Most people are parasites in our current #mainstreaming society, this is non-controversial view in the era of the #deathcult
Some examples:
Let’s look for a moment at our tech world, if we are generous 90% of people on the #openweb are parasites on this culture and tech space.
Maybe 9% are “native” but could do better, and the native 1% left are fractured. You can use a social tool like the #4opens to make this visible with little effort if you care.
This space is made of social tech, and at its core is #4opens culture, people and community.
If you are not generous, it’s more like 99% and fractions of the 1% left over. Let’s be truthful and try and bump this up to the generous view, please.
The term #enshittification, coined by Cory Doctorow, is a catchy way to describe the decline of digital platforms as they become exploitative and unusable. While it’s an effective pop term, it ultimately obscures the root causes of the problem.
For the past 20 years, I’ve used #dotcons to describe the same issue, but with a clearer critique of the systemic forces behind it. Unlike #enshittification, which frames the issue as an inevitable decline, #dotcons directly points to deliberate deception and enclosure of the #openweb by corporate interests.
Tech as a confidence trick, for over 30 years, the tech industry has been a confidence trick (see scam) dressed up as progress. The early internet was open, decentralized, and full of promise. But over time, corporate enclosures captured these open paths and turned them into walled gardens.
The dot-com boom (#dotcons) wasn’t about building a better web—it was about monetizing control. Liberal elitists and the public bought into this process, handing over control to Silicon Valley under the illusion that private corporations could be trusted with public digital infrastructure. The result? The death of the #openweb as #dotcons turned the internet into a system of surveillance, advertising, and data extraction.
Now, the same liberals who helped build this mess are using #enshittification to describe it, as if the problem is just an unfortunate trend rather than the predictable outcome of capitalism’s extractive logic. This is why #Enshittification misses the bigger picture, the problem, it shifts focus away from responsibility. It frames tech decline as an inevitable process, rather than a deliberate, profit-driven strategy.
🔹 Profit Motive and Diverging Interests, the core issue isn’t just “enshittification”—it’s the profit motive that drives platforms to exploit people. The interests of people and corporations are fundamentally opposed. People want stable, functional platforms; corporations want maximum profits, which means stripping away user benefits over time.
🔹 Lack of Accountability, by using a vague, abstract term, the real actors behind this decline—tech CEOs, venture capitalists, and #neoliberal policymakers—are let off the hook. The problem isn’t that platforms just get worse on their own; it’s that corporations actively degrade them to extract more profit.
🔹 The Liberal Blindspot. Liberals love talking about how things are bad, but they rarely examine how their own ideologies enabled these failures. It was liberal policies that deregulated Big Tech, liberal tech elitists who built the enclosures, and liberal “innovators” who sold out the #openweb. Now, they lament the decline without addressing why it happened in the first place.
🔹 A Call to Action – #Dotcons as a clearer critique as #dotcons isn’t just a description—it’s a call to action. It’s a critique of the corporate hijacking of the internet and a demand for accountability. Unlike #enshittification, which tells us “things got worse,” #dotcons reminds us who is responsible and why we need radical alternatives.
It’s time for critical thinking, using terms without deeper critique allows liberals to continue avoiding responsibility. If we want a better web, we need to stop pretending that this decline is just some natural cycle.
📌 The real issue is corporate control, profit extraction, and the enclosure of digital commons. 📌 The solution isn’t lamenting decline—it’s fighting back against #dotcons and rebuilding the #openweb.
So, let’s ditch vague buzzwords and focus on the real struggle, taking control from #dotcons tech monopolies and thus breaking the cycle of enclosure. And seriously, liberals, try thinking critically about this for once—without being prats about it.
In the last year, the typical taxpayer spent more on #SpaceX — a company owned by one of the richest men in history — than on programs for energy efficiency and renewable energy. It’s time to reverse this. The way governments allocate public funds says everything about their priorities — and right now, those priorities are dangerously skewed.
Let’s look at the subsidies with SpaceX vs. Renewable Energy: A distorted allocation of public wealth. SpaceX, owned by Elon Musk, one of the wealthiest people ever to live, has received billions in public funding. While innovation in space technology might be exciting, it’s worth asking: Why are taxpayers subsidizing a billionaire’s rocket dreams while the planet burns?
