Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 104 references

Seeing the Politics of Decentralized Social Media Protocols

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Decentralized social media protocols are political artifacts: a new component-based framework makes visible and comparable who controls identity, curation, and infrastructure in ActivityPub, AT Protocol, Nostr, and Farcaster.

desk verdict A genuinely useful comparative lexicon for four major decentralized social protocols, but the 'any protocol' universality claim needs to be reined in or tested out-of-sample. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.22962 v1 pith:5XTK6T6M submitted 2025-05-29 cs.SI cs.CYcs.HC

Tolulope Oshinowo , Sohyeon Hwang , Amy X. Zhang , Andrés Monroy-Hernández This is my paper
classification cs.SIcs.CYcs.HC
keywords decentralizedsocialmediaprotocolsActivityPubATProtocolNostrFarcasterplatformgovernancepower
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper argues that decentralized social media protocols are not neutral plumbing: each one encodes decisions about who may control identity, content curation, and the underlying infrastructure. To make those decisions visible and comparable, it proposes a shared vocabulary of ten socio-technical components that any feed-based protocol must define—four architectural (Client, Space, Server, Aggregator) and six interaction-level (Actions, Feeds, Space Storage, Identity Storage, Space Curators, Personal Curators). Applying that vocabulary to ActivityPub, AT Protocol, Nostr, and Farcaster shows that 'decentralization' is not a single state but a set of trade-offs: each protocol distributes power across these components differently, and the arrangement determines whose power can offset whom. A sympathetic reader would care because researchers and designers currently lack a consistent way to compare protocols, and this framework supplies one, making the politics of infrastructure discussable and designable.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the framework itself: a consistent lexicon of ten components—four architectural (Clients, Spaces, Servers, Aggregators) and six interaction-level (Actions, Feeds, Space Storage, Identity Storage, Space Curators, Personal Curators)—that any feed-based social media protocol must define. The framework's power comes from using the same words across protocols, so ownership of each component can be assigned to a concrete actor (user, server admin, client developer, network operator) and compared. The layout of components—who is connected to whom, whether data flows through an aggregator, whether identity keys live on servers or in users' wallets—is what exposes which actors can offset or dominate each other's power.

What would settle it

Give independent coders the paper's ten-component lexicon and only the public protocol documents, have them assign ownership and decision rights for each component in ActivityPub, AT Protocol, Nostr, and Farcaster, and measure inter-rater agreement; if agreement is no better than chance, the claimed consistent lexicon does not actually support comparison. A complementary empirical check would trace who can technically delete or block a user's content in each protocol—e.g., whether a relay operator can silence an AT Protocol account, or whether a Farcaster hub can refuse data—and compare the resulting power map to the paper's.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the politics of a decentralized social media protocol can be read off the arrangement of its components. The framework's four architectural components (Clients, Spaces, Servers, Aggregators) and six interaction components (Actions, Feeds, Space Storage, Identity Storage, Space Curators, Personal Curators) give every protocol the same descriptive language. Read through that language, ActivityPub appears as a federation of independently owned instances where server admins hold most identity and curation power; AT Protocol as a single network-wide space coordinated by a relay, with modular curation but a de facto reliance on Bluesky PBC's infrastructure; Nostr as relay-based and client-centric, giving users self-custodied keys and minimal moderation; and Farcaster as fully replicated hubs anchored to Ethereum, with curation concentrated in clients and high infrastructure costs. The comparison yields three cross-cutting axes of power—over identity, curation, and infrastructure—along which each protocol makes different trade-offs, meaning decentralization is not a fixed end state but a series of consequential design decisions.

Load-bearing premise

If protocol documentation and ten developer/expert interviews do not capture how power actually operates in these systems—because developers have vested interests, and ordinary users and critics were not interviewed—then the framework's account of who holds power could be systematically skewed.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Researchers can stop treating Mastodon as the default example of decentralized social media; the same vocabulary applies to all four protocols and makes cross-protocol comparison direct.
  • Protocol designers can see decentralization as three separable design choices—identity, curation, and infrastructure—and combine them deliberately instead of assuming one architecture equals decentralization.
  • Cost and expertise barriers mean infrastructure power can re-concentrate in practice even when the architecture is formally decentralized; AT Protocol's relay and Farcaster's hubs illustrate this.
  • The framework gives a concrete target for governance and tool-building: altering who owns a component, or adding new components, changes the power balance without abandoning the protocol.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial inference: the framework could be applied prospectively to newer or lesser-known protocols, and to changes in these four, as a comparative audit that predicts which actors will accumulate power before they do.
  • Editorial inference: the three power axes suggest a testable design hypothesis the paper only gestures at—separating identity from infrastructure while distributing curation may reduce the worst re-centralization; a small comparative deployment study could test it.
  • Editorial inference: the same component lexicon could be applied to centralized platforms to quantify how concentrated their power is, turning 'centralized vs. decentralized' into a gradient rather than a binary.
  • Editorial inference: because the interviews were developer- and expert-insider, a natural next test would be a user-side evaluation of whether users actually experience the power allocations the framework predicts, such as whether Nostr users feel they own their identity.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper develops a conceptual framework for analyzing the politics of decentralized feed-based social media protocols. The framework consists of four architectural components (Clients, Spaces, Servers, Aggregators) and six interaction components (Actions, Feeds, Space Storage, Identity Storage, Space Curators, Personal Curators). The authors apply it to ActivityPub, AT Protocol, Nostr, and Farcaster, drawing on protocol documentation, media coverage, firsthand platform use, and ten interviews with developers and experts. They use the framework to describe how each protocol distributes control and to surface three cross-protocol axes of power: over identity, over curation, and over infrastructure. The paper claims to provide a consistent lexicon for any feed-based decentralized social media protocol and argues that protocol design should be a central site of analysis for CSCW research.

