If we want the #openweb to survive and thrive, we need new forms of power, ones that can defend the community and challenge traditional power dynamics without falling into the traps of control, hierarchy, and co-option.
The problem is clear: If we follow traditional power politics, which are built on control, manipulation, and exclusion, we will fail. We’ve seen this play out repeatedly, grassroots movements spark change, only to be then sold out and absorbed, neutralized by the #mainstreaming flows of #blinded personal and institutional power.
The #blocking issues, what’s stopping us building the #OGB? This is about the “Silo Path” vs. the “Aggregation Path”. Centralized control (the silo path) is easier to manage, but it kills autonomy and leads to gatekeeping. A decentralized, organic approach (the aggregation path) requires more effort but keeps power in the hands of the community. The #OGB needs to be built on open trust networks, not locked-down institutions. This leads to perception of a lack of “perceived power” and currently people, default to following power. It’s a chicken-and-egg issue, If we don’t look like power, we will struggle to attract participation. But power doesn’t have to mean hierarchy, it can mean influence, legitimacy, and real impact. We need to keep building structures that feel like power while staying true to open, bottom-up values.
This brings up issues of funding and recognition of grassroots growth, which is where almost all valuable social and technological change, comes from, ONLY grassroots movements, not the #mainstreaming institutions that later co-opt them and claim ownership and CONTROL. The problem is that these CONTROL institutions default to sucking up resources, draining the energy and focus from grassroots projects, leaving hollowed out shells, undervalued and underfunded. To fix this, we need a cultural shift that recognizes and invests in decentralized, community-driven alternatives.
An important change is needed before we can be coming the change and challenge, to actually make this work. This is the path of supporting “Organic Intellectuals with Muddy Feet”, Change happens on the ground, not in #NGO meetings or #dotcons boardrooms. We need to elevate people who are actively engaged in building solutions, not just talking, or co-opting them.
To learn from effective grassroots paths, the #OGB draws from real-world activist organizing, not abstract theories or #fashernista posturing. Let’s look at some examples, in coding, loose scrum for open source dev leads to adapting flexible, iterative structures for governance. In culture, Burning Man’s self-organizing, mutated from Rainbow Gatherings, illustrating that radical decentralization works at scale, though this dose brining issues. And in tech federated networks (like the #Fediverse), show that distributed, non-hierarchical systems can replace corporate monopolies.
To take a few steps, we need to avoid the trap of fighting over power, where internal battles drain energy and distract from the real mission. This is needed to keep the focus on building the native path, not arguing over control. In this #KISS path, the #OGB must function as a shared infrastructure, not a battleground for egos.
The Path isn’t to directly destroy existing power structures, it’s to build alternatives that are too effective to ignore. The #OGB isn’t just another governance tool; it’s a blueprint for creating sustainable, community-led power without falling into the traps of traditional politics.
Let’s work together as if we are at a turning point. We can either follow the same old paths of control, stagnation, and eventual failure, or we can build something new that actually works. The choice is ours. Let’s make it happen, please.
Q: Very interested in what you have to say. I’ve been trying to find a place in the #Fediverse that’s not in thrall to big tech. How do I join up? #OMN#OpenWeb. Hungry, feed me!
A: This is harder than it should be, and that itself is a telling sign of where we are right now. The #Fediverse is a fascinating, messy, and diverse space, but much of it is still trapped in the gravity of the #dotcons. What you’ll mostly find are either clones of corporate social media—Twitter-like, YouTube-like, Reddit-like—attempting to reimplement the same narrow and limiting designs, or small, scattered projects built by devs scratching a personal itch.
We haven’t yet built the truly native, #DIY#openweb alternatives, and it’s not for lack of effort. There have been decades of attempts, countless working groups, community-driven projects, and radical experiments, but again and again, they have been met with #blocking, not just from external forces, but from within our own communities. The failure isn’t technical; it’s social, political, and cultural. The conversation on http://hamishcampbell.com delves into this deeply.
