Composting the Mess to Make Room to Plant

In the swirling chaos of the digital landscape, it’s easy to feel lost. The #Fediverse, should be a beacon of hope for a decentralized, community-driven internet, but as always is facing an onslaught of push back and pressures from every direction. The #dotcons loom large, #NGO agendas quietly co-opt grassroots energy, and the #encryptionists lash out with SPAM money to drown out critique. It’s messy, but mess is where compost comes from, and compost is where new life grows.

Pick up a shovel, start composting, it’s time to stop waiting for permission. Don’t ask, just do it, start composting the wreckage of the current paths. Plant seeds of your own lived life and nurture the social gardens with your care. Build spaces where people connect, share, and create outside the control of the #dotcons corporate platforms and the clumsy grasp of the old traditional top down institutions.

So, where is the positive in this mess? I’d look to the healthy fragments of the #openweb path that still exists. Projects that embody the #4opens offer the seeds of something better. But these projects won’t survive on hope alone. They need care, attention, and participation. Use them or lose them. If we don’t actively engage, they’ll wither, and the digital paths will continue its slide into centralized control and the new #mainstreaming creeping authoritarianism.

The #ecryptionists, clinging to their fantasies of rugged individualism, would have you believe that the solution lies in isolation, in bunkers, in hoards of digital currency, in cutting ties with the social fabric. But survival, whether against digital authoritarianism or the unfolding #climatecatastrophe, will come from cooperation and collective resilience, not isolation. Even in the face of disaster, thriving requires community.

Beyond the ingroup, we can’t rebuild the #openweb if we only talk to ourselves. The term “Fediverse” is a great example of this, it makes sense to those inside the space but means little to those outside it. #Openweb is a better, more intuitive term. It’s positive, clear, and easy to contrast against the negative: the #closedweb of the #dotcons. Mastodon is a #4opens project of the openweb; Facebook is a closedweb project. Simple, direct, and powerful framing that cuts through the noise.

With the hard shift to the right, we’re standing on a knife’s edge. #Climatechange, economic instability, and accelerating automation are pushing us toward a future of disruption. But disruption doesn’t have to mean collapse, it can mean transformation. The work we do now to build and maintain #openweb projects lays the foundation for the communities that weather the coming storms.

The Fediverse, for all its narrow flaws, shows that alternatives are possible. The challenge now is to grow beyond this first step. To dig deeper, plant wider, and build an ecosystem that can sustain itself long term. We need to constantly think outside the ingroup, to bridge divides, and to invite people in. It’s hard work. But so is everything worth doing. And if we get it right, we just might cultivate a future where common humanity, not capital, shapes the digital world.

Grab a shovel. Let’s get to work.

#OMN #4opens #DIY #Openweb #Reboot

Rediscovering the Open Web: Why We Need Joined-Up Thinking with #4opens

The internet wasn’t always like this. Before the rise of #dotcons, we had a flourishing landscape of community-driven sites and platforms, built on openness, collaboration, and trust. Yet today, much of what we do online is controlled by #dotcons, closed, profit-driven systems designed to capture and commodify every interaction. It doesn’t have to be this way — but to break free, we need to think and act differently.

The #4opens offer a practical path back to the #openweb. They guide us towards building space that is open in source, data, process, and standards. This isn’t just tech jargon; it’s about creating online spaces that work for people rather than exploiting them.

The trap of piecemeal solutions, too often, attempts to rebuild the #openweb get stuck in the #fashernista trap: chasing trendy but fragmented fixes that fail to address the root problems. A federated app here, a new protocol there, while each piece might be valuable, without joined-up thinking, they scatter energy and slow momentum. We need to step back, see the bigger picture, and work together to build a truly interconnected path.

We don’t need permission to start. The tools, ideas, and history are already here. Current platforms like Mastodon and initiatives like the #OMN (Open Media Network) show what’s possible. But it takes more than just using the tools, it takes sharing the vision. If you’re reading this, consider it a nudge: start conversations, share resources, and bring people onto the path. Dig into the posts at hamishcampbell.com for more background, and share the posts widely. Every shared link, every discussion, and every new node in the network helps.

Basic activism in the digital age is about reclaiming the internet to refuse to accept the current mess as inevitable and to actively choose better paths. By advocating for the #4opens, supporting decentralized platforms, and consciously stepping away from the #dotcons, we become a small part of the solution. The future web can be cooperative, empowering, and deeply human, but only if we build it that way. So grab a metaphorical shovel, help compost the tech junk, and start planting the seeds of something better.

The #openweb is waiting.

Trump and Zelensky

Over the last week you can see it in real time, Trump meeting world leaders, the handshakes, the staged press moments, the ass sniffing, barely concealed jockeying for position. But beneath the surface, we need to see that something bigger is cracking apart. The last 40 years of #neoliberalism, cold, calculating #realpolitik path is collapsing. The alliances of the #nastyfew we took as fixed is shifting, not because of thoughtful, progressive change but because of the hard shove of a global rightward lurch.

