Hashtags for Social Change

The Potential of #Hashtags as Shared Social Paths

#Hashtags have potential to be used for social change. They create connections between people, amplify voices, and mobilize communities. When used effectively, they transform individual expressions into collective movements. However, the current culture presents significant challenges to this.

The Problem of #StupidIndividualism

Today we are shaped by #stupidindividualism, on this path hashtags become acts of individual expression rather than collective tools for change. This individualistic approach hides the potential for constructive use. Instead of fostering solidarity and shared purpose, hashtags become fragmented and lose any meaning and thus impact.

#Dotcons as temples of the #Deathcult

Tech silos like Facebook (#failbook) and generally the dominant digital corporations (#dotcons) exacerbate this problem. Their business models and design promote individualism over community, a culture obsessed with profit and control at the expense of human values—creates a landscape where meaningful social change is impossible to achieve.

The Need for Collective Action

For #hashtags to regain their function as tools for social change, there needs to be a shift from individualism to collectivism. This requires:

Shared Understanding: Developing a common understanding of the issues and the role hashtags can play in addressing them.
Community Building: Using hashtags to build and strengthen communities rather than just expressing individual opinions.
Strategic Use: Deploying hashtags strategically to mobilize action, raise awareness, and create pressure for change.
Platform Accountability: Holding digital platforms accountable with the #4opens

The Role of Movements like #XR

Movements like Extinction Rebellion (#XR), though well on the #fluffy side, can play a role in this transformation. By emphasizing collective action and the power of grassroots mobilization, they could seed hashtags to build a global community, a common cause.

Conclusion, Hashtags have potential to be used for grassroots social change, but this potential is blocked by our #mainstreaming of individualism, which is pushed by our continuing use of the #dotcons. To harness the power of hashtags, there needs to be a shift towards native #openweb tools and a more collective agenda, community building, and strategic use. Movements like #XR could be a part of this path, as could projects like #OMN #indymediaback and #OGB

Talking about #hashtags

The #hashtags embody a story and world-view

The #hashtags tell a storie

Why use the hashtags?

Reminder about the hashtag family

Thinking outreach of the hashtag story

Let’s talk about the hashtag story

What is a hashtag

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

Capitalism is the logic of the #dotcons

Let’s look at capitalism through the lens of #dotcons (a term that plays on “dot-coms” with a critical twist).

Commercialization of the Internet: Capitalism drives the commercialization of the #openweb and internet, where profit motives override basic humanist considerations such as community, autonomy, privacy and basic democratic values. The term “#dotcons” is a critique of how the internet has been taken by commercial interests, turning it into a marketplace to push aside its “native” public good.
Exploitation of people: Digital platforms exploit users’ data and metadata and attention for profit. Companies like Facebook, Google, and Amazon collect vast amounts of personal data to sell targeted advertising and shape public behaver.
Monopolization and Centralization: Tends to create monopolies or oligopolies, as the most evil companies buy out competitors and dominate markets. Today, a few large companies control significant portions of the market, stifling competition and ending innovation.
Surveillance Capitalism: The #fahernistas term Surveillance Capitalism coined by Shoshana Zuboff describes an economic system centred around the commodification of personal data to use to manipulate behaviour and generate profits, reinforcing capitalist dynamics.
Erasing the Public: The logic erodes the public sphere by pushing profitable content over informative or educational material. Algorithms designed to maximize engagement promote sensationalist and emotionally charged content, contributing to misinformation and polarization. This diminishing of the commons is a detrimental path of capitalism on digital discourse.
Short-termism and Innovation Stagnation: In pursuit of immediate profits, capitalist enterprises prioritize short-term gains over humanistic paths, long-term innovation and ecological sustainability. A focus on quick, lucrative projects rather than any groundbreaking or socially beneficial innovations.
Digital Divide: This exacerbate inequalities, including the digital divide. Access to technology and the internet is dictated by market forces, leaving disadvantaged communities behind.

“Capitalism is the logic of the #dotcons” shows how these paths have shaped the #openweb into a landscape to prioritize profit over public good, leading to the current mess of exploitation, centralization, surveillance, and inequality.

