Let’s look at what makes sense: it’s about collective dynamics, not individual blame. The focus is on mapping the social landscape, understanding the patterns of dysfunction, and then figuring out how to break through those blockages. The idea of switching between #spiky and #fluffy approaches as needed is powerful, rejecting rigid ideology in favour of practical, responsive action.
Making the #blocking visible is essential. So much of the stagnation in #openweb and activist spaces comes from hidden blockages, unspoken fears, entrenched power dynamics, and the quiet creep of #mainstreaming logic. By pushing these things into the light, we can compost them, rather than letting them fester underground.
The balance, using history as a guide, leaning on what’s worked before, but staying flexible enough to shift tactics, should feel like the only sustainable way forward. If we only do #fluffy, we get captured by the #NGO mindset. If we only do #spiky, we burn out or implode. But if we consciously weave both together, we might actually build the resilience we need to grow new paths through the wreckage.
It’s almost like we need a cultural practice of “tending the compost”, regularly sifting through the mess, pulling out useful bits, and turning it over so new life can emerge. And maybe that practice itself could be a form of governance for grassroots networks, an ongoing, collective process of sense-making and recalibration.
What do you think? Can this idea of “compost tending” as a cyclical, community-driven process be something we intentionally build into the fabric of #openweb projects?
The new #mainstreaming right-wing crew has become adept at hijacking the language of liberation and twisting it for control. They steal words like “freedom,” “community,” and “resilience,” stripping them of their radical roots and turning them into tools for reactionary agendas. Meanwhile, the left, caught in cycles of internal purity politics and endless critique, fractures itself, leaving a vacuum the right eagerly fills.
It is a mess, but messes can be composted. The dig to strip away the parasitic layers, the influencers, the NGOs, the careerists who feed off this while subverting collective growth. These actors “thrive” on propping up a fragile sense of self, this messy path feeds division and spectacle, not solidarity. And as the mental health crisis worsens under #climatechaos and late-stage capitalism, people grasp for identity and belonging in the most toxic places.
We need radical care as well as radical action. The parasite class is fuelled by a deep void, a lack of purpose, a craving for significance. If we don’t build healthier collectives, people will keep falling into the black holes of conspiracy and #mainstreaming cultish thinking. The #openweb can be a sanctuary, a place to grow shared meaning, but only when we consciously design it to prioritize human connection over endless noise.
I wonder: how do we create spaces where broken people can heal, rather than becoming weapons of the right? Can we build digital commons that feel like home, where people can work through their pain without being consumed by it, collective care and unwinding the knots of individual trauma is a #fluffy part of activism. What do you think? Is it possible to compost the mess and nurture the people tangled within it? Or do we need a more fire-and-brimstone approach to burn away the rot, I start to only half joke.
The invisible core of the struggle. The way online spaces, especially in decentralized networks like the #Fediverse, handle conflict is tangled up in this tension between safety and open debate. The #fluffy vs. #spiky debate, between care-driven, consensus-seeking approaches and more confrontational, radical tactics, has always been part of activist culture. Trying to erase that debate in the name of safety is simply sterilizing the very dynamism that fuels real change.
If we strip out the “debate” part, we’re left with a hollow shell, a fragile, performative “safe space” that can’t actually withstand the pressures of the real world. But if we lean too far into spiky confrontation without care, we lose people who could grow into stronger comrades. It’s a balancing act, and yes, the co-option of “safety” by both NGO logic and reactionary forces has made this even more toxic.
The “parasite class” being taken out of context is a perfect example of this mess, people react to language without digging into the underlying ideas. The real question is whether we can metabolize within the chaos, compost the mess and care for the people lost in it, instead of just cutting them off. The #openweb needs friction to evolve, but it also needs trust to survive. There is a strong need to resist the impulse to sanitize the #openweb into submission. The #ActivityPub space, growing from the #fluffy side, has an embedded bias toward conflict avoidance, but that can be dangerous, because it leaves the system vulnerable to slow, creeping co-option. Safety shouldn’t mean silencing necessary struggles.
The consensus should be this: safety is built through collective care, not the absence of conflict. The #openweb should be a space where people can disagree loudly without fear of exile, where the friction of ideas sharpens the collective purpose, and where care is an active, ongoing process, not a bureaucratic rule set.
