The difference between struggle and #fashernista ethics. The latter is comfortable. The former matters.

Power in tech isn’t neutral, and our issue over the last 20 years is that we have allowed the #dotcons to hoarded and weaponised it. The answer to our failer isn’t to retreat or seek more “ethical” enclosures, it’s to reclaim our power through radical, commons-based networks like #indymediaback and the #OMN.

This argument is #nothingnew, we don’t need endless reinvention, we need continuity. The #openweb isn’t about mimicking #dotcons; it’s about breaking their privatisation model and returning power to collective hands. Hashtags, metadata, and federated networks help on this path, but the real strength is social, not just technical.

Examples of this: #Indymediaback isn’t just a project, it’s a continuation of a proven model that worked before the #dotcons stole the narrative. It was a social technological project embedded in radical movements, used real-world trust systems, and functioned outside of state/corporate control. Rebuilding it isn’t nostalgia; it’s a practical step toward rebalancing power.

We need ongoing arguments about power, opting out or running to “better” #dotcons just dodges the issue. Power is always there. The question is who holds it, and for what purpose? Right now, the #dotcons wield it for social control, profit, and policing. The #openweb flips that, if we build it as a “native” path.

The fight isn’t about making people “feel good” about tech choices, it’s about removing power from enclosures and putting it back into the commons. That’s the difference between real struggle and #fashernista ethics. The latter is comfortable. The former matters.

Paranoia is one of the biggest blockers in alt-tech and radical spaces. It breeds mistrust, isolation, and internal sabotage, making collective action impossible. While some caution is necessary, too much just feeds into stasis and control, mirroring the systems activists are trying to break away from.

The #4opens is a direct antidote to this. Transparency counters paranoia, when decisions, processes, and networks are open, there’s less space for suspicion to fester. Trust isn’t built by secrecy but by consistent, open, and accountable action.

The irony is that a lot of these paranoid actors think they’re resisting control, but by shutting everything down, they’re just self-sabotaging. The solution isn’t more walls—it’s more flows. The #4opens provides the framework to move past the paranoia blockade and rebuild trust in practice, not just theory.

The victimhood narrative is often a trap, weaponised by the right and co-opted by the #fashernista left to shut down alternatives. It can be used as a tool of control, not liberation. Composting the mess, in part, by refuse to play their game, victimhood, is in part real and in part is used to create moral authority without real action. If we engage on those terms, we just get dragged into performative battles.

Expose the power dynamics, by asking who benefits from this? In the negative sense, it’s often gatekeepers who want to control the narrative. NGOs do it for funding, #dotcons for engagement, and #mainstreaming activists for status. A path out of this is reclaiming direct action, which sadly meany in the left abandoned, and the right picked up. We need to take it back, not through reactionary purity politics, but by actually doing the work outside their controlled spaces. A healing path is shifting from identity to process, the current model is all about who is speaking, not what is being built. That’s a dead end. We need #4opens process-driven organising, not personality cults or gatekept “safe spaces.” Make failure visible, one of the biggest weapons against alt movements is pointing out their failures, while #mainstreaming projects hide their rot. If we embrace messy openness, we take that power away.

Breaking the cycle:

The right weaponises grievance → to mobilise.
The liberal left weaponises grievance → to control and suppress real challenge.
The alt-left needs to weaponise transparency → to break gatekeeping and rebuild trust.

So the question is: how do we make “openness” an effective tool in this? The #4opens is a step.

Songs that matter, in our times

The La Marseillaise, the French national anthem, one of the bloodiest and most revolutionary anthems ever written. It’s a war song, a call to arms from the French Revolution, dripping with the spirit of resistance and rage against tyranny. Unlike the polite, polished nationalism of modern times, this one doesn’t hold back. It’s about rising up, fighting back, and paying the price in blood when necessary.

And yes, we need this for the coming #climatechaos. The urgency is the same, an existential crisis, the threat of total destruction, and the need for people to move rather than just mourn. So where’s our battle cry? Where’s our marching song for an age of collapsing ecosystems and corporate #feudalism?

