Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 67 references

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

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Mastodon researchers rarely follow the rules of the instances they collect data from, even when they know the rules exist.

desk verdict Useful first systematic review of Mastodon research ethics, but the temporal mismatch between policy checks and data collection weakens the strongest claim in the abstract. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.07606 v1 pith:4IXRVG35 submitted 2025-05-12 cs.SI

Mareike Lisker , Helena Mihaljević This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.SI
keywords MastodonFediverseinstancepoliciesdataethicssystematicliteraturereviewtermsofservicesocialmediaresearch
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 tries to establish that the ethical gap long documented in social media research carries over to decentralized platforms: studies that collect Mastodon data rarely engage with the policies of the individual instances they draw from, even though those policies often say such collection is not allowed. The claim rests on a systematic review of 29 works that used Mastodon as a data source, checking how they selected instances, whether they mentioned instance rules, how they handled privacy, and whether they published data. The stakes are concrete: if the claim is right, then a systematic body of published research and public datasets rests on practices that violate the communities' own rules, at a time when researchers are turning to Mastodon precisely because centralized platforms closed their APIs. The paper argues for treating each instance as a distinct community with enforceable ethical norms, not as an undifferentiated data source.

What carries the argument

The policy-adherence audit: a coding scheme that, for each of the 29 works, records the data-collection method, the number and selection of instances, whether instance policies are mentioned, whether data were published and under which license, and whether anonymization is claimed or effective. The audit is what converts individual cases into a pattern, and its comparison of published licenses against current instance rules is the mechanism that exposes the incompatibilities. The review also uses keyword-based content screening and snowball sampling to build the corpus, but the load-bearing step is this systematic comparison between what the studies say they did and what the instances' policies allow.

What would settle it

For each of the 29 studies, pull archived copies of the referenced instances' policies dated to that study's data-collection window and compare them with the March 27, 2025 versions. If none of the instances prohibited data collection or redistribution at the relevant time, the central finding of non-adherence collapses; the current-policy comparison would then measure policy change rather than researcher neglect.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that in Mastodon research, awareness of instance-level governance does not translate into adherence. Of 29 surveyed works, 17 touched on policies, but most acknowledged instance-specific governance documents without drawing clear implications for their own methods; only one conducted a manual review of the terms of service for the instances it used. At least two of the instances referenced in the surveyed works currently forbid data collection without user consent, and one explicitly bans use for AI training. Seven works published Mastodon data, and four of those datasets were released under licenses that conflict with the source instances' rules. The paper also reports that data sharing is often done with anonymization that does not actually prevent re-identification, since toot content can be cross-referenced to identify users even when user IDs are obfuscated.

Load-bearing premise

The review judges adherence using instance policies as they stood on March 27, 2025, while most surveyed studies collected data earlier, so if servers changed their rules after collection, the non-adherence findings would describe policy drift, not the choices researchers actually faced.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Researchers collecting Mastodon data should treat each instance's rules as a distinct ethical constraint, and ethics boards should ask which instances were used and what their policies permit.
  • Published Mastodon datasets may carry licenses their source instances do not allow, so dataset publishers may need to re-check, re-license, or withdraw existing data.
  • Tool and API documentation share responsibility: data-collection libraries that warn about instance policies or implement checks would address a structural cause of the gap.
  • The pattern matches earlier findings from Reddit research, suggesting this is a systemic issue for community-based platforms rather than a handful of negligent studies.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the non-adherence is as systematic as this review suggests, downstream re-users of existing Mastodon datasets inherit the original violation; a practical extension would be a registry of instance-policy versions that researchers must consult before releasing data.
  • A natural replication is to run the same audit on other fediverse software such as Pleroma, Misskey, or Lemmy, to test whether the gap is specific to Mastodon or general to decentralized social media.
  • Because the review judges policies as of March 27, 2025, a longitudinal replication using archived policies from each study's collection window would show whether the neglect is stable or a recent phenomenon; the paper's own call for machine-readable rules points in this direction.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports a systematic literature review of 29 academic works that collected user-generated data from Mastodon. It examines how researchers handled instance-specific policies, privacy protections, and data publication, concluding that most works show limited engagement with instance-level policies despite mentioning them, and that some published datasets use licenses incompatible with instance rules. The paper also proposes recommendations for researchers, ethics committees, software developers, and instance administrators.

