You rarely get anywhere by simply renaming things. All you do is lose the historical thried and then recreate the same mess. #Stupidindividualism is often the motivation for this, and it’s a big sin in the liberals and “post politics” crew.
A metaphor that individualism makes us stupid and that to live outside a balance of individualistic vs community is stupid. Yes, it’s an aspect of liberalism and capitalism and at an extreme with #neoliberalism.
#deathcult worshippers is another metaphor for (invisible) neoliberalism.
All the metaphors (used as #hashtags) are aspects of liberalism and very critical of neoliberalism. The idea is to make #mainstreaming thinking dirty.
The hashtags work if a community/affinity group of people use them without falling into the sin of #stupidindividualism of course 😉
If you miss my point, please go back and reread, don’t drop back into sin 😉
Throwing ideas into the air to see where they land, this is a sketch, not a blueprint – a thought experiment. As if we’re serious about using the #openweb to challenge #mainstreaming, and build alternatives to failing capitalist status quo, we have to start somewhere. So let’s ask: what does a world built around the #4opens look like?
We’re talking about a soft move away from capitalism, not an apocalyptic collapse or utopian leap, but a pragmatic, grounded shift in how we live, relate, and build together in the digital era. A society governed by openness, not profit, future rooted in collaboration, not control.
The End of Money as the Primary Motivator
In a #4opens world, exchange is no longer driven by the blunt instrument of money. The logic of scarcity fades when information is abundant and freely shared. With open data and transparent process, value can be tracked, distributed, and balanced – not hoarded.
Imagine a path where you give not to accumulate, but to re-balance. Where you’re recognized and supported for what you contribute, openly. This doesn’t mean the end of value, it means the end of commodification as the only language for it. Capitalism made money sacred. The #4opens world breaks that spell in the digital paths, which can then be used as a lever to re-balance this in the more physical world.
Radical Reductions in Inequality
The current digital economy centralises control in the hands of the #nastyfew, the platform owners, the server landlords, the data hoarders. In contrast, a #4opens world puts common infrastructure – physical and digital – under #FOSS democratic stewardship.
Open code, open governance, open data, open processes. These tools dismantle the gatekeeping logic of closed silos. We stop renting access to our lives and can then stop working to make the rich richer. What results is not just a redistribution of resources, but a recomposition of power. Rich and poor stop being natural categories, we start down the path of inequality becoming a historical memory.
Ecological Transformation via Digital Abundance
In this world changing, we break the toxic loop where growth = progress. As digital goods expand – freely shareable, replicable, adaptable – the material basis of economic growth shrinks.
Instead of growth for its own sake, we can choose to sift focus to ecological outcomes. Energy systems localise, circular economies flourish. The planet breathes again because we’ve stopped mistaking consumerism for culture. On this post-consumption, we can meet human needs without destroying the biosphere.
Real Community, Not Algorithmic Spectacle
When your networks are open, knowable is modifiable, you stop being a metric or a data point. You become a person in a community again, who can re-build networks of care and trust. The #4opens give us tools to know each other better, to collaborate without permission, and to keep relationships alive across distance and time. We escape the isolation of the #dotcons by remembering what it means to belong, not to brands, but to people.
Reclaiming the Meaning of ‘Common Sense’
In this transition, we’ll have to rethink almost everything we take for granted. Why do we work so much? Why do we compete instead of collaborate? Why is everything a secret? Why are we trained to distrust?
The capitalist world naturalised its own ideology, it taught us that exploitation was just “how the world works.” The #4opens world undoes this conditioning. We’ll discover that our “common sense” was a prison, and that open thinking makes new realities possible.
We already lost privacy, let’s be honest that the #dotcons and the surveillance state see everything. This isn’t a warning, it’s the present, there’s no going back to closed data. Not legally or technically. The dream of sealed-off privacy is gone. So what can we do?
We open the #metadata bag. All of it. We make the hidden flows of power visible. We stop pretending that corporate surveillance is okay while peer-to-peer transparency is dangerous.
Yes, it’s uncomfortable. But in a world where we’ve already been stripped naked by Google, Amazon, and the NSA, radical transparency becomes the preferd path to justice. The question isn’t “how do we hide?” but “how do we share wisely and govern openly?”
What Does a Post-Capitalist, Open Society Look Like?
It’s not utopia, it’s messy, it’s federated, full of tension and debate. But it’s also a world where:
Decisions are made in the open, not behind closed doors.
Software is built to be forked, not locked.
Platforms are governed by people and communitys, not shareholders.
Care is more valuable than control.
Collaboration is default, not an afterthought.
