Tag: dotcons

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

Professor Brett Christophers (Uppsala University)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Professor Brett Christophers (Uppsala University)

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

My notes:

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

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

Can capitalism save us?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The question of responsibility?

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

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

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

A #4opens alternative to the #deathcult

We live in a disastrous system that worships consumption. It’s not just about meeting needs, it’s about feeding an economy that only grows when people buy more, waste more, and replace instead of repair what they need. This is one of the core tenants of the #deathcult, the #neoliberal ideology that tells us there is no alternative to endless growth, even as it drags us toward #climatechaos.

What if we build something different, something that values community over consumption, reuse over replacement, and #DIY culture over passive consumerism? This is where the #4opens come in, transparency, collaboration, and shared knowledge as the foundation for real alternatives to the corporate churn machine. It’s a social tool to mediate overconsumption, it isn’t just about the stuff, it’s about the system. It is a tool to push back at the #dotcons (big tech platforms, global brands, centralized supply chains) which exist to keep us dependent, feeding a cycle of control, waste, planned obsolescence, artificial scarcity, and throwaway culture.

We see this mess everywhere, in #techchurn, New phones, new software, endless updates that make old devices “obsolete” before they break. Fast fashion, clothing designed to fall apart, pushing people into a cycle of cheap, unethical labour and landfill waste. Algorithmic media distraction, a constant flood of junk entertainment designed to keep us too distracted to act, too demoralised to challenge or change the system. This is by design. The corporate web, the #dotcons, will absorb everything if we don’t (re)create our own independent alternatives.

The composting metaphor is about creating a regenerative culture, which isn’t only boycotting big brands or consuming “better.” It’s about nurturing and mediating alternatives—turning the waste of the old system into compost for something new. By embracing the #DIY ethic – Fix things, repurpose them, and share knowledge instead of feeding the churn. Then build the #openweb – Move away from corporate-controlled spaces to decentralized, transparent platforms that serve communities, not ad networks. Reject #mainstreaming trends – Stop chasing the latest thing just because the algorithm tells you to. Foster trust-based networks – Support local, independent, and open-source projects that work for people, not profit.

On this path, the #OMN as a tool for mediation, a practical example of challenging the corporate wasteland of mainstream media and tech. Instead of relying on big platforms, it can create a decentralized, grassroots-driven network where people control their own media, bypassing the need for #dotcons and centralized control.

Outreach text for the #4opens

In the same way, we need to mediate overconsumption—not just by refusing to buy, but by building something better in its place. This isn’t about guilt or purity. It’s about real alternatives. If we don’t start creating them, we will be left with nothing but the corporate churn, stripping away our agency and leaving us with a hollow, temporary world. The current mess is compost. We either let it rot uselessly or turn it into the soil for something new. The choice is ours.

#nothingnew #4opens #techchurn #deathcult

Rewilding the Digital & Physical World: How My Work Ties to the Environment

The #climatecrisis isn’t just about rising temperatures and vanishing ecosystems, it’s also about the structures we build, the technology we use, and the ways we connect. The fight for a sustainable future isn’t limited to forests and oceans; it extends into the digital world as well.

In this website, a recurring theme is composting the mess of the modern world, whether that’s the corporate-controlled internet (#dotcons), failing grassroots movements, or the destruction of our physical environment. It’s all connected. Let’s look here at how tech shapes our planet, the internet as we know it, centralized, monopolized, and powered by massive server farms, has a huge environmental impact. Tech giants consume massive amounts of energy, lock users into wasteful upgrade cycles, and push short-term profit over long-term sustainability.

So it should be obvious that just like we need to transition away from fossil fuels, we also need to rebuild a sustainable digital infrastructure. Decentralized platforms to reduce reliance on data centres owned by megacorporations. Longer-lasting hardware is a step away from planned obsolescence. Federated networks (#openweb) to support resilient, grassroots-driven alternatives. All are steps in the right direction.

