The recurring argument around violence and nonviolence gets trapped in a false choice. One side says “Violence is never the answer.” the other says “Violence is the only thing that has ever changed history.” Both are truth, but both miss real working humanistic paths. So, what kind of society creates the conditions where violence becomes the only option?
A first step is looking at the systems, cultures and social infrastructure that shape how people respond to conflict. If we want people to choose nonviolent methods, then those methods have to actually work. People need meaningful ways to participate, organise, challenge power and create change. Protest without consequence, dialogue without accountability and institutions that ignore people create dangerous paths.
When people feel that peaceful routes are closed, violence becomes a real option. But there is a second social problem to look at – violence is not just a tool, it creates its own culture. A movement built around destruction can easily reproduce the same power structures it fought against. Removing one oppressive system does not automatically create a better one, without new social foundations, history shows new forms of domination grow from the ruins.
Yes, history is written through moments of confrontation, but the is deeper work happens before and after those moments – building the commons that allow people to organise differently. This is where the #openweb lesson matters, change is not only about removing something, it is about building something. The strongest movements create alternatives – new relationships – new institutions – new forms of cooperation – new ways to share knowledge and power.
To build meaningfull alternatives we have to start by compostsing commen sense mess. What meany people do not understand is that our states are based on violence, what we see as private property is based on violence, just about everything we hold and touch is founded on violence. But when we look wider, a narow posative view is the state monopoly on violence is only legitimate when the state itself remains accountable to people. When power becomes accountable only upwards – to wealth, corporations or institutions – then the monopoly becomes simply control.
The same applies to grassroots movements, a movement cannot claim liberation while creating unaccountable power inside itself. The #geekproblem appears here too, reducing social problems to technical solutions – “Use violence.” – “Never use violence.” are simple answers to complex social questions. The harder work is asking, why are people unheard? Why do peaceful methods fail? Who controls the institutions? What alternatives exist? How can we build systems where people have agency before conflict reaches breaking point?
The #OMN path is not about pretending conflict does not exist, it is about understanding that the long-term answer is not simply winning a hard short fight. It is slower, growing a culture where fewer fights become necessary. The #4opens is part of this – transparent processes, shared ownership and accountable structures are not side issues. They are a foundation that allows movements to stay democratic instead of becoming another “common sense” version of the mess they oppose.
Violence is often a symptom, the deeper question is what social conditions keep producing it.
There is a recurring problem in modern activism and alternative movements, the attempt to remove the uncomfortable parts, everything has to be friendly, to be safe, to be acceptable. The difficult questions, the conflicts, the power arguments, the risks and the sharper edges get pushed aside because they are seen as “too political”, “too negative” or “too confrontational”. This mess is where the #dotcons culture creeps in.
The same platforms that turned social interaction into engagement metrics, outrage cycles and data extraction have also shaped how many people think activism should work. The result is a kind of “fluffy activism” that wants the community feeling without the struggle.
The problem is affective change has both a fluffy and a spiky side. The fluffy path matters – welcoming people, building bridges, creating spaces where people can participate by making things accessible. Without this, movements become closed circles talking only to themselves. But the spiky path matters too – who has power, controls the infrastructure, benefits? What happens when things become inconvenient? What happens when a movement actually challenges something? Without the spiky side, activism becomes a performance, a nice-looking community space that threatens nothing.
The big (and nasty) mistake is thinking these paths are opposites, they are not, a healthy movement needs both. Let’s look at examples of this – the convenience trap, when activists building their organising on corporate platforms. Google Drive – Google Docs – WhatsApp are convenient tools, they are familiar to non alt people. Everyone on mainstreaming paths already has them. But convenience is not the same as freedom. The #dotcons did not only capture technology, they captured imagination by teaching people that the easiest path is the best path – Click here – Sign in – Join the platform – Build the community.
If your activism is affective it will become politically “spiky”. Power will push back, first as a legal threat, then depending on these #dotcons systems without understanding the risks is not a clever strategy, it is a prat move. Not because these companies are secretly waiting to attack activists, the issue is structural, #dotcons are designed around – Centralised control – Data collection – Account management – Legal compliance, they are not designed as activist infrastructure.
The #metadata problem, many #fluffy people think “If the messages are private, everything is fine.” But modern investigations are not about message content, metadata matters. Who communicated? When? Where? With whom? How often? What accounts connect together? A simple court order will turn information held by digital platform into evidence. This is not a theoretical problem, it is how legal systems works. The platform does not need to share your goals, it does not need to agree with your politics, it simply responds to legal processes.
The bigger issue is not only the tools, removing the “debate” is the real problem. Often when someone raises concerns, the response is: “You are being negative.” “You are making people uncomfortable.” “You are scaring people away.” This is where the fluffy path becomes harmful, because removing the spiky conversation does not remove the risks, it removes the ability to care. A movement that cannot discuss power, security and infrastructure honestly is not actually inclusive, it is fragile.
A movement needs places where people can collaborate openly, while also respecting the need for protection. The point is not fear, not an argument to stop using every convenient tools. Reality is messy, people use what works. The point is awareness about understanding the trade-offs. Activism needs both the fluffy path that welcomes people and the spiky path that understands power. Lose either one and you get problems. When you block the debate – Only fluffy becomes harmless – Only spiky becomes exhausting.
The future needs movements that can build, care, challenge and defend. Blocking this conversation because it is uncomfortable is not kindness, it is removing part of the debate and that is a very prat move.
The #oxfordboaters use of #dotcons highlights a problem. Using closed platforms is dangerous from the #spiky side – control, permissions, access, dependency. But from the #fluffy side, the problem is different, it becomes too complicated and impenetrable for normal people to join.
The result is a tiny self-selecting group running the process, this is in no way democratic or affective. Then the campaign finishes, accounts disappear, permissions change, people move on, and the collective memory is lost. We repeat the same cycle every 5–10 years – New people arrive, the same problems are rediscovered, the lesson has disappeared. That is not a sustainable movement, basic activism needs memory.
It needs open processes, shared archives and structures that people can actually understand and participate in. The #openweb lesson is simple, if your organising leaves no commons behind, you are constantly rebuilding from zero, losing basic memory is not bad luck, it is a basic design failure, and is a very normal problem for naive, blocking crew who try and dominate fresh campaigning.
Please build things that future people can inherit.
The first thing many people notice about a Rainbow Gathering is what is “missing”. There are no ticket booths, no commercial stages, no vendors selling branded experiences, no cash registers. Thousands of people gather in a forest to create temporary villages and cities to share food, build kitchens, make music, care for each other and then disappear again.
The absence of money can seem like a strange fantasy, but the deeper story is that it is not a just a rule, the refusal of commerce was the original idea, Rainbow was built around a simple but radical question – What happens if people try to organise life around sharing instead of buying? Not as theory, not as a manifesto, but as a lived practice.
