The Activism Trap: A Critical Analysis of Social Media Federalization Interpellation

Maciej Lesiak

December 8, 2024 - 13 minutes read - 2618 words

Ten artykuł jest dostępny również po polsku:
Pułapka aktywizmu: analiza krytyczna interpelacji o federalizacji mediów społecznościowych

What's in this article

Note for international readers: This analysis examines a recent development in Polish digital policy. In Poland, the “Sejm” is the lower house of parliament, and its members can submit formal questions called “interpellations” to government ministers. These interpellations are important tools for parliamentary oversight and often shape public policy discussions. The interpellation discussed here (No. 6473) was submitted by MP Paulina Matysiak in November 2024 to the Minister of Digitization, addressing the Polish public administration’s use of social media platforms.

Dedicated to the Fediverse community - this time we need to rethink the strategy

What is the subject and purpose of this post?

The Polish digital privacy advocacy community and free software enthusiasts were electrified by news of interpellation (6473) submitted by Paulina Matysiak. The interpellation concerns public administration’s presence on social media, technological neutrality, and digital sovereignty, proposing, among other things, the use of the open ActivityPub protocol.

The purpose of this analysis is to demonstrate that this interpellation, despite enthusiastic reception by the activist community, contains fundamental flaws. Through analyzing potential risks and preparing critical questions, I will show the naivety of the proposed solutions.

Before moving to detailed analysis, it’s worth noting an important aspect: interpellation is an instrument of parliamentary control where an MP asks questions and a minister responds. However, the way these questions are formulated and the presented argumentation are crucial - especially in such a complex matter as implementing ActivityPub in public administration. Weak argumentation gives opponents (e.g., tech company lobbies) ready-made arguments to undermine the idea itself, allows the minister to easily refute arguments by pointing out basic flaws in reasoning, and may discourage officials from deeper analysis of the topic when they see superficial treatment of complex issues.

In the following sections, I will analyze the content of the interpellation and point out its significant flaws, particularly in the context of potential reactions from tech company lobbies.

Argumentation diagram in the interpellation

graph LR A[Introduction:
Public administration presence in social media] A --> B[Problem 1:
Lack of legal basis] B --> B1[Paradox:
Inclusion in some
regulations despite lack of basis] A --> C[Problem 2:
Lack of technological neutrality] C --> D[Effect 1:
Favoring commercial platforms] D --> E[Example 1:
Flood 2024 - communication on FB] D --> F[Example 2:
State of Emergency 2021 -
materials only on Twitter] A --> G[Problem 3:
Digital sovereignty issue] G --> H[Argument:
Data processing by
non-EU entities] G --> I[Argument:
Platform registration requirement] A --> N[Problem 4:
Personal data protection] N --> O[Necessity of consent for
data processing] N --> P[Access to information requires
registration] A --> J[Proposed solution:
Open standards] J --> K[ActivityPub recommended by W3C] K --> L[International implementation examples:
Netherlands, Germany, France, EC] K --> M[Local example:
Stary Sącz - PeerTube
instead of YouTube] A --> Q[Current state diagnosis] Q --> R[Growing need for
independence] Q --> S[Fragmented actions
without coherent policy] Q --> T[Need for full protection of
sovereignty and neutrality] style A fill:#e6f3ff,stroke:#333 style J fill:#e6ffe6,stroke:#333 style K fill:#e6ffe6,stroke:#333 style Q fill:#ffe6e6,stroke:#333

It’s worth adding that Stary Sącz is a city with a population of 9,211, that is, less than ten thousand.

Eristic Analysis of Argumentation

I will now present an eristic analysis that shows not only the flaws in argumentation but also - more importantly - how these flaws can be used by opponents of change to effectively block any discussion about open protocols. This is key because activists enclosed in their information bubbles often don’t see how their own argumentation can be used against them.

1. Argumentum ad exemplum (argument from example) - incorrect use

The MP uses the example of Stary Sącz (a city of 9,211 residents) as proof of implementation possibility
This is a classic error of unwarranted generalization: success in a small municipality ≠ scalability at the national level
Ignores complexity of scale problems (e.g., serving millions of users vs. several thousand)
This argument can be easily used to discredit the entire proposal as unprofessional and detached from reality

2. Argumentum ad populum (appeal to popularity)

References “experts” without identifying them - an easy target for opponents
Selectively cites examples from other countries (Netherlands, Germany, France)
Ignores the fact that the mentioned countries use ActivityPub alongside commercial platforms, not as a replacement
Lack of specific studies and analyses weakens the entire argumentation, leaving room for challenge by tech company experts

3. Post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this)

Incorrect connection between crisis communication problems (flood 2024) and platform choice
Suggests that delays in launching flood relief portal resulted from dependence on commercial platforms
Ignores other possible causes of problems (e.g., organizational, staffing, reach and ease of information)
Overlooks real advantages of commercial platforms in crisis situations (reach, infrastructure)