The Open Media Network (#OMN) was created as a framework to address these issues, to move beyond the false choice between corporate clones and isolated passion projects. But it, too, has struggled to gain traction in a landscape that defaults to control-based thinking instead of trust-based collaboration. The #OMN dev site is http://unite.openworlds.info, but it has been static for the past two years, stuck, like so many other alternative projects, due to a lack of momentum, a lack of funders and coders who understand social needs, and a culture that too often rewards and pushes closed, individualistic development over collective, open building.
So what can you do now? For immediate participation, the best bet is to start using and supporting the #Fediverse platforms that exist, even if they are still copies of the #dotcons. They work, they are functional, and they serve as a stepping stone toward something better. But don’t stop there, push beyond them. Get involved with projects that are trying to break out of these patterns. Contribute to discussions, support developers who are thinking outside the mainstream, and help to fund and create the bridges we desperately need.
It’s not easy, and it’s not as simple as clicking “sign up” and walking into a ready-made community. The #openweb requires effort, participation, and sometimes frustration, but that’s the reality of building something instead of recycling the #mainstreaming. If you’re hungry, the food is there, but you might have to help cook it first.
I have been walking this path for 30 years as an #openweb organic intellectual, technologist, and part of the #OMN.
We need to talk, again, about how the #NGO world pushes HARD BLOCKING over the native #openweb paths we need to take. This isn’t some new issue; we’ve been having the same conversation for years. And yet, here we are, watching the same bad behaver and the same mistakes repeating, only now, with the #mainstreaming flooding in, with more funding and institutional interference.
The simple antidote to this incompetence? Listen. Think. And stop blocking. Seriously, it’s not that complicated. If the #NGO crowd could grasp this, we might actually find a compromise that builds bridges instead of walls. What do we currently get? More #BLOCKING, more CONTROL, and an ongoing refusal to engage with the people working on the paths we need for digital commons building.
The example I keep talking about is the #OMN approach, which is messy, leaky, and human. At the #OMN, we have a different view: if it’s not messy, it’s not worth doing. And by messy, we don’t mean technological chaos, we mean social messiness. Because here’s the #KISS truth: Social change is messy, The best ideas leak and evolve, Security and CONTROL in the social realm are just dressed-up gatekeeping. If you try to lock everything down, what you’re really doing is blocking creativity, trust, and progress. We need a leaky system where communication and data flow in ways that benefit community needs, when we don’t have an idea of what the community is.
The #geekproblem has spent years pushing CONTROL and SECURITY as the primary solutions, because they don’t understand social reality. The cult of CONTROL is why the #geekproblem is still a very real problem. This isn’t a personal attack, it’s just a fact. Many of these folks see the world in mechanical terms, where every problem has a technical fix. But social trust isn’t a tech problem, it’s a human one. And let’s be clear: while CONTROL can create functioning systems, it also creates bad societies.
Fear-based governance has always led to failure, whether in tech, politics, or history. Look at the Soviet Union: they built an economy on CONTROL and FEAR, and it collapsed under its own weight. If we blindly follow this same path in the #Fediverse, we’re going to end up in the same place.
Who organizes the #Fediverse? For the last few years, there’s been a struggle for control over who organizes the #Fediverse. Most want it to be a #DIY but some, this is described by our #fashionista as a #DoOcracy, where whoever does the work makes the decisions. Where the more native path is parallel communities cooperating, as is outlined in the #OGB social tech project. The two, are currently blocking each other, it’s a mess that needs composting.
One thing we can be shore is that the #twittermigration and #mainstreaming influx isn’t going to magically fix this. And the current path of doing nothing is itself a form of BLOCKING, by refusing to change, we entrench the same old power structures.
We need to be #KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid) about this:
No more dressing up old CONTROL structures in #fashernista cloth
No more gatekeeping disguised as governance
No more pretending that fear and CONTROL will lead to a better society
What will unblock this needed path? How do we shift the balance from CONTROL back to TRUST?
