Peace News

The current mess at Peace News has the same people and the same story as the mess ten years ago in the organizing of the Radical Media Conference, which I was involved as a core organiser https://hamishcampbell.com/real-media-gathering-how-not-to-re-boot-grassroots-media/

Firstly I have little knowledge about the current mess, but I have experience of the same mess with the same people, likely the is some reverence, let’s look at some of the language used:

“During that time I have had to witness the unbalanced behaviour of Milan Rai as he struggled to protect his ‘kingdom’ from any attempts by PNT to establish some system where we, as trustees, might obtain some degree of insight into the intentions and the political vision of the editor of what was clearly a failing project.”

“Milan Rai’s typical tactics: the personalisation of issues with Glyn pilloried as an authoritarian who lacked the ethical commitment to the core values of pacifism that informed the group of companies. It became a nasty business”

“tension between PNT and the editorial staff of Peace News (Milan Rai in particular) has been over the question of the quality of the paper and editorial accountability… asking themselves how to try and handle the problem of Milan Rai, as sales declined and the distance between the editorial staff and the trustees grew.”

“PNT had never faced a situation where an editor insisted on clinging on to his position…. We were ill-equipped to deal with this challenge of an editor who was not afraid to insist on maintaining sovereignty over his domain.”

“various attempts to recruit new members for the PNT board failed because potential trustees, particularly women, had unpleasant past experiences of working with Milan Rai in different capacities… Almost immediately the new board of PNL along with the staff, launched delaying, duplicitous and dishonest ways to maintain a veil of secrecy around its deliberations and to prevent any ‘interference’ from the trustees.”

All from https://peacenewstrustees.my.canva.site/

The other side is here https://peacenews.info/blog/2024/entire-peace-news-staff-resign-protest-over-tidal-wave-intimidation-harassment-and

“over ‘tidal wave of intimidation, harassment and threats… The relentless bullying campaign we have experienced”

And here https://peacenews.info/node/11063/peace-news-close

“‘The tidal wave of intimidation, harassment and threats that we have experienced over the last year has been extremely stressful and exhausting… We tried to create a more healthy relationship between PNT and PNL, based on consent and mutual respect, protecting a space for private conversation and discussion without PNT surveillance or micro-management. Unfortunately, that attempt has been unsuccessful… “The relentless bullying campaign we have experienced”

This next language and action has destroyed meany grassroots movements: “PNT would no longer allow PN to draw from a large legacy held by PNT (access to this legacy had previously been agreed in order to pay staff wages and other expenses) – also from 1 August… it was an ‘error’ to see this large legacy as owed by PNT to Peace News Ltd (despite the fact that the PNT accounts have for years clearly stated that this legacy belongs to Peace News), raising the prospect that PNT would seize this money”

Am sure every side wonted to end this mess “The PN staff and Peace News board members realised that we were all about to tip into legal battles that would drain the bank accounts of both Peace News Ltd and its parent company, and which might end up requiring the sale of 5 Caledonian Road, destroying Housmans Bookshop, our sister project, in the process.”

“no way to deal with the bullying we had endured – and which we faced more… pointing out the level of sexism… staff members done to deserve the kind of treatment inflicted and threatened… something which had been set up as a defensive move in the face of PNT’s intrusive and controlling behaviour… we have now had over a year of dictats, wild accusations, repeated and sustained attacks on PNL’s autonomy, and the casual floating of “options” that could put Housmans’ finances at serious risk – for example, by tripling their rent… the latest in a long line of authoritarian and destructive decisions and initiatives”

The problem in this kinda text is that this is exactly the problems I experienced working with one of the individuals at the centre of this mess, I could have written the first part of this quoted text about my experience working with PN ten years ago “leadership of PNT has been marked by chaos, confrontation and an obsession with control… Positively, the staff did also offer to join PNT temporarily and to help bring in new PNT directors.” can you see the power politics in play in the second line quoted?

At this point I would like to be clear, I likely would have little sympathy for the plans for change being pushed by the trusty’s on the one hand, but my experience of trying to work with some of the PN crew and the quotes above highlights https://hamishcampbell.com/the-victimhood-narrative-needs-composting/ this post, that in a small part comes from my experience dealing with some members of PN ten years ago… the mess has not changed.

What can we learn for this, and some activist reaction to this mess https://freedomnews.org.uk/2024/09/01/mass-resignation-closes-peace-news-hold-to-mon/

The situation at Peace News (PN) is a mess, a mess that mirrors similar conflicts, a direct example from the history of PN, a decade ago during the organizing of the Radical Media Conference I look at latter. Having been personally involved in the alternative tech and grassroots media scene, I’ve seen this pattern play out, and it’s clear that there’s something fundamentally wrong in how these dynamics unfold. Conflicts are not isolated; they are ingrained in the culture of organizations, perpetuated by individuals and unresolved power struggles.

The mess at Peace News revolve around issues of control, accountability, and power dynamics. On one side, the Peace News Trustees (PNT) accuse Milan Rai, a long-standing editor and a central figure at Peace News, of being unaccountable, manipulative, and resistant to attempts to create transparency and oversight. On the other side, the Peace News Limited (PNL) staff accuse the trustees of intimidation, harassment, and micromanagement.

