Why Humans are Social First, Individuals Second

Human beings are inherently social creatures, our identities, communities, and shared values are what define us as human. The #deathcult of the last 40 years, driven by neoliberal ideologies, has systematically isolated individuals, eroding the social bonds that sustain our shared humanity. This isolation has fostered nihilism by acclimatizing people to a world-view devoid of collective meaning and purpose.

Social bonds are the foundations of humanity, we develop meaning, empathy, and creativity through relationships. Without connections to others, individual existence loses its depth and context. Isolation undermines mental and physical well-being, as can be seen in the increase of depression and anxiety in hyper-individualistic societies we have created for the last 40 years.

The role of digital tools, in this, and internet systems SHOULD amplify our social nature rather than diminish it. Building #FOSS tools that prioritize social connections over individual convenience is essential to counteract the isolating current paths. Projects like the #OMN and frameworks like the #4opens focus on creating platforms that reinforce this community, trust, and collective purpose.

Market-driven ideologies reduce relationships to transactions, prioritizing competition over collaboration. The has been terrible damage from 40 Years of the #deathcult worship, economic and social atomization, with policies that dismantled collective institutions like unions, community centres, and public services, leaving individuals to fend for themselves in increasingly precarious conditions. The normalization of nihilism, fosters a sense of hopelessness, where people accept destruction and exploitation as inevitable. This normalization stifles resistance to systemic harm, as individuals lack the solidarity needed to push back with any real effect. This has lead to a loss of collective power, with well inturned efforts to challenge this system, such as labour strikes, protests, and cooperative initiatives, being undermined by the fragmentation of social groups and the emphasis on “common sense” individualism.

The path we need to take to change and challenge this – building social-first tools – designed with community-building as the primary goal, ensuring individuals feel connected and supported. This includes fostering spaces for dialogue, collaboration, and mutual aid. Empowering the collective, decentralized, transparent, and accountable to the people who use them. Federated technologies like #activitypub offer alternatives to centralized systems, encouraging diversity and horizontal collaboration. Reclaiming shared values is hard, but prioritizing cooperation and solidarity, we can combat the nihilism that comes from isolation. Reinforcing the idea that human values are rooted in relationships rather than material success is key.

What needs to happen next: Resist Isolation by pushing back against narratives that promote individual solutions to systemic problems. Emphasize the need for collective action to address crises like #climatechange and inequality. Shift design paradigms, to ensure that tools and platforms prioritize human connection and accountability over profit and efficiency. Rebuild social infrastructure, to support community-focused initiatives that rebuild the trust and solidarity undermined by decades of dogmatic neoliberal policy.

By recognizing that humans are social first and individual second, we can take paths that reinforce our shared humanity, resisting the nihilism and destructiveness of the #deathcult. This approach isn’t just better—it’s necessary for our survival.

The Problem: Postmodernism, Hate, and #StupidIndividualism

The influence of postmodern thinking among #fashernistas—people more focused on appearances and trends than substance—has eroded the core purpose of activism: fostering positive social change rooted in love, solidarity, and mutual aid. Meanwhile, the rise of a new breed of right-wing “activists” using hate and fear to advance the agenda of neo-liberalism’s #deathcult highlights the stark difference between activism and fascism. It’s critical to reclaim language and purpose in this context to clarify and reinvigorate progressive movements.

Confusion, postmodernism’s emphasis on skepticism and deconstruction has undermined the unifying narratives that once drove collective action. While useful for critiquing power, it results in fragmented movements without clear goals. This confusion allows #fashernistas to dominate activism, prioritizing visibility and personal branding over systemic change.

Hate-based “activism”, where the right-wing movements use hate and fear to build “solidarity” based on this fear, by reinforce the “stupid” part of individualism, feeding off the #deathcult of neoliberalism. These movements weaponize the language of activism, but their actions serve fascist goals of division and destruction.

This is the core of #stupidindividualism poison that neoliberalism breeds, isolated people and erodes the collective bonds necessary for transformative activism. This individualism poisons movements, turning them into echo chambers of self-interest rather than engines of solidarity.

Even the conservatives think we are in a mess

Ideas for antidotes, reclaiming activism for progressive change:

* Redefine activism anchored in solidarity, and collective care, rejecting hate and fear as tactics. Clearly differentiate between activism (which builds and unites) and fascism (which destroys and divides).

* Center collective narratives, move beyond postmodern fragmentation by building shared stories and visions for the future. Activism that connects people to a larger purpose and community. Embrace horizontal structures, by foster decentralized and inclusive decision-making processes, thus reducing reliance on vertical, personality-driven leadership. This actively counters #stupidindividualism with collaborative frameworks like the #4opens.

