Why Humans are Social First, Individuals Second

Human beings are inherently social creatures, our identities, communities, and shared values are what define us as human. The #deathcult of the last 40 years, driven by neoliberal ideologies, has systematically isolated individuals, eroding the social bonds that sustain our shared humanity. This isolation has fostered nihilism by acclimatizing people to a world-view devoid of collective meaning and purpose.

Social bonds are the foundations of humanity, we develop meaning, empathy, and creativity through relationships. Without connections to others, individual existence loses its depth and context. Isolation undermines mental and physical well-being, as can be seen in the increase of depression and anxiety in hyper-individualistic societies we have created for the last 40 years.

The role of digital tools, in this, and internet systems SHOULD amplify our social nature rather than diminish it. Building #FOSS tools that prioritize social connections over individual convenience is essential to counteract the isolating current paths. Projects like the #OMN and frameworks like the #4opens focus on creating platforms that reinforce this community, trust, and collective purpose.

Market-driven ideologies reduce relationships to transactions, prioritizing competition over collaboration. The has been terrible damage from 40 Years of the #deathcult worship, economic and social atomization, with policies that dismantled collective institutions like unions, community centres, and public services, leaving individuals to fend for themselves in increasingly precarious conditions. The normalization of nihilism, fosters a sense of hopelessness, where people accept destruction and exploitation as inevitable. This normalization stifles resistance to systemic harm, as individuals lack the solidarity needed to push back with any real effect. This has lead to a loss of collective power, with well inturned efforts to challenge this system, such as labour strikes, protests, and cooperative initiatives, being undermined by the fragmentation of social groups and the emphasis on “common sense” individualism.

The path we need to take to change and challenge this – building social-first tools – designed with community-building as the primary goal, ensuring individuals feel connected and supported. This includes fostering spaces for dialogue, collaboration, and mutual aid. Empowering the collective, decentralized, transparent, and accountable to the people who use them. Federated technologies like #activitypub offer alternatives to centralized systems, encouraging diversity and horizontal collaboration. Reclaiming shared values is hard, but prioritizing cooperation and solidarity, we can combat the nihilism that comes from isolation. Reinforcing the idea that human values are rooted in relationships rather than material success is key.

What needs to happen next: Resist Isolation by pushing back against narratives that promote individual solutions to systemic problems. Emphasize the need for collective action to address crises like #climatechange and inequality. Shift design paradigms, to ensure that tools and platforms prioritize human connection and accountability over profit and efficiency. Rebuild social infrastructure, to support community-focused initiatives that rebuild the trust and solidarity undermined by decades of dogmatic neoliberal policy.

By recognizing that humans are social first and individual second, we can take paths that reinforce our shared humanity, resisting the nihilism and destructiveness of the #deathcult. This approach isn’t just better—it’s necessary for our survival.

Grassroots Radical Media: A #4opens Path

To revive radical grassroots media, we need to return to the basics, and that means embracing #FOSS, #opensource, and the #4opens. These aren’t just technical choices; they’re political ones. The 4 opens: open data, open standards, open process, and open licenses act as both a key and a lock. A key to unlock collaborative, transparent networks and a lock to keep out the dilution and co-option that comes with #mainstreaming.

Activism vs. Mainstreaming. Activism seeks to challenge and change the system. Mainstreaming, often via NGO channels, seeks to manage and defuse resistance. One leads to transformation. The other leads to stable careers, conferences, and incremental tweaks. If we’re serious about building change, we must know the difference and act accordingly.

The #OMN Mission is to support that activist path. We don’t chase shiny toys. We focus on the 1% of tech and workflows that actually help people. That means filtering out distractions and rooting projects in shared ethics: the #PGA hallmarks, the #4opens, and a clear commitment to anti-capitalist, anti-patriarchal, grassroots-oriented collaboration. We don’t need more “disruptive innovation.” We need human-centred tools that support collective work, transparency, and trust.

Why the right is winning (And how we catch up). Let’s be honest: the right wing has outpaced the left on #openweb coordination. They’ve built propaganda farms, community hubs, and direct action tools, while we keep getting lost in over-academic jargon, fractured efforts, and endless reinvention.

