With the crackdown on #XR’s peaceful, #fluffy protests, it’s no surprise that movements are moving into stronger, more disruptive actions. When one path to change is systematically #blocked, history shows that movements turn to #spiky, and we’re already seeing this shift. Recent events, like the symbolic damage by Oxford University by the Palestine Action group, or climate activists turning to sabotage, signal a new phase in the fight for justice and survival.
This escalation isn’t happening in isolation. It’s the predictable result of a systematic refusal to listen to those calling for change. People lose faith in liberal symbolic demonstrations as the #deathcult of #neoliberalism marches on, indifferent to the destruction in its wake. When doors to dialogue are slammed shut, people look for other ways to be heard.
Universities should be at the forefront of this conversation, providing space for genuine debate on how change happens, not just as an abstract academic exercise, but as a living, breathing discussion that acknowledges the urgency of the current mess. We need to break out of the cycle of blinded performative process and confront the reality that people will not quietly watch the world burn.
The #KISS path reminds us to keep things simple: listen to people, understand the roots of their motivations, and create pathways for meaningful action. Otherwise, as we’re already seeing, the pressure will keep building — and the cracks in the system will only grow wider.
To find my wider view on university’s role in this
One thing to keep in mind is that these people largely think they are good people, doing the best they can in the world as it is. And will become upset and very #spiky defensive when pointing at them on their knees prostrate worshipping. Like they said in the seminar, “I don’t know what to do about this”. I don’t think most of us do.
The Clarendon Lectures 2025 – Designing the Future: Multidisciplinary perspectives on designing better futures
Systems thinking challenges traditional approaches to management research and practice. In this second Clarendon event, Tima Bansal engages in conversation with academics in #Oxford who are integrating research and practice with the ambition to co-create futures rather than simply analysing solutions.
An outsider, polemical look at this event: Most university panels have a #NGO-thinking academic for process box-ticking. This is the representation of the fluffy side of #mainstreaming social change. This lettuce person is at best a #fluffy careerist and at worst a #NGO parasite. If there is any content at all, it’s box-ticking to create the illusion of consent and goodwill.
Then the meat of the business school is the worship of the #deathcult — people climbing the gravestones of hierarchy in the shiny, crumbling mausoleums. Even then, it’s mostly careerist. This one is talking about embedding in more fluffy NGO groups to build their story. It’s all about community and relationships. She lets go of the ego she pushed first, to step back to embed. No idea what the outcome of her work is — it’s all process. She ends with a call for nature and holism, the world her work destroys.
The currency is theory; on this, the business school is completely bankrupt from an academic point of view — not to get into the subject of morals, let alone basic human survival. She says they push their content out into science journalism, as these people are not able to judge the value of abstract academic work.
The next is an accounting bureaucrat, who does mention the green limits. He touches on the real and talks about the language in documents of bureaucratic regulation. He says it’s a mess and doesn’t know what to do. Trusting what companies say is not going to be enough. You need to change the economic relationships, and changing this is very difficult — and it’s currently simply not working.
The summing-up person is excited with an issue? Not sure what — no idea what she is actually saying. She is back to not talking about anything. She touches on statues and embarrassment. Finally, she asks an interesting question: who is the ordinance, us or somebody else? We have no idea who?
She says we need strong institutions, as individual companies are not going to do it — they capture the levers of power and pull them to keep the mess, and money, flowing. She has no answer to this. She does mention moving past “markets” in passing for a moment.
Boundaries come up — the answer is fluff, then more substance, accounting has hard boundaries, but useful change comes from stepping outside this. Systems thinking — no answer.
These people are lost and are training up the next lost generation. It’s interesting to see that they have some understanding of this, but it’s looking like they will do nothing to change it.
Wine and nibbles were OK.
Talked to many of them after the event. A few said they were undercover academic “radicals” infiltrating the business colleges — which was maybe a tiny bit true, or not. The students I talked to were blank and staying in academia.
The “consultants” were interested and animated; they found it a little shockingly invigorating to have a counter-culture conversation.
To sum up, mostly hopeless. I am always surprised the place doesn’t stink of rotting zombies, a metaphor, maybe? They need some real content… they really need some real content, but you get the strong feeling that they are not even going to change until the Thames is flowing up under the nearby railway bridge. Even then, there will be calls for more sandbags while talking more about careers — all they know — but underneath this, they have the fear that these careers will likely not exist.
This is it. What to do?
It’s a bleak cycle: academics pump out theory to feed the chatting classes, who in turn guide the #fashernista, spinning ever more refined justifications for the status quo. The echo chamber reverberates with hollow soundbites while the world burns. What we end up with is a layer of intellectual manure, with no one doing the work to turn it into compost.
