The important tension in the current state of social change efforts: individualism vs. collectivism, vertical vs. horizontal structures, and the challenges of maintaining fragile consensus. These dynamics have direct implications for how we approach systemic problems like #climatechaos and the creation of alternatives through projects like the #OMN.
On this subject, it’s important to understand why #stupidIndividualism is dangerous, which can be seen in the failure of individual solutions. Relying on individual action (e.g., recycling, personal carbon offsets) shifts focus from the systemic nature of crises. The climate emergency, for example, is primarily driven by industrial-scale emissions and unsustainable policies—not individual behaviour. This emphasis on individualism undermines collective action, which is the only scale at which meaningful change and challenge can occur.
Blind spots in vertical thinking, hierarchical (“vertical”) structures dismiss and fail to understand the dynamics of decentralized (“horizontal”) systems. Vertical systems are focused on control and clarity, at the expense of collaboration and diversity, which horizontal structures thrive on.
The dangers of certainty, consensus vs. certainty, pushing for “certainty”, rigid clarity often destroys consensus. Consensus, while fragile and imperfect, is the foundation of all functioning societies. It is built on compromise, flexibility, and mutual understanding. The insistence that “my view is right” fractures the trust necessary for cooperative systems to thrive.
Why this is destructive, the breakdown of consensus leads to polarization and inaction, both of which are catastrophic in the face of crises like #climatechange. Certainty-driven narratives ignore the complexity and nuance required to address interconnected, systemic issues.
Ideas for moving forward, focus on processes, rather than direct outcomes:
Build systems (like the #OMN) that prioritize open, participatory processes over prescriptive solutions. The #4opens—open process, open data, open licences, and open standards—offer a starting point for structuring this.
Encourage horizontal thinking, foster decentralized systems where power and decision-making are distributed. This creates resilience and allows diverse voices to contribute meaningfully.
Embrace ambiguity and iteration, instead of pushing for rigid clarity, accept that solutions evolve through experimentation and iteration. Social change is a dynamic process, not a static goal.
Reframe certainty as trust, replace the need for certainty with a culture of trust-based collaboration. Trust allows for flexibility and creativity within systems, enabling them to adapt and respond to changing circumstances.
Use crises as opportunities for solidarity, crises often push societies toward authoritarian responses. Instead, frame crises as opportunities to build solidarity, emphasizing shared struggles and collective goals.
This is why ideas matter, the urgency of the #climatecrisis, paired with the inertia of entrenched systems, makes it tempting to lean on familiar, hierarchical solutions. However, transformation comes from collective, decentralized efforts that prioritize flexibility, trust, and inclusion over individualism and rigid control. Projects like #OMN and frameworks like the #4opens are tools for navigating these challenges while staying grounded in the #KISS principles of solidarity and mutual aid.
The Seven Stages of climate denial:
1. It’s not real 2. It’s not us 3. It’s not that bad 4. We have time 5. It’s too expensive to fix 6. Here’s a fake solution 7. It’s too late: you should have warned us earlier
Trolls use all of these stages to deny the reality of #climatechaos
“The problem with most fashernistas is that they are completely untrustworthy. Yet, people trust them because they push #mainstreaming “common sense” this is the definition of evil, what to do? Ideas please?”
The problem with most #fashernistas lies in their prioritizing of style, superficial appeal, and “common sense” #mainstreaming over substance and integrity. Their actions are too often driven by appearances and short-term gains, rather than the principled foundations necessary for long-term trust and genuine change and challenge that we need. This creates a facade of credibility, enabling them to gain influence while undermining collective efforts. How to compost this mess:
Expose the tension between trust and Influence by highlight the contradictions. Make clear how focus on mainstreaming compromises values, transparency and inclusivity. Use storytelling and case studies to show how #fashernistas to often derail projects.
Embed trust in processes over personality, that is, build systems where influence is based on contributions and adherence to principles rather than charisma or status. Use the #4opens to ensure actions align with open processes, open data, open standards, and open licenses. These principles can create accountability that individuals find hard to circumvent.
Empower alternatives, by actively amplify contributors who are trustworthy, even if their approach lacks the flashiness of fashernistas. Build in feedback loops to create mechanisms for communities to critique and shape direction collectively, minimizing the impact of any one individual’s agenda.
Combat the “Common Sense” mythos. Point out where “common sense” solutions fail to address deeper issues, emphasizing the need for critical thinking and alternative paths. Encourage discourse to grow, environments where questioning and dissent are valued rather than sidelined.
