To make the #NGO crew more functional in an #openweb reboot, we need to focus on changing organizational culture and integrating principles that align with the #4opens and “native” grassroots, collaborative values. How can we do this?
Emphasize transparency and open governance to mediate the NGO minded people who suffer from opaque decision-making processes that reflect the inefficiencies of traditional institutions. By embedding transparency and open governance—where decisions are documented, accessible, and participatory—we create a culture that supports this trust and collaboration.
Encourage flexibility and adaptability, as many NGOs have rigid structures that make it hard to adapt to new information and strategies. Embracing a more flexible, iterative approach—similar to agile practices in tech—helps organizations pivot when necessary and stay responsive to a rapidly changing world
Bridge technological and social gaps by mediating the common sense NGO temptation to treat tech as a separate realm, run by a select few tech-savvy individuals. Instead, hard code social understandings with technical frameworks. This involves training NGO workers in basic digital literacy and fostering collaboration between tech and non-tech teams to build solutions that are both functional and socially impactful.
Adopt the decentralized paths inspired by #Fediverse and #P2P networks to enhances resilience and empower local paths. This shifts them from the dependency on corporate #dotcons platforms and reduce susceptibility to the influence of #mainstreaming. Work for them to commit to ethical use of technology, the NGO crew should prioritize the use of #FOSS tools and technologies. This involves building and partnering with developers who focus on sustainable, community-driven tech projects.
Rethinking funding and independence is core, NGO minded people frequently become entangled with funding streams that align with mainstream, status-quo agendas, making it hard for them to support any radical change. To avoid this, NGOs can be incureaged to explore diversified funding models, such as community crowdfunding and partnerships that align with #openweb values, avoiding entanglement with restrictive, top-down paths.
NGOs need to be wary of falling into the trap of ‘NGO-ism,’ where the focus shifts from addressing root causes to perpetuating their existence for funding and visibility. This shift is countered by adopting the values of community-first accountability and ensuring that work leads to substantial change rather than superficial engagement.
Foster inclusivity beyond tokenism, NGOs are fixated on ensuring diversity and exclusivity, but this needs to be more than a box-ticking exercise. This means more messy organizing, truly valuing input from a range of community voices, fostering dialogue, and incorporating grassroots activism into their agenda to stay aligned with the real needs of those they aim to serve. Connecting with existing grassroots movements like #XR, #OMN, and others, and sharing expertise, resources, and platforms amplify voices and catalyze change. Building bridges instead of silos and encouraging co-creation are needed for revitalizing movements toward collective goals.
By taking these paths, NGOs and the crew that think in this stream, can become more functional allies in rebooting the #openweb good to focus on this #KISS
Trying to make the #fashernistas functional in an #openweb reboot is much harder than it needs to be currently. As, we do need to harness their strengths by redirecting their focus towards #KISS sustainable and meaningful outcomes. How can we do this?
Clarify Objectives, with straightforward and compelling stories that outline why the #openweb matters and how individual contributions can make a difference. A path to this is bridging skill gaps, with tools, workshops and resources that equip them with the knowledge and capabilities needed to participate in technical and community projects. This can help to shift the focus from self-promotion to collaboration, to create environments where the emphasis is on shared goals and outcomes rather than individual status and branding. Core, is a culture where collective progress is celebrated more than individual accolades, motivating the fashernistas to work alongside others to build communities of action.
Community #DIY projects, involve #fashernistas in decision-making through community-led governance structures that align with the #4opens (open data, processes, source, and standards). This is built from transparency and trust. To build this focus on narrative and storytelling to highlight social impact, craft stories around how #openweb projects positively impact real communities. This can resonate with #fashernistas’ interest in influential narratives. Engage with higher statues “influencers” thoughtfully to create and share stories that champion community-driven tech solutions and emphasize ethical, long-term growth over the normal fleeting trends. Connect these trends to tangible long term goals to demonstrate how style and purpose can align without losing depth.
Create opportunities for fashernistas to be involved in pilot projects, hackathons, and online campaigns that result in visible, practical changes. #Compost the social flaws, the negative aspects, by acknowledging and address superficial tendencies, redirecting energy towards problem-solving and constructive efforts. Use feedback systems to point out valuable contributions and areas that require more depth, guiding fashernistas away from shallow engagement towards impactful involvement.