The OMN is a tool to composting the digital & social waste, is a practical response to this. It’s building an alternative media ecosystem, that isn’t driven by corporate interests but by community needs and #4opens collaboration. Think of it as #permaculture for the internet: Instead of clear-cutting everything for profit (like the #dotcons do), we nurture independent spaces. Instead of burning energy on ad-driven engagement, we use #KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid) principles to create small scale sustainable digital tools. Instead of accepting “inevitable” climate and digital collapse, we turn the existing mess into compost for new growth. Radical Simplicity = Radical Sustainability.

One of the ideas behind this path is that “stupid” is better than perfect, because perfect never gets built, but “stupid” works. This applies not just to open-source technology, but also to environmental activism, with small, local actions > Waiting for big global solutions. Simple, practical solutions > Over-engineered complexity. Messy, community-driven change > Top-down control.

In the bigger perspective, the environment will be fine without us, it’s not “the environment” we are destroying. It is ourselves. The world does not need saving, we do. The choice is not a simple choice between saving the planet or letting it die, but between changing our ways or letting ourselves go extinct.

If we want a sustainable future, both online and offline, we need to break from the corporate paths that are destroying our ecosystems. That means, supporting grassroots tech and independent media, building resilient, federated alternatives to big tech, embracing open, transparent processes (#4opens).

The world is in crisis, but crisis is also an opportunity. Whether you’re fighting for a better internet, a liveable planet, or stronger local communities, it’s all part of the same struggle. What do you think? How can we build a more sustainable digital world? Let’s discuss! #RewildTheWeb #SustainableTech #OMN

Rewilding a people-first web, beyond the #dotcons

In the early days, the internet was a wild, open landscape, a place of creativity, collaboration, and decentralization. But over time, the rise of corporate platforms (the #dotcons) turned it into something far more controlled, walled-off, and extractive.

What if we could reclaim that original vision? What if we could build an open, federated, and people-powered web, free from the stranglehold of Big Tech? That’s the mission behind projects like the Open Media Network (#OMN), a radical push to create a truly #openweb, built on trust, transparency, and grassroots collaboration.

What’s the Problem? The modern web is dominated by a handful of corporate giants that:

  • Own our data – You don’t control what you create, they do.
  • Manipulate what you see – Algorithms push engagement over truth.
  • Extract value – Your attention, creativity, and connections become profit streams.

The result? A digital world that feels more like a walled garden than a thriving ecosystem.

The Alternative: The Open Media Network (#OMN) A different way of thinking about the internet, based on open protocols, federated media, and trust-based networks rather than corporate silos.

How does it work? Decentralized publishing – No single company controls what you post. Interconnected platforms – Information flows freely between projects, not locked inside proprietary walls. Built for grassroots communities – Not for advertisers, but for real people creating real change.

It’s inspired by the early #Indymedia movement, the rise of the Fediverse, and the belief that we don’t have to accept the internet as it is, we can build something better.

Why “Stupid” Wins Over “Perfect” A big lesson from past internet experiments is that perfection is the enemy of progress. The web itself succeeded not because it was the best design, but because it was simple and open enough for people to build on.

  • Nobody agrees on “perfect”—so it never gets built.
  • “Stupid” solutions work—because they let people create their own versions.
  • Diversity leads to growth—and growth challenges the corporate web.

This is the philosophy behind the OMN and other #4opens projects, build something simple, open, and adaptable, and let communities shape it for their needs.

How you can help rewild the web. If you’re tired of Big Tech gatekeeping your online life, there are ways to push back by ditching corporate platforms to explore the #Fediverse and self-hosted alternatives. Support open projects by contribute to decentralized media, grassroots organizing, and federated tech. Spread the word to help others see that another internet is possible.

The internet can be beautiful again, but only if we reclaim it. What do you think? Is an open internet still possible? What are your favourite-decentralized projects? Let’s discuss. #RewildTheWeb #InternetIsBeautiful #OMN

The Open Society and its Media (Mark S. Miller at GMU, 1991?)

The video is bad quality VHS, but worth your time to see a progressive #openweb native capitalism, and to find grounding for post-capitalist with the #OMN project.

Mark S. Miller’s presentation on the Xanadu Hypertext System at George Mason University (GMU) in the early ’90s is good to reference when discussing the #OMN (Open Media Network). The ideas explored then were ahead of their time, but the web ultimately took a worse/better path, a “stupid” #KISS implementation rather than the more idealistic and complex vision of #Xanadu.

