Composting mess making, activism and #openweb

Most people I interact with are buried deep in the rot they’ve helped create, the path out is hard, but not impossible. The composting metaphor holds — rot can become soil, but only if it’s turned, exposed to air, and given time to break down. The stench lingers, though, and the deeper the decay, the harder it is to face.

Forgiveness can be a catalyst, but only if it’s rooted in understanding, not avoidance. Too often, movements try to “move on” without actually dealing with the decay, which just locks the dysfunction into place. Real forgiveness isn’t about forgetting or excusing — it’s about acknowledging the harm, holding people accountable to growth, and making space for them to rebuild trust through action.

With the #OMN the key is to create intentional processes for airing out the rot. Spaces where people can lay out what went wrong, where the worst of the mess can be named and examined without immediately collapsing into blame. This is a form of collective composting — deliberately breaking things down so they don’t keep contaminating the roots of future growth.

For paths that avoid recreating the mess, we might need, truth-telling circles: Spaces for people to name harms, acknowledge mistakes, and speak honestly about the dynamics that led to failure. Restorative action, not just words: Forgiveness should be paired with tangible action — people need ways to rebuild trust through collective work. Memory gardens: Digital or physical archives that document past failures and successes, so the same mistakes don’t get repeated.
Rhythmic cycles of reflection: Movements need to regularly pause, look back, and compost what’s no longer serving the collective purpose.

Sun, light, and fertile soil come from this messy work of turning over the past and allowing time and care to transform it. The #openweb is a part of this, especially if we build systems and paths that prioritize collective memory and iterative growth over constant reinvention and erasure.

What do you think? Could structured cycles of composting and reflection help our movements breathe again? Or is the rot too deep, and we need to burn things down to clear space for new life?

The #Fluffy #Spiky Debate.

Too often, I find myself in conversations that revolve around the intersection of technology and social issues, with one view emphasizing the importance of practical solutions to real-world problems, while the other highlights the underlying social dynamics that shape the technological landscapes these “solutions” are supposed to be addressing.

The Pragmatists, prioritizes immediate, tangible solutions. For example, when discussing the digital divide, they might advocate for creating cheaper, more accessible devices or building community Wi-Fi networks. They’ll focus on the logistics: what technology stack is best, what protocols to use, and how quickly the network can be deployed.

They see critiques of the capitalist underpinnings of tech as a distraction. For instance, they might argue that worrying about Big Tech’s dominance is less important than simply getting people online, even if it means relying on Google or Facebook infrastructure in the short term. The goal is to solve the immediate problem, even if the long-term implications reinforce existing systems of control.

The Social Critics, contends that technology cannot be meaningfully separated from the social systems it emerges from. They argue that simply handing out cheap devices or relying on corporate infrastructure entrenches dependency and undermines community sovereignty. For example, they might point to the rise of open-source projects that eventually get swallowed by venture capital, losing their grassroots values in the process (#dotcons).

They argue that unless we address the systemic issues, like how profit-driven models shape the design of platforms, any immediate “solution” is likely to reinforce the problem. Take social media moderation: a pragmatist might suggest better algorithms, while a social critic would argue that the underlying problem is the ad-driven engagement path itself.

The #GeekProblem is a barrier, the divide between these groups often solidifies into this mess making. Pragmatists, especially in tech spaces, dismiss social critique as impractical or irrelevant, reinforcing an insular culture that privileges technical expertise over lived experience. This dismissal is a form of #blocking, preventing collective growth and deeper problem-solving.

Breaking the cycle, to move past this, we need to blend the perspectives. For example, community mesh networks can be built with both pragmatic goals (connecting people) and social considerations (using #4opens practices to maintain local control). The technology itself can be a tool for social empowerment, but only if the builders acknowledge and address the social dimensions.

