# Social Networking Software Category **URL:** https://discuss.privacyguides.net/t/social-networking-software-category/26100 **Category:** Site Development **Tags:** completed **Created:** 2025-03-24T19:26:27Z **Posts:** 24 ## Post 1 by @ph00lt0 — 2025-03-24T19:26:27Z Continuing from [How to use social media privately](https://discuss.privacyguides.net/t/how-to-use-social-media-privately/26078) and [Mastodon (Social Networking Software) - #14 by anon80779245](https://discuss.privacyguides.net/t/mastodon-social-networking-software/26076/14) Let’s structure the requirements and possible other information to include on such a recommendations page. **@jonah’s edit for context: please be aware of the existing proposed criteria and other changes from this PR before discussing:** [https://github.com/privacyguides/privacyguides.org/pull/2978/files](https://github.com/privacyguides/privacyguides.org/pull/2978/files) > - Must be free and open source software. > > - Must use a federated protocol to communicate with other instances of the social networking software. > > - Must not have non-technical restrictions on who can be federated with. > > - Must be usable within a standard web browser. > > - Must make public content accessible to visitors without an account. > > - Must allow you to limit who can follow your profile. > > - Must allow you to post content visible only to your followers. --- ## Post 2 by @anon80779245 — 2025-03-24T16:17:52Z I think we should be cautious here. Wanting openness is good, but we should also have requirements about user privacy, even though those might conflict with the former. I propose to add the following criterias: - Any direct messaging feature must prominently display whether the communication is encrypted. If it’s not it shouldn’t suggest it is private in any way, including by labeling it Private Messages. - Users must be able to control who can see and interact with their posts, at minima it must offer an option to prevent scrapping of their posts. - Must offer an option to hide followers and following - Must not require a phone number, even for “verification purposes” - Must not ask for identification including by requiring to eneter your real name or require a verification selfie - Must accept aliases for registration - Must have good security by requiring a strong password and support 2FA Best-case - Should offer moderation options, including choosing which content you deem offensive and which to block (excluding illegal content such as CSAM) - Transparency about moderation decision and policies - End-to-End Encrypted Direct Messages - No analytics or opt-in only --- ## Post 3 by @phnx — 2025-03-24T16:45:38Z > [@anon80779245](#): > > Any direct messaging feature must prominently display whether the communication is encrypted. If it’s not it shouldn’t suggest it is private in any way, including by labeling it Private Messages. The only recommendation we should be making regarding using these platforms for private messages is _don’t_. We have recommendations for [The Best Private Instant Messengers - Privacy Guides](https://www.privacyguides.org/en/real-time-communication/) which should be used for all non-public communication. --- ## Post 4 by @anon80779245 — 2025-03-24T16:48:04Z Agreed, but those features are there anyway so we should require providers to be honest about them. E2EE of those is always good to have, even if it’s not as strong as proper E2EE messengers --- ## Post 5 by @faxe — 2025-03-24T18:21:09Z IMO listing Social Networks under the software category is somewhat confusing. For example for mastodon I personally would expect mastodon client recommendations under this category instead of just a mastodon recommendation as the “best” social network. I’m still fine with adding it this way since the whole sidebar might be overhauled in the future as per [this thread](https://discuss.privacyguides.net/t/change-recommendations-sidebar-layout/25348/10) --- ## Post 6 by @anon39279085 — 2025-03-24T18:24:14Z I agree, the mastodon backend and client are a whole different story For example I’ve seen [https://elk.zone/](https://elk.zone/) being highly praised as a mastodon client and better than mastodon itself but yeah. --- ## Post 7 by @jonah — 2025-03-24T19:23:41Z The logic is sort of similar to our current Element/Matrix recommendation where we are not recommending any particular instance host (server provider) in this case, only the server software in general. I agree we should just make broader changes to the sidebar beyond this. --- ## Post 8 by @jonah — 2025-03-24T19:30:05Z > [@Mastodon (Social Networking Software)](https://discuss.privacyguides.net/t/mastodon-social-networking-software/26076/7): > > at minima it must offer an option to prevent scrapping of their posts. I am not aware of _any_ software which **prevents** this. See my note on Mastodon’s related privacy settings in the PR: > The other privacy controls on this page should be read through, but we would stress that they are **not** technical controls, they are merely requests that you make to others. For example, if you choose to hide your profile from search engines on this page, **nothing** is actually stopping a search engine from reading your profile. You are merely requesting search engine indexes not publish your content to their users. > > You will likely still wish to make these requests, because they can practically reduce your digital footprint. However, they should not be _relied_ upon. The only effective way to hide your posts from search engines and others is to post with non-public (followers only) visibility settings _and_ limit who can follow your account. For this reason I am not very interested in _requiring_ `noindex` requests as part of the criteria. * * * > [@Mastodon (Social Networking Software)](https://discuss.privacyguides.net/t/mastodon-social-networking-software/26076/7): > > Must offer an option to hide followers and