It is a recurring conflict, let’s look at my experiences with the Radical Media Conference, the same names and dynamics of control and manipulation: Milan Rai holding onto control, resisting oversight, and personalizing issues to deflect criticism. The same experiences with the same individual. Then we have both sides steeped in victimhood narratives, where each sees themselves as besieged by the other. On the PNL side, there are claims of bullying, harassment, and authoritarian tactics by PNT. Meanwhile, the PNT sees itself as trying to inject accountability to the editorial team. The inability to break out of this victim-oppressor cycle contributes to the ongoing mess. The root causes are power politics and culture of control.

What can we learn from this? Maybe rebuild with clear #4opens governance and accountability, structures that have transparency in roles, responsibilities, and levels of accountability to prevent any single individual from accumulating unchecked power. Composting bad faith arguments and toxicity, to recognize the patterns of destructive behaviour and actively work to break them down, just like compost. This might allow for new, healthier shoots to growth. Organizations need to be willing to let go of old, toxic structures and dynamics to allow something more healthy to grow. Then we need to move beyond victimhood narratives: Both sides in this conflict are deeply entrenched in their victimhood narratives, which serves to escalate the conflict.

Conclusion, the mess at Peace News is a tragic example of what happens when unresolved conflicts, entrenched power dynamics, and a lack of transparency come to a head. It mirrors a pattern that has played out in grassroots movements over the years, including my own experience trying to work with the Peace News editorial team at the Radical Media Conference. In my limited experience this mess has been ongoing for more than ten years, if there’s a lesson here, it’s that we need to focus on building structures and cultures that prioritize trust, accountability, and a shared vision—not control and blame.

Control freak s DRAFT

Individualism isn’t the problem, the “stupid” part is the problem

let’s try and compost the mess in this, there is nothing wrong with being your own person, having an authentic inner life, and cultivating a strong sense of self. In fact, psychological separation from family, nation, and community is a critical aspect of human maturity. This perspective was forcefully argued by the socialist psychologist Erich Fromm, who saw the problem not in individualism per se, but in what we might call hyperindividualism, toxic individualism or what I call #stupidindividualism in the #hashtag story.

The three-stage psychological development process that captures the journey of human maturity:

Absorption of worldview, when we are born, we absorb the worldview of our family, community, nation, or clan. In this, one’s identity is intertwined with these external structures—what Fromm calls “blood and soil.” People in this stage see themselves as extensions of their family or nation.
Independence of thought, as we mature, an authentic inner self begins to develop, and we break away from external identities. Achieving independence of thought to not rely on the beliefs and views of others to define ourselves. At this stage, a person’s identity comes from their authentic inner life, rather than from intense belonging to tribe, country, or religion.
Reconnection through solidarity, the final stage, involves reconnecting with others, but not through blind conformity. Instead, this stage requires a re-connection through solidarity—a unity with others that does not destroy one’s individuality. Psychological health, according to #Fromm, requires this balance: to be oneself and yet be connected to the broader human community in a meaningful way.

When people fail in the progress through these stages, social and psychological dysfunctions grow. For instance, fascism, Fromm argued, is a product of being stuck in the first stage, where they crave authoritarianism because they have not grown as authentic individuals. On the other hand, those stuck in the second stage, cannot reconnect with humanity, also suffer from isolation and alienation.

Capitalism is “individualist” and anti-individualist, it is heralded as a system that celebrates the individual. However, this is a misleading portrayal, as #capitalism is both “individualist” and anti-individualist. If you truly think for yourself within capitalism—questioning the status quo, challenging authority, or stepping outside the normal #mainstreaming roles—If this is threatening, you are ridiculed, ostracized, ignored, and marginalized. Genuine individuality, especially when it contests capitalist norms, is not celebrated but rather suppressed.

In the current path, individualism is for the rich. The wealthy can afford to “be themselves” because they have the means to cushion the consequences. Everyone else must conform—follow orders at work, keep their heads down, buy the same cheap products, watch the same blockbusters, and generally consume and behave as they are told. Deviating from this path risks economic ruin and social exclusion. The stupid part “freedom of choice” is in the current mess reduced to trivial decisions like choosing between McDonald’s or Burger King, or which big-budget superhero movie to watch. This mess reduces human worth to economic output and consumer choice, devaluing real individuality that does not conform to its profit-driven logic.

Thus, the individual within capitalism is constrained, workers are rendered disposable the moment they are no longer “useful” to the corporate machine. This mess is full of irony: while capitalism promotes the ideal of rugged #individualism, it actually holds contempt for the vast majority of individuals who do not fit into its narrow path. The distortion of individualism, capitalism turns individualism into a competitive drive that compels people to measure their life’s worth in the greed and fear driven push of personal successes and failures, rather than by group and community paths. This divisive force undermines collective solidarity.

“Socialism entails a collectivism which does not suppress the individualism of bourgeois society, and in contrast to the ‘crude’ collectivism of very poor working class communities, is a collectivism which transcends (or sublates) individualism.”