Significance. If the framework's generality claim held, the paper would give researchers and designers a common vocabulary for comparing decentralized social media protocols and would usefully shift attention from individual platforms to the protocols underneath them. The manuscript has real strengths: it is grounded in a substantial body of documentation and media sources, it triangulates those sources with first-hand usage and interviews, it is transparent about its inductive process, and it presents the four protocol case studies in a way that is accessible and informative. The three power axes (identity, curation, infrastructure) are a valuable analytic contribution even if the universal-lexicon claim is relaxed. The paper is careful in places to present the framework as an analytical lens rather than a formal model, and the discussion of re-centralization risks is well aligned with prior literature. However, the load-bearing universality claim is not supported by the evidence presented, and the qualitative coding method is underspecified relative to the article's aspirations.

major comments (3)
  1. [§1, §4.2, Tables 2 and 3] The central contribution is stated as 'a consistent lexicon of the core socio-technical components that any feed-based decentralized social media protocol must define' (§1), but the paper's own tables contradict the 'must define' wording. Table 2 lists 'N/A' for Aggregators in ActivityPub, Nostr, and Farcaster, and §4.1 explicitly says Aggregators are 'occasionally present.' Thus not all listed components are mandatory even within the four-protocol sample. Please either reformulate the claim as describing components that feed-based protocols commonly instantiate, or provide an explicit definition of what 'must define' means and a scope condition under which the claim holds. This is not a cosmetic wording issue: it is the paper's advertised contribution.
  2. [§3.1–§3.2, Figure 1, Tables 2–3] The framework is inductively derived from four protocols that all share a client/server-or-relay architecture: ActivityPub instances, AT Protocol PDSs, Nostr relays, and Farcaster hubs. No peer-to-peer feed-based protocol is included. To support the universality claim, an out-of-sample test is needed; for example, Secure Scuttlebutt (SSB) is a mature feed-based decentralized protocol with no required servers, where feeds are local append-only logs replicated by gossip and 'pubs' are optional. It is not clear how SSB would map onto the Space/Server/Identity-Storage categories without stretching or adding components. If the framework cannot accommodate such a protocol, the contribution should be narrowed to the class of server/relay-based feed protocols, which would still be useful but is materially weaker than the stated claim.
  3. [§3.2–§3.3, §4.3] The qualitative method is under-specified in ways that affect the validity of the 'validated in interviews' language used in §4.3. The paper does not provide a codebook, a description of how documentation and media sources were coded, or any inter-rater reliability assessment, and the ten interviewees are all protocol developers or experts with a stake in the protocols they discuss. No users, independent critics, or adversarial stakeholders were interviewed. Receiving feedback from participants on a draft of the framework (§3.3) is a member-checking step, not independent validation. Please describe the analytic procedure more fully and either soften the validation claim or add evidence that the framework was tested against perspectives other than those of its creators and advocates.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 2] The table entry 'No Specific Name' for Space and Client in Nostr and Farcaster is ambiguous: it could mean the protocol does not define a Space-like concept, or that the concept exists without a canonical term. The caption says 'Nostr and Farcaster have Space-like concepts without specific names,' but the table itself does not make this distinction clear.
  2. [§5 (Discussion, first bullet list)] The sentence 'Distributing the ability to do certain tasks, e.g., moderate and filter, across components can decentralized power over curation' contains a typo: 'can decentralized' should read 'can decentralize.'
  3. [§4.2 (Personal Curators)] The sentence 'This creates a clear division of roles' is confusing because the preceding text contrasts Identity Storage (a data store) with Personal Curators (functional mechanisms), which are not two roles of the same type. Consider clarifying that the distinction is between stored user preferences and the interface mechanisms that act on them.
  4. [§3.3, Table 1] The interview quotes in §4.4 are vivid and useful, but the paper does not say what interview protocol or questions guided the sessions. Including an interview guide or a supplementary description would help readers assess how much the quotes were prompted by the framework presented to participants.
  5. [§2.1] The definition of 'protocol' as 'a set of rules governing the exchange of data between defined communications channels' is followed by a statement that protocols are 'inherently normative.' This conceptual move is fine, but the paper could engage more with the standards literature (e.g., work on standards as political artifacts) to support the claim that protocols allocate power; the current support is mostly by assertion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the framework is explicitly inductive and descriptive, and no prediction reduces by construction to fitted inputs.

