Year: 2025

Tech princes and the #deathcult

The billionaire problem, Elon Musk, tech oligarchs, and the #deathcult of wealth as a social path.

Elon Musk’s purchase of Twitter is emblematic of a larger issue: the unchecked power of tech oligarchs. These aren’t your run-of-the-mill millionaires; they’re part of a nasty few, the class that operates above the ultra-wealthy, shaping politics, economies, and societies to their inadequacy. While the myth is pushed that billionaires are brilliant innovators who work harder than everyone else, the reality is darker. Their actions reflect a destructive #deathcult mentality, hoarding resources, manipulating public discourse, and pushing harmful ideologies for personal gain and standing.

Let’s start with Musk himself. People think of him as the “SpaceX and Tesla guy,” (this is not true, but that’s another story) his behaviour since acquiring Twitter reveals his priorities. Musk purchased the platform for $43 billion, not as a business investment, but as a tool for propaganda to consolidate power and influence politics. To platforming far-right politics, by amplify propaganda and undermine the thin remaining democratic paths. From boosting bots that inflate the appearance of support for far-right ideologies to reinstating accounts that push hate speech, these actions directly impact global politics.

This control of Twitter, and most importantly the chattering classes that stay in this #dotcons, has silenced the little dissent left. Bot-driven disinformation spreading far-right ideologies isn’t accidental; it’s strategic manipulation of public opinion to push agendas. Like supporting trump and authoritarianism, spending over $250 million on Trump’s election campaigns.

Musk isn’t alone, tech oligarchs like Bezos and Zuckerberg are equally complicit in reshaping society to benefit themselves, at the now clear expense of the public. Bezos’s quiet Influence, unlike #Musk, #Bezos operates in the shadows, Amazon spends millions lobbying US politicians to block antitrust laws and maintain monopolies to exploits workers and maximise profit. His strategy is quieter but no less harmful. #Zuckerberg’s free speech farce, with the ending of liberal fact-checking on #Facebook under the guise of “free speech.” The result? A flood of bots spreading hate speech, disinformation, and simple propaganda. By prioritising profit over public responsibility, this #dotcons becomes another breeding ground for extremism.

The #feudalistic influence of tech princes and oligarchs has consequences that go far beyond social media with political manipulation, global meddling. This is no longer just about wealth, it’s about shaping geopolitical realities. This is going to accelerate the current climate and resource chaos. So why do meany of us keep bowing? There is a persistence of the billionaire myth, the idea that they’re smarter, harder-working, and more deserving, which keeps #mainstreaming people from challenging this power. But it should be obvious these aren’t self-made geniuses, they’re nasty inadequate opportunists thriving in a broken system. This isn’t just about Musk or any of the other nasty few billionaires. It’s about rejecting the #deathcult of greed and exploitation our socialites are based on. The rise of billionaires as political actors isn’t inevitable, it’s a symptom of a path that values unrestrained profit over people.

The #OMN has a vision for something better, decentralised, open, and community-driven governance. A world where power is distributed, not hoarded by a handful of deranged oligarchs. The challenge is to make this vision a real path, and to turn our distaste for the status quo into action for this change and challenge.

OMN #openweb #fediverse #makehistory #deathcult #OGB #visionontv

A world we see as normal

The dead ideology of Neo-liberalism is everywhere. It’s in everything we look at, everything we touch. And while it might feel uncomfortable, we should feel distaste when we look at it and revulsion when we touch it, this is the reality of living under a #deathcult. For the past 40 years, we’ve been immersed in a system that most people still worship as if there’s no alternative.

But where is the path out? Where is the vision for something different, something rooted in solidarity and sustainability rather than profit and exploitation? Take a moment to look at this example of a project from a simpler time: Wikipedia revision history from 2011. Note the commitment to “strict scrutiny”, which required that any security measures serve a compelling community interest and be narrowly focused to achieve that and nothing else.

Compare that principle to the current state of tech, where the #encryptionsist agenda overshadows transparency and community accountability. The shift has been stark, away from openness, away from scrutiny, and towards the path where security becomes a shield for entrenched power and control.

We need to confront this head-on. The #deathcult thrives on our passive acceptance of neoliberal norms. Revulsion isn’t just justified; it’s necessary. The path we need to take is in rejecting this #blocking to build the alternatives we so desperately need.

OMN #IndyMediaBack #OpenWeb #MakeHistory #OGB

let’s look at an example of this in our current lives. People have been living in the shadow of neoliberalism for so long that worshipping the #deathcult has become their nature. The values of exploitation, competition, and #stupidindividualism are baked into what’s considered “normal” behaviour. In contrast, embracing a #lifecult, based on collaboration, community, and sustainability—feels alien, even threatening, to many “normal” people.

This is one of the reasons the #Fediverse and alternative social media platforms have struggled to gain traction. The Fediverse embodies #lifecult principles: decentralisation, mutual aid, and the rejection of exploitative corporate models. While these are positive ideals, they feel too far removed from the familiar patterns of the #deathcult for most people to take the leap.