With projects like the #OMN social tech could be the spade that digs through this mess, breaking down the dead ideas and aerating the soil for something new to grow. But instead, we use #dotcons tech to pile up more waste. Every app, platform, and algorithm is designed to reinforce the system, not break it. The closed loops of influence, profit, and prestige just churn on.
If we want to prod this beast, one way I am working on is to embrace the disruptive potential of the #openweb. What if we built platforms that exposed the rot? Imagine public academic review systems where research couldn’t hide behind paywalls, or tools that tracked the influence of corporate funding on “objective” scholarship. There are some seeds for this, what if we grow them #4opens
Or more direct action, maybe we just crash the garden party. What if we hijacked their panels, flooded their Q&As with real questions, or set up rogue alt-conferences right outside their events? The goal isn’t destruction for destruction’s sake — it’s breaking the illusion of inevitability.
What do you think? How do we spark that shift in behaviour, that even they, softly, say we need to do.
The problem with #closedweb paths on the internet isn’t just “greedy” Big Tech, it’s the inevitable outcome of #capitalism itself. Under capitalism, companies endlessly grow or die, squeezing profits from every possible source. This means tricking users into handing over their data, treating them with contempt, and ultimately dehumanizing them.
Criticizing the #dotcons and pointing to #FOSS copies as a solution is a simple first step. But only doing this is like blaming #BP for abandoning green goals while ignoring the paths that reward environmental destruction. Big Tech’s, the #dotcons, behaviour is a symptom of the #deathcult, a dead economic system where profit trumps people. Copies of the #dotcons no matter how well meaning carry some of this DNA into the #openweb reboot.
The web started as an open ecosystem, a collection of independent applications and communities connected by common protocols and stories. The walls went up in the name of profit and convenience, and now it’s time to tear them down. For the #OMN and the #4opens to thrive, we need to break this cycle. Let’s build tools that make self-hosting accessible to everyone, reconnect people to the value of the commons, and dismantle the tech oligarchies piece by piece. At the moment this is way too hard to do and the change to make this possible is being #blocked by the #geekproblm.
To move past this blocking we need to recognise that the scaffolding is tech, but the building is people, mythos, and tradition. Let’s get back to work with our shovels and compost the mess. ✊
A paper on the Fediverse by Thomas Struett, American University – School of Communication, Aram Sinnreich, American University – School of Communication, Patricia Aufderheide, American University – School of Communication, Rob Gehl, York University.
Interesting #mainstreaming look, that bypasses the grassroots it’s actually talking about, this is a common issue with academic writing, am at Oxford this winter so have everyday “organic” expirence of this.
So to sum up, what we need is for “us” the collective to get up from our knees and become the change we would like to see. This is actually not a hard thing to do “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed, citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.”
Let’s look at this PDF:
This thread and our failing in general in “governance” is to do with the fluffy and spiky debate, or much more obviously the failing of this debate to actually be held in place.
“Potential benefits of the fediverse are at risk of being subverted, either by commercial
competitors or through structural dysfunction.”
Dealing with both commercial and structural dysfunction here.
Commercial – funding has shifted from distributed to centralized over the last few years, this is driving core dysfunctions – interesting and useful subject to discus.
Structural – we have not moved anywhere towards “native” governance approaches, this is building crises Legitimacy (political) – Wikipedia
“hold promise as human-scale, democratically-run platforms for civil discourse within and between these groups of users.”
We aspire to this, but with no democracy in any formal or informal sense. And secondly we lack “groups of users” as the coding being copies of #dotcons are strongly “individualized” which pushed our #mainstreaming “common sense” over this openweb “native” space.
“challenges inherent to distributed governance, commercial platform capture, inclusive
access, moderation at scale, reputational assaults by commercial competitors, and the tacitly
neoliberal techno-Romanticism familiar from previous digital innovations. ”
The is a long working (activist) history of mediating these problems that we are ignoring here. A first step to addressing this is the fluffy spiky debate being held in place #KISS
“Developers, entrepreneurs, institutions, and users of these technologies
must also work collectively and proactively to help the fediverse avoid these historical threats
and maximize its civic potential.”
This is the bit we need to talk more about, as it’s key to not fucking up agen.
“However, the fediverse is more than a technical system; it is also a political structure (Mansoux
& Roscam Abbing, 2020). ”
“the structure of platform governance and moderation is both reflective of and integral to the
functioning of democratic processes in digital networks, and much of the proverbial “devil in the
details” comes down to arcane and obscure questions about transparency, control, and
information flow at any given chokepoint or sociotechnical layer.”
