Market Failure: Green Energy, Capitalism, and the Path We’re Not Taking

Professor Brett Christophers (Uppsala University)

This lecture will explore the shortcomings of market-driven solutions to the climate crisis, the role of green energy, and the structural limits of capitalism in addressing environmental challenges.

The climate crisis is getting worse, not better. We are burning more fossil fuels, not less. Even with the massive expansion of renewables, energy use is still rising, because green growth adds to consumption rather than replacing it.

So, what’s blocking real change? Professor Brett Christophers lays it out: It’s not economics—it’s politics. The cost of renewables is dropping, largely thanks to China’s command economy driving down manufacturing costs. But the real problem is deployment, not production. Governments in the rich world still rely on the private sector to make the energy transition, using subsidies, tax incentives, and market nudges.

But capitalism is not built to save us, the market won’t solve this. The profit motive is a #blocking force. The oil and energy sectors are oligarchic, meaning investment only flows where market control guarantees profit. Renewable energy doesn’t work this way. Once solar panels or wind farms are built, everyone benefits, so investors can’t “capture” the value in the same way fossil fuel companies can.

This is why China is leading the transition. In 2023, 65% of global renewable investment was happening in China, before that, it was 90%. In contrast, the for-profit world is barely moving. The left is starting to rethink public ownership, but decades of privatization and #neoliberal dogma make this difficult, especially in the Global South, where many countries lost their public energy sectors over the last 40 years.

One small but key issue is that we are trapped in a modernist mindset, where the lights must come on when you flick the switch. The market logic of energy scarcity (storage = control = profit) is at odds with the need to stabilize and expand access. When energy storage becomes widespread, its market value drops, meaning investment dries up before it even begins.

Public ownership has a bad history, but so does privatization. Without cultural change, we are stuck with broken systems that won’t save us. The Coming Storm, in the next 10–20 years, shit is going to hit the fan. #climatechaos is not a distant threat, it’s already disrupting global energy grids. Look at China, where hydropower is failing due to extreme drought, and where record heat waves are driving air conditioning demand through the roof. These are feedback loops that increase carbon emissions, pushing us closer to tipping points.

Governments aren’t prepared for the chaos that’s coming. If history is any guide, they’ll do what they always do: double down on control, repression, and violence. As the crisis deepens, we could see a return to 20th-century authoritarian solutions, forced migration, resource wars, and military crackdowns. If you’re young today, ask yourself: What future are you walking into? What careers will put you on the wrong side of history? Which paths will put a gun in your hands, or leave you standing in front of one? These are grim questions, but they are real.

The #Deathcult has failed, what comes next? For 40 years, neoliberal capitalism has blocked systemic change. Market redesign might be possible, but power and politics shape the system, and the #deathcult that built this mess won’t give it up easily.

The #dotcons are stepping into the void. Big Tech is now playing the role governments used to play, guaranteeing long-term energy contracts to fund #datacenters and #AI infrastructure. But this is a narrow and unstable path, its more noise than signal.

We need alternatives, we need #publicownership, #commons-based solutions, and #4opens governance. We need to mediate our overconsumption, compost the #mainstreaming, and reclaim progressive paths before capitalism drives us into collapse.

If we don’t, the market’s failure will become our failure, and the planet won’t care whether we survive or not.

Market Failure: Climate Crisis, Green Energy and the Limits of Capitalism

Professor Brett Christophers (Uppsala University)

This lecture will explore the shortcomings of market-driven solutions to the climate crisis, the role of green energy, and the structural limits of capitalism in addressing environmental challenges.

My notes:

We are using more carbon based energy, adding to energy use with “green growth” this varies regionally, but the numbers are going up not down.

What is #blocking this, its political and policy he argues, the NIMBYs. The economics are not a problem, the costs are going down. The costs coming down is due to China with its central command economy, this is a useful view of the path we need to take. What’s #blocking it has to do with profitability not generating costs, what douse this mean? Deployment is the hidden “cost”, the hidden restraint. Governments in most parts of the world are relying on the private sector to make this energy change, using nudges, subsidy etc. the motivation is profit, and “confidence” in this profit.

Can capitalism save us?

The oil industry is full of oligarchy’s, this shapes investment. The electricity is the same, but how it’s generated has its own market value. Your ability to make a profit is only based on you capturing the market sector. The tech change helps everyone, so the is no profit, value if the investment can’t “capture” a sector.

He slags off the understanding of the Labour Party in the UK. One ansear is market redesign, that what we have is not “natural” but planned, it’s shaped by power and politics and for the agenda of this power. Then we have the artifice of “price” we have not planned this well enough yet, externality’s. In the UK the carbon tax could be argued to have worked with the phase out of the last coal power plant, drax, is shut. But the cost of a real carbon tax is to high for our “democracy” to implement. This is likely true.

More subsidy is an example, the Inflation Reduction Act in the US is an example. To incentivise the private sector to make the change in energy production.

The left criticises this, anti market, It’s still not working, this argument is likely true, look at china. Let’s look at this in 2023 its is 65% globe of renewables investment in China, before this it was 90% this almost nothing happening in the for-profit world, for profit is obviously not working. The left are starting to rethink public ownership as a path.

In China there are contradictions, it’s a mix of clean and dirty, energy demand is growing very fast, climate change is driving this in part, with the disruption of hydropower and the heat waves driving air conditioning, it’s a feedback loop. But it’s instructive with a very different political economy you can have very different outcomes in the energy transition.

This path might happen in the rich north, but will be hard to do in the weak south? They just don’t have the public budgets, some of these have only lost to privatization there public energy sectors over the last 40 years.

We are stuck in the modernist mind set, the lights must come on when you flick the switch. This is still a core #blocking force. Storage is to tame the market, to stabilize the price. The business model is based on the scarcity of storage so when we implement it can easily lose its market value, so investment will not flow in the first place.

Culture change is needed as public ownership does have a bad history as much a for-profit ownership, without this cultural change we don’t solve any of the mess.

