“How should the new Labour government be listening?”
A few notes: Firstly it needs to be said, this is common in Oxford, this is powerless people talking about things that matter. Where activism is about forming a group of action for pushing and pulling power, this event is not activism, it’s academy, need to remember this.
“Deliberation” is a new word for the old formal consensus that ossified and broke when imposed on much grassroots activism at the turn of the century, with the rise of the #dotcons this grew into the actavisam mess we live in today.
Yes, it is a mess. What they focus on has little connection to the levers of power, which is controlled outside these processes. To change and challenge power needs activism, and, in the end the threat or reality of revolution, to directly push and pull the leavers. This is empowerment, they don’t talk or think about this at all.
Looking round the room I can’t see any activist affinity groups being formed, not a glimpse, powerless people talking about things that matter, it’s not that this does not have a role but on balance this is likely more problem than solution. The experts and the academics, the NGO politicos and all their shared views on how to talk to and work with the plebs, that’s the people outside the walls of the collage.
The guy talking about trust interested me. Then there was the guy who went off script, who, was kind of inspiring, what would more of this look like? The language guy at the end was OK, words do matter and can be used as levers of power, this is affective fluffy activism. And the final point, that the #mainstreaming is not a natural block on the far right, is scarily true.
humm over all interesting, a little food for thought, but likely an unhealthy balance of activism and academic blocking. The challenge is bridging the gap between intellectual dialogue and on-the-ground activism. How do we ensure that these conversations lead to actions that can actually “pull the levers” of power, rather than simply talking about what needs to be done at best or at worst #blocking by #mainstreaming dogma? This balance is vital, and is missing completely.
What went wrong with this is a classic case of the tension between grassroots ideals and the pressure of existing within a larger system that is fundamentally at odds with those ideals. The #fediverse, along with other #openweb movements, succeeds in small, meaningful ways but struggles to scale in a world built on capitalist structures, centralization, and competition. This tension is particularly evident in how projects, despite being technologically sound and #4opens, ideologically aligned with decentralization and openness, gets bogged down in internal messes, conflicts, miscommunication, leading to fragmentation. The messy social side, neglected in tech projects, ends up undermining the success of the broader mission. People focus on code but forget about the human aspects like collaboration, motivation, and building long-term trust, which are equally essential.
As I suggested, the idea to codify some form of “netiquette” or community values, inspired by the #fluffy and #spiky traditions of past projects, is crucial. If we don’t address these human and social issues, the technology alone will not be enough. The problem is that by default these communities don’t prioritize this, and that’s where the breakdown occurs. What we have now is that the fediverse’s very existence is a victory, but that doesn’t mean the battle is over. The grassroots growth, driven by passion rather than profit, shows that alternatives to #dotcons capitalist, centralized tech are possible, but in-till we find a way to address the underlying social fracture, gatekeeping, burnout, #blocking and conflicts, we’ll continue to push the same mess.
The victory is not in “winning” in capitalist terms, but in maintaining spaces where alternatives can thrive and where people can connect based on shared #4opens values, rather than imposed structures. The real challenge is to keep these spaces open, resilient, and focused, for this to balance we need to address not just the tech, but the people behind it. We could, and should reboot #socialhub to be this space, It’s where it started, and did a good job for a while.
There are many paths and perspectives on how to tackle the profound mess we’re in, and one of them comes from Roger Hallam and Extinction Rebellion (#XR), which, has brought to light a deep issue: the creeping “common sense” of #deathcult worship infiltrating activism. From a radical viewpoint, XR stood as a “first mover”—an innocent, fresh reaction to the ecological emergency, fueled by public consciousness and radical hope. But like many movements, the radical spark dims quickly, and in XR’s case, that moment of innocence has passed. Now, the movement faces entrenched systems of decay and resistance.
Diversity in approaches is crucial if we want to escape this stagnation, but it only works if we confront the larger issue: many movements feed into a default worship of failure and defeatism, locking us into repetitive cycles of symbolic action rather than achieving real-world change. As Hallam reflects, after the 2008 financial crash, revolution became a structural possibility. In 2024, he believes revolution is inevitable, but warns that inevitability does not guarantee success without conscious, focused action.
