There’s a “normal” dangerous illusion still clinging to liberal democracies: that we’re in a time of political turbulence, but the foundations remain intact. That, somehow, we’ll “course correct.” But this needs to be seen as blinded thinking.
What is obvious is that we’re actually experiencing regime change, not in some distant land, but right here in the West. And it’s not coming from tanks or coups, but through the ballot box, boardrooms, social media algorithms, and #NGO “common sense”. It’s a sometimes hard sometimes soft, systemic shift rightward, authoritarian, nationalistic, and wrapped in the aesthetics of democracy.
From the U.S. to the UK, the EU to Australia, this right-on-right push is becoming the new normal. Neoliberal “centrism” no longer holds the centre, it’s morphing, accommodating and enabling hard-right politics, law-and-order, border control, national identity, anti-progress, pro-surveillance, anti-labour, the #deathcult is adapting to survive.
The #mainstreaming left is either co-opted, defanged, or fragmented. The radical left, where it exists, is distracted, performative, and lost in a fog of internal squabbles. Meanwhile, the far-right is disciplined, funded, and in motion. They’re winning not just in elections, but in narrative, shaping what is possible, what is sayable, and what is unthinkable.
The mainstream was never a neutral space, it’s a battleground, and we are losing it. Every time we dismiss a new policy as “just politics,” or think this is just another swing of the pendulum, we miss the simple truth that a new regime is consolidating, one that sees basic rights, justice, and truth as obstacles, not goals.
We need to name this clearly. We need to organize outside the institutions, because those institutions were never neutral. The work is not just advocacy or lobbying, it’s resistance and reconstruction. We need to rebuild from the bottom up. Projects like the #OGB, the #OMN, and a rebooted #Indymedia are small seeds. But they matter. Because if we don’t grow our own ecosystems, we’ll be forced to live under theirs.
This is not alarmism. It’s the world as it is. Let’s not wait for the full lock-in before we act, please.
Our history of involvement in #EU digital outreach and policy meetings has made one thing starkly clear, our #openweb is deeply entangled in the process of #mainstreaming, a messy, often co-optive dynamic where grassroots voices are softened, diluted, and redirected into bureaucracy, then in the end they are simply #blocked. Yes, while there is value in taking part, it’s also a wake-up call.
The push to shape digital paths from above is strong. But without active grassroots alternatives, there will be no balance that is needed. The building of a so-called “commons” is reshaped to fit into #NGO boxes, filled with #dotcons-friendly language, and stripped of any radical potential. This is why our #openweb projects now matter more than ever.
At the heart of this approach must be #KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid) in both technology and user experience. We don’t need more convoluted tools or platforms weighed down by geek prestige. We need simple, effective frameworks and networks that allow users-as-producers to build the social complexity on their own terms. Complexity should come from people, not code.
And this brings us to the elephant in the room, the #geekproblem. Our own grassroots digital spaces are still shaped by a narrow, deterministic culture that lacks wider social understanding. In the path we need to be on, we cannot code our way to liberation if the ideology behind the code is warped, and currently, it is. As we often say: all code is ideology solidified, and it has real social effects.
Right now, way too much of that ideology stems from the #deathcult, hidden behind kind words, progressive branding, and empty buzzwords. This disconnect between stated values and real-world outcomes is dangerous, and disturbingly common.
This is why we’re pushing the #OGB, an online Open Governance Body for the #fediverse and beyond. Built around the #4opens and grounded in social paths, the OGB is designed to be a real voice for grassroots communities. It’s an open project, a no-permissions outreach tool, use it if you find value in it.
We’re currently looking for funding support and collaborators, particularly developers who are attracted to this vision. If you have links, networks, or skills to offer, get in touch.
The time is urgent. The mainstreaming machine is rolling forward. Let’s compost the #techshit, reclaim our spaces, and grow better from the bottom up.
The #Fediverse exists, and more than that, it’s alive and kicking. Sure, it might be a messy, chaotic, a bit fragmented, and yes, still niche. But let’s not underplay it, this is the healthiest corners of the internet we’ve got. Tens of million accounts, hundreds of thousands active people, and some are sometimes talking about how we build our digital spaces from the bottom up.
