Block by Block: Social Media Platforms

Social media platforms have been under pressure from what many see as acts of censorship and mismanagement of data. Before the age of the internet, traditional media companies were the gatekeepers of society. Media companies determined what people watch and hear — actively shaping the political and social landscape as they saw fit. In the online era, we haven seen the power shift from traditional media to social media.

Social media platforms are now the gatekeepers of our society, but increasingly are more powerful than their predecessors. By leveraging data produced by their users and the widespread reach of their platforms, social media companies can change the behavior of their users and quite literally manipulate the minds of people.

It is, then, no surprise that users are looking for alternatives and lowering their use of social media platforms. Rising from the anger of users, are a distinct brand of alternatives: decentralized social media platforms.

Where are the points of entry for decentralized social media platforms?

To understand the shift in the mindset of users and the growing interest in alternative platforms, we take a look at the failings of centralized social media platforms:

• Censorship: For the average user, censorship may not feel like a pronounced issue. For the fringe user, however, censorship is very much real. As businesses, centralized social media platforms have full control over who gets access to their platforms. And, as we’ve seen, many platforms leverage that control as they see fit.
• Data security: Centralized social media platforms rely on advertising. To generate revenue, social media platforms collect an immense amount of data from users, which improves their ad-targeting and social engineering tools. When users access centralized social media platforms, they have to trust that these platforms will properly secure their data. However, as shown by the Cambridge Analytica scandal, user data is not being properly secured.
• Content curation: Because it is free to create an account and engage with users, centralized social media platforms face bots and spammers. There are few consequences for bots to spam comments or inflate engagement numbers such as likes, upvotes, and shares. As such, the presence of bots and spammers creates a content ecosystem that is not reflective of real users. This presence contributes to the spread of truly fake news and what is essentially a denial-of-service attack on user content.

With the problems facing centralized social media platforms, how do decentralized social media platforms solve them?

• Censorship → Uncensorable: Decentralized social media platforms are inherently censorship resistant. Because these platforms have no central leaders dictating the rules of the platform, users, in theory, can post anything they want without the fear of being de-platformed.
• Data security → Data control: On decentralized social media platforms, users have full control over their data. Because they do not need to generate revenue, decentralized social media platforms do not collect the data of users for advertisers¹. Furthermore, because users own their data and content, they could easily migrate their data to different platforms as they see fit. The inability to migrate data is a major reason why users avoid the process of switching to social media platforms. When all your photos are on Facebook, you are disincentivized to switch to BookFace. The full ownership of data removes this friction for users. Those that disagree with the actions of a platform can fork off and bring their data with them.
• Content curation → Incentivized content curation: Most decentralized social media platforms are built with incentive mechanisms in the form of native cryptocurrencies. To prevent spam and encourage authentic engagement, decentralized social media platforms often require its users to pay for actions such as likes, votes, and shares. To incentivize content curation and creation, these platforms reward users with cryptocurrency for creating engaging content². Spammers are disincentivized to spam if they have to pay fees each time they post. Users are incentivized to create content if they are rewarded each time they create engaging content.

What are the barriers to entry?

• Network effects: The primary advantage of social media platforms are their network effects. Users stay on their platforms because that is where the other users are. According to Pew Research, the primary reasons why people use social media platforms is staying in contact with their friends and family members. While network effects are replaceable, the scale of current centralized social media platforms will make it incredibly difficult to do so.
• Convenience: While users claim there are concerns about data privacy, studies continue to show that users value convenience over privacy. Inconvenience is a large barrier to adopting decentralized platforms. Compared to their centralized counterparts, decentralized social media platforms have limited features and tools (APIs, Video-support, etc.). Furthermore, the onboarding process for many platforms is complicated. For example, to use Peepeth, users have to install MetaMask and load it with ETH. If they don’t have ETH, they need to find a cryptocurrency exchange, buy some, and transfer it to their MetaMask account. This entire process can easily overwhelm an average user to the point where they give up.

Decentralized social media platforms promise a world of uncensored speech and control of one’s data. While there are large barriers to adoption, the growth of platforms like Mastodon and Steemit, hints at the possibility of successful alternatives to centralized social media platforms.

¹ Some platforms do work with advertisers but give users the option to opt-in to sharing their data in return for cryptocurrencies.

² Platforms that do not require the use of cryptocurrencies don’t necessarily solve the problem of spam and content creation.