Techno #feudalism is a description of the power that large #dotcons technology platforms now have over the economy and society. The comparison is with medieval feudalism. Under feudalism, land was the critical means of production and ordinary people worked land they did not own. Lords controlled access to it and extracted rents or surplus from those who depended on it.
This is relevant today were the critical bottleneck is increasingly digital capital: platforms, servers, algorithms, data, cloud infrastructure, app stores and enormous networked captured user bases. A few corporations, run by an increasingly visible #nastyfew control this infrastructure. Communities, businesses, workers and creators are dependent on platforms they do not control.
The current shift is from ownership to access, instead of owning software, music, games or other digital tools, people rent access through subscriptions and platforms. This means wealth and control accumulate with the owners of the infrastructure rather than with the people using it.
The #closedweb platform economy creates rent extraction. App stores, marketplaces, hosting platforms and gig-economy companies take a percentage from the economic activity that passes through them. Network effects make dominant platforms increasingly difficult to challenge, as we are seeing, allowing those rents to rise.
#AI is we get past the narrow use case of #LLMs could intensify this dynamic by replacing human labour with capital-intensive systems. If a few companies own the #AI infrastructure, the bargaining power of labour will fall while the power of capital owners, the #nastyfew takes over the levers of power over the #mainstreaming.
The political dimension – #dotcons don’t merely control economic infrastructure; their algorithms influence what billions of people see, discuss, believe and buy. This gives the #nastyfew platform owners an extraordinary ability to shape public discourse.
But yes, you would be right to point out this is just the normal monopoly capitalism for now, these companies still invest enormous amounts in research, infrastructure and innovation. They operate within markets and people are not legally bound to them in the way medieval serfs were bound to their lords. The system can also be understood as an intensification of monopoly capitalism and rent extraction.
For the #OMN, the strongest point is that the problem isn’t technology itself, it is concentrated ownership and control of the technological infrastructure. A simple stepping to #4opens network changes the relationship, instead of everyone being tenants on somebody else’s platform, we build infrastructure around open standards, federation, interoperability, shared ownership, participation and commons-based production.
That makes the #openweb and projects such as the #OMN more than technical alternatives. They become part of the struggle over whether the digital world develops into a feudalistic landscape of platform landlords and digital tenants, or remains a genuinely distributed native #openweb commons.
In that sense, #4opens is an economic and political argument as much as a technical one: keep the infrastructure open enough that nobody can permanently own the flows through which everyone else has to live and communicate.
One of the meany problems with modern capitalism is not simply that some corporations are greedy. It is that we have built institutions around the assumption that people are greedy, and then wondered why they behave that way.
Since the 1970s, #neoclassical economics became dominant in business schools and corporate thinking. An older social democratic idea of the manager as a professional with responsibilities to workers, customers, communities and society was displaced by a #geekproblem model of management built around financial incentives, shareholder value and measurable returns.
This became part of what is commonly called #neoliberalism. At the #OMN we polemically and, we argue, factually call the resulting social system the #deathcult: a system that places financial accumulation, competition and individual economic interest above the social relationships and ecological systems that actually make society, and life possible.
The darkness at the centre of this system is the idea of #Homoeconomicus – the simplified economic human who is assumed to rationally pursue personal advantage and maximise material rewards. Applied to the corporation, the logic becomes straightforward, managers cannot be trusted to act in the interests of shareholders because they have interests of their own, so we need incentives.
Give managers shares and stock options. Tie their bonuses to share prices. Measure everything. Monitor everything. Make individual financial reward correspond with corporate financial performance. This became part of the intellectual foundation for shareholder value.
The corporation increasingly stopped being understood as a social institution with multiple responsibilities and became something closer to a machine for maximising financial returns. Workers become costs, communities externalities, nature becomes a resource, customers markets. Managers become agents, shareholders become the priority. And success becomes a number.
The problem is that people aren’t actually like this – the fascinating thing is that the economic model is a very dangerous description of how humans actually behave. Research from behavioural economics and even game theory has repeatedly demonstrated that people are motivated by much more than financial self-interest.
People care about: honesty, fairness, trust, reciprocity, reputation, pride in their work, belonging and professional responsibility. People will often sacrifice financial rewards in order to behave in ways they consider right, cooperate when they trust each other, reward cooperation and punish behaviour they believe is unfair – sometimes even when doing so costs them something.
This matters enormously for how we organise institutions – if people are capable of cooperation, trust and reciprocity, then building institutions on the assumption that everybody is fundamentally selfish can actually make society more selfish, a institutional feedback loop
This is the real problem, a narrow and blinded theory about human behaviour becomes institutional reality. We start by saying: People are selfish, so we design institutions around that assumption. We create bonuses, stock options, surveillance, competition.
Then people learn that these are the behaviours that matter, cooperation becomes secondary, professional pride becomes secondary, community responsibility becomes secondary. Trust becomes something that needs to be managed rather than something that can be built.
People adapt to the system, and then we look at the resulting behaviour and say: “See? People really are selfish.” it is the trap we have all walked into. Assume people are selfish → build institutions around selfishness → reward selfish behaviour → weaken trust and professional norms → observe selfish behaviour → conclude that the original assumption was correct.
The institution has created the behaviour it claims merely to measure, is the #mainstreaming problem. Once a particular model becomes normal, it stops looking like ideology, it becomes common sense. Eventually, people forget that things could have been organised differently.
This is one of the most powerful things institutions do: they turn particular assumptions about human beings into apparently neutral systems. The system then reinforces those assumptions is how ideology becomes infrastructure.
This argument is more subtle, and more important. A narrow economic model has had enormous influence over how corporations understand management, incentives and organisational success. It helped legitimise corporate culture with its head bowed down worshipping a #deathcult.
And once that becomes the default, even people who personally reject the model have to bow there heads or be banished. To let the light into this mess, the path itself has to change, from extraction to participation. This connects directly to the #OMN projects.
We need to stop designing social systems around the assumption that people are isolated individuals competing for maximum personal advantage. Humans are social, we build relationships, we cooperate, create communities, develop shared norms. We care about reputation, we care about doing a good job, care about whether other people treat us fairly.
This is also why the #OMN puts so much emphasis on trust, participation, commons and the #4opens. As the alternative to the #deathcult isn’t simply a nicer version of the same system, it is a different understanding of what people are. Instead of designing systems to control selfish individuals, we need to #KISS design systems that enable cooperation between social beings.
Instead of endless surveillance, build trust, of individual competition, build participation.
Instead of extracting value from communities, build commons, recognise them as contributors.
Instead of measuring everything through financial value, recognise social and ecological value.
The path isn’t simply “How do we make selfish people behave better?” the bigger question is “Why are we building institutions that require people to behave selfishly in the first place?” That is the question we need to ask of corporations, business schools, governments, NGOs and our own activist institutions. Because when a system repeatedly produces the behaviour it claims is simply human nature, perhaps the problem isn’t human nature, perhaps the problem is the system.
Our institutions are not neutral observers; they actively shape human nature. The path away from this mess is simple and native to the #openweb, compost the #deathcult, build the commons.
The #fashionista left problem isn’t simply “bad messaging”, but the loss of relationships, class politics and ordinary participation. This left path is #blocking, leading to a serious problem, that there is a growing gap between the people who talk about changing society and the people who actually have to live with the consequences of the society we have.
A lot of contemporary so-called left politics has become a culture of credentials, language, status and moral performance. Political activity becomes a test of whether you know the correct vocabulary, have read the correct theory and can demonstrate the correct politics. Meanwhile, people are dealing with rent, wages, insecure work, debt, housing, transport, healthcare and the basic struggle to get through the week.