This path of collectivism does not erase individuality, instead, it moves past the hollow, competitive individualism pushed by capitalism. This balancing of collectivism encourages personal development in the context of a supportive community. In conclusion, the problem is not individualism, but the path that warps it into stupidindividualism, a toxic, isolating force that fragments solidarity and community, this is the “stupid” in the hashtag #stupidindividualism, yes it is stupid and makes us stupid, we do need to talk about this to compost mess.

The Open Media Network (#OMN) is a set of tools to empower communities

People find it hard to understand the “unique” selling point of the #OMN beyond the tech, which is “common sense”. And this is, drum roll, reveal, that people and content are data objects in the “commons” by default and only private/owed by exception. This is the basic #KISS “unique” selling point of the #OMN there we are, I said it was simple.

It’s interesting with all the talk about the project over the last ten years this was never talked about. This is a direct result of the agenda blocking of the #geekproblem, #fashernista agenda and #NGO control mess. We never actually get to the bits that matter as we are so fussed talking about the bits that don’t matter, the ones the groups above push. This is a mess that we urgently need to compost.

The Open Media Network (OMN) is a set of tools to empower YOU to change and challenge the world we live (and die) in. The OMN is about opening up the flow of information and breaking down the silos that keep data locked in walled gardens. It’s an “anything in and anything out” network, operating through mediated trust database/flows that puts power back into the hands of grassroots paths. This framework is built from the #fediverse to flow freely, with control in the hands of the users.

The OMN is a “data soup”—a blend of tagged data objects flowing through channels. These flows are mediated by trust, which means that users can depend on the reliability of sources and content within the network. This isn’t just about blind trust; it’s about a dynamic, evolving network of trust relationships where both content creation and consumption are guided by the principles of openness and integrity.

Within the OMN, people are free to choose their own level of engagement—whether they want to be active participants contributing content and trust, or more passive consumers curating what they see and share. The choice is yours, the network’s design supports autonomy. Embracing the messiness of data, the OMN has several unconventional features that might be seen as “problems” by those entrenched in traditional geekproblem tech paths.

Lossy Data: Accepting that not all data needs to be perfect or complete. The world is messy, and our data can reflect that reality.
Redundancy: Multiple instances of the same data help to ensure that information isn’t lost and allows the network to be more resilient.
Trust: It is integral to the network’s design. Users navigate this “data soup” based on trust relationships rather than on algorithms or centralized authority.

By mediating the #geekproblem, which will view these attributes as flaws, we open up perspectives on how data and communities can interact and thrive. This network is built on the #4opens principles to ensure that the OMN is not another closed-off tech experiment but a genuinely open and collaborative path. It’s not about reinventing the wheel or creating something entirely new from scratch. Instead, it’s about leveraging existing tools and technologies to build a decentralized media/news network that is “permissionless” for anyone to use and contribute to, it’s up to them if they trust other people.

What makes the OMN exciting is the potential it offers for “flows of trust” to develop. Communities and people are encouraged to build their own projects on top of the simple OMN framework, allowing a wide range of alternative media, news, and social projects to emerge. The focus is on using these flows to cultivate healthy, vibrant communities where trust is a core currency, and where diverse perspectives can coexist and grow.

The goal is empowerment through decentralizing control and empowering communities that allow people to take control of their media, their data, and their interactions. The #OMN provides a good user interface (UX) to facilitate easy navigation and interaction within the network, making it accessible for tech-savvy developers to everyday users to create meaning and shared spaces.

In conclusion, the OMN is not just a project; it’s a framework for interacting with information and with each other to invite us to rethink our relationship with media, data, and trust. So, let’s get involved. Let’s build, experiment, and trust. The #OMN is an opportunity to shape a truly #openweb where you have the power to change the world by challenging the current statues quo.

The patriarchs of the early #openweb

Parasite #NGO and #fashionista tech

“But the principal objection will doubtless refer to the plain language used. My excuse, if indeed excuse be needed for saying just what I mean, is, that it is impossible to clothe in delicate terms the intolerable nastiness which I expose, and at the same time to press the truth home to those who are most in need of it; I might as well talk to the winds as veil my ideas in sweet phrases when addressing people who it seems cannot descry the presence of corruption until it is held in all its putridity under their very nostrils.”

On the of alt-tech path, I’ve been navigating this messy terrain of decentralized, grassroots technology for a long time. From this experience, I can say with some authority that we have taken a step away from the current mess with the growing #activertypub open web reboot. But we still need to mediate some of the ongoing #fashionistas #blocking, which is not helping us compost this mess into fertile soil for the fresh shoots of alternative technology that we so desperately need. This ongoing mess needs more composting, if we leave this in place to continue down this path, we risk strangling the growth we’re trying to cultivate.

The #4opens is a useful tool to recognizing the parasite #NGO and #Fashernista tech projects, that we keep stumbling over. The way genuinely grassroots tech projects—those born from communities, those driven by necessity and vision—are repeatedly being pushed aside by parasite tech projects. These feed from our grassroots efforts, taking the buzzwords and aesthetics without understanding or respecting the underlying principles and socially embedded paths.

