Radical movements are too often their own worst enemies. The push/pull between the desire for real change and the gravitational pull of #mainstreaming feed the #stupidindividualism that keeps people locked into conservative, performative loops. These loops are not accidental, they are the result of movements that to often shift focus to prioritize (invisible) ideological purity, insular “safety” subcultures, and a morbid reverence for past failures over the messy, unpredictable work of building living alternatives.
It’s easier to mimic revolution than to risk anything for it. People cosplay as radicals, reenacting historic struggles, as if performing the gestures of revolt is enough to topple ongoing systems of oppression. The rituals of protest, the left pamphleteering, and the echo chambers of online discourse imposed as safe spaces to play at rebellion without any actual danger of dismantling and rebuilding the world as it is.
The #mainstreaming path is insidious. It draws radical energy into a cycle of visibility and co-option, the movements become symbolic representation not material transformation. Meanwhile, #stupidindividualism fractures collective power, as people mistake dogma for meaningful action. The result? A self-policing culture where standing out, innovating, or questioning sacred paths is treated as betrayal not (rev)evolution.
It’s very basic history that radical breakthroughs happen when people break these loops. An example I keep bringing up is the early #Indymedia, an example of when people embraced uncertainty and acted as if the world could be different, not just talked about it. These moments weren’t perfect, and most collapse under internal contradictions, but they proved that stepping beyond lifestyle/ideological safety nets is possible.
This is where the #OMN come I as a real path, that, by creating decentralized, native #4opens networks for storytelling and organizing, we build infrastructures that resist the gravitational pull of mainstream capture. Instead of reinforcing ideological bubbles, we make space for radical plurality, a compost heap where competing ideas decay and fertilize new growth. The goal isn’t another subculture; it’s a living, breathing movement capable of evolving while still linking and bridging to the wider world.
One thing to keep in mind is that these people largely think they are good people, doing the best they can in the world as it is. And will become upset and very #spiky defensive when pointing at them on their knees prostrate worshipping. Like they said in the seminar, “I don’t know what to do about this”. I don’t think most of us do.
The Clarendon Lectures 2025 – Designing the Future: Multidisciplinary perspectives on designing better futures
Systems thinking challenges traditional approaches to management research and practice. In this second Clarendon event, Tima Bansal engages in conversation with academics in #Oxford who are integrating research and practice with the ambition to co-create futures rather than simply analysing solutions.
An outsider, polemical look at this event: Most university panels have a #NGO-thinking academic for process box-ticking. This is the representation of the fluffy side of #mainstreaming social change. This lettuce person is at best a #fluffy careerist and at worst a #NGO parasite. If there is any content at all, it’s box-ticking to create the illusion of consent and goodwill.
Then the meat of the business school is the worship of the #deathcult — people climbing the gravestones of hierarchy in the shiny, crumbling mausoleums. Even then, it’s mostly careerist. This one is talking about embedding in more fluffy NGO groups to build their story. It’s all about community and relationships. She lets go of the ego she pushed first, to step back to embed. No idea what the outcome of her work is — it’s all process. She ends with a call for nature and holism, the world her work destroys.
The currency is theory; on this, the business school is completely bankrupt from an academic point of view — not to get into the subject of morals, let alone basic human survival. She says they push their content out into science journalism, as these people are not able to judge the value of abstract academic work.
The next is an accounting bureaucrat, who does mention the green limits. He touches on the real and talks about the language in documents of bureaucratic regulation. He says it’s a mess and doesn’t know what to do. Trusting what companies say is not going to be enough. You need to change the economic relationships, and changing this is very difficult — and it’s currently simply not working.
The summing-up person is excited with an issue? Not sure what — no idea what she is actually saying. She is back to not talking about anything. She touches on statues and embarrassment. Finally, she asks an interesting question: who is the ordinance, us or somebody else? We have no idea who?
She says we need strong institutions, as individual companies are not going to do it — they capture the levers of power and pull them to keep the mess, and money, flowing. She has no answer to this. She does mention moving past “markets” in passing for a moment.
Boundaries come up — the answer is fluff, then more substance, accounting has hard boundaries, but useful change comes from stepping outside this. Systems thinking — no answer.
