Tackling the challenges of bureaucracy and #mainstreaming inertia. We need to try and jump the hurdles within tech communities with for example the current pouring down the drain of tech funding provided by #NGI (Next Generation Internet). It is an obvious path we need to get right soon:
Addressing bureaucratic inertia (and native corruption) in the EU tech funding:
Leverage small wins pilot projects: we need to get some funding to shift to real alternatives, Implement small-scale pilot projects that demonstrate benefits and serve as proof of concepts. These projects gradually shift perspectives and encourage larger scale initiatives. Advocate for incremental changes rather than radical shifts, which are more palatable to bureaucratic institutions.
Engage stakeholders in collaborative platforms, we need to rejuvenate the moribund https://socialhub.activitypub.rocks/ to build agen the collaborative space where policymakers, activists, industry experts, and community members discuss, co-create, and refine initiatives.
Storytelling and communication narrative building to craft compelling narratives, using the existing hashtag seeds to highlight the human and social benefits of proposed changes. Use storytelling to make abstract concepts tangible and relatable.
Resource allocation funding initiatives: Seek funding from diverse sources, including grants, crowdfunding, alongside the #EU institutional funding. Use this to invest in skill development to bridge gaps within the community and foster the “native” #openweb path.
Encourage collaboration across different prospectives to bring fresh paths to push solutions. Knowledge sharing, use the #4opens to clear meaningful paths to move outside the current clutter. Create platforms for sharing this knowledge, run workshops, webinars, and hackathons, to facilitate “native” learning and collaboration.
Promote open practices that encourage contributions from a wide range of participants, not just the core tech-savvy individuals. Experimentation Spaces: Create spaces for experimentation where failures are seen as learning opportunities rather than setbacks.
Bridging the Gap Between EU Bureaucracy and Tech Communities:
Dialogue and advocacy: Establish regular dialogues between tech communities and EU policymakers to discuss challenges, share insights, and co-develop solutions. Use projects like the #OGB to build up tech ambassadors and liaisons who can effectively communicate this divide.
Develop joint projects where tech communities and EU bodies work together on common goals, such as digital transformation, data commons, and open internet standards. Learn from the “native” hackerspace movement to create innovation hubs that serve as collaborative spaces for tech communities and policymakers to experiment with new ideas and technologies.
In conclusion, the journey to shift meaningful initiatives within the #EU and overcome the #geekproblem in tech communities involves activism leveraging small wins, engaging wider stakeholders, using community advocacy, and fostering inclusive and collaborative #openweb environments. These are a path to shift the resources of bureaucratic institutions while overcoming internal #geekproblem challenges, ultimately driving the positive and impactful change that is so obviously needed.
#fashernistas are unconscious of the dynamics of “in and out groups” that split the workings of the social change movements. Let’s look at this in our #fediverse. Firstly why? The need for feelings of importance, that feeds the need for control and exclusivity behaviour, that then stifles diversity of thought and hampers meaningful change and challenge. This is at the core of #blocking.
In group members push to feel they are accepted and seen as part of the core community, out-group members are then excluded and marginalized, feeding feelings of alienation. This need for control and exclusivity power dynamics with in-group members shapes who hold power and influence within the community, thus shaping the norms and values. This failed diversity is a sterile environment where only limited viewpoints are accepted, on this path the is no if any community growth.
The negative impact on the #fediverse leads to a stifling diversity and echo chambers where only similar, and dysfunctional views are shared. This #blocking of “native” diversity, increases conflict us vs them mentality, reducing cooperation. Making the out-group feel marginalized and excluded, reducing their participation and contribution.
How to mitigate this mess? Start by inclusivity and diversity, encourage open discussions and actively seek diverse viewpoints. When the invertible splintering starts to happen, do not keep pushing the #blocking that feeds this blinded exclusionary behaviour. A healthy active balance is needed for change and challenge for building the empathy and understanding of different perspectives, respecting dialogue and criticism is a healthy path. When we can only take the path of #blocking the community is failing and so is the core project, look at the #fediverse and the last few years on https://socialhub.activitypub.rocks/ as an example of this fail.