#Fashionistas chase status and spectacle over substance, co-opting real radical movements for aesthetics. They turn collective struggles into performative gestures, feeding the #mainstreaming cycle. This poisons the roots of change, turning compost into toxic waste, energy that could grow new things instead feeds the system they claim to resist.
Why is the #geekproblem such a strong #blocking force? This is rooted in control, a deterministic mindset that values code over culture. It manifests as gatekeeping, with geeks wielding tech knowledge as a shield rather than a tool for collective liberation. This keeps blocking change because it alienates people who don’t fit the mould, and it stalls needed projects in endless technical debates instead of action.
How can #mainstreaming be pushed into something positive? Mainstreaming doesn’t have to be a death sentence if it’s grows from radical roots. The problem is the loss of direction when movements get diluted to fit nasty #mainstream tastes. A useful path is that mainstream visibility can amplify voices, but this needs active balancing by autonomous, decentralized structures. Maybe think of it like a Trojan horse, to smuggle radical ideas into the #mainstream under the cover of familiarity.
How do we thread this through the needle of #stupidindividualism which constantly fractures collective power, reducing everything to personal choice and consumption. This is a cultural byproduct of the #deathcult, a refusal to see beyond the self, which traps people in cycles of isolation and powerlessness. There is a path out of this mess through rekindling collectivism trust. People fall into individualism because they don’t trust collective paths. Start small, with local networks and federated communities. Show that collective paths are possible, and that it feels better than isolation. Remind people they are part of something bigger, not as a sacrifice of self, but as an expansion of it.
What path can we take on the #openweb? We need a path that embraces the compost. Let’s not seek purity or perfection, but instead nurture the rotting, chaotic soil of what we already have. The #OMN and #4opens lay the groundwork with radical transparency, federated trust networks. Build with messy activism, celebrate imperfection. Radical inclusion, breaks down tech barriers by actively bring people in. Trust over control, decentralize, federate, and resist the temptation to police.
The #openweb can be the seedbed of a new culture, if we accept that growth is messy, slow, and unpredictable. The path isn’t linear, it’s a tangle of roots, branching and intertwining. But that’s the beauty of it. What do you think? Do we need more practical tools, or is it more about mindset shifts? How do we balance this?
The paths of the challenges we face in activism lies in the dynamic tension between the “fluffy” and “spiky”, two forces that shape the progress and direction of movements. The fluffy path leans into compassion, empathy, and collective care, while the spiky path channels righteous anger and confrontation. Both are essential, like two hands working together to break the soil for new growth. It’s vital to resist the dogmatic tendencies that demand purity in one direction or the other, as that stifles the movement’s ability to adapt and evolve. The real strength of activism comes from this tension, a push and pull that keeps us grounded while still reaching for radical change.
The need for focus, balancing inner reflection with outer action. For activism to be effective, we need focus, a deliberate balance between introspection (“how do we become better?”) and external action (“how do we change the world?”). Too much introspection leads to inward collapse through endless critique and infighting, while relentless external action without reflection burns movements out.
The balance between these perspectives builds resilience and adaptability. It helps us avoid the trap of arrogance (believing we already have the answers) and the pit of despair (feeling overwhelmed by the scale of the problem). By living this debate, movements can remain agile, humble, and hopeful.
Reframing extremism is about flipping the narrative, one of the most powerful narratives we can wield is the reframing of whom the true extremists are. For too long, the right and centre have positioned themselves as the guardians of “reasonable” politics, while labelling the left as “radical” or “dangerous.” This is a con, designed to defend the status quo. The truth is, unregulated capitalism, climate destruction, and hoarding of wealth are the real extremist positions that threaten human survival. Meanwhile, leftist ideas like universal healthcare, living wages, environmental protection, and worker rights are fundamentally moderate and life-affirming.
By amplifying this #KISS reframing, activism disarms accusations of #blinded radicalism and shows the extremism of both the #neoliberalism of the “centre” and the growing far right. It flips the media narrative and highlights that what the left fights for is simply the bare minimum for a just and sustainable world. Resisting fear and darkness: Building light and trust, fear is the primary weapon of the right and centre-right. They use it to divide, immobilize, and control. The relentless messaging of doom and chaos keeps people clinging to the familiar, even as that familiarity is what’s driving the world to the brink of climate collapse and social disintegration. Activists need to resist being pulled into this framing, rather than playing defence in the fear game, we build light, trust, and tangible hope.