We have made a mess of the #openweb, we can’t keep being “prats about this” please, let’s try something different #OMN

Caring in a culture that disregards human well-being requires resistance to dominant values

I have come to think that care for people requires a high degree of resistance to the culture around us, simply because that culture is dedicated to values that have no concern for people. A tension in society: the disconnect between cultural values and genuine care for people. Actually caring for people requires a strong resistance to prevailing cultural norms that prioritize profit, “efficiency”, and superficial success over human well-being. This resistance is needed to overcome the last 40 years of #postmodern, #neoliberalism that undermines basic humanism.

The Mess

Profit Over People: Our current worship of the #deathcult within capitalist societies, prioritizes profit driven consumerism above all else. Companies and institutions exploit labour, cut costs at the expense of safety and well-being, and focus on short-term gains rather than any long-term sustainability, or even basic survival.
Superficial Success Metrics: Societal success is measured by wealth, status, and material possessions, rather than by well-being, happiness, community health or basic ecological function. This leads to widespread neglect of where value actually lie.
Individualism Over Community: Our dominating “common sense” culture emphasize individual achievement and self-reliance, at the expense of communal support and cooperation. This erodes social bonds and leave individuals isolated and unsupported.

Resistance

Ethical Imperative: Caring for people is an ethical obligation that at best makes us challenge and resist cultural norms that dehumanize or exploit people. It involves advocating for fairness, justice, compassion, and prioritizes a living environment.
Mental and Emotional Health: The pressures of conforming to the #deathcult culture which values productivity and success over well-being leads to mental health issues such as anxiety, depression, and burnout. Joining together to resist these pressures is essential for maintaining mental and emotional health.
Social and Environmental Justice: Resistance is necessary to address systemic inequalities and injustices that are pushed by the dominant culture. To stop the degradation of our ecology, both human and inhuman.

Making Resistance Happen

Advocacy and Activism: Engaging in #NGO advocacy and #spiky activism to promote and push policies and practices that build human well-being over profit. This includes strong ecological policies, supporting labour rights, affordable healthcare, sustainability, and education etc.
Community Building: Fostering real, supportive communities of mutual aid, solidarity, and collective well-being. This involves creating open non-commercial spaces where people can come together, share resources, and support one another.
Alternative Value Systems: Promoting and practising alternative systems that emphasize care, empathy, and interdependence. This can be through #spiky #DIY activism culture, like squatting, protest camps or more lifestyle #fluffy choices, such as minimalism or voluntary simplicity, and through supporting businesses and organizations that prioritize ethical practices in the #dotcons.
Personal Practices: This is a harder path to make meaningful of implementing personal practices that resist cultural pressures, such as mindfulness, self-care, and setting boundaries to protect one’s mental and emotional health. This path can be a problem, as it in part feeds the #stupidindividualism that feeds the very problems in the first place. Encouraging others to do the same can, maybe, help create a ripple effect of resistance and care.

What should you do?

Caring for people in a culture that disregards human well-being requires a conscious and active resistance to dominant values. By advocating for social justice, building supportive #DIY communities, promoting alternative value systems like the #OMN, and maybe practising personal care, we can create a more compassionate, sustainable society. This resistance is not only a needed path, but also a moral imperative. What are you doing today?

More on this https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/collective-intelligence-calls-for-sharing-rewards-from-innovation-for-the-common-good-by-mariana-mazzucato-2024-08

Real Social Media is a Hard Balancing Act

#Opensocialmedia is native to the #openweb it represents liberation, while #closedsocialmedia is centred around control for profit. The balance between these two forms is nuanced, and understanding the implications and paths of each requires consideration. It is not “common sense” so you need to think outside your current limited view please #KISS

Open Social Media: Liberation

Transparency and Accountability: Open social media operate with transparency, allowing people to see and understand the algorithms, policies, and decision-making processes. This transparency builds trust and accountability, as people feel responsible and empowered to be responsible for actions and content.
Empowerment: At best, people and communities have control over their content and data. They shape experiences to take their own path, contribute to the platform’s development, and participate in governance. This builds ownership and engagement, it’s a feedback loop.
Innovation and Collaboration: Open platforms grow through collaboration. Developers and users create features together, improving collectively. This collaborative building nurtures technological for people rather than only for profit.
Information: Open social media provides unrestricted access to information, promoting affective and for fulling speech and sharing of ideas. This supports progressive education, activism, and the basic democratization of knowledge.