The path is to promote long-term thinking by challenging short-lived trends, demonstrate value over time by examples from successful open-source and community-driven paths that gained momentum with steady and committed efforts. By aligning their creative energy with the structural and ethical needs of an #openweb reboot, the #fashernistas become not only influencers but essential collaborators in pushing a more connected, community-focused, resilient digital paths that we need in this era of crises.
The political power that Silicon Valley and Big Tech pushed over this election is a real #geekproblem threat, with the #dotcons leveraging technological and financial influence to shape society in ways that benefit the nasty few and undermine basic democratic paths we need to be fallowing to mediate #climatechaos
One path to balance this #mainstreaming mess making is the need for active and healthy critiques of the lack of institutional support for #openweb projects and paths that focus on humanistic alternatives to these Big Tech platforms. The problem we need to challange is that organizations theoretically supportive of democratic values, such as #NLNet and #NGI, sideline core “native” paths in tech as “too radical”, instead favouring safe narrow #geekproblem and #NGO tech paths which we know do not work. This is frustrating, and with the increasing authoritarianism spreading worldwide, it’s a part of the #deathcult we all worship.
The “geekproblem” in tech is about challenges arising from the culture and mindset within technical communities, particularly around developers and engineers. It is associated with an overemphasis on technical solutions, insularity, and a tendency to prioritize technological efficiency or novelty over broader social and ethical considerations.
Overemphasis on Technical Solutions: People involved in tech prioritize creating or improving technical features while overlooking social impacts or peoples needs. This leads to “solutionism,” where every problem is assumed to have a tech-based answer, neglecting simpler, social, or policy-based solutions.
Insularity and Group Think: The tech world is insular, with tight-knit subcultures that resist input from outside communities and dismiss perspectives that don’t align with technical paths. This leads to narrow solutions and a resistance to the needer wider perspectives, ultimately #blocking the social change and challenge we need.
Focus on Control over Collaboration: Tech communities are often defacto hierarchical, top-down in the paths of design and governance, leading to a “we know best” paths. This often alienates non-technical people and discourages cooperative and participatory input, making it hard to integrate open, community-based governance in to the narrow paths that are imposed.
Ignoring and Dismissing Social Issues: Focused on technical work overlook social issues the tech is supposed to be addressing and solving. By focusing only on engineering, they overlook who has access to the technology, who benefits from it, and what ethical implications it brings, perpetuating the disconnect between technology and the communities it made for.
Resistance to Broadening Perspective: Tech creators actively resist moving beyond their own narrow areas of expertise and interest, they block ideas and initiatives that don’t fit within their immediate understanding, inhibiting growth and the needed experimentation. This resistance limits meaningful progress, community needs, and alternative technologies.
In sum, the #geekproblem stems from a blend of narrow technical focus, resistance to diverse input, and lack of attention to social impact. Addressing it involves building more inclusive, collaborative, and socially aware tech paths that embrace #4opens broader perspectives beyond the purely technical.
In the online spaces I navigate, there’s no shortage of #fashernistas crowding the conversation, diverting focus from the native #openweb paths we urgently need to explore. They take up space and ultimately block more than they build. Then there’s the #geekproblem: while geeks get things done within narrow boundaries, they’re rigidly resistant to veering beyond their lanes, dogmatically shutting down alternatives to the world they’re so fixated on controlling. This produces a lot of #techshit, occasionally innovations, but with more that needs composting than the often limited value they create.
Then there are the workers, many of whom default to the #NGO path. Their motivations lean toward self-interest rather than collective good, masking this in liberal #mainstreaming dressed up as activism. At worst, they’re serving the #deathcult of neoliberalism; at best, they’re upholding the status quo. This chaotic mix dominates alternative culture, as it always has, and the challenge is one of balance. Right now, we have more to compost than we have to plant and build with.