One path is blended finance, but the is very little of this existing, so it’s not going to happen in a meaningful way despite the fluffy propaganda people spread.

The question of responsibility?

In the next 10–20 years shit is hitting the fan with #climatechaos we are likely to go back to the 20th century tradition of shooting people, I am wondering, for this generations job prospective, what careers are likely to lead to you being shot when this history repeats and what careers will leave you with the metaphorical gun in your hands, both of course are bad outcomes. But would be useful for young people to think about this to help choices a path after #Oxford

The question of cross discipline for the students comes up, but he says this is really hard, narrow areas, grants, and culture. His ansear is pessimistic, to play the game, till you have the power not to play the game, mess. He does not like it, but advises young people to play.
Market redesign, the #deathcult fucked over this path over the last 40 years.

AI and distributed energy, the #dotcons are pushing this, the preform the same role governments used to play, by garentlying prices in long term contracts for there new data centres, they promise long term fixed price which lets the banks fund projects. This is a very limited funding flow, so more noise than signal.

Ransom War: The Rising Threat of Cybercrime and National Security

Professor Ciaran Martin and Dr Max Smeets talk about his new book, Ransom War: How Cyber Crime Became a Threat to National Security.

What did I get from this event: Cybercrime is no longer only about stolen credit cards and leaked emails, it has become a battleground for national security. This was the focus of the conversation between Professor Ciaran Martin and Dr Max Smeets, a new kind of war, ransomware has evolved from crude digital extortion into a highly sophisticated business model. It’s no longer just about money, it disrupts critical infrastructure, healthcare, and entire governments. The NHS cyberattack in London and the Costa Rican national emergency in 2022 illustrate its devastating impact.

Smeets explains how ransomware groups now operate like legitimate businesses, complete with branding, customer service, and even guarantees. If they fail to decrypt your files after payment, their reputation suffers. Many provide a free decryption demo to prove their credibility—demonstrating the paradox of trust within crime.

The geopolitics of cybercrime often overlaps with national interests. Many ransomware groups originate from Russia, where they operate with implicit state tolerance, as long as they avoid targeting Russian businesses. Russian secret services sometimes leverage these groups for political ends, though the connections remain murky.

Other states are now stepping into the ransomware scene, Ukraine – Once a hub for cybercrime, now co-opting hackers into its war effort, with groups like MB65 supposedly working in support of the state. North Korea & Israel – Expanding their ransomware operations, possibly for both financial and intelligence purposes. China – Running state-controlled ransomware campaigns, but is the goal money or data?

Smeets argues that Western states do not operate ransomware groups, at least not openly. But if cybercrime is now a tool of state power, will governments start adopting more aggressive tactics? We are already seeing discussions about hacking back, sanctions, and even assassinations and drone strikes against cybercriminals.

The Evolution of ransomware has moved beyond lone hackers and small groups. It has professionalised, with specialised teams handling different tasks: Some focus on technical exploits. Others on negotiation and victim management. Others still on money laundering. English-speaking countries are prime targets, as criminals can easily understand and monetise stolen data.

Originally, ransomware groups operated hierarchically, relying on top-down trust structures. Now, they are shifting to decentralised and federated models, outsourcing different parts of the process to specialist teams. This makes them more resilient and harder to disrupt.

How can this be mediated? Smeets offers several strategies to undermine ransomware networks:

Disrupt trust – Leak internal communications and sow distrust within groups.
Expose operational methods – Make it harder for them to operate in the shadows.
Target infrastructure – Dismantle command-and-control systems.
Sanction financial networks – Make it harder to launder ransom payments.

A ban on ransom payments won’t end ransomware, but it might shift attackers toward easier targets. The core question remains: Is ransomware just about money, or is it a new tool for states to exert power in the digital age?

My view is an alternative path, might social and economic change, the #4opens and redundant data flows work. In a world where cybercrime thrives on secrecy and centralised control, could radical transparency be part of the solution? The #4opens philosophy suggests an alternative: highly redundant, open-data systems that resist extortion because no single entity holds all the power. If data is widely distributed and accessible, ransomware loses much of its leverage. This is a shift from reactive defence to proactive resilience, a challenge to both cybercriminals and #mainstreaming vertical state actors and culture. This is already a core idea behind both the#OMN and #Fediverse networks, but yes we are talking about both economic and social models and paths shifting fundamentally, it’s a project.

#Oxford

Activism, development of #FOSS paths

Open source was always political, the very idea of #FOSS was always a radical, left-leaning stance.

Let’s be honest, you’re giving away your labour.
Not for profit, not for career points,
but because you believe we’d all be better off together
if we stopped rewriting the same bits of code in isolation
and started building commons instead of empires.

That’s not apolitical – that’s solidarity.

The #openweb is not just about better software.
It is about building a world where cooperation
beats competition,
where transparency outlasts control,
and where freedom comes from sharing, not hoarding.

People forget this because the #dotcons spent twenty years
repackaging #4opens code into the thin layer of closed platforms,
wrapping our collective labour, covered in corporate branding,
and calling it “innovation.”
They turned our commons into their capital.

But the roots of the movement, the #4opens,
the free software ethos, the hacker culture of mutual aid –
were never neutral.
They were radical acts of refusal.
Refusal to sell out creativity.
Refusal to turn knowledge into property.
Refusal to let gatekeepers define what freedom means.

So yes, the open-source community is political.
It always has been.
Every act of collaboration is rebellion
against the isolation and control of the #deathcult.

When you write open code, you’re not only solving problems –
you’re composting capitalism.
You’re proving that another way of working exists,
that cooperation scales better than greed,
and that shared tools make freer people.

That’s why projects like the #OMN (Open Media Network) matter.
They’re not simply technical, they’re social, cultural, revolutionary.
They remind us that freedom isn’t built on code alone,
but on the courage to share, to trust, and to keep paths open
when everything around us screams for control.

Open source is always political, it’s time we remembered what side it we are on.