This isn’t a fringe occurrence; it’s a pattern that has repeated itself over the last 30 years in meany cases I’ve come across. From social media alternatives to community-focused platforms, time and again, well-intentioned grassroots efforts are overshadowed by the glossy, polished facades of #VC funded or #NGO-backed, fashion-driven tech initiatives that lack, depth and commitment to the actual communities they purport to serve. These projects can be seen as they are more concerned with optics, funding, and their own visibility than with fostering genuine, sustainable alternatives.

There is a role for the #4opens in composting this #techshit, this is a framework that helps to expose and compost this kind of mess at its source. For those unfamiliar, the #4opens are:

Open Data: Data must be accessible, reusable, and modifiable.
Open Source: Code should be freely available for anyone to use, modify, and share.
Open Standards: Interoperability is key; data and code should work together, not against each other.
Open Process: The decision-making process should be transparent and inclusive, not hidden behind closed doors.

By applying the #4opens in grassroots tech projects, we can help to make visible the manipulations and shortfalls of parasitic NGO and fashernista power grabs. This works best when the process is open, so people see who is contributing to the ecosystem and who is simply feeding off it. This visibility is crucial because, without it, these actors are allowed to thrive unchecked, feeding off our work and energy while providing little in return. The open process serves as a powerful tool to expose those who claim to be fostering change but are merely replicating the same hierarchical and closed structures that led us into the current tech mess. It’s about shining a light on the hidden agendas and pushing for accountability and transparency in what this reveals.

How can our #NGO crew actually help? This is harder than it seems as the is strong #blocking to overcome, so the first step is overcoming this blocking, need ideas please?

My idea: Celebrate the mess, understanding that change is messy, and in this mess that new ideas form, where unexpected connections are made, and where real, lasting change takes root. We need to change and challenge the world dominated by the #dotcons and take our alternatives out of the hands of stale paths of dead-end NGO and fashernista tech. We do need composting as a regenerative path.

Motivation for moving away from this mess. The fact that people are rebooting the #openweb by building the #fediverse in a #DIY, grassroots way, without millions in VC funding, is one of the most remarkable feats of contemporary digital resistance. It’s not about “winning” in the capitalist sense—dominating the market, scaling endlessly, or achieving monopoly status in the image of the #dotcons and big tech path. The fediverse powerful from being built on #4opens principles of decentralization, community effort, it’s a native path, outside the norms that capitalism dictates to us as essential.

#NGO platforms like #Bluesky can be fertilised by $12 million in backing and a fully-paid team, the fediverse is growing grassroots from the ground up. It’s powered by people and communities working in their spare time, without corporate salaries and benefits. The coding and creating is driven by belief and belonging, not because a corporation paying to hit growth targets. That’s a different motivation, and it has strength.

The thing we need to see here is that the fediverse exists and thrives, standing as a living counter culture to the idea of competition, capital and centralized control. It’s running against the grain of what’s considered “necessary” in tech, it’s rewriting the rules back to the “native” #openweb path. This openweb reboot shows that people can build non #mainstreaming alternatives, with no paywalls, no ad-tracking, no surveillance, just open collaboration and shared values.

That it’s running at all, while not on the capitalism’s, path and ignoring its “rules”, is the victory. It doesn’t have to become the dominant social media platform. It’s already proved that another way is possible. And that, in itself, is a powerful statement that we need to build from #OMN

The Activist History of the Web: Lessons we can learn

Outreaching in the #dotcons is hard work

The main complaint, the blunt language I use. My reason for speaking plainly, is that it’s impossible to dress up the disgusting things I’m exposing in polite terms and still make the point clear to those who need to hear. I might as well be talking to the wind if I try to sugarcoat my words when addressing people who can’t seem to recognize corruption until it’s right under their noses in all its rottenness.

This is paraphrasing Ambrose Bierce

Outreaching in the #dotcons is hard work:

Hello, You have been permanently banned from participating in r/foss because your comment violates this community’s rules. You won’t be able to post or comment, but you can still view and subscribe to it.

Note from the moderators: https://www.reddit.com/r/foss/

openmedianetwork, this comment may have fully or partially contributed to your ban:

“A bad faith argument is not a genuine desire to seek truth or understanding, rather to manipulate, deceive, or derail a conversation. The goal is not dialogue or progress, but to “win” the conversation or maintain dominance in the social media space. These tactics are rampant on platforms driven by metrics like shares, likes, and comments, which measure engagement but not the quality or sincerity.”

If you have a question regarding your ban, you can contact the moderator team by replying to this message.

Reminder from the Reddit staff: If you use another account to circumvent this subreddit ban, that will be considered a violation of the Content Policy and can result in your account being suspended from the site as a whole.

Likely the same person in both case:

Hello, You have been permanently banned from participating in r/opensource because your comment violates this community’s rules. You won’t be able to post or comment, but you can still view and subscribe to it.

Note from the moderators: https://www.reddit.com/r/opensource/

openmedianetwork, this comment may have fully or partially contributed to your ban:

The post is about activism, as this is at the centre of #FOSS as you say “a think piece, nothing practical to apply here” is what the article is about, and the mess this blocking of “thinking” is making, both small and big in the real world, our lives.

