The Future of Social Networking: User Empowerment, Privacy, and Freedom From Censorship

This article delves into the transformative potential of decentralized social networks as a remedy for the privacy, censorship, and user autonomy concerns inherent in centralized social media. Offering a compelling alternative to conventional social media, decentralized social media instills trust and transparency in online interactions by harnessing distributed ledger technologies (DLT) such as blockchain, where data resides across multiple nodes controlled by the users themselves. Such decentralized networks employ these systems to provide avenues for private, censorship-free communication, granting users increased control over their personal data. Through an examination of the fundamental features, analysis of advantages and challenges, and a review of real-world initiatives, this research contributes to a deeper understanding of the Web 3 paradigm and its potential to revolutionize the social media landscape, fostering decentralization, democracy, and user-centric experiences.

INTRODUCTION

In the realm of social media, the term "social" implies a platform's primary focus on user engagement and the facilitation of communal interaction. Recent years have witnessed a transformative revolution in the way individuals communicate, share information, and connect globally through social media platforms (Dijck, 2013). These platforms have played pivotal roles in shaping public discourse, mobilizing social movements, and nurturing online communities (Hwang and Kim, 2015; Kidd and McIntosh, 2016; Pouwels et al., 2022). Major social networks have become hubs for interaction, communication, entertainment (Ahn and Shin, 2013; Kuem et al., 2017; Yurder and Akdol, 2020), and the dissemination of information and news (Vosoughi et al., 2018), although not always reliable (Shu et al., 2020). Paradoxically, while enabling the rapid and anonymous sharing of information, social media has also accelerated the spread of misinformation, particularly in the form of fake news (Di Domenico et al., 2021; Pennycook & Rand, 2021).

The global adoption of social networks is evident in the continually growing number of users. As of April 2023, DataReportal reported 4.80 billion social media users worldwide, accounting for nearly 60 percent of the global population. Projections anticipate this number will surpass six billion by 2027 (Dixon, 2023). Social media's influence extends beyond the digital realm, impacting offline behaviors and overall life experiences. Presently, social media usage ranks among the most popular online activities, with global internet users spending approximately 147 minutes per day on social media as of 2022, a slight increase from 145 minutes in 2021 (Dixon, 2022).

Nevertheless, the increasing dominance of major industry players such as Meta and X (formerly Twitter) raises concerns about privacy, as personal information becomes susceptible to data breaches and misuse (Li, 2015; McHatton, 2023; Senthil Kumar, 2016; Smith, 2012; Trepte, 2021). Additionally, centralized control over users' content and interactions has sparked debates about censorship and the suppression of diverse viewpoints (Benson et al, 2015; Bradshaw and Howard, 2019; Gunitsky, 2015). The concentration of power in a few entities also raises questions about accountability and the potential for undue influence over public discourse.

In light of the concerns surrounding centralized social networks, this paper sets out to explore the landscape of blockchain-based decentralized social networks, emphasizing their advantages over traditional social networks and assessing the current state-of-the-art initiatives. By harnessing the power of blockchain technology, these networks enhance privacy, empower users to maintain greater control over their personal data, ensure resistance against censorship, and foster a more inclusive and democratic online environment.

The article embarks on this journey by tracing the evolution of social networks from their inception to widespread adoption. It then delves into the fundamental distinctions between decentralized social networks and their centralized counterparts, highlighting the need for a paradigm shift in how we perceive and interact with social media. Furthermore, the paper examines the emergence of the first peer-to-peer (P2P) social networks and the subsequent integration of blockchain technology, which has revolutionized the concept of decentralization. Leveraging blockchain's inherent features, including immutability, transparency, and consensus mechanisms, a new generation of decentralized social media has emerged, promising heightened privacy, security, and user autonomy.

To provide a comprehensive overview, the paper scrutinizes prominent blockchain-based social media initiatives, with a particular focus on Ethereum-based decentralized social media platforms. It also sheds light on noteworthy blockchain social media platforms hosted on other chains. Nonetheless, the integration of blockchain technology into social networks is not without its challenges. The article addresses these issues, encompassing scalability, user experience, content moderation, competition from established centralized networks, interoperability, regulatory compliance, and the impact of market volatility on monetization models. By acknowledging and addressing these challenges, blockchain-based decentralized social networks can aspire to fulfill their promises and provide a compelling alternative to centralized platforms.

