The wider #OMN project from a more #mainstreaming prospective

Sifting the wheat from the chaff in our technological and social mess is an important challenge. This is why the #OMN approach of leveraging work across communities and utilising multi-tag aggregation is an elegant and powerful solution. It would be useful to look at this from a more #mainstreaming prospective.

Aggregated work across communities of subjects, the first step in the #OMN path involves gathering and organising work created by various communities around specific subjects or interests. Subject-centric hubs, decentralised indexing, curating content based on subjects (e.g., #ClimateChange, #TechEthics). These hubs wouldn’t rely on centralised algorithms, but instead draw from a network of community-curated sources. Community moderation by trusted communities who moderate and curate content within their subject interested. This ensures quality and reduces noise while resisting gatekeeping tendencies of centralised control.
Reputation by contribution by encourage subject-focused communities to reward contributions, promoting collaboration and surfacing valuable work naturally.

Dynamic and live updates, newsfeeds, can be feed by aggregating real-time updates from communities working on the same subjects using open protocols like ActivityPub. This would provide a live pulse of discussions, innovations, and trends across diverse groups and subjects.

Multi-tag aggregation, the next step is to create a system that enables the mash-up of multiple tags to filter and organise the aggregated content dynamically. Advanced multi-tagging allow people to filter aggregated work using combinations of tags, e.g., #ClimateChange + #IndigenousRights + #CommunityProjects.

Visualisation of tag relationships, tag webs, implement visual tools that map relationships between tags, communities, and subjects. People can explore how different concepts connect and navigate the network intuitively. Trend overview, within tag intersections to help people identify emerging areas of focus and overlooked intersections.

Tools for aggregation and mashing, to make this work practically, we need powerful, accessible tools that build on the #OMN ethos. Open aggregators, open-source aggregators that collect data, metadata, and content flows from diverse platforms and formats, such as blogs, Fediverse instances, wikis, and video platforms that can be made compatible with the #openweb, we simply ignore the #dotcons which are to #closedweb to be worth plugging in to these flows, they will wither in the self-sustaining destruction of their own #techshit, sadly taking a part of our communities with them, we do not have the focus to rescue everyone as we push this shift.

Community buy-In and participation, To build the #OMN path in an effective and relevant direction, it must gain support and participation from the communities that create it. This needs: Simple, intuitive interfaces for tagging, curating, and contributing to subject hubs. Guides and incentives to help non-technical people engage with the paths. Decentralised decision-making, with democratic governance paths like the #OGB. Education and outreach, with educational campaigns to teach people how to use multi-tag aggregation and curated subject hubs that work.

Guarding against pitfalls, while the #OMN approach is promising, it’s essential to mitigate potential risks. We need to keep vigilance on balancing noise and redundancy. Centralisation risks, by keeping to decentralised and open paths to avoid reliance on any single platform, database, or organisation. Bias in curation is kept in check by the networks being inherently leaky, people will see other points of view – we do not subscribe to the #blocking inherent in #fashernista safety culture.

What would this look like, the end goal: Collaborative Knowledge Commons. The aim of the #OMN path is to create a living, breathing commons of human knowledge and action. By aggregating community work and enabling meaningful mash-ups through multi-tag aggregation, we create a powerful tool to cut through the noise, enabling better collaboration between communities, richer understanding of complex, intersectional issues, stronger foundations for the native #openweb.

“Solutions” being pushed for the future of the #Fediverse are starkly #stupidindividualism which comes from #deathcult worship

The is real frustration with “solutions” for the #Fediverse leaning toward #stupidindividualism and the normal #deathcult path, especially as these approaches undermine the foundational ethos of the “native” #openweb. What different paths do we need to take:

  1. Re-centre on cooperation and interdependence. This should be obverse, instead of treating the #Fediverse as a platform for fragmented individualism, we need to foster a commons-first approach. Mutual Aid Networks are a path by to encourage instances to form federated clusters based on solidarity, shared values, and collaborative governance. Instance Interdependence needs tools that make cooperation between instances smoother and beneficial, such as shared moderation practices, resource sharing, or even federated funding paths.
  1. Reject platformification, one of the Fediverse’s strengths is that it doesn’t need to mimic the dynamics of corporate platforms. To ensure its future path is native, not corporate we need to stick to the alt path of protocols over platforms, to stay on this path and not get distracted by new shiny #techshit For this we need to prioritise the development of open, robust protocols like ActivityPub that support interoperability over creating “Fediverse apps” that compete to centralise users. Standardised tools for moderation and discovery, create federated discovery and moderation tools that don’t funnel people into centralised algorithms or trending feeds but support meaningful and self-determined connections.
  1. Community-driven innovation instead of for profit and status, communities need to be more involved in defining what needs to be built. We need to mediate the power of tech communities and non-technical people. This ensures the solutions reflect diverse realities, not just the #geekproblem technocratic priorities. Public-good funding paths, to build sustainable funding for open-source tools without relying on venture capital or individual donations. Cooperative crowdfunding, grants from public institutions, or taxation-based paths could work.
  1. Reframe individualism as collective empowerment, the problem isn’t individual creativity; it’s when it becomes detached from collective good. Some ideas to balance this is by highlighting and rewarding people who contribution to the wider social enhance of the #Fediverse e.g., not just code contributions, but admins, moderation etc. One path could be to develop ways to celebrate shared milestones across the network, rather than competitive “likes” or algorithmic trends.
  1. Education and advocacy are a core part of the #openweb to building awareness of the stakes and educating people about the principles of the #Fediverse and the #openweb. Some paths might be: Digital literacy campaigns to educate people about how the #Fediverse operates, its native values, and why it must avoid the #dotcons #closedweb’s pitfalls. Highlight success stories by amplify case studies of community-owned and commons-driven Fediverse instances to inspire others.
  1. Design for long-term sustainability, any system that focuses on short-term growth or clout is doomed to fail. To build something durable, we need resilient federation models to address the scaling challenges that come with growing instances without resorting to centralised solutions. Decentralised governance is core, we need to explore and adopt models like the #OGB for instance and network governance.
  1. Resist the #deathcult narratives, which thrives on competition, exploitation, and the idea that scarcity is inevitable. This needs constant push back, with abundance-oriented design to build paths centred on care, trust, and generosity – rejecting the zero-sum thinking of extractive systems. Radical openness is a good native path for, tools like the are core.