“For those who wish to “just code” without the politics, it must be made clear that this is impossible in the realm of impactful software development. Every piece of software carries with it values, ethics, and political implications. Acknowledging this is the first step toward building a digital network that serves people rather than controlling them. We need to walk a path away from the mess of #mainstreaming toward a genuinely open and humanistic internet. The time for pretending is over; the time for conscious, ethical coding has arrived.

As Larry Lessig poi”

If you have a question regarding your ban, you can contact the moderator team by replying to this message.

humm… messaged them to clarify why, but they will likely see this as trolling… so this work of composting is blocked.

What is “mess” in the hashtag story?

In this 20 year hashtag story, it’s important to understand chaos as a creative force for change. But it’s also important to see that the path of the #openweb and the ongoing struggle for a more decentralized, human-centered internet, makes this idea of “mess” into meany “bad faith” arguments. For #mainstreaming, people to often hear, images of disorder, confusion, and breakdown, things we are taught to avoid in our neatly structured lives. Yet, from the “native” perspective, mess is not only a negative state to be avoided; it is an essential part of the process of growth, creativity, and radical change to challenge the current mess making, it’s a messy process we need to live through, this is positive as to avoid this mess would be negative.

The mess is not just a state of disarray but also fertile ground for thinking, growth, and alt pathways to emerge. In a world dominated by the #dotcons and their “clean”, control-driven algorithms, we need to reclaim the value of messiness as a useful path to walk. When we talk about “mess,” we’re referring to the tangled, often uncomfortable realities of grassroots organizing, alternative tech development, and the daily work of trying to “natively” build something in the ruins of the old. It’s the disorganized, contentious, and chaotic space where ideas clash, projects falter, and consensus is hard to come by. This mess is unavoidable and, importantly, it is productive.

Mess is where real conversations happen, where people get angry, feel frustrated, make mistakes, and crucially, learn from those mistakes. It’s where things break, and we figure out how to fix them, or better yet, build something that doesn’t have the same flaws. In this, mess is not a symptom of failure but a part of the creative process.

The problem with “clean” solutions pushed by centralized #dotcons like Facebook, Twitter, and Google, is the relentless push for paths, seamless, frictionless experiences that prioritize convenience and profit over human engagement. This creates spaces that discourage messiness, complexity, and deviation from the norm. This experience translates into algorithms that filter out dissent, controversy, and alternative perspectives. It smooths out the rough edges of human interaction, leading to echo chambers and a narrowing of the public spaces we live in.

Our #geekproblem is a part of this dotcons mess, that, spreads into our needed openweb reboot, the sanitized, controlling path is not conducive to real social change. Our natural desire for control (thus safety) is a social problem of “tidying up,” where anything that doesn’t fit into a blinded #mainstreaming categories is thrown out.

The native openweb path is based on ideas and movements that stand in stark contrast to the polished, walled, gated gardens of the dotcons. It’s about creating spaces where mess is not only tolerated but celebrated. Why? Because mess is where serendipity happens. It’s where people come together in unpredictable ways, where different perspectives collide and, through that collision, new and unexpected spaces are opened up for people and communities to take different paths.

When we think about projects on the openweb, whether it’s decentralized social networks like #Mastodon or collaborative platforms like #Wiki’s, they are often messy spaces. They are places where people bring their full, complex selves—warts and all—into the conversation. And that’s what makes them so powerful. Unlike the mainstream platforms, which control and filter, the openweb is alive with the possibility of serendipity. It’s a place where things are being broken down and rebuilt, where people are open to change, so they can challenge the #mainstreaming.

The challenge for those of us working in building the openweb is to learn to love mess, to see it not as a problem to be solved but as a healthy part of the journey. This means accepting that there will be conflict, misunderstandings, and periods of chaos. It means recognizing that there will be little perfect if any polished solution, and that’s okay. Mess is fertile ground, as composting transforms waste into soil, mess is compost for new ideas. We take the scraps, the discarded parts, and the failures and turn them into new connections, new networks, that have the potential to grow into a more equitable digital paths both online and offline.

Mess is resistance, a way of saying that we refuse to be tidied up, categorized, and sanitized. We are messy, complicated, and unpredictable, and this is where our strength lies. Mess is human, at the centre of this path is a simple truth, humans are messy. Our lives are messy. Our relationships are messy. And any system or platform that pretends otherwise is denying this human experience. The openweb should be a place that reflects the full spectrum of human life, not just the neatly packaged version that the dotcons want to sell us.

To turn the chaos, conflict, and complexity into a fertile ground for growth, involves developing better tools for mediation, conflict resolution, and collaborative decision-making within our communities, the #OGB is such a project. It means creating paths and “commons” where different voices can be heard #indymediaback is a media project for this, where disagreements can be worked through constructively, and where there is room for both dissent and consensus #OMN if the overarching project.

The idea of composting the mess is not about eliminating it but transforming it. Just like in nature, where decomposing matter is essential for new growth, our digital and social ecosystems need a process for turning the old, the broken, and the chaotic into the new and vibrant #makeinghistory is a project for this.

The journey to a better openweb is not going to be straight. It will be full of twists and turns, false starts, and breakdowns. But in that mess lies the potential for real, meaningful change. The polished, controlled environments of the #dotcons cannot offer this; they are too invested in maintaining the status quo.

