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.
When people attack using identity, race, sex or victimhood as a tool rather than for dialogue, it reflects deeper social and personal dynamics, feelings of powerlessness, fear of disagreement, or frustration over statues. people resort to this approach to quickly assert moral authority and silence opposing views, assuming that others will concede rather than face this easy public shaming.
Unfortunately, this leads to divisiveness and reinforces stereotypes, rather than fostering understanding or constructive dialogue of the actual issues being talked about. Meaningful progress requires open, respectful conversations rather than negative card playing that alienates to shut down discourse, which is why focusing on shared goals leads to better outcomes.
And yes, sometimes it is victims speaking out, but often it is not, so do check.
This is a part of the current mess we need to compost, ideas please.
#climatechaos, in twenty years, the global trajectory faces a grim reality, #geoengineering will have been attempted, driven by the need to stave off #climatecollapse while maintaining the capitalist path for the privileged. However, its effectiveness is questionable. Geoengineering operates on the linear logic of immediate technological fixes, while our climate’s complexity is non-linear and unpredictable. History already shows us unintended consequences from small-scale projects—scaling this up is akin to “the butterfly effect” on a colossal scale, with potential to worsen the current catastrophic mess.
Yes, wealthier segments might shield themselves better, accessing dwindling resources, while the majority face harsh impacts. Social divides will deepen as flooding, heatwaves, and storms intensify, and resources become scarcer. Meanwhile, the systemic #blocking of an anti-capitalist movement holds back the needed radical shift, despite our obvious evidence of human adaptability, creativity, and resilience.
This uncertain reinforces that geoengineering is a temporary measure at best. Without shifting away from capitalist consumption, we repeat the cycles of hasty, inadequate fixes that worsen catastrophic global and local outcomes. If adaptation and ingenuity, common in human nature, can be shifted toward systemic change, we avoid more destructive paths and lay a foundation for humanistic paths.
Over the last few decades, the web’s evolution has been shaped by competing ideals. Early on, we witnessed the shift from the “better” #closedweb corporate controlled paths to an #openweb#DIY explosion—a time when collaborative, decentralized approaches thrived. #Mainstreaming efforts to recapture this #4opens spirit failed for years, but eventually, corporate-driven dot-coms platforms captured the majority of people. Activist voices were muffled as #dotcons pushed mainstream interests, pulling away the community-driven power the web once enabled. This phase was a bait-and-switch operation, leading to surveillance capitalism and making it harder to stand up for collective, public-first internet paths.
A key aspect here is that this decline wasn’t caused by isolated figures but by broader, recurring social forces, like #fahernistas and the #geekproblem, who fell into patterns of adopting dominant narratives by failing to recognize the alt values of “native” open tech paths. As this happened, the #NGO world came in with “nice funding,” which subtly aligned activist tech initiatives with liberal, watered-down approaches. This pushed and promoted co-option over the power of change. The result was tech stagnation, with communities gradually losing their voice and control, the mess we were in 5 years ago.
The current openweb revival is due to protocols like #ActivityPub, coinciding with the rise of #web03, which was about re-implements #closedweb paths. This presents both a challenge and an opportunity, especially as the rotting of dotcons reveals the hollowness of centralization. While this #reboot has potential, it’s often bogged down by the same forces that hindered past movements. The #fahernistas focus on transient tech trends and individualistic coding projects that ignore the power of collective working, and the #web03 uncritical push of #encryption as a solution without a broader social strategy results in mountains of #techshit.
What works? Building from simple foundations: As digital activists and #DIY tech communities try to reboot the web, it’s essential to start with simplicity: #KISS principles (Keep It Simple, Stupid) offer a practical foundation. Instead of complex, flashy approaches, this mindset prioritizes clarity, accessibility, and collective agency. Each simple, intentional step creates a more durable basis to counter #mainstreaming forces.
What do we need: Self-organization tools within community are needed to reshape the path. Hashtags, for instance, have devolved into self-branding tools (fashernista), whereas they originally provided decentralized organizing power. Reclaiming these tools for grassroots purposes helps bring DIY activism to the forefront and build cohesive networks across digital paths.
What needs balance: The #VC poison of “nice funding” and #NGO co-option, are the big challenges facing the #openweb movement. Often, well-intentioned tech initiatives accept NGO money to sustain themselves, but this financial support is not neutral. The NGO world, embedded in liberal agendas, steers projects toward safe, palatable solutions that appeal to funders rather than fostering the radical shifts needed for real change. This sugar-coated poison draws tech initiatives away from their roots and into a cycle of compromise, weakening the collective power that grassroots projects depend on.