Yep, there are the cat videos, the #fluffys and the #spikys. But also an in-group debate is bubbling away about who speaks for the Fediverse? What defines it? Is it the standard #ActivityPub that binds us only technically? Or is the value in the community that’s formed it, the living web of relationships, servers, instances, and admins making this work day-in-day-out? Truth is, it’s both. #activitypub without community is just code. Community without #activitypub is just another silo waiting to collapse. They are not the same, but they are inseparable. To build something real, we need to nurture both the tech and the people.
What works in the #Fediverse is decentralisation with purpose, it works because it resists centralisation. It gives people choices, want a cat picture, instance? A political instance? A hyper-local or themed space? You install and build it, and people might come. This is #DIY grassroots digital culture in motion. Standards support this growth, #ActivityPub, like #RSS before, may not be perfect, but it’s open, extensible, and functional. It allows platforms and networks to talk to one another. This is a real #4opens foundation for collaboration, not control. That’s the kind of architecture we need in the #openweb reboot.
What doesn’t currently work is the over-reliance on hard blocking as a solution, with the common approach to problems is too often to block, users, instances, entire classes of servers like the #dotcons. While this kinda makes sense in the short term, it’s not a long-term strategy. It’s the digital equivalent of putting your head in the sand. You’re not solving the problem, you’re just not looking at it any more. This has the strong tendency to feed the “Cave Mentality” where some corners of the Fediverse are in defensive mode, retreating into smaller and smaller bubbles, avoiding engagement, trying to build perfection behind walls. But hiding from the mess doesn’t clean it up. If the #openweb becomes too closed, it dies from within. Openness is a value, not just a setting.
This is in part due to a lack of collective strategy, yes we’ve got the passion. We’ve got the tools. What we’re missing is a shared direction. The is currently too much reinventing the wheel, too many forks without purpose, not enough joining the dots. A thousand flowers bloom, but the garden needs tending.
#nothingnew is a basic tool about this, then there is the use of the #4opens, we need to make the #Fediverse and every layer of the #openweb, measurably open. That means: Open Data: accessible and remixable content. Open Source: transparent and forkable codebases. Open Standards: like #ActivityPub, that let different platforms interconnect. Open Process: decision-making in public, with participation and accountability.
The #4opens framework is a guide, not to perfection, but to direction. It’s a map toward trust, decentralisation, and sustainability. On this path, we need to build culture, not only code. Healthy communities don’t just appear, they’re built. Instead of building tech features, let’s also build social norms. Encourage, informative, welcome messages, transparent moderation, shared spaces for discussion. Moderation and admin is labour, support it, reward it and most importantly decentralise it.
To build community, don’t shy away from engagement. It’s tempting to block and move on. But sometimes, the hard work is worth it, call things out, talk things through, escalate when needed, but don’t disengage by default. We need active participation, not digital ghost towns. If we want the #Fediverse to grow, we need to build bridges, not walls. Let’s weave human trust networks to grow spaces that are porous, where new people can enter, learn, contribute, and stay. This is the work of social federation, which is just as important as technical federation.
There is a bigger picture if you are interested and are motivated to look, the #OMN, Open Media Network project is a vision and collective path for this kind of social architecture. It’s a federated network of media hubs, rooted in community, powered by open standards, and guided by human trust. It doesn’t seek control, it offers #KISS tools to build trust, add value, and create meaningful networks from the ground up. On this “native” path, rather than rejecting “bad actors” by exclusion, we build systems that surface good actors through collective tagging, trusted feeds, and editorial flows. Moderation becomes a feature, not a bug.
Final thought, let’s not repeat the mistakes of the past. The last 20 years of alt-tech is a graveyard of well-meaning platforms that failed because they forgot one thing, the humans. The #geekproblem has been building “perfect” systems with no one in them. That’s not the #openweb we want. We need less abstraction, more interaction. Less control, more cooperation. And above all, we need to recognise that openness requires work, but it also delivers freedom. So yes, the Fediverse exists. It’s healthy. But it can and needs to be more. Let’s stop hiding. Let’s start building. Together.
State violence is the final refuge of the incompetent, considering the staggering incompetence of the present governments, it’s no surprise they’re hedging their failures with increased military spending. When leaders are intellectually and morally bankrupt, when they run out of ideas, when their authority falters under the weight of economic inequality, climate breakdown, and crumbling public services, they reach for the oldest tools of control: fear, force, and distraction.