Projects like the Open Media Network (#OMN) bridge this gap, grounding tech development in community needs while keeping processes transparent and participatory. This balance helps compost the mess, turning the tension between pragmatism and social critique into fertile ground for true change. We don’t have to choose between immediate action and long-term systemic change, the key is holding both. Let’s stop getting stuck in the mess and start growing something real.

https://opencollective.com/open-media-network

“Compost tending” the fabric of #openweb

In the current #openweb reboot, let’s look at what makes sense, and let’s look at this from the prospective of collective dynamics, not individual blame. The focus is on mapping the social landscape, understanding the patterns of dysfunction, and then figuring out how to break through those blockages. The idea of switching between #spiky and #fluffy approaches as needed is powerful, rejecting rigid ideology in favour of practical, responsive action.

Making the #blocking visible is essential. So much of the stagnation in #openweb and activist spaces comes from hidden blockages, unspoken fears, entrenched power dynamics, and the quiet creep of #mainstreaming logic. By pushing these things into the light, we can compost them, rather than letting them fester underground.

Using history as a guide, leaning on what’s worked before, but staying flexible enough to shift tactics, should feel like the only sustainable way forward. If we only do #fluffy, we get captured by the #NGO mindset. If we only do #spiky, we burn out or implode. But if we consciously weave both together, we might actually build the resilience we need to grow new paths through the wreckage.

It’s almost like we need a cultural practice of “tending the compost”, regularly sifting through the mess, pulling out useful bits, and turning it over so new life can emerge. And maybe that practice itself could be a form of governance for grassroots networks, an ongoing, collective process of sense-making and recalibration.

What do you think? Can this idea of “compost tending” as a cyclical, community-driven process be something we intentionally build into the fabric of #openweb projects?

#4opens #OMN #OGB #makeinghistory #indymediaback

Is it possible to compost the mess and nurture the people tangled within it?

The new #mainstreaming right-wing crew has become adept at hijacking the language of liberation and twisting it for control. They steal words like “freedom,” “community,” and “resilience,” stripping them of their radical roots and turning them into tools for reactionary agendas. Meanwhile, the left, caught in cycles of internal purity politics and endless critique, fractures itself, leaving a vacuum the right eagerly fills.

It is a mess, but messes can be composted. The dig to strip away the parasitic layers, the influencers, the NGOs, the careerists who feed off this while subverting collective growth. These actors “thrive” on propping up a fragile sense of self, this messy path feeds division and spectacle, not solidarity. And as the mental health crisis worsens under #climatechaos and late-stage capitalism, people grasp for identity and belonging in the most toxic places.

We need radical care as well as radical action. The parasite class is fuelled by a deep void, a lack of purpose, a craving for significance. If we don’t build healthier collectives, people will keep falling into the black holes of conspiracy and #mainstreaming cultish thinking. The #openweb can be a sanctuary, a place to grow shared meaning, but only when we consciously design it to prioritize human connection over endless noise.

I wonder: how do we create spaces where broken people can heal, rather than becoming weapons of the right? Can we build digital commons that feel like home, where people can work through their pain without being consumed by it, collective care and unwinding the knots of individual trauma is a #fluffy part of activism. What do you think? Is it possible to compost the mess and nurture the people tangled within it? Or do we need a more fire-and-brimstone approach to burn away the rot, I start to only half joke.

The invisible core of the struggle. The way online spaces, especially in decentralized networks like the #Fediverse, handle conflict is tangled up in this tension between safety and open debate. The #fluffy vs. #spiky debate, between care-driven, consensus-seeking approaches and more confrontational, radical tactics, has always been part of activist culture. Trying to erase that debate in the name of safety is simply sterilizing the very dynamism that fuels real change.

If we strip out the “debate” part, we’re left with a hollow shell, a fragile, performative “safe space” that can’t actually withstand the pressures of the real world. But if we lean too far into spiky confrontation without care, we lose people who could grow into stronger comrades. It’s a balancing act, and yes, the co-option of “safety” by both NGO logic and reactionary forces has made this even more toxic.