* Focus on systems and paths, not individuals, shift away from individual heroics and saviour complexes. Build tools and strategies that empower communities rather than centring individuals.

* Reclaim language, use honest language to name problems and solutions. Call hate-based movements what they are, fascist. Avoid diluting terms like “activism” with actions that lack integrity and constructive purpose.

Building a liveable, humanistic future, needs us, to reclaiming activism, grounding in principles that resist the #mainstreaming influence and cultural by-products like #stupidindividualism. Movements that reject hate and fear as tactics, fostering instead the solidarity needed to challenge oppression and resulting environmental destruction. The antidote lies in collective care, shared purpose, and tools like the #4opens to ensure accountability and #KISS progress. We need foundations to build from, with this we counter the cultural decay of the #deathcult and take paths toward meaningful, sustainable change we really need.

Grassroots Radical Media: A #4opens Path

The resurgence of grassroots radical media projects requires a return to foundational principles, particularly the embrace of #FOSS and #opensource practices. These principles align with the #4opens framework, which acts as both a lock and a key for building sustainable and accountable media networks.

The Basics, Activism vs. Mainstreaming, where activism aims to resist and redirect the mainstream toward progressive change. #Mainstreaming, on the other hand, often serves NGO agendas, softening resistance to maintain institutional stability and job creation for its participants. Recognizing this distinction helps grassroots projects avoid being co-opted into reducing systemic change to incremental tweaks.

The importance of #FOSS and #4opens in keeping radical media transparent and accessible. The #4opens (open process, open data, open licenses, and open standards) ensure inclusivity and guard against #mainstreaming dilution. These principles help create paths accountable to people, not funders and institutions.

This is the #OMN mission:

Core vs. Periphery: OMN prioritizes the 1% of technologies and workflows that align with human-focused projects, filtering out the shiny distractions of mainstream tech. Guided by the PGA Hallmarks, the project adheres to these anti-capitalist, anti-patriarchal, and grassroots-oriented principles to ensure alignment with long-term goals rather than fleeting trends. This challenges, right-wing coordination, the right has effectively leveraged #openweb media over the last decade, outpacing the left in cooperation and strategy. To counter this, the left must embrace collaborative frameworks like the #4opens and avoid falling into isolated #stupidindividualism. Verbiage and Focus is an issue, academia often overcomplicates the discourse, leading to a churn of ideas without actionable outcomes. Projects need clear plans that balance innovation with practical implementation.

Avoiding the #deathcult of neoliberalism, most mainstream tech assumes human nature is fixed by 40 years of neoliberalism, building reactionary systems. Grassroots projects reject this limitation and design tools that reflect the full spectrum of human potential. To move, we need to leverage experience, older activists should gently guide enthusiastic newcomers by asking, “How does this work with the #4opens?” and “Does this further the PGA hallmarks?” This approach fosters accountability and focus without stifling creativity. A core part of this is filtering technology, to avoid getting lost in the tech world’s “stinky, shiny fashions.” Focus on tools that genuinely empower communities rather than perpetuate #mainstreaming.

Build humanistic tools, to stop creating isolated, individualist solutions, tools fostering collaboration across diverse movements. Reboot proven models, starting new projects in a world dominated by #stupidindividualism leads to often to fragmentation. Instead, reboot and modernize successful past initiatives like #Indymedia, grounding them in the #4opens and #KISS federated governance.

The time is ripe for a #reboot of the alt/grassroots tech world. By centring projects on transparency, inclusivity, and collaboration, we can counter the forces of #deathcult neoliberalism and #mainstreaming. The #OMN is a framework for this sustainable and impactful radical media, to make us ready to sift through the tech pile and find the tools that serve humanity. Join the effort to help shape the future of grassroots media and governance. Learn more at OMN

Why radical media embrace’s #FOSS and the #4opens

Grassroots radical media has always sought to challenge and reshape dominant narratives. To do this effectively, it must adhere to principles of transparency, accessibility, and collaboration. This is why #FOSS (Free and Open Source Software) and the #4opens framework are foundational. They aren’t just technical choices, they’re philosophical commitments to building equitable and resilient systems.

Transparency, open-source tools allow communities to see and understand the code they rely on, ensuring no hidden mechanisms compromise privacy or autonomy. The #4opens—open process, open data, open standards, and open licences—extend this transparency to decision-making, information sharing, and collaboration.
Accessibility, #FOSS tools remove barriers to entry by being freely available, reducing dependency on corporate and proprietary platforms. Grassroots projects should not depend on tools controlled by the systems they seek to challenge.