Strengthen the focus on horizontal structures to minimize opportunities for top-down influence. One path to this is transparent moderation to ensure that editorial and moderation processes are open to scrutiny, preventing backdoor manipulation.
A balanced approach is needed. The issue with #fashernistas isn’t just their untrustworthiness—it’s that their appeal distracts from meaningful work. Addressing this requires paths, systems and cultures that embed core values into projects like the #OMN or #Fediverse, you reduce reliance on individuals and focus on collective empowerment. Its #KISS
We need to reboot “news” on the #openweb to tackle the challenges of our collective #stupidindividualism and the #techshit it pushes in the #Fediverse, this is about focusing on balance, collaboration, and meaningful process. Let’s look at one path away from this “common senses” mess making, an example is the roadmap for #indymediaback and what do we mean by a #newswire. Looking at the current use of #AP on the #Fediverse with this in mind:
Repeats: Strengthen syndication between instances for better information flow.
Replies: Integrate as comments on newswire posts and features to foster engagement.
Likes/Stars: Define their roles to signal endorsements or importance, avoiding redundant or unclear actions.
DMs: Focus these on moderation or editorial inquiries to streamline communication.
Enforcing a balance between creativity and structure, we use editorial collectives to curate content based on established journalistic standards (e.g., the 5Ws of news reporting). Then applying consistent moderation to maintain the newswire as a valuable resource for grassroots reporting, minimizing off-topic or non-news contributions.
Building a robust newswire needs clear editorial guidelines, beginning with strict adherence to “newsworthiness,” rejecting non-news posts (up to 98% initially flow likely) to establish quality standards. Over time, this threshold can relax with user education and feedback. Focus on first-hand reports that embody the 5Ws of journalism (Who, What, Where, When, Why).
The feature process, highlights the synthesize of the best grassroots reports into cohesive narratives, combining text, images, audio, and video for impactful storytelling. Develop the features through editorial consensus, is about growing diversity of perspectives and adherence to the #4opens.
Federation via #activitypub to share content across the organic spreading network, building interconnectivity without duplicating efforts. Allow comments and replies to appear across instances, growing dialogue while maintaining strong editorial oversight.
Dealing with the “Nutter” problem by focus on process, not outcomes. Push the project forward with clear processes built on shared principles, understanding that life and society evolve over time. Avoid getting bogged down by demands for “perfect” solutions – basic, functional systems are a strong start. Reduce misinformation and #FUD by establish user education paths to combat misinformation and clarify project goals. Use editorial tools to label, moderate, and remove false content.
The #OMN vision strong defaults to #KISS hardcoded values and embedding the #4opens at every level of the project to resist the push for dilution of #mainstreaming pushing. Maintaining a grassroots, horizontal path to development to ensure inclusivity and resilience, this needs a cultural shift, addressing the reliance on #fashernistas and those who push “common sense” a part of this is emphasizing long-term, principled growth over short-term popularity. This path keeps the focus on trust, process, and grassroots collaboration, building a stronger, more resilient #Fediverse and revitalizing #indymediaback for meaningful, community-driven media production.
For more information, resources, the OMN wiki is a good place to start. You can fund the projects here
The #nothingnew hashtag offers a straightforward and bold #KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid) approach to rejecting the prevailing ideologies of the past 40 years: #neoliberalism and #postmodernism. These ideologies have shaped the current “common sense” to push individualism, relativism, and market-driven solutions, at the expense of collective action and systemic change we so urgently need.
Neoliberalism is an ideology that emphasizes free markets, deregulation, and privatization, by eroding social safety nets and collective power. It normalizes austerity, wage suppression, and the commodification of public goods, making systemic exploitation appear inevitable and unchangeable. This is the mess we have made over the last 40 years.
Postmodernism, is rooted in scepticism and relativism, which undermines the belief in truths and collective narratives. While it does critique power structures, it leaves people without a path forward, reinforcing apathy and fragmentation which our economic system has spread.
Together, these ideologies create a world-view where large-scale social change is dismissed as impossible, reinforcing a status quo that benefits the few. We are past the time when we need to reboot social change back to a more action orientated modernism path. This is how #nothingnew sets the stage for this #somethingnew.
The #nothingnew framework advocates revisiting modernism, which championed progress, reason, and collective solutions to social challenges. Modernism’s optimism and belief in systemic change are powerful antidotes to the paralysing scepticism of postmodernism. By rejecting the last 40 years’ intellectual and economic inertia, #nothingnew seeks to create a foundation for practical, action-oriented social movements we need to mediate the building crises.