Closed Social Media: Control

Monetization and Profitability: Closed social media platforms are motivated by monetization, using people’s data and metadata to generate revenue through manipulative advertising and social control.
Centralized Power: Control is centralized to the platform owners and administrators, in the end the state. This centralization limits people influence over the network, policies and progressive changes, creating vertical, top-down governance.
Content Moderation and Censorship: Content moderation is core to building community and to prevent abuse, closed platforms exercise total, manipulative control, leading to #mainstreaming censorship and the shaping of agendas, and most obviously the suppression of dissenting voices. This control is used to shape public thinking and silence any real opposition.
Data Privacy Concerns: Closed platforms collect and store vast amounts of people’s data and metadata without much transparency about how it is used. This lack of transparency highlights privacy concerns and risks of invertible data leeks.

The Complex Balance

Finding the Middle path: Balancing open and closed social media involves finding a balance where people’s empowerment and creativity coexist with democratic controls and sustainability measures. This balance requires careful consideration of the trade-offs involved in both cases.
Regulation and Governance: Effective democratic regulation and governance are crucial in maintaining this balance. Policies protects people’s rights, data privacy, and promotes transparency without stifling creativity by pushing only #mainstreaming agenda.
Community Involvement: Building in community decision-making grows this balance. Platforms that have participatory governance are likely to achieve a harmonious equilibrium between openness and control.

Conclusion

The balance between open and closed social media is not straightforward and requires taking the path of reflection and adaptation. Open social media offers liberation through transparency, empowerment, and collaboration (#4opens), while closed social media focuses on control, centralization, and monetization (#dotcons). Walking a path that maximizes the benefits of both approaches involves navigating trade-offs, fostering community involvement, and implementing effective governance (#OGB).

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

The Battle for the Internet: Open vs. Closed

Since its creation, the internet and World Wide Web have been shaped by two competing and overlapping paths:

The #OpenWeb

Rooted in the DNA of internet code and culture, we see the web as a platform for collaboration, sharing, and the free exchange of information. Built for use in a world where information is abundant and free, embodying the ethos of “free as in free beer.”

The #OpenWeb emphasizes the #4opens: open source, open data, open standards, and open process. It walks the path of creativity and collective creation, and is closely associated with “native geek culture” alongside radical/anarchist libertarian thinking. Social interactions are visible, promoting accountability and collective decision-making. Examples include public forums, open-source projects, and community assemblies.

The #ClosedWeb

On the other side, we have the approach of companies like Microsoft under Bill Gates and late-stage Google, that focus on the monetization and commercial viability of the internet. This vision is fixated on control for profitability, and the economics of running online platforms in a world based on artificial scarcity

The #ClosedWeb pushes interactions to private, monetized paths with the illusion of privacy and confidentiality are necessary. This approach seeks to lock down information and interactions, creating walled gardens that can be controlled and monetized.

The Internet’s “native” Potential

The inherent democratization and egalitarianism of the internet allow people to create and share content. However, this ideal clashes with commercial interests that push for control to monetize user data and interactions.

From the #OpenWeb perspective:

Interconnectedness: Technology reflects human values and structures.
Empowerment: The internet empowers people to distribute their work, share ideas, and bypass traditional power politics gatekeepers.
Education and Information: The web transforms education and information access, linking vast resources to walking the path to a different society.

From the #ClosedWeb perspective, the dominant emotion is fear:

Fear of sustainability: Concerns about how to maintain and profit from online platforms.
Fear of losing control: Worries about people having too much freedom, undermining business models and #mainstreaming dogmas.

The Battleground for Openness

The #OpenWeb remains a battleground between the paths of openness and the pushing of fear. While it has democratized content creation and access, the economic models sustaining this ecosystem are often a toxic mess. This tension shapes society both online and offline, creating a complex and messy landscape to find a sustainable path.

The #GeekProblem

One barrier to addressing these issues is the #GeekProblem. On the web, those with technical expertise and control over resources bypass democratic processes and accountability, leading to a kind of “feudalism.” This problem is equally present in grassroots #FOSS (Free and Open Source Software) communities and corporate #dotcons (dot-com companies), as both share the same #geekproblem mindsets regarding control and authority.

