For the last ten years, activism has been trapped in a paradox: we speak of grassroots change, yet we reach for #dotcons and #geekproblem tools built for control. The digital infrastructure we rely on is dominated by top-down, vertical structures, reinforcing the very power dynamics we claim to be resisting. Meanwhile, the #4opens horizontal tools, the ones that foster collaboration, openness, and true grassroots organizing, sit unused at the bottom of the toolbox.
This isn’t just a tech issue; it reflects how activism itself is structured. Most organizing still happens through #closed, opaque affinity groups, mirroring the exclusivity and hierarchy of the systems we seek to dismantle. The language of activism, whether framed in utopian peace and love or rigid revolutionary rhetoric, too often masks this blunt reality. In truth, much of what passes for activism today reproduces the same centralized power structures, just with different slogans.
Yet, we live in one of the most open and radical times for building real alternatives. The tools for horizontalism exist. The challenge isn’t a lack of technology or platforms, it’s a failure to break free from ingrained habits of control and gatekeeping. The real work isn’t just about using better tools; it’s about shifting how we organize. Transparency, openness, and collective governance must move from the margins to the centre of activism. With the #OMN the seeds of the tool set are there, what’s missing is the will to develop and use it.
Militarism is on the rise globally. Arms sales are at all-time highs, and public confidence in the military has surged. Rather than waning in the post-Cold War era, military glorification has intensified, with political and cultural leaders idealizing soldiers, not for their professionalism, but for their heroism and sacrifice.
At a recent event hosted by the #Oxford University International Relations Society, Professor Ron Krebs explored the proliferation of militarism, its cultural underpinnings, and its consequences for democracy, security, and governance. He painted a picture of a world where the military is increasingly romanticized, and political leaders use this veneration to their advantage.
Militarism is a cultural force, where militarism is often framed as a policy issue, whether states use excessive force or employ the military as a tool of national strategy. However, Krebs argues that militarism is, at its core, a set of cultural practices. It is driven by a deep-seated romanticism about the military, which manifests in three ways:
Pacifist Militarism – Even among the left, there is a tendency to view the military as a necessary tool of national policy, even in peacetime.
Excessive Force – The normalization of military interventions, where using force is seen as a default option rather than a last resort.
Idealization of Soldiers – The emphasis on heroism and sacrifice overshadows discussions of military professionalism, effectiveness, or accountability.
This cultural shift is seen in the growing presence of the military in national celebrations, such as Independence Days. Military parades and displays have increased, yet there is little focus on mourning fallen soldiers. Instead, these events serve to reinforce the image of military power and national strength.
Why militarism has grown since the 1980, the decline of trust in government institutions, driven in part by #neoliberalism (the #deathcult), has paradoxically fuelled greater trust in the military. As faith in political leadership eroded, the military, seen as an aspirational and apolitical institution, became a pillar of stability.
This shift has created a dangerous dynamic:
Populists thrive on military imagery. They love dressing up in military uniforms, invoking military rhetoric, and surrounding themselves with soldiers.
Dead soldiers are useful political tools. They cannot challenge political narratives, making them perfect symbols for populist movements.
Public perception of military support influences policy. When the public believes the military supports a political leader, they are more likely to support military action. This feedback loop drives increased militarization across the political spectrum.
The populist-military conflict, despite their public admiration for the military, many populist leaders privately clash with military institutions. Donald Trump, for instance, has reportedly expressed disdain for military leadership behind closed doors. His approach follows a broader pattern. Populists support enlisted soldiers while attacking military officers, particularly those from elite institutions like West Point. This allows them to position themselves as allies of “the people” while undermining traditional hierarchies.
In countries like Poland, Hungary, and India, populist leaders have avoided direct military confrontations, allowing dissenting officers to step aside quietly. In the United States, however, tensions are escalating. If military leaders resist political co-option, they will likely face aggressive purges and public attacks. Brazil under Bolsonaro offers a clear example. Although he had military ties, his alliances were fragile. When officers opposed his leadership, especially during the COVID-19 crisis, he swiftly removed them.
