Critique the ideological blindness of the tech world

The story often revolves around the #geekproblem and deeper ideological and structural issues in the tech world. There are internal conflicts in open movements. An example i like to talk about is the UK Indymedia project as a case study of ideological and technical battles between groups with different visions for open media. #Encryptionists: Advocated for security and privacy at the expense of openness, blocking aggregation efforts like RSS. #Fashernistas, sought control over media flows through proprietary yet “better” alternatives to open standards, undermining compatibility. #Openweb advocates promoted aggregation and widely adopted standards like RSS but were sidelined by other factions. The result was a self-destructive cycle that caused the UK Indymedia project to become irrelevant, exemplifying a broader failure to embrace shared, open solutions.

The broader #geekproblem, refers to the cultural and ideological blind spots of the tech community. A fetishization of privacy, encryption, and individualism, which serve market-driven ideologies rather than societal good. A failure to address systemic social and environmental issues (e.g., #climatechaos, #deathcult worship) in favour of isolated, tech-first solutions. The division between “open” (sharing power) and “closed” (hoarding power) reflects fundamental tensions between altruistic and exploitative visions of technology.

Society and technology, the story draws parallels between historical ideologies (e.g., capitalism’s greed vs. socialism’s altruism) and the current state of tech. Examples: Closed systems reinforce inequality, greed, and control. Open systems, guided by #4opens principles, prioritize cooperation, connection, and societal benefit. The problem of dogmatism on both sides of progressive tech (spiky vs. fluffy) hinders collaboration and slows progress.

Working grassroots projects need to return to basics, embrace openness, foster flow rather than blocking, and reject the destructive patterns embedded in neoliberal tech culture. The #4opens framework is a shovel to compost the ideological and technical mess, enabling meaningful technological change. Social movements and tech must integrate this change and challenge to prevent centralization and co-option.

It’s good to critique the ideological blindness of the tech world and suggests that only by fostering trust and openness can we build a sustainable future #KISS

Shifting tech to collaboration, accountability, and sustainability

For a nuanced take on the #geekproblem, we need to highlight challenges and cultural dynamics in tech development. A starting point is the support for standards as foundations, everything in tech is built upon layers of “open industrial standards,” which provide value and interoperability. Ignoring these foundations to create isolated systems is akin to “building sandcastles”—fragile and ephemeral. The process of defining standards, however, is itself flawed and sometimes exclusionary, reflecting broader social issues like tribalism or nationalism.

Tribalism in tech can be seen as innovation and community-building but can also create fragmentation, gatekeeping, and resistance to collaboration. Comparisons to nationalism suggest that, like nations, large #dotcons (e.g., Facebook, Google) exert power rivalling traditional states, creating their own “tribes” with significant social influence. Tribalism in tech isn’t inherently bad; it can build strong, purpose-driven communities. However, when it turns exclusionary and disconnected from real-world issues, it becomes counterproductive.

Critique of dotcons and deathcult focues on the dominance of for-profit platforms (#dotcons) and the neoliberal ideology (#deathcult) underpin much of the dysfunction in society, including within the tech world. Life “inside the dotcons” involves uncritical participation in harmful systems, perpetuating cycles of #stupidindividualism and environmental degradation (#climatechaos). Platforms like Facebook and Google exemplify prioritizing profit over public good. Moving away from this requires alternatives rooted in the #4opens: Open data, Open source, Open standards, Open processes. Projects like the #OMN exemplify this shift.

Mediating harm in tech development with the broader social and environmental impacts of technology, pushing against #stupidindividualism and toward collective, sustainable solutions. Much of the “blocking energy” comes from entrenched systems and social inertia rather than active conspiracies, though intent exists in places like #traditionalmedia. Developers have a responsibility to build systems that mediate harm and foster collective well-being. This means rejecting solutions that exacerbate individualism and embracing technologies that empower communities and address systemic issues like climatechaos.

The #geekproblem as dysfunction, the geekproblem reflects a 20th-century tribalism that fails to embrace the ethical, collaborative potential of the #openweb. Examples include failed projects like #Diaspora, which had technical merit but struggled due to cultural and governance issues. The dysfunction stems from a narrow focus on technical solutions without considering social or ethical dimensions. Bridging this gap requires integrating diverse perspectives into tech development, emphasizing simplicity and human-centric design.

