Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

A Herd of Young Mastodonts: the User-Centered Footprints of Newcomers After Twitter Acquisition

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that Mastodon users' interaction networks form the same layered, Dunbar-style circles found on older platforms, with a scaling ratio of about three between layers.

desk verdict First Dunbar-style ego network study on Mastodon with a solid activity analysis, but the scaling-ratio claim is overstated relative to the paper's own tables. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.16383 v1 pith:ZSW2LFWN submitted 2024-12-20 cs.SI

Francesco Di Cursi , Chiara Boldrini , Andrea Passarella , Marco Conti This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.SI
keywords MastodonegonetworksDunbar'snumbersocialcirclesFediversesnowballsamplingMeanshiftclusteringdecentralizedonline
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper sets out to show that even a young, decentralized social network like Mastodon organizes users' relationships into the same layered circles that have been found in offline social life and in older platforms like Twitter and Facebook. By analyzing direct interactions among roughly two thousand users who joined Mastodon after the 2022 Twitter acquisition, the authors find that most egos have four or five concentric circles of alters, with each outer circle about three times larger than the one inside it, in line with Dunbar's ego-network model. The smaller-than-canonical outer layers are interpreted as a sign of a network still forming, with weaker ties not yet fully built. If accepted, this makes Mastodon a workable open 'big data microscope' for studying human social behavior now that Twitter's API is no longer freely available.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Dunbar ego network, a model where each individual (ego) has concentric circles of alters grouped by interaction frequency, with canonical sizes $1.5, 5, 15, 50, 150$ and a scaling ratio of about $3$. The paper constructs these networks from Mastodon interaction data, filters out alters contacted less than once per year or for less than six months, and then applies the Meanshift clustering algorithm (a non-parametric density-mode finder) to the annual contact frequencies so that the number of circles emerges without being forced. This pipeline yields the circle counts, layer sizes, and scaling ratios that the analysis compares against the canonical model.

What would settle it

Re-run the extraction starting from several unrelated seeds on different instances and with a larger stopping threshold; if the modal circle count and the between-circle scaling ratio depart markedly from 4-5 circles and a ratio near $3$, the claim that Mastodon ego networks are canonically Dunbar-like would be falsified. A second falsifier is to apply the identical pipeline to pre-acquisition Aficionados: if their outer layers are just as underfilled as the newcomers', the 'young network' interpretation would lose its footing.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that ego networks on Mastodon—built from directed toots, replies, mentions, and boosts—exhibit the Dunbar-layered structure: a small number of social circles (most commonly 4 or 5) whose average alter counts increase by a factor close to $3$ from inner to outer circles, comparable to what has been measured on early Twitter and Facebook. The paper also finds that the active ego-network size is close to Dunbar's number (about 150 alters contacted at least once a year), while the full alter count is larger, and that external layers are comparatively underfilled, which it reads as evidence of young, still-developing networks among post-acquisition users.

Load-bearing premise

The sample is one snowball connected component started from a single early, highly active user on mastodon.social, and the paper assumes this component is representative of Mastodon's overall newcomer population.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Mastodon can stand in for Twitter as an open platform for ego-network research, since its data come from a free public API.
  • Because the outer layers are underfilled, a replication in a few years should show circles growing toward the canonical 50 and 150 alters if the network matures.
  • The dominance of direct communication among post-acquisition users suggests that Mastodon is sustaining genuine social interaction rather than one-way broadcasting.
  • The successful extraction of Dunbar layers from Mastodon data opens the way to applying the same pipeline to other decentralized platforms, including Bluesky, which the authors name as a next step.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Since the snowball sample grows from a single seed on mastodon.social, the reported structure may reflect that seed's local community; testing with multiple independent seeds on different instances would establish whether the 'young network' picture holds platform-wide.
  • The claim that weak ties need time to stabilise implies a testable prediction: for a fixed cohort, the sizes of the outer circles should grow relative to the inner ones across successive observation windows.
  • The paper excludes the pre-acquisition 'Aficionados' from the ego-network analysis; comparing their layers with the newcomers' would show whether the underfilled outer circles are specific to post-acquisition growth or common to all Mastodon users.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes user-to-user directed interactions on Mastodon after the Twitter/X acquisition, using a snowball sample of roughly 2,000 egos from a single seed on mastodon.social. For the post-acquisition active user group, it constructs ego networks by clustering alter contact frequencies with the Meanshift algorithm and reports the number of layers, layer sizes, scaling ratios, and contact frequencies. The central claim is that Mastodon ego networks are compatible with the canonical Dunbar model, with a preponderance of 4 and 5 circles and a scaling ratio of about 3 across layers. The paper also interprets smaller outer layers and higher outer-layer ratios as signs of a 'young' social network. It concludes that Mastodon, with its open API, is a viable replacement for studying human social behavior.