To make this work, initiate collaborative projects that require input from a diverse group of members. Build mentorship programs into every path of these projects, pass on experience, guide and support. Be careful of #fahernistas hiding behind the burocracy of “Safe Space’s” mess making, they are the problem and have little to do with solutions or “safety”. In #openweb tools, use moderation to promote diverse content and prevent exclusionary behaviour, implement redundant feedback mechanisms to allow communities to report and address this themselves.
In the #fediverse, the “in and out group” dynamics constantly need to be mediate so our “common sense” #fashernistas behaver is not blindly pushed over the real diversity of healthy spaces. Our communities are “native” #4opens, diverse, and resilient, the path that fosters the change and challenge we so obviously need for a working #openweb reboot.
The #4opens is a path to evaluate the value and openness of alternative or grassroots technology projects. A way to promote transparency, accessibility, and collaboration on the path to of alternatives to #mainstreaming, closed systems. It stands in contrast to #dotcons projects that hoard closed and monetize data. By adhering to these principles, projects offer value to people and the broader community, as opposed to extracting value.
While traditional open data initiatives focus primarily on making data accessible, the #4opens framework encompasses a more comprehensive approach to openness. This grassroots focus extends beyond just data to include source code, operations, and process. This is in contrast to traditional open data initiatives are associated with government or large institutional efforts. By including four distinct aspects of openness, the #4opens provide a holistic way to judge the value and transparency of a project. This contrasts with traditional initiatives that focus solely on data accessibility.
The strong emphasis on community participation and collaboration. The “Open Process” aspect goes beyond just sharing data or code, emphasizing transparency in how a project is run and managed. This is not typically a core component of traditional open data initiatives, and makes this a real alternative to corporate models. The #4opens framework is explicitly focused on judging the overall value and ethos of a project, rather than just its technical compliance with open data standards.
Collaborative development: With open source as a principle, grassroots projects benefit from collective efforts in improving and expanding their technology. This allows for faster innovation and problem-solving. Trust-building: Open process promote transparency in how projects are managed and run. This builds trust within the community and attracts more participants and supporters. Problem-solving focus: The framework encourages the development of tools and approaches that address real issues arising from social organization within #openweb communities, fostering practical solutions to grassroots challenges.
The #4opens serve as a simple yet effective way to #KISS judge the value and openness of grassroots tech projects. This helps both project creators and users assess the alignment of a project with open principles. By adhering to these principles, grassroots tech projects offer more value to people and the broader community, building the needed open, collaborative, and community-driven approach to technology development.
The #4opens framework fosters collaboration among grassroots tech projects
* Open Data: By making data freely accessible, projects share information, metadata and insights, enabling cross-project collaboration and innovation. This openness allows different initiatives to build upon each other’s work and avoid duplicating efforts * Open Source: The emphasis on open source software encourages collaborative development across projects. By sharing code, grassroots initiatives leverage each other’s work, contribute improvements, and collectively advance their goals. This fosters a culture of shared knowledge and resources * Open Standards: Adherence to open industrial standards promotes interoperability between different grassroots projects. This allows diverse systems to work together seamlessly, facilitating integration and collaboration across initiatives * Open Process: This encourages transparency in project workflows and decision-making. By adopting open processes like wikis and activity streams, projects involve stakeholders in planning, development, and governance. This fosters trust, accountability, and collective ownership among collaborators
Community Involvement: The #4opens framework promotes community participation, allowing people interested to contribute to projects. This creates a broader collaborative ecosystem where diverse skills and perspectives are shared across initiatives. The #4opens provide a common set of principles for assessing grassroots tech projects. This shared framework allows projects to evaluate each other, identify collaborators, and build trust within the community. By positioning as alternatives to closed, corporate models, #4opens projects gravitate towards collaboration with like-minded initiatives. This fosters a supportive ecosystem of grassroots tech projects working towards similar goals. The openness promoted facilitates the sharing of best practices, lessons learned, and approaches across projects. This collective learning accelerates progress and problem-solving within the grassroots tech community.
The #4opens can be used to build a foundation of trust and shared values that enables diverse projects to work together towards common progressive paths.