We do need a call for change to address these challenges head-on, we need ethical interventions rather than drawn-out or overly complex common sense “solutions”. The geekproblem highlights the limitations of tech communities to balance technical expertise with broader social responsibility. Ultimately, the solution lies in rekindling the spirit of the openweb while actively composting the “shit heap” of the dotcons. One path is addressing the geekproblem, to shift tech culture toward collaboration, accountability, and sustainability, to create tools that serve people rather than profit #KISS

Application 2025-02-032 Open Governance Body #OGB

Application 2025-02-032 Open Governance Body #OGB received

The following submission was recorded by NLnet. Thanks for your application, we look forward to learning more about your proposed project.
Contact

name
hamish campbell
phone
email
hamish@visionon.tv
organisation name
OMN
country
UK
consent
You may keep my data on record

Project

code
2025-02-032
project name
Open Governance Body #OGB
fund
Commons_Fund
requested amount
€ 50000
website

    https://unite.openworlds.info/Open-Media-Network/openwebgovernancebody

synopsis

A project designed to create a trust-based, decentralized framework for governance within grassroots networks and communities. Rooted in the #4opens principles—open data, open source, open processes, and open standards—the #OGB seeks to mediate human-to-human collaboration by fostering trust, transparency, and simplicity (#KISS).

Its primary focus is addressing the #geekproblem by bridging technical and social flows, creating tools that empower people to organize effectively without falling into hierarchical or centralized traps. The #OGB builds on trust to sift through noise, allowing genuine contributions to rise, moving from complexity to simplicity and back to complexity organically.

The expected outcomes include:

Strengthened grassroots governance: Tools for decision-making and collaboration that are inclusive and scalable.
A thriving #openweb ecosystem: Platforms and networks that prioritize trust and social value over profit.
Mediation of mainstreaming and NGO influence: Keeping progressive activism focused on spiky, meaningful change rather than fluffy distractions.

The #OGB aims to create sustainable digital commons that nurture resilience, diversity, and real-world impact.

experience

Yes, I’ve been involved in projects and communities aligned with the ethos and goals of the #OGB. My contributions span technical development, advocacy, and fostering open governance frameworks, all rooted in the principles of trust, transparency, and collaboration.

Indymedia, I was an active contributor to the global Indymedia movement, which played a pivotal role in grassroots media and decentralized collaboration. My contributions focused on: Open publishing workflows to empower communities to share their stories. Advocating for the “trust at the edges” model to ensure decision-making remained grassroots-driven. Bridging technical and social challenges by helping develop and maintain tools that aligned with the movement’s values.
OMN (Open Media Network), As one of the key proponents of the #OMN, I’ve worked to reboot grassroots media using trust-based networks and federated tools. My contributions include: Developing the concept of #4opens (open data, open source, open processes, open standards) to serve as a foundational framework. Advocating for federated tools like #ActivityPub and #RSS to enable media flows across decentralized networks. Organizing collaborative spaces to design tools that prioritize human-to-human trust rather than algorithms or centralized control.
Fediverse Advocacy, Within the Fediverse, I’ve championed the importance of grassroots governance and resisting the co-option of these spaces by corporate or NGO interests. Contributions include: Participating in discussions to shape decentralized protocols like #ActivityPub. Pushing for #KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid) principles to ensure accessibility and scalability. Highlighting the dangers of #mainstreaming and proposing strategies to mediate its impact on the #openweb.
Open Governance Experiments, I’ve collaborated on smaller experimental governance projects aimed at exploring new ways of mediating human collaboration. For example: Designing trust-based moderation systems to reduce #geekproblem domination in decision-making processes. Implementing open-process methodologies to ensure transparency in workflows. Mediating conflicts between technical and social contributors, fostering productive collaboration.

Core Contributions Across Projects, across all these initiatives, my primary focus has been on bridging the technical and human aspects of governance. This involves: Developing frameworks that enable decentralized decision-making while maintaining trust. Advocating for simplicity to combat the paralysis caused by unnecessary complexity. Building alliances and mediating the challenges posed by #dotcons, #NGO dominance, and #geekproblem tendencies.

Through these efforts, I’ve gained insights into the challenges of building sustainable governance models in decentralized spaces, and the #OGB embodies the culmination of this work. It’s a step forward in creating robust, trust-based networks that empower communities to take control of their digital and social spaces.

usage

Budget Allocation for #OGB Project

The requested budget will be allocated strategically to ensure the project’s foundational development and long-term sustainability. An outline of key areas:

Technical Development and Infrastructure (40%) Development of Core Tools: Funding will support developers to build the initial version of the #OGB code, focusing on simplicity, accessibility, and scalability. Server Infrastructure: Setting up and maintaining federated servers for testing, development, and early adoption. Integration with Existing Standards: Work to align with protocols like #ActivityPub, #Nostr and #RSS, ensuring seamless interoperability with the broader #openweb ecosystem.
Community Building and Outreach (25%) Workshops and Training: Organizing sessions to train communities on the #OGB framework, focusing on trust-based governance and open-process workflows. Content Creation: Developing accessible documentation, tutorials, and guides to demystify the #OGB model for diverse audiences. Engagement Campaigns: Reaching out to grassroots organizations, activists, and communities to onboard early adopters.
Research and Iterative Design (20%) User Feedback Loops: Conducting trials with early adopters to gather insights and refine the tools and processes. Governance Framework Refinement: Exploring different trust-based models to ensure inclusivity and adaptability to various contexts. Conflict Mediation Strategies: Testing and integrating mechanisms for conflict resolution and power balance within the #OGB framework.
Administrative and Miscellaneous Costs (15%) Project Coordination: Funding part-time coordinators to manage timelines, resources, and community engagement. Operational Expenses: Covering software donations, events, domain hosting, and other minor but essential operational costs.