The long-term consequences, militarism is a raw deal. While it leads to increased military engagement, it does not necessarily bring greater benefits for soldiers. Instead, it results in, the erosion of democratic institutions. As militarism rises, civilian governance weakens, and leaders increasingly rely on military authority to consolidate power. Diminished military effectiveness. When the military becomes a political tool, its strategic competence declines.
Personal loyalty to leaders replaces merit, weakening the institution from within. A dangerous feedback loop. If unchecked, militarism becomes self-perpetuating, reinforced by political narratives, public perceptions, and the military’s own internal culture. The military, when it “drinks the Kool-Aid” of its own infallibility, loses its ability to self-correct. The blurring of lines between civilian leadership and military authority erodes trust, making governance more unstable and unpredictable.
Conclusion, we are living in an age of global militarism. The question is not whether it will wane on its own, it shows no signs of doing so. Instead, the challenge is how societies will respond to its continued rise. Will democratic institutions push back, ensuring that the military remains professional and accountable? Or will the glorification of soldiers, the erosion of civilian oversight, and the manipulation of military loyalty accelerate the militarization of politics? As Professor Krebs warns, the veneration of the military is not only about national security, it is about the future of democracy itself.
The chattering classes, eager to ride the wave of #mainstreaming, are finally pushing real rather than fake radical critique. These are the same people who built their careers within the #dotcons and #neoliberal highways, are now embracing narratives that grassroots movements have been fighting for decades. Sure, “better late than never,” but we should remain deeply sceptical of their radical awakenings, especially the #fluffy paths they carve out. After all, they’re still operating within the structures that created this mess in the first place.
There’s an element of performative rage at play here, condemning billionaires while continuing to use, benefit from, and reinforce the systems that empower them. Meanwhile, real alternatives, grassroots, decentralized, and open networks like #OMN, remain sidelined, unfunded, and ignored, still too far outside the “common sense” media narratives that shape any current #mainstreaming paths.
It’s not entirely useless to have media celebrities and polished pundits repackaging anti-billionaire sentiment. It does shift the Overton window. But it’s equally vital that we critique this and, more importantly, walk a different path, one that is messy, grassroots, open, and outside the control of the #fashernistas who are now finding the courage to speak up about what we’ve been saying all along. We are the ones with the lived experience. Now, where are the resources? That’s the question we should be asking our freshly radicalized “allies.”
And if their “solutions” come wrapped in top-down, controlled narratives? Well, piss on them, it helps with the composting. Thanks.
We don’t have time for more mess, the real challenge is ensuring that this moment doesn’t become another media spectacle to be consumed and discarded. How do we push the narrative in a way that resists being co-opted? How do we move beyond talking about change to embodying the real challenge they’re now beginning to acknowledge is needed.
The key takeaway of the current #mainstreaming is that we must actively build alternative structures—not just critique the existing mess. That means reclaiming digital and physical commons, supporting participatory democracy, and pushing back against #dotcons billionaire-driven tech oligarchy. The work with #4opens and #OMN grassroots media is exactly the kind of response we need to counteract this heist.
The tension between control vs. trust in tech and society is a core issue that defines 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).
The #geekproblem 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, #datasoup or #witchescauldron (with the #goldenladle as the app interface) is 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 the solution, a key to a thriving semantic web is 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 #yFediverse as a 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?
The boater community is in rapid transition, with the pressures from gentrification, corporate control (#CRT), and online group dynamics (#failbook) colliding with a long-established scruffy, self-sufficient, and sometimes chaotic #liveaboard culture.
This can be seen in the #failbookLondon Boaters group which has shifted away from its activist roots into more of a “management” role, shaped by #NGO-style moderation and back-channel conversations with #CRT. The shift from grassroots resistance to passive mediation is a familiar story in many alternative and radical spaces, where energy gets siphoned away into “keeping the peace” rather than fighting for actual autonomy in what remains of our “commons”.
The cultural split is deepening: The divide between “scruffy” boaters and the more middle-class/posh newcomers is not just aesthetic; it’s a direct outcome of policy and economic pressures. And fear is creeping in, often a precursor to authoritarian responses.
The activist potential of #failbook is limited, big #dotcons groups rarely function as true organizing spaces, as they tend to get co-opted by NGO logic, mainstream narratives, and self-censorship.
