Open vs Closed in Tech

Open Systems: Emphasize transparency, inclusiveness, and shared power. Social interactions in open systems are visible, allowing for accountability and collective decision-making. Examples include public forums, open-source projects, and community assemblies.

Closed Systems: Reserved for private interactions, where privacy and confidentiality are necessary. Examples include personal conversations, private messages, and some business dealings.

The real fear of Closed Systems

Isolation and Control: Closed systems isolate people and groups, enabling power to exert disproportionate influence without any meaningful oversight. This leads to abuses of power, lack of accountability, and the perpetuation of harmful practices.

Stifling Innovation and Collaboration: When information and resources are locked away, collaboration is harder, and serendipity to build the trust for horizontal working suffers. Open systems encourage the sharing of ideas and collective problem-solving, driving trust and humane creativity.

Historical examples

Diaspora vs. RSS Networks:

Diaspora: Promoted as a closed network, provide a privacy-focused alternative to Facebook. However, its closed nature limited its adoption and integration with existing #openweb web ecosystems.

The 10-Year Gap: The decade-long gap between the initial promise of open standards like RSS and their reinvention (e.g., ActivityPub) underscores the challenges of maintaining momentum and community support for open systems. This gap is a huge-lost opportunity.

RSS and ActivityPub: Open standards, facilitate interoperability and decentralized communication. The resurgence of interest in these technologies (e.g., ActivityPub) highlights the value of open systems to building trust based networks.

Ideological Perspectives

Conservatism: Emphasizes stability, tradition, and supports hierarchical structures. In the context of the #openweb, conservatives argue for maintaining closed systems to preserve order and control.

Liberalism: Advocates for individual freedoms and freespeech ideals. Liberals support open communication systems as they align with values, but have a need for closed systems to facilitate the capitalist economics they so love.

Anarchism: Promotes the dismantling of hierarchical structures and champions radical #4opens with decentralization. Anarchists advocate for fully open systems, minimizing any form of “hard” centralized control.

Questions to Consider

Balancing Openness and Privacy: How can we design systems that maximize openness while respecting some privacy and confidentiality?

Sustaining Open Systems: What mechanisms can ensure the longevity and resilience of open systems, preventing them from being overshadowed by closed, proprietary alternatives?

Addressing the #GeekProblem: How can we engage technologists and developers in conversations about the sociopolitical implications of their work, encouraging a commitment to the open path?

Navigating Ideological Differences: How can we bridge ideological gaps to create a shared vision for the #openweb, recognizing the diverse motivations and concerns of different political and social groups?

The discussion about open versus closed is not only technical but rooted in sociopolitical ideologies and ideas of human nature. By understanding these perspectives and implications, we can advocate for the #openweb, to build up this vibrant, inclusive, and innovative space. This needs a thoughtful consideration of historical contexts, current challenges, and future possibilities, always with an eye toward preserving the #4opens that make our internet beneficial for society, not just the few greedy monsters that are destroying what we value, life.

How can we have this conversation without the normal “prat behaver” is a hard path to find.

Faults of former socialist experiments

Building a different economic system in one country with hard opposition is a steep path to climb. We can learn a lot from the interesting mess left by past attempts

