The #Indymedia network was a groundbreaking independent, grassroots journalism project, born from the #DIY ethos and the global anti-globalization movements of the late 1990s and early 2000s. It was a network where anyone anywhere could publish stories, videos, and photos, challenging mainstream narratives. However, it eventually fragmented and became less relevant, then died as a functional network. let’s look at why this happened:
Internal factors, where conflict among the crew and contributors, let’s highlight the #encryptionists and #processgeeks, with disputes over priorities (e.g., security and processes) causing friction. Some pushed for hard encryption that complicated usability, while others emphasized bureaucratic formal consensus governance, stifling decision-making. Consensus breakdown, the decentralized decision-making path, made it hard to resolve disagreements, especially as the network grew and diversified in ideology with the influx of more #mainstreaming people. Dogmatism and fragmentation, groups became rigid in their views, leading to infighting and a lack of unity. The inability to balance diverse perspectives led to splintering. Burnout and loss of purpose, as activists struggled to maintain momentum as the network ossified.
External pressures with the rise of commercial platforms. The explosion of the #dotcons, corporate platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube drew users away from the failing Indymedia project. These platforms offered easier interfaces and massive audiences, undermining the narrowing, dogmatic grassroots appeal. Challenges with moderation, was a growing issue, dealing with fake news, spam, and inflammatory content became overwhelming. The “open publishing” model, once a strength, became a liability as it required extensive moderation. State Pushback with governments targeting Indymedia for its critical reporting, using surveillance, raids, and legal pressures to disrupt operations. This systematic marginalization contributed to its decline
Lessons for new #openweb projects. Balance simplicity and security, by avoiding overcomplicating platforms with technical measures that alienate non-technical people and communities. Strengthen trust-based governance, by adopting trust-driven models like those proposed by the Open Media Network (#OMN) to foster inclusive, mess and functional decision-making. Integrate feedback loops, by insure constant input from diverse people to adapt to evolving needs and combat dogmatism. Compete on accessibility, by design platforms that are intuitive and engaging to counter the allure of #dotcons social media.
Indymedia’s legacy offers critical insights into building resilient, people-centric, and trust-based media networks that can withstand internal and external challenges. We need these historical paths to reboot the #openweb with the #Fediverse.
Funders, #NGOs, and the #mainstreaming crew are trapped in fixed truths, while real change comes from dynamic thinking. That’s why they keep failing us. So, how do we break this cycle and move forward? For meaningful #openweb funding, we need projects that are native and align with critical social needs for the evolution of the internet, balancing openness/trust based tech with funding for outreach and feedback mechanisms.
Shifting Funding From “Fear/Control” to “Open/Trust” The Problem, current funding paths for internet projects focus on security, control, and compliance, perpetuating systems of centralized authority. This approach stifles trust-based collaboration, which are essential for the #openweb path. Action: help to advocate for dedicated funding streams for projects explicitly focused on decentralization, trust-building, and open governance structures like the Open Media Network (#OMN) and #OGB. Incorporate trust-based metrics into funding criteria, rewarding projects that demonstrate sustainable, human-centered governance.
Bridging hard tech and soft use. The Problem: Hard tech (protocols, platforms) develop in isolation from people, leading to tools that fail to meet real-world social needs. Action: Allocate funds for programs to bridge developers and user communities, ensuring reciprocal feedback between tech builders and real life communities. Establish mechanisms to incorporate insights from “soft use” (how people interact with tools) into the iterative development of “hard tech.” Support user-led design initiatives for communities to directly shape the platforms they use.
Governance: The Problem: Existing tech networks prioritize technical over social design, exacerbating the #geekproblem of over-complexity and alienating the change we need. Action: Fund projects like the OMN that flip this dynamic, prioritizing human networks as the foundation for technical systems. This creates tools that reflect and support the needs of grassroots communities. Promote protocols like #ActivityPub to enhance interoperability and people/community autonomy across networks.
The OMN is a lightweight framework with five core functionalities aimed at building a trust-based semantic web: * Publish: Share content as objects. * Subscribe: Follow streams of interest (people, organizations, topics). * Moderate: Manage trust by endorsing or rejecting content flows * Rollback: Remove historical flows content from the point trust is broken. * Edit Metadata: Improve the discoverability and context of content. These tools enable people to control their digital spaces and data flows while horizontally growing collaboration and accountability
This native #openweb path requires systemic support with funding to promote tools and frameworks that build human agency and trust. By doing this, we create resilient and equitable paths in tech, moving away from the limitations of the #open and #closed web mess we keep repeating
The funding crisis for the #openweb isn’t just about money—it’s about values. Right now, too much funding goes into coding copies of #dotcons, replicating the same social centralized, mess under a different name. This doesn’t fix anything—it just locks us into the same broken patterns.