The pressure cooker effect, with rising costs, more restrictions, and no real outlet for collective resistance, conflict is building. The lack of a strong, active counterforce means the CRT agenda is rolling forward fundamentally unchallenged.
Admin struggles, the LB admin team is focus on firefighting rather than any real direction. Without a broader base of radical, committed people in admin, the group moves to becoming a tool of pacifying #mainstreaming.
What’s Next? The current trajectory points to London’s waterways becoming sterile, managed, semi-privatized space, just like what’s happened in European cities. Unless a new, grassroots, real-world organizing effort is built outside #failbook, the “scruffy” boater culture may not survive in London.
Nationally we have the #NBTA which is an old school activist organising group, can we add up-to-date infrastructure and working practices. Would it be possible to restart a parallel #openweb platform (maybe something lightweight like a #fediverse instance) where people committed to actual resistance can organize without interference from NGO-style moderation? The boating community needs a space for counter-narratives and real discussion, rather than just a loop of buy/sell drama and soft social control.
What do you think, what’s the best way to push back while there’s still time?
This lecture will explore the shortcomings of market-driven solutions to the climate crisis, the role of green energy, and the structural limits of capitalism in addressing environmental challenges.
The climate crisis is getting worse, not better. We are burning more fossil fuels, not less. Even with the massive expansion of renewables, energy use is still rising, because green growth adds to consumption rather than replacing it.
So, what’s blocking real change? Professor Brett Christophers lays it out: It’s not economics—it’s politics. The cost of renewables is dropping, largely thanks to China’s command economy driving down manufacturing costs. But the real problem is deployment, not production. Governments in the rich world still rely on the private sector to make the energy transition, using subsidies, tax incentives, and market nudges.
But capitalism is not built to save us, the market won’t solve this. The profit motive is a #blocking force. The oil and energy sectors are oligarchic, meaning investment only flows where market control guarantees profit. Renewable energy doesn’t work this way. Once solar panels or wind farms are built, everyone benefits, so investors can’t “capture” the value in the same way fossil fuel companies can.
This is why China is leading the transition. In 2023, 65% of global renewable investment was happening in China, before that, it was 90%. In contrast, the for-profit world is barely moving. The left is starting to rethink public ownership, but decades of privatization and #neoliberal dogma make this difficult, especially in the Global South, where many countries lost their public energy sectors over the last 40 years.
One small but key issue is that we are trapped in a modernist mindset, where the lights must come on when you flick the switch. The market logic of energy scarcity (storage = control = profit) is at odds with the need to stabilize and expand access. When energy storage becomes widespread, its market value drops, meaning investment dries up before it even begins.
Public ownership has a bad history, but so does privatization. Without cultural change, we are stuck with broken systems that won’t save us. The Coming Storm, in the next 10–20 years, shit is going to hit the fan. #climatechaos is not a distant threat, it’s already disrupting global energy grids. Look at China, where hydropower is failing due to extreme drought, and where record heat waves are driving air conditioning demand through the roof. These are feedback loops that increase carbon emissions, pushing us closer to tipping points.
Governments aren’t prepared for the chaos that’s coming. If history is any guide, they’ll do what they always do: double down on control, repression, and violence. As the crisis deepens, we could see a return to 20th-century authoritarian solutions, forced migration, resource wars, and military crackdowns. If you’re young today, ask yourself: What future are you walking into? What careers will put you on the wrong side of history? Which paths will put a gun in your hands, or leave you standing in front of one? These are grim questions, but they are real.
The #Deathcult has failed, what comes next? For 40 years, neoliberal capitalism has blocked systemic change. Market redesign might be possible, but power and politics shape the system, and the #deathcult that built this mess won’t give it up easily.
The #dotcons are stepping into the void. Big Tech is now playing the role governments used to play, guaranteeing long-term energy contracts to fund #datacenters and #AI infrastructure. But this is a narrow and unstable path, its more noise than signal.
We need alternatives, we need #publicownership, #commons-based solutions, and #4opens governance. We need to mediate our overconsumption, compost the #mainstreaming, and reclaim progressive paths before capitalism drives us into collapse.
If we don’t, the market’s failure will become our failure, and the planet won’t care whether we survive or not.