A part of the #openweb path involves re-evaluating the relationship between control, wealth, power, and social change in both technology and wider society. Currently, we lack clear ways to discuss the “problem” in geek culture, making it difficult to mediate the #closedweb problem. This is a growing problem, as groups who succeed in a capitalism are the worst equipped to solve the problems that the system creates.

The struggle between these visions is ongoing. For the #openweb to thrive, there must be a concerted effort to address the underlying issues of control and power within both the open and closed paths. By acknowledging and working on these problems, we maintain the internet’s potential as a force for democratization, creativity, and the needed social change.

Please “don’t be a prat” about this, thanks.

Tension, Open and Closed Web

From its very minority creation, the spreading internet and World Wide Web has been shaped by two competing, often overlapping visions:

The collaborative, #openweb: Rooted in #DNA of post apocalyptical internet code and culture, this vision is of a network for collaboration, sharing, and free exchange of information. Built for use in a world of abundance of information, free as in free beer. Emphasizes #4opens, creativity, and collective creation, associated with “native geek culture” and what can be understood as radical/anarchist libertarian thinking.

The commercial, #closedweb: The approach of companies like Microsoft under Bill Gates, and late stage google, focuses on monetization and commercial viability of the internet. Fixated on fear of sustainability, profitability, and the economics of running online platforms in a scarcity based world.

The Internet inherent democratization and egalitarianism allows everyone to create and share content. However, this ideal clashes with the pushing of commercial control, to monetize user data and interactions. This #open path empowers people to distribute their work, share ideas, and bypass traditional gatekeepers. The web transforms education and information access to synthesizing vast resources needed for a different view of society. From the #closedweb prospective, you have fear, simply fear.

The #openweb remains a battleground between these feelings, of openness and the pushing of fear. While it has worked to democratized content creation and access, the existing economic models to sustain this ecosystem are a toxic mess. The ongoing tension shapes society both online and offline, yes it’s a mess.

Why we so often can’t see or do much about this mess is that our #geekproblem have disproportionate control over resources and decisions. This leads to blinded “#feudalism” that bypass democratic processes and accountability. This is equally a “problem” in grassroots #FOSS and corporate #dotcons, as they share the same mindset.

A part of the #openweb is a move to re-evaluate the relationship between “control”, wealth, power, and social change. But currently we have no clear way to talk about this issue from the limited, narrow “problem” in geek culture. So have little way to mediate the #closedweb of the groups who “succeed” in capitalist #mainstreaming, who are actually the worst equipped to solve the problems that the system creates.

UPDATE https://www.theregister.com/2024/10/25/opinion_open_washing/ this is playing out here.

We need to compost the current culture of lying

Why We Can’t Enjoy life

There is a #mainstreaming story that progressives are incapable of enjoying anything and are easily offended, wildly over-analytical, snobby, pretentious, and injecting politics into everything. There is some truth to this, many left-leaning people would admit, reluctantly, that we can be pretty crap and insufferable at times. But it’s important to see the difference between the self-critical view leftists have of themselves not being able to enjoy anything and the propagandist one coming from the right or centre of politics.

Rage Against the System

The right-wing shouts at us that left #fahernistas can’t enjoy anything because they are soft, overthink things and are easily offended, “woke”. They forget that it’s not only a weakness, but more often inarticulate rage and anger, a rage towards an insufferable world people just can’t swallow and accept. Anger that builds up with every minute people have to spend pretending everything’s all right.

Anger, in reality, comes bursting out at the worst or most absurd of times. But think for a moment, it’s not the anger that is the problem. The anger is fine; it’s more that it is often misplaced. Many young, progressive learning, anti-status quo people are just that: angry, confused, and thus lost. Rightfully angry, confused, and lost, but with a social created, unfortunate, lack of vision on when and where to channel this anger.

The Curse of Awareness

So why do leftists find it so hard to enjoy things?