Show, don’t just tell: Build real-world examples of the alternatives we talk about — community gardens, worker co-ops, autonomous networks.
Celebrate small wins: Demonstrate progress, however incremental, to inspire people and build momentum.
Encourage openness and connection: Create spaces for people to share, learn, and build collective trust in the movement itself.
Fear isolates. Hope connects. And connection is what feeds movements. Tools for the fight are the #4opens and the shovel. The #4opens provide a basic framework for clarity and accountability. Meanwhile, the shovel metaphor reminds us of the unglamorous, necessary work of composting the mess, breaking down the rot of the #deathcult to create fertile ground for growth. The shovel isn’t flashy, but it’s a tool of transformation, turning waste into the soil of new life.
The role of the Open Media Network (#OMN) is an amplifier of grassroots narratives, bypassing corporate gatekeepers and platforming diverse voices, the #OMN challenge traditional media distortions and broadcast alternative stories. Connect disparate movements and weave together struggles. Creates networks of trust and collaboration, where voices of lived experience shape the discourse. The #OMN isn’t just about media production, it’s about building infrastructure for collective power. It becomes a living movement, sharing resources, knowledge, and strategies in real time.
This is how we break the isolation that fear depends on. And this is how we build a media that serves movements rather than undermining them. The Path is cultivating the garden of change, the challenges we face are immense, but so is the potential for transformation. Movements don’t need to choose between fluffy and spiky, they need to hold the tension and let both paths inform each other. It won’t be quick. It won’t be easy. But with shovels in hand, we compost the mess — and grow the revolution.
People conform to the #deathcult of neoliberalism, capitalism, and its destructive paths because they are conditioned to. The control is media, education, social pressure, economic dependence, that is shaped to enforce compliance. Even when people recognize the system is dark and broken, they still bow down. Why?
Fear & survival, meany people get trapped in precarious economic conditions. They fear losing their jobs, homes, and social standing if they resist. When survival is at stake, rebellion feels too dangerous to risk the little they have.
Comfort & convenience, worshipping the #deathcult provides short-term rewards: consumerism, entertainment and distraction. Even those who hate it find comfort in its predictability. Change is hard, uncertainty is scary.
Psychological conditioning, our #mainstreaming propaganda is everywhere, it has convinced people there is no alternative (#TINA). They’ve been trained to see resistance as futile, rebellion as chaos, and compliance as “normal.”
Social pressure & herd mentality, simply few people want to be outsiders. They follow the crowd, even when the crowd is heading off a cliff. Conforming is easier than facing any rejection and isolation.
Exhaustion & despair, knowing the current path is going to harm them and kill their children, makes them feel powerless. The #deathcult grinds people down, keeps them struggling just to survive, leaving little energy or focus for resistance.
Lack of vision, the #mainstreaming invests a lot in destroying alternatives before they can take root. Without these clear, viable paths, people fall back into the familiar, no matter how broken it is.
But why STILL? Five years ago, yes, this wasn’t as obvious to everyone. Now, the mask has fallen, simply look around, you can see people on their knees, the #deathcult is marching us straight into #climatecollapse, endless wars, and digital enslavement. Yet people still conform. Why? Because fear works, the system adapts, the majority would rather scrabble for comfortable servitude than risk the unknown.
On the positive, note, cracks are forming. The illusion is fading. The question is, will we build something better before it all collapses around us?
PS. The current hard shift to the right is simply worshipping a more historical #deathcult, that of #fascism with its dark, very dark history, so the question still stands, WHY?
For the last 20 years, our own crew have played a big part in shaping the digital world we see today. The outcome is what began as a space of radical possibility has been enclosed, exploited, and transformed into a corporate-controlled dystopia of #dotcons. We now lived inside this algorithmic trap, and in many ways, we still do, fighting, trolling, and feeding the very system that keeps us addicted.
Most of us are still trapped inside the algorithm, these platforms we use don’t exist to foster community or critical thought; they thrive on division. They keep us locked into emotional reaction loops, rewarding outrage, amplifying conflict, and turning us into performance artists in an endless identity war.
Take as an example #Failbook and the rise of victim culture. This isn’t an accident, it’s by design. The algorithm doesn’t care about truth or justice; it cares about engagement, and what gets the most clicks? Anger, Fear, Outrage. The result is a world where people react instead of act, trapped in cycles of performative identity rather than building any of the needed real alternatives.