Market Failure: Climate Crisis, Green Energy and the Limits of Capitalism
Professor Brett Christophers (Uppsala University)
This lecture will explore the shortcomings of market-driven solutions to the climate crisis, the role of green energy, and the structural limits of capitalism in addressing environmental challenges.
My notes:
We are using more carbon based energy, adding to energy use with “green growth” this varies regionally, but the numbers are going up not down.
What is #blocking this, its political and policy he argues, the NIMBYs. The economics are not a problem, the costs are going down. The costs coming down is due to China with its central command economy, this is a useful view of the path we need to take. What’s #blocking it has to do with profitability not generating costs, what douse this mean? Deployment is the hidden “cost”, the hidden restraint. Governments in most parts of the world are relying on the private sector to make this energy change, using nudges, subsidy etc. the motivation is profit, and “confidence” in this profit.
Can capitalism save us?
The oil industry is full of oligarchy’s, this shapes investment. The electricity is the same, but how it’s generated has its own market value. Your ability to make a profit is only based on you capturing the market sector. The tech change helps everyone, so the is no profit, value if the investment can’t “capture” a sector.
He slags off the understanding of the Labour Party in the UK. One ansear is market redesign, that what we have is not “natural” but planned, it’s shaped by power and politics and for the agenda of this power. Then we have the artifice of “price” we have not planned this well enough yet, externality’s. In the UK the carbon tax could be argued to have worked with the phase out of the last coal power plant, drax, is shut. But the cost of a real carbon tax is to high for our “democracy” to implement. This is likely true.
More subsidy is an example, the Inflation Reduction Act in the US is an example. To incentivise the private sector to make the change in energy production.
The left criticises this, anti market, It’s still not working, this argument is likely true, look at china. Let’s look at this in 2023 its is 65% globe of renewables investment in China, before this it was 90% this almost nothing happening in the for-profit world, for profit is obviously not working. The left are starting to rethink public ownership as a path.
In China there are contradictions, it’s a mix of clean and dirty, energy demand is growing very fast, climate change is driving this in part, with the disruption of hydropower and the heat waves driving air conditioning, it’s a feedback loop. But it’s instructive with a very different political economy you can have very different outcomes in the energy transition.
This path might happen in the rich north, but will be hard to do in the weak south? They just don’t have the public budgets, some of these have only lost to privatization there public energy sectors over the last 40 years.
We are stuck in the modernist mind set, the lights must come on when you flick the switch. This is still a core #blocking force. Storage is to tame the market, to stabilize the price. The business model is based on the scarcity of storage so when we implement it can easily lose its market value, so investment will not flow in the first place.
Culture change is needed as public ownership does have a bad history as much a for-profit ownership, without this cultural change we don’t solve any of the mess.
One path is blended finance, but the is very little of this existing, so it’s not going to happen in a meaningful way despite the fluffy propaganda people spread.
The question of responsibility?
In the next 10–20 years shit is hitting the fan with #climatechaos we are likely to go back to the 20th century tradition of shooting people, I am wondering, for this generations job prospective, what careers are likely to lead to you being shot when this history repeats and what careers will leave you with the metaphorical gun in your hands, both of course are bad outcomes. But would be useful for young people to think about this to help choices a path after #Oxford
The question of cross discipline for the students comes up, but he says this is really hard, narrow areas, grants, and culture. His ansear is pessimistic, to play the game, till you have the power not to play the game, mess. He does not like it, but advises young people to play. Market redesign, the #deathcult fucked over this path over the last 40 years.
AI and distributed energy, the #dotcons are pushing this, the preform the same role governments used to play, by garentlying prices in long term contracts for there new data centres, they promise long term fixed price which lets the banks fund projects. This is a very limited funding flow, so more noise than signal.
We live in a system that worships consumption. It’s not just about meeting needs, it’s about feeding an economy that only grows when people buy more, waste more, and replace instead of repair. This is one of the core tenants of the #deathcult, the #neoliberal ideology that tells us there is no alternative to endless growth, even as it drags us toward #climatechaos.