The News: The way #mainstreaming news works is you pick a tribe and only watch what the people from your tribe show on the #dotcons and TV. You foam at the mouth with a pitchfork in hand, go online with a burning touch to shout and complain about either the illiterate rednecks or the college graduate cross-dressing paedophiles. From the grassroots activist sidelines, this seems equally weird and entertaining because we don’t currently have a news cycle backing anyone like us. Our understanding of how privately owned media works makes most news indigestible. No matter how “objective” this tries to be, when news is a business, it will never cross certain boundaries. Boundaries like questioning the system or pitching an alternative to the status quo.
National Identity: We might be proud of our heritage and culture, but #class consciousness makes us understand that we have far more in common with workers of all nations than we do with the #rulingclass of our own country. Patriotism without class consciousness feels wrong and is wrong. We cringe at hyper-patriotic empty gestures because we understand that 9 out of 10 times, if we get sent to the front line in the next war, we’ll be shooting other working-class comrades while the sons of our presidents sit comfortably on a far away beach.
Self-Help and New Age Philosophy: These are the two deep fake philosophies out there. The self-help military-industrial complex implies that everything can be solved if you figure out the puzzle which is the world economy and use a special cheat code to get yourself out of any mess. The latter idea, quasi-spiritual enlightenment, pitches internalizing the world and creating a world of your “own” as a coping mechanism. We can’t enjoy either of these because they are commodified beyond recognition and based on an unrealistic #stupidindividualism that we can and should handle everything on our own.
Our Jobs: We struggle to enjoy our jobs because we understand that at the end of the day, we’re being exploited. No matter what industry or position, your boss does not pay you even close to how much you make them. This fact makes all the talk of purpose, family, and a cause sound like pathetic, childish gesturing.
Mindless Consumption: We can’t fully enjoy consumerism because we know that the high of a purchase is followed by the hangover realization that we’re still as lost as we were before. The lie that we can find purpose in mindless consumption is the greatest epidemic of our time.

The Price of Seeing Clearly

The main takeaway of all these examples is simple: the progressive activist understands that in the current system, whether it’s mindless shopping, new chauvinism, job unfulfillment, or quasi-philosophy, there is a struggle between our wants to see the world and constant manipulation steering us away from this. This awareness is why life feels so miserable. Yes, we see the Zombies behind the masks of the puppets, and it’s hard to enjoy the show when you know it’s death dancing behind the #mainstreaming illusion.

Q. “WHAT ABOUT HUMAN NATURE?” That simple question posits an even simpler view of human consciousness and decision-making. It says man is flawed—through his greed, jealousy, and selfishness—and that as such, he would destroy and corrupt any system which doesn’t utilize those very flaws. The way capitalism, for example, does with greed, by throwing us in the gladiatorial arena, or to be more realistic, a children’s sandbox, of the free market—where the greediest win. Yes, it’s a mess.

A Positive View Of Current Trends

The challenges of today: #climatechaos, inequality, and the social impacts of #dotcons technology are a creating a very nasty social mess. However, there is a some potential for a positive transformation if we push the power of #openweb and #4opens technology and align it with progressive and radical “native” grassroots politics.

Addressing Climate Change with Technology and Revolutionary change

Renewable Energy: Solar, wind, and other renewable energy sources are becoming more than cost-effective and widespread. With strong political will, we can transition to a carbon-neutral economy. By reducing consumption and shifting this energy balance, we take a step to mitigating some of the effects of climate change.
Climate Resilience: Investment in both physical and social climate resilience infrastructure, flood defences and mediation, sustainable agriculture. This will shape and can protect vulnerable communities and ecosystems as we weather this transition. On the digital side, federation is a big step towards more #p2p native infrastructure, which will help to mediate the failing of our overly centralise #dotcons world.

Leveraging Automation for Social Good

Reducing Work Hours: Automation reduces the need for human labour, allowing for shorter work weeks and more leisure time without reducing productivity. This leads to improved quality of life and wider social and mental health benefits.
Universal Basic Income: #UBI provides a financial base for building sustainable alternatives, ensuring that wider groups benefits from increased productivity and technological advancements, rather than the normal nasty few.

Ensuring Equitable Access to Resources and Services

Universal Basic Services: By providing free and universal access to essential services such as healthcare, education, housing, and public transport, we create a more equitable society where people has the opportunity to thrive and build social good.
Socialized Finance: Redirecting financial resources from speculative markets to socially beneficial projects ensures that investments are made in areas that improve public well-being and infrastructure.

Fostering a Culture of Innovation and Inclusion

Inclusive Policy Making: Ensuring that marginalized communities have a voice in policymaking leads to more equitable and just outcomes. Participatory democracy and community-led tech initiatives like the #OGB drive inclusive development and the needed social change.
Education and Retraining: As the job paths shift, providing education and retraining opportunities helps people transition to new roles, ensuring that fewer people are left behind.

