The difference between struggle and #fashernista ethics. The latter is comfortable. The former matters.

Power in tech isn’t neutral, and our issue over the last 20 years is that we have allowed the #dotcons to hoarded and weaponised it. The answer to our failer isn’t to retreat or seek more “ethical” enclosures, it’s to reclaim our power through radical, commons-based networks like #indymediaback and the #OMN.

This argument is #nothingnew, we don’t need endless reinvention, we need continuity. The #openweb isn’t about mimicking #dotcons; it’s about breaking their privatisation model and returning power to collective hands. Hashtags, metadata, and federated networks help on this path, but the real strength is social, not just technical.

Examples of this: #Indymediaback isn’t just a project, it’s a continuation of a proven model that worked before the #dotcons stole the narrative. It was a social technological project embedded in radical movements, used real-world trust systems, and functioned outside of state/corporate control. Rebuilding it isn’t nostalgia; it’s a practical step toward rebalancing power.

We need ongoing arguments about power, opting out or running to “better” #dotcons just dodges the issue. Power is always there. The question is who holds it, and for what purpose? Right now, the #dotcons wield it for social control, profit, and policing. The #openweb flips that, if we build it as a “native” path.

The fight isn’t about making people “feel good” about tech choices, it’s about removing power from enclosures and putting it back into the commons. That’s the difference between real struggle and #fashernista ethics. The latter is comfortable. The former matters.

Paranoia is one of the biggest blockers in alt-tech and radical spaces. It breeds mistrust, isolation, and internal sabotage, making collective action impossible. While some caution is necessary, too much just feeds into stasis and control, mirroring the systems activists are trying to break away from.

The #4opens is a direct antidote to this. Transparency counters paranoia, when decisions, processes, and networks are open, there’s less space for suspicion to fester. Trust isn’t built by secrecy but by consistent, open, and accountable action.

The irony is that a lot of these paranoid actors think they’re resisting control, but by shutting everything down, they’re just self-sabotaging. The solution isn’t more walls—it’s more flows. The #4opens provides the framework to move past the paranoia blockade and rebuild trust in practice, not just theory.

The victimhood narrative is often a trap, weaponised by the right and co-opted by the #fashernista left to shut down alternatives. It can be used as a tool of control, not liberation. Composting the mess, in part, by refuse to play their game, victimhood, is in part real and in part is used to create moral authority without real action. If we engage on those terms, we just get dragged into performative battles.

Expose the power dynamics, by asking who benefits from this? In the negative sense, it’s often gatekeepers who want to control the narrative. NGOs do it for funding, #dotcons for engagement, and #mainstreaming activists for status. A path out of this is reclaiming direct action, which sadly meany in the left abandoned, and the right picked up. We need to take it back, not through reactionary purity politics, but by actually doing the work outside their controlled spaces. A healing path is shifting from identity to process, the current model is all about who is speaking, not what is being built. That’s a dead end. We need #4opens process-driven organising, not personality cults or gatekept “safe spaces.” Make failure visible, one of the biggest weapons against alt movements is pointing out their failures, while #mainstreaming projects hide their rot. If we embrace messy openness, we take that power away.

Breaking the cycle:

The right weaponises grievance → to mobilise.
The liberal left weaponises grievance → to control and suppress real challenge.
The alt-left needs to weaponise transparency → to break gatekeeping and rebuild trust.

So the question is: how do we make “openness” an effective tool in this? The #4opens is a step.

Bridging the gap: Building a human-first #openweb

Many years ago, I wrote on my website sidebar: “A river that needs crossing—political and tech blogs: On the political side, there is arrogance and ignorance; on the geek side, there is naivety and over-complexity.” Decades later, we still to often find ourselves standing on opposite shores of this river, struggling to bridge the understanding gap between human-centric communities and the techno-centric mindset of the “geek class.” This divide is a core challenge for anyone invested in building a better, decentralised #openweb.

This battle isn’t just about technology—it’s a deeper, unspoken struggle between openness and control. It’s about whether our social networks and communities will empower human trust and collaboration, or continue to be shaped by closed systems that reduce people to passive users.

To touch on this, it’s worth looking at a tale of two projects: Diaspora vs Mastodon

The history of the #openweb provides stark lessons. Consider #Diaspora and #Mastodon, two decentralised platforms with very different outcomes.

