Twitter was the shining light of the priests of the #deathcult, and there liberal apologists, it was a “safe space” for our liberals to chatter about #mainstreaming and avoid the change and challenge we need to survive in the era of #climatechaos and the breakdown, that our 40 years of this worship has brought us. This has now changed to a much more direct hard right shift.
This has shifted with Elon Musk’s acquisition of Twitter (now X) which has shifted the platform’s political alignment and governance from this #deathcult worship to a more fascist path. It is easy to see that Musk’s ownership and decision-making have pushed this move toward authoritarian far-right ideologies.
Content moderation and policy changes, under #Musk, #X has made policy shifts on content moderation. These changes have allowed the platform to become a space where misinformation and extremist rhetoric proliferates. This shift to reduce oversight opens a space for echo chambers for polarized and extreme views.
Reinstating controversial hard right figures, this decision to reinstate previously banned accounts, including high-profile far-right figures and conspiracy theorists, has fuelled the shaping of the platform to support overt political agendas. This has bolstered the support for right wing politics, including Donald Trump, who was permanently banned from Twitter before Musk’s takeover due to incitement of the January 6 Capitol riot.
Public statements and affiliations, Musk’s public engagements and interactions have shifted to a hard right path. His tweets and public endorsements aligned with viewpoints and individuals who support right-wing and populist ideologies. This has led to that growing environment which subtly or overtly supports authoritarian and nationalist movements, the growth of fascism.
Fascism implies systematic oppression and state-level control, which is the outcome of his purchase of this one’s liberal social network. What can deferentially be said is that this is a partisan platform that is supportive of right-wing populism. And as can be seen with the election of Trump, it is being used to facilitating the growth of fascism in the USA and the wider world.
If you currently can’t see beyond #mainstreaming then jump anywhere from the #dotcons, a little step is better than non, if you are a bit radical then please think where you are stepping to.
As the world flees from X (formerly #Twitter) to look for viable social media alternatives, platforms like #BlueSky and #Threads come into view pushed by #mainstreaming agendas. But please lift the lid to see that while these platforms appear promising, scrutiny reveals issues with ownership, funding, and community values that show they are on the same #dotcons path that people are fleeing. This compromises long-term independence and user-centricity. In contrast, the #fedivers exemplifies the #4opens principles, a truer, more sustainable #openweb alternative for social networking, it’s here and it works.
BlueSky’s #VC funded roots, there is a difference between what people say and what they do, this one presented itself as a beacon for decentralized social networking, advocating user control and a light-touch moderation. The project’s founding under Jack Dorsey promised a platform engineered to transcend limitations in social media governance. However, its venture-funded path tells a more conventional story. With investments from entities like Blockchain Capital LLC, co-founded by crypto magnate Brock Pierce, the concerns about centralization are unavoidable. Historically, VC backing brings pressured for profitability and pushes investor interests, at odds with maintaining decentralized, user-first ideals the project keeps talking about. This is a mess soon down the road, it’s a dead-end for people to jump to. For a tech view of this and the VC and culture side. A good tech/social write-up https://dustycloud.org/blog/how-decentralized-is-bluesky/
Threads is native to the #dotcons and corporate agenda’s. Threads, developed by #Meta (#Facebook), promises much, but it is firmly on the Meta’s path, rooted in data monetization, algorithmic control driving ad revenue. While Threads appears more user-friendly, its development trajectory inevitably follows Meta’s historical focus: ad-heavy strategies and extensive moderation policies that prioritize corporate interests over user freedom they talk about now. And a long writeup How decentralized is Bluesky really? A post on the #dotcons out reach to the #openweb mess. Why is Meta adding fediverse interoperability to Threads? https://fediversereport.com/why-is-meta-adding-fediverse-interoperability-to-threads/ What is the stress? What is the game?
The #Fediverse and #Mastodon are the #openweb’s champions, built for people, not profit. This path is in stark contrast, firmly, on the path of the openweb. From its decentralized structure to its #4opens open-source foundation. Managed by non-profit people and communerties, funded through voluntary donations and support from like-minded organisations, not venture capital or private investment. This independence ensures that people networking is never beholden to shareholders and subjected to the profit motives that drive centralized platforms. This embodies the principle that social media should amplify what people value, not what maximizes revenue.
Choosing platforms and paths that align with #openweb values is more than just a preference; it’s a stand for a future where digital spaces are driven by #4opens transparency, user empowerment, and shared stewardship. #BlueSky’s reliance on venture funding and Threads’ adherence to Meta’s corporate motives demonstrate the limitations of profit-oriented social media. We need a path where we prioritize community, collective action and autonomy over corporate growth.
In the pursuit of genuine alternatives, platforms like the Fediverse do more than fill the void left by #X; they embody the promise of a decentralized, people first internet—the very essence of the #openweb.
#Openweb: This refers to the original, decentralized ethos of the internet, built on openness, freedom, and people’s autonomy. Linking enhances knowledge sharing, amplifies lesser-known voices, and enables people to explore varied content freely.
