Would decentralised governance prevent social networking platforms from polarising their users with their policies?
Aragon co-founder Luis Cuende told Cointelegraph that the decentralised technology his company has been developing could find its perfect use case in social networking platforms such as Facebook and Twitter.
In recent months, the content moderation practices employed by global social networking platforms have been criticised by people across the political spectrum. Liberal-leaning constituencies tend to criticize them for essentially instituting politically correct censorship, while liberals claim that they are not doing enough to filter out offensive content. That said, yesterday (8 October) the FBI accused six people of a plot to kidnap the governor of Michigan, Gretchen Whitmer. It has since reported that the defendants allegedly coordinated their actions through a private Facebook group.
Jack Dorsey has said on several occasions that Blockchain technology could change the rules of the game for the Internet, and Twitter is no exception. He is also a strong advocate of decentralised technology in general; yesterday, his other company, Square, announced the purchase of USD 50 million in Bitcoin (BTC).
Aragon provides various technologies for decentralised autonomous bodies, or DAOs. Some of the best known DeFi projects using Aragon’s technology are AAVE, Curve and mStable. It also provides a framework for a virtual court, where contestants have to bet some amount of crypts and then submit to the decision of the decentralised juries.
As in a normal 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 entire network has the right to vote. It should be noted that the Aragon Court is still in its beta phase and only a few basic cases have been resolved by the participants so far.
Cuende believes that the moderation problems experienced by social networking platforms present a perfect use case for Aragon’s technology once the technology matures. In his opinion, the polarisation around this phenomenon stems from the fact that one party (Twitter) controls the outcome, which constitutes censorship, whereas if it were left to the community, the results would be more like moderation:
„I think that censorship is when the rules are defined by one party, moderation is when there is a consensus on the rules. So, otherwise, I think that if Twitter and Facebook were really governed by their users in a way that feels 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 push that. And that can be implemented today, the technology is there.“
Cuende said he has not yet contacted Dorsey, but that he will probably do so in the not too distant future:
„I think it’s a little early for that, but I think it’s a matter of time.