arxiv: 2605.02800 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-04 · 💻 cs.SI · cs.CY

Recognition: unknown

The Activist's Guide to the Decentralized Social Universe: A Framework for Exploring How Decentralized Social Networks Can Support Collective Action

Harini Suresh, Sybille L\'egitime

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 02:10 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.SI cs.CY

keywords decentralized social networksactivist communitiescollective actionplatform affordancesMastodonBlueskycommunity needsdata ownership

0 comments

The pith

A framework maps activist needs for safety, reach, and sustainability onto decentralized social network features to guide platform choices.

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

Activist groups encounter surveillance, censorship, and other risks on mainstream platforms. Decentralized social networks offer alternatives that emphasize privacy and user control, yet their diversity makes it hard to pick the right one for organizing. This paper builds a conceptual framework that first lists four core activist needs: minimal overhead, community building with reach, on- and off-line safety, and operational sustainability. It then ties those needs to platform affordances including resource efficiency, interoperability, and data ownership. The framework is tested by comparing Mastodon and Bluesky, examining resulting community structures, and showing how two constrained activist groups could apply it to select matching tools.

Core claim

The paper proposes a conceptual framework that defines core activist community needs—minimal overhead, community building and reach, on- and off-line safety, and operational sustainability—and links them to concrete platform affordances such as resource efficiency, interoperability, and data ownership, then applies the framework to evaluate Mastodon and Bluesky, identify broader community configurations across DSN infrastructures, and illustrate use by two distinct activist communities facing infrastructural and political constraints.

What carries the argument

A conceptual framework that identifies four activist needs and maps them directly to DSN affordances to support platform selection for collective action.

If this is right

Direct comparison of sociotechnical tradeoffs between Mastodon and Bluesky becomes possible through the mapped needs and affordances.
Patterns of community configurations that arise on different DSN infrastructures and their effects on collective action become visible.
Two example activist communities facing distinct constraints can identify platforms that align with their specific needs.
Reflection on the theoretical promises of DSNs and the structural conditions that shape participation follows from the framework application.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The same mapping process could be extended to additional DSNs that appear after the two studied here.
Designers of future decentralized platforms might use the listed needs as explicit requirements when building new affordances.
Groups outside the two example communities could test the framework against their own documented constraints to surface unlisted needs.

Load-bearing premise

The four listed core needs comprehensively capture what activist communities require from online tools and that linking them to the listed affordances will reliably guide effective platform selection for collective action.

What would settle it

Longitudinal tracking of activist groups that follow the framework versus matched groups that do not, measuring differences in reported safety incidents, operational costs, and sustained community reach.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.02800 by Harini Suresh, Sybille L\'egitime.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: Platform cards applying a subset of the framework to Mastodon and Bluesky. Each card summarizes how the DSN implements a subset of key affordances across four activist community needs, illustrating their sociotechnical tradeoffs. To ground the framework in the current DSN landscape, we preliminarily apply it to two of the most widely adopted decentralized platforms by total user count at the time of writin… view at source ↗

read the original abstract

The overreaches of mainstream social media platforms have been extensively reported and studied. For activist communities, these platforms pose risks of surveillance, censorship, or erasure. Decentralized social networks (DSNs) serve as alternative online spaces that appear to prioritize values such as user privacy, free speech, and community control. However, the decentralized ecosystem is vast and complex, making it difficult for communities to understand how to best use these platforms for their organizing aims. We aim to fill this gap by proposing a conceptual framework for navigating the DSN landscape that defines core activist community needs -- minimal overhead, community building and reach, on- and off-line safety, and operational sustainability -- and links them to concrete platform affordances such as resource efficiency, interoperability, and data ownership. We apply the framework to (1) evaluate and compare the sociotechnical tradeoffs of two contemporary DSNs (Mastodon and Bluesky), (2) understand broader community configurations that emerge across different DSN infrastructures and their implications for collective action, and (3) explore how two distinct activist communities facing infrastructural and political constraints might use the framework to find platforms that align with their needs. We conclude by reflecting on the theoretical promises of DSNs and the structural conditions that shape and constrain participation across them.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper gives a clear conceptual framework linking activist needs to DSN features and applies it to Mastodon and Bluesky, but the applications stay illustrative without testing whether the links actually improve outcomes.