#Closedweb: This describes platforms dominated by algorithms, corporate interests, and paywalls. On dotcons, linking is often spam and is penalized or buried, precisely because it can disrupt the curated control these platforms wield over what people see.
Don’t feed the trolls, keeps coming to mind, when looking at the #X influx, this is like waves washing on the shore, be the shore not the waves.
The current #mainstreaming paths are dependent on capitalist structures, when looking at this critically, it reveals itself as a #deathcult, with the embodiment of unrestrained growth and consumption that runs counter to meaningful solution to #climatechange. While billionaires and corporatens may entertain the illusion of future-proofing their wealth and safety, the reality is more perilous than it appears to this narrow view. Their greed fed opulence and influence can’t shield them indefinitely from a collapsing ecosystem that sustains all life, including their own.
At the heart of this is the inherent contradiction in capitalism itself: it requires perpetual growth to survive. This expansion is incompatible with the measures needed to mediate or stop #climatechaos. But if growth halts, so does the economic machinery that upholds the current power structures, creating a destabilizing domino effect. While many might ask why those in power do not pivot to prioritize environmental preservation, the answer lies in the system’s relentless demand for expansion. Even if an individual capitalist—or a consortium—decides to scale back for the sake of long-term planetary health, the market will simply replace them with competitors who are more willing to pursue relentless profit, growth, and resource consumption.
The current path has a self-destructive logic, this paradox is why even billionaires who are conscious of the dire climate situation resort to insufficient and infective measures. They might fund green technologies and push for marginally lower carbon emissions, but the actions remain constrained by the underlying logic: protecting the continuity of capital. This capital-only world-view can’t embrace the radical systemic change we actually need to avert ecological collapse.
Let’s look at this, billionaires and the bunker illusion, the ultra-wealthy/greedy #fuckwits, plan to retreat to their fortified bunkers and private, insulated zones once climate-induced chaos grows un medateable. While contingency plans do exist—high-tech shelters, land acquisitions in regions predicted to be less affected by climate change—these are temporary solutions. A world unravelling from the fabric of its ecosystems will not sustain even the most fortified enclaves indefinitely. Even if technology advances to the point of enabling space colonization, the timelines required for such ventures far exceed the immediacy of the crisis we keep #blindly pushing.
This is an easy to understand systematic issue, and it should be obvuse we need a collective solution. Capital, the motivation and power for action, is not about individual capitalists but capital as an entity, the dogmatic socio-economic phenomenon that exerts control over its arbiters. Capital has built in infinite growth, prioritizing profit over sustainability and long-term human survival. An individual or collective attempt to defy this logic and implement meaningful, planet-preserving strategies would be outpaced and outcompeted by others who align more closely with capital’s pushing of this #stupidindividualism, ruthless, greed is good.
This #KISS understanding underscores the distinction between idealist and materialist interpretations of the crisis. Idealists believe that with enough awareness and willpower, the system can change from within. Materialists, recognize that capital is a structure that acts beyond the control of any individual or organization. It functions like biological evolution: it values reproduction and expansion above survival, when as we see now those traits are in the end destructive.
There is some room for corrective action within the existing system, but it’s inadequate. Policies to mitigate environmental impact, even when enacted, are slow and piecemeal. The issue isn’t that #mainstreaming decision-makers don’t understand the problem; rather, they don’t grasp the depth of systemic overhaul required to address it. The principles they consider immutable—the rules of modern economics and finance. The “common sense” is the problem.
The #deathcult of mainstreaming is propelling growth and consumption despite ecological warnings, it is locked in a dance with CAPITALS logic. While billionaires may fund clean energy startups and talk about sustainable practices, their wealth and the power structures uphold and are bound up in the unsustainable status quo. Change and challenge requires uprooting fundamental beliefs about how economies MUST operate, not just superficial adaptations. Until this realization is spread, capital will continue on its path, indifferent to the ruins it leaves.
Best not to be a prat about this, thanks.
Why Capitalism and Climate Change Solutions Are Fundamentally Incompatible
The urgent need to address climate change collides with an uncomfortable reality, as we outline capitalism’s foundational mechanics make meaningful climate action impossible. This isn’t a case of individual negligence but a systemic flaw. Capitalism, by design, prioritizes profit and growth, at the expense of long-term, collective concerns and environmental preservation.
Capitalism favours the greedy few who can maximize profits in the shortest timeframe. It’s a path where the most ruthless and nasty competitor prevails, setting the standard that others must follow or face obsolescence. This constant pressure means that if an individual capitalist or company recognizes the existential threat of #climatechaos, they cannot afford to act on it meaningfully without losing their competitive edge. For example, a corporation that decides to limit emissions at the cost of profitability will quickly be outcompeted by one that does not.