Significance. If the findings hold, this is a valuable contribution to social media research ethics, extending earlier work on Reddit to decentralized platforms. The paper's strengths include a transparent search protocol, explicit inclusion/exclusion criteria, a full list of surveyed works, and attention to the 2019 Zignani retraction case. The main limitations concern the temporal validity of policy checks and the inferential gap from keyword mentions to 'awareness.'

major comments (3)
  1. [Results (policies and dataset licenses); Limitations] The comparison of research practices against instance policies relies on policies as they stood on March 27, 2025, while most of the 29 works collected data between 2018 and 2025. The paper states that 'at least two of the referenced instances prohibit data collection without user consent (as of March 27, 2025)' and judges dataset licenses 'as of' the same date. Because instance policies can change without notice—the paper itself notes that mnm.social's domain was reassigned by that date—these checks establish a current mismatch, not necessarily a failure by researchers at the time of data collection. The Limitations section acknowledges keyword-based screening and OpenAlex indexing issues but not this temporal dependency. To support the headline claim of 'limited adherence,' the authors should either verify policies via archived versions (e.g., Wayback Machine) for the relevant data-collection periods or explicitly re-frame the findings as an assessment of current policy compatibility.
  2. [Results (published data licenses); Conclusion and Discussion] The conclusion states that 'seven works have published their data, with four applying inappropriate licenses.' In the Results, however, only two of those datasets are directly shown to be incompatible with the rules of the single identified instance; for the other two, the text says it is 'likely' they include content from noncompliant instances. The shift from 'likely' to a definite count of four overstates the evidence and should be corrected in the abstract and conclusion, or the analysis should be extended to verify those two datasets.
  3. [Results (policy keyword search); Limitations] The claim that researchers have 'general awareness' of instance policies is inferred from a keyword search for 'polic-', 'rule', and 'terms' in the 29 works. Mere occurrence of these terms does not demonstrate awareness of the specific policies of the instances from which data were collected; the paper itself notes that 11 works acknowledged governance documents 'without clear implications for their methods.' The Limitations section concedes the keyword-based screening is coarse. The operationalization of 'awareness' should be described as such, and the claim in the abstract should be tempered to indicate that papers mention policies, not that researchers are aware of their content.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Data and Methods] The word 'ressources' should be 'resources', and the reference to 'OpenAlex.org 2025' appears with an inconsistent period in the reference list.
  2. [Appendix] The appendix lists the 29 works but does not provide a per-paper coding table; including a table with each work's data collection method, instance selection, policy mention, and data publication status would improve transparency and reproducibility.
  3. [Table 1] Table 1 contains a footnote marker ('3') that is not explained in the table or the surrounding text; please clarify what this footnote refers to.
  4. [Results] The phrase 'a dummy instance' in the instance selection paragraph is unclear; please define what constitutes a dummy instance and why a study might use one.
  5. [References] Some references are incomplete or informally cited, such as 'Cathleen O’Grady 2025' appearing in the text without a full reference entry, and several arXiv papers lacking version or DOI information.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: a systematic descriptive review whose findings do not reduce to its inputs.

full rationale

This paper is a systematic literature review of 29 studies that used Mastodon as a data source. It makes no predictive claims, fits no parameters, and derives no quantitative result from its own prior work. The central findings—that most surveyed papers do not engage with instance-level policies, that at least two instances prohibit data collection without consent, and that four published datasets carry licenses incompatible with relevant instance rules—are independent codings of the surveyed papers and of instance policy documents. No quoted reduction exists between an input and an output: the authors do not define a measure in terms of the phenomenon they claim to measure, and they do not rely on a self-citation chain to justify their conclusions. The temporal mismatch between the March 27, 2025 policy snapshot and the earlier data-collection windows of the surveyed studies is a legitimate validity limitation, and the paper itself notes at least one instance domain was reassigned by that date, but this is a concern about evidence quality, not circularity. The limitations section acknowledges keyword-based screening and OpenAlex indexing issues, and those acknowledgments further confirm that the claims are empirically grounded rather than definitionally forced. The review is self-contained against external benchmarks and its conclusions are falsifiable by re-coding the same corpus; therefore the circularity score is 0.