We need to reboot and federate, not fragment. Let’s pick up where successful movements left off. Think: #Indymedia, updated for today, grounded in the #4opens, and governed with #KISS principles, to avoid the #deathcult, build for the Commons

Most mainstream tech is built on 40 years of #neoliberal assumptions: that people are selfish, fixed, and controlled. That’s the core ideology of the #deathcult, and most tech just reflects it back at us. Grassroots media must reject that. We build from a belief in people’s potential. That means tech designed for trust, collaboration, and autonomy.

Ask yourself:

"Does this serve the commons?"
"Does it align with the #4opens and the PGA hallmarks?"

That’s the filter we need to apply — especially as we face burnout, co-option, and the churn of #fashernista tech that solves nothing. We don’t need to start from scratch. We need to compost the mess, reuse what works, and rebuild the rest. That’s what the #OMN is: A shovel, A seedbed, A place to federate purposefully. Let’s stop spinning wheels and start building something that lasts.

Join the effort. Shape the future of radical media and open governance. Learn more at OMN on this path, the resurgence of grassroots radical media projects requires a return to foundational principles, particularly the embrace of #FOSS and #opensource practices. These principles align with the #4opens framework, which acts as both a lock and a key for building sustainable and accountable media networks.

Why ideas matter

The important tension in the current state of social change efforts: individualism vs. collectivism, vertical vs. horizontal structures, and the challenges of maintaining fragile consensus. These dynamics have direct implications for how we approach systemic problems like #climatechaos and the creation of alternatives through projects like the #OMN.

On this subject, it’s important to understand why #stupidIndividualism is dangerous, which can be seen in the failure of individual solutions. Relying on individual action (e.g., recycling, personal carbon offsets) shifts focus from the systemic nature of crises. The climate emergency, for example, is primarily driven by industrial-scale emissions and unsustainable policies—not individual behaviour. This emphasis on individualism undermines collective action, which is the only scale at which meaningful change and challenge can occur.

Blind spots in vertical thinking, hierarchical (“vertical”) structures dismiss and fail to understand the dynamics of decentralized (“horizontal”) systems. Vertical systems are focused on control and clarity, at the expense of collaboration and diversity, which horizontal structures thrive on.

The dangers of certainty, consensus vs. certainty, pushing for “certainty”, rigid clarity often destroys consensus. Consensus, while fragile and imperfect, is the foundation of all functioning societies. It is built on compromise, flexibility, and mutual understanding. The insistence that “my view is right” fractures the trust necessary for cooperative systems to thrive.

Why this is destructive, the breakdown of consensus leads to polarization and inaction, both of which are catastrophic in the face of crises like #climatechange. Certainty-driven narratives ignore the complexity and nuance required to address interconnected, systemic issues.

Ideas for moving forward, focus on processes, rather than direct outcomes:

Build systems (like the #OMN) that prioritize open, participatory processes over prescriptive solutions. The #4opens—open process, open data, open licences, and open standards—offer a starting point for structuring this.
Encourage horizontal thinking, foster decentralized systems where power and decision-making are distributed. This creates resilience and allows diverse voices to contribute meaningfully.
Embrace ambiguity and iteration, instead of pushing for rigid clarity, accept that solutions evolve through experimentation and iteration. Social change is a dynamic process, not a static goal.
Reframe certainty as trust, replace the need for certainty with a culture of trust-based collaboration. Trust allows for flexibility and creativity within systems, enabling them to adapt and respond to changing circumstances.
Use crises as opportunities for solidarity, crises often push societies toward authoritarian responses. Instead, frame crises as opportunities to build solidarity, emphasizing shared struggles and collective goals.

This is why ideas matter, the urgency of the #climatecrisis, paired with the inertia of entrenched systems, makes it tempting to lean on familiar, hierarchical solutions. However, transformation comes from collective, decentralized efforts that prioritize flexibility, trust, and inclusion over individualism and rigid control. Projects like #OMN and frameworks like the #4opens are tools for navigating these challenges while staying grounded in the #KISS principles of solidarity and mutual aid.