A cynical path we could take is to meet people halfway. Instead of demanding they abandon their comfort zone entirely, we could make the Fediverse appear less like a #lifecult at first glance by presenting it in ways that feel more approachable and less intimidating, more like the #deathcult they are used to. Yes, the Fediverse should stay true to its principles, but making it less of an overt #lifecult and more of a practical, attractive alternative, #deathcult could be the “common sense” step we need to bring people over. Once they’re in, the actually, hopefully still existing culture and values of the Fediverse will begin to work their magic.

What do you think? Should we focus on shadowing the approach to reach more people, or would that risk diluting the values that make the #Fediverse what it is? How do we live this balance in our #openweb reboot

How we Orchestrate Regime Change

Let’s look at a different view: The “colour revolutions” have been a strategy of orchestrated regime change, typically pushed by powerful foreign actors, most often the United States. These operations are presented as grassroots democratic uprisings, but in reality, they are heavily funded, pre-planned, and driven by external interests. While the surface story is about promoting democracy and human rights, the outcomes almost always serve the economic and geopolitical priorities of the US and the global capitalist fuckwits.

Step 1: The first move is to weaken a target nation’s economy through sanctions, trade embargoes, and manipulation of international financial institutions. This creates widespread hardship, targeting ordinary citizens, to fuel discontent and unrest. Examples would be: Nicaragua, Chile, Venezuela etc. This erodes public trust in the government, creating the conditions for protest and rebellion.

Step 2: Media manipulation and propaganda, controlling the narrative is critical. The US uses propaganda to frame opposition figures as heroes and targeted governments as corrupt and authoritarian. This is achieved through CIA-backed media like Voice of America which spreads anti-government messaging, planted stories in western media to manufactures consent, that portrays regime change as a moral imperative while obscuring the external orchestration.

Step 3: Empower opposition movements, once public discontent is stoked, the US funds and equips opposition groups to act as the vanguard of regime change. These groups are often chosen for their willingness to align with US interests, regardless of their domestic popularity or legitimacy. Examples: The US recognised Juan Guaidó, a wildly unpopular opposition figure, as president despite his lack of electoral legitimacy in Venezuela. In Guatemala the CIA armed exiled opposition leaders to stage a coup against Jacobo Árbenz, using hired pilots to bomb Guatemala City and spread chaos. Through organisations like USAID and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), the US provides financial and logistical support to opposition groups, ensuring they have the resources to disrupt and destabilise.

Step 4: Mobilise mass protests, to create the appearance of widespread popular dissent. These are often #astroturfed, with covert funding and guidance from foreign operatives. The symbolism of these movements, colours, slogans, and branded imagery, makes them easy for international media to amplify, framing them as democratic uprisings.

Step 5: Neutralise security forces, for regime change to succeed, a government’s security forces must be undermined. This is achieved through bribery, threats, or outright assassination. Examples: in Chile: The CIA orchestrated the assassination of General René Schneider, a constitutionalist who opposed a coup against Allende. This paved the way for Pinochet’s military takeover. In Guatemala, staged violence and disinformation campaigns created a climate of fear, allowing the US-backed military to seize power. By dividing and destabilising security forces, the US ensures that the government cannot effectively defend itself.

Step 6: Install pro-US leadership, the final step is consolidating power under a regime that aligns with US interests. This involves hand-picking leaders who prioritise corporate and geopolitical goals over their nation’s sovereignty. Examples, In Chile: after Allende’s overthrow, the US provided intelligence and resources to Pinochet’s dictatorship, ensuring compliance with American interests. In Guatemala the US installed a pro-American government to protect United Fruit Company’s monopoly and suppress land reform efforts. These new regimes are rarely democratic or stable, often descending into authoritarianism and neoliberal exploitation.

The consequences of colour revolutions, while sold as democracy-building efforts, the reality is generally far more destructive. Economic collapse from the sanctions and neoliberal reforms that devastate local economies, leading to poverty and inequality. Ongoing political instability with installed governments plagued by factionalism, corruption, and authoritarianism. Global distrust in the US’s repeated interference undermines credibility, in the end pushing nations towards alternative paths, the cycle then repeats, yes it’s a mess. These interventions normalise the erosion of sovereignty and democracy, leaving lasting scars on the nations they target.

There is a strong need for accountability, the US’s playbook for regime change, disguised as democracy promotion, is a tool of imperialism that pushes corporate and geopolitical interests over basic human rights and stability. It’s a path that thrives on economic hardship, media manipulation, and the subversion of local institutions.

A note on the side – the #OMN approach, grounded in decentralisation, principles, and collective action, offers a stark contrast. Rather than destabilising societies for profit, we grow resilient paths that empower communities and foster genuine self-determination #KISS

The Open Web and the Messy Middle Ground

This is a #fluffy response to this thread, about people feeling that some of the discourse surrounding the #openweb is too black and white, and that this is going to increase with the current political reality. Yes, supporting the #openweb doesn’t automatically make you “left-wing” or a “Marxist,” just as using platforms like X or Meta products doesn’t necessarily make you “right-wing nut job” or an out right “fascist.” The world is full of different shades, oversimplifying these issues from the mythical centre can become the polarisation that the people are very likely arguing against.