The “parasite class” being taken out of context is a perfect example of this mess, people react to language without digging into the underlying ideas. The real question is whether we can metabolize within the chaos, compost the mess and care for the people lost in it, instead of just cutting them off. The #openweb needs friction to evolve, but it also needs trust to survive. There is a strong need to resist the impulse to sanitize the #openweb into submission. The #ActivityPub space, growing from the #fluffy side, has an embedded bias toward conflict avoidance, but that can be dangerous, because it leaves the system vulnerable to slow, creeping co-option. Safety shouldn’t mean silencing necessary struggles.

The consensus should be this: safety is built through collective care, not the absence of conflict. The #openweb should be a space where people can disagree loudly without fear of exile, where the friction of ideas sharpens the collective purpose, and where care is an active, ongoing process, not a bureaucratic rule set.

Way late, but better than never

On the #dotcons mess driving the political move to the hard right, the chattering classes, eager to ride the wave of #mainstreaming, are finally pushing real rather than fake radical critique. These are mostly the same people who built their careers within the #dotcons and #neoliberal highways, are now embracing narratives that grassroots movements have been fighting for decades. Sure, “better late than never,” but we should remain deeply sceptical of their “fresh” radical awakenings, especially the #fluffy paths they carve out to push people down. After all, they’re still operating within the structures that created this mess in the first place.

There’s an element of performative rage at play here, condemning billionaires while continuing to use, benefit from, and reinforce the systems and networks that empower them. Meanwhile, real alternatives, grassroots, decentralized, and open networks like #OMN, remain sidelined, unfunded, and ignored, still too far outside the “common sense” media narratives that shape any and all the current, now very visibly shitty #mainstreaming paths.

It’s not entirely useless to have media celebrities and polished pundits repackaging anti-billionaire sentiment. It does shift the Overton window. But it’s equally vital that we critique this and, more importantly, walk a different path, one that is messy, grassroots, open, and outside the control of the #fashernistas who are now finding the courage to speak up about what we’ve been saying all along. We are the ones with the lived experience. Now, where are the resources? That’s the question we should be asking our freshly radicalized new “allies.” where are the RESOURCES!

And if their “solutions” come wrapped in top-down, controlled narratives? Well, piss on them, it helps with the composting. Thanks. We don’t have time for more mess, the real challenge is ensuring that this moment doesn’t become another media spectacle to be consumed and discarded. How do we push the narrative in a way that resists being co-opted? How do we move beyond talking about change to embodying the real challenge our #fahernistas are now beginning to acknowledge is needed. This is a part of the #fluffy vs #spiky debate for the #OMN

The key takeaway of the current #mainstreaming is that we must actively build alternative structures – not just critique the existing mess. That means reclaiming digital and physical commons, supporting participatory democracy, and pushing back against #dotcons billionaire-driven tech oligarchy. The work with #4opens and #OMN grassroots media is exactly the kind of response we need to counteract this heist.

Activism for tech development and #FOSS paths

To look at why this is important, we need to move outside the comfort zones of current #mainstreaming thinking. Let’s start by touching on the role of #protestcamps in direct action: protest camps are temporary activist spaces set up in public areas to bring attention to social, environmental, and political issues. These camps create a direct action environment where people gather, discuss, and demonstrate. They range from #fluffy (peaceful and symbolic) to #spiky (disruptive and confrontational), depending on the nature of the cause and the activists involved.

This raises the question of who uses these strategies and spaces, some examples of protest movements: #Occupy Movement – Challenged economic inequality and corporate influence. #ClimateCamp – A radical grassroots direct action movement to counter #climatechaos through awareness, policy pressure, and direct disruption. Climate camp was active in multiple countries, it peaked in the late 2000s and early 2010s, influencing both public debate and government action. #CriticalMass – A decentralized cycling activism movement, founded in 1992, that uses monthly mass bike rides to reclaim public space and challenge car culture.

These examples are all of grassroots politics operates from the bottom up, empowering people to engage directly rather than relying on mediating political parties or institutions. This long traditional path give communities a voice and enable change outside the #blocking power of traditional structures. Direct action & grassroots politics is always the working change and challenge when activism bypasses traditional political intermediaries, using disruptive tactics like strikes, sit-ins, and blockades.