Building #somethingnew, is about recentring collective action with a shift of focus from isolated individual efforts to collaborative, community-driven paths. This path needs simplicity and accessibility by keeping frameworks clear, actionable, and rooted in shared goals, avoiding over-complication. to make this happen we need to build trust in progress, by advocate for meaningful growth—improvements in living conditions, equality, and sustainability that serve humanity rather than the profits of the few.
The #nothingnew project isn’t about nostalgia—it’s about learning from the past to chart a clear, modernist-inspired course for a future that values fairness, collaboration, and systemic change over stagnation and skepticism. It lays the groundwork for a transformative shift to #somethingnew and is an important part of the #hashtag story and #OMN
The #geekproblem highlights a recurring issue within tech-driven movements, the overemphasis on control and complexity at the expense of accessibility, community, and collective goals. This “problem” arises from the intersection of tendencies toward hierarchy, a blind reverence for technology as inherently powerful (#deathcult worship), and the unchecked growth of technical complexity over the last few decades. This diverges from the principles of #KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid).
Control as an Obsession is the invisible insecurity that blinds this path. The desire for control has deep roots, where order, precision, and predictability are prioritized above all else. In tech communities, this translates into over-engineering, with complex solutions that are difficult for non-technical people to engage with. Leading to exclusion and often to gatekeeping through jargon, obscure processes, and rigid technical hierarchies. This is tech #Fetishism, and leads to a belief in technology’s ability to solve any problem, with almost no understanding of the side lining social or political paths this come with.
This fixation, and resulting intolerance, leads to systems that might be technically impressive but fail to serve any broader community, producing another wave of #techshit that then needs work to compost In this path, the #deathcult represents the blind worship of systems and ideologies that lead to direct harm to us.
The #KISS principal advocates for simplicity and accessibility, ensuring systems are intuitive and usable by the wider community groups that need them. The #geekproblem runs counter to this, by alienating the very communities tech projects are meant to serve and widening the gap between technical experts and everyday people, perpetuating inequality in access and understanding.
Taking the “problem” out of geek, we must rebalance priorities by shifting dev focus on people over technology. Build systems and networks that empower and include rather than control and exclude. Embrace simplicity, with #4opens, prioritizing usability, transparency, and community feedback to make tools accessible. Actively challenge tech fetishism by pushing of technology as a tool, not an end in itself.
Solutions must address social and political dimensions by decentralize, this can be hard as all the code is in the end is about centralize authority in the hands of a few technical “elites”. But, the #geekproblem is not insurmountable, solving it simply requires a shift in mindset. By rejecting control-driven hierarchies and embracing collaborative simplicity, we build systems and networks that serve the people they’re meant to empower.
The mainstream economic system, which underpins the current global mess, is facing a deep and escalating crisis. This isn’t just about isolated single issues, it’s rooted in fundamental contradictions within the path we are currently on. Understanding these dynamics helps us see why our lives are shaped by austerity, inequality and endless war, leading to the current ecological break down.
The core of the crisis is economics, capitalism is grappling with a crisis of profitability and overproduction, the extract of maximum profit has built-in limits. As industries mature, squeezing out new profits becomes harder, stagnation sets in, driving drastic measures. In overproduction, capitalism produces far more than can be profitably sold, not because people don’t need these goods, but because they can’t afford them. These contradictions are now global, leaving nowhere for capital to expand without significant upheaval. To address this, the burden is systematically offloaded onto the working class, that’s us. The austerity path they talk about and impose is making us pay for their crisis.
One way the system tries to “fix” its profitability problem is through austerity. Cutting wages, both direct wages (our pay) and indirect wages (social spending on healthcare, education, infrastructure) are slashed to divert funds into profits. This erodes social support, when the infrastructure and public goods are gutted under the guise of “fiscal responsibility.” For the capitalist class, the greedy few, every penny spent on social upkeep is a penny not turned into profit. By shifting these costs onto the working class, they temporarily prop up their system while deepening the inequality we live in.
War, restoring profit through violence, when austerity isn’t enough, capitalism turns to war. Armed conflicts serve as a means to seize resources. Wars open up new sources of raw materials and markets, essential for restarting stagnating economies, create demand when military spending boosts industry and generates profits in the short term, regardless of human cost. War isn’t about peace or democracy—it’s about economic expansion at the expense of others. The casualties are collateral damage to the pursuit of profits.