To look at why this is important, we need to move outside the comfort zones of narrow #mainstreaming thinking. Let’s start by touching on the role of #protestcamps in direct action: protest camps are temporary activist spaces set up in public areas to bring attention to social, environmental, and political issues. These camps create a direct action environment where people gather, discuss, and demonstrate. They range from #fluffy (peaceful and symbolic) to #spiky (disruptive and confrontational), depending on the nature of the cause and the activists involved.

This raises the question of who uses these strategies and spaces, some examples of protest movements: #Occupy Movement – challenged economic inequality and corporate influence. #ClimateCamp – radical grassroots direct action movement to counter #climatechaos through awareness, policy pressure, and direct disruption. Climate camp was active in multiple countries, it peaked in the late 2000s and early 2010s, influencing both public debate and government action. #CriticalMass – decentralized cycling activism, founded in 1992, monthly mass bike rides to reclaim public space and challenge car culture.

These are all of grassroots politics, that operates from the bottom up, empowering people to engage directly rather than relying on mediating political parties or #NGO institutions. This long traditional path takes voice and enables change outside the #blocking power of traditional power structures, using disruptive tactics like strikes, sit-ins, and blockades.

Together, these provide the non #mainstreaming – democratic, practical paths to challenge authority, disrupt harmful policies, and drive real needed change. Let’s look at other examples, the debate around #XR (Extinction Rebellion), founded in 2018, #XR uses nonviolent civil disobedience to push governments to act on the #climatecrisis. The movement is divisive, some see it as #spiky, using direct action to force political change. Others argue it’s too #fluffy, adhering to liberal ideas of legality and non-violence, that limits its real radical potential. Whether #XR is a radical or liberal movement remains an active debate, but the impact it has had on public discourse and activism is undeniable. This debate itself, the living active fluffy/spiky debate is core to affective grassroots activism.

This is what we need to pass onto the current #4opens alternatives & horizontalist paths in tech, that to often, have the assumption that liberal legality alone will resolve systemic problems, that is an easy to see #geekproblem fantasy we need to focus on re-balancing. A path to do this is learning from the above history of activism, native #FOSS and #4opens structures, which, yes are not without challenges.

As we keep highlighting, activism isn’t separate from tech development, with the #FOSS traditions coming from tech activism from the start. Movements like #Indymedia, #Fediverse, and #OMN show that #FOSS paths can be built with social movements in mind. As in the end, if we don’t shape our own digital tools, they will be co-opted by #dotcons and restricted #mainstreaming “common sense”. The solution? Rebuild tech from the ground up, not just by resisting, but by actively creating the alternatives we want to see.

#KISS

The challenge for #OMN & #openweb

There are a lot of mental health issues that are pushed over us in what remains of our open alt spaces, we need ways to mediate the damage, to help the people who spread this mess. The path of the #mainstreaming is corrosive to the alt cultures it feeds on. The cycle is always the same:

Radical ideas emerge → They are raw, open, and challenging.
Mainstreaming co-opts them → Dilutes them into something marketable.
They become performative → Used as branding by the #fashernista left, while the right weaponises the left’s discarded tools (like direct action).
The original movement is discredited → The real alternatives get buried under a mess of victimhood narratives, NGO bureaucracy, and “respectable” gatekeeping.

Composting this mess, one way is radical openness, but in a way that is intentional rather than naïve:

#4opens as a grounding principle → The more we expose the internal workings of a movement, the harder it is for power politics and NGO rot to take hold.
Affinity-based organising → Trust-based, decentralised, and responsive, avoiding the traps of rigid structures that get hijacked.
Resisting the urge to close → Every time a movement feels under attack, there’s a knee-jerk reaction to centralise and control. That’s how we lose.
Recognising how #dotcons manipulate OPEN/CLOSED → They’ve mastered open for them, closed for us, and turned it into a system of social control.

To take these step we need to admit we live in a gatekeepered world, yes the old media gatekeepers are gone, but what we have now is worse. The illusion of openness in the #dotcons masks a totalitarian model of control that makes traditional media censorship look almost quaint. Until we acknowledge that, every alt project will keep getting swallowed or broken from within.

The challenge for #OMN & #openweb is that we need to rebuild media and organising from a place of resilience, not just reaction. The #geekproblem, the #NGO mess, and the left’s failure to defend its own tools have left us in a weak position, but there’s still compost to grow something from. So, who’s ready to get their hands dirty?

The difference between struggle and #fashernista ethics. The latter is comfortable. The former matters.

Power in tech isn’t neutral, and our issue over the last 20 years is that we have allowed the #dotcons to hoarded and weaponised it. The answer to our failer isn’t to retreat or seek more “ethical” enclosures, it’s to reclaim our power through radical, commons-based networks like #indymediaback and the #OMN.

This argument is #nothingnew, we don’t need endless reinvention, we need continuity. The #openweb isn’t about mimicking #dotcons; it’s about breaking their privatisation model and returning power to collective hands. Hashtags, metadata, and federated networks help on this path, but the real strength is social, not just technical.

Examples of this: #Indymediaback isn’t just a project, it’s a continuation of a proven model that worked before the #dotcons stole the narrative. It was a social technological project embedded in radical movements, used real-world trust systems, and functioned outside of state/corporate control. Rebuilding it isn’t nostalgia; it’s a practical step toward rebalancing power.

We need ongoing arguments about power, opting out or running to “better” #dotcons just dodges the issue. Power is always there. The question is who holds it, and for what purpose? Right now, the #dotcons wield it for social control, profit, and policing. The #openweb flips that, if we build it as a “native” path.

The fight isn’t about making people “feel good” about tech choices, it’s about removing power from enclosures and putting it back into the commons. That’s the difference between real struggle and #fashernista ethics. The latter is comfortable. The former matters.

Paranoia is one of the biggest blockers in alt-tech and radical spaces. It breeds mistrust, isolation, and internal sabotage, making collective action impossible. While some caution is necessary, too much just feeds into stasis and control, mirroring the systems activists are trying to break away from.