This isn’t an argument that cultural or identity issues don’t matter, they do. But when cultural politics displaces material politics, something fundamental has gone wrong. And the answer isn’t to assume that working-class people are stupid, ignorant or simply “brainwashed” by the right. That attitude is itself a form of class contempt.
People have reasons for being angry, they have experiences, relationships, communities. They have knowledge that doesn’t come with a university certificate. The right has become good at recognising that anger and offering people belonging, even while offering economic policies that ultimately benefit only the #nastyfew billionaires and capital.
The mess in the left too often does the opposite, it offers people a lecture about why their existing culture, language or opinions are wrong before it offers them any meaningful collective power. That is backwards, politics begins with people working together around things that materially improve their lives. Better wages, housing, shorter working weeks, strong unions, public services to grow more time and power for ordinary people.
The left is supposed to be about, build solidarity through doing things together. You don’t need everyone to agree about everything before they can work together. In fact, demanding ideological agreement before allowing participation is one of the fastest ways to destroy a mass movement.
This is where I think the #OMN approach matters as a practical way to step away from this current blocking of left paths. #KISS we need less political performance and more participation, less gatekeeping and more open infrastructure, less obsession with who has the correct politics and more ability for different people to contribute, argue, cooperate and build something together.
The goal isn’t to make everyone think the same, it is to build enough trust and shared power that ordinary people can actually change the conditions they live in. That’s the old left and in today’s mess, a much more difficult politics, but it is also a much more democratic one.
We need to stop talking about “climate change” as though we are discussing a slightly inconvenient change in the weather. Climate change is too soft, too neutral. Climate change makes it sound as though something simply happened to us. It didn’t, we pushed this mess, we built an economic system that treats the living world as raw material, turns everything into property, pushes everything through markets and then calls the resulting destruction “growth”. The next twenty years will be the “bill” we pay for this short-sighted greed. And the really dangerous part is that we are still trying to solve the problem using the same thinking that created it.
Welcome to #climatechaos, not one dramatic event that starts on a particular day, it is chronic, it accumulates, compounds. It moves through food systems, water systems, ecosystems, economies and communities. This makes it politically difficult because there is no single moment when everyone can point at the disaster and say, there it is. Instead, the extremes get worse, harvest fails, rivers floods, insurance disappears. The food price rises, drought lasts longer and finally the ecosystem quietly collapses. But one thing that is becoming common sense is we cannot carry on pretending this is normal.
A small step is that the language matters “Global warming” sounds almost pleasant, “Climate change” sounds neutral. Climate breakdown tells us something more important, there is a direction of travel, continuing accelerating the conditions that make human and ecological life less stable. That is what the next twenty years are, yes science based global averages are useful, but the things communities actually experience are extremes – heat, flooding, drought, food insecurity and other disruptions.
Living through the consequences, will show that today’s common sense, the #neoliberal answer to #climatechaos is wonderfully convenient for the #nastyfew – you are the problem, you have the wrong car, eat the wrong food, you use too much energy and bough the wrong thing. You didn’t recycle enough, and feel guilty.
This is the #deathcult at work, the individual is made responsible for a systemic crisis while the systems generating the crisis remain untouched. The absurdity is the dumping of climate responsibility onto individuals while corporations continue selling products that cause global warming. This mess isn’t accidental – #stupidindividualism is politically useful as isolated individuals have very little power. Where communities, workers, cooperatives, movements and collective action do have power.
By now it should become a little obvious that we don’t need greener consumption, what we do need a different relationship with the living world, the current uncomfortable path. Let’s make this plan – #Climatechaos isn’t an energy problem, it isn’t just a transport problem, it isn’t just a technology problem, it is a problem with how we understand ourselves. We have built a culture around the idea that everything exists to be owned, land, water, animals, forests, minerals, knowledge, attention. Even our relationships, on the #dotcons, become a commodity.
Everything becomes something that can be extracted, then we are surprised when the living systems collapse. To start to compost this mess the next twenty years need to be more about moving from ownership to participation, from extraction to stewardship. About better balancing competition and cooperation to move from isolated individuals to resilient communities. In an economic sense from commodities to commons. And yes, it is a much bigger political project than buying an electric car.
Food is going to expose the current blinded stupidity, food is where the abstraction ends. You can argue about climate models forever, but when food becomes unreliable and expensive, everyone understands. The climate discussion points to the vulnerability of agricultural systems, including dependence on a few major crops due to growing pressure on farming from heat, drought and extreme weather.
The response cannot simply be another technological monoculture. We need real diversity, more resilient crops, local knowledge, healthy soils to grow this biodiversity. We need shorter and more resilient supply chains, community food systems. And probably a much more serious conversation about what we choose to eat and how much land and sea we devote to producing it because agriculture isn’t happening outside nature.
The next twenty years will remind us that nature is not decoration, currently we treat biodiversity as something nice to have after the economy has been sorted out. But ecosystems are part of the economy, wetlands manage water, salt marshes protect coasts, healthy soils support food, forests regulate water and store carbon. Biodiversity provides resilience, this is not romantic environmentalism, it is infrastructure.
And then comes the techno-fix – whenever capitalism encounters a problem caused by technology, extraction and industrial growth, it offers us more technology. So next we get geoengineering, perhaps we can reflect sunlight, perhaps we can manipulate the atmosphere, perhaps we can capture carbon, perhaps artificial intelligence will optimise everything. Or perhaps some billionaire will save the planet. This is the reheated #mainstreaming#geekproblem version of climate politics, the problem is that the blinded underlying assumption, the system is fine, we just need a better machine.
But, unspoken is more mess we then need to compost – Who gets to control the thermostat? Who decides? Who is accountable? Who gets protected? Who gets sacrificed? These are not engineering questions, they are political questions, the next twenty years will be a democratic test of where the climate crisis becomes bigger than climate policy. We are going to have to make real choices about where should people live, what happens to communities that cannot be protected? Who pays? Who decides? What technologies are acceptable? And from a deep green prospective what land is for humans? What land is for the rest of life?
There are no purely technical answers, science can tell us what is happening, it tells us what happens if emissions continue. But science cannot decide what kind of society we want, that is politics, at best it is democracy. And at worst it is where the #mainstreaming agenda becomes dangerous as #climatechaos doesn’t care about our current political comfort zones. To find a path through this mess, we have created, we need resilience, not reassurance
Doom on its own is useless, but pretending everything will be fine is worse, people need real information about what is happening? What are the risks? What can we do? What can our community do to prepare, to organise? This is why #KISS communication needs to become local and participatory.
The example of community-based #OMN like projects matter – people come together, learn what is happening and then discuss what they can do locally. The process itself builds resilience, this should be obvious. A community is more resilient when it knows how to communicate, when it can share information. More resilient when it trusts people, when it has local knowledge and more resilient when it has shared infrastructure to remember what happened last time.
That is why media matters – the rebooted #openweb becomes climate infrastructure – where the #climatecrisis connects directly to the #OMN. We need an information infrastructure that belongs to communities rather than corporations, so communities can continue to document what happens to them. Because when the next flood comes, the official report six months later isn’t enough. The native #openweb can be part of the infrastructure of climate resilience that is if we stop treating it as another marketplace for attention.
The #OMN is native to this kind of future, it’s not a climate project in the narrow sense. But the underlying problem is the same – how do we build systems that support collective intelligence rather than extracting it? How do we allow people to publish, share, moderate, correct and preserve information without handing control to a handful of #closedweb platforms?
How do we create the trust we need without building more centralised authority? How do we make community knowledge persistent? How do we build infrastructure that can survive the failures of individualist #dotcons platforms? These questions become much more important as #climatechaos increases. Because resilience requires distributed systems, but not just technically distributed systems, we also need socially distributed systems.
