Best not to be a #deathcult worshipping #mainstreaming prat

Capitalism has meany sins, one worth shouting about is that it will displace billions and kill millions of people over then next ten years because it has left it too late to avoid unsurvivable 2/2.5°C of global warming with continuing blinded focus on perpetual growth, consumption, and resource exploitation. This significantly delays meaningful action on climate change, the inertia of emissions, feedback loops, and the continued expansion of fossil fuel industries mean that global temperatures will surpass the 2°C threshold, a critical boundary for avoiding widespread catastrophic #climatechaos.

Climate scientists and reports (e.g., #IPCC) highlight that without immediate, radical action, 2°C or even 2.5°C is locked in within the coming decades. Reports from global organizations consistently stress that incremental reforms are insufficient. They call for transformative changes to the political-economic systems driving ecological and climate crises. This includes shifting away from growth-focused capitalism toward sustainable, equitable models of resource management, prioritizing ecosystem restoration, and respecting planetary boundaries. The food for thought on this is that it starts to sound like socialism Without this systemic change, both biodiversity loss and abrupt climate disruptions are going to worsen.

The challenge remains, moving from acknowledgment of these issues to implementing viable alternatives. Best not to be a #deathcult worshipping #mainstreaming prat on this.

A small step is the #OMN, we need bigger steps, but each journey starts with a simple step #KISS

Critique the ideological blindness of the tech world

The story often revolves around the #geekproblem and deeper ideological and structural issues in the tech world. There are internal conflicts in open movements. An example i like to talk about is the UK Indymedia project as a case study of ideological and technical battles between groups with different visions for open media. #Encryptionists: Advocated for security and privacy at the expense of openness, blocking aggregation efforts like RSS. #Fashernistas, sought control over media flows through proprietary yet “better” alternatives to open standards, undermining compatibility. #Openweb advocates promoted aggregation and widely adopted standards like RSS but were sidelined by other factions. The result was a self-destructive cycle that caused the UK Indymedia project to become irrelevant, exemplifying a broader failure to embrace shared, open solutions.

The broader #geekproblem, refers to the cultural and ideological blind spots of the tech community. A fetishization of privacy, encryption, and individualism, which serve market-driven ideologies rather than societal good. A failure to address systemic social and environmental issues (e.g., #climatechaos, #deathcult worship) in favour of isolated, tech-first solutions. The division between “open” (sharing power) and “closed” (hoarding power) reflects fundamental tensions between altruistic and exploitative visions of technology.

Society and technology, the story draws parallels between historical ideologies (e.g., capitalism’s greed vs. socialism’s altruism) and the current state of tech. Examples: Closed systems reinforce inequality, greed, and control. Open systems, guided by #4opens principles, prioritize cooperation, connection, and societal benefit. The problem of dogmatism on both sides of progressive tech (spiky vs. fluffy) hinders collaboration and slows progress.

Working grassroots projects need to return to basics, embrace openness, foster flow rather than blocking, and reject the destructive patterns embedded in neoliberal tech culture. The #4opens framework is a shovel to compost the ideological and technical mess, enabling meaningful technological change. Social movements and tech must integrate this change and challenge to prevent centralization and co-option.

It’s good to critique the ideological blindness of the tech world and suggests that only by fostering trust and openness can we build a sustainable future #KISS

Application 2025-02-032 Open Governance Body #OGB

Application 2025-02-032 Open Governance Body #OGB received

The following submission was recorded by NLnet. Thanks for your application, we look forward to learning more about your proposed project.
Contact

name
hamish campbell
phone
email
hamish@visionon.tv
organisation name
OMN
country
UK
consent
You may keep my data on record

Project

code
2025-02-032
project name
Open Governance Body #OGB
fund
Commons_Fund
requested amount
€ 50000
website

    https://unite.openworlds.info/Open-Media-Network/openwebgovernancebody

synopsis

A project designed to create a trust-based, decentralized framework for governance within grassroots networks and communities. Rooted in the #4opens principles—open data, open source, open processes, and open standards—the #OGB seeks to mediate human-to-human collaboration by fostering trust, transparency, and simplicity (#KISS).

Its primary focus is addressing the #geekproblem by bridging technical and social flows, creating tools that empower people to organize effectively without falling into hierarchical or centralized traps. The #OGB builds on trust to sift through noise, allowing genuine contributions to rise, moving from complexity to simplicity and back to complexity organically.

