In recent times, numerous websites have experienced a significant increase in their viewership. These platforms are undergoing active development, and some traditional social media companies are also investing in them. Our aim is to examine various protocols used to launch these sites, along with community and regulatory perspectives. Let’s discuss what protocols decentralized social networks are built on.
Decentralization in practice
One of the widely recognized protocols in this field is Nostr. Its foundation relies on relay servers, which are responsible for receiving “events.” These events include metadata such as the user’s name, photo, biography, text messages, and details about other relays. Each Nostr event comprises a digital signature, a public key, and a publication date.
Users can transmit three categories of events to the relay by JSON arrays with specific requirements. These events involve:
- Publishing a message;
- Sending content from the subscribed authors and issuing new subscriptions;
- Discontinuing the following of updates from a particular user.
The process is as follows:
[“EVENT”, <event JSON as defined above>] — to post events.
[“REQ”, <subscription_id>, <filters JSON>…] — request events and subscribe to new accounts by a set of filters.
[“CLOSE”, <subscription_id>] — to cancel previous subscriptions.
As per templates, the relay can transmit two varieties of messages to the client:
[“EVENT”, <subscription_id>, <event JSON as defined above>] — to send events requested by clients on specific filters.
[“NOTICE”, <message>] — to send error messages or with other additional data.
Clients have the responsibility of engaging with the repeaters present in the Nostr ecosystem. These repeaters facilitate the formation of events, their signing using keys, and their publication. Additionally, users can use the “subscription” feature to download data from selected repeaters. Nostr provides various applications such as Anigma, an open messenger modeled after Telegram, Damus, a social network for exchanging short messages, Jester chess client, and the Nvote forum.
However, Nostr has certain limitations. Some enthusiasts have criticized it for being a “not quite decentralized system,” which prevents direct user interaction. They argue that the protocol combines the worst aspects of intermediary-based work and slow speeds caused by p2p connection delays. Apart from this, Nostr also faces issues with the inability to link multiple accounts to one profile and restore it in case of key loss due to close identification binding.
Alternatives
The ActivityPub protocol presents an alternative to Nostr. It has been utilized to launch projects that operate on the federation principle. One of the largest decentralized Mastodon networks is built on it, where users independently choose a server based on suitable moderation rules. Another example is Peertube, an open-source decentralized platform for video hosting, and Pixelfed, a platform for publishing photos.
Scuttlebutt p2p protocol also serves as another alternative to Nostr. This protocol enables the creation of private social networks for friends and family (even a network of two computers is sufficient). Scuttlebutt stores user posts in a feed format where each post holds a hash of the previous one. Content chains cannot be edited; only new entries can be added, both public posts and private messages encrypted with the recipient’s public key. To expand beyond the family circle, volunteer-run SSB servers on the internet can be utilized. These servers can save user records and share them with others, allowing users to maintain contact with a large group of people.
What is the future of such a project?
Decentralized networks have gained significant popularity, but their future prospects remain uncertain. Despite their growing audience, the total number of users is still relatively small compared to traditional social networks.
Several factors hinder migration to these networks. Even the most interested enthusiasts face technical complexities when working with p2p social networks. The need to locate servers and repeaters makes these projects inconvenient for inexperienced users. Each community requires a separate profile creation, and in case of losing an old profile, transferring subscribers and posts become impossible. As these social networks grow and more content is posted, scaling issues may arise over time.
Moderation is another significant issue for decentralized social networks as they are easily filled with spam and other content that interferes with communication. Although moderation is the responsibility of servers and repeaters, not everyone is willing to take on the task. As there are no standards in place, state regulators are beginning to take an interest in such projects.
According to internet law experts, as networks like Mastodon continue to grow, private server owners will be held accountable for user behavior. For instance, administrators will have to remove any posted content that violates copyright laws or breaks the laws of countries in which the community wishes to continue. The added costs and responsibilities are bound to affect the growth rate of p2p social networks.
It remains to be seen if the p2p community will be able to offer a viable alternative in time, taking into account the most significant risks. If the current challenges are not overcome, there is a possibility that decentralized social networks will remain a niche product for enthusiasts.