read the letter

The main takeaway is that this paper puts forward a straightforward framework for activist communities choosing decentralized platforms. It defines four core needs—minimal overhead, community building and reach, on- and off-line safety, and operational sustainability—then connects them to affordances like resource efficiency, interoperability, and data ownership. The work then uses that map to compare Mastodon and Bluesky and sketch two constrained community scenarios. That specific packaging and application is what is new here, even if similar platform-evaluation ideas exist in the broader literature on social media and activism. The paper does a solid job keeping the framework simple and showing concrete tradeoffs between the two platforms without overreaching on technical claims. The scenarios add some practical flavor for groups facing real constraints. The soft spots are that the four needs are presented as comprehensive without much argument for why other factors, such as moderation quality or network growth dynamics, can be set aside. The applications remain qualitative descriptions only, with no metrics, user data, or tracked results to show whether following the framework leads to better organizing or safer operations. If those unlisted factors dominate real decisions, the guidance stays unproven. This is the kind of paper that fits social computing or digital activism studies. Readers who want a structured checklist for platform selection will get usable ideas from it, though they will have to supply their own validation. It deserves a serious referee because the framework is cleanly defined and the topic is timely, even if revisions would need to address the lack of empirical grounding or acknowledge the scope limits more explicitly. I would send it to review.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a conceptual framework for activist communities navigating decentralized social networks (DSNs). It defines four core needs—minimal overhead, community building and reach, on- and off-line safety, and operational sustainability—and links them to affordances such as resource efficiency, interoperability, and data ownership. The framework is applied to compare Mastodon and Bluesky, analyze emergent community configurations across DSN infrastructures, and explore platform alignment for two hypothetical activist communities facing infrastructural and political constraints.

Significance. If the need-affordance mappings are comprehensive and actionable, the framework could help activist groups select DSNs that better support collective action while mitigating risks from mainstream platforms. The structured approach to a complex ecosystem and explicit reflection on structural constraints represent a useful organizing lens, though the paper's significance is prospective rather than demonstrated.

major comments (2)

[Applications to contemporary DSNs and activist scenarios] The applications to Mastodon vs. Bluesky and the two activist communities consist of qualitative illustrations without metrics, user data, error analysis, or outcome tracking. This is load-bearing for the central claim that the framework reliably guides effective platform selection, as untested assumptions about the mappings may not hold when factors such as moderation efficacy or network effects dominate real decisions.
[Framework definition of core activist community needs] The framework asserts that the four listed needs comprehensively capture activist requirements from online tools, yet provides no justification, survey data, or concrete test (e.g., comparison against observed activist platform choices) for why omitted factors like governance structures are secondary. If these prove load-bearing in practice, the framework's utility for navigation is undermined.

minor comments (1)

[Abstract and framework presentation] The abstract states the framework 'links' needs to affordances but does not specify the exact mapping mechanism or decision procedure; a table or diagram in the main text would clarify how communities are expected to apply it.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thoughtful and constructive comments on our manuscript. We address each major comment below, clarifying the conceptual scope of the work while proposing targeted revisions to strengthen the presentation.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Applications to contemporary DSNs and activist scenarios] The applications to Mastodon vs. Bluesky and the two activist communities consist of qualitative illustrations without metrics, user data, error analysis, or outcome tracking. This is load-bearing for the central claim that the framework reliably guides effective platform selection, as untested assumptions about the mappings may not hold when factors such as moderation efficacy or network effects dominate real decisions.

Authors: The applications are explicitly presented as qualitative illustrations to show how the framework can structure analysis of sociotechnical tradeoffs, rather than as empirical tests or validated predictions. The manuscript does not claim that the framework has been tested for reliability in guiding selections or that it accounts for all real-world factors. We will revise the introduction, methods, and conclusion to state this scope more explicitly, add a dedicated limitations section that acknowledges the absence of metrics, user data, or outcome tracking, and note that elements such as moderation efficacy and network effects must be weighed alongside the framework in practice. This revision clarifies the contribution without overstating its empirical status. revision: partial
Referee: [Framework definition of core activist community needs] The framework asserts that the four listed needs comprehensively capture activist requirements from online tools, yet provides no justification, survey data, or concrete test (e.g., comparison against observed activist platform choices) for why omitted factors like governance structures are secondary. If these prove load-bearing in practice, the framework's utility for navigation is undermined.