What we don’t need is more “ethical” #dotcons. Repackaging the same centralized control under a new brand of “ethical” capitalism, is not the solution. We don’t need another walled garden with a friendlier #PR campaign. We need an independent, federated media ecosystem, one that #KISS values community, autonomy, and the public good over profit.
This is why the #OMN (Open Media Network) path exists. It’s not just another platform designed to extract data and profit, it’s a network of trust-based spaces, where people interact as humans, not as data points. The #Fediverse and #ActivityPub offer the foundation for this, but we need to push much harder. Right now, these alternatives still carry too much of the #mainstreaming liberal baggage that makes them fragile to inrushing capitalist capture.
We need to build spaces that resist corporate logic from the roots, not just replicate centralized control under new branding. To avoid repeating todays mess making, we need to remember how the capitalists capture of the #openweb in the first place. To understand how we got here, we have to look at capitalism through the lens of the #dotcons. The enclosure of the #openweb was not inevitable, it was a deliberate shift from public good to private profit.
Capitalism broke the web, with commercialization & enclosure, the originally was built as an open, decentralized space for information sharing. Capitalism transformed it into a marketplace, where value is extracted rather than created. Now we have the #mainstreaming exploitation of users, platforms like Facebook, Google, and Amazon don’t sell products, they sell you. Your data, your attention, your behaviour, all harvested, manipulated, and monetized.
This leads directly to the current monopolization & centralization, the most ruthless companies buy out competitors, stifle innovation, and consolidate power. What started as an open system is now controlled by a handful of corporations. Surveillance capitalism, the term, popularized by Shoshana Zuboff, describes the commodification of personal data for profit. What was once a tool for communication is now a weapon of manipulation.
With this move, we have erased the public sphere. Corporate algorithms don’t care about truth, knowledge, or democracy. They prioritize profit-driven content, promoting misinformation, sensationalism, and division while destroying any sense of a shared public space. This leaves us in a world of short-term gains for the nasty few over long-term vision for the meany, this stagnates progress and accelerates environmental and social collapse we now face.
We made this mess, now let’s fix it, the logic of the #dotcons is the problem. We can’t keep being prats about this. We’ve spent 20 years making this mess, now it’s past time to clean it up. Decentralization alone isn’t enough. We need alternative media spaces that reject control from the start. That’s what the #OMN is about. If we’re serious about breaking free, we need to use the #4opens as a shovel to compost the #techshit we’ve currently drowning in.
Time to stop only talking, let’s build. We don’t need another debate. We don’t need another corporate-controlled “alternative.” What we do need is to step outside the algorithm and start building trust-based networks that work for people, not profit. We do need to reclaim the #openweb before it’s too late. So, what are we waiting for? Let’s get to work.
The world is full of noise, outrage, and clickbait designed to keep us reacting rather than acting. But any real change doesn’t come from blindly doom-scrolling and fighting every battle thrown at us by the right-wing algorithms. It simply comes from building #DIY. A useful first step, if you want a better internet, a better community, a better world—start by helping your neighbours.
Decentralization is about people, not just tech, use the #4opens #OpenSource, #FreeSoftware, and #OpenStandards not because you hate Big Tech, but because you love your community. Decentralized solutions are not only about resisting corporate control; they’re about creating local networks where people can connect, collaborate, and build resilience together.
What’s #blocking this? Big tech’s #dotcons platforms are designed for extraction, of data, metadata, attention, and profit. But a decentralized internet, built on #4opens, works for people instead of exploiting them. Focus on solutions, not problems you can’t solve, you’re not going to single-handedly take down Google, Facebook, or Amazon. But you can create a local, trust-based federated network where people control their platforms, data, and tools. That’s where the #4opens come in as a tool for change and challenge:
Open Data – Information should be accessible and shareable.
Open Source – The code should be transparent and modifiable.
Open Standards – Systems should be built to work together.
Open Process – Decision-making should be clear and inclusive.
This isn’t only tech philosophy, it’s a practical shovel to compost the #techshit we’ve, suffocating buried under. Let’s build some bridges, not walls. The internet was supposed to connect us, but centralized platforms turned it into a battleground of division and polarization. Instead of being trapped in endless debates and outrage cycles, use your energy to build something better. Find your local community, set up decentralized networks that serve people, not corporations. Share knowledge, create alternatives, and make them easy for people to join.