From my perspective, tools like #activertypub and the resurgence of the #openweb can reignite social movements. The #4opens, decentralized approaches like the #OMN, offer us a path to build movements that avoid the traps of the past. These open networks represent an alternative to the closed systems that stifle innovation and action.
Yet, despite these opportunities, we’re still making the same mistakes. We too easily fall back into becoming gatekeepers, fostering inaction, and reproducing the structures we’re trying to overcome. If we are to break free from this mess, we need to challenge the deathcult mentality, embrace a diversity of tactics, and maintain our focus on systemic change. The current system is brittle and failing—ripe for disruption—but it requires clear, deliberate action.
So, what can you do about this? Support the #OMN path by contributing here: Open Media Network, or take an active role here: openworlds
Many years ago, I stopped going to most tech events and supporting “ethical” business. the #NGO tech events are mere talking shops, spaces filled with endless discussions but no outcomes. They suck up time, energy, and focus, acting as gatekeepers that reinforce the status quo while masquerading as spaces of change. These events are part of a semi-hidden #deathcult, worshiping, the failing structures of the present rather than imagining and building of alternatives. Next time you see one of these events pop up in your feed, ask yourself: Is this contributing to actual change, or just taking up space?
Then we have the same problem with the way people, too often, set up “soft green alt businesses” that can’t “pay their way” within the current capitalist system. If you can’t challenge capitalism’s rules, why not consider working to overthrow them first? Only then will we have the non “pay-to-play” spaces where real alternative projects can grow.
We got into this mess by accommodating these structures rather than challenging them. As Marx said:
“Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past. The tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living. And just as they seem to be occupied with revolutionizing themselves and things, creating something that did not exist before, precisely in such epochs of revolutionary crisis they anxiously conjure up the spirits of the past to their service, borrowing from them names, battle slogans, and costumes in order to present this new scene in world history in time-honoured disguise and borrowed language.” Karl Marx, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonapart
In simple words, we must be realistic about the conditions we face but also bold in our strategies to change them. To take this path, we need to navigate past the blocks of power politics, the stupidity, fear, control freakery, cowardice, and overwork that consistently stymie technological and social change. It’s past time to move aside from this mess. We need to reclaim the focus and energy wasted on maintaining the current failing systems and redirect/balances this to building #openweb and resilient #community spaces for change and challenge.
A project we need to build together as a path”native” to the #openweb
let’s recap, as you likely missed half the story the first time round. This speaks directly to the core of why meaningful change is so hard to achieve within the current mess of tech and “ethical” business. Most #NGO tech events, which claim to be about fostering change and innovation, have become places of inertia. They are “talking shops” paths where people discuss endlessly with no concrete action or achieving “real “native” outcomes. These spaces take up limited time, energy, and focus, which could be directed toward building real alternatives. They are gatekeepers, reinforcing the status quo while pretending to be progressive and transformative.
These paths only “exist” if they play by the rules of capitalism, rules that are designed to extract value rather than support meaningful, sustainable alternatives. So, instead of challenging these rules, people waste time trying to work within them, missing the bigger picture. If we want to create real change, we need to challenge the foundations of the system itself, not simply try to adapt to it.
Marx’s quote emphasizes that while people make their own history, they do so within the constraints of circumstances handed down from the past. In other words, we carry the weight of outdated structures and ideologies that continue to stifle transformation. The history of failed strategies and the perpetuation of ineffective methods weigh us down, preventing us from taking different paths to different possibilities.
The power dynamics within these spaces—be it #NGO tech events and “ethical” businesses are filled with control, fear, overwork, and cowardice, which block progress. Real change is movement beyond this mess, to reclaim energy wasted propping up failing systems, to redirect it toward building #openweb and resilient communities to use this freed up space for change and challenge. The #fediverse and other decentralized networks already provide pathways; we just need to be brave enough to walk them.
In short, this matters, for a radical shift in focus from superficial actions to systemic change to compost the #techshit and build truly transformative from the ground up. And yes, we need a shovel #OMN.
The USA debate was a mess, with certainty and lies vs insecurity and falafel. We’re still not lifting our heads, and our hands, we don’t have a shovel and there are piles of social shit to compost.
For a liberal replay to this in comedy, yes, it’s a mess.