Significance. If the central claim were fully supported, the paper would establish Mastodon as a convenient laboratory for validating the Dunbar ego-network model in a decentralized, open platform. The work is among the first to apply the Dunbar ego-network pipeline to Mastodon and contributes a large, publicly obtainable dataset of directed interactions. The methodology follows a well-established pipeline from the authors' prior work, which is a strength for comparability. However, the headline compatibility claim is currently overstated relative to the paper's own Table VII, and the single-seed snowball sample limits how far the results can be generalized to Mastodon as a whole. These issues are load-bearing for the paper's main conclusion, though they are addressable with a more measured claim and additional analysis.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section VII, Table VII] The statement that 'the scaling ratio is frequently close to 3' is not supported by the data in Table VII. For 4-circle ego networks the ratios are 2.85, 2.95, and 4.41; for 5-circle networks they are 2.48, 2.13, 2.64, and 4.75; for 6-circle networks they are 2.27, 1.81, 1.85, 2.78, and 5.91. Only a minority of the entries are near 3, and the outermost-layer ratio is consistently 4.4-5.9. Because the '~3 scaling ratio' is half of the compatibility claim made in Section I, this mismatch is load-bearing. The authors should either revise the claim to state that inner-layer ratios are typically 1.8-3.0 while the outermost ratio is systematically larger in this young population, or provide a statistical test (e.g., confidence intervals for the mean ratios) showing that the ratios are consistent with 3 after accounting for variability.
  2. [Section IV] The sample is a single snowball component starting from one 'random user highly active in the first years of Mastodon' on mastodon.social, with active alters prioritized and collection stopping at 2,000 users. The paper acknowledges that 'all collected users belong to the same connected component.' This design assumes that one component is representative of Mastodon as a whole, which is a strong assumption given prior evidence of instance-level heterogeneity (e.g., Zignani et al., ref [25], and La Cava et al.). Because the central claim is about Mastodon generally, the manuscript should either add a sensitivity analysis with multiple seeds from different instances and communities, or explicitly restrict the conclusions to the studied component and explain why the single-component generalization is still justified.
  3. [Section VI-B and Section V-B] The interpretation of 'young ego networks' rests on the premise that external layers take longer to stabilize, but the analysis does not test this explanation against alternatives. In particular, the preprocessing filters (alters contacted at least twice with annual frequency >1, and relationships lasting at least six months) will disproportionately censor the outer layers because those layers have low contact frequency and may include relationships shorter than six months within the ~1.5-year observation window. The observed smaller outer layers and larger outermost scaling ratio could be artifacts of these filters rather than a universal property of young networks. The authors should quantify how the filter thresholds affect the layer sizes and scaling ratios, for example by varying the six-month threshold and the annual frequency cutoff in a robustness check.
  4. [Tables V-VII] All reported layer sizes, scaling ratios, and contact frequencies are simple averages over egos within each circle-count group. The paper does not provide standard deviations, confidence intervals, or a test for whether the observed values differ significantly from the canonical Dunbar values (1.5, 5, 15, 50, 150). Without such statistics, it is difficult to assess whether the observed differences (e.g., inner layers around 1.2-1.4 instead of 1.5, or outer layers around 77 instead of 150) are meaningful. Adding per-group distributions or error bars would materially strengthen the compatibility claim.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Table VII] The column headers '3/4', '4/5', and '6/5' appear to be typographical inversions of '4/3', '5/4', and '6/5'; if so, they should be corrected because the values in the table correspond to a ratio larger than 1 for the outermost layers.
  2. [Section V-B] The condition 'Cij >= 2 and Fij > 1' is redundant in some timing configurations but not in others (e.g., two contacts over a two-year period give Fij = 1). The text would benefit from an explicit statement of how Fij is computed from Cij and the observation window.
  3. [Section VI-B] The references to 'Figures VI-B and VI-B' in the text describing Figure 4 are placeholders that should be replaced with the actual figure panel labels.
  4. [Section IV] The description of the initial seed as a 'random user highly active in the first years of Mastodon' should specify how the random selection was performed; if the seed was manually chosen or convenience-selected, that should be stated.
  5. [Section III] The paper claims that no prior work has analyzed Mastodon ego networks, but the text immediately acknowledges one prior study that used a graph-theoretic definition. The novelty statement should be sharpened to emphasize the distinction from the Dunbar ego-network model rather than claiming no prior ego-network study exists.
  6. [Section VI-A] The 'Others2' group is defined as users active only after the acquisition, but this includes users who joined months or years later, not only those who migrated in the immediate post-acquisition wave. The term 'newcomers' in the title should be interpreted accordingly, or the analysis could be refined by cohort.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the self-cited pipeline and 'young network' framing are not load-bearing; the Mastodon layer sizes and ratios are new empirical outputs.