Who are the bad guys? Same as always: the kings, the traitors, the plotting tyrants, only today they wear suits instead of crowns. The CEOs, the oil barons, the lobbyists, the financiers, the politicians who smile while signing our death warrant. The #deathcult that prioritises profit over people, extraction over regeneration, and control over cooperation.

The fight isn’t just climate collapse, it’s against the entire path we are on. The enemy isn’t just rising seas, but the hands gripping the wheel as we drive off the cliff.

So yes. It’s time to start singing again. Loudly.

The Digger Song is a call to action, that still matters now as we try to compost the mess of capitalism, climate collapse, and broken politics. It’s about taking back what was stolen, land, resources, autonomy, by working together, not waiting for permission from those in power.

The Diggers weren’t dreamers, they were doers. In 1649, they squatted land, grew food, and built communities outside feudal control. They understood that private property is violence, that hoarding land and resources is the root of inequality.

Fast-forward 400 years, and we’re in the same fight. The enclosures never ended, they just shifted from fields to data, ideas, culture, and technology. The #dotcons fence off the #openweb, billionaires hoard wealth while people freeze and starve, and everything, from social movements to ecology, is turned into a commodity.

“We come in peace, they said, to dig and sow…”

We need this spirit in today’s fight, whether it’s radical media, grassroots organising, or the battle against #climatecollapse. Instead of begging for scraps, we take what we need. We compost the rotting systems of control and plant something better.

“You lords and you ladies, so proud of the earth,
Think that you maintain us in power and mirth;
But down with your fences, all nature reclaim,
For the earth was made a common treasury for all!”

The Diggers weren’t waiting for permission. Neither should we.

The English equivalent is Jerusalem, we are drowning in defeatism, nihilism, and passive despair. Blake’s words, set to Parry’s soaring melody, are a defiant call to build, to resist the decay and corruption, to forge something better with our own hands.

Blake wasn’t celebrating the past, he was raging against the present. Against the industrial hellscape replacing the green and pleasant land. Against the exploitation, the greed, the machine of empire grinding people into dust. Sound familiar? The climate is collapsing, communities are atomised, and the rich build fortresses while the rest drown, burn, and starve. Yet, we are told to accept it, to sit down, be reasonable, and wait for the same path that caused the disaster to save us. This is a call for activism:

“I will not cease from mental fight,
Nor shall my sword sleep in my hand…”

We need this spirit, this refusal to surrender. Not just in politics, but in how we rebuild the #openweb, how we fight the #deathcult, how we create spaces outside of corporate and state control. This isn’t about nostalgia; it’s about taking up the hammer and the spade, writing the code and stepping into the storm, to make something better.

Please add more in the comments.

Crossing the River: Tech & Politics

Most tech and political projects are pointless. They churn in circles, endlessly repeating the same mistakes. The river that needs crossing—where tech meets politics—is blocked on both sides. On the political side: arrogance and ignorance. On the geek side: naivety and over-complexity.

A solution? #NothingNew. Most of the problems we face have already been solved, or at least mediated. Instead of chasing the latest shiny, we should be composting the old and using what already works. The #4opens is a way of stepping away from the current tech mess, cutting through the churn, and building something that lasts.

Politics, of course, is messier. As always, “people are afraid of what they do not understand.” But that fear has been weaponised. Thatcher and Reagan’s children, raised on market dogma, are hopeless at cooperation. They can’t think beyond #stupidindividualism, and that’s a serious problem when trying to build #openweb projects.

If we want real change, we need to stop trying to own everything and start learning how to work together. Otherwise, we’ll keep drowning in the same river.

Rethinking Technology

A lot of the post on this site are based on this thinking. Technology is how a society interacts with physical reality. It’s how we feed, clothe, shelter, and heal ourselves. It’s the material stuff that makes life possible, from cooking fires to solar panels, from flint knives to AI algorithms. The idea that only ‘hi-tech’ counts as technology is an absurdity born from a century and a half of industrial brainwashing.