The expected outcomes include:

Strengthened grassroots governance: Tools for decision-making and collaboration that are inclusive and scalable.
A thriving #openweb ecosystem: Platforms and networks that prioritize trust and social value over profit.
Mediation of mainstreaming and NGO influence: Keeping progressive activism focused on spiky, meaningful change rather than fluffy distractions.

The #OGB aims to create sustainable digital commons that nurture resilience, diversity, and real-world impact.

experience

Yes, I’ve been involved in projects and communities aligned with the ethos and goals of the #OGB. My contributions span technical development, advocacy, and fostering open governance frameworks, all rooted in the principles of trust, transparency, and collaboration.

Indymedia, I was an active contributor to the global Indymedia movement, which played a pivotal role in grassroots media and decentralized collaboration. My contributions focused on: Open publishing workflows to empower communities to share their stories. Advocating for the “trust at the edges” model to ensure decision-making remained grassroots-driven. Bridging technical and social challenges by helping develop and maintain tools that aligned with the movement’s values.
OMN (Open Media Network), As one of the key proponents of the #OMN, I’ve worked to reboot grassroots media using trust-based networks and federated tools. My contributions include: Developing the concept of #4opens (open data, open source, open processes, open standards) to serve as a foundational framework. Advocating for federated tools like #ActivityPub and #RSS to enable media flows across decentralized networks. Organizing collaborative spaces to design tools that prioritize human-to-human trust rather than algorithms or centralized control.
Fediverse Advocacy, Within the Fediverse, I’ve championed the importance of grassroots governance and resisting the co-option of these spaces by corporate or NGO interests. Contributions include: Participating in discussions to shape decentralized protocols like #ActivityPub. Pushing for #KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid) principles to ensure accessibility and scalability. Highlighting the dangers of #mainstreaming and proposing strategies to mediate its impact on the #openweb.
Open Governance Experiments, I’ve collaborated on smaller experimental governance projects aimed at exploring new ways of mediating human collaboration. For example: Designing trust-based moderation systems to reduce #geekproblem domination in decision-making processes. Implementing open-process methodologies to ensure transparency in workflows. Mediating conflicts between technical and social contributors, fostering productive collaboration.

Core Contributions Across Projects, across all these initiatives, my primary focus has been on bridging the technical and human aspects of governance. This involves: Developing frameworks that enable decentralized decision-making while maintaining trust. Advocating for simplicity to combat the paralysis caused by unnecessary complexity. Building alliances and mediating the challenges posed by #dotcons, #NGO dominance, and #geekproblem tendencies.

Through these efforts, I’ve gained insights into the challenges of building sustainable governance models in decentralized spaces, and the #OGB embodies the culmination of this work. It’s a step forward in creating robust, trust-based networks that empower communities to take control of their digital and social spaces.

usage

Budget Allocation for #OGB Project

The requested budget will be allocated strategically to ensure the project’s foundational development and long-term sustainability. An outline of key areas:

Technical Development and Infrastructure (40%) Development of Core Tools: Funding will support developers to build the initial version of the #OGB code, focusing on simplicity, accessibility, and scalability. Server Infrastructure: Setting up and maintaining federated servers for testing, development, and early adoption. Integration with Existing Standards: Work to align with protocols like #ActivityPub, #Nostr and #RSS, ensuring seamless interoperability with the broader #openweb ecosystem.
Community Building and Outreach (25%) Workshops and Training: Organizing sessions to train communities on the #OGB framework, focusing on trust-based governance and open-process workflows. Content Creation: Developing accessible documentation, tutorials, and guides to demystify the #OGB model for diverse audiences. Engagement Campaigns: Reaching out to grassroots organizations, activists, and communities to onboard early adopters.
Research and Iterative Design (20%) User Feedback Loops: Conducting trials with early adopters to gather insights and refine the tools and processes. Governance Framework Refinement: Exploring different trust-based models to ensure inclusivity and adaptability to various contexts. Conflict Mediation Strategies: Testing and integrating mechanisms for conflict resolution and power balance within the #OGB framework.
Administrative and Miscellaneous Costs (15%) Project Coordination: Funding part-time coordinators to manage timelines, resources, and community engagement. Operational Expenses: Covering software donations, events, domain hosting, and other minor but essential operational costs.

Past and Present Funding Sources. The #OGB project is currently unfunded in a formal sense, operating entirely through volunteer contributions. However, it is rooted in a history of collaborative efforts from related initiatives, which have benefited from in-kind support rather than direct funding.