What would a functioning alternative to this current mess in alt paths look like? Well we don’t have to look far as there is a long history of working alt culture, and yes I admit it “works” in messy and sometimes dysfunctional ways, but it works. What can we learn and achieve from taking this path and mating it with modern “native #openweb technology, which over the last five years has managed in part to move away from the #geekproblem with #ActivityPub and the #Fediverse.
Blending the resilience and collective spirit of historical alternative cultures with the new strengths of federated, decentralized tech solutions like ActivityPub and the Fediverse, the path we need to take:
Community-Centric Design: Historically, alternative cultures prioritize more communal, open, and egalitarian paths. The path out of this mess need to be rooted in this ethos, a new alt-tech landscape could leverage federated technology to avoid centralization and corporate control, emphasizing community ownership. The Fediverse, with its decentralized model, embodies this shift, each instance is a unique community with shared norms, which helps to protect against centralized censorship and allows diversity without imposing a single dominant path.
Resilient, Messy, and Organic Growth: A #KISS lesson from traditional alternative spaces is that success doesn’t require perfect order. Alt-culture spaces thrive on a degree of chaos and adaptability, which enables rapid response to new challenges and paths. This messiness aligns with how decentralized systems function: they’re, resilient, while letting communities develop their own norms and structures while remaining connected to a larger network.
Mediating the #Geekproblem: A key challenge in the tech space is overcoming the “problem” geeks, where technical cultures focus narrowly on technical functionality at the expense of accessibility and inclusiveness. ActivityPub and Fediverse have shifted this by prioritizing people-centric design and by being open to non-technical contributions. Integrating more roles from diverse social paths—designers, community, activists—can bridge gaps between tech-focused and community-focused paths.
Using #4opens Principles: The “#4opens” is native to #FOSS philosophy—open data, open source, open process, and open standards—guide this ecosystem. By adopting transparency in governance and development, communities foster trust and accountability. This openness discourages monopolistic behavior, increases collaboration, and enables #KISS accountability.
Sustainable Engagement Over Growth: Unlike the current #dotcons model that focuses on endless growth and engagement metrics, the alternative path prioritizes quality interactions, trust-building, and meaningful contributions. This sustainable engagement path values people’s experience and community health over data extraction and advertising revenue.
Leveraging Federated Technology for Cross-Pollination: ActivityPub has shown that federated systems don’t have to be isolated silos; they can be connected in a openweb of interlinked communities. Just as historical alt-cultures drew strength from diversity and exchange, the Fediverse path allows for collaboration and cross-pollination between communities while maintaining autonomy.
By integrating these native #openweb principles, we create an alt-tech ecosystem that is democratic, inclusive, and resistant to the mess that currently plague #mainstreaming and some alt-tech paths. This hybrid path allows tech to serve communities authentically, fertilising sustainable growth and meaningful, collective agency that we need in this time to counter the mainstream mess.
A century ago, Mussolini’s rise in Italy laid the blueprint for fascism, exploiting fear and weaponizing power to obliterate political opposition. Fast-forward to today, and #Trump’s rhetoric and promises echo this history of mess and lies leading to war. In the closing stretch of 2024, Trump’s agenda to use military force against political adversaries mirrors #Mussolini’s moves to consolidate control. Targeting “enemies from within,” Trump’s public calls to use force against officials is a direct echo of growing authoritarianism that brought the world to the brink of destruction in the middle of the 20th century.
If re-elected, Trump can invoke the Insurrection Act, deploying the military to target political dissenters. With #sycophants rather than protectors of democratic institutions in key positions, there are few to push back against this, much like Mussolini purged opposition from Italy’s Parliament and judiciary. Trump’s base becomes a modern-day paramilitary force, following his promises to pardon January 6 rioters and uphold them as martyrs. This rhetoric is reminiscent of Mussolini’s “black shirts,” who terrorized Italians into submission.
Mussolini’s unchecked power obliterated Italy’s democracy within three years, in the era of #climatechaos militarized politics will inevitably bring devastating consequences. If Trump is re-elected, the thread thin democratic safeguards are in jeopardy. The chilling lesson from history is that unchecked right-wing power corrupts. The current mess we call liberal democracy, is a poor defence of freedom, and history’s echoes warn us of the steep costs of complacency on this path.