With the committent to the #openweb, the challenge is to embrace the mess, to see it not as a hindrance but as an opportunity. It is in this mess that we will find energy, creativity, and resilience to build a more human-centered internet. Let’s roll up our sleeves, get our hands dirty, and start composting. The future is messy, and that’s exactly why it’s worth fighting for.

“Bad Faith” Arguments Dominate Social Media

Social media is a cacophony of voices, opinions, and debates. It was supposed to democratize communication, providing a network where people could have their say. But instead, to often, it’s become on one hand an addictive drug to plassify and indoctrinate people and on the other a battlefield where “bad faith” arguments thrive. This isn’t a coincidence; it’s a feature of how these platforms are designed from the last 40 years of mess making. The algorithms of the #dotcons like Reddit, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and their ilk, are built to prioritize engagement over truth, sensationalism over sincerity, and division over understanding. The prevalence of bad faith arguments on social media is a glaring symptom of a deeper problem, the way these platforms are fundamentally structured to reward the worst aspects of human behaviour.

Why we must act on this. A bad faith argument is not a desire to seek truth or understanding, rather to manipulate, deceive, and derail a conversation. The goal is not dialogue or progress, but to “win” the conversation to maintain dominance in the social media space. These tactics are rampant on platforms driven by metrics like shares, likes, and comments, which measure engagement but not the quality or sincerity. This mess includes straw man tactics, misrepresentation, abd outright lies.

The dotcons centralized platforms are controlled by corporate interests, built from the #deathcult, this revenue and control comes from keeping users engaged for as long as possible, usually through sensationalist content that triggers emotional responses. Outrage, fear, and anger are potent engagement tools; they make people comment, share, and return to the platform to see what happens next. Bad faith arguments are perfect for this model because they often incite strong reactions.

In this addiction economy, every comment, share, and retweet is currency. This economy thrives on polarization, controversy, and conflict. Users are encouraged to build their own “brands,” around strong opinions or divisive stances. This devalues nuanced discussions and good faith engagement, and is how bad faith arguments not only survive but thrive on these networks.

This is particularly damaging for people and movements trying to push meaningful social change to challenge the current mess. Meaningful conversations are drowned out by bad faith noise, making it easy to lose direction. People who want to build alternatives are caught up in the quagmire of defending themselves against disingenuous attacks rather than advancing the conversation and developing practical paths away from the very mess they are stuck in.

On the people to people #openweb, community-oriented path, this problem is not as bad. Decentralized, community-run spaces, offer a refuge from the dynamics of the dotcons, but this balance also needs work. This is still a side show, the reality, for many, these alternatives seem fringe or unnecessary as this mess spills over into constant nasty and exhausting social media firefights. People burn out, lose focus, and become cynical, feeding back mess to drive people to not sustain the move to the #openweb, all outcomes that benefit the status quo.

The dominance of bad faith arguments on dotcons social media is not an accident; it’s a product of platforms designed for profit and control rather than social good. The challenge for the openweb is to foster spaces where dialogue can thrive. This needs effort, both in technical development and social engagement, it requires a shift away from the toxic paths of the #dotcons and toward a more humane, decentralized, and open online and offline paths. Let’s take the first step by acknowledging the mess and then get to work composting this #OMN.

Looking at this, it’s understandable that critical voices are met with resistance for speaking plainly about the gravity of our environmental and social crises. Many people struggle with the harsh reality we are highlighting because it’s easier to maintain a hopeful or neutral stance than to confront the depths of the crisis. By addressing these issues directly, we do push people to think critically about the precarious state of the world, even if that message isn’t well-received.

The discomfort some feel in response to this pushing reflects a broader cultural tendency to avoid confronting grim truths. However, it’s often the uncomfortable truths that spur meaningful change. Acknowledging the severity of environmental breakdown, rising authoritarianism, and fascism is crucial to forming strategies that can address them. In essence, this message challenges the status quo, which is why it’s met with resistance, but it’s that very challenge that fosters a much-needed awakening in others. Let’s keep pushing for that realism; it’s part of the solution.

The #openweb, the #commons, the real-world spaces we build are where the future lies

Resilience is community and trust, this resilience grows by connecting the actions of today to the possibilities of tomorrow, even when that future is unknowable. It’s rooted in community, and community thrives on mutual trust. Trust isn’t about keeping a ledger; it’s about giving freely without expectation. Money is not the foundation of resilience. Across the world, billions live resilient lives by supporting each other, because if they don’t, they all go under. From our privileged view, we often forget that resilience is nurtured in these commons.

We need to think about this: The idea of dual power isn’t new. It goes back to revolutionary moments when people realized the need to build alternatives to existing oppressive structures rather than only confronting them head-on. In the current political climate, where the failures of state and capitalist control are glaring, we need to revisit and reframe this idea of “dual power”. This isn’t a utopian dream or a naïve belief that we can merely build around the edges while the world burns. It’s about creating practical, grounded alternatives that directly challenge the existing system by living outside of it and dismantling it from the inside.