1️) Stop treating the #Fediverse like a product to be managed, it’s a social movement. 2️) Shift from CONTROL-based structures to TRUST-based ones, this means radical transparency and the #4opens. 3️) Stop repeating #mainstreaming mistakes, if we follow the centralized web’s path, we will be consumed by the same mess. 4️) Find and fund coders who actually understand TRUST, not just software engineers, but community builders who can work in code.
The first step on this path is the need to move beyond #geekproblem agendas and build something that actually has power for social change. The #OMN is one such path, but only if people stop blocking and start listening, understanding and building. So, the question is simple: Are you on the side of CONTROL or TRUST? Because one leads to stagnation, and the other leads to a real alternative future we say we need.
The #NGO crew can be poison, not because they’re bad people, but because of how social structures and agendas shape behaviour. For the social health of the #openweb, we need to be mindful of what we take in. Just like in nature, some things are toxic in large doses. “Nice” doesn’t always mean “good.” There’s no contradiction here.
But remember, shit makes good compost! Instead of just being cynical, let’s grow something better from this mess. A healthy #openweb world is still possible.
The Real Problem, is that too many people have been stuck in the #dotcons feedback loop for too long, lazy consumption feeding corporate control, which in turn dulls critical thinking, making people even more dependent. The illusion of #mainstreaming “ethical” alternatives all reinforce this cycle.
This post isn’t aimed at anyone in particular, but if you feel called out… well, maybe think about why.
Q: Why does this matter?
Because right now, #fashernistas (trend-chasers) and their projects are flooding into the #openweb space. Some of these projects are good, but many are just recreating the #geekproblem, building things that look different on the surface but are more #techshit repeating the same mistakes.
We use the #4opens as a litmus test for these projects:
Open Data – Who controls it?
Open Source – Can it be independently verified and improved?
Open Process – Who gets to decide?
Open Standards – Can it be freely networked and flows built upon?
If we don’t actively promote and support real alternatives, people will just step to more of the next “ethically marketed” #dotcons. If we don’t do #PR, they will, and they have far bigger budgets.
Q: What’s the deal with #hashtags, they empower people to break out of controlled algorithms.
Click a hashtag → See real conversations outside your curated bubble.
Follow a hashtag → Keep up with a movement, not just what a platform wants you to see.
Use hashtags → Help build DIY, horizontal networks that weaken centralized control.
Simple truth: Hashtags can be used to give you more power, and take power away from the algorithmic walls of the #geekproblem and #dotcons. They help connect ideas, people, and actions outside #mainstreaming corporate control.
Not using them? That’s fine, but why actively reject something that makes change easier? Social transformation isn’t painless, but it’s doable. A simple first step is to just start using shared social hashtags, and when you get pushback, stick with it.
Nobody said social change was easy.
The #mainstreaming progressive are finally moving to what I have been saying in the hashtag story. They are talking about the #blocking of left paths by our #fashionisters, we do need to work at shovelling this mess to grow the seeds we need for change and challenge.
This is a key point that often gets misunderstood. #Mainstreaming isn’t inherently good or bad—it depends on who is influencing whom.
Good #mainstreaming = Bringing #openweb values into the mainstream (transparency, decentralization, cooperation).
Bad #mainstreaming = The mainstream (corporate control, surveillance capitalism, hierarchy) infusing itself into the #openweb and reshaping it in its own image.
In the current context, mainstreaming is mostly bad because it tends to dilute radical alternatives into market-friendly compromises. The #deathcult (neoliberalism) doesn’t absorb things in good faith—it co-opts and neutralizes them.
That’s why we need mediation, pushback, and a clear understanding of context when talking about #mainstreaming. Sometimes it’s the right move, but right now, the priority is defending and growing the roots of the #openweb before our # #fashionistas can sell it off as a brand.
