Would decentralized governance save social media platforms from political clashes with their users?
Aragon co-founder Luis Cuende told Cointelegraph that the decentralized technology his company has been developing can find its perfect use case on social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter.
In recent months, the content moderation practices employed by global social media platforms have been criticized by people across the political spectrum. Libertarian voters tend to criticize them for essentially instituting politically correct censorship, while others claim that they are not doing enough to filter out offensive content. To this extent, yesterday the FBI sued six individuals in a plot to kidnap Michigan’s governor, Gretchen Whitmer. Since then, it has been reported that the accused allegedly coordinated their actions through a private Facebook group.
Jack Dorsey has previously indicated that blockchain technology will be a game-turner for the Internet, with Twitter being no exception. He is also an advocate of decentralized technologies in general; yesterday his other company, Square, announced the purchase of Bitcoin (BTC) worth US$50 million.
Aragon provides a range of technologies to decentralized autonomous organizations, or DAOs. Some of the best-known DeFi projects that use Aragon’s technology are AAVE, Curve and mStable. It also provides a framework for a virtual court, where competitors have to place a certain amount of encryption and then submit to the decentralized jury’s decision.
As in a regular court system, the losing party can appeal to the higher court (in Aragon’s case, with more jurors) and eventually take their case to what Cuende calls the „Supreme Court“, where the whole network can vote. It should be noted that Aragon Court is still in beta and the participants have solved only a few basic cases so far.
Cuende believes that the problems of moderation experienced by social media platforms present a case of perfect use for Aragon’s technology, as the technology matures. For him, the polarization around this phenomenon stems from the fact that one party (Twitter) controls the outcome, which constitutes censorship, whereas, if left to the community, the results would be more like moderation:
„I think censorship is when the rules are set by one party, moderation is when there is consensus about the rules. Otherwise, I think if Twitter and Facebook were really governed by their users in a way that seems fair to everyone, then we could collectively decide on the rules. We could collectively decide what to do and what not to do, and we could take that forward. And that can be implemented today, the technology is there“.
Cuende said he hasn’t contacted Dorsey yet, but he probably will in the near future:
„I think it might be too early for that, but I think it’s just a matter of time.“