This is the vision of the #4opens, not a theory, but a practice. A lived, everyday politics. A shift from passive consumption to active creation. It’s the beginning of something new, rooted in #FOSS, a real path, where everything we already know works if we just trust each other enough to try.
So, what does a #4opens world look like? It looks like the world we’re already building, underneath the rubble of the old one. Time to pick up your shovels.
Our current groups doing alt/grassroots media are too limited in their idea of what media could/should be in this the is either a naivety or a dishonesty. The most successful act and think they can be #traditionalmedia” without controlling the distribution of their content in any meaningful way. This is of course not unusual, the mainstream media is continually making this same mistake. All of them rely on the #dotcons which nowadays is largely the #Failbook algorithm for the there content distribution.
Our current grassroots/alt media have websites so already have one foot in the openweb, but none of their sites prominently link in any meaningful way to each others. They do podcasting so anther foot in the open web, but all their effort for outreach is inside the #silos such as Apple iTunes etc. it’s hard to directly blame them, though we should and will, for this sorry state.
So why are we here? On the one hand we have the #fashernista embrace of the #dotcons which almost all the current crew built their careers inside. A capitalist #mainstreaming.
On the other we have the suicidal embrace of #encryptionists complexity and parallel “standardization” into a pointless/shrinking to nothingness alt-tech ghetto were our #geekproblem are and desire to stay. A liberal/libertarian #mainstreaming.
With these issues in mind I have been outreaching to these groups for the last year, and building real working openweb linking tech as part of the #OMN project. This currently is not been getting past the crew’s naivety/self-interest/career focused thinking. Fair anufe if that is as far as their imagination/aspiration goes, but this is a clear problem for working alt/progressive/left media that urgently needs to be addressed.
So our current alt/grassroots media are irrelevant to rebooting a healthy society from a technical/social point of view. Their is some good content but no realistic path for this media to be seen or spread in a way that can be affective for social change outside the controlling #dotcons
One simple and practical path to change this is a basic. To move on with the project to get alt/grassroots media producers linking to each other on the #openweb Currently they pointlessly do not do this, even though they have repeatedly stated they do over the last few years.
What action have I been taking over the last 10 years:
1) Keep private messaging them on steps they can take, this works to an extent, as last year I asked them to add more tags to their posts and they “broke” the User Interface on the #OMN codebase we are using by adding lots more – which is a good problem to have. A small step.
2) Publicly talk to them as a alt/grassroots media group in blog post and their social media – this currently has little effect.
3) Talk to them in public as producer groups – this has had a limited effect with some groups, will try this more.
4) Publicly talk to them as individual’s, this will generally get a private response and little/no action just words so far.
5) Name and shame them as groups who do not link/share with other groups in public, this might be needed for some groups, but this is a negative.
6) Name them as individuals within the producer groups and push for linking directly to them in public, name and point to the individual that this is a clear negative fail, a last stage.
It’s a shame that this escalation is needed/not working – linking is a clear path to success on the web – the right-wing blogs/producers do this, it’s a simple fail that the left/progressive do not now, and generally never have link to each other.
“Make the world you want to see” LINKING is the bases of the #openweb and a strong path to #rebooting the grassroots internet itself. Looking for helpful/happy people to crowed source the active conversation to make this happen, maybe we need a “new” alt-media content #reboot to pull the current ones onto a sustainable path, lead by example.
For this to be relevant we need working open media tech, the best example of this is mastodon/activertypub. The #OMN project uses this and is simple #4opens based on linking, it’s a “first step”.
Our #mainstreaming current online tools (for example #Facebook) were built out from the worst parts of human nature. The challenge facing us is can we build our tools from the best part of human nature (an example would be the #OMN) I think this is a nice challenge to have.
It’s interesting to think about what shapes the small part of the social flow you see on #failbook and see how other agenda’s dominate what you see as a “personal” experience.
2) The ego of the CEO and heads of engineering and marketing at Facebook.
3) The agenda’s of the investors in Facebook – this includes front company’s for the intelligence services of the US and many very rich people. (#nastyfew)
4) The agenda of the advertisers that pay Facebooks bills. The agenda’s that all the above do not want to push – this is semantically hidden by “we can’t sell adverts next to your content”. And they sell this to us as: “this is not social engineering”.
5) Anything published outside Facebook silo/portal is pushed down and things published inside Facebooks walls are pushed up. An example of this is that Youtube videos are not always embedded any-more, and that #failbook videos are and autoplay. (URLs are now down rated)
6) The people you friend on Facebook. But this is not unmediated the people who are a better fit to the first 5 points will be pushed more visible than people who do not, which will be pushed down out of view.
7) Your likes and interactions will help the algorithm chose from the “advert friendly content” in your wider feed and push these posts into your (personal) news feed.
