This year, amidst a general crisis, the conflict between traditional and decentralized social networks has reached a stable state after several scandals involving the former and limited audience growth for the latter. However, this is a critical period for these projects as they face temporary setbacks. On one hand, the general public is not eager to fully understand their structure or learn how to use alternative social and communication platforms. On the other hand, the competition among smaller peer-to-peer (P2P) social networks is increasing in this niche.
In this situation, decentralized solutions may be vulnerable to regulatory scrutiny, especially if regulators shift their attention from mainstream platforms to independent alternatives that operate on different principles. These alternatives offer users unique features such as freedom from tracking by advertising networks, private data collection, and content filtering, which are not typically found in traditional social networks.
The development of the situation
From a technological perspective, P2P projects are not entirely new. For instance, consider the initial assembly of ARPANET, where all four nodes had equal status, albeit for a limited time. However, from a conceptual point of view, the subsequent history of decentralized protocols and social networks has been a search for mechanisms that can enable the efficient and fair exchange of information, as well as the maintenance of social connections.
It is impossible to strive towards such an ambitious goal without encountering conflicts. In fact, even before the emergence of large-scale peer-to-peer projects, controversial issues were already prevalent. For example, in the context of the offline “war for copyright,” Napster appeared in 1999, sparking lawsuits against music “pirates” even before its launch. However, the emergence of Napster as a noticeable and effective solution at that time only intensified the legal battles.
By the end of its service in 2001 in its original form, the technology community responded to the increased pressure with an alternative means of decentralized data exchange – BitTorrent. Enthusiasts of the protocol successfully utilized the creative fruits of the project developers for over a decade, with analysts attributing 3.35% of global traffic to the protocol by 2013. However, both the owners and users of torrent trackers have gradually faced crackdowns, with websites now willingly divulging personal data. As a result, the popularity of the BitTorrent protocol has been declining year by year.
The recent trend of decentralized social networks
In recent years, there has been a growing trend toward decentralized social networks. This has been largely driven by regulators who have started scrutinizing traditional. Large-scale platforms are due to concerns about the potential manipulation of public opinion. And the need to maintain law and order and ensure security.
The ongoing epidemiological crisis has further fueled this trend. With intelligence services in some countries pushing for backdoors to be embedded. And restrictions on end-to-end encryption to be introduced. At the same time, authorities are advocating for content filtering to combat “hate speech”. And even proposing the possibility of breaking up large social networks into separate projects. In response, website owners are attempting to monetize their unprecedentedly large audiences. But this process often becomes frustrating for users due to various reasons.
The complexities of P2P projects
While P2P projects offer solutions to many of the challenges mentioned earlier, they are not without their own complexities. In some cases, the intentions of the founders and developers may differ from how the audience ends up using their product. For example, the Dat Foundation protocol. Which initially avoided political topics. Has been used by some as a form of protest against certain government measures by storing and exchanging data. However, those who engage in such actions are aware of the potential risks involved. As the protocol’s basic features can reveal the IP addresses of participants, leading to concerns about privacy and security.
In fact, due to the nature of the protocol. The Dat Foundation at one point abandoned its plans for decentralizing Wikipedia. Given the open discussions and sensitive topics that are often discussed in such networks. The local audience may attract attention from those who are interested in studying the “worldview” and daily activities of active users. As seen above, some of these technical possibilities are inherent to the design of these projects themselves.
Unique features of Peer-to-Peer ventures
Other peer-to-peer ventures, such as Secure Scuttlebutt and Fediverse, have their own distinct features. For instance, Secure Scuttlebutt does not allow users to delete their own records and keeps a log of all their actions on the network. On the other hand, Fediverse, which is a larger project, does not use end-to-end encryption.
In the case of Fediverse, administrators of individual “instances” have access to plain text correspondence. Similar to Fidonet, where node operators could view messages from network members for violations of the community’s “charter”. These idiosyncrasies highlight the diversity and unique characteristics of different peer-to-peer ventures.
Looking ahead
The future of the peer-to-peer (P2P) community remains uncertain. As it remains to be seen whether it can offer a viable alternative that addresses the concerns of mainstream project users. If P2P ventures fail to do so, this technological niche may remain experimental. Even without the intervention of regulators who are currently focused on addressing the challenges posed by established social networks. Only time will tell the direction P2P projects take in the face of evolving technological landscape and user expectations.