The #dotcons share an ideology

There is a tech ideology that masks corporate power, and this view of #mainstreaming Cyber libertarianism is a bizarre ideological mishmash, a combination of hippie flower power, economic neoliberalism, and a heavy dose of technological determinism. It’s the credo of Silicon Valley, so much so that for years it was known as the “Californian Ideology.” this “thinking” shapes the tech bros and their billionaire overlords, who for the last ten years have push #cryptocurrencys and now claim that technologies like #AI hold the key to solving all human problems and offers “endless opportunities” for wealth, power, and pleasure. Naturally, anything that stands in the way of this vision, government regulation, public oversight, and most importantly collective action, must be swept aside. For meany years, this sounded like a progress path to some, but it’s riddled with obvious contradictions and dangers.

Many of the problems we face are inherently political, requiring systemic solutions that involving collective governance. Yet, the CEOs, executives, and vulture capitalists would rather you believe that the solutions lie in the “free-market”, that is then conveniently funnelled through their platforms and products. This serves their interests in maintaining power and wealth while pushing aside meaningful public accountability and any possible of an alternative.

This fusion of #geekproblem libertarian engineers and anti-government #fahernistas gave rise to the foundational myths of cyber libertarianism: that technology empowers individuals to create a better world. In the 1990, cyber libertarianism become the dominant ideology in Silicon Valley. Yet, as this ideology flourished, it should have been clear that its vision of “freedom” was fundamentally flawed.

The rhetoric of #techbrow cyber libertarianism claims to be about freedom—freedom from government oversight, freedom of speech, and freedom to innovate. But in practice, this freedom is selective. It serves the powerful and nasty few while ignoring or exploiting the vast majority. This omission is central to cyber libertarianism. By focusing exclusively on the dangers of government tyranny, it ignores how corporations can wield just as much, if not more, power over people. This isn’t an accident—it’s the entire point. Silicon Valley’s billionaires don’t want less power for themselves; they want less oversight from governments and the public.

Neoliberalism becomes the new normal to justify policies that benefit the nasty rich. This path of our current #dotcons oligarchs is no accident. The vague anti-government ethos provides the perfect cover for neoliberal policies. By dressing up deregulation, tax cuts for the wealthy, and the dismantling of public services in the language of “freedom,” both tech billionaires and neoliberal politicians can push their agendas without ever addressing the systemic issues of capitalism, inequality and exploitation.

The Musk empire is a prime example, while he rails against government interference, he eagerly accepts billions in subsidies, pushes for deregulation that benefits his companies, and weaponises his platforms to amplify far-right ideologies. Since taking over Twitter, Musk has turned it into a haven for white supremacists and conspiracy theorists, throttled links to media outlets he dislikes, and boosted his own tweets to ensure maximum visibility.

This is the logical conclusion of the path we have all walked down with our embrace of the #dotcons. By rejecting democratic oversight and embracing a narrow, individualistic definition of freedom, we have consolidates power in the hands of the few wealthy, nasty #techbrows and their acolytes. For all the rhetoric about empowering individuals, this path has always been about protecting the privileges of the nasty few.

We see in the USA this Silicon Valley influence growing. Now more than ever, it’s crucial to challenge these paths and step away from the #dotcons these inadequate and nasty people control. We need to understand that freedom isn’t about the absence of government oversight, it’s about creating a humanistic society where power is accountable, resources are shared more equitably, and everyone has the opportunity to grow. The spreading fascism hiding behind Cyber libertarianism offers none of this, Instead, it offers us a neo feudalism, tech kings, knights and priests who claim to liberate us while consolidating their control. It’s time to see through the shiny algorithm driven façade and make the effort and focus to build something better. With the native #openweb reboot we have the tools to do this, with #OMN there is a different technological path we can take.

The Urgent Need for Collective Action

What’s easy to see in a striking way, in today’s mess, is how desperately we need ways for people to come together and organise against the concentrated accumulations of power that are running rampant. Billionaires and massive corporations hold all the cards, shaping society to serve their interests, leaving the rest of us to fend for ourselves as the social and ecological supports crumble around us. Worse still, the law, once thought by some as a tool to ensure fairness, has been show to be co-opted to enable this imbalance. By declaring that corporations are people and money is speech, the legal system has been bent to their will, rigging the game increasingly in their favour.

Yet, as is so often the case, the root of their wealth and power is labour. Wealth doesn’t exist without the workers who produce it, and if labour, if workers, came together to say , “We’re not putting up with this anymore,” the balance of power will shift dramatically. The numbers are overwhelmingly on our side; there are far more workers than there are billionaires and CEOs. The problem is not a lack of potential power, it’s the difficulty of bringing that power together, it is an issue of organising.