Past Sources: #OMN and #Indymedia Communities: Provided foundational concepts and voluntary contributions of time, skills, and infrastructure. Fediverse and #Activertypub Advocates: Offered insights and testing environments for early experimentation with governance ideas.

challenges

Present Sources: Volunteer Contributions: Core contributors are donating their time and resources to push the project forward. Allied Projects: Informal support from related decentralized tech communities, sharing knowledge, feedback, and occasional resources.

Future Vision, while external funding is vital to accelerate the project’s development, we aim to maintain independence and adhere to the #4opens principles. By minimizing reliance on corporate or NGO funding, we ensure that the #OGB remains a grassroots-driven initiative. Our long-term goal is to establish a self-sustaining model through community contributions and shared ownership, embodying the trust-based governance the project seeks to promote.

Detailed budget breakdown can be attached if required.

comparison

The #OGB (Open Governance Body) project stands on the shoulders of both historical and contemporary efforts, drawing lessons from their successes and failures to craft a novel path to decentralized governance.

A comparative analysis: Historical Projects and Their Influence

Indymedia (Independent Media Centers) Overview: Indymedia was a global network of grassroots media collectives that emerged in the late 1990s to provide a platform for independent journalism. It embodied principles of openness, decentralization, and non-hierarchical governance. Comparison: Like Indymedia, #OGB aims to empower communities through open and decentralized structures. However, Indymedia struggled with governance conflicts and centralization of power in some regions. The #OGB addresses these issues through trust-based networks, conflict mediation mechanisms, and scalable governance tools. Key Takeaway: The #OGB builds on the ethos of Indymedia while implementing technological solutions to mitigate governance bottlenecks.

Occupy Movement’s General Assemblies. Overview: Occupy’s assemblies were experiments in direct democracy, emphasizing inclusivity and consensus-based decision-making. However, the lack of structured governance led to inefficiency and internal conflicts. Comparison: The #OGB shares Occupy’s commitment to participatory governance but incorporates trust-based models to build the decision-making. Instead of full consensus, the #OGB employs trust networks to delegate decisions while retaining accountability and inclusivity. Key Takeaway: The #OGB leverages structured trust-based governance to overcome the decision-making paralysis often seen in consensus-driven movements.

Contemporary Projects and Their Relationship to #OGB. Fediverse and #ActivityPub. Overview: The Fediverse is a decentralized network of federated platforms like Mastodon, powered by the ActivityPub protocol it is pushing user autonomy and grassroots control but has faced challenges around governance and moderation.
Comparison: The #OGB complements the Fediverse by providing governance structures for federated projects, addressing the ongoing issues of moderation and decision-making. The #OGB’s trust networks align with the decentralized ethos of the Fediverse, offering a scalable solution for community self-governance. Key Takeaway: The #OGB enhances the governance layer missing in many Fediverse projects, fostering resilience and collaboration across federated networks.

NGO-Led Open Source Initiatives. Overview: Many open-source projects are managed by NGOs, which often prioritize stability and funding over grassroots participation. This has led to criticism of centralized decision-making and “corporate capture.” Comparison: The #OGB resists NGO-style top-down management, instead prioritizing the #4opens principles: open data, open source, open process, and open standards. Unlike NGO-driven projects, the #OGB is inherently community-first, ensuring power remains with the users and contributors. Key Takeaway: The #OGB rejects the NGO-centric model, emphasizing trust-based grassroots governance to avoid co-option by external actors.

Lessons from Historical Failures. CouchSurfing’s Decline. Overview: CouchSurfing transitioned from a grassroots volunteer-driven project to a for-profit company, alienating its core community and undermining trust. Comparison: The #OGB guards against such shifts by embedding trust and open governance at its core, ensuring the project remains community-owned and operated. Key Takeaway: Trust-based governance prevents mission drift and maintains alignment with the community’s original values.

P2P Projects and Overengineering. Overview: Many P2P initiatives have failed due to technical complexity and a lack of user-friendly interfaces, alienating non-technical users. Comparison: The #OGB adheres to the #KISS principle (Keep It Simple, Stupid), ensuring accessibility and ease of adoption without sacrificing functionality. Key Takeaway: Simplicity is essential for widespread adoption and long-term viability.

