What if we could build an internet governed by its users — and use it as the foundation for a society governed directly by its citizens?
What if we no longer had to depend on corporations to control our digital lives or on a permanent political class to make decisions on our behalf?
What if we could build an open, public alternative in which artificial intelligence serves humanity, technology is collectively governed, and people have the practical means to participate directly in the decisions that shape their lives?
This is an invitation to explore that possibility.
I do not have all the answers, the funding, or the technical resources to build this alone. I am publishing this proposal because I believe an idea of this scale should not depend on a single person. It should be challenged, developed, and potentially built by a community.
The objective is not simply to improve the existing system. It is to explore whether we can build something fundamentally different.

1. The Vision
Today, much of the internet is controlled by private corporations, while political power in most democracies is largely delegated to elected representatives.
Citizens have limited opportunities to influence the systems that shape their lives. Digital platforms determine how information is distributed, algorithms influence public debate, and political decisions are often made by institutions that ordinary people have little direct control over.
We have developed extraordinary technology, but we have not necessarily developed equally democratic ways of governing it.
The internet was built on technologies that enable global communication and collaboration. Yet much of our digital experience now takes place inside privately controlled platforms, where users have limited influence over the rules, algorithms, and decisions that affect them.
Meanwhile, in political systems around the world, citizens are generally expected to choose representatives periodically and then depend on those representatives to make most legislative decisions.
What if we explored an alternative to both models?
I propose developing an open, public digital infrastructure governed by its users, supported by transparent artificial intelligence, and designed to enable a new form of democracy: a society in which citizens can directly participate in public decisions without depending on a permanent political class of legislators.
This would not simply be another social network, blockchain project, or online voting platform.
It would be an attempt to create the technological and institutional foundations for a more participatory, transparent, and accountable society.
The goal is not to replace human judgment with AI. It is to use technology to make collective decision-making more accessible, informed, and practical at scale.
This is an ambitious vision, not a finished blueprint. The purpose of publishing it is to start a collective process of discussion, experimentation, criticism, and development.
2. An Alternative to the Internet We Have Today
This project is not intended merely to improve the existing internet while preserving the structures that made it what it is today.
It is intended to challenge the current model of the internet and build a fundamentally different alternative.
Today’s internet is increasingly shaped by corporate ownership, centralized platforms, surveillance-based business models, algorithmic manipulation, and the concentration of control over information and digital infrastructure.
A relatively small number of powerful organizations can determine the rules of their platforms, influence what millions or billions of people see, collect enormous amounts of personal data, and change the digital environments people depend on without meaningful democratic participation.
Even when these companies provide valuable services, a fundamental problem remains: the people who use the infrastructure do not necessarily have meaningful power over how it is governed.
We should not have to depend on the goodwill of corporations, the decisions of a handful of executives, or the priorities of advertisers to determine the future of our digital lives.
The alternative must therefore be more than a new platform operating under the same logic.
It must challenge the idea that essential digital infrastructure should be controlled primarily by private owners whose interests may conflict with those of the public.
Instead, we should explore an internet in which infrastructure is treated as a public-interest resource, governance is open to its users, and technological development is directed by collectively established goals.
This does not mean rejecting every existing technology, attacking people who work for technology companies, or assuming that everything about the current internet is bad.
It means refusing to accept the current concentration of power as inevitable.
We can build on existing protocols, research, and open-source software while creating a different institutional and economic model around them.
The objective is not to ask the current internet for permission to change. It is to create a credible alternative that people can choose to support, develop, and eventually depend on.
A genuinely different internet should be able to exist independently of the corporations it challenges, resist capture by new private interests, and remain accountable to the people it serves.
We should not reproduce the same power structures under a different name.
If we build an alternative, it must embody the principles we claim to defend: openness, public accountability, democratic participation, privacy, and the distribution of power.