One of the best things about the Fediverse is that real people and community’s get to choose what kind of digital paths they want to take. Don’t want #Meta snooping around? Join or host an instance that blocks them out. Prefer not to have people search your content? Lock it down in your settings. Want to mediate the strong #blinded flow of “normies”? Close the doors via your instance settings. It’s a “nativist” system that offers a radical degree of agency compared to the #dotcons.
But what happens when people start demanding that their version of the #Fediverse become the default for everyone else? That’s where things get tricky, and where we risk losing the most valuable aspect of this messy, decentralized network: the bridges between worlds. The danger of closed loops, it’s understandable that people want their corners of the #Fediverse to feel safe, sustainable, coherent, and aligned with shared values.
The problem is that when we focus on tools so that every group can retreat into its own echo chamber, we recreate the failures of the wider #dotcons web: fragmented bubbles where ideas stagnate, and meaningful conversations can’t happen. This is what I mean when I talked about #mainstreaming echo chambers, the tendency for people to isolate themselves in what feels comfortable, which ultimately makes everything smaller.
The irony is that this impulse to close off is, in a way, the same as the desire to keep the Fediverse open. Both are reactions to the failures of centralized tech platforms. People who want to mediate #mainstreaming influences are trying to nurture the fragile seedlings of the grassroots culture they’ve built, while those advocating for broader adoption hope to prevent the network from collapsing into irrelevance. Both impulses come from wanting the Fediverse to survive, they just express that desire in too often opposite #blocking ways.
The failed bridge of #FediverseHouse is a normal path. This tension came to a head with projects like #FediverseHouse and #Fediforum, which aimed to be a gathering space but ultimately failed to build lasting bridges. It wasn’t because people didn’t care, it was because there wasn’t enough understanding of how to hold that tension between the grassroots and the mainstream without one swallowing the other. The projects lack the simplicity of #KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid) and got tangled in the same old dynamics of control and fragmentation.
Keeping the bridge in place has a lot to do which sharing resources, in non #mainstreaming ways, yes, we understand, this is a hard leap for meany people but only people who can make this step can acturly be useful in the end to the “native” #openweb paths. The solution isn’t to pick a side, but to intentionally hold the bridge. In a smaller, view, that might look like running accounts across multiple instances and boosting content between different ideological spaces to keep ideas flowing. It might mean advocating for #4opens values even in mainstream-leaning spaces, or gently nudging the more isolated pockets of the Fediverse to stay curious about what lies outside their walls.
The Fediverse doesn’t need to be one thing, that’s its strength. But if we let the bridges decay, we lose the possibility of cross-pollination, of radical ideas seeping into #mainstreaming consciousness, or of everyday people stumbling into a space that makes them question the status quo. Instead of fighting, as we so often do, to make one version of the #Fediverse dominant, maybe the real work is in keeping the network alive, messy, imperfect, but always connected. Because it’s in those connections that real alternatives grow.
In activist spaces and grassroots communities, the tension between #fluffy and #spiky approaches is a well-worn dynamic. Fluffy represents a gentler, consensus-driven path, centred on kindness, inclusion, and collective care. Spiky, on the other hand, is sharp-edged, direct, and confrontational, willing to disrupt and break things to push for change. Both paths have their place, but the trouble arises when fluffy turns dogmatic, morphing into a hard passive-aggressive policing that silences needed dissent.
Dogmatic fluffy presents itself as kindness, but when it becomes rigid, it is just as destructive as unchecked aggression. People get shamed for stepping out of line, challenging dominant group norms, and advocating for more assertive tactics. This isn’t only a theoretical issue, it actively fractures movements, creating an echo chamber where only approved, safe opinions are allowed to circulate. Its activism dressed in softness but wielding the same #mainstreaming blunt force as the systems we set out to dismantle.