Why “Stupid” Wins Over “Perfect”, the lesson is clear:
✅ Nobody agrees on “perfect”, so it never gets built.
✅ “Stupid” solutions work because they let people do their own version.
✅ From diversity comes growth, from growth comes change.
✅ Change is what challenges the current #mainstreaming mess.

This is exactly what the #OMN is doing, taking a simple, “stupid” approach that lets people build their own solutions, rather than arguing endlessly about abstract perfection. Just like the web succeeded by ignoring Xanadu’s “perfect” vision, the #OMN will thrive by avoiding over-engineering and focusing on real-world usability.

With the #Fediverse and the #Openweb, it helps to see the Fediverse as a half-decentralized #openweb project that allows people to communicate across different servers. Unlike centralized platforms, it shifts control back to people and community, but it inherits many of the same flawed assumptions from the #dotcons. Strengths of the Fediverse:

  • Decentralization – No single company controls it.
  • (Supposed) Privacy – While privacy is valued, it’s ultimately a #4opens project, meaning transparency is the real focus.
  • Freedom of Expression – No single authority to censor content, it has community moderation.
  • Control Over Data – People can move between servers (to some extent).
  • Customization – Communities can shape their own experience.

    Where the current #Fediverse falls short

❌ It still copies the #dotcons too much.
❌ It struggles with large-scale collaboration.
❌ It isn’t designed for media or broadcasting.

The Fediverse is a big step in the right direction, but it lacks a strong foundation for alternative media and real working #DIY culture. The #OMN is designed to fill this gap, moving beyond microblogging clones and building real federated media networks.

The key to success in all these paths is leaving capitalism out, one of the biggest reasons the #Openweb worked while Xanadu fizzled is that it didn’t try to “fix” capitalism, it just ignored it. Many well-meaning open projects get stuck because they try to compromise with the existing system rather than building outside of it. This is where the #OMN takes its stand: Not trying to “reform” the #dotcons. Not chasing corporate funding or NGO approval. Building tools that actually work for grassroots communities.

If we take the #4opens and #DIY cultural path, we can create an alternative, something that doesn’t get swallowed by the #mainstreaming like so many past projects. In the end, if we don’t build these spaces, the corporate web will absorb everything. Let’s see the current mess as compost, we can either let it rot uselessly or turn it into the soil for something new. We are empowered to act on this, the choice is ours.

The geek path for tech and social change, was always a diverse view, though always full of the #geekproblem. It’s interesting that this all turned into monopoly capitalism with the #dotcons we have now. The problem is the #geekproblem, we need to do better.

One thing to be aware of is that encryption is largely used to introduce scarcity into natural post scarcity digital paths, in this it is about imposing the old on the new. Encryption as a tool of digital scarcity, a core problem of crypto/blockchain hype – it recreates capitalist control structures rather than abolishing them.

Maybe it’s time to stop trying to fix broken tools, to build with a truly native approach?

The reality of trying to build real alternatives, without deep-rooted community support, even the best projects wither. The liberal/progressive crowd shouts into the void, but when it comes to actual action, they tend to retreat into safe, performative bubbles rather than engaging with real, messy change.

Offering a real alternative to the dotcons world

The Mastodon codebase is an example here, it was designed by copying the #dotcons, so the fundamental social architecture reinforces #stupidindividualism rather than community building. Instead of nurturing federated, collective spaces, it encourages a kind of fragmented, isolated posting, which is why it struggles to grow meaningful movements.

Why do we still find it hard to compost this mess making? At the root of this is likely a lack of shared vision, too many people still mentally operate within the #dotcons framework, even when they try to leave it. Then we have tech that doesn’t align with community of activists needs, #Mastodon (and similar platforms) weren’t built for real social cohesion; they repackage old models with a federated twist. No real commitment from “allies”, the move to the #openweb was ignored by the #mainstreaming left who stay on the #dotcons even though they are evil. The liberal crowd loves theory, but often won’t do the hard, unglamorous work of actually shifting paradigms, this leaves in place structural hostility to #DIY Culture, people are so trained to consume rather than create and maintain that even the “alternative” spaces get stuck replicating the same individualist consumption patterns.