Past and Present Funding Sources. The #OGB project is currently unfunded in a formal sense, operating entirely through volunteer contributions. However, it is rooted in a history of collaborative efforts from related initiatives, which have benefited from in-kind support rather than direct funding.

Past Sources: #OMN and #Indymedia Communities: Provided foundational concepts and voluntary contributions of time, skills, and infrastructure. Fediverse and #Activertypub Advocates: Offered insights and testing environments for early experimentation with governance ideas.

challenges

Present Sources: Volunteer Contributions: Core contributors are donating their time and resources to push the project forward. Allied Projects: Informal support from related decentralized tech communities, sharing knowledge, feedback, and occasional resources.

Future Vision, while external funding is vital to accelerate the project’s development, we aim to maintain independence and adhere to the #4opens principles. By minimizing reliance on corporate or NGO funding, we ensure that the #OGB remains a grassroots-driven initiative. Our long-term goal is to establish a self-sustaining model through community contributions and shared ownership, embodying the trust-based governance the project seeks to promote.

Detailed budget breakdown can be attached if required.

comparison

The #OGB (Open Governance Body) project stands on the shoulders of both historical and contemporary efforts, drawing lessons from their successes and failures to craft a novel path to decentralized governance.

A comparative analysis: Historical Projects and Their Influence

Indymedia (Independent Media Centers) Overview: Indymedia was a global network of grassroots media collectives that emerged in the late 1990s to provide a platform for independent journalism. It embodied principles of openness, decentralization, and non-hierarchical governance. Comparison: Like Indymedia, #OGB aims to empower communities through open and decentralized structures. However, Indymedia struggled with governance conflicts and centralization of power in some regions. The #OGB addresses these issues through trust-based networks, conflict mediation mechanisms, and scalable governance tools. Key Takeaway: The #OGB builds on the ethos of Indymedia while implementing technological solutions to mitigate governance bottlenecks.

Occupy Movement’s General Assemblies. Overview: Occupy’s assemblies were experiments in direct democracy, emphasizing inclusivity and consensus-based decision-making. However, the lack of structured governance led to inefficiency and internal conflicts. Comparison: The #OGB shares Occupy’s commitment to participatory governance but incorporates trust-based models to build the decision-making. Instead of full consensus, the #OGB employs trust networks to delegate decisions while retaining accountability and inclusivity. Key Takeaway: The #OGB leverages structured trust-based governance to overcome the decision-making paralysis often seen in consensus-driven movements.

Contemporary Projects and Their Relationship to #OGB. Fediverse and #ActivityPub. Overview: The Fediverse is a decentralized network of federated platforms like Mastodon, powered by the ActivityPub protocol it is pushing user autonomy and grassroots control but has faced challenges around governance and moderation.
Comparison: The #OGB complements the Fediverse by providing governance structures for federated projects, addressing the ongoing issues of moderation and decision-making. The #OGB’s trust networks align with the decentralized ethos of the Fediverse, offering a scalable solution for community self-governance. Key Takeaway: The #OGB enhances the governance layer missing in many Fediverse projects, fostering resilience and collaboration across federated networks.

NGO-Led Open Source Initiatives. Overview: Many open-source projects are managed by NGOs, which often prioritize stability and funding over grassroots participation. This has led to criticism of centralized decision-making and “corporate capture.” Comparison: The #OGB resists NGO-style top-down management, instead prioritizing the #4opens principles: open data, open source, open process, and open standards. Unlike NGO-driven projects, the #OGB is inherently community-first, ensuring power remains with the users and contributors. Key Takeaway: The #OGB rejects the NGO-centric model, emphasizing trust-based grassroots governance to avoid co-option by external actors.

Lessons from Historical Failures. CouchSurfing’s Decline. Overview: CouchSurfing transitioned from a grassroots volunteer-driven project to a for-profit company, alienating its core community and undermining trust. Comparison: The #OGB guards against such shifts by embedding trust and open governance at its core, ensuring the project remains community-owned and operated. Key Takeaway: Trust-based governance prevents mission drift and maintains alignment with the community’s original values.

