Abstract
In early 2023, Meta announced that its new microblogging platform, Threads, would join the Fediverse, a network of free, open-source social media platforms. This decision created a rift within the Fediverse, with some users supporting Meta’s integration while others strongly opposing it. This research explores the practices and discourses of the latter group—users, developers, and server administrators—who aim to build a safer and more autonomous “free Fediverse.” By framing the Free Fediverse as a digital counterpublic, this article introduces the concept of “strategic closure” to illustrate how these actors resist corporate capture and maintain a safer online environment. Drawing on the theoretical frameworks of sociomateriality and the politics of openness, my analysis highlights the entanglement between discursive and material aspects of these counterpublic practices. This study contributes to the broader discourse on alternative social media politics, emphasizing the ongoing negotiations between openness, safety, and technological design, and offers insights from Science and Technology Studies (STS) for understanding counterpublics in the age of Big Tech.
Introduction
In March of 2023, news leaked revealing Meta’s plan for its latest microblogging platform, Threads, to integrate with the Fediverse (a network of decentralized social media platforms) by implementing the open-source protocol, ActivityPub. The announcement of Threads, also dubbed Mark Zuckerberg’s “Twitter killer” (Isaac, 2023), came shortly after the Fediverse garnered mass attention in response to Elon Musk’s Twitter (now X) takeover. Several journalists (Captain, 2022; Taylor, 2022) highlighted Mastodon, Fediverse’s free, non-profit, open-source microblogging platform, as a viable alternative—which led to Mastodon’s userbase tripling in size (Peters, 2022; The Federation—A Statistics Hub, n.d.). Against this backdrop, Meta’s federation plan generated significant buzz: some Mastodon users, tech bloggers, and developers alike praised the decision, emphasizing potential benefits such as increased user visibility and opportunities for network-wide enhancements (Kissane, 2023), with even Mastodon’s CEO Eugen Rochko lauding this development as a resounding victory for the decentralized social media movement (Rochko, 2023b).
This enthusiasm, however, was not unanimous. Meta’s track record of privacy breaches, censorship, lax regulation of hate speech, and enabling of targeted abuse (e.g., Amnesty International, 2019; GLAAD, 2024; Godoy, 2023; Peck, 2022) have been core reasons why many users seek refuge in Fediverse platforms, which are perceived as alternative online spaces that contest “Big Tech’s” grasp on social relations. For users who imagine decentralized, free, and open-source social media platforms within the Fediverse as safer options than their corporate counterparts, Meta’s integration into the Fediverse represents a direct threat to the integrity of the network (Captain, 2022).
The announcement of Meta’s integration into the Fediverse sparked a range of responses. One of the most notable was the creation of the “Anti-Meta Fedipact,” a digital boycott of Threads by server runners. This collective action was an expression of disapproval toward Meta’s federation, with the signatories committing to preemptively defederate from Threads, meaning that Threads users would be unable to see or engage with posts from any user on servers who have chosen to defederate with Threads.
The Fedipact, which received attention on and off the Fediverse, brought considerable controversy. Like other Fediverse platforms, Mastodon has faced challenges creating a more socially diverse user base (Hendrix, 2022). Users who support Meta’s federation believe its presence could address these challenges by creating a more user-friendly platform and attracting a broader user base, potentially enhancing its overall appeal (Struett et al., 2023, p. 8). For these reasons, many spoke against the Fedipact and adjacent “Anti-Threads” initiatives as detrimental and antithetical to the values of free and open-source software. As tech blogger John Gruber (2023) commented, “Any instance that defederates the upcoming Instagram instance is just going to isolate itself. It’ll be an island of misfit loser zealots.” Yet, these criticisms did not deter users who opposed Thread’s federation. In response to Gruber’s comments, a website titled Misfit Loser Zealot Club: For a Free and Independent Fediverse was created. On the page, website developer Leonora Tindall proclaims, “The Fediverse isn’t perfect, but I think we can all agree that we’d rather be misfit loser zealots than bow to the whims of [Meta]” (Tindall, 2023).
This article adopts an ethnographic-based approach to examine the development of the “Free Fediverse” controversy. I argue that the discourses and practices of users working to build a Free Fediverse represent a pivotal moment in Free Open-Source Software (FOSS) and social media history alike. The collision of corporate social media and alternative social media (ASM)—which were once seen in direct opposition to each other—illuminates how digital counterpublics teeter and negotiate the line between enacting open access to community, information, and cultural expression while working to mitigate and strategically close themselves off to the sociopolitical harms that Big Tech enables. It brings into consideration how desires of a free, horizontalist society are renegotiated in an age of privatization, surveillance, and corporate recuperation. Or, when a door becomes open for all, how does it end up closing the door for others?
I begin with a theoretical and methodological overview and then provide historical context of the Fediverse and similar social media platforms, sometimes described as “alternative social media” (Gehl, 2015, 2017). This history underscores a shared ethos of not-for-profit, free, open-source social media platforms and their role as alternatives to mainstream platforms. Following this context, I transition to my ethnographic research, where I present findings from user discourse and interaction. This portion of the article examines the values and motivations behind Meta’s decision to federate and why some users support this move. I then turn to the viewpoints of those who oppose Meta’s federation, exploring why they view the Fediverse as a crucial alternative despite its imperfections. The debates following Meta’s proclaimed interest in joining the Fediverse sheds light on the network’s strengths and limitations while igniting valuable discussions about the affordances and challenges of incorporating a for-profit entity into a decentralized, community-driven social media network.