These people are lost and are training up the next lost generation. It’s interesting to see that they have some understanding of this, but it’s looking like they will do nothing to change it.
Wine and nibbles were OK.
Talked to many of them after the event. A few said they were undercover academic “radicals” infiltrating the business colleges — which was maybe a tiny bit true, or not. The students I talked to were blank and staying in academia.
The “consultants” were interested and animated; they found it a little shockingly invigorating to have a counter-culture conversation.
To sum up, mostly hopeless. I am always surprised the place doesn’t stink of rotting zombies, a metaphor, maybe? They need some real content… they really need some real content, but you get the strong feeling that they are not even going to change until the Thames is flowing up under the nearby railway bridge. Even then, there will be calls for more sandbags while talking more about careers — all they know — but underneath this, they have the fear that these careers will likely not exist.
This is it. What to do?
It’s a bleak cycle: academics pump out theory to feed the chatting classes, who in turn guide the #fashernista, spinning ever more refined justifications for the status quo. The echo chamber reverberates with hollow soundbites while the world burns. What we end up with is a layer of intellectual manure, with no one doing the work to turn it into compost.
With projects like the #OMN social tech could be the spade that digs through this mess, breaking down the dead ideas and aerating the soil for something new to grow. But instead, we use #dotcons tech to pile up more waste. Every app, platform, and algorithm is designed to reinforce the system, not break it. The closed loops of influence, profit, and prestige just churn on.
If we want to prod this beast, one way I am working on is to embrace the disruptive potential of the #openweb. What if we built platforms that exposed the rot? Imagine public academic review systems where research couldn’t hide behind paywalls, or tools that tracked the influence of corporate funding on “objective” scholarship. There are some seeds for this, what if we grow them #4opens
Or more direct action, maybe we just crash the garden party. What if we hijacked their panels, flooded their Q&As with real questions, or set up rogue alt-conferences right outside their events? The goal isn’t destruction for destruction’s sake — it’s breaking the illusion of inevitability.
What do you think? How do we spark that shift in behaviour, that even they, softly, say we need to do.
The internet’s origins are tangled with the military-industrial complex, designed for resilience in the face of catastrophe. But the protocols themselves, once set loose, created a playground for anarchistic experimentation. The lack of centralized control allowed people to build without permission, and that openness birthed the wild, decentralized internet we briefly glimpsed.
It was an accident, but an accident we can repeat. The #dotcons crushed that brief era of freedom, but the same dynamics that let the early #openweb flourish still exist. The #4opens, the #Fediverse, #OMN — these are our tools to recreate the “mistake” deliberately this time.
What if we embrace the idea that technology can escape its creators? Maybe we can compost the current #techshit and let something even more resilient grow. What do you think? Should we lean into the idea of building “mistakes” on purpose?
It’s well past time to pick a side. For decades, the internet has been being enclosed. The one’s living decentralized network of commentary sites, blogs, forums has been corralled into a handful of paved prison yards controlled by the #dotcons. With most people’s attention and thus freedom being in the hands of a #nastyfew oligarchs. Every post, every ‘friend,’ every creative work is locked behind closed doors, and when push comes to shove as it is now, you will increasingly find that you don’t have the keys.
But the keys still exist, and it’s not so hard for you to pickup them up. There has been a #openweb digital jailbreak going on for the last 5 years, if you value your humanity you need to become a part of this blackout, put the key in the lock and turn it.
OK, yes, maybe a little strong, the #openweb isn’t a utopia, but it’s the closest thing we’ve got to freedom online. It’s built on the #4opens: Open Source: The code is public, hackable, and accountable. Open Data: Information flows freely, not hoarded for control. Open Standards: Interoperability beats lock-in monopolies. Open Process: Transparent governance, not shadowy boardrooms.
This #fediverse path is an escape hatch from the #closedweb. It’s not a product. It’s not something you can buy stock in. It’s a network of interconnected platforms like #Mastodon, #Lemmy, and #PeerTube to name a few, all running on the open protocol #activertypub. It’s messy. It’s human. And it’s yours if you take it.