Growth doesn’t serve us, the obsession with “growth” hides that under the current mess, capitalism, growth benefits the few, not the many. While corporations grow profits, ordinary people see stagnant wages, rising costs, and dwindling quality of life. Degrowth are often dysfunctional myths, anti-growth rhetoric can target the working class, accusing them of overconsumption. In reality, the poorest consume far less than they need, while the wealthy hoard resources, this liberal thinking sometimes is not helping. What we need isn’t anti-growth, but a reorientation of “growth”, investing in the means of subsistence for all, improving quality of life, and addressing urgent global needs by pushing hard to mediate the environmental catastrophe to focus on sustainably.
Dividing us to conquer us, to maintain control, the system relies on division, racism and nationalism. These ideologies pit workers against each other, distracting from the cause of shared struggles. Exploiting despair, with decades of deindustrialization and neglect levering entire communities in despair, creating fertile ground for reactionary politics that feed on this. By keeping us fragmented and focused on fighting among ourselves, the current #mainstreaming path ensures we don’t unite to challenge this mess.
What we need is more solidarity and system change that highlights how the contradictions are unsustainable. While the current path enriches a tiny few, it leaves billions struggling for survival and our ecology pushed out of a liveable balance, this is while producing enough resources to meet everyone’s needs. The solution isn’t austerity or war—it’s collective action to build paths that prioritize humanity over profit #KISS
To achieve this, we need to mediate the (stupid)individualistic narratives that blame “us” for systemic failures and instead embrace solidarity, demanding change and challenge. We need to focus on blaming “them”, yes, it’s daunting, and a little dangerous, but history has shown that when people organize, they can dismantle even the most entrenched systems. Let’s make that history again, please.
In part, the current challenges faced by the #openweb and grassroots reboot movements can be traced back to two cultural and structural problems: the influence of #fashernistas and the deeply ingrained #geekproblem. Both of these contribute to active blocking of meaningful change, hindering the progress needed for an openweb reboot. To walk this “native” landscape effectively, it’s needed to understand these barriers and how they block change and challenge.
The fashernistas and their echo chambers, the term refers to a subset of people who are highly engaged in performative discussions, centred on trending topics and social posturing without substantive engagement in grassroots real world problem-solving. While they are adept at identifying and amplifying transient issues, their conversations stay within insular bubbles. This creates a cycle where attention and focus are pulled toward repetitive discourse that never leads to any outcomes.
This taking up space with little and most often no follow-through is detrimental. Fashernistas thrive in spaces where the appearance of awareness is valued over the hard, real, messy action that is needed. In this #manstraming bubble, dialogue is focused on social capital—who knows what, who said what—rather than collaborative problem-solving. The result? The conversation around the openweb becomes cluttered, attention splinters, and meaningful action is overshadowed by a constant churn of noise.
The role of #fahernistas in blocking change is their ability to dominate platforms and narratives. This domination becomes active blocking when their presence leaves little room for discussions rooted in genuine collaboration and open progress. They inadvertently (or sometimes deliberately) creates environments where the needed ideas and radical challenges to the status quo struggle to gain traction, let along attention. If the openweb is to flourish, this culture of self-referential chatter needs to be mediated.
The #geekproblem is a different barrier, which is the cultural divide within tech communities that leans heavily toward deterministic, technical solutions at the expense of accessible, inclusive approaches. The geekproblem manifests when developers and technologists become gatekeepers, framing issues in ways that reinforce their control, preserving existing narrow structures rather than opening them up for collective problem-solving.
For example, in the #openweb and #fediverse projects, the drive for good #UX runs parallel to an implicit exclusivity of bad UX dressed in “privacy”, “security”, “safety” etc. Technical jargon, complex onboarding processes, and a lack of user-friendly interfaces are a barrier to entry and community building. This exclusivity prevents the broader range of participants from engaging meaningfully, turning potentially revolutionary spaces into “specialized” silos, that reinforce this very #blindness.
#fashernistas and #geekproblem interact and often work in unintentional tandem. While the former distracts and fractures attention with endless (pointless, narrow and repeating) discourse, the latter locks down practical pathways for change through gatekeeping and technological insularity. The result is a failing “native” path, where critical mass, and the needed community, fails to grow—one part is too busy talking, and the other is too busy coding in isolation. The broader culture of the #openweb suffers as a consequence, making the needed change far more difficult to achieve than it needs to be.