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

The review's conclusions rest on domain assumptions: that instance policies are ethically relevant even when legally non-binding, that the literature search captures the target population, that policies checked in 2025 are a valid proxy for policies during earlier data collection, and that keyword mentions reflect engagement. No free parameters or invented entities are involved.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Instance policies are ethically binding on researchers even when they are not legally enforceable against non-users.
    The paper's normative stance, argued in the Introduction and carried through the recommendations, is that researchers should treat instance policies as ethically significant.
  • domain assumption The OpenAlex keyword search with data-retrieval terms identifies the relevant population of Mastodon data studies.
    Used in Data and Methods to build the corpus; the validity of the review depends on the search returning most relevant works, and the authors acknowledge indexing gaps.
  • domain assumption Instance policies in force on March 27, 2025 are a valid proxy for policies during each study's data-collection period.
    Used in Results when checking 'as of March 27, 2025'; the temporal stability of instance rules is assumed for judging older studies.
  • domain assumption Keyword-based search for 'polic-', 'rule', and 'terms' in surveyed papers captures researchers' engagement with instance policies.
    Used in Results to measure policy awareness and engagement; this is a textual proxy that may miss policy discussions phrased differently.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Data Ethics in the Fediverse: Analyzing the Role of Instance Policies in Mastodon Research." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4IXRVG35

@misc{pith2026250507606,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Data Ethics in the Fediverse: Analyzing the Role of Instance Policies in Mastodon Research},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4IXRVG35}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.07606}
}
read the original abstract

This article addresses the disconnect between the individual policy documents of Mastodon instances--many of which explicitly prohibit data collection for research purposes--and the actual data handling practices observed in academic research involving Mastodon. We present a systematic analysis of 29 works that used Mastodon as a data source, revealing limited adherence to instance--level policies despite researchers' general awareness of their existence. Our findings underscore the need for broader discussion about ethical obligations in research on alternative, decentralized social media platforms.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.07606 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Summary of the systematic literature review pro [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

67 extracted references · 59 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.a...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...

  3. [3]

    Administrators, Scholars and Users . 2020. An Open Letter from the Mastodon Community . Technical report. URL: https://www.sunclipse.org/wp-content/downloads/2020/01/open-letter.pdf

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    Al-khateeb, S. 2022. Dapping into the Fediverse : Analyzing What ’s Trending on Mastodon Social . In Thomson, R.; Dancy, C.; and Pyke, A., eds., Social, Cultural , and Behavioral Modeling , Lecture Notes in Computer Science , 101--110

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    Bittermann, A.; Lauer, T.; and Peters, F. 2025. Social Influence in the Academic Twitter Migration to Mastodon : A Computational Psychology Approach

    work page 2025

  6. [6]

    bluesky-social . 2025. 0008: User Intents for Data Reuse . URL: https://github.com/bluesky-social/proposals/blob/main/0008-user-intents/README.md

    work page 2025

  7. [7]

    Cathleen O'Grady . 2025. ‘ Unethical ’ AI research on Reddit under fire

    work page 2025

  8. [8]

    L.; Aiello, L

    Cava, L. L.; Aiello, L. M.; and Tagarelli, A. 2023. Drivers of social influence in the Twitter migration to Mastodon . Scientific Reports, 13(1)

    work page 2023

Show all 67 references
  1. [9]

    L.; Greco, S.; and Tagarelli, A

    Cava, L. L.; Greco, S.; and Tagarelli, A. 2022. Network Analysis of the Information Consumption - Production Dichotomy in Mastodon User Behaviors . Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, 16: 1378--1382

    2022

  2. [10]

    Cerisara, C.; Jafaritazehjani, S.; Oluokun, A.; and Le, H. 2018. Multi-task dialog act and sentiment recognition on Mastodon . ArXiv:1807.05013

    2018 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Christine Lemmer-Webber ; Jessica Tallon ; Erin Shepherd ; Amy Guy ; and Evan Prodromou . 2018. ActivityPub

    2018

  4. [12]

    Chua, S. M. 2022. Navigating conflict between research ethics and online platform terms and conditions: a reflective account. Research Ethics, 18(1): 39--50. Publisher: SAGE Publications Ltd

    2022

  5. [13]

    Colglazier, C. 2024. Do Servers Matter on Mastodon ? Data -driven Design for Decentralized Social Media . Workshop Proceedings of the 18th International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, 2024: 43

    2024

  6. [14]

    Colglazier, C.; TeBlunthuis, N.; and Shaw, A. 2024. The Effects of Group Sanctions on Participation and Toxicity : Quasi -experimental Evidence from the Fediverse . Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, 18: 315--328