It should be easy to see that the #closedweb is a digital prison, a mausoleum for human creativity, dressed up like a theme park. It’s run by billionaire-controlled #dotcons and polished by the illusion of safety sold by the #encryptionists. Who keep misshaping our paths. What did they offer? Control: Your identity, your data, your connections — all owned by them. Manipulation: Your timeline, your reach, your visibility — dictated by algorithmic gods. Exploitation: Every interaction, every word, every click — another drop in their profit bucket. We’ve eaten their lie that the internet had to be this way. That Meta, Google, and the hollow husk of Twitter are the price of admission to digital society. But simply, it was never true.
OK, I get your apathy, why does it matter? Because when we blur the lines, we lose the fight. People pour energy into platforms that wear the clothes of progress but are stitched with threads of control. We need to clearly label projects as #openweb or #closedweb, so people can choose where to dig in and build. The #4opens are our shovels, and the remnants of failed #web03 promises are good compost to start on. Let’s turn the decay of false hope into fertile ground for real digital commons.
The internet wasn’t built to be a machine for ad revenue. It was built to connect the paths for radical, collective steps we need in today’s mess.
In the swirling chaos of the digital landscape, it’s easy to feel lost. The #Fediverse, should be a beacon of hope for a decentralized, community-driven internet, but as always is facing an onslaught of push back and pressures from every direction. The #dotcons loom large, #NGO agendas quietly co-opt grassroots energy, and the #encryptionists lash out with SPAM money to drown out critique. It’s messy, but mess is where compost comes from, and compost is where new life grows.
Pick up a shovel, start composting, it’s time to stop waiting for permission. Don’t ask, just do it, start composting the wreckage of the current paths. Plant seeds of your own lived life and nurture the social gardens with your care. Build spaces where people connect, share, and create outside the control of the #dotcons corporate platforms and the clumsy grasp of the old traditional top down institutions.
So, where is the positive in this mess? I’d look to the healthy fragments of the #openweb path that still exists. Projects that embody the #4opens offer the seeds of something better. But these projects won’t survive on hope alone. They need care, attention, and participation. Use them or lose them. If we don’t actively engage, they’ll wither, and the digital paths will continue its slide into centralized control and the new #mainstreaming creeping authoritarianism.
The #ecryptionists, clinging to their fantasies of rugged individualism, would have you believe that the solution lies in isolation, in bunkers, in hoards of digital currency, in cutting ties with the social fabric. But survival, whether against digital authoritarianism or the unfolding #climatecatastrophe, will come from cooperation and collective resilience, not isolation. Even in the face of disaster, thriving requires community.
Beyond the ingroup, we can’t rebuild the #openweb if we only talk to ourselves. The term “Fediverse” is a great example of this, it makes sense to those inside the space but means little to those outside it. #Openweb is a better, more intuitive term. It’s positive, clear, and easy to contrast against the negative: the #closedweb of the #dotcons. Mastodon is a #4opens project of the openweb; Facebook is a closedweb project. Simple, direct, and powerful framing that cuts through the noise.
With the hard shift to the right, we’re standing on a knife’s edge. #Climatechange, economic instability, and accelerating automation are pushing us toward a future of disruption. But disruption doesn’t have to mean collapse, it can mean transformation. The work we do now to build and maintain #openweb projects lays the foundation for the communities that weather the coming storms.
The Fediverse, for all its narrow flaws, shows that alternatives are possible. The challenge now is to grow beyond this first step. To dig deeper, plant wider, and build an ecosystem that can sustain itself long term. We need to constantly think outside the ingroup, to bridge divides, and to invite people in. It’s hard work. But so is everything worth doing. And if we get it right, we just might cultivate a future where common humanity, not capital, shapes the digital world.
Rediscovering the Open Web: Why We Need Joined-Up Thinking with #4opens
The internet wasn’t always like this. Before the rise of #dotcons, we had a flourishing landscape of community-driven sites and platforms, built on openness, collaboration, and trust. Yet today, much of what we do online is controlled by #dotcons, closed, profit-driven systems designed to capture and commodify every interaction. It doesn’t have to be this way — but to break free, we need to think and act differently.
The #4opens offer a practical path back to the #openweb. They guide us towards building space that is open in source, data, process, and standards. This isn’t just tech jargon; it’s about creating online spaces that work for people rather than exploiting them.