Diaspora had significant funding, public attention, and a large team of coders. Yet, it failed completely. Why? It was built with a #FOSS closed mindset—trying to replicate the control features of corporate platforms but within a decentralised framework.
Mastodon, by contrast, had no funding, minimal publicity, and just one dedicated coder. It succeeded because it embraced openness—allowing communities to organically grow and evolve based on shared principles rather than top-down control.

The lesson is clear: projects rooted in openness thrive, while those built on closed fail.

The #OMN path is human trust networks over algorithms. One of the core goals is to learn from these past successes and failures. From these focuses on growing federated human communities by prioritising openness, trust, and collaboration over technical “perfection.”

A counterintuitive path – Why Spam and “Bad Content” Matter. It might sound counterintuitive, but spam and irrelevant posts are a necessary part of building communities. Without the challenge of sorting and filtering content, there’s no reason for humans to reach out, form trust networks, and collaborate on moderation. Geeks often see spam as a technical problem to be solved with algorithms, but this approach misses where the value is.

Algorithms centralise power, when we rely on black-box technology to handle content moderation, control shifts to the people who design and manage these “boxes”. This creates invisible hierarchies, as seen with #Failbook and other #dotcons platforms. By relying on human moderation and trust-building, communities become stronger and more self-sustaining. People are motivated to engage, connect, and contribute to a path they help shape.

Spam and low-quality content must flow into the network as part of the process, but the network itself should flush this out to organically push valuable content to the top through human effort. Of course there is a balance here, this decentralised approach keeps power in the hands of the community balanced with the coders. With this flow of data and metadata established, we put some federated structure in place.

Scale through federation creates organic grow.

Base Sites: These are narrow, local, or subject-focused publishing sites where content creation happens. They are small and community-driven, and their true value lies in their specificity and grassroots community engagement.
Middle Sites: This aggregate content from the base sites, adding value by curating, tagging, and filtering. They act as the core of the network, sifting through content to ensure quality and relevance.
Top Sites: These are broad outreach platforms designed for #mainstreaming content. They are easy to set up and administer but add little original value. Instead, they highlight and amplify the best content from the base and middle layers. These sites are the change and challenge.

This structure reverses the traditional value pyramid, where top-down platforms dominate. In the #OMN model, the true value resides at the grassroots base, while the top merely reflects the collective effort below.

Moderation as a feature, not a problem, for the network to thrive, it must scale through human connections and trust, moderation is the fuel for building the trust networks.

Trusted Links: Content flows through trusted networks, where moderators ensure quality.
Moderation Levels: New contributors are moderated until trust is established. Over time, as trust builds, moderation becomes less/unnecessary.
Failure Modes: Without trust-building, sites will either become overwhelmed by irrelevant content or collapse under the weight of unmanageable workloads.

The only way to maintain a useful site is to build, either a large, healthy community with diverse moderators and administrators, or a small, focused group based on high-quality, trusted connections. Both outcomes are desirable and reinforce the decentralised ethos of the #OMN.

Why automation fails, the temptation to automate everything is a hallmark of the #geekproblem. While algorithms might make a network “technically” better, they erode the human element, which is the entire point of decentralisation. Automation creates middling-quality networks with mediocre outcomes, leading to Signal-to-Noise problems, reduced motivation, if everything is automated, why bother forming trust networks and engaging deeply?

Less is more should be a guiding principle. By focusing on simplicity and human collaboration, the #OMN avoids the pitfalls of over-engineering and maintains the integrity of its community-driven mission to build a better future. The #OMN isn’t just about technology; it’s about creating spaces where people can connect, collaborate, and build trust. It’s about empowering communities to take ownership of their networks and their narratives.

This road won’t be easy. We’ll need to fight against the inertia of the #dotcons and resist the urge to repeat the mistakes of the last decade’s failed alt-tech projects. But by embracing the #4opens principles, we can create a web that serves people, not corporations. The tools are already here. The open internet still exists, for now. The choice is clear, build for humans, not for algorithms. Trust people, not black boxes. Decentralise, federate, and grow organically. The #OMN provides a roadmap—now it’s time to follow it.

