Free Software is Political

In progressive discussions about technology and open source, there is intolerant pushing of mess from people who say “just focus on the code” without the politics. This is an understandable outlook, but it is also stupid, based on a misunderstanding of what is Free/Open Source Software (#FOSS). This everyday pushing of mess making comes from #blinded #mainstreaming people claiming that FOSS is “a-political” or should be kept that way, and shows a lack of any understanding of this movement.

As this article highlights, the idea of “a-political” Free Software is not only incorrect; it’s historically nonsense. Free Software is intrinsically and unavoidably political. It is not simply about code; it is about who controls the code and, therefore, who controls the user. This is why the path that many projects take, to jam FOSS into capitalism without addressing these core issues, is a mess and failing path.

The roots of free software are in a political and ethical movement that just happens to focus on software. “Computer users should be free to modify programs to fit their needs, and free to share software, because helping other people is the basis of society.” This is not just a technical stance; it is a moral, ethical, and political one. The idea that users should have the right to control their own digital lives and help others do the same is at the heart of Free Software. This #KISS foundation opposes proprietary software, where users are legally prevented from helping their neighbours, thus restricting their freedom.

“Computer users should be free to modify programs to fit their needs, and free to share software, because helping other people is the basis of society.”

The emergence of the “Open Source” in the late 1990s pushed change on this “native” path, into a more #mainstreaming direction by shifting focus to development benefits, pushing out the ethical and political core. This, however, does not change the foundational politics of Free Software, it merely tries to mask it, to hide it, by pushing out of sight the political core, this is mess making and the normal mainstream “common sense” when it comes to taking up any Alt paths, this is a history we need to stop.

The difference between Free Software and Open Source: “Open source is a development methodology; free software is a social movement.” For the #opensource path, non-free software is a suboptimal technical solution. For the FOSS path, non-free software is a social problem that needs challenging and changing. This is a distinction that some who try to take this path fail to recognize, leading to the meany messy social and coding projects we try to make work today.

As the #dotcons world builds crises of privacy, control, and trust, the relevance of these distinctions, hopefully, becomes more into focus. From tech giants abusing data to governments exploiting backdoors, the ethical foundation that Free Software rests upon is needed, not optional.

The politics of software, the idea that software can be a-political, is a misunderstanding of what software does and represents. As Larry Lessig says – “Our choice is not between ‘regulation’ and ‘no regulation.’ The code regulates. It implements values, or not. It enables freedoms, or disables them. It protects privacy, or promotes monitoring.” Every decision in software development, from what features to include, to how data is handled, to what kind of accessibility is provided, is a political one. There is no “neutral” code. Decisions about prioritizing user rights, security, and privacy are political decisions, and they shape the wider digital networks we live within.

All code is ideology solidified into action – thus most contemporary code is capitalism, this is hardly a surprise if you think about this at all. Yes, you can try and act on any ideology path from this code, but the outcome and assumptions are preprogramed. If we continue to pretend that the software and platforms can be devoid of politics, we are, taking a side, and actively contributing to the mainstream mess that dotcons push, and this is the mess we urgently need to move away from. As outlined on my website, we need to focus on building a #openweb projects that respect people, rather than merely mimicking corporate platforms with a veneer of openness as we do so often, on the #Fediverse, #Bluesky etc.

Conclusion: stop pretending and start building, to those who wish to “just code” without the politics, it needs to be continually pointed out strongly that is impossible in the path of impactful software development. Every piece of software carries with it values, ethics, and political implications. Acknowledging this is the first step toward building digital networks that serves the people, rather than controlling them. We need to walk a path away from the mess of #mainstreaming towards a more open and humanistic internet.

This is not a hard path to take #OMN

The problem with fragmentation

The #openweb is inherently social, as it’s a people to people network, so pushing the term Open Social Web and resulting hashtag #opensocialweb or #socialweb by NGOs and #fashernista groups is adding mess at best and real damage at worst. While the intention might be well-meaning, it introduces confusion and fragmentation, by unthinking mirroring #dotcons thinking. We need to be more creative with how we label and focus our efforts, especially in grassroots and community-driven movements like the openweb which is already people to people, so the is no need for the #dotcons term “social” in this naming.

The problem with fragmentation of focus, where the openweb is a clear and powerful term that encapsulates the vision of a decentralized, user-controlled internet built on #4opens software. The adding of more confusing hashtags like #opensocialweb dilute these values and attention, creating complexity in #KISS movement messaging. When there are multiple competing narratives and names for the same or similar movements, pushed by misalignment of goals, different agendas, these feed the draining, infighting and confusion. Reducing efforts better spent building, maintaining, and promoting “native” paths and projects. It’s very easy to get sidetracked into debates over terminology, brand-building, and differentiation, we are doing exactly this here.

The need for mediation and focus, It helps to have a unified message that resonates across all levels of engagement, from developers and activists to end-users. The openweb as a concept is comprehensive enough to encompass social, technical, and ethical aspects without needing to create splinter terms. Together with the existing “native” 4opens, we really should not be pushing and focusing on vague or nebulous terms, we should double down on the 4opens, an actionable framework that guides our development, organization, and communication. This clear foundation allows for KISS coherent and effective advocacy, outreach, and development work.

Let’s try and moving on this by encourage honest reflection, critically examine our use of terms and reflect on whether they align with the broader goals. The path we need is the support of community driven efforts, prioritize grassroots projects and initiatives that adhere to the 4opens rather than being swayed by NGO-driven and funding narratives that dilute this simple path.