Across the world, we’re watching this trend unfold. Governments are pouring resources into militarisation while systematically underfunding healthcare, education, and welfare. In the UK, billions are being funnelled into new military hardware, expanded surveillance infrastructure, and policing, all while people struggle to heat their homes, access a GP, or keep a roof over their heads. This isn’t mismanagement. It’s a political choice, and it makes clear where the priorities lie, in protecting the power of the #nastyfew, not people.
They tell us it’s about “security” and “defence.” But when a government starts to feel more threatened by its own people than by any foreign force, we must ask: what kind of future are they preparing for? It’s starting to look like one where dissent is criminalised, protest is heavily surveilled, and public frustration is met not with care or accountability, but with batons and border walls.
We should be deeply worried, because violence is not only about tanks and drones, it’s the everyday grinding violence of austerity, the hostile environment, the punitive benefit sanctions, the calculated dismantling of social safety nets. It’s a state driven project that protects the profits of the #nastyfew while punishing those who dare to imagine something different.
But here’s the hard truth, we did this, and we keep doing it. It’s us. We have the power not to do this. We vote, we organise, we protest, and sometimes we stay silent, and all of that shapes the world we live in. Every time we shrug our shoulders, every time we tell ourselves change is impossible, we make the next wave of repression that much stronger. But the other side of this is also true, when we act, when we organise, when we care, we push the tide in the other direction, this is a basic story of #activism.
Incompetence, paired with unchecked power and militarisation, becomes very sinister fast. It’s a very basic first step, that we must resist this story of more control, more surveillance, and more force as the solutions. What we need now is courage, creativity, compassion and solidarity. The qualities that have been deliberately stripped from the institutions that govern us, but that still live in us, and in the communities in this #openweb commons we build.
The architecture of Oxford, the grand halls, towering spires, and ivy-covered colleges, is more than a backdrop. It’s a symbol. These buildings don’t only house knowledge; they embody a history of power, privilege, and preservation. It’s in the walls, the unspoken codes of belonging, the centuries of elitism embedded in tradition, the quiet weight of exclusion.
Oxford’s physical space has always reflected its social structure. The high walls and closed gates were designed to separate, town from gown, outsider from insider, the privileged few from the rest. The porters lodge is a symbolic space in this story, behind those gates, generations of leaders, thinkers, and empire-builders were shaped, not just by ideas, but by the assurance that they belonged to something set apart, something superior. This legacy continues to echo in who feels welcome, who gains access, and whose voices are still struggling to be heard.
The beauty of Oxford is undeniable. But so too is its role in upholding systems of inequality. From colonial ties to class barriers, the university has long been a crucible of status as much as scholarship. The architecture itself reminds us of this: libraries named after donors with questionable legacies, colleges founded on the proceeds of empire, and traditions that often resist the need for change.
Yet, within those same walls lies some potential for transformation. History doesn’t only bind us, it can also guide us. The challenge and change is to turn spaces once marked by exclusion into platforms for inclusion. To ensure, the walls that once kept people out now support those coming in.
Oxford’s future depends not on how well it preserves its image of prestige, but on how bravely it reimagines its purpose. The stones will stand for centuries more, what they symbolize is ours to change.
We are living through a deep crisis, not just of environment, economy, or governance, but of imagination and the will to live. The old systems are visibly broken, the #IPCC reports confirm what many already feel, we are trapped inside a #deathcult, and #mainstreaming culture offers only distraction, careerism, and status games for isolated individuals. There is no hope there.
But hope is not some fluffy optimism, it’s a social force. And in every grassroot, federated, #DIY tech project, the solution is always the same, more people. Not more gatekeepers. Not more hierarchy. Just more people. This is the core truth of the #OMN (Open Media Network). It’s not a product, it’s a process. It’s not a startup pitch, it’s a compost heap where good things grow, if we turn it, feed it, and invite others to join in.
We already know how the far right wins, they appeal to real feelings of injustice, then twist those feelings into #stupidindividualism that serves their own #nastyfew class interests. It’s reactionary ideology, and it’s spreading fast. What do we do? Step away from their game. Get involved in building something different. The #4opens is a simple, powerful tool to judge who’s building towards the commons and who’s just repackaging and pushing the same poison.