This is where the promise of the internet and the #openweb comes in, or, at least, where it used to come in. The tools used to be a force for good, creating open spaces for solidarity, connection, and collective action on a global scale. For the last 20 years, with our move to the #dotcons, they’ve done the exact opposite. Rather than uniting us, they’ve carved us up into isolated bubbles and opposing camps, constantly at war with one another over manufactured divisions.

And it’s becoming increasingly clear that this isn’t an unintended consequence of poorly designed tech stack, it’s the strategy. The algorithms that dominate our online interactions are specifically built to generate profit and control by stoking conflict and outrage. The more people argue, click, and engage with inflammatory content, the more money flows into the pockets of those who control the platforms. Social media isn’t only failing in its core mission to bring us together; it’s actively designed and controlled to keep us divided.

A study out of the Netherlands drove this point home. Researchers found that the vast majority of misinformation circulating on social media is being generated by right-wing populists. This isn’t a coincidence; it’s a deliberate strategy. Misinformation and division are tools to distract and divide, making it harder for people to see the real source of their struggles, the unchecked accumulation of wealth and power in the hands of a nasty few. This is a systemic, deliberate effort to fracture society, keeping us busy fighting each other, with identity politics and #stupidindividualism, to make any stand against those consolidating control in their destructive inadequate dirty grip on the world we live in.

If we’re going to break out of this cycle, we need to focus on finding ways to bypass this endemic #techshit. This is where activism based projects like the #OMN come in as paths of solidarity, collective action, and rebuilding of the trust in our communities. We can’t afford to stay divided, the numbers are still on our side, but only if we find the courage and the will to come together to become the change and challenge we need to be.

Prodding a #dotcons flow

Let’s try a spiky reply to this tweet on the #mainstreaming #dotcons platform, these spaces often reek of superficial analysis and throwing around half-baked ideas without engaging with the deeper structural issues. let’s see if anything happens?

On the subject: “the culture of spontaneity, and mass horizontalism.” Yes, these approaches have their flaws—particularly when they lack clear strategy or organisation—but the #mainstreaming dismissing of them as ineffective wholesale shows a lack of understanding of their historical context and value. Spontaneity and horizontalism emerged as responses to the failures of top-down bureaucratic models of the left, which stagnated under Cold War pressures and co-optation. To be claiming they “can’t really compete” without acknowledging why they arose or their ongoing relevance in decentralised movements is lazy analysis.

And then there’s the smug messaging that “that’s something almost everyone now agrees on.” Really? Who is “everyone”? This nothing more than an appeal to a nebulous consensus that doesn’t actually exist. Plenty of activists, organisers, and theorists still see value in horizontalism—just not in isolation or as an end in itself. Pretending the debate is over is the kind of rhetoric that shuts down critical engagement rather than advancing it.

Moving on to the second tweet, “Agree on need for organisation (…that are trade unions or trade union focused).” While trade unions are vital, especially in reclaiming workers’ rights in the face of rampant exploitation, reducing “organisation” to trade unions is a narrow view. Trade unions, while necessary, aren’t sufficient to address the wider cultural, ecological, and social crises we face. There’s a world of organising happening outside of unions—mutual aid networks, co-operatives, tenant unions, and the growing need for grassroots digital activism, to name a few—that is every bit as crucial. This is a kind of blinkered nostalgia for “the union, and nothing but the union” which fails to account for the multiplicity of struggles we’re dealing with.

Then there’s the call for “a systematic approach to cultural work.” Absolutely, but what does this mean? As so often, these statements dont explain or offer a vision. Instead, we get the vague assertion that it should focus on “actually doing culture that is popular, not moralising and nostalgia.” While it’s true that moralising and nostalgia often cripple cultural efforts on the left, this critique feels like it’s punching at a strawman. What is this “popular” culture we’re supposed to aim for? Affective work is not about chasing popularity for its own sake but creating counter-narratives that resonate with people’s lived experiences and inspire action. Popularity without substance is meaningless—just another form of hollow spectacle.

Lastly, the tone throughout this thread oozes the worst kind of detached irony. It’s performative critique—pointing out issues without contributing to constructive or actionable paths. If anything, this “chatter” mirrors the liberal commentary class it seeks to critique: smug, self-assured, and ultimately irrelevant to those who are actually deep in the trenches building alternatives.

If we’re serious about confronting the failures of the left, we need less posturing and more meaningful engagement with the grassroots challenges at hand. We need to embrace complexity, grapple with historical lessons, while building cultural, technological strategies that balance mass appeal with radical substance. Its sad to say but dismissing ideas with “memes” half-hearted quips and lazy assumptions gets us nowhere.