The focus should remain clear and strong on building a robust, decentralized, and user-controlled #openweb. With diversity in unity and clarity in disagreements, not a proliferation of “fluffy” terms that distract from the #KISS path. Mediating these tendencies towards jargon and fragmentation is important to the momentum needed for real change. Ideas please?

The Slow Evaporation of FOSS value

The article “The Slow Evaporation of the FOSS Surplus” by Baldur Bjarnason discusses the gradual decline in the effectiveness and sustainability of Free and Open Source Software (#FOSS) within, unspoken context of a capitalist economy. The argument is that FOSS, once a thriving ecosystem driven by community effort and collaboration, is now being drained of its vitality by the growing dominance of corporate interests.

Bjarnason points out that the initial “surplus” of creativity, time, and resources that allowed FOSS to grow is being consumed as #dotcons extract value from open-source projects without reinvesting in their development or maintenance. The maintaining of these central projects is thus falling on unpaid or underpaid developers, leading to burnout and stagnation. This mess leads to a less diverse and less vibrant FOSS ecosystem, with projects struggling to sustain themselves without the good will, resources and community support they once had.

This current path highlights a fundamental issue, trying to fit the ethos of FOSS with in the framework of capitalism is a losing battle. FOSS is based on principles of collaboration, sharing, and community effort, its values are a very bad fit with capitalism’s focus on profit maximization, competition, and market control. Attempting to push FOSS, for example the open-source movement, to work better in the mess is not only unsustainable but also counterproductive.

There is an increasing untenable cost to #mainstreaming FOSS within capitalist norms. In simple terms, burnout and decline of community projects. The commercialization of FOSS compromises its fundamental principles—collaboration, freedom, and shared knowledge. Instead of serving the public good, projects are twisted to serve corporate agendas, often at the expense of the communities that built them. This leads to a loss of sustainability, to a decline in quality, security vulnerabilities, and eventually, the abandonment of core projects.

The main problem we face is few people believe there is any viable alternative to this current mess. To ansear this I have been writing for more than 20 years on my website, that there is, clearly showing the pressing need to move away from the #mainstreaming, capitalist path, and how the solution is not to “fix” FOSS within the capitalist framework but to use FOSS as a tool to step away from the current mess.

In the face of global crises like onrushing #climatechaos and resulting social and ecological break down, it becomes clear that we don’t have the choices we pretend we do. We can’t keep perpetuating the myth that we can, or should, bend open-source and collaborative technologies to fit the current capitalist path without real repercussions. With this strongly in mind, we need to use activism to mediate the #mainstreaming pretence, to shift resources and focus to explore alternative paths that align better with the values of #FOSS and the #openweb. The project I talk about a lot, the #OMN is such a path.

This involves, reinvigorating community-driven development by prioritizing projects that serve public interests and are maintained by communities of action. To create new economic models, such as cooperatives, public funding, and community-supported software to feed a culture of resilience to take the dangers paths of then next century.

In this widened view of the original post, “the slow evaporation of the FOSS surplus” I try and make visible the broader systemic failure we need to think about for change and challenge. We are running out of time and resources to take different paths, it’s crucial to recognize that the challenges we face, from software sustainability to climate change. We need to stop pretending that patching up the current system will work and start building new pathways that are true to the “native” #openweb values, to demand a radical departure from the status quo #KISS

The victimhood narrative needs composting

The current state of discourse, particularly the ways in which left and right ideologies, have become so intertwined and confused that it’s difficult for people to distinguish between them. This post critiques the tendency of both sides to adopt a “victimhood narrative,” which is both unproductive and disempowering.

The mess we have made in modern “thinking” and action among some people is to blindly reject critique and instead frame themselves as victims of persecution. This defensive posture, adopted by narcissists, is a path of refusal of engagement in the meaningful exchange of ideas, essential to intellectual growth and social progress. Rather than seeing criticism as an opportunity to refine their arguments or reconsider their positions, these people construct a storey where they are instead under attack. This narrative of victimhood is powerful because it taps into broader societal fears—of being silenced, of losing freedom of expression, of falling prey to what they perceive as the tyranny of the majority, in the end of being bullied. It’s the #stupidindividualism I talk about a lot, playing itself out as broken social psychology.

This #blocking of criticism is problematic because it shuts down the possibility of constructive dialogue. Instead of growing spaces where ideas can be debated and challenged on their merits, this path creates a polarized environment where any dissent is viewed as an assault on personal freedom. This is antithetical to the path of intellectual inquiry, which thrives on the back-and-forth exchange of ideas, even when those ideas are uncomfortable or challenging. The blocking of discourse leads to social stagnation, when individuals or groups refuse to engage with criticism, they insulate themselves from the feedback that leads to the improvement of the paths they take in life. In doing so, they become increasingly disconnected from reality, trapped in echo chambers where their views are continually reinforced by the current mess without question. This in part is why we worshipped a #deathcult for the last 40 years.

This #mainstreaming is making a very nasty mess of the current paths, when those who grab and hold positions of influence and authority dismiss criticism as persecution, they fail to address the urgent substantive issues. Contributing to a culture of, conformity, fear and anti-intellectualism, the bullied becoming the bullies is an old story. This growth of the culture, that disdains critical thinking, thus shapes a preference for simplistic, comforting narratives over complex, sometimes uncomfortable truths, is the path to #fascism so good to focus on this messy we think of as “common sense”, it’s a path we need to step away from.