We need to push for native#openweb approaches—ones rooted in decentralisation, trust, and open process. History is full of projects that did this right—#indymediaback being just one example. But the real challenge isn’t just building the tech; it’s getting people to value this diversity.
Funding bodies like #NGI, #nlnet, and #ngizero could play a key role if they prioritize projects that challenge, rather than copy, the status quo. But beyond grants, we need a cultural shift—one that recognises the importance of public digital infrastructure and collective ownership over our tools.
So what can we do?
Demand funding for actual#openweb projects, not more social silos.
Build bridges between funders and radical grassroots tech.
Create our own support networks outside traditional funding models.
Shift the conversation—value the diversity, not just the tech.
If we don’t push, the funding will keep flowing into the wrong places, and we’ll be stuck recycling the same failures. Let’s compost the mess and grow something real.
It’s easy to see now that the world is a mess, and we have made this mess, we have collectively ripped apart our common humanist path. On part of this I talk about is that we have spent 20 years squandering the #openweb tools of liberation and connection. In our hyper-connected era, attention has become the currency of capitalism The #dotcons tools we were pushed in to believing were empowering—apps, platforms, systems—were always instruments of control. They’re not just tools for us, they’re manipulative mechanisms engineered to shape focus and erode our autonomy, they are tools of social control.
Your attention, once an inherent to you, is now a resource being siphoned without your consent or in most people’s understanding any attention. In the #mainstreaming path, it’s as if you’re holding an account you never opened, and every time you try to tap into your own focus, you find it already spent. The result? A hollowed-out version of yourself: overwhelmed, perpetually distracted, unknowingly complicit in your own digital and social exploitation. Welcome to the ‘obsession economy,’ where the most valuable product is you.
This isn’t some unintended consequence; it’s by design. Every endless scroll, every notification, every “you might like” pop-up is a calculated move designed to map your behaviour, desires, and unconscious tendencies. The current #mainstreaming path is clear: make you a predictable machine that clicks, buys, and reacts—repeatedly. And these #dotcons systems have perfected their craft of control.
The science is well known: our dopamine pathways are hijacked and held hostage. Each surrender refines the technique, locking us into feedback loops that make each swipe feel both essential and unsatisfying. The distraction is by design; the purpose is to keep you from noticing who is profiting from this economy of fractured attention.
We still cling to the illusion of control, this is a core definition of the #geekproblem, believing ourselves to be savvy navigators of our own choices. But put your phone down for a day, and you’ll feel the “phantom itch” of notifications that never came. Try to watch a show without scrolling through social media, and you’ll feel the discomfort of a single, unshared thought. The system is built to make us fear boredom and flee from stillness because those rare moments are where self-awareness could break through. And self-awareness? That’s bad for our worship of this #deathcult.
So, how do we start to reclaim what has been taken? You don’t need to start big, but you do need to start relentless. Think of it as a focus detox. Eliminate all non-essential notifications. Reclaim your mornings—don’t let them be dictated by a screen. Cultivate moments of true presence, where attention isn’t an asset being exploited but a gift to be savoured. Then bring this fresh focus to create a community around the change and challenge that we so obviously need.
Lift your heads from worshipping this deathcult. In a world obsessed with monetizing every moment of focus, remember: your attention is yours to guard. Without it, the real ‘you’ is another asset on someone else’s balance sheet. This ends very badly #climatechaos is a small part of the mess we have made and are making.
Twitter was the shining light of the priests of the #deathcult, and there liberal apologists, it was a “safe space” for our liberals to chatter about #mainstreaming and avoid the change and challenge we need to survive in the era of #climatechaos and the breakdown, that our 40 years of this worship has brought us. This has now changed to a much more direct hard right shift.
This has shifted with Elon Musk’s acquisition of Twitter (now X) which has shifted the platform’s political alignment and governance from this #deathcult worship to a more fascist path. It is easy to see that Musk’s ownership and decision-making have pushed this move toward authoritarian far-right ideologies.
Content moderation and policy changes, under #Musk, #X has made policy shifts on content moderation. These changes have allowed the platform to become a space where misinformation and extremist rhetoric proliferates. This shift to reduce oversight opens a space for echo chambers for polarized and extreme views.
Reinstating controversial hard right figures, this decision to reinstate previously banned accounts, including high-profile far-right figures and conspiracy theorists, has fuelled the shaping of the platform to support overt political agendas. This has bolstered the support for right wing politics, including Donald Trump, who was permanently banned from Twitter before Musk’s takeover due to incitement of the January 6 Capitol riot.