Key Differentiators of the #OGB Trust-Based Networks. Unlike purely consensus-driven or hierarchical models, the #OGB employs trust-based networks to enable efficient and inclusive decision-making at scale. The #4opens Framework. The #OGB is grounded in the #4opens principles, ensuring transparency, accountability, and openness across all aspects of the project. Focus on Digital Commons. The #OGB is designed to nurture digital commons, creating a space for grassroots innovation, collaboration, and governance that resists corporate capture. Composting the #TechShit, creating fertile ground for genuine social innovation.

Expected Outcomes. The #OGB aims to fill the governance gap left by historical and contemporary efforts, fostering a resilient, open, and trust-based framework for digital collaboration. By learning from the past and building on existing technologies, we seek to empower communities to reclaim the #openweb, bridging the gap between technology and grassroots activism.

The #OGB project faces significant challenges in implementing scalable trust-based governance systems. Key technical hurdles include:

Interoperability: Ensuring seamless integration with existing open protocols like #ActivityPub and the widening #openweb reboot.
Usability: Creating user-friendly interfaces to make complex governance processes accessible to non-technical people.
Resilience: Building systems resistant to malicious actors and spam within decentralized networks.

Are a few issues.

ecosystem

The #OGB project is rooted in a diverse ecosystem of grassroots organizations, decentralized communities, and open-source initiatives.

Ecosystem Description

Grassroots Communities: Activist groups, independent media collectives, and community-driven initiatives seeking alternatives to hierarchical decision-making.
FOSS Developers: Open-source software developers invested in decentralized tools, such as #ActivityPub, #Mastodon, and related protocols.
NGOs and Advocacy Groups: Organizations interested in participatory governance and transparency tools for improving their operations.
Tech Enthusiasts: People exploring ethical and sustainable technology beyond the centralized #dotcons paradigm.
Academic and Research Institutions: Scholars studying governance, social movements, and decentralized technologies.

Engagement Strategies

Collaborative Development: Open, participatory development processes underpinned by the #4opens philosophy (open data, source, process, and standards).
Workshops and Webinars: Educating target audiences about trust-based governance and the project’s tools.
Partnerships: Building alliances with aligned organizations, including community networks and FOSS projects.
Documentation and Guides: Creating accessible materials to help communities adopt #OGB principles and tools.
Pilot Projects: Collaborating with grassroots organizations to implement and refine governance systems, ensuring practical impact.

Promotion of Outcomes

Demonstration Projects: Showcasing successful case studies of #OGB governance in action.
Fediverse Integration: Leveraging federated platforms for dissemination and collaboration.
Open Events: Participating in conferences, hackathons, and public forums to share insights and foster adoption

GOVERNANCE-BODY_REV-March-2022.pdf
OGB-dev.png

Inspiration to pick up the shovel to compost the current mess

A sharp observation on the current state of the “left” and the misplaced focus of many tech strategies. The “left” indeed needs a reboot—moving away from insular infighting and embracing the broader, structural challenges that demand collective action. Meanwhile in tech, the “encryptionists” still try to dominate the tech discourse, promoting a narrow focus on privacy and security. While important, encryption should only be a part of a larger strategy that prioritizes openness and public-first values.

The claques and process problems, are a classic example of what happens when communities lose sight of their broader mission. Internal cliques, or claques, become echo chambers for negativity rather than fostering productive dialogue. The result? A stagnation of ideas and a chicken-and-egg problem, where no one knows how to break the cycle of blame and inertia.

Social value vs. personal value, is a key point worth emphasizing, many misunderstand this concept, conflating the two or expecting direct personal benefit from initiatives designed to serve the collective good. Social value is about creating systems, tools, and frameworks that benefit communities at large—fostering collaboration, trust, and shared resources. Personal value arises indirectly from being part of a thriving ecosystem of shared social value. It’s a by-product, not the primary goal.

This misunderstanding leads to frustration, as people struggle to see “what’s in it for me” in the short term. An example of this is that building the #OMN isn’t about immediate personal gratification; it’s about laying the groundwork for a healthier, more sustainable ecosystem where everyone can thrive in the long run.

For this path to work, we need a balanced strategy, we need to see encryption as a tool, not the goal, privacy matters, but it’s not the be-all and end-all. We need to focus on transparency and openness to create paths that work for people, not just the tech-savvy few. For this, we need the rebooting of collaboration to move beyond backbiting and cliques. We need to rebuild trust and focus on shared goals rather than individual grievances. This path is social value first, collective well-being over individual gain. This shift in mindset is a #KISS step for meaningful change.