The Seven Stages of climate denial:

1. It’s not real
2. It’s not us
3. It’s not that bad
4. We have time
5. It’s too expensive to fix
6. Here’s a fake solution
7. It’s too late: you should have warned us earlier

Trolls use all of these stages to deny the reality of #climatechaos

Moving forward, the path is undeniably messy

The challenge is in scaling alternative grassroots projects like #OMN while retaining their radical, transformative potential. As these projects sprout, they hit two major barriers:

Soft Social Power: Scaling requires broader community buy-in and social legitimacy, which is undermined by entrenched hierarchies and #mainstreaming resistance.
Hard Power: When these projects start to resemble significant social challenges, they attract the attention of institutional forces, which respond with suppression or co-option.

Paths we need to mediate these challenges:

Bake the #4opens deeply Into federated governance. This is what the #OGB is for, to use federated, horizontal governance paths where decision-making power is distributed across nodes and communities. This creates resilience by decentralizing control and embedding trust at every layer. Hardcode the #4opens in to the open process as non-negotiable. Build these principles into the DNA of tools and communities to guard against corruption and co-optation.
Focus on interoperability by building tools that connect and empower diverse movements rather than siloed, individual projects. #ActivityPub is a good example of a protocol fostering universalism in the #Fediverse. Prioritize community-first design with tools that are easy to use and serve collective needs, avoiding over-engineering and catering solely to tech-savvy users.
Prepare for reaction and pushback by grow power strategically, use trust networks, federated alliances, and grassroots engagement this makes reactionary pushback harder to target and dismantle what you are building. Anticipate Resistance, recognize that crises will be used as opportunities for suppression. Strengthen your community’s capacity for crisis response through decentralized decision-making and resource-sharing networks. Collective defence, build alliances across movements to protect against external threats, whether they come from governments, corporations, or other institutions of hard power.
Balance visionaries and builders by fostering inclusive engagement. Welcome both those who help build projects from scratch and those who engage with initiatives once they have momentum. Use simple, accessible entry points to bring more people into the projects. Avoid perfection paralysis, accept that projects evolve through experimentation and iteration. Focus on building functional systems that can adapt, rather than waiting for perfection.
Shovelling the “crisis compost” to channel the mess. Use the growing crises as opportunities to mobilize and educate, while staying anchored to the #4opens. Shared narratives matter. Frame crises in terms of collective action and solidarity, countering divisive narratives that undermine the project’s goals. Simplify and focus. Complex problems demand clear and grounded solutions, focus on basic, actionable steps as well as sprawling ambitions.

Moving forward, the path is undeniably messy, but the focus should be on growing horizontal power networks without compromising values. By committing to federated, principles and building resilience against internal and external challenges, projects like the #OMN thrive and scale without succumbing to the pressures that dismantle and dilute radical movements. This requires long-term commitment, patience, and a willingness to confront the realities of #powerpolitics while staying true to the foundational ethos of grassroots empowerment.

Mediating the damage from #fashernistas

“The problem with most fashernistas is that they are completely untrustworthy. Yet, people trust them because they push #mainstreaming “common sense” this is the definition of evil, what to do? Ideas please?”

The problem with most #fashernistas lies in their prioritizing of style, superficial appeal, and “common sense” #mainstreaming over substance and integrity. Their actions are too often driven by appearances and short-term gains, rather than the principled foundations necessary for long-term trust and genuine change and challenge that we need. This creates a facade of credibility, enabling them to gain influence while undermining collective efforts. How to compost this mess:

Expose the tension between trust and Influence by highlight the contradictions. Make clear how focus on mainstreaming compromises values, transparency and inclusivity. Use storytelling and case studies to show how #fashernistas to often derail projects.
Embed trust in processes over personality, that is, build systems where influence is based on contributions and adherence to principles rather than charisma or status. Use the #4opens to ensure actions align with open processes, open data, open standards, and open licenses. These principles can create accountability that individuals find hard to circumvent.
Empower alternatives, by actively amplify contributors who are trustworthy, even if their approach lacks the flashiness of fashernistas. Build in feedback loops to create mechanisms for communities to critique and shape direction collectively, minimizing the impact of any one individual’s agenda.
Combat the “Common Sense” mythos. Point out where “common sense” solutions fail to address deeper issues, emphasizing the need for critical thinking and alternative paths. Encourage discourse to grow, environments where questioning and dissent are valued rather than sidelined.
Strengthen the focus on horizontal structures to minimize opportunities for top-down influence. One path to this is transparent moderation to ensure that editorial and moderation processes are open to scrutiny, preventing backdoor manipulation.