Public statements and affiliations, Musk’s public engagements and interactions have shifted to a hard right path. His tweets and public endorsements aligned with viewpoints and individuals who support right-wing and populist ideologies. This has led to that growing environment which subtly or overtly supports authoritarian and nationalist movements, the growth of fascism.
Fascism implies systematic oppression and state-level control, which is the outcome of his purchase of this one’s liberal social network. What can deferentially be said is that this is a partisan platform that is supportive of right-wing populism. And as can be seen with the election of Trump, it is being used to facilitating the growth of fascism in the USA and the wider world.
If you currently can’t see beyond #mainstreaming then jump anywhere from the #dotcons, a little step is better than non, if you are a bit radical then please think where you are stepping to.
As the world flees from X (formerly #Twitter) to look for viable social media alternatives, platforms like #BlueSky and #Threads come into view pushed by #mainstreaming agendas. But please lift the lid to see that while these platforms appear promising, scrutiny reveals issues with ownership, funding, and community values that show they are on the same #dotcons path that people are fleeing. This compromises long-term independence and user-centricity. In contrast, the #fedivers exemplifies the #4opens principles, a truer, more sustainable #openweb alternative for social networking, it’s here and it works.
BlueSky’s #VC funded roots, there is a difference between what people say and what they do, this one presented itself as a beacon for decentralized social networking, advocating user control and a light-touch moderation. The project’s founding under Jack Dorsey promised a platform engineered to transcend limitations in social media governance. However, its venture-funded path tells a more conventional story. With investments from entities like Blockchain Capital LLC, co-founded by crypto magnate Brock Pierce, the concerns about centralization are unavoidable. Historically, VC backing brings pressured for profitability and pushes investor interests, at odds with maintaining decentralized, user-first ideals the project keeps talking about. This is a mess soon down the road, it’s a dead-end for people to jump to. For a tech view of this and the VC and culture side. A good tech/social write-up https://dustycloud.org/blog/how-decentralized-is-bluesky/
Threads is native to the #dotcons and corporate agenda’s. Threads, developed by #Meta (#Facebook), promises much, but it is firmly on the Meta’s path, rooted in data monetization, algorithmic control driving ad revenue. While Threads appears more user-friendly, its development trajectory inevitably follows Meta’s historical focus: ad-heavy strategies and extensive moderation policies that prioritize corporate interests over user freedom they talk about now. And a long writeup How decentralized is Bluesky really? A post on the #dotcons out reach to the #openweb mess. Why is Meta adding fediverse interoperability to Threads? https://fediversereport.com/why-is-meta-adding-fediverse-interoperability-to-threads/ What is the stress? What is the game?
The #Fediverse and #Mastodon are the #openweb’s champions, built for people, not profit. This path is in stark contrast, firmly, on the path of the openweb. From its decentralized structure to its #4opens open-source foundation. Managed by non-profit people and communerties, funded through voluntary donations and support from like-minded organisations, not venture capital or private investment. This independence ensures that people networking is never beholden to shareholders and subjected to the profit motives that drive centralized platforms. This embodies the principle that social media should amplify what people value, not what maximizes revenue.
Choosing platforms and paths that align with #openweb values is more than just a preference; it’s a stand for a future where digital spaces are driven by #4opens transparency, user empowerment, and shared stewardship. #BlueSky’s reliance on venture funding and Threads’ adherence to Meta’s corporate motives demonstrate the limitations of profit-oriented social media. We need a path where we prioritize community, collective action and autonomy over corporate growth.
In the pursuit of genuine alternatives, platforms like the Fediverse do more than fill the void left by #X; they embody the promise of a decentralized, people first internet—the very essence of the #openweb.
#Openweb: This refers to the original, decentralized ethos of the internet, built on openness, freedom, and people’s autonomy. Linking enhances knowledge sharing, amplifies lesser-known voices, and enables people to explore varied content freely.
#Closedweb: This describes platforms dominated by algorithms, corporate interests, and paywalls. On dotcons, linking is often spam and is penalized or buried, precisely because it can disrupt the curated control these platforms wield over what people see.
Don’t feed the trolls, keeps coming to mind, when looking at the #X influx, this is like waves washing on the shore, be the shore not the waves.
The current #mainstreaming paths are deeply embedded in capitalist structures, when looking at this critically, it reveals itself as a #deathcult, with the embodiment of unrestrained growth and consumption that runs counter to meaningful solution to #climatechange. While billionaires and corporatens may entertain the illusion of future-proofing their wealth and safety, the reality is more perilous than it appears to their narrow world views. Their greed fed opulence and influence can’t shield them indefinitely from a collapsing ecosystem that sustains all life, including their own.