One thing that is clear to see is the “strong masculinity” Trump embodies, so ideologically central to the far-right, but is not strength, just blustery and belligerent cover for weakness LINK
From a tech path, maybe we need to start with the #techshit to do that we need to stop lying about the #geekproblem and mediate this shit, building something native would help #OMN and yes this is a shovel.
This is an overview, the path we need to try is to focus on #commons and #cooperation for building tools and communities, then to use these tools to challenge the current structures of power. This is a very different path than the #stupidindividualism (as some people say #hyperindividualism) of the current capitalist path. The way isn’t through more fragmentation, but by connecting these fragments into a more coherent whole—something the #OMN (Open Media Network) is working towards. We need #solidarity and #mutualaid to build this tool, which can then be used to build the communities to use it.
The issues are wide, is not just the #dotcons enclosing the commons, but the way people get sucked into the #NGO and culture/control paths, which reinforces the very systems of oppression, that on the surface they claim to fight. We can’t keep putting plasters on these problems. In the media/tech world the path is actually not that hard, real change comes from #grassroots efforts that prioritize #4opens: OpenData, OpenSource, OpenProcess, and OpenStandards. These create transparency and accountability, and help us compost the #techshit that has built up over decades of bad practice.
I outline this in the OMN project, which provides a structure to link these disparate actions and paths together, creating a “native” #NetworkOfNetworks where flows of trust and information/data and metadata can be built on solid, open foundations. By strongly focusing on principles, we foster #communities that are resilient, self-sufficient, #DIY and capable of defending against the enclosures that happen by default on the #mainstreaming path we are all on.
It’s time to turn away from the (stupid)individualistic mindset that capitalism cultivates and return to a more healthy balance with #CollectiveEmpowerment. This isn’t about returning to a naive vision of the past but evolving our tactics for the present, using what’s left of the openweb to build something more robust and deeply rooted, we have started down this path with the #fediverse
The #OMN is building from this first step, a path that is usefully as it’s native to create a #reboot for the #openweb. It’s about recognizing the cracks in the current system and knowing where pressure can make the cracks grow to open up space to compost the old and nourish the fresh shoots of alternative tech and media that we need. This nurtures communities that then builds better tech, a simple circle, with likely a better outcome than the current #deathcult
The recent #XR event at Windsor received little meaningful media coverage, well not in my filter bubble, it was totally invisible, which is disappointing considering the importance of the action. The video I made of last year’s London event is still relevant and illustrates the same core issues, even though this time they did take the step of staging an occupation. You can watch last year’s video: XR “is this all the is” 2023.
This brings us to an important point: the balance between fluffy (non-confrontational, peaceful protest) and #spiky (more direct, disruptive action) tactics. Both approaches have their place and, when used in tandem, they can be very effective. The key is understanding that they complement each other—#fluffy actions draw in broad support and media attention, while #spiky actions put real pressure on the power structures by creating disruption that cannot be ignored.
It’s crucial to recognize that with increased effectiveness comes a cost: repression. That’s the paradox of impactful activism. The presence of repression is a useful indicator that what you’re doing is working, a sign that you are challenging the status quo in a way that makes those in power uncomfortable. If there is no repression, then it likely means your actions are not having any impact.
So, we must continue to push this balance and accept that some degree of repression is a natural outcome of effective resistance. If we want to see real change, we need to be prepared for the response that comes when you genuinely challenge entrenched power. The goal is not to avoid repression, but to balance it in a way that sustains the movement and keeps up the pressure.
It should be obverse even to our more liberal friends that we’re facing intensifying class conflict, but It’s sadly not this simple as an easy to walk path, the class on our side is largely absent and disorganized where the class on “their” side is very organised and very well funded. This lack of effective class consciousness among potential allies leads to a divided and weakened resistance, making efforts to push against power structures currently ineffective.
There is a dangerous #deathcultmentality from the last 40 years that has deep roots in the stubborn refusal to address basic issues and a persistent repetition of failed strategies. This mentality is dragging us into negative outcomes, and is both disheartening and damaging. The challenge is that we are fighting against an “invisible” system that pits everyone against each other. With this, the broader population lacks class awareness, making it difficult to unite to even start to affectively fight back. Despite the increasingly hardened nature of conflict, it’s brittle, If we could focus and target the cracks, we can compost the current mess and move to different paths. On the old path, the #traditionalmedia remains a strong tool for social control, reinforcing existing power dynamics and narratives to push the status quo.