Through a combination of examining the fundamental features of decentralized social networks, analyzing their advantages and challenges, and exploring real-world initiatives, this research seeks to contribute to a deeper understanding of this phenomenon and its potential to reshape the social media landscape. Ultimately, our objective is to pave the way for a more user-centric, democratic, and empowering online environment.

THE EVOLUTION OF SOCIAL NETWORKS

In 1991, Tim Berners-Lee's ingenious merger of hypertext software with the Internet ushered in the World Wide Web era (Berners-Lee, 1992). This breakthrough not only facilitated the formation of online communities but also bolstered offline groups through weblogs, list servers, and email services. As the online landscape progressed, online services transformed from simple communication channels into interactive platforms for social interaction with the emergence of Web 2 (DiNucci, 1999) (Dijck, 2013).

The inception of social media can be traced back to the mid-1990s when platforms like GeoCities, Classmates.com, and SixDegrees.com made their debut (Ngak, 2011). The term "social media" emerged around this time, although earlier definitions used phrases like "computer-supported social networks" or "CSSNs" (Wellman, 1996). Subsequently, various terms such as "virtual communities" (Balasubramanian & Mahajan, 2001; Hagel, 1999; Ridings et al., 2002; Romm et al., 1997), "social networks" (Garton et al., 1997), "social networking services" (Marwick, 2005), "online social network" (Acquisti & Gross, 2006), "social network sites" (Boyd & Ellison, 2007; Sledgianowski & Kulviwat, 2009), and "social media" (Carr & Hayes, 2015; Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010; Kapoor et al., 2018; Kietzmann et al., 2011) were employed.

The early 2000s witnessed the meteoric rise of social media platforms, with Friendster and Myspace at the forefront (Boyd & Ellison, 2007). While Friendster gained popularity in the Pacific Islands, Myspace dominated media attention in the U.S. and worldwide, while numerous other social networks flourished globally. Orkut became Brazil's primary social network before expanding in India (Madhavan, 2007), Mixi gained prominence in Japan, LunarStorm attracted Sweden's audience, Dutch users embraced Hyves, Poland embraced Grono, Hi5 was adopted in Latin America, South America, and Europe, and Bebo found favor in the United Kingdom, New Zealand, and Australia. Existing communication and community services also incorporated social network features. For example, Chinese QQ integrated profiles and visibility of friends (McLeod, 2006), and Cyworld, a forum tool, captured the Korean market with homepages and buddy features (Ewers, 2006).

In the mid-2010s, social media giants such as Facebook, YouTube, and X (formerly Twitter) emerged (Statista). Facebook, the leader, achieved a significant milestone by exceeding one billion registered accounts and now boasts over 2.9 billion monthly active users. Currently, Meta Platforms, Facebook's parent company, controls four of the largest social media platforms, each with over one billion monthly active users: Facebook, WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger, and Instagram. Several other popular social networks, including WeChat, ShareChat, Instagram, QZone, Weibo, VK, Tumblr, Baidu Tieba, and LinkedIn, claim more than 100 million registered users. Despite their widespread use, these sites' centralized nature has raised concerns about user privacy and data security (De Salve et al., 2023; Jain et al., 2021; Qamar et al., 2016; Rathore et al., 2017).

Furthermore, major social platforms' monopolistic control poses a significant challenge (Ranttila, 2020). Dominant platforms like Facebook and Instagram attract the bulk of users, stifling competition and innovation in the social media landscape, thereby limiting diversity, user choice, and alternative platforms with distinct features, values, or privacy protections.

DECENTRALIZED VS. TRADITIONAL SOCIAL NETWORKS: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

The limitations inherent in the centralized architecture of current social networks have spurred numerous research initiatives (Marcon et al., 2011). These alternative proposals share a common goal: to grant users greater autonomy over their content and access rights (Rahman, 2020; Modi, 2023). Their aim is to decentralize storage and control within social networks (Qamar et al., 2016) and to establish decentralized architectures (Chowdhury et al., 2015; Paul et al., 2014).

In this study, we define decentralized social networks as online social media platforms that operate within a distributed environment. These platforms rely on a peer-to-peer (P2P) model, allowing users to interact directly without depending on a central authority or server. They are characterized by their decentralized, open-source, ad-free, and community-owned nature (Chowdhury et al., 2015). Decentralized networks prioritize user ownership and control of their data and interactions, empowering individuals to manage their personal information more effectively. Privacy is a central focus, with minimized data collection, encryption techniques, and selective data sharing to enhance the user experience. Furthermore, decentralized networks aim to resist censorship through distributed content storage, community-driven moderation, and anti-censorship tools. Content within decentralized networks is less vulnerable to removal or suppression, fostering freedom of expression.

