Why WhatsApp plebiscites, and #dotcons in general are a crude and negative democratic instrument

A plebiscite (or simple poll) reduces complex questions to binary or multiple-choice outcomes decided by raw headcount. This works reasonably well for large nation-states were aggregating millions of preferences is practically necessary. But in small community groups – like a WhatsApp boating community – it undermines democratic values rather than express them, for several reasons.

The participation fallacy – Whoever happens to be on their phone when the poll appears votes; everyone else is excluded by timing. In a WhatsApp group, this might mean a dozen people determine policy for two hundred. The result carries the appearance of collective legitimacy while actually reflecting a self-selected subset. True democratic representation requires deliberate, structured participation – not whoever checks notifications first.

Suppression of minority interests – This is perhaps the deepest problem. A poll asking “should we allow X at the mooring?” can produce a 60/40 result that completely ignores why the 40% disagree. In a functioning community democracy, minority positions deserve to be heard, reasoned with, and sometimes protected. A simple poll flattens all of that. The liveaboard who depends on a particular mooring has the same one vote as the weekend visitor who barely uses it.

The tyranny of the majority in microcosm – John Stuart Mill’s classic concern about majoritarian democracy – that it can become a form of collective tyranny over individuals – is almost more acute in small groups than in states. In a national election, your minority view is still represented through opposition parties, courts, constitutions. In a WhatsApp poll, you simply lose, with no appeal mechanism, no minority rights protection, and often no transparency about who voted or why.

Social pressure distorts the vote – In a small group, people know each other. Polls are rarely secret. Vocal members who post before the poll closes visibly shift the outcome. Quieter members – often those with the most legitimate concerns – may not vote at all to avoid conflict. The result reflects social dominance as much as genuine preference. A WhatsApp poll in a group like that might ask something like “should we organise a group clean-up on Saturday?” which seems harmless – but even this excludes people who work weekends, who have caring responsibilities, who are moored further out and can’t get there. A poll that produces “yes, 23 votes to 4” then generates social pressure to participate that bears down hardest on the most vulnerable members.

For contentious issues a WhatsApp poll is the worst possible instrument, as itt short-circuits exactly the conversation and negotiation that would surface the real interests at stake. What works better in community groups is face to face or federated trust based deliberative democracy rather than plebiscitary voting. Distinguishing between decisions that affect everyone equally and decisions that affect specific individuals far more than others – the latter should require consent, not just majority approval.

The irony is that small community groups like boating communities are ideal for genuine deliberative democracy – people know each other, stakes are concrete, conversations are possible. WhatsApp polls squander that by importing the bluntest majoritarian tool into a context that could support something richer.

A second problem with #dotcons digital community decision-making is the hidden layer underneath the visible conversation: metadata is when organising becomes evidence in court cases.

People think privacy as the content of messages – what someone wrote, what someone posted, what opinion they expressed. But modern platforms collect something much broader: who joined a group, who attended an event, who reacted to a post, who communicated with whom, when people were active, who organised conversations, who supported a campaign, the patterns of relationships and activity.

This information will reveal the structure of a community even without reading the actual conversations. A WhatsApp group, Facebook group, or online community is a map of social relationships. That matters because grassroots organising often happens through relationships. The same online networks that allow communities to defend their rights, challenge poor decisions, or hold powerful actors accountable can also become visible records of who is involved.

The danger appears when, activism turns spiky and there is a conflict between less powerful groups and privileged actors. A campaign group, activist network, neighbourhood organisation, or community project might simply be trying to protect a shared space or challenge unfair treatment. But the digital traces created while organising can later be used against those people.

This does not require some dramatic conspiracy, it happens through ordinary legal processes. A court order can require a platform to provide information relevant to a legal case. Large platforms hold enormous amounts of stored data, and when authorities or private actors successfully obtain legal access, information that people assumed was just part of a conversation can become evidence.

The issue with this is imbalance, a large corporation, wealthy individual, or powerful institution have far more ability to navigate legal systems than a small grassroots group. They have lawyers, resources, and institutional support. Community activists have only their networks and their ability to organise.

This creates a contradiction, the “common sense” digital tools that allow ordinary people to coordinate can also create permanent records of that coordination. The answer is partial – there are #FOSS and #NGO tools that make this less of a problem – Healthy commons needs people to be able to organise, disagree, challenge power, and build alternatives without automatically creating a legal danger to everyone involved.

The question is not whether communities should be accountable, the question is: accountable to whom, and who has the power to use the information? Because in struggles between grassroots groups and privileged actors, metadata can become another form of power.

The lesson is simple – Build open movements, but do not naively confuse openness with exposure. Commons needs trust, but they don’t need to leave a #dotcons surveillance trail. Yes people will use bad tools anyway, but it’s good if some people use better tools to start stepping away from this digital and social mess.

Some first #KISS step tools

Use the #openweb as core organising, do not use the #dotcons – an example here is open collective website not WhatsApp chat or Google Docs. Tools shape behaver and metadata gets people prosecuted.

Use #signal for chat, it’s not a perfect tool, but it’s better than the rest, use a common platform.
Use #torbrowser for web searches and browsing of any sensitive subject, if you want to use AI, Then don’t logged-in inside tor for any sensitive questions. All AI questions are stored as a part of your account and can be used agonist you – this is true even when you are not logged in.
Do not rely on #AI for activist research or grassroots legal thinking – its hallucinations and training data will endanger you. The AI default is always wrong on this path without inside knowledge to prompt past the #mainstreaming output.

I’ve come to think that caring for people requires a degree of resistance to the culture around us. Not because people are bad, but because so much of the dominant culture is built around values that put profit, status, and competition ahead of human need. In that sense, care becomes a quiet act of rebellion.

#openweb #mutualaid #care #solidarity #deathcult #climatechaos

People destroy things they love, not from hate, more from possession

When Technologists Forget the Warning

The thing about #techbro culture is that some of the most #elitists people grew up loving stories that warned us about the #techshit they are building. They read the dystopias, watched the films, they understood the dangers of unchecked capital, concentrated power, surveillance, artificial intelligence, inequality, and corporate control.

Then many of them decided “Great idea. Let’s build it.” as the #geekproblem made them think they knew better. This is what our #fashionista class call the #tormentnexus problem – the moment when a warning about a future goes wrong becomes interpreted as a blueprint for that future. The issue is not that people like technology, science fiction, fantasy, or engineering. The #openweb itself grew from people who loved exploring what technology could make possible. The problem is when technical possibility becomes separated from social consequence.

A story like Dune is not simply about a powerful individual changing history. It is a warning about charismatic power, messianic thinking, and the danger of believing one person can control complex systems. A story like Snow Crash is not just a cool vision of virtual worlds. It is a satire of corporate fragmentation, private control, and a society where everything becomes a service. A story like Blade Runner is not simply a stylish future aesthetic. It asks what happens when technology creates beings and systems that challenge our ideas of humanity, rights, and exploitation.

But our blinded #mainstreaming started removing the politics from the stories. They kept the shiny machines, they kept the aesthetics, the power fantasies. They discarded the warnings, the #geekproblem is about capability without consequence. A recurring problem in technology culture is that engineering thinking often asks:“Can we build this?” That is an important question, but society has to ask “Should we build this?” And “Who benefits?” And “What happens to the people who have no power in this system?”.

The #geekproblem is not that engineers are bad people. It is the cultural mistake of believing technical problems can be separated from social reality. A better algorithm will not automatically solve inequality, more data will not automatically create wisdom, more automation will not automatically create freedom.

The blinded #geekproblem myth of the chosen builder, is another pattern that appears again and again. The people building these systems imagine themselves as the exception, the story says “Yes, this technology could be dangerous in the wrong hands, but I am different, I will use it responsibly.” This is the same #elitists fantasy that many cautionary stories warn against.