At the heart of this is the inherent contradiction in capitalism itself: it requires perpetual growth to survive. This necessity for expansion is incompatible with the measures needed to mediate or stop #climatechaos. If growth halts, so does the economic machinery that upholds the current power structures, creating a destabilizing domino effect. While many might ask why those in power do not pivot to prioritize environmental preservation, the answer lies in the system’s relentless demand for expansion. Even if an individual capitalist—or a consortium—decides to scale back for the sake of long-term planetary health, the market will simply replace them with competitors who are more willing to pursue relentless profit, growth, and resource consumption.
The current path has a self-destructive logic, this paradox is why even billionaires who are conscious of the dire climate situation resort to insufficient and infective measures. They might fund green technologies and push for marginally lower carbon emissions, but the actions remain constrained by the underlying logic: protecting the continuity of capital. This capital-centric world-view can’t embrace the radical systemic change we actually need to avert ecological collapse.
Billionaires and the bunker illusion, the ultra-wealthy/greedy fuckwits, plan to retreat to their fortified bunkers and private, insulated zones once climate-induced chaos growes un medateable. While contingency plans do exist—high-tech shelters, land acquisitions in regions predicted to be less affected by climate change—these are temporary solutions. A world unravelling from the fabric of its ecosystems will not sustain even the most fortified enclaves indefinitely. Even if technology advances to the point of enabling space colonization, the timelines required for such ventures far exceed the immediacy of the crisis we keep pushing.
This is a systematic issue and we need a collective solution. Capital, the motivation and power for action, is not about individual capitalists but capital as an entity, the socio-economic phenomenon that exerts control over its arbiters. Capital needs infinite growth, prioritizing profit over sustainability and long-term human survival. Individual or even collective attempt to defy this logic and implement meaningful, planet-preserving strategies would be outpaced and outcompeted by others who align more closely with capital’s #stupidindividualism of ruthless greed is good.
This #KISS understanding underscores the distinction between idealist and materialist interpretations of the crisis. Idealists believe that with enough awareness and willpower, the system can change from within. Materialists, recognize that capital is a structure that acts beyond the control of any individual or organization. It functions like biological evolution: it values reproduction and expansion above all else, even when those traits are in the end destructive.
There is some room for corrective action within the existing system, but it’s inadequate. Policies to mitigate environmental impact, even when enacted, are slow and piecemeal. The issue isn’t that #mainstreaming decision-makers don’t understand the problem; rather, they don’t grasp the depth of systemic overhaul required to address it. The principles they consider immutable—the rules of modern economics and finance. The “common sense” is the problem.
The need for radical change, the #deathcult of mainstreaming, propelling growth and consumption despite ecological warnings, is locked in a dance with CAPITALS logic. While billionaires may fund clean energy startups and talk about sustainable practices, their wealth and the power structures they uphold are bound up in the unsustainable status quo. Change and challenge requires uprooting fundamental beliefs about how economies must operate, not just superficial adaptations. Until this realization is spread, capital will continue on its path, indifferent to the ruins it leaves.
Best not to be a prat about this, thanks.
Why Capitalism and Climate Change Solutions Are Fundamentally Incompatible
The urgent need to address climate change collides with an uncomfortable reality, as we outline capitalism’s foundational mechanics make meaningful climate action impossible. This isn’t a case of individual negligence but a systemic flaw. Capitalism, by design, prioritizes profit and growth, at the expense of long-term, collective concerns and environmental preservation.
Capitalism favours the greedy few who can maximize profits in the shortest timeframe. It’s a path where the most ruthless and nasty competitor prevails, setting the standard that others must follow or face obsolescence. This constant pressure means that if an individual capitalist or company recognizes the existential threat of #climatechaos, they cannot afford to act on it meaningfully without losing their competitive edge. For example, a corporation that decides to limit emissions at the cost of profitability will quickly be outcompeted by one that does not.
The logic of capitalism ensures that any significant deviation from maximizing short-term profit results in failure within the market. Thus, while some companies engage in “green” initiatives to pay lip service to sustainability, these efforts are superficial. They exist to placate public concern and leverage marketing advantages, rather than drive the needed systemic change. The myths are that capitalism, through innovation and competition, will solve climate change. However, capitalist solutions boil down to maintaining leverage and coercing others into action. For example, the race for green technologies like electric cars and renewable energy can be more about dominating a new market sector than reducing environmental harm. Elon Musk’s ventures into space and sustainable technology, hailed as forward-thinking, illustrate this principle. Space colonization and technological fixes reflect an expansionist mindset, a search for new “territories” to exploit as resources on Earth dwindle.