What if we build something different, something that values community over consumption, reuse over replacement, and DIY culture over passive consumerism? This is where the #4opens come in, transparency, collaboration, and shared knowledge as the foundation for real alternatives to the corporate churn machine. It’s a tool to mediate overconsumption, it isn’t just about the stuff, it’s about the system. The #dotcons (big tech platforms, global brands, centralized supply chains) exist to keep us dependent, feeding a cycle of control, waste, planned obsolescence, artificial scarcity, and throwaway culture.
We see this everywhere, in #techchurn, New phones, new software, endless updates that make old devices “obsolete” before they break. Fast fashion, clothing designed to fall apart, pushing people into a cycle of cheap, unethical labour and landfill waste. Algorithmic media distraction, a constant flood of junk entertainment designed to keep us too distracted to act, too demoralised to challenge the system. This is by design. The corporate web, the #dotcons, will absorb everything if we don’t (re)create our own independent alternatives.
The composting alternative is about creating a regenerative culture, isn’t only boycotting big brands or consuming “better.” It’s about nurturing and mediating alternatives—turning the waste of the old system into compost for something new. By embracing the #DIY ethic – Fix things, repurpose them, and share knowledge instead of feeding the churn. Build the #openweb – Move away from corporate-controlled spaces to decentralized, transparent platforms that serve communities, not ad networks. Reject #mainstreaming trends – Stop chasing the latest thing just because the algorithm tells you to. Foster trust-based networks – Support local, independent, and open-source projects that work for people, not profit.
The #OMN as a tool for mediation, a practical example of challenging the corporate wasteland of mainstream media and tech. Instead of relying on big platforms, it creates a decentralized, grassroots-driven network where people control their own media, bypassing the need for #dotcons and centralized control.
In the same way, we need to mediate overconsumption—not just by refusing to buy, but by building something better in its place. This isn’t about guilt or purity. It’s about real alternatives. If we don’t start creating them, we will be left with nothing but the corporate churn, stripping away our agency and leaving us with a hollow, temporary world. The current mess is compost. We either let it rot uselessly or turn it into the soil for something new. The choice is ours.
Slow travel, there’s something special about taking the slow route, moving at just 8 km/h, feeling the rhythm of the water beneath you, and experiencing places in a way you never would when rushing from A to B.
This is #overlanding, but with a twist, overlanding by water. Instead of highways, we followed ancient trade routes, gliding through canals, rivers, and locks that have shaped Europe for centuries. Our vessel? A refurbished oil platform lifeboat, a rugged, self-sufficient craft that carried us deep into the continent’s heart.
The Journey, waterborne adventure, our route took us across Europe’s vast inland waterways, connecting diverse landscapes, cultures, and histories. Each stretch of river and canal brought a new challenge and a fresh perspective on a continent that many only see from the motorways or rail lines. Some of the highlights:
The Rhine River, Germany, A mix of industrial might and natural beauty, passing legendary castles perched on cliffs, thriving cities, and historic port towns. The river’s strong currents and busy commercial traffic kept things exciting. The Danube, Eastern Europe, A vast and wild waterway, stretching through multiple countries, from Austria to Romania. This river offered true off-grid adventure, with remote stretches of untamed nature, tiny riverside villages, and encounters with local boaters who still live by the rhythms of the water.
The French Canals – A world of their own. Peaceful, meandering waterways winding through the French countryside, past vineyards, medieval towns, and stone bridges that have stood for centuries. Unlike the Rhine and Danube, these canals were more about relaxed travel, culture, and history.
The Amsterdam to Belgium Route – A labyrinth of interconnected canals, bustling harbor cities, and picturesque waterways lined with windmills and historic trading towns. Navigating this network felt like unlocking a hidden Europe, one far from the usual tourist paths.
Like any true expedition, this journey came with its share of hardships and surprises. Boating across a continent is not just about floating down a river, it’s about self-reliance, problem-solving, and adapting to the unknown.
The Challenges We Faced:
Mechanical Fixes – Keeping an ex-oil platform lifeboat running on a #DIY budget was an ongoing challenge. From fixing leaks to repairing the old diesel engine, we had to be resourceful.
Weather & Water Conditions – Strong currents, sudden storms, and fluctuating water levels made navigation unpredictable. Some stretches were calm and easy, while others tested our skills and endurance.