Meanwhile, energy efficiency and renewable energy programs, critical for addressing the climate emergency, are underfunded and deprioritized. These programs offer immediate, tangible benefits for emissions reduction, energy security, and public health, yet they receive a fraction of the financial support funnelled into private space ventures.
Wealth disparity & public investment is now about funding the nasty few while communities struggle. The fact that public funds prop up Musk’s space empire reflects a deep structural rot: wealth inequality baked into public policy. Why should a man with more wealth than some nations receive massive state support while local renewable projects, energy transition initiatives, and community-based sustainability efforts scramble for scraps? Public money should serve the public good, not inflate the wealth of billionaires chasing sci-fi fantasies while entire regions face climate-driven collapse.
Energy transition, is a basic funding shift for survival. Redirecting funding from private space exploration to energy efficiency and renewable energy is a moral and practical necessity. The #climatecrisis is here and accelerating, and every dollar spent propping up a vanity space race is a dollar stolen from the fight for a liveable planet. Investing in solar, wind, community microgrids, and conservation programs. Lower emissions to build resilient local economies, reduced energy poverty by job creation in sustainable industries. The payoff is immediate and lasting. A rocket launch might inspire wonder for a day, but a robust renewable grid can sustain generations.
Government spending & climate accountability, this is a political choice, not an inevitability. Governments choose to fund SpaceX over solar panels, rockets over wind farms, the nasty few over marginalized communities. To balance this mess, we need to demand better transparency in public funding decisions, people-first policy prioritizing climate justice, accountability for politicians who choose corporate welfare over planetary survival.
The path forward is in reclaiming public funds for public good. We don’t need more billionaire space escapism, we urgently need a grounded, radical shift in spending that reflects the urgent needs of humanity and the planet. That means, massive public investment in renewable infrastructure, decentralized energy solutions owned by communities, not corporations, research and development in climate tech, not just space tech, global cooperation on sustainability, not competition for interplanetary dominance.
The future isn’t in the stars, it’s right here, on Earth. And if we don’t fight for it, no amount of rocket launches will save us. Let’s defund billionaire fantasies and invest in life. #KISS a liveable planet is worth infinitely more than footprints on Mars.
The current move in #blocking of the #dotcons moving to the #openweb is not a real solution, it’s like we are putting our heads in the sand. We need to understand that our “native” projects are #4opens thus anyone, including the #dotcons can be a part of the #openweb in this it’s a good thing they are moving back to this space.
Feel free to block them, but pushing this path as a solution is both naive and self-defeating. We need to do better and build a healthy culture and a diverstay of tools, it’s always a fight, hiding in a cave wins no wars, and we are in a war.
Issues within the #Fediverse community regarding the handling of problematic behaviour or interactions on the platform. A breakdown of some points:
Problem with Blocking: That simply blocking users or instances (such as the #dotcons) is not an effective long-term solution to fostering a healthy and diverse community within the Fediverse. Blocking is “putting your head in the sand,” ignoring or isolating problematic elements doesn’t resolve underlying issues.
Advocating for Openness: Emphasizes that the Fediverse should remain true to its principles of openness (#4opens), which allow anyone, including controversial entities like the #dotcons, to participate. This openness is a positive aspect of the #openweb.
Building a Healthy Culture: Rather than relying on blocking, we need to advocate for actively building a healthy culture within the #Fediverse. This involves nurturing diversity of tools and fostering a community where constructive engagement and dialogue can thrive.
Need for Engagement and Solutions: The importance of proactive engagement and problem-solving. We need to warn against passivity (“hiding in a cave”) and encourages efforts to address challenges head-on to create a stronger and more resilient ecosystem.
Overall, a call for constructive action within the #Fediverse community, moving beyond simple blocking measures and focusing on building a robust and inclusive path that aligns with core values of openness and diversity. With an emphasis on proactive engagement, collective responsibility, and continuous improvement to create a healthier online and offline environment.
Arriving early, the panel and audience are ugly broken people, priests and worshippers of the #deathcult
Near the start the young and energetic start to flood in, eager and chatty yet to be broken by service of the dark side of #mainstreaming
The ritual of making killing “humane” and “responsible”, ticking the boxes on this new use of technology in war, repression and death.