In activism if we can create focus, instead of dissipating energy on ineffective A-to-B marches, media stunts and petitions that appeal to the mainstream narrative, we instead concentrate on actions that directly affect the structures we challenge. In this path, the blocking force of #Stupidindividualism is a useful lens for understanding the current situation of blind hatreds and hidden fears. If we can shift from this disjointed, ineffective path, we may be able to step to a direction that allows us to rebuild solidarity and create change.
One step forward is through initiatives like #OMN (Open Media Network), built to challenge the current information monopoly and foster a truly open, people-centered web that can be affective as a tool for change and challenge.
Back then, we were teetering on the edge of a digital cliff, with the open internet hanging in the balance. There were two insightful perspectives capturing the crossroads we are at: Phil Windley argued that the open internet was a historical fluke, while Dave Winer suggests that what we were seeing was merely the ebb before the next wave of the #openweb arrived.
With this enclosure of the digital commons, #PhilWindley perspective, is a sobering one. Though he has updated his post, he used to see the internet early open nature as an anomaly—an accident of history. In this view, the open internet as we knew it is essentially finished. That once-thriving commons have been systematically enclosed by corporate silos—the #dotcons like Facebook, Google, and Amazon—that now dominate the digital landscape. What remains outside these silos is, according to this perspective, withering and dying. The vision of a decentralized, user-controlled internet has been overwhelmed by the centralized, profit-driven motives of these tech giants.
His argument is that decentralization is hard, perhaps too hard for most people to handle. This reality, combined with the fact that these silos provide convenience, user-friendliness, and perceived safety, has led people to choose them over the messy and challenging world of a truly #openweb. People have traded freedom for convenience, security for walled gardens, and the vibrant chaos of the commons for the curated safety of #dotcons. The digital commons have been enclosed, and it was a bleak view.
On the other side, Dave Winer offered a more hopeful perspective. He believes that the history of the internet and the web comes in waves—periods of openness followed by enclosure, which then recede to allow for another wave of openness. In his view, Phil Windley’s observation might not be wrong, but it’s not the end of the story. Rather, it’s the ebb of the tide before a new wave of the #openweb surges forward. The potential for decentralized, and open paths is always there, and it’s a mistake to assume that the current moment is the end of the line.
#DaveWiner argument rests on the idea that the desire for openness and freedom is cyclical. When centralized systems become oppressive, restrictive, or exploitative, there will be a counter-movement that pushes back. The nature of technology, innovation, and humanistic creativity ensures that “native” paths, and protocols will emerge to challenge the status quo.
There is a logic to the digitization of everything. The internet and #openweb built on top of it, is a living example of what happens when this logic is let loose: a tsunami that crashes over every part of our cultures, breaking old structures and opening up possibilities. The storm is not over. Just as the early web opened up commons that were later enclosed, the current wave of enclosure is broken by a new wave of #4open decentralization paths.
What Has Changed in the Last Decade? Looking back at what I wrote nearly ten years ago, the fundamental dynamics haven’t changed. The dotcons have only grown more powerful and more entrenched, but at the same time, the counter-forces have also begun to stir vigorously. Movements like the #Fediverse, based on #ActivityPub, #Nostor and to a lesser extent #Bluesky have grown into real usable decentralized social paths, together with this, we are dipping our toes back into peer-to-peer technologies, this wave is evidence that the storm of digitization is still alive.
Yes, the #dotcons did enclose the first wave of commons, when we stupidly took their digital algorithmic drugs. But the defences of the dotcons are very weak, the only thing holding most people is their addictions, nobody thinks they are healthy any more. The logic of digitization continues, and as long as there are waves, there is hope for the current openweb reboot.
Firstly I have little knowledge about the current mess, but I have experience of the same mess with the same people, likely the is some reverence, let’s look at some of the language used:
“During that time I have had to witness the unbalanced behaviour of Milan Rai as he struggled to protect his ‘kingdom’ from any attempts by PNT to establish some system where we, as trustees, might obtain some degree of insight into the intentions and the political vision of the editor of what was clearly a failing project.”