This “native” thinking are based on ideas to anchor the #Fediverse in the principles of mutuality, solidarity, and the commons while resisting the pull of #stupidindividualism and centralisation.


This is about the failed liberal class, with their heads bowed in worship of the #deathcult for the last 40 years, have abandoned critical thought. Their unacknowledged postmodernist complacency has pushed us away from class struggle, leaving us isolated and alone. Meanwhile, the last two decades of left identity politics have allowed the right wing to co-opt and weaponise progressive narratives, filling them with fear and hate.

Yet, amidst this bleak shift towards fascism, there is a potential positive: a return to #KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid) class-based left-wing movements. These movements need to reclaim the ground from the current #mainstreaming crew, who continue to blindly worship neo-liberal “common sense,” while #blocking out and refusing to acknowledge its failures. It’s well past time to consign these dead ideologies to the compost heap of history.

What comes next is up to us. As a community, we face the real challenge of surviving the next generation of #climatechaos pushing social breakdown while driving forward the systemic changes these crises demand. It’s not as if we have a choice—change is no longer optional, and action is overdue.

Oscar Wilde was a Radical Socialist

Oscar Wilde wrote uncompromisingly of his radical desire for the complete and total abolition of private property – a precondition, he believed, for the emancipation of all humanity.

But how did Oscar Wilde arrive at such a radical socialist position? Wilde was born in Dublin in 1854 and raised in the affluent Merrion Square area. His family were part of the Anglo-Irish intellectual tradition. His father, William Wilde, was an influential surgeon, and his mother, Jane Wilde, was a well-known poet.

Yes, it might seem surprising that someone from such privilege would come to embrace left politics. Yet, his upbringing planted the seeds of revolutionary thought. Jane Wilde, writing under the pen name “Speranza,” was a radical poet and political agitator. Against the backdrop of the Great Famine in 1848, Jane Wilde explicitly called for revolutionary armed struggle to liberate Ireland from British imperialism. Writing in The Nation, she urged:

"Now is the moment to strike, and by striking save, and the day after the victory it will be time enough to count our dead."

Jane Wilde defended the Fenians, precursors to socialist movements, and aligned with the First International’s principles of workers’ liberation and solidarity. She was deeply committed to the emancipation of Ireland, labour, and women. Her legacy echoes in Irish revolutionary thought. Marxist republican James Connolly referenced her work in Labour in Irish History, tracing Ireland’s socialist tradition. With such a powerful figure as his mother, it becomes clearer how Oscar Wilde came to develop his radical politics.

The Soul of Man Under Socialism, by 1891, Wilde had articulated his vision of a perfect society in this essay, he calls explicitly for the abolition of private property, declaring:

"Socialism, Communism, or whatever one chooses to call it, by converting private property into public wealth, and substituting co-operation for competition, will restore society to its proper condition of a thoroughly healthy organism, and insure the material well-being of each member of the community."

For Wilde, socialism was not merely about collective ownership. He envisioned it as a pathway to true Individualism:

"Private property has crushed true Individualism... With the abolition of private property, then, we shall have true, beautiful, healthy Individualism. Nobody will waste his life in accumulating things... One will live. To live is the rarest thing in the world. Most people exist, that is all."

Unlike collectivist motivations typically associated with socialism, Wilde’s advocacy centred on freeing individuals, particularly artists, from the constraints of capitalist society. Art, for Wilde, was the highest form of Individualism:

"Art is the most intense mode of Individualism that the world has known."

Rather than being driven by material accumulation, Wilde’s socialism sought to liberate humanity’s creative potential.

Wilde rejected authoritarian paths in socialism. He argued that “all modes of government are failures” and envisioned a state with limited functions:

"[But] as the State is not to govern, it may be asked what the State is to do. The State is to be a voluntary association that will organise labour, and be the manufacturer and distributor of necessary commodities. The State is to make what is useful. The individual is to make what is beautiful."

He saw a future where automation and machinery would free humanity from menial labour:

"Were that machinery the property of all, everyone would benefit by it. Humanity will be amusing itself, or enjoying cultivated leisure... Machinery will be doing all the necessary and unpleasant work."

This aligns with Wilde’s ideal of socialism enabling human flourishing – artists creating beauty, thinkers advancing knowledge, and people simply enjoying life. Some might dismiss Wilde’s vision as utopian. He embraces the label, writing:

"A map of the world that does not include Utopia is not worth even glancing at, for it leaves out the one country at which Humanity is always landing... Progress is the realisation of Utopias."