Following this overview, I highlight the practices with which people seek to create a better Fediverse outside Meta’s grasp. The overview of these practices showcases the diverse range of strategies, discourses, and cultural norms employed by Fediverse users to foster a sense of security and care within Fediverse communities through open-source technologies. In my analysis, I describe these activities as practices of strategic closure. 1 The term strategic closure exemplifies how the rhetoric of users, developers, and moderators who advocate for a Free Fediverse are recreating the meanings and associations of what the so-called “open” in open-source technologies and social media platforms mean. These varying understandings frequently result in social conflict, especially when the principles of openness—both in software transparency and user interactions—clash with desires for safety and autonomy. Practices of strategic closure, then, showcase how counterpublics apply choices to be closed off as both a means of dissent toward hegemonic orders and in the name of user safety, both of which are developed and negotiated through technological design.
Theoretical Approach
While not universally adopted in a monolithic official form, the term “Free Fediverse” functions as a convenient shorthand. 2 The phrase derives from the anti-Threads resource, freefediverse.org, a website that serves as a hub for literature documenting opposition to the federation of Threads, as well as for tracking various developments by those creating a more equitable, safer, and secure Fediverse. The Free Fediverse initiatives represent a diverse coalition of socially marginalized and politically dissident individuals who have also played a significant role in developing and maintaining the Fediverse (Pincus, 2023). This coalition includes heterogeneous groups and identities such as queer, transgender, feminist, anarchist, socialist, and anti-fascist communities, as well as subcultures such as punks, hackers, kinksters, furries, and more. To capture the interplay among these groups, I use the term counterpublics. This term epitomizes the nuanced and overlapping realms of subcultures, political dissidents, and marginalized peoples who operate under counter-hegemonic principles.
The term “counterpublics” originates from Jürgen Habermas’s concept of the public sphere, which he defines as arenas where individuals come together to discuss and form public opinion, thus influencing democratic processes (Habermas, 1962). According to Habermas, the public sphere is an essential space for rational-critical debate, where citizens deliberate on matters of common interest, ideally free from state or economic power (Habermas, 1962, p. 248). Expanding on this idea, Nancy Fraser (1990) introduced the concept of “subaltern counterpublics” in her essay “Rethinking the Public Sphere.” Fraser highlights spaces where marginalized social groups create and share alternative discourses, promoting oppositional interpretations of identity, interest, and desire (Fraser, 1990; Warner, 2005). These counterpublics are defined by their resistance to dominant social, political, and economic structures, making them counter-hegemonic and socially marginalized.
Building on these foundational ideas, the term “digital counterpublics” emerged in response to the rise of social networking websites and applications. Digital counterpublics can be defined as “any virtual, online, or otherwise digitally networked community in which members actively resist hegemonic power, contest majoritarian narratives, engage in critical dialogues, or negotiate oppositional identities” (Hill, 2018, p. 287). Integrating the technical affordances of networked publics (e.g., visibility features, network arrangements) with the qualities of counterpublics (e.g., political ideology, social identities) results in networked digital counterpublics, wherein internet-based platforms are employed by marginalized communities to serve as venues for organizing counter-discourses against dominant groups (Cho, 2011; Hill, 2018; McInroy et al., 2022).
While there has been research on how corporate social media platforms have both enabled and inhibited digital counterpublics (Fuchs & Sandoval, 2015; Hill, 2018), the connection between digital counterpublics and FOSS social media platforms has not been thoroughly studied. 3 FOSS platforms offer unique opportunities and challenges that differ from those of corporate platforms. This study aims to fill this gap by investigating the relationships between digital counterpublics and FOSS social media platforms. It also seeks to understand how these user groups and the technologies that support them develop over time, while emphasizing the significance of openness and safety in researching contemporary digital counterpublics.
Sociomateriality of Digital Counterpublics
Unlike traditional discussions of counterpublics, which are often established within a Marxist theoretical tradition (Craig et al., 2024, p. 2), this article focuses on the role of networked platforms, aligning the concept of counterpublics with Science and Technology Studies (STS) literature—a connection that has seldom been explored. An STS approach questions traditional sociological perspectives that treat technology as an external tool isolated from social contexts (Leonardi, 2010, 2012; Orlikowski, 2007). Specifically, I employ the STS theory of sociomateriality, which stresses that technology and social practices are inseparable and mutually constitutive, embodying both symbolic and material properties (Cecez-Kecmanovic et al., 2014). Open-source software is not merely a tool but complex sociotechnical assemblages co-constructed through social interactions, norms, and practices. Moreover, it underscores the importance of comprehending online publics as an assemblage of sociotechnical artifacts that move fluidly between the technical and the social, while focusing on the consequences of these interactions (Akrich, 1993; Milan, 2015).
Understanding how interfaces, database structures, connection mechanisms (Bijker, 1995), and political ideologies shape online networks, such as the Fediverse, necessitates attending to the interplay between technical artifacts and social relations. This integration is also essential for grasping the dynamic nature of digital counterpublics, particularly considering the role of discourse in counterpublic formation. Traditionally, counterpublics have been analyzed through a discursive lens. In his book Publics and Counterpublics, Michael Warner (2005) highlights how publics are created through the circulation of discourse. This circulation is crucial for counterpublics, which derive their counter status from their exclusion from hegemonic channels of discourse (Fraser, 1990). Responding to discourse theorists, such as cultural studies scholars of social publics, sociomaterial researchers Orlikowski and Scott (2015) propose a “move to a material-discursive practice,” suggesting that a deeper examination of the relationship between materiality and discourse can reveal insights into the operations of power and the organization of groups. Studying counterpublics thus relies not only on the circulated texts but also on the material means and organized practices through which this circulation occurs. In the context of this article, a sociomateriality framework is highly valuable because it showcases how the technologies of the Fediverse and user discourses intertwine, affecting the extent of discourse circulation and the implications for digital publics as this circulation expands.
Methodology
The data collected for this article span over 2 years—from August 2022 to October 2024—adopting a digital ethnography approach in the vein of scholars such as Coleman (2010), Cocq & Liliequist (2024), Garcia et al. (2009), and Mannell & Smith (2022). Throughout my research period, I maintained weekly activity on Fediverse platforms. My involvement included engaging with user accounts on issues relevant to this article’s themes, as well as content related to personal interests. This included responding to posts, sharing reflections about the Fediverse, observing decision-making meetings, and volunteering on minor tasks.