Capitalism’s path needs to push costs onto external parties, the public and the environment. The system relies on government-funded infrastructure and socialized costs, as seen with subsidies for oil companies, highway construction for the automotive industry, or public bailouts for corporations in crisis. When it comes to addressing #climatechange, this reliance on externalized costs becomes a liability. The climate crisis is a global “cost” that capitalism, left unchecked, will not address willingly. It requires collective action that contradicts capitalism’s individualistic and profit-driven paths. This is why capitalist markets require regulation by state or more importantly collective paths to function at all or sustainably, and even then, such measures face fierce resistance.
The automation age: how the nasty few plans to survive. The question whether billionaires believe they can weather the storm of #climatecollapse is complex. Many of them, seeing the unsustainability of infinite growth, look for exit strategies. This explains the investments in space travel, underground bunkers, and gated communities. The implication is stark: they believe their wealth will shield them from the mass suffering climatechange will bring. Automation adds another layer to this story. With machines replacing human labour, the exploiters envision a future where their economic power persists without the masses of real people, that’s you and me. This dystopian reality shows the detachment of capital from human and ecological concerns.
We currently face a failure of collective action. One of capitalism’s critical flaws is its inability to coordinate collective action without state intervention. While some countries have managed to decouple emissions from #GDP growth through advancements in service sectors and digital economies, this decoupling remains insufficient to meet the global targets needed for net-zero emissions. The system’s piecemeal and reactive approach cannot match the scale of planning required for real and needed climate action. Without a fundamental restructuring that prioritizes the collective good over private profit, meaningful progress remains an illusion and out of reach.
We need to try and make the #mainstreaming agenda more functional in the #openweb reboot, how do we do this? One way is to strengthen community governance with native decentralized decision-making frameworks that involve more voices from the grassroots, like the #OGB project. This is self empowering as tools based on federated models (like those used in the #Fediverse) empower people to participation in decision-making processes rather than top-down dictates.
Develop a supportive ecosystem for builders with funding beyond the #fashernistas. To make this happen we need to shift funding mechanisms toward projects that align with the values of the #4opens (open data, open standards, open source, and open process). This means supporting those who build with the public good in mind, not just flashy, trendy ideas, and tech fashions. Empower developers with a community focus by highlighting projects that prioritize #UX and community needs rather than only tech novelty. Encourage #FOSS governance practices that are transparent and inclusive. Foster this inclusivity by bridging silos with cross-community dialogues, this facilitates discussions that bring together different sectors of alt-tech, civic tech, and grassroots movements to cross-pollinate ideas and useful paths to take.
Ensure that platforms being built do not only cater to niche tech communities but are accessible and usable by the public, thus focus on practical relevance. This helps to empower people to understand the importance of decentralized tech and how it benefits them directly. Thus helping to break down the barriers posed by the #geekproblem and demystifies participation in the openweb paths. A strong part of this is organizing hands-on workshops that engage people in contributing to and shaping the projects.
Accept that failures are part of the process. Instead of discarding what doesn’t work, use these experiences as compost—breaking down what failed and learning from it to build stronger initiatives. This plays a role in shifting cultural narratives to challenge and change the stores around the #openweb and wider #openculture to include cooperative problem-solving and mutual respect. Shifting the focus from tech utopianism to realistic, impactful change.
Build tech paths that are adaptable and capable of evolving with peoples needs and global conditions, including #climatechaos and socio-political shifts that are accelerating. A part of this is support for meany small tech paths that link and flow information and communities.
To reboot the #openweb to become a part of a shifting mainstreaming, we need to promote messy participatory governance, redirect funding to genuine, community-oriented projects, and champion inclusive, sustainable paths. The composting analogy emphasizes learning from past mistakes and continuously building resilient, inclusive solutions #KISS
A test is to look at people and projects to see if they link, a basic part is the act of linking, which goes far beyond a simple convenience; it forms the backbone of an interconnected, accessible, and transparent internet. Yet, many people overlook its importance or misunderstand its role, especially when transitioning from #dotcons (corporate-controlled platforms) to #openweb environments. To sustain the promise of an open, people-driven internet, we need to recognize and actively engage with the practice of sharing non-mainstream links #KISS
But yes we do need to mediate the current mess, don’t feed the trolls, keeps coming to mind, when looking at the #X influx, this is like waves washing on the shore, be the shore not the wave.
To make the #NGO crew more functional in an #openweb reboot, we need to focus on changing organizational culture and integrating principles that align with the #4opens and “native” grassroots, collaborative values. How can we do this?
Emphasize transparency and open governance to mediate the NGO minded people who suffer from opaque decision-making processes that reflect the inefficiencies of traditional institutions. By embedding transparency and open governance—where decisions are documented, accessible, and participatory—we create a culture that supports this trust and collaboration.