The danger lies in the #blocking of paths to meaningful discussion. When conversations are shut down in the name of maintaining harmony, we lose the ability to take difficult paths. The #fluffy-spiky debate needs to be dynamic, a living exploration of what tactics are effective in different contexts. Sometimes, gentle community building is the answer. Other times, the situation calls for confrontation and disruption. But when one side forcibly silences the other, we stop evolving.
It’s good to remember #KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid). Complexity is necessary, but so is cutting through the noise. If our movements become bogged down in internal purity tests, we soon lose sight of the actual struggle. With, people stepping away from the #dotcons and looking for alternatives. We need to offer spaces where messy, honest, and sometimes uncomfortable conversations can happen, not sterilized bubbles where dissent is treated as betrayal.
Real movements thrive in the tension between fluffy and spiky. The key is to stay flexible, to let people navigate those paths without turning one into a dead-end. Fluffy doesn’t need to fear spiky, and spiky doesn’t need to dismiss fluffy. They’re both tools, both necessary. And if we can hold space for that complexity, we might just build movements resilient enough to withstand whatever the #deathcult throws our way.
What do you think? Should we lean into the discomfort and keep the debate alive?
UPDATE: it needs to be said that #blinded dogmatic #fluffy people can become nasty #fuckwits without a clue, what do you think we can do with this mess?
This has been going on for more than ten years, I have been at the heart of this movement, at many of the steps, I meet defeatism and negativity. It’s frustrating, especially now, when the mainstream is visibly stepping away from the #dotcons and looking for a place to land. We should be building that landing space, but instead, we’re tangled in the wreckage of failed ideas and cynical inertia.
Yes, stupid fashionable ideas have failed again and again, but that doesn’t mean the basics no longer work. The #openweb grew from simple, powerful principles: decentralization, collaboration, and a belief that media should be in the hands of the people, not locked behind corporate walls. It worked then, and it can work now.
The #blocking wall, the #dotcons built to dam this flow, just might be crumbling, but I don’t think people realize just how much defeatist noise we had and still have to break through:
“Old tech. Nobody uses torrents anymore.”
“That’s been tried — it failed.”
“This is better, nobody’s interested in that.”
“You should be using XYZ instead. I have a better idea...”
It’s an endless cycle of negativity, driven by a #geekproblem that values novelty over function, and a #fashernista culture that chases trends rather than tending to the messy, necessary work of composting old ideas to grow something real. The #openweb tools still work, If we use them. The core tools of the #openweb are still powerful:
#RSS feeds for simple, open distribution.
#Torrents for decentralized, resilient file sharing.
#Fedivers networks like #Peertube, #Mastodon, and #Wordpress for publishing and connection.
Mesh networks and local-first tech to break dependence on centralized infrastructure.
None of these are new, that’s the point, they work. The failure wasn’t in the tech, it was in our inability to hold space against the relentless creep of the #deathcult. Reclaiming the compost heap is a first step, we need to stop chasing the next shiny thing and start digging through the muck. The #OMN, #indymediaback, and #4opens are all rooted in the idea that we can rebuild from what we already know works, not by reinventing the wheel but by getting our hands dirty and composting the failures into fertile ground for the future.
The defeatism is loud, but it’s not unbeatable. We’ve been here before. We know the way out.
Decentralize.
Publish.
Connect.
Trust the process.
We (re)build the #openweb one small, stubborn step at a time.
Most people I interact with are buried deep in the rot they’ve helped create, the path out is hard, but not impossible. The composting metaphor holds — rot can become soil, but only if it’s turned, exposed to air, and given time to break down. The stench lingers, though, and the deeper the decay, the harder it is to face.
Forgiveness can be a catalyst, but only if it’s rooted in understanding, not avoidance. Too often, movements try to “move on” without actually dealing with the decay, which just locks the dysfunction into place. Real forgiveness isn’t about forgetting or excusing — it’s about acknowledging the harm, holding people accountable to growth, and making space for them to rebuild trust through action.