We’ve been so numbed by endless ‘progress’ that we assume only things as complex as computers and jet bombers qualify as technology. As if paper, ink, wheels, clocks, and aspirin pills weren’t tech—just things that exist, like trees and rivers. As if steel saucepans with copper bottoms and fleece vests spun from recycled glass grew on trees, ripe for the picking.

The false divide of ‘hi-tech’ and ‘low-tech’ is a con. Try lighting a fire without matches—realise that even so-called primitive tech takes skill and knowledge. Try making a fishhook, a shoe, or a simple tool—realise how much has been lost in the rush towards hyper-specialised consumerism.

Tech isn’t just what we consume—it’s what we can learn to do. That’s the point. And all science is, at its core, technological, whether or not we understand this.

A lot of what the #geekproblem thinks as social is just as much technology, as the hard blinded modernism they tend to worship, cults are as much a problem as a “solution”. Our social structures that we use to shape the world our geeks tend to “blindly” worship is technology #KISS

Post inspired by https://www.ursulakleguin.com/a-rant-about-technology

The idea that technology is not politics (which is a technology) is an echo of the myth that is at the very heart of our predicament.

#Technology #NothingNew #TechShit #OpenWeb #4Opens #DeathCult #DIY #CompostTheFuture

Bridging the gap: Building a human-first #openweb

Many years ago, I wrote on my website sidebar: “A river that needs crossing—political and tech blogs: On the political side, there is arrogance and ignorance; on the geek side, there is naivety and over-complexity.” Decades later, we still to often find ourselves standing on opposite shores of this river, struggling to bridge the understanding gap between human-centric communities and the techno-centric mindset of the “geek class.” This divide is a core challenge for anyone invested in building a better, decentralised #openweb.

This battle isn’t just about technology—it’s a deeper, unspoken struggle between openness and control. It’s about whether our social networks and communities will empower human trust and collaboration, or continue to be shaped by closed systems that reduce people to passive users.

To touch on this, it’s worth looking at a tale of two projects: Diaspora vs Mastodon

The history of the #openweb provides stark lessons. Consider #Diaspora and #Mastodon, two decentralised platforms with very different outcomes.

Diaspora had significant funding, public attention, and a large team of coders. Yet, it failed completely. Why? It was built with a #FOSS closed mindset—trying to replicate the control features of corporate platforms but within a decentralised framework.
Mastodon, by contrast, had no funding, minimal publicity, and just one dedicated coder. It succeeded because it embraced openness—allowing communities to organically grow and evolve based on shared principles rather than top-down control.

The lesson is clear: projects rooted in openness thrive, while those built on closed fail.

The #OMN path is human trust networks over algorithms. One of the core goals is to learn from these past successes and failures. From these focuses on growing federated human communities by prioritising openness, trust, and collaboration over technical “perfection.”

A counterintuitive path – Why Spam and “Bad Content” Matter. It might sound counterintuitive, but spam and irrelevant posts are a necessary part of building communities. Without the challenge of sorting and filtering content, there’s no reason for humans to reach out, form trust networks, and collaborate on moderation. Geeks often see spam as a technical problem to be solved with algorithms, but this approach misses where the value is.

Algorithms centralise power, when we rely on black-box technology to handle content moderation, control shifts to the people who design and manage these “boxes”. This creates invisible hierarchies, as seen with #Failbook and other #dotcons platforms. By relying on human moderation and trust-building, communities become stronger and more self-sustaining. People are motivated to engage, connect, and contribute to a path they help shape.

Spam and low-quality content must flow into the network as part of the process, but the network itself should flush this out to organically push valuable content to the top through human effort. Of course there is a balance here, this decentralised approach keeps power in the hands of the community balanced with the coders. With this flow of data and metadata established, we put some federated structure in place.

Scale through federation creates organic grow.

Base Sites: These are narrow, local, or subject-focused publishing sites where content creation happens. They are small and community-driven, and their true value lies in their specificity and grassroots community engagement.
Middle Sites: This aggregate content from the base sites, adding value by curating, tagging, and filtering. They act as the core of the network, sifting through content to ensure quality and relevance.
Top Sites: These are broad outreach platforms designed for #mainstreaming content. They are easy to set up and administer but add little original value. Instead, they highlight and amplify the best content from the base and middle layers. These sites are the change and challenge.