Public Social Media: The Choice is Clear

As the #fashernista and #geekproblem “debate” over social media platforms intensifies, the choice between public, decentralised networks and corporate-controlled #dotcons has never been clearer. Let’s look at a simple example:

Mastodon is owned by no one and everyone (community-driven). Its structure is public non-profit. Number of distributed nodes are in the thousands (fully decentralised). Post length: 500 characters and more. Can edit? Yes. Mastodon represents the native #openweb. It’s built on decentralised principles, where people and communities own and control their spaces. There’s no central authority dictating rules or exploiting for profit.
Bluesky is owned by Venture Capitalists, Its structure is corporate for-profit. Number of “distributed” nodes: One (centralised in practice) Post length: 300 characters Can edit? No. Bluesky, despite its claims of decentralisation, is owned and operated as a for-profit venture. Its structure centralises power and prioritises profit over people’s control, offering a polished but limited alternative to #mainstreaming paths.

The choice between #Mastodon and #Bluesky reflects a broader conflict between decentralisation and #dotcons corporate control. It should, but often is not easy to see that networks like the #Fediverse are native to the #openweb where Bluesky is an interloper, though they are both #4opens. Projects like the #OMN, #4opens, and the #Fediverse itself, offering freedom, community ownership, and transparency. Bluesky, on the other hand, represents the same closed, profit-driven ethos of the #dotcons, repackaged in a new “shiny” wrapper.

When you choose a network, you’re not just choosing where to post, you’re choosing what kind of internet you want to build. The open, public internet is still within reach. The choice should be clear.

Seed from a toot and image from @FediTips

The web wasn’t built by solo tech geniuses

The web wasn’t built by solo tech geniuses, finance firms, or flashy luminaries making illusionary promises. It was grown by the collective time, energy, and creativity of millions of grassroots people and communities working together to create something greater than themselves. The internet as we know it emerged not from the top-down visions of elites, but from decentralised, collaborative efforts. This same collective energy will be what propels us into the next era of the #openweb, a web that remains true to its native principles of accessibility, freedom, and inclusivity.

For the last 20 years, however, we’ve been stuck in the corporate-controlled ecosystem of the #dotcons. Platforms like Meta, Google, and Amazon have dominated the landscape, turning the internet into a commodity to be bought, sold, and controlled. Their vision has led to the rise of the #closedweb, where profit and surveillance trump openness and collaboration. This #mainstreaming path is deeply concerning because it fundamentally contradicts what the web was meant to be, a space for sharing, learning, and connecting without the old gatekeepers.

There is a movement to reverse this trend, the #Fediverse, but like meany reboots it’s floundering as it grows through the inrushing of “common sense”. What we need is native #KISS foundations for a thriving #openweb, A path to this is to embrace the #4opens as guiding principles:

Open Data: Ensuring that information can be freely shared and reused.
Open Source: Building tools and platforms that anyone can access, modify, and improve.
Open Standards: Creating interoperable systems that work across platforms and communities.
Open Process: Making decisions transparently and inclusively to foster trust and collaboration.

This is a simple retelling of the #FOSS process with the addition of #openprocess as is used in the best projects, this is a part of the #nothingnew path we are on.

It’s not enough to critique the #dotcons, we need to actively build alternatives, the #Fediverse has already taken the first set on this path. The next step is focusing our energy on “native” projects like #OMN (Open Media Network), #IndyMediaBack, and #OGB (Open Governance Body), on this path we can create a decentralised, human-centred web that prioritises communities over corporations. These projects are not about recreating the same flawed systems in a slightly different guise; they’re about fundamentally rethinking how we engage with technology, governance, and communication. This rethink is #nothingnew as it’s copying the working structure of grassroots activism.

The time is now to come together and make history by working on these alternatives. The #openweb is not just an ideal; it’s a necessity for a sustainable, democratic future. Let’s reject the illusions of the #closedweb and instead build a web that truly belongs to everyone.

Tech princes and the #deathcult

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A world we see as normal

Can you smell it? Can you feel the unease in the world the hard shift to the right is feeding off? The dead ideology of Neo-liberalism is everywhere. It’s a rotten corpse in everything we look at, everything we touch. And yes while it might feel uncomfortable, we should actively feel distaste when we look at it and revulsion when we touch it, this is the reality of living under a #deathcult. For the past 40 years, we’ve been immersed in a system that most people still worshipped as if there’s no alternative. But where is the path out of this smell of this uneasy feeling? Where is the vision for something different, something rooted in solidarity and sustainability rather than profit and exploitation?