Alongside analyzing Fediverse user posts and participating on Fediverse platforms, I conducted an in-depth analysis of over 40 off-site sources, including blogs, press reports, code repositories, technical documentation, and self-printed pamphlets (“zines”) created by Fediverse users, developers, and administrators. Beyond platform-based participant observation, I engaged with Fediverse users off-site by attending public and invite-only meetings, workshops, and conferences related to the Fediverse, including the virtual “unconference”—the FediForum.
Given Mastodon’s structure as a microblogging platform and its popularity among Fediverse platforms, it served as the home base for my research. 4 On my Mastodon account, I intentionally followed accounts hosted on various Fediverse platforms, particularly those expressing clear viewpoints about Meta. Through surveying users and groups who opposed Meta’s federation, I found that many of these accounts professed progressive sentiments, such as anti-capitalist values and commitments to egalitarianism and social equity. In addition, many servers opposing Meta’s federation were explicitly created for socially marginalized users, highlighting a significant overlap between servers with radical ideological stances and those geared toward specific social identities.
The methods described earlier were supplemented by 10 computer-mediated interviews: eight with server administrators and moderators and two with self-described longtime users of the Fediverse. I recruited interview participants via word of mouth and a public post on Mastodon, looking to speak to individuals who had reactions toward Meta’s federation. In these interviews, my questions focused on why these users joined the Fediverse, how they manage their servers, what role safety and security play in their relationship with the Fediverse, and their opinions on the federation of Threads.
Researching how privacy-focused users navigate online safety is a delicate matter worth acknowledging. To ensure I was considerate of this, I disclosed my ongoing research project when participating in relevant discussions and identified myself as a researcher on my Mastodon account. During my interview process, each of my sources was anonymized. 5 Furthermore, I clarified that I could adapt to any security measures interviewees felt comfortable with. 6 While one individual declined to speak with me due to security concerns, I was grateful to develop relationships with those who were receptive to my outreach.
This article has certain limitations. Due to the decentralized nature of the Fediverse and its lack of universal search tools, it was not feasible to capture a broad view of all users’ opinions regarding Meta’s integration. While I made efforts to explore various perspectives, the scope of this study is limited to the communities and individuals whose perspectives reflect the counterpublic dynamics central to this research, identified through snowball sampling and ethnographic observations until theoretical saturation. In addition, this article does not extensively explore and interrogate the views and practices of Threads users. This is an important area that falls outside the scope of this research but warrants future study.
Understanding the Fediverse Within a History of Alternative Social Media
Short for “Federated Universe,” the Fediverse is a network of social media platforms that operate independently rather than being controlled by a single company on a centralized server. While decentralized, federated social networks began with platforms such as Status.net, Diaspora*, and GNU.Social, the popularization of the Fediverse began in 2016 with the creation of the microblogging platform Mastodon. By the end of 2017, Mastodon had more than one million users. Mastodon’s success contributed significantly to the growth of the Fediverse and inspired the creation of other active federated platforms, including Pleroma (similar to Tumblr), Funkwhale (similar to Spotify), and multimedia platforms like PeerTube, Pixelfed, and Misskey (similar to Instagram and YouTube). At the time of this writing, the Fediverse has amassed over 11 million users, 1 million monthly active users, 29,000 servers, and over 100 interoperable platforms (FediDB–Fediverse Network Statistics, n.d.).
The Fediverse ecosystem builds on the core FOSS principles of decentralization and openness (Pincus, 2022a). The FOSS movement—which emerged as a response to software development’s increasingly proprietary and restrictive nature in the 1980s—sought to promote the freedom to use, study, modify, and distribute software. Originating developers of FOSS worked to challenge the power structures rapidly emerging with technology and promote a more egalitarian and participatory approach to technology, emphasizing the importance of accessibility, transparency, and collaboration (Muffatto, 2006; Tozzi, 2017). In addition, the Fediverse inherits much from the early visions of the World Wide Web, which imagined the internet as a democratic space for open communication and collaboration (Benkler, 2006). While the commercialization of the web diverted it from these ideals, early decentralized, open-source social media platforms sought to reclaim these principles and work to create a social media model more participatory and unrestricted than its counterparts (Klemens, 2023). Each of these values remains essential to the development of the Fediverse, which relies on open-source technologies and decentralized networks that operate on a free and not-for-profit basis.
The practice of “federating” in the Fediverse involves establishing cooperative relationships between various servers, commonly called instances. 7 An instance is a specialized computer or software system that provides services, data, or resources to other servers over the network. The Fediverse’s decentralized architecture is made possible by protocols—sets of rules that servers follow to facilitate user interaction. ActivityPub, the most widely used protocol in the Fediverse, gained prominence as it grew alongside early federated open-source platforms. It eventually became the recommended protocol for open-source, decentralized, networked platforms by the World Wide Web Consortium in 2018 (Nedjo, 2021). 8 ActivityPub works by creating “inboxes” and “outboxes” for users and servers, allowing them to send and receive different types of content like images, videos, and text (Jambor, 2023). This structure enables users across different servers to interact, even though their data may be hosted by different people in separate locations.
Instances can be hosted by individuals, groups, or organizations and may focus on specific interests and ideologies or be general-purpose. Each instance can establish its own moderation and administrative policies, allowing users to choose a server that aligns with their values and interests. Furthermore, federated servers do not need to use the same software; they can implement different open-source applications with varying interfaces and features while still enabling users to interact across the network (imagine following a YouTube channel directly from your Twitter feed). This flexibility in software and moderation policies underscores the decentralized and user-driven nature of the Fediverse, where control is distributed among many rather than centralized in a single entity.