In the United States, propaganda is intertwined with consumerism. Edward Bernays working in the US is the father of modern propaganda, he believed that humans were driven by instincts and animal desires. His work was used to harness these instincts through advertisements (propaganda) to create inner desires within people, to feed consumerism, which corporations could then satisfy with their products. This is known as the “engineering of consent” which he created to #blocking social change and challenge, this “sweet, sickly mess” was pushed to keep society aligned with the aim of social control.
This strategy you can find in plain language in his books, it clearly shows the path of advertising and propaganda to push corporate and political goals. The objects advertised and sold were used as symbols of government propaganda, for example, the American Department of State funded exhibits at the Museum of Modern Art to showcase American consumerism as a symbol of progress and superiority over communism. This legacy of propaganda is alive and flowing in all our disasters youse of #dotcons to shape perceptions and dictate behaviour and algorithmically manipulate and control. This has played a core role in building up the current mess, this technology has shaped our collective consciousness over the last 20 years. This “sweet and addictive” digital intervention pulled us off the social disruptive “native” path of anarchy, of the #openweb
How do we get outside this mess, the power of design in propaganda lies in its ability to convey meaning in symbolic, abstract terms that go beyond words. Whether through #dotcons#UX pushing overt displays of authority or subtle bureaucratic defaults, design influences our thoughts and perceptions, hiding brutal truths behind a veil of ordinary, boring bureaucracy. As we navigate the digital world around us, it helps to remain curious and question the narratives our “common sense” paths serve, if we are to push change, challenge we need to recognize the responsibility that comes with this power.
Let’s look at another issue that for meany people are hidden by “common sense” daily #deathcult worship. That, our “common sense” wage labour is not voluntary and very much limits our freedom, workers are forced to sell their labour due to lack of alternatives for basic survival. The ability to choose between employers does not equate to freedom in any real sense, it limits freedom because workers have no meaningful alternative. Capitalist wage labour alienates workers from their labour, the products of their labour, their human nature, and other workers, This #alienation leads to a loss of freedom and self-realization.
“Wages are determined through the antagonistic struggle between capitalist and worker. Victory goes necessarily to the #capitalist. The capitalist can live longer without the worker than can the worker without the capitalist. Combination among the capitalists is customary and effective; workers’ combination is prohibited and painful in its consequences for them. Besides, the landowner and the capitalist can make use of industrial advantages to augment their revenues; the worker has neither rent nor interest on capital to supplement his industrial income. Hence, the intensity of the competition among the workers.” https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/wages.htm
Outside our “common sense,” the capitalist and #socialist perspectives offer different ideas of freedom:
Individual liberty: #Capitalism emphasizes individual freedom to make economic choices without government interference. The ability to own private property, engage in “voluntary” exchanges, and pursue profit in a free market economy. Consumers have the freedom to choose from a variety of goods and services produced by competing businesses. Freedom is defined as the absence of coercion or constraints imposed by others, especially the government.
Collective freedom: Socialism focuses on collective liberation from economic exploitation and the constraints of capitalism. Freedom can not be achieved without basic needs (food, housing, healthcare, education) guaranteed for all. Freedom as the ability to realize one’s potential, which requires access to collective decision-making over economic resources and production.
Capitalist freedom is tied to market mechanisms, socialist freedom involves democratic planning of the economy. Formal vs. real freedom distinguishes between formal (legal) freedom and real (material) freedom, capitalism only provides the former. Capitalism focuses on economic and political freedoms, while socialism expands the concept to include social and economic issues. The elimination of economic constraints on human potential, is in part what in the digital world the #openweb is about and the wider the humanistic path we need to take.
In this, we need to view justice and freedom as intertwined concepts. True freedom is defined to incorporate justice, equality, solidarity, and universal access to substantive (not just formal) freedoms. The #anarchist and socialist perspectives reject definitions of freedom that ignore this, our refreshed “common sense” needs to reflect this.
As I said before, anarchism is the most “native” philosophy for the #openweb, a #FOSS network free from hierarchical structures and state authority, based on self-management, voluntary cooperation, and mutual aid. With this in mind, let’s look at what anarchist think:
Clement Duval “Anarchy is the negation of all authority” anarchism’s core principle of rejecting all forms of imposed authority, advocating for self-governance.
Kevin Carson: “The outcome of this vote will, at best, slow down the rate at which the American government gravitates towards plutocracy, police statism and global corporate Empire.” The inefficacy of electoral politics in curbing the drift towards oligarchy and authoritarianism, underlining the need for systemic change.
