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 ([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’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.