Decentralized open-source social media, such as the Fediverse, fall into the category of what scholar Robert Gehl describes as ASM (Gehl, 2015, 2016). In his essay “Alternative Social Media, from Critique to Code,” Gehl uses the term ASM to describe “a response to the criticisms of corporate social media: namely their surveillance practices, their appropriation of user data, their emphasis on marketing messages over other forms of connection, and their algorithmic shaping of sociality, to name a few” (Gehl, 2016, p. 1). These systems create networks to evade censorship and spread non-conformist content, allowing users to shape their identities through expression and performance (Gehl, 2015, p. 13). In doing so, ASM allows for the circulation of radical viewpoints that often are suppressed among mainstream media, especially those that challenge sociopolitical forms of domination (Downing, 2001; Fuchs & Sandoval, 2015). Moreover, the decentralization of user data and the opening of their code allow for inspection and modification, which defies centralized media powers (Couldry & Curran, 2003, p. 7). These non-commercial platforms are thus alternative in their organizational form, content, and actors.
Of course, using alternative media networks to subvert and resist capitalist power is not a novel phenomenon. Counterpublics including marginalized groups and activists have long created communication platforms to contest power concentrations and mitigate surveillance (Juris, 2012; Karatzogianni, 2015; Treré, 2018; Wolfson & Robé, 2020). Indymedia, considered the first-ever decentralized openpublishing and open-source network created during the anti-globalization movement, has received attention for how it challenged traditional media power structures. Similarly, other platforms developed since have also gained recognition, including (but not limited to) sites like Lorea, rstat.us net, and Scuttlebutt. Scholars have discussed how these platforms functioned as tools to achieve “algorithmic sovereignty” (Reviglio & Agosti, 2020), promoting collective awareness to create fairness and accountability on social media. They also serve as examples of participatory culture (Mannell & Smith, 2022) and prefigurative politics, which involves the direct democratization of cultural production where the collaborative nature of these technologies represents an attempt to construct structures that anticipate a more just future (Branson, 2022; Mannell & Smith, 2022).
Over the past several years, there has been a growing body of literature focused on the Fediverse addressing different topics such as toxicity (Zulli et al., 2020), governance (Gehl & Zulli, 2022; Struett et al., 2023), social networking “topologies” (La Cava et al., 2021, 2022; Zia et al., 2023; Zulli et al., 2020), and content moderation (Anaobi et al., 2023; Rozenshtein, 2023). My research takes inspiration from these perspectives while also identifying a considerable research gap. Existing studies on the Fediverse have yet to focus on the use of the Fediverse by counterpublics, such as the copious amount of explicitly politically left-leaning servers and servers specific for people from socially marginalized backgrounds, despite their acknowledged significance within the Fediverse (Mansoux & Abbing, 2020; Pincus, 2023; Struett et al., 2023). My study of digital counterpublics and the Fediverse, though, extends beyond analyzing their creation and motivations for using the platform; it also delves into their tactics of counter-hegemony, specifically looking at the role of practice in the interaction and connection between technologies and digital counterpublics.
FOSS and the Politics of Openness
Since its inception, FOSS developers have had diverging opinions as to what the word “open” in open-source software means. One concept of openness is as a politic that encapsulates technological practices (freedom to develop and maintain software without restraining licensing/copyright schemes) and broader social ideologies (the valorization of horizontal organizing forms, community-based production, and the denouncing of private property) (Bradley, 2006, p. 585). This ideology epitomizes the initial “anarcho-utopian” dream (Bradley, 2006) initiated by Richard Stallman’s GNU project and his non-profit organization, the Free Software Foundation. Yet, the politics that were at the heart of these impulses have been challenged through efforts to integrate communal programming practices into market hegemonies (Bradley, 2006; Coleman, 2004; Tozzi, 2014, 2017). Many valorized a more practical “business friendly” concept of openness, where for software to be “open” means that anyone can use, create, and further develop software, even for monetization purposes. This is exemplified most in Eric Raymond’s GNU/Linux open-source initiative (Bradley, 2006) and the push by Raymond and others to emphasize the importance of an apolitical, asocial perspective of FOSS.
This political divide in openness has been interrogated by a variety of scholars (see Bradley, 2006; Coleman, 2004; Dunbar-Hester, 2020; Muffatto, 2006; Nafus, 2012; Tkacz, 2012, 2014; Tozzi, 2017). For instance, Gabriella Coleman (2004) contests the notion of FOSS being apolitical. She argues that even the denial of FOSS’s formal politics becomes a political act as the divergence in values substantially impacts the FOSS movement itself (Coleman, 2004). For Coleman, the “political agnosticism” of many FOSS developers has the potential to deter people from participating in FOSS development, which then has ramifications for who partakes in developing and using FOSS technologies (Coleman, 2004, p. 512). Given FOSS’s inarguably White male-dominated background and the specific ways FOSS communities instantiate notions of openness in everyday practice, a politically agnostic perspective on open technology exacerbates the lack of marginalized populations such as women and LGBTQ+ populations in FOSS development (Dunbar-Hester, 2020; Nafus, 2012). Critical interrogations such as these showcase how openness has a broader impact than mere intellectual property arrangements (Coleman, 2004; Dunbar-Hester, 2020; Nafus, 2012).
Diverging ideas of openness have played a formative role throughout the history of FOSS, influencing access, utilization, and development processes. Beyond FOSS, this concept of openness has also been instrumental in shaping the evolution of social media and the internet. The foundational goals of social media and the World Wide Web aimed to establish expansive networks that facilitate unrestricted communication across distances and time, made possible through the invention of open and voluntary organizational standards like Transmission Control Protocol/internet Protocol (TCP/IP), enabling interoperability among network operators, vendors, service providers, and software developers (Ten Oever, 2021, p. 345). These aspirations accompanied the growth of the internet, all while operating through the architectural principles of “end-to-end, permissionless innovation, and openness” (Ten Oever, 2021, p. 345).