8) Facebook is clever evil, the algorithm is elastic, you can push it and it will bend. Of course, evil cleaver wants you to do this because it learns how you push and how to push you back to shape the above first 5 points.
9) Clever Evil 2 that Facebook will also push though content that it cannot necessarily monetize, but has the intent to addict you to taking the phone out of your pocket to check every spare moment.
10) It’s not only about cats and family photos, it about reshaping the world so that #Trump and #Brexit can happen, and we are powerless to do anything about this. All we can do is empower the enemy by feeding it knowledge on how to empower Trumps and Brixets. Shake and repeat, shake and repeat, shake and repeat, shake and repeat.
Why did the thousands of open internet projects fail? Despite large amounts of state, foundation, #NGO funding. There were early successful activist tech projects, all proved to be pointless or withered with success. In all cases I would argue that the underlining fairer was one of ideology, almost all projects worked against the dominate ideology of the net and web itself. Just as the #dotcons burned and bust repeatedly, traditional media was hopeless in till a new generation came along who had an inclining of the underlining working of the new tech ideology.
The few open projects that worked with in the ideology of the web were swamped by the pushing of the funding of the #mainstreaming of the web/internet. I am arguing here that the majority of people making a living in the #openweb/internet world are core to the problem not the solution, I could name hundreds of projected with the word open/radical in um who actively destroyed “open”.
A tiny minority created a world expanding technology based on the ideology and practices of trust based Anarchism. This exploded into the existing tech/communication worlds, pushing aside, pushing over, all the “better” 20th century vertical (ideology) tech already in place. Open became dominant for a while and this open was “locked in” because of a strong ideological thread throughout the standards and structures of the internet/web, the very “chaos” of the #openweb protected it from the “vertical” (20th century) locking of corporates such as Microsoft etal.
Nothing last forever, a new generation came along who merged the “open” back into the “closed” can’t really blame them, they were children of Thatcher and Reagan. Am amazed to have lived though the time of the #openweb, the world really did feel very different for a time. Who are the heroes and who the villeins, this history is unwritten yet, better get to it.
This is my realistic/pessimistic view of where we are at LINK
Let’s look at how we acturly organise. Grassroots alternative streams (and #mainstreaming river with more complexity) can be split into a number of streams
* The horizontals
* The verticals
In the horizontals the organising is actually pretty opaque – lets look at the tributary’s
Organic consensus – This is rare and generally fleeting, a working example is the rainbow gathering, generally as the project settles into place organic consensus is replaced with one of the bellow organising strategies. The organic nature comes from shared myths and traditions.
Bureaucratic consensus – Common, but this tends to be only a surface layer obscuring the actual working practices which would be one of the others. It leads to ossification, see late climate camp process as an example of this. A current project is looking likely the “edge fund”.
Opaque affinity group – There is a group of people who are doing it, but you don’t know how or how to take on a role. A lot of alternatives are actually run like this, middle/late #climatecamp is an example.
Invisible affinity group – The thing just appears as if by magic, lovely as far as it takes you. Given time, this will burn out and morph into one of the other forms. Early #climatecamp is a good example of this, as is early #Indymedia
Open affinity group – The is hope in this hard to sustain one, an example would be the tech group at Balcomby anti fracking camp. These are hard/tiring to keep open “naturally” falling into a different strategy.
Then the verticals are more in the open
Democratic centralism (#SWP etc) top down and corrupt, good for the nasty crew at the centre that can last a long time by draining new blood from the alternative. Big noise and little effect.
Bureaucratic democracy (#NUJ) good as far as it goes but endless meetings and heavy use of cross subsidy to sustain the sluggish process, problematically reactionary dues to glacial adaptation to changes around it.
Career Hierarchy – most trade unions and the Labour Party, conservative and sluggish, can be captured by functioning opaque/invisible affinity groups and then used for their own ends – an example the #newlabour project.
Generally, the way things are on the river surface bears little relation to the undercurrents below the surface. Almost all organising that achieves social change is by opaque or invisible affinity groups. The more permanent, static alt infrastructure is Democratic centralism or Bureaucratic democracy. The parts that merge into the mainstream river are career Hierarchy.
We live in turbulent times, enjoy your ride on the choppy river.
Blacksky: This project, created by the crypto crew for the #NGO liberal types, is firmly rooted in the #dotcons sphere. While it claims to align with #openweb values, its foundation leans towards control and capital rather than grassroots paths. Yes it adds diversity to the ecosystem but will likely become another messy experiment that feeds into the compost pile. Support it if you feel inclined, but be prepared with a shovel to deal with the outcomes.