This structure reverses the traditional value pyramid, where top-down platforms dominate. In the #OMN model, the true value resides at the grassroots base, while the top merely reflects the collective effort below.

Moderation as a feature, not a problem, for the network to thrive, it must scale through human connections and trust, moderation is the fuel for building the trust networks.

Trusted Links: Content flows through trusted networks, where moderators ensure quality.
Moderation Levels: New contributors are moderated until trust is established. Over time, as trust builds, moderation becomes less/unnecessary.
Failure Modes: Without trust-building, sites will either become overwhelmed by irrelevant content or collapse under the weight of unmanageable workloads.

The only way to maintain a useful site is to build, either a large, healthy community with diverse moderators and administrators, or a small, focused group based on high-quality, trusted connections. Both outcomes are desirable and reinforce the decentralised ethos of the #OMN.

Why automation fails, the temptation to automate everything is a hallmark of the #geekproblem. While algorithms might make a network “technically” better, they erode the human element, which is the entire point of decentralisation. Automation creates middling-quality networks with mediocre outcomes, leading to Signal-to-Noise problems, reduced motivation, if everything is automated, why bother forming trust networks and engaging deeply?

Less is more should be a guiding principle. By focusing on simplicity and human collaboration, the #OMN avoids the pitfalls of over-engineering and maintains the integrity of its community-driven mission to build a better future. The #OMN isn’t just about technology; it’s about creating spaces where people can connect, collaborate, and build trust. It’s about empowering communities to take ownership of their networks and their narratives.

This road won’t be easy. We’ll need to fight against the inertia of the #dotcons and resist the urge to repeat the mistakes of the last decade’s failed alt-tech projects. But by embracing the #4opens principles, we can create a web that serves people, not corporations. The tools are already here. The open internet still exists, for now. The choice is clear, build for humans, not for algorithms. Trust people, not black boxes. Decentralise, federate, and grow organically. The #OMN provides a roadmap—now it’s time to follow it.

Public Social Media: The Choice is Clear

As the #fashernista and #geekproblem “debate” over social media platforms intensifies, the choice between truly public, decentralised networks and corporate-controlled #dotcons has never been clearer. Let’s look at a simple example:

Mastodon is owned by no one and everyone (community-driven). Its structure is public non-profit. Number of distributed nodes are in the thousands (fully decentralised). Post length: 500 characters and more. Can edit? Yes. Mastodon represents the native #openweb. It’s built on decentralised principles, where people and communities own and control their spaces. There’s no central authority dictating rules or exploiting for profit.
Bluesky is owned by Venture Capitalists, Its structure is corporate for-profit. Number of “distributed” nodes: One (centralised in practice) Post length: 300 characters Can edit? No. Bluesky, despite its claims of decentralisation, is owned and operated as a for-profit venture. Its structure centralises power and prioritises profit over people’s control, offering a polished but limited alternative to #mainstreaming paths.

The choice between #Mastodon and #Bluesky reflects a broader conflict between decentralisation and #dotcons corporate control. It should, but often is not easy to see that networks like the #fedivers are native to the #openweb where Bluesky is an interloper, though they are both #4opens.

Projects like the #OMN, #4opens, and the #Fediverse itself, offering freedom, community ownership, and transparency. Bluesky, on the other hand, represents the same closed, profit-driven ethos of the #dotcons, repackaged in a new “shiny” wrapper.

When you choose a network, you’re not just choosing where to post, you’re choosing what kind of internet you want to build. The open, public internet is still within reach. The choice is clear.

Seed from a toot and image from @FediTips

How we got into this mess

The true extremists in today’s society are the right-wing and the centrists, while the left-wing represents the moderates. This may seem counterintuitive, but when you examine the dynamics of power and ideology, it becomes clear. The past 40 years of neo-liberal dogma, embedded in every corner of our institutions, have pushed society apart. This deliberate fragmentation created fertile ground for extreme reactions.