A system can be technically brilliant and socially destructive, the history of technology is full of examples where innovation created new problems alongside the solutions. The factory increased production but created new forms of exploitation, the car increased mobility but reshaped cities around machines. #dotcons social media connected people but also created control, surveillance, manipulation, and attention extraction. The question is never only what technology can do, the question is what kind of society technology grows.

The problem is not bad individuals, though they exist. The problem is social and economic paths that concentrate power and reduce accountability. The danger is not only the evil ruler, more it’s creating structures where rulers become inevitable. This is why the #openweb matters, real power is not finding a better king, it is building #KISS systems where power is distributed, visible, and accountable.

Our current worship of capital rewards the wrong interpretation, is another uncomfortable part of this. The market rewards the most dangerous reading of a story. The cautionary version says “Maybe we should not build this because it creates harm.” The investment version says “Can we build it faster than everyone else?” The version that creates companies, funding rounds, patents, and control is usually the one that wins. The result is that technology is shaped by incentives that favour scale, speed, and ownership. Not care, community, resilience or long-term social health. This is the mess we need to compost to not end up with a world where the same systems criticised in dystopian fiction become business opportunities.

The missing piece is growing the commons, not with anti-technology (the wrong lesson) – The answer is technology embedded in social systems that understand responsibility. This is where the original #openweb ideas matter – growing from open processes, transparent development, shared ownership, community governance and public interest infrastructure. The lesson of #FOSS was never simply “Anyone can copy the code.” The deeper lesson was “People can collectively build and maintain things outside pure market logic.”

It should be obverse that the technical commons will need social commons, without that, open code can still become captured by closed paths. The solution is the challenge for projects like #OMN, #OGB, #4opens, and #indymediaback – not to reject technology – to keep asking a different question not “How do we build the next big thing?” but “How do we build things that help people build together?”

The future does not need more isolated #eletist builders trying to control complexity, it needs communities capable of navigating complexity. The opposite of the #tormentnexus is not rejecting technology, its is more about creating technology where the social relationships come first.

The #openweb was never just about protocols, federation is technical – a commons is social. The work now is making sure we do not build the dystopias our own stories spent decades warning us about. The warning signs are there, the question is whether we listen.

Rebuilding Shared Meaning in a Fragmented World

A lot of our current mess can be understood through the long transition from #modernism to #postmodernism. Not as an academic debate, but as a lived reality. Modernity was about progress. It believed that society could be understood, improved, and consciously shaped. Science, democracy, planning, industry, public institutions, trade unions, education, and infrastructure were all part of this path. The future was something people could build together.

Of course, this vision was never as simple or as benign as some people imagined. Modernity produced extraordinary advances in health, communication, and material abundance. It also produced colonialism, industrial warfare, bureaucracy, environmental destruction, and systems of control on a scale previously unimaginable. Yet despite its contradictions, modernity had confidence. It assumed that problems could be solved, that collective action mattered.

Then came the invisible #postmodern turn. The failing social democratic institutions lost legitimacy, narratives stopped convincing people. Governments increasingly rejected planning and handed decision-making to markets. Globalisation connected everything while making almost nothing feel controllable. Information mess exploded beyond individual’s capacity to understand any of it.

Instead of thoughtful maps, we had endless competing realities. Then, the #deathcult, the promise of #neoliberalism, that deregulated markets and individual freedom would create the best possible outcomes. In practice, much of what happened was the dismantling of collective institutions without replacing them with anything capable of holding society together. People gained consumer “choice” while losing all political agency. We became slaves focused on choosing between products while unable to shape the systems that govern our lives.

This is where contemporary politics becomes difficult to understand if we keep trying to use any grounded categories – mess increased the conflict between people trying to rebuild collective meaning and people retreating into fragments – Some fragments become consumer identities, some become nationalisms. In alt culture we lived through a decade of conspiracy theories while the #mainstreaming become lifestyle brands.

The common thread is that people are still looking for belonging in a world that increasingly feels impossible to influence. This is why so much contemporary politics is irrational, people are not responding to facts, they are responding to the crisis of meaning. A crisis of trust, a crisis of belonging.

Modernism reminds us that collective action matters, that process we build matter’s, DIY infrastructure matters and finally that society can be consciously shaped. Were #Postmodernism at its best reminds us that dogmatic system contains blind spots. That power hides itself behind claims of objectivity. That diversity of experience matters, thus blinded certainty to often leads to oppressive. With the ending of modernity:

We lost confidence in human planning but kept bureaucracy.

We lost collective power but kept #elitists concentrations of power.

We gained diversity of voices but lost shared language.

We gained infotainment but lost trust.

We gained #dotcons connectivity but lost #openweb community.

This mess leaves us trapped in blinded deadens of certainties of yesterday and the endless fragmentation of today. The challenge for projects like the #openweb is finding paths beyond this deadlock – not returning to centralised authority or surrender to endless relativism, but rebuilding shared processes that hold diversity without demanding conformity.

This is where projects like the #Fediverse, #OMN, and the #4opens matter. Their value is not primarily technical, their value is social. They are historical lived experiments in creating spaces where cooperation emerges without central control. Where differences coexist without immediate fragmentation and where communities develop shared infrastructure without surrendering autonomy.

The #KISS task is creating conditions where many narratives can coexist while still allowing collective action. That is harder than either modern certainty or postmodern scepticism. But it is the path through the era of #climatechaos, #dotcons platform monopolies, social fragmentation, and democratic decline.

Power is built, not granted – Power comes from power – it is something people build, organise, and create together. In the best outcomes, power is shared and circulated. But it is rarely something simply handed down from above. A lot of modern political thinking still struggles with this. It imagines power as something that belongs to institutions, leaders, owners, or authorities – something granted through permission.

But historically, power has always been created through collective action. Private property is one example of a social agreement backed by power. The myth is that ownership is a natural thing that existed forever. The reality is that ownership systems are historical arrangements, enforced through social structures.

The old story is simple – Someone draws a line in the sand, they say “Everything on this side is mine.” The group accepts that boundary – or someone has enough force to make them accept it.

That model of power still shapes much of our world, but notice, this is not the foundation of the #Fediverse. The #Fediverse is built on a different assumption, it is based on an open flowing social web of connection rather than enclosure, participation rather than ownership, federation rather than domination and shared infrastructure rather than a single centre.

The lines in the sand are not permanent walls, they move, they adapt, they blow in the wind. That does not mean there is no power. It means power works differently. The challenge is that many people approach the #Fediverse using old assumptions from the #closedweb of who owns it? Who controls it? Who is the authority? Who gives permission? Those questions make sense in a platform economy, they make less sense in a living commons.

This is where some of the current liberal tradition has become confused, as liberalism at its best gave us important ideas of individual rights, freedom of thought, limits on arbitrary power and space for difference. But much of the current political culture has absorbed the logic of the #deathcult: neoliberalism, market absolutism, and a fragmented postmodern culture where everything becomes identity, performance, and competition.

The result is a strange contradiction of a culture that talks endlessly about freedom while creating systems that reduce collective freedom, that celebrates choice while making real alternatives harder to build, that protects individual expression while weakening the shared social foundations needed for that expression to matter. The question is not how we return to some imaginary past.

The question is then how do we build new forms of collective power that fit the world we actually live in? This is the unfinished work of the #openweb. We need constructive thinking beyond “common sense” because much of what is called common sense is simply the habit of old systems.

Technology shapes society, the design of our networks shapes how we relate – Closed systems create dependency – Open systems create possibility. But openness alone is not enough, we need the social practices around openness of trust, care, stewardship, accountability and collective imagination.

The future will not be given to us by institutions, it will be built by people creating alternatives and connecting them together. Power is not permission, power is participation.

Working Groups, Horizontal Organising, and Getting Things Done

“Working groups (#WG) have one job – get things done, they don’t need permission for every step – they need to report openly, consult when it affects others, and hand back decisions that are too big for them to own alone. That’s it, that’s the whole structure.”