A balanced approach is needed. The issue with #fashernistas isn’t just their untrustworthiness—it’s that their appeal distracts from meaningful work. Addressing this requires paths, systems and cultures that embed core values into projects like the #OMN or #Fediverse, you reduce reliance on individuals and focus on collective empowerment. Its #KISS

Thinking about news on the #fediverse

We need to reboot “news” on the #openweb to tackle the challenges of our collective #stupidindividualism and the #techshit it pushes in the #Fediverse, this is about focusing on balance, collaboration, and meaningful process. Let’s look at one path away from this “common senses” mess making, an example is the roadmap for #indymediaback and what do we mean by a #newswire. Looking at the current use of #AP on the #Fediverse with this in mind:

Repeats: Strengthen syndication between instances for better information flow.

Replies: Integrate as comments on newswire posts and features to foster engagement.

Likes/Stars: Define their roles to signal endorsements or importance, avoiding redundant or unclear actions.

DMs: Focus these on moderation or editorial inquiries to streamline communication.

Enforcing a balance between creativity and structure, we use editorial collectives to curate content based on established journalistic standards (e.g., the 5Ws of news reporting). Then applying consistent moderation to maintain the newswire as a valuable resource for grassroots reporting, minimizing off-topic or non-news contributions.

Building a robust newswire needs clear editorial guidelines, beginning with strict adherence to “newsworthiness,” rejecting non-news posts (up to 98% initially flow likely) to establish quality standards. Over time, this threshold can relax with user education and feedback. Focus on first-hand reports that embody the 5Ws of journalism (Who, What, Where, When, Why).

The feature process, highlights the synthesize of the best grassroots reports into cohesive narratives, combining text, images, audio, and video for impactful storytelling. Develop the features through editorial consensus, is about growing diversity of perspectives and adherence to the #4opens.

Federation via #activitypub to share content across the organic spreading network, building interconnectivity without duplicating efforts. Allow comments and replies to appear across instances, growing dialogue while maintaining strong editorial oversight.

Dealing with the “Nutter” problem by focus on process, not outcomes. Push the project forward with clear processes built on shared principles, understanding that life and society evolve over time. Avoid getting bogged down by demands for “perfect” solutions – basic, functional systems are a strong start. Reduce misinformation and #FUD by establish user education paths to combat misinformation and clarify project goals. Use editorial tools to label, moderate, and remove false content.

The #OMN vision strong defaults to #KISS hardcoded values and embedding the #4opens at every level of the project to resist the push for dilution of #mainstreaming pushing. Maintaining a grassroots, horizontal path to development to ensure inclusivity and resilience, this needs a cultural shift, addressing the reliance on #fashernistas and those who push “common sense” a part of this is emphasizing long-term, principled growth over short-term popularity. This path keeps the focus on trust, process, and grassroots collaboration, building a stronger, more resilient #Fediverse and revitalizing #indymediaback for meaningful, community-driven media production.

For more information, resources, the OMN wiki is a good place to start. You can fund the projects here

Indymedia based on the #OMN framework?

#nothingnew sets the stage for #somethingnew

The #nothingnew hashtag offers a straightforward and bold #KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid) approach to rejecting the prevailing ideologies of the past 40 years: #neoliberalism and #postmodernism. These ideologies have shaped the current “common sense” to push individualism, relativism, and market-driven solutions, at the expense of collective action and systemic change we so urgently need.

Neoliberalism is an ideology that emphasizes free markets, deregulation, and privatization, by eroding social safety nets and collective power. It normalizes austerity, wage suppression, and the commodification of public goods, making systemic exploitation appear inevitable and unchangeable. This is the mess we have made over the last 40 years.

Postmodernism, is rooted in scepticism and relativism, which undermines the belief in truths and collective narratives. While it does critique power structures, it leaves people without a path forward, reinforcing apathy and fragmentation which our economic system has spread.