“Milan Rai’s typical tactics: the personalisation of issues with Glyn pilloried as an authoritarian who lacked the ethical commitment to the core values of pacifism that informed the group of companies. It became a nasty business”
“tension between PNT and the editorial staff of Peace News (Milan Rai in particular) has been over the question of the quality of the paper and editorial accountability… asking themselves how to try and handle the problem of Milan Rai, as sales declined and the distance between the editorial staff and the trustees grew.”
“PNT had never faced a situation where an editor insisted on clinging on to his position…. We were ill-equipped to deal with this challenge of an editor who was not afraid to insist on maintaining sovereignty over his domain.”
“various attempts to recruit new members for the PNT board failed because potential trustees, particularly women, had unpleasant past experiences of working with Milan Rai in different capacities… Almost immediately the new board of PNL along with the staff, launched delaying, duplicitous and dishonest ways to maintain a veil of secrecy around its deliberations and to prevent any ‘interference’ from the trustees.”
“‘The tidal wave of intimidation, harassment and threats that we have experienced over the last year has been extremely stressful and exhausting… We tried to create a more healthy relationship between PNT and PNL, based on consent and mutual respect, protecting a space for private conversation and discussion without PNT surveillance or micro-management. Unfortunately, that attempt has been unsuccessful… “The relentless bullying campaign we have experienced”
This next language and action has destroyed meany grassroots movements: “PNT would no longer allow PN to draw from a large legacy held by PNT (access to this legacy had previously been agreed in order to pay staff wages and other expenses) – also from 1 August… it was an ‘error’ to see this large legacy as owed by PNT to Peace News Ltd (despite the fact that the PNT accounts have for years clearly stated that this legacy belongs to Peace News), raising the prospect that PNT would seize this money”
Am sure every side wonted to end this mess “The PN staff and Peace News board members realised that we were all about to tip into legal battles that would drain the bank accounts of both Peace News Ltd and its parent company, and which might end up requiring the sale of 5 Caledonian Road, destroying Housmans Bookshop, our sister project, in the process.”
“no way to deal with the bullying we had endured – and which we faced more… pointing out the level of sexism… staff members done to deserve the kind of treatment inflicted and threatened… something which had been set up as a defensive move in the face of PNT’s intrusive and controlling behaviour… we have now had over a year of dictats, wild accusations, repeated and sustained attacks on PNL’s autonomy, and the casual floating of “options” that could put Housmans’ finances at serious risk – for example, by tripling their rent… the latest in a long line of authoritarian and destructive decisions and initiatives”
The problem in this kinda text is that this is exactly the problems I experienced working with one of the individuals at the centre of this mess, I could have written the first part of this quoted text about my experience working with PN ten years ago “leadership of PNT has been marked by chaos, confrontation and an obsession with control… Positively, the staff did also offer to join PNT temporarily and to help bring in new PNT directors.” can you see the power politics in play in the second line quoted?
At this point I would like to be clear, I likely would have little sympathy for the plans for change being pushed by the trusty’s on the one hand, but my experience of trying to work with some of the PN crew and the quotes above highlights https://hamishcampbell.com/the-victimhood-narrative-needs-composting/ this post, that in a small part comes from my experience dealing with some members of PN ten years ago… the mess has not changed.
The situation at Peace News (PN) is a mess, a mess that mirrors similar conflicts, a direct example from the history of PN, a decade ago during the organizing of the Radical Media Conference I look at latter. Having been personally involved in the alternative tech and grassroots media scene, I’ve seen this pattern play out, and it’s clear that there’s something fundamentally wrong in how these dynamics unfold. Conflicts are not isolated; they are ingrained in the culture of organizations, perpetuated by individuals and unresolved power struggles.
The mess at Peace News revolve around issues of control, accountability, and power dynamics. On one side, the Peace News Trustees (PNT) accuse Milan Rai, a long-standing editor and a central figure at Peace News, of being unaccountable, manipulative, and resistant to attempts to create transparency and oversight. On the other side, the Peace News Limited (PNL) staff accuse the trustees of intimidation, harassment, and micromanagement.