The idea was the path – The Rainbow Family emerged from the counterculture of the late 1960s and early 1970s, a period where many people were questioning war, consumerism, hierarchy and the social structures around them. There were many competing ideas and paths about how change should happen, some believed confrontation and disruption were necessary, others believed a different approach was needed – Instead of only fighting the existing system, create something outside it, create a living example as a base from growth, temporary spaces, flows, where people could experience that another way of organising was possible.
The point was not simply to protest capitalism, the point was to demonstrate that cooperation was possible. The free festival model became the foundation – Food shared freely, skills offered freely, music created freely. People contributing because they wanted to, not because they were being paid. Noncommercial was not separate from the message, it was the message – it was real working emporary commons.
The Rainbow Gathering became a working flowing commons for the last 50 years in meany different country’s. A place where the normal, “common sense” rules of the market were excluded. The basic needs of the community were organised through collective effort – Kitchens, water, medical care, childcare, information sharing, conflict resolution. The important part was not that everything was perfect, it was that people attempted to create the working infrastructure of a different culture.
This is the part often misunderstood, a commons is not the absence of organisation, a commons is a different kind of organisation. It requires participation, responsibility, people to care. Freedom without responsibility does not create a commons, it creates a tragedy.
So why did getting rid of money matter? The rejection of money was both symbolic and practical, money does more than exchange goods, it creates relationships between buyers and sellers, it introduces ownership, competition and hierarchy what the Rainbow crew called, in there folksy, spiritual way Babylon.
Why? Because if someone can buy influence, buy comfort or buy power, the social relationships begin to change. The Rainbow idea was, remove the market inside the space and see what grows instead. The “Magic Hat” became one solution, the gathering still existed in a world where food, supplies and transport required money, the difference was that money was moved into the background as a part of the wider gift economy.
With the magic hat people contributed anonymously, resources become collective, the camp itself remained based on sharing. It was not pretending the outside world did not exist, it created a different relationship, the value was about belonging. This path treated humans as creators – a culture where nobody was just a consumer, nobody was only a customer, nobody was reduced to economic value, everyone had something to contribute to belong.
This is why Rainbow connects with wider commons movements, the same question appears in many places – Can people build systems based on cooperation instead of extraction? Can communities create value without everything becoming a product? Online this is also the question at the heart of the #openweb that meany people fail to talk about.
The problems – every commons faces the same challenges, that people are messy. The same openness that pushes participation also pushes nasty problems. Rainbow developed its own language for this “Drainbow.” The word describes people taking more than they give, people who consume the resources of the gathering without contributing. At one level, this is a problem, as a community based on mutual aid depends on people participating, a commons dose need boundaries. But if those boundaries become a way of creating insiders and outsiders, the original path is weakened.
This is the ongoing Rainbow tension – How do you stay open without being overwhelmed? How do you protect the commons without creating hierarchy? It is a living contradiction, that still exists, but still demonstrates that people can cooperate on a huge scale for 50 years, but how difficult cooperation can be to sustain. Consensus can be beautiful, but it can also be exhausting. Leaderlessness prevents domination, but it also creates confusion. Openness creates freedom, but this creates vulnerability.
These are the challenges of any attempt to build a different culture. There is also a modern lesson here – When we describe movements like Rainbow, there is a tendency to turn them into either mythology or failure. Either “Look at this perfect alternative society.” Or “Look at this chaotic disaster.” Both extremist common sense views miss the point, were the important question is what did people learn by living this life?
Culture is not built by perfect systems, it is built through practice, through mistakes, through correction. Through people returning and trying again. Rainbow shows that the infrastructure matters – The kitchens mattered – The councils mattered – The shared practices mattered. The technology of the commons is social, the same is true for media were a new publishing system will not create a commons by itself.
The Rainbow story is not that humans can’t escape all conflict, humans bring conflict with them. The story is that conflict can happen inside a different framework, a framework based on trying, sharing, learning and repairing. That another way of organising is possible, that people are capable of creating temporary worlds outside the dominant logic.
Yes, commons are fragile, but they matter, the path is not a finished destination. And like every commons, they survive only when people keep tending them.
A plebiscite (or simple poll) reduces complex questions to binary or multiple-choice outcomes decided by raw headcount. This works reasonably well for large nation-states were aggregating millions of preferences is practically necessary. But in small community groups – like a WhatsApp boating community – it undermines democratic values rather than express them, for several reasons.
The participation fallacy – Whoever happens to be on their phone when the poll appears votes; everyone else is excluded by timing. In a WhatsApp group, this might mean a dozen people determine policy for two hundred. The result carries the appearance of collective legitimacy while actually reflecting a self-selected subset. True democratic representation requires deliberate, structured participation – not whoever checks notifications first.
Suppression of minority interests – This is perhaps the deepest problem. A poll asking “should we allow X at the mooring?” can produce a 60/40 result that completely ignores why the 40% disagree. In a functioning community democracy, minority positions deserve to be heard, reasoned with, and sometimes protected. A simple poll flattens all of that. The liveaboard who depends on a particular mooring has the same one vote as the weekend visitor who barely uses it.
The tyranny of the majority in microcosm – John Stuart Mill’s classic concern about majoritarian democracy – that it can become a form of collective tyranny over individuals – is almost more acute in small groups than in states. In a national election, your minority view is still represented through opposition parties, courts, constitutions. In a WhatsApp poll, you simply lose, with no appeal mechanism, no minority rights protection, and often no transparency about who voted or why.
Social pressure distorts the vote – In a small group, people know each other. Polls are rarely secret. Vocal members who post before the poll closes visibly shift the outcome. Quieter members – often those with the most legitimate concerns – may not vote at all to avoid conflict. The result reflects social dominance as much as genuine preference. A WhatsApp poll in a group like that might ask something like “should we organise a group clean-up on Saturday?” which seems harmless – but even this excludes people who work weekends, who have caring responsibilities, who are moored further out and can’t get there. A poll that produces “yes, 23 votes to 4” then generates social pressure to participate that bears down hardest on the most vulnerable members.
For contentious issues a WhatsApp poll is the worst possible instrument, as itt short-circuits exactly the conversation and negotiation that would surface the real interests at stake. What works better in community groups is face to face or federated trust based deliberative democracy rather than plebiscitary voting. Distinguishing between decisions that affect everyone equally and decisions that affect specific individuals far more than others – the latter should require consent, not just majority approval.
The irony is that small community groups like boating communities are ideal for genuine deliberative democracy – people know each other, stakes are concrete, conversations are possible. WhatsApp polls squander that by importing the bluntest majoritarian tool into a context that could support something richer.
Fluffy mess makeing
A second problem with #dotcons digital community decision-making is the hidden layer underneath the visible conversation: metadata is when organising becomes evidence in court cases.