This needed “common sense” path, this break, we can start to use shovels to turn over the ground we grow from. When we do this, one thing that is fertile is that in the end, all social action happens through generalized talk, categories, metaphors, shorthand. That’s how language works. But we live in a cultural amnesia where this is forgotten, mistaken for “common sense.”
This is why the very different tech projects of the #OMN actually embraces this messy, human space, while the more mainstreaming #geekproblem seeks rigid machine-like CONTROL. This is a question of balance, yes, they’re often technically right, but socially intolerant. We, by contrast, are often technically wrong, but humanly right. What we need is a bridge between these approaches, or we’ll just keep circling.
The #OMN project use some control; the #geekproblem needs a lot of humanity. The current hard blocking is that they don’t see this, and so they keep #BLOCKING. For example, take the common pattern where someone says, “why don’t you just develop it?” That line unconsciously dumps all responsibility on narrow “geeks” while ignoring the role of social imagination, UI/UX design, and the deeper process we’re trying to solve together. That’s the #geekproblem: not the code, but the refusal to look at the problem outside the code. So here we are again – rinse, repeat. Let’s not. Let’s build the bridge.
Not for the first time, and certainly not the last, we hit the same wall: misunderstanding and misdirection. The #geekproblem isn’t just about bad code or poor decisions, it’s about an unhealthy, almost inhuman obsession with control. Where we are now? The federated model, which is a useful half step, a half-measure? Federation is an interesting paradox, as it panders to control, offering people their own little digital kingdoms. It dilutes control, spreading authority so thinly that it could evaporate into nothing.
The “problem” is that the tech conversations are controlled by ghosts. For ten years, “control” was the centre of everything in tech, privacy, moderation, governance, structure. Now that conversation is fading into the background, this makes you wonder, What was directing those conversations? Why did they fade? And why do we keep falling for the same cycle of control and distraction? If I were a conspiracy nutter, I’d say these people were paid by lizards to keep us agitated just enough to stay passive, so that back in the day we’d accept the next wave of #dotcons with open arms.
The non conspiracy view is that every day, we carry tiny shrines to the #deathcult in our pockets, and at every moment pull them out to endlessly scroll, consuming, and reinforcing the same failed, despondent paths. So, if we empty our pockets, what’s the alternative?
Shovels, I call for shovels, we need to dig deep and build real alternatives.
In this, the #OMN isn’t about recreating old power structures, it’s about growing new ones.
The #4opens isn’t just a technical framework, it’s a way to judge and navigate tech without getting lost in corporate distractions and traps.
What can we do now? Instead of trudging along with the same tired paths, let’s build and support real #KISS solutions. Support projects that aren’t just replicating the old models. Stop chasing the latest distraction and focus on the real work. Turn agitation into action, not passivity. Shovels in hand, it’s time to dig the #OMN, this could be fun, but it won’t be easy.
Critique without action is just noise. If we want real change, we need to move beyond commentary and into building. The #OMN isn’t just an idea, it’s a framework waiting for hands to shape it. So, instead of watching from the sidelines, who’s actually up for developing the tech we need? The tools exist, the knowledge is there, and the moment is ripe. If we don’t build our own paths, we’ll keep walking the ones laid out by the same failing institutions.
It should be painfully obvious by now that all the current #mainstreaming paths have failed. Whether we look at politics, technology, media, or activism, the same patterns emerge, co-option, stagnation, and eventual collapse under their own mess and self-destructive contradictions.
The valid question isn’t whether mainstreaming has failed, it has. The real question is – What do we do about it? This applies just as much to our efforts to reboot the #openweb as it does to broader struggles in the “real world”.
The failure of mainstreaming in the #openweb, the openweb, in its original form, was about freedom, transparency, and grassroots empowerment. But as it became “mainstreamed,” it was gradually stripped of its radical paths and potentials. We’ve seen co-option by corporate interests, with Big Tech adopting the language of openness while building walled gardens. #NGO bureaucracy, with funding models turning radical ideas into managed, defanged projects that no longer challenge power. Gatekeeping by the #geekproblem with overcomplicated, insular development processes alienate the people the #openweb was meant to be for.
This leads to fragmentation and infighting, instead of building a strong, collective movement, energy is wasted on internal disputes and purity tests. What is the alternative? This is simple, if we don’t want to repeat the same old failures, we need to do things differently. For an #openweb reboot to work, it needs to balance:
Rejecting the mainstreaming path, this means resisting corporate and #NGO capture while keeping the web decentralized and grassroots-driven.