Researchers have pointed out how social media have created spaces of freedom and openness (Castells, 2012; Gerbaudo, 2012). Yet, similar to how this “participatory culture” (Jenkins, 1992) model attracted those who sought horizontalist infrastructures as a means to generate collectivized networks, it also attracted the attention of capitalist entities as a place of exploitation and recuperation (Fuchs & Sandoval, 2015; Gehl, 2015, 2016; Milan, 2015; Robé, 2023). As seen through the history of Web 2.0, sites were soon absorbed into the logic of Silicon Valley, where surveillance capitalism (Zuboff, 2019) became increasingly developed to support advertising methods for profit incentives. Soon, the commercialization and privatization of the internet reconfigured the “sociotechnical imaginaries” of freedom and openness (Galis & Neumayer, 2016, p. 2; Ten Oever, 2021, p. 345). The ongoing trends of co-optation, dilution, and distortion of the values of openness by powerful institutions continue to exist today, making the process of openness complex and problematic for those who adhere to the principles of egalitarianism and sovereignty.
Meta’s Integration and Support in the Fediverse
Threads was initially conceived with Fediverse implementation in mind (MacManus, 2023). Meta took a collaborative approach, participating in both public and private meetings with key developers in the Fediverse community to discuss the best ways to implement ActivityPub (Schiffer, 2024). Their rollout process has been gradual: although news of their involvement surfaced in early 2023, it was not until March 2024 that Threads users were given the option to connect their accounts to the Fediverse (N. Patel, 2023). Currently, Threads users still cannot respond to replies from other servers (Malik, 2024). While Meta implements ActivityPub similar to how other platforms do, their closed-source practices leave some aspects unclear (Jambor, 2023; MacManus, 2023). Still, Meta’s communication and careful approach have gained support from some Fediverse users.
Many see Meta’s involvement as a solution to one of the Fediverse’s primary challenges: attracting new users. The decentralized structure of the Fediverse differs from the centralized platforms most people are familiar with, making it difficult for newcomers to navigate (
Supporters frame the Fediverse as a decentralized social network system built on open protocols where anyone can communicate with anyone, unlike centralized platforms where information circulates within its closed systems (Rochko, 2023b). Meta saw the open-source architecture of the Fediverse as aligning with their work on other open-source projects like LLaMA and React Native, signaling a broader commitment to open models that set them apart from other tech giants (McCue, 2024). Furthermore, by joining the Fediverse, Threads positions itself as a more competitive alternative to X, giving content creators greater control to “own their audiences” (McCue, 2024). This view held by Meta, Fediverse developer collaborators, and user supporters frames Meta’s entry as an opportunity for growth for the Fediverse and the open web as a whole (MacManus, 2023; Mosseri, 2023).
“It Is Not (Just) About Anti-Capitalism” 9 : The Issues of Security and Safety
While some see Meta’s involvement as a means of growing the Fediverse and making it more user-friendly, others are deeply concerned that this integration could jeopardize the Fediverse environment. Critics point to Metas’s history of privacy violations (Satariano, 2023, Seirdy, 2023), inadequate content moderation (F. Patel & Hect-Felella, 2021), its algorithm’s role in spreading hate speech (Collier, 2023; GLAAD, 2024), and its collaboration with government surveillance (Kissane, 2023). These issues are particularly concerning for Fediverse users who have experienced harassment and targeted oppression on Meta platforms and sought refuge in the Fediverse to escape these dangers. For these individuals, the Fediverse represents not just a political alternative but also a safer, more secure space away from the corporate-driven structures of Big Tech.
In a 2023 workshop, Fediverse administrators emphasized how decentralization and minimal collection of sensitive data, like phone numbers and government IDs, create a safer, privacy-friendly online environment (Budington, 2022; N00q, personal communication, 10 February 2024). Another critical safety feature is the ability to defederate, also referred to as “fediblocking,” allowing administrators to block other instances based on their guidelines, codes of conduct, or ideology (Mercury, personal communication, 4 July 2023). 10 For example, mass server blocking successfully prevented platforms like the far-right extremist Gab from federating (Caelin, 2022).
These privacy and anti-harassment features are highly valued by users, especially those who are more often targets of surveillance and harassment, such as activists and LGBTQ+ individuals. However, Mastodon has also been criticized for its poor privacy and safety measures. For instance, ActivityPub lacks services such as the ability for users to post only for it to be seen on a user’s home instance or limit the number of replies a post receives, each of which can help alleviate harassment (Pincus, 2022b, 2024).
Mastodon lacks some of these features for various pragmatic reasons, from insufficient funds to technological limitations. However, Mastodon’s lack of features can also be attributed to ideological factors. Mastodon has not developed local-only posting into its mainline code because Mastodon founder Eugen Rochko has resisted implementing local-only posting, arguing that it contradicts Mastodon’s mission of decentralization and openness (Mastodon, n.d.). Yet, instance runners can use forks (altered versions of Mastodon’s mainline code) that do provide this service, such as Hometown, GoToSocial, and Glitch-Soc (Local-only posting, n.d.).
Although Meta has made assurances that its policies surrounding privacy and safety will not affect Mastodon instances (Rochko, 2023b), users have voiced skepticism, pointing to Meta’s track record and the potential for its sweeping influence on Fediverse platforms (Captain, 2022; Vantablack, 2023). One example is “algorithm creep,” a term coined by Smallpatatas, referring to the subtle influence of Meta’s algorithm on Fediverse platforms. Even when Mastodon users do not directly interact with Threads, its algorithmic “influence” changes the composition of the population and brings different participants to the shared discourse. This could skew content visibility, with Meta’s algorithm amplifying certain posts while suppressing others. Given Threads’ much larger user base, algorithm-driven content may dominate discourse and introduce more harassment issues. Potential impacts such as these are thus argued to undermine original missions of giving users control, free from corporate influence (Smallpatatas, 2023).
