An insight into the ethical and technical aspects of media. Following Vitalik Buterin’s call for more social use cases on Ethereum earlier this summer, many crypto companies have expressed their intention to build decentralized versions of social networks like Twitter. However, creating and viewing cryptocentric social platforms as just decentralized versions of Twitter is a long way off. The ethical and technical implications of creating truly decentralized social networks that follow the principles of Web 3.0 go far beyond what the idea of ​​“Decentralized Twitter” currently implies.

Beyond mere decentralization, there are four main issues that are central to the idea of ​​developing the crypto society: private communication and censorship resistance, censorship, decentralized governance, safe money and decentralization.

Private communication and anti-censorship

Privacy is a human right, but this right is increasingly being violated by centralized big tech companies that have a financial incentive to collect, store, and monetize user data. In Facebook’s second quarter earnings report earlier this year, the company alone generated $ 28.6 billion in advertising revenue. According to the adage “If you don’t pay for the product, you are the product” and it is time to redesign the offers on the existing social networks. Currently, platforms have an incentive to collect personal data from users in order to get paid by advertisers. In view of data protection and the encryption of cryptosocial networks, this model is called into question, since personal data is hardly accessible – if at all – for advertisers.

The core of any crypto social network should be the ability to communicate and organize freely, unaffected by centralized corporate oversight. Concerns about online censorship have grown in recent years, a notable example being Discord’s ban on the r / WallStreetBets server during the GameStop squeeze, ostensibly due to concerns about posting hateful downloadable content to the community. In contrast to centralized Web 2.0 platforms like Discord, decentralized social networks remove bottlenecks for censorship. If no one controls the network servers, no single person or organization can control and moderate the content. While this combats censorship, it also presents a unique challenge: censorship.

Related: An insight the social media giants need to decentralize the internet … Now!

Moderation

The idea of ​​censorship provides a starting point for cryptosocial communities. On the other hand, the Web 3.0 values ​​of the cryptosocial network are about creating democratized applications that are free from censorship and control. On the other hand, the community must be able to protect itself from spam attacks and malicious actors. Balancing censorship with the need for privacy, decentralization and censorship resistance is a complex issue with no clear solution.

The bottom line is that communities – not third parties – need to be in control of the content in their areas. The types of interactions vary between communities, as do the classifications of “good” and “bad” content. How good information is shared and how bad information is organized determines the value of the community itself, and it is important to approach moderation in a way that cannot be appropriated or tampered with.

One way to prevent spam is for communities to implement chat functions with token-based permissions. In this approach, holding certain tokens can grant members access to publish, view, and / or administrator rights within a particular community. To maintain token integrity, smart contracts can be implemented to control the portability and rights of each newly minted token. This decentralized system ensures that censorship is carried out in a way that does not allow the subjectivity of an independent person to control the curation.

Decentralized governance

The problem with Web 2.0 social networks is that centralization inherently prevents communities from becoming self-governing and self-regulating. The success of a social network means the success of the social network as a whole – not the success of a single founder at the expense of the social network. This is the problem with the existing order of centralized social networks: the decisions of an independent person or organization control the growth and fate of the network.

One way to remedy this weak point and establish decentralized governance is to use community funds. By holding governance tokens, individual community members can vote on decisions that will shape the future of the community. The collective nature of this democratized electoral system has the potential to protect communities from falling victim to the whims of corporate bureaucracy. With decentralized governance, users have a voice to make changes.

Related: Cryptocurrency Social Governance will lead to online freedom

Safe and decentralized money

Decentralization alone cannot guarantee the durability and self-preservation of cryptosocial networks. The integration of token-based offerings provides users with a unique way to maintain and navigate social network communities. By issuing tokens to users, individual users become shareholders of the platform, which provides an incentive to get involved and help grow the network.

Since each user maintains a token balance, he can then conduct business in a peer-to-peer manner on his terms, which essentially autonomously contributes to the profitability of the network. The use cases for these tokens are endless – from voting on proposals to crowdfunding an initiative to send encrypted messages – and long-term support from the development community.

Given the growing interest and dynamism of decentralized social networks, these four key themes show that there are many considerations at stake, not just ideas, when designing new social networks. What we need are more targeted platforms that protect the intellectual and financial sovereignty of users – not superficial buzzwords. Despite the gray areas of how this goal can be achieved, the nice thing about decentralized social networks is that the community has the opportunity to shape the future of the social network.