Ravachol “Anarchy is the obliteration of property.” the critique of private property as a source of inequality and exploitation.
Marius Jacob: “In order to destroy an effect, you must first destroy the cause. If there is theft it is only because there is abundance on one hand and famine on the other; because everything only belongs to some.” that social ills like theft stem from economic inequality and that true justice requires communal ownership and sharing of resources.
Murray Bookchin: “An anarchist society, far from being a remote ideal, has become a precondition for the practice of ecological principles.” that sustainable ecological practices are incompatible with hierarchical and capitalist systems.
Lucy Parsons: “The struggle for liberty is too great and the few steps we have gained have been won at too great a sacrifice, for the great mass of the people of this 20th century to consent to turn over to any political party the management of our social and industrial affairs.” warns against the dangers of political parties co-opting social movements, advocating for direct action and grassroots organizing instead.
Max Stirner: “The Revolution aimed at new arrangements; insurrection leads us no longer to let ourselves be arranged, but to arrange ourselves.” distinguishes between revolution and insurrection, emphasizing self-organization over top-down restructuring.
Voltaire: “It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.” the timeless observation underscores the risks of dissent in an unjust system, the anarchist critique of state repression.
Rudolf Rocker: “Dictatorship, the most extreme form of tyranny, can never lead to social liberation.” that true freedom cannot be achieved through authoritarian means, highlighting the importance of democratic and decentralized approaches.
Camillo Berneri: “Whereas we anarchists desire the extinction of the state through the social revolution and the constitution of an autonomist federal order, the Leninists desire the destruction of the bourgeois state and moreover the conquest of the state by the ‘proletariat.'” contrasts anarchist and Leninist strategies, advocating for a stateless society rather than the mere transfer of state power.
William Godwin: “If there be such a thing as truth, it must infallibly be struck out by the collision of mind with mind.” stresses the importance of free exchange of ideas in discovering truth, reflecting the anarchist value of intellectual freedom.
Errico Malatesta: “Anarchism was born in a moral revolt against social injustice.” emphasizes the ethical foundation of anarchism, rooted in opposition to systemic injustice and exploitation.
Emile Henry: “The influence that theoretical anarchists pretend to wield over the revolutionary movement is nil. Today the field is open to action, without weakness or retreat.” underscores the importance of direct action over theoretical discourse in advancing revolutionary goals.
Albert Libertad: “Those that envision the goal from the first steps, those that want the certitude of reaching it before walking, never arrive.” revolutionary change requires taking risks and proceeding without absolute certainty of success.
George Carlin: “The politicians are put there to give you the idea that you have freedom of choice. You don’t. You have no choice. You have owners. They own you.” anarchist views on the illusion of democracy under capitalist systems, where real power lies with the elite.
Anselme Bellagarrigue: “Anarchy is order; government is civil war.” contrasts the natural order of anarchism with the inherent conflict and coercion within governmental systems.
Rudolf Rocker: “The growth of technology at the expense of human personality, and especially the fatalistic submission with which the great majority surrender to this condition, is the reason why the desire for freedom is less alive among men today and has with many of them given place completely to a desire for economic security.” critiques the dehumanizing effects of technological advancement and the resulting loss of a collective yearning for freedom.
Banksy: “We can’t do anything to change the world until capitalism crumbles. In the meantime, we should all go shopping to console ourselves.” the ironic statement critiques consumerism as a coping mechanism in a capitalist society that resists meaningful change.
David Graeber: “‘Communist society’; in the sense of a society organized exclusively on that single principle — could never exist. But all social systems, even economic systems like capitalism, have always been built on top of a bedrock of actually-existing communism.” points out that communal and cooperative practices underpin all social systems, even those ostensibly opposed to communism.
Bruno Filippi: “Maybe I am crazy. But my madness is the most terrible rationality. I see further, I feel life more vividly.” reflection speaks to the deep, often radical awareness and sensitivity to social injustices that drive anarchist thought.