full rationale

The derivation chain is: collect Mastodon interactions via snowball sampling; compute per-alter annual contact frequencies; apply activity filters (>=2 contacts, >1 contact/year, relationship lasting >=6 months); cluster frequencies with Meanshift using an auto-optimized bandwidth; average the resulting cluster sizes; compute scaling ratios; and compare with the canonical Dunbar values in Table III and with prior Facebook/Twitter results. No parameter is fitted to the target Dunbar claim: the number of circles, layer sizes, and ratios are outputs of the clustering, not inputs constrained to equal 1.5/5/15/50/150 or a ratio of 3. The once-per-year active threshold is inherited from the external Dunbar literature, but the observed mean of about 153 active alters is an empirical measurement, not a logical consequence of that threshold. The self-citations to [2], [4], [5], and [23] do supply the preprocessing pipeline, the Meanshift choice, and the comparative 'young network' interpretation, but those works are published, externally checkable, and do not force the Mastodon measurements to match the canonical structure. The 'young' label is also independently supported by the short observation window and by Mastodon's objective recency, not solely by self-citation. Thus no step reduces by construction, by fitted input renamed as prediction, or by a self-citation chain to the paper's central compatibility claim. The concern that Table VII's ratios are often not close to 3 is a correctness/evidence issue, not a circularity issue.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a set of parameter choices and domain assumptions that are largely imported from the authors' prior ego network papers. The free parameters are not fitted to the data in the usual sense, but they are manually chosen thresholds that materially affect the reported layer sizes and scaling ratios. The axioms are domain assumptions about the meaning of online interactions and the universality of Dunbar's model, plus an ad hoc stabilization assumption used to explain the deviant outer layer.

free parameters (4)
  • Active alter threshold = Cij >= 2 and Fij > 1
    Alters with fewer than two interactions or less than one interaction per year are discarded, which directly shapes the ego network size and the number of circles found by Meanshift.
  • Relationship duration threshold = 6 months
    Only relationships lasting at least six months are retained, following prior literature. This filter preferentially keeps established ties and may bias the layer sizes upward or downward depending on the platform's age.
  • Post-acquisition user group (Others2) = 1534 users
    The ego network analysis is restricted to users who became active only after the Twitter acquisition, which is a deliberate selection that affects the 'young network' interpretation and the observed layer sizes.
  • Snowball stopping cap = 2000 users
    The snowball collection stops at 2000 users all in the same connected component, limiting the representativeness of the sample and affecting all downstream statistics.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Interaction frequency on Mastodon (replies, mentions, boosts) is a valid proxy for tie strength and cognitive effort.
    The paper computes annual contact frequency Fij from directed toots and uses it as the input to Meanshift clustering. This assumes that these platform-specific actions reflect the same social closeness as offline communication frequency.
  • domain assumption Dunbar's ego network model, originally calibrated on offline communication, applies to online interactions and to Mastodon users.
    The entire comparison in Section VII relies on the validity of the layered Dunbar model, including its layer sizes and scaling ratios, as a universal benchmark for human social networks.
  • standard math Meanshift clustering on annual contact frequencies reveals the natural social circles without forcing a predetermined number of layers.
    The convergence of Meanshift is a known mathematical result, but the paper assumes that the modes found by the algorithm correspond to meaningful social circles rather than artifacts of the frequency distribution.
  • ad hoc to paper The external layers of ego networks take longer to stabilize, so a young platform should show smaller outer layers and higher scaling ratios.
    This assumption is used to explain why the outermost layer scaling ratio is much larger than 3 (4.75 to 5.91). It is drawn from the authors' prior work and is not independently tested here.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Herd of Young Mastodonts: the User-Centered Footprints of Newcomers After Twitter Acquisition." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZSW2LFWN