However, Wilde’s utopianism reveals a crucial limitation. He focuses on imagining an ideal society while remaining unconcerned with how to achieve it. Unlike Marxist socialism, which analyses class contradictions to determine the material conditions for revolution, Wilde’s approach reflects a more idealistic notion that great thinkers impose their visions on society.

This is evident in his understanding of historical movements. For instance, Wilde claimed:

"Slavery was put down in America, not in consequence of any action on the part of the slaves... It was put down entirely through the grossly illegal conduct of certain agitators in Boston and elsewhere."

This overlooks the agency of enslaved people, who resisted and rebelled in uprisings like the Stono Rebellion and Nat Turner’s revolt. Wilde’s perspective is rooted in the belief that oppressed classes require external agitators to awaken them to their suffering.

"Misery and poverty... exercise such a paralysing effect over the nature of men, that no class is ever really conscious of its own suffering. They have to be told of it by other people."

This view contrasts sharply with Marx’s materialist conception of history, where the working class is the primary agent of its liberation.

Oscar Wilde died young in 1900 at just 46 years old. His radical ideas remain strikingly relevant today. Many of his critiques of capitalism – its reduction of human life to accumulation and profit – resonate deeply in the face of contemporary crises. Wilde’s utopian socialism challenges us to imagine a better world, but the task before us is far more urgent. With #climatecatastrophe looming, the choices before humanity are stark: socialism or extinction.

The time for dreaming is over. To honour Wilde’s vision, we need to confront the contradictions of capitalism for a progressive future. It is a struggle that, if alive today, Oscar would undoubtedly support this path.

Activating the Open Media Network

The essence of the challenges we face in activism, can be expressed by the tension between the “fluffy” and “spiky” paths, which shape the progress and direction of movements. It’s vital to resist the dogmatic tendencies that stifle this dynamic tension, as both are necessary for a balanced and effective path forward.

We need focus for change, we must balance introspection (“how to make us better”) with external action (“how to change them”). The interplay between these perspectives builds strength and adaptability within movements. Recognising this balance avoids falling into the traps of arrogance or despair.

Reframing extremism, the right and centre as extremists, with the left as the moderates, is a #KISS powerful narrative. It challenges the status quo bias embedded in #traditionalmedia and shifts the perception of who holds reasonable positions. Activism can amplify this narrative to make it more widespread and disarm the usual accusations of left-wing “radicalism.”

Avoiding fear and darkness, fear is the weapon of the right and centre-right. Activists need to resist being drawn into their framing. Instead, they focus on, light, building trust, encouraging openness, and showing tangible progress that can inspire people.

Tools for the fight, the provide a framework for clarity and accountability, while the shovel metaphor reminds us of the hard, unglamorous work of composting the mess. These tools help create fertile ground for growth, even amid the chaos of conflicting stories.

Activating the Open Media Network (#OMN) can play a crucial role in shifting this narrative. By showcasing grassroots voices and bypassing gatekeepers, it challenges the #traditionalmedia and #dotcons while building a network of trust, openness, and collaboration.

We Need to Live Differently – And This Time, It Needs to Work

On this site I have been reflecting deeply on the way we live – not merely as individuals but as communities and as a species. It is difficult not to feel overwhelmed by the numerous challenges we face: #ClimateChange, #Inequality, and #Loneliness, the last 20 years of #techshit to name a few. Yet, a simple but profound idea continues to resurface: What if we chose to live differently? What if we focused on building paths, like the #OMN project, that works harmoniously for people and the planet, rather than the normal path of attempting to repair what is broken?

This is not a new, humanity has long dreamed of utopias and alternative ways of living. Numerous communities have attempted to bring these visions to life, and admittedly, many have failed or faded away. However, these past efforts have left us with invaluable lessons, which is why, with the current #openweb reboot, I believe this time can be different.

The key lies in the technological and social path we collectively take. We are not striving for perfection because perfection is unattainable. Instead, we aim to create something real and adaptable. This is not about rejecting modernity or pretending the world’s issues will vanish if everyone adopts ethical consumption or #DIY self-sufficiency. It is about establishing spaces where people can collaboratively create, grow and adapt—striking a balance between #Innovation and #Simplicity, as well as between #IndividualFreedom and #CommunityCare.

This path is not simply my own. It is shaped by countless conversations with people from diverse backgrounds: #Developers, #Activists, #Educators, both online and offline. What stands out is the shared sentiment that our current way of life no longer makes sense. There is a collective yearning for something better—not to escape the world, but to build a way of living that reconnects us with each other, with nature, and with ourselves.

The path we can take, what makes this feel achievable, is that it does not require starting from scratch. It involves building on existing foundations—acknowledging both successes and failures—and asking critical questions: “What has worked in the past, what is currently working? What is not? How can we approach this differently?” This willingness to experiment, learn, and grow together is what sets this path apart from the normal #deathcult worshipping mess.

Yes, this might sound idealistic, and in some ways, it is. However, bold ideas are often the catalyst for meaningful change. If this resonates with you, I encourage you to share your thoughts. What changes would you like to see in how we live? What would it take for you to feel like you are contributing to something greater than yourself? These questions hold potential—not necessarily in the answers, but in the act of asking them. If you feel inspired to engage with this path, feel free to add to this thread. #openweb #collectivechange

Save Radley Woods

Radley Large Wood, a historic and ecologically significant ancient woodland near Oxford, is under threat. Once part of the lands owned by the Abbey of Abingdon, these woods are now owned by St. Hilda’s College, Oxford. However, the college’s recent actions have resulted in the destruction of approximately 20% of this precious ecosystem. These actions have raised serious concerns among local residents and environmentalists, as the damage done is irreversible and undermines the woodland’s ecological and historical value.

