That stance becomes problematic when a community really grows & becomes more than the sum is it’s parts.
(I mean at bigger sizes than a few thousand active users.)
It’s a complex issue, but at some point “your” infrastructure becomes a community that itself should* be respected.
(*should isn’t the same as needs to, but I think that morally)
I appreciate that you’re raising this in good faith because it is a complex issue. But I see real problems with the idea that infrastructure becomes morally owned by the community once it gets big enough.
Unless that community is actually paying the bills, this so-called moral obligation just shifts the burden onto the one footing the costs. That doesn’t strike me as moral at all.
And online communities are transient by nature. People show up, feel invested for a while, then disappear. To act as if their fleeting sense of ownership creates a lasting obligation on the admin is unrealistic.
There’s also what Ortega y Gasset warned about in The Revolt of the Masses. When something is said to be “owned by the community,” it rarely means real stewardship. It means the mass asserts itself and the loudest voices dictate terms. That isn’t democracy. It’s populism built on top of a hierarchy.
Because if the software itself is hierarchical but claims to be “for the masses,” that isn’t democracy either. It’s a pyramid structure dressed up in populist rhetoric. The admin still has the keys. The mods still enforce. The users still depend on both.
That’s why I insist on my own server. I’d rather be upfront: I curate and maintain a space I’m willing to take responsibility for. That’s not authoritarian and it’s not populist. It’s just owning what I host instead of pretending the power structure doesn’t exist.
Yeah, the bit where the owner of infrastructure ‘owns’ the community feels super weird (bcs community are the people & what they produce, the space is the infrastructure).
But I understand what you are saying.
Yeah, I get why the word “own” makes people uneasy. There’s a sincere belief that communities should belong to the commons—that no one should control the space, that it should be shared, stewarded, collective.
I sympathize with that. I really do.
But that’s not how the software works.
Lemmy isn’t structured like a commons. Neither is Mastodon. Neither is most federated software. These platforms still rely on admins, moderators, and users. There are hierarchies, permissions, access levels. Someone has root. Someone pays the bills. Someone can click “ban.”
If you’re building a community on someone else’s server, you are doing so inside their infrastructure. And under the law, they are the legal operator and data controller. That gives them full authority—technical and legal—over the domain, the storage, the moderation tools, and the continued existence of what you built.
So yes—everything you post on Reddit, Facebook, or Twitter lives behind walls. Even if you retain copyright, you’ve handed over a perpetual license to do whatever they want with it. They own the platform. They control the archive. You’re not publishing. You’re donating.
The Fediverse is better—but let’s not pretend it’s structurally different. If you build something inside someone else’s instance, they own the keys. If they kick you out, it’s gone. That’s not a glitch. That’s the model.
If you truly want a commons—a system with no admins, no mods, no hierarchy—you need to build software that works that way. But that’s not Lemmy. Not Mastodon. Not Misskey. Not PeerTube.
In this system, the only real recourse is to run your own server. That’s where your power begins. That’s where your autonomy lives.
And that’s why I say: I want to own my community.
Because if I don’t, someone else will. And I’ve seen what happens when they do.
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}
That stance becomes problematic when a community really grows & becomes more than the sum is it’s parts.
(I mean at bigger sizes than a few thousand active users.)
It’s a complex issue, but at some point “your” infrastructure becomes a community that itself should* be respected.
(*should isn’t the same as needs to, but I think that morally)
I appreciate that you’re raising this in good faith because it is a complex issue. But I see real problems with the idea that infrastructure becomes morally owned by the community once it gets big enough.
Unless that community is actually paying the bills, this so-called moral obligation just shifts the burden onto the one footing the costs. That doesn’t strike me as moral at all.
And online communities are transient by nature. People show up, feel invested for a while, then disappear. To act as if their fleeting sense of ownership creates a lasting obligation on the admin is unrealistic.
There’s also what Ortega y Gasset warned about in The Revolt of the Masses. When something is said to be “owned by the community,” it rarely means real stewardship. It means the mass asserts itself and the loudest voices dictate terms. That isn’t democracy. It’s populism built on top of a hierarchy.
Because if the software itself is hierarchical but claims to be “for the masses,” that isn’t democracy either. It’s a pyramid structure dressed up in populist rhetoric. The admin still has the keys. The mods still enforce. The users still depend on both.
That’s why I insist on my own server. I’d rather be upfront: I curate and maintain a space I’m willing to take responsibility for. That’s not authoritarian and it’s not populist. It’s just owning what I host instead of pretending the power structure doesn’t exist.
Yeah, the bit where the owner of infrastructure ‘owns’ the community feels super weird (bcs community are the people & what they produce, the space is the infrastructure).
But I understand what you are saying.
Thx for the reply.
Yeah, I get why the word “own” makes people uneasy. There’s a sincere belief that communities should belong to the commons—that no one should control the space, that it should be shared, stewarded, collective.
I sympathize with that. I really do.
But that’s not how the software works.
Lemmy isn’t structured like a commons. Neither is Mastodon. Neither is most federated software. These platforms still rely on admins, moderators, and users. There are hierarchies, permissions, access levels. Someone has root. Someone pays the bills. Someone can click “ban.”
If you’re building a community on someone else’s server, you are doing so inside their infrastructure. And under the law, they are the legal operator and data controller. That gives them full authority—technical and legal—over the domain, the storage, the moderation tools, and the continued existence of what you built.
So yes—everything you post on Reddit, Facebook, or Twitter lives behind walls. Even if you retain copyright, you’ve handed over a perpetual license to do whatever they want with it. They own the platform. They control the archive. You’re not publishing. You’re donating.
The Fediverse is better—but let’s not pretend it’s structurally different. If you build something inside someone else’s instance, they own the keys. If they kick you out, it’s gone. That’s not a glitch. That’s the model.
If you truly want a commons—a system with no admins, no mods, no hierarchy—you need to build software that works that way. But that’s not Lemmy. Not Mastodon. Not Misskey. Not PeerTube.
In this system, the only real recourse is to run your own server. That’s where your power begins. That’s where your autonomy lives.
And that’s why I say: I want to own my community.
Because if I don’t, someone else will. And I’ve seen what happens when they do.
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.