In the 20th century, we understood why soft social democracy was necessary. It provided a buffer, a compromise that kept society from tearing itself apart. But the neoliberal project, championed by the so-called “centrist elites”, dismantled that social compact in pursuit of unregulated markets and corporate power. They planted and ploughed this mess, blinded by their own hubris. And now, those same centrists, the article-writing class, weep over the chaos they sowed.

Our liberals, many of them lovely and fluffy, and a few still hard and spiky, do not have the answers to today’s crises. Their “thinking,” rooted in this mess, is the problem. They can’t see past the path they’ve perpetuated, systems that have led us to this breaking point.

The reality is stark: for the next 40 years, it’s either the right or the left. There’s no neutral ground anymore, no room for centrist dithering. It’s time to take a side and buckle in for the ride. At the end of this upheaval, we might claw our way back to a social democratic compromise—or we might not.

The choice is clear, but the path will not be easy. The centrists and right-wingers won’t relinquish power without a fight, and the left will need to be bold, clear-eyed, and united to counter their influence. Whether we end up with a more equitable society or descend further into chaos depends on where we plant our feet today.

The web wasn’t built by solo tech geniuses

The web wasn’t built by solo tech geniuses, finance firms, or flashy luminaries making illusionary promises. It was grown by the collective time, energy, and creativity of millions of grassroots people and communities working together to create something greater than themselves. The internet as we know it emerged not from the top-down visions of elites, but from decentralised, collaborative efforts. This same collective energy will be what propels us into the next era of the #openweb, a web that remains true to its native principles of accessibility, freedom, and inclusivity.

For the last 20 years, however, we’ve been stuck in the corporate-controlled ecosystem of the #dotcons. Platforms like Meta, Google, and Amazon have dominated the landscape, turning the internet into a commodity to be bought, sold, and controlled. Their vision has led to the rise of the #closedweb, where profit and surveillance trump openness and collaboration. This #mainstreaming path is deeply concerning because it fundamentally contradicts what the web was meant to be, a space for sharing, learning, and connecting without the old gatekeepers.

There is a movement to reverse this trend, the #Fediverse, but like meany reboots it’s floundering as it grows through the inrushing of “common sense”. What we need is native #KISS foundations for a thriving #openweb, A path to this is to embrace the #4opens as guiding principles:

Open Data: Ensuring that information can be freely shared and reused.
Open Source: Building tools and platforms that anyone can access, modify, and improve.
Open Standards: Creating interoperable systems that work across platforms and communities.
Open Process: Making decisions transparently and inclusively to foster trust and collaboration.

This is a simple retelling of the #FOSS process with the addition of #openprocess as is used in the best projects, this is a part of the #nothingnew path we are on.

It’s not enough to critique the #dotcons, we need to actively build alternatives, the #Fediverse has already taken the first set on this path. The next step is focusing our energy on “native” projects like #OMN (Open Media Network), #IndyMediaBack, and #OGB (Open Governance Body), on this path we can create a decentralised, human-centred web that prioritises communities over corporations. These projects are not about recreating the same flawed systems in a slightly different guise; they’re about fundamentally rethinking how we engage with technology, governance, and communication. This rethink is #nothingnew as it’s copying the working structure of grassroots activism.

The time is now to come together and make history by working on these alternatives. The #openweb is not just an ideal; it’s a necessity for a sustainable, democratic future. Let’s reject the illusions of the #closedweb and instead build a web that truly belongs to everyone.

Tech princes and the #deathcult

The billionaire problem, Elon Musk, tech oligarchs, and the #deathcult of wealth as a social path.

Elon Musk’s purchase of Twitter is emblematic of a larger issue: the unchecked power of tech oligarchs. These aren’t your run-of-the-mill millionaires; they’re part of a nasty few, the class that operates above the ultra-wealthy, shaping politics, economies, and societies to their inadequacy. While the myth is pushed that billionaires are brilliant innovators who work harder than everyone else, the reality is darker. Their actions reflect a destructive #deathcult mentality, hoarding resources, manipulating public discourse, and pushing harmful ideologies for personal gain and standing.