Resilience and autonomy, open-source systems allow communities to adapt and maintain tools independently, ensuring sustainability without external reliance. This autonomy is key to resisting co-optation or suppression by powerful entities.

Activism aims to build resistance to the dominant flow of power, pushing progressive change. #Mainstreaming, often driven by NGOs, does the opposite, it smooths resistance, aligning activism with the status quo. While this alignment might bring short-term visibility and funding, it undermines radical #KISS goals. Understanding this distinction is crucial for grassroots projects.

Main streaming paths, focuses on making activism palatable to existing power structures. Often funded to perpetuate jobs and programs rather than systemic change.
Activism Goals, challenges and disrupts mainstream systems to create alternative pathways. Prioritizes systemic change over institutional comfort.

To take the activism and grassroots paths, we need help addressing verbiage and over-analysis. The challenge is in combining academia with activism is the risk of losing focus amid jargon and theory-heavy discourse. While these discussions are valuable, grassroots projects need clarity and actionable goals. A balanced approach is essential, to simplify communication use frameworks like the #4opens to distil complex ideas into accessible principles. Prioritize outcomes, ensure discussions translate into clear plans and measurable actions.

The time to #reboot grassroots tech. The current over-reliance on proprietary #dotcons platforms controlled by corporate interests stifles radical change. A #reboot is needed to reinvigorate open tech communities by reviving collaboration around #FOSS and federated tools like #ActivityPub to build decentralized, people-controlled media ecosystems. To make this happen, we need to focus on the Basics and rebuilding solidarity. The question isn’t whether we should reboot grassroots tech, but how. By staying grounded in principles like the #4opens, we can reboot lasting alternatives to the status quo.

Why ideas matter

The important tension in the current state of social change efforts: individualism vs. collectivism, vertical vs. horizontal structures, and the challenges of maintaining fragile consensus. These dynamics have direct implications for how we approach systemic problems like #climatechaos and the creation of alternatives through projects like the #OMN.

On this subject, it’s important to understand why #stupidIndividualism is dangerous, which can be seen in the failure of individual solutions. Relying on individual action (e.g., recycling, personal carbon offsets) shifts focus from the systemic nature of crises. The climate emergency, for example, is primarily driven by industrial-scale emissions and unsustainable policies—not individual behaviour. This emphasis on individualism undermines collective action, which is the only scale at which meaningful change and challenge can occur.

Blind spots in vertical thinking, hierarchical (“vertical”) structures dismiss and fail to understand the dynamics of decentralized (“horizontal”) systems. Vertical systems are focused on control and clarity, at the expense of collaboration and diversity, which horizontal structures thrive on.

The dangers of certainty, consensus vs. certainty, pushing for “certainty”, rigid clarity often destroys consensus. Consensus, while fragile and imperfect, is the foundation of all functioning societies. It is built on compromise, flexibility, and mutual understanding. The insistence that “my view is right” fractures the trust necessary for cooperative systems to thrive.

Why this is destructive, the breakdown of consensus leads to polarization and inaction, both of which are catastrophic in the face of crises like #climatechange. Certainty-driven narratives ignore the complexity and nuance required to address interconnected, systemic issues.

Ideas for moving forward, focus on processes, rather than direct outcomes:

Build systems (like the #OMN) that prioritize open, participatory processes over prescriptive solutions. The #4opens—open process, open data, open licences, and open standards—offer a starting point for structuring this.
Encourage horizontal thinking, foster decentralized systems where power and decision-making are distributed. This creates resilience and allows diverse voices to contribute meaningfully.
Embrace ambiguity and iteration, instead of pushing for rigid clarity, accept that solutions evolve through experimentation and iteration. Social change is a dynamic process, not a static goal.
Reframe certainty as trust, replace the need for certainty with a culture of trust-based collaboration. Trust allows for flexibility and creativity within systems, enabling them to adapt and respond to changing circumstances.
Use crises as opportunities for solidarity, crises often push societies toward authoritarian responses. Instead, frame crises as opportunities to build solidarity, emphasizing shared struggles and collective goals.

This is why ideas matter, the urgency of the #climatecrisis, paired with the inertia of entrenched systems, makes it tempting to lean on familiar, hierarchical solutions. However, transformation comes from collective, decentralized efforts that prioritize flexibility, trust, and inclusion over individualism and rigid control. Projects like #OMN and frameworks like the #4opens are tools for navigating these challenges while staying grounded in the #KISS principles of solidarity and mutual aid.