    2024

  7. [15]

    Corso, F.; Pierri, F.; and De Francisci Morales, G. 2024. What we can learn from TikTok through its Research API . In Companion Publication of the 16th ACM Web Science Conference , Websci Companion '24, 110--114

    2024

  8. [16]

    D.; Boldrini, C.; Passarella, A.; and Conti, M

    Cursi, F. D.; Boldrini, C.; Passarella, A.; and Conti, M. 2024. A Herd of Young Mastodonts : the User - Centered Footprints of Newcomers After Twitter Acquisition . ArXiv:2412.16383

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    I.; Wischerath, D.; Racek, D.; Parry, D

    Davidson, B. I.; Wischerath, D.; Racek, D.; Parry, D. A.; Godwin, E.; Hinds, J.; van der Linden, D.; Roscoe, J. F.; Ayravainen, L.; and Cork, A. G. 2023. Platform-controlled social media APIs threaten open science. Nature Human Behaviour, 7(12): 2054--2057. Publisher: Springer...

    2023

  10. [18]

    Felkner, A.; Adamski, J.; Koman, J.; Rytel, M.; Janiszewski, M.; Lewandowski, P.; Pachnia, R.; and Nowakowski, W. 2024. Vulnerability and Attack Repository for IoT : Addressing Challenges and Opportunities in Internet of Things Vulnerability Databases . Applied Sciences, 14(22)

    2024

  11. [19]

    Fiesler, C.; Beard, N.; and Keegan, B. C. 2020. No Robots , Spiders , or Scrapers : Legal and Ethical Regulation of Data Collection Methods in Social Media Terms of Service . Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, 14(1): 187--196

    2020

  12. [20]

    Participant

    Fiesler, C.; and Proferes, N. 2018. “ Participant ” Perceptions of Twitter Research Ethics . Social Media + Society, 4(1)

    2018

  13. [21]

    Fiesler, C.; Zimmer, M.; Proferes, N.; Gilbert, S.; and Jones, N. 2024. Remember the Human : A Systematic Review of Ethical Considerations in Reddit Research . Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 8(GROUP): 5:1--5:33

    2024

  14. [22]

    s.; Bechmann, A.; Zimmer, M.; Ess, C.; and Association of Internet Researchers

    franzke, a. s.; Bechmann, A.; Zimmer, M.; Ess, C.; and Association of Internet Researchers . 2020. Internet Research : Ethical Guidelines 3.0. Technical report, Association of Internet Researchers

    2020

  15. [23]

    Gassmann, L.; Campbell, J.; and Edwards, M. 2024. Influence Reasoning Capabilities of Large Language Models in Social Environments . Proceedings of the AAAI Symposium Series, 4(1): 40--47

    2024

  16. [24]

    Gehl, R. W. 2025. Ethics in Alternative Social Media Research : A Forum . URL: https://www.socialmediaalternatives.org/2025/05/07/asm-research-ethics.html

    2025

  17. [25]

    W.; and Zulli, D

    Gehl, R. W.; and Zulli, D. 2023. The digital covenant: non-centralized platform governance on the mastodon social network. Information, Communication & Society, 26(16): 3275--3291

    2023

  18. [26]

    Gilbert, S.; Vitak, J.; and Shilton, K. 2021. Measuring Americans ’ Comfort With Research Uses of Their Social Media Data . Social Media + Society, 7(3)

    2021

  19. [27]

    Hof, L. 2025. Fediverse Report – \#109. URL: https://fediversereport.com/fediverse-report-109/

    2025

  20. [28]

    X.; Bernard, H

    Jeong, U.; Beigi, A.; Tahir, A.; Tang, S. X.; Bernard, H. R.; and Liu, H. 2025. FediverseSharing : A Novel Dataset on Cross - Platform Interaction Dynamics between Threads and Mastodon Users . ArXiv:2502.17926

    2025 arXiv

  21. [29]

    X.; Bernard, H

    Jeong, U.; Nirmal, A.; Jha, K.; Tang, S. X.; Bernard, H. R.; and Liu, H. 2024 a . User Migration across Multiple Social Media Platforms . ArXiv:2309.12613

    2024 arXiv

  22. [30]

    R.; and Liu, H

    Jeong, U.; Sheth, P.; Tahir, A.; Alatawi, F.; Bernard, H. R.; and Liu, H. 2024 b . Exploring Platform Migration Patterns between Twitter and Mastodon : A User Behavior Study . Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, 18: 738--750

    2024

  23. [31]

    Kasnesis, P.; Heartfield, R.; Toumanidis, L.; Liang, X.; Loukas, G.; and Patrikakis, C. 2020. A Prototype Deep Learning Paraphrase Identification Service for Discovering Information Cascades in Social Networks . In 2020 IEEE International Conference on Multimedia & Expo Worksh...