To find a different path, take a moment to look at this example of a #4opens project from a simpler time: Wikipedia revision history from 2011. Note the commitment to “strict scrutiny”, which required that any security measures serve a compelling community interest and be narrowly focused to achieve that and nothing else.

Compare that principle to the current state of tech, where the #encryptionsist agenda overshadows transparency and community accountability. The shift has been stark, away from openness, away from scrutiny, and towards the path where security becomes a shield for entrenched power and control.

This is what we need to confront, the #deathcult thrives on our passive acceptance of #neoliberal norms of #closed. Revulsion in this mess isn’t just justified; it’s necessary. The path we need to take is in rejecting this hard blocking to open spaces to build the #4opens alternatives we so desperately need.

OMN #indymediaback #openweb #makehistory #OGB

You need to think about this more? Let’s look at an example of this in our current lives, people have been living in the shadow of neoliberalism for so long that worshipping the #deathcult has become their nature. The values of exploitation, competition, and #stupidindividualism are baked into what’s considered “normal” behaviour. In contrast, embracing a #lifecult, based on collaboration, community, and sustainability – feels alien, even threatening, to many of these “normal” people.

This is one of the reasons the #Fediverse and alternative social media platforms have struggled to gain traction with the huge influx of #mainstreaming people fleeing the growth of tech fascism. The Fediverse embodies #lifecult principles: decentralisation, mutual aid, and the rejection of exploitative corporate models. While these are positive ideals, they feel too far removed from the familiar patterns of the #deathcult for most people to take the leap.

A cynical path we could take is to meet people halfway. Instead of demanding they abandon their comfort zone entirely, we could make the Fediverse appear less like a #lifecult at first glance by presenting it in ways that feel more approachable and less intimidating, more like the #deathcult they are used to. On this compromise path, yes, the Fediverse should stay true to its principles, but making it less of an overt #lifecult and more of a practical, attractive alternative, this could be the “common sense” step we need to bring people over. Once they’re in, the actually, very needed, hopefully still existing culture, the values of the Fediverse will begin to work their magic.

What do you think? Should we focus on shadowing the approach to reach more people, or would that risk diluting the values that make the #Fediverse what it is? How do we live this balance in our shared #openweb reboot.

The pushing of doomed projects

We need real and sharp critique’s of the current mess pushing of #mainstreaming in the #openweb and #NGO tech-for-good spaces. The challenge is of cutting down obviously pointless projects from 99% to 90% which is a both realistic and necessary. How can we achieve this needed shift, focusing on impactful subjects, better implementation, and strategic approaches in programming development.

The developing of alternatives to corporate platforms is a first step we have taken in the #Fediverse, with most of the current #mainstreaming projects simply replicate corporate models while branding themselves as “ethical” or “decentralised.” The next step is to create genuine alternatives, by focusing on “native”tools for community governance, people-first design. Then it’s key to mediate the many #NGO tech projects that keep reinventing the wheel instead of tools for the change and challenge we actually need and use.

We need to rethink funding paths for #openweb projects, as the current funding ecosystem drives pointless or doomed #geekproblem and #fashernista projects. Many of these are designed to chase grant money, not solve problems. To mediate this, we need to push for more cooperative grassroots funding pools.

A persistent issue is the disconnect between what developers think people need and what people actually need. Shifting away from the current paths can be done by testing ideas in real-world environments before scaling them, ensuring they’re practical and usable. Stop chasing the startup-style obsession with scaling at all costs. Building federated systems designed to thrive in small, resilient communities. Encourage slow, thoughtful growth that prioritises depth of engagement over breadth of reach. Simplifying over-engineered solutions and avoiding adding complexity for its own sake; the simpler the tool, the more likely it is to succeed.

How do we achieve the 9% Difference? Getting from 99% pointless projects to 90% will require, stronger public scrutiny to slow the pushing of doomed tech projects. This needs to focus on realistic, grounded ideas, on doing, not talking by encourage people to start small and prove themselves through action, not the normal empty big vapid #NGO promises.