Authors: The four needs are synthesized from existing literature on activist digital practices, including work on platform risks, organizing overhead, community maintenance, and long-term viability. We will expand the framework definition section with additional citations to this body of research and provide a brief rationale for treating governance structures as subsumed under operational sustainability and community building. We will also include an illustrative comparison to documented activist platform shifts (e.g., post-2022 migrations) as a concrete check on the needs. While the paper remains conceptual and does not introduce new survey data or formal tests, these additions will make the justification more transparent. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: conceptual framework is self-contained with independent illustrative applications

full rationale

The paper proposes a conceptual framework by enumerating four activist needs and mapping them to platform affordances, then applies the mapping qualitatively to Mastodon/Bluesky comparisons and two hypothetical scenarios. No equations, fitted parameters, self-citations, or uniqueness theorems appear in the provided text. The derivation chain consists of explicit definitions followed by independent application examples; nothing reduces by construction to its own inputs. This matches the default expectation of non-circularity for a purely conceptual contribution.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper rests on domain assumptions about activist priorities and platform properties without introducing fitted parameters or new entities; the framework itself is the primary addition beyond prior work.

axioms (2)

domain assumption Activist communities share core needs of minimal overhead, community building and reach, on- and off-line safety, and operational sustainability when using online platforms.
This is presented as the definitional basis for the framework in the abstract.
domain assumption Platform affordances such as resource efficiency, interoperability, and data ownership can be directly linked to the listed activist needs to guide selection.
The abstract states that the framework links needs to these affordances without further justification.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5541 in / 1484 out tokens · 32267 ms · 2026-05-08T02:10:13.786093+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

141 extracted references · 82 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

[1]

[n. d.]. Bluesky Documentation | Bluesky. https://docs.bsky.app/
[2]

a16z/awesome-farcaster

2025. a16z/awesome-farcaster. https://github.com/a16z/awesome-farcaster original-date: 2023-01-04T16:50:51Z

2025
[3]

Ackerman

Mark S. Ackerman. 2000. The intellectual challenge of CSCW: the gap between social requirements and technical feasibility.Hum.-Comput. Interact.15, 2 (Sept. 2000), 179–203. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327051HCI1523_5

work page doi:10.1207/s15327051hci1523_5 2000
[4]

Vijay Kumar Adhikari, Sourabh Jain, Yingying Chen, and Zhi-Li Zhang. 2012. Vivisecting YouTube: An active measurement study. In2012 Proceedings IEEE INFOCOM. 2521–2525. https://doi.org/10.1109/INFCOM.2012.6195644 ISSN: 0743-166X

work page doi:10.1109/infcom.2012.6195644 2012
[5]

office advocacy. 2024. Federal Court Strikes Down Labor Department’s Overtime Rule, Rejecting $44K and $59K Salary Thresholds. https://advocacy.sba.gov/2024/12/17/federal-court-strikes-down-labor-departments-overtime- rule-rejecting-44k-and-59k-salary-thresholds/ Section: Blog

2024
[6]

Réka Albert, Hawoong Jeong, and Albert-László Barabási. 2000. Error and attack tolerance of complex networks. Nature406, 6794 (July 2000), 378–382. https://doi.org/10.1038/35019019

work page doi:10.1038/35019019 2000
[7]

Khaled Albusays, Pernille Bjorn, Laura Dabbish, Denae Ford, Emerson Murphy-Hill, Alexander Serebrenik, and Margaret-Anne Storey. 2021. The Diversity Crisis in Software Development.IEEE Software38, 2 (March 2021), 19–25. https://doi.org/10.1109/MS.2020.3045817

work page doi:10.1109/ms.2020.3045817 2021
[8]