We have already seen the mess that trump brings, let’s not repeat this history. Mussolini’s leadership in Italy was marked by glaring failures, with a historical consensus that he was an incompetent leader. Initially, he was a charismatic figure with an ability to mobilize the public, centralizing power and establishing a fascist state to “make Italy great again” he promoted a “modern” alternative to democracy and the “dark” path of communism. His early years in power saw a continues stream of propaganda, including infrastructure projects like roads and railways, which were more rhetoric than fact, this was about boosting national pride by expanding Italian “influence” rather than real benefit.
This failer of governance was quickly revealed, foreign policy blunders were particularly damaging: his decision to ally with Hitler and join World War II on Germany’s side resulted in disastrous military defeats, revealing Italy’s unpreparedness for prolonged conflict. His military leadership was marked by poorly planned invasions, such as those of Greece and North Africa, which ended in failure and stretched Italy’s resources thin. Furthermore, Mussolini failed to establish a self-sustaining economy capable of supporting Italy’s ambitions, leaving it dependent on German support during the war.
Domestically, Mussolini’s used violence to repression and silence dissent, this alienated the population over time, and his inability to foster genuine, stable economic growth led to widespread poverty and disillusionment. His propaganda machine masked Italy’s growing weaknesses, but as the war progressed, his lack of competent governance became undeniable. His removal from power in 1943 by his own #Fascist Grand Council underscored the loss of faith even within his ranks.
Historians agree that Mussolini’s appeal and ambition could not make up for his incompetence, poor judgment, and reliance on authoritarian repression, all of which led to his countries downfall and contributed to Italy’s suffering.
Does the US want to take the world down this path with Trump?
UPDATE: what can we do now – you, personally, are not going to defeat fascism. But that doesn’t mean you do nothing. Find ways to organise, figure out where you can push and pull. There’s always something you can do, but you have to do it—not just hold a positive opinion of it being done.
Governance both horizontal, federated and #FOSS native is a hot subject at the moment. It’s a good time for people to look at this. Over the last 5 years we have been developing the outline of the native Open Governance Body (#OGB) project is an innovative approach for developing native #FOSS governance, grounded in years of on-the-ground organizing and community-oriented technology like the #Fediverse and #ActivityPub protocols. This initiative emerged from a #4opens social process, aiming to create a governance path that is genuinely open, transparent, and collaborative. The project particularly focuses on involving developers who are not only skilled technically but who also prioritize community collaboration and user experience (#UX)—a challenging yet needed requirement for success in a horizontal, scalable tech paths.
The OGB leverages ActivityPub, the protocol powering decentralized social platforms like Mastodon, to create structures that are adaptable to scale horizontally. To make this project happen, we need outreach to finding developers who can operate within a community-first structure. This means finding those with technical skill in FOSS and ActivityPub, but who are also committed to open, horizontal collaboration and can engage constructively with non-technical communities and paths. Often, highly technical projects attract developers who prefer isolated, independent work, so highlighting the collaborative nature of the OGB from the start is important.
For those interested in making a meaningful impact on #openweb governance and who can commit to community-entered development, the #OGB project is a compelling opportunity to be a part of the change and challenge we need.
Reflecting on the last 40 years, it’s clear that the trajectory toward #climatechaos has been pushed by the entrenchment of corporate power and increasing capital-driven approach to global challenges. This era, the “neoliberal” era, normalized policies that favoured deregulation, privatization, and financialization. This shift didn’t just allow corporations to thrive; it redefined our social priorities, encouraging a culture where profit overshadows community and basic environmental welfare. These #deathcult worshippers have permeated public institutions and policies, making it harder for grassroots systemic change to take root.
The liberal majority, typically positioned between activism and power, has been to side with the “#mainstreaming” approach, which, while sometimes not as overtly destructive as corporate power, clearly lack the willingness to disrupt the status quo. These liberals express concern over climate change but favour “market-friendly” reforms that repeatedly fail to challenge or change the root causes of the #climatecrisis. This creates a paradox: despite their environmental concerns, they end up blocking radical changes. On the fluffy side, movements like Extinction Rebellion (#XR) and initiatives like the Open Media Network (#OMN) highlight how pushing this middle ground to support change—not just acknowledge it—is essential for challenging entrenched powers.
