Talk:Mastodon (social network)

Title needs to be changed to "Mastodon (software)"

The title of this article needs to be changed to "Mastodon (software)". Mastodon is not a social network. It is a piece of software people can used to run their own server as part of a decentralised social network commonly known as "the fediverse", made up of thousands of servers running Mastodon and other ActivityPub software.

It might be relevant in this article to mention that newbies to the fediverse often refer to the social network as "Mastodon", despite the facts mentioned above. But having "social network" in the article title is misleading. As it would be if it said "(social network)" next to Element in the article for the Matrix app. Matrix is arguably a social network, but Element is very clearly a piece of software, as is Mastodon.Danylstrype (talk) 02:51, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

This is technically true, but :

• It would not help navigation because, as you mention, people *think* of it as a social network.
• It is clearly explained in the article, so there is no problem with leading people astray.
• The nomenclature is not as clear as you suggest. The Fediverse article suggests that the Fediverse is an "is an ensemble of social networks" (of which Mastodon is one.) IMO, This usage seems pretty common.
• The majority of sources describe it as a "social media platform"
• It would go against previous consensus.

ApLundell (talk) 06:42, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

@ApLundell wouldn't renaming the page to Mastodon (social network platform) make the most sense then? RatherQueerDebator (talk) 09:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

(as an alternative solution, one could add the "This page is about software, don't confuse with the Fediverse" template) RatherQueerDebator (talk) 09:21, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I think it is indeed a rather fine solution. I suggest replacing the current about template with (plus minus) the following:

This article is about an ActivityPub implementation. For other uses, see Mastodon (disambiguation). For the wider decentralized network, see Fediverse.

This doesn't strip Mastodon of its status as a standalone platform it evidently has, prevents the confusion, and shows the actual relationship between Mastodon and fedi - the former is a component of the latter. RatherQueerDebator (talk) 09:32, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

@ApLundell Then the fediverse article (which has been regularly mangled since I started it) also needs to be modified, because this too is a misleading description. The fediverse is a unified social network, made up of servers running compatible software packages (of which Mastodon is one). The fediverse is sometimes mis-described by newbies as "Mastodon", but once they learn they can use their Mastodon account to follow accounts on servers running FireFish, PixelFed, PeerTube etc they replace ""Mastodon" with "fediverse". My objection to the misnaming of this article stands. Danylstrype (talk) 21:56, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I think this is approaching trying to right great wrongs. (Like "GNU/LINUX".)

Mastodon is almost invariably described by sources as a "network" or a "platform". Not entirely without justification.

If two "networks" or "platforms" overlap or connect, do we have to be reductionist and call them "software"?

I'm not sure that's 100% correct even if we chose to embrace pedantry over common-name rules, but it's certainly not the common convention.

* "Pixelfed is a free and open-source image sharing social network service.[3][4] "

* "PeerTube is a free and open-source, decentralized, ActivityPub federated video platform ..."

* "Diaspora (stylized as diaspora*) is a nonprofit, user-owned, distributed social network. ..."

* "Friendica (formerly Friendika, originally Mistpark) is a free and open-source software[5] distributed social network. It forms one part of the Fediverse, ..."

Beyond that, it's very deceptive to imply that the Fediverse is a single amorphous social network that just has different clients that connect to it. It is the platforms built on top of the Fediverse like Pixelfed, Peertube, and Mastodon, that give the fediverse meaning and structure.

Everything in tech is built on top of some other thing. I mean, ultimately, everything is built on top of IP, but it wouldn't be useful to insist that the WWW is "just software" and the only "network" is the Internet itself, although you could certainly look at it that way. ApLundell (talk) 16:39, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

@ApLundell the difference between GNU/Linux and Fedi/Mastodon is that the former is language purists, meanwhile the latter is a common mistake made by newbies. The former is controversial, the latter is simply a misunderstanding. RatherQueerDebator (talk) 20:49, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Stallman says the GNU/Linux debate is caused by ignorance, and I've certainly seen other people repeat the (false) assertion that people only prefer "Linux" because they don't understand the relationship between the kernel and the rest of the supporting software that makes up an operating system, so I think the comparison might be more apt than you think. But I don't insist on the comparison.

Anyway, I promise you: I do understand how the Fediverse works.

ApLundell (talk) 22:39, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Haven't said you don't - at least, didn't intend to. I'll clarify: what I meant by GNU/Linux being just language purists, is that there's no practical difference between Linux and GNU Linux to the end-user; But there's a difference between the Fediverse and Mastodon, as there there no mainstream non-GNU linux OSes, but there are mainstream non-Mastodon Fediverse platforms. RatherQueerDebator (talk) 09:21, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

@ApLundell"Beyond that, it's very deceptive to imply that the Fediverse is a single amorphous social network that just has different clients that connect to it."

