Author: hamish campbell

A part of the OMN

Bridging the gap: Building a human-first #openweb

Many years ago, I wrote on my website sidebar: “A river that needs crossing—political and tech blogs: On the political side, there is arrogance and ignorance; on the geek side, there is naivety and over-complexity.” Decades later, we still to often find ourselves standing on opposite shores of this river, struggling to bridge the understanding gap between human-centric communities and the techno-centric mindset of the “geek class.” This divide is a core challenge for anyone invested in building a better, decentralised #openweb.

This battle isn’t just about technology—it’s a deeper, unspoken struggle between openness and control. It’s about whether our social networks and communities will empower human trust and collaboration, or continue to be shaped by closed systems that reduce people to passive users.

To touch on this, it’s worth looking at a tale of two projects: Diaspora vs Mastodon

The history of the #openweb provides stark lessons. Consider #Diaspora and #Mastodon, two decentralised platforms with very different outcomes.

  • Diaspora had significant funding, public attention, and a large team of coders. Yet, it failed completely. Why? It was built with a #FOSS closed mindset—trying to replicate the control features of corporate platforms but within a decentralised framework.
  • Mastodon, by contrast, had no funding, minimal publicity, and just one dedicated coder. It succeeded because it embraced openness—allowing communities to organically grow and evolve based on shared principles rather than top-down control.

The lesson is clear: projects rooted in openness thrive, while those built on closed fail.

The #OMN path is human trust networks over algorithms. One of the core goals is to learn from these past successes and failures. From these focuses on growing federated human communities by prioritising openness, trust, and collaboration over technical “perfection.”

A counterintuitive path – Why Spam and “Bad Content” Matter. It might sound counterintuitive, but spam and irrelevant posts are a necessary part of building communities. Without the challenge of sorting and filtering content, there’s no reason for humans to reach out, form trust networks, and collaborate on moderation. Geeks often see spam as a technical problem to be solved with algorithms, but this approach misses where the value is.

Algorithms centralise power, when we rely on black-box technology to handle content moderation, control shifts to the people who design and manage these “boxes”. This creates invisible hierarchies, as seen with #Failbook and other #dotcons platforms. By relying on human moderation and trust-building, communities become stronger and more self-sustaining. People are motivated to engage, connect, and contribute to a path they help shape.

Spam and low-quality content must flow into the network as part of the process, but the network itself should flush this out to organically push valuable content to the top through human effort. Of course there is a balance here, this decentralised approach keeps power in the hands of the community balanced with the coders. With this flow of data and metadata established, we put some federated structure in place.

Scale through federation creates organic grow.

  • Base Sites: These are narrow, local, or subject-focused publishing sites where content creation happens. They are small and community-driven, and their true value lies in their specificity and grassroots community engagement.
  • Middle Sites: This aggregate content from the base sites, adding value by curating, tagging, and filtering. They act as the core of the network, sifting through content to ensure quality and relevance.
  • Top Sites: These are broad outreach platforms designed for #mainstreaming content. They are easy to set up and administer but add little original value. Instead, they highlight and amplify the best content from the base and middle layers. These sites are the change and challenge.

This structure reverses the traditional value pyramid, where top-down platforms dominate. In the #OMN model, the true value resides at the grassroots base, while the top merely reflects the collective effort below.

Moderation as a feature, not a problem, for the network to thrive, it must scale through human connections and trust, moderation is the fuel for building the trust networks.

  • Trusted Links: Content flows through trusted networks, where moderators ensure quality.
  • Moderation Levels: New contributors are moderated until trust is established. Over time, as trust builds, moderation becomes less/unnecessary.
  • Failure Modes: Without trust-building, sites will either become overwhelmed by irrelevant content or collapse under the weight of unmanageable workloads.

The only way to maintain a useful site is to build, either a large, healthy community with diverse moderators and administrators, or a small, focused group based on high-quality, trusted connections. Both outcomes are desirable and reinforce the decentralised ethos of the #OMN.

Why automation fails, the temptation to automate everything is a hallmark of the #geekproblem. While algorithms might make a network “technically” better, they erode the human element, which is the entire point of decentralisation. Automation creates middling-quality networks with mediocre outcomes, leading to Signal-to-Noise problems, reduced motivation, if everything is automated, why bother forming trust networks and engaging deeply?

Less is more should be a guiding principle. By focusing on simplicity and human collaboration, the #OMN avoids the pitfalls of over-engineering and maintains the integrity of its community-driven mission to build a better future. The #OMN isn’t just about technology; it’s about creating spaces where people can connect, collaborate, and build trust. It’s about empowering communities to take ownership of their networks and their narratives.

This road won’t be easy. We’ll need to fight against the inertia of the #dotcons and resist the urge to repeat the mistakes of the last decade’s failed alt-tech projects. But by embracing the principles, we can create a web that serves people, not corporations. The tools are already here. The open internet still exists, for now. The choice is clear, build for humans, not for algorithms. Trust people, not black boxes. Decentralise, federate, and grow organically. The #OMN provides a roadmap—now it’s time to follow it.