The solution lies in finding a balance that mediates between the superficiality of fashernistas and the closed nature of the geekproblem. This involves, promoting diverse voices, so that the #openweb aren’t monopolized by any tiny group. Building bridges between projects and communities, to facilitate communication between technical experts and those involved in creating actionable steps that align with #4opens paths we need to take. Developing a culture that values tangible outcomes and collaborative input over performative dialogue and gatekeeping. Amplifying onboarding, by making entry points into #opentech accessible, so people outside traditional tech ghettoes can contribute meaningfully.
The path we need for the openweb, is more than only technological solutions; it needs a culture shift. Both fashernistas and those contributing to the geekproblem need to recognize their roles and adjust their approaches, for the #openweb to thrive. The has been to meany years of pratish behaver in the paths we need, it’s pastime for #KISS focus. The current moment presents a fresh opportunity for change. With the fediverse and platforms like mastodon growing exponentially, there is a path to free the native spirit of the internet as a collaborative, #openspace with trust, transparency, and action as core motivators. Let’s try and make this work, and not squandered it by letting the voices of the few block the work we need to do.
The blame, attack, and ban culture we’re seeing is not native to the #openweb. The principles that uphold the open web are built on the #4opens: open data, open source, open standards, and open process. These values encourage linking, transparency, and trust, qualities that are essential for constructive dialogue and a positive community atmosphere. Blocking is a last resort, not a first step.
An example of why this matters: In recent months, reports have surfaced that developers associated with #bluesky, including those contributing to projects like #bridgy, have faced harassment. This behaviour runs contrary to the core path we need to take, #FOSS developers are humans too, with lives and responsibilities beyond their code, with #FOSS they provide their time to building #4opens free and open-source projects that benefit everyone. This kind of personal infighting can be not only unproductive but harmful. Yes, talk, argue about ideas and categories, but the focusing on individuals is often adding more mess to be composted.
A way out of this kinda mess is #netiquette, diversity, we need to foster spaces where diversity of thought and technology can coexist without wholesale blocking each other. A way to do this is for us to have conversations within our communities about netiquette and the standards we want to uphold. Yes, this is a challenging discussion, and it won’t be easy to reach a consensus. But even if the outcome is embracing our differences, that’s not a bad thing.
For more on my thinking on one of the strong roots of this mess subject
Version 1.0.0
A part of this might be that it’s interesting to see that the right-wing are picking up the real problems and mess on the left and then using it to forward their own ideological agenda.
NOTE the things they are critical of are often real issues with the left, so we too likely need to address these ourselves, but to do this we should ignore the right agenda that comes with these right criticisms as this will be built of the normal right-wing lies and misinforming that their ideology paths are full of.
The current #mainstreaming paths are dependent on capitalist structures, when looking at this critically, it reveals itself as a #deathcult, with the embodiment of unrestrained growth and consumption that runs counter to meaningful solution to #climatechange. While billionaires and corporatens entertain the illusion of future-proofing their wealth and safety, the reality is more perilous. Their greed fed opulence and influence, but it can’t shield them indefinitely from a collapsing ecosystem that sustains all life, including their own.
Inherent to this contradiction in capitalism itself: it requires perpetual growth to survive. This expansion is incompatible with the measures needed to mediate or stop #climatechaos. But if growth halts, so does the economic machinery that upholds the current power structures, creating a destabilizing domino effect. While you might ask why those in power do not pivot to environmental preservation, it’s the same mess, the answer is the system’s relentless demand for expansion. Even if an individual capitalist – or a consortium – decides to scale back for the sake of long-term planetary health, the market will simply replace them with competitors who are more willing to pursue relentless profit, growth, and resource consumption.
The current path has a self-destructive logic, this paradox is why even billionaires who are conscious of the dire climate situation resort to insufficient and infective measures. They might fund green technologies and push for marginally lower carbon emissions, but the actions remain constrained by the underlying logic: protecting the continuity of capital. This capital-only world-view can’t embrace the radical systemic change we actually need to avert ecological collapse.
Let’s look at this, billionaires and the bunker illusion, the ultra-wealthy/greedy #fuckwits, plan to retreat to their fortified bunkers and private, insulated zones once climate-induced social and environmental chaos grows un medateable. While contingency plans do exist – high-tech shelters, land acquisitions in regions predicted to be less affected by climate change -these are temporary solutions. A world unravelling from the fabric, ecosystems will not sustain even the most fortified enclaves indefinitely. Even if technology advances to the point of enabling space colonization, the timelines required for such ventures far exceed the immediacy of the crisis we keep #blindly pushing.