The world shaped by the #deathcult of neoliberalism is disintegrating, but don’t mistake this for liberation. The old deathcult is simply being replaced by a new mask, this is history repeating, not a new start. What was once masked in the language of freedom, democracy, and human rights is shedding its disguise, revealing a rawer, more brutal face to the same pessimistic human paths.

One of the most dangerous elements of this shift is the ideological bait-and-switch. The old liberal order for the last 40 years had co-opted the language of the right, with neo-imperialism of the new world order. Now, the emerging #fascist path is playing the same game in reverse, adopting the language of the left to push far-right outcomes. Talking about peace, authoritarians wrapping themselves in ‘anti-colonial’ rhetoric, hard-right demagogues claiming to fight for the ‘working class’ while gutting social safety nets, and far-right online communities using ‘free speech’ and “safety” to silence dissent. This ideological camouflage is not a glitch; it’s a feature. It confuses opposition, fractures movements, and traps the #mainstreaming in endless powerless cycles of reaction and outrage. It’s a survival mechanism for the #deathcult, a shapeshifting strategy, to ensure it evolves unchallenged.

For those of us working on projects like the Open Media Network (#OMN) that push for a genuine #openweb, this is the landscape we need to navigate. The answer isn’t to retreat or try to ‘purify’ movements from infiltration, that feeds the cycle. Instead, we need to cultivate resilience and clarity. Recognize the patterns, understand the language games, and keep building decentralized, trust-based networks that can weather the storm, both in the media and practically with onrushing #climatechaos.

The shift in both cases is happening whether we like it or not. The question is, do we use the compost of the old world order to feed the roots of something new, or do we let the poison linger in the soil? It’s time to get out the shovels.

The Beautiful Insanity of Activism: How Movements Rot or Blossom

Let’s face it – activism and counter-culture are packed with “insane” people. And thank the gods for that. It’s what makes movements exciting, dynamic, and, most importantly, effective. But like compost, too much of the wrong stuff makes the pile stink. Balance is everything. So, let’s look at this: what causes a movement to stagnate, fail, or bloom into a riotous field of wildflowers?

The Rot (or: Why Your Movement Smells Bad)

NGO’ists: These bureaucratic barnacles latch onto everything, molding it into whatever’s fundable and fashionably bland. They hoard resources, fill minds with paperwork, and slowly suffocate radical energy. They’re like termites with business cards.
Encryptionists: Paranoid fuckists who turn usability into a sin and sell fantasies of invulnerability. They preach security like a cult, but the reality is half-baked systems no one can use and a movement too scared to talk to itself.
Traditional Media Panderers: Useful in small doses, but quickly start reshaping the movement to fit mainstream narratives. Before you know it, your radical campaign against fossil fuels is being sold as a quirky “green lifestyle choice.”
Horizontal Dotcom’ists: Desperate to ride the movement into start-up glory. If they build with the #4opens, great. If not, they’re a distraction at best and a flaming wreck at worst when people actually try to use their half-built platforms.
Insecure and Nasty Lifestylists: Attracted to successful grassroots projects like flies to rot. They thrive on internal drama and are fed by the media panderers. Enough of them and your movement eats itself alive.
Hidden Careerists: Often competent and useful – until they start networking with the NGO’ists and media grifters to build personal brands instead of movements.
Paranoid Fuckwits: The paranoid glue of grassroots campaigns. In small doses, they help keep things tight. But let them accumulate in leadership, and the infighting becomes an art form.
Dogmatic Liberals: Lovely people, but the human equivalent of wet blankets. They block anything genuinely disruptive because it makes them uncomfortable, ensuring nothing truly radical gets off the ground.

The Bloom (or: Why the Garden Still Grows)

Hands-off NGO’s: The quiet good ones. They funnel resources without sucking the life out of movements. A rare species, but precious.
User-Focused KISS Peer2Peer’ists: The heroes fighting uphill to (re)boot the #openweb with simple, human-centered tools. They understand that people need tech they can actually use, not just theorize about.
Traditional Media Outreaches: The rare media people who amplify grassroots work without distorting it to fit mainstream appetites. They build bridges, not cages.
Horizontal Dotcoms (Done Right): Working on open, federated sustainability instead of chasing VC cash. They build tools for the movement, not to sell the movement.
Healthy Lifestylists: Learning to balance intense campaigning with actual human joy. Letting go of burnout culture and building connected, grounded lives.
Open Careerists: Using the movement to bootstrap themselves – but carrying open values like a Trojan horse into the belly of institutions. Someone has to infiltrate the beast.
Secure Organising Crews: Understanding that collective security is a shared responsibility. Keeping things calm, focused, and handling offline realities without spiraling into paranoia.
Liberal Liberals: The ones who bring just enough common sense to stop things from exploding, but not so much that they kill the spark.

The Chaotic Harmony

Activism is inherently messy, and that’s its strength. The magic happens in the balancing act. A movement with too many paranoid fuckwits or NGO’ists collapses under its own weight. But a movement with a little bit of everything – the wild-eyed dreamers, the practical builders, the media-savvy storytellers, and the steady hands keeping it all together – can actually change the world.