The Seven Stages of climate denial:

1. It’s not real
2. It’s not us
3. It’s not that bad
4. We have time
5. It’s too expensive to fix
6. Here’s a fake solution
7. It’s too late: you should have warned us earlier

Trolls use all of these stages to deny the reality of #climatechaos

Moving forward, the path is undeniably messy

The challenge is in scaling alternative grassroots projects like #OMN while retaining their radical, transformative potential. As these projects sprout, they hit two major barriers:

Soft Social Power: Scaling requires broader community buy-in and social legitimacy, which is undermined by entrenched hierarchies and #mainstreaming resistance.
Hard Power: When these projects start to resemble significant social challenges, they attract the attention of institutional forces, which respond with suppression or co-option.

Paths we need to mediate these challenges:

Bake the #4opens deeply Into federated governance. This is what the #OGB is for, to use federated, horizontal governance paths where decision-making power is distributed across nodes and communities. This creates resilience by decentralizing control and embedding trust at every layer. Hardcode the #4opens in to the open process as non-negotiable. Build these principles into the DNA of tools and communities to guard against corruption and co-optation.
Focus on interoperability by building tools that connect and empower diverse movements rather than siloed, individual projects. #ActivityPub is a good example of a protocol fostering universalism in the #Fediverse. Prioritize community-first design with tools that are easy to use and serve collective needs, avoiding over-engineering and catering solely to tech-savvy users.
Prepare for reaction and pushback by grow power strategically, use trust networks, federated alliances, and grassroots engagement this makes reactionary pushback harder to target and dismantle what you are building. Anticipate Resistance, recognize that crises will be used as opportunities for suppression. Strengthen your community’s capacity for crisis response through decentralized decision-making and resource-sharing networks. Collective defence, build alliances across movements to protect against external threats, whether they come from governments, corporations, or other institutions of hard power.
Balance visionaries and builders by fostering inclusive engagement. Welcome both those who help build projects from scratch and those who engage with initiatives once they have momentum. Use simple, accessible entry points to bring more people into the projects. Avoid perfection paralysis, accept that projects evolve through experimentation and iteration. Focus on building functional systems that can adapt, rather than waiting for perfection.
Shovelling the “crisis compost” to channel the mess. Use the growing crises as opportunities to mobilize and educate, while staying anchored to the #4opens. Shared narratives matter. Frame crises in terms of collective action and solidarity, countering divisive narratives that undermine the project’s goals. Simplify and focus. Complex problems demand clear and grounded solutions, focus on basic, actionable steps as well as sprawling ambitions.

Moving forward, the path is undeniably messy, but the focus should be on growing horizontal power networks without compromising values. By committing to federated, principles and building resilience against internal and external challenges, projects like the #OMN thrive and scale without succumbing to the pressures that dismantle and dilute radical movements. This requires long-term commitment, patience, and a willingness to confront the realities of #powerpolitics while staying true to the foundational ethos of grassroots empowerment.

What is the “problem” with our geeks

The #geekproblem highlights a recurring issue within tech-driven movements, the overemphasis on control and complexity at the expense of accessibility, community, and collective goals. This “problem” arises from the intersection of tendencies toward hierarchy, a blind reverence for technology as inherently powerful (#deathcult worship), and the unchecked growth of technical complexity over the last few decades. This diverges from the principles of #KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid).

Control as an Obsession is the invisible insecurity that blinds this path. The desire for control has deep roots, where order, precision, and predictability are prioritized above all else. In tech communities, this translates into over-engineering, with complex solutions that are difficult for non-technical people to engage with. Leading to exclusion and often to gatekeeping through jargon, obscure processes, and rigid technical hierarchies. This is tech #Fetishism, and leads to a belief in technology’s ability to solve any problem, with almost no understanding of the side lining social or political paths this come with.

This fixation, and resulting intolerance, leads to systems that might be technically impressive but fail to serve any broader community, producing another wave of #techshit that then needs work to compost
In this path, the #deathcult represents the blind worship of systems and ideologies that lead to direct harm to us.

The #KISS principal advocates for simplicity and accessibility, ensuring systems are intuitive and usable by the wider community groups that need them. The #geekproblem runs counter to this, by alienating the very communities tech projects are meant to serve and widening the gap between technical experts and everyday people, perpetuating inequality in access and understanding.

