On a Dilemma of Internet Democracy
Among advocates of privacy and information freedom, centralization is often viewed as a problem. For decades, cypherpunks and enthusiasts have been creating decentralized alternatives, and technologically free money, communication, and information seem to exist. However, the egalitarian digital utopia has yet to materialize: the mainstream remains dominated by centralized products from IT giants.
In her essay The Federation Fallacy, activist and developer Alyssa Rosenzweig suggests that the key to freedom in the information age lies not in centralization or decentralization, but in the ideas of digital democracy.
Let’s explore how the evolution of governance reflects the development of online platforms and why even in the internet, anarchy does not serve as an answer to tyranny.
Centralization is Natural
The average user of the open internet has tools available to build their own information freedom and privacy. With some caveats, financial independence can even be achieved.
Decentralized Internet
The internet itself technically remains a decentralized and free system to which anyone can connect. Anyone can create a server and a website. Numerous organizations maintain the infrastructure and provide services to businesses and users. There is no single entity that can control the entire system at will.
However, a single misstep in an Amazon or Cloudflare server resonates on a planetary scale, and access to the internet can become an unreachable privilege at the discretion of various governments.
Open Email
Email is also a decentralized system. Anyone can launch their own server and manage their own correspondence. Most people cannot or do not want to deal with the technical complexities and costs of maintaining infrastructure.
Google has already set up servers and offers a ready-made free service. It includes spam filters, access to a whole ecosystem of products, and the ability to tie all your digital life to one account. But you can also register your own domain and learn about SPF, DKIM, and DMARC nuances.
Free Messaging
Jabber (XMPP protocol) is similarly an open and free solution for online chats. You can create your own server that can interact with other XMPP servers in a fully self-governing manner.
However, the majority of users of this protocol are WhatsApp users, confined within the service. The app does not allow messaging with other XMPP systems.
Centralized mainstream services offer convenient solutions that require no technical knowledge or costs. Free decentralized alternatives are the domain of enthusiasts with specialized knowledge.
In such conditions, Gmail, WhatsApp, and other giants naturally remain the default choice for the vast majority of users.
The Failed Success Story of Mastodon
According to Rosenzweig, Mastodon—a decentralized competitor to social network X—represents one of the most promising examples of a federated system that adheres to the ideals of freedom and decentralization.
Many independent instances interact within a single protocol, and each user can create a new server for themselves and their friends or colleagues.
In 2019, Rosenzweig analyzed the available data on Mastodon at that time. On average, each of the 3,070 servers had about 640 users. However, their distribution was uneven.
The three largest instances accounted for 50.8% of users, with just two of them covering 41.2%.
As of March 2026, the Mastodon developers' site lists over 7,000 active instances with approximately 745,000 users. All have voluntarily agreed to follow the platform's "code of honor": actively moderating problematic content and ensuring safety.
Meanwhile, the FediDB service tracks most registered servers and accounts: according to its data, there are over 9,000 servers and 8.5 million accounts.
The flagship instance, mastodon.social, has 284,000 active users.
Other large communities include mstdn.jp with 413,167 registered accounts, mstdn.social with 271,540, mastodon.world with ~195,100, mastodon.cloud with ~189,000, mastodon.online with ~189,000, mas.to with ~188,000, techhub.social with ~86,000, and infosec.exchange with ~80,000.
Rosenzweig believes that such consolidation represents a failure of Mastodon in terms of decentralization goals. In an ideal world, the metrics would be closer to the average, and each of the thousands of servers would represent a trusted community of users who know each other.
However, in practice, even in technically decentralized systems, large centers of attraction emerge around which users and resources concentrate.
As a result, Gmail arises in decentralized email, the XMPP technology has led to the emergence of centralized messengers like WhatsApp, and corporations have gained control over the World Wide Web.
Centralization is Necessary…
In describing the search for a realistic form of digital freedom, Rosenzweig turned to political history and the metamorphoses of states on the path to democratic society.
The starting point is authoritarianism. In online terms, this is the internet under the control of Silicon Valley giants and a kind of "digital dictatorship".
Its overthrow will lead to a period of anarchy—a naive decentralization where each individual bears personal responsibility for their own data and freedoms.
This is a "bloody and short life". Moreover, the entire system risks collapsing sooner or later due to tragedies of the commons or the paradox of tolerance.
The natural vector of development will be some form of "order" and consolidation of control. According to Rosenzweig, naive anarchic decentralization does not necessarily have to lead to a reconstruction of the destroyed dictatorship or the rise of techno-oligarchs. An alternative could be digital democracy.
…But in Moderation
As the example of European states shows, centralized democracy is not an ideal but a viable compromise.
A certain degree of centralization is necessary. It is the basis for the efficiency of government operations. Anyone can entrust control to an "administrator" and gain access to the system.
It is crucial that in a centralized environment, the controlling entity remains accountable to users rather than to the selfish interests of developers or corporate owners of the product.
Rosenzweig describes her vision of digital democracy using the example of a microblogging platform. There is a flagship server with clear rules established based on public consensus. If necessary, these rules are enforced by a team of moderators elected by the community.
The platform's code should be open, and all functions should be accessible via API. This way, users can choose between different client software and will not be tied to any official product.
The developer emphasizes that these properties are largely realized in Mastodon. That is why, despite its failure in terms of decentralization, the project can be considered an example of successful digital democracy.
Another prominent and large-scale example Rosenzweig cites is Wikipedia. Despite significant centralization of the platform, the project's freedom is upheld by democratic principles and processes. Anyone can make edits, albeit with certain restrictions, and conflicts are resolved through consensus-seeking.
Freedom in Accessibility
A viable system worth striving for will be a compromise between centralization and freedom. It must be accessible to all, regardless of wealth or technical knowledge.
The commercial interests of large corporations often conflict with user interests. The technical barrier to creating one's own digital infrastructure deprives the average consumer of access to the benefits of decentralization.
“Whether online or in the real world, rejecting dictatorship is not enough to achieve freedom. We must uphold democracy,” concluded Rosenzweig.
As in reality, the path to democracy will not be easy. Perhaps it can still be built in defiance of the dictatorship of tech giants and through naive anarchic decentralization.
But even there, beyond the threshold of utopia, a free system will need active support. Unfortunately, in the digital world, as in the real one, democracy can easily turn against itself.
Text: Krzysztof Shpak