Tag: KISS

Real Social Media is a Hard Balancing Act

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

Open Social Media: Liberation

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

Closed Social Media: Control

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

The Complex Balance

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

Conclusion

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

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

The Fediverse is “native” to Anarchism

Anarchism is a part of #FOSS governance, it is a political philosophy and social movement that shaped the foundations of the internet and #openweb on a path to move from centralized power to decentralized, self-government. This was a strong part of #web01 and a strong part of why it worked so well. So this space embodies #anarchism which believe that society and technology can be organized to build freedom, equality, and cooperation

What is Anarchism?

There are forms of anarchism, some well-known:

  • Anarcho-Communism: Advocates for the abolition of private property and the establishment of a classless, stateless society based on communal ownership and cooperation.
  • Anarcho-Syndicalism: Seeks to abolish the wage system and replace it with a system of workers’ self-management and direct democracy.
  • Individualist Anarchism: Emphasizes the importance of individual freedom and autonomy, and is associated with the writings of figures like Emma Goldman and Max Stirner.

This has a long and varied history, with roots in liberalism and socialism.

Anarchism in Action

  1. Direct Action: Anarchism emphasizes direct action over traditional protest. Instead of petitioning authorities to make changes, anarchists take matters into their own hands. For example, if a community lacks drinking water, anarchists would dig a well themselves rather than petitioning the government.
  2. Acting as If Free: Anarchism is about behaving as though one is already free, practising this directly.
  3. Democracy Without Government: Anarchism can be seen as democracy without the state, where people collectively make decisions without hierarchical structures. It is based on self-organization, voluntary association, and mutual aid.

History of Anarchism

Some old dead figures and movements include:

  • The French Revolution: Inspired many early anarchists with ideas of liberty, equality, and fraternity.
  • Pierre-Joseph Proudhon: The first self-proclaimed anarchist, wrote the influential work What is Property? In 1840.
  • Mikhail Bakunin: A Russian revolutionary, was a key figure in the anarchist movement of the late 19th century.
  • Emma Goldman: An American feminist, anarchist, was a prominent in the early 20th century.

Arguments for Anarchism

Supporters of anarchism emphasize:

  1. Individual Freedom and Autonomy: Anarchism values individual freedom and autonomy, arguing that centralized systems of power limit personal liberty.
  2. Equality and Cooperation: Anarchism promotes equality and cooperation among people, envisioning a society where resources are shared, and the needs of all members are met.
  3. Direct Democracy and Grassroots Participation: Anarchism is associated with a strong commitment to direct democracy and grassroots participation in decision-making.
  4. Challenging Oppressive Systems: Anarchist ideas inspired many social movements to challenge and dismantle oppressive systems and hierarchies.

Arguments Against Anarchism

Critics of anarchism raise concerns:

  1. Unrealistic or Utopian: Critics argue anarchism is unrealistic or utopian, calling for the abolition of centralized power, many believe are necessary for maintaining order and protecting people’s rights.
  2. Overemphasis on Individual Freedom: Some forms of anarchism, such as individualist anarchism, are criticized for placing emphasis on individual freedom and autonomy at the expense of community and collective action.
  3. Association with Violence: Anarchism has been associated with violence and extremism, particularly in the form of bombings and assassinations carried out by anarchist individuals or small groups.
  4. Practical Implementation: Critics argue that anarchism is too hard to put into practice, as it calls for the overhaul of existing political and economic systems, which is a steep path to walk and difficult to achieve in the “real” world.

One thing, we do need to understand is that anarchism is at the heart of meany of our #openweb norms, its advantages and disadvantages depend strongly on assumptions and material conditions in the time and place where people try and enact it. The #openweb and #Fediverse with its strong flow of “trust” and “abundances” is a fertile place for “nativist” experiments like this. Though, as critics, argue this path is not easy or without its problems.

The #OMN is mediated “native” to this https://opencollective.com/open-media-network join us if you would like to try walking this path.