The #OMN (Open Media Network) is one path, but there are many. The key is to be FOR something instead of reacting to whatever clickbait outrage is dominating the news cycle. Find your community, you don’t need permission. You don’t need a corporate-backed solution, start small, start local. Start with open tools that belong to you and your people, because in the end, the best way to fight the broken, #techshit system isn’t to fight it at all—it’s to build something better to take its place.
In a significant shift in U.S. foreign policy, President Donald Trump has reoriented America’s geopolitical path, distancing from Ukraine and seeking rapprochement with Russia. This realignment reflects a broader strategic thinking aimed at countering China’s rising influence on the global stage.
Reassessing Ukraine’s strategic value, historically, the United States has supported Ukraine as a bulwark against Russian expansionism. This has changed, the Trump junta views the ongoing conflict in Ukraine as a European concern, diverting U.S. resources from more pressing business challenges. We see this underscored by recent diplomatic engagements in Riyadh, where U.S. and Russian officials met to discuss the Ukraine conflict without Ukrainian representation. Building mess as the talks granted concessions to Russia without securing meaningful commitments in return, undermining Ukraine’s sovereignty and regional stability.
This realignment is about the decoupling of Russia from China, the policy shift is highlighting Trump’s focus on China as the primary geopolitical adversary. By improving relations with Russia, the U.S. weakens the burgeoning Sino-Russian alliance, thereby isolating China. The strategy is a part of the nasty realist school of international relations, which advocates for keeping the status que of power among nations to prevent any single entity from challenging dominance. However, “make America great again” carries real risks, as it embolden Russian aggression in Eastern Europe and strain’s U.S. alliances with European partners.
Economic considerations play a key role in this geopolitical shift. Trump has proposed gaining stakes in Ukraine’s vast natural resources, including rare earth minerals, in exchange for military assistance. Ukrainian officials, however, view these offers as unfavourable, given the ongoing conflict and logistical challenges in resource extraction. This economic angle further complicates the U.S.’s position, as it is perceived as financial interests over steadfast support for an ally under siege.
This strategic pivot has implications for global power dynamics. By attempting to realign relationships and isolate China, the U.S. is destabilizing existing alliances and emboldening adversaries. The success of this path depends on Russia’s willingness to distance itself from China, a prospect that remains uncertain given their shared strategic interests. Moreover, sidelining Ukraine leads to increased instability in Eastern Europe, challenging the security framework that has underpinned the region since the end of the Cold War.
In conclusion, while there is a method to Trump’s messy geopolitical madness, the long-term consequences of this remain deeply uncertain. Balancing the immediate goal of countering China’s influence with the potential risks of alienating allies and emboldening adversaries requires a carefully calibrated foreign policy strategy, which we are unlikely to see.
This is not even touching on onrushing #climtechaos which will need all the globe good will we can get to have any hope of surviving this century. Mess and more mess, we need more real composting, do you have a shovel, do you need a shovel #OMN
In the world shaped by corporate control, liberal co-option, and empty activism, the language we use is a battleground. The unthinking push for #mainstreaming has dulled radical energy, replacing effectiveness with sanitized, #NGO-friendly language that avoids real social change and challenge. To be serious about building an alternative, we need to rethink how we communicate—not just what we say, but how we say it.
An example that I have been developing for the last ten years is the #OMN (Open Media Network) hashtag story—a practical first project rooted in direct action, radical media, and bottom-up organizing. It’s a #KISS path away from corporate-controlled narratives and into messy, human, and effective grassroots activist communication. A useful path if people take it.
The problem is that people take the easy path, with #mainstreaming language, NGO-driven activism and #traditionalmedia which has the easy to see flaw, it seeks acceptance rather than transformation. This easy path blunts most radical movements, it dilutes the message, #mainstreaming turns radical ideas into soft, palatable soundbites. Instead of speaking clearly about power, control, and oppression, it replaces them with vague, feel-good language designed for funding applications and powerless media appearances.
Example: Instead of saying, “Capitalism is a #deathcult destroying the planet,” we get, “We need sustainable economic growth and green investments.”.
The result? The useful core critique is lost. The uncomfortable causes of oppression are left untouched. It shifts focus to liberal activism that places way too much trust in institutions—governments, tech corporations, and NGOs—assuming that change can happen from within. Instead of building our own autonomous paths and networks, we waste time begging for reforms from the #mainstreaming that never come.