This is why link to the #4opens, and it’s use to judge if a project or group are “native” or not – to make transparent in groups and most impotently OUT-GROUPS. A technical/social membrane, as this quote say “devil in the details”
“1. Distributed governance failures
Previous decentralized social platforms have sometimes failed to deliver on their civic potential
because of challenges emerging from the governance process: the norms, institutions, and
technologies that determine who gets to say what to whom, under which circumstances,”
This is the subject of responses to this thried, illustrating the issues, so think of it as the spiky in the fluffy spiky debate. Notice, we are currently failing to hold this debate in place.
“it introduces other risks that must be addressed and mitigated, including new threats such as accountability and liability crises, forking… Corporate actors may also exploit these challenges, by posing themselves as solutions to distributed governance frictions (Marshall, 2006).”
This is likely in part one of the underling issues we are not talking about here.
“Examples of distributed platforms falling prey to these governance challenges in the past are
legion”
We have much to learn and address on this, I talk about this a lot as it’s a key subject we need to move away from “common sense” approaches. Yes this is seen as spiky, but it’s needed, let’s hold this debate open please.
“Not all platform governance is alike. Though corporate platforms emulate traditional media
structures by centralizing power (Napoli & Caplan, 2017), the fediverse has a more distributed
governance structure. This decentralization is not just an aspect of the underlying software but also a core tenet of the governance philosophy of the fediverse itself.”
This is a subject I talk about a lot and have been working on for the last few years with the ogb as a “native” approache. In general, these “native” approaches are still being #blocked by #mainstreaming “common sense” approaches. This needs to change if the openweb reboot is not to wither and die.
“Benjamin Mako Hill (2018) describes this corporate capture of OSS projects as “strategic closedness.””
This is in easy view with a lot of our tech and fashionable crew pushing #closedweb ideas as “common sense” verse “native” openweb approaches. This is a problem with no obverse solutions, the #4opens project is one way to mediate this insolvable/unspoken issue that is everywhere in our dev crew.
“2. Commercial capture
Another challenge that has undermined the health and strength of previous decentralized or
open platforms is commercial capture. Proprietary, value-added features that enhance the user
experience are used to bring more users onto the platform, ”
We currently have few tools to push this back, our strongest tool is likely our “culture” but this itself is fractured, full of infighting and unspoken. Speaking this out load while creating tension is likely nessersery for any good outcome. Hiding from this is #fail
“This means that only a continuing commitment to interoperability by developers, and not merely the existence of an open technological standard, can ensure an open ecosystem within the fediverse.”
It’s social/political NOT a technical problem, so our current fixation on ONLY tech and avoidance of the social/political is a easy to see and act on #fail
“Eternal September is not that new users simply need to be taught the social norms of the space they are joining, but that norms policing is a form of gatekeeping that can exclude new and more diverse users from joining.”
This is both true and a #fashernista problem, we need a better path, this should be easy, it’s not.
“it is important to critique calls for technological approaches to user-friendliness, which are often couched in rhetoric of democratization of technology, while simultaneously undermining decentralized
power relations… making the platform easier to join and use,
while also limiting users’ agency to make choices about the underlying infrastructure that will
best foster their communities”
We are going to see this from every side for and agenst, we need a balances’ path through this mess, we are not currently talking about this path, we need to.
“the fediverse currently relies on the goodwill of countless volunteer moderators and self-funded instances, this goodwill can’t last indefinitely, and a workable approach to funding and compensation has yet to emerge.”
This one is a can of worms, the current “best” solution is to keep instances small and voluntary run, our ongoing disagreements on this path is likely to continue to do damage… one path out of this is legitimate “governance”.
“The reputational anti-halo is already cropping up in discourse about the fediverse and Mastodon, which have been tainted by their uses among the “alt-right” (Makuch, 2019) and for child abuse (Thiel & DiResta, 2023).”
This comes down to voice and power, as “libertarian cats” we have little of either… it’s a bad path to stay on, what path would be better and more “native” is a good question to talk about.
“techno-Romanticism works to obscure the labor, networks, and institutions that are key to supporting technological development while elevating the simplistic view of the great men of history… the fediverse is particularly vulnerable to techno-Romanticism”
This is an endemic issue, and most people are chasing the tech equivalent of the American dream that they will become the top dev… this is not a native approach to the openweb, but it’s currently a dominating view. This is mess making.
“Technical language and the assumption of baseline technical expertise may also present unintended obstacles to adoption. Conversely, the fediverse also faces the threat that the rhetoric of “user friendliness” will justify the curtailing of user agency, or re-centralization of the network… messy, and continuous practice of maintaining a healthy and inclusive space for civic discourse…
Techno-Romantism’s utopian discourse poses a threat to the fediverse because it distracts from the importance of social action in the development of technology… discussion about how to
identify them and limit their impact, is a critical step toward reaching those civic and
technosocial goals together.”