To sum up: Anarchism is native to a lot of people reading this as it challenges political and economic structures, advocating for a both online (#FOSS) and offline a society based on voluntary cooperation, mutual aid, and the abolition of hierarchical authority (though the is also strong feudalism in #FOSS). These quotes are a glimpse into the diverse and rich tradition. A window into the motivations, challenges, and aspirations of anarchist philosophy, emphasizing the importance of action, ethical resistance to injustice, and the push for genuine social freedom.
In the #liberal approach to politics and economic systems, there is an ambition to save the world, there is a lot of championing of progressive causes such as climate change mitigation, social justice, and human rights. The strategy to mediate the current mess involves leveraging the existing political and economic systems to achieve these goals, believing that reforms lead to significant improvements without changing the current structures.
We have “right” and “left” liberals, the right is blinded dogmatic worshippers of the #deathcult where the “left” uphold capitalist principles, regulated markets, private enterprise, and incremental reforms and are terrified of radical changes. At best, this creates a perception that they are trying to balance two inherently contradictory goals: preserving the status quo while also advocating for real progressive change.
Delusion or Pragmatism? Incremental change vs. radical overhaul, for anyone with any sense, this balancing act is delusional because capitalism’s drive for profit and growth stands in opposition to the environmental sustainability and social equity that liberals say they seek. They do argue, with some merit, that incremental change within the system is more pragmatic and achievable in the short term, and that it can lay the groundwork for more substantial transformations in the future. Looking at historical precedents, significant social changes, such as civil rights advancements, labour protections, and environmental regulations, have come through gradual reforms rather than abrupt revolutions.
What this website keeps asking is the liberal #mainstreaming path fit for purpose any more, after 40 years of worshipping the #deathcult, might we actually require radical changes? The onrushing #climatechaos and hard shifts to the right, makes actually questioning this path the new building #mainstreming. We do need to question whether the current political and economic paths address pressing global issues effectively or at all. If not, more radical solutions need to be considered.
Back to the fluffy liberals. While maintaining the strengths of liberal democracy – such as civil liberties and political freedoms – it is worthwhile exploring and experimenting with alternative economic models that prioritize ecological sustainability and social equity more explicitly. This is in part what the current #openweb reboot is about.
Constructive dialogue about this between our “left” liberals and more radical progressives needs to lead to real, innovative options that draw on the basic humanistic strengths. While the liberal approach is contradictory, in its fluffier “left” path it represents a pragmatic effort to navigate the complexities of modern society. Whether this approach is sufficient to address our global challenges is a question that deserves ongoing discussion and active critical examination. This is at the heart of the fluffy/spiky debate.
What drives the rise of social justice movements and grassroots mobilization is simple: they begin locally. Movements grow from the lived experiences of people and communities directly affected by injustice – those with the motivation and need to bring about real change.
To help these movements expand and connect, technology need to be built to serve people, not control them. That means prioritizing open, decentralized networks like the #openweb and the #fediverse, that grow free, serendipitous communication. These digital commons give activists the tools to organize, share stories, and build collective power without being bound by corporate or state control.
Projects like the #OMN and #indymediaback are built with this ethos, tools for coordination, not domination. But movements also need historical memory. We need to document and preserve the history of activism, its tactics, its victories, its failures, to educate and inspire new generations. Understanding the struggles of the past helps today’s movements avoid repeating old mistakes and build on hard-won gains. That’s the work of the #makeinghistory project.
Yet we face the ever-present threat of co-optation, when activist groups shift their focus to chase funding or institutional legitimacy, losing their roots in the process. Staying independent and mission-driven is hard, especially in today’s hostile environment, but it has been done before, so it can be done again. If you value this work, support us here: https://opencollective.com/open-media-network
Activism thrives when there’s a balance of spiky and fluffy – bold direct action paired with strategic planning and long-term vision. Pragmatism is key: we must address urgent needs now, while laying the groundwork for lasting change.
Let’s be clear: the relationship between grassroots movements and capitalism is fundamentally antagonistic. Capitalism erases history. It ignores the material realities of class struggle, slavery, debt, violence, ecocide, and oppression. It breeds a culture of #stupidIndividualism and fuels the #deathcult we now call “common sense.”
In its place, we should seriously consider other paths like – socialism and anarchism – not as abstract ideals, but as practical socio-economic paths rooted in public ownership and collective decision-making. These models offer a chance to distribute wealth and power more justly.