The OMN serves as an example of a shift from centralized, profit-driven platforms toward community-based, participatory paths. Unlike platforms that build on capital agendas, the OMN draws from grassroots energy and shared values, allowing it to organically support social goals. This shift is key: if OMN and similar #openweb initiatives grow, they’ll likely reflect their foundation—community engagement and shared purpose—versus the profit-at-all-costs paths.
While the liberal centre currently act as a buffer zone that resists necessary change, supporting projects like OMN can help reshape this middle ground by creating an accessible alternative to #mainstreaming stories and corporate lies. In this sense, belief—especially in sustainable community-driven projects—becomes a tool for social transformation. And belief is crucial; without a sense of possibility, it’s easy for people to fall into cynicism and adopt the fear-based messaging spread by right-wing agendas
The challenge is to compost the “bourgeois struggle” between conflicting nasty interests by promoting grassroots, #4opens paths and projects that focus on cooperation, transparency, and community.
This is my reaction from the talk, have not read the book.
In The Forever Crisis, the author presents complex systems thinking as a framework for addressing the world’s intractable challenges, particularly at the level of global governance. The book critiques the traditional top-down approaches that are pushed by powerful institutions like the #UN, highlighting how these solutions are a mismatched for complex, interwoven issues like #climatechange, security, finance, and digital governance.
One of the core issues raised is that global governance structures are failing to keep pace with the crises they are supposed to address. Traditional approaches “silo” issues, handling them in isolation, which makes it hard for messy interconnected challenges to be addressed in a holistic way. For example, while climate change is universally recognized as a priority, the complex “network of governance” is fragmented, leaving institutions like the UN and #IPCC struggling to effectively drive change. These traditional, siloed paths reflect a short-term vision, prioritizing superficial “silver bullet” solutions over systemic, transformative approaches.
A complex systems approach, likening effective governance to networks such as the “mushrooms under the forest floor”—resilient, interconnected, and adaptable. Rather than rigid, top-down mandates, this metaphor supports creating flexible, networked governance structures that can adapt to shifting crises. The notion of cascading solutions is key here: solutions should ripple across systems in a way that amplifies positive outcomes, rather than relying solely on isolated, large-scale interventions.
The talk highlights how unready we are for institutional preparedness and adaptive governance, with the importance of adaptability in governance, particularly in preparing for shocks, both anticipated and unanticipated. Using COVID-19 as an example, he critiques the over-reliance on “luck” rather than robust structures, suggesting that governance systems must be nimble and interconnected enough to absorb shocks without collapsing. Currently, we have a fasard, the UN and other agencies are trying to act as “confidence boosters,” convincing themselves of their own effectiveness.
Challenges to implementing complexity in governance, despite the potential of complexity theory, the talk raises significant questions about implementation. Power structures are deeply entrenched in traditional governance systems, making it difficult to shift away from rigid, reactive models. Further, financial systems tend to funnel resources into quick-fix solutions rather than funding long-term, adaptive responses.
My though, about the talk on mainstream solutions, touches on an essential question: can the existing structures within the “#deathcult” of neoliberalism actually provide the transformation we need? This perspective aligns with the book’s critique, questioning whether today’s dominant structures can truly embrace a complexity-oriented approach to governance. To solve this I focus on #Indymediaback, #OMN, and #OGB as grassroots projects which underlines an alternative that prioritizes local, networked, and community-driven solutions—a departure from the centralized and out-of-touch responses typical of global governance.
The book’s focus on complexity theory as a tool to facilitate self-organizing, resilient systems could be a powerful argument for the decentralized path I advocate. This framework validates the idea that change might be more effectively driven from the grassroots, where diverse actors work in networked patterns that reflect the natural resilience seen in ecosystems.
The talk:
Join Thomas Hale, Professor in Public Policy at the Blavatnik School of Government, and Adam Day, Head of UN University Centre for Policy Research in Geneva, as they discuss Day’s newest book The Forever Crisis.