So, what’s next? it’s simple we need to compost this, we could look at:

  • Building with different codebases that don’t replicate the #dotcons model.
  • Focusing on non-liberal, real-world community building, finding people willing to work, not just talk.
  • Reframing “failure” as learning and redirecting energy to something that actually fits the needs of a federated, people-driven network.

The current #fediverse model is only a first step, not itself the answer, for the second step we have the idea’s behind the #OMN. Maybe it’s past time to stop trying to fix broken tools and instead build the truly native path?

Mediating bad faith missteps in grassroots movements

Activism is messy. When we push against #mainstreaming, bad faith actors will come at us hard. Our best, often only, defence is sticking to good faith, telling our own stories, and holding onto process. Without this, the dominant narrative (which serves power) will drown out our voices.

The Problem is well-meaning people who wreck everything, in grassroots social movements, some of the biggest obstacles come from inside. People who believe they’re doing good will still do harm, sometimes more harm than outright bad actors. The worst ones often work the hardest. Why? They lack experience with #DIY culture. They unthinkingly worship the #deathcult. Not only that, but they confuse personal virtue with effective action. Shit stinks, but composting it makes flowers grow. The trick is to turn the mess into something productive instead of letting it rot everything.

Mediation is a core #OMN process, we need tools and processes that identify bad faith early (before it spreads), turn well-meaning but harmful actors toward productive paths, filter out the worst behaviours without turning authoritarian. This is a social problem first, a tech problem second. Good moderation, transparent process, and community accountability are the essential path.

Then the #4opens is about making It clearer for outreach, if democracy is survival, then in the digital era, you can’t have real democracy without the #4opens. This has to be at the root of our growing garden of ideas. We need to frame this in a way that connects to real-life impact with questions like: Why does this matter for democracy? How does it protect against the #deathcult? How does it help people step away from #dotcons?

The OMN project is building from the grassroots up because we can’t rely on the “progressive” top-down crowd to do anything meaningful. We need to tell our own stories before we get drowned in their bad narratives. Making the #4opens process simple and clear for outreach is mediation as a core practice (not just a reaction). Turn bad energy into compost, rather than letting it poison the roots we grow from. Keep the focus on real democratic structures, without them, it’s just mess and bad chaos.

This isn’t easy, but it’s the work that needs to be done. Ideas?

Embracing “messiness” is a feature in effective tech solutions

Activism for tech development and #FOSS paths

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

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

These examples are all of grassroots politics operates from the bottom up, empowering people to engage directly rather than relying on mediating political parties or institutions. This long traditional path give communities a voice and enable change outside the often #blocking traditional power structures. Direct action & grassroots politics is always the working change and challenge when activism bypasses traditional political intermediaries, using disruptive tactics like strikes, sit-ins, and blockades.

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

This experience is what we need to pass onto the #4opens alternatives & horizontalist paths in tech, which to often have the assumption that liberal legality alone will fix systemic problems, which is an easy to see #geekproblem fantasy. A better path is learning from the history of activism, native #FOSS and #4opens structures, which yes are not without challenges, need this to build alternatives that avoid the false hope that #mainstreaming institutions will voluntarily dismantle themselves.

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

We need real shifts to things that matter in #openweb tech dev

The Open Governance Body (#OGB) is a radical approach to decentralized governance, designed from the experience of the failures of existing governance models by combining activist organizing techniques with decentralized federated technology like #ActivityPub. It provides a very flexible governance framework that can be used across different communities, from local markets to the #Fediverse itself, creating a scalable and human-centric decision-making path.

Examples: Local Market Self-Governance: Stakeholders, such as vendors, customers, and authorities, can collaboratively make decisions without reliance on centralized institutions. Fediverse and Online Communities: Federated instances can adopt the #OGB for cooperative decision-making, ensuring grassroots control over digital spaces.

Why this path works, activist organizing as a foundation, social movements have driven radical change for centuries using decentralized, trust-based governance. The #Fediverse itself is a proof of this concept, it has demonstrated that federated, open-source technologies can scale without corporate control. Human-centric governance is built by merging these time-tested approaches, the #OGB fosters sustainable, non-hierarchical governance models rooted in #4opens values. This combination ensures adaptability and resilience against co-option by #mainstreaming forces.