Because, at the end of the day, movements grow like compost. You need some rot. You need some shit. But you also need people willing to shovel through it, plant seeds, and tend the garden. And maybe, just maybe, you need to be a little bit mad to stick around long enough to see it bloom.

Open Media Network (#OMN) is a Tool for Change and Challenge, Composting the Mess

In activism and grassroots media, you inevitably face an ongoing, unpleasant truth: when pushing against #mainstreaming and the inertia of the #deathcult, bad faith comes at you like a storm. Your best, and often only, defence is to hold onto your good faith. But good faith alone isn’t enough, we need shared tools to compost the rot, turn the muck of broken movements and failed tech utopias into fertile soil where new paths can grow.

That’s where the Open Media Network comes in. The #OMN isn’t just another pointless tech project, it’s a living, breathing attempt to bridge the gap between technology and society, providing a trust-path, decentralized platform built with the #4opens. It doesn’t try to solve problems from above but empowers people to build, moderate, and nurture their own grassroots networks, to shape and reshape flows of information. It’s about composting the old, failed models, not replicating them.

The divide we need to bridge is pragmatism vs. social understanding. Too often, conversations around tech and social change get stuck in a loop. On one side, pragmatists push for immediate, concrete solutions, get the app working, ship the code, solve the surface problem. On the other, social thinkers argue that tech is inherently social, that ignoring the human context just perpetuates the mess.

Take #ActivityPub, a powerful protocol, but without a grounding in human trust networks, it risks recreating the problems of centralized social media. Or the rise of decentralized platforms flooded with reactionary and far-right content, a direct result of ignoring the need for human, community-driven democratic moderation and governance paths.

The #OMN is outside this loop. It acknowledges the pragmatism of building functional tools while insisting that those tools be shaped by, and in service of, grassroots communities. The five core functions shape simple tools, complex outcomes. The OMN is built on five core functions, deliberately minimal to avoid tech bloat and keep the focus on human networks:

Publish: Share objects (text, images, links) into a stream.

Subscribe: Follow streams from people, groups, hashtags, etc.

Moderate: Push/pull content, express preferences, and comment.

Rollback: Remove untrusted historical content from your flow.

Edit: Adjust data and metadata on content you have access to.

These simple actions, combined with human moderation, allow complex ecosystems to grow organically. You can shape your information flow, curate trustworthy content, and build collective knowledge, all while being able to remove what doesn’t serve the communities.

The crew needed is good faith in action, a crew committed to holding good faith, even in the face of bad faith pushback. People willing to pick up shovels, get dirty, and start composting. This isn’t about idealism; it’s about grounded action, learning from past projects like #indymedia and #Fediverse experiments, using what worked, and discarding what didn’t.

What is need:

Builders: Coders who understand that tech is just a tool, not a solution.

Moderators: People who know the value of careful curation and trust networks.

Storytellers: Those who can document, explain, and inspire others to walk the paths.

Bridge-builders: Activists who can connect different communities and facilitate cooperation.

This work isn’t glamorous. It won’t get you VC funding or a keynote at a tech conference. But it will lay the groundwork for something real, a decentralized, people-powered network where communities control their own narratives and relationships.

The future is a wild garden, not a walled garden. This path is a chance to build the #DIY, grassroots semantic web we’ve been dreaming of. Not another monoculture tech project, but a resilient forest of interconnected communities, each shaping its space while being part of a larger whole. It’s not about “scaling” in the #mainstreaming capitalist sense, but about growing deep roots and wild branches.

By supporting this we invest in people who reclaim digital experiences, where information is nurtured and composted into new possibilities, and where bad faith can be met not just with good faith, but with networks strong enough to withstand and outgrow the rot.

Join the paths. Let’s build this together. It’s time to start shovelling.

We can support this Open Collective or get involved in the coding https://unite.openworlds.info

#OMN #4opens #indymediaback #openweb #ActivityPub #TechCompost #GrassrootsMedia #TrustNetworks

It’s like watching the same old weeds sprout up in the cracks, clinging to the illusion of control. But yeah, every bit of rot turns to soil eventually — as long as we keep digging, the roots of something real can break through. Time to turn the pile!

Composting mess making, activism and #openweb

Most people I interact with are buried deep in the rot they’ve helped create, the path out is hard, but not impossible. The composting metaphor holds — rot can become soil, but only if it’s turned, exposed to air, and given time to break down. The stench lingers, though, and the deeper the decay, the harder it is to face.

Forgiveness can be a catalyst, but only if it’s rooted in understanding, not avoidance. Too often, movements try to “move on” without actually dealing with the decay, which just locks the dysfunction into place. Real forgiveness isn’t about forgetting or excusing — it’s about acknowledging the harm, holding people accountable to growth, and making space for them to rebuild trust through action.

With the #OMN the key is to create intentional processes for airing out the rot. Spaces where people can lay out what went wrong, where the worst of the mess can be named and examined without immediately collapsing into blame. This is a form of collective composting — deliberately breaking things down so they don’t keep contaminating the roots of future growth.