The current generation are far down the path of “political correctness” which is used as a tool by those who feel their ideas are under siege. On this path the term is often misleading, while there are instances where concerns about offending others may lead to excessive caution in discourse, the path of political correctness is frequently used as a catch-all to block any challenge to entrenched viewpoints. This misuse of the concept creates a false dichotomy: either you are committed to free expression and thus opposed to political correctness, or you are a part of the “mob” enforcing a narrow orthodoxy. In reality, the situation is far more messy. Engaging with criticism and being open to changing one’s views are not signs of weakness or conformity, but of simple integrity.

To move beyond this mess, we need to be willing to listen to criticism, to consider the validity of opposing viewpoints, and to refine our ideas and paths in light of fresh views and differing perspectives. A collaborative process aimed at discovering truth and advancing understanding. By growing the space where criticism is not seen as persecution but as an essential part of the social process, Intellectual discourse should not be a battlefield where ideas are either victoriously defended or ruthlessly attacked, let’s compost the mess, not burn it to ashes please.

We need spaces for this to happen https://opencollective.com/open-media-network please support this native #4opens path, thanks.

UPDATE (draft)

There are strong personal and social forces pushing back the change and challenge we need to live better, more interesting and for furfilling lives. One of the strong “personal” issues is the role of present-moment emotional discomfort in shaping life decisions. Many people, unconsciously, allow short-term emotional anxiety, fear, or discomfort to influence decisions that have long-term consequences. This tendency is rooted in our evolutionary biology, cognitive biases, and societal conditioning.

The role of emotional discomfort in decision-making, from an evolutionary point of view, is that humans have developed a natural aversion to discomfort and pain because these sensations signal danger or threat. Our ancestors who were more attuned to immediate discomfort were more likely to survive. As a result, our brains are wired to avoid pain and seek pleasure, even if this means making decisions that only offer short-term relief. Cognitive biases, is a bias that leads people to prioritize immediate rewards or relief over long-term benefits. This bias often makes us choose a less optimal path simply because it feels better at the moment. This alongside loss aversion makes us more sensitive to potential losses than to equivalent gains, leads to decisions that are more about avoiding discomfort or the fear of loss than about achieving a positive outcome.

Social and cultural pressure in society rewards decisions that align with immediate success, stability, or the avoidance of failure. This pressures individuals to make choices that conform to societal norms, even if they aren’t aligned with their deeper values or long-term goals. For instance, staying in an unfulfilling job because it’s “safe” or not pursuing a dream due to fear of failure. The impact of anxiety and stress, reduces our ability to think rationally. The consequences, decisions made primarily to minimize present-moment discomfort, lead to a life that feels safe but unfulfilling. When we consistently choose the path of least resistance, we avoid short-term pain, but we miss meaningful experiences, personal growth, and the satisfaction that comes from overcoming challenges. Some psychological strategies to counteract this:

There is the fluffy path of mindfulness, which can help us become more aware of our emotional states without immediately reacting to them. By observing our discomfort without judgment, we can make more deliberate choices.
Long-term vision, a clear alternative vision of our long-term goals helps us resist the temptation to make decisions based on short-term emotional states. By reminding ourselves of the better path, we can weigh the immediate discomfort against the potential long-term benefits.
Reflective decision-making, taking time to reflect on why we are making a particular decision, can reveal whether we are motivated by discomfort avoidance or by values and desires. Simply taking a pause or asking #KISS questions can be valuable in this process.

Developing emotional maturity, allows us to endure discomfort without letting it dictate our paths. On the fluffy path, practices like meditation, therapy, or even facing small challenges intentionally, increases our capacity to tolerate discomfort and reduce its power over our decision-making. On the spiky path, a dose of “fucking shit up” can be liberating in moderation as a healthy balance.

In conclusion, while it’s natural to want to minimize discomfort, it’s a more truthful path to recognize when this desire leads us to make decisions that are not in our actual best interest. By becoming more aware of the influence of present-moment emotional states, we can make more conscious, intentional decisions that align with our deeper “natures”, goals and values, leading to a more fulfilling and authentic life. A first step to any of this is getting off our knees and lifting our heads from worshipping the #deathcult, to see that socially shapes this mess we are a personal part of #KISS

Bogged down in negative criticism, let’s focus on building something better

Bogged down in negative criticism, let’s focus on building something better

The mess we made with our addiction to #dotcons social media over the last 20 years means we need to look at the broader implications of how we interact with these platforms if we are to step away from this mess. Yes, criticism is a first step, a second step is seeding #openweb alternatives, then to stride away from this mess, we need to foster a culture of positive, constructive engagement to build grassroots communities of action. This means not only criticizing the current mess, but actively working towards creating and promoting alternatives. By using our “spades” to dig into the issues and “composting” the negativity, we can cultivate a healthier humanistic social tech ecosystem where communities can thrive independently of corporate and state control.

The shovel and compost metaphor is a useful “organic” path on this, the “shovel” represents the tools we need to dig into and dismantle the current #dotcons structures. Where “composting” symbolize the process of breaking down these negative aspects (#stupidindividualism) and using them to cultivate something healthier and more sustainable. These simple metaphors encourage people to actively become a part of positive change by putting their energy into building and promoting openweb alternatives, rather than continuing to engage in the negative cycles perpetuated by #mainstreaming platforms and paths.