Ancient woodlands like Radley Large Wood are ecosystems that have developed over centuries, providing habitats for meany species of plants, animals, and fungi. The oak trees in the woodland are alive with biodiversity, supporting everything from ivy, which creates hibernacula for insects, to woodpecker holes that serve as nesting sites for bats and birds. When an ancient tree is felled, a network of dependent species are destroyed.

The woods have a diversity of different ages and heights, making them resilient and self-sustaining ecosystems. Unlike managed forests or plantations, ancient woodlands are irreplaceable. Once destroyed, they cannot be recreated, no matter how many trees are replanted. This loss is an act of environmental vandalism, stripping away a natural heritage that has thrived for centuries.

The misguided justifications of St. Hilda’s College, who claim that the felling is necessary due to ash dieback disease and for regeneration purposes. However, local observers have found little evidence of widespread ash dieback in the woods. Instead of targeted interventions, large swathes of the forest have been cleared, exposing fragile soils to erosion, flooding streams with mud, and destroying areas of bluebells, wood anemones, and native flora.

Moreover, regeneration felling, as described by the college, should involve careful canopy management to encourage natural regrowth. Yet what has occurred is far more drastic, resembling clear-cutting rather than thoughtful woodland management. Heavy machinery has churned wet soils, crushed habitats, and failed to respect safe zones around badger setts and other sensitive areas.

Biodiversity at risk, the destruction might’ve impacted bats, particularly woodland specialists like the barbastelle bat, which is already under-recorded and poorly understood. These bats rely on hollow trees, woodpecker holes, and other features of ancient woodland for roosting. Surveys and ground-level inspections that could have been conducted to identify potential bat habitats appear to have been inadequate or absent. Without proper ecological assessments, the full extent of the damage to wildlife remains unknown.

What’s really driving this, some critics suggest that the motivations behind the felling may not be as noble as claimed. With rising demand for biofuel and wood fuel, it seems likely that much of the felled timber is being sold for profit. Additionally, the college may be eyeing carbon credits from replanting schemes, which, while superficially appealing, cannot compensate for the loss of centuries-old ecosystems and the embodied carbon they represent.

Radley Large Wood is not just a patch of trees—it is a living area of natural and human history, from its days under the Abbey to its use as a holiday camp after the war. The community is now rallying to protect this irreplaceable woodland. St. Hilda’s College needs to be accountable for its promises to manage the wood according to ancient woodland guidelines.

What you can do: Join the friends of Radley Large Wood Facebook group to connect with people advocating for the woods. Write to St. Hilda’s College to demand transparency and adherence to proper ecological management practices. Support local campaigns to preserve ancient woodlands and bring awareness about the destruction caused by misguided forestry operations.

You can get involved and join the group here https://www.facebook.com/groups/603807741990811

#OMN a practical response to the failures of greed-based paths

The #OMN (Open Media Network) introduces a transformative model that replaces the traditional free-market system driven by greed with an open/gift/use market grounded in cooperation and shared values. This experimental social tech path reimagines the digital commons by prioritizing the free flow of digital “objects,” which can encompass a wide range of resources—media, tools, data, or creative works.

The OMN’s open/gift/use market: Resources and information flow freely, breaking down barriers created by proprietary systems and monetized exchanges. Collaboration thrives on transparency and inclusivity, embodying the values of the .

Gift economy with digital “objects” shared without the expectation of direct compensation, fostering a culture of generosity and mutual aid. The value lies not in profit, but in the collective benefit derived from shared resources. With the shift to use-oriented distribution, the focus shifts from ownership to utility, emphasizing the practical application and communal use of resources. This aligns with sustainable practices, reducing waste and promoting reusability.

Advantages of the OMN path are decentralized control, grassroots participation and reduces reliance on centralized, profit-driven entities. Community empowerment prioritizes collective decision-making and strengthens local and global networks. Sustainability moves away from extractive economic practices, supporting an equitable and ecological path.

Challenges, transitioning mindsets from profit-driven to cooperative models requires hard and dangurus cultural shifts. Navigating the balance between openness and exploitation in a “native” digital common’s path will be challenging, as most people worship the #deathcult

Opportunities, establishing a resilient digital common, will inspire similar transformations in wider social paths. Leveraging #openweb technology to scale and optimize the flow of digital “objects,” is a new and to an extent “proven” path with the last 5 years of the Fediverse.

The #OMN experiment is more than a theoretical framework; it’s a practical response to the failures of greed-based paths. By growing cooperation through an open/gift/use market, it offers a hopeful and actionable pathway for a real, sustainable future.

Branding keeps coming up as an issue

The #fediverse is a glimpse of a radically new kind of society through decentralized and community-driven models of governance and organization. This could be used to challenge traditional hierarchies and power structures, making it possible to resist imposing liberal “common sense” solutions that align with existing paradigms of control. On this different path we should use tools like #OGB (Open Governance Bodies) to grow native systems that are transparent, participatory, and empowering.