Competition with the West: The #USSR’s framing itself as a direct competitor to American capitalism, rather than a unique system, led to perceptions of being outclassed in some areas. This competitive stance with vastly different starting points made the USSR seem inadequate in some respects.
Military Overspending: Excessive focus on military parity with the U.S. detracted from the USSR’s ability to improve civilian life and scientific progress. This allocation of resources, driven by historical security concerns and international threats, was necessary but ultimately detrimental.
Lack of Economic Diversity: Smaller socialist countries, and even some Soviet republics, had undiversified economies, relying heavily on single burocratic industries or resources. This lack of diversity made these nations vulnerable to economic instability and dependent on larger, dogmatic socialist allies.
Inadequate Light Industry: The focus on heavy industry over light industry led to shortages and lower quality in consumer goods. This affected the everyday satisfaction of citizens, due to the availability of personal and household items being limited.
Limited Democratic Participation: While socialist nations like the USSR had forms of proletarian democracy, there was still significant room for improvement in workplace democracy and political participation. The burocratic centralization and rubber-stamping within the system lead to ossification and hindered any real democratic engagement.
Restrictions on Cultural Expression: Over time, the USSR shifted from promoting local cultures to a subtle #russification process, causing cultural homogenization and dissatisfaction among non-Russian ethnic groups. Similar repressive policies existed in other socialist states like Albania.
Deportations: The forced relocation of ethnic groups during World War II was a severe and unnecessary measure. While intended to prevent collaboration with the enemy, these actions fermented long-term harm and discontent.
Purges: The purges in the USSR, aimed at eliminating a fifth column, were based on social paranoia and a flawed assessment, this led to widespread fear and instability. The failure to initially prevent the formation of such internal threats was a significant oversight.
Limitations of Planning: Early economic planning in the USSR was hampered by the lack of advanced computational tools, limiting the complexity and effectiveness of this planing. Despite the advent of computers, the potential of democratic #4opens planning systems was not realized.
Profit Reorientation: Transitioning enterprises to a profit-based system under Khrushchev led to a shift in priorities that confused socialist principles. This move fostered a capitalist mindset and contributed to the growing inefficiencies and corruption.
Ossification of Party Leadership: The “power politics” of the ageing leadership within the Soviet government stifled innovation and responsiveness. More horizontals, younger, more dynamic paths were needed to maintain the vitality and adaptability of this socialist experiment.
The Comintern: The centralized and bureaucratised coordination of international socialist movements by the Comintern had its drawbacks, such as imposing strategies that were not suitable for all member nations. A more horizontal and flexible approach could have mitigated these issues.
Over-Bureaucratization: Bureaucracy and ossification within socialist states led to inefficiencies and resistance to change. Healthy grassroots #DIY culture could have streamlined administrative structures and reducing redundant positions that would have improved governance and responsiveness.
Sovietization of Socialist Experience: The replication of burocratic Soviet methods in other socialist countries led to inappropriate policies and practices. Each nation needed to critically assess and adapt strategies to their unique contexts.

This vertical path has much to tell us if we are interested in taking a more horizontal path. Let’s try not to simply repeat this history, “don’t be a prat” comes to mind on taking this path.

This post was inspired by this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDSZRkhynXU worth a watch and informed from this https://www.reddit.com/r/socialism/comments/1eb8hby/what_can_we_learn_from_the_actual_history_of/ its needs some more updating, comments please.

By embracing projects like the #OGB people have a chance to shape decisions

The current state of our political systems, particularly the electoral process, raises fundamental questions about the nature of democracy and representation. The problem is the system is designed to maintain the supremacy of the powerful, perpetuating conflicts and minimizing real democratic engagement.

Elections, rather than fostering democracy, exacerbate divisions and repeatedly fail to address critical issues. Parties capitalize on trivial matters, manipulate voters, and converge on worshipping of the #deathcult with policies that benefit commercial interests.

Historically, elections have been chosen as a means to exclude the majority from meaningful involvement in power, reflecting a distrust of democracy by the powerful. The UK’s political model, shaped in the 18th century, survived the introduction of universal suffrage largely intact, maintaining a system where elected representatives are disconnected from the interests and needs of the real people.

Despite alternatives such as participatory democracy, popular assemblies, and sortition (random selection like the #OGB), powerful, and everyday interests stifle their implementation. These alternative social technology models prioritize #4opens community involvement, deliberation, and consensus-building over the spectacle of elections.

Participatory democracy, when well-designed, has proven effective in addressing complex and divisive issues. Citizens’ assemblies and constitutional conventions have successfully tackled issues such as equal marriage, abortion, and climate policy, where elected representatives have struggled. This in a native, messy form is how all activism is organised.

The next step needs to build up grassroots democracy with a project like the #OGB to supplement, push aside and then replace traditional parliamentary chambers. Such a system would ensure that decisions are made by a representative sample of society, rather than by career politicians shaped by money and lobbying.

In conclusion, by embracing participatory democracy, we can create a system where everyone has a chance to shape the decisions that affect their lives. You can find more information on the #OGB project https://opencollective.com/open-media-network/projects/openwebgovernancebody and support this on the link.