Encourage flexibility and adaptability, as many NGOs have rigid structures that make it hard to adapt to new information and strategies. Embracing a more flexible, iterative approach—similar to agile practices in tech—helps organizations pivot when necessary and stay responsive to a rapidly changing world
Bridge technological and social gaps by mediating the common sense NGO temptation to treat tech as a separate realm, run by a select few tech-savvy individuals. Instead, hard code social understandings with technical frameworks. This involves training NGO workers in basic digital literacy and fostering collaboration between tech and non-tech teams to build solutions that are both functional and socially impactful.
Adopt the decentralized paths inspired by #Fediverse and #P2P networks to enhances resilience and empower local paths. This shifts them from the dependency on corporate #dotcons platforms and reduce susceptibility to the influence of #mainstreaming. Work for them to commit to ethical use of technology, the NGO crew should prioritize the use of #FOSS tools and technologies. This involves building and partnering with developers who focus on sustainable, community-driven tech projects.
Rethinking funding and independence is core, NGO minded people frequently become entangled with funding streams that align with mainstream, status-quo agendas, making it hard for them to support any radical change. To avoid this, NGOs can be incureaged to explore diversified funding models, such as community crowdfunding and partnerships that align with #openweb values, avoiding entanglement with restrictive, top-down paths.
NGOs need to be wary of falling into the trap of ‘NGO-ism,’ where the focus shifts from addressing root causes to perpetuating their existence for funding and visibility. This shift is countered by adopting the values of community-first accountability and ensuring that work leads to substantial change rather than superficial engagement.
Foster inclusivity beyond tokenism, NGOs are fixated on ensuring diversity and exclusivity, but this needs to be more than a box-ticking exercise. This means more messy organizing, truly valuing input from a range of community voices, fostering dialogue, and incorporating grassroots activism into their agenda to stay aligned with the real needs of those they aim to serve. Connecting with existing grassroots movements like #XR, #OMN, and others, and sharing expertise, resources, and platforms amplify voices and catalyze change. Building bridges instead of silos and encouraging co-creation are needed for revitalizing movements toward collective goals.
By taking these paths, NGOs and the crew that think in this stream, can become more functional allies in rebooting the #openweb good to focus on this #KISS
The political power that Silicon Valley and Big Tech pushed over this election is a real #geekproblem threat, with the #dotcons leveraging technological and financial influence to shape society in ways that benefit the nasty few and undermine basic democratic paths we need to be fallowing to mediate #climatechaos
One path to balance this #mainstreaming mess making is the need for active and healthy critiques of the lack of institutional support for #openweb projects and paths that focus on humanistic alternatives to these Big Tech platforms. The problem we need to challange is that organizations theoretically supportive of democratic values, such as #NLNet and #NGI, sideline core “native” paths in tech as “too radical”, instead favouring safe narrow #geekproblem and #NGO tech paths which we know do not work. This is frustrating, and with the increasing authoritarianism spreading worldwide, it’s a part of the #deathcult we all worship.
The “geekproblem” in tech is about challenges arising from the culture and mindset within technical communities, particularly around developers and engineers. It is associated with an overemphasis on technical solutions, insularity, and a tendency to prioritize technological efficiency or novelty over broader social and ethical considerations.
Overemphasis on Technical Solutions: People involved in tech prioritize creating or improving technical features while overlooking social impacts or peoples needs. This leads to “solutionism,” where every problem is assumed to have a tech-based answer, neglecting simpler, social, or policy-based solutions.
Insularity and Group Think: The tech world is insular, with tight-knit subcultures that resist input from outside communities and dismiss perspectives that don’t align with technical paths. This leads to narrow solutions and a resistance to the needer wider perspectives, ultimately #blocking the social change and challenge we need.
Focus on Control over Collaboration: Tech communities are often defacto hierarchical, top-down in the paths of design and governance, leading to a “we know best” paths. This often alienates non-technical people and discourages cooperative and participatory input, making it hard to integrate open, community-based governance in to the narrow paths that are imposed.
Ignoring and Dismissing Social Issues: Focused on technical work overlook social issues the tech is supposed to be addressing and solving. By focusing only on engineering, they overlook who has access to the technology, who benefits from it, and what ethical implications it brings, perpetuating the disconnect between technology and the communities it made for.
Resistance to Broadening Perspective: Tech creators actively resist moving beyond their own narrow areas of expertise and interest, they block ideas and initiatives that don’t fit within their immediate understanding, inhibiting growth and the needed experimentation. This resistance limits meaningful progress, community needs, and alternative technologies.
In sum, the #geekproblem stems from a blend of narrow technical focus, resistance to diverse input, and lack of attention to social impact. Addressing it involves building more inclusive, collaborative, and socially aware tech paths that embrace #4opens broader perspectives beyond the purely technical.
