Technology is often a double-edged sword, solving one problem while creating another. When that happens, someone else comes along and solves the new problem. That process may take years. The cell phone, for instance, didn’t see the light of day until almost a century after Alexander Graham Bell’s immortal words, “Mr. Watson, come here. I want to see you.” As with any new technology, the problems blockchain technology solves are related to its features. But what about the hundreds of cryptosocial projects built on top of blockchains? What problems are they trying to solve?
The Problem of Centralization
There’s been a lot of talk about centralization. Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat, Pinterest, and virtually every social media platform built before Minds and Steemit were centralized. In truth, centralization is so embedded in the cultural DNA of western civilization that its hard for many people to imagine an alternative. Yet, in the last five years, a new breed of social media has developed that attempts to decentralize what we have come to know as social media.
It’s hard to see how centralization is a problem until you’ve been bitten by it. Since the first millennials were born in 1981, Americans have witnessed an S&L crisis, a Y2K scare, World Trade Center attacks, the 2008-09 financial crisis, more than one global pandemic, and widespread institutional racism. In each case, centralized authority was either the heart of the problem, a part of the problem, or failed to see the problem and ineffective in addressing it.
An article in Inc. magazine lists three benefits of decentralization that are supposed to fix the problem:
- Trust in centralized authority is replaced with technology where trust is not a factor;
- Systemic failure is reduced exponentially by the number of nodes that make up the system;
- No one can censor anyone else because there is no Twitter-like authority to ban someone because some authority doesn’t like what that person is saying.
Certainly, trustless technology is a beautiful dream, but a survey of the cryptosocial media landscape reveals that many of the platforms claiming to be decentralized aren’t really. In 2020, the most successful of the pack, Steemit, experienced a hard fork over fear that a hostile takeover by Tron founder Justin Sun would de-decentralize the blockchain, but the fact that the blockchain had “ninja-mined” staking accounts controlled by parent organization Steemit Inc. is evidence that the founders themselves weren’t committed to decentralization. The fact that there was a parent organization to begin with should have been a clue. And the fact that witnesses could freeze those accounts means that the delegated proof-of-stake (DPOS) mechanism isn’t wholly decentralized.
The truth about trust is, humans have had issues trusting each other since the first two homo sapiens drew their homemade battle axes. It isn’t so much a problem with centralization as it is with human nature.
Granted, a decentralized network is much less subject to hacking and attacks from outside sources than a centralized server. But even bitcoin, as decentralized as its architecture is, is centralizing into mining pools. Therefore, while I’d say decentralization is better security against outside attacks, to the extent that it solves other systemic issues, it also gives birth to others.
I like the idea of no one having the power to ban or censor anyone else from social media. I’ve never been a big fan of former president Donald Trump, but I didn’t like that Jack Dorsey used his power as CEO of Twitter to stop the president from making false claims about a stolen election. I’d rather have seen the two square off with hashtags than to see one cancel the other.
I like it even less that cancel power is being used against private citizens by social media giants. On the other hand, the story of Silk Road should serve as a warning against anyone who thinks unfettered freedom can—or should—go unchecked.
Centralization has its drawbacks, but if I’m being mugged, I certainly hope a police officer representing the centralized state is nearby to catch the ne’er-do-well doing me harm. I’m not holding my breath that decentralization is a panacea for all the ills of centralization that plague us even though I do see clear benefits.
The Problem of Data Ownership
Facebook’s Cambridge Analytica scandal put data security on everyone’s radar. Many people who’ve flocked to Facebook, Twitter, and other social media platforms have assumed or taken it for granted that the platforms would protect their personal information. The truth is, they can’t.
Beyond the data breaches, there lies another issue. What happens when your data is used for purposes you don’t support or endorse?
Any platform that collects your personal information can sell it or use it for nefarious purposes. And it’s likely that such information will be sold multiple times. Buyers can range from anyone who might have a product you’d be interested in to a political party you’d never support. The rule of thumb is: If the product or service is free, you are the product.
In my mind, having control over one’s data is a much bigger benefit than escaping the evil clutches of centralization. In a way, however, this problem is an extension of the centralization problem. We simply can’t trust centralized entities to handle our personal information better than we can do so ourselves. I’m holding out hope that decentralization can solve this problem for us all. So far, while there have been noble attempts, I haven’t seen any breakout solutions hit the market that allow users to completely control their own data. Certainly not any cryptosocial platforms.
The Problem of Transparency
Google has long kept its search engine algorithms secret. They tell website owners to feed their robots with valuable content but don’t give explicit instructions on what that means. Search engine optimizers and website copywriters must guess at how content is indexed and ranked at the world’s largest search engine. While this opaqueness is effective in combating spam and discouraging people from gaming search results, there is a hard truth that must be explored: If search algorithms are so great, then why do they need a human facilitator to tweak them hundreds of times a day in order to manipulate the end result?
Facebook’s algorithms determine what content users see on their news feeds. Why? Doesn’t Mark Zuckerberg trust that his platform’s users know what they want to see?
Who doesn’t want more transparency?
Honestly, I’d never expect a private company to be transparent about its inner workings. That doesn’t mean I expect every organization on the planet to open its books and pretend that every detail belongs in public view. On the other hand, I do appreciate open source projects that allow anyone to assume ownership and responsibility for the success of the ecosystem. I use WordPress every day and it’s about as transparent as they come.
Decentralization can overcome the issues of transparency. Again, I’m hopeful that cryptosocial media can solve the problem of transparency, but to do so, there needs to be an openness by project leaders about the struggles of working with the technology. If platform users don’t understand the struggles of the builders, the builders can’t expect users to make maximum use of the technology.
At the end of the day, transparency is only possible if those investing their time and resources are vulnerable to the forces that threaten their survival, but I suspect protocols, not platforms, are better equipped to deliver the kind of transparency decentralization promises.
Not All Problems Are Created Equal
Not all problems are created equal. Neither are all solutions. There is still a lot of hype in blockchain development circles. Cryptosocial media builders seem to focus on the features of blockchain technology rather than the benefits. This makes it difficult to mainstream the product. While finding solutions to real-world problems is what entrepreneurs are made for, a realistic view of themselves, the strengths and weaknesses of the technology, and end-user expectations are paramount.
I’m on board with the cryptosocial media dream, but I don’t want to live in a dream world forever. No matter how heavenly it appears.
DISCLAIMER
I am not a financial advisor, nor do I give financial advice. The above information should not be considered financial advice but is for informational purposes only. Neither I nor Cryptowriter are responsible for financial losses incurred as a result of acting on this information. Please consult a financial advisor before making any financial decisions.
This post is published for Cryptowriter in association with Voice.
If you enjoyed this content feel free to use our ️EXCLUSIVE SIGN UP PAGE to skip the queue and gain full access to our Cryptowriter community.
Follow Our Socials – Twitter– Telegram– Instagram
Follow Me
➡ Cryptocracy Newsletter: https://cryptocracy.substack.com/
➡ Cryptocracy on Twitter: https://twitter.com/Cryptocracy3
➡ Allen Taylor Twitter: https://twitter.com/allen_taylor
➡ Taylored Content: https://tayloredcontent.com
➡ Cryptobloggers: https://cryptobloggers.us
This post was first published at Voice.