I Am to Boycott Fosstodon and Why You Should Boycott It Too

2026-01-28T14:12:18+08:00

Frustrated by Fosstodon's moderation—which repeatedly warned me merely for advising others to avoid the proprietary browser Vivaldi—I will no longer use that instance. I have created a new account on hostux.social, migrated all my data to it, and set up a redirect.

In this article I explain why I made this decision and why you should leave Fosstodon too.

The immediate and most important reason: promotion of proprietary malware and spyware under the name 'FOSS'

Fosstodon is a Mastodon instance themed around free (libre) software. However, neither the Code of Conduct nor the server rules prohibit the promotion of proprietary software. This is revisionism.

Even more absurdly, the e-mail provider Tuta promoted the proprietary browser Vivaldi — which I consider to be malicious/proprietary spyware — via its Mastodon account. That behaviour did not trigger moderation. What triggered repeated moderation warnings from Fosstodon was my reply reminding people to avoid proprietary software.

It's not only me who has suffered from Fosstodon's moderation

This is not an isolated gripe. Over the years a pattern of opaque, heavy-handed moderation has emerged: long-time contributors have found their accounts frozen or suspended without clear, public explanations. In mid-2023 several Fedora community members reported instance-wide suspensions that severed years of followers and conversations; those removals were carried out with little transparency and scant justification. Users who pushed back were often met with terse admin replies or quiet account freezes rather than reasoned, documented processes.

That a community founded around principles of liberty and collaboration would treat its members like liabilities — silencing, freezing or pushing them aside without accountability — is a betrayal. People have left, official project accounts have considered moving, and new sign-ups have been gated. These are not the actions of a healthy, federated community; they are the actions of a gated club that mistakes control for integrity.

Fosstodon's moderators are right-wing and fascists

The accusation is blunt because the evidence was blunt. In late April 2025 a moderator — widely known in the community by their handle — was exposed for posting extreme right-wing, anti-trans and xenophobic comments on other platforms. That revelation detonated into the open: users demanded removal; admins hesitated; the moderator deleted their account and resigned from the moderation team only after the storm broke.

Whether you prefer the label "right-wing" or the harsher "fascist", the substantive point remains: a moderator entrusted with shaping community norms had publicly expressed views that many users reasonably regard as inimical to the safety of marginalised people. The real scandal was not merely the existence of those views, but the initial institutional reluctance to confront them decisively, and the victim-blaming of those who raised concerns. Fosstodon's initial handling allowed a culture of plausible deniability — a place where toxic beliefs could hide behind moderation badges until they were dragged into daylight.

Let us be clear: tolerating, sheltering, or failing to transparently and promptly address moderators who promote hateful or exclusionary rhetoric undermines any claim to be a bastion of libre software values. If the keepers of the gate will tolerate fascist-leaning moderation, what hope is there for ordinary users seeking a safe, principled space?

Fosstodon is against federation

Fosstodon's policies and practices have repeatedly worked against the spirit of federation. Consider the following pattern: an English-only rule on a global server; a shift to invite-only registration in 2023; heavy moderation that prompted talk of defederation; and a public communications style that discouraged open discussion. These are not neutral technical choices — they are gatekeeping mechanisms.

When administrators respond to community friction by locking the gates rather than by fostering transparent, democratic processes, they push the server away from the federated ideal. Indeed, during crises there were widespread threats from other instances to defederate Fosstodon — talk of severing ties. In practice major servers did not universally cut ties, but the fact that whole swathes of the fediverse considered ostracism demonstrates the reputational damage Fosstodon accumulated. The server's choice to require English only, to limit new registrations by invite, and to enact wide suspensions without public accountability all serve to reduce federation — they centralise power, and centralised power is precisely what federation was meant to avoid.

Other issues

The list of grievances is longer than Fosstodon's public statements would admit. A few notable recurrent problems:

• Opaque administration. Repeatedly, bans and suspensions were enacted with private moderator notes and little or no public rationale. Privacy is important, but secrecy is not the same as accountability. The result: rumour, resentment, and a collapse of trust.

• Inconsistent enforcement. High-profile accounts and institutional actors sometimes escaped scrutiny while ordinary users were penalised for far milder transgressions. The perception of double standards is corrosive; perceived partiality drives migration and undermines any moral authority the admins claim.

• Founders' tone and leadership failures. As early as 2019 a founder's public remark — dismissing people as "snowflakes" — revealed an attitude incompatible with careful stewardship of a diverse community. Later, during the 2025 moderator scandal, founders acknowledged burnout and stepped back under pressure; that collapse of leadership left a vacuum and amplified the damage.

• Policy drift. Fosstodon began life as a refuge for libre software enthusiasts. Over time, policy evolutions — from English-only rules to invite-only sign-ups and stricter moderation — transformed its culture in ways many users found alienating. Policies that are not clearly argued and justified will be experienced as caprice.

Summary

Fosstodon was a great Mastodon instance. The cynical truth is that a community built around freedom is being hollowed out by authoritarian moderation, opaque governance, and inconsistent enforcement. That it allows (or allowed) promotion of proprietary, privacy-hostile software while cracking down on those who warn against it is hypocrisy so raw it becomes performative.

If you care about libre software, about honest federated spaces, about communities that actually practise the values they preach, walk away. Move your accounts. Support healthier instances. Boycott the platforms that pretend to be free while tolerating proprietary promotion and sheltering problematic moderators. Do not allow a single hubristic server to define the fediverse for the rest of us.

Now is the time to leave, to go, and to boycott.