By focusing, we can make a tangible difference in the #openweb space and reduce the noise of pointless #techchurn that currently wastes time, focus and resources. It’s not about erasing failure altogether, that’s impossible. It’s about creating a culture where thoughtful, practical grassroots work has the space to thrive and grow #KISS

The wall of funding silence

The #dotcons share an ideology

There is a tech ideology that masks corporate power, and this view of #mainstreaming Cyber libertarianism is a bizarre ideological mishmash, a combination of hippie flower power, economic neoliberalism, and a heavy dose of technological determinism. It’s the credo of Silicon Valley, so much so that for years it was known as the “Californian Ideology.” this “thinking” shapes the tech bros and their billionaire overlords, who for the last ten years have push #cryptocurrencys and now claim that technologies like #AI hold the key to solving all human problems and offers “endless opportunities” for wealth, power, and pleasure. Naturally, anything that stands in the way of this vision, government regulation, public oversight, and most importantly collective action, must be swept aside. For meany years, this sounded like a progress path to some, but it’s riddled with obvious contradictions and dangers.

Many of the problems we face are inherently political, requiring systemic solutions that involving collective governance. Yet, the CEOs, executives, and vulture capitalists would rather you believe that the solutions lie in the “free-market”, that is then conveniently funnelled through their platforms and products. This serves their interests in maintaining power and wealth while pushing aside meaningful public accountability and any possible of an alternative.

This fusion of #geekproblem libertarian engineers and anti-government #fahernistas gave rise to the foundational myths of this #geekproblem flow, that technology empowers individuals to create a better world. In the 1990, cyber libertarianism become the dominant ideology in Silicon Valley. Yet, as this ideology flourished, it should have been clear that its vision of “freedom” was fundamentally flawed.

The rhetoric of #techbrow claims to be about freedom—freedom from government oversight, freedom of speech, and freedom to innovate. But in practice, this freedom is selective. It serves the powerful and nasty few while ignoring or exploiting the vast majority. This omission is central to the current #dotcons and parts of our #openweb reboot By focusing exclusively on the dangers of government tyranny, it ignores how corporations can wield just as much, if not more, power over people. This isn’t an accident—it’s the entire point. Silicon Valley’s billionaires don’t want less power for themselves; they want less oversight from governments and the public.

Neoliberalism becomes the new normal to justify policies that benefit the nasty rich. This path of our current #dotcons oligarchs is no accident. The vague anti-government ethos provides the perfect cover for neoliberal policies. By dressing up deregulation, tax cuts for the wealthy, and the dismantling of public services in the language of “freedom,” both tech billionaires and neoliberal politicians can push their agendas without ever addressing the systemic issues of capitalism, inequality and exploitation.

The Musk empire is a prime example, while he rails against government interference, he eagerly accepts billions in subsidies, pushes for deregulation that benefits his companies, and weaponises his platforms to amplify far-right ideologies. Since taking over Twitter, Musk has turned it into a haven for white supremacists and conspiracy theorists, throttled links to media outlets he dislikes, and boosted his own tweets to ensure maximum visibility.

This is the logical conclusion of the path we have all walked down with our embrace of the #dotcons. By rejecting democratic oversight and embracing a narrow, individualistic definition of freedom, we have consolidates power in the hands of the few wealthy, nasty #techbrows and their acolytes. For all the rhetoric about empowering individuals, this path has always been about protecting the privileges of the nasty few.

We see in the USA this Silicon Valley influence growing. Now more than ever, it’s crucial to challenge these paths and step away from the #dotcons these inadequate and nasty people control. We need to understand that freedom isn’t about the absence of government oversight, it’s about creating a humanistic society where power is accountable, resources are shared more equitably, and everyone has the opportunity to grow. The spreading fascism hiding behind the ideology of Cyber libertarianism offers none of this, Instead, it offers us a neo feudalism, tech kings, knights and priests who claim to liberate us while consolidating their control. It’s time to see through the shiny algorithm driven façade and make the effort and focus to build something better. With the native #openweb reboot we have the tools to do this, with #OMN there is a different technological path we can take.

Prodding a #dotcons flow

Let’s try a spiky reply to this tweet on the #mainstreaming #dotcons platform, keep in mind these spaces often reek of superficial analysis and throwing around half-baked ideas without engaging with the deeper structural issues.