Touching on the “privatisation” that this technology pushes to shift traditional military command.
The exeptabl rate of collateral damage 15 to 1 in the case of the IDF Gaza conflict
Introducing human “friction” into the process, the means to the end, is the question. Public confidence and trust is key to this shift, policy is in part about this process.
The establishment policy response to AI in war, this is already live, so these people are catching up. They are at the stage of “definition” in this academic flow.
The issue agen is that none of this technology actually works, we wasted ten years on blockchain and cryptocurrency, this had little value and a lot of harm, we are now going to spend ten years on #AI and yes this will affect society, but is the anything positive in this? Or another wasted ten years of #fashernista thinking, in this case death.
Artificial intelligence (#AI) into warfare raises ethical, practical, and strategic considerations.
Technological Advancements and Warfare: The use of AI in war introduces new algorithms and technologies that potentially reshape military strategies and tactics. AI is used for tasks like autonomous targeting, decision-making, or logistics optimization.
Ethical Concerns: ethical dilemmas associated with AI-driven warfare. Making killing more “humane” and “responsible” through technological advancements, can lead to a perception of sanitizing violence.
Privatization of Military Command: The shift towards AI in warfare leads to a privatization of military functions, as technology companies play a role in developing and implementing AI systems.
Collateral Damage and Public Perception: Collateral damage ratios like 15 to 1 raises questions about the acceptability of casualties in conflicts where AI is employed. Public confidence and trust in AI-driven warfare become critical issues.
Policy and Governance: Establishing policies and regulations around AI in warfare is crucial. Defining the roles of humans in decision-making processes involving AI and ensuring accountability for actions taken by autonomous systems.
Challenges and Risks: The effectiveness of AI technology in warfare draws parallels with previous tech trends like blockchain and cryptocurrency. There’s concern that investing heavily in AI for military purposes will yield little value while causing harm.
Broader Societal Impact: Using AI in warfare will have broader societal implications beyond the battlefield. It will influence public attitudes towards technology, privacy concerns, and the militarization of AI in civilian contexts.
Balance of Innovation and Responsibility: Whether the pursuit of AI in warfare represents progress or merely another trend driven by superficial or misguided thinking #fashernista thinking with potentially dire consequences.
In summary, the integration of AI into warfare demands ethical, legal, and societal implications. The goal should be to leverage technological advancements responsibly, ensuring that human values and principles guide the development and deployment of AI systems in any contexts.
Pushing defederation from #meta is not wrong in sentiment, the #dotcons are vile and cons. But is wrong from a practical sense. The #Fediverse and #ActivityPub are #openweb based on #4opens, this is a space where you do not have technical tools for stopping the #dotcons from taking the data, as the data in the end is in the open, unencrypted, in the database, in #RSS and in open flows.
The people who push the idea of closed are fighting for the #closedweb on a “native” #openweb platform. This makes no sense at all, incoherences everywhere, a lot of mess over the last 40 years that we need to compost.
There are likely good, useful motivation for unfederating from the #dotcons let’s be motivated by them please.
The problem of #fashionistas in activism is the pushing of style and appearance over substance and meaningful action. These people are concerned with projecting a certain image or brand of activism, rather than engaging in the actual, messy effect of social change. The phenomenon of #fashionistas in activism poses challenges to the efficacy and integrity of grassroots movements:
Superficiality over Substance: Fashionistas prioritize surface-level aesthetics and trends over substantive analysis and action. They focus on creating a visually appealing image of activism, such as through trendy protest attire or social media posts, rather than engaging in deep-rooted grassroots activism that addresses real issues.
Performative Activism: Fashionistas engage in performative activism, where their actions are about signalling commitment to a cause rather than making contributions. Participating in protests or events primarily for photo opportunities or social media validation, rather than working towards change.
Exclusionary Practices: The emphasis on fashion and style creates barriers to participation for people who do not conform to slavish aesthetic norms. This marginalizes people from diverse backgrounds, experiences, and identities who do not fit into the narrow standards set by fashionistas within the movement.
Distraction from Core Issues: When activism becomes focused on appearances and trends, it detracts from the issues and objectives of the movement. Attention and resources are diverted to superficial aspects of activism, rather than towards addressing the causes of injustice and inequality.