The trap of piecemeal solutions, too often, attempts to rebuild the #openweb get stuck in the #fashernista trap: chasing trendy but fragmented fixes that fail to address the root problems. A federated app here, a new protocol there, while each piece might be valuable, without joined-up thinking, they scatter energy and slow momentum. We need to step back, see the bigger picture, and work together to build a truly interconnected path.
We don’t need permission to start. The tools, ideas, and history are already here. Current platforms like Mastodon and initiatives like the #OMN (Open Media Network) show what’s possible. But it takes more than just using the tools, it takes sharing the vision. If you’re reading this, consider it a nudge: start conversations, share resources, and bring people onto the path. Dig into the posts at hamishcampbell.com for more background, and share the posts widely. Every shared link, every discussion, and every new node in the network helps.
Basic activism in the digital age is about reclaiming the internet to refuse to accept the current mess as inevitable and to actively choose better paths. By advocating for the #4opens, supporting decentralized platforms, and consciously stepping away from the #dotcons, we become a small part of the solution. The future web can be cooperative, empowering, and deeply human, but only if we build it that way. So grab a metaphorical shovel, help compost the tech junk, and start planting the seeds of something better.
In activism and grassroots media, you inevitably face an ongoing, unpleasant truth: when pushing against #mainstreaming and the inertia of the #deathcult, bad faith comes at you like a storm. Your best, and often only, defence is to hold onto your good faith. But good faith alone isn’t enough, we need shared tools to compost the rot, turn the muck of broken movements and failed tech utopias into fertile soil where new paths can grow.
That’s where the Open Media Network comes in. The #OMN isn’t just another pointless tech project, it’s a living, breathing attempt to bridge the gap between technology and society, providing a trust-path, decentralized platform built with the #4opens. It doesn’t try to solve problems from above but empowers people to build, moderate, and nurture their own grassroots networks, to shape and reshape flows of information. It’s about composting the old, failed models, not replicating them.
The divide we need to bridge is pragmatism vs. social understanding. Too often, conversations around tech and social change get stuck in a loop. On one side, pragmatists push for immediate, concrete solutions, get the app working, ship the code, solve the surface problem. On the other, social thinkers argue that tech is inherently social, that ignoring the human context just perpetuates the mess.
Take #ActivityPub, a powerful protocol, but without a grounding in human trust networks, it risks recreating the problems of centralized social media. Or the rise of decentralized platforms flooded with reactionary and far-right content, a direct result of ignoring the need for human, community-driven democratic moderation and governance paths.
The #OMN is outside this loop. It acknowledges the pragmatism of building functional tools while insisting that those tools be shaped by, and in service of, grassroots communities. The five core functions shape simple tools, complex outcomes. The OMN is built on five core functions, deliberately minimal to avoid tech bloat and keep the focus on human networks:
Publish: Share objects (text, images, links) into a stream.
Subscribe: Follow streams from people, groups, hashtags, etc.
Moderate: Push/pull content, express preferences, and comment.
Rollback: Remove untrusted historical content from your flow.
Edit: Adjust data and metadata on content you have access to.
These simple actions, combined with human moderation, allow complex ecosystems to grow organically. You can shape your information flow, curate trustworthy content, and build collective knowledge, all while being able to remove what doesn’t serve the communities.
The crew needed is good faith in action, a crew committed to holding good faith, even in the face of bad faith pushback. People willing to pick up shovels, get dirty, and start composting. This isn’t about idealism; it’s about grounded action, learning from past projects like #indymedia and #Fediverse experiments, using what worked, and discarding what didn’t.
What is need:
Builders: Coders who understand that tech is just a tool, not a solution.
Moderators: People who know the value of careful curation and trust networks.
Storytellers: Those who can document, explain, and inspire others to walk the paths.
Bridge-builders: Activists who can connect different communities and facilitate cooperation.
This work isn’t glamorous. It won’t get you VC funding or a keynote at a tech conference. But it will lay the groundwork for something real, a decentralized, people-powered network where communities control their own narratives and relationships.