On the subject: “the culture of spontaneity, and mass horizontalism.” Yes, these approaches have their flaws, particularly when they lack clear strategy or organisation, but the #mainstreaming dismissing of them as ineffective wholesale shows a lack of understanding of their historical context and value. Spontaneity and horizontalism emerged as responses to the failures of top-down bureaucratic models of the left, which stagnated under Cold War pressures and co-optation. To be claiming they “can’t really compete” without acknowledging why they arose or their ongoing relevance in decentralised movements is lazy analysis.

And then there’s the smug messaging that “that’s something almost everyone now agrees on.” Really? Who is “everyone”? This nothing more than an appeal to a nebulous consensus that doesn’t actually exist. Plenty of activists, organisers, and theorists still see value in horizontalism, just not in isolation or as an end in itself. Pretending the debate is over is the kind of rhetoric that shuts down critical thinking rather than advancing it.

Moving on to the second tweet, “Agree on need for organisation (…that are trade unions or trade union focused).” While trade unions are a valid path, especially in reclaiming workers’ rights in the face of rampant exploitation, reducing “organisation” to trade unions is a narrow view. Trade unions, while necessary, aren’t sufficient to address the wider cultural, ecological, and social crises we face. There’s a world of organising happening outside of unions, mutual aid networks, co-operatives, tenant unions, and the growing need for grassroots digital activism, to name a few, that is every bit as crucial. This is a kind of blinkered nostalgia for “the union, and nothing but the union” which is a poor fit for the of struggles we’re dealing with.

Then there’s the call for “a systematic approach to cultural work.” Absolutely, but what does this mean? As so often, these statements don’t explain or offer a path. Instead, we get the vague assertion that it should focus on “actually doing culture that is popular, not moralising and nostalgia.” While it’s true, moralising and nostalgia can cripple cultural efforts on the left, this critique feels like it’s slapping at a strawman. What is this “popular” culture we’re supposed to aim for? Affective work is not about chasing popularity for its own sake but creating counter-narratives that resonate with people’s lived experiences and inspire action. Popularity without substance is meaningless, just another form of hollow spectacle and #deathcult worship

Lastly, the tone throughout this thread is performative critique, pointing out issues without contributing to paths. If anything, this “chatter” mirrors the liberal commentary class it seeks to critique: smug, self-assured, and ultimately irrelevant to those who are actually deep in the trenches building alternatives.

If we’re serious about confronting the failures of the left, we need less posturing and more meaningful engagement with the grassroots challenges at hand. We need to embrace complexity, grapple with historical lessons, while building cultural, technological paths that balance appeal with radical substance. It’s sad to say, dismissing ideas with “memes” half-hearted quips and lazy assumptions gets us nowhere.

Now what would a #fluffy reply look like 🙂

The obstacle is people cannot see change and challenge

The failures of the liberal class, should now be obvious, and are rooted in their worship of neo-liberal “common sense,” that eroded our collective capacity for thought and solidarity. For 40 years, the #mainstreaming “left” abandoned the principles of class struggle, leaving the majority of people isolated and alienated. This complacency, steeped in postmodernist detachment, has created a vacuum that allows fear and hate to flourish. Over the past two decades, left identity politics, though well-meaning in its inception, has fragmented movements, prioritising narrow individualism over collective power.

The right wing has seized this opportunity to co-opt and distort progressive narratives, using them to fuel division and weaponise fear. This has paved the way for a shift towards authoritarianism and fascism, deepening the crisis of inequality, climate collapse, and social disintegration.

Yet, amidst this ongoing bleak reality, there is hope. The growing failures of the mainstream can be a turning point. They create the conditions for a return to #KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid) class-based left-wing movements, movements grounded in shared struggle, solidarity, and common purpose. This shift needs to sweep away the current #mainstreaming crew, who refuse to lift their heads from #deathcult worshipping dogma, and consign these long dead ideologies to the compost heap of history where they belong.

As a community, we face immense challenges: The hard shift to the far right, surviving the next generation of #climatechaos, enduring social breakdown, and creating systemic change in the face of these crises. But the solutions lie in coming together, rediscovering the power of collective action, and rejecting the #stupidindividualism that isolates us.

The biggest obstacle is that many people cannot see this. Years of cultural conditioning, relentless propaganda, and the atomisation of society have blinded people to the possibilities of collective power. They are trapped in a path that convinces them that there is no alternative—that the only option is to keep their heads down, live inside the status quo, and hope for survival.