Concerns about algorithmic manipulation and data privacy are compounded by fears that Meta’s involvement could structurally alter the Fediverse (SocialCoop, n.d.). Historically, Big Tech has employed tactics like “embrace, extend, and extinguish” or “copy, acquire, kill,” where open standards are adopted, extended with proprietary features, and then used to suppress competitors (Betteridge, 2023; Ghaffary & Morrison, 2022; Velazquez, 2023). Critics speculate that Meta might steer ActivityPub’s development to benefit its own interests and also draw popular accounts away from the Fediverse and onto Threads (Gehl, 2024). In addition, the influx of Threads’ larger user base, which could lead to increased harassment and spam, could push Fediverse platforms toward centralization to better manage content moderation and authentication (Lawson, 2018; Eme, personal communication, 24 March 2024).
The widespread decision among servers to defederate from Meta reflects a concerted effort to maintain the Fediverse as a viable alternative to corporate social media, one that prioritizes user privacy and quality of online experience. This situation underscores a fundamental divide in the Fediverse’s purpose: whether it serves primarily as a community-building platform or as a mass communication service. Mastodon’s creator, Rochko, has acknowledged that the platform was not designed with a community-centric mindset (Rochko, 2023), which leads some to view Mastodon as more aligned with a growth-oriented service model (Ophiocephalic, 2023a). This shift in mindset, particularly in relation to Meta, raises concerns about safety, security, and trust within the Fediverse. Such issues have prompted critiques like the assertion that “openness for the sake of openness is meaningless” (Vantablack, 2023). These debates reveal how Fediverse users critically examine the notion of openness while considering the political and economic implications, theoretical frameworks, and crucial issues of user safety and accessibility.
Practices of Strategic Closure
In the wake of the formation of the anti-Meta Fedipact, heightened online debates, and various tools for users to use that hinder Meta’s participation in the Fediverse, some argued that those who opposed Meta represented a desire to maintain the Fediverse’s status quo rather than foster improvement (Prodromou, 2023). Contrary to this perspective, many users I encountered who oppose Meta desire enhancements to the Fediverse but through community-based approaches that lack corporate involvement. The news of Meta’s integration sparked interest in both improving former initiatives as well as creating new proposals that strive to preserve decentralization while improving open-source software programs and tackling online safety challenges.
One project aligned with the goals of decentralization and safety is OcapPub, initiated by the Spritely Networked Community Institute. Founded in 2022 by Christine Lemmer-Webber, Spritely emerged from research aimed at shaping the future of decentralized social networks following her experiences with the popular ActivityPub standard (Spritely Institute, n.d.). The current ActivityPub protocol operates on a binary system of block or allow lists, where an instance can either begin by federating with all servers and then block specific ones or start without any federations and later choose to allow connections. Lemmer-Webber critiques this simplistic system, arguing that such an approach lacks the granularity needed for adequate user protection. In response, OcapPub aims to implement safety measures that give users and administrators more specific control over data access and sharing, thereby creating a “network of consent” (Lemmer-Webber, 2022).
To achieve these enhancements, Spritely’s OcapPub protocol will integrate the cybersecurity concept of “object capabilities” into ActivityPub. Object capabilities refer to how digital entities—system components or users—are authorized to perform specific actions. Within the Fediverse, it would allow for greater flexibility in how users and servers interact. For instance, if a user faces harassment, they could disable their public inbox temporarily. Or, if a moderator is traveling for an extended period of time without computer access, they could ask a trusted moderator from another server to take over their moderation so that the server does not go unmoderated. Furthermore, OcapPub seeks to add features such as restricting reblogged posts to a user’s immediate circle of followers and their followers, reducing the chances of unwanted interactions (Lemmer-Webber, 2022).
Another aspect of OcapPub is its direct challenge to the “attention economy” model of centralized corporate platforms like Meta. One example is OcapPub’s decision to hide follower counts on user profiles, preventing users from engaging in subconscious competition over popularity metrics (Lemmer-Webber, 2022). Removing follower counts allows users to focus on building meaningful relationships rather than tailoring their online presence to gain more followers. This approach encourages authentic communication over algorithm-driven popularity (Lemmer-Webber, 2022).
By working on a new protocol outside the influence of Big Tech, OcapPub aims to help the Fediverse avoid what Lemmer-Webber and others refer to as “capitalist enclosure,” where large corporations co-opt and commodify decentralized technologies (Free Fediverse, n.d.; Hof, 2023). By steering clear of corporate influence, OcapPub and other similar initiatives protect the integrity and autonomy of the Fediverse while further developing its potential for more sustainable Fediverse participation.
Another ongoing initiative is the “Fedifam” model—a structure that would enable a better network of trust among Fediverse instances (Ophiocephalic, 2023a). The Fedifam structure, also known as a “caracole” (Marchán, 2023), is based on the approaches of the Zapatista Army of National Liberation (EZLN). From 1994 to 2023, the EZLN developed autonomous municipalities and good government councils (juntas del buen gobierno) to demonstrate that an alternative form of governance is feasible without perpetuating or establishing permanent bureaucracies (Zibechi, 2023).
Inspired by this framework, the Fedifam model envisions groups of instances working together as a family or through alliances see Figure 1. This is based deliberately on the intention of horizontally distributing power, which contrasts with how companies such as Meta centralize power as well as the “BDFL” (benevolent dictator for life) approach to server moderation, a hierarchical moderation style that larger servers have been accused of following (Kissane & Kazemi, 2024). Its collaborative nature also gives the opportunity for users to learn how to moderate and manage servers, helping to bridge the gap between platform users and the behind-the-scenes work involved.