I guess this depends what you mean by the phrase "social network". What you say is quite right where it's a medium, like the micro-posting medium of Mastodon, or the image-blogging feeds of PixelFed, or the video channels of PeerTube, or the forums of Lemmy/KBin. In this sense, the fediverse is made up of many subsidiary "social networks" and Mastodon is one.

But if Bob asks Alice "are you on this social network?", he's asking if he can find and interact with Alice there, even if they use different software. In this sense, everyone connecting to a server that speaks ActivityPub is part of one social network; commonly known as "the fediverse".

Can I suggest a compromise? Having two articles; one for Mastodon (software) and one for Mastodon (social network). The first one to cover the software, its history, the organisation that maintains it, and so on. The second to cover the informal usage of "Mastodon" for the social network made up of Mastodon servers, as a subset of the larger social network of AP servers, generally known as "the fediverse".

FWIW Using the term "fediverse" more expansively, to include social software using all federation protocols - older ones like XMPP, Matrix and IndieWeb and newer ones like ATProto (BlueSky) and Nostr - can only confuse people asking Bob's question above. Unless and until these are all bridged to each other and the AP network. But I acknowledge that some people are now using the term that way, for better or worse. Danylstrype (talk) 10:02, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I'd say that's a fine solution. It also solves another problem, that Mastodon isn't actually ActivityPub-compliant, which creates a Massive ridge in the Fediverse - ActivityPub purists "vs" Mastodon and Threads. RatherQueerDebator (talk) 13:15, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

FWIW Eugen Rochko, the founder of Mastodon, has said quite clearly on Mastodon's own blog; "The social network that is Mastodon isn’t really Mastodon. It’s bigger. It’s any piece of software that implements ActivityPub." @ApLundell "It would not help navigation because, as you mention, people *think* of it as a social network." This could be solved very easily by renaming the page "Mastodon (software)" to make it accurate, and then redirecting "Mastodon (social network)" to it.Danylstrype (talk) 15:46, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

I would not support doing this with a redirect. As Sibshops has noted below, per WP:COMMONNAME if we go out and do a survey of reliable sources, I'm pretty confident that we would find most references to Mastodon refer to it as a social network. That's what people expect. So if they come here looking for Mastodon the social network and get the software... they will be confused. I'm okay with the idea of having two separate articles ... but not of having an article and a redirect. - Dyork (talk) 16:43, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

BTW in this context, "Mastodon isn't actually ActivityPub-compliant" is a distinction without a difference. It's true in that Mastodon uses its own C2S (Client-to-Server) API instead of the one in the AP spec, and that making an AP server fully compatible with Mastodon requires a few extra bits not specified in the AP spec (eg certain uses of WebFinger that persist from when Mastodon was using OStatus to talk to GNU social servers) software sends over the wire. The result of this is the actual protocols used in the fediverse are predominantly Mastodon-flavoured AP, and most fediverse apps use the Mastodon API, although there has been in uptick in server software implementing the AP C2S spec as well, resulting in increased interested among app developers in experimenting with it. But none of this makes Mastodon its own "social network" in any meaningful sense of the phrase. For reasons described above using the example of Bob and Alice. Danylstrype (talk) 15:28, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Even if Mastodon is technically server software used to run federated instances, reliable sources frequency describe it as a social network or social media platform, and often compare it to other social networks such as Twitter and BlueSky. In these cases, we may want to generally follow how Mastodon is described in independent reliable secondary sources rather than the most technically precise description per WP:COMMONNAME. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 21:05, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Change to Social networking service

As Distributed Social Network is no longer maintained I suggest to group it under Social networking service

Theking2 (talk) 20:26, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

It shouldn't be unlinked from the distributed social network article just because it isn't updated anymore. If you feel as though it needs to be maintained again, you could try to update it yourself. LemurianPatriot (talk) 02:34, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Remove comparison to X?