Danielle Allen, Woojin Lim, Eli Frankel, Joshua Simons, Divya Siddarth, and Glen Weyl. 2023. Ethics of Decentralized Social Technologies: Lessons From Web3, the Fediverse, and Beyond.Edmond and Lily Safra Center for Ethics(2023)

2023
[9]

Be Gay, Do Crimes

Alyse Marie Allred and Colin M. Gray. 2021. "Be Gay, Do Crimes": The Co-Production and Activist Potential of Contemporary Fanzines.Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact.5, CSCW2 (Oct. 2021), 376:1–376:35. https://doi.org/10. 1145/3479520

2021
[10]

Jacopo Anderlini and Carlo Milani. 2022. Emerging Forms of Sociotechnical Organisation: The Case of the Fediverse. InDigital Platforms and Algorithmic Subjectivities, Emiliana Armano, Marco Briziarelli, and Elisabetta Risi (Eds.). University of Westminster Press, 167–181. https://doi.org/10.16997/book54.m

work page doi:10.16997/book54.m 2022
[11]

McKane Andrus, Sucheta Ghoshal, and Sayamindu Dasgupta. 2025. From Data Activism to Activism in a Time of Data-Centrism: Affirming Epistemological Heterogeneity in Social Movements.Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact.9, 2 (May 2025), CSCW013:1–CSCW013:32. https://doi.org/10.1145/3710911 , Vol. 1, No. 1, Article . Publication date: May 2026. 22 Légitime et al

work page doi:10.1145/3710911 2025
[12]

Sherry Arnstein. 1969. A Ladder of Citizen Participation.AIP Journal(July 1969). https://romd.rotineret.ro/wp- content/uploads/2024/06/1969-Arnstein-ladder-of-participation-original-text-OCR-C.pdf

1969
[13]

Javier Arroyo, David Davó, Elena Martínez-Vicente, Youssef Faqir-Rhazoui, and Samer Hassan. 2022. DAO-Analyzer: Exploring Activity and Participation in Blockchain Organizations. InCompanion Publication of the 2022 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing (CSCW’22 Companion). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, ...

work page doi:10.1145/3500868.3559707 2022
[14]

James Austgen, Andrés Fábrega, Sarah Allen, Kushal Babel, Mahimna Kelkar, and Ari Juels. 2023. DAO Decentralization: Voting-Bloc Entropy, Bribery, and Dark DAOs. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2311.03530 arXiv:2311.03530 [cs]

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2311.03530 2023
[15]

Henrik Axelsen, Johannes Rude Jensen, and Omri Ross. 2024. Do you need a DAO? https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv. 2404.11076 arXiv:2404.11076 [cs]

work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.48550/arxiv 2024
[16]

Anna Baj-Rogowska and Marcin Sikorski. 2023. Exploring the usability and user experience of social media apps through a text mining approach.Engineering Management in Production and Services15, 1 (March 2023), 86–105. https://doi.org/10.2478/emj-2023-0007

work page doi:10.2478/emj-2023-0007 2023
[17]

Leonhard Balduf, Saidu Sokoto, Onur Ascigil, Gareth Tyson, Ignacio Castro, Andrea Baronchelli, George Pavlou, Björn Scheuermann, and Michał Król. 2025. Bootstrapping Social Networks: Lessons from Bluesky Starter Packs. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2501.11605 arXiv:2501.11605 [cs]

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2501.11605 2025
[18]

Leonhard Balduf, Saidu Sokoto, Onur Ascigil, Gareth Tyson, Björn Scheuermann, Maciej Korczyński, Ignacio Castro, and Michał Król. 2024. Looking AT the Blue Skies of Bluesky. http://arxiv.org/abs/2408.12449 arXiv:2408.12449

work page arXiv 2024
[19]

Hugo Barrigas, Daniel Barrigas, Melyssa Barata, Pedro Furtado, and Jorge Bernardino. 2014. Overview of Face- book scalable architecture. InProceedings of the International Conference on Information Systems and Design of Communication. ACM, Lisbon Portugal, 173–176. https://doi.org/10.1145/2618168.2618198

work page doi:10.1145/2618168.2618198 2014
[20]