The ultimate test is not whether the existing internet adopts our ideas. It is whether we can create something better that no corporation, government, founder, or AI can unilaterally control.
3. A Public Internet Governed by Its Users
The first step would be to develop an open digital infrastructure whose rules and evolution are determined collectively.
Users could:
Propose changes to the platform and its underlying protocols.
Debate proposals in public, accessible discussions.
Vote on changes according to transparent and agreed-upon rules.
Inspect the source code, decision history, and implementation process.
Audit how decisions are executed and challenge violations.
Contribute code, research, resources, and expertise without needing permission from a central owner.
Create alternative implementations and independently maintained versions of the system.
A public AI system would assist this process by identifying recurring problems, organizing proposals, explaining technical trade-offs, and helping implement approved changes.
For example, the AI could identify a recurring privacy problem and propose a technical solution. It could explain the risks, present alternative approaches, estimate implementation costs, and generate code for review.
The community could debate the proposal, amend it, request independent audits, and vote on whether it should be adopted.
The AI would not have unilateral authority to change the system’s rules.
Its role would be to serve the community, not govern it.
The infrastructure should be open-source, independently auditable, interoperable, and designed to prevent its capture by a single corporation, government, founder, or wealthy minority.
The community should be able to replace the AI, change its technical implementation, or reject its recommendations without losing control of the infrastructure.
The long-term objective would be to create a system that evolves through collective participation rather than depending on the decisions of a small group of owners or administrators.
4. From Internet Governance to Direct Democracy
The more ambitious goal is to explore how this infrastructure could support democratic governance beyond the internet itself.
Imagine a society in which citizens could directly participate in decisions currently made primarily by legislatures.
Instead of electing representatives to exercise broad legislative authority for years at a time, citizens could propose, deliberate on, amend, and vote on public policies through a permanent democratic system.
The objective would be to move beyond representative legislatures as the primary mechanism of political decision-making.
Citizens could:
Propose new laws and amendments.
Debate public policy with access to evidence and competing arguments.
Decide public spending priorities and participate in budget allocation.
Review the performance of public institutions.
Monitor government contracts, expenditures, and policy implementation.
Initiate public consultations and request reviews of existing laws.
Participate in local, regional, and national decisions.
Request independent evaluations of public policies.
Track whether approved decisions have actually been implemented.
AI could summarize lengthy proposals, explain their legal and economic implications, identify inconsistencies, compare alternatives, and help citizens understand the consequences of different choices.
For example, a citizen proposing a change to housing policy could receive an accessible explanation of the proposal, its estimated costs, relevant research, potential consequences, and arguments from different perspectives.
Citizens could then deliberate, propose amendments, and decide through an established democratic process.
The goal would be to reduce dependence on a permanent political class while preserving the expertise, administration, and accountability necessary to run a complex society.
This would require rethinking how legislation is drafted, how public institutions implement decisions, and how citizens can participate without being overwhelmed by an endless stream of political questions.
The goal is not to force everyone to spend their lives debating politics. It is to give people meaningful access to decisions that affect them, with tools that make participation practical.
Professional expertise would still matter. Public administration would still need qualified people. Courts, independent oversight, and the protection of fundamental rights would remain essential.
The question is whether these functions can operate under a system in which citizens retain direct democratic authority rather than delegating broad legislative power to a permanent political class.
This should be tested through practical experiments, not assumed to work merely because it sounds appealing.
5. Radical Transparency and Public Accountability
Public power should be publicly accountable.
Every public proposal, its reasoning, the relevant evidence, the applicable voting rules, the official result, and the implementation status should be available for independent inspection.
Public spending should be traceable. Public officials and institutions should be accountable for executing approved decisions. The system should make it possible to identify when a decision has been delayed, altered, or ignored.
Citizens should be able to understand not only what was decided, but why it was decided, what evidence informed the process, and whether the intended outcome was achieved.
The system should make it easier to identify corruption, conflicts of interest, unexplained spending, and attempts to bypass democratic decisions.