@misc{pith2026241216383,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Herd of Young Mastodonts: the User-Centered Footprints of Newcomers After Twitter Acquisition},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZSW2LFWN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.16383}
}
read the original abstract

The tremendous success of major Online Social Networks (OSNs) platforms has raised increasing concerns about negative phenomena, such as mass control, fake news, and echo chambers. In addition, the increasingly strict control over users' data by platform owners questions their trustworthiness as open interaction tools. These trends and, notably, the recent drastic change in X (formerly Twitter) policies and data accessibility through public APIs, have fuelled significant migration of users towards Fediverse platforms (primarily Mastodon). In this work, we provide an initial analysis of the microscopic properties of Mastodon users' social structures. Specifically, according to the Ego network model, we analyse interaction patterns between a large set of users (egos) and the other users they interact with (alters) to characterise the properties of those users' ego networks. As was observed previously in other OSNs, we found a quite regular structure compatible with the reference Dunbar's Ego Network model. Quite interestingly, our results show clear signs of ego network formation during the initial diffusion of a social networking tool, coherent with the recent surge of Mastodon activity. Therefore, our analysis motivates the use of Mastodon as an open "big data microscope" to characterise human social behaviour, making it a prime candidate to replace those OSN platforms that, unfortunately, cannot be used anymore for this purpose.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.16383 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. ). Inner circles contain closer social connections, while outer circles represent more distant ones. The social brain hypothesis from evolutionary psychology [10] suggests that these layers, limited by the Dunbar number (the maximum number of meaningful relationships an individual can main￾tain, around 150), reflect the brain’s cognitive capacity for social relationships [14], [24] [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of the user activity over time. On the left (a), the average daily activity (measured as the average number of daily toots) per user. On the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Interactions between different categories of users. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: shows user activity over time on Mastodon for users in Others2. Their lifespans, from their first toot to December 31, 2023, are aligned for comparison. The top panel (i.e., #users) depicts the number of users who posted their first toot x days before. While more than …
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: User activity vs number of alters [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Number of social circles in the Mastodon ego networks [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Number of alters per ego: (a) all alters, and (b) only active alters [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Data Ethics in the Fediverse: Analyzing the Role of Instance Policies in Mastodon Research

    cs.SI 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A systematic review of 29 Mastodon studies finds that researchers rarely engage with instance-level data policies, prompting calls for structural fixes to research ethics on the Fediverse.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

25 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [25]

    mastodon

    Zignani, M., Quadri, C., Gaito, S., Cherifi, H., Rossi, G.P.: The footprints of a “mastodon”: How a decentralized architecture influences online social relationships. In: IEEE INFOCOM WKSHPS 2019. pp. 472–477. IEEE (2019)

    work page 2019

  2. [1]

    Current anthropology 34(2), 184–193 (1993)

    Aiello, L.C., Dunbar, R.I.: Neocortex size, group size, and the evolution of language. Current anthropology 34(2), 184–193 (1993)

    work page 1993

  3. [2]

    Computer Communications 76, 26–41 (2016)

    Arnaboldi, V ., Conti, M., La Gala, M., Passarella, A., Pezzoni, F.: Ego network structure in online social networks and its impact on information diffusion. Computer Communications 76, 26–41 (2016)

    work page 2016

  4. [3]

    In: 2012 International Conference on Social Computing

    Arnaboldi, V ., Conti, M., Passarella, A., Pezzoni, F.: Analysis of ego network structure in online social networks. In: 2012 International Conference on Social Computing. pp. 31–40. IEEE (2012)

    work page 2012

  5. [4]

    Elsevier (2015)

    Arnaboldi, V ., Passarella, A., Conti, M., Dunbar, R.I.: Online social networks: human cognitive constraints in Facebook and Twitter personal graphs. Elsevier (2015)

    work page 2015

  6. [5]

    In: Companion Proceedings of the The Web Conference 2018

    Boldrini, C., Toprak, M., Conti, M., Passarella, A.: Twitter and the press: an ego-centred analysis. In: Companion Proceedings of the The Web Conference 2018. pp. 1471–1478 (2018)

    work page 2018

  7. [6]

    IEEE Transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence 24(5), 603–619 (2002)

    Comaniciu, D., Meer, P.: Mean shift: A robust approach toward feature space analysis. IEEE Transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence 24(5), 603–619 (2002)

    work page 2002

  8. [7]