Capitalism is collapsing under its own weight.
“We all know the system we live under is destroying itself.
So what comes next? Fascism or revolution?”
Radical change isn’t a dream, it’s a necessity. The #openweb, the language of hashtags, and the memory of past movements offer us practical tools to build collective paths, connect communities, and organize resistance. These are our counterforces to the algorithmic mess of #mainstreaming. We already have the tools. Now we need the will.
For millennials lost after the mess of 9/11, the wars, economic upheaval, digital division, and social atomization, #TED was an appealing #mainstreaming alternate vision of a society where ideas had currency, and a wider group of people could identify with the intellectual vanguard. This vision was delusion, but it easily overtook the norms of drift and disconnection in our failed alternative culture.
To have been young and thoughtful in the late 2000s was to be a citizen of TED nation – a community of dreamers more than doers, united by a common creed: that ideas matter, that inspiration is power, that the future belongs to those who can capture imaginations. This naivety was an easy path to take for the children of the #deathcult. TED’s prominence shaped the aspirations of a generation, it shaped how we thought about ourselves. This #stupidindividualism pushed the blinding possibility: you, too, could have an idea worth spreading. You, too, could be special.
TED defined the poverty of the blinded intellectual spirit of this era, a profoundly millennial idea: that we are each of us main characters and have an individual calling and a mission to “change the world” in some vaguely indefinable generally pointless way. And while the reality fell well short of the rhetoric, the animating spirit was strong and likely sincere for most people.
The priests of the #deathcult pushed #TED as class war, it was not a youthful indiscretion of a generation, a rite of passage on the road to hard-earned intellectual growth. Rather, it was a smoke and mirror mess pushed by a “progressive” #fahernistas class. In the post TED world we are back to where we were 20 years ago, the messy reality of class war, unfriendly and unwelcoming.
PS. it’s interesting to remember that #TED tried to be #openweb native at the start, they only turned to #dotcons when that path was abandoned by our #fashionistas and lead to the mess we are in today, what a mess.
This site is both a personal journal and a platform for broader discussions, this is a path that reflects a deep engagement in grassroots media, #4opens technology, and the mess we make with #neoliberalism and consumer culture. This tapestry of reflections, critiques, and ideas centred around technology, media, activism, and society is what you make of it, what are your thought-provoking, intersections of technology, society, and activism? It’s also outlining concrete projects to make the change and challenge we talk about here happen.
Open Media and Decentralization: a strong advocate for open media networks and decentralized paths.
Critique of Neoliberalism: our worship of the #deathcult leads to social and ecological decay.
Technology and Society: The impact of technology on society, especially the role of big tech companies (“#dotcons”) in shaping our lives.
Activism and Social Change: Deeply rooted in activism and social movements.
Hashtags and Digital Story’s: Hashtags are a feature to weave complex narratives and critique of the current digital mess. Hashtags like #deathcult, #openweb, #4opens, and #geekproblem are central to discussions.
Personal Reflections and Metaphors: Personal anecdotes and metaphors convey points to make the posts accessible and relatable, to help compost “#techshit” into fertile ground for new ideas and social change.
The primary purpose of the site is to challenge the “common sense” status quo and inspire people to think, and more importantly act differently about both technology and society, to provoke thought and then action. Candid, reflective, and polemical, not shying away from prodding #mainstreaming perspectives and offering alternatives grounded in experience. The flow of hashtags, metaphors, add a layer of depth to posts, inviting people to think critically by linking the issues. Whether you’re a technologist, activist, or simply interested, please take the time to read and then join the weave to knit the compelling narrative on the importance of open, community-driven media and technology to grow a different world.
We do need to talk about useful tools we are underusing. Hashtags are ubiquitous online, at best they categorize content to find and join conversations on topics. The problem with current #fashernista hashtag usage is they reinforce individualism over collective action. This is an issue of #neoliberal “common sense” and the domination of #dotcons, prioritizing profit rather than change and challenge.
Serendipity is about the occurrence of events by chance, this provides a beneficially fresh perspective on hashtag use. By implementing hashtags in a way that fosters unexpected connections and discoveries, it transforms how they function as social tools. Yes, misspelled hashtags result in fragmented conversations, making it difficult for people to engage in coherent discussions. However, embracing these variations also leads to a more inclusive and dynamic categorization system. By allowing for misspelled hashtags to be recognized and grouped with their counterparts, we create a more robust and forgiving serendipity path.