Building real alternatives, not only endless discussion, but practical, working tools that people can actually use.
Embrace the organic intellectual, knowledge should come from real-world experience, not echo chamber theory and academic bubbles.
Find a balance between structure and openness to avoiding bureaucracy, which doesn’t mean avoiding organization. We need cooperative governance models like #OGB to navigate this.
This isn’t only about tech, it’s about power. If we keep letting traditional power structures dictate how things develop, we will always end up back in the same mess. The mainstream has failed. It’s time to build something that works. Read more: hamishcampbell.com
If we want the #openweb to survive and thrive, we need new forms of power, ones that can defend the community and challenge traditional power dynamics without falling into the traps of control, hierarchy, and co-option.
The problem is clear: If we follow traditional power politics, which are built on control, manipulation, and exclusion, we will fail. We’ve seen this play out repeatedly, grassroots movements spark change, only to be then sold out and absorbed, neutralized by the #mainstreaming flows of #blinded personal and institutional power.
The #blocking issues, what’s stopping us building the #OGB? This is about the “Silo Path” vs. the “Aggregation Path”. Centralized control (the silo path) is easier to manage, but it kills autonomy and leads to gatekeeping. A decentralized, organic approach (the aggregation path) requires more effort but keeps power in the hands of the community. The #OGB needs to be built on open trust networks, not locked-down institutions. This leads to perception of a lack of “perceived power” and currently people, default to following power. It’s a chicken-and-egg issue, If we don’t look like power, we will struggle to attract participation. But power doesn’t have to mean hierarchy, it can mean influence, legitimacy, and real impact. We need to keep building structures that feel like power while staying true to open, bottom-up values.
This brings up issues of funding and recognition of grassroots growth, which is where almost all valuable social and technological change, comes from, ONLY grassroots movements, not the #mainstreaming institutions that later co-opt them and claim ownership and CONTROL. The problem is that these CONTROL institutions default to sucking up resources, draining the energy and focus from grassroots projects, leaving hollowed out shells, undervalued and underfunded. To fix this, we need a cultural shift that recognizes and invests in decentralized, community-driven alternatives.
An important change is needed before we can be coming the change and challenge, to actually make this work. This is the path of supporting “Organic Intellectuals with Muddy Feet”, Change happens on the ground, not in #NGO meetings or #dotcons boardrooms. We need to elevate people who are actively engaged in building solutions, not just talking, or co-opting them.
To learn from effective grassroots paths, the #OGB draws from real-world activist organizing, not abstract theories or #fashernista posturing. Let’s look at some examples, in coding, loose scrum for open source dev leads to adapting flexible, iterative structures for governance. In culture, Burning Man’s self-organizing, mutated from Rainbow Gatherings, illustrating that radical decentralization works at scale, though this dose brining issues. And in tech federated networks (like the #Fediverse), show that distributed, non-hierarchical systems can replace corporate monopolies.
To take a few steps, we need to avoid the trap of fighting over power, where internal battles drain energy and distract from the real mission. This is needed to keep the focus on building the native path, not arguing over control. In this #KISS path, the #OGB must function as a shared infrastructure, not a battleground for egos.
The Path isn’t to directly destroy existing power structures, it’s to build alternatives that are too effective to ignore. The #OGB isn’t just another governance tool; it’s a blueprint for creating sustainable, community-led power without falling into the traps of traditional politics.
Let’s work together as if we are at a turning point. We can either follow the same old paths of control, stagnation, and eventual failure, or we can build something new that actually works. The choice is ours. Let’s make it happen, please.
The “social./bill-of-rights” is a new example of a well-meaning but toothless attempt at defining ethical tech. It’s the same process and project as the #4opens, but framed in a way that’s more palatable to liberal and capitalist interests. The difference? The #4opens isn’t just an appeal to values—it’s a functional way of judging developers and projects. #KISS
This should not be about reinventing the wheel. We really don’t need another set of guidelines that sound good but change nothing. What we need is real accountability and practical tools that push projects directly to actually align with the open principles they claim to support.
The #4opens isn’t just an ideal—it’s a framework for action.
If a project doesn’t hold up under scrutiny, it’s not open.
