You Can't Please Everybody: censorship in decentralized networks

One of the principle concerns of corporate social media is how people are manipulated to boost profits, attention, and engagement. The effects of this automated algorithmic manipulation are all-pervasive as they are disruptive. It is the very reason that the newspeak phrases like unalive have entered the public vocabulary. Elon Musk’s purchase of Twitter raised the profile of discussions about the impact and influence of social media on society. Among those who consider with these issues, it is clear that a radically different solution is needed.

While people have always attempted to migrate to ‘alt-tech’ competitors to mainstream sites, we have the opportunity to explore new paradigms. Multiple models of decentralized social networking have risen to show what is possible. Due to their nature, different systems will have advantages and disadvantages. There are many crucial details to understand when trying to make the best of any of these systems. Sometimes, solving particular problems opens up new challenges. It is our responsibility to learn from the options we are contending with today, so that we can work on new solutions for the future.

There are many decentralized social media systems. There are multiple iterations of the dream of protocols not platforms, where systems span larger than a single implementation. The major benefits to this paradigm are interoperability, accessibility, and anti-fragile architecture. Some are blockchain based like Bastyon, others like Mastodon use federated servers, and nostr uses encryption-as-identity for portable identities. Each approach has trade-offs and considerations. For the purposes of this piece, I will be focusing on the limitations of the Fediverse.

Deficiencies: The Fediverse in practice

The Fediverse (which includes Mastodon) is an inter-connected network of federated social media sites. This includes various Free Software services like Mitra, Ghost, or even big tech giants like Meta’s Threads. Even alternative networks like nostr can be connected via bridges. This means that instead of one single platform, there is a wider interoperable network, at least in theory.

Every platform on the Fediverse can be called an “instance” each instance hosts accounts for the people on the platform. While followers & follows can be migrated, it is not seamless. Generally a profile exists on an instance and is beholden to the rules, features and limitations of that instance. Instance operators are offering their users a beachhead into decentralized social media, and the users are offering attention and community in return.

This may sound like a win-win for everyone involved. It’s now possible for operator-run independent social media to exist, but why hasn’t it caught on yet? The Fediverse is very much a social experiment as well as a technological one. Just like users can follow, block and mute each other, so too can instances. This means that operators can effectively decide which instances (and by extension users) their users can interact with.

The major innovation of the Fediverse is the creation of a website that isn’t PvP, but team deathmach instead.

Can you be banned from the Fediverse?

There is no mechanism to prevent an individual from using federated social media, but there are absolutely many mechanisms that impact reach and accessibility. Instance operators, especially those of larger instances, can have a huge impact. While can wield a significant amount of power over the network, that power is not absolute. You can be banned from particular instances, and those instances can ban instances that host you.

This may sound like it defeats the purpose of using decentralized social media for censorship resistance. The lack of a single unified network has its own advantages and disadvantages. Due to the decentralized, but also fragmented nature of the Fediverse, it is impossible to be banned from the entire network.

Account bans

If you join a fediverse instance, you are a guest on someone else’s infrastructure. This is very similar to the deal Big Tech offers you when you create an account. The benefit of choosing the Fediverse over Big Tech is that hopefully, your instance administration can be more reasonable than Big Tech. That’s likely not a high bar at all, but there will inevitably be times where they disappoint.

Your account on a particular instance can be banned just like any other online service. In this scenario, you’re perfectly able to join a new instance that aligns with you, or setup your own. Setting up your own instance involves non-trivial work and resources, including maintenance costs. The good news is that most fediverse software supports mechanisms to export your follows and follower lists, so you are not strictly ‘starting from scratch’ when you are banned or simply migrate instance hosts.

The critical detail is to recognize that an account ban is merely removal from a particular instance. You’re still able to join another instance that’s even running the same software, such as Mastodon. In general, instance administrators only have control over the community they provide infrastructure for.