Public Social Media: The Choice is Clear

As the #fashernista and #geekproblem “debate” over social media platforms intensifies, the choice between truly public, decentralised networks and corporate-controlled #dotcons has never been clearer. Let’s look at a simple example:

  • Mastodon is owned by no one and everyone (community-driven). Its structure is public non-profit. Number of distributed nodes are in the thousands (fully decentralised). Post length: 500 characters and more. Can edit? Yes. Mastodon represents the native #openweb. It’s built on decentralised principles, where people and communities own and control their spaces. There’s no central authority dictating rules or exploiting for profit.
  • Bluesky is owned by Venture Capitalists, Its structure is corporate for-profit. Number of “distributed” nodes: One (centralised in practice) Post length: 300 characters Can edit? No. Bluesky, despite its claims of decentralisation, is owned and operated as a for-profit venture. Its structure centralises power and prioritises profit over people’s control, offering a polished but limited alternative to #mainstreaming paths.

The choice between #Mastodon and #Bluesky reflects a broader conflict between decentralisation and #dotcons corporate control. It should, but often is not easy to see that networks like the #fedivers are native to the #openweb where Bluesky is an interloper, though they are both .

Projects like the #OMN, , and the #Fediverse itself, offering freedom, community ownership, and transparency. Bluesky, on the other hand, represents the same closed, profit-driven ethos of the #dotcons, repackaged in a new “shiny” wrapper.

When you choose a network, you’re not just choosing where to post, you’re choosing what kind of internet you want to build. The open, public internet is still within reach. The choice is clear.

Seed from a toot and image from @FediTips

How we got into this mess

The true extremists in today’s society are the right-wing and the centrists, while the left-wing represents the moderates. This may seem counterintuitive, but when you examine the dynamics of power and ideology, it becomes clear. The past 40 years of neo-liberal dogma, embedded in every corner of our institutions, have pushed society apart. This deliberate fragmentation created fertile ground for extreme reactions.

In the 20th century, we understood why soft social democracy was necessary. It provided a buffer, a compromise that kept society from tearing itself apart. But the neoliberal project, championed by the so-called “centrist elites”, dismantled that social compact in pursuit of unregulated markets and corporate power. They planted and ploughed this mess, blinded by their own hubris. And now, those same centrists, the article-writing class, weep over the chaos they sowed.

Our liberals, many of them lovely and fluffy, and a few still hard and spiky, do not have the answers to today’s crises. Their “thinking,” rooted in this mess, is the problem. They can’t see past the path they’ve perpetuated, systems that have led us to this breaking point.

The reality is stark: for the next 40 years, it’s either the right or the left. There’s no neutral ground anymore, no room for centrist dithering. It’s time to take a side and buckle in for the ride. At the end of this upheaval, we might claw our way back to a social democratic compromise—or we might not.

The choice is clear, but the path will not be easy. The centrists and right-wingers won’t relinquish power without a fight, and the left will need to be bold, clear-eyed, and united to counter their influence. Whether we end up with a more equitable society or descend further into chaos depends on where we plant our feet today.

The web wasn’t built by solo tech geniuses

The web wasn’t built by solo tech geniuses, finance firms, or flashy luminaries making illusionary promises. It was grown by the collective time, energy, and creativity of millions of grassroots people and communities working together to create something greater than themselves. The internet as we know it emerged not from the top-down visions of elites, but from decentralised, collaborative efforts. This same collective energy will be what propels us into the next era of the #openweb, a web that remains true to its native principles of accessibility, freedom, and inclusivity.

For the last 20 years, however, we’ve been stuck in the corporate-controlled ecosystem of the #dotcons. Platforms like Meta, Google, and Amazon have dominated the landscape, turning the internet into a commodity to be bought, sold, and controlled. Their vision has led to the rise of the #closedweb, where profit and surveillance trump openness and collaboration. This #mainstreaming path is deeply concerning because it fundamentally contradicts what the web was meant to be, a space for sharing, learning, and connecting without the old gatekeepers.

There is a movement to reverse this trend, the #Fediverse, but like meany reboots it’s floundering as it grows through the inrushing of “common sense”. What we need is native #KISS foundations for a thriving #openweb, A path to this is to embrace the as guiding principles:

  • Open Data: Ensuring that information can be freely shared and reused.
  • Open Source: Building tools and platforms that anyone can access, modify, and improve.
  • Open Standards: Creating interoperable systems that work across platforms and communities.
  • Open Process: Making decisions transparently and inclusively to foster trust and collaboration.

This is a simple retelling of the #FOSS process with the addition of #openprocess as is used in the best projects, this is a part of the #nothingnew path we are on.

It’s not enough to critique the #dotcons, we need to actively build alternatives, the #Fediverse has already taken the first set on this path. The next step is focusing our energy on “native” projects like #OMN (Open Media Network), #IndyMediaBack, and #OGB (Open Governance Body), on this path we can create a decentralised, human-centred web that prioritises communities over corporations. These projects are not about recreating the same flawed systems in a slightly different guise; they’re about fundamentally rethinking how we engage with technology, governance, and communication. This rethink is #nothingnew as it’s copying the working structure of grassroots activism.

The time is now to come together and make history by working on these alternatives. The #openweb is not just an ideal; it’s a necessity for a sustainable, democratic future. Let’s reject the illusions of the #closedweb and instead build a web that truly belongs to everyone.

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.

Where is this going, they crave #control, so they assume everyone else is out to control them. They weave #conspiracies to crush their enemies, so they see a world drowning in conspiracies against them. In the final stages, a fully rotted #ideologue can’t even see threats or weaknesses; their perception is warped by their own decayed #moralcompass. At this point, outside direct, action they are beyond reach. Every word we speak will be twisted against us. Every action we take will be seen as an attack #paranoia #fascist.

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 yes while it might feel uncomfortable, we should actively 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, 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. On this compromise path, 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, the 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.