Now what would a #fluffy reply look like 🙂

#OMN demonstrating the values that dead ideologies refuse to acknowledge

The #fashernista common sense path—driven by trends, appearances, and surface-level thinking—is always a reflection of the dominant ideology. In today’s world, this means it perpetuates the neo-liberal #deathcult, which pushes profit over people and the environment. This ideology a motivation of #stupidindividualism, where the focus is on personal gain, consumerism, and competition rather than solidarity, cooperation, and collective well-being.

This same mentality is mirrored in the #geekproblem, where technologists to often design and promote tools and systems that replicate and reinforce neo-liberal values, rather than challenge them. By framing technology as “neutral” or purely functional, they ignore the broader social impact of their work, allowing it to serve as an uncritical extension of the #deathcult’s values. This is why so much of modern technology amplifies isolation, surveillance, and exploitation instead of fostering connection, community, and empowerment.

Challenging these people and their ideas is crucial if we want to break free from the current cycles of destruction. However, ignoring them and focusing our energy elsewhere may be the more practical and effective path. Engaging with them to often leads to frustration and burnout as their ideological framework is deeply ingrained, and their reflexive defensiveness derails productive efforts.

As with composting, when there’s too much “shit” to shoval, the resulting stink can make the change we need feel unpleasant and off-putting. The sheer negativity and hostility of challenging entrenched ideologies creates a barrier to engagement for those who might otherwise join or support transformative movements. If the alternative to the #deathcult seems unappealing or toxic, it risks alienating the very people and communertys we need to build a better path away from the current mess.

Instead of wasting time trying to convince the entrenched or defending against their reactionary attacks, we could focus on building practical, grounded alternatives? By creating spaces, tools, and communities that embody the “native” #openweb values, we can offer a tangible, appealing contrast to the hollow shadow of the #deathcult worshipping. The goal is to show—not just tell—that another world is possible, and that it is not only necessary but desirable.

By doing this, the stink of the current dead ideology will become irrelevant. When people experience the benefits of living and working in paths that lead to commons, mutual aid, and flourishing, the death spiral of #stupidindividualism and the #geekproblem will lose its appeal. In the end, it’s not about fighting their ideas directly—it’s about making those ideas obsolete by building something far better.

To dive deeper into this , we need to look at the underlying mechanisms of how the #fashernista mindset, the neo-liberal #deathcult, #stupidindividualism, and the #geekproblem perpetuate themselves—and, more importantly, look at how this interlocking mess hinder progress while pretending to advance it.

The #Fashernista mindset is a reflection of dominance, as it operates as a mirror to dominant ideologies. By nature, it does not challenge power structures but absorbs and reflects their values, often in a more palatable or “trendy” form.

Aesthetic over substance, the prioritisation of appearances—what looks progressive, innovative, or ethical—over what actually is. For example, this neo-liberal “common sense” can be dressed up in “sustainable” or “inclusive” branding, while the underlying paths remain exploitative.
Tokenistic activism leads to shallow forms of activism, where symbolic gestures (#dotcons posting, slogans, memes and corporate-sponsored campaigns) replace meaningful systemic action. It gives the illusion of progress while leaving the core issues untouched.
Gatekeeping change is more about chasing trends rather than structural transformation, the #fashernista mindset creates a kind of cultural gatekeeping. True progress, which often appears “messy” and challenges comfort zones, is sidelined in favour of ideas that are easier to sell to the mainstream.

A Devotion to self-destruction, at the core of the neo-liberal mess, is the worship of market forces as the ultimate solution to all human problems. This drives society toward environmental collapse, social disintegration, and increasing inequality, all while proclaiming itself as the only rational way to organise the world.

Market “common sense” holds that markets are inherently efficient, fair, and inevitable, even as they consistently fail to address systemic crises like climate change, economic inequality, and resource depletion.
Individualism as control, framing individuals as isolated, rational actors responsible for their own success or failure, the #deathcult deflects attention from structural oppression. This isolates people, making collective action more difficult and reinforcing the system’s power.
Growth at all costs is an obsession with endless economic growth, even on a finite planet. This suicidal drive underpins its “deathcult” nature: it sacrifices long-term survival for short-term profits.

#StupidIndividualism is isolation masquerading as freedom

Alienation is growing with the idea that people should rely solely on themselves, #stupidindividualism leaves people disconnected from community support systems. This alienation feeds despair and reinforces compliance with the status quo.
Consumerism is identity, with people being encouraged to define themselves by what they consume rather than what they contribute to society. This distracts from collective struggles and entrenches a culture of passivity.
Weaponised identity politics, while this postmodern movment started as a way to empower marginalised groups, in the hands of #stupidindividualism, it becomes a tool of division. Individuals focus on personal grievances rather than uniting across identities to address systemic oppression.

The #geekproblem is often technology without politics, which emerges from a belief that technology is inherently neutral and that its development can exist separately from politics, ethics, or social power structures. This naivety—or wilful blindness—results in tools that perpetuate the very problems they claim to solve.