Navigation & Locks – Unlike the open sea, Europe’s waterways are full of locks, bridges, and tidal zones that require careful planning. Some days felt like solving a giant puzzle, with different canals and rivers connecting at odd angles, each with their own set of rules and operating times.
Remote Travel & Supplies – In the wilder sections, finding fuel, food, and spare parts required good planning. Some villages along the rivers still rely on weekly supply boats, a reminder of a slower, older way of life.
But the rewards? Unmatched, instead of rushing through Europe, we immersed ourselves in it. Instead of highways and train stations, we saw the real heart of the continent, the backroads of the water. We watched sunrises over misty rivers, navigated narrow canals that felt like stepping into history, and met people who still live by the pace of the water. There’s a world beyond the tourist hubs, a Europe that exists outside the rush of modern travel, and the only way to experience it is to slow down and take the journey itself as the destination.
The #climatecrisis isn’t just about rising temperatures and vanishing ecosystems, it’s also about the structures we build, the technology we use, and the ways we connect. The fight for a sustainable future isn’t limited to forests and oceans; it extends into the digital world as well.
In this website, a recurring theme is composting the mess of the modern world, whether that’s the corporate-controlled internet (#dotcons), failing grassroots movements, or the destruction of our physical environment. It’s all connected. How tech shapes our planet. The internet as we know it, centralized, monopolized, and powered by massive server farms, has a huge environmental impact. Tech giants consume massive amounts of energy, lock users into wasteful upgrade cycles, and push short-term profit over long-term sustainability.
But just like we need to transition away from fossil fuels, we also need to rebuild a sustainable digital infrastructure:
✅ Decentralized platforms → Reduce reliance on data centers owned by megacorporations. ✅ Longer-lasting hardware → Move away from planned obsolescence. ✅ Federated networks (#openweb) → Support resilient, grassroots-driven alternatives. ♻️ The OMN: Composting the Digital & Social Waste
The Open Media Network (#OMN) is a practical response to this. It’s building an alternative media ecosystem, one that isn’t driven by corporate interests but by community needs and #4opens collaboration. Think of it as #permaculture for the internet: Instead of clear-cutting everything for profit (like the #dotcons do), we nurture independent spaces. Instead of burning energy on ad-driven engagement, we use #KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid) principles to create sustainable digital tools. Instead of accepting “inevitable” climate and digital collapse, we turn the existing mess into compost for new growth. Radical Simplicity = Radical Sustainability.
One of the ideas behind this path is that “stupid” is better than perfect, because perfect never gets built, but “stupid” works. This applies not just to open-source technology, but also to environmental activism, with small, local actions > Waiting for big global solutions. Simple, practical solutions > Over-engineered complexity. Messy, community-driven change > Top-down control.
In the bigger perspective: The Environment will be fine without us, it’s not “the environment” we are destroying. It is ourselves. The world does not need saving, we do. The choice is not a simple choice between saving the planet or letting it die, but between changing our ways or letting ourselves go extinct.
If we want a sustainable future, both online and offline, we need to break from the corporate paths that are destroying our ecosystems. That means, supporting grassroots tech and independent media, building resilient, federated alternatives to big tech, embracing open, transparent processes (#4opens).
The world is in crisis, but crisis is also an opportunity. Whether you’re fighting for a better internet, a liveable planet, or stronger local communities, it’s all part of the same struggle. What do you think? How can we build a more sustainable digital world? Let’s discuss! #RewildTheWeb#SustainableTech#OMN
In the early days, the internet was a wild, open landscape, a place of creativity, collaboration, and decentralization. But over time, the rise of corporate platforms (the #dotcons) turned it into something far more controlled, walled-off, and extractive.
What if we could reclaim that original vision? What if we could build an open, federated, and people-powered web, free from the stranglehold of Big Tech? That’s the mission behind projects like the Open Media Network (#OMN), a radical push to create a truly #openweb, built on trust, transparency, and grassroots collaboration.
What’s the Problem? The modern web is dominated by a handful of corporate giants that: 🔹 Own your data – You don’t control what you create, they do. 🔹 Manipulate what you see – Algorithms push engagement over truth. 🔹 Extract value – Your attention, creativity, and connections become profit streams.