Clearing the misunderstanding, struggling to see the bigger picture, to repeat, my example the #OMN isn’t about you—it’s about us. Personal value emerges naturally when the social foundation is strong. By focusing on collective systems that work, we all stand to benefit indirectly, even if it’s not immediately visible. Let’s keep our eyes on the real prize: a world where openness, trust, and collaboration outshine fear, control, and isolation.

Breaking the cycle of #mainstreaming and liberal trolling

Liberal trolls, deeply embedded in the “common sense” framework of the #deathcult (neoliberalism), derive their identity and value from upholding its norms. When confronted with thinking that challenges these assumptions, their sense of self-worth feels threatened. This leads to defensive behaviors like #blocking, which create echo chambers and alienate broader, constructive conversations.

The result is a destructive cycle of isolation, where strong blocking cuts people off from dissenting views, deepening their entrenchment. Collapse is often the ending of this path, mental strain of constant reinforcement without growth leads to emotional “cave-ins.” this trauma, ripple out to the communities involved, stalling progress and fostering distrust.

To avoid losing our #fashernistas (those drawn to trends but lacking deep roots), we need strategies that balance openness with resilience: build safe spaces for exploration, where people can explore ideas without fear of “cancelling.” These spaces should be guided by openness and trust (#KISS), ensuring that conversations remain productive.

The liberal mindset struggles with change because it feels personal. Providing tools for emotional resilience—like reframing challenges as opportunities for growth—can help bridge the gap. This isn’t therapy, but a practical way to address defensiveness.

Define ideas in simple, grounded terms, for example the #deathcult isn’t just a metaphor; it’s a way to name destructive systems. #Mainstreaming is the tendency to conform rather than change and challenge. This kind of clarity helps those trapped in “common sense” paths see the alternatives without feeling overwhelmed.

Focus on collective paths, isolation breeds fear, but collective efforts inspire trust. Projects like the #OMN are excellent examples of how shared goals can create spaces for diverse voices to thrive. By working together, we create a counterbalance to the individualistic tendencies of the #deathcult.

The goal is to avoid the traps of entrenched “common sense” thinking while maintaining compassion for those caught in it. Liberal trolls can evolve if given the right tools and opportunities, but the process will be messy. By fostering openness, resilience, and collective action, we can help individuals—and communities—climb out of the holes they’ve dug, without burying them under the weight of their past mistakes. Let’s turn the debris into compost and plant something worth growing. 🌱 #OMN

A compass for the #openweb

In a world spiralling deeper into “post-truth,” we’re bombarded by complexity, much of it fuelled by #techchurn and the hollow distractions of #fashernist culture. To cut through noise, we need clarity, that starts with defining basic terms. From the #KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid) path, for a tech-focused lens:

Left = Open/Trust
Right = Control/Fear

This division isn’t only simple dogmatic political; it’s a foundational question of values. Do we build from paths rooted in trust and openness, or do we fall into the normal fear-driven hierarchies of control? The current complexity, without clear values, becomes a swamp, where movements stagnate, progressive progress collapses, and meaningful change evaporates. The mess we have been in for the last 20 years.

Complexity is a dead end, without #KISS clarity, much of the tech world, and by extension, in a world shaped by #dotcons, society, is locked in loops of “common sense” failure. Vertical hierarchies, even well-meaning ones, tend to falter when addressing horizontal, community-driven efforts. It’s less a question of structure and more about values. Without shared trust and openness, even the best technology will fail to create anything lasting or transformative.

Post-truth “common sense”, control and fear, feeds directly into the #deathcult of neoliberalism—a system that thrives on exploitation and reinforces itself as the ONLY viable path. This is the comfort zone for many: worshipping growth, power, and profit as if there’s no alternative. Building away from this with social truth, grounded in shared values and trust, is hard work, but it’s the only viable counterbalance. Without it, we’re just digging ourselves deeper into the pit of stinking social and #techshit.

The #OMN needs a crew with shovels, not worshippers, to work to compost this mess. To reboot the #openweb, we need tools, not temples. The Open Media Network (#OMN) is such a shovel. It’s a framework for creating fertile ground where horizontal values can thrive. Verticals often resist this because they’re entrenched in control structures. Yet, history has shown that without horizontal integration—grassroots participation, open governance, and shared ownership—movements fail to achieve meaningful, lasting impact.

We’ve spent too many years building on complexity, expecting it to fix the very problems it creates. Instead, let’s simplify. Define values clearly, prioritize openness and trust, and focus on practical tools like #OMN and #OGB. Yes, this is a messy process—shovelling always is—but it’s the only way to compost the “shit” of the #deathcult into something that can grow.

