Decentralized social media can end massive technological censorship.

In a world where traditional social media platforms dominate the digital discourse, are decentralized alternatives emerging as promising points for censorship or hate speech?

BeInCrypto talks to Anurag Arjun, founder of Avail, who is passionate about how decentralization is changing online discourse and governance.

In October, X (formerly Twitter) banned Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei's Hebrew-language account for “violating forum rules.” The post in question commented on Israel's retaliatory strikes against Tehran, fueling international debates about power-centered platforms in public discourse.

Many: Is the supreme leader of a country not allowed to comment on airstrikes within his own borders?

Political sensitivities aside, the same thing happens with everyday creators in much lower circumstances. In the second quarter of 2024, YouTube's automatic suggestion system removed about 8.19 million videos, while user-generated suggestions removed only about 238,000 videos.

In response, decentralized platforms such as Mastodon and Lens Protocol are gaining popularity. Mastodon, for example, has seen 2.5 million active users since Elon Musk bought Twitter in November 2022. These platforms promise to redistribute control, but this raises questions about moderation, accountability and scalability.

“Decentralization doesn't mean the absence of moderation – it's about shifting control to user communities while maintaining transparency and accountability,” Avail founder Anurag Arjun told BeenCrypto in an interview.

Decentralized platforms aim to eliminate corporate influence over online discourse. These platforms allow the users to define and implement the average standards themselves. Unlike Facebook or YouTube, where there are accusations of algorithmic bias and shadow bans, decentralized systems encourage open discussion, they say.

However, while decentralization eliminates single-point control, it does not necessarily ensure fairness. A recent Pew Research Center survey found that 72 percent of Americans believe social media companies have too much power over public discourse.

This skepticism applies to decentralized systems, where governance must remain transparent so that a loud voice does not monopolize the conversation.

“Decentralized governance doesn't ensure that any one individual or corporation can and cannot have a say, but it still requires safeguards to balance different perspectives,” Arjun explains.

Without central control, decentralized platforms rely on community-based moderation. This approach hopes to ensure inclusiveness but also risks fragmentation when consensus is difficult to reach. Mastodon instances have different moderation rules that confuse users and put communities at risk.

Wikipedia is a good example of successful community leadership.. He is proud Over 280,000 active editors to maintain millions of pages worldwide. Transparent procedures and user cooperation ensure confidence in protecting free expression.

“Transparency is important in governance. It prevents discrimination and builds trust among stakeholders, ensuring that everyone feels represented,” says Arjun.

Decentralized platforms face the challenge of balancing free speech with policing harmful content such as hate speech, misinformation, and illegal activities. A high-profile example is the controversy surrounding Pump.fun, a platform that allowed live streams for a meme coin promotion.

Abuse of this feature has led to harmful transmissions, including self-harm threats related to cryptocurrency price fluctuations.

“This highlights a critical point. Platforms need layered governance models and verification mechanisms to address harmful content without becoming a monopoly,” Arjun explains.

The obvious solution is to use artificial intelligence. While AI tools can identify harmful content with up to 94% accuracy, they lack the specialized judgment required for sensitive issues. In any case, decentralized systems must enable effective results from AI with transparent, human-driven moderation.

So the question remains: How do you protect people from harm or enforce any kind of regulation? Also, what would change if society successfully policed ​​itself?

Management and new censorship concerns

Decentralization democratizes decision-making but brings new risks. While voting systems are participatory, decentralization can reproduce the problems and marginalize minority opinions.

For example, at Polymarket, a decentralized forecasting platform, majority voting has sometimes suppressed dissenting views, indicating the need for protection.

“In an age where centralized data control is a systemic risk, prediction markets offer a way to cut through misleading narratives and look at the unchanging truth. Prediction markets are liberty-preserving technologies that move societies forward,” blockchain researcher X (formerly Twitter) commented.

Clear appeal mechanisms and tabs on multiple powers are critical to preventing new forms of censorship. Decentralized platforms prioritize user privacy, giving individuals control over their data and social graphs.

This strengthens trust in autonomy, as users are no longer at the mercy of corporate data breaches like Facebook's Cambridge Analytica scandal in 2018, which exposed the data of 87 million users. In the year In 2017, 79% of Facebook users trusted Meta for their privacy. After the scandal, this number decreased by 66%.

However, privacy can complicate efforts to address harmful behaviors. This ensures that decentralized networks remain secure without compromising their core principles.

Arjun explains, “Privacy cannot come at the expense of accountability. Platforms must adopt mechanisms that protect user information while enabling fair and transparent moderation.

Legal and regulatory concerns in decentralized social media

A primary challenge for decentralized platforms is addressing legal issues such as defamation and incitement. Unlike centralized systems like X that accept 65,000 government data requests per year Decentralized platforms do not have a clear legal process. Arjun emphasizes the importance of collaboration between platform creators and legislators.

“Involving regulators helps develop policies that protect consumer rights while maintaining decentralization,” he says.

In authoritarian regimes, decentralized platforms offer a fighting chance against censorship. During the Mahsa Amini protests in Iran, for example, a government-run shutdown of the Internet affected 80 million users, and he stressed the need for censorship-resistant networks. Although it is very difficult to close decentralized platforms, they are not free from external pressures.

“Decentralization provides strong tools for resistance, but individual users are vulnerable. Platforms must develop additional safeguards to protect them from migration.” Decentralization was initiated as a movement to empower users. To sustain that vision, platforms must prioritize inclusiveness, transparency and technological innovation, Arjun said.

Overall, the future of decentralized social media lies in solving these barriers through innovation and collaboration. If successful, decentralized platforms could redefine the dynamics of online discourse, providing a freer and more robust ecosystem for expression.

The question is not whether decentralization can work, but whether it is possible to balance freedom with responsibility in the digital age.