In a federated system like the #Fediverse, and what is envisioned for the Open Media Network (#OMN), there is a tension between universal truths and messy, subjective truths. A federated path values diversity and decentralization, allowing for meany perspectives to coexist. This aligns with the concept of serendipity, where the focus is on connections and discoveries rather than rigid categorization.
This is the value in the OMN, which address these issues by implementing word grouping flows, where different spellings or variations of hashtags can be grouped together to build cohesive category flows. This approach makes misspelled hashtags functional, thus addressing some of the fragmentation caused by individualistic usage. But the OMN project faces significant challenges in securing funding and overcoming “common sense” internal and external obstacles. The difficulty in obtaining #FOSS funding highlights the broader issue of support for projects that prioritize open, decentralized, and community-focused paths.
The use of hashtags is a progressive and critical perspective on technology and society. Think about neoliberalism (#deathcult) and consumer capitalism (#fashernista), promoting the ideals of the open web (#openweb) against the for-profit internet (#closedweb#dotcons). The interlocking hashtags tells a story that advocates, transparency, collaboration, and sharing in open-source development (#4opens).
Example Meanings:
#deathcult: Neoliberalism and its detrimental social and ecological impacts.
#fashernista: The trivialization of serious issues through consumerism and fashion.
#openweb: The original horizontal path of the World Wide Web.
#closedweb: The pre- and post-open web internet dominated by for-profit control.
#4opens: Principles of transparency, collaboration, and sharing in open-source, #FOSS development.
#geekproblem: The cultural issues within the tech community, a strong tendency towards control and determinism.
#techshit and #techchurn: The negative consequences of constant new technological projects that fail to address any social issues.
#nothingnew: The question whether new projects are needed or if existing ones should be improved.
#OGB: Open governance and the power of community lead decision-making.
For hashtags to be effective tools for social change, we need to shift the balance from individualistic to collectivist. This requires tech systems that accommodate human error and diversity of expression, while maintaining coherence and building community. The #OMN has a promising approach by grouping variations of hashtags, but it faces significant challenges in implementation and support due to current blocking of funding.
Let’s embrace a serendipitous view of hashtag to enrich conversations in the era of the #deathcult.
#Hashtags have good and useful potential to be used for social change. They create connections between people, amplify voices, and mobilize communities. When used effectively, in a native way, they transform individual expressions into collective movements. However, the current #dotcons culture presents a very real and disempowering challenge to this.
Today we are shaped by #stupidindividualism, on this path hashtags become acts of individual expression rather than collective tools for change. This individualistic approach hides the potential for constructive use. Instead of fostering solidarity and shared purpose, hashtags become fragmented and lose any meaning and thus impact.
Tech silos like Facebook (#failbook) and generally the dominant digital corporations (#dotcons) exacerbate this problem. Their business models and design promote individualism over community, a culture obsessed with profit and control at the expense of human values, creates a landscape where meaningful social change is impossible to achieve.
The Need for Collective Action
For #hashtags to regain their social function as tools for change, there needs to be a shift in the balance from individualism to collectivism. This requires:
Shared Understanding: Developing a common understanding of the issues and the role hashtags can play in addressing them.
Community Building: Using hashtags to build and strengthen communities rather than only expressing individual opinions.
Strategic Use: Deploying hashtags strategically to mobilize action, raise awareness, and create pressure for change.
Platform Accountability: Holding digital platforms accountable with the #4opens
Movements like Extinction Rebellion (#XR), though well on the #fluffy side, can play a role in this transformation. By emphasizing collective action and the power of grassroots mobilization, they could seed hashtags to build a global community, a common cause.
In conclusion, Hashtags have potential to be used for grassroots social change, but this potential is blocked by our #mainstreaming of individualism, which is pushed by our continuing use of the #dotcons. To harness the power of hashtags, there needs to be a shift towards native #openweb tools and a more collective agenda, community building, and strategic use. Movements like #XR could be a part of this path, as could projects like #OMN#indymediaback and #OGB