Kiran Vinod Bhatia, Mariam Elhussein, Ben Kreimer, and Trevor Snapp. 2023. Protests, Internet shutdowns, and disinformation in a transitioning state.Media, Culture & Society45, 6 (Sept. 2023), 1101–1118. https://doi.org/10. 1177/01634437231155568 Publisher: SAGE Publications Ltd

2023
[21]

Abeba Birhane. 2021. Algorithmic injustice: a relational ethics approach.Patterns2, 2 (Feb. 2021), 100205. https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.patter.2021.100205

work page doi:10.1016/j.patter.2021.100205 2021
[22]

Vanta Rainbow Black. 2024. ANTI-META FEDI PACT. https://fedipact.online/

2024
[23]

bls. 2024. Union Members Summary - 2023 A01 Results. https://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm

2024
[24]

bls. 2024. Work Stoppages Summary - 2023 A01 Results. https://www.bls.gov/news.release/wkstp.nr0.htm

2024
[25]

Team Bluesky. [n. d.]. Bluesky’s Stackable Approach to Moderation. https://bsky.social/about/blog/03-12-2024- stackable-moderation

2024
[26]

William Boag, Harini Suresh, Bianca Lepe, and Catherine D’Ignazio. 2022. Tech Worker Organizing for Power and Accountability. InProceedings of the 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 452–463. https://doi.org/10.1145/3531146.3533111

work page doi:10.1145/3531146.3533111 2022
[27]

boyd and Nicole B

danah m. boyd and Nicole B. Ellison. 2007. Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship.Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication13, 1 (Oct. 2007), 210–230. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00393.x Publisher: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd

work page doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00393.x 2007
[28]

Briar. 2025. Briar User Manual |. https://briarproject.org/manual/

2025
[29]

Madison, Ilia Murtazashvili, Balaji Palanisamy, Ali Palida, and Martin B

Pedro Bustamante, Marcela Gomez, Prashant Krishnamurthy, Michael J. Madison, Ilia Murtazashvili, Balaji Palanisamy, Ali Palida, and Martin B. H. Weiss. 2023. On the Governance of Federated Platforms.SSRN Electronic Journal(2023). https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4528712

work page doi:10.2139/ssrn.4528712 2023
[30]

DAO Cabin. [n. d.]. Cabin. https://cabin.city
[31]

Hongzhou Chen, Chenyu Zhou, Abdulmotaleb El Saddik, and Wei Cai. 2025. Decentralized Web3 Non-Fungible Token Community for Societal Prosperity? A Social Capital Perspective.Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact.9, 2 (May 2025), CSCW058:1–CSCW058:36. https://doi.org/10.1145/3710956

work page doi:10.1145/3710956 2025
[32]

Madiha Zahrah Choksi, Marianne Aubin Le Quéré, Travis Lloyd, Ruojia Tao, James Grimmelmann, and Mor Naaman
[33]

InProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Comput- ing Systems(Honolulu, HI, USA)(CHI ’24)

Under the (neighbor)hood: Hyperlocal Surveillance on Nextdoor. InProceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, Honolulu HI USA, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1145/3613904.3641967

work page doi:10.1145/3613904.3641967
[34]

Shadowbanning is not a thing

Kelley Cotter. 2023. “Shadowbanning is not a thing”: black box gaslighting and the power to independently know and credibly critique algorithms.Information, Communication & Society26, 6 (April 2023), 1226–1243. https://doi. org/10.1080/1369118X.2021.1994624 Publisher: Routledge _eprint: https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2021.1994624

work page doi:10.1080/1369118x.2021.1994624 2023
[35]

Anamaria Crisan, Margaret Drouhard, Jesse Vig, and Nazneen Rajani. 2022. Interactive model cards: A human- centered approach to model documentation. InProceedings of the 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. 427–439

2022
[36]

Anwitaman Datta, Sonja Buchegger, Le Hung Vu, Thorsten Strufe, and Krzysztof Rzadca. [n. d.]. Decentralized Online Social Networks. ([n. d.]). , Vol. 1, No. 1, Article . Publication date: May 2026. The Activist’s Guide to the Decentralized Social Universe 23

