Can Decentralized Social Media End Big Tech Censorship | Airdrop Alert Pro

In a world where traditional social media platforms dominate digital conversations, could decentralized alternatives become a promising counterpoint to censorship or a breeding ground for hate speech?

BeInCrypto spoke with Anurag Arjun, co-founder of Avail, a blockchain infrastructure pioneer passionate about how decentralization can potentially transform online speech and governance.

In October, X (formerly Twitter) suspended the Hebrew account of Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei for “violating the platform’s rules.” The post, commenting on Israel’s retaliatory attack on Tehran, reignited a global debate over the influence of concentrated platforms on public discourse.

Many people ask: Can’t the top leader of a country comment on the air strikes that occur within the country?

Political sensitivities aside, the same thing happens to everyday creators in far lower-stakes environments all the time. Q2 2024, YouTube’s automated reporting system Deleted About 8.19 million videos, while user-generated flagging only removed about 238,000 videos.

In response, decentralized platforms such as Mastodon and lens The protocol is growing in popularity. mastodon, For example, saw a surge Since Elon Musk acquired Twitter in November 2022, it has reached 2.5 million active users. These platforms promise to redistribute control, but this raises complex questions about moderation, accountability and scalability.

Avail co-founder Anurag Arjun said in an interview with BeInCrypto: “Decentralization does not mean no moderation, but transferring control to the user community while maintaining transparency and accountability.”

The decentralized platform aims to remove corporate influence over online speech. These platforms allow users to define and enforce audit criteria themselves. Unlike Facebook or YouTube, which face accusations of algorithmic bias and shadow bans, decentralized systems claim to promote open dialogue.

However, while decentralization eliminates a single point of control, it certainly does not guarantee fairness. the latest one opinion poll The Pew Research Center found that 72% of Americans believe social media companies have too much power over public discourse.

This skepticism applies to decentralized systems, where governance must remain transparent to prevent larger voices from monopolizing the conversation.

“Distributed governance ensures that no one person or company unilaterally decides what can or cannot be said, but it still requires safeguards to balance different perspectives,” Arjun explains.

Without centralized oversight, decentralized platforms rely on community-driven regulation. This approach hopes to ensure inclusivity but also risks fragmentation when consensus is difficult to achieve. Mastodon Instances often have different moderation rules, which can confuse users and endanger the community.

Wikipedia is a great example of successful community-led moderation. it rely 280,000 active editors maintain millions of pages worldwide. Transparent processes and user collaboration ensure trust while protecting free speech.

“Transparency in governance is crucial. It prevents exclusion and builds confidence among users, ensuring everyone feels represented,” Arjun said.

Decentralized platforms face the challenge of balancing free speech with controlling harmful content such as hate speech, misinformation and illegal activity. A striking example is Controversy surrounding Pump.funa platform that allows live streaming of meme coin promotions.

Abuse of this feature results in harmful broadcast, Including threats of self-harm related to cryptocurrency price fluctuations.

“This highlights a critical point. Platforms need layered governance models and proof-of-verification mechanisms to address harmful content without becoming authoritarian,” Arjun explained

The seemingly obvious solution is to leverage artificial intelligence. While AI tools can identify harmful content with up to 94% accuracy, they lack the nuanced judgment required for sensitive cases. Regardless, decentralized systems must combine artificial intelligence with transparent, human-led regulation to achieve effective results.

So the question remains: How can people be protected from harm or enforce any form of policing without first agreeing on what constitutes foul play? Furthermore, if a community is to successfully police itself organically, what will it reshape itself into?

Governance and new review risks

Decentralized governance democratizes decision-making, but also introduces new risks. vote Systems, while participatory, may marginalize minority opinions, thereby replicating the problems that decentralization attempts to nip in the bud.

For example, regarding comprehensive market, A decentralized prediction platform, majority vote Dissent is sometimes suppressed, signaling the need for safeguards.

“In an era where centralized control of information has become a systemic risk, prediction markets offer a way to dispel misleading narratives and see the unvarnished truth. Prediction markets are a technology that preserves freedom and can move society forward.” District Blockchain researcher commented on X (formerly Twitter).

Transparent appeal mechanisms and labeling of majority powers are crucial to preventing new forms of censorship. Decentralized platforms prioritize user privacy, giving individuals control over their own data and social graph.

This autonomy enhances trust because users are no longer affected by corporate data breaches such as Facebook’s 2018 Cambridge Analytica scandal. Exposed data From 87 million users. In 2017, 79% of Facebook users trusted Meta for their privacy. After the scandal, that number dropped by 66%.

However, privacy can complicate efforts to address harmful behavior. This ensures that the decentralized network remains secure without compromising its core principles.

“Privacy cannot come at the expense of accountability. Platforms must adopt mechanisms to protect user data while enabling fair and transparent auditing,” Arjun explained.

Legal and regulatory issues for decentralized social media

A major challenge for decentralized platforms is resolving legal issues such as defamation and incitement. Unlike centralized systems such as X, receive With 65,000 government data requests annually, decentralized platforms lack clear legal recourse mechanisms. Arjun emphasized the importance of collaboration between platform creators and legislators.

“The involvement of regulators can help develop guidelines that protect users’ rights while retaining the spirit of decentralization,” he said.

In authoritarian regimes, decentralized platforms offer a fighting chance against censorship. For example, during the Mahsa Amini protests in Iran, a government-led internet shutdown affected 80 million users, highlighting the need for censorship-resistant networks. While decentralized platforms are harder to shut down, they are not immune to external pressures.

“Decentralization provides powerful tools for resistance, but individual users remain vulnerable. Platforms must develop additional safeguards to protect them from persecution. “Decentralization begins as a movement for user empowerment. To sustain this vision, platforms must prioritize inclusivity, transparency, and technological innovation. ” concluded Arjun.

Overall, the future of decentralized social media depends on solving these obstacles through creativity and collaboration. If successful, decentralized platforms could redefine the dynamics of online speech and provide a freer, more resilient ecosystem of expression.

The question is not whether decentralization can work, but whether it can evolve into a balance between freedom and responsibility in the digital age.