Then we have permissionless rollout, the #OGB is designed to spread organically, self-initiated setup: Any individual or group can start an instance, onboard participants, and begin governance discussions. This will push network effect growth, as more people engage, the system scales naturally, shaping governance from the ground up. This bottom-up path challenges traditional top-down governance structures and paves the way for a more equitable #openweb. This needs supporting with more political paths, funding and support.

Using #RSS and #ActivityPub as core technologies offers significant advantages in grassroots politics:

  • Decentralization: Resistant to censorship and corporate control.
  • Interoperability: Enables seamless communication across platforms.
  • Transparency: Enhances accountability and public engagement.
  • Ownership & Autonomy: Empowers people to control their own data.
  • Accessibility: Breaks down barriers for marginalized voices.

The #Fediverse exemplifies this by offering a decentralized alternative to #dotcons. But the is still an often invisible ideological battle for the #openweb, the issues we aim to mediate is that programming is never neutral. Ideology inevitably shapes the systems we build. We see this in:

  • The Fediverse mirroring the #dotcons, many platforms unintentionally replicate centralized models rather than embracing true decentralization.
  • The risk of #mainstreaming takeover, without active resistance, corporate and NGO interests will attempt to co-opt the #openweb.
  • The #OMN as a counterforce, focused on linking alternative and grassroots media, the #OMN is part of a broader push to prevent the enclosure of the digital commons.

The #openweb needs to remain a space for radical inclusion and self-determination, free from corporate and direct state control. This challenging of the status quo needs real alternative paths, to get this we must critically examine the ideological underpinnings of our current world and ask:

The answers to these #blocking forces lie in building, not just critiquing, alternative paths and structures that embody the change we wish to see. The #OGB and wider #OMN projects, and the #4opens framework are part of this effort to reclaim community, autonomy from the ground up.

The challenge for #OMN & #openweb

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cutting through 99% of the #techshit

The #openweb is a much better framing than #fediverse when trying to break out of the tribal bubbles. It speaks to something broader and historical, whereas #fediverse is just one (flawed) expression of those ideas.

Why #openweb matters, it’s not new, which is actually a strength, this is the original internet vision before it got hijacked by #dotcons. It avoids the self-referential nature of the #fediverse, which often turns into a closed loop of devs talking to devs. It’s a term that can bridge communities rather than reinforcing in-group/out-group dynamics.

The limits of mirroring #dotcons, the first stage of the #fediverse, was largely about copying corporate social media platforms but without the profit motive. That was useful, but it’s hit a ceiling. Why? Lack of real community support – Devs build stuff, but actual social infrastructure is missing. Scaling the wrong way – Just copying individualist, engagement-driven models doesn’t actually create an open, healthy network. Reinforcing the #geekproblem – Developers remain in control, not communities, which leads to predictable NGO-style behaviour creeping in.

Shifting the balance in tech, we can’t just keep replicating the #mainstreaming mess in different codebases. The tech itself needs to reflect the values of the #openweb, decentralised in governance, not just code, community-led, not dev-controlled, process transparency, not just ‘open-source’ performatively.

Dealing with the #geekproblem, devs are used to solving problems in isolation, but society isn’t a coding challenge. They often bring #NGO behaviour into the #fediverse, expecting deference to their authority—and then act surprised when there’s kickback.

Being #openweb native, if you’re coming from the NGO world, you’ll have a much better time if you actually engage with the native culture of the #openweb rather than trying to impose external hierarchies. Otherwise, you’ll just recreate the same socially and self-destructive patterns that have wrecked everything else. So yeah, to boost this thinking, we need to start using #openweb more and move beyond the #fediverse branding trap.

The #4opens and #nothingnew both cut through 99% of the crap so the few people who are going to do something can do something that would be useful rather than unless. From useful you get a few more people, rinse and repeat, and you get social change and challenge, even if this is repressed or implodes, it will be more fun, and interesting than the current mess making.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Breaking the cycle:

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

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