Both traditional and decentralized social networks offer their own sets of advantages and challenges. Decentralized networks prioritize privacy, user autonomy, resistance to censorship, and resilience against single points of failure. In contrast, traditional centralized networks often provide convenience, a large user base, and a seamless user experience. A comparative overview of their features is presented in Table 1.

PIONEERING PEER-TO-PEER (P2P) SOCIAL NETWORKS

In the early stages of exploring alternatives to traditional centralized social networks, the focus leaned toward decentralized P2P architectures. These architectures aimed to give users more control over their content storage and access (Marcon et al., 2011). In 2011, an early proposal suggested a decentralized architecture to federate centralized social media services as an initial approach to address these challenges (Yeung et al., 2011). Simultaneously, researchers conducted measurement studies to demonstrate the feasibility of sharing social content directly from users' homes (Marcon et al., 2011).

The year 2009 saw the introduction of the first complete architecture for a P2P online social network called PeerSon (Buchegger, 2009). Other notable proposals for decentralized media platforms, such as SafeBook (Cutillo et al.; 2009), PrPl (Seong et al., 2010), Cachet (Nilizadeh et al., 2012), and Decent (Jahid et al., 2012), primarily focused on system design, communication protocols, consistency, encryption schemes, and profile dissemination within the network. Decentralization in these systems was primarily a consequence of their P2P nature.

Researchers classify P2P architectures for social networks into three main categories (Schwittmann et al., 2014). The first category is federated architecture, which consists of independent servers. Notable examples include open-source federated social media platforms like Mastodon (Zignani et al., 2018). Unlike traditional social media platforms, Mastodon operates as interoperable code deployed across multiple websites, allowing developers to create and manage their own servers, known as "instances." Each instance is owned, operated, and moderated by its creators, often funded by the community, devoid of advertisements, and collectively owned. Mastodon's decentralized structure has led to unique social interaction patterns (Zulli et al., 2020; La Cava et al., 2021).

The second category focuses on systems that use end-to-end client-side data encryption to ensure data content privacy. Examples include Persona (Baden et al., 2009), Vegas, and SoNet (Nepali et al., 2013). The third category, which includes systems like PeerSoN, Safebook, Cachet, and LifeSocial (Graffi et al., 2011), opts for a distributed hash table (DHT) instead of relying on federated servers. DHT-based networks achieve scalability and can accommodate a growing number of users and their social connections.

During the late 2000s and early 2010s, various proposals emerged, each offering different degrees of decentralization and addressing specific deployment aspects (Asthana et al., 2013; Famulari et al., 2013; Pouwelse et al., 2008; Shakimov et al., 2011; Sharma & Datta, 2012). In addition to architectural proposals, considerable research efforts have been dedicated to addressing specific issues relevant to decentralized social networks, including privacy, security, scalability, and data management (Aiello et al., 2012; Bodriagov et al., 2013; Forsyth & Daudjee, 2013; Han et al., 2012; Shahriar et al., 2013).

BLOCKCHAIN-POWERED DECENTRALIZED SOCIAL NETWORKS: A NEW ERA

In recent years, significant advancements in internet technology (IT) have ushered in the transformation from Web2 to Web3, heralding a vision for the future evolution of the World Wide Web. This new paradigm shift emphasizes decentralization and user empowerment (Nath et al., 2014). Web3, driven by distributed ledger technologies like blockchain, aims to empower individuals, enhance data privacy and security, and promote peer-to-peer interactions. Furthermore, Web3 explores the integration of token economies, facilitating novel models of value exchange and incentivizing user participation.

Numerous research initiatives are actively exploring a new generation of decentralized social networks through the integration of blockchain technology. These efforts aim to address the shortcomings of centralized and early peer-to-peer (P2P) social networks, with a focus on enhancing security and privacy aspects (Ba et al., 2022; Ciriello et al., 2018; Cong & He, 2019; Guidi, 2020; Guidi, 2021; Jiang & Zhang, 2019; Rahman, 2020; Wang et al., 2023).

