Decentralized social networks and the future of free speech online
Open accessAbstract
Decentralized social networks like Mastodon and BlueSky are trending topics that have drawn much attention and discussion in recent years. By devolving powers from the central node to the end users, decentralized social networks aim to cure existing pathologies on the centralized platforms and have been viewed by many as the future of the Internet. This article critically and systematically assesses the decentralization project's prospect for communications online. It uses normative theories of free speech to examine whether and how the decentralization design could facilitate users’ freedom of expression online. The analysis shows that both promises and pitfalls exist, highlighting the importance of value-based design in this area. Two most salient issues for the design of the decentralized networks are: how to balance the decentralization ideal with constant needs of centralization on the network, and how to empower users to make them truly capable of exercising their control. The article then uses some design examples, such as the shared blocklist and the opt-in search function, to illustrate the value considerations underlying the design choices. Some tentative proposals for law and policy interventions are offered to better facilitate the design of the new network. Rather than providing clear answers, the article seeks to map the value implications of the design choices, highlight the stakes, and point directions for future research.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Decentralized social media protocols-particularly those designed for feed-based networking-are political artifacts that allocate power in real-time.
“Similarly, decentralized social media protocols-particularly those designed for feed-based networking-are political artifacts that allocate power in real-time [55,63].”
From Seeing the Politics of Decentralized Social Media Protocols (2026) · cites this paper as [55]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 74 · Cited by 15
This paper’s reference list could not be split into single entries.
- Authors
- Huang, T.
- Affiliations
- City University of Hong Kong (HK)
- Corresponding author
- Huang, Tao
- ORCID
- Huang, Tao
- Venue
- Computer Law & Security Review
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2024-11
- Volume
- 55
- Pages
- 106059
- ISSN
- 2212-473X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4402993219
- Cited by
- 15
- References
- 74
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 9
- FWCI
- 38.63
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Computer law & security review (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- CityU Scholars (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Funders
- City University of Hong Kong (7200786)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Law › Freedom of Expression and Defamation
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Law, Rights, and Freedoms
- Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
- Keywords
- decentralized social networks, freedom of expression, Mastodon, Bluesky, decentralization, value-based design, user empowerment, internet censorship, communication law, platform design
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review