For paths that avoid recreating the mess, we might need, truth-telling circles: Spaces for people to name harms, acknowledge mistakes, and speak honestly about the dynamics that led to failure. Restorative action, not just words: Forgiveness should be paired with tangible action — people need ways to rebuild trust through collective work. Memory gardens: Digital or physical archives that document past failures and successes, so the same mistakes don’t get repeated.
Rhythmic cycles of reflection: Movements need to regularly pause, look back, and compost what’s no longer serving the collective purpose.

Sun, light, and fertile soil come from this messy work of turning over the past and allowing time and care to transform it. The #openweb is a part of this, especially if we build systems and paths that prioritize collective memory and iterative growth over constant reinvention and erasure.

What do you think? Could structured cycles of composting and reflection help our movements breathe again? Or is the rot too deep, and we need to burn things down to clear space for new life?

The #Fluffy #Spiky Debate.

Too often, I find myself in conversations that revolve around the intersection of technology and social issues, with one view emphasizing the importance of practical solutions to real-world problems, while the other highlights the underlying social dynamics that shape the technological landscapes these “solutions” are supposed to be addressing.

The Pragmatists, prioritizes immediate, tangible solutions. For example, when discussing the digital divide, they might advocate for creating cheaper, more accessible devices or building community Wi-Fi networks. They’ll focus on the logistics: what technology stack is best, what protocols to use, and how quickly the network can be deployed.

They see critiques of the capitalist underpinnings of tech as a distraction. For instance, they might argue that worrying about Big Tech’s dominance is less important than simply getting people online, even if it means relying on Google or Facebook infrastructure in the short term. The goal is to solve the immediate problem, even if the long-term implications reinforce existing systems of control.

The Social Critics, contends that technology cannot be meaningfully separated from the social systems it emerges from. They argue that simply handing out cheap devices or relying on corporate infrastructure entrenches dependency and undermines community sovereignty. For example, they might point to the rise of open-source projects that eventually get swallowed by venture capital, losing their grassroots values in the process (#dotcons).

They argue that unless we address the systemic issues, like how profit-driven models shape the design of platforms, any immediate “solution” is likely to reinforce the problem. Take social media moderation: a pragmatist might suggest better algorithms, while a social critic would argue that the underlying problem is the ad-driven engagement path itself.

The #GeekProblem is a barrier, the divide between these groups often solidifies into this mess making. Pragmatists, especially in tech spaces, dismiss social critique as impractical or irrelevant, reinforcing an insular culture that privileges technical expertise over lived experience. This dismissal is a form of #blocking, preventing collective growth and deeper problem-solving.

Breaking the cycle, to move past this, we need to blend the perspectives. For example, community mesh networks can be built with both pragmatic goals (connecting people) and social considerations (using #4opens practices to maintain local control). The technology itself can be a tool for social empowerment, but only if the builders acknowledge and address the social dimensions.

Projects like the Open Media Network (#OMN) bridge this gap, grounding tech development in community needs while keeping processes transparent and participatory. This balance helps compost the mess, turning the tension between pragmatism and social critique into fertile ground for true change. We don’t have to choose between immediate action and long-term systemic change, the key is holding both. Let’s stop getting stuck in the mess and start growing something real.

https://opencollective.com/open-media-network

“Compost tending” the fabric of #openweb

In the current #openweb reboot, let’s look at what makes sense, and let’s look at this from the prospective of collective dynamics, not individual blame. The focus is on mapping the social landscape, understanding the patterns of dysfunction, and then figuring out how to break through those blockages. The idea of switching between #spiky and #fluffy approaches as needed is powerful, rejecting rigid ideology in favour of practical, responsive action.

Making the #blocking visible is essential. So much of the stagnation in #openweb and activist spaces comes from hidden blockages, unspoken fears, entrenched power dynamics, and the quiet creep of #mainstreaming logic. By pushing these things into the light, we can compost them, rather than letting them fester underground.

Using history as a guide, leaning on what’s worked before, but staying flexible enough to shift tactics, should feel like the only sustainable way forward. If we only do #fluffy, we get captured by the #NGO mindset. If we only do #spiky, we burn out or implode. But if we consciously weave both together, we might actually build the resilience we need to grow new paths through the wreckage.

It’s almost like we need a cultural practice of “tending the compost”, regularly sifting through the mess, pulling out useful bits, and turning it over so new life can emerge. And maybe that practice itself could be a form of governance for grassroots networks, an ongoing, collective process of sense-making and recalibration.

What do you think? Can this idea of “compost tending” as a cyclical, community-driven process be something we intentionally build into the fabric of #openweb projects?

#4opens #OMN #OGB #makeinghistory #indymediaback

Is it possible to compost the mess and nurture the people tangled within it?

The new #mainstreaming right-wing crew has become adept at hijacking the language of liberation and twisting it for control. They steal words like “freedom,” “community,” and “resilience,” stripping them of their radical roots and turning them into tools for reactionary agendas. Meanwhile, the left, caught in cycles of internal purity politics and endless critique, fractures itself, leaving a vacuum the right eagerly fills.