The Forever Crisis is an introduction to complex systems thinking at the global governance level. It offers concepts, tools, and ways of thinking about how systems change that can be applied to the most wicked problems facing the world today. More than an abstract argument for complexity theory, the book offers a targeted critique of today’s highest-profile proposals for improving the governance of our environment, security, finance, health, and digital space. It suggests that we should spend less effort and resources on upgrading existing institutions, and more on understanding how they (and we) relate to each other.
My thinking and notes.
Its the #NGO crew talking about my subject, this is a professor and the #UN secretary generals adviser. Start with basic complexity, telling a normal story.
Globalisation drives complexity, the nudge theory, the network of governance which we have to manage. Use the IPCC as a tool, but this is a mess. The argument for big solutions, top down is a bad fit for complexity thinking. The solution is tendicalse? Or the mushrooms under the forest floor, network metaphor.
Shifting tipping point, to shift change
Long problems demand complexity, current risk is undervalued
Transformative global governance, or our current global governance could go extinct.
We have a anufe data, for AI to be used as early warning “advising” governance.
So this is main-streaming looking at change and mediating the challenge. Whether it works at all is an open question, looking unlikely looking around the room.
He says we can’t co-operate, and in his terms this is correct. The solution is to try and “trick” the current systems to work together, don’t think he gets beyond this.
UN women calls the current path a failer, and that this is ongoing, but MUCH more urgent now.
In the report, the silos were knitted together, but nobody understood this, so then it was unpacked into sloes so that people could accept it.
The conference that did this report, was in a large part a confidence booster that the current systems could actually work. This is a very small step. No war was won.
The is a consensus that the current process is failing, and needs to change to challenge the current structures. The problem of re-siloing, the crumbling of bridges as they are being built, the outcome the establishment is still blocking the needed bridging.
For him, the ideas don’t create transformation. They spent a year going over old agreements, the new issues were not focused on. This was a problem of trust and transparency. So the whole process was knocked back a year.
Is this change easer or harder during crises? We tend to think that crises creates flexibility, but he argues they hold together stronger when change might be happening? She points to the defence crotch, that change is being blocked by the crises, it’s complex.
Are any of the current institutions fit to governing #AI
Finance funds silver bulite solutions rather than long term solutions. Quick fix, fixes nothing, its funding pored down the drain. His solution is a real cost on carbon if we can get the spyware command and control right to make this work.
On chip verification, hardcoded spy and control in our chips… now this is a very #geekproblem idea.
Can the states raise to work, she says we hope so 🙂 as the is no alternative 🙁 we won’t states to work, in partnership with the private secturer… we need the UN to preform its function, that partners with other actors, private structure, civil society etc.
Capacity building is 10% of the climate budget, this is about writing PDF’s, the people doing the change are simply not there.
Q. on the time to act, with the example of Gorbertrov and the claps of the Soviet Union.
Resilience is not a good thing, if the thing that is resilients are paths are not working.
Can we bake in a long term path into current decisions?
How can we change the existing system so that it balances?
The word leadership, that individuals playing a role, to be the change, is a subject that excites them.
My question would have been, the #deathcult – is the any actors or forces outside this cult – that you see could be the change we need?
He, Cascading solutions across the system fast enough to be the change we need?
She, better preparedness for the shocks, so we can pull together. To deal with issues we have not anticipated. We are not there yet.
There is a divide in #FOSS between #openculture and #opensource that is becoming more visible and a significant tension today, with each movement originating from different perspectives on sharing and collaboration, even though they overlap in the broad mission of making knowledge and technology more accessible. You can see this in the AI debates and in grassroots “governance” in the #Fediverse and the issues this brings up as current examples. The differences are in focus and motivation:
Value path: Open Source focuses on the technical, structured development of software, with licences that ensure people can access, modify, and redistribute code. It tends to be practical, driven by the necessity to create robust, community-driven technology.
Open Culture, however, extends beyond software to include media, art, and knowledge. It centres around the idea that cultural paths—art, literature, music, and other media—should be freely accessible and adaptable by all. It values knowledge sharing in all forms, encompassing the ethical path that information and culture should be democratized.
