The #openweb is inherently social, as it’s a people to people network, so pushing the term Open Social Web and resulting hashtag #opensocialweb or #socialweb by NGOs and #fashernista groups is adding mess at best and real damage at worst. While the intention might be well-meaning, it introduces confusion and fragmentation, by simply mirroring #dotcons thinking. We need to be more creative with how we label and focus our efforts, especially in grassroots and community-driven movements like the openweb which is already people to people, so the is no need for the #dotcons term “social” in this naming.
The problem with fragmentation of focus, where the openweb is a clear and powerful term that encapsulates the vision of a decentralized, user-controlled internet built on #4opens software. The adding of more confusing hashtags like #opensocialweb dilute these values and attention, creating complexity in #KISS movement messaging. When there are multiple competing narratives and names for the same or similar movements, pushed by misalignment of goals, different agendas, these feed the draining, infighting and confusion. Reducing efforts better spent building, maintaining, and promoting “native” paths and projects. It’s very easy to get sidetracked into debates over terminology, brand-building, and differentiation, we are doing exactly this here.
The need for mediation and focus, It helps to have a unified message that resonates across all levels of engagement, from developers and activists to end-users. The openweb as a concept is comprehensive enough to encompass social, technical, and ethical aspects without needing to create splinter terms. Together with the existing “native” 4opens, we really should not be pushing and focusing on vague or nebulous terms, we should double down on the 4opens, an actionable framework that guides our development, organization, and communication. This clear foundation allows for KISS coherent and effective advocacy, outreach, and development work.
Let’s try and moving on this by encourage honest reflection, critically examine our use of terms and reflect on whether they align with the broader goals. The path we need is the support of community driven efforts, prioritize grassroots projects and initiatives that adhere to the 4opens rather than being swayed by NGO-driven and funding narratives that dilute this simple path.
The focus should remain clear and strong on building a robust, decentralized, and user-controlled #openweb. With diversity in unity and clarity in disagreements, not a proliferation of “fluffy” terms that distract from the #KISS path. Mediating these tendencies towards jargon and fragmentation is important to the momentum needed for real change. Ideas please?