Apolitical engineering, where technologists focus on building “innovative” tools without considering their social impacts. For instance, surveillance technologies are marketed as safety solutions while eroding privacy and empowering authoritarianism.
Centralisation in disguise when #FOSS, open-source and decentralised projects replicate centralised power dynamics as their creators fail to address underlying social issues. A decentralised system run by a different few is still elitist.
Failure to address root causes as the #geekproblem thrives on quick fixes and clever hacks rather than systemic paths leading to solutions. It too often assumes that technology alone can solve problems like poverty or climate change, ignoring the need for social, political and economic transformation.

We do need balence, why ignoring these messy forces may be the smarter path as confronting the #fashernista mindset, neo-liberal #deathcult, #stupidindividualism, and the #geekproblem head-on often feels like trying to swim against a tidal wave. These ideologies are deeply ingrained, and challenging them directly can result in burnout, frustration, and thus further entrenchment of the status quo.

The “shit-to-compost ratio” is a thing when engaging with these entrenched paths we end up uncovering a lot of “shit”—toxic debates, defensive reactions, and wasted energy. If this overwhelms the capacity to turn these challenges into productive change, the effort can become self-defeating. Sometimes instead of fighting these paths on their terms, it may be more effective to focus on building alternatives like the #OMN. By creating functioning, appealing models of community, solidarity, and sustainability, we can then push to make the current systems obsolete, this is “our” path not theres

Building alternatives is a #KISS path to counter the destructive ideologies and to demonstrate the viability of better paths. This means focusing on practical, community-driven tools and solutions that embody the values we want to see in the world.

An important question is why people can’t see this? The inability to recognise these dynamics stems from decades of cultural conditioning and structural manipulation.

Simple propaganda, The priest’s of neo-liberalism has spent decades shaping public perception, presenting it as the only viable path. Its dominance is so pervasive that many cannot imagine alternatives.
Cultural individualism, when people are taught to see themselves as isolated individuals rather than interconnected members of a society. This blinds them to the power of collective action.
Distractions built into consumer culture, social media, and the 24-hour news cycle keep people distracted and disengaged from any real systemic issues and paths.
Fear of change with the unknown being scary, and the idea of steping away from entrenched paths can feel overwhelming or even impossible.

To shine light we need to compost the stink of the dominant ideologies — reflected in the everyday #fashernista mindset, neo-liberal #deathcult, #stupidindividualism, and the #geekproblem. But yes this needs to be balenced as directly fighting these entrenched paths can often feel futile and counterproductive. Instead, we need to also focus on building the alternatives we want to see, like the #OMN, cooperative, community-driven, and grounded in solidarity.

By creating working paths of a diffrent future, we make the failures of the current path self-evident and offer a clear, appealing alternative path. The change won’t come from confrontation alone—it will come from living and demonstrating the values that these dead ideolgys refuse to acknowledge.

The wider #OMN project from a more #mainstreaming prospective

Sifting the wheat from the chaff in our technological and social mess is an important challenge. This is why the #OMN approach of leveraging work across communities and utilising multi-tag aggregation is an elegant and powerful solution. It would be useful to look at this from a more #mainstreaming prospective.

Aggregated work across communities of subjects, the first step in the #OMN path involves gathering and organising work created by various communities around specific subjects or interests. Subject-centric hubs, decentralised indexing, curating content based on subjects (e.g., #ClimateChange, #TechEthics). These hubs wouldn’t rely on centralised algorithms, but instead draw from a network of community-curated sources. Community moderation by trusted communities who moderate and curate content within their subject interested. This ensures quality and reduces noise while resisting gatekeeping tendencies of centralised control.
Reputation by contribution by encourage subject-focused communities to reward contributions, promoting collaboration and surfacing valuable work naturally.

Dynamic and live updates, newsfeeds, can be feed by aggregating real-time updates from communities working on the same subjects using open protocols like ActivityPub. This would provide a live pulse of discussions, innovations, and trends across diverse groups and subjects.

Multi-tag aggregation, the next step is to create a system that enables the mash-up of multiple tags to filter and organise the aggregated content dynamically. Advanced multi-tagging allow people to filter aggregated work using combinations of tags, e.g., #ClimateChange + #IndigenousRights + #CommunityProjects.

Visualisation of tag relationships, tag webs, implement visual tools that map relationships between tags, communities, and subjects. People can explore how different concepts connect and navigate the network intuitively. Trend overview, within tag intersections to help people identify emerging areas of focus and overlooked intersections.

Tools for aggregation and mashing, to make this work practically, we need powerful, accessible tools that build on the #OMN ethos. Open aggregators, open-source aggregators that collect data, metadata, and content flows from diverse platforms and formats, such as blogs, Fediverse instances, wikis, and video platforms that can be made compatible with the #openweb, we simply ignore the #dotcons which are to #closedweb to be worth plugging in to these flows, they will wither in the self-sustaining destruction of their own #techshit, sadly taking a part of our communities with them, we do not have the focus to rescue everyone as we push this shift.