Building a business on open technologies is not inherently wrong, building exploitative #dotcons is clearly wrong. There is value in the middle ground between commercial success and the native #openweb paths. The challenge is finding the balance and ensuring businesses side respects the principles our people’s web is built on. Of course, there are risks. Commercial companies working on open technologies often push too far and betray trust. Meta’s entry into the #fediverse, for example, raises suspicions for good reason. Their track record shows a consistent prioritisation of profit over people.

However, that doesn’t mean we should dismiss the idea of building a business around open tech entirely. It’s about trust, accountability, and balance. Being critical doesn’t mean rejecting something outright; it means scrutinising the motives and actions behind it. The same principle applies whether you’re evaluating a tech startup or a massive corporation.

The bigger political mess the people in the thread are talking about isn’t open vs. closed or left vs. right, it’s the utter mess our middling political class has made with its hard shift to the right. This polarisation isn’t actually coming from the left, as many people assume when they’re critical of “extremes.” It’s a result of the “centre” being dragged further and further over decades. The balance has been lost, and it’s no wonder people are scrambling to find footing in such unstable paths.

I talk about this subject often from a radical progressive left perspective on this site (http://hamishcampbell.com), and yes, it is a mess in every way. The centre path, the one that should hold things together, has veered so sharply that even moderate discussions feel like battles over extremes.

For meany people in the centre, a shift back to something like the Bretton Woods, 20th century social democracy from the era before Reagan and Thatcher pushed us onto our knees to worship the #deathcult for the last 40 years. We do maybe have room for small business owners and local enterprise, a capitalism built on community, not monopolistic greed. Smaller capitalists, smaller systems, more balance.

This balance, and the conversation the #openweb needs to reflect, the larger struggle for balance. The goal isn’t only to polarise or pick sides, it’s to find a progressive “native” way forward that incorporates the best of different perspectives. A diversity of ideas, from Marxist critiques to social entrepreneurial innovation, so long as they operate within the framework of trust, openness, and accountability.

Yes, it’s a mess, but the way out is through this, shovels and composting come to mind and hopefully hands #OMN

The #OMN path is building the #openweb infrastructure

The #OpenMediaNetwork (#OMN) offers a clear, practical path to building the #openweb, grounded in . It does this by leveraging open protocols like #ActivityPub (#AP) and #RSS, alongside #FOSS software, to create a distributed network of media platforms where anyone can join, participate, and contribute. This, like the #Fediverse, is a direct challenge to the centralised, corporate-dominated structures that define so much of the current internet landscape.

Step-by-Step Building Blocks: The #OMN prioritises simplicity and humanistic coding rather than over-engineered complexity we often see in tech today.

  • Start with the client-server model. The initial focus is on building a robust client-server architecture to create a stable foundation for media sharing and participation. This forms the “hot” storage layer, data that is live, accessible, and regularly used.
  • Introduce an offline cold store: Once the client-server infrastructure is operational, a secondary layer of offline cold storage is added. This acts as a backup system, providing high redundancy to safeguard against data loss. Cold storage is cheap, offline, and relies on human interaction for maintenance and retrieval, ensuring resilience and sustainability.
  • P2P connections to cold storage: The final stage introduces peer-to-peer (#P2P) connections to integrate the offline cold storage with the broader network. This allows people to share and retrieve data across the network, even in decentralised or disconnected environments.
  • Iterative learning and improvement: The process is intentionally iterative, encouraging learning from practical experience. The system is designed to evolve and improve over time, informed by real-world use rather than theoretical perfection.

The success of the #OMN depends on its commitment to . These principles allow for the free sharing and reuse of content, breaking down barriers to collaboration and fostering innovation. By storing most data unencrypted (as the majority of it is not private), the system reduces overhead and complexity, keeping the project aligned with the “Keep It Simple, Stupid” (#KISS) philosophy.

Separating privacy from the #openweb: One critical aspect of the #OMN approach is recognising that encrypted privacy tools are a separate project. Mixing these with the development of the #openweb #Fediverse leads to unnecessary complexity and division. Privacy tools are vital, but are developed in parallel rather than tangled with the foundational infrastructure. This separation allows each project to focus on its strengths while maintaining a clear, streamlined design philosophy.

At its core, the #OMN empowers “normal” people to store and manage their own data. By using a mix of hot and cold storage, people gain control over their digital lives without relying on corporate platforms. The focus on redundancy, backed by tools to search and reimport old data into hot storage, ensures resilience and accessibility.

This human-centric approach contrasts sharply with the corporate and #geekproblem obsession with control and perfection. It’s a more humane vision of technology, based on trust and collaboration rather than surveillance and control.

A history rooted in activism, the #OMN isn’t just a theoretical project; it’s grounded in decades of real-world activism. From the work of Undercurrents in the 1990s (http://www.undercurrents.org/about.html) to the global mobilisation of the Carnival Against Capitalism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnival_Against_Capital), this approach draws on over 20 years of direct, on-the-ground experience. The lessons from this history inform every aspect of the OMN, ensuring it stays true to its activist roots.

Dealing with the #geekproblem and #fashernistas: One of the biggest challenges in progressive tech is the dominance of the #geekproblem, projects driven by technologists who prioritise complexity and self-interest over usability and impact. Coupled with the influence of #fashernistas, who chase trends without substance, many projects are doomed from the start

The #OMN cuts through this, yes, we can’t solve this mess pushing, but we are a critical step in the right direction which encourages us to get out the shovels and compost these failures. The goal is to build a system that works, not one that dazzles investors with hype while failing to deliver.