2026
[37]

Anwitaman Datta, Sonja Buchegger, Le-Hung Vu, Thorsten Strufe, and Krzysztof Rzadca. 2010. Decentralized online social networks.Handbook of social network technologies and applications(2010), 349–378

2010
[38]

Karin Dean. 2017. Myanmar: Surveillance and the Turn from Authoritarianism?Surveillance & Society15, 3/4 (Aug. 2017), 496–505. https://doi.org/10.24908/ss.v15i3/4.6648

work page doi:10.24908/ss.v15i3/4.6648 2017
[39]

2022.3•Peer-to-peer encryption and decentralised governance: A not-so-obvious pair

Laura DeNardis, Francesca Musiani, and Ksenia Ermoshina. 2022.3•Peer-to-peer encryption and decentralised governance: A not-so-obvious pair. Mattering Press. https://muse.jhu.edu/pub/336/oa_monograph/chapter/3856743 Pages: 120-147

work page arXiv 2022
[40]

Michael Ann DeVito, Jeremy Birnholtz, and Jeffery T. Hancock. 2017. Platforms, People, and Perception: Using Affordances to Understand Self-Presentation on Social Media. InProceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing (CSCW ’17). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 740–754. https://d...

work page doi:10.1145/2998181.2998192 2017
[41]

us dol. 2024. Biden-Harris administration finalizes rule to increase compensation thresholds for overtime eligibility, expanding protections for millions of workers. https://www.dol.gov/newsroom/releases/whd/whd20240423-0

2024
[42]

Ulrich Dolata and Jan-Felix Schrape. 2016. Masses, Crowds, Communities, Movements: Collective Action in the Internet Age.Social Movement Studies15, 1 (Jan. 2016), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/14742837.2015.1055722

work page doi:10.1080/14742837.2015.1055722 2016
[43]

Marisa Elena Duarte. 2017. Connected Activism: Indigenous Uses of Social Media for Shaping Political Change.Aus- tralasian Journal of Information Systems21 (July 2017). https://doi.org/10.3127/ajis.v21i0.1525 Publisher: Australasian Association for Information Systems

work page doi:10.3127/ajis.v21i0.1525 2017
[44]

2011.Digitally Enabled Social Change: Activism in the Internet Age

Jennifer Earl and Katrina Kimport. 2011.Digitally Enabled Social Change: Activism in the Internet Age. MIT Press. Google-Books-ID: IZAS_YGFVeMC

2011
[45]

Maher, and Jennifer Pan

Jennifer Earl, Thomas V. Maher, and Jennifer Pan. 2022. The digital repression of social movements, protest, and activism: A synthetic review.Science Advances8, 10 (March 2022), eabl8198. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abl8198 Publisher: American Association for the Advancement of Science

work page doi:10.1126/sciadv.abl8198 2022
[46]

Upol Ehsan, Koustuv Saha, Munmun De Choudhury, and Mark O. Riedl. 2023. Charting the Sociotechnical Gap in Explainable AI: A Framework to Address the Gap in XAI.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction7, CSCW1 (April 2023), 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1145/3579467

work page doi:10.1145/3579467 2023
[47]

Houda Elmimouni, Sarah Rüller, Konstantin Aal, Yarden Skop, Norah Abokhodair, Volker Wulf, and Peter Tolmie
[48]

ACM Hum.-Comput

Exploring Algorithmic Resistance: Responses to Social Media Censorship in Activism.Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact.9, 2 (May 2025), CSCW072:1–CSCW072:24. https://doi.org/10.1145/3710970

work page doi:10.1145/3710970 2025
[49]

Docs Farcaster. 2025. Farcaster Docs. https://farcaster.xyz

2025
[50]

the federation. 2024. The Federation - a statistics hub. https://the-federation.info/

2024
[51]

Garden Fence. 2025. Garden Fence. https://gardenfence.github.io/

2025
[52]