Branding and its role in the #fediverse, branding, while seen as a unifying force, actually to often just imposes barriers to community ownership and agency. When centralized branding dictates the identity of a project, it stifles participation and creativity. To counteract this negative default path, we can:

  • Shift to Community Branding, with communities running instances to create their own visual and cultural identities. This empowers localized expressions while fostering ownership and pride.
  • Standardize for collaboration, develop shared guidelines for a cohesive experience, while maintaining flexibility for local adaptation.
  • Minimize branding barriers, by avoiding overly strong branding in open-source codebases to make technology easier for people and communities to adopt and customize.

This focus leads to a decentralized and inclusive ecosystem, where control is balanced with the communities rather than only developers and funders. Core to this is the path of challenging #StupidIndividualism, in this context the hashtag critiques the focus on individualistic thinking and self-serving branding in #openweb projects. To challenge this, we need to hold in place open dialogue on the power dynamics of branding and its impact on participation.

To flourish, we need to focus on decentralized trust-based networks like the #fediverse that amplify grassroots voices. Encourage messy, iterative approaches to activism that embrace the complexity of social change. Build #FOSS tools that empower communities to take control of their narratives, reclaiming native paths from centralized systems and corporate algorithms.

We need to counteract the entrenched despair of #mainstreaming paths to compost the mess for real, impactful change.

What can we learn, what can we do?

The tension between different approaches to activism highlights the need for creative synthesis in addressing the broader social and ecological crises we face.

  1. Fluffy vs. #Spiky: A Diversity of Tactics The idea that both working within the system (#fluffy) and challenging it directly (#spiky) are necessary is central to creating a robust and adaptive movement. Building “common ground” is crucial, but the left’s fragmentation under decades of #neoliberalism and #postmodernism has left it standing in a metaphorical swamp. Moving forward requires reclaiming a grounded, shared space—intellectually, socially, and ecologically.
  2. Revisiting #Modernism A return to modernist thinking—despite its flaws—can offer clarity and purpose, emphasizing structure, progress, and shared goals. Balancing this with the experimental potential of socialism and anarchism, especially on a distributed scale (enabled by federation and P2P technologies), creates room for growth outside the mainstream.
  3. Liberal Social Democracy as a Step Back While the ultimate goal may lie in more radical transformations, liberal social democracy can serve as a stepping stone away from the creeping threat of fascism. This pragmatic approach helps to stabilize the ground for further progress.
  4. Deathcult vs. #Lifecult: The Cultural Meta-Narrative The #deathcult metaphor encapsulates a culture driven by greed, materialism, and ecological destruction. The #lifecult offers a messy but hopeful alternative, grounded in values like ecology, social justice, and collective care. The process of “composting”—transforming negative aspects into fertile ground—is a powerful metaphor for this shift.
  5. The Role of Undercurrents True hope lies in the undercurrents of social movements that challenge mainstream culture and provide alternative narratives. These undercurrents, messy as they may be, are where transformative potential resides. A focus on “life-affirming values” helps to communicate with those who may be entrenched in rationality or blinded by the logic of the #deathcult.

Suggestions for Moving Forward: Focus on finding shared values between different activist approaches to grow solidarity while respecting diversity of tactics. Encourage scalable experimentation with alternative economic and social models, with federation and P2P tech to scale these efforts. Storytelling using metaphors like #deathcult and #lifecult to reframe conversations and make complex issues relatable and actionable. Education and agitation to challenge apathy and #stupidindividualism by helping people reconnect with collective action and shared purpose. Ecology of movements, its helpful to recognize the importance of both reformist (#fluffy) and radical (#spiky) approaches as complementary rather than contradictory.

And most importantly please try not to be a #blocking prat.

We need to compost the barriers to building shared social truths

With the fragmentation of truth in the “post-truth world” we need to nurture social truths and build useful paths for collective understanding:

  1. Build trusted frameworks for information by promote fact-checking and transparency (e.g., open fact-checking databases with linked sources). This builds credibility and promotes critical thinking. Create public knowledge hubs, like Wikipedia as examples of crowdsourced truth. Amplify and protect such spaces to ensure they remain accessible. Support grassroots independent media by championing smaller, decentralized media networks (like #OMN) that embed transparency, ethics, and local reporting to counteract monopolized narratives.
  2. Reinvigorate the commons networks by creating spaces (both online and offline) where diverse perspectives engage in structured, mediated discussions. Encourage participatory governance (like the #OGB) of digital communities to nurture shared norms around truth and actions. Open hashtag networks can help, use hashtags to aggregate diverse perspectives under common topics, encouraging tagging flows that emphasize collaboration over conflict.
  3. Human-centric storytelling can help, by using narratives to illustrate the human cost of disinformation and the value of truth.
  4. Encourage peer-moderated content and support networks where trust grows organically through consistent, verified contributions (e.g., OMN’s tagging model). Human relationships first before diving into debates, trust grows when people feel heard, not combative. Highlight smaller community efforts to reach agreements on shared realities, which can then scale regionally and globally.
  5. Grow a culture of open inquiry to embrace complexity, not all questions have simple answers, it’s okay to live with uncertainty while seeking truth. Balance humility, with a mindset of curiosity and openness to change minds when confronted with new evidence.
  6. Develop social tools that bring attention to high-consensus content to balance polarizing materials. Tagging paths can build social consensus, use hashtags to organize content. The messy semantic web tools like the #OMN fosters collaborative environments where context and trust are added into content flows.