full rationale

The paper makes no quantitative prediction and fits no parameters; its central contribution is an inductively built lexicon for describing decentralized social media protocols. The method section is transparent about this: the first author generated an initial component list 'intuitively' and refined it by 'stress testing the viability of the framework to describe existing protocols' (§3.2). Applying the framework to the same four protocols from which it was induced is a descriptive demonstration, not an independent out-of-sample test, so it does not constitute a fitted-input-called-prediction loop. The universal claim that the lexicon covers 'any feed-based decentralized social media protocol' (§1) is broader than the evidence, and the N/A cells in Tables 2 and 3 (e.g., Aggregator for ActivityPub, Nostr, and Farcaster) indicate that not all listed components are mandatory even within the sample; however, those are generality and validity concerns, not circularity. The member-checking interviews in §3.3, where participants read a draft of the framework and offered feedback, are a standard qualitative triangulation technique; developer quotes in §4.4 serve as illustrative evidence rather than as the definitional source of the framework's components, which are anchored in protocol documentation and public sources. The paper's self-citations ([50], [66]) support background empirical claims about moderation and feed curation and are not load-bearing for the framework's validity. The paper also explicitly notes its scope limitation ('we limit our analysis to four' protocols, §3.1), so the inductive basis of the framework is acknowledged rather than concealed. No load-bearing step reduces to its own inputs by construction, so the appropriate circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The paper introduces no free parameters in the numerical sense. Its presuppositions are qualitative domain assumptions about the decomposability of social media systems and the sufficiency of insider evidence. The framework components themselves are the paper's invented entities, but they are transparently defined and applied.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Feed-based social media platforms can be described as arrangements of four architectural components (Clients, Spaces, Servers, Aggregators) and six interaction components (Actions, Feeds, Space Storage, Identity Storage, Space Curators, Personal Curators).
    Adopted in Section 4 as the basis for the framework; the paper provides qualitative support from documentation and interviews but does not prove that this decomposition is complete or unique.
  • domain assumption Protocol documentation, media coverage, and interviews with developers and experts are reliable evidence of how a protocol operationalizes decentralization.
    Invoked throughout Sections 3.2 and 3.3; the paper does not include users, critics, or systematic content analysis of platforms, so this evidence base may be biased.
  • domain assumption The four selected protocols (ActivityPub, AT Protocol, Nostr, Farcaster) are representative of 'major' decentralized social media approaches.
    Stated in Section 3.1; the paper does not compare with other protocols (e.g., Matrix, Secure Scuttlebutt), so the generality of the framework's applicability is not tested.
  • domain assumption Winner's thesis that 'artifacts have politics' applies directly to social media protocols.
    Used as the theoretical lens in Sections 2.1 and 5; this is a standard assumption in values-in-design research, but it is not defended within this paper.
invented entities (1)
  • Framework lexicon (Clients, Spaces, Servers, Aggregators; Actions, Feeds, Space Storage, Identity Storage, Space Curators, Personal Curators)
    purpose: Provides a consistent vocabulary for describing and comparing feed-based decentralized social media protocols across the four case studies.
    These are analytical constructs introduced by the paper. They are grounded in documentation and interviews, but they are not independently measurable or falsifiable outside the paper's own application.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Seeing the Politics of Decentralized Social Media Protocols." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5XTK6T6M

@misc{pith2026250522962,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Seeing the Politics of Decentralized Social Media Protocols},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5XTK6T6M}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.22962}
}
read the original abstract

Calls to decentralize feed-based social media have been driven by concerns about the concentrated power of centralized platforms and their societal impact. In response, numerous decentralized social media protocols have emerged, each interpreting "decentralization" in different ways. We analyze four such protocols -- ActivityPub, AT Protocol, Nostr, and Farcaster -- to develop a novel conceptual framework for understanding how protocols operationalize decentralization. Drawing from protocol documentation, media coverage, and first-hand interviews with protocol developers and experts, we contextualize each protocol's approach within their respective socio-technical goals. Our framework highlights how control over key components is distributed differently across each protocol, shaping who holds power over what kinds of decisions. How components are arranged in relation to one another further impacts how component owners might offset each other's power in shaping social media. We argue that examining protocols as artifacts reveals how values shape infrastructure and power dynamics -- and that with a holistic framework as a guide, we can more effectively evaluate and design decentralized platforms aligned with the social and political futures we envision.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.22962 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Architectural component layouts for our focus protocols, and centralized social media for comparison. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Interaction components for a generic centralized feed-based social media platform. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

104 extracted references · 53 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    a16z. 2024. A16z/Awesome-Farcaster. a16z

    2024

  2. [2]

    Abdelmoniem, Gareth Tyson, and Ignacio Castro

    Vibhor Agarwal, Aravindh Raman, Nishanth Sastry, Ahmed M. Abdelmoniem, Gareth Tyson, and Ignacio Castro

  3. [3]

    I. H. Anaobi. 2024.Improving Content Moderation in the Fediverse. Thesis. Queen Mary University of London

    2024

  4. [4]

