Tag: feudalistic

Power, the social cost we keep talking past in #FOSS

A post sparked Hacker News spouting of noise and smoke. It looks like “just fork it.” phrase in #FOSS culture provokes heat. So worth a second look, for some it’s the purest expression of freedom, to others, it’s a conversation-stopper that quietly protects power. What’s striking isn’t that one side is right and the other wrong, it’s that people are too often talking about entirely different things, while using overlapping words, thus the smoke and heat in the linked discussion above.

It’s worth a little time to look at this issue. The pro-fork view is about permissionless agency. From the classic #Geekproblem perspective, “just fork it” is not an insult or a dismissal, it’s a reminder of where power actually lies. The arguments, often bad-tempered, go like this: Open source removes the need for permission, maintainers are not obligated to implement anyone else’s ideas, if you want something different, you can do the work yourself, forks are non-hostile, temporary, and often merge back.

In this view, forking is not fragmentation, it’s pressure relief, to protects maintainers from entitlement, unpaid labour demands, and endless arguments over direction. It’s also what makes #FOSS resilient: even if a maintainer disappears or a project takes a turn you dislike, the code remains usable.

For libraries, tools, and infrastructure components, this works remarkably well. Many developers maintain private forks, carry patches for clients, or experiment freely without any intention of creating a new community. No drama, no schism, no ideology “mess”, just work. From this “native” angle, criticism of “just fork it” sounds like a demand for obligation where none exists.

The counterpoint is that forks aren’t free in social systems, the critique isn’t only about forking code, everyone agrees that’s normal, healthy, and foundational. The tension is when “just fork it” is applied to social platforms, protocols, and shared infrastructure, systems where the software is only a small part of the project.

Running a fork as a new public project isn’t only technical work, it needs: attracting users, building trust, maintaining governance, handling conflict, sustaining moderation and care and thus carrying long-term responsibility. This is where the phrase starts to feel different, in these contexts, “just fork it” is heard not as empowerment, but as exit over engagement, a way to avoid dealing with governance failures, power asymmetries, or unresolved social conflicts inside an existing social project.

From a social #OMN perspective, this isn’t neutral, forking risks: splitting attention, duplicating effort, losing shared history, weakening already fragile commons. Forking may preserve freedom, but it can still destroy value. Forks vs schisms is maybe a way to look at this:

  • forks – technical divergence
  • schisms – social rupture

You can fork without a schism, but every schism requires a fork. Many arguments talk past each other on this, because one side is defending the right to fork, while the other is warning about the cost of schisms. These are related, but not identical. Power, ownership, and stewardship, are fault lines about how people understand authority.

  • One view holds that open source projects are a #feudalistic kingship – benevolent or not – and contributors knowingly accept this. Maintainers owe nothing, forking is the safety valve.
  • The opposing view sees projects as commons built from collective labour where maintainers are stewards rather than owners, carrying responsibilities that go beyond “my repo, my rules.”

Neither position is imaginary, both exist in the wild. The conflict arises when a project quietly shifts from one model to the other without naming it.

Why this matters for OMN-style projects, they are explicitly social, federated, and historical, they depend on: continuity, shared narrative, visible governance, memory. In this context, common sense “just fork it” instincts unintentionally reinforce the problems #4open paths are meant to solve: fragmentation, invisibility of power, and loss of collective learning.

That doesn’t mean maintainers owe endless emotional labour It does mean that governance and mediation matter as much as code, and can’t be solved by technical exits alone. Two truths at once, the debate becomes clearer if we hold these two truths together:

  • No one owes you unpaid labour, forking is a legitimate, necessary protection for maintainers.
  • Social infrastructure is not just software, treating forks as cost-free exits erodes shared commons over time.

When people argue past each other, it’s usually because they’re defending one truth while denying the other. This creates mess, social mess. So to compost this mess, we need to understand better where this leaves us, “Just fork it” is neither a delusion nor a universal solution, it is:

  • healthy in libraries and tools
  • essential as a last resort
  • dangerous as a reflex
  • corrosive when used to silence governance questions

The real work – the hard, unglamorous part – is knowing which situation you’re in, and being honest about the social costs of the choices you make. That’s not a technical problem, it’s a cultural one, best not to be a prat about this.

This matters because we have social problems created by tech intolerances, #blocking culture. The #dotcons industry’s ability to pull the ladder up behind itself should not be underestimated.