The current mess, look around. We are surrounded by a mess of our own making. The relentless march of #neoliberalism has commodified every aspect of our lives, and the #dotcons have taken over our social spaces, transforming genuine human interaction into data points for corporate profit and control. The state, meant to serve the people, is a tool of the greedy and nasty, maintaining control through fear, surveillance, and repression. It doesn’t take much to see that the paths we are currently on are leading to #climatechaos, widespread inequality, social and ecological breakdown.

But here’s the problem: most people still think we have choices within this mess. They talk about reforming the system, fixing capitalism, or making dotcons tech more ethical while continuing to operate on the same lost paths. This is delusion, a comfortable delusion for some, but a delusion nonetheless.

On the #DIY path, dual power is about creating parallel paths that coexist with the current ones but serve entirely different functions. Instead of asking for scraps from the masters’ table, we build our own tables, with food that nourishes everyone. It’s about constructing alternative social, economic, and political structures that are directly in opposition to the current hierarchies and power dynamics.

It’s not just about building alternative structures, though. It’s more important for actively delegitimizing and dismantling the existing power structures of capitalism and the state. This involves #directaction, solidarity, and collective organizing to challenge and change state and capitalist control in all its forms. It’s about a two-fold strategy: building the new while composting the old.

Why dual power matters, for too long, the left and radical movements have been stuck in reactionary paths, fighting battles on terrain chosen by the state and capital. We need to change this by recreating a new path, a space where we shape the traditions and myths that shape us. This is not just some theoretical exercise; it’s already happening in many parts of the world.

We see it in the #fediverse, on #mastodon, #bluesky and #noster networks, in grassroots mutual aid networks springing up during the current crises when the state and corporate structures fail. We see it in community run food cooperatives, decentralized digital spaces, and local assemblies where decisions are made collectively, rather than by a few in power. This is not an abstract idea, it’s lived practice, a shift from fighting against the system to creating something new and more humane.

Building dual power in a digital age, the #openweb and federated networks offer a glimpse of what dual power can look like. Unlike the #dotcons that feed on greed and manipulation, the openweb is rooted in principles that serve the community, #4opens, transparency, open collaboration, and autonomy. But even here, we often fall into the trap of merely copying the structures we’re trying to replace, creating the same mess under a different banner. The next step needs to be truly native to the 4opens path, transparent, open, and accountable, rejecting the commodification that the dotcons have normalized.

But digital spaces alone won’t save us. They are tools, important ones, no doubt, but we need a broader focus. We need to create real-world spaces of resistance and creation. Think community gardens that also serve as meeting points for local decision-making. Think of decentralized energy cooperatives that break free from corporate control. Think of neighbourhood assemblies that replace the hollow, bureaucratic local governments that most people have lost faith in. This is dual power in practice.

The roadblocks, the #Geekproblem and #Fasherista paths, let’s not romanticize this process. We need to acknowledge the challenges within our movements, the #geekproblem and the #fashernista paths that unconsciously block the change we need. The geekproblem is the obsession with technical solutions over social and political ones, while the fashernista path focuses on trendy but superficial activism that serves as more of a social club, careerism, than a serious challenge to power. Both paths have their place, but they should not dominate our paths. We need to keep our focus on the bigger picture.

Moving beyond the noise, to those who say, “Now is not the time,” I ask, “When will it be?” The crisis is here. We are all worshiping the #deathcult, masking 40 years of #neoliberal ideology, pretending we have choices that simply don’t exist. Now is precisely the time to dig in, get our hands dirty, and start composting this mess we’ve been dragged into. The work ahead isn’t easy, and there will be mistakes, missteps, and mess-ups along the way. But that’s okay. Composting is messy work, and so is building a more open and sustainable world.

If you’re waiting for someone to tell you what to do, you’ve already missed the point. Dual power isn’t a blueprint; it’s a living practice. It’s a call to start building the new and composting the old, right now, where you are. Lift your head, look at the mess, and start digging. Together, we can build something better than the scraps we’ve been given. Join us on this humanistic adventure in social technology and direct action. The #openweb, the #commons, and the real-world spaces we build are where the future lies. Let’s make it happen #OMN

The #openweb and #fediverse is anti-viral?

There is #mainstreaming criticism that the #fediverse has “anti-viral” features, as there is no central algorithm promoting specific content to go viral, but this is not entirely accurate. What this actually points to is a deeper issue within the social path of the #openweb itself. The notion of “anti-viral” isn’t about a lack of features; it’s about how certain structures and behaviours are actively discouraging people with larger reach from thriving in these “native” spaces.

It’s a people to people web, so huge accounts can’t and don’t talk back, so can’t be “native” to this openweb path. It’s not a question of choice, rather a question of path. it might be useful to think about this, as these conversations being #blind to thinking outside their current #dotcons path, and thus unlovingly bring it into the openweb reboot.

The problem with the talk of “Anti-Viral” is brought by current outreach. When people say that the fediverse lacks virality, they are focusing on the absence of centralized algorithms, found on corporate platforms (the #dotcons). On those, algorithms drive engagement by amplifying sensational and emotionally charged content, at the cost of meaningful discourse and ethical considerations. In contrast, the fediverse is praised for being different, more community focused, more humanscale, and more about interaction rather than manipulation by algorithms. However, this is still a perspective missing a crucial point.