Positive engagement on the #openweb, instead of only criticizing inside the dotcons, is an effective path to promote and use alternatives. For this to work we not only need #FOSS copies like we have now in the #fediverse but real working alternatives as outlined by the #OMN (this so obviously needs devs and funding). We need tangible and the ground steps and resources, so people feel empowered to make the switch from closed, corporate-controlled platforms to open, grassroots ones.

On the spiky path, we URGENTLY need to change the instinct in the #geekproblem to close most communication tools with encryption, with the strong focus on privacy. For media, on balance, this is a very unhelpful path to take, but yes, there is a small role for closed, the path is in better balance. The “native” openweb idea is that some communication needs to be private and encrypted (20% closed), the majority of it should be open and accessible (80% open) to foster the communal #4opens path. By closing down communication to one to one or small groups using encryption, we are feeding the problem of #stupidIndividualism. This problem behaviour focuses on individualistic, self-serving actions that reinforce the problems’ by reflection of the current mess, we only see this path. When we take this closed path, we have no room for encouraging social constructive dialogue. Simply put, striking the right balance between open and closed communication is essential for the “native” path to building a resilient openweb.

On the fluffy #fashionista side, we need to balance the paths from performative activism, of using sarcasm that mostly fuels the system people aim to critique. Sarcasm and comedy on the dotcons has been a staple of fluffy online activism for the last 20 years. The Issue with this is that sarcasm and comedy are focused to criticize and ridicule inside the very dotcons platforms that control our personal communication and communities. While this might feel like a way to resist or subvert these platforms, it disastrously drives engagement and feeds the data algorithms that sustain them, and are focued on controlling us and our movements. Engaging in this kind of humour provides temporary relief and a transient sense of camaraderie, but it actually is only reinforcing the power of these platforms by driving more traffic and interaction. The better strategy is to disengage and move toward alternative #openweb platforms. Instead of feeding into this #dotcons cycle, the goal should be to step away from these platforms and take collective action to build and support openweb alternatives #KISS

Final thought, instead of only getting bogged down in negative criticism, the focus needs to be on building something better. A simple step is to support a path with real history https://opencollective.com/open-media-network

The victimhood narrative needs composting

The #openweb – Escaping the Grip of the Algorithm

Moving Forward, A Few Practical Suggestions

We likely share a deep frustration with the current state of #mainstreaming society, particularly that people have willingly stayed inside and thus are complicit in the harmful systems perpetuated by #dotcons. How can we emphasize the importance of stepping away from these toxic paths to take genuine openweb paths rather than just renaming or repackaging existing ideas, that only leads to repeating the same stupid mistakes.

A simple step is making mainstreaming thinking dirty, using the story told by metaphors like deathcult and stupidindividualism that make the flaws in mainstream thinking visible and unappealing. This path has the effect of tarnishing the allure of these deathcult ideologies, to open up space for people to seek out and build alternatives. On this activism, there is a strong emphasis on the need to stop complaining about the mess and start building alternatives. The metaphors used are not only critiques, but also rallying cries for action—urging people to move beyond criticism and engage in the hard work of creating something better #OMN

By using metaphors, shared hashtags to galvanize people into action, we start to turn critique into compost that can nourish new growth. The path is in fostering real, community-based alternatives that move beyond the failures of the past. The effectiveness of these metaphors relies on a community building affinity group of action, adopting and using them consistently. To push shared understanding and drive cultural change, avoiding the pitfalls of #stupidindividualism to seeds the change and challenge we need.

The #Deathcult vs. Fascists is more than a metaphor, this needs to be said to help brake thought the political disillusionment. Comparing the current political landscape (Democrat/Labour as the deathcult and Trump/Tory as fascists) shows the deep dissatisfaction with the available choices, both sides are deeply flawed. Yes, we do face the reluctant decision to “hold your nose and vote for the deathcult” as a transient path. A pragmatic but cynical approach to dealing with the immediate threats posed by these systems.

Balancing community with Individualism is a #KISS path to move away from current extreme individualism, towards a more balanced approach that recognizes the importance of community and collective action. #StupidIndividualism, especially when it’s disconnected from community, is a root cause of many problems. This needs to be linked to the broader critique of #liberalism and #capitalism, where the balance between individual and community has been lost.

Growing affinity groups is a path to encourage the formation of communities that share these critical views and are committed to building alternatives. These groups can use the hashtags as rallying points to organize and communicate, but the real work will be in the relationships and actions they build together. To turn this critique into action, the #OMN has tangible projects, the focus is constructive, community-oriented alternative solutions.

This is a call for transformation and regeneration, not just complaining about the situation. Yes, composting the mess is a metaphor for grabbing a spade to take the mess we’ve created and turn it into something productive, something that can nourish new humanist #openweb growth. Building an alternative quickly like the #OMN is crucial to avoid repeating the same mistakes under different names, we need to really avoid this repetition.

A shovel comes to hand?

Ideas to build communities on this #KISS path please

Ideas to build communities on this #KISS path please

To shift society away from heads down worshipping the #deathcult to lifting our heads towards simple sustainable, open, and cooperative change and challenge we need. To push this change information alone is insufficient; instead, we need to focus on fundamentally transforming lifestyles, habits, and world-views, the change, requires more than just intellectual understanding—it requires emotional engagement, experience, and sometimes, unfortunately, the pain that comes from learning the hard way.