Together, these methods provide the non #mainstreaming democratic, practical paths to challenge authority, disrupt harmful policies, and drive real change. Let’s look at another example, the debate around #XR (Extinction Rebellion), founded in 2018, #XR uses nonviolent civil disobedience to push governments to act on the #climatecrisis. The movement is divisive, some see it as #spiky, using direct action to force political change. Others argue it’s too #fluffy, adhering to liberal ideas of legality and nonviolence, that limits its real radical potential. Whether #XR is a radical or liberal movement remains an active debate, but the impact it has had on public discourse and activism is undeniable. This living active fluffy/spiky debate is core to affective grassroots activism.

This experience is what we need to pass onto the current #4opens alternatives & horizontalist paths in tech, which to often, have the assumption that liberal legality alone will fix systemic problems, which is an easy to see #geekproblem fantasy we need to focus on balancing. A path to do this is learning from the above history of activism, native #FOSS and #4opens structures, which, yes are not without challenges, are needed to build alternatives that avoid the false hope that #mainstreaming institutions will voluntarily dismantle themselves.

As I keep highlighting, activism isn’t separate from tech development, with the #FOSS traditions coming from tech activism already. Movements like #Indymedia, #Fediverse, and #OMN show that #FOSS paths can be built with social movements in mind. In the end, if we don’t shape our own digital tools, they will be co-opted by #dotcons and restricted #mainstreaming “common sense”. The solution? Rebuild tech from the ground up, not just by resisting, but by actively creating the alternatives we want to see.

#KISS

Let’s try a #spiky view of #fluconf

Am sure these are all “nice people”, but they are also the parasite class https://fluconf.online/program/ events like this are as much problem as solution – likely more so in the current mess. Nice as a facade, hiding small-minded, petty, nasty, invisible rot of the commons as a community.

What a mess we keep making. Yeah, it’s the same old cycle – polite, well-meaning polishing the surface while the rot spreads underneath. These kinds of events present themselves as solutions, but they’re a part of the problem, consolidating small influence, reinforcing the same tired invisible hierarchies, and sidelining anything truly change and challenge that we need.

They build in closed, insular circles, focusing on their own comfort and tiny carriers rather than the actual struggle happening outside their “curated spaces”. It’s all managed dissent – safely disrespectable, and ultimately toothless. They won’t rock the leaky boat because they are the leaky boat, floating uncomfortably along the wreckage of our tech paths

The invisible rot is the worst part. It’s not just individuals being “bad” people; it’s how structures of control creep in through do-bureaucracy, funding dependencies, and #fashernista gatekeeping. What starts as an open, messy movement shrinks, institutionalised, and turned into #techchurn at best or a cog in the #NGO machine at worst.

Meanwhile, real alternatives, we need, the commons, the #openweb, grassroots movements are not here, the cycle repeats. That’s a #spiky view what would a #fluffy view look like, we need more composting #fluconf

A #fluffy view, is more that the problem is less “them” than “us”, we are not creating the spaces that they could be better people though. So we fucked up here, what are “we” going to do about this mess making?

What can we learn, what can we do?

The tension between different approaches to activism highlights the need for creative synthesis in addressing the broader social and ecological crises we face.