The mainstream will always tell us – now is not the time, too radical, too expensive, too difficult, too political for people to accept, or the market isn’t ready, the technology isn’t ready. We have had 20 years of stalling change and challenge: we need more evidence, consultation or another #fashionista report. The #KISS answer is simple, NO, we have had decades, the next twenty years we either build resilience or discover how truly fragile we really are.
On a thin but needed positive note, the #climatecrisis is already producing the conditions for change, the question is whether that change is democratic or authoritarian. And in a narrow sense of our #openweb culture, whether it breaks the monopoly of the #geekproblem or gives it more power. It’s a simple choice of do we compost the old system or let it push us aside.
To not simply be pushed aside we need political movements capable of defending life in its widest sense, yes, the next twenty years will not be comfortable. There will be disruption, loss, conflict and there will be failures. But the future is not simply something that happens to us, it is something we organise. So please stop asking “How do I, personally, save the planet?” and ask “What can we build together that makes a different future possible?” in short get off your knees from worshipping the #deathcult, and stop waiting for the #mainstreaming agenda to save us.
In internet culture, stop handing every problem to the #geekproblem.
Light green environmentalism stop turning climate action into consumer guilt.
In economics stop treating nature as an externality.
In fashion, stop treating people as consumers.
To compost current mainstreaming mess, we need to start treating people as participants to rebuild the commons and infrastructure of trust. In short, we need people to #makinghistory, by getting the bloody shovels out. The old system is already compost, the question is what we grow from it.
This is the web 1.5 idea, with the #OMN people ask whether this is just rebuilding Web 2.0, the answer should be no. We are trying to undo some of the damage Web 2.0 did to Web 1.0 while keeping the useful things we learned from it.
Web 1.0 openness. Web 2.0 UX. Fediverse federation. #4opens process. Community trust. News and archives first. Governance further down the road.
That is the rough shape of Web 1.5, it isn’t about making another giant platform, it is building infrastructure where media objects can flow between communities, where history can be preserved without everything being privately owned, and where social intelligence isn’t replaced by a central algorithm. The mess we’ve inherited is real, but perhaps we don’t need to clean it all up before we can build something new, we can compost it.
So, let’s dive a bit deeper into this, how is #OMN different from Web 2.0? The short answer is, it isn’t trying to rebuild Web 2.0. It is trying to recover what Web 1.0 got right, while keeping the useful UX lessons of Web 2.0. Web 2.0 took much of the openness of Web 1.0, wrapped it in better UX, and then turned it into the #dotcons – centralised, privatised platforms that captured and monetised the value of the #openweb.
#OMN takes a different path – the basic idea flows rather than ownership. Instead of everything being centred on individual accounts, owned databases and personal content silos, media objects can flow between trusted nodes. Media comes in, are curated and grouped into Stories, and those Stories then flow back into the network as new media objects. That makes #OMN feel like Web 1.5, it keeps the Web 1.0 openness, decentralisation and interoperability, but adds some of the better usability lessons from Web 2.0. The difference is that we’re not bringing back the centralised ownership model.
In #OMN, an instance isn’t primarily a collection of individual social-media accounts. It is more like a node in a shared media flow, providing curation through media objects and collective Stories. Users can still exist in the underlying software, it’s a balance, but they don’t need to be pushed to the surface as the centre of the #OMN network. This also changes how we think about participation. You don’t necessarily have to “own” the media to participate in it. You can contribute, curate, tag, connect, remix, archive and pass things on. As we put it – less ownership, more participation, more flow, more commons.
The aim is also to get away from the popularity contests of social media. Objects move through the federation towards the nodes and communities where they have value. Things that aren’t useful don’t necessarily need to be centrally deleted, the network can be deliberately lossy, allowing some things to fade while other things are carried forward. Though instances can choose to save everything if they can scale this, even apparently useless material might become useful as compost for future work.
And importantly, #OMN is not social media, it is about news and archiving, with governance further down the road. It works alongside social media rather than trying to become another social-media platform.
The bigger idea is that we shouldn’t have to choose between the open but sometimes awkward Web 1.0 and the polished but enclosed Web 2.0. Like the #Fediverse we balance the best of both, Web 1.0 openness + Web 2.0 UX + today’s federated infrastructure = Web 1.5. Not a return to the past, not another #dotcon. A reboot of the #openweb, using what we have learned since.
UPDATE01: OK for #web1.5 am going to use #web15 as the point breaks the hashtag #KISS
UPDATE02: why is this important? It’s simple, participation rather than passive consumption is a cultural problem. The #dotcons trained people to become consumers – Scroll. Like. Share. Repeat – The #openweb needs a different relationship.
To move past this current mess, let’s look how the #OMN changes this, you might start by simply reading, then you learn how the system works. Eventually, you contribute something to become part of the production process rather than remaining a consumer at the end of it.
The aim is to lower the barriers between producer and consumer. This doesn’t mean everybody has to become a journalist or programmer. It means creating systems where participation is possible and meaningful.
We currently have deeply embedded idea that objects have to be owned by an individual, as we are taught to think in terms of possession, this is mine, that is yours. We measure security through what we own, status through what we accumulate, and value through what we can control. This feels like common sense because it is invisibly embedded in modern Western culture. But it isn’t the only way to understand value, in the #openweb paths what if we thought less about ownership and more about flows?
Let’s think about a river – a river doesn’t belong to the individual drops of water moving through it. A drop of rain becomes a stream, the stream becomes a river, and the river eventually becomes part of the sea. Water moves through different places and forms, continually changing while remaining part of the larger flow.
So who owns the river? Who owns the sea? The question starts to look strange, perhaps our social systems could work differently? From possessions to participation – ownership tends to turn things into possessions: something I control, something I can exclude you from, something whose value is measured by what I have. Commons work differently:
The value comes from being part of the flow – contributing, using, sharing, remixing, maintaining and passing things on.
The important thing isn’t possessing the resource. It is having a meaningful relationship with it and with the people around it.
People get their value not from owning the thing, but from their place in the relationships and flows around it.
This changes the question, instead of what do I own? We begin asking what am I part of? And then what do I contribute to it? That a very different way of thinking about social value, the individual as a drop in the flow
This doesn’t mean that individuals disappear, quite the opposite. The individual still matters, but their importance isn’t defined primarily through isolated ownership. A person might be a spring, feeding something larger, a stream, connecting different communities. They might be a drop of rain, arriving briefly but contributing something necessary to the wider system. They might be part of several flows at once, their value comes from these relationships.
This challenges the idea that independence means standing completely outside everyone else. We need to challenge the #stupidindividualism “common sense” by pushing into view the obvious idea that we are already dependent on enormous networks of other people, infrastructure, knowledge and nature. To make it more obvious that the fantasy of the completely independent individual is impossible to sustain. We are social beings living inside flows of resources, information, culture, care and knowledge.
The question is whether our infrastructure can recognise this reality, that there is a problem with ownership as the default, yes, ownership has useful functions. It can provide security, responsibility and autonomy. But when ownership becomes the dominant way we understand everything it creates problems – Knowledge becomes intellectual property – Culture becomes content to be monetised – Relationships become networks to be harvested – Personal expression becomes data – Communities become audiences – Attention becomes a commodity. And infrastructure becomes something controlled by whoever owns the platform.
The result is the mess we live in today, a society organised around accumulation and exclusion, the more you own, the more power you have to control access for everyone else. This is particularly obvious online as the #dotcons have built enormous “value” networks around ownership and control. They accumulate our data, relationships, attention and cultural production inside privately controlled infrastructures for private ends.