One of the biggest recurring naiveties of horizontal organising is the belief that every decision needs to be made by everybody. This sounds democratic, but in long historical practice this leads to endless meetings, burnout, frustration, and eventually informal hierarchies where the people with the most time, confidence, or stubbornness end up making decisions anyway.

The result is a process that appears horizontal while quietly becoming ineffective. A simple principle cuts through much of this mess – Working Groups (#WG) have one job: get things done. They do not need permission for every step. They do not need endless consensus rounds, do not need to return every small decision to the collective, they need to:

work openly

report regularly

consult when their actions affect others

hand back decisions that are too large for them to own alone

That’s it, everything else is unnecessary.

The purpose of a working group is not to represent the collective. It is to carry out practical work on behalf of the collective. If people have agreed that a task matters, then the group trusted with that task needs the autonomy to do it. This is the difference between #4opens governance and bureaucratic administration.

To make this work we do need to compost some mess, we have the trap of process fetishism, many activist groups develop what can only be described as a fetish for process. Every decision becomes a collective decision, disagreement becomes crisis, and every proposal requires multiple rounds of consultation. The intention is usually good, people want participation, accountability, and fairness. But the outcome is the opposite, the people doing practical work become exhausted, new people struggle to engage, urgent opportunities are missed, and hidden power emerges behind the scenes. What looks democratic becomes an all to familiar form of paralysis.

The irony is that this benefits the existing informal leadership. When formal decisions become impossible, influence shifts to whoever has the strongest social networks, the loudest voice, and the most time to spend in meetings. The supposed “open” process becomes a mask for power rather than a challenge to it.

Healthy horizontal organising is not about removing responsibility, it is about distributing responsibility. People take on work, groups take on tasks. Decisions are made at the lowest level possible and issues only move upwards when they genuinely affect the wider collective.

This keeps decision-making close to the work itself, as the people closest to a problem usually understand it best. The wider group only needs to step in when questions become collective questions. It’s a #KISS working path with a long history that creates a living structure rather than a bureaucratic one – healthy movements should feel more like a network of trust than a chain of command.

The challenge is not only structural, it is emotional, organising through feelings, relationships, identity, and emotional response, is not inherently bad, as movements need care, solidarity to build people to people who support one another, without this emotional connection, activism becomes mechanical and brittle.

But there are too sides to this, when emotional comfort becomes more important than practical outcomes, problems emerge. Conflict becomes difficult, criticism becomes threatening leading to accountability becoming personalised leading to disagreement becoming interpreted as harm. The result is that difficult conversations are avoided until they explode, groups become trapped between politeness and resentment so nothing gets resolved. This is where the debate between fluffy and spiky becomes useful.

Fluffy practices build trust.

Spiky practices solve problems.

Healthy organising needs both, but too much fluffy and nothing changes. Too much spiky and people burn out. The art is finding the balance.

The foundation of horizontal organising is trust – Trust people to take initiative, working groups to carry out agreed tasks. Trust transparency more than control, trust report backs more than permission, accountability more than management. The goal is not to eliminate power, it is to make power visible, distributed, and accountable.

That means allowing people freedom to act while ensuring the collective remains informed and able to intervene when necessary. A working group should never need permission to do its job, if it does, then either the group has not been trusted with the task, or the collective has not yet decided what it wants. In both cases, the problem is not the working group as good process should help people act together, not prevent them from acting at all.

Trust the work.

UPDATE Q&A

Q: I agree, but how do we even set them up?

Use the WG (Working Group) as they are designed to solve this problem. They are spaces of action. Because they are small and focused, they naturally filter out the people who are there only to block, endlessly discuss, or avoid action. The word WORK has an effect.

Q: But where do the people come from? We need people.

WGs are permissionless – you don’t wait for a structure to approve them. You call one, a few people (or even just one person to start) come together, focus on a task, and make decisions. Then you feed those decisions back into the wider group. Feedback happens – or it doesn’t. Then the WG gets on with the work, adjusting based on useful feedback, and reports back openly. Then you move on to the next decision. The important thing is that this can start small, it could be one person, but it works better with a group of committed people.

As people see real work happening, they join, or they don’t. Over time, a campaign grows and the WG becomes the place where committed people organise, while larger meetings remain open spaces where everyone can have a voice. The WG listens, but it also has to make decisions and move forward.

The key is that it always operates through the #4opens – open process, open communication, and open access – so people can see the work and join in if they want to. Action creates momentum.

#process #oxfordboaters #WG

#Nicenasty the hidden power of soft obstruction

People think in groups, that’s normal. The mistake isn’t group thinking itself, it’s pretending we’re all isolated individuals while still acting through tribes, identities, and social blocs. A lot of today’s “common sense” comes from the #stupidindividualism group mindset. We are encouraged to see every problem through individual choices rather than collective realities. The real question isn’t “how do we stop group thinking?” It’s “what do we do with it?”

This mess is something we need to compost – in movements, communities, and alternative projects, we need language to describe the different forces shaping what happens, without shared vocabulary, patterns remain invisible. People experience the same problems repeatedly, but each incident looks like an individual conflict rather than part of a wider social mess making. Within #OMN hashtag story, we already have some useful terms.

#nastyfew – power from above. The #nastyfew are the obvious actors who concentrated power of tech, business, political, and institutional elitists. The people who shape systems through money, ownership, influence, and formal authority. They are easier to identify because their power is visible. The #nastyfew don’t usually pretend not to have power, their influence comes from controlling resources, platforms, laws, infrastructure, and narratives. This is the traditional problem of hierarchy.

#fluffy – conflict avoidance, the comfortable side of activism and community organising. The people who want harmony, inclusion, and safety – often good things – but always at the cost of avoiding difficult conversations, uncomfortable truths, or necessary conflicts. The fluffy crew are not the enemy, we need this side as movements without care become brittle, aggressive, and unsustainable. The problem is when #fluffy becomes a substitute for action, and keeping things pleasant becomes more important than addressing what is actually happening.

#fluffy – comfortable, non-threatening, conflict-avoiding activism. Well understood in context. #spiky – confrontational, direct, willing to cause friction. Debate – is the thing that is to often missing, and holds the power.

But there is another pattern we need to compost, that does not fit either category. Something more subtle, the missing category is the weaponised nice person. There is a difference between being kind and using kindness as a tool of control. There is a difference between creating a welcoming space and using the language of welcome to #block challenge. This is the person who performs niceness while quietly enforcing conformity.

These people are in every movement, every activist camp, they use, politeness rules, social reputation, community trust, emotional pressure and claims of protecting the group …as mechanisms to block criticism, avoid accountability, and preserve existing power. They are not the #nastyfew as they are not openly dominating from above, and often appear as the opposite, they look caring, sound reasonable.

They say “We need to be constructive.” “We don’t want conflict.” “That isn’t the right way to say it.” “We need to protect the community.” Sometimes those statements are valid, but often they are used as a shield against anything disruptive, challenging, or genuinely new. This is where we need a #hashtag for.

The gap is specific: the person who performs niceness or fluffiness as a weapon – who uses social respectability, politeness norms, or community goodwill as a way to enforce conformity, block challenge, and protect their own position. Not the #nastyfew (they’re openly powerful) and not simply #fluffy (that’s just timid). This is the vile fluffy – nice on the surface, actively harmful underneath.

Maybe #nicenasty describes the contradiction. Nice on the surface, nasty in effect. The problem is not kindness, the problem is when kindness becomes a performance used to maintain control. A #nicenasty dynamic appears in spaces that claim to be open: activist groups, community organisations, open source projects, alternative media spaces and wider social movements. The language is horizontal, but the behaviour becomes quietly hierarchical. Instead of “you cannot do this because I have power”, it becomes “you cannot do this because you are harming the community.” The result can be the same – blocking change. #nicenasty -. Has rhythm, easy to remember, does the job. The inversion is the point.