It is a mess, but messes can be composted. The dig to strip away the parasitic layers, the influencers, the NGOs, the careerists who feed off this while subverting collective growth. These actors “thrive” on propping up a fragile sense of self, this messy path feeds division and spectacle, not solidarity. And as the mental health crisis worsens under #climatechaos and late-stage capitalism, people grasp for identity and belonging in the most toxic places.

We need radical care as well as radical action. The parasite class is fuelled by a deep void, a lack of purpose, a craving for significance. If we don’t build healthier collectives, people will keep falling into the black holes of conspiracy and #mainstreaming cultish thinking. The #openweb can be a sanctuary, a place to grow shared meaning, but only when we consciously design it to prioritize human connection over endless noise.

I wonder: how do we create spaces where broken people can heal, rather than becoming weapons of the right? Can we build digital commons that feel like home, where people can work through their pain without being consumed by it, collective care and unwinding the knots of individual trauma is a #fluffy part of activism. What do you think? Is it possible to compost the mess and nurture the people tangled within it? Or do we need a more fire-and-brimstone approach to burn away the rot, I start to only half joke.

The invisible core of the struggle. The way online spaces, especially in decentralized networks like the #Fediverse, handle conflict is tangled up in this tension between safety and open debate. The #fluffy vs. #spiky debate, between care-driven, consensus-seeking approaches and more confrontational, radical tactics, has always been part of activist culture. Trying to erase that debate in the name of safety is simply sterilizing the very dynamism that fuels real change.

If we strip out the “debate” part, we’re left with a hollow shell, a fragile, performative “safe space” that can’t actually withstand the pressures of the real world. But if we lean too far into spiky confrontation without care, we lose people who could grow into stronger comrades. It’s a balancing act, and yes, the co-option of “safety” by both NGO logic and reactionary forces has made this even more toxic.

The “parasite class” being taken out of context is a perfect example of this mess, people react to language without digging into the underlying ideas. The real question is whether we can metabolize within the chaos, compost the mess and care for the people lost in it, instead of just cutting them off. The #openweb needs friction to evolve, but it also needs trust to survive. There is a strong need to resist the impulse to sanitize the #openweb into submission. The #ActivityPub space, growing from the #fluffy side, has an embedded bias toward conflict avoidance, but that can be dangerous, because it leaves the system vulnerable to slow, creeping co-option. Safety shouldn’t mean silencing necessary struggles.

The consensus should be this: safety is built through collective care, not the absence of conflict. The #openweb should be a space where people can disagree loudly without fear of exile, where the friction of ideas sharpens the collective purpose, and where care is an active, ongoing process, not a bureaucratic rule set.

Why are our #fashernistas so poisonous?

#Fashionistas chase status and spectacle over substance, co-opting real radical movements for aesthetics. They turn collective struggles into performative gestures, feeding the #mainstreaming cycle. This poisons the roots of change, turning compost into toxic waste, energy that could grow new things instead feeds the system they claim to resist.

Why is the #geekproblem such a strong #blocking force? This is rooted in control, a deterministic mindset that values code over culture. It manifests as gatekeeping, with geeks wielding tech knowledge as a shield rather than a tool for collective liberation. This keeps blocking change because it alienates people who don’t fit the mould, and it stalls needed projects in endless technical debates instead of action.

How can #mainstreaming be pushed into something positive? Mainstreaming doesn’t have to be a death sentence if it’s grows from radical roots. The problem is the loss of direction when movements get diluted to fit nasty #mainstream tastes. A useful path is that mainstream visibility can amplify voices, but this needs active balancing by autonomous, decentralized structures. Maybe think of it like a Trojan horse, to smuggle radical ideas into the #mainstream under the cover of familiarity.

How do we thread this through the needle of #stupidindividualism which constantly fractures collective power, reducing everything to personal choice and consumption. This is a cultural byproduct of the #deathcult, a refusal to see beyond the self, which traps people in cycles of isolation and powerlessness. There is a path out of this mess through rekindling collectivism trust. People fall into individualism because they don’t trust collective paths. Start small, with local networks and federated communities. Show that collective paths are possible, and that it feels better than isolation. Remind people they are part of something bigger, not as a sacrifice of self, but as an expansion of it.

What path can we take on the #openweb? We need a path that embraces the compost. Let’s not seek purity or perfection, but instead nurture the rotting, chaotic soil of what we already have. The #OMN and #4opens lay the groundwork with radical transparency, federated trust networks. Build with messy activism, celebrate imperfection. Radical inclusion, breaks down tech barriers by actively bring people in. Trust over control, decentralize, federate, and resist the temptation to police.

The #openweb can be the seedbed of a new culture, if we accept that growth is messy, slow, and unpredictable. The path isn’t linear, it’s a tangle of roots, branching and intertwining. But that’s the beauty of it. What do you think? Do we need more practical tools, or is it more about mindset shifts? How do we balance this?

We made this mess, it’s pastime to clean it up

For the last 20 years, our own crew have played a big part in shaping the digital world we see today. The outcome is what began as a space of radical possibility has been enclosed, exploited, and transformed into a corporate-controlled dystopia of #dotcons. We now lived inside this algorithmic trap, and in many ways, we still do, fighting, trolling, and feeding the very system that keeps us addicted.