It’s time to stop chasing the distractions of #techchurn and #fashernist thinking. Pick up the shovel, embrace #KISS, and start digging. The future of the #openweb—and, frankly, the planet—depends on it.

The Evolution of SocialHub

“the crew gathered around #SocialHub worked remarkably well for a while, organising good gathering, conferences and very useful outreach of #ActivityPub to the #EU that seeded much of the current #mainstreaming. But yes, it was always small and under utilised due to the strong forces of #stupidindividalisam that we need to balance. Ideas?“

From grassroots origins, #SocialHub emerged as a community-driven platform, rooted in the #openweb principles, focusing on the interplay of technology and “native” social paths. Its initial success lay in its collaborative ethos, free from mainstream interference. This promising start has since failed, due to lack of core consensuses and the active #blocking of any process to mediate this mess making.

Current challenges are from the influx of non-native perspectives, The twitter migrants and rapid #Fediverse expansion has diluted what was left of the original focus. Then in reaction to this the has been a retreat to tech paths over the social paths. This shift toward technical priorities has marginalized the social aspects that initially defined the community, this is a mirroring broader #geekproblem struggles that are core to the original failing.

What actually works is always grassroots messiness and constructive processes, that is messy in a good way, authentic, grassroots movements are inherently untidy, this ordered/chaos is where real social value is born. Attempts to overly structure or mainstream these paths risks losing their soul. Lifestyleism, and fragmented tribalism, distract from meaningful change. These behaviours breed from #stupidindividualism, a core product of the #deathcult culture that undermines collective action. There is a role for activism, based on learning from history to avoid repeating mistakes. This can lead to wider social engagement, and an embrace of messiness to counteract the stifling tendencies of rigid mainstreaming and isolated tech focus.

The metaphor of “shovels” is useful to turn the current pile of social and technical “shit” into compost is apt. Grassroots communities nurture a healthier ecosystem that balances tech and social. The imbalance favouring tech over social must be addressed. Reinvigorating the core social crew with a focus on community-oriented discussions and actions can restore equilibrium.

For this, it can be useful to challenge neoliberal narratives, use the #openweb/#closedweb framework to critique and dismantle neoliberal “common sense”. Highlight how these ideologies breed the individualistic and exploitative tendencies that undermine collective progress. The need for vigilance against co-option and the importance of nurturing the messy authenticity of grassroots movements. The path forward requires not just shovelling but planting seeds of collaboration, transparency, and collective action. By embracing the chaos and keeping the focus on social value, the #openweb can flourish as a genuine alternative to the #closedweb.

#KISS

Personality Politics

The challenge of personality politics disrupting progressive projects is a recurring issue, especially in tech and social activism paths. This often derails efforts by prioritizing individual egos and interpersonal conflicts over collective goals. The path to mediating this needs resilient, open, and structured processes that minimize the impact of this messy dynamics.

Strategies to Counter Personality Politics

Shared Principles: Define the project’s mission and values early on, ensuring that these shared to act as a guide for decisions and actions. Frameworks like the #4opens provide an excellent starting point.
Transparent Governance: Establish open and participatory governance models where decision-making is visible and accessible to all. This reduces opportunities for power grabs and fosters trust within the group.
Focus on Objectives: Anchor the project around achievable, practical goals. This keeps efforts aligned with outcomes rather than personalities, avoiding distractions from the work at hand.
Conflict Mediation: Build in mechanisms to address conflicts early and constructively. Mediation processes should prioritize the collective good over individual grievances, ensuring disputes don’t derail the wider projects.

By emphasizing these, grassroots progressive projects can build communities that remain focused on their paths, navigating personality politics, without losing momentum and motivation #KISS

Let’s build tools that reflect human flourishing

One of the strong #blocking forces is #mainstreaming objectives being imposed on non-mainstream projects, is a recurring issue in alternative tech spaces like the #openweb and #Fediverse. This happens because people perceive mainstreaming as “common sense,” mistaking it for adding value. Over time, this mess erodes the radical, decentralizing paths, feeding people back into the centralization of #dotcons and perpetuating the #stupidindividualism we are trying to overcome.