    2020

  24. [32]

    La Cava, L.; Greco, S.; and Tagarelli, A. 2021. Understanding the growth of the Fediverse through the lens of Mastodon . Applied Network Science, 6(1): 1--35

    2021

  25. [33]

    La Cava, L.; Mandaglio, D.; and Tagarelli, A. 2024. Polarization in Decentralized Online Social Networks . In ACM Web Science Conference , 48--52

    2024

  26. [34]

    Lee, K.; and Wang, M. 2023. Uses and Gratifications of Alternative Social Media : Why do people use Mastodon ? ArXiv:2303.01285

    2023 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Mastodon API . 2024. Playing with public data – Mastodon documentation

    2024

  28. [36]

    Mastodon.py contributors . 2023. Mastodon.py. URL: https://mastodonpy.readthedocs.io/en/stable/

    2023

  29. [37]

    Metcalf, J.; and Crawford, K. 2016. Where are human subjects in Big Data research? The emerging ethics divide. Big Data & Society, 3(1)

    2016

  30. [38]

    Min, S.; Wang, S.; Gao, M.; Gong, Q.; Xiao, Y.; Chen, Y.; and Luo, Y. 2025. FediLive : A Framework for Collecting and Preprocessing Snapshots of Decentralized Online Social Networks

    2025

  31. [39]

    Murtfeldt, R.; Alterman, N.; Kahveci, I.; and West, J. D. 2024. RIP Twitter API : A eulogy to its vast research contributions. ArXiv:2404.07340

    2024

  32. [40]

    Nirmal, A.; Jiang, B.; and Liu, H. 2023. SocioHub : An Interactive Tool for Cross - Platform Social Media Data Collection . ArXiv:2309.06525

    2023 arXiv

  33. [41]

    OpenAlex.org . 2025. OpenAlex : The open catalog to the global research system

    2025

  34. [42]

    D.; Silver, N

    Pearson, G. D.; Silver, N. A.; Robinson, J. Y.; Azadi, M.; Schillo, B. A.; and Kreslake, J. M. 2025. Beyond the margin of error: a systematic and replicable audit of the TikTok research API . Information, Communication & Society, 28(3): 452--470

    2025

  35. [43]

    Poudel, A.; and Weninger, T. 2024. Navigating the Post - API Dilemma . In Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2024 , WWW '24, 2476--2484. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery

    2024

  36. [44]

    Proferes, N.; Jones, N.; Gilbert, S.; Fiesler, C.; and Zimmer, M. 2021. Studying Reddit : A Systematic Overview of Disciplines , Approaches , Methods , and Ethics . Social Media + Society, 7(2)

    2021

  37. [45]

    J.; Laszlo, G.; Kery, F.; and Weninger, T

    Radivojevic, K.; Adams, D. J.; Laszlo, G.; Kery, F.; and Weninger, T. 2024. Reputation Transfer in the Twitter Diaspora . ArXiv:2405.12040

    2024 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Raman, A.; Joglekar, S.; De Cristofaro, E.; Sastry, N.; and Tyson, G. 2019. Challenges in the Decentralised Web : The Mastodon Case . ArXiv:1909.05801

    2019 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Roscam Abbing, R.; and Gehl, R. W. 2024. Shifting your research from X to Mastodon ? Here 's what you need to know. Patterns, 5(1). Publisher: Elsevier

    2024

  40. [48]

    Sabo, E.; Gesthuizen, T.; Bouma, K. J. A.; Karastoyanova, D.; and Riveni, M. 2024. An analysis of mastodon adoption dynamics based on instance types. Social Network Analysis and Mining, 14(1)

    2024

  41. [49]

    Sassor. 2023. Dataset of Mastodon toots using the hashtag \# Fairdata . URL: https://zenodo.org/records/8252443

    2023

  42. [50]