P2P Projects and Overengineering. Overview: Many P2P initiatives have failed due to technical complexity and a lack of user-friendly interfaces, alienating non-technical users. Comparison: The #OGB adheres to the #KISS principle (Keep It Simple, Stupid), ensuring accessibility and ease of adoption without sacrificing functionality. Key Takeaway: Simplicity is essential for widespread adoption and long-term viability.

Key Differentiators of the #OGB Trust-Based Networks. Unlike purely consensus-driven or hierarchical models, the #OGB employs trust-based networks to enable efficient and inclusive decision-making at scale. The #4opens Framework. The #OGB is grounded in the #4opens principles, ensuring transparency, accountability, and openness across all aspects of the project. Focus on Digital Commons. The #OGB is designed to nurture digital commons, creating a space for grassroots innovation, collaboration, and governance that resists corporate capture. Composting the #TechShit, creating fertile ground for genuine social innovation.

Expected Outcomes. The #OGB aims to fill the governance gap left by historical and contemporary efforts, fostering a resilient, open, and trust-based framework for digital collaboration. By learning from the past and building on existing technologies, we seek to empower communities to reclaim the #openweb, bridging the gap between technology and grassroots activism.

The #OGB project faces significant challenges in implementing scalable trust-based governance systems. Key technical hurdles include:

Interoperability: Ensuring seamless integration with existing open protocols like #ActivityPub and the widening #openweb reboot.
Usability: Creating user-friendly interfaces to make complex governance processes accessible to non-technical people.
Resilience: Building systems resistant to malicious actors and spam within decentralized networks.

Are a few issues.

ecosystem

The #OGB project is rooted in a diverse ecosystem of grassroots organizations, decentralized communities, and open-source initiatives.

Ecosystem Description

Grassroots Communities: Activist groups, independent media collectives, and community-driven initiatives seeking alternatives to hierarchical decision-making.
FOSS Developers: Open-source software developers invested in decentralized tools, such as #ActivityPub, #Mastodon, and related protocols.
NGOs and Advocacy Groups: Organizations interested in participatory governance and transparency tools for improving their operations.
Tech Enthusiasts: People exploring ethical and sustainable technology beyond the centralized #dotcons paradigm.
Academic and Research Institutions: Scholars studying governance, social movements, and decentralized technologies.

Engagement Strategies

Collaborative Development: Open, participatory development processes underpinned by the #4opens philosophy (open data, source, process, and standards).
Workshops and Webinars: Educating target audiences about trust-based governance and the project’s tools.
Partnerships: Building alliances with aligned organizations, including community networks and FOSS projects.
Documentation and Guides: Creating accessible materials to help communities adopt #OGB principles and tools.
Pilot Projects: Collaborating with grassroots organizations to implement and refine governance systems, ensuring practical impact.

Promotion of Outcomes

Demonstration Projects: Showcasing successful case studies of #OGB governance in action.
Fediverse Integration: Leveraging federated platforms for dissemination and collaboration.
Open Events: Participating in conferences, hackathons, and public forums to share insights and foster adoption

GOVERNANCE-BODY_REV-March-2022.pdf
OGB-dev.png

Outlining the “native” #openweb path

Honesty is about laying out a stark accurate critique of the current situation, particularly the barriers posed by #mainstreaming progressives, #NGO parasites, and the broader tech churn. We need to build on the vision for mediating this #blocking and advancing real change through the #OMN projects.

First step is to mediate the blocking, to compost the #shitpile by applying the #4opens rigorously as a filter to weed out the 90% of crap. Projects that don’t align with these principles should be sidelined. Then we need more trust networks, like #OGB and OMN to build trust-based paths, reducing noise and focusing on genuine contributions.

Shift focus from #fluffy to #spiky, by calling out #NGO parasites, to challenge and expose organizations that drain focus and energy without contributing to real change. Push for spiky agendas, embrace messy, hard, and meaningful work rather than safe, feel-good approaches that reinforce the status quo.

Simplify to build complexity, by simplicity first, start with clear tools and frameworks like the 4opens and grow complexity organically through collaborative work. Reject digital drugs, the dotcons’ attempts to lull movements into compliance with endless distractions and complexity masquerading as progress.

Breaking the #mainstreaming trap, by creating focused campaigns targeting progressive allies to pull them out of the mainstream and into trust-based grassroots movements. Use storytelling, art, and direct action to expose the limitations of mainstreaming progressivism.

Build bridges to wider communities, start with small, resilient networks that are human-scale. Expand outward from these trusted cores to bring in diverse voices and new ideas. Avoid purity tests—recognize that we’re all smeared with dotcons culture and approach people where they are. The world we’re building with OMN—a future where simplicity leads to complexity—requires a shift in ideology. It’s about moving people from passive consumption under the #dotcons to active participation in building a better, progressive world.