Fluffy vs. #Spiky: A Diversity of Tactics The idea that both working within the system (#fluffy) and challenging it directly (#spiky) are necessary is central to creating a robust and adaptive movement. Building “common ground” is crucial, but the left’s fragmentation under decades of #neoliberalism and #postmodernism has left it standing in a metaphorical swamp. Moving forward requires reclaiming a grounded, shared space—intellectually, socially, and ecologically.
Revisiting #Modernism A return to modernist thinking—despite its flaws—can offer clarity and purpose, emphasizing structure, progress, and shared goals. Balancing this with the experimental potential of socialism and anarchism, especially on a distributed scale (enabled by federation and P2P technologies), creates room for growth outside the mainstream.
Liberal Social Democracy as a Step Back While the ultimate goal may lie in more radical transformations, liberal social democracy can serve as a stepping stone away from the creeping threat of fascism. This pragmatic approach helps to stabilize the ground for further progress.
Deathcult vs. #Lifecult: The Cultural Meta-Narrative The #deathcult metaphor encapsulates a culture driven by greed, materialism, and ecological destruction. The #lifecult offers a messy but hopeful alternative, grounded in values like ecology, social justice, and collective care. The process of “composting”—transforming negative aspects into fertile ground—is a powerful metaphor for this shift.
The Role of Undercurrents True hope lies in the undercurrents of social movements that challenge mainstream culture and provide alternative narratives. These undercurrents, messy as they may be, are where transformative potential resides. A focus on “life-affirming values” helps to communicate with those who may be entrenched in rationality or blinded by the logic of the #deathcult.

Suggestions for Moving Forward: Focus on finding shared values between different activist approaches to grow solidarity while respecting diversity of tactics. Encourage scalable experimentation with alternative economic and social models, with federation and P2P tech to scale these efforts. Storytelling using metaphors like #deathcult and #lifecult to reframe conversations and make complex issues relatable and actionable. Education and agitation to challenge apathy and #stupidindividualism by helping people reconnect with collective action and shared purpose. Ecology of movements, its helpful to recognize the importance of both reformist (#fluffy) and radical (#spiky) approaches as complementary rather than contradictory.

And most importantly please try not to be a #blocking prat.

Outlining the “native” #openweb path

Honesty is about laying out a stark accurate critique of the current situation, particularly the barriers posed by #mainstreaming progressives, #NGO parasites, and the broader tech churn. We need to build on the vision for mediating this #blocking and advancing real change through the #OMN projects.

First step is to mediate the blocking, to compost the #shitpile by applying the #4opens rigorously as a filter to weed out the 90% of crap. Projects that don’t align with these principles should be sidelined. Then we need more trust networks, like #OGB and OMN to build trust-based paths, reducing noise and focusing on genuine contributions.

Shift focus from #fluffy to #spiky, by calling out #NGO parasites, to challenge and expose organizations that drain focus and energy without contributing to real change. Push for spiky agendas, embrace messy, hard, and meaningful work rather than safe, feel-good approaches that reinforce the status quo.

Simplify to build complexity, by simplicity first, start with clear tools and frameworks like the 4opens and grow complexity organically through collaborative work. Reject digital drugs, the dotcons’ attempts to lull movements into compliance with endless distractions and complexity masquerading as progress.

Breaking the #mainstreaming trap, by creating focused campaigns targeting progressive allies to pull them out of the mainstream and into trust-based grassroots movements. Use storytelling, art, and direct action to expose the limitations of mainstreaming progressivism.

Build bridges to wider communities, start with small, resilient networks that are human-scale. Expand outward from these trusted cores to bring in diverse voices and new ideas. Avoid purity tests—recognize that we’re all smeared with dotcons culture and approach people where they are. The world we’re building with OMN—a future where simplicity leads to complexity—requires a shift in ideology. It’s about moving people from passive consumption under the #dotcons to active participation in building a better, progressive world.

On this path are there any humans out there? If so, the choice is simple but profound, join efforts like the #OMN. Embrace the tools and principles of the #4opens. Compost the shit and grow something real. The question isn’t whether change is needed—it’s whether we have the courage and wisdom to make it happen. For those ready to move past the #blocking, now’s the time to pick up the shovel. 🌱

Socialhub needs rebooting as grassroots, its drifting

What went wrong with this is a classic case of the tension between grassroots ideals and the pressure of existing within a larger system that is fundamentally at odds with those ideals. The #fediverse, along with other #openweb movements, succeeds in small, meaningful ways but struggles to scale in a world built on capitalist structures, centralization, and competition. This tension is particularly evident in how projects, despite being technologically sound and #4opens, ideologically aligned with decentralization and openness, gets bogged down in internal messes, conflicts, miscommunication, leading to fragmentation. The messy social side, neglected in tech projects, ends up undermining the success of the broader mission. People focus on code but forget about the human aspects like collaboration, motivation, and building long-term trust, which are equally essential.