Community buy-In and participation, To build the #OMN path in an effective and relevant direction, it must gain support and participation from the communities that create it. This needs: Simple, intuitive interfaces for tagging, curating, and contributing to subject hubs. Guides and incentives to help non-technical people engage with the paths. Decentralised decision-making, with democratic governance paths like the #OGB. Education and outreach, with educational campaigns to teach people how to use multi-tag aggregation and curated subject hubs that work.

Guarding against pitfalls, while the #OMN approach is promising, it’s essential to mitigate potential risks. We need to keep vigilance on balancing noise and redundancy. Centralisation risks, by keeping to decentralised and open paths to avoid reliance on any single platform, database, or organisation. Bias in curation is kept in check by the networks being inherently leaky, people will see other points of view – we do not subscribe to the #blocking inherent in #fashernista safety culture.

What would this look like, the end goal: Collaborative Knowledge Commons. The aim of the #OMN path is to create a living, breathing commons of human knowledge and action. By aggregating community work and enabling meaningful mash-ups through multi-tag aggregation, we create a powerful tool to cut through the noise, enabling better collaboration between communities, richer understanding of complex, intersectional issues, stronger foundations for the native #openweb.

“Solutions” being pushed for the future of the #Fediverse are starkly #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.

Activating the Open Media Network

The essence of the challenges we face in activism, can be expressed by the tension between the “fluffy” and “spiky” paths, which shape the progress and direction of movements. It’s vital to resist the dogmatic tendencies that stifle this dynamic tension, as both are necessary for a balanced and effective path forward.

We need focus for change, we must balance introspection (“how to make us better”) with external action (“how to change them”). The interplay between these perspectives builds strength and adaptability within movements. Recognising this balance avoids falling into the traps of arrogance or despair.

Reframing extremism, the right and centre as extremists, with the left as the moderates, is a #KISS powerful narrative. It challenges the status quo bias embedded in #traditionalmedia and shifts the perception of who holds reasonable positions. Activism can amplify this narrative to make it more widespread and disarm the usual accusations of left-wing “radicalism.”

Avoiding fear and darkness, fear is the weapon of the right and centre-right. Activists need to resist being drawn into their framing. Instead, they focus on, light, building trust, encouraging openness, and showing tangible progress that can inspire people.

Tools for the fight, the #4opens provide a framework for clarity and accountability, while the shovel metaphor reminds us of the hard, unglamorous work of composting the mess. These tools help create fertile ground for growth, even amid the chaos of conflicting stories.

Activating the Open Media Network (#OMN) can play a crucial role in shifting this narrative. By showcasing grassroots voices and bypassing gatekeepers, it challenges the #traditionalmedia and #dotcons while building a network of trust, openness, and collaboration.

Open Media Network (OMN): An Overview

Principles of the #OMN

Simplicity: Keeping the network and its tools straightforward allows for greater accessibility and usability.
Decentralization: Empowering people and communities to control their narratives by avoiding reliance on centralized platforms and corporate algorithms.
#4opens: Building around open data, source, process, and standards to grow trust and collaboration.
Participatory and Transparent Processes: The network grows organically with a focus on grassroots engagement rather than top-down control.

This is a reformatted and updated text from 8 years ago:

The Open Media Network (#OMN) is a reboot of the “indymedia” project, reimagined as an open, decentralized network for sharing and aggregating content across websites. Guided by the principles of the #4opens and motivated by the PGA hallmarks, OMN creates a people-to-people trust-based tagging system for collaboration and ethical aggregation.

What Are OMN Nodes?

OMN nodes are the backbone of the network. These nodes perform specific functions to enable the sharing and dissemination of content within the OMN ecosystem:

Hosting Content Flows: Nodes curate and host flows of content based on tags from other OMN sites on subjects that interest them.

Content is imported via RSS from external sites and by #ActivityPub from #Fediverse and OMN sites.

Tagging and Retagging: Nodes can tag and retag objects within content flows to direct them to other nodes or to specific sections, such as sidebars/pages on websites.

Providing Tagged Content: Nodes offer tagged content flows to other sites, which can embed the content using codes as needed.

Content Archiving (Optional): Nodes may choose to archive content locally.

The roles and functionality of nodes will evolve organically as the network develops.

Types of Sites in the OMN

OMN sites serve different purposes within the network:

Publishing Sites: The original sources of content. Typically, provide an #RSS feed of ActivityPub flow for the network.

Aggregating Sites: Focus on specific subjects, localities, or themes. Receive feeds from publishing sites and curate high-quality, trusted content for distribution to higher-level nodes.