It is a recurring conflict, let’s look at my experiences with the Radical Media Conference, the same names and dynamics of control and manipulation: Milan Rai holding onto control, resisting oversight, and personalizing issues to deflect criticism. The same experiences with the same individual. Then we have both sides steeped in victimhood narratives, where each sees themselves as besieged by the other. On the PNL side, there are claims of bullying, harassment, and authoritarian tactics by PNT. Meanwhile, the PNT sees itself as trying to inject accountability to the editorial team. The inability to break out of this victim-oppressor cycle contributes to the ongoing mess. The root causes are power politics and culture of control.
What can we learn from this? Maybe rebuild with clear #4opens governance and accountability, structures that have transparency in roles, responsibilities, and levels of accountability to prevent any single individual from accumulating unchecked power. Composting bad faith arguments and toxicity, to recognize the patterns of destructive behaviour and actively work to break them down, just like compost. This might allow for new, healthier shoots to growth. Organizations need to be willing to let go of old, toxic structures and dynamics to allow something more healthy to grow. Then we need to move beyond victimhood narratives: Both sides in this conflict are deeply entrenched in their victimhood narratives, which serves to escalate the conflict.
Conclusion, the mess at Peace News is a tragic example of what happens when unresolved conflicts, entrenched power dynamics, and a lack of transparency come to a head. It mirrors a pattern that has played out in grassroots movements over the years, including my own experience trying to work with the Peace News editorial team at the Radical Media Conference. In my limited experience this mess has been ongoing for more than ten years, if there’s a lesson here, it’s that we need to focus on building structures and cultures that prioritize trust, accountability, and a shared vision—not control and blame.
let’s try and compost the mess in this, there is nothing wrong with being your own person, having an authentic inner life, and cultivating a strong sense of self. In fact, psychological separation from family, nation, and community is a critical aspect of human maturity. This perspective was forcefully argued by the socialist psychologist Erich Fromm, who saw the problem not in individualism per se, but in what we might call hyperindividualism, toxic individualism or what I call #stupidindividualism in the #hashtag story.
The three-stage psychological development process that captures the journey of human maturity:
Absorption of worldview, when we are born, we absorb the worldview of our family, community, nation, or clan. In this, one’s identity is intertwined with these external structures—what Fromm calls “blood and soil.” People in this stage see themselves as extensions of their family or nation.
Independence of thought, as we mature, an authentic inner self begins to develop, and we break away from external identities. Achieving independence of thought to not rely on the beliefs and views of others to define ourselves. At this stage, a person’s identity comes from their authentic inner life, rather than from intense belonging to tribe, country, or religion.
Reconnection through solidarity, the final stage, involves reconnecting with others, but not through blind conformity. Instead, this stage requires a re-connection through solidarity—a unity with others that does not destroy one’s individuality. Psychological health, according to #Fromm, requires this balance: to be oneself and yet be connected to the broader human community in a meaningful way.
When people fail in the progress through these stages, social and psychological dysfunctions grow. For instance, fascism, Fromm argued, is a product of being stuck in the first stage, where they crave authoritarianism because they have not grown as authentic individuals. On the other hand, those stuck in the second stage, cannot reconnect with humanity, also suffer from isolation and alienation.
Capitalism is “individualist” and anti-individualist, it is heralded as a system that celebrates the individual. However, this is a misleading portrayal, as #capitalism is both “individualist” and anti-individualist. If you truly think for yourself within capitalism—questioning the status quo, challenging authority, or stepping outside the normal #mainstreaming roles—If this is threatening, you are ridiculed, ostracized, ignored, and marginalized. Genuine individuality, especially when it contests capitalist norms, is not celebrated but rather suppressed.
In the current path, individualism is for the rich. The wealthy can afford to “be themselves” because they have the means to cushion the consequences. Everyone else must conform—follow orders at work, keep their heads down, buy the same cheap products, watch the same blockbusters, and generally consume and behave as they are told. Deviating from this path risks economic ruin and social exclusion. The stupid part “freedom of choice” is in the current mess reduced to trivial decisions like choosing between McDonald’s or Burger King, or which big-budget superhero movie to watch. This mess reduces human worth to economic output and consumer choice, devaluing real individuality that does not conform to its profit-driven logic.
