Freedom, security and control — welcome to the world of decentralized, social media

Ever since its invention, social media has been attracting scrutiny. Used by roughly half the planet, its widespread use has only grown amid the Covid-19 pandemic, with people using it to feel closer to friends and family, break the solitary monotony associated with remote work, and even augment online education.

Most people are aware of social media’s advantages and disadvantages, which are debated daily in the press and on the social media platforms themselves. While acknowledging criticism of these networks, most people choose to keep their accounts active, seeing the benefits of interconnectedness, “staying up-to-date”, and shallow entertainment outweighing the negatives, chiefly lack of data security and objectionable content.

However, this dependence on the centralized social media platforms of Facebook, Twitter and Youtube is only conditional, with the seeming lack of better available options, rather than deep product satisfaction preventing desertion. Decentralized social media, much like decentralized finance, aims to be a credible alternative to a system that some feel should be democratized and given an update through the use of blockchain technologies. In this article we are going to take a look at what decentralized social media is, what the benefits (and drawbacks) are, and whether its promise of greater security could lure regular users in the coming years.

What is decentralized social media?

As the name says, decentralized social media operates on independently run servers, based on open-source software. Like cryptocurrency transactions on the blockchain, transparency is assured with data viewable in real-time. In this world of social media alternatives, people can easily set up their own community networks, enforcing their own standards. In a nutshell, with decentralized social media you get the look and feel of centralized counterparts, but with the ability to “see under the hood”. This is especially appealing to people that are frustrated by the opaque algorithms that govern the likes of Facebook and YouTube.

What are the pros and cons of decentralized social media?

While articles about blockchain, cryptocurrencies and the DeFi space are for the most part, if not wholly supportive, commentary around blockchain social media is more measured. This is great, as we get a more unbiased view of this new venture.

The common argument we find is that decentralized social media is not perfect, but it is a preferred alternative to the lack of data privacy, poor content moderation, stifling of free speech and amplification of racist or misogynistic fringe voices, which are features of centralized social media at present.

In looking at the websites of the leading decentralized social media projects, recurrent themes emerge which we will attempt to dissect:

• Free speech
• Control
• Privacy and security
• Neutrality

Free speech — In the aftermath of the US Capital Riots, this issue has only become more sensitive, with the banning of Donald Trump from Twitter and a further examination of far-right organizations orchestrating illegal acts on Facebook. Far from the first, Trump joins an expanding group of individuals from across the political spectrum who have been de-platformed as a result of their posts. Centralized platforms involve a small group of people deciding who gets to say what, although this is not down to simply enforcing common societal standards. Social networks can be strong-armed by political parties (WeChat in China), or driven by business tactics and monetary concerns (the removal of news content from Facebook in Australia).

While some say that moderation doesn’t go far enough, others say that the social media giants are interfering with free speech. As there is clearly no singular answer to what free speech is, projects such as Mastodon and Diaspora aim to give you the keys to create freedom on your own terms.

Mastodon, claiming to have over 4 million users, allows people to be a part of, or create their own network, setting the rules of engagement from the outset. Here you have tools to share your thoughts in user-created Twitter-like environments called “instances”, while taking advantage of anti-abuse tools and a wider share of moderators than you would find in a centralized platform. The emphasis seems to be on the freedom of safety and finding a like-minded community. With Diaspora, the concept of freedom is that of saying whatever you want with little accountability — you don’t have to reveal your identity and can interact however you choose.

The idea of making your own freedom is appealing, but in the current climate there are questions that inevitably arise:

• Does the lack of accountability posed by some platforms allow for greater expression or unchecked abuse?
• Is the fragmentation of communities creating echo chambers and narrowing our ability to empathize with others?

As the answers to these questions are subjective, it is hard to say whether decentralized social media presents a clear benefit over centralized platforms in this regard, but the idea that your interactions with others and what you can see aren’t at the whim of a profit driven centralized company definitely has strong appeal.

Privacy, security and control — The Cambridge Analytica data scandal and the 2020 Twitter hack fed into the prevailing conversation around privacy and security. People feel less and less comfortable with their data being sold to third-parties, their personal information sitting in a centralized repository, and governments tracking their social media interactions.

Diaspora’s social network offers a vision of blockchain security where users control their data through ownership of nodes, called “pods” that are hosted on the network. Users also retain the right to download all the text and images that they have uploaded at any time. Minds, similarly, states that users can “take back control”, running a promotional video that leans into the notion of gaining privacy from government and tech company surveillance through ownership of data and decentralized storage.

Decentralized security is in fact a feature of all the main alternative platforms, some of which utilize blockchain technology, while others operate on peer-to-peer networks. This includes Manyverse, which promises data protection built on Scuttlebutt’s decentralized P2P protocol.

On this front, the situation is clearer, decentralized security definitely trumps its centralized counterpart and shows us that things can be better. This is partly the reason why the CEO of Twitter, Jack Dorsey, is taking tentative steps into decentralization with his Bluesky project.

Neutrality — Neutrality is a concept that ties together with ideas of free speech and control, and remains one of the most important issues when considering alternatives to the social networks that are widely used today. While some believe it is the personal opinions of the higher-ups at Facebook, YouTube and Twitter that affect what we see, this is not really the truth. Revenue and obligations to shareholders are two of the biggest factors that shape trends. Misleading information, bots, and the prominence of inflammatory views are central to the business models of these organizations, whose main goal is to keep us watching and maximize profits.

Jack Dorsey of Twitter is quoted as identifying these problems, but whether he has the will (and the support) to scale back his wealth creator in favor of the public good remains to be seen.

So what is the alternative? Decentralized social media offers open-source code (including open-source AI) so that you can see why a network is behaving the way it does. Of course there is still the problem of gaining and sustaining attention, but projects such as Steemit and Minds aim to resolve this. Two of the most popular decentralized social media platforms, they reward users with cryptocurrencies for content they produce, comment on, or even upvote. Although monetizing user-generated content is not a new idea (YouTube), these platforms offer a more mature and transparent model, with greater control and respect afforded to users.

Further considerations

While on balance, decentralized social media looks more attractive than what we have now, there are a few more considerations that can’t be ignored:

User numbers and funding — The Robinhood/ Wall Street Bets saga shows that there is more interest than ever in fighting with a system that benefits a small minority. However, despite the benefits of decentralized security and greater freedom, uptake is currently slow and Steemit has even suffered declining users.

Basic design, ease of use and lack of support — One reason why centralized social media has such a hold is because of its usability. Its accessible design, ease of use and easy login means that there are very little barriers to consuming content. Decentralized platforms in contrast, don’t have the funds to hone their UX strategy, may not be available on Google Play or the App Store, and don’t offer the kind of support that the current social media giants have in place.

Hate speech and criminal activity — Iterating the point made above in the freedom of speech section, how can a social network be truly free and not descend into a place where hate speech is common, criminal activity is rife and illegal content is posted? This question has been recently tested with the social networking service Gab migrating to the Mastodon network. The decentralized nature of the platform means that even with all the will in the world, content contrary to the ethos of a network can’t be stopped from spreading.

Final thoughts

Decentralized social media has democratization and the interests of users at its core, which is an extremely powerful thing. Despite its teething problems, decentralized networks point to a better future for social media, one that is closer to what the internet’s founder, Tim Berners-Lee’s, describes in his Contract for the Web. The contract emphasizes equal access and respect for privacy, online rights and human dignity.