Addressing the Chicken-and-Egg Problem, to overcome the challenge of needing a critical mass to build momentum (e.g., hashtags gaining traction only when widely used). Start small by beginning with focused communities that share a commitment to truth and scale this organically. Use catalysts, leverage influential advocates and events to draw attention to the importance of shared truths. Incentivize participation with recognition, visibility, and other motivators for contributions to truth-oriented paths. To grow the emphasis on collaboration, openness, and trust, we can compost the barriers to shared social truths. What do you think?

Let’s look from a fresh view at the mess we need to fix

Socialism versus Liberalism, let’s look at the differences between two world-views that claim freedom and equality but define them in radically different ways. This isn’t just theory; it’s a look at how liberalism masks inequality with lofty slogans, while socialism might dismantle the structures enabling exploitation.

Socialism focuses on six key areas:

Freedom: Liberal freedom is individual but hollow, constrained by economic necessity. Marxist freedom is collective and material.
Democracy: Liberal democracy serves the wealthy, while proletarian democracy serves the working class.
Property: Liberalism protects private property as sacred, whereas Marxism challenges ownership of productive resources.
The State: The liberal state claims neutrality but serves capital. The Marxist state dismantles class power.
Human Nature: Liberalism naturalizes greed, while Marxism sees behavior as shaped by material conditions.
The Stakes: This isn’t just an academic debate but a struggle over the future of society.

In this breakdown, socialism critiques liberalism and offers an alternative rooted in material analysis and collective action.

Freedom – Liberalism claims that freedom means individual rights, equality before the law, and the ability to pursue success. But socialists point out that under capitalism, this freedom is formal, not real. Workers may be free to sell their labour to any employer, but they’re still forced to work to survive. Meanwhile, the capitalist—factory owner, landlord, boss—has the freedom to exploit labour, accumulate wealth, and protect their power.

This isn’t equality. It’s a system where one class’s freedom depends on another’s exploitation. For every self-made millionaire, countless workers remain trapped in poverty.

Socialism rejects this abstract view of freedom. Instead of focusing on rights in theory, it looks at material conditions—how power, property, and survival are distributed in society. True freedom can only exist when the means of production (factories, land, resources) are collectively owned and democratically managed.

Democracy – Liberal democracy is often celebrated, but socialism challenges its legitimacy. On paper, liberal democracy means rule by the people. In practice, economic power shapes political power. The wealthy fund campaigns, own media, and lobby politicians. Workers may cast votes, but the ruling class sets the agenda.

Socialism redefines democracy, it’s about direct participation through workers’ councils and collective decision-making. Proletarian democracy means the working class rules and shapes the world around them every day.

Property – Liberalism treats private property as sacred, but socialism notes this refers to the means of production, not personal belongings. Under capitalism, a minority owns productive forces, while the majority must sell their labour to survive. This isn’t about freedom—it’s about maintaining class domination.

Socialism advocates for collective ownership of the means of production, ensuring workplaces are democratically managed. Private property under liberalism protects the wealth of the few, while socialism serves the needs of the many.

The State – Liberalism portrays the state as neutral, a referee ensuring fairness. Socialism calls this a myth. In reality, the liberal state is a class weapon protecting the capitalist ruling class. Laws, police, and institutions safeguard private property and suppress dissent.

Under socialism, state power serves the working class, dismantling remnants of capitalism and empowering collective ownership. Over time, class distinctions fade, and the state itself withers away.

Human Nature -Liberalism argues that capitalism aligns with human nature, claiming people are naturally greedy and competitive. Socialism counters that human behaviour is shaped by social and economic conditions. In a system built on exploitation, greed is rewarded. In a cooperative system, solidarity and collective well-being flourish.

The Stakes – This isn’t just an academic debate; it’s a battle for society’s future. Liberalism defends inequality with abstract freedoms, while socialism seeks to abolish class divisions and create a world where freedom is a material reality.

For socialists, the choice is clear: remain locked in cycles of exploitation under liberal capitalism, or move toward collective liberation.

It’s worth thinking about this.


From socialism, we could step to communism: What is Communism?

Communism is a doctrine of the conditions needed to liberate the working class, known as the proletariat. The proletariat comprises workers who sell their labour to survive because they don’t own any means of production. Communism focuses on transforming society so the working class—those who produce the wealth—can escape exploitation and take control.

A key aspect of this liberation involves abolishing private property. However, this doesn’t mean all property—it specifically targets bourgeois property, such as factories, land, and resources owned by the capitalist class. This form of ownership enables inequality, as the wealth workers produce is taken as profit by the owners.

The historical context of class struggle – we need to frame communism within the broader history of class struggle, that history is shaped by the conflicts between social classes—masters and slaves, lords and serfs, capitalists and workers. Each era of human history is defined by these struggles, and capitalism has intensified them.

Under capitalism, industry concentrates wealth and power in the hands of a few while leaving the majority—the proletariat—in increasingly precarious conditions. This system creates the very conditions that make revolutionary change possible.

The Goals of Communism

Abolition of Private Property - Socialism clarifies that this doesn’t mean taking personal items like clothing or homes but refers to ending private ownership of productive resources like factories and machinery. These are the tools that allow exploitation, and ending such ownership ensures collective benefit rather than private gain.

Elimination of Class Distinctions - Class divisions arise from unequal ownership of property. When resources are collectively owned, the basis for social classes disappears. This would allow individuals to contribute based on their abilities and receive according to their needs, fostering equality and mutual respect.

Universal Equality - Beyond economic equality, communism seeks to end social and political oppression. Capitalism concentrates wealth and power, perpetuating systemic injustice. True equality involves restructuring society to guarantee access to education, healthcare, and opportunities for all.

