Convener: Jennifer Miller (@JMMaok@mastodon.online)

Participants who chose to record their names here:

• Mark Corbett Wilson (@mcorbettwilson@mastodon.social)
• @mayel@bonfire.cafe
• Scott Jenson (@scott@social.coop)
• Jeffrey Campo (@jeffcampo@mastodon.social)
• Jim DeLaHunt (@jdlh@mstdn.ca)
• Evan Prodromou (@evanprodromou@socialwebfoundation.org)
• William Maggos (@wjmaggos@liberal.city)

Paper: Session is based on the research described in:

Törnberg, P., & Rogers, R. (2026, April 21). Towards a Post-Social Media Studies. Retrieved from https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/6nue7_v1

Notes

Brief summary: We are moving to a post-social-media era because 1) algorithms are now recommending based on interests rather than networks, 2) generative AI tools are reducing the role of humans as content creators, and 3) people are moving out of the public sphere into (semi)-private communities.

Implications are that new environments are fragmenting into broadcast models, (semi)-private communities, and individual interactions with chatbots as media.

The focus is on what this implies for people who study communications and have been doing so within a social media framework, but it also has implications for broader social phenomena, policy approaches, and even practical decisions for those individuals and organizations who have been doing scholarly communications through social media.

Ben Werdmuller talk (at FediForum!) where he talks about the difference between “Social Media” and “Social Networking”.

What is the fediverse trying to be in post-social media? Social networking vs social media

• What is our value? We are by definition small, is that good? (it tends to push away new joiners)

• Reframe question - community that can decide where to go. Fediverse is thousands of fediverse. Centralizing towards a particular direction may not make sense

• Mayel: Fediverse not one single thing. Global town square is a fiction - not everyone can be in the same place talking all together. Becomes broadcasting. Can have both, interconnected (eg bridging with ATproto).

• Interesting position: Much frustratrion comes from unwanted tagging (good point!)

• Newcomers are “helped to death”, culture control

• Add mass surveillance and manipulation/control of communications by algorithms

• Individual joins community first, expands into other parts of the Fediverse

• Communities join the Fediverse as a group, later open up to the Fediverse

Anything for you that prompts you to want to do something different?

• Being driven to smaller communities. What should social media be if issues in paper addressed?

• Decentralized social media allows for bigger, more democratic social space. Space should not be controlled by single commercial company. Fedi as alternative to mass media.

• Go beyond micro-blogging approach. Ability to interact with different types of activities, like governance

Implications for role of individual. Average person engaging in a space that is open (licensed, visible)

• Open as interoperable, not necessarily public

• Mass social media phenomenon - that world is dissapearing. Overrun by influencers, AI. People are moving to closed spaces. Mass spaces arguably not a natural space for humans to be. More closely connected spaces more natural.

• Early days of Twitter kinda worked. Fewer jerks? Less algorithmic control?

• “Dealing with the bad stuff” is the problem for a global converstation

What is the Fediverse doing about semi-private spaces (Discord like spaces)?

• Spend more time understanding the problem. Town square imperfect metaphor. Bonfire working in this space.

• Two categories of problems. Town square vs semi-private groups. How to build trust and relationships in semi-private groups.

• How is it that Signal/WhatsApp have group changes without a moderator? (everyone is)

• Levels of openness:

  • private
  • public but closed membership
  • instance archipelagos - decide who to federate with

Who gets left out? Small groups feel safer but have been targets of misinformation of Facebook, WhatsApp.