What can we do? As we look at ways to reignite a meaningful openweb, these lessons from history are crucial. Without seeing these patterns, we are repeating the same mistakes and allowing corporate and liberal to dictate the paths we take to build our shared digital commons. How we actually make this work is not obverse, but the current #fedivers reboot is a seed that is in the ground and growing.
I use the #4opens as a tool to do this as it’s simply #foss development with #openprocess added on, a useful tool to get past what people say their projects are about. And what they are actually about https://unite.openworlds.info/Open-Media-Network/4opens we need tools like this to compost the piles of #techshit people keep creating, if we are to have soil to grow tech seeds of hope, like #Activertypub
The path is simple, who is coming down it with me and meany others?
It’s clear there are differing perspectives on whether #BlueSky, now backed by Blockchain Capital, aligns with the values of #openweb or is moving to the #dotcons path. Blockchain Capital’s focus on decentralized technologies includes investments beyond cryptocurrency, yet the question remains about how much this continuing VC involvement influences BlueSky’s direction. In the hashtag story the “#dotcons” refers to corporations profiting under a facade of openness, potentially undermining grassroots and community-led standards.
Good to understand removing posts isn’t the goal; instead, fostering, community, transparency and critical dialogue around these paths is crucial. Ensuring open communication about motivations and funding helps prevent co-option by profit-centric interests—something I am arguing the #openweb aims to avoid. Yes, not everyone agrees on this, so we need to hold a balance, where this balance is, is a consensus, we need to find if we are to hold this community together.
The core issue isn’t blockchain technology itself but its common role in enabling corporatization within decentralized tech, shifting focus from community control to venture-driven paths and how these goals align or diverge from #openweb principles shapes the ongoing debate.
OK, this is a bit off subject. So back to the actual thread: “The consensus process is about us being the community we talk about – it’s likely the only thing that can work at the moment-can we focus please.”
The focus on consensus in SocialHub is embodying the collaborative, community-driven spirit native to grassroots and openweb paths. In discussions about governance and decision-making, consensus helps ensure that the process reflects shared values rather than any single, dominant voice. It’s practical, particularly now, as it aligns with the decentralized nature of the projects within SocialHub. Staying focused on building consensus is a path to achieving functional, inclusive community, reflecting the community “ethos” rather than replicating corporate or hierarchical structures we are so used to work in.
It’s a path for us to become what we often say we want to be.
This is what I am talking about, the rest, the “subject” is food for this path.
For forty years, we’ve been steeped in a dominant, and largely invisible ideology I call the #deathcult, a metaphor for the relentless spread of neoliberalism that has reshaped our social, economic, and technological systems in destructive ways. Alongside this, the rise of #dotcons (corporate, centralized tech platforms) over the past twenty years has distorted the path of the internet and #openweb, steering it away from #4opens collaboration and into monopolized, extractive business models. We’re have been living the fallout now for the last ten years: a fractured digital landscape built on artificial scarcity and closed systems. This article explores the roots of this ideological mess and touches on the return to community-oriented solutions, rooted in collective ideals, through projects like the #fediverse and a renewed openweb.
Neoliberalism, is the driver of our current crisis, is anti-social at its core, cutting shared resources and social spaces in favour of so-called “efficiency” and profit, leading to what I call in the hashtag stories the deathcult—a mindset where profit pushes over life, social well-being, and environmental health. This ideological control permeates our sense of “common sense,” bending it to fit a world where exploitation is not just tolerated but expected. With our worship, we’ve been pushed to accept social and environmental sacrifices as the price of “progress”, instead of recognizing them as a sign of systemic failure.
The #dotcons and digital enclosure of our commons. The internet was built to be an open and decentralized platform. Yet, the past two decades of “dotcom” culture transformed it into a centralized, corporate-controlled ecosystem that discourages innovation and subverts people’s and community autonomy. Companies like Google, Facebook, and Amazon thrive by enclosing the commons, creating walled gardens where data and attention are commodities for sale and control. This shift, which we all played a role in, has stifled alternative voices and projects, pushing out grassroots initiatives in favour of profit-driven silos.
The dotcons path exploits not just users’ data but the very concept of community, turning every interaction into controlling people for private profit. At long last, we’re now seeing a response in the form of projects like the #fediverse and #activertypub, which decentralize and reclaim digital space from these corporate giants. However, without collective action and a shared vision, this new path remains under threat of co-option from these corporate interests, with #dotcons and #VC funded #threads and #bluesky both being pushed into this “commons” we have spent years opening.