    Ishaku Hassan Anaobi, Aravindh Raman, Ignacio Castro, Haris Bin Zia, Damilola Ibosiola, and Gareth Tyson. 2023. Will Admins Cope? Decentralized Moderation in the Fediverse. InProceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2023 (WWW ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 3109–3120. doi:10.1145/3543507.3583487

    arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    ATProto. 2025. Self-Hosting. https://atproto.com/

    2025

  6. [6]

    Backlinko. 2024. Number of Threads Users in August 2024. https://backlinko.com/threads-users

    2024

  7. [7]

    Bitcoin Magazine. 2023. The NOSTR Protocol

    2023

  8. [8]

    BlueSky. 2023. Why Are Blocks on Bluesky Public? | Bluesky

    2023

Show all 104 references
  1. [9]

    BlueSky. 2024. Bluesky’s Moderation Architecture | Bluesky

    2024

  2. [10]

    Bluesky. 2024. Bluesky’s Stackable Approach to Moderation

    2024

  3. [11]

    BlueSky. 2025. Federation Architecture | Bluesky. https://docs.bsky.app/docs/advanced-guides/federation- architecture

    2025

  4. [12]

    bnewbold.net. 2024. Notes on Running a Full-Network Atproto Relay (July 2024) | Bryan Newbold. https://whtwnd.com/bnewbold.net/entries/Notes%20on%20Running%20a%20Full- Network%20atproto%20Relay%20(July%202024)

    2024

  5. [13]

    Carlo Alberto Bono, Lucio La Cava, Luca Luceri, and Francesco Pierri. 2024. An Exploration of Decentralized Moderation on Mastodon. InProceedings of the 16th ACM Web Science Conference (WEBSCI ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 53–58. doi:10.1145/361...

    2024

  6. [14]

    Marie Boran. 2024. Is Elon Musk’s X User Exodus Real? https://www.newsweek.com/how-top-twitter-rivals-fared- since-elon-musk-exodus-1984404

    2024

  7. [15]

    Jenn Brice. 2024. How to Stop LinkedIn, Facebook, and Instagram from Hoovering up Your Data to Train Their AI. https://fortune.com/2024/09/23/linkedin-facebook-instagram-tiktok-data-ai-training/

    2024

  8. [16]

    Robyn Caplan and danah boyd. 2018. Isomorphism through Algorithms: Institutional Dependencies in the Case of Facebook.Big Data & Society5, 1 (Jan. 2018), 10. doi:10.1177/2053951718757253

    2018 doi

  9. [17]

    Robyn Caplan and Tarleton Gillespie. 2020. Tiered Governance and Demonetization: The Shifting Terms of Labor and Compensation in the Platform Economy.Social Media + Society6, 2 (April 2020), 205630512093663. doi:10.1177/ 2056305120936636

    2020

  10. [18]

    Lucio La Cava, Luca Maria Aiello, and Andrea Tagarelli. 2023. Drivers of Social Influence in the Twitter Migration to Mastodon.Scientific Reports13, 1 (Dec. 2023), 21626. doi:10.1038/s41598-023-48200-7

    2023 doi

  11. [19]

    Stevie Chancellor, Jessica Annette Pater, Trustin Clear, Eric Gilbert, and Munmun De Choudhury. 2016. #thyghgapp: Instagram Content Moderation and Lexical Variation in pro-Eating Disorder Communities. InProceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative W...

    2016

  12. [20]

    Kyle Chayka. 2025. Bluesky’s Quest to Build Nontoxic Social Media. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2025/04/14/blueskys-quest-to-build-nontoxic-social-media

    2025

  13. [21]

    Bernstein, Jeffrey T

    Angèle Christin, Michael S. Bernstein, Jeffrey T. Hancock, Chenyan Jia, Marijn N. Mado, Jeanne L. Tsai, and Chunchen Xu. 2024. Internal Fractures: The Competing Logics of Social Media Platforms.Social Media + Society10, 3 (July 2024), 20563051241274668. doi:10.1177/20563051241274668

    2024 doi

  14. [22]

    Jason Cohen. 2022. What Is Truth Social? All You Need to Know About Donald Trump’s Social Network. https://www.pcmag.com/how-to/what-is-truth-social-donald-trumps-social-network-explained

    2022

  15. [23]

    Cindy Cohn and Rory Mir. 2022. The Fediverse Could Be Awesome (If We Don’t Screw It up)

    2022

  16. [24]

    Carl Colglazier, Nathan TeBlunthuis, and Aaron Shaw. 2024. The Effects of Group Sanctions on Participation and Toxicity: Quasi-experimental Evidence from the Fediverse.Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media18 (May 2024), 315–328. doi:10.1609/i...

