Krafter’s Blog
On Social Media and Regulation
2 September 2026
I recently watched a YouTube video from 8 months ago about the social media ban in Australia, and it got me thinking about how the Internet works (Internet with a capital I, meaning the whole big thing). The initial and current success of the web as a whole relies on the fact that it’s built on an open, interoperable, and Wholly Free standard (or set of standards). HTML, CSS, JS, HTTP, TCP/IP, 802.11x, etc. are not platform-specific. This might seem obvious and redundant to say out loud but you’ll see why I have to spell it out later. You can visit any website and in 99.9% of cases it will work on your device. You don’t have to switch browsers, protocols, or WiFi networks to access websites whether they’re a seized page published by the NSA or the Nextcloud instance that really doesn’t get enough airflow in that closet.
So why is that important?
If you’re used to reading news from chicagotribune.com, there is absolutely zero friction for you to open your web browser to blockclubchicago.org instead, other than that you’re typing out a different address (which lets be real, the second time and onward will be autocompleted for you).
Yes I get that, but how does this apply to social media?
On the Fediverse, when controversy sprung up surrounding the dubious moderation of Fosstodon, I was able to easily switch to Amin Hollon’s new instance, Polymaths.social. I was able to keep my followers, still follow everyone I had before, etc. etc. With major social media platforms like Instagram, Tw*tter, whatever else, that would be entirely inconceivable. Big Tech platforms have all the incentive to stop their platforms from being interoperable— but only because no other big tech platforms are.
Now, suggesting that big tech platforms use ActivityPub is not a new idea. And, it’s a bad one. But I still think that requiring interoperability might just be the best idea. Not because a long term situation where some of us use OSS platforms and most people use Big Tech platforms would be ideal. It wouldn’t be. But it would allow for a transitional period wherein the centralized mass of people, creators, content, etc. on big tech platforms could be shifted, seamlessly, onto countless small & independently run instances.
As with all legislation, this would have good and bad aspects but understanding the nuance there is important. For one, we’d be stuck with the standard chosen by the legislature, and the standard itself would become a huge target for lobbyists, Big Tech, Fascists, etc. We would have to ensure that ActivityPub, like HTTP or TCP/IP, remain free from exterior influence and conflicts of interest. Because, if it were compromised, the backbone of any kind of forced-interoperability standard would fall apart.
Such legislation would also necessitate standards that could be universally applied, or at least applied to larger instances (say, over 1k users) to stop them from isolating themselves or limiting interoperability or simple migration between platforms.
If we were to fight for this kind of legislation, it very well might abolish social media as a whole if it came alongside with grassroots movements to move off of large platforms and onto smaller local ones. Maybe local nonprofits could get into the habit of running instances for their local communities.
Now, moderation would be the issue, especially the issue posited by legislators. Without a centralized moderation system (which would be too easy to exploit to censor what the government or the moderating body doesn’t like), there would have to be an organization that enforced moderation standards. Maybe an independent government organization would audit moderation practices of larger instances, and maybe publish its own blocklist that larger instances would be required to follow (with some kind of board of ethics restricting what they can and cannot put on that blocklist).
If social media was decentralized like the HTTP & web surfing aspect of the internet functionally still is, then maybe anonymity and freedom from billionare ownership would be feasible. However, we do have a long way to go before this kind of nuanced legislation could enter the conversation. For now, we’ll have to see who’s eyeing the big red “BAN IT” button.
America the inefficient.
26 April 2024
Here in the good ol’ United States of America, we have a dangerous culture that is leading the world (well, mostly the Western World, or maybe just ourselves) into a place of desolation and despair. We waste food, money, resources, and land. Why? Because we’re ‘Muricans, and the world can’t tell us what to do.
Where are we going?
30 November 2023
Recently, I’ve found a new side of the internet has started to emerge. It’s not entirely new, as it’s very reminiscent of the ‘old web’, but it’s new to me (and probably many others in my age bracket). This new internet encompasses many things, but in this post we’ll just focus on the Social Media side of things.