But how can communism be achieved? – The transition to communism on the normal path requires revolutionary change. The working class seize political power and establish a new form of governance that represents the majority. This revolution must be international, reflecting the global nature of capitalism.

Some of the practical steps for the proletarian government, including abolishing inheritance rights, centralizing banking under public control, ensuring free education, and merging agriculture with industry to bridge urban-rural divides. These steps aim to dismantle capitalist exploitation and lay the foundation for an equitable society.

A classless and stateless society – The goal of communism is a society without classes or a state. Class distinctions exist because one class controls wealth and resources, and the state enforces this dominance. By abolishing private property and redistributing resources, the basis for class distinctions disappears.

In this future society, the state, as a tool of coercion, becomes unnecessary. Instead, governance shifts to collective management of resources and services through democratic participation. The focus is on cooperation, where individuals contribute according to their abilities and receive according to their needs.

Why is communism important? – Communism as the liberation of the working class, the historical context of class struggle, and the goals and methods of the movement. By eliminating exploitation and fostering collective well-being, these ideas remain relevant today.

What do you think?


What does Karl Marx think about this? – That we need to understand the mechanics of capitalist societies:

Historical Materialism – Marx shows how material conditions (like economic systems) shape society’s structure. He argues that the economy—tools, labor, and production relationships—determines the legal, political, and cultural systems. He also critiques idealists (like Hegel) who claim ideas shape reality. Instead, Marx asserts that people’s material circumstances shape their consciousness. History, in his view, moves forward through class struggles, driven by conflicts between social classes with opposing interests.

The Commodity and Value Theory – Marx breaks down commodities into two aspects: Use-value: What the item is useful for. Exchange-value: What it’s worth in the market.

He argues that labour is the true source of a commodity’s value, challenging the idea that supply and demand determine worth. This leads to his concept of surplus value—the difference between what workers produce and what they’re paid. This is how capitalists profit, by exploiting workers.

Money and Circulation – Marx explains how money acts as a universal standard for exchange, simplifying trade but also enabling exploitation. Money becomes capital when it’s used to buy labour and production tools to generate profit (surplus value). This cycle of capital accumulation drives inequality and can lead to economic crises, like overproduction or market chaos.

Production and Exchange in Capitalism – Production is where human needs are met and wealth is created. In capitalism, the focus on profit leads to worker exploitation, poor conditions, and alienation from their work. Exchange—how goods are traded—creates competition and chaos in the market, often leading to economic crises. These contradictions show the instability of capitalism.

Historical Development – In a famous preface, Marx explains how society’s base (its economy) determines the superstructure (laws, politics, culture). Changes in the economic base drive changes in society, often through class struggles. He sees history as a series of conflicts between classes, where new systems replace old ones through revolution.

This is a starting point for understanding Marx’s critique of capitalism. These ideas set the stage, what do you think?

Open Media Network (OMN): An Overview

It’s past time to stop trying to own the river and start learning how to navigate it.

Principles of the #OMN

  • Simplicity: Keeping the network and its tools straightforward allows for greater accessibility and usability.
  • Decentralization: Empowering people and communities to control their narratives by avoiding reliance on centralized platforms and corporate algorithms.
  • : Building around open data, source, process, and standards to grow trust and collaboration.
  • Participatory and Transparent Processes: The network grows organically with a focus on grassroots engagement rather than top-down control.

This is a reformatted and updated text from 8 years ago:

The Open Media Network (#OMN) is a reboot of the “indymedia” project, reimagined as an open, decentralized network for sharing and aggregating content across websites. Guided by the principles of the and motivated by the PGA hallmarks, OMN creates a people-to-people trust-based tagging system for collaboration and ethical aggregation.

What Are OMN Nodes?

OMN nodes are the backbone of the network. These nodes perform specific functions to enable the sharing and dissemination of content within the OMN ecosystem:

Hosting Content Flows: Nodes curate and host flows of content based on tags from other OMN sites on subjects that interest them.

Content is imported via RSS from external sites and by #ActivityPub from #Fediverse and OMN sites.

Tagging and Retagging: Nodes can tag and retag objects within content flows to direct them to other nodes or to specific sections, such as sidebars/pages on websites.

Providing Tagged Content: Nodes offer tagged content flows to other sites, which can embed the content using codes as needed.

Content Archiving (Optional): Nodes may choose to archive content locally.

The roles and functionality of nodes will evolve organically as the network develops.

Types of Sites in the OMN

OMN sites serve different purposes within the network:

Publishing Sites: The original sources of content. Typically, provide an #RSS feed of ActivityPub flow for the network.

Aggregating Sites: Focus on specific subjects, localities, or themes. Receive feeds from publishing sites and curate high-quality, trusted content for distribution to higher-level nodes.

News/Link Portals: Regional, national, or major subject sites. Aggregate trusted feeds from intermediate aggregating sites and select publishing sites.

The Human Element of OMN

The OMN emphasizes human moderation and relationship building:

Trust: Relationships between node administrators, content providers, and users form the foundation of the network.

Decentralization: Unlike traditional centralized models, OMN’s structure encourages openness and collaboration.

Ethical Aggregation: Content is networked respectfully to create a robust alternative to failing commercial platforms (#dotcons).

Key Features of Ethical Aggregation

Prominent display of OMN links on participating sites.

Links are live and direct users to the original host site for reading and commenting.

Original sources are credited under content titles.