    2024 doi

  17. [25]

    Maxam III, and James Davis

    Geoffrey Cramer, William P. Maxam III, and James Davis. 2024. Trust and Safety Risks and Engineering Patterns Through the Lens of Issue Resolution: An Empirical Case Study in Mastodon and Diaspora. doi:10.2139/ssrn.4768911 social science research network:4768911

    2024 doi

  18. [26]

    Kate Crawford and Tarleton Gillespie. 2016. What Is a Flag for? Social Media Reporting Tools and the Vocabulary of Complaint.New Media & Society18, 3 (March 2016), 410–428. doi:10.1177/1461444814543163

    2016 doi

  19. [27]

    2024.From Network to Platform to Protocol: Mastodon’s Ethos and the Sociotechnical Imaginary of the Fediverse

    Skip De Mönnink. 2024.From Network to Platform to Protocol: Mastodon’s Ethos and the Sociotechnical Imaginary of the Fediverse. Master’s thesis. Utrecht University, Germany. , Vol. 1, No. 1, Article . Publication date: September 2026. Seeing the Politics of Decentralized Socia...

    2024

  20. [28]

    Michael del Castillo. 2023. Meet @Fiatjaf, The Mysterious Nostr Creator Who Has Lured 18 Million Users And $5 Million From Jack Dorsey. https://www.forbes.com/sites/digital-assets/2023/05/30/bitcoin-social-network-nostr- creator-fiatjaf-/

    2023

  21. [29]

    Brianna Honkawa d’Estries. 2023. Primal Secures $1 Million Seed Round To Fuel Bitcoin-Infused Nostr Apps. https://www.forbes.com/sites/digital-assets/2023/07/12/primal-secures-1-million-seed-round-to-fuel-bitcoin- infused-nostr-apps/

    2023

  22. [30]

    Thiago Dias Oliva, Dennys Marcelo Antonialli, and Alessandra Gomes. 2021. Fighting Hate Speech, Silencing Drag Queens? Artificial Intelligence in Content Moderation and Risks to LGBTQ Voices Online.Sexuality & Culture25, 2 (April 2021), 700–732. doi:10.1007/s12119-020-09790-w

    2021 doi

  23. [31]

    Brooke Erin Duffy and Colten Meisner. 2023. Platform Governance at the Margins: Social Media Creators’ Experiences with Algorithmic (in)Visibility.Media, Culture & Society45, 2 (March 2023), 285–304. doi:10.1177/01634437221111923

    2023 doi

  24. [32]

    Christina Dunbar-Hester. 2024. Showing Your Ass on Mastodon: Lossy Distribution, Hashtag Activism, and Public Scrutiny on Federated, Feral Social Media.First Monday29, 3 - 4 (March 2024), 29. doi:10.5210/fm.v29i3.13367

    2024 doi

  25. [33]

    Farcaster. 2024. Architecture / Farcaster Docs. https://docs.farcaster.xyz/learn/architecture/overview

    2024

  26. [34]

    Farcaster. 2024. Getting Started / Farcaster Docs. https://docs.farcaster.xyz/learn/

    2024

  27. [35]

    Farcaster. 2024. Scaling Farcaster·Farcasterxyz/Protocol·Discussion #163

    2024

  28. [36]

    Batya Friedman. 1996. Value-Sensitive Design.Interactions3, 6 (1996), 16–23

    1996

  29. [37]

    Mario Gabriele. 2024. The Future of Farcaster with Dan Romero | The Generalist. https://www.generalist.com/briefing/the-future-of-farcaster-with-dan-romero

    2024

  30. [38]

    Robert W. Gehl. 2015. The Case for Alternative Social Media.Social Media + Society1, 2 (July 2015), 2056305115604338. doi:10.1177/2056305115604338

    2015 doi

  31. [39]

    Robert W. Gehl. 2023. ActivityPub, the Non-Standard Standard

    2023

  32. [40]

    Gehl and Diana Zulli

    Robert W. Gehl and Diana Zulli. 2023. The Digital Covenant: Non-Centralized Platform Governance on the Mastodon Social Network.Information, Communication & Society26, 16 (Dec. 2023), 3275–3291. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2022. 2147400

    2023 doi

  33. [41]

    Tarleton Gillespie. 2010. The Politics of ‘Platforms’.New Media & Society12, 3 (May 2010), 347–364. doi:10.1177/ 1461444809342738

    2010

  34. [42]

    2018.Custodians of the Internet: Platforms, Content Moderation, and the Hidden Decisions That Shape Social Media

    Tarleton Gillespie. 2018.Custodians of the Internet: Platforms, Content Moderation, and the Hidden Decisions That Shape Social Media. Yale University Press, New Haven

    2018

  35. [43]

    Tarleton Gillespie. 2018. Regulation of and by Platforms. InThe SAGE Handbook of Social Media, Jean Burgess, Thomas Poell, and Alice Marwick (Eds.). SAGE Publications, Limited, London, UK, 254–278

    2018

  36. [44]

    Robert Gorwa. 2019. What Is Platform Governance?Information, Communication & Society22, 6 (May 2019), 854–871. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2019.1573914

    2019

  37. [45]

    Haimson, Justin Buss, Zu Weinger, Denny L

    Oliver L. Haimson, Justin Buss, Zu Weinger, Denny L. Starks, Dykee Gorrell, and Briar Sweetbriar Baron. 2020. Trans Time: Safety, Privacy, and Content Warnings on a Transgender-Specific Social Media Site.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction4, CSCW2 (Oct. 2020),...