The challenge, short-term vs. long-term thinking, is a barrier of our collective prioritizing short-term comfort and stability over long-term solutions. This mentality impedes the adoption of generational, sustainable approaches that address the deeper systemic issues we face. With the shrinkage of comfy spaces, the “comfy majority” could, paradoxically, be motivated for serious change. As the pressures mounts, the #mainstreaming can become more receptive to alternative paths.

There is an obverse need for this paradigm shift, beyond patching, fundamental rethinking of how we organize society, economy, and technology. To a focus more on inclusive and open principles like 4opens and #OMN. The #4opens (open data, open source, open standards, and open processes) and the OMN (Open Media Network) represent a path for inclusive, decentralized, and transparent native networks. An easy path to take, as these concepts are already at the core of the open-source movement, which powers much of the digital world.

To take this path, we need to emphasize avoiding exclusionary and rivalrous practices, advocating for a more healthy balance of cooperation over competition. This requires finding common ground and shared interests across the current social mess, to take us on the path for building resilient, cooperative networks. There is a strong role for narrative, exemplified by the hashtags’ story. A shared narrative, organized around common radical hashtags, can be used to build unify diverse groups and drive change. This story needs to be grounded to avoid becoming just another layer of noise in the current “mess.” the path needs to make #mainstreaming uncomfortable, by making these narratives “dirty” and uncomfortable, the aim is to highlight the flaws in current systems and make alternatives more visible and attractive.

This path need to balance the political and practical. An example of this is that while recognizing the importance of the #PGA (People’s Global Action) hallmarks—anti-capitalist, anti-patriarchal, anti-authoritarian principles—these need to be introduced slowly into projects, given their strong anarchist roots and thus political nature. This balance between pushing practical solutions and maintaining a political critique is crucial. With this in mind, we need to keep definitions loose to hold pathways flexible, thus acknowledging that society is inherently messy and that a rigid approach is unlikely to succeed. This flexibility allows for a mix of passion, diversity, and common sense to guide the evolution of new paradigms.

Practical steps and considerations are core to cultivating emotional engagement. Since information alone isn’t enough, we need to focus on creating experiences, stories, and communities that engage people emotionally. This could involve storytelling, art, technology and activism with meany forms of expression that make the new paradigm not just intellectually appealing but also emotionally resonant.

There are meany paths to do this, examples would be working on concrete projects that embody the #4opens principles, like #OGB #OMN #makeinghistory and #indymediaback. By demonstrating that these alternatives are not only viable but also superior paths in aspects, we can build early adopters and gradually build momentum. This will foster trust and cooperation, this trust is a critical ingredient for the kind of decentralized, cooperative systems we need to make happen. This path needs to focus on building networks where trust is cultivated through transparency, accountability, and shared values. Yes, there will be mess, this is normal, but let’s keep our focus on the #KISS path.

Ideas please for how to build communities around this path. The approach is addressing the deep-rooted issues of our current economic and social mess in a thoughtful and multi-faceted way. By pushing for open, cooperative, and emotionally resonant alternatives, we can try to lay the groundwork for a shift to more sustainable and equitable societies. The challenge is immense, practical actions with a compelling narrative, and remaining adaptable and inclusive paths, there is potential to change and challenge for meaningful change.

The #openweb – Escaping the Grip of the Algorithm

Breaking the circle of #stupidindividualism

One thing we need to emphasize more is that right-wing extremism lacks critical thinking, as conservatism tends to resist openness to alternative paths. Our #mainstreaming #fashionistas — those who mindlessly follow trends — reinforce this mess by promoting this path of #stupidindividualism, where there’s far more “stupid” than actual individuality.

The core issue with conservatism and mainstream conformity, especially in its more extreme forms, is the stubborn refusal to consider alternative ideas and different directions. This rigidity creates a dangerous inability to adapt to the rapidly changing circumstances we face, particularly in the era of #climatechaos and rising migration flows that will be driving social breakdown.

Mainstream #fashionistas, the so-called “influencers” and trendsetters, do little beyond reinforcing the status quo. They mindlessly adopt and promote tired, profitable ideas without questioning their social impact or validity. This behaviour pushes a narrow, unchallenged worldview that generates ever more mess — mess that we then need to compost. And right now, we don’t even have working shovels. #OMN

At the heart of the problem lies #stupidindividualism, 40 years of hyper-individualism, where personal success and self-interest are placed above collective well-being. This common sense mindset breeds division and erodes the capacity for collective action, making it incredibly difficult to build the solidarity needed for meaningful change.

