tchncs

Non-commercial social networks

characteristics, heterogeneity and threats




This text is an introduction to non-commercial social networks. It is divided into three sections. In the first, we present the main characteristics of these networks; in the second, we comment on the heterogeneity of thoughts and positions in this field; in the third, we describe a certain context of threats affecting such networks.

Characteristics _______________

We call a non-commercial social network a social network that is free software, that is decentralized, federated and that allows its sites (“instances”) to operate on a non-profit basis.

Yes, there are social networks like this; several of them; for years. What's more, they are connected to each other, forming a large network of social networks. You create an account on one of these networks and you can communicate, be in contact with people who have accounts on networks other than the one you use. And, as the social network sites are not for profit, these networks don't do those things that commercial networks do.

Non-commercial social networks also have their problems and difficulties (of a very different nature – as we shall see – to those presented by commercial networks). But they don't want to make you buy things, they don't negatively affect your mental health, they don't disrespect your privacy and they don't want to get you hooked. Once you know how they work – after reading this text – you'll be able to decide whether you're interested in trying out this other form of online sociability.

/////////////////////////////

From 2008 onwards, decentralized and federated free software social networks began to be created on the Internet:

1. Free software – the social network software is open source (it can be examined by anyone interested – professional programmers, amateurs and auditing organizations – which allows it to be public knowledge how the social network works technically, including its algorithms) and can also be modified and redistributed by anyone – who can then relaunch the (modified) software as a new, different social network). This is possible precisely because the software has a free software license.

2. Decentralization – the social network does not have a single or central site (but tens, hundreds or thousands of sites) and its general operation is not determined by a single person, but, in a diverse and heterogeneous way, by many people, each of whom independently manages, customizes and defines the rules of conduct for a site (or “instance”) of the network. This means that anyone with sufficient technical knowledge can create and independently administer a social network site.

3. Federation – the social network uses one or more communication protocols that enable its sites (“instances”) to communicate with other sites in the same social network and also with sites in other social networks that use the same protocols.

Over the years, the set of social networks that have these three characteristics has been dubbed the fediverse (a fusion of the words federation and universe). Social networks that are interconnected through the use of the same communication protocols are said to be “part of” the fediverse.

In general – and crucially – in addition to the three characteristics above, these social networks differ from commercial social networks in that they are not companies, do not have an owner (or overall control) and are not for profit. These networks also don't exist as single entities, as they are made up of several independent instances (sites) that communicate with each other. Each instance is maintained financially by the person (or group) who manages it, often with voluntary contributions from people who have an account on the instance. The network software does not collect personal data from participants or track them; there is no advertising; there are no algorithms showing you boosted content or failing to show you things you want to see (these things are known because these are free software networks, and therefore open source). So you could say that if they have all the characteristics we've mentioned so far, they are non-commercial social networks.

Each of the dozens of social networks that “belong” to the fediverse was usually created by a different person (but there are exceptions). Although (almost) all of them can communicate with each other, they have different characteristics and features. Some are very similar in this sense, while others differ greatly, as they not only have very different features and resources, but also a much larger number of them.

You may be surprised not to have heard of non-commercial social networks before. This is because these networks are not companies and do not advertise – 1) to do so would be to throw money away, since they do not generate revenue; 2) the people who manage the instances often have no interest in the instance becoming too crowded (as this makes it difficult to moderate posts and increases the costs of maintaining and hosting the instance, which are often only paid for by these people); 3) news outlets often have no interest in publicizing non-commercial media projects; 4) commercial social networks often prohibit (or do not distribute) posts with links or mentions of non-commercial social networks.

The communication protocol used by most social networks in the fediverse is called ActivityPub. Most of the networks in the fediverse use only this communication protocol, while some networks use more than one protocol, thus extending their connection capacity. (Some of the other protocols used by non-commercial social networks: Zot, Nomad, Diaspora. There are also protocols used by decentralized instant messaging networks: XMPP, Matrix).

Some relevant and interesting facts:

Despite being technically heterogeneous social networks, the fediverse networks had, until June 2023, been emerging, evolving, connecting and relating to each other in relative harmony, which was something really surprising, considering the different visions of their developers (and the disagreements that have occurred in the past).

Note: I've used/experienced these social networks (from the field commented on here): Akkoma, Firefish, Forte, Friendica, Hubzilla, Mastodon, Misskey, Mitra, Nostr, Pixelfed, Pleroma and (streams). And, based on this experience, today I use Hubzilla, (streams) and Forte.

Heterogeneity _______________

One of the consequences of the freedom of this social networking system is that there is no agreed technical (functional) definition of the fediverse. The term, which is just a nickname, is a disputed word, and is defined in several different ways by different actors in the fediverse, who try to offer a definition that most closely aligns with their own personal vision of what the fediverse is and/or with their wishes for its future configurations (it is constantly evolving). In these various definitions, we find some positions defended in some of them and denied or not supported in others. Here are some of them, which have even become clearer recently and which characterize the heterogeneity of thoughts and positions of people involved with the fediverse in various ways:

a) The fediverse is made up only of free software social networks;

b) The fediverse is made up only of social networks that use the ActivityPub protocol (and/or communicate with it);

c) The fediverse is free of personal data mining and advertising (even if not targeted at specific people);

d) A fediverse social network must necessarily offer decentralization and federation.

In July 2023, an event occurred that shook that relative harmony between the networks of the fediverse and, for some, put it in great danger. This event was the announcement by Meta that it would be creating a new social network called Threads and that it would soon have the implementation of the ActivityPub protocol as a distinguishing feature, thus being able to connect to the fediverse's social networks. Reactions to this announcement were swift, vigorous and very different, but can be grouped into two groups: those who viewed this initiative with concern and as an existential threat, given the company's long history of disrespect (and who, as administrators of instances of the fediverse, decided to block communication with the Threads network); and those who liked the initiative – and even celebrated it (which caused astonishment among many participants in the fediverse). This polarized reaction is another sign of the heterogeneity of perspectives we find in the fediverse.