The comparison to X section currently only mentions one thing that is different from X (opt-in search) while there are of course numerous ways in which Mastodon is different. Trying to list all of them would be quite a lot of work and would probably involve a lot of doubled effort, since a lot of the features Mastodon has already are already mentioned elsewhere in the article. So I think it would be best to just remove that section altogether. Hanspeter5000 (talk) 09:21, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

I second removal. To add to that, it doesn't seem like something which would help someone who is reading the article 10 years from now. WP:TYT Sibshops (talk) 17:57, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

@Hanspeter5000 Instead of removal, I made it just about searching, in general. How's that? Sibshops (talk) 15:38, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

@Sibshops

Yeah, I think that's better. :-)

Hanspeter5000 (talk) 12:34, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Critic

In Mastodon meta discussions you can find criticism on the "general atmosphere, predominantly white + tech boys" and the activities or non-activities of the controlling entities (e.g. information found in documentation / webpages).

Would the article benefit of an addition about these points? (and what references would be needed?) ~2026-70153-4 (talk) 14:37, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

I can see a case for covering this, but there are a few concerns.

Wikipedia usually discourages standalone "Criticism" sections WP:CSECTION. If this is notable, it would normally fit under a neutral "Reception" or "Coverage" section that summarizes what independent reliable sources have said about Mastodon.

On sourcing: this would need high-quality, independent secondary sources WP:SECONDARY that discuss these topics in context.

There does appear to be at least one source examining Mastodon/Fediverse demographics. For example, this NSF-hosted study reports over-representation of white participants and people with technical backgrounds (e.g. DevOps), while also finding that gender minorities are over-represented relative to the general population:

https://par.nsf.gov/servlets/purl/10635170

However, I have not found comparable reliable secondary sources that cover claims about the platform's general "atmosphere". Without that kind of coverage, it would be difficult to include such claims in a reception-style section. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 18:42, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

There is substantial community discussion of this topic:

https://logicmag.io/policy/blackness-in-the-fediverse-a-conversation-with-marcia-x/

https://www.techpolicy.press/the-whiteness-of-mastodon/

https://nexusofprivacy.net/start-making-the-fediverse-less-toxic/

https://nexusofprivacy.net/unsafe-by-design-and-unsafe-by-default/

https://privacy.thenexus.today/steps-towards-a-safer-fediverse/

(The Nexus of Privacy blog posts are very fine-grained dialogue with/examination of the community.)

https://global.oup.com/academic/product/move-slowly-and-build-bridges-9780197776681

A discussion with this book's author, which also has a transcript:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUelaBjNQOw ~2026-70810-9 (talk) 19:24, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for collecting these.

For most of these sources, they are either WP:BLOG posts or self-published sources WP:SPS, so they aren't usable for wikipedia purposes. Of the items on the list the book 'Move Slowly and Build Bridges' is the most promising.

I searched the interview transcript for references to demographics (minorities/tech/white), but I don't see the points discussed there. If we do want to use the book, we have to make sure that the book focuses on this subject and avoids extending claims beyond what it is covering. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 19:45, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, I was least sure about the blog. However Tech policy press and Logic mag seem like they should count as sources in addition to the book.

https://logicmag.io/policy/blackness-in-the-fediverse-a-conversation-with-marcia-x/

https://www.techpolicy.press/the-whiteness-of-mastodon/

I wasn't suggesting the talk had a lot but it would be a way into the book for people who would rather listen. It's a bit truncated but at 40:19 in the transcript there is reference to the whiteness of developers. There's substantially more in the book, particularly "Chapter 5: Rage and Joy: Playvicious, #Fediblock, the BadSpace, and the Politics of Defederation". There is even a subheading Mastodon and Whiteness in that chapter ~2026-70810-9 (talk) 20:07, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Techpolicy.press and logicmag.io are not generally agreed upon reliable sources. They are often treated as opinion or analysis outlets than independent secondary reporting. So they would need to be evaluated carefully with attribution, if used at all. A good list of sources which are generally agreed upon as reliable is here WP:RSPLIST.

As for the book, it's a reliable secondary source, but any use should be based on the text itself. Since I don't have access to the book contents I can't confirm how broadly it frames the issue. So I can't offer much advice on how to summarize it or if this section is a notable part of the book.

Without independent coverage discussing this part of the book, it's difficult to assess how much WP:WEIGHT (if any) it would warrant in the article. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 20:19, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

>> Self-published sources may be considered reliable if published by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Be careful when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will likely have published it in independent, reliable sources.

The book establishes the credibility of Marcia X in this domain. We can perhaps see if the author is willing to circulate that chapter to some people who might work on this section. As for Marcia X's interlocutor, also an established expert. See:

https://slate.com/technology/2019/04/black-feminists-alt-right-twitter-gamergate.html

(note that the person referred to as I’Nasah in this article is the same person as the interviewer in the Logic mag piece; and the Slate piece is by no means the only published piece establishing this history/Kiam's expertise) ~2026-70810-9 (talk) 20:34, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

The quoted exception is very narrow and also suggests to use independent, reliable sources.