On this path are there any humans out there? If so, the choice is simple but profound, join efforts like the #OMN. Embrace the tools and principles of the #4opens. Compost the shit and grow something real. The question isn’t whether change is needed—it’s whether we have the courage and wisdom to make it happen. For those ready to move past the #blocking, now’s the time to pick up the shovel. 🌱

What we need to do

There is a direct line between the challenges of the #mainstreaming of the #openweb and the critical need for tools like the #4opens to address these challenges. The #mainstreaming of the openweb brings visibility and new energy but also risks flooding it with shallow “common sense” that undermines its foundational values. The 4opens is your shovel, a tool for mediating this balance and preserving the integrity of the native ecosystem.

Tools to Shift the Balance: #4opens as a Guiding Principle: Ensure every project or platform respects:
Open data
Open source
Open standards
Open processes

Using this framework to evaluate and pressure projects co-opted by corporate or NGO agendas, will “naturally” lead to community-led governance to keep control in the hands of people and communities, avoiding capture by #dotcons and other hierarchical paths and structures.

Then we have the urgency of the #geekproblem which is aptly named—it is a paradox where geeks often already “have all the solutions” but lack the social frameworks to implement them. This disconnect exacerbates issues and entrenched systemic failures.

Next we have the shifting from individualism to collectivism to balance “stupid individualism” which fills tech culture, to grow collaboration and shared responsibility. Rooting the work in #nothingnew helps to focus on proven solutions and resist the allure of constant innovation for its own sake. Embed ecological awareness to tie technological development directly to ecological paths we need, making sustainability a core design principle. Shovel Work, encourages collective efforts to “compost the #techshit” and build sustainable alternatives. This promotes the slow and messy work of growing robust, community-driven ecosystems rather than relying on quick-fix solutions.

The call to action – Use or Lose – The healthy #openweb development community needs active engagement. Whether through contributing to existing projects, advocating for the 4opens, or simply resisting the co-option of open spaces, it’s time to pick up the shovel and start digging. The message is clear: there’s no magic, just work. The #OMN and #4opens provide the framework and the tools—we need to use them before they’re buried under the weight of the mainstream flow of “common sense”.

Laying the groundwork for a future worth building

Tieing together the threads of agency, ecological awareness, and social cohesion helps to envision a transformative path forward for the #openweb. Focusing on “Us” Over “Them”, focusing on “us” rather than “them” is grounded in practicality. We have influence over our own communities and movements, while exerting control over entrenched corporate powers like the #dotcons is limited and fraught with risk.

Mandating interoperability bridges systems, breaking monopolies and fostering open collaboration. However, #mainstreaming lobbying and PR by corporations are significant risks to these paths, so any legislative push must come with robust grassroots advocacy. Privacy/data laws, could backfire under corporate influence. This strong open community involvement is essential to avoid harmful outcomes that entrench corporate power while undermining freedoms.

The ecological and social metaphor, analogy of composting connects the ecological and social crises. “Common sense” as capitalism or conservatism is a shallow construct, rooted in entrenched power structures and outdated norms. Composting represents the transformative process needed to break down this “shitpile” and nourish new growth.

Human “leaking”, people inherently “leak data and metadata” is insightful. Instead of trying to prevent this natural behavior, we focus on mediating and redistributing control of these flows in ways that are healthy and liberating. Fighting over these flows, as we see in current “#geekproblems,” only blocks human society, hindering the change and challenge needed to address issues like #climatechaos.

The rise of postmodern relativism and bad faith actors is a significant barrier to social change. Mediating this problem resonates, as unchecked postmodernism erodes trust and creates endless cycles of cynicism. The #4opens as a constitution, by embedding the #4opens into the DNA of projects like the #OMN, you can create a framework that:

Anchors trust and transparency in a “post-truth” world.
Supports diversity and pluralism while resisting co-option by bad actors.
Encourages collective agency by providing a stable foundation for digital commons.

To escape the current “common sense,” we need to build alternative spaces grounded in social value. The #OMN, driven by the #4opens, can act as a scaffold for this transformation, fostering digital commons where meaningful change flourishes.

Steps we can take: Invest in bridge technologies: Expand the use of #ActivityPub and #RSS to connect people and platforms organically. Focus on Localism: Strengthen community-run servers and federated systems to build resilient networks from the ground up. Challenge Corporate Narratives: Advocate for laws and systems that prioritize interoperability and openness, while resisting harmful privacy/data policies. Normalize Composting as a Metaphor: Encourage broader acceptance of composting as both an ecological and cultural imperative—breaking down the “shitpile” to nourish growth.