Most of us are still trapped inside the algorithm, these platforms we use don’t exist to foster community or critical thought; they thrive on division. They keep us locked into emotional reaction loops, rewarding outrage, amplifying conflict, and turning us into performance artists in an endless identity war.

Take as an example #Failbook and the rise of victim culture. This isn’t an accident, it’s by design. The algorithm doesn’t care about truth or justice; it cares about engagement, and what gets the most clicks? Anger, Fear, Outrage. The result is a world where people react instead of act, trapped in cycles of performative identity rather than building any of the needed real alternatives.

What we don’t need is more “ethical” #dotcons. Repackaging the same centralized control under a new brand of “ethical” capitalism, is not the solution. We don’t need another walled garden with a friendlier #PR campaign. We need an independent, federated media ecosystem, one that #KISS values community, autonomy, and the public good over profit.

This is why the #OMN (Open Media Network) path exists. It’s not just another platform designed to extract data and profit, it’s a network of trust-based spaces, where people interact as humans, not as data points. The #Fediverse and #ActivityPub offer the foundation for this, but we need to push much harder. Right now, these alternatives still carry too much of the #mainstreaming liberal baggage that makes them fragile to inrushing capitalist capture.

We need to build spaces that resist corporate logic from the roots, not just replicate centralized control under new branding. To avoid repeating todays mess making, we need to remember how the capitalists capture of the #openweb in the first place. To understand how we got here, we have to look at capitalism through the lens of the #dotcons. The enclosure of the #openweb was not inevitable, it was a deliberate shift from public good to private profit.

Capitalism broke the web, with commercialization & enclosure, the originally was built as an open, decentralized space for information sharing. Capitalism transformed it into a marketplace, where value is extracted rather than created. Now we have the #mainstreaming exploitation of users, platforms like Facebook, Google, and Amazon don’t sell products, they sell you. Your data, your attention, your behaviour, all harvested, manipulated, and monetized.

This leads directly to the current monopolization & centralization, the most ruthless companies buy out competitors, stifle innovation, and consolidate power. What started as an open system is now controlled by a handful of corporations. Surveillance capitalism, the term, popularized by Shoshana Zuboff, describes the commodification of personal data for profit. What was once a tool for communication is now a weapon of manipulation.

With this move, we have erased the public sphere. Corporate algorithms don’t care about truth, knowledge, or democracy. They prioritize profit-driven content, promoting misinformation, sensationalism, and division while destroying any sense of a shared public space. This leaves us in a world of short-term gains for the nasty few over long-term vision for the meany, this stagnates progress and accelerates environmental and social collapse we now face.

We made this mess, now let’s fix it, the logic of the #dotcons is the problem. We can’t keep being prats about this. We’ve spent 20 years making this mess, now it’s past time to clean it up. Decentralization alone isn’t enough. We need alternative media spaces that reject control from the start. That’s what the #OMN is about. If we’re serious about breaking free, we need to use the #4opens as a shovel to compost the #techshit we’ve currently drowning in.

Time to stop only talking, let’s build. We don’t need another debate. We don’t need another corporate-controlled “alternative.” What we do need is to step outside the algorithm and start building trust-based networks that work for people, not profit. We do need to reclaim the #openweb before it’s too late. So, what are we waiting for? Let’s get to work.

#4opens #nothingnew #deathcult #geekproblem #OMN #openweb

Stepping away: #OMN through clear, grounded communication

In the world shaped by corporate control, liberal co-option, and empty activism, the language we use is a battleground. The unthinking push for #mainstreaming has dulled radical energy, replacing effectiveness with sanitized, #NGO-friendly language that avoids real social change and challenge. To be serious about building an alternative, we need to rethink how we communicate—not just what we say, but how we say it.

An example that I have been developing for the last ten years is the #OMN (Open Media Network) hashtag story—a practical first project rooted in direct action, radical media, and bottom-up organizing. It’s a #KISS path away from corporate-controlled narratives and into messy, human, and effective grassroots activist communication. A useful path if people take it.

The problem is that people take the easy path, with #mainstreaming language, NGO-driven activism and #traditionalmedia which has the easy to see flaw, it seeks acceptance rather than transformation. This easy path blunts most radical movements, it dilutes the message, #mainstreaming turns radical ideas into soft, palatable soundbites. Instead of speaking clearly about power, control, and oppression, it replaces them with vague, feel-good language designed for funding applications and powerless media appearances.

Example: Instead of saying, “Capitalism is a #deathcult destroying the planet,” we get, “We need sustainable economic growth and green investments.”.

The result? The useful core critique is lost. The uncomfortable causes of oppression are left untouched. It shifts focus to liberal activism that places way too much trust in institutions—governments, tech corporations, and NGOs—assuming that change can happen from within. Instead of building our own autonomous paths and networks, we waste time begging for reforms from the #mainstreaming that never come.

Example: Instead of rebuilding grassroots media, activists push for more regulations on social media companies—keeping power centralized rather than challenging the #dotcons path itself.