Let’s look a bit deeper, anarchism challenges forms of authority and domination. The idea, rooted in classical liberalism and Enlightenment principles, is any exercise of authority or power must justify its legitimacy. This burden of proof applies universally, whether within a family, a state, or global institutions. If authority cannot demonstrate its legitimacy, it should be dismantled.

The concept of legitimate authority is central to anarchism. Those in power must justify their actions and their right to hold power. If they cannot, their authority is considered illegitimate.

  1. Personal Example: Imagine walking with a granddaughter who runs into the street. If you pull her back, that is an exercise of authority. However, this action must be justified as legitimate, perhaps by arguing that it was necessary to protect her from harm.
  2. Broader Examples: The same principle applies in broader contexts. Men in patriarchal systems must justify their authority over women. Governments must justify their authority over citizens. Corporations must justify their control over workers.

In democratic paths, legitimacy is supposed to be maintained through public debate, interaction, and struggle. If these mechanisms fail, the legitimacy is in question. In totalitarian or authoritarian systems, legitimacy is non-existent because these systems do not allow challenges to authority. People in positions of authority internalize the belief that their power is legitimate. This internalization makes it difficult for them to recognize or acknowledge the need to justify authority.

Throughout history, authority and domination have been accepted as legitimate by those who are subordinated. This acceptance flows from a combination of indoctrination, socialization, and the internalization of prevailing values.

  • Slavery: Many slave societies were stable because slaves accepted their subordination as legitimate.
  • Feudalism: In feudal societies, people accepted their roles within the hierarchy as natural and proper.
  • Modern Employment: Today, many people accept the necessity of renting their labour to survive, a concept that was once seen as wage slavery.

We need to make this obvious that people challenging the legitimacy of authority leads to social struggles, revolutions, and sometimes significant change. Anarchists take this challenge seriously and push questioning the illegitimacy of authority through active resistance and the promotion of #DIY self-governing structures. Understanding, this path and philosophy has profound implications for how we build and work in technology and shapes our current #openweb reboot.

Please keep this path #KISS

More on this https://hamishcampbell.com/understanding-anarchism/

People think in groups, this is natural

Group thinking is human nature. As social grows, people naturally think and make decisions in the context of groups. This tendency has evolutionary roots, as it historically enhanced survival and cooperation. However, much of our current thinking, although not incorrect, is influenced by the prevailing #stupidindividualism mindset that is “common sense” in our messy world. This individualist “thinking” pushes personal autonomy and self-reliance at the expense of our collective well-being.

Instead of questioning whether group thinking is inherently wrong, it is more useful to explore what we can make of this group-oriented way of thinking. Points to consider:

  1. Understanding Group Dynamics: Recognizing the tendency to think in groups allows us to better understand social dynamics, peer influence, and natural collective behaviour. This can help in addressing issues like groupthink, where in activism the desire for “formal” consensus often leads to poor decision-making.
  2. Leveraging Collective Intelligence: Group thinking is harnessed to achieve better outcomes through collective intelligence. Diverse groups, when open to outcomes, can generate innovative and useful solutions that isolated people working alone cannot.
  3. Promoting Inclusivity and Diversity: Be honest, by acknowledging the role of group thinking, we emphasize the importance of inclusivity and diversity within groups. Different perspectives and experiences enrich group discussions and lead to robust and well-rounded outcomes.
  4. Balancing Individual and Group Needs: While individualism has merits, we do need to find a balance between individual and group needs. Encouraging a sense of community and collective responsibility has better outcomes.
  5. Navigating Common Sense Myths: The #stupidindividualism mindset promotes a myth that individual success is only a result of personal effort, ignoring the social and structural factors that build social achievements. By challenging this story, we can build a more nuanced understanding of success and support systems.
  6. Cultivating Critical Thinking: Questioning the assumptions of “common sense”, especially those rooted in #stupidindividualism, promotes creative thinking. It encourages people to look beyond surface-level explanations and consider systemic issues.