In the online spaces I navigate, there’s no shortage of #fashernistas crowding the conversation, diverting focus from the native #openweb paths we urgently need to explore. They take up space and ultimately block more than they build. Then there’s the #geekproblem: while geeks get things done within narrow boundaries, they’re rigidly resistant to veering beyond their lanes, dogmatically shutting down alternatives to the world they’re so fixated on controlling. This produces a lot of #techshit, occasionally innovations, but with more that needs composting than the often limited value they create.
Then there are the workers, many of whom default to the #NGO path. Their motivations lean toward self-interest rather than collective good, masking this in liberal #mainstreaming dressed up as activism. At worst, they’re serving the #deathcult of neoliberalism; at best, they’re upholding the status quo. This chaotic mix dominates alternative culture, as it always has, and the challenge is one of balance. Right now, we have more to compost than we have to plant and build with.
What would a functioning alternative to this current mess in alt paths look like? Well we don’t have to look far as there is a long history of working alt culture, and yes I admit it “works” in messy and sometimes dysfunctional ways, but it works. What can we learn and achieve from taking this path and mating it with modern “native #openweb technology, which over the last five years has managed in part to move away from the #geekproblem with #ActivityPub and the #Fediverse.
Blending the resilience and collective spirit of historical alternative cultures with the new strengths of federated, decentralized tech solutions like ActivityPub and the Fediverse, the path we need to take:
Community-Centric Design: Historically, alternative cultures prioritize more communal, open, and egalitarian paths. The path out of this mess need to be rooted in this ethos, a new alt-tech landscape could leverage federated technology to avoid centralization and corporate control, emphasizing community ownership. The Fediverse, with its decentralized model, embodies this shift, each instance is a unique community with shared norms, which helps to protect against centralized censorship and allows diversity without imposing a single dominant path.
Resilient, Messy, and Organic Growth: A #KISS lesson from traditional alternative spaces is that success doesn’t require perfect order. Alt-culture spaces thrive on a degree of chaos and adaptability, which enables rapid response to new challenges and paths. This messiness aligns with how decentralized systems function: they’re, resilient, while letting communities develop their own norms and structures while remaining connected to a larger network.
Mediating the #Geekproblem: A key challenge in the tech space is overcoming the “problem” geeks, where technical cultures focus narrowly on technical functionality at the expense of accessibility and inclusiveness. ActivityPub and Fediverse have shifted this by prioritizing people-centric design and by being open to non-technical contributions. Integrating more roles from diverse social paths—designers, community, activists—can bridge gaps between tech-focused and community-focused paths.
Using #4opens Principles: The “#4opens” is native to #FOSS philosophy—open data, open source, open process, and open standards—guide this ecosystem. By adopting transparency in governance and development, communities foster trust and accountability. This openness discourages monopolistic behavior, increases collaboration, and enables #KISS accountability.
Sustainable Engagement Over Growth: Unlike the current #dotcons model that focuses on endless growth and engagement metrics, the alternative path prioritizes quality interactions, trust-building, and meaningful contributions. This sustainable engagement path values people’s experience and community health over data extraction and advertising revenue.
Leveraging Federated Technology for Cross-Pollination: ActivityPub has shown that federated systems don’t have to be isolated silos; they can be connected in a openweb of interlinked communities. Just as historical alt-cultures drew strength from diversity and exchange, the Fediverse path allows for collaboration and cross-pollination between communities while maintaining autonomy.
By integrating these native #openweb principles, we create an alt-tech ecosystem that is democratic, inclusive, and resistant to the mess that currently plague #mainstreaming and some alt-tech paths. This hybrid path allows tech to serve communities authentically, fertilising sustainable growth and meaningful, collective agency that we need in this time to counter the mainstream mess.
Reflecting on the last 40 years, it’s clear that the trajectory toward #climatechaos has been pushed by the entrenchment of corporate power and increasing capital-driven approach to global challenges. This era, the “neoliberal” era, normalized policies that favoured deregulation, privatization, and financialization. This shift didn’t just allow corporations to thrive; it redefined our social priorities, encouraging a culture where profit overshadows community and basic environmental welfare. These #deathcult worshippers have permeated public institutions and policies, making it harder for grassroots systemic change to take root.
The liberal majority, typically positioned between activism and power, has been to side with the “#mainstreaming” approach, which, while sometimes not as overtly destructive as corporate power, clearly lack the willingness to disrupt the status quo. These liberals express concern over climate change but favour “market-friendly” reforms that repeatedly fail to challenge or change the root causes of the #climatecrisis. This creates a paradox: despite their environmental concerns, they end up blocking radical changes. On the fluffy side, movements like Extinction Rebellion (#XR) and initiatives like the Open Media Network (#OMN) highlight how pushing this middle ground to support change—not just acknowledge it—is essential for challenging entrenched powers.