OMN – improving the tech landscape

A “native” path to composting the tech mess lies in understanding and addressing the underlying issues. A breakdown of a social tech path:

Explore Relevant #OMN Hashtags: Look into hashtags like #geekproblem and #fashernista to find discussions and insights that address the problems you’re facing. These hashtags can provide valuable perspectives and solutions if you use them based on collective experience.
Investigate OGB: Check out the URL https://hamishcampbell.com/outreaching-the-ogb-what-is-the-project/ with #OGB (Open Governance Body) to access project descriptions and learn about initiatives aimed at addressing the challenges you are encountering. While the coding site may be temporarily down, the project descriptions can still offer valuable insights.
Understand the 4opens: Familiarize yourself with the concept of #4opens, which serves as a framework for addressing many of the issues present in the tech ecosystem. The 4opens provide principles for building more open, transparent, and inclusive digital platforms.

By delving into these #OMN resources and frameworks, you gain a deeper understanding of the issues and discover pathways toward solutions. Collaborating with others who share goals and values amplifies the impact of efforts in improving the tech landscape.

And please “don’t be a prat” thanks.

The mess we keep making of #FOSS governance

It’s disheartening to see a community platform like #Trustroots https://trustroots.org facing challenges with governance, with issues and tensions among its contributors https://github.com/trustroots-community/trustrots/issues?q= and here https://trustroots.community/ This situation is messy and underscores the importance of establishing healthy governance practices within community-driven projects to ensure their long-term sustainability and effectiveness.

The case of Trustroots alongside the earlier issue of #CouchSurfing are a cautionary tale about the pitfalls of traditional feudalistic #FOSS foundation/ #NGO models for open-source projects. These models may initially foster collaboration and innovation, but easily become susceptible to internal conflicts and power struggles over time.

The #OGB (Open Governance Body) is an alternative approach rooted in a grassroot and inclusive history and ethos. By embracing “producer” sortation, decentralized decision-making and community-led initiatives, projects like #OGB aim to avoid the pitfalls associated with hierarchical governance structures https://hamishcampbell.com/?s=OGB

Examining case studies like Trustroots and CouchSurfing offer insights into the complexities, and outcomes, of managing community platforms and the importance of fostering #4opens transparent, inclusive, and participatory governance to sustain healthy and thriving communities.

We can’t keep making this same mess.

Should we ban TikTok

The #dotcons are about ideological control (advertising) of information for profit, #TikTok is likely one of the most advanced on this path.

Whether to ban TikTok is part of the #mainstreaming mess and significant within the wider context of the move back to the #openweb

Some considerations:

Impact on Ideological Control: TikTok, like other #dotcons social media platforms, shapes public discourse and pushes #neoliberal and #stupidindividualism ideological agenda and control. Banning #TikTok could disrupt the control exerted by centralized platforms over the flow of information and content moderation policies. However, it’s essential to consider whether banning TikTok is the most effective way to address concerns about ideological control, as users will mostly simply migrate to other #dotcons with the same issues.
Privacy and Data Control: TikTok faces scrutiny over its data practices and ties to the Chinese government, raising concerns about privacy and data security. This is a normal issue with any state bound #dotcons. Banning TikTok might address these concerns by limiting the collection and dissemination of user data to the replacement state, the USA. However, it’s important to explore alternative measures, such as regulatory oversight and #4opens requirements, to protect user data without resorting to a ban.
Innovation and Competition: Banning TikTok could stifle innovation and competition in the #dotcons, limiting the diversity of #techshit platforms available to users. This has implications for content creators, influencers, and businesses that rely on TikTok for outreach and monetizable engagement. Instead of a ban, maybe fostering competition and growing alternative, decentralized platforms (like the #Fediverse) would promote innovation and diversity in the social media ecosystem in a better way?
Freedom of Expression: Banning TikTok raises concerns about freedom of expression, as it restricts digital surfs ability to share content and engage with others slaves on the platform. While TikTok faces criticism for its content moderation practices, outright banning the platform may not be an appropriate solution. Instead, data portability and interoperability as combined efforts would address harmful content and promote healthy online discourse, thus focus on regulatory measures and community-driven initiatives rather than a ban.
Broader Societal Implications: Banning TikTok could have broader societal implications, particularly for younger generations who are active users of the platform. It’s important to consider the social and cultural significance of TikTok as a platform for #fashernista creativity, self-expression, and community-building. Efforts to mitigate potential harms associated with TikTok should prioritize education, digital literacy, and awareness-raising initiatives of real alternatives rather than simply national propaganda agender.