Taking the “problem” out of geek, we must rebalance priorities by shifting dev focus on people over technology. Build systems and networks that empower and include rather than control and exclude.
Embrace simplicity, with #4opens, prioritizing usability, transparency, and community feedback to make tools accessible. Actively challenge tech fetishism by pushing of technology as a tool, not an end in itself.

Solutions must address social and political dimensions by decentralize, this can be hard as all the code is in the end is about centralize authority in the hands of a few technical “elites”. But, the #geekproblem is not insurmountable, solving it simply requires a shift in mindset. By rejecting control-driven hierarchies and embracing collaborative simplicity, we build systems and networks that serve the people they’re meant to empower.

The #blocking of #openweb funding

Funders, #NGOs, and the #mainstreaming crew are trapped in fixed truths, while real change comes from dynamic thinking. That’s why they keep failing us. So, how do we break this cycle and move forward? For meaningful #openweb funding, we need projects that are native and align with critical social needs for the evolution of the internet, balancing openness/trust based tech with funding for outreach and feedback mechanisms.

Shifting Funding From “Fear/Control” to “Open/Trust” The Problem, current funding paths for internet projects focus on security, control, and compliance, perpetuating systems of centralized authority. This approach stifles trust-based collaboration, which are essential for the #openweb path. Action: help to advocate for dedicated funding streams for projects explicitly focused on decentralization, trust-building, and open governance structures like the Open Media Network (#OMN) and #OGB. Incorporate trust-based metrics into funding criteria, rewarding projects that demonstrate sustainable, human-centered governance.
Bridging hard tech and soft use. The Problem: Hard tech (protocols, platforms) develop in isolation from people, leading to tools that fail to meet real-world social needs. Action: Allocate funds for programs to bridge developers and user communities, ensuring reciprocal feedback between tech builders and real life communities. Establish mechanisms to incorporate insights from “soft use” (how people interact with tools) into the iterative development of “hard tech.” Support user-led design initiatives for communities to directly shape the platforms they use.
Governance: The Problem: Existing tech networks prioritize technical over social design, exacerbating the #geekproblem of over-complexity and alienating the change we need. Action: Fund projects like the OMN that flip this dynamic, prioritizing human networks as the foundation for technical systems. This creates tools that reflect and support the needs of grassroots communities. Promote protocols like #ActivityPub to enhance interoperability and people/community autonomy across networks.
The OMN is a lightweight framework with five core functionalities aimed at building a trust-based semantic web:
* Publish: Share content as objects.
* Subscribe: Follow streams of interest (people, organizations, topics).
* Moderate: Manage trust by endorsing or rejecting content flows
* Rollback: Remove historical flows content from the point trust is broken.
* Edit Metadata: Improve the discoverability and context of content.
These tools enable people to control their digital spaces and data flows while horizontally growing collaboration and accountability

This native #openweb path requires systemic support with funding to promote tools and frameworks that build human agency and trust. By doing this, we create resilient and equitable paths in tech, moving away from the limitations of the #open and #closed web mess we keep repeating

On this subject, it’s worth looking at this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_law

The funding crisis for the #openweb isn’t just about money—it’s about values. Right now, too much funding goes into coding copies of #dotcons, replicating the same social centralized, mess under a different name. This doesn’t fix anything—it just locks us into the same broken patterns.

We need to push for native #openweb approaches—ones rooted in decentralisation, trust, and open process. History is full of projects that did this right—#indymediaback being just one example. But the real challenge isn’t just building the tech; it’s getting people to value this diversity.

Funding bodies like #NGI, #nlnet, and #ngizero could play a key role if they prioritize projects that challenge, rather than copy, the status quo. But beyond grants, we need a cultural shift—one that recognises the importance of public digital infrastructure and collective ownership over our tools.

So what can we do?

Demand funding for actual #openweb projects, not more social silos.
Build bridges between funders and radical grassroots tech.
Create our own support networks outside traditional funding models.
Shift the conversation—value the diversity, not just the tech.

If we don’t push, the funding will keep flowing into the wrong places, and we’ll be stuck recycling the same failures. Let’s compost the mess and grow something real.

#4Opens #OMN #DIY

The #fashernistas and #geekproblem interact to work in unintentional tandem

In part, the current challenges faced by the #openweb and grassroots reboot movements can be traced back to two cultural and structural problems: the influence of #fashernistas and the deeply ingrained #geekproblem. Both of these contribute to active blocking of meaningful change, hindering the progress needed for an openweb reboot. To walk this “native” landscape effectively, it’s needed to understand these barriers and how they block change and challenge.

