In the wake of traditional social media giants exercising discretionary powers, the debate around censorship and free speech has been reignited. In recent developments, X (formerly Twitter) suspended the Hebrew-language account of Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei for “violating platform rules.” This incident sparked a global debate about the power that centralized platforms wield over public discourse.
Notably, this is not an isolated incident; everyday content creators face similar situations. In the second quarter of 2024 alone, YouTube’s automated flagging system removed approximately 8.19 million videos. In contrast, user-generated flagging removed only about 238,000 videos.
In response to these concerns, decentralized platforms like Mastodon and Lens Protocol are gaining popularity, promising to redistribute control. However, this raises complex questions about moderation, accountability, and scalability.
Anurag Arjun, co-founder of Avail, a blockchain infrastructure pioneer, explains, “Decentralization doesn’t mean the absence of moderation—it’s about shifting control to user communities while maintaining transparency and accountability.” Unlike Facebook or YouTube, which face accusations about algorithmic biases and shadow bans, decentralized systems claim to promote open dialogue.
However, a recent survey from the Pew Research Center found that 72% of Americans believe social media companies wield too much power over public discourse. This skepticism applies to decentralized systems, where governance must remain transparent to prevent louder voices from monopolizing the conversation.
Decentralized platforms depend on community-driven moderation. While this approach hopes to ensure inclusivity, it risks fragmentation when consensus is hard to achieve. For instance, Mastodon instances often have varying moderation rules, which can confuse users and jeopardize communities.
Arjun emphasizes, “Transparency in governance is essential. It prevents exclusion and builds confidence among users, ensuring everyone feels represented.”
However, the challenge lies in balancing free speech with controlling harmful content like hate speech, misinformation, and illegal activities. Misuse of the platform Pump.fun, for example, led to harmful broadcasts, including threats of self-harm tied to cryptocurrency price swings.
While AI tools can identify harmful content with up to 94% accuracy, they lack the nuanced judgment required for sensitive cases. Decentralized systems must combine AI with transparent, human-led moderation for effective results.
Decentralized governance democratizes decision-making but introduces new risks. For instance, on Polymarket, a decentralized prediction platform, majority voting sometimes suppressed dissenting views. Transparent appeal mechanisms and tabs on majority power are crucial to preventing new forms of censorship.
Decentralized platforms prioritize user privacy, giving individuals control over their data. However, privacy can complicate efforts to address harmful behaviors. Arjun explains, “Privacy cannot come at the expense of accountability. Platforms must adopt mechanisms that protect user data while enabling fair and transparent moderation.”
A primary challenge for decentralized platforms is addressing legal issues like defamation and incitement. Unlike centralized systems such as X, which receive 65,000 government data requests annually, decentralized platforms lack clear mechanisms for legal recourse.
In authoritarian regimes, decentralized platforms provide a fighting chance to resist censorship. However, these platforms are not immune to external pressures.
Arjun concludes, “Decentralization began as a movement for user empowerment. To sustain that vision, platforms must prioritize inclusivity, transparency, and technological innovation.”
Though challenges abound, the future of decentralized social media hinges on addressing these hurdles with creativity and collaboration. Decentralized platforms could redefine the dynamics of online speech, offering a freer and more resilient ecosystem for expression. The question is not whether decentralization can work but whether it can evolve to balance freedom with responsibility in the digital age.