The result? A digital world that feels more like a walled garden than a thriving ecosystem.
The Alternative: The Open Media Network (#OMN) A different way of thinking about the internet, based on open protocols, federated media, and trust-based networks rather than corporate silos.
How does it work? Decentralized publishing – No single company controls what you post. Interconnected platforms – Information flows freely between projects, not locked inside proprietary walls. Built for grassroots communities – Not for advertisers, but for real people creating real change.
It’s inspired by the early #Indymedia movement, the rise of the Fediverse, and the belief that we don’t have to accept the internet as it is, we can build something better.
Why “Stupid” Wins Over “Perfect” A big lesson from past internet experiments is that perfection is the enemy of progress. The web itself succeeded not because it was the best design, but because it was simple and open enough for people to build on.
✅ Nobody agrees on “perfect”—so it never gets built. ✅ “Stupid” solutions work—because they let people create their own versions. ✅ Diversity leads to growth—and growth challenges the corporate web.
This is the philosophy behind the OMN and other #4opens projects, build something simple, open, and adaptable, and let communities shape it for their needs.
How You Can Help Rewild the Web. If you’re tired of Big Tech gatekeeping your online life, there are ways to push back: Ditch corporate platforms – Explore the Fediverse and self-hosted alternatives. Support open projects – Contribute to decentralized media, grassroots organizing, and federated tech. Spread the word – Help others see that another internet is possible.
The internet can be beautiful again, but only if we reclaim it. What do you think? Is a truly open internet still possible? What are your favourite-decentralized projects? Let’s discuss. #RewildTheWeb#InternetIsBeautiful#OMN
The video is bad quality VHS, but worth your time to see a progressive #openweb native capitalism, and to find grounding for post-capitalist with the #OMN project.
Mark S. Miller’s presentation on the Xanadu Hypertext System at George Mason University (GMU) in the early ’90s is good to reference when discussing the #OMN (Open Media Network). The ideas explored then were ahead of their time, but the web ultimately took a worse/better path—a “stupid” #KISS implementation rather than the more idealistic and complex vision of #Xanadu.
Why “Stupid” Wins Over “Perfect”, the lesson is clear: ✅ Nobody agrees on “perfect”, so it never gets built. ✅ “Stupid” solutions work because they let people do their own version. ✅ From diversity comes growth, from growth comes change. ✅ Change is what challenges the current #mainstreaming mess.
This is exactly what the #OMN is doing, taking a simple, “stupid” approach that lets people build their own solutions, rather than arguing endlessly about abstract perfection. Just like the web succeeded by ignoring Xanadu’s “perfect” vision, the #OMN will thrive by avoiding over-engineering and focusing on real-world usability.
With the #Fediverse and the #Openweb, it helps to see the Fediverse as a half-decentralized #openweb project that allows people to communicate across different servers. Unlike centralized platforms, it shifts control back to people and community, but it inherits many of the same flawed assumptions from the #dotcons. Strengths of the Fediverse:
🔹 Decentralization – No single company controls it. 🔹 (Supposed) Privacy – While privacy is valued, it’s ultimately a #4opens project, meaning transparency is the real focus. 🔹 Freedom of Expression – No single authority to censor content, it has community moderation. 🔹 Control Over Data – People can move between servers (to some extent). 🔹 Customization – Communities can shape their own experience.
❌ It still copies the #dotcons too much. ❌ It struggles with large-scale collaboration. ❌ It isn’t designed for media or broadcasting.
The Fediverse is a big step in the right direction, but it lacks a strong foundation for alternative media and real working #DIY culture. The #OMN is designed to fill this gap, moving beyond microblogging clones and building real federated media networks.
The key to success: Leaving capitalism out, one of the biggest reasons the #Openweb worked while Xanadu fizzled is that it didn’t try to “fix” capitalism, it just ignored it. Many well-meaning open projects get stuck because they try to compromise with the existing system rather than building outside of it. This is where the #OMN takes its stand:
Building tools that actually work for grassroots communities.