Example: Instead of rebuilding grassroots media, activists push for more regulations on social media companies—keeping power centralized rather than challenging the #dotcons path itself.
The result? Big tech controls everything, and alternative voices are algorithmically pushed to the margins. Yes, this avoids direct conflict and struggle, real social change is messy, requires taking risks, building new paths, and confronting power. #Mainstreaming, on the other hand, prefers safe conversations and endless dialogue over real action.
Example: Instead of fighting for community-controlled spaces, NGOs organize panels and workshops on “inclusion”—without actually shifting power.
The result? It is that we #blindly talk while the same power structures remain intact.
The #OMN path for communication is about real change. For this to become real, we need to escape the #NGO liberal mess, to reclaim radical communication. A step to this is speaking in clear, direct language:
Say this: “The internet is controlled by #dotcons—giant corporations profiting from our data and attention. We need to take back control.” or “The #deathcult of neoliberalism is driving us to #climatedisaster.” and “#NothingNew: Stop wasting time chasing tech hype—fix what already works.”
Language should be sharp, memorable, and rooted in activist everyday experience.
But this is not only about talking, building alternative structures, not just critiquing the system is needed. Talking is not enough. We need to build. The #OMN project is about creating a working alternative to corporate-controlled media through grassroots, federated networks.
Instead of: Complaining about Facebook’s censorship, build: A network of ActivityPub-powered, self-hosted media hubs that can’t be shut down.
Instead of: Asking Twitter to fact-check misinformation, build: A trust-based network of independent journalists and aggregators.
The Fediverse and #OMN are already moving in this direction. We #KISS need to push harder.
Recognizing that change comes from conflict and challenge, social movements succeed when they agitate. That means, calling out, and pushing out, power structures instead of begging them to change. Defending radical voices instead of silencing them to fit liberal narratives. Using technology as a tool for liberation, not just self reflecting convenience.
The biggest lie of #mainstreaming is that change happens by playing nice. History tells a different story: The labour movement won rights through strikes and resistance. The civil rights movement succeeded because of direct action, not just speeches. Open-source software survived because of forks, fights, and refusal to comply. If we want a free and open internet, we need to fight for it.
If you want to join this fight the #OMN is a practical vision of a radical media network for the future, decentralization, breaking free from corporate control, autonomy by creating trust-based networks instead of top-down paths and action over talk, by building real alternatives, not just complaining about problems.
This is a path to escape the bland, corporate-friendly language of the liberal web, we need to make it “common sense” that we need to reclaim radical, direct, and effective communication.
The #socialweb is shifting away from corporate-controlled paths like #Twitter and #Facebook toward decentralized, more #DIY alternatives. The idea is simple: instead of a single company having control, decentralized protocols allow different platforms to connect while giving people the power to shape and control their digital paths.
Three major decentralized protocols have emerged:
Fediverse (#ActivityPub) – The most established and widely used, forming a “native” backbone of the #openweb.
Bluesky (#AtProto) – A Twitter-funded project that claims decentralization but is still highly centralized.
Nostr – A relay-based, censorship-resistant protocol with interesting tech but major cultural and usability challenges.
While all three claim to support decentralization, only ActivityPub (the #Fediverse) actually delivers on this promise. An overview:
The Fediverse (ActivityPub) – The Decentralized #openweb
Background & history, the Fediverse is powered by ActivityPub, a W3C-recommended standard, since 2018. Unlike Bluesky and #Nostr, which are still evolving, ActivityPub is already a mature, widely adopted protocol. It was designed from the ground up, through a 20-year unbroken history to enable interoperability between platforms, meaning people on different apps can communicate seamlessly.
This #ActivityPub network exploded in popularity after Twitter’s collapse under Elon Musk, with Mastodon seeing millions of new users in 2022. Popular apps & servers, it not just one platform—it’s a whole ecosystem of independent apps that mostly copy #dotcons:
Mastodon – The most well-known microblogging platform, often compared to Twitter.
PeerTube – A decentralized YouTube alternative.
Pixelfed – A decentralized Instagram-style photo-sharing app.
Pleroma / Misskey – Alternative microblogging platforms.
How ActivityPub Works, Federation: Different servers (instances) talk to each other, creating a #4opens network of networks. How this works, you create an account on one instance, but interact with people across the entire Fediverse. Each server is independently operated, meaning no single company owns the network. There is an issue of instance Lock-In: If a server shuts down, yes, people must migrate manually—but this is a small tradeoff compared to the massive corporate control seen in more #mainstreaming paths.