Casey Fiesler and Brianna Dym. 2020. Moving Across Lands: Online Platform Migration in Fandom Communities. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction4, CSCW1 (May 2020), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1145/3392847

work page doi:10.1145/3392847 2020
[53]

fishttp. 2024. fishttp/awesome-bluesky. https://github.com/fishttp/awesome-bluesky original-date: 2023-07- 18T17:39:51Z

2024
[54]

Studio Freight. [n. d.]. DeSo - The Decentralized Social Blockchain. https://www.deso.com/
[55]

Karen Frost-Arnold. 2024. Beyond Corporate Social Media Platforms: The Epistemic Promises and Perils of Alternative Social Media.Topoi(Oct. 2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-024-10102-2

work page doi:10.1007/s11245-024-10102-2 2024
[56]

Timnit Gebru, Jamie Morgenstern, Briana Vecchione, Jennifer Wortman Vaughan, Hanna Wallach, Hal Daumé Iii, and Kate Crawford. 2021. Datasheets for datasets.Commun. ACM64, 12 (2021), 86–92

2021
[57]

Sucheta Ghoshal and Amy Bruckman. 2019. The Role of Social Computing Technologies in Grassroots Movement Building.ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact.26, 3 (June 2019), 18:1–18:36. https://doi.org/10.1145/3318140

work page doi:10.1145/3318140 2019
[58]

Tarleton Gillespie. 2010. The politics of ‘platforms’.New Media & Society12, 3 (May 2010), 347–364. https: //doi.org/10.1177/1461444809342738

work page doi:10.1177/1461444809342738 2010
[59]

2018.Custodians of the Internet: Platforms, Content Moderation, and the Hidden Decisions That Shape Social Media

Tarleton Gillespie. 2018.Custodians of the Internet: Platforms, Content Moderation, and the Hidden Decisions That Shape Social Media. Yale University Press. Google-Books-ID: cOJgDwAAQBAJ

2018
[60]

Sandra González-Bailón and Ning Wang. 2016. Networked discontent: The anatomy of protest campaigns in social media.Social Networks44 (Jan. 2016), 95–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2015.07.003

work page doi:10.1016/j.socnet.2015.07.003 2016
[61]

Jay Graber. 2020. applications/blockchain-social.md·master·bluesky community / decentralized-ecosystem·GitLab. https://gitlab.com/bluesky-community1/decentralized-ecosystem/-/blob/master/applications/blockchain-social.md

2020
[62]

Maggie Yongqi Guan, Yaman Yu, and Kanye Ye Wang. 2025. Using Affordance to Understand Usability of Web3 Social Media. InProceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’25). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1145/3706598.3713263

work page doi:10.1145/3706598.3713263 2025
[63]

Harry Halpin, Jaya Klara Brekke, and Marios Isaakidis. 2023. Socio-Technical Principles of Decentralized Protocol Design. In2023 Fifth International Conference on Blockchain Computing and Applications (BCCA). IEEE, Kuwait, Kuwait, 448–457. https://doi.org/10.1109/BCCA58897.2023.10338920 , Vol. 1, No. 1, Article . Publication date: May 2026. 24 Légitime et al

work page doi:10.1109/bcca58897.2023.10338920 2023
[64]

Catherine Han, Anne Li, Deepak Kumar, and Zakir Durumeric. 2024. PressProtect: Helping Journalists Navigate Social Media in the Face of Online Harassment.Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact.8, CSCW2 (Nov. 2024), 509:1–509:34. https://doi.org/10.1145/3687048

work page doi:10.1145/3687048 2024
[65]

Alexa M Harris, Diego Gómez-Zará, Leslie A DeChurch, and Noshir S Contractor. 2019. Joining together online: the trajectory of CSCW scholarship on group formation.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction3, CSCW (2019), 1–27

2019
[66]

Jiahui He, Haris Bin Zia, Ignacio Castro, Aravindh Raman, Nishanth Sastry, and Gareth Tyson. 2023. Flocking to Mastodon: Tracking the Great Twitter Migration. InProceedings of the 2023 ACM on Internet Measurement Conference. ACM, Montreal QC Canada, 111–123. https://doi.org/10.1145/3618257.3624819

work page doi:10.1145/3618257.3624819 2023
[67]

