I get where we are, but I think there is a lot of nuance about this - between a policed community and a totally anarchist one (where everyone is the police). The later you prob see as that instantly & whims of the masses guided by populism.
A bit like irl in a public square. It def depends on the state laws & enforcement (sever & community mods), and the people who frequent the square (“association”?), but most of behaviour is provided by the people. What they talk and agree is theirs.
I get that server owners “are paying” (that’s why I believe such communities/instances should be powered by donations, I think my previous home lemm.ee was), but they don’t create content. And curating content (beyond a fixed set of rules everyone has access to upfront) by curating users is a bit like playing with AI (add a bit of this, ups a bit too much of that, etc).
That’s why folk believe (I think rightfully) even a community on Reddit or Twatter is the users, not the mods. Like, you can adopt someone, house then, even ban disown, yet you don’t own them & their work isn’t yours. You do it bcs you want that in your life or want that for others.
I get what you’re saying, and I even sympathize with it. I would love a true public square owned by the commons—something where people’s conversations aren’t at the mercy of whoever happens to run the machine.
But that’s not how Lemmy, Mastodon, Misskey, or any of the current platforms work. These systems are hierarchical by design. They require admins, they require mods, and everyone else becomes “users.” That’s not a public square, that’s tenancy.
Even donations don’t change that. If the admin holds the keys, they hold the power. Look at lemm.ee—did the community there want to be wiped out overnight? Of course not. But the admin pulled the plug, and that was the end of it. That’s the architecture working as designed.
If we really want a public square, then we have to stop talking about “users.” There should only be peers. And that means each person owning their own node, not donating their content to someone else’s server and hoping they’ll be benevolent forever.
That’s the uncomfortable truth: until the design itself changes, we don’t have commons. We have hierarchies dressed up in populist rhetoric, and every user is just one admin’s decision away from disappearing.
I feel like you are arguing two extremes and nothing in between.
I’m arguing a community is possible within a prison population. And these communities are moderated yet still not owned by the prison (even if the prisoners might be, or even get executed, or punished, isolated, removed, etc).
I don’t know who is saying social networks aren’t hieratical in nature or where that idea would come from.
Or what is wrong with that. Only in a perfect anarchy would peers moderate themselves. And most folk aren’t anarchists (in the sense they don’t want to police their peers or actively contribute to values & their upkeep & evolution).
On one side you’ve got pure authoritarianism—admins as unchecked rulers. On the other side you’ve got utopian anarchy—peers moderating themselves with no hierarchy. I’m not in either camp.
What I’m pointing out is the middle: these platforms are hierarchical by design. That means admins do hold systemic power, but it also means admins have responsibility for how that power is exercised. My stance is simply to acknowledge that reality instead of pretending hierarchy doesn’t exist.
Selective federation is part of that. It’s not about isolation or domination—it’s about setting clear boundaries for what I’m willing to host and connect with, while still participating in the broader network. Users still have choices. They can join another server or start their own. That’s federation working as intended.
So this isn’t an extreme position. It’s the pragmatic one: take responsibility for the space you run, be upfront about the structure, and don’t pretend current software is something it isn’t.
I think everybody thinks every social platform is very hierarchical and fairly authoritarian - simply bcs there isn’t enough “mods” to form services (like lawyers, law/rule writers and interpreters, etc).
If there is one mod that bans me for an unwritten rule I don’t go to the equivalent of a supreme court & get them to acknowledge that the rule at the time wasn’t written, that it has to be written now (if approved by the state/owner).
If that is all one person it’s just fully autocratic.
And even if that is 10 people it’s still very much the same (best case they can review/talk about my case between themselves). You can’t have a normal community at scales that would even allow for more than this.
Also, afaik there are no tendencies to move such systems to more democratic (eg mass voting on rules that is triggered if the petition collects 1000 signatures) or more anarchic (calling for peers instead of mods when “a rule” is being broken) ones.