Blockchain technology is the linchpin of decentralized applications, providing a robust infrastructure for the network. At its core, blockchain features a distributed and immutable ledger that records all transactions and interactions within the network. Unlike traditional centralized databases, blockchain employs a unique data structure composed of a chain of blocks, with data distributed across multiple nodes or computers. The initial block, known as the genesis block, undergoes a hashing algorithm to generate a fixed-length hash value. This hash value is stored in the subsequent block, and this process continues as new blocks are created. Each block contains information and the hash value of the preceding block, ensuring that any alteration to a block results in changes to all subsequent blocks. Consequently, the original blockchain is impervious to tampering, preserving the integrity of recorded data (Nakamoto, 2008).

In addition to its data structure, blockchain incorporates encryption and consensus mechanisms to maintain synchronization among network nodes, ensuring transparency and trust among participants. When a user initiates a transaction, the transaction data is encrypted using the user's private key. Network nodes then verify the encrypted transaction and achieve consensus through a specific algorithm. For instance, Bitcoin employs the Proof-of-Work (PoW) algorithm, while Ethereum relies on Proof-of-Stake (PoS) (Buterin, 2013). Upon reaching consensus, the new block, containing the latest transactions, is shared with other nodes and added to the blockchain. These mechanisms enable the network to remain synchronized across thousands of nodes without relying on a centralized authority, fostering a democratic and decentralized approach to decision-making within the network.

Blockchain-based decentralized social networks operate on a fundamentally distinct architecture compared to traditional platforms. Unlike centralized platforms that depend on central servers or authorities for communication and data storage, blockchain networks distribute these functions across an interconnected network of nodes. Each node serves as both a client and a server, enabling direct user-to-user communication without the need for a central intermediary. This architecture offers several advantages: enhanced privacy by minimizing third-party access to personal data, improved resilience and availability by eliminating a single point of failure, and the promotion of collaborative, community-driven interactions that empower users to have greater control over their network experience.

User-owned data and identity are core principles of decentralized social networks. In contrast to centralized platforms where users often surrender control of their data to the platform, decentralized networks empower users to retain ownership and control over their personal information. Decentralized identity systems enable users to independently manage their digital identities, employing cryptographic techniques for verification and authentication (Avellaneda et al., 2019; Dib & Toumi, 2020). End-to-end encryption ensures that only intended recipients can access content, safeguarding against eavesdropping and unauthorized surveillance. This encryption is often implemented at the protocol level, providing default privacy for all network participants. Users can selectively share their personal information, granting them increased control over their privacy and reducing the risk of unauthorized access or data misuse.

Furthermore, blockchain technology equips decentralized social networks with censorship resistance mechanisms. Unlike centralized platforms with the ability to censor or moderate content based on their policies, blockchain-based networks allow users to create and share content without the fear of censorship. Once content is recorded on the blockchain, it becomes immutable and impervious to alteration or removal by any central authority. This promotes freedom of expression and empowers users to have full control over their own data and content.

Decentralized social networks often adopt a community-driven approach to content filtering and moderation. Rather than relying on a central authority to dictate acceptable content, these networks enable users to participate in the moderation process. This distributed moderation approach reduces the potential for censorship by preventing any single entity from having unilateral control over content decisions, promoting diverse viewpoints and user empowerment in shaping the platform's content ecosystem.

In addition to its core features, blockchain's smart contracts play a pivotal role in powering decentralized social media. These contracts contain the backend code that defines the logic and operations of these networks, facilitating transparent and trustless interactions among users (Kaur & Dabas, 2023). Smart contracts automate and enforce predefined rules and conditions for social interactions, eliminating the need for intermediaries.

Blockchain-based decentralized social networks frequently incorporate token economies, using digital currencies or tokens to incentivize participation, reward content creators, and enable economic transactions within the network. These tokens can be earned through active engagement, content creation, or other desired actions. Token economies incentivize users to contribute to the network, fostering a vibrant and engaged ecosystem.

Moreover, blockchain provides mechanisms for decentralized decision-making through community governance (Chao et al., 2022). Users can collectively make decisions on platform upgrades, feature implementations, content policies, and other critical matters through Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs). This decentralized approach ensures transparent and inclusive decision-making according to the consensus of the community.

The advantages of blockchain for decentralized social networks are summarized in Table 2.

BLOCKCHAIN-BASED SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS: STATE-OF-THE-ART

Recent years have witnessed a surge in research and development concerning blockchain-based social media platforms, with various initiatives offering unique features and functionalities. These projects leverage blockchain technology to address the challenges of traditional social media and enhance security and user control (Ba et al., 2022; Bhattacharya et al., 2021; Guidi, 2020; Guidi, 2021; Pfeiffer et al., 2020; Poongodi et al., 2020). Each platform's distinct attributes are influenced by factors such as the underlying blockchain technology, intended purpose, target audience, and more. These projects vary in their degree of decentralization and the specific issues they aim to tackle in the implementation of decentralized social networks.