Reinforcement of Consumer Culture: The influence of fashionistas reinforce consumerist attitudes and behaviours. This involves promoting consumer-driven solutions to social problems or aligning activism with commercial brands and products, rather than challenging the structures of capitalism and exploitation.
Dilution of Message and Impact: Activism that prioritizes style over substance dilutes the movement’s message and impact. When the emphasis is placed on spectacle and aesthetics, the underlying principles and goals of the movement become obscured and watered down, leading to reduced effectiveness in achieving meaningful change.
Addressing the problem of fashionistas in activism requires a commitment to centring authenticity, inclusivity, and meaningful action. This involves a culture of critical reflection, accountability, and solidarity. By prioritizing substance over style, activists work to building resilient, impactful, and inclusive movements. Best not to be a prat on this path, please.
Grassroots activism has undergone significant ups and downs over the past four decades, particularly within digital communication and organizing. This post provides an overview of the challenges and successes experienced by grassroots activists during this time period, focusing on the evolution of the #openweb and its eventual decline. It explores the ideological underpinnings of internet projects, the impact of funding and #mainstreaming efforts, and the shifting dynamics between open and closed systems. By examining these trends, we can better understand the complex interplay between technology, ideology, and activism.
The rise of the open internet, was a surge of enthusiasm for #4opens and decentralized communication paths. Projects like early #indymedia, blogging platforms, wikis, and peer-to-peer networks flourished, driven by an ethos of democratization and empowerment. These offered people and grassroots movements opportunities to connect, collaborate, and mobilize on a global scale. The ideology of the #openweb, rooted in #4opens principles, captured the imaginations of many activists seeking to challenge established power structures.
However, alongside the growth of #openweb projects, there were also significant challenges and tensions. The influx of funding from state, foundation, and #NGO sources brought both opportunities and risks. While funding provided vital resources for development and expansion, it also introduced pressures to conform to #mainstreaming norms and intrenched #geekproblem agendas. Additionally, as open internet projects gained popularity, they became susceptible to co-option and manipulation by corporate interests seeking to capitalize on the growing community interest.
The fall of the openweb, despite early successes, the internet eventually faced a decline, marked by the erosion of its ideological foundations and the resurgence of closed, centralized platforms, the #dotcons. One factor in this decline was the failure of many openweb projects to align with the dominant ideology of the web itself. The pushing of non-native common sense. While some projects embraced trust-based anarchism and decentralized governance, others veered towards more hierarchical and exclusionary paths.
The rise of a new generation of technologists and entrepreneurs, shaped by #neoliberal ideologies of individualism and competition, led to a merging of open and closed paths. This shift towards closed platforms, controlled by a handful of corporate giants, undermined the diversity and resilience of the “native” openweb. The very chaos that once protected the openweb from vertical integration and monopolization was replaced by a homogenized landscape dominated by a few #dotcons.
Challenges and opportunities, in the face of these challenges, grassroots activists grapple with the complexities of a landscape that is hostile to their values and principles. The siloed nature of many media projects are a barrier to collective action and solidarity, limiting their impact and longevity. However, there are also opportunities for resistance and resilience, through the cultivation of networks based on mutual aid and cooperation like the #OMN
Conclusion, the trajectory of grassroots activism in the UK over the past four decades reflects the broader shifts and tensions within the #mainstreaming path. The rise and fall of the openweb mirrors the struggles of activists to carve out spaces for dissent and resistance in corporatized and surveilled environments. By using the #4opens to examining the ideological underpinnings of internet projects and exploring alternative paths in organizing, activists work towards reclaiming the path of a more open and decentralized future.
The #openweb is a framework for human-centric, decentralized technologies built on transparency and collaboration. Its success hinges on trust, and as a slogan suggests, “Technology’s job is to hold the trust in place.” This concept is woven into the #OMN and #OGB initiatives, which emphasize community-driven decision-making and adherence to the #4opens principles.
#OGB and consensus, decisions are valid when a wide group of engaged participants achieves consensus. This safeguards against the normal invisible authoritarian control, single individual find it hard to dominate because the collective create and validate the decisions. Trust groups, not individuals, are the seat of power, ensuring better decision-making and accountability.