Instance bans

Of course, the natural solution to the above problem is to run your own fediverse infrastructure. By procuring your own system, you can operate on your own terms. While this solves many problems, it won’t solve all of them. Other instances, with often sizable user counts can block your instance. This is due to the biggest difference between decentralized and centralized social media. In centralized social media association is not interpreted as endorsement or approval. On decentralized networks, association is something you can be punished for. Your instance can be blocked by others who wish to ‘protect’ their users from either your content, or content of those associated with you.

There are many valid reasons for all-out instance blocks. Spam is a problem for both centralized and decentralized networks, and needs to be fought accordingly. Different jurisdictions have different requirements for removing illegal material, so every instance is likely to have slightly different policies and practices when it comes to such material. This means that there are more than just technical costs of running an instance, but there are also legal and social risks to consider. In our highly polarized times, people struggle to get along well over the Internet. Not all disagreements are handled nicely. Due to the “hub and spoke” nature of the Fediverse, ‘dogpiling’ is arguably no less prevalent than on centralized networks. The difference is that now there are more opportunities for conflict.

One way to manage these risks has been the proliferation of curated blocklists. It’s certainly a lot easier to be put on those lists than to get off them. This means that truly independent or otherwise unpopular instances must effectively rebuild their own federation outside the more “mainstream counterparts”. This bifurcation creates particular social dynamics that leave both sides arguably much worse off. The solution to this problem is for more responsibly run instances to exist. Your instance doesn’t need absolute federation with the entire network, it just needs interested people to connect with. Larger communities investing in their own instances to provide the platform is a viable approach to tackle this problem.

Nostr fixes this?

A popular approach to this problem is to simply use nostr instead of federated social media (though they can overlap). Using encryption as identity nostr mitigates the problem of account bans by separating users from particular relays (servers). The instance blocking problem is also resolved a bit, because much of the interactions involving relays are done client-side.

The significant downside of nostr’s approach is that not only is there no such thing as a global coherent state, but that it’s difficult to have one at all. The best way to ensure you don’t miss any notifications or interactions is to run your own nostr relay, but this can be impacted by all the same troubles a fediverse instance can have. That said, Ditto is an interesting project that provides a nostr relay and its own fediverse bridge. Providing a viable platform for those interested in both Nostr and the fediverse.

Freedom isn’t free

In a time where governments and corporations are restricting the Internet at a breakneck pace, it is vital to take an active role in preserving our digital freedoms. Free speech online isn’t something a billionaire can buy for you. You can’t rely on governments to protect it, and legislation will be insufficient to safeguard it. If we want a robust and valuable ‘digital town square, we need to work diligently to construct it. This is well outside the scope of what an individual can accomplish, but many hands make light work. it is absolutely achievable to radically transform the web with enough independent technical skill and resources.

The fight for online freedom relies on people actually feeling it. Those trapped on big tech corporate sites aren’t going to invest in a future that never felt real in the first place. It is our role as cyber rebels to do what we can to bring digital freedom to others, not to abandon the public to their foolishness. The public inherits the digital landscape we tolerate, and forgets the solutions that aren’t supported. Cyber rebels need to consider how to reclaim territory in cyberspace not just for themselves, but for others as well. This requires assessing various solutions as they are, not strictly how we’d like them to be.

Since at least 2020, online censorship has accelerated and people have become more pessimistic about the future of the web as a whole. This is naturally understandable. If we want a better digital future we have to not just work towards it, but share it with others. This requires seriously evaluating the problems as they exist, not as we would like them to be. If building a better technological future was cheaper, more convenient, and easier to work with, it would be done already. It is always going to take dedicated independent effort to preserve digital freedom and that work is precious. Giving up on digital freedom has profound consequences. Things are far too inter-twined to abandon IRL rights for digital ones or vice-versa. It is high time we recognize the common causes of not just wishing for a better technological landscape, but actually working towards putting it into practice.

Sharing is caring!

Please send this post to anyone you think might be interested.
If you haven't already, don't forget to bookmark this site!
You can always subscribe with the RSS feed or get posts sent to your inbox via Substack.