#velvetblock – the mechanism, describes the process itself, a velvet surface hiding a hard barrier. The door is not slammed, people are not openly excluded. Instead, they are slowly redirected, delayed, discouraged, or socially isolated until the challenge disappears. The damage remains polite, the outcome remains the same. #velvetblock – soft surface, hard obstruction. More descriptive of the mechanism.

#fluffygate- implies gatekeeping behind a fluffy front. A bit clunky.

#pratocracy – the rule of prats. Funny but loses the specific nice/nasty dynamic.

#softpower – already taken in international relations, would cause confusion.

#vilefluff – pairs well with #nicenasty tag, keep it in the vocabulary for the spiky people.

#nicenasty is maybe the strongest – it’s immediately, has no baggage, and does what a hashtag should do: compress a complex dynamic into something people recognise and use to organise the movement. The question is whether one tag or two. #nastyfew for power from above, #nicenasty for obstruction from within the community itself, #fluffy for the timid. A clean three-part vocabulary?

Why this matters for #OMN – The #openweb and grassroots organising depend on the ability to challenge, fork, experiment, and build alternatives. The challenge is not just resisting the #nastyfew, it is also recognising the internal patterns that stop movements growing.

#nastyfew – Power concentrated at the top.

#fluffy – Care, connection, and social glue, but with the risk of avoiding necessary conflict.

#nicenasty – Soft power used internally to block challenge while appearing caring.

This gives us a #KISS story path. Because not every barrier looks like oppression, sometimes the strongest walls are built out of good intentions. The answer is not to reject kindness, more its is separating genuine care from control disguised as care. Any native path needs both:

#fluffy to keep people connected.

#spiky to challenge what needs challenging.

And the awareness to recognise when #nicenasty is #blocking

A bit of theory on how this mess comes about – puppets dancing on strings – how consent is manufactured, ideology isn’t only ideas floating free, it’s rooted in real social and economic structures. Let’s look at some views of this:

Lukács – reification and false consciousness, how capitalism makes its own social relations appear natural and inevitable, like facts of nature rather than human constructions.

Gramsci – hegemony, how ruling class ideas become “common sense,” absorbed so deeply into everyday life that they no longer need to be enforced, because people enforce them on themselves.

Althusser – ideology and ideological state apparatuses, how institutions (schools, media, religion) reproduce the conditions that make capitalism feel like the only possible reality.

So where does the current dead #postmodernism confusion comes from – this rotten path also talks about constructed realities, fictions experienced as truth, and the critique of “grand narratives.” So there’s surface overlap. But the difference is Marxism says ideology can be exposed and overcome through collective understanding and political struggle – there’s a real underneath the false consciousness. Postmodernism says there’s no stable real to appeal to – all truths are partial, constructed, and contested all the way down so would be far more sceptical about whether “exposing” ideology gets you anywhere.

What do people think about this, especially in the light of Hannah Arendt’s work?

“Choosing to live in undiscerning neutrality is the mark of cowardice in times of rising fascism. Neutrality is a privilege reserved for those who can afford to sit on the fence until they die. Most of us cannot afford that path.”

At what point does neutrality become complicity? Arendt‘s writing is useful because she was suspicious of both ideological certainty and political passivity. Her writing on totalitarianism and the “banality of evil” wasn’t about monsters. It was about ordinary people stepping back from judgement and responsibility, retreating into obedience, routine, or disengagement while harmful systems expanded around them.

From this, the danger is not simply taking the wrong side. The danger is refusing to judge at all. At the same time, Arendt valued the public sphere as a space, where different people could meet, speak, disagree, and act together. Politics, at its best, was not about enforcing a single truth but about creating a shared world despite differences.

This creates a tension for projects like the #OMN as we often talk about mediation, bridge-building, and creating spaces where people can communicate across divides. But what happens when the issue is no longer a disagreement between equals, but questions of exclusion, inequality, violence, and authoritarian power?

The non-action bloc: resignation, cynicism, and the culture that keeps people powerless

Compost or rot – you choose, we need a spade #OMN

Build it permissionlessly and let it loose

One of the uncomfortable truths of activism is that, given a choice between anarchism and anarchy, many anarchists choose anarchism. The ideology, identity, culture, meetings, and certainties feel safer than taking a genuinely risky step into the unknown of stateless liberty and self-organisation.

It’s easier to belong to the subculture than to build the social relationships and trust needed to live without the structures there critiquing. A lot of radical politics gets stuck at this point: defending the identity instead of creating the reality.

From an #OMN perspective, the challenge is not proclaiming freedom, but building the social infrastructure that makes freedom possible.

Been working with #mainstreaming people recently. The experience has been eye-opening, and not in a good way. What strikes me isn’t that they are bad people, most aren’t. The problem is that many seem completely unaware of how badly the culture they inhabit behaves. Gatekeeping is normal. Careerism is normal. Status games are normal. Endless #blocking of ideas, projects, and people that fall outside established comfort zones is normal. Then, they wonder why meaningful change never happens.

The pattern is everywhere. New ideas are treated as threats rather than opportunities. People spend more energy defending positions than solving problems. Institutions become focused on preserving themselves rather than the purpose they were supposedly created for. When challenged, the response is confusion – then #blocking – the behaviour is so deeply embedded that it has become invisible.

This isn’t just a problem of NGOs, public bodies, academia, media organisations, or corporations. It’s a broader cultural issue. The incentives point in the wrong direction as most people choose jobs primarily for income, security, status, and benefits. That’s understandable, we all need to survive. But when entire systems are built around those motivations, contributing to society becomes secondary, something to be mentioned in mission statements rather than lived in practice.

The result, a society full of people managing problems rather than solving them. You can see this in every sector, from the highest levels of management down to the lowest-paid positions. The forms differ, but the logic is the same: don’t rock the boat, protect your position, follow the approved path. This is one reason why grassroots projects struggle, as they are trying to solve problems directly, while mainstream institutions are organised around managing risk, preserving legitimacy, and maintaining existing structures.

From an #OMN perspective, this isn’t only a problem of individual morality, it’s a problem of social systems rewarding the wrong behaviour. The answer is not simply to denounce people, that feeds the cycle, the challenge is to create spaces where different values can actually function:

collaboration over competition
stewardship over careerism
openness over gatekeeping
social usefulness over institutional self-preservation

Some people respond by working less, consuming less, and choosing employers whose purpose is broader than profit. Others build grassroots projects outside the mainstream. But, neither path is easy, both come with costs.

The question is not why change is difficult, it is why we keep organising society around incentives that actively discourage it. With this mess in mind in both tech and activism, if your politics is talking only to people who already agree with you, it’s probably a hobby, not a movement. The #OMN path starts with building bridges between different groups, needs, and cultures, as this is how collective power grows.

We live in an age of #stupidindividualism where everyone broadcasts and few connect, so build bridges, not bubbles. This matters because most people are up shit creek without a paddle, yet keep looking in the same places that got them there. Apathy and laissez-faire “common sense” have become normal. Decades of #neoliberalism taught us to think as isolated individuals rather than communities capable of acting together.

One barrier is that people still don’t see the need to move beyond the #feudalism that shapes much of the tools we need. As a result, huge amounts of energy go into defending existing structures and #blocking alternatives before they have a chance to prove themselves. That’s why the #OGB project approach is simple: build it permissionlessly and let it loose. People will see the value, or they won’t #KISS

The goal isn’t convincing a handful of gatekeepers, the goal is empowering a larger group of people to participate in activism, technology, build consensus, and push the social agenda they actually need of less permission, more practice, less management, more participation.

This is also why so much campaigning, #NGO and alt-tech events can be frustrating. The official conversations are dominated by career paths, institutional interests, branding exercises, and carefully managed narratives. Lots of noise, not always much signal – The useful stuff usually happens elsewhere, in corridors, over coffee. That’s where bridges get built, where ideas get tested and where trust grows. The social layer matters more than the stage.

