Following Vitalik Buterin's call for more social application use cases on Ethereum before this summer, multiple crypto companies voiced intentions to build decentralized versions of mainstream social networks similar Twitter. Notwithstanding, to create and view crypto-centered social platforms equally simply decentralized versions of Twitter is shortsighted. The moral and technical implications of creating truly decentralized social networks that abide by Spider web three.0 principles extend far across what the idea of "decentralized Twitter" currently encompasses.

Beyond mere decentralization, there are four fundamental themes fundamental to the idea of crypto social development: private advice and censorship resistance, moderation, decentralized governance, and secure and decentralized money.

Private communication and censorship resistance

Privacy is a human right, all the same this right is condign increasingly violated by centralized Big Tech companies who are financially incentivized to collect, shop and monetize the information of their users. In Facebook's Q2 earnings study earlier this yr, it was reported the company had generated $28.six billion in advertising acquirement alone. Equally the adage goes, "If you lot're not paying for the production, you are the product," and information technology's fourth dimension to redesign the incentives at play in existing social networks. Currently, platforms are motivated to collect private information from users to go paid past advertisers. With the privacy and encryption of crypto social networks, this paradigm is challenged since identifiable personal information is non nearly as attainable — if at all — to advertisers.

At the cadre of any crypto social network should be the ability to freely communicate and organize, divested from centralized, corporate oversight. In recent years, concerns over online censorship have mounted, a notable example being when Discord banned the r/WallStreetBets server amid the GameStop short clasp, reportedly due to concerns about hateful content being posted in the customs. Unlike centralized Web 2.0 platforms, such as Discord, decentralized social networks remove asphyxiate points for censorship. If nobody controls the network servers, then not one single person or entity can control and censor content. While this combats censorship, it also presents a unique claiming: moderation.

Related: Social media giants must decentralize the internet... At present!

Moderation

The idea of moderation poses a catch-22 to crypto social communities. On one hand, crypto social's Web three.0 values are nearly creating democratized applications gratis from censorship and prying oversight. On the other manus, communities should be able to protect themselves from spam attacks and malicious actors. Balancing moderation with the need for privacy, decentralization and censorship resistance is a circuitous consideration without a articulate-cut solution.

The lesser line is that communities — not a tertiary-political party — should have control over the content that is present in their spaces. Types of engagement vary from community to community, every bit does the nomenclature of "good" versus "bad" content. How good information is shared and how bad information is curated ultimately defines the value of the community itself, and it is important to approach moderation in a manner that cannot exist hijacked or manipulated.

1 path forward to prevent spam is for communities to implement chat features using token-based permissions. With this method, holding specific tokens can grant members access to posting, viewing and/or administrative permissions in a given community. To preserve the integrity of the tokens, smart contracts tin can exist implemented to control the transferability and permissions of each newly minted token. This decentralized system ensures that moderation is conducted in a way that does not let for the subjectivity of a standalone individual to control curation.

Decentralized governance

The problem with Web 2.0 social networks is that centralization inherently bars communities from condign self-governed and self-regulated. The success of a social network should mean 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 trouble with the existing club of centralized social networks: The decisions of a standalone individual or entity control the network's evolution and fate.

One way to address this flaw and plant decentralized governance is through the employ of community money. By holding governance tokens, individual community members are given the power to vote on decisions that shape the community's future. The collective nature of this democratized voting system has the power to safeguard the community from falling victim to the whims of corporate bureaucracy. With decentralized governance, users are given a voice to effect alter.

Related: Crypto social governance will lead to online freedom

Secure and decentralized coin

Decentralization, alone, cannot ensure the longevity and cocky-sustainability of crypto social networks. The integration of token-based incentives offers a unique avenue for users to uphold and navigate social network communities. By issuing tokens to users, individual users become similar shareholders of the platform, providing an incentive to participate in and contribute to the network'southward growth.

When each user maintains a balance of tokens, they are then able to transact on their terms in a peer-to-peer manner, in essence contributing to the network'southward economy autonomously. The use cases for these tokens are endless — from voting on proposals to crowdfunding an initiative to sending encrypted messages — and offer support for the community's long-term growth.

With decentralized social networks gaining interest and momentum, these four key themes demonstrate that there are far more considerations at stake when designing new social networks than merely the idea of decentralization. What we demand are more purpose-driven platforms that champion the intellectual and financial sovereignty of users — not surface-level buzzwords. Despite grayness areas in how to attain this goal, the dazzler of decentralized social networking is that the community has the opportunity to shape what the future of social networking looks like.

This article does not contain investment advice or recommendations. Every investment and trading movement involves risk, and readers should conduct their own research when making a decision.

The views, thoughts and opinions expressed hither are the author'due south alone and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views and opinions of Cointelegraph.

Corey Niggling started his blockchain-focused research around 2022 equally a personal hobby while doing his PhD candidacy at Texas Tech University in Computational Chemical Physics. He then went on to co-found The Bitcoin Podcast Network and still serves every bit a host on the flagship, The Bitcoin Podcast and a more technical show, Hashing It Out. Corey left academia and entered the data science/blockchain security manufacture for a few years attempting to set up vulnerabilities in ICS/SCADA networks before finding his fit as the head of security at Condition.im where he remains today.