In summary, group thinking is a natural human behaviour. In this, it is important not to dismiss it as wrong, but to understand its implications and potential. By recognizing the limitations of the #stupidindividualism thinking and promoting a balanced approach that values both individual creativity and collective contributions, we can create more cohesive and healthier communities. The principle of “Keep It Simple, Stupid” (#KISS) guides us to build fundamental truths and practical solutions, avoiding the unnecessary complications that arise from extreme individualism in our worship of the #deathcult

Philanthropy, praising billionaires, underscores the mess

Philanthropy creates the illusion of greatness by pushing wealthy people as saviours while ignoring the root causes of poverty and suffering. This hides the systemic injustices and diverts attention from the #KISS structural changes needed.

#Philanthropy is worshipping the #deathcult by reinforces the status quo. Philanthropy shifts blame to the poor, pushing the idea that they are responsible for their own situation. This story hides the influence that the wealthy class wield over economic systems, entrenching inequalities and fails to see the structural inequalities in the global economy, where wealth is extracted from poorer countries to richer ones.

While honest capitalists prioritize personal prosperity over morals, more “progressive” philanthropists try to believe they are “saving the world” while giving back a fraction of what they take. This lack of transparency perpetuates the illusion of altruism. We need to challenge this, despite its charitable intentions, philanthropy hides the root causes of poverty and perpetuates a cycle of dependency.

Philanthropy might sometimes offer temporary relief, but fundamentally just pushes the same inequalities, reinforcing the current worship of the #deathcult. Social change requires addressing the root problems, rather than relying on the goodwill of the wealthy few. People, get off your knees, please.

#Charity #poor #capitalism

Nuanced understanding of class, emphasizing shared interests and collective struggle

Let’s look at #class and how the use of the “middle class” mostly obscures rather than clarifys a useful understanding of society. Let’s question the “common sense” beliefs about the #middleclass and how this affects class consciousness and solidarity. The usual “common sense” understanding of the middle class as being based on wealth, education, lifestyle, and profession is a simplistic view.

  1. Marxist Perspective: A Marxist understanding of class is based on the relationship to the means of production. According to Marx, those who own capital and control the means of production (the bourgeoisie) and those who sell their labour for a wage (the proletariat) are the two classes.
  2. Class Identity and Solidarity: usefully, class identity is a tool to unite people across various backgrounds and lifestyles, based on their shared relationship to work and production. Regardless of profession or income level, if you depend on selling your labour to survive, you belong to the working class.
  3. Dangerous Precedent of Middle-Class Identity: The idea of a middle class is often divisive and serve the interests of the capitalist class by hiding the conflict between labour and capital.
  4. Managerial Class: While they may earn more or have different responsibilities, their relationship to work still places them within the working class.
  5. Class Consciousness and Struggle: Is a tool for social change and challenge. The importance of understanding class positions and engaging in class struggle for shaping a different society, better working conditions, fair wages, and collective empowerment.
  6. Unity and Solidarity: Unity among working people, regardless of superficial differences or divisions pushed by the capitalist system.

It should be obvious that we need to challenge the current use of Middle Class as representing a distinct and cohesive group separate from the broader working class. Instead, a more nuanced understanding of class that emphasizes shared interests and collective struggle is a better tool for the needed social change and challenge.

#KISS

Composting #TechShit: Planned Obsolescence

We are surrounded by piles of #techshit, why are we in such a mess. Imagine buying a new car to find out that you can’t replace the tires when they wear out. Instead, you’re forced to pay an exorbitant amount to get them fixed at an authorized repair shop. Sounds ridiculous? Well, this scenario isn’t far from reality when it comes to tech products like smartphones, printers, or household appliances. This is the world of planned obsolescence.

Cartels and Monopoly:

Planned obsolescence isn’t a random occurrence; it’s a strategy employed by tech companies to keep us perpetually consuming. It’s a story as old as #capitalism itself to maximize profits at any cost.

Why Things Break More Often?

Have you ever wondered why your new printer is dirt cheap, but the ink cartridges cost a fortune? Or why your smartphone seems to slow down just before the latest model is released? It’s all part of a scheme to make you buy more frequently. Planned obsolescence ensures that products break down faster, become obsolete quicker, and push us into a cycle of constant consumption.