The role of #4opens, open process, open data, open licences, and open standards—acts as “gatekeepers” for technological decisions. #Openprocess ensures inclusivity and transparency, blocking decisions that don’t involve public participation. #Opendata guarantees that shared information is accessible, reducing the potential for siloed control. #Openlicenses prevent restrictive ownership that could undermine collaboration. #Openstandards resist fragmentation and force adherence to balance collaborative practices and individual paths. This “soft, swishy” approach avoids rigid authoritarian structures while maintaining #KISS robust, “enforceable” values.
let’s look at challenges and strategies for #OMN combatting #mainstreaming “common sense” practices that erode grassroots values. By build strong defaults into projects and hardcode the #4opens principles to keep them central. To make this happen, let’s try and stay polite and inclusive during outreach, avoiding burnout and adding mess through conflict.
Dealing with #fahernistas and trust issues, a significant challenge arises from people and groups who appear trustworthy due to their #mainstreaming tactics but ultimately undermine the values of the #openweb. Coders and contributors need to align with #KISS social change goals, ensuring a grassroots and horizontal approach to development, this is basic.
To do this, we need to work on sustainability efforts by avoid overloading projects with unnecessary features, “How does this fit into the #4opens?”. One path is to balance “friction” as a positive filter for misguided additions, while maintaining a welcoming environment for constructive collaboration.
Building a future beyond the #geekproblem, the “problem” originates from early open-source projects that #block the social dimensions of their technologies. By integrating the #4opens and prioritizing trust networks, the #openweb can (re)evolve into a human value network rather than a technological dead-end.
The #deathcult feeding off the decay of the #openweb perpetuates centralized and exploitative systems. All our activism is about, focusing on planting seeds for a grassroots rebirth, #nothingnew is a starting point, returning focus on modernist principles—clear goals, collective action, and systemic solutions—provides a foundation to grow #somethingnew.
The #openweb vs. #closedweb debate is not new, but it remains a critical narrative. By holding technology accountable to trust and community values, we create tools that empower rather than exploit. The #OMN and #OGB projects embody this path.
For those interested in coding for change, visit the OMN wiki and join the effort to make this vision a reality, please. Or you can donate some funding here if you don’t feel confident with tech path.
[Opening Shot: A montage of radical historical photographs, documents, and footage representing social movements and political activism throughout history.]
Narrator: In a world where history is written by the victors, a new #openweb project emerges, aiming to democratize the process of archiving and storytelling. This is the story of #makeinghistory, a groundbreaking initiative within the Open Media Network (#OMN).
[Cut to Interview with Project Lead]
Project Lead: The #makeinghistory project is about empowering communities to take control of their own narratives. It’s about recognizing the importance of grassroots movements and ensuring that their stories are preserved and shared for generations to come.
[Cut to Footage of Archiving Process]
Narrator: The journey begins with the digitization of historical archives, like the #CampbellFamily archive, containing invaluable materials related to activism and political movements.
[Voiceover: Setting up the Application]
Narrator: The first step is setting up the application for #makeinghistory.
[Voiceover: Uploading Digital Files]
Narrator: Users create accounts and start uploading directories of digital files from the archives, adding basic metadata to organize the materials.
[Cut to Community Building]
Narrator: Building a community of users is essential. Family members, activists, and allies are invited to join the project, seeding an affinity group dedicated to preserving history.
[Voiceover: Column Structure]
Narrator: The application features columns like “new” and “recent,” along with others added by users, organizing the data based on boolean logic lists and hashtag based metadata.
[Voiceover: Data Interaction]
Narrator: Users actively interact with the data, organically adding metadata, information, and editing hashtags to categorize items effectively.
[Voiceover: Categorization]
Narrator: Through collaborative efforts, items move into category columns, creating cohesive narratives and facilitating engagement.
[Voiceover: Story Feature]
Narrator: The story feature transforms categorized, metadata-enriched data into cohesive narratives, providing overviews and linking multiple items and categories.
[Cut to Exhibition Setting]
Narrator: But the impact of #makeinghistory extends beyond digital platforms. In exhibition settings, visitors can participate in archiving and storytelling, creating a participatory space for engagement.