With the #OMN the key is to create intentional processes for airing out the rot. Spaces where people can lay out what went wrong, where the worst of the mess can be named and examined without immediately collapsing into blame. This is a form of collective composting — deliberately breaking things down so they don’t keep contaminating the roots of future growth.
For paths that avoid recreating the mess, we might need, truth-telling circles: Spaces for people to name harms, acknowledge mistakes, and speak honestly about the dynamics that led to failure. Restorative action, not just words: Forgiveness should be paired with tangible action — people need ways to rebuild trust through collective work. Memory gardens: Digital or physical archives that document past failures and successes, so the same mistakes don’t get repeated. Rhythmic cycles of reflection: Movements need to regularly pause, look back, and compost what’s no longer serving the collective purpose.
Sun, light, and fertile soil come from this messy work of turning over the past and allowing time and care to transform it. The #openweb is a part of this, especially if we build systems and paths that prioritize collective memory and iterative growth over constant reinvention and erasure.
What do you think? Could structured cycles of composting and reflection help our movements breathe again? Or is the rot too deep, and we need to burn things down to clear space for new life?
Too often, I find myself in conversations that revolve around the intersection of technology and social issues, with one view emphasizing the importance of practical solutions to real-world problems, while the other highlights the underlying social dynamics that shape the technological landscapes these “solutions” are supposed to be addressing.
The Pragmatists, prioritizes immediate, tangible solutions. For example, when discussing the digital divide, they might advocate for creating cheaper, more accessible devices or building community Wi-Fi networks. They’ll focus on the logistics: what technology stack is best, what protocols to use, and how quickly the network can be deployed.
They see critiques of the capitalist underpinnings of tech as a distraction. For instance, they might argue that worrying about Big Tech’s dominance is less important than simply getting people online, even if it means relying on Google or Facebook infrastructure in the short term. The goal is to solve the immediate problem, even if the long-term implications reinforce existing systems of control.
The Social Critics, contends that technology cannot be meaningfully separated from the social systems it emerges from. They argue that simply handing out cheap devices or relying on corporate infrastructure entrenches dependency and undermines community sovereignty. For example, they might point to the rise of open-source projects that eventually get swallowed by venture capital, losing their grassroots values in the process (#dotcons).
They argue that unless we address the systemic issues, like how profit-driven models shape the design of platforms, any immediate “solution” is likely to reinforce the problem. Take social media moderation: a pragmatist might suggest better algorithms, while a social critic would argue that the underlying problem is the ad-driven engagement path itself.
The #GeekProblem is a barrier, the divide between these groups often solidifies into this mess making. Pragmatists, especially in tech spaces, dismiss social critique as impractical or irrelevant, reinforcing an insular culture that privileges technical expertise over lived experience. This dismissal is a form of #blocking, preventing collective growth and deeper problem-solving.
Breaking the cycle, to move past this, we need to blend the perspectives. For example, community mesh networks can be built with both pragmatic goals (connecting people) and social considerations (using #4opens practices to maintain local control). The technology itself can be a tool for social empowerment, but only if the builders acknowledge and address the social dimensions.
Projects like the Open Media Network (#OMN) bridge this gap, grounding tech development in community needs while keeping processes transparent and participatory. This balance helps compost the mess, turning the tension between pragmatism and social critique into fertile ground for true change. We don’t have to choose between immediate action and long-term systemic change, the key is holding both. Let’s stop getting stuck in the mess and start growing something real.
Let’s look at what makes sense: it’s about collective dynamics, not individual blame. The focus is on mapping the social landscape, understanding the patterns of dysfunction, and then figuring out how to break through those blockages. The idea of switching between #spiky and #fluffy approaches as needed is powerful, rejecting rigid ideology in favour of practical, responsive action.
Making the #blocking visible is essential. So much of the stagnation in #openweb and activist spaces comes from hidden blockages, unspoken fears, entrenched power dynamics, and the quiet creep of #mainstreaming logic. By pushing these things into the light, we can compost them, rather than letting them fester underground.