What we are actually seeing is that the fediverse has developed social norms and features that end up pushing away people who “go viral” or have large followings. The problem isn’t just that the platform lacks virality; it’s that it lacks the infrastructure and culture to support people with large followings in a way that feels sustainable and meaningful. Large Accounts don’t thrive, by design.

The #openweb and #fediverse are built on the principles of decentralization and #DIY community, which are fantastic for fostering small, intimate interactions. However, this structure makes it difficult for larger accounts to function. Why? Because the social architecture is inherently hostile to large-scale influence based on one way broadcasting.

Large accounts can’t engage meaningfully with their followers in a people-to-people web. When you have thousands of people interacting with your posts, it becomes impossible to engage in a way that aligns with the native path that is part of the code of the #fediverse.
Without centralized moderation, content moderation is a community effort. This can mean that people who attract controversy, whether deserved or not, increase the instance workload, creating a practical culture that is inhospitable to “big voices.” paths and agendas.

The “People-to-People” Web is set up to favour small-scale interactions and communities over larger, more influential voices who are more normally broadcast media focused. This is both good and bad, yes it can be a problem when we think about the kind of impact we want the #openweb to have. In this, It’s not about changing the current path but creating parallel ones, the solution, we need to move beyond the #stupidindividualism of copying the microblogging of the #dotcons and think of balancing with “native” oprochs to media, the #indymediaback project is an example of this path, we do need to take.

Free Software is Political

In progressive discussions about technology and open source, there is intolerant pushing of mess from people who say “just focus on the code” without the politics. This is an understandable outlook, but it is also stupid, based on a misunderstanding of what is Free/Open Source Software (#FOSS). This everyday pushing of mess making comes from #blinded #mainstreaming people claiming that FOSS is “a-political” or should be kept that way, and shows a lack of any understanding of this movement.

As this article highlights, the idea of “a-political” Free Software is not only incorrect; it’s historically nonsense. Free Software is intrinsically and unavoidably political. It is not simply about code; it is about who controls the code and, therefore, who controls the user. This is why the path that many projects take, to jam FOSS into capitalism without addressing these core issues, is a mess and failing path.

The roots of free software are in a political and ethical movement that just happens to focus on software. “Computer users should be free to modify programs to fit their needs, and free to share software, because helping other people is the basis of society.” This is not just a technical stance; it is a moral, ethical, and political one. The idea that users should have the right to control their own digital lives and help others do the same is at the heart of Free Software. This #KISS foundation opposes proprietary software, where users are legally prevented from helping their neighbours, thus restricting their freedom.

“Computer users should be free to modify programs to fit their needs, and free to share software, because helping other people is the basis of society.”

The emergence of the “Open Source” in the late 1990s pushed change on this “native” path, into a more #mainstreaming direction by shifting focus to development benefits, pushing out the ethical and political core. This, however, does not change the foundational politics of Free Software, it merely tries to mask it, to hide it, by pushing out of sight the political core, this is mess making and the normal mainstream “common sense” when it comes to taking up any Alt paths, this is a history we need to stop.

The difference between Free Software and Open Source: “Open source is a development methodology; free software is a social movement.” For the #opensource path, non-free software is a suboptimal technical solution. For the FOSS path, non-free software is a social problem that needs challenging and changing. This is a distinction that some who try to take this path fail to recognize, leading to the meany messy social and coding projects we try to make work today.

As the #dotcons world builds crises of privacy, control, and trust, the relevance of these distinctions, hopefully, becomes more into focus. From tech giants abusing data to governments exploiting backdoors, the ethical foundation that Free Software rests upon is needed, not optional.

The politics of software, the idea that software can be a-political, is a misunderstanding of what software does and represents. As Larry Lessig says – “Our choice is not between ‘regulation’ and ‘no regulation.’ The code regulates. It implements values, or not. It enables freedoms, or disables them. It protects privacy, or promotes monitoring.” Every decision in software development, from what features to include, to how data is handled, to what kind of accessibility is provided, is a political one. There is no “neutral” code. Decisions about prioritizing user rights, security, and privacy are political decisions, and they shape the wider digital networks we live within.

All code is ideology solidified into action – thus most contemporary code is capitalism, this is hardly a surprise if you think about this at all. Yes, you can try and act on any ideology path from this code, but the outcome and assumptions are preprogramed. If we continue to pretend that the software and platforms can be devoid of politics, we are, taking a side, and actively contributing to the mainstream mess that dotcons push, and this is the mess we urgently need to move away from. As outlined on my website, we need to focus on building a #openweb projects that respect people, rather than merely mimicking corporate platforms with a veneer of openness as we do so often, on the #Fediverse, #Bluesky etc.

Conclusion: stop pretending and start building, to those who wish to “just code” without the politics, it needs to be continually pointed out strongly that is impossible in the path of impactful software development. Every piece of software carries with it values, ethics, and political implications. Acknowledging this is the first step toward building digital networks that serves the people, rather than controlling them. We need to walk a path away from the mess of #mainstreaming towards a more open and humanistic internet.

This is not a hard path to take #OMN