Define and defend non-mainstream objectives with strong clarity of purpose. Clearly articulating the goals and principles of #openweb projects, emphasizing the value of non-mainstreaming paths. This needs to be anchored in frameworks like the #4opens and ethical guidelines such as the #PGA Hallmarks. Build the community agreements to hold these in place to ensure contributors understand and commit to these principles. Actively use documents, onboarding materials, and collective discussions to signpost these paths.
Strengthen “native” culture against #stupidIndividualism by balancing the push for collective governance, we need federated and decentralized governance structures like #OGB (Open Governance Body). These prevent individuals from overriding group objectives with personal agendas. Emphasize trust by fostering a culture that prioritizes relationships and trust over competition and self-interest.
Build post-scarcity #FOSS tools that focus on simplicity and functionality, avoid overloading projects with unnecessary features (#techshit) that complicate usability and dilute the #KISS vision. Prioritize accessibility, with tools that empower communities without requiring heavy technical expertise, making them usable and scalable without compromising their radical foundations. Use the #4opens to anchor technology in open processes, data, licenses, and standards to ensure transparency and prevent co-optation.
Compost the stinking pile of #techshit. Shovels are a metaphor for composting, to open spaces for critique and push back #mainstreaming attempts constructively. Use feedback loops to identify and counteract behaviours that undermine these paths. Use real-world examples to illustrate the long-term harm. To combat the “common sense” myths, highlight how #mainstreaming benefits centralized systems and reinforces the #deathcult that meany people worship.
Resilience in the #fediverse and beyond by practical limiting node scalability, in federated flows, understand scalability limits based on moderation and quality. This prevents overgrowth and maintains trust within smaller, more accountable communities. Encourage decentralization, by supporting the diversity of smaller instances rather than a few dominant ones. This ensures resilience and reduces the risk of centralization.

We need to be building tools for flourishing, in a large part to counteract #stupidindividualism and mainstreaming, for this we need affinity groups that focus on post-scarcity tech and tools that foster trust, collaboration, and grassroots empowerment. To make this happen, we need these affinity groups to use the #4opens as a guiding framework and the #OGB to organize collective governance. By prioritizing these non-mainstreaming flows, we expand the #openweb sustainably while preserving its radical, human-centered roots. Let’s build tools that reflect human flourishing, not corporate consolidation. It’s hard work, but it’s the only path forward that can work.

Open-source and #FOSS as everyday anarchism

Grassroots Open Source Software (#FOSS) is a powerful example of anarchist organization in action, even if unintentionally. It’s a decentralized, cooperative model where people work together, driven by shared goals, not bosses or hierarchies. #FOSS has proven faster and more responsive than proprietary systems, cutting through bureaucracy to solve problems.

While not perfect (projects can fail due to poor organization or lack of interest), this path outpaces the traditional alternatives bogged down by debt, delay, or rigid management structures. It thrives because skilled teams self-manage, focusing on tasks that matter without over-management, a principle that resonates far beyond software.

Even in construction, this approach shows promise. Imagine crews self-managing their work, coordinating through elected foremen, and collaborating in federated councils with architects and community representatives. This isn’t just theoretical—it’s a practical path to efficiency, replacing the delays and over-budget failures of state-run or capitalist systems. The #OGB is a tool to push this out as a social tech path native to this.

Anarchist solutions don’t need to be perfect; they just need to be better than the deeply flawed paths we walk now. And #FOSS proves that they can be #KISS

The #NGO and #dotcons use of #FOSS is a whole another subject we do need to talk about.

The Problem: Postmodernism, Hate, and #StupidIndividualism

The influence of postmodern thinking among #fashernistas—people more focused on appearances and trends than substance—has eroded the core purpose of activism: fostering positive social change rooted in love, solidarity, and mutual aid. Meanwhile, the rise of a new breed of right-wing “activists” using hate and fear to advance the agenda of neo-liberalism’s #deathcult highlights the stark difference between activism and fascism. It’s critical to reclaim language and purpose in this context to clarify and reinvigorate progressive movements.

Confusion, postmodernism’s emphasis on skepticism and deconstruction has undermined the unifying narratives that once drove collective action. While useful for critiquing power, it results in fragmented movements without clear goals. This confusion allows #fashernistas to dominate activism, prioritizing visibility and personal branding over systemic change.

Hate-based “activism”, where the right-wing movements use hate and fear to build “solidarity” based on this fear, by reinforce the “stupid” part of individualism, feeding off the #deathcult of neoliberalism. These movements weaponize the language of activism, but their actions serve fascist goals of division and destruction.

This is the core of #stupidindividualism poison that neoliberalism breeds, isolated people and erodes the collective bonds necessary for transformative activism. This individualism poisons movements, turning them into echo chambers of self-interest rather than engines of solidarity.