A diagram intended to visualize how a Fedifam would function. Three groups of instances—Pan-African/Black liberation communities, radical queer communities, and anarchist communities—collectivize into fedifams, given how they recognize each other as sufficiently ideologically aligned, then loosely form into a single caracole (
The Fedifam’s collaborative governance model seeks to address moderation and server-management challenges by reducing the workload for moderators. Fedifams can collaborate to share common moderation principles, blocklists, and server-hosting infrastructures (Free Fediverse, n.d.). This approach contrasts with the belief that increased financial resources from collaboration with Meta would effectively mitigate moderation difficulties. Instead, collaboration based on shared political values establishes a “web of trust” (Ophiocephalic, 2023b Briar Rose, personal communication, 4 July 2023) that goes beyond merely relying on new tool features. The model also focuses on small instances, each capped at a specific size. This limit enhances the user experience by fostering more intimate relationships with instance administrators, which helps build trust in data management—an outcome that is more challenging to achieve on servers with larger user bases (Kissane & Kazemi, 2024). 11 Ultimately, the advocates of the Fedifam model suggest that limiting server connections and decision-making based on shared values can help reduce the potential for harassment and improve the quality of connections online.
These initiatives vary in their approaches. OcapPub seeks to reinvent the underlying protocol of the Fediverse. The Fedifam model proposes a governance framework based on collective decision-making and social coordination, which can complement technological change without relying on them. However, these projects are not without challenges. Building and maintaining a non-profit tech-development project like OcapPub is rigorous and resource-intensive. In addition, OcapPub presents a significant conceptual shift that may be difficult for the average instance runner to grasp, especially for those not technically proficient in software development (Redglow82, 2022). This lack of understanding could hinder advocacy for OcapPub as a valuable alternative to the current ActivityPub protocol.
Similarly, the Fedifam faces time and labor hurdles. Implementing a collaborative governance model demands high social coordination, especially when participants span various time zones (Mud, personal communication, 23 September 2024). Achieving consensus is also challenging; even within those who signed the anti-Meta pact, instances have blocked one another over differing opinions on safety and governance issues. This highlights the varying perspectives on what constitutes safety and the feasibility of creating safe online spaces, even among those who broadly share similar political views (Heatscore, personal communication, 20 October 2023).
Despite these adversities, OcapPub and the Fedifam model aim to reduce harm while remaining independent of Big Tech. Each highlights the political implications of platform infrastructure and management, where safety is not the responsibility of a single user, moderator, or server tool but is sociotechnical and must be addressed collectively (Kissane & Kazemi, 2024). This contrasts with the positions of other developers, such as the Threads development team and the Fediverse trust and safety team, which advocate for “politically ambivalent” moderation tools (Jaz-Michael King, personal communication, 3 October 2024). Ultimately, both initiatives underscore the struggle between maintaining autonomy and navigating the complexities of governance and technological design to create a better Fediverse.
Discussion and Analysis
The months following Meta’s announcement of its new microblogging platform, Threads, joining the Fediverse generated numerous debates among Fediverse users. Proponents of Meta’s federation argue that the integration of Threads will create positive changes, such as increased resources and the broadening of diverse user bases. Conversely, critics raise concerns about Meta’s track record regarding user safety, circulation of hate speech, and data privacy issues. The apprehension about the potential negative impact of corporate involvement in the Fediverse highlights a fundamental clash between different views on open-source technology among those who use ASM platforms. For some, openness means unrestricted access. For others, it encompasses broader ideals such as a commitment to safety and resistance to corporate co-optation. These differing interpretations often lead to tensions, particularly when the ideals of openness clash with the need for safety and autonomy.
Strategic Closure and the Role of Sociomateriality
Using the concept of a counterpublic practice of strategic closure, or to close off from the “predatory culture of corporations” (Mansoux & Abbing, 2020, p. 128), the Free Fediverse initiatives embody a politicized form of conflict and collective reimagining of what a digital public could be. This approach emphasizes a shared commitment to mutual care for both users and open-source technologies, highlighting the interdependence between social relations and technical infrastructures (Duclos & Criado, 2020, p. 155; Lindén & Lydahl, 2021, p. 5).
The concept of strategic closure, combined with sociomateriality, illustrates how the interplay between technological infrastructure (e.g., open protocols, software) and social practices (e.g., community governance, content moderation) shapes the goals of a free Fediverse. This includes reactive efforts like the anti-Meta Fedipact and ongoing projects such as OcapPub, alongside “everyday doings” (Orlikowski & Scott, 2014, p. 12) like the Fedifam’s collective moderation. Orlikowski’s and Scott’s (2015) notion of “discursive-material entanglement in practice” underscores how these practices are simultaneously shaped by, and help shape, their discursive and material contexts. Here, digital counterpublics construct narratives against corporate social media while leveraging technological affordances to sustain their communities.
Sociomaterial practices like defederation and alternative governance models show how digital counterpublics are shaped by ideology and the material technologies they engage with. This mutual shaping—the reciprocal relationship between technology and social relations (Akrich, 1993)—means that technological infrastructure is influenced by a dispersed network of actors (Lievrouw, 2006, p. 196). At the same time, the Free Fediverse movement demonstrates how these counterpublics, in turn, influence and shape the technologies they use, such as creating new protocols. Therefore, understanding counterpublics requires recognizing the inseparable relationship between their technologies, material practices, and political and ideological goals. This entanglement enables them to confront broader oppressive structures while exposing the frictions and contradictions that arise in the process.
Challenges and Contradictions
As this article demonstrates, prioritizing user safety measures in resistance to Big Tech can result in paradoxical situations where autonomy and security create trade-offs and compromises. By closing off access to Meta, the Free Fediverse may exclude Threads users who could help improve the network by introducing positive cultural norms. In addition, many Free Fediverse initiatives rely on community funding or no funding at all, limiting the development of tools that could make the platform more accessible and user-friendly, potentially hindering the inclusion of more marginalized groups. For instance, rejecting Meta’s federation has been cited as a deterrent for counterpublics like “Black Twitter” (Hendrix, 2022). These exclusions challenge counterpublics commitment to participatory democracy (Asen, 2000; Atton, 2002, p. 4), mirroring former critiques of “sociotechnical gatekeeping” (Driscoll, 2023) that FOSS developers have been accused of (Struett et al., 2023, p. 9).