4. Dichotomia falsa (false dichotomy)

Presents the situation as a choice between complete dependence on commercial platforms and total transition to ActivityPub
Ignores possibility of hybrid solutions (!!!) - I can already see Google’s, META’s response showcasing their crisis information projects
Overlooks other possible approaches to digital sovereignty
Gives tech companies opportunity to present their solutions as the “golden mean”

5. Argumentum ad metum (appeal to fear)

Creates fear about threats to digital sovereignty
Exploits concerns about data control by foreign entities (GDPR?)
Doesn’t present evidence of real threats
Easy to challenge by pointing to compliance with GDPR and other security standards

6. Argumentum ab auctoritate + Argumentum ad simile (argument from authority and false equivalence)

Uncritical acceptance of ActivityPub as a solution just because it’s recommended by W3C
Ignoring proven solutions and existing infrastructure
False equating of standard openness with its neutrality
Overlooking the fact that every technology, even open, carries its own limitations and can be used in ways favoring certain interests

7. Petitio principii (circular reasoning)

Assumes presence on commercial platforms is a problem that needs solving
Uses this assumption as proof of necessity for change
Doesn’t prove why current situation is actually harmful
Doesn’t present convincing economic or social arguments

8. Ignoratio elenchi (irrelevant conclusion)

Cites crisis communication problems that don’t stem from platform choice
Uses data privacy arguments not directly related to communication effectiveness
Mixes different problems (technical, legal, organizational) as one platform issue
Dilutes main argument about need for open standards

9. Argumentum ad misericordiam (appeal to pity)

While not a dominant technique, elements of eliciting sympathy are visible
Uses description of crisis situation during floods
Can be easily challenged by pointing to actual effectiveness of commercial platforms in crisis situations

This analysis shows that although intentions are good, the method of argumentation may actually harm the cause of open protocols. Opponents can use these weaknesses to discredit the entire initiative before a substantive discussion of the actual advantages and disadvantages of proposed solutions begins.

Now we move to the most important issue.

Anticipating Threats by Preparing Opponents’ Objections

Questions for MP Paulina Matysiak, which I prepared while creating a risk assessment and potential arguments that opponents of the solutions will raise. The questions are sometimes detailed because, knowing that Ms. Matysiak has a background in English studies and no IT experience, I assume she relied on expert knowledge from advisors co-creating the interpellation.

Please also note one aspect - in both scenarios, the key question remains about the proportionality of expenditure to real benefits and actual effectiveness in reaching citizens. This is particularly important in the context of point 9, where I show another interpellation by the MP and ask for further details.

SCENARIO 1: ActivityPub as a One-Way Information Channel

1. Technical Infrastructure Aspects:

How does the MP plan to solve the scalability problem in crisis situations when hundreds of thousands of citizens will need immediate access to information?
What implementation and infrastructure maintenance costs are considered acceptable for small municipalities, and has a detailed TCO analysis been conducted?
How will the problem of no real-time message delivery guarantees be solved?

2. Effectiveness and Actual Reach:

Has a detailed analysis been conducted of the effectiveness of existing ActivityPub implementations in the mentioned countries, particularly in terms of real reach to citizens?
Why were the cited foreign implementation examples silent about the fact that they are used in parallel with commercial platforms, not as their replacement?
How will the MP address the case of Mozilla Foundation, which, despite co-creating the ActivityPub protocol, abandoned its own Mastodon instance due to minimal usage?

3. Cost and Real Benefits Analysis:

Is there a detailed comparative analysis of costs for maintaining own infrastructure versus using existing platforms?
What specific, measurable benefits will the proposed changes bring to the average citizen?
Are implementation costs proportional to potential benefits in terms of information accessibility?

4. Basic Security Issues:

How will service continuity be ensured in crisis situations?
How will the authenticity of information sources be verified?
How will the system be protected against basic threats?

SCENARIO 2: Full ActivityPub Implementation (Additional Challenges)

5. Complex Legal Aspects:

How to practically implement the right to be forgotten in a federated system?
How to enforce copyright in the absence of centralized content control?
Who bears responsibility for personal data processing in a distributed system?
How to verify GDPR compliance across instances?
How to ensure effective removal of erroneously published content from the entire network?

6. Advanced Security Issues:

Is the MP aware of documented cases of DDoS attacks exploiting the protocol’s federated nature for amplification?
How does she propose to secure critical infrastructure?
Why was the analysis of centralized systems’ advantages (like BlueSky) omitted in the context of identity control?
How to solve the identity verification problem without introducing centralization?

7. Standards and System Coherence:

Who will define and enforce implementation standards for public administration?
How to ensure compatibility between different instances?
How to solve the problem of standards fragmentation?