The #OMN lesson is simple – Technology alone doesn’t solve social problems, we need
movements grown by connecting people, governance grown by participation,
commons grow by use. If we want a better world and #openweb, we need to spend less time protecting silos and more time building bridges. That’s where the signal still lives.

But when documenting moments and movements like this It’s important to focus on what actually matters not only the normal surface mess.

Watching this video reminded me how much activist history gets distorted by sectarianism. At places like #Greenham, divisions formed around the “colour” of the gates – different ideologies, identities, and political cultures. The trouble is that the loudest and most conflict-driven voices end up telling the history afterwards.

The people saying “look at me” get remembered, while the people saying “don’t look at me, I’m busy, look at the issue” are usually too busy doing the actual work to document it.

This leaves us with a skewed activist memory, where internal drama becomes history and the slow, collective labour that made things happen fades into the background.

It’s not just a problem of the past. We keep reproducing the same mess today.

The Fediverse’s growing signal-to-noise problem – and who’s causing it

People nowadays are soaked in #stupidindividualism, and the important word on this is hopeless. Not hopeless because people are bad, but because we’ve spent decades dismantling the social structures that gave us the ability to act together. We know how to consume, react, and perform as individuals, but increasingly struggle to cooperate, organise, and build collective power. A society of isolated individuals is easy to manage and hard to change.

There have been a lot of institutional prat moves on the #Fediverse over the last few years, we’re facing a growing signal-to-noise problem. As more NGOs, foundations, governments, media organisations, and corporate-adjacent actors arrive, they bring resources, visibility, and legitimacy. That’s the fluffy side of the story. More users, more funding, more attention, more recognition.

But #NGOs didn’t build the #Fediverse – and they’re not saving it either their bringing institutional habits that are often hostile to the native culture of the #Fediverse. Risk management replaces experimentation, branding replaces community, public relations replaces dialogue. Governance becomes something done for people rather than with them. The result is a lot of noise: endless press releases, carefully managed messaging, and performative consultation that produces little actual change.

This is where the spiky side comes in. The #Fediverse did not grow because institutions planned it into existence. It grew because messy communities built things, argued about them, broke them, fixed them, and kept going. The culture emerged from people doing the work in public. Much of the value came from precisely the things institutions find uncomfortable: openness, disagreement, rough consensus, and grassroots initiative.

The problem is not that institutions are involved, the problem is when institutional logic starts drowning out community logic to create a growing signal-to-noise problem. The signal is people building infrastructure, running servers, writing code, creating culture, organising communities, and solving problems together. The noise is the endless churn of reports, branding exercises, stakeholder management, conference panels, and “engagement” processes that consume energy without producing any substance.

The useful framing here might be:

Fluffy: welcoming people in, building bridges, creating shared spaces, encouraging participation.

Spiky: defending native values, challenging bad practice, calling out capture, and maintaining boundaries.

The #Fediverse needs both, too much fluffy and everything gets absorbed into #mainstreaming culture until the original values disappear. Too much spiky and you end up isolated, talking only to people who already agree with you. The challenge is maintaining a productive tension between the two.

The real debate isn’t institutions versus communities. It’s whether institutions can learn to work within #openweb culture rather than replacing it with the same management culture that has already failed across much of the #closedweb. The signal is still there, the question is whether we can keep hearing it through the noise.

Mix this with the bigger picture of hard-right and #climatechaos feeding each other in a vicious cycle. Climate breakdown drives displacement, insecurity, and social stress. The right exploits that suffering to spread fear, hatred, and division. As they gain power, climate action is weakened to protect existing wealth and fossil-fuel interests, leading to worse climate impacts and displacement.

The result? More refugees, more scapegoating, more environmental collapse, and more authoritarian politics. Stopping #climatechaos and stopping the rise of fascism are not separate struggles. They are the same struggle viewed from different angles. The answer isn’t more noise. It’s rebuilding solidarity, strengthening grassroots alternatives, and creating collective solutions that challenge both environmental destruction and the politics of fear.

With this in mind – have the people fixated on #mainstreaming noticed how little change and challenge they actually achieve? A lot of energy goes into fitting in, managing perceptions, and staying respectable, while the problems keep getting worse.

We might finally get somewhere when more people notice this and start doing something different. So if you meet a dedicated #mainstreaming person, do thank them for helping demonstrate what doesn’t work. The real debate isn’t institutions vs communities – it’s whether institutions can learn to stop drowning us out

#stupidindividualism #Fediverse #OMN #openweb #4opens #mainstreaming #NGO #Fluffy #Spiky #KISS

OMN history note: Failbook, activism, and the enclosure of organising

This is a mess we are finally starting to move away from. For over a decade, #failbook was one of the main organising spaces for progressive activism. On the surface it looked useful: easy groups, fast sharing, broad reach. But structurally it was never neutral. It was built as a #dotcons attention machine, optimised for engagement, conflict, and dependency. That design matters.

Platforms like this don’t just host activism – they reshape it. They push people toward reaction over reflection, outrage over organisation, and constant presence over sustained collective work. As we now recognise, they breed argument loops, emotional exhaustion, and political burnout. Not because activists are doing it “wrong”, but because the environment is engineered to reward exactly that behaviour.

From an #OMN perspective, this sits inside a wider enclosure cycle: grassroots online energy gets poured into #dotcons corporate infrastructure, that infrastructure extracts value (attention, data, control), and movements quickly become dependent on systems structurally hostile to long-term collective growth.

This is where the critique of the #deathcult becomes useful – not as a slogan, but as a description of how #neoliberal “common sense” gets embedded into everyday tools. If everything is individualised, reactive, and algorithmically amplified, then solidarity becomes very hard to sustain.

So yes: a huge amount of activist energy over the last 20 years has been absorbed into producing “empty” reach and visibility inside the #dotcons, rather than building durable autonomous spaces outside them. That has consequences, it weakens movements over time, even when it feels productive in the moment to the blinded #fashionistas. Simply it was a dead end.

Finally, we are now seeing something important – fatigue and recognition. Many groups are realising that #dotcons are no longer reliable organising spaces – but not only because of corporate control, but because of rising right-wing trolling, algorithmic hostility, and the general degradation of signal into noise. This has helped trigger a shift toward #openweb projects like the #Fediverse over the last few years.

Some parts of the activist ecosystem are beginning to look back toward federated tools and slower, more resilient forms of coordination. This is where the #OMN argument becomes practical rather than theoretical: if we want movements that last, we need spaces designed for cooperation, not capture.

The lesson is simple, even if uncomfortable – if you organise inside systems designed to fragment you, you should expect fragmentation.

The next phase is not louder posting, it’s building elsewhere. Every time someone shares an article about how terrible the world is, my first question is simple – What are you doing about it?

Outrage without action is another form of consumption, doomscrolling isn’t organising, sharing isn’t building, knowing isn’t enough.

The world won’t change because we comment on the mess. It changes when we create alternatives, challenge power, and work together to build something better.

#KISS

How we built the neoliberal #Deathcult

For most people, the crisis feels recent. Housing costs. Energy bills. Food prices. Debt. Insecure work. Growing inequality. Endless wars. Ecological breakdown. The #mainstreaming story is that these are separate problems with separate causes. COVID. Ukraine. China. Immigration. Technology. Bad politicians. The reality is simpler, these crises grow from the same roots – the moment things changed, one graph tells the story.

From the end of World War II until roughly the early 1970s, productivity and wages rose together. When workers produced more value, they received a larger share of that value. This was not charity. It was the social settlement that emerged from the disasters of the Great Depression and World War II. Governments understood that if ordinary people could not afford the goods they produced, capitalism would repeatedly collapse into crisis. The answer was public investment, strong unions, social housing, public infrastructure, public healthcare, education, and rising wages.