In conclusion, whether to ban TikTok involves weighing concerns about ideological control, interoperability, privacy, innovation, freedom of expression, and wider social implications. While banning TikTok may address some of these concerns, alternative approaches, such as #4opens, regulatory oversight, #openweb competition promotion, and community-driven initiatives, would likely ensure a more balanced and effective response.

We need to move past these illogical gatekeepers.

Composting in tech

The #OMN (Open Media Network) is composting in tech, it is a process of recycling and repurposing digital resources and technologies in a sustainable and environmentally conscious manner. As composting in agriculture involves breaking down organic matter into nutrient-rich soil, composting in tech involves reusing and repurposing digital assets and technologies to create new value and reduce waste.

* Reuse of Code: Instead of reinventing the wheel, developers should reuse existing code and software components to build new applications and platforms. This approach reduces duplication of effort and promotes community and efficiency in software development.

* Repurposing Digital Content: With media and content creation, composting in tech involves repurposing existing digital content (such as articles, videos, or podcasts) to create new linking content and derivative works. This practice helps extend the lifespan of digital assets and reduce the need for constant creation of “new” generic content.

* Open Source and Collaboration: Embracing #4opens principles and collaborative development models is a form of composting in tech. By sharing code, knowledge, and resources openly, developers collectively improve and build upon existing technologies, growing innovation and sustainability in the tech ecosystem.

* Circular Economy in Tech: Composting in tech aligns with the principles of a circular economy, where resources are used, reused, and recycled to minimize waste and maximize use. By applying this concept to digital technologies, #OMN promotes a sustainable approach to tech development and consumption.

“Composting in tech” reflects a mindset of sustainability, resourcefulness, and responsible stewardship of digital resources within the #openweb, it’s a path we need to take.

The mess we need to compost:

* Arrogance and Ignorance: In alternative and grassroots movements, there is a recurring problem where people displaying arrogance and ignorance. This hinders progress and collaboration within these movements. At a time when there’s a growing need for successful examples to inspire larger, more #mainstreaming alternative and progressive movements. Addressing these issues becomes important.

* Challenge of “Stupid” Individualism: #Stupidindividualism refers to the pervasive influence of individualistic thinking promoted by #neoliberal ideology. This mindset undermines collective action and makes it difficult to build alternative tech and social projects that prioritize community over individual gain.

* Vertical vs. Horizontal Structures: Hierarchical thinking (“vertical”) disrupts egalitarian structures (“horizontal”) within movements. This disruption contributes to a cycle of destruction and rebuilding, making it challenging to maintain momentum and achieve lasting change that is needed.

* Affective Direct Action: This type of activism emphasizes emotional engagement and personal connection to issues. This experience underscores the cyclical nature of social and political challenges and highlights the importance of addressing underlying issues for meaningful and lasting change.

* Capitalism as the Root Problem: The solution, involves stepping away from capitalist structures. This requires a combination of strategies, including non-violent resistance and, in some cases, revolutionary action.

Addressing the challenges faced by alternative and grassroots movements requires collective action, strategic thinking, and a rejection of individualistic and hierarchical ideologies. It involves creating spaces where collaboration and community-driven solutions can thrive, ultimately working federating these to works towards a more equitable society.

In the #openweb reboot, metaphors are a strong path

We do need to look t things differently, for example the #darkweb is in our poisoned self that has fermented for the last 40 years. It’s the algorithms of manipulation, and the #geekproblem unthinking pushiness of this fermentation. The #dotcons are the shiny surfaces of this mess. And the #openweb the seedlings to grow community to step on the path away from this.

We have turned our backs on this metaphor the last few years, can we now turn back before we are consumed by the #dotcons the shiny surfaces of #mainstreaming mess

———————————————

let’s try, in the metaphorical landscape of the #openweb reboot, the concept of the #darkweb represents the darker aspects of our digital existence that emerged over the past four decades. It encompasses the algorithms of manipulation that fuel online platforms, the unthinking pushiness of the #geekproblem culture, and the shiny surfaces of centralized platforms (#dotcons) that dominate our online experiences.

The #darkweb symbolizes the poisoned self that has fermented within our digital spaces, perpetuating societal division, misinformation, and exploitation. It reflects the consequences of prioritizing profit and power over community and collective well-being.

In contrast, the #openweb represents a path towards renewal and regeneration. It embodies the seedlings of community and collaboration, offering an alternative vision for how we engage with technology and each other online. The #openweb encourages #4opens decentralization, transparency, and participatory governance, fostering a digital ecosystem that prioritizes the needs and interests of people.