The fashernistas and their echo chambers, the term refers to a subset of people who are highly engaged in performative discussions, centred on trending topics and social posturing without substantive engagement in grassroots real world problem-solving. While they are adept at identifying and amplifying transient issues, their conversations stay within insular bubbles. This creates a cycle where attention and focus are pulled toward repetitive discourse that never leads to any outcomes.

This taking up space with little and most often no follow-through is detrimental. Fashernistas thrive in spaces where the appearance of awareness is valued over the hard, real, messy action that is needed. In this #manstraming bubble, dialogue is focused on social capital—who knows what, who said what—rather than collaborative problem-solving. The result? The conversation around the openweb becomes cluttered, attention splinters, and meaningful action is overshadowed by a constant churn of noise.

The role of #fahernistas in blocking change is their ability to dominate platforms and narratives. This domination becomes active blocking when their presence leaves little room for discussions rooted in genuine collaboration and open progress. They inadvertently (or sometimes deliberately) creates environments where the needed ideas and radical challenges to the status quo struggle to gain traction, let along attention. If the openweb is to flourish, this culture of self-referential chatter needs to be mediated.

What can we do with our fashernistas?

The #geekproblem is a different barrier, which is the cultural divide within tech communities that leans heavily toward deterministic, technical solutions at the expense of accessible, inclusive approaches. The geekproblem manifests when developers and technologists become gatekeepers, framing issues in ways that reinforce their control, preserving existing narrow structures rather than opening them up for collective problem-solving.

For example, in the #openweb and #fediverse projects, the drive for good #UX runs parallel to an implicit exclusivity of bad UX dressed in “privacy”, “security”, “safety” etc. Technical jargon, complex onboarding processes, and a lack of user-friendly interfaces are a barrier to entry and community building. This exclusivity prevents the broader range of participants from engaging meaningfully, turning potentially revolutionary spaces into “specialized” silos, that reinforce this very #blindness.

#fashernistas and #geekproblem interact and often work in unintentional tandem. While the former distracts and fractures attention with endless (pointless, narrow and repeating) discourse, the latter locks down practical pathways for change through gatekeeping and technological insularity. The result is a failing “native” path, where critical mass, and the needed community, fails to grow—one part is too busy talking, and the other is too busy coding in isolation. The broader culture of the #openweb suffers as a consequence, making the needed change far more difficult to achieve than it needs to be.

The solution lies in finding a balance that mediates between the superficiality of fashernistas and the closed nature of the geekproblem. This involves, promoting diverse voices, so that the #openweb aren’t monopolized by any tiny group. Building bridges between projects and communities, to facilitate communication between technical experts and those involved in creating actionable steps that align with #4opens paths we need to take. Developing a culture that values tangible outcomes and collaborative input over performative dialogue and gatekeeping. Amplifying onboarding, by making entry points into #opentech accessible, so people outside traditional tech ghettoes can contribute meaningfully.

The #geekproblem might kill meany of us, mediating it matters

The path we need for the openweb, is more than only technological solutions; it needs a culture shift. Both fashernistas and those contributing to the geekproblem need to recognize their roles and adjust their approaches, for the #openweb to thrive. The has been to meany years of pratish behaver in the paths we need, it’s pastime for #KISS focus. The current moment presents a fresh opportunity for change. With the fediverse and platforms like mastodon growing exponentially, there is a path to free the native spirit of the internet as a collaborative, #openspace with trust, transparency, and action as core motivators. Let’s try and make this work, and not squandered it by letting the voices of the few block the work we need to do.

Ideas please?

Replacing market signalling with #opendata signalling

The dominance of the free market, for the last 40 years personified by the #deathcult worship, has instilled in us a deep-rooted belief in the power of market-driven signals as a determinant of value and action. This belief system prioritizes capital and greed as the primary forces that drive progress and social development. However, as our world becomes increasingly digitized, it’s past time to rethink and replace these signals with something more sustainable and aligned with collective welfare: #opendata signalling based on the #4opens.

Market signalling, a core tenet of capitalism, operates on the assumption that prices, supply, and demand efficiently communicate the state of the economy. These signals guide decisions across industries, influencing everything from resource allocation to investment trends. While this system has propelled economic growth, it comes at a significant cost: environmental degradation, social inequality, and systemic exploitation. In resent years, our worship of this “free market” led to an economy built on misery—a #miseryeconomy where people and communities pay to escape the hardships imposed by the very system they are part of.