The #4opens is a direct antidote to this. Transparency counters paranoia, when decisions, processes, and networks are open, there’s less space for suspicion to fester. Trust isn’t built by secrecy but by consistent, open, and accountable action.

The irony is that a lot of these paranoid actors think they’re resisting control, but by shutting everything down, they’re just self-sabotaging. The solution isn’t more walls—it’s more flows. The #4opens provides the framework to move past the paranoia blockade and rebuild trust in practice, not just theory.

The victimhood narrative is often a trap, weaponised by the right and co-opted by the #fashernista left to shut down alternatives. It can be used as a tool of control, not liberation. Composting the mess, in part, by refuse to play their game, victimhood, is in part real and in part is used to create moral authority without real action. If we engage on those terms, we just get dragged into performative battles.

Expose the power dynamics, by asking who benefits from this? In the negative sense, it’s often gatekeepers who want to control the narrative. NGOs do it for funding, #dotcons for engagement, and #mainstreaming activists for status. A path out of this is reclaiming direct action, which sadly meany in the left abandoned, and the right picked up. We need to take it back, not through reactionary purity politics, but by actually doing the work outside their controlled spaces. A healing path is shifting from identity to process, the current model is all about who is speaking, not what is being built. That’s a dead end. We need #4opens process-driven organising, not personality cults or gatekept “safe spaces.” Make failure visible, one of the biggest weapons against alt movements is pointing out their failures, while #mainstreaming projects hide their rot. If we embrace messy openness, we take that power away.

Breaking the cycle:

The right weaponises grievance → to mobilise.
The liberal left weaponises grievance → to control and suppress real challenge.
The alt-left needs to weaponise transparency → to break gatekeeping and rebuild trust.

So the question is: how do we make “openness” an effective tool in this? The #4opens is a step.

Crossing the River: Tech & Politics

Most tech and political projects are pointless. They churn in circles, endlessly repeating the same mistakes. The river that needs crossing – where tech meets politics – is blocked on both sides. On the political side: arrogance and ignorance. On the geek side: naivety and over-complexity.

A solution? #NothingNew. Most of the problems we face have already been solved, or at least mediated. Instead of chasing the latest shiny, we should be composting the old and using what already works. The #4opens is a way of stepping away from the current tech mess, cutting through the churn, and building something that lasts.

Politics, of course, is messier. As always, “people are afraid of what they do not understand.” But that fear has been weaponised. Thatcher and Reagan’s children, raised on market dogma, are hopeless at cooperation. They can’t think beyond #stupidindividualism, and that’s a serious problem when trying to build #openweb projects.

If we want real change, we need to stop trying to own everything and start learning how to work together. Otherwise, we’ll keep drowning in the same river.

The web wasn’t built by solo tech geniuses

The web wasn’t built by solo tech geniuses, finance firms, or flashy luminaries making illusionary promises. It was grown by the collective time, energy, and creativity of millions of grassroots people and communities working together to create something greater than themselves. The internet as we know it emerged not from the top-down visions of elites, but from decentralised, collaborative efforts. This same collective energy will be what propels us into the next era of the #openweb, a web that remains true to its native principles of accessibility, freedom, and inclusivity.

For the last 20 years, however, we’ve been stuck in the corporate-controlled ecosystem of the #dotcons. Platforms like Meta, Google, and Amazon have dominated the landscape, turning the internet into a commodity to be bought, sold, and controlled. Their vision has led to the rise of the #closedweb, where profit and surveillance trump openness and collaboration. This #mainstreaming path is deeply concerning because it fundamentally contradicts what the web was meant to be, a space for sharing, learning, and connecting without the old gatekeepers.

There is a movement to reverse this trend, the #Fediverse, but like meany reboots it’s floundering as it grows through the inrushing of “common sense”. What we need is native #KISS foundations for a thriving #openweb, A path to this is to embrace the #4opens as guiding principles:

Open Data: Ensuring that information can be freely shared and reused.
Open Source: Building tools and platforms that anyone can access, modify, and improve.
Open Standards: Creating interoperable systems that work across platforms and communities.
Open Process: Making decisions transparently and inclusively to foster trust and collaboration.

This is a simple retelling of the #FOSS process with the addition of #openprocess as is used in the best projects, this is a part of the #nothingnew path we are on.

It’s not enough to critique the #dotcons, we need to actively build alternatives, the #Fediverse has already taken the first set on this path. The next step is focusing our energy on “native” projects like #OMN (Open Media Network), #IndyMediaBack, and #OGB (Open Governance Body), on this path we can create a decentralised, human-centred web that prioritises communities over corporations. These projects are not about recreating the same flawed systems in a slightly different guise; they’re about fundamentally rethinking how we engage with technology, governance, and communication. This rethink is #nothingnew as it’s copying the working structure of grassroots activism.

The time is now to come together and make history by working on these alternatives. The #openweb is not just an ideal; it’s a necessity for a sustainable, democratic future. Let’s reject the illusions of the #closedweb and instead build a web that truly belongs to everyone.

A world we see as normal

Can you smell it? Can you feel the unease, the hard shift to the right is feeding off? The dead ideology of Neo-liberalism is everywhere. It’s a rotten corpse in everything we look at, everything we touch. And yes while it might feel uncomfortable, we should actively feel distaste when we look at it and revulsion when we touch it, this is the reality of living under a #deathcult.

For the past 40 years, we’ve been immersed in a system that most people still worshipped as if there’s no alternative. But, where is the path out of this smell of this uneasy feeling? Where is the vision for something different, something rooted in solidarity and sustainability rather than profit and exploitation?

To find a different path, take a moment to look at this example of a #4opens project from a simpler time: Wikipedia revision history from 2011. Note the commitment to “strict scrutiny”, which required that any security measures serve a compelling community interest and be narrowly focused to achieve that and nothing else.