The logic of capitalism ensures that any significant deviation from maximizing short-term profit results in failure within the market. Thus, while some companies engage in “green” initiatives to pay lip service to sustainability, these efforts are superficial. They exist to placate public concern and leverage marketing advantages, rather than drive the needed systemic change. The myths are that capitalism, through innovation and competition, will solve climate change. However, capitalist solutions boil down to maintaining leverage and coercing others into action. For example, the race for green technologies like electric cars and renewable energy can be more about dominating a new market sector than reducing environmental harm. Elon Musk’s ventures into space and sustainable technology, hailed as forward-thinking, illustrate this principle. Space colonization and technological fixes reflect an expansionist mindset, a search for new “territories” to exploit as resources on Earth dwindle.
Capitalism’s path needs to push costs onto external parties, the public and the environment. The system relies on government-funded infrastructure and socialized costs, as seen with subsidies for oil companies, highway construction for the automotive industry, or public bailouts for corporations in crisis. When it comes to addressing #climatechange, this reliance on externalized costs becomes a liability. The climate crisis is a global “cost” that capitalism, left unchecked, will not address willingly. It requires collective action that contradicts capitalism’s individualistic and profit-driven paths. This is why capitalist markets require regulation by state or more importantly collective paths to function at all or sustainably, and even then, such measures face fierce resistance.
The automation age: how the nasty few plans to survive. The question whether billionaires believe they can weather the storm of #climatecollapse is complex. Many of them, seeing the unsustainability of infinite growth, look for exit strategies. This explains the investments in space travel, underground bunkers, and gated communities. The implication is stark: they believe their wealth will shield them from the mass suffering climatechange will bring. Automation adds another layer to this story. With machines replacing human labour, the exploiters envision a future where their economic power persists without the masses of real people, that’s you and me. This dystopian reality shows the detachment of capital from human and ecological concerns.
We currently face a failure of collective action. One of capitalism’s critical flaws is its inability to coordinate collective action without state intervention. While some countries have managed to decouple emissions from #GDP growth through advancements in service sectors and digital economies, this decoupling remains insufficient to meet the global targets needed for net-zero emissions. The system’s piecemeal and reactive approach cannot match the scale of planning required for real and needed climate action. Without a fundamental restructuring that prioritizes the collective good over private profit, meaningful progress remains an illusion and out of reach.
We need to try and make the #mainstreaming agenda more functional in the #openweb reboot, how do we do this? One way is to strengthen community governance with native decentralized decision-making frameworks that involve more voices from the grassroots, like the #OGB project. This is self empowering as tools based on federated models (like those used in the #Fediverse) empower people to participation in decision-making processes rather than top-down dictates.
Develop a supportive ecosystem for builders with funding beyond the #fashernistas. To make this happen we need to shift funding mechanisms toward projects that align with the values of the #4opens (open data, open standards, open source, and open process). This means supporting those who build with the public good in mind, not just flashy, trendy ideas, and tech fashions. Empower developers with a community focus by highlighting projects that prioritize #UX and community needs rather than only tech novelty. Encourage #FOSS governance practices that are transparent and inclusive. Foster this inclusivity by bridging silos with cross-community dialogues, this facilitates discussions that bring together different sectors of alt-tech, civic tech, and grassroots movements to cross-pollinate ideas and useful paths to take.
Ensure that platforms being built do not only cater to niche tech communities but are accessible and usable by the public, thus focus on practical relevance. This helps to empower people to understand the importance of decentralized tech and how it benefits them directly. Thus helping to break down the barriers posed by the #geekproblem and demystifies participation in the openweb paths. A strong part of this is organizing hands-on workshops that engage people in contributing to and shaping the projects.
Accept that failures are part of the process. Instead of discarding what doesn’t work, use these experiences as compost—breaking down what failed and learning from it to build stronger initiatives. This plays a role in shifting cultural narratives to challenge and change the stores around the #openweb and wider #openculture to include cooperative problem-solving and mutual respect. Shifting the focus from tech utopianism to realistic, impactful change.
Build tech paths that are adaptable and capable of evolving with peoples needs and global conditions, including #climatechaos and socio-political shifts that are accelerating. A part of this is support for meany small tech paths that link and flow information and communities.
To reboot the #openweb to become a part of a shifting mainstreaming, we need to promote messy participatory governance, redirect funding to genuine, community-oriented projects, and champion inclusive, sustainable paths. The composting analogy emphasizes learning from past mistakes and continuously building resilient, inclusive solutions #KISS
A test is to look at people and projects to see if they link, a basic part is the act of linking, which goes far beyond a simple convenience; it forms the backbone of an interconnected, accessible, and transparent internet. Yet, many people overlook its importance or misunderstand its role, especially when transitioning from #dotcons (corporate-controlled platforms) to #openweb environments. To sustain the promise of an open, people-driven internet, we need to recognize and actively engage with the practice of sharing non-mainstream links #KISS
But yes we do need to mediate the current mess, don’t feed the trolls, keeps coming to mind, when looking at the #X influx, this is like waves washing on the shore, be the shore not the wave.
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 come from 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 within 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 dependency on corporate #dotcons and reduces susceptibility to the influence of #mainstreaming. Work for the ethical use of technology, the NGO crew need to 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 the normal 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 catalyse 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, we do need 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.