Emphasis on liberating spaces and fostering creativity as a foundation for a thriving, equitable #openweb. By composting the failures of the past and focusing on collective agency, we lay the groundwork for a future worth building. 🌱

Metaphors matter, composting the current paths in #AI

This #AI-meets-copyright consultation is another wave of opportunistic grafting, much like the #crypto mess before it. The rhetoric about leveraging AI to “grow the economy” and “improve public services” is justification for a “commons” grab by nasty interests. It’s the normal pushing in the ongoing path of #deathcult worship, 40 years of #neoliberalism, digging us deeper into a hole we desperately need to climb out of.

The metaphor of composting captures the urgent need for discernment, what cultural and technological artefacts still serve us in the onrushing era of #climatechaos, and what is toxic and must urgently be composted. People ask what do we mean by this, in its cultural sense, composting is about adapting the remnants of the deathcult into something fertile for a radically different way of life. This is achievable only if we act swiftly to embrace radical change while there’s still time for the metaphor to remain metaphorical. Delay, and #climatechaos will render the metaphor physical—turning our cities, infrastructure, and economies into literal waste piles, where the nasty few will be left to fights over the scraps.

This urgent need for sorting what’s salvageable from what’s dead weight, requires critical thinking and collaborative effort, we need projects like the #OGB to build affinity groups of action, to balance radical action with consensus-building. While consensus about the failures of the last 40 years is important, we need to avoid falling into the trap of endless sterile deliberation. The urgency of the moment demands bold, practical action to balance the needed intellectual and rhetorical critique.

The metaphorical shovel is right there, let’s use it. What we need, is a clear framework (#OMN) to identify what is compostable (ideas, tools, and systems that can support a degrowth future) and what must be discarded to the compost heap. A part of this is cultural agitation to shake people out of their complacency, as the economy of thinking must shift radically. This has to be on a positive path to community resilience, building networks of mutual support, trust and regenerative paths, not the default #deathcult’s control/fear paradigm we are currently walking.

#AI could play a role if it’s on the #4opens path, but the current #dotcons push to #AI is part of a “last binge” of neoliberal exploitation, it’s largely irrelevant to the path we need to take, we need to urgently ignore and shift #mainstreaming conversations to focus on what we actually need. The challenge is to redirect the narrative, how can we use our technology to empower grassroots alternatives to build a post-death cult world? We need to do this in tandem with radical action for fertile new growth. Delay, and we’ll find ourselves buried under the non-compostable remnants of a civilization too slow to adapt. It well pastime to grab that shovel. #OMN

The “social shit” story is raw, real, and relatable

The metaphor of “shit” as both the cause of decay and a potential source of renewal is provocative and insightful. It captures the essence of the challenge we face in addressing #mainstreaming culture, where conversations to often get stuck in defensive and rigid negative thinking.

Why social change online fails, is in part that terms are barriers, people cling to #mainstreaming “common sense” because it feels safe and familiar. Talking outside these norms triggers defensiveness, making constructive dialogue nearly impossible. This is amplified by post-modern relativism (on the left) and authoritarian rigidity (on the right), which block ideas and meaningful conversations.

The role of #BLOCKING, dismissing or shutting down alternative perspectives perpetuates the #techshit mess and reinforces #deathcult values. It stifles creativity and solutions by keeping discussions within narrow boundaries. Social shit as the status quo, both left, and right ideological contribute to the decay, creating a world smeared in “shit” where truth is either denied or imposed. This leads to stagnation, not growth.

The plan and the #4opens, focus on action, “just keep working” is pragmatic. By creating and demonstrating the value of #openweb tech like #OMN, we can sidestep unproductive arguments and focus on planting seeds of change. Turning shit into compost, the metaphor of composting is powerful. Social decay (shit) can be transformed into fertile ground for growth, but it requires tools (shovels) and effort. This aligns with need for grassroots action and collective responsibility.

Reframing conversations is core, to break through defensive and angry reactions. For this to work, maybe we need to start with shared values, frame discussions about universal concerns like community, fairness, and sustainability this could build common ground. To balance relatable language alongside the “truth” metaphors, which are both vivid and compelling, sometimes it’s good to simplify for audiences to draw people in. Focus on demonstration, not debate, showcasing working examples of #4opens tech and grassroots projects to inspire people to engage.

Planting flowers, the imagery of strong women and sensible men wielding shovels to compost the mess and plant flowers, is an optimistic vision. It emphasizes collective action and the potential for beauty to emerge from decay. The open invitation for collaboration is key, maintaining this openness, we can hold open space for those ready to step away from the pile and start helping with the shovelling.

The “social shit” story is raw, real, and relatable. It smells like the mess we’re in, but also hints at the possibility of transformation. The challenge lies in inspiring people to pick up the shovel and join in the composting work. Maybe with persistence, transparency, and focus on action, this work will catalyse meaningful change.

Keep planting seeds—some will bloom in unexpected ways. 🌱

The question, how do we bring more people into this space of stepping away and creating something better?