News/Link Portals: Regional, national, or major subject sites. Aggregate trusted feeds from intermediate aggregating sites and select publishing sites.

The Human Element of OMN

The OMN emphasizes human moderation and relationship building:

Trust: Relationships between node administrators, content providers, and users form the foundation of the network.

Decentralization: Unlike traditional centralized models, OMN’s structure encourages openness and collaboration.

Ethical Aggregation: Content is networked respectfully to create a robust alternative to failing commercial platforms (#dotcons).

Key Features of Ethical Aggregation

Prominent display of OMN links on participating sites.

Links are live and direct users to the original host site for reading and commenting.

Original sources are credited under content titles.

Aggregation behaviour (e.g., full content in apps) is agreed upon by both parties, with opt-out options available.

Ad placements near Creative Commons non-commercial content require explicit agreement.

Building the Network

OMN leverages existing web standards to build an open “data soup” that enables many new possibilities:

Legacy Web Integration: Uses RSS for backward compatibility.

Semantic Web Transition: Moves towards a peer-to-peer semantic web with more p2p protocols.

User Stories: Articles published on one site can appear on many other sites, always linking back to the original source.

User Contributions

OMN encourages continuous improvement and collaboration:

Content remains open-ended to invite contributions and dialogue.

Tags and semantic data added by aggregators enhance the content flow for others.

Joining the OMN

Participation is voluntary and flexible:

Existing sites can continue operating independently while sharing content via RSS.

Posting can be done through personal blogs, group sites, or portals like #indymedia.

For “news” – A New Indymedia

Aggregating hubs/nodes in OMN represent the “new indymedia”:

These hubs may focus on subjects, countries, regions, or cities.

Unlike the centralizing elements of traditional networks, OMN’s open model reduces the need for centralized control.

Licensing and Openness

OMN adheres to open licensing principles:

Content is shared freely within the network.

Licensing ensures respect for contributors and promotes ethical usage.

Encouraging Collaboration

OMN thrives on contributions and engagement:

Leave questions or incomplete ideas to inspire participation.

Create linking overviews or summary articles that highlight stories within content flows.

Encourage human relationships to grow the trust-based network.

Conclusion

The Open Media Network (OMN) is an ambitious and open-ended project that refocuses decentralized media sharing for the modern web. By collaboration, trust, and ethical practices, OMN empowers participants to grow a sustainable and impactful alternative to the dieing corporate media platforms.

Open Media Network (OMN): A second view

What Are OMN Nodes?

OMN nodes are the backbone of the network. anyone can run one, the flows between them are based on trust. These nodes perform specific functions to enable the sharing and dissemination of content within the OMN ecosystem:

Hosting Content Flows: Nodes curate and host flows of content based on tags from other OMN sites on subjects that interest them.
- Content is imported via RSS from external sites and by activertypub from OMN sites.
Tagging and Retagging: Nodes can tag and retag objects within content flows to direct them to other nodes or to specific sections, such as sidebars on websites.
Providing Tagged Content: Nodes offer tagged content flows to other sites, which can embed the content using codes as needed.
Content Archiving (Optional): Nodes may choose to archive content locally.

The roles and functionality of nodes will evolve organically as the network develops.

Types of Sites in the OMN

OMN sites serve different purposes within the network:

Publishing Sites:
- The original sources of content.
- Typically provide an RSS feed for the network.
Aggregating Sites:
- Focus on specific subjects, localities, or themes.
- Receive feeds from publishing sites and curate high-quality, trusted content for distribution to higher-level nodes.
News/Link Portals:
- Regional, national, or major subject sites.
- Aggregate trusted feeds from intermediate aggregating sites and select publishing sites.

The Human Element of OMN

The OMN emphasizes human moderation and relationship building:

Trust: Relationships between node administrators, content providers, and users form the foundation of the network.
Decentralization: Unlike traditional centralized models, OMN’s structure encourages openness and collaboration.
Ethical Aggregation: Content is networked in a respectful way to create a robust alternative to failing commercial platforms (#dotcons).

Key Features of Ethical Aggregation

Prominent display of OMN links on participating sites.
Links are live and direct users to the original host site for reading and commenting.
Original sources are credited under content titles.
Aggregation behavior (e.g., full content in apps) is agreed upon by both parties, with opt-out options available.
Ad placements near Creative Commons non-commercial content require explicit agreement.

Building the Network

OMN leverages existing web standards to build an open “data soup” that enables many new possibilities:

Legacy Web Integration: Uses RSS for backward compatibility.
Semantic Web Transition: Moves towards a peer-to-peer semantic web with technologies like ActivityPub, Nostr, ATprotocol etc.
User Stories: Articles published on one site can appear on many other sites, always linking back to the original source.