In our #fedivers based #web1.5 reboot, there is #mainstreaming mess pushing, a collective turning away from the #openweb metaphor, as centralized platforms continue to exert their influence and dominance.

We are attracted to be consumed by the allure of shiny surfaces and instant gratification offered by #dotcons, we risk losing sight of the values and principles that underpin this #openweb path.

The challenge now is to rekindle our commitment to the #openweb and reclaim its promise of community, empowerment, and connection. It requires a collective effort to resist the pull of centralized platforms and reassert the importance of human community.

The #openweb reboot metaphor is a reminder of the ongoing struggle to shape the future of the internet in a way that aligns with our humanist values and aspirations. It calls upon us to confront the darkness of the #darkweb within ourselves and embrace the potential for renewal and transformation offered by the #openweb.

You can help support this here https://opencollective.com/open-media-network

Composting the Mess: Transforming Society through Collective Action

In the tapestry of human interaction, the worst threads of people and #society manifest as destructive feedback loops. Whether fuelled by greed, fear, or power dynamics, this cycle weaves our current culture of brokenness and decay.

To break from this destructive cycle, we need to embrace a paradigm shift, normalizing the best parts of people and society. By cultivating trust, hope, and collaboration, we create a fertile ground for growth and transformation.

At the heart of this shift lies the contrast between #capitalism and alternative paths like socialism and #anarchy. Capitalism, with its emphasis on greed and fear, thrives on control and power that perpetuate societal fractures. In contrast, at their best socialism and anarchy offer pathways rooted in trust and hope, to nurture the best aspects of human nature and society.

Capitalism’s foundation in the worst of human behaviour pushes inequality and division, thus stifling collective progress. In contrast, socialism and anarchy offer frameworks that prioritize equity, solidarity, and cooperation, providing fertile soil for societal flourishing.

As communerties wielding shovels of collective action, we have the power to compost the mess that withers our societies. By coming together to cultivate a #4opens culture of transparency, flows, and mutual aid, we can transform the landscape of human interaction with projects like the #OMN #OGB and #makeinghistory

This act of composting requires patience, dedication, and a willingness to confront the roots of systemic problems. It involves breaking down the “non-native” barriers that divide to nourishing the soil of our communities with the seeds of change.

In the face of adversity, let’s stand united in our commitment to composting the mess that is breaking us and our societies. Together, we can cultivate a future rooted in the best parts of humanity, where empathy, cooperation, and collective well-being build our path.

The Mess of Web3: Why #openweb natives question the Blockchain Narrative

In the ongoing discourse surrounding #openweb and its relation to failing technologies like #web3 and #blockchain, a critical question emerges: why do we readily accept solutions without first defining the problem at hand?

“… it’s not secure, it’s not safe, it’s not reliable, it’s not trustworthy, it’s not even decentralized, it’s not anonymous, it’s helping destroy the planet. I haven’t found one positive use for blockchain. It has nothing that couldn’t be done better without it.”

—Bruce Schneier, *Bruce Schneier on the Crypto/Blockchain Disaster

The allure of decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs) and blockchain technology for the last ten years has overshadowed the necessity of understanding the fundamental issues within our communities. Instead of exploring how we want to govern, decide, and interact within our communities, we find ourselves seduced by the promises of #DAO pitches.

The core of the matter lies in the conflation of culture with technology. Every time a DAO or blockchain solution is proposed, the culture and organization of communities become intertwined with the #geekproblem tools being offered. This bundling tactic obscures the essence of the technology and stifles meaningful discourse. By presenting technology as a fait accompli, we are robbed of the opportunity to critically assess its implications.

In the realm of the #openweb, technology is envisioned as a manifestation of communal decisions and conscious choices. It is the crystallization of community values, traditions, and needs. Where blockchain and DAOs represent an antithesis to this vision. They dictate choices rather than empower communities to determine their own paths.

One of the most concerning aspects of blockchain technology is its enforced financialization within communities. The implementation of ledger systems and tokens mirrors the #dotcons capitalist market traditions, where wealth equates to power. In stark contrast to the principles of “native” gift economies and communalism, blockchain perpetuates a system where those with the most resources wield influence.