People think privacy as the content of messages – what someone wrote, what someone posted, what opinion they expressed. But modern platforms collect something much broader: who joined a group, who attended an event, who reacted to a post, who communicated with whom, when people were active, who organised conversations, who supported a campaign, the patterns of relationships and activity.
This information will reveal the structure of a community even without reading the actual conversations. A WhatsApp group, Facebook group, or online community is a map of social relationships. That matters because grassroots organising often happens through relationships. The same online networks that allow communities to defend their rights, challenge poor decisions, or hold powerful actors accountable can also become visible records of who is involved.
The danger appears when, activism turns spiky and there is a conflict between less powerful groups and privileged actors. A campaign group, activist network, neighbourhood organisation, or community project might simply be trying to protect a shared space or challenge unfair treatment. But the digital traces created while organising can later be used against those people.
This does not require some dramatic conspiracy, it happens through ordinary legal processes. A court order can require a platform to provide information relevant to a legal case. Large platforms hold enormous amounts of stored data, and when authorities or private actors successfully obtain legal access, information that people assumed was just part of a conversation can become evidence.
The issue with this is imbalance, a large corporation, wealthy individual, or powerful institution have far more ability to navigate legal systems than a small grassroots group. They have lawyers, resources, and institutional support. Community activists have only their networks and their ability to organise.
This creates a contradiction, the “common sense” digital tools that allow ordinary people to coordinate can also create permanent records of that coordination. The answer is partial – there are #FOSS and #NGO tools that make this less of a problem – Healthy commons needs people to be able to organise, disagree, challenge power, and build alternatives without automatically creating a legal danger to everyone involved.
The question is not whether communities should be accountable, the question is: accountable to whom, and who has the power to use the information? Because in struggles between grassroots groups and privileged actors, metadata can become another form of power.
The lesson is simple – Build open movements, but do not naively confuse openness with exposure. Commons needs trust, but they don’t need to leave a #dotcons surveillance trail. Yes people will use bad tools anyway, but it’s good if some people use better tools to start stepping away from this digital and social mess.
Use the #openweb as core organising, do not use the #dotcons – an example here is open collective website not WhatsApp chat or Google Docs. Tools shape behaver and metadata gets people prosecuted.
Use #signal for chat, it’s not a perfect tool, but it’s better than the rest, use a common platform.
Use #torbrowser for web searches and browsing of any sensitive subject, if you want to use AI, Then don’t logged-in inside tor for any sensitive questions. All AI questions are stored as a part of your account and can be used agonist you – this is true even when you are not logged in.
Do not rely on #AI for activist research or grassroots legal thinking – its hallucinations and training data will endanger you. The AI default is always wrong on this path without inside knowledge to prompt past the #mainstreaming output.
I’ve come to think that caring for people requires a degree of resistance to the culture around us. Not because people are bad, but because so much of the dominant culture is built around values that put profit, status, and competition ahead of human need. In that sense, care becomes a quiet act of rebellion.
“Working groups (#WG) have one job – get things done, they don’t need permission for every step – they need to report openly, consult when it affects others, and hand back decisions that are too big for them to own alone. That’s it, that’s the whole structure.”
One of the biggest recurring naiveties of horizontal organising is the belief that every decision needs to be made by everybody. This sounds democratic, but in long historical practice this leads to endless meetings, burnout, frustration, and eventually informal hierarchies where the people with the most time, confidence, or stubbornness end up making decisions anyway.
The result is a process that appears horizontal while quietly becoming ineffective. A simple principle cuts through much of this mess – Working Groups (#WG) have one job: get things done. They do not need permission for every step. They do not need endless consensus rounds, do not need to return every small decision to the collective, they need to:
work openly
report regularly
consult when their actions affect others
hand back decisions that are too large for them to own alone
That’s it, everything else is unnecessary.
The purpose of a working group is not to represent the collective. It is to carry out practical work on behalf of the collective. If people have agreed that a task matters, then the group trusted with that task needs the autonomy to do it. This is the difference between #4opens governance and bureaucratic administration.
To make this work we do need to compost some mess, we have the trap of process fetishism, many activist groups develop what can only be described as a fetish for process. Every decision becomes a collective decision, disagreement becomes crisis, and every proposal requires multiple rounds of consultation. The intention is usually good, people want participation, accountability, and fairness. But the outcome is the opposite, the people doing practical work become exhausted, new people struggle to engage, urgent opportunities are missed, and hidden power emerges behind the scenes. What looks democratic becomes an all to familiar form of paralysis.
The irony is that this benefits the existing informal leadership. When formal decisions become impossible, influence shifts to whoever has the strongest social networks, the loudest voice, and the most time to spend in meetings. The supposed “open” process becomes a mask for power rather than a challenge to it.
Healthy horizontal organising is not about removing responsibility, it is about distributing responsibility. People take on work, groups take on tasks. Decisions are made at the lowest level possible and issues only move upwards when they genuinely affect the wider collective.
This keeps decision-making close to the work itself, as the people closest to a problem usually understand it best. The wider group only needs to step in when questions become collective questions. It’s a #KISS working path with a long history that creates a living structure rather than a bureaucratic one – healthy movements should feel more like a network of trust than a chain of command.
The challenge is not only structural, it is emotional, organising through feelings, relationships, identity, and emotional response, is not inherently bad, as movements need care, solidarity to build people to people who support one another, without this emotional connection, activism becomes mechanical and brittle.
But there are too sides to this, when emotional comfort becomes more important than practical outcomes, problems emerge. Conflict becomes difficult, criticism becomes threatening leading to accountability becoming personalised leading to disagreement becoming interpreted as harm. The result is that difficult conversations are avoided until they explode, groups become trapped between politeness and resentment so nothing gets resolved. This is where the debate between fluffy and spiky becomes useful.
Fluffy practices build trust.
Spiky practices solve problems.
Healthy organising needs both, but too much fluffy and nothing changes. Too much spiky and people burn out. The art is finding the balance.
The foundation of horizontal organising is trust – Trust people to take initiative, working groups to carry out agreed tasks. Trust transparency more than control, trust report backs more than permission, accountability more than management. The goal is not to eliminate power, it is to make power visible, distributed, and accountable.
That means allowing people freedom to act while ensuring the collective remains informed and able to intervene when necessary. A working group should never need permission to do its job, if it does, then either the group has not been trusted with the task, or the collective has not yet decided what it wants. In both cases, the problem is not the working group as good process should help people act together, not prevent them from acting at all.
Trust the work.
UPDATE Q&A
Q: I agree, but how do we even set them up?
Use the WG (Working Group) as they are designed to solve this problem. They are spaces of action. Because they are small and focused, they naturally filter out the people who are there only to block, endlessly discuss, or avoid action. The word WORK has an effect.