Compare that principle to the current state of tech, where the #encryptionsist agenda overshadows transparency and community accountability. The shift has been stark, away from openness, away from scrutiny, and towards the path where security becomes a shield for entrenched power and control.

This is what we need to confront, the #deathcult thrives on our passive acceptance of #neoliberal norms of #closed. Revulsion in this mess isn’t just justified; it’s necessary. The path we need to take is in rejecting this hard blocking to open spaces to build the #4opens alternatives we so desperately need.

You need to think about this more? Let’s look at an example of this in our current lives, people have been living in the shadow of neoliberalism for so long that worshipping the #deathcult has become their nature. The values of exploitation, competition, and #stupidindividualism are baked into what’s considered “normal” behaviour. In contrast, embracing a #lifecult, based on collaboration, community, and sustainability – feels alien, even threatening, to many of these “normal” people.

This is one of the reasons the #Fediverse and alternative social media platforms have struggled to gain traction with the huge influx of #mainstreaming people fleeing the growth of tech fascism. The Fediverse embodies #lifecult principles: decentralisation, mutual aid, and the rejection of exploitative corporate models. While these are positive ideals, they feel too far removed from the familiar patterns of the #deathcult for most people to take the leap.

A cynical path we could take is to meet people halfway. Instead of demanding they abandon their comfort zone entirely, we could make the Fediverse appear less like a #lifecult at first glance by presenting it in ways that feel more approachable and less intimidating, more like the #deathcult they are used to. On this compromise path, yes, the Fediverse should stay true to its principles, but making it less of an overt #lifecult and more of a practical, attractive alternative, this could be the “common sense” step we need to bring people over. Once they’re in, the actually, very needed, hopefully still existing culture, the values of the Fediverse will begin to work their magic.

What do you think? Should we focus on shadowing the approach to reach more people, or would that risk diluting the values that make the #Fediverse what it is? How do we live this balance in our shared #openweb reboot.

OMN #indymediaback #openweb #makehistory #OGB

“Solutions” pushed for the #Fediverse are #stupidindividualism which comes from #deathcult worship

The is real frustration with “solutions” for the #Fediverse leaning toward #stupidindividualism and the normal #deathcult path, especially as these approaches undermine the foundational ethos of the “native” #openweb. What different paths do we need to take:

Re-centre on cooperation and interdependence. This should be obverse, instead of treating the #Fediverse as a platform for fragmented individualism, we need to foster a commons-first approach. Mutual Aid Networks are a path by to encourage instances to form federated clusters based on solidarity, shared values, and collaborative governance. Instance Interdependence needs tools that make cooperation between instances smoother and beneficial, such as shared moderation practices, resource sharing, or even federated funding paths.

Reject platformification, one of the Fediverse’s strengths is that it doesn’t need to mimic the dynamics of corporate platforms. To ensure its future path is native, not corporate we need to stick to the alt path of protocols over platforms, to stay on this path and not get distracted by new shiny #techshit For this we need to prioritise the development of open, robust protocols like ActivityPub that support interoperability over creating “Fediverse apps” that compete to centralise users. Standardised tools for moderation and discovery, create federated discovery and moderation tools that don’t funnel people into centralised algorithms or trending feeds but support meaningful and self-determined connections.

Community-driven innovation instead of for profit and status, communities need to be more involved in defining what needs to be built. We need to mediate the power of tech communities and non-technical people. This ensures the solutions reflect diverse realities, not just the #geekproblem technocratic priorities. Public-good funding paths, to build sustainable funding for open-source tools without relying on venture capital or individual donations. Cooperative crowdfunding, grants from public institutions, or taxation-based paths could work.

Reframe individualism as collective empowerment, the problem isn’t individual creativity; it’s when it becomes detached from collective good. Some ideas to balance this is by highlighting and rewarding people who contribution to the wider social enhance of the #Fediverse e.g., not just code contributions, but admins, moderation etc. One path could be to develop ways to celebrate shared milestones across the network, rather than competitive “likes” or algorithmic trends.

Education and advocacy are a core part of the #openweb to building awareness of the stakes and educating people about the principles of the #Fediverse and the #openweb. Some paths might be: Digital literacy campaigns to educate people about how the #Fediverse operates, its native values, and why it must avoid the #dotcons #closedweb’s pitfalls. Highlight success stories by amplify case studies of community-owned and commons-driven Fediverse instances to inspire others.

Design for long-term sustainability, any system that focuses on short-term growth or clout is doomed to fail. To build something durable, we need resilient federation models to address the scaling challenges that come with growing instances without resorting to centralised solutions. Decentralised governance is core, we need to explore and adopt models like the #OGB for instance and network governance.

Resist the #deathcult narratives, which thrives on competition, exploitation, and the idea that scarcity is inevitable. This needs constant push back, with abundance-oriented design to build paths centred on care, trust, and generosity – rejecting the zero-sum thinking of extractive systems. Radical openness is a good native path for, tools like the #4opens are core.

This “native” thinking are based on ideas to anchor the #Fediverse in the principles of mutuality, solidarity, and the commons while resisting the pull of #stupidindividualism and centralisation.

This is about the failed liberal class, with their heads bowed in worship of the #deathcult for the last 40 years, have abandoned critical thought. Their unacknowledged postmodernist complacency has pushed us away from class struggle, leaving us isolated and alone. Meanwhile, the last two decades of left identity politics have allowed the right wing to co-opt and weaponise progressive narratives, filling them with fear and hate.

Yet, amidst this bleak shift towards fascism, there is a potential positive: a return to #KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid) class-based left-wing movements. These movements need to reclaim the ground from the current #mainstreaming crew, who continue to blindly worship neo-liberal “common sense,” while #blocking out and refusing to acknowledge its failures. It’s well past time to consign these dead ideologies to the compost heap of history.

What comes next is up to us. As a community, we face the real challenge of surviving the next generation of #climatechaos pushing social breakdown while driving forward the systemic changes these crises demand. It’s not as if we have a choice—change is no longer optional, and action is overdue.