The #openweb is very different, a flow, this is why the idea of the commons matters so much – people publish, others discover, people remix, others contribute, communities archive, others build upon the archives. Ideas move between projects, software is forked, knowledge is shared, tools are adapted. The value comes from the movement. This is different from the current #mainstreaming model, where the aim is to capture the flow and turn it into an enclosed private power tool. The platform wants to become the river owner, the commons ask, why does anybody need to own the river?
There is another useful shift here, from ownership to stewardship. If something is part of commons, somebody still needs to look after it. In the #openweb servers need maintaining, archives need preserving, software needs updating, communities need moderation, standards need developing. The answer isn’t that nobody is responsible, it is that responsibility doesn’t have to mean absolute ownership, a person or group can care for something without possessing it absolutely.
That creates a different relationship with resources, you become a participant and steward rather than simply an owner. The question shifts to what can I contribute to keeping this flow healthy? Rather than, how much of this can I capture for myself? Trust becomes important, #commons cannot function through ownership and contracts, they depend on relationships. People need to trust that others will contribute, trust that resources will not simply be captured, trust the governance process so that disagreements can be resolved. They need to trust that people will maintain the basic infrastructure.
This doesn’t mean blind trust, it means building distributed, accountable trust through participation, reputation, open processes and shared responsibility. The flow is maintained because people have reasons to maintain it. Less ownership does not mean less value, there is a fear that if we reduce ownership, we somehow reduce motivation. But this assumes that people are motivated primarily by possession. They aren’t – people are motivated by belonging, recognition, creativity, curiosity, relationships, contribution, usefulness and the satisfaction of making something work.
A relevant example is that open-source developers contribute to projects they don’t individually own, people contribute to Wikipedia without owning the articles, communities maintain shared spaces without individually owning every part of them. Artists build on other people’s work, researchers build on generations of shared knowledge. Parents and communities care for things whose benefits extend far beyond themselves.
These are all forms of value created through participation in a flow. But what should be common sense is still alien too Western common sense “thinking” – so, yes, the common’s path can feel strange because much of Western economic and political thinking is organised around individual property. We are taught to ask – Who owns it? Who paid for it? Who controls it? Who gets the profit? The commons ask different questions – Who participates? Who contributes? Who benefits? Who maintains it? How does it circulate? How do we keep the flow healthy? That is not simply a change in terminology, it is a different social logic.
And thus the challenge of the #openweb, to build the next generation of digital infrastructure that carries this flow. Or we can continue building platforms where people accumulate followers, data, status and ownership. Or native infrastructures where value comes from participation, trust, contribution and circulation.
The #4opens are useful here because Open Data, Open Source, Open Standards and Open Process all help keep the flow open. They make it harder for one actor to capture the entire system. They allow people to contribute, allow others to build upon that contribution, allow communities to maintain their own parts of the infrastructure.
This is also part of the reason projects such as #OMN matter, the point isn’t to build another platform. It is to build infrastructure that allows media, knowledge, trust and community activity to flow between people and communities without being captured by one owner. From “mine” to “ours” Perhaps the deepest change is cultural, to move from: Mine → yours towards: Ours → flowing through us
That doesn’t mean abolishing personal possessions, more it’s about focusing on recognising that many of the things that create the value in our lives don’t work like possessions in the first place. Knowledge grows when shared, culture grows when remixed, relationships grow through participation, communities grow through contribution, the web grows through links and flows.
A river remains a river because the water moves – the challenge is to build social systems that understand this. We don’t need everybody to own a piece of everything, we need people to become meaningful within the flows that sustain them. A spring doesn’t need to own the river, a stream doesn’t need to own the valley, a drop of rain doesn’t need to own the sea. In social terms they contribute to the flow, and the social flow gives us meaning and value in return.
Less ownership. More participation. Less accumulation. More circulation. Less control. More stewardship. Less isolation. More belonging. Less platform capture. More commons.
That is the direction the #openweb needs to be moving in.
Technical expertise matters, the problem begins when technical expertise is treated as the only legitimate way of understanding a social problem. This is the trap of technocracy: taking a useful tool for understanding parts of the world and turning it into a complete worldview. The expertise problem “We need more technical expertise in government.” But that is half the answer. The mistake is to jump from “politicians need technical expertise” to “technical experts should make decisions.” That replaces one form of stupidity with another.
A functioning society needs engineers, scientists, programmers and researchers. But it also needs historians, sociologists, artists, carers, journalists, workers, communities and ordinary users Technical knowledge is one tool in a toolbox, it is not the toolbox.
We have seen the consequences repeatedly. Politicians who barely understand how the internet works are expected to regulate it. At the same time, technology companies and technical communities assume that because they understand the machinery, they therefore understand the society surrounding it. Neither position is good enough – we need technical people involved in politics and governance, but we also need those technical people to understand that engineering is not governance.
The #geekproblem hashtag is particularly important part of the story for the #openweb. A lot of contemporary technology culture has inherited a blinded belief that social problems can be converted into technical problems: if something is messy, build a perfect system, when people disagree, write a protocol, when something is unsafe, add security. If information is difficult to manage, build an algorithm, when people behave badly, moderate them automatically. If a community is struggling, optimise the workflow. Sometimes these things are useful, but often the “technical solution” simply hides the social problem.
The problem isn’t that geeks are bad people. It is that technical culture can become too comfortable with abstraction. People become numbers, communities datasets, politics optimisation. Relationships become networks, trust becomes authentication and participation becomes a user interface. And suddenly, we have designed a technically elegant system that nobody actually wants to live inside.
This is the deeper danger of #technocracy, it is not simply about having too many computers, engineers or technical experts. It is about turning technical expertise into political authority. The idea has been around for a long time. During the crisis of the 1930s, technocratic movements argued that society could be managed by scientific and technical experts rather than through the messy processes of democratic politics. The appeal was understandable: when society is in crisis, efficiency, certainty and expertise can look much more attractive than disagreement, compromise and uncertainty.
But that is the problem – democracy is messy because society is messy. There is no technical system that can contain all the values, histories, relationships, conflicts and experiences of the people affected by a decision. The belief that a small group of people with enough information can simply calculate the correct answer is not an escape from politics, it is politics disguised as engineering.
We can see the same problem emerging in our own technology culture. Silicon Valley has presented itself as being above politics: just build the system, scale it and let the technology solve the problem. But these companies have accumulated enormous economic and political power precisely because their systems shape how people communicate, work, organise, consume information and understand the world. Technology is therefore not neutral infrastructure, who owns it matters – who controls it matters – who funds it matters – who writes the rules matters – who has the power to change those rules matters. And what happens when the system is wrong matters.
The danger becomes serious when technological power and political power start merging. A technology billionaire does not become democratically accountable simply because their company operates critical infrastructure. A powerful algorithm does not become legitimate because it is technically sophisticated. A government does not become more democratic because it uses AI. Technology can be used to amplifie power without making that power accountable.
Technologies of humility
This is where the idea of technologies of humility becomes useful: technical and policy systems need to take uncertainty, ambiguity, vulnerability and the limits of knowledge seriously. Four principles might be useful.
Framing
How are we defining the problem? Are we actually addressing the problem, or simply addressing the part that is easiest to measure? This is hugely important in #OMN development, if we define the problem as “How do we distribute content efficiently?” we will build one kind of system. If we define it as “How do communities maintain trustworthy shared media and social memory?” we build something very different. The technical architecture follows the social framing.
Vulnerability
Who gets hurt by the solution? A system can be efficient and still be destructive. Algorithms can optimise engagement while making people miserable. A moderation system can reduce abuse while silencing marginalised voices. A security system can protect one group while excluding another. We need to ask: who is missing from the path?
Distribution
Who gets the benefits? Who gets the power, the money and who carries the risks? This is one of the most important questions in technology because “innovation” is rarely distributed equally. The #dotcons have become good at extracting value from social relationships while presenting the resulting technology as neutral infrastructure, it isn’t neutral. The ownership model matters, governance matters. The #4opens matters because it tries to move these questions into the open.
