There is a lot of mess to compost. #fashionistas are unconscious of the dynamics of “in and out groups” that split the workings of the social change movements. One of the core problems shaping the current #fediverse is not technical – it’s social power dynamics disguised as community safety and consensus. Exclusivity dynamics emerge whenever an in-group begins defining legitimacy. Over time, a small set of people implicitly decides which conversations are acceptable, viewpoints are “safe,” and which participants belong.
In group members push to feel they are accepted and seen as part of the core community, out-group members are then excluded and marginalized, This is rarely deliberate conspiracy. It grows organically through social reinforcement, shared assumptions, and unexamined norms. But the outcome is predictable: those closest to the in-group accumulate influence, shaping culture and discourse without explicit accountability. The result is a failure of real diversity.
Not diversity as branding or policy documents, but lived diversity, different approaches, different cultures, different forms of participation. Instead of a thriving common, the environment becomes sterile, only approved viewpoints circulate, disagreement becomes framed as threat and community growth stalls because new perspectives cannot root.
The #fediverse was meant to grow from pluralism, many nodes, many cultures, many experiments. But in practice, repeated reliance on social exclusion tools has produced echo chambers. When #blocking becomes the default conflict resolution mechanism rather than a last resort, several things happen to “native” diversity – the messy range of grassroots experimentation – gets filtered out. Conflict becomes polarized into “us vs them” narratives leading to cooperative bridges collapsing.
Be careful of #fashionistas hiding behind the burocracy of “Safe Space’s” mess making, they are the problem and have little to do with solutions or “safety”. Out-groups feel marginalized and disengage, what remains is not a healthy community but a narrowing cultural loop reinforcing its own assumptions. This is not safety, it is stagnation. And stagnation is fatal to an ecosystem built on federation.
The structural mistake is in confusing control with care. Many well-meaning actors believe they are protecting community health. Yet when protection turns into gatekeeping, it reproduces centralized power patterns inside supposedly decentralized spaces. This is the #NGO logic creeping into grassroots environments – speaking about “community” while exercising control over it, substituting bureaucratic process for lived trust and enforcing purity instead of cultivating resilience.
The result is a performative version of safety that reduces participation rather than expanding it. Mitigating the mess, we need to rebuild a more messy balance, not abandoning moderation or boundaries, those are necessary. The problem is imbalance, as healthy communities require active mediation between openness and protection. Federated systems do not eliminate power, they distribute it.
Without this, the #fediverse risks reproducing the same failures as centralized platforms, just at smaller scale. Maybe the simplest way to say it is if the only tool we reach for is exclusion, the community is already failing.
Maybe I need to say this clearer?
One thought on “Change and challenge group dynamics”