know the limits of technical fixes
For individuals
Because the use of computers is under more general scrutiny, there are a lot of stories being told that offer a "have your cake, eat it too" feeling. Because there are a lot of big and privately held computer systems, there is an obvious line of narrative that makes the alternative to private or big a corrective: national, public, small, sovereign, open, bespoke, community-run, etc.
While there are a lot of reasons that each of these different approaches to the ownership and management of computer hardware and software may offer some relief from the tidal wave of what is known as "big tech", they come with their own genres of challenges.
If, as our thesis suggests, one of the major challenges in our society is a type of computational thinking - a ceding of decision-making to computers, and a binary of method - then the specific flavour of the type of computer isn't as relevant as it might seem. There is no case in which the use of computers doesn't require significant maintenance, labour, time, and money. Governance is an immensely time-consuming activity, we are struggling to self-govern at the level of democracy, so one has to at least be skeptical about who has time to get into the community efforts that are doing the same with computers.
When you answer that question, you immediately trip over another one of the challenges raised in our strategies: a narrow group of experts are the ones that are again incentivized to guide and direct the activities of these differently named computer systems.
Less computer is about less computer of all types. It is an intentional effort to reduce dependence on computational thinking and infrastructure. To be an informed participant in conversations about computers is to persistently challenge the use of any kind of computers, which leads to the best uses where they fit, and a reduction in all kinds of headaches and time commitments and power imbalances when they don't.