The #openweb won’t (re)build itself. It requires us to reject the endless noise of pointless projects and focus on practical, sustainable solutions. By supporting and growing the #OMN path, grounded in #KISS simplicity, principles, and decades of activism, we create a resilient infrastructure that empowers people and communities.

The future of the #openweb is in our hands. Dig deep, embrace trust, and start building.

OMN #openweb #OGB #Indymediaback #makehistory

The pushing of doomed projects

We need real and sharp critique’s of the current state of #mainstreaming in the #openweb and tech-for-good spaces. The challenge is of cutting down obviously pointless projects from 99% to 90% which is a both realistic and necessary path. How can we achieve this shift, focusing on impactful subjects, better implementation, and strategic approaches in coding development.

The developing of alternatives to corporate platforms is a first step we have taken in the #Fediverse, with most of the #mainstreaming projects simply replicate corporate models while branding themselves as “ethical” or “decentralised.” The next step is to create genuine alternatives, by focusing on “native”tools for community governance, people-first design. Then it’s key to mediate the many #NGO tech projects that keep reinventing the wheel instead of tools for the change and challenge we actually need and use.

We need to rethink funding paths for #openweb projects, as the current funding ecosystem mostly drives pointless or doomed #geekproblem and #fashernista projects. Many of these projects are designed to chase grant money, not solve problems. To mediate this, we need to push for more cooperative grassroots funding pools.

A persistent issue is the disconnect between what developers think people need and what people actually need. Shifting away from the current paths can be done by testing ideas in real-world environments before scaling them, ensuring they’re practical and usable. Stop chasing the startup-style obsession with scaling at all costs. Building federated systems designed to thrive in small, resilient communities. Encourage slow, thoughtful growth that prioritises depth of engagement over breadth of reach. Simplifying over-engineered solutions and avoiding adding complexity for its own sake; the simpler the tool, the more likely it is to succeed.

How do we achieve the 9% Difference? Getting from 99% pointless projects to 90% will require, stronger public scrutiny to slow the pushing of doomed tech projects. This path needs to focus on realistic, grounded ideas, focus on doing, not talking by encourage people to start small and prove themselves through action, not the normal empty big #NGO promises.

By focusing, we can make a tangible difference in the #openweb space and reduce the noise of pointless #techchurn that waste time, focus and resources. It’s not about erasing failure altogether, that’s impossible. It’s about creating a culture where thoughtful, practical grassroots work has the space to thrive and grow #KISS

The #dotcons share an ideology

There is a tech ideology that masks corporate power, and this view of #mainstreaming Cyber libertarianism is a bizarre ideological mishmash, a combination of hippie flower power, economic neoliberalism, and a heavy dose of technological determinism. It’s the credo of Silicon Valley, so much so that for years it was known as the “Californian Ideology.” this “thinking” shapes the tech bros and their billionaire overlords, who for the last ten years have push #cryptocurrencys and now claim that technologies like #AI hold the key to solving all human problems and offers “endless opportunities” for wealth, power, and pleasure. Naturally, anything that stands in the way of this vision, government regulation, public oversight, and most importantly collective action, must be swept aside. For meany years, this sounded like a progress path to some, but it’s riddled with obvious contradictions and dangers.

Many of the problems we face are inherently political, requiring systemic solutions that involving collective governance. Yet, the CEOs, executives, and vulture capitalists would rather you believe that the solutions lie in the “free-market”, that is then conveniently funnelled through their platforms and products. This serves their interests in maintaining power and wealth while pushing aside meaningful public accountability and any possible of an alternative.

This fusion of #geekproblem libertarian engineers and anti-government #fahernistas gave rise to the foundational myths of this #geekproblem flow, that technology empowers individuals to create a better world. In the 1990, cyber libertarianism become the dominant ideology in Silicon Valley. Yet, as this ideology flourished, it should have been clear that its vision of “freedom” was fundamentally flawed.

The rhetoric of #techbrow claims to be about freedom—freedom from government oversight, freedom of speech, and freedom to innovate. But in practice, this freedom is selective. It serves the powerful and nasty few while ignoring or exploiting the vast majority. This omission is central to the current #dotcons and parts of our #openweb reboot By focusing exclusively on the dangers of government tyranny, it ignores how corporations can wield just as much, if not more, power over people. This isn’t an accident—it’s the entire point. Silicon Valley’s billionaires don’t want less power for themselves; they want less oversight from governments and the public.

Neoliberalism becomes the new normal to justify policies that benefit the nasty rich. This path of our current #dotcons oligarchs is no accident. The vague anti-government ethos provides the perfect cover for neoliberal policies. By dressing up deregulation, tax cuts for the wealthy, and the dismantling of public services in the language of “freedom,” both tech billionaires and neoliberal politicians can push their agendas without ever addressing the systemic issues of capitalism, inequality and exploitation.

The Musk empire is a prime example, while he rails against government interference, he eagerly accepts billions in subsidies, pushes for deregulation that benefits his companies, and weaponises his platforms to amplify far-right ideologies. Since taking over Twitter, Musk has turned it into a haven for white supremacists and conspiracy theorists, throttled links to media outlets he dislikes, and boosted his own tweets to ensure maximum visibility.