In conclusion, the roadmap for the fediverse’s future must transcend the confines of technicality and delve deep into the socio-political fabric. Holding the fluffy-spiky debate firm, nurturing ‘native’ approaches, mitigating commercial capture, addressing governance challenges, and fostering a culture of inclusivity and sustainability—these constitute the keystones for nurturing the true potential of the fediverse.
Q. One of the problems we face is people creating bad feelings on this is that they think we are talking about values, that is challenging their feelings. For us this is obviously blinded, crap nonsense, for them, it’s their “truth”.
A. Indeed, Made worse by the affirmation that people can have their own self-validated “truths” that anyone must simply respect
Q. The problem is they are wrong in the basics, we are not talking about feelings, we are talking about history, we are talking about what used to exist and what obviously needs to exist anew. That is what is actually true, not what ignorant people “feel”. So to get anywhere, we need to bridge this mess.
A. How we phrase things is key, at least when trying to get some percentage of the masses on board. I’ve noticed that if the language even hints at “moving backward” they throw up their arms in disgust; “so we should just go back to the Stone Age!?”
Q. Yes, most things we say are true, people will reject and the more we push obvious history the more people push back. Challenging feelings is actually not allowed any more for the very intolerant minority, who help to keep this created social mess in place.
A. It’s properly fucked up nonsense
Q. Our mission is to trile and error a way of bridging this mess at the fediforum event, in the sense of what is the #openweb. This is a very off-topic subject for just about everyone at the event, so the #openweb is affectively #BLOCKED if we can’t find this path?
Hope is a swift left wing flow and the strong current that pushes change/challenge. Simple truth telling is a deep upwelling, the spring that feeds this fresh flow. We need to nurture truth and hope in every part of our society, both our tribalism and bureaucracy are part of this river, more important than ever in the era of #climatechaos we are fast moving into #XR
Bring simple truth to the surface, pure spring waters helps to nourish.
In the #fedivers and wider #openweb rivers, we have increasing inflows of funding from the traditional bureaucracy. This, on the one hand, is feeding the grassroots and on the other hand shaping to a more #mainstreaming river. We need to strive to have a better outcome from this, the tools they are funding are all open licence, we need to build into them that the more bureaucratic/closed agender can be switched on and off in all these funded projects. This is a simple solution we can work towards.
Conclusion
* All flows have value, we need this influx of funding to grow the #openweb and #fedivers if we are to do challenge/change, so use this opening to shape the influx of value and to shape these institutions that push this flow. See this as an opportune for activism, rather than something to be #blocked
* On our-side, we can nurture our tribalism to this “common” course with the #4opens and simple political statements like #PGA hallmarks.
* Our more theoretical friends can use their skills to resurrect the ideas that shaped past movements and feed these into the new movements.
How can we make our media better.
* Use the carrot and the stick, talk about balance rather than conflict.
* Bring the liberals in, but keep the basic #4opens #PGA strong and visible, everyone has a role in the era of #climatechaos so be hopeful and friendly.
* If the river is cool and fresh, the #mainstreaming and #fashernistas will soon jump and swim with this flow.
We live in creative times, let’s enjoy creativity.
Rainbow gatherings happen far away from Babylon, this is understood.
Yet for the last 10 years they have been increasingly/largely organized on Facebook and its important to state the obvuse that this is having an effect on the gatherings. Facebook being one of the strongest #dotcons of the time is full of strong Babylon energy and this energy is overflowing/washing over into the Rainbow Gatherings and the people that come to them.
For #rainbow to have most of its organizing and communication in/on #failbook has been a clear bringing Babylon into Rainbow disaster. You can see this in the illness/eco disaster’s at European gatherings over the last 5 years. The recent regional one I was at for 3 weeks in Serbia this summer strongly affected, I was almost the only experienced rainbow person there most of the time. They were no Serbians, the ones that came all left after a few days. It was organized (not focalised) by a Bosnian who had real issues with Serbs that kept surfacing in uncumftable ways. Most of my time there was spent worked hard on the ground in circles to heal this ongoing “mess”. Though it had good moments.
Ok, you’re reading this and saying this is not my problem, Facebook works for me etc. it might not be your interest, but saying this is a problem should not be #blocked on rainbow Facebook pages. Talking about the issues after the Serbian gathering and disaster of the Polish European Gathering, why I am being #blocked and called a troll on #failbook rainbow pages? Where did this power to block and censer come from in our gatherings? The tag #failbook (there are other tags) is not my point of view, it’s mainstream https://mastodon.social/tags/failbook lots of links here on the #openweb that show this.
If you want to take Rainbow into Babylon, that’s fine and good. But please don’t bring Babylon into Rainbow. Remember, Rainbow is not Babylon. We build our gatherings away from Babylon, just as we need to foculise and tell our story’s away from Babylon. In this, our use of #Failbook is a clear and urgent problem for #rainbow