6.1. Ethereum-Based Decentralized Social Media

Ethereum has emerged as the platform of choice for developers looking to create decentralized social media networks. It owes its popularity to features such as smart contracts, widespread adoption, and the ubiquity of token standards like ERC-20 and ERC-721. Ethereum has laid the groundwork for over 50 social media platforms, each at different stages of development. Notable Ethereum-based social media projects are compared in Table 3.

6.1.1. Peepeth

Established in 2018, Peepeth is an open-source microblogging platform that operates on the Ethereum blockchain and utilizes The InterPlanetary File System (IPFS) for data storage (Benet, 2014). Peepeth aims to offer a secure, private, and censorship-resistant social media experience as an alternative to traditional platforms. Users can send immutable short messages known as "Peeps," which cannot be deleted or altered. An intriguing feature is the ability to tip or receive tips from other users in Ether (ETH) cryptocurrency. While there is a modest Ether cost associated with using Peepeth, the platform ensures transparency by disclosing expenses. It promotes high-quality content and user engagement by limiting users to one daily "Ensō" (similar to a "like").

6.1.2. Minds

Launched in 2015, Minds is a blockchain-based decentralized social network with millions of users, offering an experience comparable to Facebook. It operates on Ethereum and utilizes the native ERC-20 token, MIND, for various transactions. Minds is committed to open-source code and algorithms, along with transparent content moderation and anti-spam policies. The platform's primary goal is to create a transparent and open social media platform that upholds the principles of free speech and digital rights. Users have the freedom to express themselves without censorship and benefit from enhanced privacy protections. Additionally, they can earn MIND tokens by creating quality content, contributing to the platform's ecosystem, and referring others. Minds uses IPFS for data storage.

6.1.3. Mirror

Mirror is a blockchain-based writing platform rooted in Web3 principles, emphasizing decentralization and user ownership. Users can read and write on Mirror for free by connecting their wallets. Posts published on Mirror are stored permanently on Arweave, a decentralized storage platform, and can be transformed into collectible NFTs known as 'Writing NFTs.' Mirror empowers writers to monetize their work through crypto subscription payments, allowing them to directly benefit from their creative endeavors. The project facilitates the formation of decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs), enabling communities to collectively govern and shape the platform's future. By embracing Web3 principles, Mirror sets a new standard for the media industry and paves the way for a more inclusive and equitable publishing landscape.

6.1.4. Sapien

Sapien is an Ethereum-based social news platform that prioritizes adaptability and a democratic approach. Operating as a Web3 social network, it addresses fake news issues while providing incentives to content creators. The platform focuses on giving users ownership of their data and content. By sharing community-determined accurate content or engaging with other members, Sapien creators can earn SPN tokens, which can be used within the platform and marketplace. Users can also participate by staking SPN tokens, enabling them to receive tokenized rewards for activities like commenting, voting, and content creation. Sapien utilizes external storage.

6.1.5. CyberConnect

CyberConnect is a decentralized social network operating on the CyberConnect protocol, aiming for mass adoption and network effects while preserving identity sovereignty. Users can create profiles on EVM-compatible blockchains, forming the basis of their decentralized identities. One of CyberConnect's advantages is that it provides users with ownership of their social graph, content, monetization channels, and social data. This means users have complete control and ownership of their information, facilitating seamless navigation across various dApps without recreating their network on each new platform.

6.1.6. Status

Status is a secure messaging dApp that places a high priority on user privacy. It employs an open-source, peer-to-peer protocol and utilizes end-to-end encryption to protect user messages from third-party access. By leveraging decentralized technologies, Status ensures that user communications remain confidential and secure. The peer-to-peer architecture of the dApp eliminates the need for a central authority, reducing the risk of data breaches and surveillance. The implementation of end-to-end encryption ensures that only the intended recipients can decrypt and read messages, preserving user privacy. The Status Network Token (SNT), an ERC20 token, powers the Status Network.