As I suggested, the idea to codify some form of “netiquette” or community values, inspired by the #fluffy and #spiky traditions of past projects, is crucial. If we don’t address these human and social issues, the technology alone will not be enough. The problem is that by default these communities don’t prioritize this, and that’s where the breakdown occurs. What we have now is that the fediverse’s very existence is a victory, but that doesn’t mean the battle is over. The grassroots growth, driven by passion rather than profit, shows that alternatives to #dotcons capitalist, centralized tech are possible, but in-till we find a way to address the underlying social fracture, gatekeeping, burnout, #blocking and conflicts, we’ll continue to push the same mess.

The victory is not in “winning” in capitalist terms, but in maintaining spaces where alternatives can thrive and where people can connect based on shared #4opens values, rather than imposed structures. The real challenge is to keep these spaces open, resilient, and focused, for this to balance we need to address not just the tech, but the people behind it. We could, and should reboot #socialhub to be this space, It’s where it started, and did a good job for a while.

Or not, but it would be good to stop the drift.

We need to reclaim focus and energy wasted on current failing systems

Why are people OCCUPYING WINDSOR CASTLE #XR

DRAFT

The recent #XR event at Windsor received little meaningful media coverage, well not in my filter bubble, it was totally invisible, which is disappointing considering the importance of the action. The video I made of last year’s London event is still relevant and illustrates the same core issues, even though this time they did take the step of staging an occupation. You can watch last year’s video: XR “is this all the is” 2023.

An example of the limits of #fluffy protest

This brings us to an important point: the balance between fluffy (non-confrontational, peaceful protest) and #spiky (more direct, disruptive action) tactics. Both approaches have their place and, when used in tandem, they can be very effective. The key is understanding that they complement each other—#fluffy actions draw in broad support and media attention, while #spiky actions put real pressure on the power structures by creating disruption that cannot be ignored.

It’s crucial to recognize that with increased effectiveness comes a cost: repression. That’s the paradox of impactful activism. The presence of repression is a useful indicator that what you’re doing is working, a sign that you are challenging the status quo in a way that makes those in power uncomfortable. If there is no repression, then it likely means your actions are not having any impact.

So, we must continue to push this balance and accept that some degree of repression is a natural outcome of effective resistance. If we want to see real change, we need to be prepared for the response that comes when you genuinely challenge entrenched power. The goal is not to avoid repression, but to balance it in a way that sustains the movement and keeps up the pressure.

The Forgotten Story of Social Technology: Why It Matters

All code is ideology solidified into action – thus most contemporary code is capitalism, this is hardly a surprise if you think about this for a moment. Yes you can try and act on any ideology on top of this code, but the outcome and assumptions are preprogrammed, with this in mind let’s look at a path outside this current mess.

In the original “native” grassroots growth digital wilderness of the #openweb, our use of technology paths were seen as something esoteric—a domain of hackers, activists, and tech-savvy individuals who speak in code and operate in the margins. But beneath this perception lies a fundamental truth: social technology is not just for the few; it’s for everyone. It’s about how we connect, share, and build communities. And this matters more now than ever.

In the early days there was the path of open connections, let’s dip into this story in the early 2000s with an example, the rise of #Indymedia, a global network of #openweb independent media centres that emerged as a response to corporate control over #traditionalmedia. Indymedia pioneered social technology, using the internet to democratize information and give voice to those silenced by traditional media. Indymedia wasn’t only about the content; it was more the active community of people. This new social reality was revolutionary because it allowed communities to create their own paths to share media in wider public spaces without relying on corporate platforms. It was a glimpse into what the internet could be— decentralized, user and community controlled space for collaboration and free expression.