![[Update] AtomicPoet has deleted the piefed.social communities where he was the sole moderator (!movies@piefed.social being the exception). Content is still available, details in the linked post](https://lazysoci.al/pictrs/image/cb7c5a29-e297-41a8-bde5-698ba205c3fd.png){kind=link}
I get where we are, but I think there is a lot of nuance about this - between a policed community and a totally anarchist one (where everyone is the police). The later you prob see as that instantly & whims of the masses guided by populism.
A bit like irl in a public square. It def depends on the state laws & enforcement (sever & community mods), and the people who frequent the square (“association”?), but most of behaviour is provided by the people. What they talk and agree is theirs.
I get that server owners “are paying” (that’s why I believe such communities/instances should be powered by donations, I think my previous home lemm.ee was), but they don’t create content. And curating content (beyond a fixed set of rules everyone has access to upfront) by curating users is a bit like playing with AI (add a bit of this, ups a bit too much of that, etc).
That’s why folk believe (I think rightfully) even a community on Reddit or Twatter is the users, not the mods. Like, you can adopt someone, house then, even
bandisown, yet you don’t own them & their work isn’t yours. You do it bcs you want that in your life or want that for others.I get what you’re saying, and I even sympathize with it. I would love a true public square owned by the commons—something where people’s conversations aren’t at the mercy of whoever happens to run the machine.
But that’s not how Lemmy, Mastodon, Misskey, or any of the current platforms work. These systems are hierarchical by design. They require admins, they require mods, and everyone else becomes “users.” That’s not a public square, that’s tenancy.
Even donations don’t change that. If the admin holds the keys, they hold the power. Look at lemm.ee—did the community there want to be wiped out overnight? Of course not. But the admin pulled the plug, and that was the end of it. That’s the architecture working as designed.
If we really want a public square, then we have to stop talking about “users.” There should only be peers. And that means each person owning their own node, not donating their content to someone else’s server and hoping they’ll be benevolent forever.
That’s the uncomfortable truth: until the design itself changes, we don’t have commons. We have hierarchies dressed up in populist rhetoric, and every user is just one admin’s decision away from disappearing.
I feel like you are arguing two extremes and nothing in between.
I’m arguing a community is possible within a prison population. And these communities are moderated yet still not owned by the prison (even if the prisoners might be, or even get executed, or punished, isolated, removed, etc).
I don’t know who is saying social networks aren’t hieratical in nature or where that idea would come from.
Or what is wrong with that. Only in a perfect anarchy would peers moderate themselves. And most folk aren’t anarchists (in the sense they don’t want to police their peers or actively contribute to values & their upkeep & evolution).
I’m not arguing for extremes at all.
On one side you’ve got pure authoritarianism—admins as unchecked rulers. On the other side you’ve got utopian anarchy—peers moderating themselves with no hierarchy. I’m not in either camp.
What I’m pointing out is the middle: these platforms are hierarchical by design. That means admins do hold systemic power, but it also means admins have responsibility for how that power is exercised. My stance is simply to acknowledge that reality instead of pretending hierarchy doesn’t exist.
Selective federation is part of that. It’s not about isolation or domination—it’s about setting clear boundaries for what I’m willing to host and connect with, while still participating in the broader network. Users still have choices. They can join another server or start their own. That’s federation working as intended.
So this isn’t an extreme position. It’s the pragmatic one: take responsibility for the space you run, be upfront about the structure, and don’t pretend current software is something it isn’t.
Being upfront & clear is a big part of it.
I think everybody thinks every social platform is very hierarchical and fairly authoritarian - simply bcs there isn’t enough “mods” to form services (like lawyers, law/rule writers and interpreters, etc).
If there is one mod that bans me for an unwritten rule I don’t go to the equivalent of a supreme court & get them to acknowledge that the rule at the time wasn’t written, that it has to be written now (if approved by the state/owner).
If that is all one person it’s just fully autocratic.
And even if that is 10 people it’s still very much the same (best case they can review/talk about my case between themselves). You can’t have a normal community at scales that would even allow for more than this.
Also, afaik there are no tendencies to move such systems to more democratic (eg mass voting on rules that is triggered if the petition collects 1000 signatures) or more anarchic (calling for peers instead of mods when “a rule” is being broken) ones.