This was what some people now call the “golden age” of capitalism. Workers bought homes. Families survived on a single income. Public infrastructure expanded. Living standards generally improved. Then the trend broke, as productivity continued rising, but wages stopped. For the last fifty years, workers have produced more and more while receiving proportionally less and less. The wealth didn’t disappear, it moved upward.

Saving capitalism from itself – The original US New Deal wasn’t created because elitists became generous, it emerged because the system faced a legitimacy crisis. Mass unemployment. Mass poverty. Growing labour movements. Strong socialist alternatives. Faced with these pressures, governments invested in public works, strengthened labour rights, regulated finance, and redistributed wealth. The lesson was simple, if people have money, they buy goods, if people buy goods, businesses survive, if businesses survive, the economy functions. This wasn’t radical, it was practical as the state acted to stabilise society.

The neoliberal turn – by the 1970s, a different ideology was waiting in the wings. The solution offered by thinkers such as Milton Friedman and institutions such as the Chicago School was to reverse the post-war settlement. Privatise public assets, break unions, cut taxes on wealth, deregulate finance and reduce social spending to treat everything as a market. This project became government policy under Reagan, Thatcher, and much of the Western political class. The promise was freedom, the result was enclosure. Public wealth became private wealth, collective institutions were weakened, corporate power expanded, the bargaining power of workers collapsed.

The result was clear, the graph above tells the story, productivity kept climbing, compensation stagnated. The gains increasingly flowed upward. For the workers debt replaced wages, the old social contract was based on rising incomes, the new one was based on borrowing. If wages no longer rise fast enough, people still need homes, education, healthcare, transport. The gap was filled with debt: Credit cards, Student loans, Mortgages, Personal loans. Instead of sharing productivity gains directly, people borrowed against their futures. This worked for a while, until it didn’t.

A resent example of this mess is 2008 – The financial crash – exposed the reality, when ordinary people face crisis, they are told to tighten their belts. When financial institutions face crisis, public money appears instantly. Millions lost homes, lost jobs. Meanwhile, banks received vast bailouts. The lesson was clear. The system still knew how to mobilise resources, it simply chose who to save.

This is why we use the harsh hashtag #Deathcult. Composting this mess is where the #OMN idea of the #deathcult becomes useful as neoliberalism is not simply a set of economic policies, it is a cultural common sense. It teaches a “common sense” path that markets solve everything and that public solutions are inefficient. That society does not exist, that individuals succeed or fail alone. That endless growth on a finite planet is normal. That every commons must become a commodity.

This invisible ideology is now so deeply embedded that many people cannot imagine alternatives. The system creates crises and then presents more market solutions as the answer. Climate collapse becomes carbon trading. Housing crisis becomes investment opportunity. Community becomes #dotcons platforms. Citizens become consumers. The cure is always more of the disease.

In this mess we need to remember what we have lost, the biggest loss wasn’t economic, it was social. The institutions that once balanced private power were weakened: Trade unions, Cooperatives, Mutual aid, Community media, Public ownership, Local democracy, Shared stewardship, The commons. These weren’t perfect, but they gave ordinary people collective power. Without them, people are pushed into isolated competition. What #OMN calls #stupidindividualism. Everyone struggling alone against systems too large to influence individually.

Building beyond the mess, is not about post-modern nostalgia, the post-war settlement was deeply flawed. But what is built can be rebuilt, this means on a progressive path creating commons rather than commodities, governance rather than management, participation rather than consumption and community media rather than corporate platforms to grow cooperation rather than extraction.

As social infrastructure, the #4opens provide one practical foundation for this work: open process, open data, open standards and open licences. Because the real challenge is not technological. It is rebuilding the social relationships that make alternatives possible.

To sum up the graph of productivity and wages is not simply an economic chart, it is a map showing where the wealth went. And once we know where it went, we can start asking a more useful question: #KISS how do we build something different?

A #fluffy view on why things are not changing

#OMN #OpenWeb #4opens #Deathcult #Neoliberalism #Commons #MutualAid #FoodSovereignty #CommunityMedia #OpenGovernance #NothingNew #DIY #KISS

Thatcher, Reagan were the wrecking crew: How we keep pushing mess

This story is about the ideology that won. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, two politicians on either side of the Atlantic didn’t only win elections, they reshaped what people came to accept as “common sense.” Margaret Thatcher in Britain and Ronald Reagan in the United States did not invent capitalism’s worst tendencies, but they gave them state power, institutional infrastructure, and ideological legitimacy.

What they built was not simply a set of policies, it was a social programme we are still trapped inside more than forty years later. The push was simple and devastating citizens became “taxpayers,” public services became “handouts,” collective investment became “inefficiency,” and the commons became a problem to be solved through privatisation.

Decades of postwar social infrastructure – built on the understanding that some things are too important to be left to markets – were dismantled, defunded, and handed over to private interests -the very same interests funding the political projects carrying out the dismantling.

This is what #OMN means when we talk about enclosure. Not just land enclosure, but the enclosure of everyday life itself: Water, housing, transport, education, healthcare, communication and culture. Everything turned into a commodity.

Neither Thatcher nor Reagan created this mess, the project was carefully engineered. Reagan established a President’s Commission on Privatisation which drew up extensive plans to strip public assets and services. Thatcher pushed through mass privatisation of utilities, council housing, and national industries while selling the process as “popular capitalism.”

Behind them stood an entire ideological machine of the Heritage Foundation, the Adam Smith Institute, the Institute of Economic Affairs, the Reason Foundation, and countless university economics departments and corporate-funded policy groups.

Their role was to make radical upward redistribution sound like neutral common sense, and they succeeded. Even the language changed “tax burden,” “efficiency,” “choice,” “reform,” “flexibility.” Every word quietly carrying the ideology.

The method itself was brutally simple – cut taxes for the wealthy and corporations. Create public deficits. Use those deficits to declare public services “unaffordable.” Privatise the resulting wreckage. Transfer wealth upward. Starve public institutions until they fail, then point at the failure as proof they never worked.

The cruelty was not accidental, it was structural. Thatcher’s Chancellor openly described mass unemployment as “a price worth paying.” Reagan’s administration treated social devastation as collateral damage in the restoration of elitist power.

The results were not abstract, from 1948 to roughly 1979 in the United States, productivity and worker wages rose together. After Reagan, productivity continued climbing sharply while wages largely stagnated. Workers produced more wealth than ever before, but a growing share of that wealth flowed upward into capital accumulation rather than wages or public goods.

The mess this created was Labour’s share of national income steadily declined while housing costs rose, debt exploded, unions collapsed, and public infrastructure deteriorated. Debt became the mechanism keeping society functioning: mortgages, credit cards, car loans, student loans, payday lending. Daily survival increasingly depended on borrowing. Higher education shifted from a public good into a privatised commodity. Healthcare became financial extraction. Housing became speculation rather than shelter.

The language was “freedom.” But the freedom being expanded was the freedom of capital. None of this was racially neutral. Reagan’s “welfare queen” narrative deliberately racialised poverty to fracture working-class solidarity. The actual fraud case behind the story was tiny compared to the propaganda built around it, but the myth worked politically because it redirected anger downward rather than upward.

The so-called “War on Drugs” targeted Black communities while harsher sentencing laws entrenched mass incarceration. Meanwhile, the AIDS epidemic was ignored for years because many of the people dying were treated as disposable by political elites. Thatcher’s government supported sanctions-busting trade with apartheid South Africa while denouncing the ANC and treating Nelson Mandela as a terrorist.

These were not side issues, the neoliberalism story required enemies: welfare scroungers, criminals, radicals, immigrants, trade unionists, the “undeserving poor.” Every enclosure needs someone to blame for the damage enclosure causes.

In the rich west the programme attacked wages, unions, and public services. Abroad it was openly violent. Reagan’s administration funded and armed the Contras in Nicaragua despite international condemnation. US-backed regimes across Latin America carried out massacres, disappearances, and systematic repression while being framed as defenders of “freedom.” Thatcher supported Augusto Pinochet long after the scale of torture and repression was well known.