For many social change activists and technologists, Indymedia was much more than a tool; it was a focus, a feedback loop of power. It provided a way to organize, mobilize, and communicate outside the #blocking and watchful eyes of governments and corporations. But the significance of Indymedia and similar projects extended beyond this activism ghetto. The technical and social path represented a different vision of what the internet could be, that prioritized #4opens, community control, and freedom over “common sense” profit and surveillance.

What came after the implosion of this path, was the rise of the #dotcons and betrayal of the openweb. As the internet grew, so did the corporate interest in controlling it. Enter the #dotcons the tech giants like Google, Facebook, and Amazon, which have come to dominate the online landscape. These corporations offered free services that were easy to use and quickly became ubiquitous. But there was a catch: these services were free because the users themselves were the product. The #dotcons built their empires by harvesting data, selling ads, and creating silos that encouraged mindless scrolling rather than meaningful interaction. The openweb, the vision of a decentralized, user-controlled internet, was quickly replaced by a walled garden of corporate platforms that prioritized profit and control over people and #DIY culture.

This shift had implications, it wasn’t only about losing control over shared digital commons, it was about losing control over our communities, our communications, and our society. The internet, once a positive space for creativity and intervention, become an evil tool of surveillance and manipulation. The promise of social technology as a force for social good was eroded by the platforms that had once seemed so empowering.

Let’s talk about our worship of the #deathcult the #mainstreaming system that consumes everything. The ideology that underpins the dotcons and the broader #neoliberal system they are part of. This deadened path of endless growth, profit at any cost, and the concentration of power in the hands of a #nastyfew. An ideology that consumes everything in its path – communities, environments, and even our own sense of self.

This is not only a problem for activists; it’s a problem for everyone. The #deathcult turns us into consumers rather than citizens, prioritizing #stupidindividualism over community and short-term profit over long-term sustainability. An ideology that leads us to the environmental crisis, the erosion of social trust, and the ending of democracies. For anarchists and activists, the deathcult is the enemy to be fought. But for the average person, it’s the water we swim in, the invisible system that shapes our lives in ways we don’t even notice. Understanding this is crucial if we are to reclaim the internet, our communities, and any liveable future.

Reclaiming these commons is a role for the #4opens, if the deathcult is the problem, then the 4opens is part of the solution. The #4opens—opendata, opencode, openprocess, and openstandards—are #KISS paths to build a better internet. These principles are not only for activists; they are for anyone who sees the need to empower community and the importance of basic democracy.

Open data means that information should be accessible to all, not hoarded by corporations. Open code means that software should be transparent and modifiable, not a black box controlled by a few. Open governance means that decisions about how platforms are run should be made by the community, not imposed from above. And open standards mean that different systems should be able to work together, rather than being locked into proprietary formats. These principles are the foundation of the #openweb that empowers people, grows creativity, and builds communities, the foundation of a good society.

The Open Media Network (#OMN) is a path to create a native digital network based on the #4opens. The OMN is not only a technical project; it’s a social one. It’s about spaces where people can connect, share, and build without being subject to the whims of corporate control. It’s a reboot of the original web, learning from projects like #indymedia. The #OMN is a response to the failures of our use of the #dotcons and the worshipping of the deathcult. A way to reclaim the internet as a tool of good, rather than an evil weapon of control. It’s a way to rebuild the commons, the shared resources and spaces that are core to the path of the healthy society.

For #spiky hardcore progressives and anarchists, the OMN is a direct path we need to take to create the world we might want to see, where power is decentralized, and communities have control over their destinies. But for the #fluffy, everyone else, the OMN is a way to take back what has been lost in the corporate takeover of the internet. It’s a way to reconnect the original promise of the internet as free expression, collaboration, and community.

Why this social technology matters, at its core, social technology is how we connect with each other. It’s the tools we use to build relationships, share information, and create communities. These things matter for everyone, not only activists or anarchists. In the current mess dominated by corporate platforms, the openweb native path of social technology offers a way to reclaim our agency away from this mess. It offers a way to build systems that work for us, rather than against us. The story of social technology, as told by Hamish Campbell on this site, is a story of hope and possibility. It’s a story of what the internet could have been, and what it still can be.