The future is a wild garden, not a walled garden. This path is a chance to build the #DIY, grassroots semantic web we’ve been dreaming of. Not another monoculture tech project, but a resilient forest of interconnected communities, each shaping its space while being part of a larger whole. It’s not about “scaling” in the #mainstreaming capitalist sense, but about growing deep roots and wild branches.
By supporting this we invest in people who reclaim digital experiences, where information is nurtured and composted into new possibilities, and where bad faith can be met not just with good faith, but with networks strong enough to withstand and outgrow the rot.
Join the paths. Let’s build this together. It’s time to start shovelling.
It’s like watching the same old weeds sprout up in the cracks, clinging to the illusion of control. But yeah, every bit of rot turns to soil eventually — as long as we keep digging, the roots of something real can break through. Time to turn the pile!
Most people I interact with are buried deep in the rot they’ve helped create, the path out is hard, but not impossible. The composting metaphor holds — rot can become soil, but only if it’s turned, exposed to air, and given time to break down. The stench lingers, though, and the deeper the decay, the harder it is to face.
Forgiveness can be a catalyst, but only if it’s rooted in understanding, not avoidance. Too often, movements try to “move on” without actually dealing with the decay, which just locks the dysfunction into place. Real forgiveness isn’t about forgetting or excusing — it’s about acknowledging the harm, holding people accountable to growth, and making space for them to rebuild trust through action.
With the #OMN the key is to create intentional processes for airing out the rot. Spaces where people can lay out what went wrong, where the worst of the mess can be named and examined without immediately collapsing into blame. This is a form of collective composting — deliberately breaking things down so they don’t keep contaminating the roots of future growth.
For paths that avoid recreating the mess, we might need, truth-telling circles: Spaces for people to name harms, acknowledge mistakes, and speak honestly about the dynamics that led to failure. Restorative action, not just words: Forgiveness should be paired with tangible action — people need ways to rebuild trust through collective work. Memory gardens: Digital or physical archives that document past failures and successes, so the same mistakes don’t get repeated. Rhythmic cycles of reflection: Movements need to regularly pause, look back, and compost what’s no longer serving the collective purpose.
Sun, light, and fertile soil come from this messy work of turning over the past and allowing time and care to transform it. The #openweb is a part of this, especially if we build systems and paths that prioritize collective memory and iterative growth over constant reinvention and erasure.
What do you think? Could structured cycles of composting and reflection help our movements breathe again? Or is the rot too deep, and we need to burn things down to clear space for new life?
Too often, I find myself in conversations that revolve around the intersection of technology and social issues, with one view emphasizing the importance of practical solutions to real-world problems, while the other highlights the underlying social dynamics that shape the technological landscapes these “solutions” are supposed to be addressing.
The Pragmatists, prioritizes immediate, tangible solutions. For example, when discussing the digital divide, they might advocate for creating cheaper, more accessible devices or building community Wi-Fi networks. They’ll focus on the logistics: what technology stack is best, what protocols to use, and how quickly the network can be deployed.
They see critiques of the capitalist underpinnings of tech as a distraction. For instance, they might argue that worrying about Big Tech’s dominance is less important than simply getting people online, even if it means relying on Google or Facebook infrastructure in the short term. The goal is to solve the immediate problem, even if the long-term implications reinforce existing systems of control.
The Social Critics, contends that technology cannot be meaningfully separated from the social systems it emerges from. They argue that simply handing out cheap devices or relying on corporate infrastructure entrenches dependency and undermines community sovereignty. For example, they might point to the rise of open-source projects that eventually get swallowed by venture capital, losing their grassroots values in the process (#dotcons).
They argue that unless we address the systemic issues, like how profit-driven models shape the design of platforms, any immediate “solution” is likely to reinforce the problem. Take social media moderation: a pragmatist might suggest better algorithms, while a social critic would argue that the underlying problem is the ad-driven engagement path itself.
The #GeekProblem is a barrier, the divide between these groups often solidifies into this mess making. Pragmatists, especially in tech spaces, dismiss social critique as impractical or irrelevant, reinforcing an insular culture that privileges technical expertise over lived experience. This dismissal is a form of #blocking, preventing collective growth and deeper problem-solving.