Strategies for Reducing Product Lifespan:

Repair locking, software limitations, and compromised durability are a few tactics used to ensure that our gadgets don’t last as long as they should. Ever noticed those tricky screws in your smartphone that prevent easy repairs? Or the sudden software updates that render your device sluggish? It’s all part of this plan.

Environmental Impact and Political Consequences:

The consequences of planned obsolescence are deeper than personal consumer frustration. It leads to overproduction, waste, and environmental degradation. The mountains of e-waste generated by discarded gadgets are a testament to the unsustainable nature of our consumption habits. Moreover, planned obsolescence fuels imperialist domination and conflicts in resource-rich regions.

Perceived Obsolescence:

It’s not just about making things break; it’s also about making perfectly usable items seem outdated. Fashion industries thrive on perceived obsolescence, constantly churning out new trends to keep people buying. It’s a never-ending cycle of consumption driven by manufactured insecurities.

What’s the Solution?

Reformism simply won’t cut it. Repairing items yourself or pushing for right-to-repair legislation helps, but won’t touch the systemic issue. Fundamental social change, socialism offers a real alternative where production is based on need, not profit.

Do you have a shovel?

In conclusion, we need to compost #TechShit by challenging planned obsolescence and pushing hard for a system that prioritizes sustainability, environmental and social over profit. I talk a lot on this blog, https://hamishcampbell.com

#KISS

Liberalism – is not for you

The Myth of the Middle Class:
The so-called “middle class” is a constructed concept that never truly existed. If you work for a boss and earn wages or a salary, you are a worker, a member of the working class, and should take pride in that identity. The term “middle class” was created to isolate more privileged workers, serving the interests of the powerful by dividing the working population. This division prevents unity among workers and keeps them from collectively challenging the institutions and power structures that maintain their oppression.

A critique of #liberalism from a #Marxist perspective.

1. Marxist Analysis of History

  • Class-Based Analysis: Marxists analyse history based on class struggles and material conditions, rather than simple “common sense” ideas or metaphysical concepts.
  • Material Conditions: Ideas, including those of influential thinkers like Marx, are shaped by the material conditions of their time.

2. Historical Context of Liberalism

  • Western European Phenomenon: Liberalism developed primarily in Western Europe within a feudal background.
  • Urban Centres and the Rise of the Bourgeoisie: Economic and technological developments in urban centres led to the rise of the bourgeoisie (burghers), who eventually clashed with feudal landlords.
  • Guilds and Standardization: The formation of guilds standardized production methods, leading to increased productive capacity and economic power for the bourgeoisie.
  • Class Struggle and Political Power: The #bourgeoisie eventually overthrew the #feudal order, leading to bourgeois democratic revolutions in Europe during the 18th and 19th centuries.

3. Ideological Tenets of Liberalism

  • Individual Liberty: Claimed to support individual freedom, but in practice, this freedom can be suspended at will.
  • Anti-Concentration of Power: Advocates for a plurality of power to prevent tyranny, but often consolidates power when necessary to protect capitalist interests.
  • Constitutionalism: Constitutions serve to protect capitalist relations and private property, often disregarded when inconvenient for the ruling class.
  • Pro Minority Rights: Initially meant the rights of property owners (bourgeoisie), not class, racial or ethnic minorities.
  • Sanctification of Private Property: Private property is central to capitalism and liberalism, and its protection is paramount for maintaining bourgeois power.
  • Capitalism: Liberalism supports capitalist economic structures, often contradicting its own ideals of freedom and equality to do this.

4. Critique of Liberalism

  • Contradictory Philosophy: Liberalism claims to champion individual liberty and anti-tyranny, but primarily serves the interests of the bourgeoisie.
  • Superficial Plurality: The appearance of multiple parties and democratic plurality is a façade, with fundamental capitalist interests remaining unchanged.
  • Constitutional Limitations: Constitutions are tools to maintain capitalist order, with true reforms (like abolishing private property) being impossible within liberal frameworks.
  • Selective Minority Rights: The protection of minority rights under liberalism prioritizes property owners.
  • Economic Supremacy: Liberalism’s main function is to protect the economic supremacy of the capitalist class, and it can easily and quickly transition to #fascism when capital feels threatened.