[Voiceover: Sharing History]
Narrator: The stories created through #makeinghistory are shared with the wider world, providing grassroots quality history in addition to normal traditional top-down narratives.
[Closing Shot: A group of people gathered around a digital display, discussing and engaging with historical materials.]
Narrator: Through #makeinghistory, people are reclaiming their stories, inspiring real and lasting social change by recognizing the power of history in driving progress.
Post-modernism: Over the last four decades, post-modernism pushed subjectivity and the rejection of universal truths. While it aimed to deconstruct grand narratives and challenge power structures, it has led to a fragmented world-views where reality is ignored, and truth is relative. This has challenged the building of coherent social movements and addressing systemic issues effectively.
Neo-liberalism emphasis on deregulation, privatization, and market-driven policies, has exacerbated income inequality, weakened labour rights, and commodified social services. It prioritized profit over people, leading to financial crises, environmental degradation, and the erosion of social safety nets. The relentless pursuit of economic growth come at the expense of social justice, environmental sustainability, and democratic values.
Identity politics: While this played a role in raising awareness about marginalized groups’ struggles and experiences, it has also fostered divisions within leftist movements. The focus on individual identities leads to a fragmentation of collective action, as different groups prioritize their interests over broader solidarity. Identity politics has been co-opted by #mainstreaming institutions to tokenize diversity without addressing systemic inequalities.
OMN project: To counter the negative impacts of post-modernism and neo-liberalism and identity politics, the OMN project prioritizes collective action and solidarity more than individuals. By acknowledging the interconnectedness of systemic oppression and capitalism, the project resists co-optation by the ruling class and promote deeper understandings of social justice issues. Critical discourse on identity politics within leftist movements will strengthen the commitment to #4opens values.
While post-modernism and neoliberalism contribute to societal challenges, the #OMN project navigates these issues by prioritizing collective action, resisting co-optation, and promoting discourse around identity politics and the path of systemic oppression.
St John’s Cinema Club and the TORCH African Languages, Literatures and Cultures Network are excited to welcome Senegalese online television series screenwriter, director and producer Kalista Sy.
The event will start with a brief introduction by Dr Estrella Sendra (Department of Culture, Media and Creative Industries at King’s College London), followed by the screening of the first episode of the series Maîtresse d’un homme marié (Mistress of a Married Man) and a discussion with the filmmaker. Khadidiatou Sy, known as Kalista Sy, is a Senegalese screenwriter, director and producer, who became famous in Africa and beyond following the success of her first series, Maîtresse d’un homme marié (Mistress of a Married Man), known as MDHM. MDHM is the first Senegalese women-led television series where women are placed at the very centre of the narrative. The series, first released on 25 January 2019, and broadcasted online via YouTube, became viral, with over 5 million viewers per episode, and being compared to Sex and the City in international media. In 2019, following the international success of MDHM, Kalista Sy made it to the BBC’s list of the 100 most inspiring and influential women from around the world.
———————————–
The trubbles of middle class African life, dressed in postmodern feminism. A Women’s view of plastic black consumerism.
It’s the #deathcult playing out in the current mess, dressed in western ideas of social norms. It’s not that the life and experiences are not real, it is that the culture they push, and it’s assuming are the problem that I am talking about. The videos try and mediate a “better” path within this #mainstreaming “common sense”.
The is no #lifecult in this TV, the reflection of mess makes more mess. The ideology of the era, the filmmaker says I am the radical, the feminist, people look to me.
The filmmakers are funded by product placement, this is thought out the videos, part of the middle class assumptions and binding to the subject. “People buy their identity” the brands push this into the film’s. This is a #NGO path being pushed throughout Africa. This is the “sex in the city” world view translated to local “common sense” in this it is pushing liberal norms.
One question, “very middle class, is this represented as aspiration. She says this look and aspiration is “normal” there, bueity is their strength. Mental health and sexuality to grow the couching and Therapy industries.
A question of the capitalism of the production, the root story is a reaction agenst male repression, seed money from the husband, then support from the women, it is run at a local level, now it is “sponsored” to tell the stores of the people who pay the bills, this is the sustaining push.
It ends in heroic liberalism, and individualism fighting the good fight, by pushing western #mainstreaming