Legal frameworks and licenses: Open Source relies on licenses like GPL, Apache, and MIT licenses that set clear boundaries on how code can be used and ensure that software modifications remain open. This fosters collaboration but also keeps contributions within a strong structured framework.
Open Culture, leans on Creative Commons (CC) licenses, which are more flexible in terms of content usage and address a broader range of creative and educational materials. These licenses vary widely, allowing authors to shape how much or how little freedom people have to use their contributions, which can lead to different interpretations of “openness.”
Open Source communities are more driven by practical needs and more standardized approach to governance, which function at times as gatekeeping and can be seen as restrictive by Open Culture advocates. There’s often an emphasis on the meritocratic and structured contributions, rather than the more mess cultural paths.
Open Culture communities are more fluid, valuing inclusivity, encouraging contributions from broader groups. This can create tension with Open Source projects that prioritize hard structured paths.
Today, we see this division in action with increasing calls from the Open Culture side for a more inclusive, less restrictive approach. Open Culture argue that #FOSS and Open Source can be rigid, excluding many types of cultural contributions and voices that don’t fit neatly into software development paths. Conversely, Open Source proponents view Open Culture as lacking in the clear boundaries that have shaped Open Source to work in structured technological development.
Bridging the gap: For #openweb projects, addressing this divide requires a path that respects both technical standards and the inclusiveness Open Culture calls for. Projects like #OMN and #4opens navigate this divide, building on community-driven networks where technical governance is balanced with cultural openness. Building tools that emphasize accessibility and collaboration—while being technically robust and community-driven—bridge the gap, aligning Open Source rigour with Open Culture’s inclusiveness.
To move forward, both communities benefit from dialogues focused on shared values, finding where their paths complement each other, but with clear strengthens and weakness to both paths. This issue is important as we confront the composting of #techshit and #dotcons and in the wider world the onrushing #climatechaos that all require technological, cultural, and social innovation.
“We don’t need to talk about the climate, we don’t need to talk about change. What we need to talk about is power and criminality and evil.”
Lying as a tool for blocking change has become the pervasive issue, especially when people use it to protect the status quo and avoid facing uncomfortable truths. This obstructs the collective efforts needed to talk about problems like #climatechange, social inequality, and the erosion of democratic #openweb communication paths. Tackling this involves a #4opens culture where honesty and accountability are valued, while simultaneously recognizing that some of these distortions stem from deep-rooted personal, social, or economic fears.
Establish clear, collective values around truthfulness: A first step is creating a culture where truth is valued, especially when it challenges the self-interested comfort of those involved. In functioning open networks, communities have shared values, that rewarding honest dialogue and penalizing deceptive behaviour which hinders constructive paths. This transparency can be incentivized by showing how it benefits collective goals over (stupid) individual agendas, aligning values to encourage honesty as a default.
Encourage critical thinking and #KISS media literacy: People lie and distort truth when they lack confidence in understanding complex topics and thus feel pressured to align with dominant easy stories. A culture of media literacy empowers people to spot misinformation, resist manipulative tactics, and feel more comfortable confronting inconvenient truths rather than ignoring or reshaping them for comfort. Equipping people with these skills means fewer incentives to hide or distort facts and paths.
Promote accountability mechanisms: When dishonesty is not held to account, it reinforces a culture where lying is acceptable. To push back at this, transparent accountability culture is essential, especially in influential sectors such as media, politics, and social organizations. Accountability encourages people, institutions and communities to take responsibility for the information they use and host, helping to establish truthfulness as the norm rather than an exception.
Normalize difficult conversations: Lies are used as a shield to avoid uncomfortable subjects, especially in collective spaces where the potential for friction is high. Encouraging a culture of dialogue, where differing opinions are expressed without retaliation, reduces the need for deception. By creating “active zones” for conversation and providing conflict-resolution traditions, groups address the root issues without resorting to dishonesty.
Use positive reinforcement for transparency: Rather than punishing instances of dishonesty harshly, positive reinforcement can reward honest behavior, making it a habit. When communities highlight examples where transparency led to better decisions, improved paths, and strengthened trust, it becomes a wider path for more people to take. Celebrating transparency that benefits a project or a social goal helps to erode the perception that lying is necessary or advantageous.