Learning
What happens when we are wrong? This may be the most important principle of all, there is rarely one perfect answer to a complex social problem. We need systems that can learn, not simply systems that can scale. This is one of the reasons #OMN is interested in things like moderation, rollback, metadata, federation and open governance. A social system needs mechanisms for correction, needs to be possible to say “That didn’t work. Let’s change it.” without treating the previous decision as sacred.
We need to understand that open systems need more than code, you can have beautifully engineered open-source software running a terrible social system, a decentralised network full of authoritarian communities, transparent code supporting opaque power, and you can build technically open systems that are socially closed.
So the challenge isn’t simply – how do we make the technology open? It is, how do we make technology part of an open social process? That is a much harder question, and much more interesting and why #OMN is deliberately messy.
The #OMN approach isn’t to pretend that we can design the perfect social system in advance. It is to build enough open infrastructure for communities to experiment, disagree, adapt and learn. That means accepting that different communities will do things differently, while providing common building blocks that allow different paths to develop – different interfaces, different workflows, different communities and different forms of participation. It means designing for disagreement rather than pretending disagreement can be engineered away, a path from technical systems to social infrastructure.
Composting the current mess is where the critique of tech authoritarianism connects directly to the #geekproblem, it is the problem of expertise becoming authority without accountability. And the answer is not to remove technical people from decision-making. Quite the opposite. We need their knowledge. But we need it alongside other forms of knowledge and inside democratic, open and accountable processes.
Engineers can tell us what a system can do, but they cannot, by themselves, tell us what society should want. Programmers can design protocols, but they cannot decide what relationships a community should have. Data scientists can identify patterns, they cannot determine what those patterns mean to the people living through them. And AI can process enormous quantities of information, it still cannot replace human judgement, lived experience, disagreement and democratic legitimacy.
This is why #4opens + #OGB + #OMN + #MakingHistory belong together, attempts to build technical infrastructure that leaves room for social intelligence rather than replacing it. To repeat endlessly the path is not one perfect platform, one perfect algorithm or one perfect governance model, #KISS we need more tools, not one answer.
On this native path, mess is not necessarily a failure, it can be the space where learning, disagreement, adaptation and democracy actually happen. That is a much humbler – and potentially much more powerful – ambition.
One of the useful arguments in the debate around decentralisation, blockchain and the #openweb is also one of the simplest – We do not actually live in a trustless world, we live in a world built on different kinds of trust. This is why the Fediverse worked because it was #4opens with a good #UI.
The problem it had to overcome and still does is that much of #geekproblem pushing technology is obsessed with trying to eliminate trust rather than understanding how trust works. The idea of the “trustless” technology sounds attractive. If we cannot trust governments, corporations, banks, platforms, administrators or even other people, why not build digital systems where nobody needs to trust anybody?
This is a simple mindset, instead of trusting a person, trust the mathematics, instead of trusting an institution, trust the protocol. Instead of trusting a moderator, trust the code. Instead of trusting a community, trust the ledger. It sounds wonderfully clean, but there is a problem – you cannot eliminate trust, the social truth is you can only move it somewhere else.
A #blockchain can make it difficult to alter records after they have been entered, but it cannot magically make the information entered into the system true. Someone still has to enter the information, someone has to write the software, someone has to maintain the infrastructure, someone has to interpret the results and someone has to decide what happens when reality doesn’t fit the rules. That distinction, people, is important for thinking about the future of the #openweb as the path to trustless is usually just displaced trust.
Imagine buying a digital object through a “trustless” smart contract. The theory says that you don’t need to trust the seller. The contract automatically enforces the transaction. But do you trust the person who wrote the smart contract? That the code does what you think it does? Do you understand the code well enough to audit it? Do you trust the software running on your computer? Do you trust that the thing described by the contract is actually the thing you want? Suddenly, the system isn’t trustless in any way.
On this blinded pushed #geekproblem path, you are exchanging trust in people and community for trust in software, tech infrastructure and your own technical ability. A tiny number of people are grasping for power, in this it is a “grassroots” mirroring of the current #dotcons mess. Supposedly trustless transactions always fall back on reputation, previous experience, known counterparties or the assumption that somebody will behave fairly.
And this isn’t necessarily a failure, it is a recognition of how society actually works, trust is basic infrastructure. We think of trust as something soft and personal, a handshake, reputation, knowing somebody. Being part of a community, a history with an organisation. But trust is actually a form of core social infrastructure.
When you buy something from a local shop, you don’t individually audit every component of the business. You trust the shopkeeper, the reputation of the shop, the legal framework. You trust food standards, trust that if something goes badly wrong, there are mechanisms for dealing with it. None of this means that the shop is perfectly trustworthy, it means that layers of “soft” trust, accountability and social mechanisms make cooperation possible.
The same thing happens online, we trust websites, moderators, administrators, developers. We trust maintainers, communities. They all have reputations, the interesting question here isn’t – how do we eliminate trust? It is, how do we build better systems of trust? The #geekproblem problem of pretending that trust doesn’t exist, is a fantasy of the trustless system that makes things less democratic. If trust is made invisible inside code, people lose sight of where power shapes process and actually sits. So replacing a human decision with a technical decision doesn’t remove politics, it hardens and hides it by simply hiding politics inside infrastructure.
The #geekproblem isn’t about technical people being bad or that technical knowledge isn’t relevant. Quite the opposite, complex systems need technical knowledge. The current problem comes when technical expertise becomes a substitute for social and political accountability. The system says, “The code says so.” But somebody decided what the code should say, decided what the code should not say – that is governance.
Open Data. Open Source. Open Standards. Open Process.
The point of this simple clarification of #FOSS is to make the system trustworthy enough to participate in and transparent enough that people can understand how that trust is produced. Open source allows people to inspect and modify the software. Open standards allow different systems to communicate. Open data allows information to be examined and reused. Open process makes decision-making visible. They together make trust more accountable, a much healthier goal.
On this current broken path, some people assume that decentralisation means removing trusted intermediaries. But decentralisation does not mean removing relationships, it means distributing relationships and accountability. Instead of one corporation controlling everything, you have many independent communities. Instead of one giant moderation department, you have distributed moderation, one platform deciding the rules, instead communities establish their own rules while communicating through shared standards. Instead of one central archive, many organisations hold copies and contribute metadata flows.
That is not in any way trustless, it is distributed trust, and distributed trust is much closer to how healthy communities actually operate. Reputation matters, people have always used reputation to decide whom to trust. You recommend a builder because someone you know had good experience with them, choose a restaurant because friends recommend it. You work with someone because they have a history of doing good work, participate in a community because you know the people involved.
An example of this #geekproblem in tech the last 20 years of #blockchain projects, is that they have to recreate reputation systems, off chain, to grow trusted parties because people need them to function. This shouldn’t surprise us, reputation is accumulated social knowledge, a record of relationships, it is one of the ways communities remember.
And that common sense is something that technology should help communities develop rather than trying to replace with abstract technical mechanism. This is the danger of “code is law” a seductive idea, if the rules are encoded into software, nobody can arbitrarily change them. But real life doesn’t work like software, people make mistakes, circumstances change. Sometimes the rules themselves are wrong.
A genuinely sustainable social system needs the ability to interpret, moderate, appeal, correct and change, this requires people, relationships and basic governance. It requires trust, were a completely rigid system may be technically predictable while being socially disastrous. Trust needs accountability, this is particularly important for grassroots technology. When we build alternatives to the #dotcons, we shouldn’t simply recreate their power structures with different software. We need to ask:
Who can make decisions?