#OMN a practical response to the failures of greed-based paths

The #OMN (Open Media Network) introduces a transformative model that replaces the traditional free-market system driven by greed with an open/gift/use market grounded in cooperation and shared values. This experimental social tech path reimagines the digital commons by prioritizing the free flow of digital “objects,” which can encompass a wide range of resources—media, tools, data, or creative works.

The OMN’s open/gift/use market: Resources and information flow freely, breaking down barriers created by proprietary systems and monetized exchanges. Collaboration thrives on transparency and inclusivity, embodying the values of the #4opens.

Gift economy with digital “objects” shared without the expectation of direct compensation, fostering a culture of generosity and mutual aid. The value lies not in profit, but in the collective benefit derived from shared resources. With the shift to use-oriented distribution, the focus shifts from ownership to utility, emphasizing the practical application and communal use of resources. This aligns with sustainable practices, reducing waste and promoting reusability.

Advantages of the OMN path are decentralized control, grassroots participation and reduces reliance on centralized, profit-driven entities. Community empowerment prioritizes collective decision-making and strengthens local and global networks. Sustainability moves away from extractive economic practices, supporting an equitable and ecological path.

Challenges, transitioning mindsets from profit-driven to cooperative models requires hard and dangurus cultural shifts. Navigating the balance between openness and exploitation in a “native” digital common’s path will be challenging, as most people worship the #deathcult

Opportunities, establishing a resilient digital common, will inspire similar transformations in wider social paths. Leveraging #openweb technology to scale and optimize the flow of digital “objects,” is a new and to an extent “proven” path with the last 5 years of the Fediverse.

The #OMN experiment is more than a theoretical framework; it’s a practical response to the failures of greed-based paths. By growing cooperation through an open/gift/use market, it offers a hopeful and actionable pathway for a real, sustainable future.

Naming the problem, a first step on this path, what is the #deathcult

Naming the problem is a first step, let’s take a step, what is the #deathcult? The “death cult” refers to the systemic prioritization of profit, consumption, and power over life, sustainability, and equity. Relentless resource extraction, despite environmental collapse. Neoliberal policies that sacrifice public good for corporate gains. And most importantly, the dogmatic passive social complicity in maintaining these destructive paths.

Active vs. default worship, active worshippers are leaders, corporations, and influencers who knowingly drive destructive practices. Default worshippers, are the majority who, often unknowingly, sustain the system through everyday actions shaped by a lack of alternatives and awareness.

To challenge default worship, there is the normal path of awareness and education, campaigns that demystify the ways neoliberalism and climate inaction shape everyday life. On the fluffy side, practical Steps for people and communities, join or start local climate and justice groups. Advocate for sustainable policies in your community (e.g., green energy, public transit). This is about shifting narratives, a core part of this is contributing to independent media and grassroots storytelling. A second thread is practical building resilience by developing skills and networks for mutual aid, local food systems, and sustainable living.

Then the is creating alternatives, by invest in and promote grassroots initiatives like community energy projects, mutual aid networks, and cooperative economies. Supporting platforms and movements that embody values of sustainability, equity, and transparency (e.g., the fediverse, #4Opens initiatives).

This then needs to be balanced by more radical action, mobilizing for more immediate change, direct action, organizing protests, strikes, and civil disobedience to demand systemic shifts. Then celebrating and amplify these stories of resistance and regeneration.

Application 2025-02-040 Makeinghistory 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
2025-02-040
project name
Makeinghistory
fund
Commons_Fund
requested amount
€ 50000
website

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

synopsis

The MakingHistory project is a collaborative initiative to create a decentralized, participatory network for documenting and sharing grassroots movements, historical events, and underrepresented narratives. Rooted in the ethos of the #openweb and leveraging Fediverse technologies like ActivityPub, the project empowers communities to take control of their stories, ensuring they are preserved and amplified outside corporate-controlled paths.

The project focuses on enabling user-generated timelines, multimedia integration, and collaborative curation to document history in real-time or retrospectively. By prioritizing transparency, inclusivity, and grassroots participation, it provides tools for meany voices to be heard and for diverse perspectives to be shared. It combines modern federated tech with the collective spirit of earlier grassroots media movements.

experience

I have been involved in projects that align with the ethos and goals of the MakingHistory project, particularly through my work with Indymedia and the Open Media Network (#OMN).

Indymedia: Building the Foundations for Grassroots Media. I was an active participant in the global network, a pioneering grassroots media project launched in the late 1990s. Indymedia provided a decentralized platform for activists, communities, and independent journalists to report on issues overlooked by mainstream media. It was one of the first major digital efforts to democratize media creation and distribution, fostering participatory and collective storytelling. This work underpins much of the MakingHistory vision, highlighting the importance of grassroots participation, robust federated technologies, and transparent governance. I bring 20+ years of experience to this native path of open, community-driven initiatives, blending technical expertise with a deep commitment to empowering underrepresented voices. MakingHistory is the next step in a long journey to reclaim narrative power and ensure our collective history is preserved and accessible for future generations.

usage

The MakingHistory project’s requested budget is strategically allocated to ensure its success, focusing on building the infrastructure, fostering community engagement, and maintaining sustainable growth. Below is a breakdown of how the budget will be utilized, along with a discussion of funding sources:

Budget Allocation:

Technical Development: Platform Infrastructure: Funding will support server hosting, domain management, and storage for federated platforms that form the backbone of MakingHistory.
Software Development: Resources will be allocated to improving and customizing tools, the Federated Wiki and other ActivityPub systems to meet the project’s goals.
Testing and Maintenance: Ongoing efforts to ensure platform stability, security, and scalability as the user base grows.

Content Creation and Archiving: Collaborative Storytelling Tools: Developing features to empower communities to collaboratively document and share historical narratives, aligning with the MakingHistory vision. Digital Archiving: Ensuring long-term preservation of user-generated content, with open access to historical narratives and multimedia resources.