There is a deep frustration with #mainstreaming culture, with its strong pushing of the wrong people and prioritizing misguided actions. How can we “think better” beyond the traps of the current socio-political mess.

The scum rises, in #mainstreaming culture, those who conform to the system, rather than challenge it, often rise to the top. This creates a cycle where meaningful change is stifled by mediocrity and opportunism.
Grassroots value, social progress has historically emerged from the #grassroots. By stepping away from the toxic mainstream, we can refocus on nurturing these sources of real value.
The wrong thing gets done, funders and institutional forces often push agendas that diverge from grassroots needs, resulting in projects that perpetuate the status quo.
Paralysis of choice, the perceived lack of viable options (e.g., “you have no choice but to do the wrong thing”) leads to a sense of helplessness and frustration.

Thinking better, we need paths that reject the foundations of the current #mainstreaming while building more collective, focused paths and actions. Let’s look at some broad outlines:

Anarchist paths focus on horizontal organization, mutual aid, and direct action.
Strengths: Empowers communities, resists hierarchy, and builds autonomy.
Weaknesses: Often struggles with long-term scalability and coordination.
Trotskyist/Stalinist paths centralized control with a focus on revolutionary goals and structural transformation.
Strengths: Can mobilize large-scale change and challenge systemic power structures.
Weaknesses: builds authoritarianism, co-option, and detachment from real grassroots needs.
Liberal paths lead to incremental reforms within existing systems.
Strengths: Pragmatic and accessible, with a focus on policy and advocacy.
Weaknesses: Co-opted by #mainstreaming agendas, leading to superficial solutions.

The #4opens approach, is a permissionless path to sidestep these systemic failures. This approach aligns with anarchist values of autonomy while addressing their scalability challenges through structured openness and federation. Some practical steps to nurture grassroots power:

Step away from toxicity, recognize when systems and individuals perpetuate harm, and refocus energy on constructive grassroots work. Muddle through together, embrace imperfection and collective experimentation. Mistakes are inevitable, but progress emerges from the process. Push back against funders’ agendas, build alternative funding models (e.g., community support, cooperative economies) to reduce reliance on top-down directives. Focus on trust networks, invest in relationships and trust-building at the grassroots level. Trust is the antidote to the cynicism of #mainstreaming. Hold space for uncomfortable conversations, lean into the discomfort of challenging entrenched norms and assumptions within movements.

The challenge is a very real mess, we’re stuck in a cycle where “the wrong thing” gets done under pressure from flawed paths. Breaking free requires stepping away, nurturing #grassroots alternatives, and committing to frameworks like the #4opens that push more collective empowerment over individual gain and #mainstreaming institutional control.

For more of this there are a bunch of grump old sods working on the same things seizethemeans and more, add them in the comments please

The question, how do we bring more people into this space of stepping away and creating something better? Currently, it is not very attractive to the #fashernistas

Looking at some of the issues we need to fix

#NGO-driven approach to activism are a part of the challenges of #mainstreaming agendas in both tech and social movements. NGOs at best aim to “make the mess work a bit better” without addressing root causes of anything in an affective way. This band-aid path aligns them too much with the mainstreaming agenda rather than fostering a systemic change agenda. This need for maintaining “relevance” leads to shallow solutions rather than transformative action.

With activist projects, half entangled in this #NGO world, struggling to build shared objectives, collaboration becomes fragmented, and efforts fail to scale horizontally or vertically and sustain much impact. We have historical paths to mediate this, like the #PGA (Peoples’ Global Action) that aligning around clear hallmarks galvanizes collective action. With grassroots tech and user engagement, projects fail without people and communities. If people remain tethered to #dotcons, our work on grassroot projects die before they take off. Activists criticize dotcons but often fail to leave them, perpetuating the paths and systems they oppose, a symptom of the #deathcult worship.

Many radical/progressive tech initiatives focus on aesthetics (#fashernista) or isolated #geekproblem goals without contributing to broader movements like rebooting grassroots media, these efforts become distractions and dead ends, they waste time and focus. What is needed is to provide compelling alternatives to the dotcons that people can genuinely use and build upon to step away, so activism can play a bigger role. Leaving the #dotcons and embracing decentralized, ethical platforms is itself a form of activism, it’s a #KISS path that undermines the #deathcult and creates space for alternatives to thrive.

Composting pointless projects, we need to identify and “compost” projects that fail to contribute meaningfully to broader goals. This isn’t about cynicism, but about redirecting energy toward initiatives that matter. Use the energy of critique to inspire better efforts rather than dismiss entirely. Key question, how do we bridge the gap between critique and action to avoid losing people and momentum in the current mess, and not just create more mess? A first step is to challenge activists to step back, think critically, and act boldly, with a reminder that inaction—or misguided action—is a victory for the #deathcult.