Breaking the cycle, to move past this, we need to blend the perspectives. For example, community mesh networks can be built with both pragmatic goals (connecting people) and social considerations (using #4opens practices to maintain local control). The technology itself can be a tool for social empowerment, but only if the builders acknowledge and address the social dimensions.
Projects like the Open Media Network (#OMN) bridge this gap, grounding tech development in community needs while keeping processes transparent and participatory. This balance helps compost the mess, turning the tension between pragmatism and social critique into fertile ground for true change. We don’t have to choose between immediate action and long-term systemic change, the key is holding both. Let’s stop getting stuck in the mess and start growing something real.
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 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.
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.
This lecture will explore the shortcomings of market-driven solutions to the climate crisis, the role of green energy, and the structural limits of capitalism in addressing environmental challenges.
The climate crisis is getting worse, not better. We are burning more fossil fuels, not less. Even with the massive expansion of renewables, energy use is still rising, because green growth adds to consumption rather than replacing it.
So, what’s blocking real change? Professor Brett Christophers lays it out: It’s not economics—it’s politics. The cost of renewables is dropping, largely thanks to China’s command economy driving down manufacturing costs. But the real problem is deployment, not production. Governments in the rich world still rely on the private sector to make the energy transition, using subsidies, tax incentives, and market nudges.
But capitalism is not built to save us, the market won’t solve this. The profit motive is a #blocking force. The oil and energy sectors are oligarchic, meaning investment only flows where market control guarantees profit. Renewable energy doesn’t work this way. Once solar panels or wind farms are built, everyone benefits, so investors can’t “capture” the value in the same way fossil fuel companies can.
This is why China is leading the transition. In 2023, 65% of global renewable investment was happening in China, before that, it was 90%. In contrast, the for-profit world is barely moving. The left is starting to rethink public ownership, but decades of privatization and #neoliberal dogma make this difficult, especially in the Global South, where many countries lost their public energy sectors over the last 40 years.
One small but key issue is that we are trapped in a modernist mindset, where the lights must come on when you flick the switch. The market logic of energy scarcity (storage = control = profit) is at odds with the need to stabilize and expand access. When energy storage becomes widespread, its market value drops, meaning investment dries up before it even begins.
Public ownership has a bad history, but so does privatization. Without cultural change, we are stuck with broken systems that won’t save us. The Coming Storm, in the next 10–20 years, shit is going to hit the fan. #climatechaos is not a distant threat, it’s already disrupting global energy grids. Look at China, where hydropower is failing due to extreme drought, and where record heat waves are driving air conditioning demand through the roof. These are feedback loops that increase carbon emissions, pushing us closer to tipping points.
Governments aren’t prepared for the chaos that’s coming. If history is any guide, they’ll do what they always do: double down on control, repression, and violence. As the crisis deepens, we could see a return to 20th-century authoritarian solutions, forced migration, resource wars, and military crackdowns. If you’re young today, ask yourself: What future are you walking into? What careers will put you on the wrong side of history? Which paths will put a gun in your hands, or leave you standing in front of one? These are grim questions, but they are real.
The #Deathcult has failed, what comes next? For 40 years, neoliberal capitalism has blocked systemic change. Market redesign might be possible, but power and politics shape the system, and the #deathcult that built this mess won’t give it up easily.
The #dotcons are stepping into the void. Big Tech is now playing the role governments used to play, guaranteeing long-term energy contracts to fund #datacenters and #AI infrastructure. But this is a narrow and unstable path, its more noise than signal.
We need alternatives, we need #publicownership, #commons-based solutions, and #4opens governance. We need to mediate our overconsumption, compost the #mainstreaming, and reclaim progressive paths before capitalism drives us into collapse.
If we don’t, the market’s failure will become our failure, and the planet won’t care whether we survive or not.
Market Failure: Climate Crisis, Green Energy and the Limits of Capitalism
Professor Brett Christophers (Uppsala University)
This lecture will explore the shortcomings of market-driven solutions to the climate crisis, the role of green energy, and the structural limits of capitalism in addressing environmental challenges.
My notes:
We are using more carbon based energy, adding to energy use with “green growth” this varies regionally, but the numbers are going up not down.