Conclusion

Liberalism, according to a Marxist, is a tool for maintaining bourgeois power and protecting capitalist interests. It presents itself as a philosophy of freedom and equality, but is contradictory in implementation to serving the ruling capitalist class.

#KISS our “common sense” is a problem on this path.

Why Mainstreaming Politics is Crap

Common sense fake news and #mainstreaming propaganda fuel division, confusion, and ultimately empower reactionary forces. The rise of fascism isn’t some random phenomenon—it’s a direct result of the failures of mainstream politics. Corrupt elitists, indifferent politicians, and sell-out parties have abandoned the people, creating a vacuum that far-right forces are all too eager to fill.

Yet, many still cling to the idea that these same broken institutions will somehow save us. That’s the oxymoron. The system that created the problem won’t be the one to fix it. We need to step outside this collapsing framework, build grassroots alternatives, and reclaim power through collective action.

Fact-checking isn’t just about filtering fake news—it’s about questioning the entire narrative we’re being fed. Be just as critical of stories that confirm your beliefs as those that challenge them. Only then can we break the cycle of disinformation and truly resist the rising tide of authoritarianism.

Today’s left-wing politics, represented by figures like Biden, Stammer and Macron, has devolved into a form of centrism that tries to balance market interests with bureaucratic oversight. This blend results in policies that are neither here nor there, failing to inspire or facilitate any genuine change or challenge. The only real appeal of this kind of politics is that it’s “better than the alternative,” often perceived as extreme right-wing or fascist ideologies.

This centrist approach, sometimes referred to as the “extreme centre” is fundamentally immoderate. Moderates, or centrist politicians, lack positive arguments and real vision. They focus on pragmatism and compromise, reducing politics to a series of performative acts rather than any democratic outcomes. This lack of compelling vision makes centrism unappealing and devoid of substantive change.

Figures like Obama and Tony Blear were “successful” because they projected an image of visionary leadership, though, in reality, their vision was about maintaining the status quo through pragmatism and compromise. This kind of leadership is a performance of having a vision rather than the actual implementation of transformative ideas we need.

There is a symbiotic relationship between centrist politicians and right-wing populists. Right-wing leaders like Trump, Farage and Johnson adopt a persona of being a “yokel” or an “idiot,” which elicits scorn from the educated classe. This dynamic appeals to those who resent the cultural #mainstreaming, creating an “us vs. them” mentality. Voters feeling marginalized by the #mainstreaming mess and disdain find solace in supporting these populist figures as a #blinded form of “rebellion”.

Right-wing populists perform a caricature of fascism or idiocy to appeal to their base, while centrist politicians push a veneer of moral superiority. This dynamic creates a dichotomy, where voters feel compelled to choose between two unappealing options. Both sides thrive on this manufactured conflict, ensuring their ongoing mutual dominance in the political paths.

The media plays a significant role in this flawed system. The upcoming UK election demonstrates that mainstream media is not a reliable ally for the public. There is a pressing need for alternative media that amplifies diverse voices and present genuine political options outside the false dichotomy of centrism and right-wing populism.

Mainstream politics today, dominated by a centrist approach, lacking vision and substance, is inherently flawed. The symbiotic relationship between centrist politicians and right-wing populists creates a political landscape that stifles progress and any needed change and challenge. To compost this mess, it is crucial to foster alternative media like the #OMN alongside social and political movements that offer real, transformative paths and solutions.

https://opencollective.com/open-media-network

#KISS

The Urgent Need for Climate Action

The mess we build when public’s attention is being deliberately diverted by those in power. They want us to focus on national borders and other divisive issues, preventing us from addressing the real crisis #climatechange. This distraction tactic is designed to benefit the #nastyfew who continue to profit from the destruction of our planet.

As we approach, another election, the insidious #deathcult ideologies offered by the main political parties have gutted life for the majority, while vile conmen exploit our ignorance and anger, distracting us with racism and hate. To hide the underlying economic warfare waged against us by predatory capitalism.