Q. how do you envision the #4opens and #OMN evolving? What can you do to make this happen?

#4opens vs. #4closed

The critical paths between governance, activism, and the ideological underpinnings of #FOSS, #opensource, and the #openweb. The problem, governance without “politics” which FOSS and opensource often ignore and block the politics, leading to governance models resembling feudalism where “better kings” may emerge, but the underlying structure remains inequitable. Without addressing systemic issues, projects replicate the very power imbalances they aim to escape.

Decentralization is a post-capitalist concept, as decentralization eliminates middlemen, undermining the foundations of capitalism. However, capitalism co-opts decentralization, selling illusions while embedding scarcity (e.g., #encryptionist projects). Recognizing and resisting this is vital to preserving the openweb. Composting the shit, current activism often worsens the “shit pile” by pouring misaligned efforts and unclear priorities into an already broken paths. Instead, we need shovels for composting—tools and frameworks like #OMN and the #4opens to transform waste into fertile ground for radical change.

A solution can be found in 4opens and #OGB, this creates a permissionless path, framework for decentralized, equitable governance. The Open Governance Body (OGB) fosters participatory decision-making, breaking away from feudal hierarchies and cultivating more of a balance of collective ownership. The path is building together, the Open Media Network (OMN) embodies this ethos by emphasizing “you and me” over “just me.” A core part of this path is that activist media must embrace discomfort as a catalyst for change, balancing inspiration, information, and critique to challenge the status quo.

A world in flux, old paths are gone, there’s no going back, reboots are imminent—social upheavals (#Trump, #Brexit) and environmental crises signal the need for systemic transformation. The 4opens promote transparency, participation, and shared ownership. By contrast, the #4closed represent secrecy, exclusivity, control, and commodification—aligning with the #dotcons and the #deathcult’s vision of the future. Words as power, the spell of repetition, the 4opens is more than a mantra, it’s a way of embedding ethical, decentralized values into public consciousness. This “spell” counters the pervasive narratives of the 4closed and offers a tangible path for the needed transformation.

Let’s build tools that reflect human flourishing

One of the strong #blocking forces is #mainstreaming objectives being imposed on non-mainstream projects. This is a strong recurring issue in alternative tech spaces like the #openweb and #Fediverse. This happens because people perceive mainstreaming as “common sense,” mistaking it for adding value. Over time, this mess erodes the radical, decentralizing paths, feeding people back into the centralization of #dotcons and perpetuating the #stupidindividualism we are trying to overcome.

Define and defend non-mainstream objectives with strong clarity of purpose. Clearly articulating the goals and principles of #openweb projects, emphasizing the value of non-mainstreaming paths. This needs to be anchored in frameworks like the #4opens and ethical guidelines such as the #PGA Hallmarks. Build the community agreements to hold these in place to ensure contributors understand and commit to these principles. Actively use documents, onboarding materials, and collective discussions to signpost these paths.
Strengthen “native” culture against #stupidIndividualism by balancing the push for collective governance, we need federated and decentralized governance structures like #OGB (Open Governance Body). These prevent individuals from overriding group objectives with personal agendas. Emphasize trust by fostering a culture that prioritizes relationships and trust over competition and self-interest.
Build post-scarcity #FOSS tools that focus on simplicity and functionality, avoid overloading projects with unnecessary features (#techshit) that complicate usability and dilute the #KISS vision. Prioritize accessibility, with tools that empower communities without requiring heavy technical expertise, making them usable and scalable without compromising their radical foundations. Use the #4opens to anchor technology in open processes, data, licences, and standards to ensure transparency and prevent co-optation.
Compost the stinking pile of #techshit. Shovels are a metaphor for composting, to open spaces for critique and push back #mainstreaming attempts constructively. Use feedback loops to identify and counteract behaviours that undermine these paths. Use real-world examples to illustrate the long-term harm. To combat the “common sense” myths, highlight how #mainstreaming benefits centralized systems and reinforces the #deathcult that meany people worship.
Resilience in the #fediverse and beyond is grown by practical limiting node scalability, in federated flows, understand scalability limits based on moderation and quality. This prevents overgrowth and maintains trust within smaller, more accountable communities. Encourage decentralization, by supporting the diversity of smaller instances rather than a few dominant ones. This ensures resilience and reduces the risk of centralization.

We need to be building tools for flourishing, in a large part to counteract #stupidindividualism and mainstreaming, for this we need affinity groups that focus on post-scarcity tech and tools that foster trust, collaboration, and grassroots empowerment. To make this happen, we need these affinity groups to use the #4opens as a guiding framework and the #OGB to organize collective governance. By prioritizing these non-mainstreaming flows, we expand the #openweb sustainably while preserving its radical, human-centered roots. Let’s build tools that reflect human flourishing, not corporate consolidation. It’s hard work, but it’s the only path forward that can work.