Now, Threads is not a free software network (it is closed source, i.e. it doesn't work transparently); it doesn't offer (nor did it say it would) decentralization (the possibility of anyone being able to manage, as they wish, a site (instance) of the network); and, without decentralization, the prospect of federation is only with the single Threads site. What's more, in the month since it opened, Threads has announced that it collects a lot of personal data (and network activity) from people on other networks in the fediverse who connect to Threads users – or who allow Threads users to follow them or interact with their “content”. This was the announcement made by Meta in July 2023:

Information From Third Party Services and Users: We collect information about the Third Party Services and Third Party Users who interact with Threads. If you interact with Threads through a Third Party Service (such as by following Threads users, interacting with Threads content, or by allowing Threads users to follow you or interact with your content), we collect information about your third-party account and profile (such as your username, profile picture, IP address, and the name of the Third Party Service on which you are registered), your content (such as when you allow Threads users to follow, like, reshare, or have mentions in your posts), and your interactions (such as when you follow, like, reshare, or have mentions in Threads posts).

Threads can say that it uses the ActivityPub protocol; and it can even try to sell the idea that it is “part of” the fediverse. But unlike other networks in the fediverse, Threads cannot say that it is a non-commercial social network.

Note: many people (who do not live in European Union countries) are not aware that Threads has not been authorized by the European Union to operate there, simply because its actions to collect users' personal data, which are even more extensive than those practiced by other commercial social networks in that group, violate the data protection and privacy laws of the citizens of that economic bloc.

Threats _______________

Even against this backdrop, we have recently seen some people in positions of influence in the fediverse showing themselves to be in favor of the arrival and connection with Threads, and even the beginning of the use of advertising (!) on fediverse networks, as well as interaction between “brands” (that's right, companies...) and fediverse participants.

I consider these perspectives to be very divergent from what the fediverse initially envisioned as its future, and I think that these movements could be the beginning of a process of disintegration of a positive public image (and of a certain technical functioning) that the fediverse had been arduously and with few resources building up over the years. Many believe that Threads' aim is to make it impossible for the fediverse to grow (and become visible) as it has been constituted for 15 years (i.e. made up of decentralized and federated free software networks). And that, since the fediverse cannot be bought (due to the free software licenses of its networks) or entirely destroyed (since these networks are resilient thanks to the independence of decentralization and the use of other communication protocols besides ActivityPub), the current strategy of “approximation” and partial connection would serve to stifle the growth of the fediverse (as Threads and its advertising machine appropriate this term), as well as making money by mining the data of many people who have made the choice to distance themselves from commercial networks and their abuses.

In any case, a certain context of crisis in the fediverse – different from previous crises – can be perceived from a few months ago. This context stems precisely from the existence of different visions and preferences that different groups of people in the fediverse have in relation to its functioning. Returning to the positions defended – a), b), c), d) – and mentioned above, we recognize the following groups of people present in the fediverse, among others:

and also...

  • e) Those who consider “interoperability” (the ability to connect/communicate (totally or partially) between networks) to be the main characteristic to be pursued (even at the expense of other areas, such as privacy, the quality of the forms of interaction and the non-commercial exploitation of participants). (At present, interoperability often occurs imperfectly between networks);
  • f) Those who reject certain forms of online behavior that have become established as part of the culture of certain social networks (examples: excessive searching for visibility; valuing (and seeking to increase) the number of followers; lack of interest in what their contacts post; little or no production of posts with their own content; tendency towards egocentrism and/or aggressiveness).

    • We also see movements like:

    /////////////////////////////

    Given the recent consolidation of this mosaic of positions, demands, events and observations, I believe it is important to recognize that:

    1) What is called the “fediverse” today (in 2025) is best understood and described as made up of non-commercial social networks as well as commercial social networks (which already inform participants in non-commercial networks of the scope of some of their actions);

    2) People in fediverse communities are beginning to resign themselves to the current state of fragmentation of the visions that make up the fediverse – and, as a consequence, the very use (and usefulness) of the term “fediverse” is beginning to be questioned or abandoned, since it can no longer represent a “relative closeness” of visions and positions, the existence of which, in the past, seemed perhaps more likely than it does now. Furthermore, the term “fediverse” seems to have become an unregistered trademark that big tech can use and exploit at will to deceive and capture new and unwary people.

    In short, the idea of a threat context in the field of the fediverse is not something that is talked about everywhere – or, perhaps, it is not talked about “loudly” everywhere. But I think it's essential to address it prominently, because I think this is also a way of protecting the field of non-commercial social networks. Consider this: for 15 years – from 2008 to 2023 – all the networks in the fediverse were non-commercial social networks. And then, in 2023, when the number of people in the fediverse began to look “attractive” (around 20 million people), and threatened to increase, commercial social networks such as Threads and Maven began to connect to the fediverse – naturally, with the aim of gaining immediate or future commercial advantage (and doing so without informing participants in the fediverse's non-commercial social networks in advance about their actions (Maven) or offering the option to opt out of these schemes (Threads). If someone doesn't recognize this kind of change in the context of the fediverse as something on the order of a threat, I believe they are either naive or in denial. Personally, I have never considered commercial networks such as Threads, Maven and Bluesky to be part of the fediverse. But, as some authors who are dedicated to describing and discussing the fediverse have started to do so, I felt it was inevitable to do so too, but in the way I do here, by drawing dividing lines between commercial and non-commercial social networks.

    [May 29, 2024] Updated: May 23, 2025

    CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 2024 Ink on Paper