The noise was consistent and on going as liberation movements became “terrorists,” dictators aligned with Western capital became “allies,” and democracy mattered only when it protected existing power. The same logic still dominates global politics today.

What was lost was not only economic, the postwar social settlement – however flawed – rested on the idea that some things belonged to everyone and should be collectively protected:

healthcare,
housing,
education,
water,
transport,
welfare,
culture,
democratic infrastructure.

These systems were not gifts from benevolent elitists, they were won through the struggle by labour movements, cooperatives, mutual aid traditions, socialist organising, and community solidarity. Thatcher famously claimed:

“There is no such thing as society.”

This was not only rhetoric, it was a political programme. Destroy people’s belief in collective action and you destroy their ability to resist enclosure. This is where the #OMN critique of the “tragedy of the commons” matters. People are capable of managing commons collectively, history is full of successful examples, what neoliberalism destroys are the social conditions that make commons possible:

trust,
reciprocity,
accountability,
long-term stewardship,
community responsibility.

When competition replaces care, extraction replaces stewardship, hyper-individualism – what we call #stupidindividualism – erodes social fabric itself. The tragedy becomes real because the conditions needed to avoid it are systematically dismantled.

Understanding this matters not for nostalgia, but for navigation. The crises surrounding us now: housing collapse, ecological breakdown, inequality, democratic decay, loneliness, food insecurity, social fragmentation, mental health crises, are not random failures. They are predictable outcomes of forty years of #neoliberal wrecking. The mess this created is functioning largely as designed, prioritises elitist capital accumulation above any social wellbeing.

The liberal centre cannot solve this because it operates inside the same logic, technocratic management of decline is not transformation. Real alternatives require rebuilding #KISS commons-based infrastructure, not only as abstract ideals, but as practical trust infrastructure. This is the work of composting the current mess and growing alternatives from within the ruins.

Thatcher claimed there was no alternative, she was wrong. But building alternatives means being honest about what was destroyed, who destroyed it, how they destroyed it, and why the same logic still dominates today. This honesty is where rebuilding begins.

With this in mind, let’s recap on what Thatcher and Reagan built, its not just bad policy, not just inequality, its a full #deathcult – the self-destructive logic of #neoliberalism so committed to short-term greed and #stupidindividualism that it knowingly sacrifices the ecological and social foundations human life depends on. Forty years of hard indoctrination that doesn’t just fade away its – normal is walking around in a toxic story and calling it common sense.

The #nastyfew – platform owners, landlords, corporate lobbies, think tank networks – didn’t win through merit. They won the #classwar temporarily, by capturing institutions, rewriting rules, and flooding the #mainstreaming with their logic until it felt like gravity.

The #dotcons – Facebook, Google, X/Twitter and the rest – are the digital continuation of the same enclosure. Corporate platforms built on data extraction, presenting themselves as neutral public spaces while converting human attention and community into profit. The #closedweb is just privatisation with a friendlier interface.

And the #climatechaos bearing down on us is not a separate crisis. It is the #deathcult arriving at its logical destination.

Real alternatives are built from the bottom, not handed down from the top. The #openweb – internet infrastructure built on open standards, community control, and the #4opens (open code, open data, open standards, open process) – already exists as working infrastructure, built by thousands of ordinary people, not governments or corporations. Then we have the #fediverse, #activitypub, #FOSS, #indymedia – these are not utopian visions, already built, from the ground up, by people practising #DIY politics for real.

The #geekproblem is when this gets captured – when technical control replaces social trust, when complexity becomes a barrier rather than a tool, when #techchurn burns through community energy without building anything lasting. The antidote is #KISS – keeping it simple, human, and rooted in real relationships.

The #NGO path – professionalised, funder-friendly, managed dissent – is #mainstreaming with a radical badge on, it defuses rather than builds. The #fashernista tendency prioritising the look and language of activism over the unglamorous work of building lasting structure is #fluffy blocking in performance clothing.

What actually works is #grassroots organising grounded in trust, horizontal process, and the willingness to #compost failure breaking down what didn’t work into fuel for what comes next rather than hiding the mess or repeating it. As the #OMN path puts it: broken institutions need rebuilding as commons, not as managed services or branded campaigns.

The #deathcult is real, the mess is real, the #nothingnew reminder is useful – these cycles have happened before, and ignoring that history is how we walk straight into the same traps again. But so is the ground we already stand on, sart there.

#OMN #Neoliberalism #Thatcher #Reagan #OpenWeb #4opens #Commons #MutualAid #FoodSovereignty #ClimateChaos #Mainstreaming #Deathcult #Dotcons #BuildingAlternatives

The everyday con: How the #deathcult turns crisis into extraction

The story is simple once you stop looking at the green branding and start looking at social power. A powerless tenant farmer in the Cairngorms watches land his family has worked for generations sell for ten times what it was worth only a few years ago. Not because farming suddenly became more valuable, but because carbon became a speculative asset. A corporation somewhere needs a green badge, farm land becomes the badge, our agriculture disappearing becomes the cost. This is not a “mistake”, its normal, this is the “common sense” system working as designed. #ClimateChaos under capitalism becomes another market opportunity, another asset class, another enclosure of the commons.

The mechanism of the #Carboncon, a corporation that has power can carry on almost exactly as before climate change became an issue: same factories, same flights, same extraction, same emissions, same growth ideology. Then it buys a Scottish hillside, plants trees on it, and announces to the world that it is now “carbon neutral.” If it wants more PR sparkle, it calls itself “carbon negative.” Nothing fundamental changes. The emissions are still happening, extraction is still happening, the destruction is still happening.

What changes is the accounting story, a piece of land somewhere else is converted into a tradable abstraction that launders the corporation’s image while allowing business-as-usual to continue. This is the logic of #neoliberalism applied to ecology – if there is a crisis, turn the crisis into a market. Our glaring current example of this is BrewDog and its greenwashing cycle, #BrewDog becomes a perfect illustration of the mess, in 2020 the company bought a 9,300-acre Highland estate, partly funded through public grants, promising millions of trees and “carbon negative” operations.

Then reality hit a large number of trees died, peat disturbance has released stored carbon, regulators ruled the carbon-negative advertising misleading, the branding quietly disappeared, and the estate was later sold into the carbon-offset market. Public money in, #PR campaign launched, trees dead, farmer displaced, badge worn, land commodified and Carbon credits traded – Business continues as normal, round and round the #deathcult spins.

This should sound historically familiar: The Highland Clearances never really ended, the justification changed. Then it was sheep, now it is carbon. Communities are again being displaced by distant capital as land is consolidated into investment portfolios instead of living local economies. The mess is productive mixed-use landscapes are transformed into speculative ecological assets managed for investors, corporations, and global finance.

This is enclosure updated for the era of #climatechaos. Around half of Scottish estate sales in recent years have gone to investment funds, corporations, and large trusts rather than people intending to actually live on and work the land. At the same time local communities are priced out, young farmers are locked out, food production declines, rural life becomes hollowed out, and decision-making moves further away from the people directly affected.

The language changes, the extraction remains the same, the deeper problem is that people still expect the systems causing the crisis to somehow solve the crisis. But capitalism does not solve crises, it monetises them – when pollution becomes profitable, pollution markets appear, when climate collapses, carbon markets appear, when social breakdown accelerates, surveillance markets appear, when loneliness spreads, platform monopolies appear. The system feeds on crisis because crisis creates new opportunities for extraction #KISS.

This is why the #mainstreaming obsession with “green growth” is ideological theatre, infinite growth on a finite planet was always insane, adding green branding does not make it sane in any way. The carbon market does not reduce emissions, it redistributes responsibility while preserving existing power structures. The food grown by local farmers is real, the communities rooted in landscapes are real, the accumulated ecological knowledge is real. The carbon spreadsheet is an abstraction traded by financial actors who have little or no connection to the land itself.