The balance, using history as a guide, leaning on what’s worked before, but staying flexible enough to shift tactics, should feel like the only sustainable way forward. If we only do #fluffy, we get captured by the #NGO mindset. If we only do #spiky, we burn out or implode. But if we consciously weave both together, we might actually build the resilience we need to grow new paths through the wreckage.
It’s almost like we need a cultural practice of “tending the compost”, regularly sifting through the mess, pulling out useful bits, and turning it over so new life can emerge. And maybe that practice itself could be a form of governance for grassroots networks, an ongoing, collective process of sense-making and recalibration.
What do you think? Can this idea of “compost tending” as a cyclical, community-driven process be something we intentionally build into the fabric of #openweb projects?
#Fashionistas chase status and spectacle over substance, co-opting real radical movements for aesthetics. They turn collective struggles into performative gestures, feeding the #mainstreaming cycle. This poisons the roots of change, turning compost into toxic waste, energy that could grow new things instead feeds the system they claim to resist.
Why is the #geekproblem such a strong #blocking force? This is rooted in control, a deterministic mindset that values code over culture. It manifests as gatekeeping, with geeks wielding tech knowledge as a shield rather than a tool for collective liberation. This blocks change because it alienates people who don’t fit the mould, and it stalls projects in endless technical debates instead of action.
How can #mainstreaming be pushed into something positive? Mainstreaming doesn’t have to be a death sentence if it’s grows from radical roots. The problem is the loss of direction when movements get diluted to fit nasty #mainstream tastes. A useful path is that mainstream visibility can amplify voices, but this needs active balancing by autonomous, decentralized structures. Maybe think of it like a Trojan horse, to smuggle radical ideas into the #mainstream under the cover of familiarity.
How do we thread this through the needle of #stupidindividualism that fractures collective power, by reducing everything to personal choice and consumption. The cultural byproduct of the #deathcult, a refusal to see beyond the self, traps people in cycles of isolation and powerlessness. The path out of this mess is through rekindling collectivism trust. People fall into individualism because they don’t trust collective paths. Start small, with local networks and federated communities. Show that collective paths are possible, and that it feels better than isolation. Remind people they are part of something bigger, not as a sacrifice of self, but as an expansion of it.
What path can we take on the #openweb? A path that embraces the compost. Let’s not seek purity or perfection, but instead nurture the rotting, chaotic soil of what we already have. The #OMN and #4opens lay the groundwork with radical transparency, federated trust networks. Build with messy activism, celebrate imperfection. Let failure teach and shape the next iteration. Radical inclusion, breaks down tech barriers and actively bring people in. Trust over control, decentralize, federate, and resist the temptation to police.
The #openweb can be the seedbed of a new culture, if we accept that growth is messy, slow, and unpredictable. The path isn’t linear, it’s a tangle of roots, branching and intertwining. But that’s the beauty of it. What do you think? Do we need more practical tools, or is it more about mindset shifts?
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.
Funding structures are built for #NGO nonsense, not grassroots projects where actual value is created. The #OMN, #indymediaback, and #OGB challenge this, but funders can’t grasp it because they don’t understand value outside institutional framing.
Fixing the funding #blocking, funders need to THINK, not just UNDERSTAND. Right now, they “understand” in the framework of existing institutions, which means they miss the metaphor-driven, emergent nature of the #OMN. Our #Hashtag story is for THINKING, not passive understanding. They are useful tools to push the conversation forward, not dogma to be accepted or rejected. The two often treating them as fixed truths leads to #blocking the needed real change.
We need to break out of this cycle, 20 years of #techshit which is still strengthening the gatekeepers, we can’t keep playing by these rules. The biggest realization here is that truth and metaphor are not the same. Funders, #NGOs, and the #mainstreaming crew think in terms of fixed truths, while real change comes from dynamic thinking. That’s why they keep failing us.