Community Engagement and Education: Workshops and Training: Organizing events and online sessions to onboard contributors and familiarize them with the platform and principles of decentralized storytelling. Outreach Campaigns: Promoting the project within the Fediverse and other relevant networks to build a diverse and engaged user base.

Administrative and Governance Support: Project Coordination: Supporting a small team to manage the day-to-day operations, oversee development, and facilitate community governance.
Documentation and Reporting: Creating transparent records of decision-making processes and project progress in alignment with the #4opens framework.

Contingency and Scaling: Allocating funds for unexpected challenges and ensuring the project can scale effectively as adoption increases.

Funding Sources: Past and Present: The project has drawn inspiration and lessons from prior initiatives like Indymedia and OMN, which were largely self-funded and supported through volunteer efforts. While MakingHistory does not currently have additional external funding sources, it builds on a history of successful resource pooling and community-driven contributions.

Key Historical Context: Indymedia relied heavily on grassroots funding models, including small donations from community members and solidarity events.

The Open Media Network (#OMN) has been developed on a minimal funding approach, emphasizing open-source collaboration and volunteer labor to maintain independence.

Future Plans: The project aims to diversify funding sources by: Pursuing small grants from organizations aligned with open culture and grassroots storytelling. Encouraging direct community contributions through crowdfunding campaigns and donation drives. Partnering with like-minded initiatives within the Fediverse to share resources and minimize overhead costs.

The budget will enable the project to blend technical excellence with grassroots participation, ensuring the MakingHistory network becomes a sustainable and impactful resource for communities worldwide. This path emphasizes independence and aligns with the principles of transparency, collaboration, and decentralization.

comparison

The MakingHistory project stands apart from traditional #NGO-funded efforts by addressing the systemic failures that have often plagued similar initiatives, while also building on the successes and lessons from historical grassroots and open-source projects.

Comparison of MakingHistory focusing on how it diverges from typical #NGO approaches and aligns with the ethos of the #openweb and #4opens principles.

Indymedia: Historical Example: Indymedia was a pioneering grassroots initiative that provided a decentralized platform for citizen journalism and activism during the early 2000s. It thrived on community-driven content and a federated approach to publishing. Strengths: Empowered local voices, operated transparently, and embraced grassroots values. Weaknesses: Over time, it struggled with sustainability, internal conflicts, and adapting to technological shifts, leading to fragmentation and decline. MakingHistory builds on Indymedia’s ethos of storytelling but modernizes the approach with ActivityPub based technology, collaborative wiki tools, and stronger focus on sustainability through decentralized governance.

Comparison with Typical #NGO-Funded Paths: Top-Down Structures: Many #NGO-funded media initiatives operate within rigid, hierarchical structures. Decision-making is centralized and driven by donor priorities rather than community needs. Result: This approach frequently alienates grassroots participants, undermining the authenticity and trust necessary for lasting impact. MakingHistory Difference: Operates on a bottom-up, decentralized governance model, allowing communities to shape their own narratives and priorities. It values trust and humanity over external control. Funding Dependency: #NGO projects are heavily reliant on external funding, which leads to shifts in focus, bureaucratic inefficiencies, and an overemphasis on metrics that satisfy donors rather than serving people. Result: Projects fail to adapt once funding dries up or priorities change, leaving behind fragmented and abandoned ecosystems.

Overemphasis on Professionalization: #NGO efforts prioritize professional content creation and institutional partnerships, sidelining grassroots contributors and reducing community engagement.
Result: The platforms may appear polished but lack genuine participation and long-term relevance to their target communities. MakingHistory Difference: Prioritizes participatory storytelling, encouraging communities to create and share their own historical narratives. The focus is on tools that are accessible to everyone, regardless of technical expertise.

Technological Approaches: Many #NGO-funded media projects adopt proprietary or siloed technologies, limiting interoperability and peoples autonomy. These systems tend to mimic corporate #dotcons paths, prioritizing control over collaboration. Result: This creates dependency on centralized systems, contradicting the principles of decentralization and the #openweb.
MakingHistory Difference: Built entirely on open standards and federated technologies like ActivityPub, ensuring interoperability and communerty control. It actively resists the commodification of user data and narratives.

Why Historical #NGO Paths Fail: Mission Drift: Over time, #NGO projects shift away from their original grassroots objectives due to donor pressure and institutional inertia. Lack of Community Ownership: Decision-making and content creation are often detached from the communities they aim to serve, resulting in low engagement and eventual obsolescence. Inability to Adapt: Tied to rigid funding cycles and institutional agendas, projects struggle to respond to changing technological and social landscapes.

Conclusion: The MakingHistory project avoids these pitfalls by embracing a grassroots-first approach, rooted in transparency, participation, and adaptability. It rejects the typical #NGO path of hierarchical control and funding dependency, focusing instead on empowering communities to collaboratively document their own histories. By leveraging modern federated technologies and the lessons of historical efforts like Indymedia and the #OMN, MakingHistory creates a sustainable and impactful #openweb native path that reflects the diversity and richness of grassroots storytelling. This path ensures the project remains relevant, resilient, and rooted #KISS

challenges

The MakingHistory project faces significant (social) technical challenges, many of which are intertwined with the development and implementation of overlapping initiatives such as the Ibis Wiki, Indymediaback, the Open Media Network (#OMN), and the Open Governance Body (#OGB). These challenges arise from the #KISS goal of creating a cohesive path that supports decentralized storytelling, collaboration, and governance while addressing the limitations of existing tools and technologies.
Key Technical Challenges: Seamless Integration of Federated Tools:

The MakingHistory project will utilize ActivityPub to enable federated communication between platforms, such as wikis, blogs, and media repositories.
Challenge: Ensuring compatibility and seamless data exchange across diverse platforms in the Fediverse, while maintaining high performance and user-friendly interfaces.
Solution: Building upon the open standards demonstrated in Ibis Wiki, integrating its federated wiki approach with other #OMN tools for decentralized content creation and sharing.

