{"id":67738,"date":"2026-05-03T11:22:46","date_gmt":"2026-05-03T10:22:46","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/hamishcampbell.com\/?p=67738"},"modified":"2026-05-05T07:23:14","modified_gmt":"2026-05-05T06:23:14","slug":"the-meta-mess-of-the-open-social-web","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/hamishcampbell.com\/the-meta-mess-of-the-open-social-web\/","title":{"rendered":"The Meta-Mess of the \u201cOpen\u201d Social Web"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Signal, Noise, and the missing ground \u2013 We have a signal-to-noise problem, that if we\u2019re serious about \u201cpaths to growth,\u201d we need to be honest about the paths and people pushing us down paths we\u2019re actually walking. The problem was never just the #dotcons<\/a> platforms. It\u2019s what we build instead \u2013 and more importantly, how<\/em> and why<\/em> we build it.<\/p>\n

Right now, too much of the #openweb<\/a> conversation is caught in narrative loops of reframing stagnation as growth, critique as progress and visibility as impact. That\u2019s the \u201cpaths to growth\u201d trap. The #fashionista<\/a> movement where activity is presented as meaningful change, without asking what is materially shifting underneath. From an #NGO<\/a> perspective, this should ring alarm bells \u2013 outputs are being mistaken for outcomes. This is where the signal keeps geting lost.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We don\u2019t lack ideas, frameworks, or commentary, we have an abundance of them. What we lack is grounded, collective practice \u2013 work rooted in real-world use, trust, and actual need. Instead, we\u2019ve built layer upon layer of people interpreting the #openweb<\/a>, narrating it, funding it, branding it. Meanwhile, the \u201csoil layer\u201d \u2013 people running infrastructure, building communities, and holding things together day-to-day \u2013 remains underrepresented, under-resourced, and largely invisible. That\u2019s where the \u201cOpen Social\u201d ecosystem is currently quietly breaking down.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The #fashionista<\/a> problem is friendly gatekeeping is still gatekeeping. This isn\u2019t about bad intentions, it\u2019s about institutional form. Who decides what counts as \u201cimportant work\u201d? Who gets visibility, funding, and legitimacy? Which version of the #openweb<\/a> gets promoted? In NGO thinking, this is a question of agenda-setting power, when soft curation becomes quiet exclusion. Over time, this \u201cproblem\u201d shapes the field, not only through explicit decisions, but through accumulated bias. The result is a narrowing of what is seen as valid, fundable, and worth paying attention to.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Let\u2019s look at a current example of this mess we need to compost \u2013 This Jury is a Symptom<\/a>. What follows isn\u2019t a critique of individuals as people. It\u2019s a mapping of roles within the ecosystem, and how those roles, collectively, skew the field.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Audrey Tang<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

\u201cProsocial digital tools\u201d and civic tech, but operating within state infrastructure. A ministry is still a ministry when legitimacy flows from above. This is the #openweb<\/a> translated into a form that fits government and #NGO<\/a> logic: managed participation that stabilises systems rather than challenging them. Valuable in context, but not the same as bottom-up, native practice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Mike Masnick<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

\u201cProtocols Not Platforms\u201d was useful framing. But with Bluesky, it became a foundation for the kind of product it critiqued. This is how #mainstreaming<\/a> works: good ideas are absorbed, reshaped, and redeployed within existing power structures. From an #NGO<\/a> lens, this is a classic case of co-option.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Laurens Hof<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The Fediverse Report is useful journalism. But it\u2019s still reading as observation from the outside. Analysis without embedded practice becomes detached \u2013 what looks like insight drifts into repetition. Even by his own admission, there\u2019s fatigue. This is narrative acting as if it were ground truth.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Johannes Ernst<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Advising organisations on \u201cnavigating decentralised platforms\u201d sits squarely in the mediation layer. This is where translation happens \u2013 but also where capture creeps in. Spaces like #FediForum<\/a> are structured, controlled, and legible to institutions. That makes them low challenge convening spaces, but also reinforcing the dynamics the #openweb<\/a> is trying to move beyond.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Melanie Bartos<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

University-led open science communication. This is the institutional layer doing its best to adapt. Mastodon in a university context is a step forward \u2013 but the surrounding structures remain top-down. In #NGO<\/a> terms: adoption of tools without a shift in governance or practice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Robin Berjon<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Operating at the standards and governance layer. Institutions like the W3C shape the infrastructure of the web, but participation is still dominated by well-resourced actors, often including #dotcons<\/a>. This is reform from within, important, but with structural limits.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

PublicSpaces<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

A coalition of public institutions building non-commercial alternatives. This is closer to the right instinct \u2013 moving away from pure market logic. But it remains institution-led. Public funding is valuable input (good compost), but it can still miss the lived reality of grassroots use.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Waag Futurelab<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

A long-standing critical tech organisation with roots in DIY culture. Over time, it has become embedded in #NGO<\/a> and funding ecosystems. The work still has value, but the centre of gravity has shifted toward outputs that are legible to funders and partners. This is a familiar trajectory in NGO spaces.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What\u2019s Missing Matters Most<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Taken together, this jury represents the narrative, mediation, and funding layers of the #openweb<\/a> ecosystem. What\u2019s absent is the soil layer \u2013 People running Mastodon instances on minimal budgets, community organisers doing trust-based, messy work and practitioners dealing with moderation, governance, and sustainability in real time. In #NGO<\/a> language: the implementing layer, the frontline, the lived experience.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This absence isn\u2019t neutral as it shapes outcomes. The mess we need to compost is that the \u201cOpen Social Awards\u201d will surface work that is legible to institutions, aligned with existing narratives and cleanly packaged and communicable. Meanwhile, the genuinely native work \u2013 the messy, relational, unpolished work that actually sustains the ecosystem \u2013 remains invisible. Not because anyone intends harm, but because of #blinded<\/a> institutional common sense \u2013 systems reward what they can see, measure, and understand.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Compost, Soil, and Rebalancing<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

This systemic bias, if we\u2019re serious about the #openweb<\/a>, need to shift to be more practical:<\/p>\n\n\n\n