The open vs. closed data dichotomy is currently largely invisible, so good to bring focus on this path. When considering alternatives to market signalling, we need to explore the difference between open and closed data paths. The original #openweb was built on the #4opens principles —open source, open data, open standards, and open processes. These fostered transparency, collaboration, and equitable growth. However, the rise of the #dotcons over the past two decades introduced #closeddata silos that have stifled and blocked this native path. Closed data systems prioritize proprietary algorithms, user data and metadata hoarding, and opaque decision-making processes. This has been used to reinforcing capital-driven signals as the only path.

In the emerging #openweb ecosystem, there is a new model—one rooted in opendata signalling. Unlike market signals driven by profit, opendata signalling operates on transparent and shared data inputs that inform decision-making across communities. This shift prioritizes communal benefits, sustainability, and builds trust. This path can only be glimpsed in the messy #fashionista driven #openweb reboot we are a part of. Consider the surge in decentralized networks such as #Mastodon, the broader #Fediverse, #BlueSky, and #Nostr. Over the past years, these have grown from a few hundred thousand users to tens of millions, highlighting an appetite for more community-driven paths. Open-source platforms like WordPress are integrating ActivityPub to support decentralization, extending open data practices to a quarter of the web. Even #dotcons corporations like #Facebook (with its #Threads initiative) are adapting to this movement, albeit with a corporate agenda.

What opendata signaling looks like? In a practical sense, opendata signalling means that any institution or person running a Mastodon instance, for example, can access a significant portion of the Fediverse’s content as plain text in their database. This access allows communities to collaboratively analyse and act on data without the current corporate intermediaries distorting and monetizing it for control.

Imagine policymaking informed by real-time public discourse, free from the profit-driven filters of major platforms. Local governments could tap into decentralized data to plan infrastructure, health initiatives, or educational reforms that reflect actual community needs. Environmental policies could be shaped by transparent data on ecological impact, rather than suppressed by industry lobbyists protecting capital interests.

Challenges and Considerations? Transitioning to opendata signalling isn’t without challenges. Regulation and policy will need to adapt to safeguard open data’s integrity and prevent exploitation. The fear of spam and manipulation, which critics often raise, must be addressed with intelligent design and community moderation. Yet, these challenges are surmountable compared to the unsustainable trajectory of a market that fails to act collectively for basic ssurvivallet along the greater good.

Moving beyond worship, with our reverence for the “free market” as an ultimate arbiter has reached its limit. By embracing opendata signaling and shifting away from closed, profit-driven paths, we create a foundation where collaboration, sustainability, and shared progress are at the forefront. This is not only a technological shift but a cultural one, As we continue this transition, let’s recognize that our digital choices will dictate whether we uphold the values of the #openweb or fall back into the restrictive practices of #closeddata. Let’s try to have a real conversation about this, please.

Sorting the wheat from the chaff

If you currently can’t see beyond #mainstreaming then jump anywhere from the #dotcons, a little step is better than non, if you are a bit radical then please think where you are stepping to.

As the world flees from X (formerly #Twitter) to look for viable social media alternatives, platforms like #BlueSky and #Threads come into view pushed by #mainstreaming agendas. But please lift the lid to see that while these platforms appear promising, scrutiny reveals issues with ownership, funding, and community values that show they are on the same #dotcons path that people are fleeing. This compromises long-term independence and user-centricity. In contrast, the #fedivers exemplifies the #4opens principles, a truer, more sustainable #openweb alternative for social networking, it’s here and it works.

BlueSky’s #VC funded roots, there is a difference between what people say and what they do, this one presented itself as a beacon for decentralized social networking, advocating user control and a light-touch moderation. The project’s founding under Jack Dorsey promised a platform engineered to transcend limitations in social media governance. However, its venture-funded path tells a more conventional story. With investments from entities like Blockchain Capital LLC, co-founded by crypto magnate Brock Pierce, the concerns about centralization are unavoidable. Historically, VC backing brings pressured for profitability and pushes investor interests, at odds with maintaining decentralized, user-first ideals the project keeps talking about. This is a mess soon down the road, it’s a dead-end for people to jump to. For a tech view of this and the VC and culture side. A good tech/social write-up https://dustycloud.org/blog/how-decentralized-is-bluesky/
Threads is native to the #dotcons and corporate agenda’s. Threads, developed by #Meta (#Facebook), promises much, but it is firmly on the Meta’s path, rooted in data monetization, algorithmic control driving ad revenue. While Threads appears more user-friendly, its development trajectory inevitably follows Meta’s historical focus: ad-heavy strategies and extensive moderation policies that prioritize corporate interests over user freedom they talk about now. And a long writeup How decentralized is Bluesky really? A post on the #dotcons out reach to the #openweb mess. Why is Meta adding fediverse interoperability to Threads?
https://fediversereport.com/why-is-meta-adding-fediverse-interoperability-to-threads/ What is the stress? What is the game?
The #Fediverse and #Mastodon are the #openweb’s champions, built for people, not profit. This path is in stark contrast, firmly, on the path of the openweb. From its decentralized structure to its #4opens open-source foundation. Managed by non-profit people and communerties, funded through voluntary donations and support from like-minded organisations, not venture capital or private investment. This independence ensures that people networking is never beholden to shareholders and subjected to the profit motives that drive centralized platforms. This embodies the principle that social media should amplify what people value, not what maximizes revenue.

