Updates

In our Spring 2025 reading group with Social.coop we read Governable Spaces: Democratic Design for Online Life (2024) by Nathan Schneider. It brings together eclectic references, diverse intellectual lineages, and many projects to explore how online spaces can be more democratic for those who inhabit them. Below are highlights from our discussion and key takeaways.

Want to join with us? We are gearing up for our Fall 2025 reading group where we will be reading ​Lifehouse: Taking Care of Ourselves in a World on Fire (2024) Adam Greenfield in October.

What we read

Over three calls we walked through the chapters of the book, each of which stand alone or were previously published as academic papers. The topics range from describing how online spaces recapitulate a form of “implicit feudalism”, how metaphors like homesteading and the logics underpinning it contribute to our current democratic decline, and the forms of modular politics and stacks that could lead toward flourishing self-governance. In between chapters, actually existing projects were profiled that demonstrate the book’s themes and concepts.

Discussion highlights

Metanarrative about democracy in decline

Schneider states that “constraints in governance in online spaces have contributed to the peril of democratic politics in general”. We discussed examples of anti-democratic tendencies in online spaces. We also saw them as the secondary effect of deeper issues like capitalism, big tech monopolies, and bad incentives in tech development. As a contrast, we all enjoyed the example of his mother’s garden club and its bylaws. Illustrating how practicing democracy in small, intentional ways builds skills for larger-scale participation. 

Metaphors that reinforce or counter those narratives

We reflected on the metaphors that exist to describe being “online” as a place (like “homesteading” and “information superhighway”). We also talked about the meanings of the new metaphor coined in this book (“implicit feudalism”). The concepts of “stack” and “modularity” were extended as part of book’s positive project. We found it interesting to work with those, as they are popular technical concepts. Yet we recognized some limits they can impose along with low-level organization barriers that make it hard to tell a new story.

Challenges of building online governable spaces

The lack of clear models for online governance makes it difficult to overcome the challenges of operating online. In a context where users are used to having no power by default, where information is unevenly communicated, or where learning is required to adapt to greater agency. In addition we thought about how we’ve been acculturated to online spaces: that they can be left on a whim, or that any friction and effort is a negative that design should minimize.

Unease with crypto as a political imagination

We felt the book did a good job covering the governance work that is happening in the crypto space. However, it did not match many of our experiences with crypto, which were primarily about financial scams and enabling crime. Trying to be dispassionate, we asked: can we be inspired by these experiments and make them safe to use in contexts we care about? Crypto was juxtaposed with abolitionist work, we saw both projects as experiments with new approaches. We wondered would / could / should we want to do those experiments at the speed of crypto if we could?

Taking an archeological approach

We returned a few times to the overall approach of the book, which brought many distinct ideas together. Schneider quotes Catherine Walsh to describe this as finding “a past capable of renovating the future”. These pasts felt more like a menu to inspire future possibilities, as opposed to a rigid roadmap. 

Key takeaways

Reading the book led to generative and rich discussions. Inspired by Schneider’s approach, we brought up other historical moments and examples from our own interests and backgrounds. We made connections to other thinkers and books which opened up new avenues to explore together.

We were left feeling the challenge of building new online governance approaches, particularly where: 

• We need to explore and unpack the tools or interventions that add governance layers into tools to understand how they operate in fact
• We have to work within the constraints of limited available time (2 hours a week!-ish. tops!) to get to self-governance

We see opportunities to scaffold online governance from in-person strategies: by finding small ways to be incrementally more in community or around other people, or by longer-term participation in local and geographic hubs.

What are your thoughts on self-governance and democracy online? How do we get there? Tell us using the hashtag #CoSocialReads.

In Fall 2024, CoSocial members formed a reading group with Social.coop to read Erin Kissane and Darius Kazemi’s Governance on Fediverse Microblogging Servers report (August 2024). Over four calls we unpacked the report and reflected on connections between its findings and our cooperatives. We concluded with a Q&A with Erin Kissane, where we could step back and think about the future of an open social media ecosystem driven by solidarity. 

Below we’ve shared our takeaways and highlights as we gear up for future collective readings.

What should we read together this Fall? Let us know on this thread:

Post by @coop@cosocial.ca

View on Mastodon

What we read

The report answers the question: what are the most effective governance and administration models of medium-to-large sized Fediverse servers. To do so, it explores governance, moderation, and community dynamics on the Fediverse. It also identifies the human and digital infrastructural gaps that persist. Cooperative governance was considered throughout. Kissane and Kazemi conclude: “we don’t think that the Fediverse is likely to realize the potential benefits [of thoughtfully governed, medium-sized Fediverse servers] without ongoing and intentional emphasis on—and funding for—addressing the cultural, financial, legal, and technical governance needs and gaps highlighted by our research participants.”

Discussion highlights

Our discussions were wide-ranging and covered many topics which you can find in our notes. Here are the themes we returned to frequently: 

How (or does) the cooperative structure suit governing the social web

While the cooperative model offers an established framework for democratic decision-making and shared responsibility, it also has challenges. In the context of governing digital infrastructures those challenges include: ensuring active participation, limited time, lack of tools and funding to support democratic goals, and communicating ownership. There is no easy and direct translation from owning a share to a shared sense of ownership over the direction of a platform.

Challenges to sustainability and growth of the fediverse

Server admin burnout and instances disappearing due to unsustainable financing or the limits of volunteer-run operations were identified. We did not have an answer that easily addressed strain on existing resources. It also wasn’t clear that any single governance model had a significant advantage in overcoming challenges.

Tensions and opportunities around participation and ownership of digital infrastructure

We recognized a participation gap in volunteer cooperatives. Some members are active running the service or setting strategic direction. Others see the cooperative as a service provider. To the degree we need to address this gap, we discussed ways to support other forms of digital participation: new engagement pathways, member education on the model (typical in cooperatives), and deliberative and collaborative tools.

Solidarity as an approach to inter-server “diplomacy”

A key section on the report focused on the lack of tools to manage inter-server governance and moderation issues. Cooperatives often are motivated by the value of solidarity, which offers a framework for forms of “server diplomacy” versus a competitive approach. Solidarity could guide collaborations with other instances including collaborative moderation and defederation.

Balancing day-to-day moderation against high-level governance themes

In the report, the emphasis on governance focused on moderation as one of the key sites where governance happened. However in formally incorporated cooperatives, there are many other areas where governance can occur. Further, there is a “meta” conversation on governance: What governance happens via technology affordances and interfaces? What parts of a framework need to be known in advance (or guided by specific values)? What parts of governance need to be written processes or culture?

Q&A with Erin Kissane

After we finished reading the report we were lucky to have Erin join us and answer our questions. We wondered whether on-server communities are being intentionally cultivated anywhere. Also we were curious why (other) people chose cooperatives or chose not to formalize their governance structure. We pitched the idea of solidarity as a framing for server diplomacy. And all ended affirming the role of libraries as institutions, spaces, and social infrastructures that support social relations.

Key takeaways

Here are the ideas we left with:

• Appreciate the validation of shared challenges and case studies
• Desire for more tools to support cooperative and collaborative governance. In particular for moderation, authentication, and shared decision-making. Recognizing we are not in the position to take on leading development, is there a role for us as early adopters?
• Continue taking those first steps toward solidarity. Even having this reading group as a social.coop and cosocial.ca joint series felt important. Are there future member education events we could be doing in tandem? Connections we should make to other social media cooperatives?

What are your thoughts on governance of social media and digital infrastructures? Who else covers the topic that we should read? Chat with us using the hashtag #CoSocialReads.