#nothingnew comes to mind, but diversity is not necessarily bad, diversity in approaches is good, but fragmentation isn’t. These initiatives need to be linked together in a meaningful way, rather than diluted into disconnected efforts. This is basic #openweb thinking, connect, build, and push back against the corporate creep.
If the #deathcult of neoliberal tech has taught us anything, it’s that soft reforms lead to co-option. The path is through grassroots accountability and practical, enforceable openness #KISS
Fighting the #mainstreaming is pointless if you don’t have anything to replace it with #KISS.
We need to present a sharp critique: funding structures not only shape but often stall #openweb development. The core issue is that #NGO funding models divert energy away from real grassroots alternatives, trapping projects in bureaucracy rather than fostering a thriving #DIY culture.
The rise of full-scale, paranoid individualism—born from #stupidindividualism and fueled by the #deathcult’s mainstream influence—further entrenches these issues. NGO funding mechanisms consume real alternatives, replacing them with sanitized, ineffective projects that lack transformative potential. The missing link is a genuine #DIY culture, yet structural forces keep it suppressed.
The #OMN and #OGB offer a possible escape, but without more organic intellectuals actively engaging, the cycle of stagnation will only repeat. The challenge is clear: can the #OGB carve out a space where real alternatives can grow, or will it become just another casualty of the NGO machine?
For the #OMN and #OGB to succeed, they must open a genuine alternative path—but the battle is uphill. The key lies in the organic intellectual: grounded, engaged, and practical. This stands in stark contrast to the alt-tech “chatting classes,” who recycle uninspired narratives instead of building real solutions.
The core problem for the last 20 years has been that most activists were locked into #dotcons (corporate social media silos) because open alternatives were either too difficult to use, lack network effects, or fail to meet their practical needs. With the current reboot of the #openweb with the #fedivers based on #ActivityPub has already taken a step away from this mess.
Here’s what’s needed from a software development perspective to break out of this mess. Open & accessible publishing networks. Activists need easy ways to publish and share information outside corporate-controlled platforms. Right now, #Fediverse tools like #Mastodon and #PeerTube exist, but they are still largely copies of centralized platforms rather than native alternatives that work for grassroots media.
To take the second step in alt tech we need a native decentralized, trust-based publishing network (#OMN is the example I am working on) Bridging tools to syndicate content between #dotcons and open platforms. Better “unbranded” discovery tools for surfacing trusted grassroots content (think of a federated search engine that’s not controlled by Google)
Secure yet open communication, is already mostly in place. Activists do need secure yet transparent communication tools that balance privacy with accessibility. Right now, many are stuck using encrypted corporate platforms like #WhatsApp and #Telegram, which create silos and exclude people who don’t have the apps. Projects like #Signal and XMPP based chat kinda work in this space, so this is not a strong tech focus, but is a social issue to work on.
The type of project we do need #indymediaback, #makeinghistory, #OGB and the base #OMN coding. There is a continuing need for resilient infrastructure, hosting and sysadmin alongside sustainable funding tools for activists’ websites, blogs, and tools often get taken down due to coordinated attacks or lack of resources. On the more dev side of this path, hybrid peer-to-peer hosting solutions (so sites can stay online even under attack) could be useful to bridge client server tools.
There’s a roadmap, but the problem is developer focus and funding. If you’re serious about helping, check out the stalled dev work on https://unite.openworlds.info and see how it can be set in motion agen. If you’re a dev who wants to make a real impact, this is a good place to look.
The failure of many #FOSS projects is a failure to move from theory to practice. The issue is that developers work in isolation, disconnected from grassroots needs, and get lost in perfectionism rather than delivering functional prototypes.
The #geekproblem dominates, many coders prioritize control, abstract debates, or self-contained experiments over practical, usable tools for real-world communities. This is why projects stall: they are not built with activists in mind. Meanwhile, centralized platforms continue to consolidate power, because they offer simple, accessible, and functional solutions, despite their deep flaws.
To break this cycle, we need:
Practical iteration—build rough, working solutions rather than endless theorizing.
#4opens culture—embrace open process, standards, and real collaboration.
Bridging solutions—tech that activists can actually use, not just developer-driven experiments.
Funding models beyond #NGO traps—so projects remain independent and sustainable.
The fight for the #openweb is not only about resisting #dotcons but creating alternatives people can and will use. Can we move beyond abstraction and actually make history?