following _Separately_ from the option to have a private profile? So we should require the option to have a fully public profile, except with hidden followers/following? Mastodon allows this so it is not a problem, but I just want to be clear. How would we handle social networks without followers/followings or even profiles at all? * * * > [@Mastodon (Social Networking Software)](https://discuss.privacyguides.net/t/mastodon-social-networking-software/26076/7): > > Any direct messaging feature must prominently display whether the communication is encrypted. If it’s not it shouldn’t suggest it is private in any way, including by labeling it Private Messages. I agree with @phnx that I would just not want to encourage this behavior actually. Interested in others’ thoughts. * * * > [@Mastodon (Social Networking Software)](https://discuss.privacyguides.net/t/mastodon-social-networking-software/26076/7): > > Must not require a phone number, even for “verification purposes” > [@Mastodon (Social Networking Software)](https://discuss.privacyguides.net/t/mastodon-social-networking-software/26076/7): > > Must not ask for identification including by requiring to eneter your real name or require a verification selfie > [@Mastodon (Social Networking Software)](https://discuss.privacyguides.net/t/mastodon-social-networking-software/26076/7): > > Transparency about moderation decision and policies These criteria are only applicable to instance hosts. We are not recommending any particular instances here, only federated software. --- ## Post 9 by @ph00lt0 — 2025-03-24T19:32:06Z > [@jonah](#): > > I agree we should just make broader changes to the sidebar beyond this. that is already also discussed here: [Change "Recommendations" Sidebar Layout](https://discuss.privacyguides.net/t/change-recommendations-sidebar-layout/25348/) --- ## Post 10 by @jonah — 2025-03-24T19:33:32Z That is the thread which was linked above. --- ## Post 11 by @ph00lt0 — 2025-03-24T19:34:11Z ah sorry missed that lol --- ## Post 12 by @anon80779245 — 2025-03-24T20:30:32Z > [@jonah](#): > > _Separately_ from the option to have a private profile? > > So we should require the option to have a fully public profile, except with hidden followers/following? > > Mastodon allows this so it is not a problem, but I just want to be clear. > > How would we handle social networks without followers/followings or even profiles at all? If the social media has no follow system, then the problem doesn’t arrise. If there is an option for private profile maybe then this isn’t needed, but I think it’s still useful. > [@jonah](#): > > These criteria are only applicable to instance hosts. We are not recommending any particular instances here, only federated software. I see. So you are recommending the Mastodon protocol, not the app or the “official” instance ? > [@jonah](#): > > I agree with @phnx that I would just not want to encourage this behavior actually. Interested in others’ thoughts. We wouldn’t be encouraging it, we would make sure the platform isn’t misleading users in a false sense of safety. BTW I didn’t know Mastodon had private profilea how do you enable those ? --- ## Post 13 by @jonah — 2025-03-24T20:42:22Z Unchecking “automatically accept new followers” in settings right? > --- ## Post 14 by @anon80779245 — 2025-03-24T21:02:41Z > [@jonah](#): > > Unchecking “automatically accept new followers” in settings right? I saw that part now. See the other thread. --- ## Post 15 by @win11.shading291 — 2025-03-24T21:36:40Z If PG wants to go in that direction in recommending a social media, there should be a note at the very beginning of the article. Something like: "[Intoduction-bla-bla]. Here are the main reasons we do not recommend the use of social medias in general: - A - B - C “Although, we do understand it might be necessary in certain scenarios like D-E-F. If you’re still there, then here’s what we recommend and why. […] Here’s also a guideline on what not to do to keep your privacy: […]” It can get really complicated fast to list all the different use cases and what to do or not to do depending on what you want to accomplish with social media. Let’s get real though, the concept of a social media is not supposed to be privacy-friendly. --- ## Post 16 by @KevPham — 2025-03-24T21:51:54Z I agree, but we should focus less on anti-recommendations and more so on harm reduction regarding social media use. Also expand our existing account creation section to explain how _anonymous_ account creation can work. Telling someone to not pursue something is pretty much fruitless nowadays. At that point, we might as well encourage our community to stop using computers and phones. After all, most of the harmful privacy features of social media are entirely voluntary. Perhaps someone uploads their face and real name on their Instagram profile or documents every single second of their lives (Yes, I do see the irony here in my profile lol). --- ## Post 17 by @jonah — 2025-03-24T21:56:47Z > [@win11.shading291](#): > > Let’s get real though, the concept of a social media is not supposed to be privacy-friendly. See this is where I think I may just fundamentally disagree. I am not sure being a private person is _equivalent_ to being an anti-social person :slight_smile: Is the harm of privately using social media in your life significantly greater than the harm of, say, scrapbooking or journaling? The _medium_ doesn’t seem to matter as much to privacy as just who you share the content with. --- ## Post 18 by @win11.shading291 — 2025-03-24T22:19:18Z Oh I absolutely agree, I don’t consider myself anti-social either. That’s not what I meant. I think this topic is a bit tricky depending on your use-case. The first question to ask is why do you want to use social medias in the first place? - Is it to actually connect with people you know? In this case, you can forget privacy and assume every thing you do is collected. This category