Let’s start with Musk himself. People think of him as the “SpaceX and Tesla guy,” (this is not true, but that’s another story) his behaviour since acquiring Twitter reveals his priorities. Musk purchased the platform for $43 billion, not as a business investment, but as a tool for propaganda to consolidate power and influence politics. To platforming far-right politics, by amplify propaganda and undermine the thin remaining democratic paths. From boosting bots that inflate the appearance of support for far-right ideologies to reinstating accounts that push hate speech, these actions directly impact global politics.

This control of Twitter, and most importantly the chattering classes that stay in this #dotcons, has silenced the little dissent left. Bot-driven disinformation spreading far-right ideologies isn’t accidental; it’s strategic manipulation of public opinion to push agendas. Like supporting trump and authoritarianism, spending over $250 million on Trump’s election campaigns.

Musk isn’t alone, tech oligarchs like Bezos and Zuckerberg are equally complicit in reshaping society to benefit themselves, at the now clear expense of the public. Bezos’s quiet Influence, unlike #Musk, #Bezos operates in the shadows, Amazon spends millions lobbying US politicians to block antitrust laws and maintain monopolies to exploits workers and maximise profit. His strategy is quieter but no less harmful. #Zuckerberg’s free speech farce, with the ending of liberal fact-checking on #Facebook under the guise of “free speech.” The result? A flood of bots spreading hate speech, disinformation, and simple propaganda. By prioritising profit over public responsibility, this #dotcons becomes another breeding ground for extremism.

The #feudalistic influence of tech princes and oligarchs has consequences that go far beyond social media with political manipulation, global meddling. This is no longer just about wealth, it’s about shaping geopolitical realities. This is going to accelerate the current climate and resource chaos. So why do meany of us keep bowing? There is a persistence of the billionaire myth, the idea that they’re smarter, harder-working, and more deserving, which keeps #mainstreaming people from challenging this power. But it should be obvious these aren’t self-made geniuses, they’re nasty inadequate opportunists thriving in a broken system. This isn’t just about Musk or any of the other nasty few billionaires. It’s about rejecting the #deathcult of greed and exploitation our socialites are based on. The rise of billionaires as political actors isn’t inevitable, it’s a symptom of a path that values unrestrained profit over people.

Where is this going, they crave #control, so they assume everyone else is out to control them. They weave #conspiracies to crush their enemies, so they see a world drowning in conspiracies against them. In the final stages, a fully rotted #ideologue can’t even see threats or weaknesses; their perception is warped by their own decayed #moralcompass. At this point, outside direct, action they are beyond reach. Every word we speak will be twisted against us. Every action we take will be seen as an attack #paranoia #fascist.

The #OMN has a vision for something better, decentralised, open, and community-driven governance. A world where power is distributed, not hoarded by a handful of deranged oligarchs. The challenge is to make this vision a real path, and to turn our distaste for the status quo into action for this change and challenge.

OMN #openweb #fediverse #makehistory #deathcult #OGB #visionontv

A world we see as normal

Can you smell it? The dead ideology of Neo-liberalism is everywhere. It’s in everything we look at, everything we touch. And yes while it might feel uncomfortable, we should actively feel distaste when we look at it and revulsion when we touch it, this is the reality of living under a #deathcult. For the past 40 years, we’ve been immersed in a system that most people still worship as if there’s no alternative.

But where is the path out? Where is the vision for something different, something rooted in solidarity and sustainability rather than profit and exploitation? Take a moment to look at this example of a #4opens project from a simpler time: Wikipedia revision history from 2011. Note the commitment to “strict scrutiny”, which required that any security measures serve a compelling community interest and be narrowly focused to achieve that and nothing else.

Compare that principle to the current state of tech, where the #encryptionsist agenda overshadows transparency and community accountability. The shift has been stark, away from openness, away from scrutiny, and towards the path where security becomes a shield for entrenched power and control.

We need to confront this, the #deathcult thrives on our passive acceptance of #neoliberal norms. Revulsion isn’t just justified; it’s necessary. The path we need to take is in rejecting this #blocking to build the #4opens alternatives we so desperately need.