This is the logical conclusion of the path we have all walked down with our embrace of the #dotcons. By rejecting democratic oversight and embracing a narrow, individualistic definition of freedom, we have consolidates power in the hands of the few wealthy, nasty #techbrows and their acolytes. For all the rhetoric about empowering individuals, this path has always been about protecting the privileges of the nasty few.

We see in the USA this Silicon Valley influence growing. Now more than ever, it’s crucial to challenge these paths and step away from the #dotcons these inadequate and nasty people control. We need to understand that freedom isn’t about the absence of government oversight, it’s about creating a humanistic society where power is accountable, resources are shared more equitably, and everyone has the opportunity to grow. The spreading fascism hiding behind the ideology of Cyber libertarianism offers none of this, Instead, it offers us a neo feudalism, tech kings, knights and priests who claim to liberate us while consolidating their control. It’s time to see through the shiny algorithm driven façade and make the effort and focus to build something better. With the native #openweb reboot we have the tools to do this, with #OMN there is a different technological path we can take.

The Urgent Need for Collective Action

What’s easy to see in a striking way, in today’s mess, is how desperately we need ways for people to come together and organise against the concentrated accumulations of power that are running rampant. Billionaires and massive corporations hold all the cards, shaping society to serve their interests, leaving the rest of us to fend for ourselves as the social and ecological supports crumble around us. Worse still, the law, once thought by some as a tool to ensure fairness, has been show to be co-opted to enable this imbalance. By declaring that corporations are people and money is speech, the legal system has been bent to their will, rigging the game increasingly in their favour.

Yet, as is so often the case, the root of their wealth and power is labour. Wealth doesn’t exist without the workers who produce it, and if labour, if workers, came together to say , “We’re not putting up with this anymore,” the balance of power will shift dramatically. The numbers are overwhelmingly on our side; there are far more workers than there are billionaires and CEOs. The problem is not a lack of potential power, it’s the difficulty of bringing that power together, it is an issue of organising.

This is where the promise of the internet and the #openweb comes in, or, at least, where it used to come in. The tools used to be a force for good, creating open spaces for solidarity, connection, and collective action on a global scale. For the last 20 years, with our move to the #dotcons, they’ve done the exact opposite. Rather than uniting us, they’ve carved us up into isolated bubbles and opposing camps, constantly at war with one another over manufactured divisions.

And it’s becoming increasingly clear that this isn’t an unintended consequence of poorly designed tech stack, it’s the strategy. The algorithms that dominate our online interactions are specifically built to generate profit and control by stoking conflict and outrage. The more people argue, click, and engage with inflammatory content, the more money flows into the pockets of those who control the platforms. Social media isn’t only failing in its core mission to bring us together; it’s actively designed and controlled to keep us divided.

A study out of the Netherlands drove this point home. Researchers found that the vast majority of misinformation circulating on social media is being generated by right-wing populists. This isn’t a coincidence; it’s a deliberate strategy. Misinformation and division are tools to distract and divide, making it harder for people to see the real source of their struggles, the unchecked accumulation of wealth and power in the hands of a nasty few. This is a systemic, deliberate effort to fracture society, keeping us busy fighting each other, with identity politics and #stupidindividualism, to make any stand against those consolidating control in their destructive inadequate dirty grip on the world we live in.

If we’re going to break out of this cycle, we need to focus on finding ways to bypass this endemic #techshit. This is where activism based projects like the #OMN come in as paths of solidarity, collective action, and rebuilding of the trust in our communities. We can’t afford to stay divided, the numbers are still on our side, but only if we find the courage and the will to come together to become the change and challenge we need to be.

Prodding a #dotcons flow

Let’s try a spiky reply to this tweet on the #mainstreaming #dotcons platform, keep in mind these spaces often reek of superficial analysis and throwing around half-baked ideas without engaging with the deeper structural issues.

On the subject: “the culture of spontaneity, and mass horizontalism.” Yes, these approaches have their flaws, particularly when they lack clear strategy or organisation, but the #mainstreaming dismissing of them as ineffective wholesale shows a lack of understanding of their historical context and value. Spontaneity and horizontalism emerged as responses to the failures of top-down bureaucratic models of the left, which stagnated under Cold War pressures and co-optation. To be claiming they “can’t really compete” without acknowledging why they arose or their ongoing relevance in decentralised movements is lazy analysis.

And then there’s the smug messaging that “that’s something almost everyone now agrees on.” Really? Who is “everyone”? This nothing more than an appeal to a nebulous consensus that doesn’t actually exist. Plenty of activists, organisers, and theorists still see value in horizontalism, just not in isolation or as an end in itself. Pretending the debate is over is the kind of rhetoric that shuts down critical thinking rather than advancing it.

Moving on to the second tweet, “Agree on need for organisation (…that are trade unions or trade union focused).” While trade unions are a valid path, especially in reclaiming workers’ rights in the face of rampant exploitation, reducing “organisation” to trade unions is a narrow view. Trade unions, while necessary, aren’t sufficient to address the wider cultural, ecological, and social crises we face. There’s a world of organising happening outside of unions, mutual aid networks, co-operatives, tenant unions, and the growing need for grassroots digital activism, to name a few, that is every bit as crucial. This is a kind of blinkered nostalgia for “the union, and nothing but the union” which is a poor fit for the of struggles we’re dealing with.