The result? Big tech controls everything, and alternative voices are algorithmically pushed to the margins. Yes, this avoids direct conflict and struggle, real social change is messy, requires taking risks, building new paths, and confronting power. #Mainstreaming, on the other hand, prefers safe conversations and endless dialogue over real action.

Example: Instead of fighting for community-controlled spaces, NGOs organize panels and workshops on “inclusion”—without actually shifting power.

The result? It is that we #blindly talk while the same power structures remain intact.

The #OMN path for communication is about real change. For this to become real, we need to escape the #NGO liberal mess, to reclaim radical communication. A step to this is speaking in clear, direct language:

Say this: “The internet is controlled by #dotcons—giant corporations profiting from our data and attention. We need to take back control.” or “The #deathcult of neoliberalism is driving us to #climatedisaster.” and “#NothingNew: Stop wasting time chasing tech hype—fix what already works.”

Language should be sharp, memorable, and rooted in activist everyday experience.

But this is not only about talking, building alternative structures, not just critiquing the system is needed. Talking is not enough. We need to build. The #OMN project is about creating a working alternative to corporate-controlled media through grassroots, federated networks.

Instead of: Complaining about Facebook’s censorship, build: A network of ActivityPub-powered, self-hosted media hubs that can’t be shut down.

Instead of: Asking Twitter to fact-check misinformation, build: A trust-based network of independent journalists and aggregators.

The Fediverse and #OMN are already moving in this direction. We #KISS need to push harder.

Recognizing that change comes from conflict and challenge, social movements succeed when they agitate. That means, calling out, and pushing out, power structures instead of begging them to change. Defending radical voices instead of silencing them to fit liberal narratives. Using technology as a tool for liberation, not just self reflecting convenience.

The biggest lie of #mainstreaming is that change happens by playing nice. History tells a different story: The labour movement won rights through strikes and resistance. The civil rights movement succeeded because of direct action, not just speeches. Open-source software survived because of forks, fights, and refusal to comply. If we want a free and open internet, we need to fight for it.

If you want to join this fight the #OMN is a practical vision of a radical media network for the future, decentralization, breaking free from corporate control, autonomy by creating trust-based networks instead of top-down paths and action over talk, by building real alternatives, not just complaining about problems.

This is a path to escape the bland, corporate-friendly language of the liberal web, we need to make it “common sense” that we need to reclaim radical, direct, and effective communication.

You can get involved by joining the Fediverse (#Mastodon, #PeerTube, #Pixelfed etc). If you have resources or skill, then support and develop the #OMN. Then help build #OMN-powered media hubs. Spread the #4opens principles. Push back against the #NGO takeover of this #openweb reboot.

It’s past time to take back control of our narratives, our media, and our future.

Comparing Decentralized #openweb Protocols

The #socialweb is shifting away from corporate-controlled paths like #Twitter and #Facebook toward decentralized, more #DIY alternatives. The idea is simple: instead of a single company having control, decentralized protocols allow different platforms to connect while giving people the power to shape and control their digital paths.

Three major decentralized protocols have emerged:

Fediverse (#ActivityPub) – The most established and widely used, forming a “native” backbone of the #openweb.
Bluesky (#AtProto) – A Twitter-funded project that claims decentralization but is still highly centralized.
Nostr – A relay-based, censorship-resistant protocol with interesting tech but major cultural and usability challenges.

While all three claim to support decentralization, only ActivityPub (the #Fediverse) actually delivers on this promise. An overview:

The Fediverse (ActivityPub) – The Decentralized #openweb

Background & history, the Fediverse is powered by ActivityPub, a W3C-recommended standard, since 2018. Unlike Bluesky and #Nostr, which are still evolving, ActivityPub is already a mature, widely adopted protocol. It was designed from the ground up, through a 20-year unbroken history to enable interoperability between platforms, meaning people on different apps can communicate seamlessly.

This #ActivityPub network exploded in popularity after Twitter’s collapse under Elon Musk, with Mastodon seeing millions of new users in 2022. Popular apps & servers, it not just one platform—it’s a whole ecosystem of independent apps that mostly copy #dotcons:

Mastodon – The most well-known microblogging platform, often compared to Twitter.
PeerTube – A decentralized YouTube alternative.
Pixelfed – A decentralized Instagram-style photo-sharing app.
Pleroma / Misskey – Alternative microblogging platforms.

How ActivityPub Works, Federation: Different servers (instances) talk to each other, creating a #4opens network of networks. How this works, you create an account on one instance, but interact with people across the entire Fediverse. Each server is independently operated, meaning no single company owns the network. There is an issue of instance Lock-In: If a server shuts down, yes, people must migrate manually—but this is a small tradeoff compared to the massive corporate control seen in more #mainstreaming paths.

Bottom Line: ActivityPub is the most decentralized and established protocol, already powering a thriving ecosystem of apps with real communities.