Justin Hendrix. 2022. The Whiteness of Mastodon | TechPolicy.Press. https://techpolicy.press/the-whiteness-of- mastodon

2022
[68]

Sohyeon Hwang, Priyanka Nanayakkara, and Yan Shvartzshnaider. 2025. Trust and Friction: Negotiating How Information Flows Through Decentralized Social Media. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2503.02150 arXiv:2503.02150 [cs]

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.02150 2025
[69]

Farnaz Irannejad Bisafar, Brooke Foucault Welles, Catherine D’Ignazio, and Andrea G. Parker. 2020. Supporting Youth Activists? Strategic Use of Social Media: A Qualitative Investigation of Design Opportunities.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction4, CSCW2 (Oct. 2020), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1145/3415180

work page doi:10.1145/3415180 2020
[70]

Jackson, Moya Z

Sarah J. Jackson, Moya Z. Bailey, and Brooke Foucault Welles. 2020.#HashtagActivism: Networks of race and gender justice. MIT Press

2020
[71]

Hyeji Jang and Sung H. Han. 2022. User experience framework for understanding user experience in blockchain services.International Journal of Human-Computer Studies158 (Feb. 2022), 102733. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs. 2021.102733

work page doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs 2022
[72]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.00071 , year=

Ujun Jeong, Lynnette Hui Xian Ng, Kathleen M. Carley, and Huan Liu. 2025. Navigating Decentralized Online Social Networks: An Overview of Technical and Societal Challenges in Architectural Choices. https://doi.org/10.48550/ arXiv.2504.00071 arXiv:2504.00071 [cs]

work page arXiv 2025
[73]

Jialun’Aaron’ Jiang, Skyler Middler, Jed R Brubaker, and Casey Fiesler. 2020. Characterizing community guidelines on social media platforms. InCompanion Publication of the 2020 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing. 287–291

2020
[74]

Yichuan Jiang. 2016. A Survey of Task Allocation and Load Balancing in Distributed Systems.IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems27, 2 (Feb. 2016), 585–599. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPDS.2015.2407900

work page doi:10.1109/tpds.2015.2407900 2016
[75]

Anne Jonas, Stefani Vargas, and Jean Hardy. 2024. ’Better than Google’: Information Activism for LGBTQ+ Young Adults in a Rural Community.Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact.8, CSCW2 (Nov. 2024), 452:1–452:29. https: //doi.org/10.1145/3686991

work page doi:10.1145/3686991 2024
[76]

Nadia Karizat, Dan Delmonaco, Motahhare Eslami, and Nazanin Andalibi. 2021. Algorithmic Folk Theories and Identity: How TikTok Users Co-Produce Knowledge of Identity and Engage in Algorithmic Resistance.Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact.5, CSCW2 (Oct. 2021), 305:1–305:44. https://doi.org/10.1145/3476046

work page doi:10.1145/3476046 2021
[77]

Ra’il I’Nasah Kiam. 2023. Blackness in the Fediverse: A Conversation with Marcia X. https://logicmag.io/policy/ blackness-in-the-fediverse-a-conversation-with-marcia-x/

2023
[78]

Shamika Klassen, Joanna Judith Elizabeth Mendy, Mikayla Buford, and Casey Fiesler. 2024. Black to the Future - The Power of Designing Afrofuturist Technology with Black Women, Femmes, and Non-Binary People. InProceedings of the 2024 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference (DIS ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2156–2172. h...

work page doi:10.1145/3643834.3661605 2024
[79]

Martin Kleppmann, Paul Frazee, Jake Gold, Jay Graber, Daniel Holmgren, Devin Ivy, Jeromy Johnson, Bryan Newbold, and Jaz Volpert. 2024. Bluesky and the AT Protocol: Usable Decentralized Social Media. https://doi.org/10.48550/ arXiv.2402.03239 arXiv:2402.03239

work page arXiv 2024
[80]

Kate Klonick. 2018. The New Governors: The People, Rules, and Processes Governing Online Speech.Harvard Law Review131, 6 (2018), 1598–1670

2018

Showing first 80 references.