User Contributions

OMN encourages continuous improvement and collaboration:

Content remains open-ended to invite contributions and dialogue.
Tags and semantic data added by aggregators enhance the content flow for others.

Joining the OMN

Participation is voluntary and flexible:

Existing sites can continue operating independently while sharing content via RSS.
Posting can be done through personal blogs, group sites, or portals like indymedia.

A New Indymedia

Aggregating hubs/nodes in OMN could be represented as the “new indymedia”:

These hubs may focus on subjects, countries, regions, or cities.
Unlike the centralizing elements of traditional networks, OMN’s open path reduces the need for centralized control.

Licensing and Openness

OMN adheres to open licensing principles:

Content is shared freely within the network.
Licensing ensures respect for contributors and promotes ethical usage.

Encouraging Collaboration

OMN thrives on contributions and engagement:

Leave questions or incomplete ideas to inspire participation.
Create linking overviews or summary articles that highlight stories within content flows.
Encourage human relationships to grow the trust-based network.

Conclusion

The Open Media Network (OMN) is an ambitious and open-ended project that reimagines decentralized media sharing for the modern web. By fostering collaboration, trust, and ethical practices, OMN empowers participants to build a sustainable and impactful alternative to corporate media platforms.

A call to action, clear diagnosis

What a waste of public money, this #fashernista career-building projects.

When you think using social media is “natural,” remember you’re feeding #dotcons—platforms built on the worst parts of human nature. If you want civilization and society to have a future, you cannot keep supporting this. The #encryptionists sit at the heart of our current grassroots media tech disaster, while careerist #mainstreaming pisses from the other side. But shit makes good compost—and we have the shovels.

OMN is a path forward. Pessimism may travel faster than optimism, but only optimism holds the potential for real change. Feed the problem or solve the problem. There is no mythical “third way” out of this mess. What we have are shovels, #OMN, and shit for compost. Work hard enough, and you’ll get flowers and tasty vegetables. 🌸🥕

It’s well past time for composting. Let’s grow flowers. 🌱

Meany of our old friends in activism took the healthy internal stresses that once challenged projects like #indymedia and fed them to a #fashernista vampire class, building careers by draining the grassroots for 20 years. This is not a good look, and these are likely the people you have to talk through when you talk to “power.”

First step, clearly #stepaway from the #dotcons and return to the #openweb for our communication and news. #indymediaback and #OMN are solutions worth posting about, worth sharing, and worth doing. The #openweb lacks addiction algorithms. It will only thrive if you make it work. Gather like-minded people outside the #dotcons—it’s a solid first step.

We must stop pouring energy into pointless #techshit if we want a chance of surviving #climatechaos and escaping the grip of the #deathcult. Basic #KISS statement: What are you doing today that isn’t pointless?

On this, #indymediaback, #OMN, and the #4opens need more crew to make the rollout work. For decades, we’ve allowed the #dotcons to dominate our communication. Trump and Brexit aren’t the causes—they’re symptoms. We made this mess together, fuelled by unhealthy digital feedback loops.

Let’s compost this mess and seed real change. 🌱

Fuck Off to the #Bitcoin Bros and Their Cult of Scarcity

Let me say it loud and clear—again—for the ones in the back: P2P systems that tether their tech to encryptionsist/blockchain coin economy are a dead end. Full stop. Tying this native #openweb path of distributed technology to the idea of selling “resources” doesn’t just miss the point; it’s like engineering a system that’s designed to fail from the start. It’s self-sabotage on a systemic level, shooting yourself in the foot while you’re still lacing up your boots.

Why? Because these systems, heralded by the #Bitcoinbros and their ilk, are about enforcing artificial scarcity into spaces that could—and should—be models of abundance. Instead of embracing the revolutionary potential of #P2P networks to unlock and distribute resources equitably, they double down on the same tired “deathcult” economics of scarcity that brought us to the current mess in the first place.

Coding scarcity into abundance, is the fatal flaw, the beauty of distributed systems lies in their ability to facilitate abundance, bypassing the bottlenecks and hoarding inherent in centralized paths. Yet, what do these “geniuses” do? They take this fertile ground for innovation and graft onto it the same broken logic of capitalism that created the problem. Artificial Scarcity, instead of using resources efficiently and equitably, they introduce a transactional economy that prioritizes profit and competition over collaboration and sharing. Death by design paths embed scarcity into their structure, ensuring they will eventually choke out their own potential. What could and needs to be a fertile cooperative garden becomes a battlefield of extraction and exploitation.

The Bitcoin and crypto crew, with their get-rich-quick schemes, aren’t building the future—they’re pushing us all back into the past, rehashing old hierarchies in a new digital wrapper. Their vision of the world isn’t radical or liberating; it’s just #techshit wearing a suit made of gold leaf and bad ideas.