Steps to Move Beyond the Mess:

Balance collective action and individualism, solidarity, not solitude, is key to shifting the focus from individual success to collective well-being. We need to encourage movements that emphasize cooperation, community support, and shared goals. Build and engage with local groups, cooperatives, and grassroots organizations that challenge the status quo from the ground up. Prioritize communal benefits over short-term personal gain to grow networks of care and resilience.
Cultivate critical thinking, it’s essential to question dominant narratives and dig deeper into the issues shaping our world to actorly challenge the assumptions pushed by mainstream media, political rhetoric, and cultural norms. Promote learning that goes beyond surface-level understanding to explore the root causes of social, economic, and political issues. Create #4opens spaces for education and informed discussion to help people see and understand alternative perspectives.
Advocate for systemic change, we need challenge that pushes for real change that addresses the roots of social and environmental issues, rather than settling for superficial fixes. Advocate for economic justice, environmental sustainability, and comprehensive social policies that support this radical change. Embrace and uplift unconventional, radical paths and ideas, progress requires stepping outside the comfort zone of conventional thinking.
Resist conformity and consumerism, to counter that #mainstreaming culture excels at co-opting and neutralizing dissent. We need active resistance to the pressure to conform. Stay aware of how #mainstreaming dilutes and commodifies alternative paths. Challenge the notion that consumerism is the primary way to express individuality. #KISS

Breaking from this cycle, beyond the current mess, we must break from the cycle of #stupidindividualism and blind #mainstreaming conformity. By embracing collective action, growing critical thinking, advocating for systemic change, and resisting conformity, we can step away from the rigid, invisible ideologies that fuel the #deathcult path we’re all caught up in.

It’s time to reclaim our tools, sharpen our shovels, and start composting the mess to grow something better #OMN

Individualism isn’t the problem, the “stupid” part is the problem

Parasite #NGO and #fashionista tech

The #openweb – Escaping the Grip of the Algorithm

For meany people, the old #dotcons like #Instagram, #Facebook and #Twitter still dominate their online lives, shaping not only what they see but also how we all think and interact. These platforms, with their complex dark algorithms, offer an addictive experience people find hard to resist. The allure is not just in the content they provide, but in the nature of how that content is delivered—tailored, curated, and designed to keep engagement to the point of dependency.

The dependency on these algorithms has become a digital addiction. This is even more true for the next generation of digital drugs from fallow on generations of #dotcons. The algorithm decides what to show people, shaping perceptions and influencing decisions. Over time, this erodes people’s ability to make choices independently, undermining the freedom that the internet was initially supposed to offer. This loss of autonomy is frightening, as it suggests a surrender of our agency to the invisible hand of the algorithm, which prioritizes engagement in capitalism over well-being.

The Algorithmic trap, how we got here? The business model of these “#closedweb” social media platforms, the #dotcons, is based on addiction. The more time people spend on the platforms, the more data they collect, and the more targeted the ads and “content” becomes, leading to increased profits for the #nastyfew. This cycle creates a powerful incentive for these companies to make their platforms as addictive as possible. The more we rely on them, the more they control us, and the less freedom we have to think and choose for ourselves.

What is particularly messy about this model is how it normalizes digital dependency. For meany people, the idea of switching back to the #openweb, to federated, decentralized social media, where algorithms do not dictate what you see, is unappealing precisely because it does not offer the same instant gratification, fix. These platforms do not feed the addiction in the same way, making them less attractive to those who have grown accustomed to algorithmic curation.

To break free from this spiral, people need digital detoxification, but It’s hard to know how to go about this? This is not just about reducing screen time; it’s about reclaiming the paths to make choices independently of what an algorithm suggests. It’s about learning to engage with content and people on your own terms, rather than being passively fed by a machine designed to keep you hooked.

Driving this mess is our worshipping of the #deathcult for the last 40 years, the social shift towards practices and systems that, while profitable for a few, are destructive for the many. The #dotcons have built their empires on this, creating digital paths that prioritize profit over people, “engagement” over enlightenment. This mess extends beyond social media. It speaks to a broader critique of how our paths in technology and #neoliberal ideology have shaped our lives. #Neoliberalism, with its focus on free markets and minimal government intervention, seeped into our thinking, making us blind to the ways in which we are being manipulated and controlled. This ideology is so ingrained that it has become “invisible” to most, making it difficult to see any potability of a different path we could take.

To see beyond the ideological wall, we need to help people see the invisible, to recognize the ideological frameworks that shape their perceptions and actions. Many people find it difficult to appreciate perspectives outside their own, particularly when those perspectives challenge deeply held beliefs. This is why so many people are #blocking by dismiss paths that try to explain these concepts from different ideological viewpoints. For those of us who try to view the world through multiple lenses, it can be frustrating to see how limited the #mainstreaming narrative is. With liberal media, pushing a narrow view of the world, that reinforces rather than challenges the status quo.

Activists and thinkers who have long warned of the dangers, are frequently sidelined or ignored. This is why it’s crucial to keep telling these stories, even if they are not always heard or understood. We must continue to highlight the ways in which our digital lives are being shaped by forces that do not have our best interests at heart. We must strive to make the invisible visible, to reveal the ideological underpinnings of the systems we interact with daily.

This is a needed, but difficult story, the story of digital addiction and the #deathcult. It requires us to confront uncomfortable truths about how we live our lives online and how we’ve allowed ourselves to be manipulated by the tools that were supposed to set us free. That the way we engage with technology is not a matter of personal choice but is shaped by the economic and ideological systems in which we are all a part. It’s a story that needs to be told from multiple perspectives, not just those of the chattering classes or the narrow liberal media. A story that should include the voices of activists, technologists, and everyday people struggling to reclaim humanistic paths.