Decentralized Content Management:

Like Indymediaback, the project requires a robust system for managing decentralized content, including publishing, moderation, and archiving.
Challenge: Implementing decentralized moderation and curation tools that respect user autonomy while maintaining trust and quality within the network.
Solution: Leveraging mastodons dynamic federated design and adapting it for the needs of grassroots media communities.

Scalability and Resilience:

The system must scale to accommodate growing user bases and diverse use cases, while ensuring resilience against platform failures or external attacks.
Challenge: Designing systems that balance decentralization with scalability, ensuring reliable performance even in resource-limited environments.
Solution: Building lightweight, modular tools inspired by existing Fediverse codebase and architecture, optimized for grassroots deployments. Most of the solutions already exist.

User Experience for Non-Technical Audiences:

Engaging grassroots communities requires networks that are easy to use, even for people with limited technical expertise.
Challenge: Simplifying complex federated technologies like ActivityPub into intuitive interfaces and workflows.
Solution: Enhancing exiting fedivers codebase #UX usability to integrate accessible tools for storytelling and collaboration, making a practical path for community organizers and activists.

Interoperability Across Projects:

The MakingHistory project shares common goals and infrastructure with Indymediaback, #OMN, and #OGB. Creating a unified codeing ecosystem.
Challenge: Coordinating development across projects to avoid duplication, resolve conflicts, and maximize synergy.
Solution: Developing shared APIs and data models, ensuring interoperability and a cohesive user experience across all initiatives.

Governance and Trust Models:

Governance structures must align with #OGB principles of transparency, inclusivity, and grassroots control.
Challenge: Implementing governance mechanisms that can operate effectively in a federated environment, balancing peoples autonomy with collective decision-making.
Solution: Using the OGB framework to prototype and test governance models within MakingHistory, adapting them to meet the needs of federated storytelling communities.

Preservation and Archiving:

As with Indymediaback, preserving the history created by people and commneties is essential for future generations.
Challenge: Developing decentralized archiving methods that ensure content longevity without relying on centralized infrastructure.
Solution: Utilizing distributed redundant storage solutions and metadata tagging for efficient archiving and retrieval.

Overlap and Synergies: The MakingHistory project serves as a bridge between Indymediaback, #OMN, and #OGB, leveraging shared infrastructure and principles:

From Ibis Wiki: A federated, collaborative wiki system that lays the foundation for decentralized storytelling.
From Indymediaback: Grassroots media publishing tools and workflows for content creation and moderation.
From #OMN: A federated media ecosystem rooted in the #4opens principles of transparency, inclusivity, and collaboration.
From #OGB: Governance models that empower communities to take ownership of their narratives.

By addressing these challenges, MakingHistory will provide an effective tool for documenting grassroots stories but also strengthen the broader ecosystem of decentralized and federated media, demonstrating a scalable, trust-based model for community-driven storytelling, simply put making history.

ecosystem

The ecosystem of the MakingHistory is rooted in the broader framework of the Open Media Network (#OMN) and the decentralized social web of the Fediverse. Combining principles of openness, decentralization, and grassroots engagement, MakingHistory creates a vibrant and interconnected path for collaborative storytelling and historical documentation. This ecosystem will leverage existing platforms, tools, and communities while fostering new connections to build a sustainable network for grassroots DIY media.

Ecosystem Overview, Core Components:

OMN: A federated media network built on the #4opens principles of open data, open source, open processes, and open standards. MakingHistory will integrate seamlessly with #OMN tools to allow decentralized content sharing and collaboration.

Fediverse: Using ActivityPub and other open standards, the project will connect with established platforms like Mastodon, PeerTube, WriteFreely, and Ibis Wiki to ensure compatibility and engagement across the decentralized web.
Grassroots Media: Building on the ethos of Indymedia, the project will provide tools for activists, journalists, and communities to document and share their history without reliance on centralized platforms or corporate control.

Key Actors: Grassroots Communities: Local organizations, activists, and storytellers who document and share their narratives. Fediverse Developers and Admins: Collaborating with developers and instance administrators to ensure technical interoperability and promote the project within the Fediverse. Allies in the FOSS Ecosystem: Engaging with free and open-source software projects that share the goals of decentralization and people empowerment. Educational and Historical Institutions: Partnering with groups interested in archiving and preserving grassroots stories for future generations.

Engagement Strategies

Community Outreach: Host workshops, webinars, and meetups within grassroots networks and Fediverse communities to introduce MakingHistory and its tools. Collaborate with existing activist networks to co-develop and test features that meet their specific needs.

Promotion on the Fediverse: Actively use Fediverse platforms like Mastodon and Lemmy to share updates, gather feedback, and engage with the wider decentralized social web. Publish guides and tutorials to encourage adoption by Fediverse users and admins.

Collaboration with Developers: Work with ActivityPub crew and SocialHub communities to align technical development with existing standards and best practices. Share code, documentation, and progress transparently on platforms like federated Git’s to invite contributions from the wider FOSS ecosystem.

Building Trust Through #4opens: Promote the project’s adherence to the #4opens principles to build trust and credibility among users and partners. Use open processes for decision-making and feature prioritization to ensure inclusivity and accountability.

Showcasing Outcomes: Develop case studies and success stories from pilot deployments to demonstrate the project’s impact and potential. Highlight how MakingHistory complements and extends the capabilities of existing Fediverse and #OMN tools.

Promoting Outcomes

Federation with Existing Tools: Integrate with platforms like Mastodon (for updates), PeerTube (for video storytelling), and WriteFreely (for blogs) etc to ensure content is accessible and sharable across the Fediverse. Collaborate with other #OMN initiatives, such as Indymediaback and OGB, to strengthen the ecosystem and amplify shared goals. Grassroots Campaigns: Encourage communities to create and share content, documenting local histories and movements, to build awareness and participation organically.

By nurturing a collaborative and inclusive ecosystem, MakingHistory amplifies the voices of grassroots actors and create a sustainable foundation for decentralized storytelling, aligned with the wider OMN and Fediverse vision #KISS