of use-case is what I meant. In comparison, you can expect privacy in your home, but it’s hard to have privacy at a social event. - Is it for a business? - Is it to connect with a community where you don’t need to reveal your identity? Then, in this case, you can probably have some privacy. A bit like in this forum. - Etc. Semantics might also be more important here. :stuck_out_tongue: What does it mean to be a “private” person? Or what does “privacy-friendly” would mean in the context of a social media? Maybe defining this could help as well. --- ## Post 19 by @jonah — 2025-03-24T22:26:09Z > [@win11.shading291](#): > > In this case, you can forget privacy and assume every thing you do is collected. I was referring mainly to this situation, and I don’t follow why this _has_ to be the case if you exclusively connect to only people you know and trust with the content you’re posting. Let’s say I self-hosted a Mastodon server, federated with absolutely nobody, limited all posts to followers only, and only gave accounts to my family. Is this not a very private social networking setup for my family? --- ## Post 20 by @win11.shading291 — 2025-03-24T22:41:07Z That would require a level of trust that I simply don’t have. Most of my friends and family don’t care about privacy. I can’t even stop my partner from posting photos of us on social medias :sweat_smile: In your example of a self-hosted Mastodon server, it depends what you mean by your family. If it were just your close-family of like 4-6 members, then sure, but that would be a pretty specific use case. Even then, there could be a family member who takes a screenshot of a funny or interesting bit, and post it on a bigger public social media. I can’t control what others do, including my close friends and/or family. They surely always have all the best intentions based on their own experience, growth and where they’re at in life. Based on that premise, I’m not sure that use case is possible, but if you can have that trust, then sure. But I don’t. :slight_smile: --- ## Post 21 by @jonah — 2025-03-24T22:51:44Z I mean ultimately, as we just saw today, ([The Trump Administration Accidentally Texted Me Its War Plans](https://discuss.privacyguides.net/t/the-trump-administration-accidentally-texted-me-its-war-plans/26094/1)) there is not much that can actually be done about _that_ problem from a technical perspective :rofl: The issue you are describing is not limited to Mastodon or even _social media_ inherently. The absolute best case scenario for the tools we recommend in _ **any** _ category is that: it is possible to use them privately. This may sound like a cop-out to some but in reality tools that are _possible_ to use privately are already a massive, massive step up from tools that are _impossible_ to use privately, which is most tools out there. Hoping for a tool that can **only** be used privately is kind of a pipe dream and out of scope because at a certain level it stops becoming a technical problem and starts becoming a social problem. All we can really do is make sure it isn’t a technical problem. --- ## Post 22 by @anon39279085 — 2025-03-24T23:00:16Z agreed, if I was to say host my own matrix server for my family and limit to only that then, you can imagine how cool this is. It’s only a matter of what you do imho. --- ## Post 23 by @win11.shading291 — 2025-03-24T23:00:28Z I was going to say that using any tool with a social aspect is compromised by default, but when I think about it, that would also apply to stuff like messenger app (Signal), emails, etc. Because even on 1-1 conversations, there are risks. So, my take might have been too extreme actually :sweat_smile: --- ## Post 24 by @Prismatic — 2025-03-26T00:30:56Z Not in this post but since added to the PR: > - Must support modern web application security standards/features (including multifactor authentication). This is already covered by the general criteria. Also note that Mastodon qualifies for a frontend due to [requiring JavaScript](https://github.com/mastodon/mastodon/issues/6186). * * * > [@jonah](#): > > Let’s say I self-hosted a Mastodon server, federated with absolutely nobody, limited all posts to followers only, and only gave accounts to my family. Is this not a very private social networking setup for my family? If you define social networking to exclusively refer to social media & their UX, maybe true. But you can achieve the same (again, trading UX for security/privacy) using group chats and stories and the like in instant messengers. > [@jonah](#): > > Is the harm of privately using social media in your life significantly greater than the harm of, say, scrapbooking or journaling? The _medium_ doesn’t seem to matter as much to privacy as just who you share the content with. But the medium influences who you (are forced to, or voluntarily) share the content with. Social media is not E2EE [[1]](#footnote-86643-1), being accessible to the service provider and anyone they voluntarily, involuntarily, or unknowingly allow access [[2]](#footnote-86643-2). > [@jonah](#): > > I am not sure being a private person is _equivalent_ to being an anti-social person :slight_smile: I agree! After all, here I am commenting :slight_smile: . But the more social you are, the more parties you have to trust with your information - it’s not either private or not, it’s gradual. * * * 1. or does not require preexisting knowledge of a notebook and physical access to it [↩︎](#footnote-ref-86643-1) 2. More speculative as there could very well be guardrails to prevent this, but to explain what I mean a couple examples respectively: staff abusing access to stalk users; law enforcement requests; data breaches or bugs in the visibility controls. [↩︎](#footnote-ref-86643-2) --- ## Post 25 by @redoomed1 — 2025-05-10T14:17:45Z The new page and its criteria are already on the website. Feel free to open a #Site Development thread to suggest any criteria changes.