Choosing platforms and paths that align with #openweb values is more than just a preference; it’s a stand for a future where digital spaces are driven by #4opens transparency, user empowerment, and shared stewardship. #BlueSky’s reliance on venture funding and Threads’ adherence to Meta’s corporate motives demonstrate the limitations of profit-oriented social media. We need a path where we prioritize community, collective action and autonomy over corporate growth.

In the pursuit of genuine alternatives, platforms like the Fediverse do more than fill the void left by #X; they embody the promise of a decentralized, people first internet—the very essence of the #openweb.

#Openweb: This refers to the original, decentralized ethos of the internet, built on openness, freedom, and people’s autonomy. Linking enhances knowledge sharing, amplifies lesser-known voices, and enables people to explore varied content freely.

#Closedweb: This describes platforms dominated by algorithms, corporate interests, and paywalls. On dotcons, linking is often spam and is penalized or buried, precisely because it can disrupt the curated control these platforms wield over what people see.

Don’t feed the trolls, keeps coming to mind, when looking at the #X influx, this is like waves washing on the shore, be the shore not the waves.

How can we mediate the #NGO blocking?

To make the #NGO crew more functional in an #openweb reboot, we need to focus on changing organizational culture and integrating principles that align with the #4opens and “native” grassroots, collaborative values. How can we do this?

Emphasize transparency and open governance to mediate the NGO minded people, who suffer from opaque decision-making processes, that come from the inefficiencies of traditional institutions. By embedding transparency and open governance—where decisions are documented, accessible, and participatory—we create a culture that supports this trust and collaboration.

Encourage flexibility and adaptability, as many NGOs have rigid structures that make it hard to adapt to new information and strategies. Embracing a more flexible, iterative approach—similar to agile practices in tech—helps organizations pivot when necessary and stay responsive to a rapidly changing world

Bridge technological and social gaps by mediating the common sense NGO temptation to treat tech as a separate realm, run by a select few tech-savvy individuals. Instead, hard code social understandings within technical frameworks. This involves training NGO workers in basic digital literacy and fostering collaboration between tech and non-tech teams to build solutions that are both functional and socially impactful.

Adopt the decentralized paths inspired by #Fediverse and #P2P networks to enhances resilience and empower local paths. This shifts them from dependency on corporate #dotcons and reduces susceptibility to the influence of #mainstreaming. Work for the ethical use of technology, the NGO crew need to prioritize the use of #FOSS tools and technologies. This involves building and partnering with developers who focus on sustainable, community-driven tech projects.

Rethinking funding and independence is core, NGO minded people frequently become entangled with funding streams that align with mainstream, Status Quo agendas, making it hard for them to support any radical change. To avoid this, NGOs can be incureaged to explore diversified funding models, such as community crowdfunding and partnerships that align with #openweb values, avoiding entanglement with the normal restrictive, top-down paths.

NGOs need to be wary of falling into the trap of ‘NGO-ism,’ where the focus shifts from addressing root causes to perpetuating their existence for funding and visibility. This shift is countered by adopting the values of community-first accountability and ensuring that work leads to substantial change rather than superficial engagement.

Foster inclusivity beyond tokenism, NGOs are fixated on ensuring diversity and exclusivity, but this needs to be more than a box-ticking exercise. This means more messy organizing, truly valuing input from a range of community voices, fostering dialogue, and incorporating grassroots activism into their agenda to stay aligned with the real needs of those they aim to serve. Connecting with existing grassroots movements like #XR, #OMN, and others, and sharing expertise, resources, and platforms amplify voices and catalyse change. Building bridges instead of silos and encouraging co-creation are needed for revitalizing movements toward collective goals.

By taking these paths, NGOs and the crew that think in this stream, can become more functional allies in rebooting the #openweb, we do need to focus on this #KISS