Q: But where do the people come from? We need people.
WGs are permissionless – you don’t wait for a structure to approve them. You call one, a few people (or even just one person to start) come together, focus on a task, and make decisions. Then you feed those decisions back into the wider group. Feedback happens – or it doesn’t. Then the WG gets on with the work, adjusting based on useful feedback, and reports back openly. Then you move on to the next decision. The important thing is that this can start small, it could be one person, but it works better with a group of committed people.
As people see real work happening, they join, or they don’t. Over time, a campaign grows and the WG becomes the place where committed people organise, while larger meetings remain open spaces where everyone can have a voice. The WG listens, but it also has to make decisions and move forward.
The key is that it always operates through the #4opens – open process, open communication, and open access – so people can see the work and join in if they want to. Action creates momentum.
“#Oxfordboaters – Some of the people have to lie to themselves as they blindly believe in private property and rule of law but squat on private property and brack the law by not moving. They try and pretend this is not true, if they do this pretending to strongly they will make us all homeless.”
A lot of people are up shit creek without a paddle, yet keep looking in the same places that got them there. On this apathy and laissez-faire “common sense”, we have a real problem, decades of #stupidindividualism have left people expecting things to somehow fix themselves while collective capacity withers. The answer isn’t wishing people were different, it’s building structures, cultures, and tools that reflect challenging take this reality.
There’s plenty of room for creativity in that work. So how do we start to compost this mess of people ending up trapped in this contradiction. To recap, they profess a strong belief in private property and the rule of law, yet in practice they occupy private property and rely on not being moved on. To avoid facing this contradiction, they tell themselves stories that make the contradiction disappear.
The problem is that reality doesn’t go away just because we refuse to look at it. The more tightly people cling to these comforting narratives, the harder it becomes to deal with the actual situation. And if they cling too hard, they risk creating outcomes that harm everyone, including making all us #Oxfordboaters homeless.
Yes, these stories can hold things together for a while, but when events threaten to sweep them away, the contradictions are exposed. What looked like certainty is revealed as wishful thinking, and people are left paralysed by indecision, unable to act because the assumptions they depended on no longer fit the world in front of them.
We can’t do much about the hardened #fluffy crowd – so committed to comfort and respectability that no amount of evidence will shift them toward meaningful action. That is a real limit, and it’s worth being honest about it rather than wasting energy trying to convert the unconvertible.
But the hardened fluffy crowd is not the main problem. The more urgent challenge is the vast non-action bloc: the enormous number of people who are not hostile to change, not ideologically committed to the status quo, but who have simply stopped believing that collective action is possible, meaningful, or worth the cost. The culture of resignation that surrounds this bloc is one of the most significant political #blocks of our times.
This mess is almost entirely manufactured, so how is this resignation made, it’s not because people are stupid, but more that decades of #neoliberalism have done systematic work on how people understand themselves and each other. Isolation has been normalised. Cynicism has been marketed as sophistication. #stupidindividualism – the belief that you are fundamentally alone, that your choices are personal rather than political, that the market is more real than the community – has been embedded so deeply that it feels like common sense.
People are taught to see themselves as consumers, not citizens, as individuals navigating a system, not as communities capable of changing one. That teaching is not accidental as an atomised population is a manageable population. Resignation is not a natural response to difficult circumstances, it is a political outcome, produced and maintained by specific interests.
On coalitions? Some people argue we need to “build coalitions” with everyone – that the task is to be broad, inclusive, and endlessly accommodating. That pink haired instinct comes from a good place, but a coalition is not built by enabling anti-social behaviour, learned helplessness, or endless doom-scrolling. A coalition is not a waiting room where everyone gets to stay comfortable while somebody else does the work. A coalition needs people willing to act together – the only meaningful definition. Broadness is a means, not an end. A movement that is wide but paralysed is not a movement, it is a demographic.
These are two retreats that serve the same master – the real problem is not disagreement between people who want change, as disagreement is healthy and productive. The problem is the shared belief – held across otherwise very different political tendencies – that nothing can fundamentally change, or that someone else should be the one to change it. This belief takes two main forms, and both are dead ends.
#toxicIdealism retreats into fantasies of purity – waiting for the perfect conditions, the perfect movement, the perfect analysis before acting. It mistakes the map for the territory, the theory for the practice, the vision for the work. It can look like radicalism while functioning as paralysis.
Mindless cynicism retreats in the opposite direction – into excuses for inaction dressed as realism. Nothing works, nothing changes, everyone is corrupt, the system always wins. It can look like hard-headedness while functioning as surrender. Both #toxicIdealism and cynicism leave existing power entirely untouched. They are, in that sense, two faces of the same capitulation.
There is nothing in toxic idealism or mindless cynicism except fuel for the status quo, one retreats into fantasies of purity, the other into excuses for inaction, both leave existing power untouched. The actual task
The path is not hate of the people who have been shaped by these cultures, or contempt for the resigned, the cynical, or the burned-out as this is both morally wrong and politically stupid – it deepens the isolation it claims to criticise. The people inside the non-action bloc are not enemies. They are, in most cases, people who have been failed by every institution that was supposed to give them a reason to act.
The task is to challenge the culture that keeps people powerless., to offer, concretely and practically, experiences of collective action that work – that produce real results, relationships, and evidence that things can be different. Not rhetoric about possibility, but demonstrations of it. Free people from isolation, show them they are not alone, that their situation is shared, that shared situations have shared solutions. Free people from cynicism – not by arguing against it, but by making it empirically wrong. Rebuild collective action, not as an ideal but as a practice: small, visible, cumulative, and real.
The #enclosure we are pushing back against is not only economic or digital, it is the enclosure of imagination – the slow fencing-off of the belief that collective life is possible at all. Reclaiming the commons begins with reclaiming the conviction that there are a commons to reclaim. That is political work, and it starts with the person in front of you.
“Working groups (#WG) have one job – get things done, they don’t need permission for every step – they need to report openly, consult when it affects others, and hand back decisions that are too big for them to own alone. That’s it, that’s the whole structure.”
DRAFT: Let’s look at this as an example of effective and ineffective activism. The mess we make and how we can compost it. Let’s start with an example outreach text that has not been sent out yet.
WHO WE ARE We are resident boaters living on a stretch of the River Thames near Donnington Bridge. For many years, people have made their homes here peacefully and continuously as part of a long-standing river community.
WHAT’S HAPPENING New signage already in place states that mooring, anchoring, or remaining stationary requires a licence in addition to the licence already paid to the river authority. Only a limited number of moorings may be available, and additional fees could apply for continuous occupation.
WHO IS AFFECTED Long-term residents, low-income households, people living with serious illness, and vulnerable members of the river community. For many people, the river is not a lifestyle choice – it is their home.
