I get what youāre saying, and I even sympathize with it. I would love a true public square owned by the commonsāsomething where peopleās conversations arenāt at the mercy of whoever happens to run the machine.
But thatās 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 āusers.ā Thatās not a public square, thatās tenancy.
Even donations donāt change that. If the admin holds the keys, they hold the power. Look at lemm.eeādid 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. Thatās the architecture working as designed.
If we really want a public square, then we have to stop talking about āusers.ā There should only be peers. And that means each person owning their own node, not donating their content to someone elseās server and hoping theyāll be benevolent forever.
Thatās the uncomfortable truth: until the design itself changes, we donāt have commons. We have hierarchies dressed up in populist rhetoric, and every user is just one adminās decision away from disappearing.
I feel like you are arguing two extremes and nothing in between.
Iām 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 donāt know who is saying social networks arenāt 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 arenāt anarchists (in the sense they donāt want to police their peers or actively contribute to values & their upkeep & evolution).
On one side youāve got pure authoritarianismāadmins as unchecked rulers. On the other side youāve got utopian anarchyāpeers moderating themselves with no hierarchy. Iām not in either camp.
What Iām 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 doesnāt exist.
Selective federation is part of that. Itās not about isolation or dominationāitās about setting clear boundaries for what Iām 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. Thatās federation working as intended.
So this isnāt an extreme position. Itās the pragmatic one: take responsibility for the space you run, be upfront about the structure, and donāt pretend current software is something it isnāt.
I think everybody thinks every social platform is very hierarchical and fairly authoritarian - simply bcs there isnāt enough āmodsā to form services (like lawyers, law/rule writers and interpreters, etc).
If there is one mod that bans me for an unwritten rule I donāt go to the equivalent of a supreme court & get them to acknowledge that the rule at the time wasnāt written, that it has to be written now (if approved by the state/owner).
If that is all one person itās just fully autocratic.
And even if that is 10 people itās still very much the same (best case they can review/talk about my case between themselves). You canāt 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 āa ruleā is being broken) ones.
![[Update] AtomicPoet has deleted the piefed.social communities where he was the sole moderator ([email protected] 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 what youāre saying, and I even sympathize with it. I would love a true public square owned by the commonsāsomething where peopleās conversations arenāt at the mercy of whoever happens to run the machine.
But thatās 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 āusers.ā Thatās not a public square, thatās tenancy.
Even donations donāt change that. If the admin holds the keys, they hold the power. Look at lemm.eeādid 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. Thatās the architecture working as designed.
If we really want a public square, then we have to stop talking about āusers.ā There should only be peers. And that means each person owning their own node, not donating their content to someone elseās server and hoping theyāll be benevolent forever.
Thatās the uncomfortable truth: until the design itself changes, we donāt have commons. We have hierarchies dressed up in populist rhetoric, and every user is just one adminās decision away from disappearing.
I feel like you are arguing two extremes and nothing in between.
Iām 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 donāt know who is saying social networks arenāt 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 arenāt anarchists (in the sense they donāt want to police their peers or actively contribute to values & their upkeep & evolution).
Iām not arguing for extremes at all.
On one side youāve got pure authoritarianismāadmins as unchecked rulers. On the other side youāve got utopian anarchyāpeers moderating themselves with no hierarchy. Iām not in either camp.
What Iām 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 doesnāt exist.
Selective federation is part of that. Itās not about isolation or dominationāitās about setting clear boundaries for what Iām 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. Thatās federation working as intended.
So this isnāt an extreme position. Itās the pragmatic one: take responsibility for the space you run, be upfront about the structure, and donāt pretend current software is something it isnāt.
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 isnāt enough āmodsā to form services (like lawyers, law/rule writers and interpreters, etc).
If there is one mod that bans me for an unwritten rule I donāt go to the equivalent of a supreme court & get them to acknowledge that the rule at the time wasnāt written, that it has to be written now (if approved by the state/owner).
If that is all one person itās just fully autocratic.
And even if that is 10 people itās still very much the same (best case they can review/talk about my case between themselves). You canāt 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 āa ruleā is being broken) ones.