    2020 doi

  38. [46]

    Anaobi Ishaku Hassan, Aravindh Raman, Ignacio Castro, Haris Bin Zia, Emiliano De Cristofaro, Nishanth Sastry, and Gareth Tyson. 2021. Exploring Content Moderation in the Decentralised Web: The Pleroma Case. InProceedings of the 17th International Conference on Emerging Network...

    2021

  39. [47]

    Jiahui He, Haris Bin Zia, Ignacio Castro, Aravindh Raman, Nishanth Sastry, and Gareth Tyson. 2023. Flocking to Mastodon: Tracking the Great Twitter Migration. InProceedings of the 2023 ACM on Internet Measurement Conference. ACM, Montreal QC Canada, 111–123. doi:10.1145/361825...

    2023

  40. [48]

    Martin Hering. 2023. How I Ran My Own Mastodon Server in 10 Minutes - Martin Hering - Blog

    2023

  41. [49]

    Tao Huang. 2024. Decentralized Social Networks and the Future of Free Speech Online.Computer Law & Security Review55 (Nov. 2024), 106059. doi:10.1016/j.clsr.2024.106059

    2024

  42. [50]

    Sohyeon Hwang, Priyanka Nanayakkara, and Yan Shvartzshnaider. 2025. Trust and Friction: Negotiating How Information Flows Through Decentralized Social Media. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2503.02150 arXiv:2503.02150 [cs]

    2025 doi

  43. [51]

    IPFS. 2022. Bluesky and IPLD - Jay Graber

    2022

  44. [52]

    Russell Bernard, and Huan Liu

    Ujun Jeong, Paras Sheth, Anique Tahir, Faisal Alatawi, H. Russell Bernard, and Huan Liu. 2024. Exploring Platform Migration Patterns between Twitter and Mastodon: A User Behavior Study.Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media18 (May 2024), 738–7...

    2024 doi

  45. [53]

    Shagun Jhaver, Iris Birman, Eric Gilbert, and Amy Bruckman. 2019. Human-Machine Collaboration for Content Regulation: The Case of Reddit Automoderator.ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact.26, 5 (July 2019), 31:1–31:35. doi:10.1145/3338243

    2019 doi

  46. [54]

    Shagun Jhaver, Quan Ze Chen, Detlef Knauss, and Amy X. Zhang. 2022. Designing Word Filter Tools for Creator-Led Comment Moderation. InProceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’22). , Vol. 1, No. 1, Article . Publication date: September ...

    2022

  47. [55]

    Shagun Jhaver, Seth Frey, and Amy X. Zhang. 2023. Decentralizing Platform Power: A Design Space of Multi-Level Governance in Online Social Platforms.Social Media + Society9, 4 (Oct. 2023), 1–12. doi:10.1177/20563051231207857

    2023 doi

  48. [56]

    Shagun Jhaver, Sucheta Ghoshal, Amy Bruckman, and Eric Gilbert. 2018. Online Harassment and Content Moderation: The Case of Blocklists.ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact.25, 2 (March 2018), 12:1–12:33. doi:10.1145/3185593

    2018 doi

  49. [57]

    Shagun Jhaver, Alice Qian Zhang, Quan Ze Chen, Nikhila Natarajan, Ruotong Wang, and Amy X. Zhang. 2023. Personalizing Content Moderation on Social Media: User Perspectives on Moderation Choices, Interface Design, and Labor.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction7,...

    2023 doi

  50. [58]

    Gehl, Corinne Cath, and Sarah Myers West

    Tero Karppi, Britt Paris, Robert W. Gehl, Corinne Cath, and Sarah Myers West. 2023. IF NOT, ELSE: STANDARDS, PROTOCOLS, NETWORKS AND HOW THEY MAKE A DIFFERENCE.AoIR Selected Papers of Internet Research2023, AOIR2023 (Dec. 2023), 18. doi:10.5210/spir.v2023i0.13525

    2023 doi

  51. [59]

    Daphne Keller. 2021. The Future of Platform Power: Making Middleware Work.Journal of Democracy32, 3 (July 2021), 168–172. doi:10.1353/jod.2021.0043

    2021

  52. [60]

    2024.Identity, Legitimacy, and Voice: Understanding Rule Adoption, Compliance, and Evolution in Online Communities.Ph

    Charles Kiene. 2024.Identity, Legitimacy, and Voice: Understanding Rule Adoption, Compliance, and Evolution in Online Communities.Ph. D. Dissertation. University of Washington, Seattle WA USA

    2024

  53. [61]

    Lea Laux, László Erdődi, and Kai Selgrad. 2023. Trust as the Elephant in the Room: Security Evaluation of Decentralized Online Social Networks with Mastodon.Norsk IKT-konferanse for forskning og utdanning2023, 3 (Nov. 2023), 16

    2023

  54. [62]

    Kijung Lee and Mian Wang. 2023. Uses and Gratifications of Alternative Social Media: Why Do People Use Mastodon? doi:10.48550/arXiv.2303.01285 arXiv:2303.01285 [cs]

    2023 doi arXiv

  55. [63]