Even the conservatives think we are in a mess

Ideas for antidotes, reclaiming activism for progressive change:

* Redefine activism anchored in solidarity, and collective care, rejecting hate and fear as tactics. Clearly differentiate between activism (which builds and unites) and fascism (which destroys and divides).

* Center collective narratives, move beyond postmodern fragmentation by building shared stories and visions for the future. Activism that connects people to a larger purpose and community. Embrace horizontal structures, by foster decentralized and inclusive decision-making processes, thus reducing reliance on vertical, personality-driven leadership. This actively counters #stupidindividualism with collaborative frameworks like the #4opens.

* Focus on systems and paths, not individuals, shift away from individual heroics and saviour complexes. Build tools and strategies that empower communities rather than centring individuals.

* Reclaim language, use honest language to name problems and solutions. Call hate-based movements what they are, fascist. Avoid diluting terms like “activism” with actions that lack integrity and constructive purpose.

Building a liveable, humanistic future, needs us, to reclaiming activism, grounding in principles that resist the #mainstreaming influence and cultural by-products like #stupidindividualism. Movements that reject hate and fear as tactics, fostering instead the solidarity needed to challenge oppression and resulting environmental destruction. The antidote lies in collective care, shared purpose, and tools like the #4opens to ensure accountability and #KISS progress. We need foundations to build from, with this we counter the cultural decay of the #deathcult and take paths toward meaningful, sustainable change we really need.

Grassroots Radical Media: A #4opens Path

The resurgence of grassroots radical media projects requires a return to foundational principles, particularly the embrace of #FOSS and #opensource practices. These principles align with the #4opens framework, which acts as both a lock and a key for building sustainable and accountable media networks.

The Basics, Activism vs. Mainstreaming, where activism aims to resist and redirect the mainstream toward progressive change. #Mainstreaming, on the other hand, often serves NGO agendas, softening resistance to maintain institutional stability and job creation for its participants. Recognizing this distinction helps grassroots projects avoid being co-opted into reducing systemic change to incremental tweaks.

The importance of #FOSS and #4opens in keeping radical media transparent and accessible. The #4opens (open process, open data, open licenses, and open standards) ensure inclusivity and guard against #mainstreaming dilution. These principles help create paths accountable to people, not funders and institutions.

This is the #OMN mission:

Core vs. Periphery: OMN prioritizes the 1% of technologies and workflows that align with human-focused projects, filtering out the shiny distractions of mainstream tech. Guided by the PGA Hallmarks, the project adheres to these anti-capitalist, anti-patriarchal, and grassroots-oriented principles to ensure alignment with long-term goals rather than fleeting trends. This challenges, right-wing coordination, the right has effectively leveraged #openweb media over the last decade, outpacing the left in cooperation and strategy. To counter this, the left must embrace collaborative frameworks like the #4opens and avoid falling into isolated #stupidindividualism. Verbiage and Focus is an issue, academia often overcomplicates the discourse, leading to a churn of ideas without actionable outcomes. Projects need clear plans that balance innovation with practical implementation.

Avoiding the #deathcult of neoliberalism, most mainstream tech assumes human nature is fixed by 40 years of neoliberalism, building reactionary systems. Grassroots projects reject this limitation and design tools that reflect the full spectrum of human potential. To move, we need to leverage experience, older activists should gently guide enthusiastic newcomers by asking, “How does this work with the #4opens?” and “Does this further the PGA hallmarks?” This approach fosters accountability and focus without stifling creativity. A core part of this is filtering technology, to avoid getting lost in the tech world’s “stinky, shiny fashions.” Focus on tools that genuinely empower communities rather than perpetuate #mainstreaming.

Build humanistic tools, to stop creating isolated, individualist solutions, tools fostering collaboration across diverse movements. Reboot proven models, starting new projects in a world dominated by #stupidindividualism leads to often to fragmentation. Instead, reboot and modernize successful past initiatives like #Indymedia, grounding them in the #4opens and #KISS federated governance.

The time is ripe for a #reboot of the alt/grassroots tech world. By centring projects on transparency, inclusivity, and collaboration, we can counter the forces of #deathcult neoliberalism and #mainstreaming. The #OMN is a framework for this sustainable and impactful radical media, to make us ready to sift through the tech pile and find the tools that serve humanity. Join the effort to help shape the future of grassroots media and governance. Learn more at OMN