But history tells us a different story: when communities organise, they can and do change the world. This is not a time for despair—it is a time for action. The current economic paths are failing, but this failure opens the door to something new, something better. The time for change is now, and it’s up to us to make the challenge happen.

So lift your heads to see clearly, and take action, not as isolated individuals but as a community. Together, we can not only survive, but create a future of growth, humanistic and ecological flourishing.

The #OMN is a social tech step on the path we need to take.

The madness is everywhere—online, offline, doesn’t really make much difference anymore. After four decades of being spoon-fed #neoliberal garbage, individualism has rotted collective sense-making. The tech we use? Built by a geek class lost in its own deterministic tunnel vision.

Sanity, then, is about stepping outside that churn. The #OMN approach—grassroots, #DIY, non-corporate, and actually human-focused—has to be a path forward. The question is, who else sees this? Who’s willing to do something genuinely different, not just repackage the same #techshit and call it innovation?

Where do you think those people are hiding?

A social tech path out of the current mess

A look at the paths we need to take to balance the current #mainstreaming. Mess begets more mess, embrace It, but strategically is the starting point of the #OGB project, recognising that solving crises will inevitably create new complications. This isn’t defeatist but pragmatic. Understanding that “messy consensus” is a natural state of grassroots activism both online and offline allows us to embrace imperfection while striving for progress. How can we build tools to work with this balance, we need paths that don’t eliminate mess but help us navigate it constructively.

Messy consensus vs. formal consensus, is basic, that “almost nothing that works, works with formal consensus” is both an indictment of rigidity and a call to trust human intuition and collective messiness. Formal consensus processes prioritise idealised decision-making frameworks over functional, timely action. Messy consensus in practice, decisions that evolve through ongoing dialogue, negotiation, and iterative adjustments. A focus on getting things done rather than endlessly perfecting processes.

The #OGB Project approach is based on #KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid) by documenting messy consensus in action rather than try to force-fit solutions into rigid structures. The wider #OMN is about building software tools that reflect this dynamic, fluid, adaptive, and capable of handling the inherent unpredictability of real world grassroots organising.

Grassroots movements need patience and realism, activism is hard work, rife with delays, frustrations, and the risk of spiralling into unproductive behaviours. The example of delays being full of “shittiness all round” is all too common. The solution is to focus, implement basic accountability and communication tools to reduce friction (e.g., clear timelines, transparent updates). Design paths where delays can’t derail core progress (e.g., smaller, autonomous working groups with clear boundaries).

The #geekproblem and governance failures, technologists operate under the illusion that technology is apolitical, seeing themselves as neutral actors. This leads to tools and systems that perpetuate power imbalances rather than address them, then governance struggles inside this #techshit. On the more #NGO paths, governments and corporations alike fail because they attempt to apply dated paradigms (territorial governance, Soviet-style technocracy, and unchecked market competition) to globally networked paths.

#OGB and the #openweb native paths are about building politically aware technologies that understand their social impact and are actively shaped by the communities they serve. This is about moving beyond individualistic thinking to balance paths where decisions are made collectively and equitably, guided by progressive shared values and principles.

Metadata isn’t trivial, it’s often more revealing than the data itself. Governments and corporations weaponise it for control. However, this control relies on perpetuating individual isolation and the illusion that society doesn’t exist. A core path is challenging the #deathcult mentality and this death spiral of isolationism. The idea that individuals are isolated entities, disconnected from society, aligns with the deeply reactionary mindset of the #deathcult. It’s this ideology that drives surveillance capitalism, authoritarian governance, and ecological collapse.

The #OMN is about countering the death spiral by build networks and technologies that grow solidarity, collective agency, and a sense of shared purpose. To make this happen, we need to call out reactionary ideologies wherever they manifest, but with patience and a focus on education. The Internet is a commons, not an empire. The internet’s potential is currently squandered by treating it as a platform for profit-driven empires. With the #OMN instead, we cultivate a shared common, reflecting the principles of the #openweb. With commons-based governance, we move away from corporate models and toward federated, community-led governance. Interoperable ecosystems, prioritise open standards that allow diverse communities to connect without being locked into monopolistic kingdoms.