Then we have the #encryptionistas and their “Common Sense” cult, with the mantra of 90% closed, 10% open might sound like “common sense” to those steeped in fear and control, but what they’re really peddling is the same #deathcult ideology to lock down innovation, stifle collaboration, and strangles the potential of the #openweb path.

Both are enforcing scarcity as though it’s inevitable, despite all evidence to the contrary.
They frame their closed systems as “security,” but what they’re really doing is hoarding power and excluding voices. This isn’t progress; it’s regression. It’s the equivalent of building a massive wall in the middle of the commons and selling tickets to access what was already there for everyone.

The radical alternative is abundance by design, where we don’t need scarcity baked into our systems, we need abundance. We need tools and networks designed to share resources, knowledge, and opportunities without the artificial barriers of token economies and closed ecosystems.

P2P systems should empower cooperation, not competition
Decentralization should facilitate access, not introduce new forms of gatekeeping.
Abundance is the point: The beauty of distributed networks lies in their ability to amplify sharing, not enforce scarcity.

This is where the Open Media Network (#OMN) comes in—a vision rooted in the values of the #4opens: Open Data, Open Source, Open Process, and Open Standards. This isn’t about creating a new “elite” made up of the nasty few or another #dotcons “marketplace” policed by the #geekproblem. It’s about building #DIY networks, radically inclusive and genuinely liberatory.

What are we to do with the Bitcoin bros, the #encryptionistas, and their #deathcult economics? Compost them. Take their #techshit, strip it of its toxic scarcity mindset, and use it to fertilize better systems. Systems that prioritize people over profit, collaboration over competition, and abundance over fear.

To those still clinging to the Bitcoin fantasy: Grab a shovel. You’re going to need it—not to mine more tokens, but to bury the bloated corpse of your scarcity-driven ideology. It’s dead weight, and it’s holding us all back. The future belongs to those who can imagine abundance, build it, and share it. Let’s stop walking down the “common sense” dead-end paths and start digging our way out of this mess, composting matters, you likely need a shovel #OMN

#Mainstreaming Social Media: Digital Drugs, Not Social Connection

The essence of #mainstreaming social media isn’t about fostering genuine communication or community—it’s about delivering digital drugs. Platforms like #Facebook, #Instagram, and #TikTok thrive by exploiting addictive design patterns, keeping users hooked with endless dopamine hits.

This addiction is why many people struggle to stay on native #openweb social media platforms. These alternatives, built with #4opens at their core, lack the engineered highs of the #dotcons. Without the “fix” of notifications, likes, and algorithmically curated content, people feel withdrawal and gravitate back to the platforms designed to exploit learned their impulses.

The challenge of real meaningful outreach on the #openweb, is to address this addiction cycle. It’s not enough to offer better tools or ethical platforms; we need to actively incorporate digital drug detox into the user experience (#UX). This means, designing for intentional use, replacing infinite scrolling, endless notifications with features that encourage mindful engagement.
Rebuilding reward systems on genuine connections, creativity, and learning instead of shallow metrics like likes and shares. Educating people to recognize and break free from the addictive patterns perpetuated by #dotcons.

A detox-focused UX for the #openweb is shifting focus from passive content consumption to active participation in meaningful communities. This path to breaking free from digital addiction is no small task, but it’s needed for building any sustainable future. The #openweb can lead to this shift, offering not just an alternative, but a detox from the digital drug cycle that defines #mainstreaming social media mess.

#dotcons fail human connection

We do need a critique of the trajectory of social media platforms like Facebook and Instagram, to highlight how their growing reliance on AI-generated profiles and diminishing organic engagement undermines the little trust, satisfaction, and the purpose of social connection that people have left in them.

This started with the death of organic engagement, Facebook and Instagram’s shift around 2013 to force content creators and businesses to pay for visibility, marked the end of organic engagement for the majority of people. This created a reliance on paid boosts, alienating real people and the army of small creators who pushed the platforms into prominence. Without organic engagement, people feel unseen, leading to declining satisfaction. The current shift to AI-generated profiles and bots are an attempt to simulate “engagement”, the illusion of interaction.

It should be simple to see that #dotcons fail to fulfill the human need for connection and actually alienate people and communities, even if this shift manages to build short-term engagement with profiles and “interactions” to create “likable” fictional characters for product placement. Replace human influencers with bots is cost efficiency. Feeding artificially inflate metrics to attract advertisers. But as people become more aware of bots replacing humans, the sense of authenticity diminishes, particularly among those who value any real social connections.

As I have been arguing for 20 years there is a real need for alternatives, #DIY and grassroots movements, platforms like the #Fediverse and open-source projects demonstrate that decentralized networks prioritize human connection and transparency over profit. These alternative resist capture by corporate interests and maintain authenticity, creating #openweb ecosystems where trust and interaction thrive.