On a parallel path of the last 20 years, we have been suffering from a #geekproblem: a cultural fixation within the tech community on solving social issues through purely technical means, in ways that exclude non-technical people. Encryption, for instance, is a valuable tool for privacy but isn’t a universal solution to all social or technological issues. The “more encryption” mindset neglects the importance of building trust and understanding in online communities, focusing instead on individual security in isolation.
For example, with projects like #nostr when encryption becomes the end-all solution, we’re left with technology that is impenetrable to regular people, creating more barriers than it removes. The challenge isn’t just technical; it’s social. We need to mediate the geek-centric approach with practical, accessible solutions that empower people, not only a few tech-savvy minorities.
A #KISS and #nothingnew path, can help to mediate these issues, concepts that encourage us to revisit old, tried-and-true solutions rather than reinventing the wheel in ways that add complexity. Complexity and “innovation for innovation’s sake” leads to, too much, #techshit—overly complicated tech that serves no one but its creators. The KISS path reminds us that simplicity fosters inclusivity. If we want more people to engage with the openweb, we need to create tools that prioritize accessibility and usability over complex features. The nothingnew philosophy supports this by encouraging us to look to the past for inspiration, reviving old ideas that worked instead of constantly chasing the latest #fashernista trends.
Hashtags are tools for #DIY community organization, but in this era of #stupidindividualism, hashtags get dismissed as tools for self-expression or “fashion statements” (#fashernista). Yet, hashtags can serve a deeper purpose in organizing and connecting people around shared ideas and goals. Instead of using hashtags to show off, we can use them to build flows of mutual support and collaboration. The DIY ethos is central to this: organizing from the bottom up, using digital tools to strengthen offline communities and collective action.
Embracing collective paths, one of the main issues that fractured early movements, like #indymedia, was the inability to work collectively. The culture of individualism championed by neoliberalism crept into activist spaces, weakening them from within. Reclaiming the openweb means reclaiming collective processes, where shared resources and collaborative decision-making are balanced with individual control. We need native digital spaces where communities work together, rather than being siloed into “users” isolated by individualistic platforms.
Moving forward: Composting the #Techshit. We’re now on a path to compost the tech detritus of the past two decades—the techshit accumulated through#NGO funding of misguided projects and closed systems. Just as composting turns organic waste into fertile soil, we can take the lessons of past failures to create a thriving, resilient commons reboot. By fundamentally abandoning the pursuit of artificial scarcity and focusing on shared abundance, we foster this better, more humane path.
For this to work, we need to address the #geekproblem to place as much value on social solutions as we do on technical ones, to create tech that supports community needs rather than hindering them. This path values process over product, relationships over transactions, and social well-being over profit.
Ultimately, the choice is clear: continue worshiping at the altar of the #deathcult, or support the “native” path with the openweb. The former is the path we are on now, of escalating, isolation, environmental destruction, and social disintegration, while the latter offers a chance at connection, collaboration, and resilience. This path won’t be easy, but it’s worth the effort to avoid being subsumed by the dominant, #deathcult story we repeat to ourselves.
As we work to reboot old systems and build better ones, let’s ask ourselves: What are we helping to reboot today? By choosing collective action over individualism, KISS over complexity, and cooperation over control, we can step away from the current mess and plant the seeds for hope and survival.
Lift your head, dirty your hands we have a world to plant
I understand people’s frustration. We’ve been working for decades at the forefront of social and environmental activism, particularly in the realm of tech, aiming to create change through initiatives like the #4opens and the #OMN. It’s clear that we’re addressing serious, fundamental issues—especially around how the #openweb has been captured by corporate interests with people’s use of the #dotcons.
People might misunderstand the path as less serious because they don’t grasp the depth of the critique or are overwhelmed by the complexity of the issues. They may also be caught up in their own perspectives, pushing back against ideas that challenge their comfort zones and #blinded entrenched interests.
We’re offering a radical, long-term solution to counter the #deathcult of neoliberalism and the pushing of environmental collapse, yet people all too often mix up urgency and extremism. The good faith we’re extending in these discussions—despite resistance—shows we are dedication to finding real, grounded solutions, instead of surface-level fixes.
Maybe framing the conversation with clearer, step-by-step plans for practical actions might help open a few people’s eyes from their self-inflicted blindness to see the gravity of the situation without dismissing it as “too radical” or “not serious.” We are, after all, pushing for both radical and liberal coalitions to confront the massive issues of #climatechaos, #openweb, and our very real lack of collective future.
As ever, stay strong, it’s through persistence and clarity that we’ll navigate past the mess-making and onto the real work that so urgently needs doing.
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.