What is #blocking this, its political and policy he argues, the NIMBYs. The economics are not a problem, the costs are going down. The costs coming down is due to China with its central command economy, this is a useful view of the path we need to take. What’s #blocking it has to do with profitability not generating costs, what douse this mean? Deployment is the hidden “cost”, the hidden restraint. Governments in most parts of the world are relying on the private sector to make this energy change, using nudges, subsidy etc. the motivation is profit, and “confidence” in this profit.
Can capitalism save us?
The oil industry is full of oligarchy’s, this shapes investment. The electricity is the same, but how it’s generated has its own market value. Your ability to make a profit is only based on you capturing the market sector. The tech change helps everyone, so the is no profit, value if the investment can’t “capture” a sector.
He slags off the understanding of the Labour Party in the UK. One ansear is market redesign, that what we have is not “natural” but planned, it’s shaped by power and politics and for the agenda of this power. Then we have the artifice of “price” we have not planned this well enough yet, externality’s. In the UK the carbon tax could be argued to have worked with the phase out of the last coal power plant, drax, is shut. But the cost of a real carbon tax is to high for our “democracy” to implement. This is likely true.
More subsidy is an example, the Inflation Reduction Act in the US is an example. To incentivise the private sector to make the change in energy production.
The left criticises this, anti market, It’s still not working, this argument is likely true, look at china. Let’s look at this in 2023 its is 65% globe of renewables investment in China, before this it was 90% this almost nothing happening in the for-profit world, for profit is obviously not working. The left are starting to rethink public ownership as a path.
In China there are contradictions, it’s a mix of clean and dirty, energy demand is growing very fast, climate change is driving this in part, with the disruption of hydropower and the heat waves driving air conditioning, it’s a feedback loop. But it’s instructive with a very different political economy you can have very different outcomes in the energy transition.
This path might happen in the rich north, but will be hard to do in the weak south? They just don’t have the public budgets, some of these have only lost to privatization there public energy sectors over the last 40 years.
We are stuck in the modernist mind set, the lights must come on when you flick the switch. This is still a core #blocking force. Storage is to tame the market, to stabilize the price. The business model is based on the scarcity of storage so when we implement it can easily lose its market value, so investment will not flow in the first place.
Culture change is needed as public ownership does have a bad history as much a for-profit ownership, without this cultural change we don’t solve any of the mess.
One path is blended finance, but the is very little of this existing, so it’s not going to happen in a meaningful way despite the fluffy propaganda people spread.
The question of responsibility?
In the next 10–20 years shit is hitting the fan with #climatechaos we are likely to go back to the 20th century tradition of shooting people, I am wondering, for this generations job prospective, what careers are likely to lead to you being shot when this history repeats and what careers will leave you with the metaphorical gun in your hands, both of course are bad outcomes. But would be useful for young people to think about this to help choices a path after #Oxford
The question of cross discipline for the students comes up, but he says this is really hard, narrow areas, grants, and culture. His ansear is pessimistic, to play the game, till you have the power not to play the game, mess. He does not like it, but advises young people to play. Market redesign, the #deathcult fucked over this path over the last 40 years.
AI and distributed energy, the #dotcons are pushing this, the preform the same role governments used to play, by garentlying prices in long term contracts for there new data centres, they promise long term fixed price which lets the banks fund projects. This is a very limited funding flow, so more noise than signal.
The blinding effect of mainstream ideology, whether it’s neoliberalism, conspiracy-laced #spirituality, or rigid #geekproblem worship. These all act as barriers to change, keeping people locked in reactive cycles instead of building something different.
The #deathcult (neoliberalism) ensures its survival by designing failure, carbon offsetting, cap-and-trade, plastic recycling, all engineered to look like solutions while maintaining the status quo. These weren’t mistakes; they were intentional. The same happens in tech, where #encryptionists believe they’re liberating people while locking them into opaque, controlled, isolated paths. Security as fear, rather than trust.
What do we do differently now? We have to stop playing by their rules, whether it’s cancel culture’s purity tests, the process geek bureaucracy, or liberal progressives too afraid to act outside the acceptable neoliberal framework. That means:
Break from #mainstreaming narratives – Stop looking to “official” solutions when they are structured to fail.