OMN #indymediaback #openweb #makehistory #OGB

let’s look at an example of this in our current lives. People have been living in the shadow of neoliberalism for so long that worshipping the #deathcult has become their nature. The values of exploitation, competition, and #stupidindividualism are baked into what’s considered “normal” behaviour. In contrast, embracing a #lifecult, based on collaboration, community, and sustainability—feels alien, even threatening, to many “normal” people.

This is one of the reasons the #Fediverse and alternative social media platforms have struggled to gain traction. The Fediverse embodies #lifecult principles: decentralisation, mutual aid, and the rejection of exploitative corporate models. While these are positive ideals, they feel too far removed from the familiar patterns of the #deathcult for most people to take the leap.

A cynical path we could take is to meet people halfway. Instead of demanding they abandon their comfort zone entirely, we could make the Fediverse appear less like a #lifecult at first glance by presenting it in ways that feel more approachable and less intimidating, more like the #deathcult they are used to. On this compromise path, yes, the Fediverse should stay true to its principles, but making it less of an overt #lifecult and more of a practical, attractive alternative, #deathcult could be the “common sense” step we need to bring people over. Once they’re in, the actually, hopefully still existing culture, the values of the Fediverse will begin to work their magic.

What do you think? Should we focus on shadowing the approach to reach more people, or would that risk diluting the values that make the #Fediverse what it is? How do we live this balance in our #openweb reboot.

How “we” Orchestrate Regime Change

Let’s look at a different view: The “colour revolutions” have been a strategy of orchestrated regime change, typically pushed by powerful foreign actors, most often the United States. These operations are presented as grassroots democratic uprisings, but in reality, they are heavily funded, pre-planned, and driven by external interests. While the surface story is about promoting democracy and human rights, the outcomes almost always serve the economic and geopolitical priorities of the US and the global capitalist fuckwits.

Step 1: The first move is to weaken a target nation’s economy through sanctions, trade embargoes, and manipulation of international financial institutions. This creates widespread hardship, targeting ordinary citizens, to fuel discontent and unrest. Examples would be: Nicaragua, Chile, Venezuela etc. This erodes public trust in the government, creating the conditions for protest and rebellion.

Step 2: Media manipulation and propaganda, controlling the narrative is critical. The US uses propaganda to frame opposition figures as heroes and targeted governments as corrupt and authoritarian. This is achieved through CIA-backed media like Voice of America which spreads anti-government messaging, planted stories in western media to manufactures consent, that portrays regime change as a moral imperative while obscuring the external orchestration.

Step 3: Empower opposition movements, once public discontent is stoked, the US funds and equips opposition groups to act as the vanguard of regime change. These groups are often chosen for their willingness to align with US interests, regardless of their domestic popularity or legitimacy. Examples: The US recognised Juan Guaidó, a wildly unpopular opposition figure, as president despite his lack of electoral legitimacy in Venezuela. In Guatemala the CIA armed exiled opposition leaders to stage a coup against Jacobo Árbenz, using hired pilots to bomb Guatemala City and spread chaos. Through organisations like USAID and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), the US provides financial and logistical support to opposition groups, ensuring they have the resources to disrupt and destabilise.

Step 4: Mobilise mass protests, to create the appearance of widespread popular dissent. These are often #astroturfed, with covert funding and guidance from foreign operatives. The symbolism of these movements, colours, slogans, and branded imagery, makes them easy for international media to amplify, framing them as democratic uprisings.

Step 5: Neutralise security forces, for regime change to succeed, a government’s security forces must be undermined. This is achieved through bribery, threats, or outright assassination. Examples: in Chile: The CIA orchestrated the assassination of General René Schneider, a constitutionalist who opposed a coup against Allende. This paved the way for Pinochet’s military takeover. In Guatemala, staged violence and disinformation campaigns created a climate of fear, allowing the US-backed military to seize power. By dividing and destabilising security forces, the US ensures that the government cannot effectively defend itself.

