak in ways that benefit social needs, but yes, not in ways that serve the surveillance economy. Locking everything down means locking serendipity out.
Bridge, don’t block: Instead of obsessing over identity purity, we need to build pragmatic solutions that work alongside existing tools while providing clear alternatives.
Trust as the foundation: The default state of open networks should be trust, not fear. We have seen where the obsession with security leads, it builds walls instead of communities.

#KISS there are paths forward, and a good place to start is with the principles of the #OMN and #4opens. These aren’t abstract theories; they’re rooted in decades of radical tech and media movements that worked, before they were systematically ignored and buried by the rising tide of centralized control. It’s time to stop pretending the current model will somehow fix itself, it won’t. We need to go back, dig up the roots, and start again, not with another doomed attempt at technical perfection, but with a renewed commitment to social usability, community-first development, and a radical rejection of the failed control-based mindset.

The alternative is simple: keep failing, keep watching the #openweb erode, and keep making excuses while we all install the next piece of #dotcons spyware just to stay connected. The choice is ours, and the time to act is now.

What does anarchism want #4opens #OMN is an attempt to find an answer

Q. “We’re supposed to think of #metadata as less than #data, but it isn’t: often it is more. . .#govts that want to control their people & crush #dissent want #metadata.” #privacy #Whatsapp #BigTech

This is an interesting point, but it only makes sense if you see people as isolated individuals and the being no such thing as society. No alternative to the capitalistic free markets and no hope of changing the death spiral we are on – you might be right. BUT this is a deeply reactionary #deathcult point of view and need to be called out as such – LOUDLY.

For the last 10 years we have had a movement to banish metadata on one side and to hoard it on the other. To banish our humanity or to control our humanity. Nowhere is the celebration of humanity to be found… it’s pastime to put our feet back onto the ground and think about this for a moment. Metadata, data about data is what gives humanity its power in both an individualist sense and at a social scale.

One thing we know for sure is that ideas about privacy change, in the feudal era the village priest know everything and policed everyone, the king had sex in front of the counters to prove his line etc. The current capitalist idea of privacy which we all internalise is set to change, what it becomes we do not know.

What is the free-market? it’s a signalling device based on knowledge of metadata. For people who know little about the “free-market” is a flow of horde metadata as is “money”. In meany ways you are made up of metadata, the words that come out of your mouth are the made up names of things, likely the “things” are made up from words handed down through the ages. When you look at it all HUMAN civilization is a flow of metadata.

If we are to have meaningful social change – let’s look at anarchism as an example. How will we replace the “free-market” where will the signals come from to distribute the goods in complex society? And yes we might end up with “simple society” by killing billions of people from #climatechaos that’s true, but that’s a different subject.

Q. Metadata is the currency of surveillance capitalism. Traded as behavioural futures, and used by the military to perform situational spectroscopy upon whole nations. We can try to minimize metadata, but it’s always a tricky problem. When we generate metadata we hand cash to the likes of Google, who call it “behavioural surplus”. And to shadier organisations to use it for disruption and control. In the past there were entire academic conferences about using social media metadata to prevent “contagion” – by which they meant social movements opposing autocratic governments.

Am not in any way disagreeing with the above, I am pointing out that it is actually not the agender you think it is… raising the question of which side are you on. If nothing changes then you are right, but if nothing changes we end up with billions of people dyeing from #climatechaos and the state control/fascism that comes with this. As I outline this is a #geekproblem world view that of only thinking of tech and not social – hope I can help to balance this.

This is a #geekproblem

We HAVE TO CHANGE we can’t keep doing this same old shit. Privatizing metadata for a tiny number of geeks is not a social change project. Cant put this any simpler.

Q. This goes back over a decade to the “Freedom in the cloud” talk. What if internet users were to run their own services, and keep the logs (metadata) ? Simply moving the logs from Goog and Zuck to the users would be one of the biggest improvements to the internet. It would pull the rug out from under their business model.

That’s the plan with the #OMN and we go further (but only if the users/producers flick the switches) we have an expanding metadata commons that has two powers – one negative in that it destroys the business model of late capitalism one positive that it expands commons that gives us growing space for creativity and expression.

Summing up the choice we face:

* Capitalism wants to privatise metadata to the capitalists #dotcons and the capitalist then control the government – fascism is back into fashion.

* Chinese communism, wants the state to control the metadata so they can control capitalism, we are back to the command economy on steroids.

* Liberalism want to privatise metadata to the individual to return to a mythic free-market past.

* What does anarchism want #4opens #OMN is an attempt to answer this last one.

To recap I understand our current push for privacy from the #dotcons BUT am asking what are we to replace this with? The closing/privatizing of metadata to individuals ” is a deeply reactionary #deathcult point of view and need to be called out as such – LOUDLY!”

Ideas?

We need to talk about “metadata” and the “freemarkit”

We need to talk about #metadata and the “freemarkit” ideology.

People say “metadata isn’t real data” — but it’s more, It maps movements, moods, relationships. That’s why #governments and #dotcons want it.

If you think this doesn’t matter, that we’re just individuals in a marketplace, not a society, congrats, you’ve joined the #deathcult.

We can change course. But only if we name the poison. Loudly #OMN

Q. “We’re supposed to think of #metadataas less than #data, but it isn’t: often it is more. . .#govts that want to control their people & crush #dissent want #metadata.” #privacy #Whatsapp #BigTech

A. This is an interesting point, but it only makes sense if you see people as isolated individuals and the being no such thing as society. No alternative to the capitalistic free markets and no hope of changing the death spiral we are on – you might be right. BUT this is a deeply reactionary #deathcult point of view and need to be called out as such – LOUDLY!