#Bluesky (AtProto) – Fake Decentralization, A shadow #Dotcons

Background & history, Bluesky started as a Twitter-funded project in 2019, originally backed by Jack Dorsey. It claims to be building a decentralized social network, but in reality, it’s architecture favers centralization, due to it being built to prioritise scaling. The #AtProto, allows for theoretical federation, but in practice, Bluesky is still just a Twitter clone controlled by a single company.

Popular Apps & Servers

Bluesky – The only major client, self-hosting is possible, but current federated servers are limited to 100 users, and Bluesky can refuse to federate with them.

How AtProto works: #DID-based identities – Users can theoretically move between services, but only if Bluesky allows it. Centralized moderation – The vast majority of users rely on bsky.social, meaning Bluesky still has the power to block or censor at will. Limited self-hosting, Bluesky restricts who can run a server and limits federated instances.

Bottom Line: Bluesky is currently a trap, a con, It looks decentralized but is a #dotcons, the normal corporate-controlled path.

Nostr – Interesting Tech, but bad culture

Background & history, #Nostr (Notes and Other Stuff Transmitted by Relays) was created by an individual in 2020 as a censorship-resistant social protocol. Where ActivityPub and AtProto, use server-based networks to build community and distribute moderation, Nostr uses a relay-based model where users broadcast messages across multiple relays. It gained popularity in #Bitcoin circles and received funding from Jack Dorsey (again).

Popular Apps & Clients

Primal, Nos, Snort – Web-based clients.
Damus – iOS client.
Amethyst – Android client.

How #Nostr works, It is Relay-based, with no comminute based instances – No centralized servers, messages are published to multiple relays. Cryptographic Identity – people have opaque public/private keys instead of usernames. No true federation – people rely on relays to store and transmit data, but relays don’t communicate with each other like ActivityPub servers do. Difficult for adoption – The reliance on cryptographic keys makes it confusing, and there’s no built-in moderation system, so comminutes remain fragmented, its tech for the native #stupidindividualists paths, in this diversity is good and as it bridges it might become a useful project.

Bottom Line: Nostr is decentralized and censorship-resistant, but it’s not user-friendly or practical, its culture is a bad mix of #techbro and #geekproblem #encryptionist #shitcoiners

Which Decentralized Protocol is the Best?

ActivityPub (Fediverse) is a clear winner, it’s proven, widely adopted, and already functional with true federation across multiple apps, decentralized and people-controlled. Where #Bluesky (#AtProto) is a hidden #Dotcons which claims to be decentralized but is still controlled by Bluesky, Inc. Federation is limited, and self-hosting is discouraged thus is a Trojan horse for another corporate-controlled network. Nostr is interesting but niche, completely decentralized, but difficult to use. No federation between relays and not practical for mass adoption.

Final verdict: If you care about real decentralization, community, and people, ActivityPub (Fediverse) is the clear choice.

What is needed next is to take the step in the Fediverse is moving beyond simply copying the #dotcons. It is time to reboot the #Openweb with a project like the #OMN. The Open Media Network is about taking control of our digital paths and building a future beyond the #dotcons. If we want a truly decentralized internet, one core message is that we need to support ActivityPub-based paths instead of getting fooled by corporate-backed “alternatives” like #Bluesky.

Join the Fediverse today: https://fediverse.observer/ It’s time to reclaim the #openweb to build digital spaces that work for people, and the social change challenge we so urgently need.

One thing is clear, you can and need to walk away from the corporate #dotcons.

Are the currently spaces trust is built at scale, or do we need to create them from scratch?

The tension between control vs. trust in tech and society is a core to defining the success or failure of grassroots, open projects like #OMN and the #fediverse. The problem isn’t just technical, but deeply social: a struggle between hierarchical control (power over) and distributed, democratic trust (power within).

But we have the ongoing #geekproblem which keeps repeating, open projects fail because devs build control-based systems rather than trust-based ones. This results in endless cycles of #techchurn, producing #techshit instead of durable, humane tools. Metaphors matter, I like to try #datasoup or #witchescauldron (with the #goldenladle as the app interface) as a powerful way to frame how we should be thinking about tech, fluid, organic, adaptable rather than rigid, controlled, and top-down.

The #4opens approach is a solution to a thriving semantic web of transparency, grassroots processes, and tools that reflect the diversity of people using them—not centralizing power in closed systems. Balance is crucial, the #openweb decays when #mainstreaming pushes over the commons, just as the #dotcons did with the early web. If we don’t actively mediate power, we lose everything to enclosure. Spreading power widely through open democratic governance, combined with a real culture of diversity and autonomy, is the best balance we’ve found so far. The problem we face is that this in our current thinking, this is anti “common sense”.

The #Fediverse is a useful case study, its strength is accidental, not only in standards, code, or power politics, but in good UX and #4opens processes. The biggest danger is internal infighting and distractions, often fuelled by ego, control struggles, and lack of process. The chaos of #mainstreaming serves a purpose, but it’s not a good one. It fractures movements, undermines trust, and ultimately hands power back to the gatekeepers.

What’s next, how do we actively resist these cycles rather than just watching them play out again? The #OMN path makes sense, but what’s the next tangible step to anchor it in practice? Are there any spaces left where trust can be built at scale, or do we need to create them from scratch?