In the end, if we want to have any future—let alone one that is truly open, decentralized, and free—we need to recognize the dangers of digital addiction and the ideologies that sustain it. We need to support the #openweb and the technologies that empower people rather than control them. This is a first step to break free from the #deathcult mentality, creating an online and offline world that we might like to live in #KISS

How we bridge current #blocking conversations for change and challenge

How we bridge current #blocking conversations for change and challenge

There’s an overwhelming amount of toxic nonsense masquerading as “common sense” in our #mainstreaming dialogue. This isn’t just a small problem; it’s a pervasive issue that stifles genuine conversation and constructive change and challenge we need. The challenge is real, but I urge you to take a moment and resist being part of this “common sense” mess-making. Instead of falling into the trap of repeating the same misguided and very nasty narratives, we collectively critically and consciously need to push against the tide of nasty lazy #blocking thinking.

Building trust in this mess is incredibly difficult. It requires real community and real effort, awareness, and a commitment to seeing beyond the surface-level “common sense” that reinforces the status quo. The mainstreaming dialogue, as it stands, is poison that seeps into our minds and conversations, making it impossible to foster #KISS understanding and collaboration.

This is why we need to change and challenge the current mess. It’s not enough to simply go along with what everyone else is saying or thinking. We need to question, to dig deeper, and to refuse to be complacent in the face of the toxic narratives, dominate our social and political landscapes.

By actively resisting the pull of #mainstreaming and engaging with grassroots ideas critically and compassionately, we begin to carve out a space for authentic, meaningful dialogue. This is the path forward, and it’s essential if we want to build a society that values truth, trust, and progress over shallow consensus and harmful worshiping of the #deathcult in the toxic “common sense” path.

Yes, trust vs parodied #fuckwittery is hard to bridge, the #mainstreaming is poison for this path. I understand it’s hard, but please try, to take a moment, not to be the prat I talk about.

The #openweb – Escaping the Grip of the Algorithm

The Forgotten Story of Social Technology: Why It Matters

All code is ideology solidified into action – most contemporary code is capitalism, this is hardly a surprise if you think about this for a moment. Yes you can try and act on any ideology on top of this code, but the outcome and assumptions are preprogramed, with this in mind let’s look at a path outside this mess. In the original “native” digital wilderness of the #openweb, our use of technology paths were seen as something esoteric—a domain of hackers, activists, and tech-savvy individuals who speak in code and operate in the margins. But beneath this perception lies a fundamental truth: social technology is not just for the few; it’s for everyone. It’s about how we connect, share, and build communities. And this matters more now than ever.

In the early days there was the path of open connections, this story begins in the early 2000s an example is with the rise of #Indymedia, a global network of independent media centres that emerged as a response to corporate control over #traditionalmedia. Indymedia pioneered social technology, using the internet to democratize information and give voice to those silenced by traditional media. Indymedia wasn’t only about the content; it was more the community of people. This new social reality was revolutionary because it allowed communities to create their own paths to share media in wider public spaces without relying on corporate platforms. It was a glimpse into what the internet could be— decentralized, user and community controlled space for collaboration and free expression.

For many activists, Indymedia was more than a tool; it was a lifeline. It provided a way to organize, mobilize, and communicate outside the #blocking and watchful eyes of governments and corporations. But the significance of Indymedia and similar projects extended far beyond this activism. They represented a different vision of what the internet could be—a vision that prioritized openness, community control, and freedom over profit and surveillance.

The rise of the dotcons and betrayal of the openweb. As the internet grew, so did the corporate interest in controlling it. Enter the #dotcons the tech giants like Google, Facebook, and Amazon, which have come to dominate the online landscape. These corporations offered free services that were easy to use and quickly became ubiquitous. But there was a catch: these services were free because the users themselves were the product. The #dotcons built their empires by harvesting data, selling ads, and creating siloes that encouraged mindless scrolling rather than meaningful interaction. The openweb—the vision of a decentralized, user-controlled internet—was quickly replaced by a walled garden of corporate platforms that prioritized profit and control over people and #DIY.

This shift had implications, it wasn’t only about losing control over shared digital commons, it was about losing control over our communities, our communications, and our society. The internet, once a space for creativity and intervention, become a tool of surveillance and manipulation. The promise of social technology as a force for social good was eroded by the platforms that had once seemed so empowering.

The #deathcult is a system that consumes everything. The ideology that underpins the dotcons and the broader #neoliberal system they are part of. This path of endless growth, profit at any cost, and the concentration of power in the hands of a few. An ideology that consumes everything in its path—communities, environments, and even our own sense of self.

This is not only a problem for activists; it’s a problem for everyone. The #deathcult turns us into consumers rather than citizens, prioritizing #stupidindividualism over community and short-term profit over long-term sustainability. An ideology that leads us to the environmental crisis, the erosion of social trust, and the ending of democracies. For anarchists and activists, the deathcult is the enemy to be fought. But for the average person, it’s the water we swim in—the invisible system that shapes our lives in ways we don’t even notice. Understanding this is crucial if we are to reclaim the internet, our communities, and any liveable future.

Reclaiming the Commons is a role for the #4opens, if the deathcult is the problem, then the 4opens is part of the solution. The #4opens—opendata, opencode, openprocess, and openstandards—are #KISS paths to build a better internet. These principles are not only for activists; they are for anyone who sees the need to empower community and the importance of basic democracy.

Open data means that information should be accessible to all, not hoarded by corporations. Open code means that software should be transparent and modifiable, not a black box controlled by a few. Open governance means that decisions about how platforms are run should be made by the community, not imposed from above. And open standards mean that different systems should be able to work together, rather than being locked into proprietary formats. These principles are the foundation of the #openweb that empowers people, fosters creativity, and builds communities, the foundation of a good society.