This is an easy to understand systematic issue, and it should be obverse we need a collective rater tan the mask of individual solution. Capital, the motivation and power for action, is not about individual capitalists but capital as an entity, the dogmatic socio-economic phenomenon that exerts control over its arbiters. Capital has built in infinite growth, prioritizing profit over sustainability and long-term human survival. An individual or collective attempt to defy this logic and implement meaningful, planet-preserving strategies would be outpaced and outcompeted by others who align more closely with capital’s pushing of this #stupidindividualism, ruthless, greed is good.
This #KISS understanding underscores the distinction between idealist and materialist interpretations of the crisis. Idealists believe that with enough awareness and willpower, the system can change from within. Materialists, recognize that capital is a structure that acts beyond the control of individual or organization. It functions like biological evolution: it values reproduction and expansion above survival, when as we see now those traits are in the end destructive.
There is some room for corrective action within the existing system, but it’s inadequate. Policies to mitigate environmental impact, even when enacted, are slow and piecemeal. The issue isn’t that #mainstreaming decision-makers don’t understand the problem; rather, they don’t grasp the depth of systemic overhaul required to address it. The principles they consider immutable -the rules of modern economics and finance. The “common sense” is the problem.
The #deathcult of mainstreaming is propelling growth and consumption despite ecological warnings, it is locked in a dance with CAPITALS logic. While billionaires may fund clean energy startups and talk about sustainable practices, their wealth and the power structures uphold and are bound up in the unsustainable status quo. Change and challenge requires uprooting fundamental beliefs about how economies MUST operate, not just superficial adaptations. Until this realization is shared and spread, capital will continue on its path, indifferent to the ruins it leaves.
Best not to be a prat about this, thanks.
Why capitalism and climate change solutions are fundamentally incompatible. The urgent need to address climate change collides with an uncomfortable reality, as we outline capitalism’s foundational mechanics to make meaningful climate action impossible. This isn’t a case of individual negligence but a systemic flaw. As we say, capitalism, by design, prioritizes profit and growth, at the expense of long-term, collective concerns and environmental preservation.
Capitalism favours the #nastyfew who maximize profits in the shortest timeframe. It’s a path where the most ruthless and nasty competitor prevails, setting the standard that others must follow or face obsolescence. This constant pressure means that if an individual capitalist or company recognizes the existential threat of #climatechaos, they cannot afford to act on it meaningfully without losing their competitive edge. For example, a corporation that decides to limit emissions at the cost of profitability will quickly be outcompeted by one that does not.
The logic of capitalism ensures that any significant deviation from maximizing short-term profit results in failure within the market. Thus, while some companies engage in “green” initiatives to pay lip service to sustainability, these efforts are superficial. They exist to placate public concern and leverage marketing advantages, rather than drive the needed change. The myths are that capitalism, through innovation and competition, will solve climate change. However, capitalist solutions boil down to maintaining leverage and coercing others into action. For example, the race for green technologies like electric cars and renewable energy can be more about dominating a new market sector than reducing environmental harm. Elon Musk’s ventures into space and sustainable technology, was hailed as forward-thinking, illustrate this principle. Space colonization and technological fixes reflect an expansionist mindset, a search for new “territories” to exploit as resources on Earth dwindle.
Capitalism’s path needs to push costs onto external parties, the public and the environment. The system relies on government-funded infrastructure and socialized costs, as seen with subsidies for oil companies, highway construction for the automotive industry, or public bailouts for corporations in crisis. When it comes to addressing #climatechange, this reliance on externalized costs becomes a liability. The climate crisis is a global “cost” that capitalism, left unchecked, will not address willingly. It requires collective action that contradicts capitalism’s individualistic and profit-driven paths. This is why capitalist markets require regulation by state or more importantly collective paths to function at all or sustainably, and even then, such measures face fierce resistance.
We now live in the automation age, the question is how the #nastyfew plans to survive. Whether billionaires believe they can weather the storm of #climatecollapse is complex. Many of them, seeing the unsustainability of infinite growth, look for exit strategies. This explains the investments in space travel, underground bunkers, and gated communities. The implication is stark: they believe their wealth will shield them from the mass suffering climatechange will bring. Automation adds another layer to this story. With machines replacing human labour, the exploiters envision a future where their economic power persists without the masses of real people, that’s you and me. This very dystopian reality shows the detachment of capital from human and ecological concerns.