If we take the #4opens and #DIY cultural path, we can create a real alternative, something that doesn’t get swallowed by the #mainstreaming like so many past projects. In the end, if we don’t build these spaces, the corporate web will absorb everything. Let’s see the current mess as compost, we can either let it rot uselessly or turn it into the soil for something new. We are empowered to act on this, the choice is ours.
The geek path for tech and social change, was always a divers views, though always full of the #geekproblem
It’s interesting that this all turned into monopoly capitalism with the #dotcons we have now. This outcome is the #geekproblem, we need to do better.
One thing to be aware of is that encryption is largely used to introduce scarcity into a natural post scarcity digital path. It about imposing the old on the new. Encryption as a tool of digital scarcity a core problem of crypto/blockchain hype—it recreates capitalist control structures rather than abolishing them.
Though this is a strong historical framing of the #OMN and the #openweb, going back to Xanadu, the #Fediverse, and the mistakes of the past.
The web took the “Worst/Better” path – The “stupid” solution (KISS) won over the “perfect” solution (Xanadu) because perfect never gets built, while stupid can be iterated on.
The #Fediverse is half-decentralized but stuck in #dotcons thinking – It shifts control but still inherits a lot of flawed assumptions.
Capitalism is ignored, not fixed – The #Openweb succeeded by sidestepping capitalism, not by trying to reform it. #OMN must do the same to thrive.
The #Geekproblem led to the #dotcons – Tech culture’s failure to build social and political awareness led to the monopoly mess we see today.
A path away from this mess. The #OMN is about federated media infrastructure, the current Fediverse, is not enough because it wasn’t designed for media production or distribution. #OMN needs to build alongside it, creating real publishing and archiving structures.
A parallel build makes sense, trying to “fix” the Fediverse would be a waste of time because it’s deep in the #geekproblem mindset and #dotcons assumptions. The #OMN needs to exist alongside it, offering something functional rather than only critique.
Composting the current mess into something new, is a powerful metaphor. Instead of just rejecting the broken system, we repurpose its decay into something fertile. The #OMN is not about nostalgia or purity—it’s about adaptation and survival. Parallel paths:
Microblogging clones of dotcons (Mastodon → Twitter, Pixelfed → Instagram). We need Federated media infrastructure for real publishing (archiving, syndication, remixing).
Half-decentralized (still hierarchical servers, admins hold power) More fully federated with trust-based governance (e.g., #OGB)
Privacy-focused (but still built on surveillance-era assumptions). We need transparency-first (#4opens) to avoid NGO/State capture.
Largely run by geeks who reject social movements. Where we need to build from grassroots activism up, not tech-down
How do we frame this for outreach? We need shorter, clearer language to explain why #OMN matters to people outside the tech bubble. Right now, a lot of this still speaks to the few people already deep in the struggle—how do we make it compelling to someone new?
The Fediverse is the “indie music scene” of social media → The #OMN is public-access TV, independent radio, and DIY zines combined. The Fediverse copies Twitter → The #OMN builds what #Indymedia should have become. The Fediverse is a space to talk → The #OMN is a space to organise, publish, remix, and distribute ideas. The #dotcons are a surveillance trap → The #OMN is a composting tool for radical media to push and sustain radical change and challenge.
With a parallel build, how do we balance the first steps, tech-first or community-first? Meaning, do we start with the tools, or the network of people who will use them? Both have been a challenge over the last ten years.
Funding structures are built for #NGO nonsense, not grassroots projects where actual value is created. The #OMN, #indymediaback, and #OGB challenge this, but funders can’t grasp it because they don’t understand value outside institutional framing.
Fixing the funding #blocking, funders need to THINK, not just UNDERSTAND. Right now, they “understand” in the framework of existing institutions, which means they miss the metaphor-driven, emergent nature of the #OMN. Our #Hashtag story is for THINKING, not passive understanding. They are useful tools to push the conversation forward, not dogma to be accepted or rejected. The two often treating them as fixed truths leads to #blocking the needed real change.
We need to break out of this cycle, 20 years of #techshit which is still strengthening the gatekeepers, we can’t keep playing by these rules. The biggest realization here is that truth and metaphor are not the same. Funders, #NGOs, and the #mainstreaming crew think in terms of fixed truths, while real change comes from dynamic thinking. That’s why they keep failing us.