Bottom Line: ActivityPub is the most decentralized and established protocol, already powering a thriving ecosystem of apps with real communities. #Bluesky (AtProto) – Fake Decentralization, A shadow #Dotcons
Background & history, Bluesky started as a Twitter-funded project in 2019, originally backed by Jack Dorsey. It claims to be building a decentralized social network, but in reality, it’s architecture favers centralization, due to it being built to prioritise scaling. The #AtProto, allows for theoretical federation, but in practice, Bluesky is still just a Twitter clone controlled by a single company.
Popular Apps & Servers
Bluesky – The only major client, self-hosting is possible, but current federated servers are limited to 100 users, and Bluesky can refuse to federate with them.
How AtProto works: #DID-based identities – Users can theoretically move between services, but only if Bluesky allows it. Centralized moderation – The vast majority of users rely on bsky.social, meaning Bluesky still has the power to block or censor at will. Limited self-hosting, Bluesky restricts who can run a server and limits federated instances.
Bottom Line: Bluesky is currently a trap, a con, It looks decentralized but is a #dotcons, the normal corporate-controlled path.
Nostr – Interesting Tech, but bad culture
Background & history, #Nostr (Notes and Other Stuff Transmitted by Relays) was created by an individual in 2020 as a censorship-resistant social protocol. Where ActivityPub and AtProto, use server-based networks to build community and distribute moderation, Nostr uses a relay-based model where users broadcast messages across multiple relays. It gained popularity in #Bitcoin circles and received funding from Jack Dorsey (again).
Popular Apps & Clients
Primal, Nos, Snort – Web-based clients.
Damus – iOS client.
Amethyst – Android client.
How #Nostr works, It is Relay-based, with no comminute based instances – No centralized servers, messages are published to multiple relays. Cryptographic Identity – people have opaque public/private keys instead of usernames. No true federation – people rely on relays to store and transmit data, but relays don’t communicate with each other like ActivityPub servers do. Difficult for adoption – The reliance on cryptographic keys makes it confusing, and there’s no built-in moderation system, so comminutes remain fragmented, its tech for the native #stupidindividualists paths, in this diversity is good and as it bridges it might become a useful project.
ActivityPub (Fediverse) is a clear winner, it’s proven, widely adopted, and already functional with true federation across multiple apps, decentralized and people-controlled. Where #Bluesky (#AtProto) is a hidden #Dotcons which claims to be decentralized but is still controlled by Bluesky, Inc. Federation is limited, and self-hosting is discouraged thus is a Trojan horse for another corporate-controlled network. Nostr is interesting but niche, completely decentralized, but difficult to use. No federation between relays and not practical for mass adoption.
Final verdict: If you care about real decentralization, community, and people, ActivityPub (Fediverse) is the clear choice.
What is needed next is to take the step in the Fediverse is moving beyond simply copying the #dotcons. It is time to reboot the #Openweb with a project like the #OMN. The Open Media Network is about taking control of our digital paths and building a future beyond the #dotcons. If we want a truly decentralized internet, one core message is that we need to support ActivityPub-based paths instead of getting fooled by corporate-backed “alternatives” like #Bluesky.
Join the Fediverse today: https://fediverse.observer/ It’s time to reclaim the #openweb to build digital spaces that work for people, and the social change challenge we so urgently need.
One thing is clear, you can and need to walk away from the corporate #dotcons.
Food for thought for people trying to change the world. For the last ten years, activism has been trapped in a paradox: we speak of grassroots change, yet we reach for #dotcons and #geekproblem tools that are built for vertical control. The digital infrastructure we rely on is dominated by top-down, vertical structures, reinforcing the power dynamics we claim to be resisting. Meanwhile, the #4opens horizontal tools, the ones that grow collaboration, openness, and true grassroots organizing, sit unused at the bottom of the toolbox.
This isn’t a simple tech issue; it reflects how activism itself is structured. Most organizing still happens through #closed, opaque affinity groups, mirroring the exclusivity and hierarchy of the paths we seek to dismantle. The language of activism, whether framed in utopian peace and love or rigid revolutionary rhetoric, often masks this blunt reality. In truth, too much of what passes for activism today reproduces the same centralized power structures, just with different slogans.