Utilizing Technology for Global Collaboration and Problem-Solving

Global Cooperation: Harnessing #4opens digital technology for international collaboration to address global challenges effectively. Federated platforms for knowledge sharing and joint initiatives leads to real solutions for climate change, health, and economic development.
Data for Good: Using #openweb and #4opens data analytics to address social issues leads to more effective public planing, policies and resource allocation.

Conclusion: A Vision of Hope, In Tech

There is a potential for a positive future when we combine technological innovation with radical progressive politics and a commitment to social equity. By addressing #climatechange, leveraging automation, ensuring food security, and providing universal access to essential services, we build a wider world of opportunity and basic justice.

This vision needs us to reimagine our current paths to prioritize humanistic well-being over profit. With the right policies and collective action, we can turn today’s challenges into opportunities for basic survival and a better global society.

You can support a technological project https://opencollective.com/open-media-network its a small step.

A European Future

Changing the European Union (#EU) to be more competent and progressive on social and tech issues requires concerted effort and engagement from all the stakeholders, including activists, citizens, civil society organizations (#NGO), policymakers, and Eurocrats. I outline some #fluffy strategies for driving change within the EU:

Engagement and Advocacy: Citizens and civil society organizations can engage with EU institutions through advocacy efforts, lobbying, and participation in public consultations. By pushing concerns, proposing solutions, and advocating for progressive policies, grassroots movements can exert pressure on policymakers to prioritize social and tech issues.
Policy Innovation: Grassroots and “organic” experts in the fields of social and technology policy can develop and promote “innovative “native” policy proposals that address emerging challenges and needed change. This includes regulations that protect the #4opens paths, promote community, and foster #KISS technological innovation reasonably.
Transparency and Accountability: Promoting transparency and accountability within EU institutions is core to ensuring that decision-making processes are open, inclusive, and accountable to the people. This involves pushing for #4opens transparency in policymaking, access to information, and mechanisms for holding people and policymakers accountable for their actions.
Capacity Building: Investing in capacity building initiatives enhances the knowledge and expertise of policymakers, civil servants, and “grassroots” stakeholders involved in shaping EU policies. This includes shifting funding, training, resources, and support to enable all stakeholders, focusing on the grassroots, to effectively engage with complex social and tech issues and develop evidence-based policy solutions.
Coalition Building: Building coalitions and alliances among diverse spiky and fluffy stakeholders amplify voices and increase collective influence on EU policies. By forging partnerships across wide sectors, groups and organizations leverage their collective strengths and resources to drive the needed systemic change.
Public Awareness and Education: Raising people’s awareness and educating citizens about social and #FOSS and #dotcons tech issues is essential for building progressive policies and initiatives. This includes conducting #DIY public campaigns, organizing #4opens educational events, and leveraging grassroots media and #4opens digital platforms to inform and mobilize the engaged people around key issues.
Participatory Governance: Promoting participatory governance mechanisms within the EU enhances peoples engagement and democratic decision-making. This includes establishing platforms like the #OGB for public participation, citizen assemblies, and deliberative processes that enable people to contribute to policy development and decision-making.
International Collaboration: Collaborating with international partners, organizations, and networks amplify efforts to drive change within the EU. By sharing “native” practices, sharing knowledge, and coordinating advocacy efforts at the international level, stakeholders strengthen their collective impact and influence the needed global policy agendas.

Overall, changing the EU to be more competent and progressive on social and tech issues requires a grassroots approach that involves activism, engagement, advocacy, policy innovation, transparency, capacity building, coalition building, public awareness, participatory governance, and international collaboration. By working together in active fluffy/spiky debate across sectors and borders, stakeholders can contribute to shaping the change and challenge to build an inclusive, equitable, and sustainable future within the EU and wider world in the era of #climatechaos

The European Union: A “spiky” view

#NGI #NLNET

A conversation that circles

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 so-called “solutions” are often supposed to address.

On one side, there are those who prioritize pragmatic, immediate problem-solving. They want concrete fixes for specific issues and are often impatient with broader discussions around ethics, power structures, and social impact. For example, they might advocate for encrypted communication platforms as a straightforward defence against surveillance, without considering how these tools unintentionally foster isolated, fragmented communities, or how the #encryptionist mindset reinforce the individualism that makes collective action harder.