WHY PEOPLE ARE CONCERNED At a time of rising housing costs and increasing housing insecurity, these changes could reduce access to long-standing mooring spaces, push vulnerable residents out of the area, leave people without secure housing alternatives, reduce access to affordable river living, and undermine an established and historic river community.
WHAT WE ARE ASKING FOR Protection for long-term residents, no forced removal of vulnerable people, fair and transparent consultation with all boaters, and respect for existing river communities.
BOATS ARE HOMES!
WE SUPPORT environmental protection, safe navigation, responsible shared river use, and respectful cooperation between all river users.
WE DO NOT SUPPORT loss of homes, exclusion of vulnerable residents, reduction of social diversity on the river, or the enclosure of historic river commons.
The first thing that needs to be said is this pathis pretty simple #KISS
Affectiveness is trust = speed and power, every action flows from this, so the obvious immediate actions:
Working Groups – activate, not just name. Fill the gaps (Moorings WG is missing people). Each group needs tasks and a timelines. Media, Environment, Legal, Moorings are the four pillars.
Summer visibility campaign. Litter picks were a start – now make them scheduled, social, and photographed. Visible care builds public sympathy faster than arguments.
Public messaging. Posters and leaflets with LINKED to online messaging. Creative subversion of public space – keep it warm and community-facing, not aggressive.
Media outreach – urgent. Contact sympathetic journalists now, before a hostile narrative sets in. Reach Green Party contacts, housing groups, environmental organisations, river users. Positive stories first, defence second.
Offline organising – sensitive coordination stays face-to-face in trusted spaces, not in public chats. Trust meeting prep for small delegations. Agreed talking points only. Anticipate reframing and deflection. Stay calm, stay on message, make clear asks.
Holding the physical space – Committed, confident people physically and socially present on the land
We are walking the horizontal path when groups strengthen: Working Groups coordinate laterally – not waiting for a centre to direct them. Visible action builds public trust, community care as the face of the campaign. Messaging stays simple and consistent, across all groups and channels. Relationships are built offline, where real trust and real decisions live. Institutions are engaged strategically, not reactively
What we’ve had so far is #BLOCKING and more BLOCKING.
The initial process needed to be simple: a short, wide consensus stage to build enough trust and shared direction for people to move together. This happened, but, that process got bogged down by aggressive fluffy and spiky pushing in different directions. What should have taken a short time stretched into months of churn.
The fluffy path kept smoothing over conflict with endless distractions, “feelings”, and disconnected “positive” non activity. The spiky path pushed outcomes through hard positioning and confrontation without the collective grounding needed to make this effective. Both ended up feeding the same result – paralysis of any action at all.
Then, just as when were finally beginning to move toward the next step – actual coordinated action through working groups – the same blocking pattern repeated itself. The working groups, which were there to move us past endless whole-group debate, got dragged backwards into re-running the original consensus arguments on continues repeat. So instead of moving from consensus, to coordination, to action, we got trapped in a loop:
process,
argument,
process again.
The result has been mess of ossification and prevarication for the last three months. At best, people scattered into redundant, uncoordinated fluffy actions of litter picks, isolated messaging, disconnected outreach, and individual goodwill projects with no shared direction or any cumulative strategy.
At worst, individuals entrenched themselves into blocking positions that lacked any collective backing, making attempts at movement all to easy to isolate, dismiss, and weaponise against the needed broader outcomes, dissipate energy instead of concentrating it.
This is the hard truth about horizontal organising that people often avoid saying out loud: a horizontal movement without functioning working groups is not horizontal, it is just flat. And flat structures spread energy equally in all directions until nothing gains traction.
Working groups are there to solve this problem, they are the mechanism that turns shared trust into coordinated action. But instead of empowering them, thus our selves, we allowed the unresolved tensions of the first stage to spill endlessly into the second.
The deeper issue is that people are still acting from the poisoned culture we are supposedly fighting of individual performance over collective strategy, emotional positioning over grounded coordination, symbolic activity over practical outcomes. This “common sense” mess is leading us to the normal #stupidindividualism of identity and ego in conflict with trust and process.
This is why trust matters so much, trust is not fluffy morality, it is practical movement infrastructure. Trust creates speed, coordination, resilience, and collective power. Without it, every decision reopens old arguments, every action fragments, and every process becomes another site of blockage. While meanwhile, the mainstreaming benefits from all of this, they gain time, they shape public narratives uncontested, they observe our fragmentation, and they plan strategically while we churn internally.
The frustrating thing is that the movements already understands the problems, the issue is less lack of understanding. The blocking is active – the inability to stop reproducing the blocking dynamics long enough to move collectively in any direction.
This is the mess we need to compost. Until we create affinity groups to break this cycle, the next three months of this campaign risk looking exactly like the last three months – more shrinking than inflating big meetings full of hot air and scattering outcomes leading to more frustration, and little accumulated power.
The path is actually simple, though not easy – stop reopening the foundation process, empower the working groups, coordinate action, build trust through doing, and focus collective energy where it creates leverage instead of churn. Otherwise, we remain trapped in performative movement culture at best or compleat mess at worst – while the real decisions continue being made elsewhere.
“Being in #Oxford today, I popped into the #OxfordUnion to use a room. Glancing through the term card, it’s absolutely vile – and has been consistently so for the two years I’ve been back in the city. It’s a useful, if deeply dispiriting, exercise in reading the people and place. This is where parts of the next ruling class form their opinions and sharpen their instincts. Judging by what they’re platforming, we are not heading for a good time…”
One useful term about this mess on the #OMN path is “Sophist”. Historically, the Sophists were traveling teachers in Ancient Greece during the 5th and 4th centuries BC. They taught rhetoric, politics, philosophy, and persuasion to the sons of the ruling elite. In many ways, they were the media consultants, communication strategists, and public intellectuals of their time. Their ideas were, and still are, deeply useful to elitist power. Truth was treated not as something to strive for, but as something relative to perspective and circumstance. Protagoras summed this up with the phrase “Man is the measure of all things.”
From this flowed a power-based philosophy – if truth is flexible, then gaining and holding power is less about discovering what is true, and more about learning how to persuade people effectively. Sophists became famous for teaching students how to win arguments regardless of the facts, make “the weaker argument appear stronger,” and manipulate rhetoric and perception for advantage.
This is why philosophers like Socrates and Plato attacked them so fiercely. Classical philosophy, much like the modern scientific ideal, was supposed to be a search for truth, ethics, wisdom, and understanding. The Sophists instead treated philosophy as a competitive social tool for gaining status, influence, and power.
That conflict has never gone away, when we look at the last 40 years, it becomes obvious that we now live inside a revived Sophist culture. Under neoliberal #mainstreaming, politics, media, academia, branding, and online culture have steadily shifted away from questions of shared reality and toward competitive narrative management.