Together, these ideologies create a world-view where large-scale social change is dismissed as impossible, reinforcing a status quo that benefits the few. We are past the time when we need to reboot social change back to a more action orientated modernism path. This is how #nothingnew sets the stage for this #somethingnew.

The #nothingnew framework advocates revisiting modernism, which championed progress, reason, and collective solutions to social challenges. Modernism’s optimism and belief in systemic change are powerful antidotes to the paralysing scepticism of postmodernism. By rejecting the last 40 years’ intellectual and economic inertia, #nothingnew seeks to create a foundation for practical, action-oriented social movements we need to mediate the building crises.

Building #somethingnew, is about recentring collective action with a shift of focus from isolated individual efforts to collaborative, community-driven paths. This path needs simplicity and accessibility by keeping frameworks clear, actionable, and rooted in shared goals, avoiding over-complication. to make this happen we need to build trust in progress, by advocate for meaningful growth—improvements in living conditions, equality, and sustainability that serve humanity rather than the profits of the few.

The #nothingnew project isn’t about nostalgia—it’s about learning from the past to chart a clear, modernist-inspired course for a future that values fairness, collaboration, and systemic change over stagnation and skepticism. It lays the groundwork for a transformative shift to #somethingnew and is an important part of the #hashtag story and #OMN

We need historical paths to reboot the #openweb with the #fediverse

The #Indymedia network was a groundbreaking independent, grassroots journalism project, born from the #DIY ethos and the global alt-globalization movements of the late 1990s and early 2000s. It was a network where anyone anywhere could publish stories, videos, and photos, challenging #mainstreaming narratives. However, it eventually fragmented and became less relevant, then died as a functional network. Let’s look at why this happened:

The internal factors, where conflict among the crew and contributors, highlights 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 grow inclusive, mess and functional decision-making. Integrate feedback loops, to insure constant input from diverse people to adapt to evolving needs and combat creeping 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.

#indymediaback

https://unite.openworlds.info/indymedia

The #blocking of #openweb funding

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

On this subject, it’s worth looking at this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_law

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.

#4Opens #OMN #DIY

We need a positive path for tech

The Fediverse, decentralized social networking, path is fundamentally built on trust and collaboration. This emphasizes that interactions, platform developments, and community guidelines prioritize shared values and respect, rather than being dictated by centralized controls, fear paths and governance.

Why trust matters, it’s distributed, the #Fediverse’s open protocol, #activitypub thrives because people and platforms choose to interconnect based on shared values and trust. By focusing on trust, the “ecosystem “native” path builds inclusivity, creativity, and resilience. Where #dotcons and #geejproblem fear-based strategies (e.g., excessive regulation and distrustful moderation) alienate people and fragments the network.

But we have not been very competent on this path. The plea “don’t be a prat” is a reminder for crew of all flavers to avoid overreacting and resorting to authoritarian measures when conflicts and challenges arise. Over-policing (#blocking) and adopting fear-driven paths and controls undermine the community’s trust-based flows and will push people away.

To sustain the #fediverse, we need transparent governance to encouraging open dialogue and consensus-driven decision-making. And we need strong stories that highlight the ecosystem’s reliance on collaboration over coercion. This is needed to resist co-opting by fear, to avoid fearmongering narratives that overemphasis the threats, leading to centralization and over-regulation, the very things we are stepping away from.

The #OMN story of the “inspiring organic path for tech” emphasizes grassroots, decentralized, and inclusive approaches to technology and governance:

The Open Media Network (OMN): This project focuses on decentralizing media and data flow, breaking silos, and fostering peoples control through trust-based systems. #OMN leverages the Fediverse and tools built on the #4opens framework (open data, source, standards, and processes) to create a collaborative ecosystem that resists traditional centralized controls.
Challenging Mainstream Tech Norms: The OMN and associated projects like the Open Governance Body (#OGB) address the dominance of neoliberal ideologies in tech, promoting governance that pushes community needs over hierarchical and market-driven models. It critiques paths that perpetuate #stupidindividualism and other barriers to collective action.
Empowering Grassroots Movements: Advocates for simple, accessible frameworks (e.g., the KISS principle) and strategic use of tools like #hashtags to build visibility, cohesion, and support for grassroots initiatives.