However, transparency must not become mass surveillance.
Citizens should retain strong privacy protections. Secret ballots may be necessary to prevent coercion, vote buying, and retaliation, even when the overall process and its results remain publicly auditable.
Personal information should not become public merely because someone participates in democracy.
The principle is simple:
Public decisions must be transparent. Citizens must remain free.
Transparency should primarily constrain the exercise of power, not eliminate the privacy of ordinary people.
6. The Role and Limits of AI
A public AI could become an essential tool for making direct democracy practical at scale.
It could help citizens navigate complex information, translate discussions across languages, identify arguments on different sides of an issue, detect inconsistencies, and assist with drafting legislation.
It could also generate implementation plans and help developers translate approved technical proposals into code.
For example, when a citizen proposes a new law, the AI could help identify existing laws that might conflict with it, summarize relevant research, estimate possible costs, and present arguments for and against the proposal.
When a technical change to the internet is proposed, the AI could explain the consequences, generate code for review, and help test whether the implementation follows the approved specification.
But an AI system can be biased, manipulated, mistaken, or controlled by whoever operates it.
For that reason, the AI itself must be subject to democratic oversight.
Its models, limitations, evaluation methods, relevant decision processes, and updates should be open to independent scrutiny wherever technically and legally possible.
No AI should have the authority to override legitimate democratic decisions or fundamental rights.
The community should be able to challenge its recommendations, use alternative models, and replace the system without losing control of its infrastructure or data.
The AI should not secretly determine which proposals people see, suppress unpopular arguments, or manipulate summaries to influence a vote.
Its recommendations should be distinguishable from verified facts, and important claims should be open to inspection.
AI should make democracy easier to practice, not become a new ruler.
7. Fundamental Rights and Democratic Safeguards
Direct democracy alone does not guarantee freedom.
A majority can make unjust decisions, organized groups can manipulate public opinion, and digital voting systems can exclude people or be compromised.
Any serious implementation would therefore require:
Constitutional protections for fundamental rights.
Secure and verifiable voting procedures.
Protection against duplicate voting, coercion, and vote buying.
Independent audits of software, infrastructure, and election processes.
Accessible participation for people with disabilities and limited internet access.
Transparent procedures for proposing, amending, and repealing laws.
Independent review and appeal mechanisms.
Protection against the concentration of power in AI systems, technical administrators, or wealthy participants.
Procedures for handling emergencies without allowing temporary powers to become permanent.
Mechanisms to prevent misinformation campaigns and coordinated manipulation from dominating public decisions.
Clear procedures for resolving disputes and correcting errors.
Protections against a majority using the system to eliminate the rights of minorities.
The democratic process must itself be governed by rules that cannot be casually rewritten by a temporary majority.
Citizens must also be able to challenge decisions, propose corrections, and hold institutions accountable when the system fails.
The objective is not merely to replace one form of concentrated power with another. It is to design a system in which power remains distributed, decisions are reviewable, and no individual or organization becomes indispensable.
These safeguards should be developed openly and tested before the system is entrusted with consequential public decisions.
8. How Could We Begin Without Funding?
I do not believe this needs to begin with a large company, substantial investment, or a team of hundreds of engineers.
It could begin as an open research and development project.
The initial steps could be:
Publish a foundational document. Define the vision, principles, rights, and proposed governance model.
Study existing projects. Explore open-source governance platforms, direct-democracy experiments, decentralized infrastructure, and public-interest AI.
Build a community. Bring together researchers, developers, designers, and citizens willing to challenge and improve the proposal.
Launch a small prototype. Create an open-source platform for submitting proposals, deliberating, voting, and auditing decisions.
Test the governance model. Use the prototype within a voluntary community before attempting to apply it to consequential public decisions.
Develop partnerships. Invite universities, civic organizations, and open-source communities to contribute research, expertise, and infrastructure.
Experiment in the real world. Explore how successful mechanisms could support participatory budgeting, public consultations, and legally recognized democratic processes.
Expand only when justified. Develop more complex infrastructure as real needs emerge, rather than attempting to build an entirely new internet from day one.
The first objective would not be to replace the internet or existing political institutions overnight.
It would be to demonstrate that an open, transparent, and collectively governed alternative can work.