We are at the most perilous point in human history. Future generations, if they survive the coming decades, will look back and think us insane for not having climate scientists and progressive agenda leading our countries. Instead, we allow fossil fuel agendas to dictate our policies.

Figures like Farage are human smoke bombs, generating clouds of xenophobia and culture wars to hide the economic exploitation pushed by the capital that funds their campaigns. Farage’s vision of a future is filled with labour shortages, crumbling public services, and deepened social divisions.

The fight against climate change is fraught with challenges, from powerful economic interests to political distractions. However, the voices of activists, scientists, and concerned people highlight the urgent need for action.

By pushing #KISS core issues and building grassroots #DIY alternatives as seeds to prioritize the planet, we can try to mitigate/weather the worst impacts of this growing global crisis.

https://opencollective.com/open-media-network

A European Future

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

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

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

The European Union: A “spiky” view

#NGI #NLNET

The Supremacy of Capital: A Fundamental Challenge in the Era of #ClimateChaos

In today’s world, the supremacy of capital stands as a pillar holding up our societies and institutions. This assertion, though seemingly simple, carries implications for our understanding of power dynamics, economic structures, and the urgent need for change in the face of #climatecrisis. This encapsulates a recognition that economic interests, particularly those of capitalists and corporations, wield immense influence over all aspects of human life.

Firstly, let us look into the idea of the supremacy of capital. At its core, this term speaks to the authority held by an ideological “class” holding money and wealth in our globalized society. It reflects economic imperatives that take precedence over social, environmental, and ethical considerations. In this paradigm, profit maximization becomes the objective, driving decision-making at individual, corporate, and governmental levels. As a result, we witness the consolidation of power and wealth in the hands of a few, while vast segments of society are left marginalized and disenfranchised.

The influence of capital extends beyond economic realms, permeating into the fabric of our social and cultural bodies, we can feel this in liberal ideology. Which is traditionally associated with notions of individual freedom, free markets, and limited government intervention, but with #neoliberalism becoming entwined with the supremacy of capital, every context, liberal economic policies prioritize the interests of corporations and the wealthy, reinforcing existing power structures.

The supremacy of capital is not a neutral or uncontested phenomenon. Instead, it is underpinned by a religiose adherence to certain beliefs and ideologies that serve to uphold the status quo. This religiosity manifests in a dogmatic acceptance of capitalist principles, often to the detriment of alternative worldviews and dissenting voices. It fosters a culture of unquestioning obedience to market forces and economic growth, even in the face of mounting evidence of their adverse impacts on society and the environment.

The urgency of addressing the supremacy of capital is underscored by the existential threat of #climatechange. The hashtag #Climatechaos serves as a poignant reminder of the chaotic and disruptive effects of global warming on our planet. From extreme weather events to biodiversity loss and rising sea levels, the consequences of climate change are already being felt across the globe. Yet, capital continues to impede meaningful action on this front, as short-term profit motives take precedence over long-term sustainability and resilience.

In light of these challenges, the principle of #KISS – Keep It Simple, Stupid – offers a clarion call for action. It urges us to confront the fundamental issue at hand: the dominance of capital in our societies. While the solution to this complex problem may not be simple or straightforward, acknowledging its existence is the crucial first step towards effecting change. We must challenge the religiose reverence for capital and advocate for alternative economic models that prioritize people and the planet over profit.

In conclusion, the supremacy of capital stands as a challenge in the era of #climatechaos. By understanding and addressing this, we can pave the way for a more sustainable future. It is past time to break free from the shackles of capitalist ideology and forge a path towards a world where the well-being of humanity and the environment takes precedence over corporate interests #KISS

Reminder about the hashtag family

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

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

And on the positive side:

  1. #openweb: This hashtag celebrates the principles of openness, decentralization, and inclusivity on the internet. It’s often used in discussions about the importance of preserving and promoting a “native” open and accessible web for everyone. This is #web01
  2. #4opens: This hashtag is used to promote transparency, collaboration, and community-driven development in software and technology projects. It should be used to JUDGE projects.

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

#KISS