Mastodon, the Fediverse and ActivityPub
I am conflicted about Mastodon (The Fediverse as a whole really but it's easier to understand in the context of Mastodon). On one hand, Mastodon, or a similar platform, represents what I believe to be the future of social media—a decentralized approach facilitated by protocols like ActivityPub.
ActivityPub is the protocol that enables the decentralized social network known as the Fediverse to function. It was developed by a dedicated team within the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), an organization tasked with developing protocols and guidelines to ensure the long-term growth of the web. Despite the W3C's role in shaping the internet, it has often been all but taken over by corporate interests, which raises concerns about the future direction of web standards, including those like ActivityPub.
Developed with the intention of creating a more open and interconnected online world, ActivityPub stands out for its foundation in non-corporate values, emphasizing user control, privacy, and freedom from centralized authority. However, as it gains popularity and becomes more widely adopted, there's a real risk that its development and implementation will fall under the sway of larger, corporate entities. Just as much of the rest of the W3C's work has become. This potential for co-option poses a significant challenge, threatening to compromise the very principles of decentralization and user empowerment that ActivityPub aims to uphold.
Learning from history is essential to prevent the co-option of ActivityPub by corporate interests, as has been seen with other World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) projects. The community involved with ActivityPub and decentralized web technologies needs to proactively guard the protocol's foundational principles of openness and user empowerment. Drawing on past experiences, it's clear that maintaining the independence of such protocols from large tech companies is not just important but necessary for ensuring that they continue to serve as enablers for diverse and inclusive online communities. To achieve this, a concerted effort to resist the encroachment of corporate agendas and to reinforce the protocol's commitment to decentralization and accessibility is imperative for the sustainable future of the internet.
One of my primary concerns with Mastodon is its accessibility to the average user. Currently, it demands a level of effort that alienates many, risking a future where only a select 'elite'—those with the knowledge, will or resources to navigate it—truly benefit. This sidelines the vast majority.
The dilemma with the principle of freedom of choice is that it clashes with the average user's desire for simplicity. Mastodon's core structure inherently demands that users choose among numerous instances, each with its own rules and community focus, right from the start.
This requirement is intrinsic to how Mastodon operates, making it nearly impossible to simplify the platform without compromising its foundational principles of decentralization and user autonomy. For the everyday person, like Joe Schmoe who's busy with his 9 to 5 job, the prospect of sifting through a myriad of options just to join a new social network—only to find themselves in a niche community of tech nerds and activists—can be far from appealing. This disconnect poses a significant barrier to Mastodon's broader adoption, as the platform's strength in offering choice and control deters those who seek convenience and immediacy in their online interactions.
As platforms like Mastodon gain traction, we might be witnessing the rise of a tiered social media landscape, reminiscent of a digital aristocracy. Here, a select group of users—tech enthusiasts, intellectuals, and activists—finds value in the platform's exclusivity and complexity, using it as a breeding ground for ideas before they're introduced to the wider world. These users, much like the aristocracies of old, would seek to shape the discourse that enters the broader public sphere.
In exploring the evolution of platforms like Mastodon, we find ourselves at a crossroads between the promise of decentralization and the specter of digital exclusivity. It's tempting for some to dismiss concerns about a burgeoning digital aristocracy as hyperbolic, fearing that such critiques veer into the realm of hysteria. Yet, this perspective overlooks the reality of how digital spaces evolve, shaped by both technology and human behavior. The formation of exclusive communities, whether through design or natural selection, is not a dystopian fantasy but a real outcome we've witnessed again and again across various social constructs.
Conversely, there are those who welcome it as an answer to the problems of mainstream social media. They argue that a more curated and safe environment is not only desirable but essential for meaningful discourse. This view, however valid, risks overlooking the foundational principle of the internet as a democratizing force, intended to broaden access to information and dialogue rather than constrict it.
To address both sets of concerns, we should navigate the current fragmentation of social media with care. Acknowledging the potential for Mastodon and similar platforms to cultivate a more enlightened digital commons does not require us to turn a blind eye to the risks of exclusion and elitism. Nor does concern for these risks imply a rejection of the platforms' value or potential. Instead we have the opportunity to consider how we might design and engage with these digital spaces in ways that honor their promise while guarding against their pitfalls.
We must strive for a balance that allows for the refinement and elevation of discourse without erecting barriers to entry, ensuring that the digital commons remains a space for all, not just the few. This approach does not shy away from the hard questions but instead sees them as essential to the ongoing project of building a more inclusive, thoughtful, and vibrant digital world.
In essence, while the decentralized nature of Mastodon offers a promising alternative to the corporate and data driven social media climate, it is important that its development is focused on inclusivity and resistance to corporate influence. Only then can it fulfill its potential as a tool for widespread communication and community building.