CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 4Privacy, Security, and Data ProtectionMedia and Digital CommunicationPrivacy-Preserving Technologies in Data

Trust and Friction: Negotiating How Information Flows through Decentralized Social Media

Open access
Hwang, Sohyeon, Nanayakkara, Priyanka, Shvartzshnaider, Yan·2025·Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction
DOI 10.1145/3757516
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Decentralized social media protocols enable users in independent, user-hosted servers (i.e., instances) to interact with each other while they self-govern. This community-based model of social media governance opens up new opportunities for tailored decision-making about information flows - i.e., what user data is shared to whom and when - and in turn, for protecting user privacy. To better understand how community governance shapes privacy expectations on decentralized social media, we conducted a semi-structured interview with 23 users of the Fediverse, a decentralized social media network. Our findings illustrate important factors that shape a community's understandings of information flows, such as rules and proactive efforts from admins who are perceived as trustworthy. We highlight ''governance frictions'' between communities that raise new privacy risks due to incompatibilities in values, security practices, and software. Our findings point to the unique challenges of decentralized social media, suggest design opportunities to address frictions, and outline the role of participatory decision-making to realize the full potential of decentralization.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3757516

Cites

99 of 99 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Governance decisions in decentralized social media are typically made by instance administrators, who tend to be more responsive and accessible than executives of large, centrally-operated social media platforms during times of user dissatisfaction.

    “Governance decisions are typically made by instance administrators [5,32], who tend to be more responsive and accessible than the executives of large, centrally-operated social media platforms [4,56,119] during times of user dissatisfaction.”

    From Seeing the Politics of Decentralized Social Media Protocols (2026) · cites this paper as [56]

    Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Because Space curation is shared between Client and Server operators in ActivityPub and Nostr, the experience can become fragmented, at times increasing the risk of exposing users to content they find harmful or unwelcome.

    “Because Space curation is shared between Client and Server operators in these protocols, the experience can become fragmented, at times increasing the risk of exposing users to content they find harmful or unwelcome [56,109].”

    From Seeing the Politics of Decentralized Social Media Protocols (2026) · cites this paper as [56]

    Section 6.1 (page unavailable) says differences in instance norms and federation can put users in the way of abusive behavior or content they do not want to see. Section 6.3 (page unavailable) also describes incompatible software and privacy protections across Fediverse instances. The copy does not establish that Space curation is shared between Client and Server operators in both ActivityPub and Nostr, or tie that arrangement to a fragmented experience; the Nostr-specific part is unsupported. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Inconsistent moderation standards across implementations of ActivityPub and Nostr can result in new risks for harm, such as privacy violations.

    “Recent work on ActivityPub instances notes how inconsistent practices can result in new risks for harm, such as privacy violations [56].”

    From Seeing the Politics of Decentralized Social Media Protocols (2026) · cites this paper as [56]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 13

  1. Kathy Charmaz. 2015. Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis (2nd ed.). SAGE, Thousand Oaks, California.
  2. Camille Cobb. 2019. User-to-User Privacy in Social and Communications Applications. Thesis. University of Washington.
  3. Hsiao Ying Huang and Masooda Bashir. 2016. The Onion Router: Understanding a Privacy Enhancing Technology Community. In Proceedings of the 79th ASIS&T Annual Meeting: Creating Knowledge, Enhancing Lives Through Information & Technology (ASIST '16). American Society for Information Science, Silver Springs, MD, USA, 34:1-34:5.
  4. Charles Kiene. 2024. Identity, Legitimacy, and Voice: Understanding Rule Adoption, Compliance, and Evolution in Online Communities. Ph. D. Dissertation. University of Washington, Seattle WA USA.
  5. Sara E. Kiesler, Robert E. Kraut, Paul Resnick, and Aniket Kittur. 2012. Regulating Behavior in Online Communities. In Building Successful Online Communities: Evidence-Based Social Design, Robert E. Kraut and Paul Resnick (Eds.). MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
  6. Robert E. Kraut and Paul Resnick. 2012. Building Successful Online Communities: Evidence-based Social Design. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
  7. Hanlin Li, Brent Hecht, and Stevie Chancellor. 2022. All That's Happening behind the Scenes: Putting the Spotlight on Volunteer Moderator Labor in Reddit. In Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, Vol. 16. AAAI, Atlanta, Georgia, 584-595.
  8. Helen Nissenbaum. 2015. Respect for Context as a Benchmark for Privacy Online: What It Is and Isn't. In Social Dimensions of Privacy: Interdisciplinary Perspectives, Beate Roessler and Dorota Mokrosinska (Eds.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
  9. Nicholas O'Donnell. 2021. Have We No Decency? Section 230 and the Liability of Social Media Companies for Deepfake Videos Notes. University of Illinois Law Review 2021, 2 (2021), i-740.
  10. Nathan Schneider. 2024. Governable Spaces: Democratic Design for Online Life. University of California Press, Oakland, CA.
  11. Daniel Solove, J. 2015. The Meaning and Value of Privacy. In Social Dimensions of Privacy: Interdisciplinary Perspectives, Beate Roessler and Dorota Mokrosinska (Eds.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
  12. Salome Viljoen. 2021. A Relational Theory of Data Governance. Yale Law Journal 131 (2021), 573.
  13. Xinyu Wang, Sai Koneru, and Sarah Rajtmajer. 2024. The Failed Migration of Academic Twitter. arXiv:2406.04005 [cs] doi:10.48550/arXiv.2406.04005 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

  • Seeing the Politics of Decentralized Social Media Protocols

    Oshinowo, T., Hwang, S., Zhang, A. X., & Monroy-Hernández, A. (2026) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3816995 · Cited by 1 · see citing works

    “Prior work has focused on moments of mass migration from centralized, feed-based platforms [22, 52, 58, 85], as well as privacy, safety, and trust challenges that emerge in decentralized settings [29, 56, 65].”
    InfluentialSelf-citation

Authors
Hwang, S., Nanayakkara, P., & Shvartzshnaider, Y.
Affiliations
  • Princeton University (US)
  • Harvard University (US)
  • York University (CA)
ORCID
Venue
Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction
Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery (ACM)
Published
2025-10-16
Volume
9
Issue
7
Pages
1-26
ISSN
2573-0142 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1145/3757516
OpenAlex
W4415272101
Cited by
4
References
99
Citations by year
2026: 4
FWCI
6.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (IIS-1910202, DGE-2234667)
  • Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (RGPIN-2022-04595)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Privacy, Security, and Data Protection
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Media and Digital Communication
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Privacy-Preserving Technologies in Data
Keywords
decentralized social media, Fediverse, information flow, user privacy, community governance, trust, participatory decision-making, self-government, privacy expectations

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review