These tensions build upon existing conflicts within counterpublics and open-source technologies. Scholars have long emphasized open-source technology’s sociomaterial politics. For instance, Flanagin et al. (2010) highlight how the internet’s technical design, which supports interoperability and open access, enables personalization and individualized innovation. However, the juxtaposition between personalization and interoperability reveals how open-source software’s collaborative nature is often challenged by conflicting forces, such as the potential for centralized control through laws, corporate acquisition, and various social pressures that can dictate online behavior (Flanagin et al., 2010, p. 190). Comparably, Schrock (2014) highlights the conflicts and compromises in implementing openness, such as with HTML5 and mobile phone platforms, arguing that the politics of open technology and online media are directed through, using, and around different understandings of openness (Schrock, 2014, p. 830). These arguments show how the co-constitutive nature of the social and the material makes certain actions possible while also making them political (McInerney, 2009) and conflictual (Flanagin et al., 2010).
Sociomaterial-based analyses such as these aid in understanding how counterpublics inherently grapple with their own contradictions (Warner, 2005, p. 106), where counterpublics are “formed by their conflict with the norms and contexts of their cultural environment” (Warner, 2005, p. 63). Counterpublics aim to differentiate themselves from the mainstream while navigating the open nature of public discourse, which involves inclusivity. While they serve as sites of resistance, they also function as areas of withdrawal and re-groupment (Fraser, 1990, p. 82). This balance involves maintaining a sense of difference while resisting the “infinite and unknowable potential of circulation among strangers” (Warner, 2005, p. 106) and guarding their practices and ideals from corporate recuperation (Downing, 2001, p. 59). These complex dynamics within counterpublics and open technologies highlight technologies’ role in marginalized users’ strategies to resist hegemony and the contradictions embedded within online publics and open-source technologies.
The shifting politics of the ActivityPub protocol reveal how both technical frameworks and social interactions shape the landscape of online safety and governance. In particular, debates surrounding user-friendly technology demonstrate how accessibility can sometimes conceal deeper commercial interests, while also underscoring the inherent challenges of creating truly safe digital spaces. These tensions prompt a necessary reckoning with the fluid economic and social implications of openness, forcing us to confront the often-overlooked assumptions underpinning social media and digital platforms (Flanagin et al., 2010, p. 180).
Fraser (1990) highlights how contradictions within counterpublics hold emancipatory potential. Although these counterpublics may not always realize their goals of liberation, equity, or safety, their practices inspire critical reflection and encourage innovation in digital spaces. Recognizing the inherent power imbalances within digital platforms—where some users’ agency is empowered while others are constrained—is essential to building safer and more inclusive environments (Lemmer-Webber, 2022; Lindén & Lydahl, 2021, p. 5). Despite the challenges, the Free Fediverse initiatives remain valuable, offering spaces to experiment with autonomy and new governance models that cultivate networks of trust and consent. As one participant noted, “where there is chaos, there is opportunity” (Pincus, 2024), a reminder that these moments of tension can unlock new possibilities for reimagining digital spaces.
The contradictions and limitations within these Free Fediverse initiatives present a chance to reconsider what a truly free, open-source social network might look like (Lievrouw, 2019, p. 72). The evolution of ASM platforms like the Fediverse illustrates how counterpublics, and the technologies they rely on, are continuously reshaped by cultural, economic, and political forces. As technologies evolve alongside political and economic shifts, so do the methods those at the margins use to claim belonging.
Conclusion
If the speculations surrounding Threads dominating the Fediverse come true, it will almost certainly jeopardize an originating ethos of FOSS, which represents a collaborative pursuit of technological development. Meta joining the Fediverse reflects corporate aspirations to gain more influence, presenting itself as a space for collaboration and free expression and a hollowed gesture toward a horizontal resurgence of the “open web” (Schrock, 2014). Yet this bright future is debatable, as history demonstrates how Big Tech organizations have co-opted technologies where “capital cloaks itself in liberatory, progressive values, while still serving as a force for extraction, exploitation, and political corruption” (Doctorow, 2023). This “open washing” (Widder et al., 2023) involves the trick that large AI companies use to evade regulation and neutralize critics by casting themselves as forces of ethical capitalism, committed to the virtue of openness. With such rapid advancements in Big Tech, it is likely that more instances of technological recuperation or “open washing” will occur (Doctorow, 2023; Widderr et al., 2023).
Scholars, technologists, and digital activists alike must emphasize the concrete material, as well as local and specific conditions, that impact the various developments of the internet, such as the culture and sustenance of ASM. Looking at Free Fediverse initiatives reveals how tools can be used, what they make possible, the limitations they impose, and how moments of tension can aid in the re-imagination of digital spaces. Furthermore, studying the Fediverse also necessitates understanding how and why these technologies appeal to users. To do that, our research must not remain solely focused on the popular mainstream. We must attend to the often-forgotten constituents developing technologies and imaginaries—including the outsiders, the ones that claim and pride themselves in being alternative, subversive, and marginalized—or the “misfit loser zealots.”
Doors are gateways between public and private spaces (Siegert & Peters, 2012, p. 7) that, by design, can create a spectrum of openness. Like doors, decentralized networks and open-source protocols are not static—they can be left ajar, cracked open at certain moments, flung wide open, or locked with a key. They may feature a warning sign or be adorned with a welcoming mat. Strategic closure is one tactic among many that enables users to select varying degrees and types of closure, no matter how small or discordant that closure may be.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank their advisor Dr. Rachel Plotnik and the anonymous peer reviewers for the edits and affirmations. They would also like to thank the various Fediverse users they spoke to, including but not limited to Dr. Robert Gehl, Jon Pincus, N00q, and the Kolekiva Moderation Team.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Ethical Approval
The author(s) home university’s HRPP approved the above-referenced submission and was determined exempt on 14 November 2023.