The journey won’t be easy, but it is a journey worth taking. In the end, the #openweb is about more than technology; it’s about the kind of society we want to build, and the kind of people we want to be #KISS

A fluffy view of the path, with a touch of spiky

The concept of the “good society” is the most socially profound questions we can ask, especially at this moment of history. When we face the overlapping crises of climate change, political instability, and extreme economic inequality, the question of what constitutes a “good society” becomes urgent and pressing.

There should be an obvious view that there is a need for a real change of path, to address the severe social, political, and environmental mess we have made of our time, we need more than just incremental change—we need a fundamental shift in how we think about and act in society. This involves rethinking our economic, political, and social systems in ways that enhance the freedoms and well-being of the majority, rather than concentrating wealth and power in the hands of a few.

This path leads us to break from the current #stupidindividualism of #deathcult worship to walk a very different “good society”. Not the current #mainstreaming one of the minimalist state advocated by #libertarians, nor the highly constricted state envisioned by #neoliberalism. Instead, we have options, the #fluffy path of rejuvenated European social democracy or a new American progressive capitalism—a twenty-first-century version of the Scandinavian welfare state. Or the more #spiky path of #openweb native anarchism or #4opens metadata driven socialism.

What we cannot do is live in the #neoliberalism that has dominated the political and economic landscape for the past 40 years, with the concentration of wealth and power among the nasty few eroding the lives of the nicer meany, with resulting undermining of democratic institutions and social bindings. Our current path, claims to promote “free markets,” has been lying to us, imposed new rules for the benefit of the wealthy and powerful, and socializing losses to the meany. The 2008 financial crisis, where governments bailed out banks with taxpayer money, while the bankers themselves reaped enormous profits, is a prime example of this. This led to economic inequality, political corruption, and a loss of faith in social democratic paths. It is a road to fascism at worst and ecological and social break down at best, please let’s step away from this mess.

On the fluffy path, there is a role for government, a role to play in creating a “good society.” This involves using the economic system to provide people with the resources needed to open the range of options available to them in life. This, in turn, enhances their freedom to act and live up to their potential, its basic humanism. This path, would address the deprivations faced by those with low incomes, ensuring access to basic needs like healthcare, education, and housing. The assumption that economic rights and political rights are inseparable is core to this path. That freedom can be achieved when people have the economic security to exercise their political rights.

The conception of “freedom” promoted by neoliberal thinkers like Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman led us down a dangerous path. While they argued for “free markets” and minimal government intervention, in practice, this restricts freedom for the many while expanding it for the few. The deregulation of markets and the reduction of taxes on the wealthy leads to a concentration of power that threatens the foundations of the #fluffy social democracy path. If we stay on this path, it will lead us to a twenty-first-century version of authoritarianism, where advances in science and technology are used to surveil and control us. In this Orwellian scenario, truth is sacrificed to power, and the freedoms of the majority are eroded.

What would a path to a “good society” look like, prioritizing the well-being and freedom of the many over the wealth and power of the few? From a #spiky view, this would need fundamentalist change that frees us to take very different paths. There are seeds for this in the #OMN #OGB #makeinghistory and #indymediaback etc. For people who doubt, the two paths, projects, will work fine at the same time, many people push the #fluffy path, with its commitment to social democracy, progressive capitalism. The spiky path will work as a balance to this, and maybe replace it if people can get their act together, it’s up to people and communities to decide which path to take in the end.

We are in a global, intellectual, and political war, the paths we take now will determine whether we move towards a just and equitable society, or whether we continue down the path of inequality and authoritarianism, which will lead to #climatechaos, death and displacement. It’s good to remember that the good society provides for the needs of all its people, enhances their freedoms, and ensures that democracy and justice are more than just “chatting class” noise. Let’s please take a different path https://opencollective.com/open-media-network