We currently face a failure of collective action to mediate, one of capitalism’s flaws ts inability to coordinate collective action without state intervention. While some countries have managed to decouple emissions from #GDP growth through, exportin emissions, advancements in service sectors and digital economies, this decoupling remains insufficient to meet the global targets needed for net-zero. The system’s piecemeal and reactive, cannot match the scale of planning required for real climate action. Without a fundamental restructuring that prioritizes the collective good over private profit, meaningful progress remains an illusion.
We need to try and make the inrushing #mainstreaming agenda more functional in the #openweb reboot, how do we do this? One way is to strengthen community governance with native decentralized decision-making frameworks that involve more voices from the grassroots, like the #OGB project. This is self empowering, as tools based on federated models (like those used in the #Fediverse) empower people to participation in decision-making processes rather than normal top-down dictates.
But this is going to be very hard without developing a supportive ecosystem for builders with funding beyond the #fashernistas. To make this happen we need to shift funding mechanisms toward projects that align with the values of the #4opens (open data, open standards, open source, and open process). This means supporting those who build with the public good in mind, not pointless flashy, trendy ideas, and tech fashions. Empower developers with a community focus by highlighting projects that prioritize #UX and community needs rather than only tech novelty. Encourage #FOSS governance practices that are transparent and inclusive. Foster this inclusivity by bridging the current silos with cross-community dialogues, to facilitates discussions that bring together different paths in alt-tech, civic tech, and grassroots movements for cross-pollinate ideas and useful paths to take.
Ensure that platforms and networks being built do not simply cater to niche tech communities but are accessible and usable by the wider public, thus focus on practical relevance. This helps to empower people to understand the importance of decentralized tech and how it benefits them directly. We need to do this to break down the barriers posed by the #geekproblem and demystifies participation in the #openweb paths. A strong part of this is organizing hands-on workshops that engage people in contributing to shaping the projects.
We can’t do this without accept that failures are part of the process. Instead of discarding what doesn’t work, use these experiences as compost – breaking down what failed and learning from it to build stronger, more functional initiatives. This plays a role in shifting cultural narratives to challenge and change the storeys around the #openweb and wider #openculture to include cooperative problem-solving and mutual respect. Shifting the focus from tech utopianism to realistic, impactful change.
This process is about building tech paths that are adaptable and capable of evolving with peoples needs and global conditions, including #climatechaos and hard right socio-political shifts that are accelerating. A part of this is support for meany small tech paths that link and flow information and communities.
In this rebooting of the #openweb it becomes a part of a shifting #mainstreaming to better tolerate and promote messy participatory governance, redirect funding to genuine, community-oriented projects, and championing inclusive, sustainable paths. The composting analogy is usefull as it emphasizes learning from past mistakes and continuously building resilient, inclusive solutions #KISS
A test, that we need to actively push is to look at people and projects to see if they link, a basic part is the act of linking, which goes far beyond a simple convenience; it forms the backbone of an interconnected, accessible, and transparent internet. Yet, many people overlook its importance or misunderstand its role, especially when transitioning from #dotcons (corporate-controlled platforms) to #openweb environments. To sustain the promise of an open, people-driven internet, we need to recognize and actively engage with the practice of sharing non-mainstream links #KISS
But yes we do need to mediate the current mess, don’t feed the trolls, keeps coming to mind, when looking at the liberal #mainstreaming #X influx, this is like waves washing on the shore, be the shore not the wave.
The #NGO world has been both ally and obstacle for decades. Too often, NGOs smother movements with paperwork, reporting cycles, and status-quo compromises. They professionalize struggle into careers, replacing urgency with strategy documents, and radicalism with caring workshops. Survival of the institution becomes more important than the fight itself.
But if we are serious about an #openweb reboot, we cannot just reject the #NGO crew outright. They have resources, networks, legitimacy in the eyes of institutions, and people who genuinely want change. The task is to make them more functional – to mediate them into alignment with grassroots, horizontal, #4opens values.
Transparency vs. the black box. Most NGOs operate like closed castles. Decisions are opaque, wrapped in “internal processes” no one can see. This is poison for trust. The antidote: embed radical transparency. Decisions must be documented, accessible, and open to input. When governance is open, collaboration becomes possible. When it’s closed, suspicion festers and movements fracture.