    Christine Lemmer-Webber. 2021. ActivityPub Rocks! https://activitypub.rocks/

    2021

  56. [64]

    Christine Lemmer-Webber, Jessica Tallon, Erin Shepherd, Amy Guy, and Evan Prodromou. 2018. ActivityPub (W3C Recommendation 23 January 2018). https://www.w3.org/TR/activitypub/

    2018

  57. [65]

    Rita Liao. 2023. Damus Pulled from Apple’s App Store in China after Two Days

    2023

  58. [66]

    Yuhan Liu, Emmy Song, Owen Xingjian Zhang, Jewel Merriman, Lei Zhang, and Andrés Monroy-Hernández. 2025. Understanding Decentralized Social Feed Curation on Mastodon. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2504.18817 arXiv:2504.18817 [cs]

    2025 doi arXiv

  59. [67]

    Ingrid Lunden. 2022. How Mastodon Is Scaling amid the Twitter Exodus. https://techcrunch.com/2022/12/23/how- mastodon-is-scaling-amid-the-twitter-exodus/

    2022

  60. [68]

    Caitlin Lustig, Katie Pine, Bonnie Nardi, Lilly Irani, Min Kyung Lee, Dawn Nafus, and Christian Sandvig. 2016. Algorithmic Authority: The Ethics, Politics, and Economics of Algorithms That Interpret, Decide, and Manage. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference Extended Abstra...

    2016

  61. [69]

    Zhang, and David Karger

    Kaitlin Mahar, Amy X. Zhang, and David Karger. 2018. Squadbox: A Tool to Combat Email Harassment Using Friendsourced Moderation. InProceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, Montreal QC Canada, 1–13. doi:10.1145/3173574.3174160

    2018

  62. [70]

    Aymeric Mansoux and Roel Rocsam Abbing. 2020. Seven Theses on the Fediverse and the Becoming of Floss. InThe Eternal Network: The Ends and Becomings of Network Culture, Kristoffer Gansing and Inga Luchs (Eds.). Institute of Network Cultures and transmediale e.V., Amsterdam and Berlin

    2020

  63. [71]

    Mike Masnick. 2019. Protocols, Not Platforms: A Technological Approach to Free Speech. http://knightcolumbia.org/content/protocols-not-platforms-a-technological-approach-to-free-speech

    2019

  64. [72]

    Adrienne Massanari. 2017. #Gamergate and The Fappening: How Reddit’s Algorithm, Governance, and Culture Support Toxic Technocultures.New Media & Society19, 3 (March 2017), 329–346. doi:10.1177/1461444815608807

    2017 doi

  65. [73]

    Cecily Mauran. 2024. Meta Is Using Your Posts to Train AI. It’s Not Easy to Opt Out. https://mashable.com/article/meta- using-posts-train-ai-opt-out

    2024

  66. [74]

    Cindy Cohn and Rory Mir. 2023. FBI Seizure of Mastodon Server Data Is a Wakeup Call to Fediverse Users and Hosts to Protect Their Users. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/07/fbi-seizure-mastodon-server-wakeup-call-fediverse- users-and-hosts-protect-their

    2023

  67. [75]

    André Neves. 2022. How to Setup a Paid Nostr Relay. https://andreneves.xyz/p/how-to-setup-a-paid-nostr-relay

    2022

  68. [76]

    Bryan Newbold. 2024. Reply on Bluesky and Decentralization | Bryan Newbold. https://whtwnd.com/bnewbold.net/3lbvbtqrg5t2t

    2024

  69. [77]

    Nicholson, Brian C Keegan, and Casey Fiesler

    Matthew N. Nicholson, Brian C Keegan, and Casey Fiesler. 2023. Mastodon Rules: Characterizing Formal Rules on Popular Mastodon Instances. InComputer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing. ACM, Minneapolis MN USA, 86–90. doi:10.1145/3584931.3606970

    2023

  70. [78]

    Nostr. 2024. Nostr, a Simple Protocol for Decentralizing Social Media That Has a Chance of Working. https://nostr.com/#what-is-nostr

    2024

  71. [79]

    Thatiany Andrade Nunes. 2023. User Sentiments and Dynamics in the Decentralized Web: Reddit Migration’s Impact on Lemmy.Journal of Multimedia Information System10, 4 (2023), 333–350. doi:10.33851/JMIS.2023.10.4.333 , Vol. 1, No. 1, Article . Publication date: September 2026. S...

    2023 doi

  72. [80]

    Jay Peters. 2023. How Reddit Crushed the Biggest Protest in Its History. https://www.theverge.com/23779477/reddit- protest-blackouts-crushed

    2023

  73. [81]

    pluja. 2025. NOSTR Is a Protocol That Many Things Can Be Built Upon. https://usenostr.org/#accounts

    2025

  74. [82]

    pluja. 2025. Setting up a Nostr Relay. https://usenostr.org/relay

    2025

  75. [83]

    2024.ActivityPub: Programming for the Social Web(first edition ed.)