Then there’s the call for “a systematic approach to cultural work.” Absolutely, but what does this mean? As so often, these statements don’t explain or offer a path. Instead, we get the vague assertion that it should focus on “actually doing culture that is popular, not moralising and nostalgia.” While it’s true, moralising and nostalgia can cripple cultural efforts on the left, this critique feels like it’s slapping at a strawman. What is this “popular” culture we’re supposed to aim for? Affective work is not about chasing popularity for its own sake but creating counter-narratives that resonate with people’s lived experiences and inspire action. Popularity without substance is meaningless, just another form of hollow spectacle and #deathcult worship

Lastly, the tone throughout this thread is performative critique, pointing out issues without contributing to paths. If anything, this “chatter” mirrors the liberal commentary class it seeks to critique: smug, self-assured, and ultimately irrelevant to those who are actually deep in the trenches building alternatives.

If we’re serious about confronting the failures of the left, we need less posturing and more meaningful engagement with the grassroots challenges at hand. We need to embrace complexity, grapple with historical lessons, while building cultural, technological paths that balance appeal with radical substance. It’s sad to say, dismissing ideas with “memes” half-hearted quips and lazy assumptions gets us nowhere.

Now what would a #fluffy reply look like 🙂

#OMN demonstrating the values that dead ideologies refuse to acknowledge

The #fashernista common sense path—driven by trends, appearances, and surface-level thinking—is always a reflection of the dominant ideology. In today’s world, this means it perpetuates the neo-liberal #deathcult, which pushes profit over people and the environment. This ideology a motivation of #stupidindividualism, where the focus is on personal gain, consumerism, and competition rather than solidarity, cooperation, and collective well-being.

This same mentality is mirrored in the #geekproblem, where technologists to often design and promote tools and systems that replicate and reinforce neo-liberal values, rather than challenge them. By framing technology as “neutral” or purely functional, they ignore the broader social impact of their work, allowing it to serve as an uncritical extension of the #deathcult’s values. This is why so much of modern technology amplifies isolation, surveillance, and exploitation instead of fostering connection, community, and empowerment.

Challenging these people and their ideas is crucial if we want to break free from the current cycles of destruction. However, ignoring them and focusing our energy elsewhere may be the more practical and effective path. Engaging with them to often leads to frustration and burnout as their ideological framework is deeply ingrained, and their reflexive defensiveness derails productive efforts.

As with composting, when there’s too much “shit” to shoval, the resulting stink can make the change we need feel unpleasant and off-putting. The sheer negativity and hostility of challenging entrenched ideologies creates a barrier to engagement for those who might otherwise join or support transformative movements. If the alternative to the #deathcult seems unappealing or toxic, it risks alienating the very people and communertys we need to build a better path away from the current mess.

Instead of wasting time trying to convince the entrenched or defending against their reactionary attacks, we could focus on building practical, grounded alternatives? By creating spaces, tools, and communities that embody the “native” #openweb values, we can offer a tangible, appealing contrast to the hollow shadow of the #deathcult worshipping. The goal is to show—not just tell—that another world is possible, and that it is not only necessary but desirable.

By doing this, the stink of the current dead ideology will become irrelevant. When people experience the benefits of living and working in paths that lead to commons, mutual aid, and flourishing, the death spiral of #stupidindividualism and the #geekproblem will lose its appeal. In the end, it’s not about fighting their ideas directly—it’s about making those ideas obsolete by building something far better.

To dive deeper into this , we need to look at the underlying mechanisms of how the #fashernista mindset, the neo-liberal #deathcult, #stupidindividualism, and the #geekproblem perpetuate themselves—and, more importantly, look at how this interlocking mess hinder progress while pretending to advance it.

The #Fashernista mindset is a reflection of dominance, as it operates as a mirror to dominant ideologies. By nature, it does not challenge power structures but absorbs and reflects their values, often in a more palatable or “trendy” form.

  • Aesthetic over substance, the prioritisation of appearances—what looks progressive, innovative, or ethical—over what actually is. For example, this neo-liberal “common sense” can be dressed up in “sustainable” or “inclusive” branding, while the underlying paths remain exploitative.
  • Tokenistic activism leads to shallow forms of activism, where symbolic gestures (#dotcons posting, slogans, memes and corporate-sponsored campaigns) replace meaningful systemic action. It gives the illusion of progress while leaving the core issues untouched.
  • Gatekeeping change is more about chasing trends rather than structural transformation, the #fashernista mindset creates a kind of cultural gatekeeping. True progress, which often appears “messy” and challenges comfort zones, is sidelined in favour of ideas that are easier to sell to the mainstream.

A Devotion to self-destruction, at the core of the neo-liberal mess, is the worship of market forces as the ultimate solution to all human problems. This drives society toward environmental collapse, social disintegration, and increasing inequality, all while proclaiming itself as the only rational way to organise the world.

