Why Use Free (Libre) Services?

Let's see why choosing free (libre)¹ services means protecting your privacy and security, defending control over your data, and promoting transparency.

Privacy

To function, online services require software installed on servers and possibly also applications on our devices. Free (libre) services use free software and respect the privacy of users. This is because free software is part of an ethical approach that seeks to give users control over digital tools by enabling the sharing of technological knowledge. The transparency of free services, due to their publicly accessible source code, allows anyone to check how they work and ensure that they deliver on their promises of privacy and security.

Non-free online services—hereafter referred to as proprietary services²—are generally financed by targeted advertising. This is the main source of revenue for “free” (gratis) services. Paid services also use advertising to diversify their revenue streams. In practical terms, proprietary services spy on you and collect information from your communications, regardless of whether that information is private or confidential medical information. This involves mass data collection for sale to their customers, the advertisers. They use the data to show you the advertising most likely to generate a sale. This mass data collection also poses security problems, as the data becomes a target for cybercriminals or oppressive governments³.

Free (libre) services also need to be funded. Their development, online hosting, and maintenance come at a cost. But funding a free service cannot rely on targeted advertising, which is incompatible with user freedom. Free (libre) services are generally funded by donations and voluntary contributions, but they can also be paid services.

This does not mean that free services do not collect any data. However, they minimize collection to what is necessary for the service to function and for purposes other than advertising (see the librist.org privacy policy for example). Free services have a duty of transparency, which gives users more control over their data. Conversely, proprietary services decide what is collected, how the data is used, and where it is stored, without consulting users.

Security and Free Software

Because the source code is accessible, analyzable, and modifiable, free (libre) services can benefit from contributions from security experts. The most popular free services receive contributions from around the world, and vulnerabilities in these programs can be identified and fixed quickly. Proprietary services may have competent security teams, but their processes are opaque and cannot be verified by the public.

Furthermore, the community-driven nature of free (libre) services fosters the development of technologies focused on the needs of users rather than on profits, since free services do not depend on the business decisions of a single company. And they can continue to exist and evolve even if a contributing entity ceases operations or changes its business model, since users can continue to develop them.

Decentralized Social Networks

Decentralization is an important technical aspect. In a decentralized network—such as Mastodon or Pixelfed—users can choose the server—also called an instance—where they want to register. This offers more freedom: if a server is unsuitable or loses our trust, we can change it. We can compare servers based on criteria that are important to us, such as data protection or moderation rules (types of content allowed or not allowed). It is even possible to install your own instance on your own server. This allows you to retain complete control over your data, which you do not entrust to anyone else. Of course, this requires the technical skills to manage your own server. This is not insurmountable and can be learned through mutual assistance: see Framasoft, a popular education association or the YunoHost project, which aims to democratize server management.

Decentralized social networks are often part of a larger ecosystem, such as the Fediverse, which allows users of different platforms to communicate with each other. This gives users additional freedom, as they can choose from a variety of platforms and export their data to migrate from one to another. Centralized networks, on the other hand, operate in isolation from one another. These closed silos create dependency among users by locking them into a proprietary ecosystem, as it is difficult, if not impossible, to migrate contacts, photos, or messages from one platform to another. This practice, known as vendor lock-in, gives disproportionate power to the companies that control these silos.

Freedom of Expression

Decentralized networks offer greater freedom of expression because the rules and moderation policies are explicit. Users know what is and is not allowed on a platform and can choose the one that respects their values. And there is always the option of creating your own instance to set your own rules, while accepting that other instances may refuse content that is incompatible with theirs (for example, pornographic content or messages deemed offensive).

In centralized networks, moderation rules are not always explicit and are imposed without question. This is often the case with messages displaying classical works of art, which are censored because they are considered pornographic due to the nudity depicted. Another example: in early 2025, Facebook blocked messages mentioning Linux, citing a threat to cybersecurity. These arbitrary and unfounded decisions can happen overnight. The result is self-censorship by users who want to avoid conflict with the platform.

No Algorithmic Manipulation

In decentralized networks, posts are displayed in chronological order by default, so users see messages in the order in which they are published. Centralized networks, on the other hand, use complex algorithms to determine what users see, allowing them to manipulate their news feeds and favor certain content over others. This algorithmic manipulation, coupled with centralization, makes it easier for misinformation to spread on a large scale. We see this scourge every day on centralized networks such as X/Twitter or Facebook. Either through failure—their inability to prevent fake news—or through explicit support, as in the case of X/Twitter since its acquisition by Elon Musk.

Algorithmic manipulation also tends to trap users in filter bubbles by personalizing the content displayed based on their habits. This personalization creates a kind of information bubble that isolates users in an online reality that matches their expectations and preexisting biases. This mechanism poses a number of problems. Users are exposed to a limited range of viewpoints, which limits their access to diverse and contradictory information; Filter bubbles can exacerbate social divisions by isolating users in homogeneous information ecosystems, which polarizes discussions and individuals; Users are less exposed to ideas that challenge their beliefs, which can reinforce confirmation bias⁴; Algorithms can be manipulative and used to influence users' opinions and behaviors for political or commercial purposes.

Conclusion

Free (libre) digital services (such as Mastodon, Pixelfed, Diaspora, etc.) offer an ethical, transparent, and privacy-friendly alternative to proprietary services (such as Facebook, X/Twitter, Instagram, TikTok, etc.). They allow users to regain control of their data, support a community-based technological philosophy that serves everyone, and participate in a more inclusive and decentralized social experience.

Choose platforms that are less intrusive and more respectful of your digital rights!

To learn more about the issues surrounding free services and to discover alternatives to proprietary services, see Framasoft's De-google-ify Internet initiative, as well as our presentation of Mastodon and Pixelfed.