Bonfire Networks: A project from the #NGO world trying to push into grassroots territory. However, history is littered with similar efforts that fail repeatedly due to their inability to adapt to the #openweb’s native ethos. While it contributes to diversity, its trajectory reflects a pattern of missteps.
Darius Kazemi: A #mainstreaming grassroots figure who has a notable presence but seems more focused on occupying space rather than producing actionable outcomes. While there might be potential utility here, none has been apparent thus far.
db0: This one remains a mystery for now; no further insight is available.
Emelia Smith (@ThisIsMissEm): I’ve had conversations with Emelia, but their contributions seemed incoherent and mostly negative. They might align with the #fashernista tendency—style over substance. Time will tell if they add value or continue in this vein.
Erin Kissane: A figure from the NGO and academic world who shows an appreciation for grassroots efforts but is not inherently part of that ecosystem. There may be some utility here, but needs meaningful contributions.
Fediseer: An intriguing but unclear initiative. It’s worth keeping an eye on to understand its objectives and implications for the #openweb.
Independent Federated Trust and Safety (IFTAS): This group has ambitions to play a core role in trust and safety, but has yet to approach this responsibility with the respect or engagement needed for genuine collaboration. As with similar #NGO projects, it’s wise to have a shovel ready to compost any emerging mess.
Lemmy: Originally a Reddit clone, this project has taken an interesting turn by decentralizing its focus towards forums and wikis. It’s an intriguing experiment that deserves continued observation as it evolves.
Mastodon: A truly native grassroots project that has been instrumental in expanding the fediverse and the adoption of ActivityPub. However, as the project grew, it gravitated towards an #NGO-like structure and began engaging in #mainstreaming. This shift is a natural but challenging path for projects as they scale.
Newsmast Foundation: An #NGO initiative centred around liberal #mainstreaming of news flows. While it adds diversity to the ecosystem, there remains an urgent need for native grassroots media projects to balance this narrow perspective.
Pixelfed: A companion project to Mastodon with a similar ethos. While it’s a positive addition to the ecosystem, its path leans towards #mainstreaming. It’s sometimes positioned as a token example of diversity by the Mastodon team, which could become problematic if this narrative goes unchallenged.
Social Web Foundation: An #NGO-backed initiative with some grassroots influence from its current leadership. However, in vertical structures like this, leadership tends to shift with changes in funding, which will alter its trajectory.
Spritely Institute: A strong technical project focused on a more peer-to-peer (#p2p) approach. While the technology is promising, its messaging and outreach need significant improvement to achieve broader understanding and any adoption.
This list reflects the diversity and challenges within the #openweb space. It underscores the need to balance different approaches, highlight the very real lack of native grassroots efforts, and the need to remain vigilant against co-option by #dotcons and #NGO mainstreaming paths.
Blacksky is a #dotcons being built by the crypto crew for the #NGO liberal types, it is native to the #openweb so part of diversity, but, in the end likely more mess to compost, support it if you like but have a shovel handy.
Bonfire Networks comes from the #NGO world pushing into the grassroots, not native and like all projects with this motivation there is a long history they fail, and fail, and fail. It’s a problem flow in the #openweb so a part of diversity.
Darius Kazemi a #mainstreaming grassroots person, who talks and takes up space, might have some use but not as far as I know.
Emelia Smith (@ThisIsMissEm) I talked to this one, but they did not make sense and were largely negative, #fashernista maybe. Who knows, let’s see.
Erin Kissane NGO and academic guy who likes grassroots, but is not. Might have some use, but not so far as far as I know
Fediseer This is a strange one, what is this about?
Independent Federated Trust and Safety (IFTAS) An in-group pushing into a core role, not respectfully so far, but let’s see where they go. Have a shovel at hand to compost the mess.
Lemmy Has an interesting history, a clone of Reddit, then pushing the core coding out to forums and wikis, it’s interesting and worth watching.
Mastodon a native grassroots project that pushed the fediverse and activitypub wider. With this move, as the project grew, they shifted to the #NGO path and engaged in #mainstreaming as people do.
Pixelfed is a companion to mastodon, a good project, if soft and #mainstreaming in its path. Is kinda used as meto project by the mastodon crew to say the is diversity, this could be a problem if unchallenged.
Social Web Foundation is a #NGO backed project, it has a bit of grassroots to it from its current leadership, but leadership changes in vertical structures when funding flows changes.
Spritely Institute a good tech project, a more p2p path, but hard to understand, needs actual outreach.
Our current grassroots/alt media have websites so already have one foot in the openweb, but none of their sites prominently link in any meaningful way to each others. They do podcasting so anther foot in the open web, but all their effort for outreach is inside the 
Let’s look at how we acturly organise. Grassroots alternative streams (and