Acknowledge the root causes of lying as a defense mechanism: Often, people lie as a defense against vulnerability, fear of judgment, or loss of control. Recognizing these underlying motivations makes it easier to address them constructively rather than combatively. Providing support, whether through promoting self-awareness, emotional resilience, or ethical decision-making, reduces the pressure people feel to lie as a way of self-protection.
Build grassroots movements focused on integrity: Lastly, fostering grassroots movements that are on the #4opens path, embodying integrity, transparency, and accountability from the start is key. Small, community-driven groups have the agility and cohesion to establish a trust-based environment, which can serve as a seed for horizontal scalable wider networks to balance the mess coming from larger, dominating #mainstreaming institutions. By showcasing effective, transparent grassroots paths, we influence larger systems and set a precedent that truth is not optional.
In a world where lying undermines genuine change, mediating its pervasive use requires #4opens strategies that prioritize transparency, mutual respect, and courage. Changing a culture from one where lies are tools of convenience to one where truth is a shared value is a core part of the change and challenge we need. This will not be easy, but when we can start to close the gap between intentions and actions. This shift of path from lying to truth is #KISS to addressing the complex mess of our time, ensuring that truth, rather than deception, fuels our paths.
The idea of nationalizing the fossil fuel industry as a climate solution has had some attention in recent years, though it hasn’t yet broken into #mainstreaming policy discussions. Proponents argue that taking control of the industry allows for a managed, planned decline of fossil fuel production, aligned with climate goals and fair treatment for workers.
Notably, liberals like the Democracy Collaborative’s Carla Skandier have proposed a “51 Percent Solution,” where the government would secure a majority stake in fossil fuel companies, guiding a controlled reduction in output while providing worker protections and ensuring energy security during the transition. Economists, including Mark Paul, have also highlighted that, with public ownership, governments could avoid lay-offs and support fossil fuel workers through the transition, making this approach both an economic and environmental path.
While mainstream politics in the U.S. and Europe have not embraced nationalization yet, there’s increasing support for policies targeting both demand and supply of fossil fuels. Without direct control over fossil fuel companies, efforts to reduce emissions are blocked by corporate profit motives and the industry’s political corruption and influence. This #KISS liberal approach serves as a substantial step toward meaningful #climateaction, but its feasibility, however political support, would require broad public backing and economic planning to balance stability and fairness during the transition.
This is likely the ONLY #mainstreaming path that could work, me I like other paths, no issue not to do both at the same time #OMN
Feeding trolls is not helping anyone, yes, trolls are not all evil, though some are. Trolls are often insecure and inadequate, this can be from lack of respect, a lack of confidence, narrow imagination feeding dogmatic fixation on self vs other, this in the end becomes nasty, when attacking people is used to mask this.
Handling trolls effectively requires tactics that don’t feed into the negative:
Establish boundaries: Decide what behaviors are unacceptable in our communities. Trolls thrive on boundary pushing, so keep them loose, so people are not tempted to pick them up and hit each other with them. Define unacceptable behaviors without creating rigid rules people could weaponize.
Stay non-reactive: Avoid emotional responses; redirect focus to meaningful topics. Trolls feed on attention and reactions, so keep redirecting conversations to keep focus. Avoid emotional responses; redirect focus to meaningful topics.
Foster a positive path: Highlight constructive contributions, making it easier for the community to ignore troll behavior in favour of useful/constructive interactions. Highlight constructive posts and ignore disruptive ones.
Use humor or neutral responses: Address trolls with light-heartedness or neutral statements, which frustrates the trolls and defuse tension in the wider community, shift the focus away from confrontation as this is ONLY feeding the problem.
Empower community self-governance: When trolls feel isolated from the broader group, their impact lessens, they can start to feel left outside. Encourage people to engage and respond to positive contributions, this in the end might help the troll become a part of the community. Support positive contributions to help trolls integrate over time.
Focus on the ideas: Redirect conversations back to the ideas, not the person, helping trolls feel heard without letting them derail the discussion. The is hope for everyone, only block when the final line is crossed.
Always focus on inclusiveness, while staying firm on culture, so communities remain open without sacrificing the path they are on.