The #OMN contribution, is about documenting the failures of current systems and demonstrate the viability of federated, grassroots alternative paths. And from this building the cultural and technical infrastructure necessary to support an internet that is truly by and for the people. Practical steps are acknowledging the mess, start with the reality of our messy paths and systems rather than pretending they don’t exist. Then use this understanding as the foundation for solutions. Promote realistic timelines, by accepting that grassroots organising moves slower than we’d like, but ensure delays are constructive rather than paralysing. Focus on education, misunderstandings stem from a lack of digital literacy and political awareness, we need patience and persistence to mediate messy processes through practice.

In conclusion, how can we shape the world without being covered in shit. Yes, the path is messy, imperfect, and filled with hard work, but that’s no reason to despair. The #OMN projects offers a grounded approach that prioritises doing over theorising, embracing messy consensus as a strength rather than a weakness. By rejecting the #deathcult of individualism and building on the principles of the #openweb, we create paths that reflect the reality of grassroots organising: chaotic, collaborative, and, ultimately, transformative.

The wider #OMN project from a more #mainstreaming prospective

Sifting the wheat from the chaff in our technological and social mess is an important challenge. This is why the #OMN approach of leveraging work across communities and utilising multi-tag aggregation is an elegant and powerful solution. It would be useful to look at this from a more #mainstreaming prospective.

Aggregated work across communities of subjects, the first step in the #OMN path involves gathering and organising work created by various communities around specific subjects or interests. Subject-centric hubs, decentralised indexing, curating content based on subjects (e.g., #ClimateChange, #TechEthics). These hubs wouldn’t rely on centralised algorithms, but instead draw from a network of community-curated sources. Community moderation by trusted communities who moderate and curate content within their subject interested. This ensures quality and reduces noise while resisting gatekeeping tendencies of centralised control.
Reputation by contribution by encourage subject-focused communities to reward contributions, promoting collaboration and surfacing valuable work naturally.

Dynamic and live updates, newsfeeds, can be feed by aggregating real-time updates from communities working on the same subjects using open protocols like ActivityPub. This would provide a live pulse of discussions, innovations, and trends across diverse groups and subjects.

Multi-tag aggregation, the next step is to create a system that enables the mash-up of multiple tags to filter and organise the aggregated content dynamically. Advanced multi-tagging allow people to filter aggregated work using combinations of tags, e.g., #ClimateChange + #IndigenousRights + #CommunityProjects.

Visualisation of tag relationships, tag webs, implement visual tools that map relationships between tags, communities, and subjects. People can explore how different concepts connect and navigate the network intuitively. Trend overview, within tag intersections to help people identify emerging areas of focus and overlooked intersections.

Tools for aggregation and mashing, to make this work practically, we need powerful, accessible tools that build on the #OMN ethos. Open aggregators, open-source aggregators that collect data, metadata, and content flows from diverse platforms and formats, such as blogs, Fediverse instances, wikis, and video platforms that can be made compatible with the #openweb, we simply ignore the #dotcons which are to #closedweb to be worth plugging in to these flows, they will wither in the self-sustaining destruction of their own #techshit, sadly taking a part of our communities with them, we do not have the focus to rescue everyone as we push this shift.

Community buy-In and participation, To build the #OMN path in an effective and relevant direction, it must gain support and participation from the communities that create it. This needs: Simple, intuitive interfaces for tagging, curating, and contributing to subject hubs. Guides and incentives to help non-technical people engage with the paths. Decentralised decision-making, with democratic governance paths like the #OGB. Education and outreach, with educational campaigns to teach people how to use multi-tag aggregation and curated subject hubs that work.

Guarding against pitfalls, while the #OMN approach is promising, it’s essential to mitigate potential risks. We need to keep vigilance on balancing noise and redundancy. Centralisation risks, by keeping to decentralised and open paths to avoid reliance on any single platform, database, or organisation. Bias in curation is kept in check by the networks being inherently leaky, people will see other points of view – we do not subscribe to the #blocking inherent in #fashernista safety culture.

What would this look like, the end goal: Collaborative Knowledge Commons. The aim of the #OMN path is to create a living, breathing commons of human knowledge and action. By aggregating community work and enabling meaningful mash-ups through multi-tag aggregation, we create a powerful tool to cut through the noise, enabling better collaboration between communities, richer understanding of complex, intersectional issues, stronger foundations for the native #openweb.