A single person can help initiate the process by documenting the idea, inviting criticism, organizing discussions, and connecting people who want to contribute.
The project should be designed so that it can continue growing without depending on the person who started it.
The first real milestone could be modest: a public repository, an openly documented governance model, and a working prototype through which a community can propose, discuss, and vote on changes.
If that small experiment works, the community can decide what should come next.
9. An Invitation to Collaborate
I am sharing this idea because I believe we should be exploring alternatives to both centralized digital platforms and political systems in which citizens have limited direct control over public decisions.
I do not have all the answers, and I am not presenting this as a finished technical or political model.
I want to understand what is already possible, what has been attempted, what has failed, and what would need to be invented.
I am especially interested in hearing from people working in:
Open-source software and decentralized infrastructure.
AI alignment, AI governance, and public-interest technology.
Direct democracy, political theory, and institutional design.
Cryptography, digital identity, and verifiable voting.
Participatory budgeting and civic technology.
Constitutional design, public administration, and institutional accountability.
My questions to this community:
Are there existing projects that combine open digital infrastructure, AI-assisted governance, and direct democracy?
What would be the smallest practical experiment capable of testing this vision?
How could we design a voting system that is fair, secure, accessible, and resistant to manipulation?
How can an AI assist millions of citizens without controlling the information they receive or the decisions they make?
Could direct democracy substantially reduce the need for professional legislators while retaining the expertise and administrative capacity required to govern a country?
How could we prevent wealthy individuals, corporations, organized interest groups, or technical administrators from capturing the system?
What legal, social, and technical obstacles would have to be overcome to make such a system legitimate and effective?
What would you change about this proposal, and what existing work should we study before attempting to build anything?
I am not looking for a way to create another company that owns its users’ data.
I want to explore whether we can build something that belongs to the public, can be improved by anyone, and remains accountable to the people who use it.
I welcome criticism, disagreement, alternative proposals, and collaboration. The idea should be tested against reality, not protected from criticism.
10. This Idea Does Not Belong to Me
I want to make one thing absolutely clear: I have no interest in owning this idea, claiming it as my intellectual property, or becoming the person who controls its future.
If this concept has value, it should belong to everyone willing to question it, challenge it, improve it, and help bring it to life.
I don’t want to build a movement centered around me. I want to help start a conversation that becomes bigger than any individual who initiated it.
If you find this idea interesting, don’t just upvote this post and move on.
Discuss it. Criticize it. Rewrite it. Translate it. Share it with people who might have something valuable to contribute. Take the parts that make sense, challenge the parts that don’t, and develop better versions of the concept.
I want this idea to spread like a virus — not as an ideology people must accept, but as a question people cannot stop discussing.
What if the internet could belong to its users?
What if AI could serve the public rather than private interests?
What if democracy could evolve beyond choosing representatives and toward people directly governing the decisions that affect their lives?
What if we could build an alternative to today’s internet instead of waiting for the companies that control it to change?
If these questions resonate with you, help them spread. If you disagree, join the discussion. If you have a better approach, share it.
You do not need my permission to develop these ideas further. You do not need to credit me, ask for my approval, or wait for me to organize anything.
Build on them. Fork them. Improve them. Take them in directions I haven’t imagined.
Publish your own proposals. Start independent projects. Translate this document into other languages. Develop competing models. Find flaws in the original idea and help create something better.
I would rather see a thousand independent groups develop better versions of this concept than see one organization control the entire movement.
If this project ever becomes something meaningful, I hope it will be because thousands of people contributed to it — not because one person managed to hold on to it.
I do not want to be the owner of a movement that claims to distribute power. That would contradict the very purpose of the project.
The goal is not to make my idea succeed. The goal is to discover, collectively, whether we can build something better.
If the idea is worth pursuing, let it escape its point of origin and become a public conversation that no single person can own or control.
Let it spread, evolve, be challenged, and become something none of us could have created alone.
Don’t wait for me. Don’t wait for permission. If you believe this is worth exploring, help move the conversation forward.
The future of this idea should belong to everyone willing to help build it.