Aggregation behaviour (e.g., full content in apps) is agreed upon by both parties, with opt-out options available.

Ad placements near Creative Commons non-commercial content require explicit agreement.

Building the Network

OMN leverages existing web standards to build an open “data soup” that enables many new possibilities:

Legacy Web Integration: Uses RSS for backward compatibility.

Semantic Web Transition: Moves towards a peer-to-peer semantic web with more p2p protocols.

User Stories: Articles published on one site can appear on many other sites, always linking back to the original source.

User Contributions

OMN encourages continuous improvement and collaboration:

Content remains open-ended to invite contributions and dialogue.

Tags and semantic data added by aggregators enhance the content flow for others.

Joining the OMN

Participation is voluntary and flexible:

Existing sites can continue operating independently while sharing content via RSS.

Posting can be done through personal blogs, group sites, or portals like #indymedia.

For “news” – A New Indymedia

Aggregating hubs/nodes in OMN represent the “new indymedia”:

These hubs may focus on subjects, countries, regions, or cities.

Unlike the centralizing elements of traditional networks, OMN’s open model reduces the need for centralized control.

Licensing and Openness

OMN adheres to open licensing principles:

Content is shared freely within the network.

Licensing ensures respect for contributors and promotes ethical usage.

Encouraging Collaboration

OMN thrives on contributions and engagement:

Leave questions or incomplete ideas to inspire participation.

Create linking overviews or summary articles that highlight stories within content flows.

Encourage human relationships to grow the trust-based network.

Conclusion

The Open Media Network (OMN) is an ambitious and open-ended project that refocuses decentralized media sharing for the modern web. By collaboration, trust, and ethical practices, OMN empowers participants to grow a sustainable and impactful alternative to the dieing corporate media platforms.


Open Media Network (OMN): A second view

What Are OMN Nodes?

OMN nodes are the backbone of the network. anyone can run one, the flows between them are based on trust. These nodes perform specific functions to enable the sharing and dissemination of content within the OMN ecosystem:

  1. Hosting Content Flows: Nodes curate and host flows of content based on tags from other OMN sites on subjects that interest them.
    • Content is imported via RSS from external sites and by activertypub from OMN sites.
  2. Tagging and Retagging: Nodes can tag and retag objects within content flows to direct them to other nodes or to specific sections, such as sidebars on websites.
  3. Providing Tagged Content: Nodes offer tagged content flows to other sites, which can embed the content using codes as needed.
  4. Content Archiving (Optional): Nodes may choose to archive content locally.

The roles and functionality of nodes will evolve organically as the network develops.

Types of Sites in the OMN

OMN sites serve different purposes within the network:

  1. Publishing Sites:
    • The original sources of content.
    • Typically provide an RSS feed for the network.
  2. Aggregating Sites:
    • Focus on specific subjects, localities, or themes.
    • Receive feeds from publishing sites and curate high-quality, trusted content for distribution to higher-level nodes.
  3. News/Link Portals:
    • Regional, national, or major subject sites.
    • Aggregate trusted feeds from intermediate aggregating sites and select publishing sites.

The Human Element of OMN

The OMN emphasizes human moderation and relationship building:

  • Trust: Relationships between node administrators, content providers, and users form the foundation of the network.
  • Decentralization: Unlike traditional centralized models, OMN’s structure encourages openness and collaboration.
  • Ethical Aggregation: Content is networked in a respectful way to create a robust alternative to failing commercial platforms (#dotcons).

Key Features of Ethical Aggregation

  • Prominent display of OMN links on participating sites.
  • Links are live and direct users to the original host site for reading and commenting.
  • Original sources are credited under content titles.
  • Aggregation behavior (e.g., full content in apps) is agreed upon by both parties, with opt-out options available.
  • Ad placements near Creative Commons non-commercial content require explicit agreement.

Building the Network

OMN leverages existing web standards to build an open “data soup” that enables many new possibilities:

  • Legacy Web Integration: Uses RSS for backward compatibility.
  • Semantic Web Transition: Moves towards a peer-to-peer semantic web with technologies like ActivityPub, Nostr, ATprotocol etc.
  • User Stories: Articles published on one site can appear on many other sites, always linking back to the original source.

User Contributions

OMN encourages continuous improvement and collaboration:

  • Content remains open-ended to invite contributions and dialogue.
  • Tags and semantic data added by aggregators enhance the content flow for others.

Joining the OMN

Participation is voluntary and flexible:

  • Existing sites can continue operating independently while sharing content via RSS.
  • Posting can be done through personal blogs, group sites, or portals like indymedia.

A New Indymedia

Aggregating hubs/nodes in OMN could be represented as the “new indymedia”:

  • These hubs may focus on subjects, countries, regions, or cities.
  • Unlike the centralizing elements of traditional networks, OMN’s open path reduces the need for centralized control.

Licensing and Openness

OMN adheres to open licensing principles:

  • Content is shared freely within the network.
  • Licensing ensures respect for contributors and promotes ethical usage.

Encouraging Collaboration

OMN thrives on contributions and engagement:

  • Leave questions or incomplete ideas to inspire participation.
  • Create linking overviews or summary articles that highlight stories within content flows.
  • Encourage human relationships to grow the trust-based network.

Conclusion

The Open Media Network (OMN) is an ambitious and open-ended project that reimagines decentralized media sharing for the modern web. By fostering collaboration, trust, and ethical practices, OMN empowers participants to build a sustainable and impactful alternative to corporate media platforms.