The Open Media Network (#OMN) is a path to create a native digital network based on the #4opens. The OMN is not only a technical project; it’s a social one. It’s about spaces where people can connect, share, and build without being subject to the whims of corporate controle. It’s a reboot of the original web, learning from projects like #indymedia. The #OMN is a response to the failures of our use of the #dotcons and the worshipping of the deathcult. A way to reclaim the internet as a tool of good, rather than a weapon of control. It’s a way to rebuild the commons, the shared resources and spaces that are core to the path of the healthy society.

For progressives and anarchists, the OMN is a path we need to take to create the world we might want to see, where power is decentralized, and communities have control over their destinies. But for everyone else, the OMN is a way to take back what has been lost in the corporate takeover of the internet. It’s a way to reconnect the original promise of the internet as free expression, collaboration, and community.

Why this social technology matters, at its core, social technology is how we connect with each other. It’s the tools we use to build relationships, share information, and create communities. These things matter for everyone, not only activists or anarchists. In the current mess dominated by corporate platforms, we blindly worship the deathcult where in the openweb native path of social technology offers a way to reclaim our agency away from this mess. It offers a way to build systems that work for us, rather than against us. The story of social technology, as told by Hamish Campbell on this site, is a story of hope and possibility. It’s a story of what the internet could have been—and what it still can be.

The journey won’t be easy, but it is a journey worth taking. In the end, the #openweb is about more than technology; it’s about the kind of society we want to build, and the kind of people we want to be #KISS

The current “debate” about AI is a distraction #KISS

The debate over AI’s energy consumption is one piece of a larger mess about technological in the face of current existential risks. Yes, #AI’s energy demands are a huge #dotcons waste, but focusing only on this is distracting us from a more #4opens discussions about the underlying ideology and assumptions driving the #geekproblenm technological paths—an example, the ideas of #longtermism, lets look at ths:

#Longtermism is a philosophe prioritizes the far future, arguing that we should make decisions today that benefit humanity hundreds or thousands of years from now. Proponents of longtermism advocate for technological advancements like AI and space colonization, pushing that these will ultimately secure humanity’s future, that is after many of us have been killed and displaced by #climatchoas and the resulting social brake down of mass migration. The outcome of the last 40 years of worshipping the #deathcult is this sleight of hand by changing the subject, yes, its a mess.

This mindset is a ridiculous and obviously stupid path we should not take, some of the issues:

Overconfidence in predicting the future: Longtermists assume that we can reliably predict the long-term outcomes of our actions. History has shown that even short-term predictions are fraught with uncertainty. The idea that we can accurately forecast the impact of technologies like AI or space colonization centuries from now is, at best, speculative and, at worst, dangerously hubristic.
The danger of #geekproblem mentality, the idea that we should “tech harder” to solve our problems, that is, to invest more heavily in advanced technologies with the hope that they will eventually pull us out of our current crises, mirrors longtermist thinking. It assumes that the resource consumption, environmental degradation, and social upheaval caused by these technologies will be justified by the benefits they might bring in the future.

This path is the current mess and flawed for meany reasons:

Resource Consumption: The development of AI, space technologies, and other technological “solutions” requires vast amounts of energy and resources. If these technologies do not deliver the expected returns, the initial resource consumption itself exacerbate the crises we are trying to solve, such as the onrushing catastrophe of climate change.
Opportunity Costs: By focusing on speculative technologies, we neglect immediate and practical solutions, like transitioning away from fossil fuels, which mitigates some of the worst effects of climate change. These simpler, more grounded paths may not be as glamorous as AI or space travel, but they cannot backfire catastrophically.
Moral and Ethical Implications: Whether it is right to invest heavily in speculative technologies when there are pressing issues today that need addressing—issues that affect billions of lives. The idea that a few future lives might be more valuable than current ones is a dangerous and ethically questionable stance.

The is always a strong case for caution and pragmatism in technology. Instead of betting our future on high-stakes #geekproblem technological gambles, a pragmatic approach to focus on solutions that offer benefits today while reducing the risks of tomorrow is almost always a good path. For example, changing our social relations and economic systems away from the current #deathcult, by using social tools to investing in renewable energy, rethinking urban planning, and restore ecosystems would all be actions that can have immediate positive effects while also contributing to a humanistic future. This #KISS path carry far fewer risks if they turn out to be less impactful than hoped. The worst-case scenario with renewable energy is that it doesn’t solve every problem—but it won’t make them worse. In contrast, if AI or space colonization doesn’t deliver on its pie in the sky promises, the consequences are simply disastrous.

A #mainstreaming view of this mess

A call for grounded action, the challenge of our time is not to “tech harder” in the hope that advanced technologies will save us, but to consider the balance between “native” #4opens humanistic innovation and #dotcons caution. The example here #Longtermism, with its emphasis on far-off futures, leads us to a dangerous path by neglecting the immediate, tangible actions we can take now, not in a thousand years. We need to focus on paths that address our most pressing problems without risking everything on pie in the sky self-serving mess making. This means actions like reducing fossil fuel dependence, preserving biodiversity, and creating more change and challenge social systems like the #OMN and #OGB—steps that will help us build a resilient and humanist world for both the present and the future #KISS

The media noise about the current #AI is mostly noise https://www.bath.ac.uk/announcements/ai-poses-no-existential-threat-to-humanity-new-study-finds/ and money mess, it’s the normal #deathcult with a bit of kinda working tech.