By focusing on transparency, openness, and community-led development, these paths, grow the #fediverse in to a resilient, democratic tech ecosystem. For deeper insights, you can explore Hamish Campbell’s website for more about these initiatives and their practical applications.

There is a movement growing on this path https://blog.elenarossini.com/a-new-way-to-describe-the-fediverse-and-its-opposition-to-big-tech/ and we do need this.

The #blocking of #openweb funding

How can we mediate the #NGO blocking?

The #NGO world has been both ally and obstacle for decades. Too often, NGOs smother movements with paperwork, reporting cycles, and status-quo compromises. They professionalize struggle into careers, replacing urgency with strategy documents, and radicalism with caring workshops. Survival of the institution becomes more important than the fight itself.

But if we are serious about an #openweb reboot, we cannot just reject the #NGO crew outright. They have resources, networks, legitimacy in the eyes of institutions, and people who genuinely want change. The task is to make them more functional – to mediate them into alignment with grassroots, horizontal, #4opens values.

Transparency vs. the black box. Most NGOs operate like closed castles. Decisions are opaque, wrapped in “internal processes” no one can see. This is poison for trust. The antidote: embed radical transparency. Decisions must be documented, accessible, and open to input. When governance is open, collaboration becomes possible. When it’s closed, suspicion festers and movements fracture.

Flexibility vs. Rigidity. NGOs love five-year plans, KPIs, and strategy frameworks that collapse on contact with reality. In a world spinning into #climatechaos and political instability, rigidity is suicide. The fix: embrace iterative, adaptive paths. Think agile. Test, fail, learn, pivot. If grassroots crews can adapt in the streets and on the fly, NGOs can damn well learn to adapt in their boardrooms.

Tech as Social, Not Specialist. One of the worst NGO habits is treating technology as a “separate department.” IT staff build tools no one uses while the campaigners rely on #dotcons because “that’s where people are.” This deepens dependency and undermines any autonomy. The answer: hard code social understandings into tech frameworks. Train staff in digital literacy. Break the barrier between “techies” and “non-techies.” Build tools with grassroots values at the core, not bolted on as an afterthought.

Decentralization vs. Dependence. NGOs instinctively centralize, but resilience comes from decentralization. #Fediverse and #P2P networks show the way: messy, federated, harder to control, but alive. NGOs need to step off the corporate #dotcons treadmill and start investing in distributed infrastructures that empower communities instead of platforms.

Funding without shackles. Follow the money, and you find the leash. #NGO agendas bend to donors, governments, and foundations. If your funding is tied to maintaining the status quo, radical change is impossible. Solution: diversify funding. Community crowdfunding. Partnerships with projects that share #openweb values. Build independence rather than dependency. Stop mistaking survival for success.

Beyond tokenism. Diversity statements, inclusion workshops, and endless identity branding have become the fig leaves of #NGO culture. It’s just box-ticking while real grassroots voices are sidelined. True inclusivity means messy organizing: bringing in voices you don’t control, valuing experience over credentials, connecting with movements like #XR and #OMN not to manage them but to amplify them. Tokenism builds silos; real inclusivity builds bridges.

The polemic. The NGO crew must choose: remain bureaucratic husks feeding on donor cycles, or transform into allies that enable radical grassroots change. We do not need their brands. We do not need their logos on banners. We need their structures to stop blocking and start enabling. That means adopting the #4opens, embracing federation, composting control culture, and learning from messy grassroots organizing.

The truth is simple:

NGOs that cling to their black boxes, their rigidity, their donor-driven agendas, will collapse into irrelevance.
NGOs that embrace openness, decentralization, and collaboration can play a real role in rebooting the #openweb.

This isn’t about saving NGOs. It’s about saving movements from being smothered by them.

#KISS #OMN #4opens

Hope not hate, in tech

Reflecting on the last 40 years, it’s clear that the on rushing path 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 didn’t just allow corporations to thrive; it redefined our social priorities, encouraging a culture of profit overshadowing 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” paths, 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.

#KISS, we need to balance: Hope not hate, in tech