In this, even in #mainstreaming dialogue, these ten years of blinded move to blockchain threatens to undermine centuries of liberal evolution by replacing established legal systems with #web3 engineers acting as arbiters of justice. This shift from #mainstreaming transparent and “equitable” legal frameworks to opaque and centralized technological solutions is deeply troubling.

As proponents of #4opens ideals, we should question the last ten years narrative of blockchain’s and DAOs. We must resist the allure of #geekproblem technological solutions that obscure the essence of community governance and autonomy. Instead, let’s engage in meaningful dialogue, grounded in clear understanding of the problems we address and the values we hold to forge a “native” #openweb path.

We now face another wasted ten years of #AI hype with the same issues and agender. We have to stop feeding this mess.

#OGB #OMN #makeinghistory

A fresh look at #openweb history

Parasites are very human

Most people are parasites in our current #mainstreaming society, this is non-controversial view in the era of the #deathcult

Some examples:

Let’s look for a moment at our tech world, if we are generous 90% of people on the #openweb are parasites on this culture and tech space.

Maybe 9% are “native” but could do better, and the native 1% left are fractured. You can use a social tool like the #4opens to make this visible with little effort if you care.

This space is made of social tech, and at its core is #4opens culture, people and community.

If you are not generous, it’s more like 99% and fractions of the 1% left over. Let’s be truthful and try and bump this up to the generous view, please.

Time to Ground Public Funding: Why We Should Invest in Energy, Not Billionaire Space Races

In the last year, the typical taxpayer spent more on #SpaceX — a company owned by one of the richest men in history — than on programs for energy efficiency and renewable energy. It’s time to reverse this. The way governments allocate public funds says everything about their priorities — and right now, those priorities are dangerously skewed.

Let’s look at the subsidies with SpaceX vs. Renewable Energy: A distorted allocation of public wealth. SpaceX, owned by Elon Musk, one of the wealthiest people ever to live, has received billions in public funding. While innovation in space technology might be exciting, it’s worth asking: Why are taxpayers subsidizing a billionaire’s rocket dreams while the planet burns?

Meanwhile, energy efficiency and renewable energy programs, critical for addressing the climate emergency, are underfunded and deprioritized. These programs offer immediate, tangible benefits for emissions reduction, energy security, and public health, yet they receive a fraction of the financial support funnelled into private space ventures.

Wealth disparity & public investment is now about funding the nasty few while communities struggle. The fact that public funds prop up Musk’s space empire reflects a deep structural rot: wealth inequality baked into public policy. Why should a man with more wealth than some nations receive massive state support while local renewable projects, energy transition initiatives, and community-based sustainability efforts scramble for scraps? Public money should serve the public good, not inflate the wealth of billionaires chasing sci-fi fantasies while entire regions face climate-driven collapse.

Energy transition, is a basic funding shift for survival. Redirecting funding from private space exploration to energy efficiency and renewable energy is a moral and practical necessity. The #climatecrisis is here and accelerating, and every dollar spent propping up a vanity space race is a dollar stolen from the fight for a liveable planet. Investing in solar, wind, community microgrids, and conservation programs. Lower emissions to build resilient local economies, reduced energy poverty by job creation in sustainable industries. The payoff is immediate and lasting. A rocket launch might inspire wonder for a day, but a robust renewable grid can sustain generations.

Government spending & climate accountability, this is a political choice, not an inevitability. Governments choose to fund SpaceX over solar panels, rockets over wind farms, the nasty few over marginalized communities. To balance this mess, we need to demand better transparency in public funding decisions, people-first policy prioritizing climate justice, accountability for politicians who choose corporate welfare over planetary survival.

The path forward is in reclaiming public funds for public good. We don’t need more billionaire space escapism, we urgently need a grounded, radical shift in spending that reflects the urgent needs of humanity and the planet. That means, massive public investment in renewable infrastructure, decentralized energy solutions owned by communities, not corporations, research and development in climate tech, not just space tech, global cooperation on sustainability, not competition for interplanetary dominance.

The future isn’t in the stars, it’s right here, on Earth. And if we don’t fight for it, no amount of rocket launches will save us. Let’s defund billionaire fantasies and invest in life. #KISS a liveable planet is worth infinitely more than footprints on Mars.

#OMN #4opens #climatechaos #deathcult #NothingNew #EnergyTransition #PublicFunding #TaxTheRich