What are Decentralized Social Networks?
The widespread use of social media has significantly transformed the way we communicate, but many argue that these changes are not entirely positive. For example is the lack of content moderation on social platforms, which has allowed misinformation to proliferate, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Even before the pandemic, many users were already dissatisfied with how major social media platforms managed issues like misinformation, censorship, privacy, political neutrality, user control, and malicious activity. These concerns have fueled a growing interest in decentralized social networks, also known as federated networks.
Decentralized Social Networks
Decentralized social networks are built on independently operated servers rather than a single centralized server controlled by a corporation. Mastodon is one example, utilizing open-source software and offering a user experience similar to Twitter.
These networks provide users with greater control and autonomy, allowing individuals to create and manage their own social networks, including setting their own rules and guidelines for content. Instead of having a corporation dictate and monitor content, the creator of a decentralized network can define what constitutes acceptable behavior on their platform.
The Fediverse
Decentralized social networks form what is known as the "fediverse," a collection of interconnected servers that support social networking, blogging, web publishing, and other online activities. Each independently hosted network within the fediverse can communicate and interact with other networks, which sets them apart from popular social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter. For instance, Twitter only permits communication between its users, meaning Twitter users can't send messages to Facebook accounts due to the lack of cross-platform compatibility. In contrast, federated networks enable users to engage across different platforms.
The way federated social networks operate is similar to email. Consider Google and Yahoo: each company sets its own rules for its users, but Google doesn't control Yahoo's users. Yet a Google user can send and receive emails from a Yahoo user and vice versa. Federated networks function in much the same way, allowing for seamless communication across different platforms.
Pros and Cons of Decentralized Networks:
User Control, Free Speech, and Censorship Resistance
Major social media platforms are controlled by corporate entities, with a small group of people within these companies setting the rules of engagement. This centralized control has led to concerns about free speech and censorship. While banning violent, hateful, or dangerous content can protect users from malicious activity, some argue that these actions conflict with the principles of free speech.
Decentralized social networks offer users more control and autonomy. Unlike centralized platforms, federated networks operate without a central authority, promoting independence. This structure offers benefits such as resistance to censorship, ownership of personal data, and greater control over user-generated content. Users do not have to accept external censorship and maintain the final say over their content, meaning no corporation or administrator can modify or remove it.
In a federated network, no single entity can impose its rules on others. For example, on Mastodon, anyone can run their own social media site without oversight from a central authority, allowing them (and their users) to post freely without fear of content removal. However, this openness also means that hate groups can create their own sites. While individuals can block these groups, they cannot prevent them from participating in the network.
Content Moderation and Governance
While decentralized networks offer greater freedom of expression, they also face the challenge of content moderation. Without a central authority, it can be difficult to enforce rules and prevent harmful content, misinformation, or spam. Developing fair and effective governance models that balance freedom of expression with the need for community standards is a complex issue.
Social media fosters connectivity, community building, and the exchange of knowledge. It provides a platform for driving social and political change, raising awareness about important issues, fundraising for those in need, and promoting businesses. However, social media also has a darker side, including cyberbullying, political misinformation, and even criminal activity. In decentralized social networks, which are largely unmoderated, both the positive and negative effects can be amplified.
Personal Data, Privacy, and Security
One of the most compelling reasons to switch to a decentralized social network is enhanced privacy. In centralized networks, user data is stored on servers owned by the platform provider, where it can be accessed, monetized, or even sold to third parties without the user’s explicit consent.
In contrast, decentralized networks often use end-to-end encryption and do not store data on central servers. This means that users have greater control over their personal information, deciding who can access it and how it is used. The result is a platform that prioritizes user privacy and data ownership, addressing a growing concern in today’s digital age. However, this model has drawbacks: federated networks may shut down due to lack of funds, causing users to lose data and connections, with no easy way to reconnect. Additionally, these networks may not encrypt data, potentially exposing private messages to administrators.
Scalability
Managing a large volume of data in a decentralized way can be resource-intensive, and current blockchain or P2P technologies may struggle to handle the same number of users as traditional platforms.
User Experience and Adoption
Traditional social networks have spent years refining their user experience, making them incredibly easy to use and navigate. In contrast, many decentralized platforms are still in their early stages and may have a steeper learning curve. For mass adoption to occur, decentralized networks must improve their interfaces and make the onboarding process more user-friendly.
Many businesses have tried and failed to start the next big social network. The future of decentralized social networks will depend on their ability to overcome the similar challenge of offering a compelling alternative to existing platforms. The wider user base currently on traditional social media may not attach as much value to the benefits of a decentralized social network compared to those already using them.
Limited Network Effects
Traditional social networks benefit from "network effects" — they become more valuable as more people use them. Decentralized networks, however, currently lack this critical mass of users, which can make it difficult to attract new members and create a vibrant community. Overcoming this challenge requires building strong, engaged communities that can grow organically over time.
Monetisation
Traditional social networks profit primarily from advertising, where user data is the product being sold. In decentralized networks, users may have more direct monetization opportunities. For instance, blockchain-based social networks can enable microtransactions, tipping, or direct payments for content using cryptocurrencies. This model allows creators to earn directly from their audience without relying on ad revenue, potentially leading to a more equitable distribution of wealth.
The Future of Decentralized Social Networks
The rise of decentralized social networks is part of a broader movement towards Web3, where decentralization, user empowerment, and privacy are core principles. While it’s still early days, these platforms have the potential to fundamentally change how we interact online, giving users more control, freedom, and opportunity.
As awareness grows and more people seek greater privacy, autonomy, and transparency online, decentralized networks could become a key part of the next wave of digital transformation.