The OMN serves as an example of a shift from centralized, profit-driven platforms toward community-based, participatory paths. Unlike platforms that build on capital agendas, the OMN draws from grassroots energy and shared values, allowing it to organically support social goals. This shift is key: if OMN and similar #openweb initiatives grow, they’ll likely reflect their foundation—community engagement and shared purpose—versus the profit-at-all-costs paths.
While the liberal centre currently act as a buffer zone that resists necessary change, supporting projects like OMN can help reshape this middle ground by creating an accessible alternative to #mainstreaming stories and corporate lies. In this sense, belief—especially in sustainable community-driven projects—becomes a tool for social transformation. And belief is crucial; without a sense of possibility, it’s easy for people to fall into cynicism and adopt the fear-based messaging spread by right-wing agendas
The challenge is to compost the “bourgeois struggle” between conflicting nasty interests by promoting grassroots, #4opens paths and projects that focus on cooperation, transparency, and community.
“We don’t need to talk about the climate, we don’t need to talk about change. What we need to talk about is power and criminality and evil.”
Lying as a tool for blocking change has become the pervasive issue, especially when people use it to protect the status quo and avoid facing uncomfortable truths. This obstructs the collective efforts needed to talk about problems like #climatechange, social inequality, and the erosion of democratic #openweb communication paths. Tackling this involves a #4opens culture where honesty and accountability are valued, while simultaneously recognizing that some of these distortions stem from deep-rooted personal, social, or economic fears.
Establish clear, collective values around truthfulness: A first step is creating a culture where truth is valued, especially when it challenges the self-interested comfort of those involved. In functioning open networks, communities have shared values, that rewarding honest dialogue and penalizing deceptive behaviour which hinders constructive paths. This transparency can be incentivized by showing how it benefits collective goals over (stupid) individual agendas, aligning values to encourage honesty as a default.
Encourage critical thinking and #KISS media literacy: People lie and distort truth when they lack confidence in understanding complex topics and thus feel pressured to align with dominant easy stories. A culture of media literacy empowers people to spot misinformation, resist manipulative tactics, and feel more comfortable confronting inconvenient truths rather than ignoring or reshaping them for comfort. Equipping people with these skills means fewer incentives to hide or distort facts and paths.
Promote accountability mechanisms: When dishonesty is not held to account, it reinforces a culture where lying is acceptable. To push back at this, transparent accountability culture is essential, especially in influential sectors such as media, politics, and social organizations. Accountability encourages people, institutions and communities to take responsibility for the information they use and host, helping to establish truthfulness as the norm rather than an exception.
Normalize difficult conversations: Lies are used as a shield to avoid uncomfortable subjects, especially in collective spaces where the potential for friction is high. Encouraging a culture of dialogue, where differing opinions are expressed without retaliation, reduces the need for deception. By creating “active zones” for conversation and providing conflict-resolution traditions, groups address the root issues without resorting to dishonesty.
Use positive reinforcement for transparency: Rather than punishing instances of dishonesty harshly, positive reinforcement can reward honest behavior, making it a habit. When communities highlight examples where transparency led to better decisions, improved paths, and strengthened trust, it becomes a wider path for more people to take. Celebrating transparency that benefits a project or a social goal helps to erode the perception that lying is necessary or advantageous.
Acknowledge the root causes of lying as a defense mechanism: Often, people lie as a defense against vulnerability, fear of judgment, or loss of control. Recognizing these underlying motivations makes it easier to address them constructively rather than combatively. Providing support, whether through promoting self-awareness, emotional resilience, or ethical decision-making, reduces the pressure people feel to lie as a way of self-protection.
Build grassroots movements focused on integrity: Lastly, fostering grassroots movements that are on the #4opens path, embodying integrity, transparency, and accountability from the start is key. Small, community-driven groups have the agility and cohesion to establish a trust-based environment, which can serve as a seed for horizontal scalable wider networks to balance the mess coming from larger, dominating #mainstreaming institutions. By showcasing effective, transparent grassroots paths, we influence larger systems and set a precedent that truth is not optional.
In a world where lying undermines genuine change, mediating its pervasive use requires #4opens strategies that prioritize transparency, mutual respect, and courage. Changing a culture from one where lies are tools of convenience to one where truth is a shared value is a core part of the change and challenge we need. This will not be easy, but when we can start to close the gap between intentions and actions. This shift of path from lying to truth is #KISS to addressing the complex mess of our time, ensuring that truth, rather than deception, fuels our paths.