We’ve created digital systems so complex, fragile, and professionally gated that an entire generation is being locked out of owning and understanding their own tools. Communities and people should be able to run their own services, control their own data, and participate meaningfully in digital culture, but few can, because we made everything unnecessarily controlled and complicated.

This wasn’t an accident, it’s a part of the #eekproblem, complexity concentrates power, it creates dependency on experts, platforms, and the corporations that have been quietly erasing the possibility of autonomy. What once required curiosity and modest effort now demands specialist knowledge, constant updates, and institutional backing. The result is a widening gap between those who can build and control systems, and those who are forced to rent/beg access to them.

This is why #KISS simplicity matters, why documentation matters and most importantly why social tooling matters as much as code. And why the #openweb was always about people, not only protocols. When we ignore this, we don’t just lose users, we lose a generation’s ability to imagine, agency, and collective control in the first place.

It’s a real mess we need to compost.

Tech princes and the #deathcult

The billionaire problem, Elon Musk, tech oligarchs, and the #deathcult of wealth as a social path.

Elon Musk’s purchase of Twitter is emblematic of a larger issue: the unchecked power of tech oligarchs. These aren’t your run-of-the-mill millionaires; they’re part of a nasty few, the class that operates above the ultra-wealthy, shaping politics, economies, and societies to their inadequacy. While the myth is pushed that billionaires are brilliant innovators who work harder than everyone else, the reality is darker. Their actions reflect a destructive #deathcult mentality, hoarding resources, manipulating public discourse, and pushing harmful ideologies for personal gain and standing.

Let’s start with Musk himself. People think of him as the “SpaceX and Tesla guy,” (this is not true, but that’s another story) his behaviour since acquiring Twitter reveals his priorities. Musk purchased the platform for $43 billion, not as a business investment, but as a tool for propaganda to consolidate power and influence politics. To platforming far-right politics, by amplify propaganda and undermine the thin remaining democratic paths. From boosting bots that inflate the appearance of support for far-right ideologies to reinstating accounts that push hate speech, these actions directly impact global politics.

This control of Twitter, and most importantly the chattering classes that stay in this #dotcons, has silenced the little dissent left. Bot-driven disinformation spreading far-right ideologies isn’t accidental; it’s strategic manipulation of public opinion to push agendas. Like supporting trump and authoritarianism, spending over $250 million on Trump’s election campaigns.

Musk isn’t alone, tech oligarchs like Bezos and Zuckerberg are equally complicit in reshaping society to benefit themselves, at the now clear expense of the public. Bezos’s quiet Influence, unlike #Musk, #Bezos operates in the shadows, Amazon spends millions lobbying US politicians to block antitrust laws and maintain monopolies to exploits workers and maximise profit. His strategy is quieter but no less harmful. #Zuckerberg’s free speech farce, with the ending of liberal fact-checking on #Facebook under the guise of “free speech.” The result? A flood of bots spreading hate speech, disinformation, and simple propaganda. By prioritising profit over public responsibility, this #dotcons becomes another breeding ground for extremism.

The #feudalistic influence of tech princes and oligarchs has consequences that go far beyond social media with political manipulation, global meddling. This is no longer just about wealth, it’s about shaping geopolitical realities. This is going to accelerate the current climate and resource chaos. So why do meany of us keep bowing? There is a persistence of the billionaire myth, the idea that they’re smarter, harder-working, and more deserving, which keeps #mainstreaming people from challenging this power. But it should be obvious these aren’t self-made geniuses, they’re nasty inadequate opportunists thriving in a broken system. This isn’t just about Musk or any of the other nasty few billionaires. It’s about rejecting the #deathcult of greed and exploitation our socialites are based on. The rise of billionaires as political actors isn’t inevitable, it’s a symptom of a path that values unrestrained profit over people.

Where is this going, they crave #control, so they assume everyone else is out to control them. They weave #conspiracies to crush their enemies, so they see a world drowning in conspiracies against them. In the final stages, a fully rotted #ideologue can’t even see threats or weaknesses; their perception is warped by their own decayed #moralcompass. At this point, outside direct, action they are beyond reach. Every word we speak will be twisted against us. Every action we take will be seen as an attack #paranoia #fascist.

The #OMN has a vision for something better, decentralised, open, and community-driven governance. A world where power is distributed, not hoarded by a handful of deranged oligarchs. The challenge is to make this vision a real path, and to turn our distaste for the status quo into action for this change and challenge.

OMN #openweb #fediverse #makehistory #deathcult #OGB #visionontv

The current mainstreaming’s greatest sin is thoughtlessness