    Schoch, D.; Chan, C.-h.; Gruber, J.; and Schatto-Eckrodt, T. 2024. rtoot: Collecting and Analyzing Mastodon Data

    2024

  43. [51]

    The Web Robots Pages . 2025. About /robots.txt

    2025

  44. [52]

    Tilley, S. 2024. Maven Imported 1.12 Million Fediverse Posts ( Updated ) – Comment Section . URL: https://wedistribute.org/2024/06/maven-mastodon-posts/

    2024

  45. [53]

    Townsend, L.; and Wallace, C. 2017. The Ethics of Using Social Media Data in Research : A New Framework . In The Ethics of Online Research , volume 2, 189--207. Emerald Publishing Limited

    2017

  46. [54]

    T.; and Hiemstra, D

    Trienes, J.; Cano, A. T.; and Hiemstra, D. 2018. Recommending Users : Whom to Follow on Federated Social Networks . ArXiv:1811.09292

    2018 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Vitak, J.; Proferes, N.; Shilton, K.; and Ashktorab, Z. 2017. Ethics regulation in social computing research: Examining the role of institutional review boards. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 12(5): 372--382

    2017

  48. [56]

    Wang, X.; Koneru, S.; and Rajtmajer, S. 2024. The Failed Migration of Academic Twitter . ArXiv:2406.04005

    2024 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Don ’t research us

    Wähner, M.; Deubel, A.; Breuer, J.; and Weller, K. 2024. “ Don ’t research us”— How Mastodon instance rules connect to research ethics. Publizistik, 69(3): 357--380

    2024

  50. [58]

    Xavier, H. S. 2024. An evidence-based and critical analysis of the Fediverse decentralization promises. In Brazilian Symposium on Multimedia and the Web ( WebMedia ) , 360--364

    2024

  51. [59]

    B.; Castro, I.; and Tyson, G

    Zia, H. B.; Castro, I.; and Tyson, G. 2024. Mastodoner: A Command -line Tool and Python Library for Public Data Collection from Mastodon . In Proceedings of the 33rd ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management , CIKM '24, 5314--5317

    2024

  52. [60]

    B.; He, J.; Raman, A.; Castro, I.; Sastry, N.; and Tyson, G

    Zia, H. B.; He, J.; Raman, A.; Castro, I.; Sastry, N.; and Tyson, G. 2023. Flocking to Mastodon : Tracking the Great Twitter Migration . ArXiv:2302.14294

    2023 arXiv

  53. [61]

    B.; Raman, A.; Castro, I.; and Tyson, G

    Zia, H. B.; Raman, A.; Castro, I.; and Tyson, G. 2025. Collaborative Content Moderation in the Fediverse . ArXiv:2501.05871

    2025 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Mastodon

    Zignani, M.; Gaito, S.; and Rossi, G. P. 2018. Follow the “ Mastodon ”: Structure and Evolution of a Decentralized Online Social Network . Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, 12(1): 541--550

    2018

  55. [63]

    Mastodon

    Zignani, M.; Quadri, C.; Gaito, S.; Cherifi, H.; and Rossi, G. P. 2019 a . The Footprints of a “ Mastodon ”: How a Decentralized Architecture Influences Online Social Relationships . In IEEE INFOCOM 2019 Workshops ( INFOCOM WKSHPS ) , 472--477

    2019

  56. [64]

    Zignani, M.; Quadri, C.; Galdeman, A.; Gaito, S.; and Rossi, G. P. 2019 b . Mastodon Content Warnings : Inappropriate Contents in a Microblogging Platform . volume 13, 639--645

    2019

  57. [65]

    Zignani, M.; Quadri, C.; Galdeman, A.; Gaito, S.; and Rossi, G. P. 2019 c . Statement of Removal . Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, 13

    2019

  58. [66]

    social” in “social media

    Zulli, D.; Liu, M.; and Gehl, R. 2020. Rethinking the “social” in “social media”: Insights into topology, abstraction, and scale on the Mastodon social network. New Media & Society, 22(7): 1188--1205

    2020

  59. [67]

    M.; and Castro, L

    Álvarez Crespo, L. M.; and Castro, L. M. 2023. Unveiling the Dark Side of Social Media : Developing the First Galician Corpus for Misogyny Detection on Twitter and Mastodon . 87--90. Universidade da Coruña, Servizo de Publicacións

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.