This mindset tends to dismiss systemic critiques, like the argument that contemporary code is shaped by capitalist structures that inherently promote profit over people. Think of how open-source projects get co-opted by corporations (#dotcons) to reduce costs while extracting free labour from developers. The “easy fix” of simply licensing code as open might seem like a solution, but without addressing the exploitative dynamics, it to often end up reinforcing the problems they think they are solving.

On the other side, you have those who argue that technological problems are inherently social problems. They believe you can’t build meaningful tech without addressing the human dynamics that shape its development and use. For example, decentralized social media platforms like #Mastodon or #PeerTube are built to resist the control of big tech monopolies, but if the culture within these platforms mirrors the same paths and thinking of the orgional #dotcons, then the tech itself fails to be a strongly alternative. The #geekproblem shows up here when developers dismiss social considerations as irrelevant or secondary to technical design, leading to platforms that are hostile to non-technical users and communities with different values.

Take the example of the Fediverse: while it offers a more open, decentralized alternative to Twitter or YouTube, many instances end up replicating the same patterns of gatekeeping and fragmentation. Without intentional social processes and governance, like the kind explored in projects like the #OGB (Open Governance Body), the tech alone isn’t enough to shift the power dynamics at all.

To sum up, this ongoing conversation highlights the complex relationship between technology and society. We need to move beyond the constant back-and-forth between quick-fix pragmatism and endless critique, and instead build projects, process and practices that balance immediate action with a deeper understanding of social paths. It’s not about rejecting practical solutions, but about recognizing that real change, that posses real challenge, comes from embedding social responsibility, collective governance, and human-centred design into every layer of the technology we create.

The path requires both shovels and soil, practical tools to dig through the mess, and rich compost from decades of social struggles to nourish truly transformative alternatives. It’s time to break this cycle of mess-making and start growing tech that serves communities, not just individual “users” or feeding back into #dotcons interests.

If this resonates, let’s build together. 🌱

Open Media Network

Reminder about the hashtag family

A breakdown of the #OMN hashtags and how they are typically used as a social change and challenge project that we need:

#dotcons: This hashtag refers to corporate centralized platforms, such as social media networks, that prioritize profit and control over users, data and content. It’s often used in discussions about the negative effects of centralization on the internet and the importance of decentralization.
#fashernista: This hashtag combines “fashion” and “lifestyle” and is used to criticize trends or behaviours that promote #mainstreaming unthinking consumerist paths, behaver and ideas in popular and counter culture.
#stupidindividualism: This hashtag critiques the current use of the ideology of individualism, which prioritizes individual gain and ignores collective well-being. It’s often used to highlight the negative effects of prioritizing individual interests over those of society as a whole.
#neoliberalism: Neoliberalism is an economic and political ideology that emphasizes free-market capitalism, deregulation, privatization, and limited government intervention. This hashtag is used in discussions about the effects of neoliberal policies on society, such as income inequality and the erosion of public services.
#deathcult: This hashtag is used metaphorically to describe neoliberal ideologies that prioritize profit and power over human well-being, environmental sustainability and social justice. It’s frequently associated with critiques of #climatechaos capitalism, consumerism, and imperialism, its the mess we live in today.
#NGO: This stands for “Non-Governmental Organization” and refers to non-profit organizations that operate independently of government control. This hashtag is used in discussions #mainstreaming roles of NGOs and people who think like NGO’s in not being brave enough to address social, environmental, and humanitarian issues.

And on the positive side:

#openweb: This hashtag celebrates the principles of openness, decentralization, and inclusivity on the internet. It’s often used in discussions about the importance of preserving and promoting a “native” open and accessible web for everyone. This is #web01
#4opens: This hashtag is used to promote transparency, collaboration, and community-driven development in software and technology projects. It should be used to JUDGE projects.

Each of these hashtags serves as a shorthand for broader discussions and concepts, allowing people to participate in and contribute to conversations around these topics on the #openweb and inside the #dotcons it’s about linking.

#KISS

Should we ban TikTok

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

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

Some considerations:

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

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

We need to move past these illogical gatekeepers.