    Evan Prodromou. 2024.ActivityPub: Programming for the Social Web(first edition ed.). O’Reilly Media, Inc., Sebastopol, CA

    2024

  76. [84]

    AT Protocol. 2024. AT Protocol - Homepage. https://atproto.com/

    2024

  77. [85]

    AT Protocol. 2024. AT Protocol - Specs. https://atproto.com/specs/atp

    2024

  78. [86]

    AT Protocol. 2025. Atproto Ethos. https://atproto.com/articles/atproto-ethos

    2025

  79. [87]

    AT Protocol. 2025. Glossary of Terms. https://atproto.com/guides/glossary#pds-personal-data-server

    2025

  80. [88]

    Aravindh Raman, Sagar Joglekar, Emiliano De Cristofaro, Nishanth Sastry, and Gareth Tyson. 2019. Challenges in the Decentralised Web: The Mastodon Case. InProceedings of the Internet Measurement Conference (IMC ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 217–...

    2019

  81. [89]

    Adi Robertson. 2022. Twitter’s Open-Source Offshoot Bluesky Releases First Experiment - The Verge. https://www.theverge.com/2022/5/4/23057473/twitter-bluesky-adx-release-open-source-decentralized-social- network

    2022

  82. [90]

    Ben Bergman Russell, Melia. 2025. X Competitor Bluesky Is Being Valued at around $700 Million in a New Funding Round after Explosive Growth in the Wake of Trump’s Victory. https://www.businessinsider.com/x-competitor- bluesky-valuation-new-funding-round-2025-1

    2025

  83. [91]

    Hank Sanders. 2024. So You’re Thinking of Leaving X for Bluesky. How Does It Work? https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/21/technology/bluesky-social-media.html

    2024

  84. [92]

    Sarita Schoenebeck, Amna Batool, Giang Do, Sylvia Darling, Gabriel Grill, Daricia Wilkinson, Mehtab Khan, Kentaro Toyama, and Louise Ashwell. 2023. Online Harassment in Majority Contexts: Examining Harms and Remedies across Countries. InProceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference o...

    2023

  85. [93]

    Hunter Schwarz. 2024. The Website Tracks How Fast Bluesky Is Growing in near Real Time. https://www.fastcompany.com/91230935/the-website-tracks-how-fast-bluesky-is-growing-in-near-real-time

    2024

  86. [94]

    Ian Sherr. 2023. Twitter, Who? Flipboard Adds Mastodon Features, Pushing Further Into Social Networking - CNET. https://www.cnet.com/news/twitter-who-flipboard-adds-mastodon-features-pushing-further-into-social- networking/

    2023

  87. [95]

    Amanda Silberling. 2023. A Beginner’s Guide to Mastodon, the Open Source Twitter Alternative

    2023

  88. [96]

    Amanda Silberling. 2024. Farcaster, a Crypto-Based Social Network, Raised $150M with Just 80K Daily Users

    2024

  89. [97]

    Kyle Torpey. 2023. Here’s Why Bitcoiners Are Flocking to Nostr. https://fortune.com/crypto/2023/02/21/bitcoiners- flocking-to-nostr-social-network-jack-dorsey-edward-snowden/

    2023

  90. [98]

    Emma Tosch, Luis Garcia, Cynthia Li, and Chris Martens. 2024. Privacy Policies on the Fediverse: A Case Study of Mastodon Instances.Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies2024, 4 (2024), 700–733

    2024

  91. [99]

    Jessica Vitak, Kalyani Chadha, Linda Steiner, and Zahra Ashktorab. 2017. Identifying Women’s Experiences With and Strategies for Mitigating Negative Effects of Online Harassment. InProceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computi...

    2017

  92. [100]

    Gary Weinstein. 2024. From Control To Community: Farcaster And The Future Of Social Me- dia. https://www.forbes.com/sites/digital-assets/2024/11/04/from-control-to-community-farcaster-and-the-future-of- social-media/

    2024

  93. [101]

    Langdon Winner. 1980. Do Artifacts Have Politics?Daedalus109, 1 - Modern Technology: Problem or Opportunity? (1980), 121–136. jstor:20024652

    1980

  94. [102]

    Zhang, Grant Hugh, and Michael S

    Amy X. Zhang, Grant Hugh, and Michael S. Bernstein. 2020. PolicyKit: Building Governance in Online Communities. InProceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology. ACM, Virtual Event USA, 365–378. doi:10.1145/3379337.3415858 arXiv:2008.04236

    2020

  95. [103]

    Zhilin Zhang, Jun Zhao, Ge Wang, Samantha-Kaye Johnston, George Chalhoub, Tala Ross, Diyi Liu, Claudine Tinsman, Rui Zhao, Max Van Kleek, and Nigel Shadbolt. 2024. Trouble in Paradise? Understanding Mastodon Admin’s Motivations, Experiences, and Challenges Running Decentralise...

    2024 doi

  96. [2024]

    doi:10.1609/icwsm.v18i1.31293

    Decentralised Moderation for Interoperable Social Networks: A Conversation-Based Approach for Pleroma and the Fediverse.Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media18 (May 2024), 2–14. doi:10.1609/icwsm.v18i1.31293

    2024 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.