Branding the #4opens: Collective Identity and Values in the Fediverse

Branding in the #Fediverse is a tricky topic, on one hand, it helps communicate shared values and guide new users. On the other, it risks undermining the very diversity and decentralization the Fediverse was built on. So, how do we talk about branding without falling into the traps of centralization, monoculture, and control?

What’s the purpose of branding on the #4opens web? And yes, it plays different roles depending on who’s using it.

For projects and platforms, it can signal authority and attract attention.

For users and communities, it can help with visibility, onboarding, and shared identity.

But if we’re not careful, it easily slips from communication into control. With instance branding vs project branding. What can we do about this? Instead of strong top-down project branding (like we see in #Mastodon or #Threads), we need to support instance-level branding. That means letting each community shape how they present themselves. This path of local control supports:

Customization

Diversity of expression

A truly decentralized ecosystem

Think of it like a neighborhood, each one has its own vibe, but they all exist on the same street plan. If we take this path we avoid the problem with strong branding, when developer teams and platforms dominate the branding, they can start to overshadow the rest of the network.

Smaller instances get lost

Contributions from the edges get ignored

Diversity is flattened 

This weakens collaboration and limits imagination, yes, scale matters, and branding needs to happen at different levels:

Individual users

Community-run instances

Federation-wide projects and tools

On tis postaive path branding can help at each level, but we have to watch out when one scale starts overpowering the others, that’s when centralization creeps in. It’s a balance between accessibility and freedom. What matters is that people can find their way into the Fediverse easily, visual identity plays a big part in this. But if we go too far in creating a single “official” look, we risk:

Homogenizing the network

Undermining community self-expression

Balance is good design, which then empower new users and protect the freedom of existing communities. To do this, we need strong community-driven identity, emerging organically from within the network. That’s why the current logos and names (like the elephant for Mastodon or the general term “Fediverse”) are tolerated, they hint at identity without enforcing it.

We should aim for the same with any new branding: Lightweight, community-tested, aligned with the #4opens. On this path, it’s good to remember what we’re building, it’s native to the #openweb. It doesn’t need corporate-style branding to grow, what it needs is trust, cooperation, and care in how we present and share what we’ve built.

So, before jumping on the hype train for branding-as-growth, let’s remember: Don’t be a prat. Don’t centralize what should be shared. Don’t package what should remain open. The #4opens – open code, open data, open process, and open culture – are our foundation. Branding should reflect these values, not erode them.