Step 6: Install pro-US leadership, the final step is consolidating power under a regime that aligns with US interests. This involves hand-picking leaders who prioritise corporate and geopolitical goals over their nation’s sovereignty. Examples, In Chile: after Allende’s overthrow, the US provided intelligence and resources to Pinochet’s dictatorship, ensuring compliance with American interests. In Guatemala the US installed a pro-American government to protect United Fruit Company’s monopoly and suppress land reform efforts. These new regimes are rarely democratic or stable, often descending into authoritarianism and neoliberal exploitation.

The consequences of colour revolutions, while sold as democracy-building efforts, the reality is generally far more destructive. Economic collapse from the sanctions and neoliberal reforms that devastate local economies, leading to poverty and inequality. Ongoing political instability with installed governments plagued by factionalism, corruption, and authoritarianism. Global distrust in the US’s repeated interference undermines credibility, in the end pushing nations towards alternative paths, the cycle then repeats, yes it’s a mess. These interventions normalise the erosion of sovereignty and democracy, leaving lasting scars on the nations they target.

There is a strong need for accountability, the US’s playbook for regime change, disguised as democracy promotion, is a tool of imperialism that pushes corporate and geopolitical interests over basic human rights and stability. It’s a path that thrives on economic hardship, media manipulation, and the subversion of local institutions.

A note on the side – the #OMN approach, grounded in decentralisation, #4opens principles, and collective action, offers a stark contrast. Rather than destabilising societies for profit, we grow resilient paths that empower communities and foster genuine self-determination #KISS

The Open Web and the Messy Middle Ground

This is a #fluffy response to this thread, about people feeling that some of the discourse surrounding the #openweb is too black and white, and that this is going to increase with the current political reality. Yes, supporting the #openweb doesn’t automatically make you “left-wing” or a “Marxist,” just as using platforms like X or Meta products doesn’t necessarily make you “right-wing nut job” or an out right “fascist.” The world is full of different shades, oversimplifying these issues from the mythical centre can become the polarisation that the people are very likely arguing against.

Building a business on open technologies is not inherently wrong, building exploitative #dotcons is clearly wrong. There is value in the middle ground between commercial success and the native #openweb paths. The challenge is finding the balance and ensuring businesses side respects the #4opens principles our people’s web is built on. Of course, there are risks. Commercial companies working on open technologies often push too far and betray trust. Meta’s entry into the #fediverse, for example, raises suspicions for good reason. Their track record shows a consistent prioritisation of profit over people.

However, that doesn’t mean we should dismiss the idea of building a business around open tech entirely. It’s about trust, accountability, and balance. Being critical doesn’t mean rejecting something outright; it means scrutinising the motives and actions behind it. The same #4opens principle applies whether you’re evaluating a tech startup or a massive corporation.

The bigger political mess the people in the thread are talking about isn’t open vs. closed or left vs. right, it’s the utter mess our middling political class has made with its hard shift to the right. This polarisation isn’t actually coming from the left, as many people assume when they’re critical of “extremes.” It’s a result of the “centre” being dragged further and further over decades. The balance has been lost, and it’s no wonder people are scrambling to find footing in such unstable paths.

I talk about this subject often from a radical progressive left perspective on this site (http://hamishcampbell.com), and yes, it is a mess in every way. The centre path, the one that should hold things together, has veered so sharply that even moderate discussions feel like battles over extremes.

For meany people in the centre, a shift back to something like the Bretton Woods, 20th century social democracy from the era before Reagan and Thatcher pushed us onto our knees to worship the #deathcult for the last 40 years. We do maybe have room for small business owners and local enterprise, a capitalism built on community, not monopolistic greed. Smaller capitalists, smaller systems, more balance.

This balance, and the conversation the #openweb needs to reflect, the larger struggle for balance. The goal isn’t only to polarise or pick sides, it’s to find a progressive “native” way forward that incorporates the best of different perspectives. A diversity of ideas, from Marxist critiques to social entrepreneurial innovation, so long as they operate within the #4opens framework of trust, openness, and accountability.

Yes, it’s a mess, but the way out is through this, shovels and composting come to mind and hopefully hands #OMN