  • Market “common sense” holds that markets are inherently efficient, fair, and inevitable, even as they consistently fail to address systemic crises like climate change, economic inequality, and resource depletion.
  • Individualism as control, framing individuals as isolated, rational actors responsible for their own success or failure, the #deathcult deflects attention from structural oppression. This isolates people, making collective action more difficult and reinforcing the system’s power.
  • Growth at all costs is an obsession with endless economic growth, even on a finite planet. This suicidal drive underpins its “deathcult” nature: it sacrifices long-term survival for short-term profits.

#StupidIndividualism is isolation masquerading as freedom

  • Alienation is growing with the idea that people should rely solely on themselves, #stupidindividualism leaves people disconnected from community support systems. This alienation feeds despair and reinforces compliance with the status quo.
  • Consumerism is identity, with people being encouraged to define themselves by what they consume rather than what they contribute to society. This distracts from collective struggles and entrenches a culture of passivity.
  • Weaponised identity politics, while this postmodern movment started as a way to empower marginalised groups, in the hands of #stupidindividualism, it becomes a tool of division. Individuals focus on personal grievances rather than uniting across identities to address systemic oppression.

The #geekproblem is often technology without politics, which emerges from a belief that technology is inherently neutral and that its development can exist separately from politics, ethics, or social power structures. This naivety—or wilful blindness—results in tools that perpetuate the very problems they claim to solve.

  • Apolitical engineering, where technologists focus on building “innovative” tools without considering their social impacts. For instance, surveillance technologies are marketed as safety solutions while eroding privacy and empowering authoritarianism.
  • Centralisation in disguise when #FOSS, open-source and decentralised projects replicate centralised power dynamics as their creators fail to address underlying social issues. A decentralised system run by a different few is still elitist.
  • Failure to address root causes as the #geekproblem thrives on quick fixes and clever hacks rather than systemic paths leading to solutions. It too often assumes that technology alone can solve problems like poverty or climate change, ignoring the need for social, political and economic transformation.

We do need balence, why ignoring these messy forces may be the smarter path as confronting the #fashernista mindset, neo-liberal #deathcult, #stupidindividualism, and the #geekproblem head-on often feels like trying to swim against a tidal wave. These ideologies are deeply ingrained, and challenging them directly can result in burnout, frustration, and thus further entrenchment of the status quo.

The “shit-to-compost ratio” is a thing when engaging with these entrenched paths we end up uncovering a lot of “shit”—toxic debates, defensive reactions, and wasted energy. If this overwhelms the capacity to turn these challenges into productive change, the effort can become self-defeating. Sometimes instead of fighting these paths on their terms, it may be more effective to focus on building alternatives like the #OMN. By creating functioning, appealing models of community, solidarity, and sustainability, we can then push to make the current systems obsolete, this is “our” path not theres

Building alternatives is a #KISS path to counter the destructive ideologies and to demonstrate the viability of better paths. This means focusing on practical, community-driven tools and solutions that embody the values we want to see in the world.

An important question is why people can’t see this? The inability to recognise these dynamics stems from decades of cultural conditioning and structural manipulation.

  • Simple propaganda, The priest’s of neo-liberalism has spent decades shaping public perception, presenting it as the only viable path. Its dominance is so pervasive that many cannot imagine alternatives.
  • Cultural individualism, when people are taught to see themselves as isolated individuals rather than interconnected members of a society. This blinds them to the power of collective action.
  • Distractions built into consumer culture, social media, and the 24-hour news cycle keep people distracted and disengaged from any real systemic issues and paths.
  • Fear of change with the unknown being scary, and the idea of steping away from entrenched paths can feel overwhelming or even impossible.

To shine light we need to compost the stink of the dominant ideologies — reflected in the everyday #fashernista mindset, neo-liberal #deathcult, #stupidindividualism, and the #geekproblem. But yes this needs to be balenced as directly fighting these entrenched paths can often feel futile and counterproductive. Instead, we need to also focus on building the alternatives we want to see, like the #OMN, cooperative, community-driven, and grounded in solidarity.

By creating working paths of a diffrent future, we make the failures of the current path self-evident and offer a clear, appealing alternative path. The change won’t come from confrontation alone—it will come from living and demonstrating the values that these dead ideolgys refuse to acknowledge.

The obstacle is people cannot see change and challenge

The failures of the liberal class, should now be obvious, and are rooted in their worship of neo-liberal “common sense,” that eroded our collective capacity for thought and solidarity. For 40 years, the #mainstreaming “left” abandoned the principles of class struggle, leaving the majority of people isolated and alienated. This complacency, steeped in postmodernist detachment, has created a vacuum that allows fear and hate to flourish. Over the past two decades, left identity politics, though well-meaning in its inception, has fragmented movements, prioritising narrow individualism over collective power.

The right wing has seized this opportunity to co-opt and distort progressive narratives, using them to fuel division and weaponise fear. This has paved the way for a shift towards authoritarianism and fascism, deepening the crisis of inequality, climate collapse, and social disintegration.

Yet, amidst this ongoing bleak reality, there is hope. The growing failures of the mainstream can be a turning point. They create the conditions for a return to #KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid) class-based left-wing movements, movements grounded in shared struggle, solidarity, and common purpose. This shift needs to sweep away the current #mainstreaming crew, who refuse to lift their heads from #deathcult worshipping dogma, and consign these long dead ideologies to the compost heap of history where they belong.