Yet, we live in one of the most open and radical times for building real alternatives. The tools for horizontalism exist. The challenge isn’t a lack of technology or platforms, it’s a failure to break free from ingrained habits that push control and gatekeeping. The real work isn’t just about using better tools; it’s about shifting how we organize. Transparency, openness, and collective governance must move from the margins to the centre of our activism. With the #OMN the seeds of the tool set are there, what’s missing is the will to develop and use it.
Militarism is on the rise globally. Arms sales are at all-time highs, and public confidence in the military has surged. Rather than waning in the post-Cold War era, military glorification has intensified, with political and cultural leaders idealizing soldiers, not for their professionalism, but for their heroism and sacrifice.
At a recent event hosted by the #Oxford University International Relations Society, Professor Ron Krebs explored the proliferation of militarism, its cultural underpinnings, and its consequences for democracy, security, and governance. He painted a picture of a world where the military is increasingly romanticized, and political leaders use this veneration to their advantage.
Militarism is a cultural force, where militarism is often framed as a policy issue, whether states use excessive force or employ the military as a tool of national strategy. However, Krebs argues that militarism is, at its core, a set of cultural practices. It is driven by a deep-seated romanticism about the military, which manifests in three ways:
Pacifist Militarism – Even among the left, there is a tendency to view the military as a necessary tool of national policy, even in peacetime.
Excessive Force – The normalization of military interventions, where using force is seen as a default option rather than a last resort.
Idealization of Soldiers – The emphasis on heroism and sacrifice overshadows discussions of military professionalism, effectiveness, or accountability.
This cultural shift is seen in the growing presence of the military in national celebrations, such as Independence Days. Military parades and displays have increased, yet there is little focus on mourning fallen soldiers. Instead, these events serve to reinforce the image of military power and national strength.
Why militarism has grown since the 1980, the decline of trust in government institutions, driven in part by #neoliberalism (the #deathcult), has paradoxically fuelled greater trust in the military. As faith in political leadership eroded, the military, seen as an aspirational and apolitical institution, became a pillar of stability.
This shift has created a dangerous dynamic:
Populists thrive on military imagery. They love dressing up in military uniforms, invoking military rhetoric, and surrounding themselves with soldiers.
Dead soldiers are useful political tools. They cannot challenge political narratives, making them perfect symbols for populist movements.
Public perception of military support influences policy. When the public believes the military supports a political leader, they are more likely to support military action. This feedback loop drives increased militarization across the political spectrum.
The populist-military conflict, despite their public admiration for the military, many populist leaders privately clash with military institutions. Donald Trump, for instance, has reportedly expressed disdain for military leadership behind closed doors. His approach follows a broader pattern. Populists support enlisted soldiers while attacking military officers, particularly those from elite institutions like West Point. This allows them to position themselves as allies of “the people” while undermining traditional hierarchies.
In countries like Poland, Hungary, and India, populist leaders have avoided direct military confrontations, allowing dissenting officers to step aside quietly. In the United States, however, tensions are escalating. If military leaders resist political co-option, they will likely face aggressive purges and public attacks. Brazil under Bolsonaro offers a clear example. Although he had military ties, his alliances were fragile. When officers opposed his leadership, especially during the COVID-19 crisis, he swiftly removed them.
The long-term consequences, militarism is a raw deal. While it leads to increased military engagement, it does not necessarily bring greater benefits for soldiers. Instead, it results in, the erosion of democratic institutions. As militarism rises, civilian governance weakens, and leaders increasingly rely on military authority to consolidate power. Diminished military effectiveness. When the military becomes a political tool, its strategic competence declines.
Personal loyalty to leaders replaces merit, weakening the institution from within. A dangerous feedback loop. If unchecked, militarism becomes self-perpetuating, reinforced by political narratives, public perceptions, and the military’s own internal culture. The military, when it “drinks the Kool-Aid” of its own infallibility, loses its ability to self-correct. The blurring of lines between civilian leadership and military authority erodes trust, making governance more unstable and unpredictable.
Conclusion, we are living in an age of global militarism. The question is not whether it will wane on its own, it shows no signs of doing so. Instead, the challenge is how societies will respond to its continued rise. Will democratic institutions push back, ensuring that the military remains professional and accountable? Or will the glorification of soldiers, the erosion of civilian oversight, and the manipulation of military loyalty accelerate the militarization of politics? As Professor Krebs warns, the veneration of the military is not only about national security, it is about the future of democracy itself.