The central questions are no longer what is true? what is just? and what works for the commons? Instead, the “common sense” questions become what performs well? What wins attention? What controls the narrative? What protects the brand? What keeps the funding flowing? And finally, the #stupidindividualism of, what keeps the career safe?
This is the culture the #dotcons perfected, were algorithms reward emotional reaction over understanding, public relations replaces public reasoning, identity replaces grounded collective politics so that communication becomes performance instead of dialogue. Truth becomes aesthetic.
That is in part why so many people now experience a constant feeling of unreality, we are swimming in rhetorical systems optimized not for understanding, but for engagement, manipulation, and market positioning. The modern “post-truth” condition is not accidental, it is the logical outcome of self-interested #postmodern Sophist culture merged with #dotcons platform capitalism feedback loops.
What do we have to balance this, the #OMN path matters because it tries to push against this drift. The goal is not some fantasy of perfect objectivity, humans are always partial, messy, emotional, and socially situated. But there is still a huge difference between collectively searching for grounded truth together, and treating all communication as strategic manipulation. The first builds commons – the second destroys trust. This is why the #4opens matter:
Open process, Open data, Open standards, Open licences.
These are not only technical principles, they are social tools designed to reduce hidden manipulation and rebuild shared trust. Visible process matters because invisible power breeds Sophistry. Open discussion matters because branding culture hides contradictions behind managed messaging. Shared media matters because without public memory, every conversation resets into manipulation and spin.
The danger of endless rhetoric is that a society trapped in Sophist culture loses the ability to act collectively. Everything becomes performance, positioning, optics, career management, and endless dead-end symbolic conflict. Meanwhile the real flowing crises deepen, #climatechaos, enclosure, collapsing infrastructure, rising authoritarianism and the destruction of public life. People are trained to argue endlessly while losing the ability to build together.
This is one of the many reasons the #openweb matters, yes, native #openweb culture is imperfect, messy, and chaotic, but it is also rooted in a stronger relationship between communication and shared reality. People built infrastructure together, they argued, but they also created commons, this spirit still survives in fragments across the #Fediverse path.
We need to use these tools to compost the Sophist mess – not through purity politics or ideological certainty, because that simply creates another closed rhetorical system. The path is to reboot cultures where truth matters again, evidence matters, lived experience matters, dialogue matters, and collective accountability matters. This needs focus because the current system trains exactly the opposite habits.
The #OMN path tries to compost this mess instead of reproducing it – with less rhetorical theater and more grounded process, less manipulation, more trust, less “winning the argument,” more building shared understanding strong enough to support collective action. That is the underlying conflict beneath much of today’s social and political confusion – the struggle between communication as manipulation and communication as commons.
And right now, the commons desperately need rebuilding, and this matters for both the #openweb reboot and the #OxfordBoaters struggle. Both are fundamentally fights over who controls reality, narrative, legitimacy, and public memory. The landowners’ push in Oxford is a small-scale example of modern Sophistry in action. The issue is not simply “facts” about moorings, river access, safety, or management. The battle is over framing of who gets presented as “reasonable,” who gets framed as “problematic,” whose voices count, whose history becomes visible and who’s gets erased. This is how eliteist power works – not only through visible force, but through narrative management, institutional framing, bureaucratic process, selective legitimacy, and most importently control of communication channels.
The boaters to often fail to engage with this power because of the atomized #stupidindividualism that dominates our lives. Yet they are precisely the people with lived experience, practical knowledge, and deep historical connection to the river, metaphor and real.
Instead, the conflict becomes nastier than it needs to be because it shifts away from solving shared problems and toward managing perception. That is modern Sophistry in practice, the same thing happens across the wider internet. The early #openweb was messy, but it was rooted in participation, shared infrastructure, transparency, and collective building. People made websites, forums, federated systems, community media, and open tools together. There were arguments, conflicts, and failures, but there was also visible process and public memory.
The rise of the #dotcons replaced much of this with managed perception systems optimised for engagement, advertising, behavioural manipulation, and social control. Communication shifted from dialogue to performance, from publishing to branding, from communities to audiences, from commons to platforms and from participation to passive consumption. Again, this is Sophistry – communication not for understanding, but for influence and control.
This is why the #OMN path matters. The project is not simply about “better media” or “better activism.” It is about rebuilding the social conditions where grounded collective understanding becomes possible again. For the #openweb reboot this means rebuilding commons infrastructure, restoring public conversation, protecting shared memory, creating transparent governance to resist platform manipulation.
For the #OxfordBoaters struggle this means creating our own media stories to document lived reality, preserving collective memory, make hidden processes visible. This is why the #4opens are practical anti-Sophist tools – Open process counters hidden manipulation – Open data counters selective framing – Open standards counter enclosure – Open licences protect shared social knowledge from privatisation. Without these, power disappears into invisible structures while presenting itself as neutral management.
One of the deepest problems today is that many people now trust polished institutional narratives and #dotcons tools more than messy lived experience. Boaters should already understand this because they directly experience the gap between official language and material reality. The boat struggle and the #openweb struggle are connected because both are about defending commons against enclosure: river commons, communication commons, social commons and democratic commons. And both are being undermined by the same Sophist culture of managed perception, institutional branding, bureaucratic abstraction, and invisible power.
So the task is not simply to “win arguments.” That is the Sophistry trap. The native path we need is rebuild is gthe environments where truth emerge collectively, trust grows, so conflict can become productive instead of performative, and people can act together in the real world.
In short, the fight is not just against bad policies or bad platforms. It is between communication as manipulation and communication as commons. And if we do not consciously rebuild the commons side of that divide, both the rivers and the web will continue disappearing into managed enclosure #KISS
“To put some “commons” structure into this kindness… A path before we knee-jerk criticise members of the community we should make real offers to help repeatedly (x3) in a positive community way. Only then let the “negative” monster of judgment lose to clean up the mess. Focus on clean up first, the “common senses” desire to attack second. What do you think about growing our positive norms (common sense).”
This is the hard bit of any grassroots movement of turning stress, conflict, and exhaustion into actual commons culture instead of mutual destruction. The #openweb and the #oxfordboaters struggle are not separate things, they are the same social problem playing out in different spaces.
What kills communities is rarely only outside pressure. Most often, communities collapse because fear, exhaustion, and insecurity get turned inward. People stop seeing each other as comrades surviving a mess together and start judging each other as obstacles, annoyances, or moral failures.
That path always ends the same way, more, silence, resentment, burnout, fragmentation, and finally removal by outside power. If we don’t make the effort to really/affectively care the mainstream system does not need to crush fragmented communities, it just waits for them to exhaust themselves.