As a community, we face immense challenges: The hard shift to the far right, surviving the next generation of #climatechaos, enduring social breakdown, and creating systemic change in the face of these crises. But the solutions lie in coming together, rediscovering the power of collective action, and rejecting the #stupidindividualism that isolates us.

The biggest obstacle is that many people cannot see this. Years of cultural conditioning, relentless propaganda, and the atomisation of society have blinded people to the possibilities of collective power. They are trapped in a path that convinces them that there is no alternative—that the only option is to keep their heads down, live inside the status quo, and hope for survival.

But history tells us a different story: when communities organise, they can and do change the world. This is not a time for despair—it is a time for action. The current economic paths are failing, but this failure opens the door to something new, something better. The time for change is now, and it’s up to us to make the challenge happen.

So lift your heads to see clearly, and take action, not as isolated individuals but as a community. Together, we can not only survive, but create a future of growth, humanistic and ecological flourishing.

The #OMN is a social tech step on the path we need to take.

A social tech path out of the current mess

A look at the paths we need to take to balance the current #mainstreaming. Mess begets more mess, embrace It, but strategically is the starting point of the #OGB project, recognising that solving crises will inevitably create new complications. This isn’t defeatist but pragmatic. Understanding that “messy consensus” is a natural state of grassroots activism both online and offline allows us to embrace imperfection while striving for progress. How can we build tools to work with this balance, we need paths that don’t eliminate mess but help us navigate it constructively.

Messy consensus vs. formal consensus, is basic, that “almost nothing that works, works with formal consensus” is both an indictment of rigidity and a call to trust human intuition and collective messiness. Formal consensus processes prioritise idealised decision-making frameworks over functional, timely action. Messy consensus in practice, decisions that evolve through ongoing dialogue, negotiation, and iterative adjustments. A focus on getting things done rather than endlessly perfecting processes.

The #OGB Project approach is based on #KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid) by documenting messy consensus in action rather than try to force-fit solutions into rigid structures. The wider #OMN is about building software tools that reflect this dynamic, fluid, adaptive, and capable of handling the inherent unpredictability of real world grassroots organising.

Grassroots movements need patience and realism, activism is hard work, rife with delays, frustrations, and the risk of spiralling into unproductive behaviours. The example of delays being full of “shittiness all round” is all too common. The solution is to focus, implement basic accountability and communication tools to reduce friction (e.g., clear timelines, transparent updates). Design paths where delays can’t derail core progress (e.g., smaller, autonomous working groups with clear boundaries).

The #geekproblem and governance failures, technologists operate under the illusion that technology is apolitical, seeing themselves as neutral actors. This leads to tools and systems that perpetuate power imbalances rather than address them, then governance struggles inside this #techshit. On the more #NGO paths, governments and corporations alike fail because they attempt to apply dated paradigms (territorial governance, Soviet-style technocracy, and unchecked market competition) to globally networked paths.

#OGB and the #openweb native paths are about building politically aware technologies that understand their social impact and are actively shaped by the communities they serve. This is about moving beyond individualistic thinking to balance paths where decisions are made collectively and equitably, guided by progressive shared values and principles.

Metadata isn’t trivial, it’s often more revealing than the data itself. Governments and corporations weaponise it for control. However, this control relies on perpetuating individual isolation and the illusion that society doesn’t exist. A core path is challenging the #deathcult mentality and this death spiral of isolationism. The idea that individuals are isolated entities, disconnected from society, aligns with the deeply reactionary mindset of the #deathcult. It’s this ideology that drives surveillance capitalism, authoritarian governance, and ecological collapse.

The #OMN is about countering the death spiral by build networks and technologies that grow solidarity, collective agency, and a sense of shared purpose. To make this happen, we need to call out reactionary ideologies wherever they manifest, but with patience and a focus on education. The Internet is a commons, not an empire. The internet’s potential is currently squandered by treating it as a platform for profit-driven empires. With the #OMN instead, we cultivate a shared common, reflecting the principles of the #openweb. With commons-based governance, we move away from corporate models and toward federated, community-led governance. Interoperable ecosystems, prioritise open standards that allow diverse communities to connect without being locked into monopolistic kingdoms.

The #OMN contribution, is about documenting the failures of current systems and demonstrate the viability of federated, grassroots alternative paths. And from this building the cultural and technical infrastructure necessary to support an internet that is truly by and for the people. Practical steps are acknowledging the mess, start with the reality of our messy paths and systems rather than pretending they don’t exist. Then use this understanding as the foundation for solutions. Promote realistic timelines, by accepting that grassroots organising moves slower than we’d like, but ensure delays are constructive rather than paralysing. Focus on education, misunderstandings stem from a lack of digital literacy and political awareness, we need patience and persistence to mediate messy processes through practice.

In conclusion, how can we shape the world without being covered in shit. Yes, the path is messy, imperfect, and filled with hard work, but that’s no reason to despair. The #OMN projects offers a grounded approach that prioritises doing over theorising, embracing messy consensus as a strength rather than a weakness. By rejecting the #deathcult of individualism and building on the principles of the #openweb, we create paths that reflect the reality of grassroots organising: chaotic, collaborative, and, ultimately, transformative.