For the last ten years, activism has been trapped in a paradox: we speak of grassroots change, yet we reach for #dotcons and #geekproblem tools built for control. The digital infrastructure we rely on is dominated by top-down, vertical structures, reinforcing the very power dynamics we claim to be resisting. Meanwhile, the #4opens horizontal tools, the ones that foster collaboration, openness, and true grassroots organizing, sit unused at the bottom of the toolbox.
This isn’t just a tech issue; it reflects how activism itself is structured. Most organizing still happens through #closed, opaque affinity groups, mirroring the exclusivity and hierarchy of the systems we seek to dismantle. The language of activism, whether framed in utopian peace and love or rigid revolutionary rhetoric, too often masks this blunt reality. In truth, much of what passes for activism today reproduces the same centralized power structures, just with different slogans.
Yet, we live in one of the most open and radical times for building real alternatives. The tools for horizontalism exist. The challenge isn’t a lack of technology or platforms, it’s a failure to break free from ingrained habits of control and gatekeeping. The real work isn’t just about using better tools; it’s about shifting how we organize. Transparency, openness, and collective governance must move from the margins to the centre of activism. With the #OMN the seeds of the tool set are there, what’s missing is the will to develop and use it.
@info it's an issue that's big to talk about in short posts but i'll try; I could drop a stick of references to 1970s era books and essays such "Tryanny of Structureless", Habermas' "Theory of Communicative Action" and "Legitimation Crisis" not to mention "Exit, Voice and Loyalty" as well as "Logic of Collective Action" that define a problem that has been unconfronted all this time and only gotten worse …
@info a friend of mine will tell anyone that the problem with the web is TANSTAAFL [1] but no-one wants to hear it; "Free as in beer" has crowded out other meanings of the word is "free"; we're stuck in the world of the Apple 1984 commercial [2] where "slavery" is paying $5 a year for a domain name, being a nerd who runs their own blog, etc
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_such_thing_as_a_free_lunch
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtvjbmoDx-I
@info i'm thinking about a board game club that puts up posters with just a title and an QR code that points to a Facebook page; if you don't own a smartphone or can't or won't use Facebook, you're excluded…
@info this movie [1] makes the case that people learn the skills to express their interests by participating in groups that aren't specifically political; if you believe the breakdown of civil society is at the root of the current crisis, encouraging groups like that boardgame club is as effective a form of activism as any; how about a web presence oriented to get people to show up to in-person events that isn't tied to toxic personalization?
@info … it's a devlishly hard marketing problem however: if we require that organizations get their own domain names, we'll lose 90% of them, as much as serious nerds would say that's basic to "owning" your web presence; making them pay just a few $ a month would again exclude that vast majority of them, even though they could afford it…
@info … getting $1M a year or so from a large donor who believes Putnam's diagnosis would pay the server, program and sysadmin bills, but you have a 90% of non-profit pathologies sinking the whole thing. It's depressing to think about!
@UP8 @info
yep, we used to run 5 Fediverse servers, had to shut them down after they got overrun by liberals shouting into the void. The cost of running them went up x100 and the donations x2 if they were being used to organising activism I would have worked out how to fund them, but they were not so shut them down after 5 years. It's a challenge.