Thus, the individual within capitalism is constrained, workers are rendered disposable the moment they are no longer “useful” to the corporate machine. This mess is full of irony: while capitalism promotes the ideal of rugged #individualism, it actually holds contempt for the vast majority of individuals who do not fit into its narrow path. The distortion of individualism, capitalism turns individualism into a competitive drive that compels people to measure their life’s worth in the greed and fear driven push of personal successes and failures, rather than by group and community paths. This divisive force undermines collective solidarity.
“Socialism entails a collectivism which does not suppress the individualism of bourgeois society, and in contrast to the ‘crude’ collectivism of very poor working class communities, is a collectivism which transcends (or sublates) individualism.”
This path of collectivism does not erase individuality, instead, it moves past the hollow, competitive individualism pushed by capitalism. This balancing of collectivism encourages personal development in the context of a supportive community. In conclusion, the problem is not individualism, but the path that warps it into stupidindividualism, a toxic, isolating force that fragments solidarity and community, this is the “stupid” in the hashtag #stupidindividualism, yes it is stupid and makes us stupid, we do need to talk about this to compost mess.
People find it hard to understand the “unique” selling point of the #OMN beyond the tech, which is “common sense”. And this is, drum roll, reveal, that people and content are data objects in the “commons” by default and only private/owed by exception. This is the basic #KISS “unique” selling point of the #OMN there we are, I said it was simple.
It’s interesting with all the talk about the project over the last ten years this was never talked about. This is a direct result of the agenda blocking of the #geekproblem, #fashernista agenda and #NGO control mess. We never actually get to the bits that matter as we are so fussed talking about the bits that don’t matter, the ones the groups above push. This is a mess that we urgently need to compost.
The Open Media Network (OMN) is a set of tools to empower YOU to change and challenge the world we live (and die) in. The OMN is about opening up the flow of information and breaking down the silos that keep data locked in walled gardens. It’s an “anything in and anything out” network, operating through mediated trust database/flows that puts power back into the hands of grassroots paths. This framework is built from the #fediverse to flow freely, with control in the hands of the users.
The OMN is a “data soup”—a blend of tagged data objects flowing through channels. These flows are mediated by trust, which means that users can depend on the reliability of sources and content within the network. This isn’t just about blind trust; it’s about a dynamic, evolving network of trust relationships where both content creation and consumption are guided by the principles of openness and integrity.
Within the OMN, people are free to choose their own level of engagement—whether they want to be active participants contributing content and trust, or more passive consumers curating what they see and share. The choice is yours, the network’s design supports autonomy. Embracing the messiness of data, the OMN has several unconventional features that might be seen as “problems” by those entrenched in traditional geekproblem tech paths.
Lossy Data: Accepting that not all data needs to be perfect or complete. The world is messy, and our data can reflect that reality.
Redundancy: Multiple instances of the same data help to ensure that information isn’t lost and allows the network to be more resilient.
Trust: It is integral to the network’s design. Users navigate this “data soup” based on trust relationships rather than on algorithms or centralized authority.
By mediating the #geekproblem, which will view these attributes as flaws, we open up perspectives on how data and communities can interact and thrive. This network is built on the #4opens principles to ensure that the OMN is not another closed-off tech experiment but a genuinely open and collaborative path. It’s not about reinventing the wheel or creating something entirely new from scratch. Instead, it’s about leveraging existing tools and technologies to build a decentralized media/news network that is “permissionless” for anyone to use and contribute to, it’s up to them if they trust other people.
What makes the OMN exciting is the potential it offers for “flows of trust” to develop. Communities and people are encouraged to build their own projects on top of the simple OMN framework, allowing a wide range of alternative media, news, and social projects to emerge. The focus is on using these flows to cultivate healthy, vibrant communities where trust is a core currency, and where diverse perspectives can coexist and grow.
The goal is empowerment through decentralizing control and empowering communities that allow people to take control of their media, their data, and their interactions. The #OMN provides a good user interface (UX) to facilitate easy navigation and interaction within the network, making it accessible for tech-savvy developers to everyday users to create meaning and shared spaces.
In conclusion, the OMN is not just a project; it’s a framework for interacting with information and with each other to invite us to rethink our relationship with media, data, and trust. So, let’s get involved. Let’s build, experiment, and trust. The #OMN is an opportunity to shape a truly #openweb where you have the power to change the world by challenging the current statues quo.