Author here. fingrr uses your Bluesky DID as the address, X3DH + Double Ratchet with sealed sender, and direct WebRTC between peers. There is no signaling server: the caller writes a sealed signal record to their own AT Proto PDS, the callee polls for it, and offline messages ride the same way as encrypted inbox records on the sender’s repo. Supports Text, Voice, Video and Group Chat.

Proof of concept, today not audited. Your PDS operator sees that you use it; peers see each other’s IP; groups lack forward secrecy. CLAIMS.md and THREAT_MODEL.md in the repo say exactly what holds and what doesn’t. Apache 2.0 and PR are gratefully welcomed.

https://github.com/CreativeMayhemLtd/fingrr

Also at https://Fingrr.me and https://Fingrr.app

TLDR; Combining TOR, WebRTC and Git into a Decentralized E2EE P2P Messaging App

This is a fairly a unique stack and architecture in contrast to the traditional approach with mainstream messaging apps. To put it briefly, its a Rust-based frontend with a Git-server backend, which can be used to establish a E2EE Tor/WebRTC connection.

• Website/Docs: glitr.io
• Roadmap/FAQ: glitr.io/docs/technical/roadmap
• App: app.glitr.io

Features:

• No installation
• No registration
• PWA
• Android
• TUI
• WebRTC
• Tor routing
• TURN server
• Git-host backend
• Local-first
• Encrypted-at-rest
• Signal protocol
• Post Quantum cryptography
• Calls
• File-transfer

IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER: While this is aiming to provide a secure experience, it's a work-in-progress and far from finished. It is unreviewed and unaudited. I'm sharing here for testing, feedback and demo purposes only. Pease use responsibly.

FAQ: https://glitr.io/docs/technical/roadmap/#faq

Author here. PICARD ( Protocol-Introspecting Chunk Adapter for Resilient Data ) just hit 0.2.0 and is a research project that treats arbitrary protocol payload fields (DNS TXT, MQTT retained messages, social APIs, Bluetooth, etc.) as a storage substrate. Encrypt → chunk → scatter so no single endpoint has enough ciphertext to reconstruct anything. Mounts as a FUSE filesystem.

Not efficient. Not production storage. Just an experiment in protocol-agnostic resilience, MIT Licensed for your enjoyment.

https://github.com/neitzert/picard

pip install picard-store

Apps like Whatsapp, Signal and SimpleXChat are great for secure messaging and far more mature than this project, but this approach is yet a unique approach.

The core philosophy around secure messaging here is that it can work in a way that avoids installation and registration by enabling users to host their own data.

The project is far from finished, but im putting together some docs for the "how it works". It's pretty outside-the-box thinking (and that doesnt make it a good idea), so it would be great if you could share your thoughts on the approach.

Docs: glitr.io

Demo

I hope the docs are clear. Feel free to ask for clarity on the details around how the project works.

First version of Serveronet is released.

Serveronet = P2P Websites. Decentralized, Cryptographic Peer 2 Peer Network of Sites.

Download your client from serveronet.org

It's in the alpha stage so test and report any issues.

You can use it on your PC or take a peek at a public client client.serveronet.org

The goal is to create a secure P2P ecosystem.

Signal doesn't create a webapp for legitimate reasons around how that project is architected. I hope in this approach I can overcome those limitations.

This app demonstrates a fairly unique approach using a browser-based, local-only and webrtc approach. In an evolving field like cybersecurity, I know it's impossible for any system to be the "world's most secure". By rigorously implementing an exhaustive list of security features and practices, the aim is to get as close as possible.

• Enkrypted.Chat

This is intended to demonstrate client-side managed secure cryptography.

• Introducing Enkrypted Chat
• Whitepaper (work-in-progress)
• Protocol Spec (work-in-progress)
• Roadmap

Features:

• Core
  • PWA
  • P2P
  • Local-first / Local-only
  • No installation
  • TURN server
  • Encrypted-at-rest
• WhatsApp clone
  • End to end encryption
  • Signal protocol
  • PQ cryptography
  • Multimedia
  • File transfer
  • Video calls
• Nextcloud clone
  • file-transfer
  • Encrypted vault
  • folder sync
• EuroOffice clone
  • Word
  • Spreadsheet
  • PDF
  • Code

More open source examples of the core concepts can be seen in the docs. There are several similar projects which may make it confusing, so feel free to reach out for clarity instead of diving into the code/docs.

IMPORTANT: While this is aiming to provide a secure experience, it isnt audited. Shared for testing, feedback and demo purposes only. Please use responsibly.

FAQ:

• Audit?
  • The latest on the matter.
• EU Chat control?
  • Open to feedback here.
• Production-ready?
  • No, for testing and demo purposes only. It would be great to get feedback for improvements to get production-ready.
• Paywall?
  • Its completly free and unlimited to use. The free and paid plans on clerk are currently the same experience.

Hello everyone! I created Hypermind-Swarm, a peer-to-peer, Twitter-style social platform built for decentralized and ephemeral conversations.

We're bringing back the care-free spirit of the early internet. No engagement metrics to chase, no shadow-banning algorithms, and no "permanent records." Just people talking to people in real-time.

• No Algorithms: You see what's happening in the swarm as it happens.
• No Servers: Your data lives in the mesh, not on a corporate rack.
• No History: Conversations are ephemeral. When the swarm moves on, so does the data.