Stop feeding fear, cowardice, and greed – Recognize when “safe” choices are actually surrendering power to systems of control.
Step into federated, trust-based models – #openweb and #4opens approaches don’t just shift power; they change how power operates.
Mediating the #geekproblem is core, we have the tools to build alternatives, but they are often blinded by their own logic traps, trapped in a false neutrality that serves power, or in rigid frameworks that make real-world change impossible. If we can challenge this blindness, we can bring them into broader movements instead of leaving them locked in their own subcultures.
Non-geeks need pathways to access, understand, and shape technology.
Decentralisation and federated trust models should be built with social movements, not just coders.
The #4opens is a path, the commons-based approach to software is an example of an alternative that works. The stagnant ideology of capitalism blocks innovation that already exists in open, federated models. But the blinded majority keeps trying to push radical tech back into the broken frameworks they understand instead of embracing real alternatives. That’s the cycle we need to break.
If we don’t step outside of our own ideological traps, we won’t see the paths that already exist. The world doesn’t have to be this way, but we need to start living the alternatives, not just critiquing the failures.
What did I get from this event: Cybercrime is no longer only about stolen credit cards and leaked emails, it has become a battleground for national security. This was the focus of the conversation between Professor Ciaran Martin and Dr Max Smeets, a new kind of war, ransomware has evolved from crude digital extortion into a highly sophisticated business model. It’s no longer just about money, it disrupts critical infrastructure, healthcare, and entire governments. The NHS cyberattack in London and the Costa Rican national emergency in 2022 illustrate its devastating impact.
Smeets explains how ransomware groups now operate like legitimate businesses, complete with branding, customer service, and even guarantees. If they fail to decrypt your files after payment, their reputation suffers. Many provide a free decryption demo to prove their credibility—demonstrating the paradox of trust within crime.
The geopolitics of cybercrime often overlaps with national interests. Many ransomware groups originate from Russia, where they operate with implicit state tolerance, as long as they avoid targeting Russian businesses. Russian secret services sometimes leverage these groups for political ends, though the connections remain murky.
Other states are now stepping into the ransomware scene, Ukraine – Once a hub for cybercrime, now co-opting hackers into its war effort, with groups like MB65 supposedly working in support of the state. North Korea & Israel – Expanding their ransomware operations, possibly for both financial and intelligence purposes. China – Running state-controlled ransomware campaigns, but is the goal money or data?
Smeets argues that Western states do not operate ransomware groups, at least not openly. But if cybercrime is now a tool of state power, will governments start adopting more aggressive tactics? We are already seeing discussions about hacking back, sanctions, and even assassinations and drone strikes against cybercriminals.
The Evolution of ransomware has moved beyond lone hackers and small groups. It has professionalised, with specialised teams handling different tasks: Some focus on technical exploits. Others on negotiation and victim management. Others still on money laundering. English-speaking countries are prime targets, as criminals can easily understand and monetise stolen data.
Originally, ransomware groups operated hierarchically, relying on top-down trust structures. Now, they are shifting to decentralised and federated models, outsourcing different parts of the process to specialist teams. This makes them more resilient and harder to disrupt.
How can this be mediated? Smeets offers several strategies to undermine ransomware networks:
Disrupt trust – Leak internal communications and sow distrust within groups.
Expose operational methods – Make it harder for them to operate in the shadows.
Sanction financial networks – Make it harder to launder ransom payments.
A ban on ransom payments won’t end ransomware, but it might shift attackers toward easier targets. The core question remains: Is ransomware just about money, or is it a new tool for states to exert power in the digital age?
My view is an alternative path, might social and economic change, the #4opens and redundant data flows work. In a world where cybercrime thrives on secrecy and centralised control, could radical transparency be part of the solution? The #4opens philosophy suggests an alternative: highly redundant, open-data systems that resist extortion because no single entity holds all the power. If data is widely distributed and accessible, ransomware loses much of its leverage. This is a shift from reactive defence to proactive resilience, a challenge to both cybercriminals and #mainstreaming vertical state actors and culture. This is already a core idea behind both the#OMN and #Fediverse networks, but yes we are talking about both economic and social models and paths shifting fundamentally, it’s a project.