Also interviews, in general, are WP:PRIMARY sources and not WP:SECONDARY reporting. They can be used to show what a particular person says, but it can't be used for analysis which is what is needed here.

For inclusion, what's still missing is independent secondary coverage that discusses these issues about mastodon itself. Without that it's difficult to summarize the topic or assess the appropriate weight. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 20:52, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

" what philosopher Myisha Cherry calls “white ignorance,” “white skepticism,” and “white empathy.”30 White ignorance comes into play often on the fediverse: when a Black, Indigenous, or person of color reports a racist incident, a common reply is for white people to say, “I’m also against racism, but I’ve been on Mastodon for years and have not experienced this”— the implication being that such racism is rare, or even made up. They then might be skeptical and ask for evidence: “I’m also against racism, but I need proof of what you’re saying”— and then when they get proof, they respond with even more skepticism and further demands for evidence." (Gehl p. 91)

"These patterns have happened on Mastodon and the fediverse for years. In 2022, during the height of the Elon Musk– provoked migration from Twitter to Mastodon, philosopher of technology Johnathan Flowers observed this pattern and summed it up: “Mastodon is a very white space. It is not unlike other tech spaces where whiteness is predominant. Insofar as this is the case, the norms, the habits, the affordances of the platform will inherit whiteness.”32 For Flowers, these patterns have been so deeply ingrained in Mastodon that it could not be a viable replacement for Twitter, particularly because Twitter, for all its flaws, saw the emergence of #BlackTwitter as a force. Mastodon struggles to do the same." (Gehl p. 93)

Note that Gehl's sources include some of the material I'd linked above, but Gehl's writing in an unimpeachably academic venue (Oxford U Press). The case for relevance and "independent secondary coverage that discusses these issues about mastodon itself" is made, quite clearly.

I can share a PDF of an excerpt of this chapter if anyone wants to have it (short so as not to violate fair use, but relevant section). I'm not a computer toucher so didn't have a way to upload a PDF (not sure I could link here anyway). ~2026-70810-9 (talk) 23:25, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, no need to share the PDF. This is a strong reliable secondary source and could warrant a brief, attributed mention in the article.

How's this?

In his book Move Slowly and Build Bridges, Gehl argues that Mastodon has been shaped by predominantly white participation and that this has limited its ability to replicate dynamics such as #BlackTwitter that emerged on Twitter.

◦ Sibshops (talk) 23:40, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

That looks great, thanks. Circling back to the very top, IDK whether this should be "criticism" or something else, will defer to others who do this more regularly. TY.

If you want to also cite in the body or in a footnote how Mastodon's culture echoes wider FLOSS challenges,

"though their experiences vary, many people of color, positioned in multiple ways, feel that they have to grapple with hegemonic whiteness or their own “otherness” in open technology communities"

- p. 221 of this book: https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691192888/hacking-diversity ~2026-70810-9 (talk) 00:12, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

(Oh the other reason I suggested that was the comment at the very top, " "general atmosphere, predominantly white + tech boys" and the activities or non-activities of the controlling entities") ~2026-70810-9 (talk) 00:16, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll see where it can be added.

Regarding Hacking Diversity, that book discusses open technology communities in general, not Mastodon specifically. Wikipedia editors can't make the connection directly from general criticism toward open source communities to Mastodon directly or it would be consider original research. WP:SYNTH ◦ Sibshops (talk) 00:21, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Gotcha, thnaks. ~2026-70810-9 (talk) 00:36, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

I ended up adding the following to the 'Content Moderation' section since it seemed relevant to the discussion there.

In Move Slowly and Build Bridges, Robert W. Gehl argues that predominantly white participation has shaped Mastodon in ways that affect how reports of racism are received and limit its ability to replicate Black Twitter on Twitter.

◦ Sibshops (talk) 00:37, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with this. (As you can tell I find the evidence standards confusing.) I still think there might be more grounds for expanding but maybe other folks can pitch in. ~2026-70810-9 (talk) 02:46, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Political bias

This should be given the highest "May be political bias" banner that exists, if ONLY for the header image. I would add it myself but can NEVER find the banners from Wikipedia search. (BTW I always go to the "Citation needed" page and go from there)

I support Gaza 100% btw Curuwen (talk) 19:41, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Care to explain how any of that is relevant to this article? ApLundell (talk) 20:15, 8 June 2026 (UTC)