So it should be obverse to us that we need to consciously grow a different “common sense”, a simple common’s principles. An example that lead to this post – Before criticism, make real offers of help. Repeatedly. Publicly. Patiently. Say “Can we help?”, “Can we clean this together?”, “Can we support this person?”, “Can we solve the practical issue first?” Do this once, then again, then again. Only after repeated good-faith attempts fail do we move to much harder, but needed, conversations about responsibility and boundaries.
That flips the current social norm on its head as right now, many people instinctively jump first to blame, moral judgment, public criticism, personal conflict, and social positioning. Which only goes to make more mess with defensive reactions, gossip, claques, leading to more bad feelings and more mess to compost. The original problem becomes secondary to the social fallout, it is the same destructive pattern we see constantly on the #closedweb of people performing morality instead of building trust.
The irony is that many people involved genuinely care. The problem is the social structure they are acting inside. Without commons culture, care easily mutates into aggression under stress. And the stress is real, boat communities are under pressure:
housing pressure,
enforcement pressure,
media pressure,
financial pressure,
environmental pressure,
and constant uncertainty.
Under those conditions, fear spreads quickly, fear then sharpens into suspicion, suspicion turns personal. Then people who are already vulnerable get isolated and targeted. This is why community structure matters. And yes, people HATE talking about structure. Because structure sounds formal, controlling, bureaucratic, or “political”. But avoiding structure does not create freedom, it creates invisible power, unspoken hierarchies, emotional manipulation, and endless circular conflict.
#KISS applies here, keep it simple, by helping first, focus on solutions before judgment, clean up mess before assigning blame, defend community before performing outrage. That does not mean “anything goes”. Commons culture still needs boundaries. But boundaries work far better when they emerge from visible care and collective trust rather than instant punishment culture.
The really uncomfortable truth is in struggling movements, powerless people can sometimes become dangerous to the very people trying to help them. Not because they are evil, but because abandonment, stress, and insecurity distort behaviour. People lash out sideways when they have no power upwards. This is common across activist scenes, precarious housing struggles, and grassroots communities.
Meanwhile, institutions simply wait, then, when the land becomes valuable enough or politically convenient enough, they sweep everyone away. This is exactly why commons defence matters. If we are serious about defending moorings, boat culture, and free community space, then we need social solidarity strong enough to survive internal conflict without collapsing into backstabbing and fragmentation.
That means both “fluffy” and “spiky” people matter, the fluffy crew mediate, support, de-escalate, organise care and hold social trust together. The spiky crew hold boundaries, confront institutions, resist manipulation, refuse displacement to defend space when pressure grows. Without fluffy people, movements become cruel, without spiky people, movements get crushed. We need both, and despite all the mess, there are positive signs.
The growing “shiny summer” feeling among boaters matters. Community meals, litter picks, conversations, mutual support, visible presence on the river – these things are not trivial. They build legitimacy, morale, and collective identity.
That social light is important because a media dark shadow is coming, as pressure increases, traditional media narratives will frame boaters as irresponsible, antisocial, dirty, chaotic, or obstacles to “proper management”. We need to pre-counter that now through visible commons culture: care for the river, care for each other, visible participation, practical action, and stories rooted in lived history. Because this struggle is not new.
The canal system survived before because communities fought for it. The history matters. Books like Narrow Boat and struggles like Battle of Stourbridge remind us that preservation only happened because ordinary people organised collectively and refused to let living waterways be erased. This is the path again now, messy, human, imperfect, but still possible. If we can grow a new “common sense” rooted in mutual aid, patience, practical care, trust and collective defence, then free boating communities might still exist here in ten years.
Hard fight ahead, but people before us already showed that these waterways and our #openweb culture are worth defending.
#Horizontalism is a buzz word, but let’s look at it anyway as it’s the start and the end of this story, a form of social organization based on the #DIY non-hierarchical, democratic path where power is distributed among participants rather than concentrated in leaders. With a working focuses on “prefigurative politics,” to live and act in the present according to the values of the future society you want to create (e.g., equality, mutual aid, and self-management). Think of a honeycomb or network rather than a pyramid:
Assemblies & consensus, were decision-making happens through assemblies to create affinity groups that reach working practical consensus (rather than majority voting), aiming to ensure all voices are heard.
Affective politics is about building relationships based on dignity, trust, and mutual respect rather than mere efficiency.
Direct action & autonomy has a long history, movements, create their own spaces and services (like food and medical care). The “Fluffy” (Constructive) aspects.
Empowerment breaks down the “leader/follower” divide, encouraging everyone to be an active agent of change.
Adaptability, because it is decentralized, it can be resilient and difficult for authority to “headhunt” leaders to stop it. The “Spiky” (Messy/Challenging)
Let’s look at the problems and inefficiencies:
Decision-making by only consensus is very slow and time-consuming, thus the rapid shift to #4open affinity groups to balance this.
Hidden power dynamics is its real problem that sometimes the lack of structure leads to informal hierarchies, where those with more time or charisma dominate, despite the lack of official titles. We have to solve this by sharing responsibility.
Scalability – while great for small, local groups, scaling this path to large, nationwide, or international movements create coordination issues that we need working federated tech projects like the #OMN for.
Sustainability, maintaining the energy required for horizontal assembly, especially when faced with external opposition, can be difficult. But without this path of #Horizontalism as a necessary “corrective” to traditional vertical politics, we don’t and up in any participatory spaces at all.
So on a positive sense it’s an easy – but strongly anti-common sense path – to start the real composting we need. On a negative sense its mess and more mess to wade through, alongside the mainstreaming mess flooding in… it’s all mess might as well get used to this 😉
Freedoms are not given, they are taken. — Peter Kropotkin
This post comes from real life experience with #Oxfordboaters, but I am going to address it as a tech problem as it is the same mess we need to work on composting in our social tech projects.
People don’t actually hate structure, what they tend to resist is visible structure – the kind we need to make visible so we can see, question, and challenge. At the same time, they’re always perfectly comfortable inside invisible structures – because they feel natural, neutral and just “the way things are.” This is the blinded social mess we’ve inherited and now need to focus on composting for rebalancing.
Invisible structures are things like platform algorithms shaping what we see, informal hierarchies deciding whose voice carries and cultural norms that reward some behaviour and sideline others. Because these aren’t named or surfaced, they don’t feel like control, even when they are. That’s why the #dotcons path works so well, controlling power is everywhere, but hard to point at.
Visible structures, on the other hand – mythos, traditions, governance, open processes – feel uncomfortable. They can look rigid, political, or “too much”, but they’re also the only place where accountability can actually exist. If you can see the structure, you can change it.
This is the tension at the heart of the current #openweb mess we need to compost. When we avoid visible structure, we don’t get freedom – we just default back to hidden power of informal gatekeeping replacing explicit governance, were influence concentrates quietly, the same “common sense” patterns reappear, just harder to challenge.
So if we’re serious about #OMN, we need to flip this instinct by making structure visible, keeping it simple (#KISS), keeping it open (#4opens) and accept the discomfort that comes with that, because that discomfort is where real participation lives.