Who can see what is happening?
Who can challenge a decision?
Who can correct mistakes?
Who can leave?
Who can fork the system?
Who can moderate?
Who controls the infrastructure?
Who owns the data?
These are trust questions, a trustworthy system isn’t one where nobody has power, it is one where power is visible, distributed and accountable. Trust isn’t blind faith, yes, there is a danger in romanticising trust, trust doesn’t mean blindly believing people. Good trust is built through evidence.
You trust somebody because you have a relationship with them.
You trust an organisation because it has demonstrated competence.
You trust a process because you can see how it works.
You trust a community because people hold each other accountable.
You trust software because it is open, tested and maintained.
You trust a system because there are ways to challenge it when it fails.
So the opposite of “trustless” isn’t “blind trust”, it is earned, observable, and accountable. This gives us a useful direction for the current #openweb reboot. It points to the mess we need to compost, we don’t need to recreate the fantasy of an entirely trustless internet. The commercial internet already tried extreme centralised trust – for 20 years the #dotcons became trusted intermediaries for almost everything, owning the infrastructure, controlling the algorithms, identity, data, moderation. They controlled visibility, they still control the economic relationship with users. That isn’t trustless, it is concentrated trust and concentrated power.
Trust is the missing layer, there is a tendency in narrow #geekproblem paths to think in terms of infrastructure first. Servers, protocols, APIs, encryption, algorithms. But underneath all of these sits a social question – why should anyone trust this system? And the answer cannot simply be “Because the code works.” as a system can work perfectly and still be socially terrible. The important question is whether the technology helps people create relationships that are transparent, accountable, resilient and capable of self-correction. That is a much bigger challenge than creating a trustless protocol, but it is also much more useful.
To build on a different path, we need networks where communities can trust their own infrastructure. We are already doing this on the #Fediverse, building on #ActivityPub standard that allow communities to communicate. Moderation systems where decisions are kind of visible and accountable. What is lacking is building governance that people can participate in, this is where projects such as #OMN and #OGB become interesting. There goal isn’t to make human relationships unnecessary, it is to build technical infrastructure that supports better human relationships.
From trustless to trustworthy, means accepting that trust is unavoidable and then making trust visible and accountable. It means combining open standards with open governance, decentralisation with community and recognising that humans aren’t bugs in the system – humans are the system.
Technology should therefore not be designed around the fantasy that people are unreliable components that need to be eliminated. It should be designed around the reality that people cooperate through relationships, reputation, shared history, norms, institutions and accountability. The #KISS task of the #openweb is not to eliminate these things, it is to build better versions of them, real alternative to the #dotcons – not more dead-end trustless technology.
The #OMN path is distributed trust, supported by open technology and democratic governance. And perhaps a more radical idea – rather than trying to remove trust from society, we should get much better at building it, sharing it and making it accountable #KISS.
There is an important argument within environmentalism that often gets lost between the lifestyle politics of the light greens and the anti-industrial politics of the dark greens. It is humanistic green environmentalism – the idea that ecological sustainability does not require us to abandon technology or progressive modern life. Instead, we need to radically redesign the systems that produce them. Humanistic green thinking is about bringing humanity’s ecological footprint within the limits of the planet while improving the quality of human life.
Light green environmentalism turns ecology into a lifestyle choice: buy the right things, recycle, consume less, and make better individual choices.
Dark green environmentalism goes further, arguing that ecological destruction is built into industrial capitalism, growth, consumption and production. Technology is treated with suspicion, and dark-green traditions argue for degrowth, radical reductions in consumption, or even a retreat from technological civilisation altogether.
Humanistic environmentalism takes another, balanced path: we need radical systemic change, but technology and design can be part of the solution rather than simply being part of the problem. However, this approach can create another problem: #technocracy.
Technocracy is the idea that complex social problems can be managed through expertise, scientific evidence, measurement, efficiency and technical rationality. In its strongest form, political legitimacy shifts away from popular participation and towards experts who are assumed to know how systems should work.
For humanistic politics, the danger is that we move from collectively changing how society works to experts designing the sustainable society for us. Those are not the same thing. Technocratic thinking is attractive because the problems are genuinely complex. Climate change, energy systems, transport, food production, biodiversity, housing and resource use involve enormous amounts of technical knowledge. Evidence matters. Expertise matters. Science matters.
But science cannot decide our political values for us. Technocracy present political choices as technical problems. Once something has been reduced to a question of efficiency, optimisation, cost-benefit analysis or measurable outcomes, the underlying political arguments can disappear. This creates a real #geekproblem: claims of value-neutrality conceal assumptions about whose interests matter, what counts as prosperity, and what kind of society we actually want.
This is where the needed environmental debate becomes much more interesting. The question isn’t simply – Technology or no technology? It is more, who controls technology, for what purpose, and through what social process?
A solar panel can be part of a community energy project, controlled collectively and used to change our lifestyles so that we reduce energy use and learn to live closely with nature. The same technology can be embedded inside a corporate energy system where communities remain passive consumers, with little change to user behaviour or the underlying system.
Open-source software can distribute technological power; closed platforms can concentrate it.
Electric vehicles can reduce some forms of pollution while still leaving questions about mining, manufacturing, urban design and transport dependency.
AI might help optimise energy systems, or it could become another enormous infrastructure of corporate and state control.
Technology itself does not answer these questions. Politics does. This is why the environmental movement needs to avoid both technological utopianism and technological nihilism.
The dark green critique is right to warn that technological efficiency does not, by itself, solve the political economy of endless growth. Efficiency can make consumption cheaper and therefore increase total consumption.
But the humanistic path cannot simply tell billions of people to consume less. That is not a sufficient political programme. People want decent homes, transport, healthcare, communications, food, energy and security. We cannot build a humanistic future by pretending that technological development can simply be switched off.
The missing piece is democratic technological development. We need the tools of humanistic environmentalism without surrendering political agency to technocracy. That means #4opens technologies, open standards, open data, open processes and democratic institutions. It means communities can understand, modify and govern, rather than systems that require permanent dependence on technical #elitists. It means treating technology as part of the social commons, rather than assuming that innovation must flow from corporations, governments or specialist institutions down to passive consumers.
The environmental challenge therefore isn’t simply about making capitalism greener. Nor is it about retreating into a fantasy of pre-industrial simplicity. We need to build a different kind of modernity – a modernity where technology reduces ecological damage and increases people’s ability to participate. Human progress is measured not only by efficiency or profitability, but by resilience, autonomy, repairability, accessibility and ecological impact. Where communities can understand and govern the infrastructures on which they depend. And where experts are valued for what they know without being allowed to become a substitute for democracy.
This is the point where humanistic environmentalism needs to meet the #openweb, #FOSS, the commons and grassroots organisation. The choice is not technology vs nature, nor experts vs ordinary people. The challenge is to grow social systems where knowledge, technology and democratic participation reinforce each other.
We don’t need less thinking, we need more people able to think, participate, organise and understand the systems shaping their lives. That is the difference between a technological future imposed from above and a technological future built as commons from below – using the best tools we have to build a society that is more ecological, more democratic and more capable of changing itself.
The #blocking of this is not that people disagree, challenge and disagreement are necessary, the blocking happens when criticism becomes a substitute for action.
Demanding proof before engaging with the alternative. “What have you done?” can be a useful question, but it also becomes a way of putting the person making the challenge permanently on trial. The response then becomes about defending credentials rather than building the alternative.
Reducing action to individual performance. “What have you done today?” is reproducing the very #stupidindividualism being criticised. The important question is not what heroic thing did one person do? But what are we building collectively?
Moving the conversation onto legality or uncertainty. “The answer may not be strictly legal” and “Not sure…” don’t engage with the central question: how do we move communities away from the #dotcons? They redirect the conversation away from the structural challenge.