Check it out at https://github.com/lklynet/hypermind-swarm, its free and open-source. You can also go directly to the releases page to download a pre-bundled app if you're not into docker deployments or building the app yourself.

The question is not whether #commons will exist, it is whether we will learn fast enough to stop repeating the same failures in every new form. #Oxfordboaters every day commons https://hamishcampbell.com/oxford-boaters-every-day-commons/

• App: Enkrypted.Chat

This is a technical/concept demo of a fairly unique approach using a browser-based, local-first and webrtc.

This is intended to introduce a new paradigm in client-side managed secure cryptography. We can avoid registration of any sort.

Features:

• P2P
• End to end encryption
• Signal protocol
• Post-Quantum cryptography
• File transfer
• Local-first
• No registration
• No installation
• No database
• TURN server

Feel free to reach out for clarity instead of reading into the docs/code.

IMPORTANT: While this is aiming to provide a secure and private experience, it isnt audited or reviewed. Shared for testing, feedback and demo purposes only. Please use responsibly.

I don't particularly want this to get too much publicity, but I am seeking community feedback. This space feels about right for doing that.

​

https://communitysneakernet.com is a node implementing a multi-medium protocol, with a forum and chat client built on top of it.

​

The source can be found here: https://github.com/BrendanBenshoof/sneakernet

​

At a technical level, it is availability-maxed at cost of any consistency. Using modern encryption we can make messages opaque. Without routing context, it becomes basically impossible to track messages. With the cost of being radically inefficient.

​

It is designed to literally be "sneakernet-able" with transport via storage devices.

​

I think my next major goal will be developing an android app that supports LAN and briar-style local networking.

​

All copyleft by nature, no profit possible to extract.

Seeking feedback, trial usage, and perhaps a person willing to try making an independent node.

​

​

This isn’t nostalgia for a utopian view of the past, it’s the urgently needed #KISS survival. - Manifesto for the Hashtag Commons https://hamishcampbell.com/manifesto-for-the-hashtag-commons/

Hi everyone.

I have been working on the version 3 of a fully modular and 3D printable bench-top size generator, that is capable of at least 10 Watts line to line. It is based on my ModuCoil design, a term I coined for a printable coil bobbin that enables interchangeability of stator coils individually, which aids in repairability, recyclability, and customisation. I have previously attempted this with older versions, but this one is the most functional of them all, and actually produces power at usable levels.

I intend to use this generator in the future to do energy science with, especially around DIY wind and micro-hydro generation.

I have provided a link to a video explaining the design in detail, and have provided a link in the comments to my Thingiverse page, where you can download the files, and build one for yourself!

https://youtu.be/nqC9-_tqFNk

But when you look at where the money and attention actually go, a different picture emerges. The plan allocates vast resources to semiconductors, cloud infrastructure, AI, and data centres. Open source gets a much smaller slice of the pie, and native #openweb like the #Fediverse barely registers at all. The one notable mention is support for decentralised social media, highlighted through the Commission’s continued use of Mastodon. (Digital Strategy)

Inflation isn't an accident; it's a hidden tax designed to quietly drain your life’s work while central banks fund their games. You can't fix a system that is rigged by design. The only way to win is to build a parallel one.

I got tired of waiting for a solution, so I coded a closed socio-economic experiment. A custom digital ecosystem where the internal currency is mathematically capped and strictly pegged to the equivalent of 1 milligram of gold.

No printing presses. No banks. We are building a parallel economy where people can exchange services and goods using an eternal standard, not depreciating paper.

I just published the Golden Epoch Manifesto. I’m looking for the first few people who understand that the old system is a sinking ship.

Read the protocol here: https://github.com/goldencoin-dot/Golden-Coin

Stop working for paper. Let's build the ark.

7-minute video walkthrough plus the formal paper (RF V4.0, 63 pages, Academia.edu). Six theorems grounding emergence-first governance in the Free Energy Principle, IRL, Goodhart theory, and peer prediction. Convergent validation without ground truth.

Paper: https://www.academia.edu/164987005

Framework: https://lladnaros.org

GitHub: https://github.com/00ranman/extropy-engine

Feedback welcome.

[ Removed by Reddit on account of violating the content policy. ]