    Brain and Behavior Sciences 16 (1992)

    Dunbar, R.: Co-evolution of neuro-cortex size, group size and language in humans. Brain and Behavior Sciences 16 (1992)

    work page 1992

Show all 25 references
  1. [8]

    Social Networks 43, 39–47 (2015)

    Dunbar, R., Arnaboldi, V ., Conti, M., Passarella, A.: The structure of online social networks mirrors those in the offline world. Social Networks 43, 39–47 (2015)

    2015

  2. [9]

    Journal of human evolution 22(6), 469–493 (1992)

    Dunbar, R.I.: Neocortex size as a constraint on group size in primates. Journal of human evolution 22(6), 469–493 (1992)

    1992

  3. [10]

    Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews: Issues, News, and Reviews 6(5), 178–190 (1998)

    Dunbar, R.I.: The social brain hypothesis. Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews: Issues, News, and Reviews 6(5), 178–190 (1998)

    1998

  4. [11]

    Social networks 27(1), 31–38 (2005)

    Everett, M., Borgatti, S.P.: Ego network betweenness. Social networks 27(1), 31–38 (2005)

    2005

  5. [12]

    In: Proceedings of the 2023 ACM on Internet Measurement Conference

    He, J., Zia, H.B., Castro, I., Raman, A., Sastry, N., Tyson, G.: Flocking to mastodon: Tracking the great twitter migration. In: Proceedings of the 2023 ACM on Internet Measurement Conference. pp. 111–123 (2023)

    2023

  6. [13]

    Hern, A.: Joining the herd: what’s it like moving from twitter to mastodon? The Guardian (November 2022), https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/nov/12/ joining-the-herd-whats-it-like-moving-from-twitter-to-mastodon

    2022

  7. [14]

    Human nature 14(1), 53–72 (2003)

    Hill, R.A., Dunbar, R.I.: Social network size in humans. Human nature 14(1), 53–72 (2003)

    2003

  8. [15]

    Huang, K.: What Is Mastodon and Why Are People Leaving Twitter for It? The New York Times (November 2022), https://www.nytimes.com/ 2022/11/07/technology/mastodon-twitter-elon-musk.html

    2022

  9. [16]

    In: SEBD

    La Cava, L., Greco, S., Tagarelli, A.: Discovering the landscape of decentralized online social networks through mastodon. In: SEBD. pp. 207–214 (2022)

    2022

  10. [17]

    Online Social Networks and Media 30, 100220 (2022)

    La Cava, L., Greco, S., Tagarelli, A.: Information consumption and boundary spanning in decentralized online social networks: the case of mastodon users. Online Social Networks and Media 30, 100220 (2022)

    2022

  11. [18]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.05668 (2023)

    La Cava, L., Mandaglio, D., Tagarelli, A.: Polarization in decentralized online social networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.05668 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Transaction Publishers (2001)

    Lin, N., Cook, K.S., Burt, R.S.: Social capital: Theory and research. Transaction Publishers (2001)

    2001

  13. [20]

    Journal of social structure 3(1), 20 (2002)

    McCarty, C.: Structure in personal networks. Journal of social structure 3(1), 20 (2002)

    2002

  14. [21]

    In: Proceedings of the Internet Measurement Conference

    Raman, A., Joglekar, S., Cristofaro, E.D., Sastry, N., Tyson, G.: Chal- lenges in the decentralised web: The mastodon case. In: Proceedings of the Internet Measurement Conference. pp. 217–229 (2019)

    2019

  15. [22]

    British journal of psychology 103(2), 149–168 (2012)

    Sutcliffe, A., Dunbar, R., Binder, J., Arrow, H.: Relationships and the social brain: integrating psychological and evolutionary perspectives. British journal of psychology 103(2), 149–168 (2012)

    2012

  16. [23]

    IEEE Transactions on Computational Social Systems 10(1), 48–60 (2022)

    Toprak, M., Boldrini, C., Passarella, A., Conti, M.: Harnessing the power of ego network layers for link prediction in online social networks. IEEE Transactions on Computational Social Systems 10(1), 48–60 (2022)

    2022

  17. [24]

    Proceedings

    Zhou, W.X., Sornette, D., Hill, R.a., Dunbar, R.I.M.: Discrete hierarchi- cal organization of social group sizes. Proceedings. Biological sciences / The Royal Society 272(1561), 439–444 (2005)

    2005

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.