8. Digital Sovereignty and Neutrality:

Where does the MP see the boundary of digital sovereignty, given that infrastructure often comes from foreign entities?
How to reconcile the postulate of technological neutrality with promoting a specific protocol?
Why weren’t existing GDPR regulations for non-EU entities addressed?

However, I must still pose several questions that will show you the fundamental economic and competency problem:

9. Market Realities and Human Resources:

Digital sovereignty in the context of labor market and costs:

Particularly interesting is the MP’s position in light of her own interpellation No. 6733 from November 2024, where she recognizes significant problems with implementing an IT system in the “Clean Air” program. The MP notes there that “the new IT system, which was supposed to improve cooperation between NFOŚiGW and Regional Environmental Protection Funds, still isn’t functioning properly, though work on it has been ongoing for over two years.”

This observation raises fundamental questions:

How does the MP plan to reconcile the difficulties in implementing a single IT system at the central level with the proposal to create distributed IT infrastructure for all public administration?
Has an analysis been conducted of the availability of qualified IT specialists in the Polish market who could implement and maintain such complex solutions, especially in smaller localities, when there are already significant problems with implementing simpler IT projects?
How does the MP address the fact that service centralization often results from experiences similar to those described in her interpellation No. 6733 - namely pragmatic economic calculation and shortage of IT specialists?
Are citizens ready to bear increased tax costs associated with maintaining redundant IT infrastructure in each local government unit, particularly in the context of current difficulties in implementing centralized IT projects?

This observation takes on special significance in the context of problems with implementing the IT system in the “Clean Air” program, which the MP herself identifies as a significant challenge. If a single, centralized system encounters such significant implementation difficulties, how realistic is the proposal to implement distributed ActivityPub infrastructure across all public administration? In my opinion, this question becomes even more pressing when we consider the lack of certification standards and training in this area. In the current situation, decision-makers don’t even have tools to verify the competencies needed when implementing such services in public utility institutions.

In light of these additional economic and staffing aspects, shouldn’t the postulate of “digital sovereignty” be considered more in the context of standards and regulations, and less in the context of physical location and infrastructure control? The complexity of digital sovereignty and digital transformation of public administration requires a comprehensive approach based on thorough analysis and expertise. Addressing such topics without proper substantive preparation can lead to presenting simplified solutions that don’t take into account important technical, logistical, or economic aspects.

Political Experts in Media Buzz: The Case of Interpellation 6473

MP Matysiak has a background in English philology (she graduated from the University of Łódź). She has no formal education or professional experience in fields directly related to planning large infrastructure projects, aviation, transport, or internet protocols or advanced IT implementations.

This is an important observation in the context of her positioning as an expert (infrastructure or IT) because it’s clear that her knowledge of the project comes mainly from parliamentary work and her own studies of the topic, not from previous professional experience. Lack of formal qualifications in IT-related fields may weaken her credibility in substantive discussions. All the more reason I would require care that interpellations are not just media-oriented, but real…

Her involvement in the topic is based mainly on political activity and work in parliamentary committees. In my opinion, this is a significant element working against… maybe not specifically Paulina Matysiak, but the matters she deals with.

Summary: Good Intentions Are Not Enough

This is quite a typical situation in Polish politics, where politicians often become experts in specific fields through political engagement rather than previous professional experience or relevant education. This is not a personal accusation against the MP - rather an indication of a systemic problem, where lack of expert preparation can lead to presenting simplified solutions to complex problems. I like effectiveness, that’s my problem. Even at the basic level of an interpellation, I would like it not to create problems for the community.

What are the conclusions from this post? Let’s move to recommendations

The Fediverse community, striving to implement open software and protocols in public institutions, probably faces a serious challenge… Instead of relying on individual political initiatives, it should:

Prepare specific answers to the questions posed in this analysis
Create solutions that anticipate potential objections (rather than creating fairy tales)
Develop a comprehensive strategy taking into account public administration realities (case studies)
Propose a realistic implementation plan that will be difficult to challenge (best practices, documentation, support)

I hope that young and active people in the Fediverse will take my text to heart and understand that only such a systemic approach gives a chance for real change. Otherwise, subsequent initiatives, even supported by the best intentions, will be an easy target for opponents of the open protocols idea.

Update (20.12.2024): Since the publication of the original Polish text, which I dedicated to the Fediverse community, I haven’t received a single comment or substantive response to the presented arguments. Instead, I’ve encountered ostracism. Furthermore, when I sent three key questions based on this analysis to a podcaster who was scheduled to interview MP Matysiak, he chose not to raise any of them during the conversation. It appears that the Polish Fediverse community is neither interested in the problems I’ve outlined nor in engaging in a broader public debate about them. This situation has prompted me to translate the text into English to expand the discussion beyond the local context.