Cited by 15Freedom of Expression and DefamationLaw, Rights, and FreedomsSocial Media and Politics

Decentralized social networks and the future of free speech online

Open access
Huang, Tao·2024·Computer Law & Security Review

Abstract

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.clsr.2024.106059

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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
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
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