The work isn’t to eliminate structure – it’s to surface it, soften it, and make it accountable. That’s the composting process, taking the invisible, unspoken mess and turning it into something we can actually grow from.
If we don’t do this, we just keep rebuilding the same hidden systems we say we’re trying to escape.
“Working groups have one job: get things done. They don’t need permission for every step — they need to report openly, consult when it affects others, and hand back decisions that are too big for them to own alone. That’s it. That’s the whole structure.”
People who push vertical common sense over horizontal process are absolute prats and sadly all to normal. But they’re not just individual “prats”, there our prats – they’re the default outcome of how most people have been trained to think and act. Vertical thinking feels natural because it’s everywhere. Schools, workplaces, government, media, all teach the same pattern – someone decides, others follow, outcomes are judged quickly and conflict is suppressed or escalated.
So when people enter horizontal spaces – like a Fediverse project, a grassroots group, or something like #Oxfordboaters – they don’t suddenly become different people, they bring that invisible conditioning with them. That’s why you get the messy behaviour we need to compost – pushing for quick decisions instead of slow consensus, defaulting to authority (“someone should just decide this”), treating disagreement as a problem to shut down, not work through leading to valuing efficiency overtrust.
From a #OMN perspective, this isn’t an edge case, it’s the mainstreaming pressure coming into horizontal paths. And here’s the uncomfortable bit – if you don’t design for this, vertical logic will always win, not because it’s better, but because it’s simpler, faster, and culturally reinforced.
So what’s actually going on (under the hood) is that horizontal process is hard because it depends on things most common sense paths ignore – trust (which takes time), shared context (which is uneven), emotional labour (which is invisible) and conflict mediation (which is messy). Vertical “common sense” cuts through all that by skipping the hard parts, that’s why people tend to fall back to it, especially under stress.
The mistake we can make in grassroots paths – that calling people out as “the problem” doesn’t fix this, it just creates another loop of conflict. Because they are the system we’re trying to move beyond, if you push too hard against them, you often just reinforce the behaviour they double down on control, others retreat, trust collapses. It’s a normal problem pattern.
The useful shift (#OMN path) is instead of “these people are wrecking things” we try “this behaviour needs mediating structurally”. That leads to different responses, so ideas for ways to handle this mess making:
Slow the decision layer down as vertical actors thrive on speed, so you build in friction – no instant decisions on complex issues, require visible discussion before action, document context before outcomes. Not to block – but to force process.
Separate spaces (this is key). You need different environments for different modes: fast chat → messy, reactive, low trust – working groups → focused, semi-trusted – face-to-face (“whisper fire”) → high trust. Then don’t let chat dictate outcomes, because chat almost always amplifies vertical behaviour.
Make process visible and normal, as people push vertical solutions when they can’t see the process working. So write down how decisions happen, show where input goes, reflect outcomes back to the group. This reduces the urge to “just take control”.
Route conflict, don’t suppress it, vertical systems suppress or explode conflict – Horizontal systems need to hold it. That means acknowledging disagreement early, moving heated issues out of public chat to use smaller trust groups to work through tension.
Build trust anchors, without trust, horizontal systems collapse into power struggles. So you need consistent people doing consistent work, small wins that build confidence, repeated interaction over time. Trust isn’t declared – it accumulates.
The blunt truth is we won’t get rid of vertical behaviour, ever. What you can do is – stop it from dominating the system, that’s the real job. The #KISS path is people pushing vertical “common sense” aren’t unusual, they’re normal. If you don’t design process to handle that, horizontal projects will slowly turn vertical, so the goal isn’t to fight those people. It’s to build structures where their instincts don’t take over, and where trust, not control, becomes the thing that actually works.
We’re not dealing with abstract “community dynamics.” we’re dealing with live-aboard boaters under pressure, rowers, landowners, council, Environment Agency and scarcity of space (moorings). This in the end is about visibility vs invisibility on the river, so friction isn’t theoretical – it’s structural. Let’s look at the conflict patterns we’re seeing:
Back-channel poisoning (#whispers#splitting) “X group are the problem”, “They’ve already decided this”, “Don’t trust them”. This happens in WhatsApp groups, towpath chats and private cliques. The effect is fragmenting the boating community before anything even reaches #4opens process.
Representation fights (#whospeaks) “Who speaks for boaters?”, “Who gave them authority?” or “That meeting wasn’t legitimate” The effect: is paralysis + resentment + delegitimisation of any action at all.
Tone wars masking real issues (#signal vs #noise). Personal digs, passive-aggressive comments with people reacting to how things are said, not what is said. The effect is real issues (mooring policy, enforcement, access) gets buried under #stupidindividualism social mess.
Burnout + drop-off (#crewdrain). Some people doing everything while others sniping from the sidelines. The effect is core organisers get exhausted → vacuum → more mess.
So how do we compost this?
Pull whispers into the open (#openprocess#visibility). Instead of trying to stop gossip (you won’t) create simple habits like “If it matters, bring it to the shared space”, regular open threads / meetings where anything can be raised, even messy, even uncomfortable. Outcome is less shadow conflict, more visible disagreement.
Create a “good enough” shared space (#KISS#lowbarrier) Not a perfect system, just something consistent like a public website (open collective) and hashtag use like #oxfordboaters. Where updates happen, disagreements are visible and decisions are logged (lightly). Path is #KISS, if it didn’t happen here, it’s not part of collective decision-making.
Keep grounding in actual doing (#praxis#riverlife). Don’t let it become a talking shop, anchor everything in face to face fire towpath meetings, shared work days (clean-ups, maintenance) and direct engagement with river issues. The outcome is people relate through doing, not just arguing.
Add lightweight “composting moments” (#retrospective#learning). After anything messy (meeting, conflict, decision). Do a quick loop, what worked, what didn’t, what do we try next. Keep it short, no essays. Outcome is tension gets processed before it hardens into factions.
Set soft boundaries (protect the commons), (#boundaries#collectivecare). If someone consistently derails, attacks and refuses shared process. You don’t need a big drama, simply reduce engagement, keep process moving without them dominating. As the group will survive without needing perfect agreement. What this feels like when it’s working is not ONLY harmony, not in any way formal consensus.
It feels like people disagree openly, as some conversations are just messy, but things still move forward, decisions happen (even if imperfectly), no single person controls the narrative. And crucially conflict becomes part of the process, not a blocker to it, what failure looks like (so you can spot it early)- decisions drifting back into private channels, the same 2–3 people becoming permanent spokespeople or “we already talked about this” with no visible record, people disengaging instead of arguing.
The uncomfortable truth is It’s not about removing difficult personalities, conflicting interests or structural pressure from authorities. What we can do is stop those things from tearing the group apart.