Treating posting as either everything or nothing. The question is whether communication is leading somewhere. A post that recruits people into an open project is different from another argument that generates clicks for Facebook.
Confusing criticism with change. “I try to subvert the acolytes of the status quo every day” sounds active, but the important follow-up is: what does that produce? Does it build a relationship, an organisation, a tool, a migration, a community or an alternative infrastructure?
The “positive alternatives” argument also become blocking. “Just make positive posts about projects” sounds constructive, but if it means don’t criticise the existing system, it becomes a form of depoliticisation. People need to understand what is wrong, why it is wrong, and what they can actually do instead.
The useful distinction is: Criticism → understanding → organisation → action → alternative. Blocking looks more like: Criticism → argument → personal challenge → argument → more criticism. That is the #block.
The #dotcons argument is strongest when the hashtag isn’t treated as an answer in itself. #dotcons names the problem. #openweb names part of the alternative. #OMN is an attempt to build infrastructure for that alternative. The missing middle is the community that connects the three.
So the question “What have you done today?” is potentially powerful, but it should mean – What have we done together today that makes the alternative more real? That shifts the conversation away from individual virtue and towards collective agency. And that connects directly to the compost metaphor: don’t spend all day arguing about how bad the pile of mess is. Grab a spade, organise some people, and start turning it into something useful.
Let’s look at stepping away from the #dotcons as an example of hashtag affinity group organising. A hashtag can help name a problem, but it cannot by itself create a movement. It only becomes a tool for social change when shared language connects people to shared relationships, practical projects and action. The “spade and compost” metaphor is useful for this, the hashtag helps identify the mess, but the point is to pick up the spade and compost with them. A useful progression is: Name → Connect → Organise → Act → Build → Repeat:
Connect the people: hashtags allow people who recognise the same problem to find each other. But this needs to become an affinity group of action, not just a pile of accounts using the same word.
Make the metaphor understandable: explain what the hashtag means and give groups lived examples. Otherwise, it becomes just another insider language.
Turn criticism into a question: What can we do about this? Or What did you do today to help your community step away from the #dotcons?
People need a next step: join a project, move a community conversation to the #openweb, install something, help document a project, host a server, organise an event, teach somebody else.
Create visible alternatives: this is where #OMN matters. If you tell people to leave something, you need somewhere meaningful to go.
Build collective habits: the hashtag becomes useful when a community consistently uses it to recognise problems, share experience and coordinate action.
Compost the criticism: don’t only keep producing negativity about the #dotcons. Turn the accumulated criticism into knowledge, relationships, tools and projects.
These are the messy problems we need to compost. The path of “making positive posts about specific openweb projects” is part of the answer, but positive promotion alone isn’t enough. People also need a shared explanation of why the existing system is a problem and a language for understanding it.
So the hashtag isn’t the movement, it is the flag, vocabulary and filing system. The movement is the people who organise around it and actually do something. And that’s the bit missing from “just put a # in front of the words.” 🙂
One of the important ideas in the sociology of science is also one of the easiest to misunderstand: knowledge is socially produced. This does not mean that scientists simply make things up, it means something much more practical. Science is a human activity, it requires people, institutions, money, equipment, archives, universities, laboratories, communities and time. What we choose to investigate – and what we choose not to investigate – is therefore shaped by society.
That means there is another side to the politics of knowledge, we construct knowledge, but we can also construct ignorance. This is the idea of agnotology: the study of how ignorance is produced, maintained and as we see todays messy world, deliberately manufactured. Yes, this should be common sense, that the consequence of science is unavoidable selectivity: we look here rather than there, and every decision to investigate one thing means that something else receives less attention.
The important question is therefore not – what do we know? It is also, what don’t we know, why don’t we know it, and who benefits from that ignorance? Science does not happen outside society, there is a persistent #fashernista fantasy that science exists somewhere above politics and society. In this common sense fantasy, scientists simply follow the evidence, eventually discovering the truth. Any gaps in knowledge are assumed to be temporary, eventually somebody will get around to researching the missing pieces and the picture will become complete.
But our current capitalist science doesn’t work like that, as research needs resources, someone has to decide what gets funded, has to establish institutions and employ researchers. Someone has to maintain archives and databases. Someone has to decide which questions are legitimate enough to investigate. This means that the social organisation of knowledge is itself part of the knowledge system. Science is not an abstract ideal, as meany people treat it, but a human practice made up of institutions, resources and people. Political forces influence the scientific ecosystem without needing to dictate the results of individual experiments.
This matters – you don’t need to falsify scientific evidence to manipulate science, you can simply make sure that the research never happens. The politics of the missing, lets look at an example, imagine two possible worlds.
In one, researchers spend twenty years investigating a particular health problem. Thousands of people contribute data. Universities train specialists. Public institutions maintain long-term datasets. Researchers develop treatments, identify risks and improve policy.
In another, funding disappears. The research programme closes. The datasets are deleted. Researchers move into other fields. Young academics decide there is no career in the subject. Communities become reluctant to participate because they no longer trust the institutions.
Nobody has announced “we have banned this knowledge”, but the knowledge disappears anyway. This is one of the most powerful things about agnotology. Ignorance does not have to be created by a giant conspiracy, it can emerge through apparently ordinary administrative decisions: funding priorities, institutional closures, data deletion, censorship, intimidation, restructuring and changes in what counts as a legitimate research question. Over time, the result becomes material.
Scientific knowledge is cumulative, new work depends upon old work, archives and datasets. Remove the foundations and you don’t simply lose yesterday’s knowledge – you make tomorrow’s knowledge harder to produce. The archive is political infrastructure – this is where the #OMN path becomes important. We often think of archives as passive things, as librarys siting somewhere, a database sits on a server, a government website publishes information, a research paper exists in a journal. But these things are infrastructure, if the infrastructure disappears, access to knowledge disappears with it.
This is why #makinghistory matters – society needs the ability to remember itself, not just the official history or whatever survives inside corporate platforms or that happens to remain profitable. We need distributed, community-controlled records of what happened, what people experienced, what institutions did, what communities built and what was subsequently removed. That is media infrastructure, but it is also social memory infrastructure – closed systems make forgetting easy, sometimes this is deliberate, often it isn’t.
The social record becomes fragile, is one of the problems with concentrating so much of our communication inside a small number of commercial platforms. We have allowed a huge amount of collective memory to become dependent on organisations whose primary responsibility is not to society but to their own narrow institutional interests. That is not the resilient information system we need today in the era of #climatechaos.
The #openweb is a memory machine – the alternative isn’t that everything needs to be permanently preserved forever, that would be another form of technological fundamentalism. The point is to create distributed capacity, multiple archives, multiple publishers, multiple communities, institutions. Multiple ways of finding and verifying information, multiple copies, open formats, standards, source and proces. This is what the #4opens approach is trying to get at, not simply technical principles, they are social protections.
Open Data means information can remain accessible.
Open Source means the tools themselves can be inspected and maintained.
Open Standards mean that information doesn’t have to remain trapped inside one company’s technical ecosystem.
Open Process means that decisions can be challenged rather than disappearing behind institutional walls.
Together these create a technical architecture of social resilience.
Then we have the danger of the “no data, no problem” argument, is a particularly nasty political trick that follows from manufactured ignorance. First, prevent the research, then point to the lack of research as evidence that the problem isn’t real No evidence.”, “No consensus.”, “More research is needed.”, “We simply don’t know.” Sometimes those statements are reasonable, but they can also become circular.