This is where projects like #OMN matter, its path is about rebuilding the social infrastructure needed for collective action outside the control of #dotcons, PR agencies, NGOs, and corporate gatekeepers. Because right now, the stories people hear are shaped by institutions whose survival depends on preserving the existing system. The corporation has a marketing department, the local people usually does not, so the lies travel faster than the truth.

The #openweb matters because communities need their own media infrastructure to organise, communicate, document to resist enclosure in all its modern forms. Without this, even resistance becomes mediated through controlling paths designed to neutralise it. A society built on commodification will commodify nature, society built on extraction will extract from ecological collapse itself, society built on #stupidindividualism will struggle to defend commons and collective life in any meaningful way. This is why we need to become the change and challenge, not through current common sense purity politics, not through #fashionista performative consumerism, and definitely not through corporate-approved and funded activism.

But through rebuilding #OMN commons-based culture and infrastructure from the ground up, by compost not branding – our tools are shovels, not greenwashed investment portfolios. The future depends on whether we keep feeding the #deathcult or start growing alternatives.

#OMN #OpenWeb #ClimateChaos #CarbonCredits #Commons #FoodSovereignty #MutualAid #LandJustice #Enclosure #Deathcult #Dotcons #Mainstreaming #4Opens #NothingNew

SAVE THAMES RIVER HOMES

DRAFT: Let’s look at this as an example of effective and ineffective activism. The mess we make and how we can compost it. Let’s start with an example outreach text that has not been sent out yet.

WHO WE ARE
We are resident boaters living on a stretch of the River Thames near Donnington Bridge. For many years, people have made their homes here peacefully and continuously as part of a long-standing river community.

WHAT’S HAPPENING
New signage already in place states that mooring, anchoring, or remaining stationary requires a licence in addition to the licence already paid to the river authority. Only a limited number of moorings may be available, and additional fees could apply for continuous occupation.

WHO IS AFFECTED
Long-term residents, low-income households, people living with serious illness, and vulnerable members of the river community. For many people, the river is not a lifestyle choice – it is their home.

WHY PEOPLE ARE CONCERNED
At a time of rising housing costs and increasing housing insecurity, these changes could reduce access to long-standing mooring spaces, push vulnerable residents out of the area, leave people without secure housing alternatives, reduce access to affordable river living, and undermine an established and historic river community.

WHAT WE ARE ASKING FOR
Protection for long-term residents, no forced removal of vulnerable people, fair and transparent consultation with all boaters, and respect for existing river communities.

BOATS ARE HOMES!

WE SUPPORT environmental protection, safe navigation, responsible shared river use, and respectful cooperation between all river users.

WE DO NOT SUPPORT loss of homes, exclusion of vulnerable residents, reduction of social diversity on the river, or the enclosure of historic river commons.

The first thing that needs to be said is this path is pretty simple #KISS

Affectiveness is trust = speed and power, every action flows from this, so the obvious immediate actions:

Working Groups – activate, not just name. Fill the gaps (Moorings WG is missing people). Each group needs tasks and a timelines. Media, Environment, Legal, Moorings are the four pillars.

Summer visibility campaign. Litter picks were a start – now make them scheduled, social, and photographed. Visible care builds public sympathy faster than arguments.

Public messaging. Posters and leaflets with LINKED to online messaging. Creative subversion of public space – keep it warm and community-facing, not aggressive.

Media outreach – urgent. Contact sympathetic journalists now, before a hostile narrative sets in. Reach Green Party contacts, housing groups, environmental organisations, river users. Positive stories first, defence second.

Offline organising – sensitive coordination stays face-to-face in trusted spaces, not in public chats. Trust meeting prep for small delegations. Agreed talking points only. Anticipate reframing and deflection. Stay calm, stay on message, make clear asks.

Holding the physical space – Committed, confident people physically and socially present on the land

We are walking the horizontal path when groups strengthen: Working Groups coordinate laterally – not waiting for a centre to direct them. Visible action builds public trust, community care as the face of the campaign. Messaging stays simple and consistent, across all groups and channels. Relationships are built offline, where real trust and real decisions live. Institutions are engaged strategically, not reactively

What we’ve had so far is #BLOCKING and more BLOCKING.

The initial process needed to be simple: a short, wide consensus stage to build enough trust and shared direction for people to move together. This happened, but, that process got bogged down by aggressive fluffy and spiky pushing in different directions. What should have taken a short time stretched into months of churn.

The fluffy path kept smoothing over conflict with endless distractions, “feelings”, and disconnected “positive” non activity. The spiky path pushed outcomes through hard positioning and confrontation without the collective grounding needed to make this effective. Both ended up feeding the same result – paralysis of any action at all.

Then, just as when were finally beginning to move toward the next step – actual coordinated action through working groups – the same blocking pattern repeated itself. The working groups, which were there to move us past endless whole-group debate, got dragged backwards into re-running the original consensus arguments on continues repeat. So instead of moving from consensus, to coordination, to action, we got trapped in a loop:

process,
argument,
process again.

The result has been mess of ossification and prevarication for the last three months. At best, people scattered into redundant, uncoordinated fluffy actions of litter picks, isolated messaging, disconnected outreach, and individual goodwill projects with no shared direction or any cumulative strategy.

At worst, individuals entrenched themselves into blocking positions that lacked any collective backing, making attempts at movement all to easy to isolate, dismiss, and weaponise against the needed broader outcomes, dissipate energy instead of concentrating it.

This is the hard truth about horizontal organising that people often avoid saying out loud: a horizontal movement without functioning working groups is not horizontal, it is just flat. And flat structures spread energy equally in all directions until nothing gains traction.

Working groups are there to solve this problem, they are the mechanism that turns shared trust into coordinated action. But instead of empowering them, thus our selves, we allowed the unresolved tensions of the first stage to spill endlessly into the second.

The deeper issue is that people are still acting from the poisoned culture we are supposedly fighting of individual performance over collective strategy, emotional positioning over grounded coordination, symbolic activity over practical outcomes. This “common sense” mess is leading us to the normal #stupidindividualism of identity and ego in conflict with trust and process.

This is why trust matters so much, trust is not fluffy morality, it is practical movement infrastructure. Trust creates speed, coordination, resilience, and collective power. Without it, every decision reopens old arguments, every action fragments, and every process becomes another site of blockage. While meanwhile, the mainstreaming benefits from all of this, they gain time, they shape public narratives uncontested, they observe our fragmentation, and they plan strategically while we churn internally.

The frustrating thing is that the movements already understands the problems, the issue is less lack of understanding. The blocking is active – the inability to stop reproducing the blocking dynamics long enough to move collectively in any direction.

This is the mess we need to compost. Until we create affinity groups to break this cycle, the next three months of this campaign risk looking exactly like the last three months – more shrinking than inflating big meetings full of hot air and scattering outcomes leading to more frustration, and little accumulated power.

The path is actually simple, though not easy – stop reopening the foundation process, empower the working groups, coordinate action, build trust through doing, and focus collective energy where it creates leverage instead of churn. Otherwise, we remain trapped in performative movement culture at best or compleat mess at worst – while the real decisions continue being made elsewhere.

#KISS

#oxfordboaters #process

Archive.today: https://archive.today/pDViKWayback machine: https://web.archive.org/web/20260617093046/https://hamishcampbell.com/why-whatsapp-plebiscites-and-dotcons-in-general-are-a-crude-and-negative-democratic-instrument/Archival commissioned on June 17, 2026 at 9:29 AM UTC.🗄️ #webarchive

Archive.today: https://archive.today/RG4gWWayback machine: https://web.archive.org/web/20260617092414/https://hamishcampbell.com/when-technology-forgets-the-warning/Archival commissioned on June 17, 2026 at 9:24 AM UTC.🗄️ #webarchive