Flexibility vs. Rigidity. NGOs love five-year plans, KPIs, and strategy frameworks that collapse on contact with reality. In a world spinning into #climatechaos and political instability, rigidity is suicide. The fix: embrace iterative, adaptive paths. Think agile. Test, fail, learn, pivot. If grassroots crews can adapt in the streets and on the fly, NGOs can damn well learn to adapt in their boardrooms.
Tech as Social, Not Specialist. One of the worst NGO habits is treating technology as a “separate department.” IT staff build tools no one uses while the campaigners rely on #dotcons because “that’s where people are.” This deepens dependency and undermines any autonomy. The answer: hard code social understandings into tech frameworks. Train staff in digital literacy. Break the barrier between “techies” and “non-techies.” Build tools with grassroots values at the core, not bolted on as an afterthought.
Decentralization vs. Dependence. NGOs instinctively centralize, but resilience comes from decentralization. #Fediverse and #P2P networks show the way: messy, federated, harder to control, but alive. NGOs need to step off the corporate #dotcons treadmill and start investing in distributed infrastructures that empower communities instead of platforms.
Funding without shackles. Follow the money, and you find the leash. #NGO agendas bend to donors, governments, and foundations. If your funding is tied to maintaining the status quo, radical change is impossible. Solution: diversify funding. Community crowdfunding. Partnerships with projects that share #openweb values. Build independence rather than dependency. Stop mistaking survival for success.
Beyond tokenism. Diversity statements, inclusion workshops, and endless identity branding have become the fig leaves of #NGO culture. It’s just box-ticking while real grassroots voices are sidelined. True inclusivity means messy organizing: bringing in voices you don’t control, valuing experience over credentials, connecting with movements like #XR and #OMN not to manage them but to amplify them. Tokenism builds silos; real inclusivity builds bridges.
The polemic. The NGO crew must choose: remain bureaucratic husks feeding on donor cycles, or transform into allies that enable radical grassroots change. We do not need their brands. We do not need their logos on banners. We need their structures to stop blocking and start enabling. That means adopting the #4opens, embracing federation, composting control culture, and learning from messy grassroots organizing.
The truth is simple:
NGOs that cling to their black boxes, their rigidity, their donor-driven agendas, will collapse into irrelevance.
NGOs that embrace openness, decentralization, and collaboration can play a real role in rebooting the #openweb.
This isn’t about saving NGOs. It’s about saving movements from being smothered by them.
Trying to make the #fashionistas functional in an #openweb reboot is much harder than it needs to be. But still, we do need to harness their strengths by working to redirecting focus towards #KISS sustainable and meaningful outcomes. How can we do this?
Ideas? Clarify Objectives, is a start, with straightforward and compelling stories that outline why the #openweb matters and how individual contributions can make a difference. A path to this is bridging skill gaps, with tools, workshops and resources that equip people with the knowledge and capabilities needed to participate in technical and community projects. By empowering people to use native #openweb tools. This helps shift the focus from self-promotion to collaboration, to environments where the emphasis is on shared goals and outcomes rather than individual status and branding. Core to this, is a culture where collective progress is celebrated more than individual accolades, motivating the fashionistas to work alongside others to build communities of action.
In community #DIY projects, it helps to involve #fashernistas in decision-making through community-led governance structures that align with the #4opens (open data, processes, source, and standards). To build on this first step, we need to focus on narrative and storytelling to highlight social impact, crafting stories around how #openweb projects positively impact real communities, this resonates with #fashionistas interest in influential narratives.
We can try, to make work, engagement with higher statues “influencers” thoughtfully to create and share stories that champion community-driven tech solutions and emphasize ethical, long-term growth over the normal fleeting trends. We need to then connect these trends to tangible long term goals to demonstrate how style and purpose can align without losing depth.
Creating opportunities for fashionistas to be involved in pilot projects, hackathons, and online campaigns that result in visible, practical changes can help to #compost the social flaws, the negative aspects, by acknowledging and address superficial tendencies, redirecting energy towards problem-solving and constructive efforts. Then use feedback systems to point out valuable contributions and areas that need more depth, guiding fashionistas away from shallow engagement towards impactful involvement.
The path is to promote long-term thinking is in challenging short-lived trends, by demonstrating value over time with examples from successful open-source and community-driven paths that gained momentum with steady and committed efforts. We can hope that, by aligning their creative energy with the structural and ethical needs of an #openweb reboot, the #fashionistas become not only influencers but essential collaborators in pushing a more connected, community-focused, resilient digital paths that we need in this era of crises.
OK, yes this will be hard, with lots of back sliding, but it needs to happen.