If you systematically prevent people from collecting the evidence, you cannot then use the absence of evidence as proof that nothing is happening. The rhetorical pattern is that the assumption that if something were true, science would already have conclusively demonstrated it. But a lack of evidence can also result from social forces preventing researchers from doing the work in the first place. This matters far beyond any single political issue, it applies to climate research, poverty, housing, public health, marginalised communities, the effects of technology. It applies to almost anything where powerful interests might prefer that certain questions remain unanswered.
Information needs communities, is another lesson – knowledge doesn’t survive simply because somebody writes it down. It survives because communities care enough to maintain it, institutions train people, maintain archives, provide context. Researchers build upon previous work, journalists document events, activists preserve evidence, technologists maintain infrastructure, historians connect fragments together. This is a social ecosystem and when you break enough parts of it, knowledge starts disappearing.
That is why the #OMN isn’t simply about making another publishing platform, the larger idea is to build infrastructure for collective knowledge production and memory. Publishing is one part, metadata another, moderation, trust, archives, federation are all parts. The ability to edit, correct, contextualise and preserve information needs to work together.
The #openweb gives us a possibility that centralised media never really delivered: a network where different communities maintain their own spaces while still communicating with one another. That creates disagreement without requiring isolation, creates diversity without requiring fragmentation and it gives us a chance to build something much more resilient than the current model of a handful of corporate databases surrounded by billions of users. From information to social truth, is a political question.
This is the reason I keep coming back to #makinghistory – if somebody deletes a webpage, we should have copy, if a community documents an event, that record should not depend upon one #dotcons corporation continuing to host it. If an organisation changes its story, there should be an accessible historical record. If a government removes information, communities should be able to preserve what was orgionaly published.
If today’s activists disappear, tomorrow’s activists should still be able to understand what they did. If a research project closes, the work should not simply evaporate. This doesn’t mean believing every archive is automatically true – archives need context, metadata, discussion, provenance and criticism. In fact, that is exactly the point – the answer to bad information is not less information, it is better social infrastructure for comparing, contextualising and challenging information.
There is a tendency to think of technology as neutral plumbing, but the plumbing determines what can flow through it. A centralised system encourages centralised memory – a closed system encourages institutional dependency – a disposable platform encourages disposable history. Were open systems create the possibility of continuity beyond any single organisation. What we do with those #4opens possibilities is a social question, it is why #OMN, #MakingHistory, #Indymediaback, #OGB and the wider #4opens approach belong together. They are different pieces of the same argument.
That is the danger of manufactured ignorance, and why preserving the #openweb is not a technical hobby, it is part of preserving our collective ability to think.
For years, climate breakdown was treated as distant, a problem for activists, scientists, future generations or places somewhere else. That blinded view is now harder to sustain. Heat, fires, floods, crop failures, infrastructure disruption, rising insurance costs and the growing difficulty of simply keeping homes and communities safe are making climate disruption part of our everyday life.
As we are talking about tech on this site – the important question for the #OMN is therefore not only how do we stop climate change? It is also – how do we build the social infrastructure needed to live through the disruption that is already here? This is where the climate conversation needs to become broader, and treat adaptation not surrendering, due to the fear that talking about adaptation means giving up on mitigation, it doesn’t.
We still need fundamental social change to reduce emissions, change energy systems and challenge the economic structures pushing us to ecological destruction. But we also need to mediate the very real mess and disruption is already here, we need to be honest about that. A community facing repeated flooding needs flood planning, when homes become dangerously hot, people need cooling, insulation and better housing. When extreme weather repeatedly disrupts transport, energy or communications, communities need resilient alternatives, insurance companies withdraw from areas they consider too risky, it is basic that communities also need better ways of thinking about collective risk and resilience.
These are not future problems, they are now simply ordinary infrastructure questions. And this infrastructure is never only physical, we also need social infrastructure too. This is needed to grow climate resilience, information resilience, on this path we need native #openweb systems where communities can publish what is happening, preserve local knowledge, compare experiences, challenge bad information, coordinate responses and maintain collective memory. That is very different from the current model of social media, where information is filtered and controlled through commercial algorithms, engagement incentives and platform ownership.
The #climatecrisis is already difficult enough – we don’t need our communication systems making it harder. Thus, the climate crisis is also a media crisis: When a flood happens, what matters? People need to know where the water is. They need to know which roads are closed, where vulnerable people are, which services are operating. They need to know what happened last time to know who they can trust.
And afterwards, someone needs to record what actually happened, this last part is particularly important. Without good local records, every disaster becomes an isolated event. Communities repeatedly rediscover the same problems because institutional memory disappears. This is one reason the #OMN#makinghistory matters, the idea is simple: communities should create living, collaborative records of what is happening around them. Not just journalism in the traditional sense, but a shared memory infrastructure. Stories, events, places, people, evidence, changes and responses connected over time to give communities something valuable during #climatechaos – memory.
You would be right we already have more information than ever, the problem is that information is fragmented into disconnected #closedweb platforms. One person posts on Facebook, someone else posts on X, another publishes a video on YouTube. A council puts an announcement somewhere else, a local activist keeps information on a personal website were a journalist publishes an article that disappears behind a paywall.
Then the flooding comes, and suddenly nobody has a reliable picture of what happened. This is the #datasoup problem. The answer isn’t simply more information, we need better ways of connecting information while keeping its provenance, context and history. This is why open standards matter – #RSS, #ActivityPub, open metadata, decentralised publishing, archives and interoperable tools are not just technical preferences, they are pieces of a social resilience infrastructure. The #4opens is a useful starting point: Open Data. Open Source. Open Standards. Open Process. These matter because climate resilience cannot depend entirely on proprietary systems controlled by a few companies.
We shouldn’t respond to the crisis by creating another centralised technological solution and declaring it the answer. This is not about building one perfect system, there is another lesson here – climate chaos is too complicated for that. Different communities have different needs, the important thing is that these systems connect and remain open. We already have a path for this – the #openweb is already a diverse ecosystem rather than another platform monopoly. This is why the #OMN approach is deliberately practical and pluralistic, we don’t need technological purity, we need useful tools that work together and remain in the commons.
Yes, finally the wider #mainstreaming is noticing the physical problem. Heatwaves are no longer exceptional, flooding is no longer unimaginable, insurance withdrawal will become a political issue. Food and energy security need to become part of everyday political discussion. The mainstream is beginning to understand the hard infrastructure problem, but the social infrastructure problem remains much less visible.
We need to build paths through this before we need them – The worst time to discover that your community has no communication infrastructure is during a disaster. The worst time to discover that nobody knows what happened during the previous flood is during the next flood. The worst time to discover that all your community information lives on somebody else’s platform is when that platform changes its access rules or goes away.
Resilience therefore means building before the emergency, but not another giant centralised project, more lots of small interconnected pieces. Open tools, local archives, community websites, federated publishing sharing metadata based on open standards. Then the social side is people who know how to maintain servers, know how to tell stories, how to moderate and systems that allow all those pieces to connect, as climate resilience is also social resilience.
The deeper point is that climate chaos exposes the weakness of the current #dotcons social model. A society organised around individual consumption, competition, private ownership and short-term profit is poorly equipped for long-term collective disruption. The response has to move in the opposite direction: balancing individualism towards community; from enclosure towards commons; from proprietary platforms towards open infrastructure; from disposable information towards collective memory and from centralised control towards distributed resilience.
Technology cannot solve #climatechaos, but the wrong technology can make it much worse, while the right kind of technology can help communities organise, remember, communicate and cooperate. That is the space we are interested in with the #OMN to build the open social infrastructure underneath society – infrastructure that can survive the platforms, the political fashions and hopefully some of the climate disruption coming our way.
The climate crisis is not only asking whether we can build stronger walls, better drains and cooler buildings, it is asking whether we can become better at being a society. That is where the #openweb has a role – you need a shovel #OMN
