Who Owns Our Conversations: Testing the Fediverse

I first heard about the Fediverse years ago, around the same time I started looking for alternatives to the dominant social media platforms. At that point, my interest wasn’t ideological yet. I was simply feeling that something about how social media worked no longer matched what it originally promised.

In theory, the internet — and later social media — was created to help people connect. You could share photos, write updates, stay in touch with friends and family, and participate in conversations across long distances. Over time, however, that vision slowly changed. Not because connection became impossible, but because the economic structure behind most platforms reshaped how connection works.

The Business Model Behind Social Media

Running a global social media platform requires massive infrastructure, constant development, and enormous technical maintenance. All of this is expensive. Because of that, most large platforms adopted advertising as their main business model.

Users do not pay directly for the service. Instead, companies pay to reach users. In practice, this means the real product is not the platform itself — it is the users’ attention.

At first, this model helped major networks grow at unprecedented speed. Facebook, for example, expanded rapidly and acquired competing platforms like Instagram in 2012 and WhatsApp in 2014.

As these platforms grew, so did their influence. With billions of users, even small design decisions now shape how entire societies communicate, share information, argue, organize, and form opinions.

Public corporations are structurally rewarded for one thing above all else: continuous growth. Executives are judged primarily on whether the company grows year after year. Even when products begin with good intentions, they are gradually reshaped by financial incentives.

Growth becomes the goal.

Algorithms, Engagement, and Polarization

Modern social platforms rely heavily on recommendation algorithms designed to maximize time spent, reactions, and interactions. Research consistently shows that emotionally charged, controversial, and polarizing content generates higher engagement than calm, balanced discussion.

Over time, this creates powerful feedback loops:

  1. Content that provokes outrage spreads faster
  2. Content that simplifies complex issues into extremes spreads faster
  3. Content that invites slow, thoughtful discussion struggles to compete

As a result, much of what dominates social media today is optimized not for understanding, but for reaction.

Echo Chambers and the Loss of Dialogue

This system contributes to what are commonly called echo chambers.

An echo chamber forms when people are repeatedly exposed to the same viewpoints while alternative perspectives are filtered out. Algorithms amplify this effect by showing users more of what aligns with their past behavior.

Research shows that these environments increase polarization, reduce openness to opposing perspectives, and strengthen confirmation bias.

The danger here is subtle. When people only see opinions that reflect their own, they may begin to confuse agreement with truth and popularity with correctness. Disagreement slowly disappears — not because it no longer exists, but because the system hides it.

In these spaces, debate is no longer about understanding. It becomes about defending identity. Disagreement turns into hostility. And critical thinking weakens.

Respectful debate and open communication are essential for a healthy society. Disagreement itself is not the problem. The problem arises when systems reward hostility over dialogue, certainty over curiosity, and performance over understanding.

When platforms reward engagement above all else, people are subtly encouraged to protect their bias instead of challenging it.

Discovering the Fediverse

It is from within this context that decentralized alternatives like the Fediverse begin to make sense.

The Fediverse is not a single platform. It is a network of independent servers that communicate with one another using shared protocols. Instead of one company owning the entire system, thousands of communities host their own services while still remaining connected.

This structure allows people to choose:

Unlike traditional platforms, many Fediverse projects operate as nonprofits or community-run services. Without shareholders demanding endless growth, there is far less pressure to manipulate attention at scale.

Limits and Reality of Decentralization

This does not mean the Fediverse is perfect.

Decentralization introduces real challenges:

Some of the same social problems still exist, simply in different forms.

But the most important difference is structural. The Fediverse was not built around advertising as its core economic engine. That alone changes what the system is fundamentally optimized for.

My Personal Exploration

Personally, I am still learning. I do not yet understand all the technical, social, and political implications of federated systems. I began by testing platforms like Mastodon and Bluesky and slowly discovered that a much larger ecosystem existed behind them — including blogging platforms like this one.

Some services require payment. Some are invite-only. Some are fully open. I ended up here simply because this space allowed me to register and write freely.

I do not believe social media itself is evil. Tools are neutral until incentives shape how they are used. The real problem emerges when harmful behavior becomes algorithmically profitable, when outrage turns into currency, and when control over public conversation becomes economically centralized.

Reflection Point

  1. How do different technical and economic models shape the way online communication evolves over time?

  2. What trade-offs exist between convenience, scale, independence, and control in digital platforms?

  3. How might the structure of a platform influence not only what we see, but how we think, interact, and express ourselves?

Facebook’s early growth and acquisitions

Research on engagement-driven algorithms and polarization

Study on echo chambers and polarization

Research on the structure and limits of the fediverse

Overview of how the fediverse works

Analysis of the Fediverse decentralization

HXRDNOTES © 2025 by HXRDKING is licensed under CC BY-NC 4.0

SUPPORT
Personally used and trusted service. – Proton VPN