6.1.7. Farcaster

Farcaster is a decentralized social network operating as an open protocol, similar to mailboxes. It supports multiple clients, allowing users to migrate their social identities freely between different applications. Developers have the freedom to build new applications on the Farcaster network, incorporating innovative features and functionalities. A notable feature of Farcaster is the ability to send short text message broadcasts linked to users' Ethereum addresses. Farcaster's decentralized nature ensures that users have complete control over their social interactions and data. Currently, Farcaster is built on the Goerli Ethereum testnet, with plans to migrate to the Ethereum Mainnet later this year. Currently, Farcaster is invite-only.

6.1.8. Indorse

Indorse is a decentralized social network that can be described as a decentralized version of LinkedIn, with elements reminiscent of Instagram. It operates using its ERC-20 token, Indorse (IND), with a focus on providing accurate credentialing and skills verification through its "indorsements" system. The platform aims to introduce IND staking and gradually decentralize governance through the Indorse Decentralized Autonomous Organization (DAO) (Pfeiffer, 2020).

6.1.9. Paragraph

Paragraph is a decentralized publishing platform similar to Substack, empowering writers, Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs), and NFT communities to monetize their content through a newsletter service. Users can create Web3-powered newsletters, allowing token-gating of content and unlocking new monetization opportunities. Paragraph provides a platform for users to grow their audience and cultivate a vibrant community around their work. Developers have the flexibility to build on Paragraph to cater to specific needs and requirements.

6.2. Web2 Social Media on Ethereum

Major Web2 platforms are recognizing the potential of blockchain technology and are actively working to integrate Web3 features, particularly those based on the Ethereum blockchain. Here are some notable examples:

• Reddit has introduced Community Points, which are ERC-20 tokens that users can earn by contributing quality content to online communities (subreddits). These tokens, like "Moons" on the r/CryptoCurrency subreddit, exist independently of Reddit and cannot be revoked. To enhance efficiency and scalability, Reddit is collaborating with Arbitrum, a layer 2 rollup solution.
• Twitter has introduced NFT support for its premium subscription service, Twitter Blue. Users can connect their wallets to display NFTs as profile pictures. Twitter has also announced plans to develop a decentralized social network, although specific details are yet to be revealed.
• Instagram has declared support for NFTs on both Ethereum and Polygon. Users can link their Ethereum crypto wallets and post NFTs directly on their Instagram profiles, allowing them to showcase and share their digital collectibles with their fo llowers.

These initiatives by centralized platforms aim to provide users with new features, incentives, enhanced digital ownership, and a more decentralized and transparent online social experience.

6.3. Notable Blockchain Social Media Platforms on Other Chains / Multichain

The blockchain and crypto space has witnessed the emergence of various noteworthy decentralized social media platforms operating on different blockchain networks, highlighting the diversity and innovation in this domain. Here are some platforms making significant strides:

6.3.1. The Lens Protocol Ecosystem

Launched in 2022 by the experienced team behind Aave, Lens Protocol introduces Lens, a fully composable and decentralized social graph. Users can mint a Lens handle as an NFT to their crypto wallet, compatible with various decentralized applications (dApps) within the expanding LensVerse ecosystem. Lens Protocol operates on the Polygon network/EVM, offering low gas fees and fast transactions. It serves as a viable alternative to traditional social media platforms, allowing content creators to assert ownership over their content.

Lenster is a feature-rich, decentralized social media web application that supports a wide range of NFT types and enables composability with other Web3 applications built on the Lens Protocol.

Lenstube, also powered by the Lens Protocol, is a decentralized social video-sharing platform. It offers unique functionalities like tipping creators using MATIC coins and curation of videos as NFTs.

6.3.2. The Steem Universe

Steem, often referred to as the "social blockchain," hosts a variety of social media platforms. Steemit combines elements of blockchain, social media, and cryptocurrency, rewarding users with STEEM tokens for contributing to the community. D.tube is a blockchain-based video platform that has transitioned to its blockchain called Avalon. Dlive is focused on livestreaming and has moved between different blockchain networks.

6.3.3. Hive-based

Hive, a fork from the Steem blockchain, prioritizes community-driven and censorship-resistant social media experiences. Users have greater control over their data and content on the Hive platform.

6.3.4. Polkadot-based

Subsocial operates on the Polkadot network, utilizing IPFS for decentralized storage. It enables crypto monetization within the platform through tipping, smart contracts, and advertisements. Users maintain control over their data and engage in censorship-resistant communication.

6.3.5. Cosmos Network-based

Desmos Network is a blockchain specifically designed for social networking applications. It aims to decentralize business models and empower users. The DSM asset plays a role in governance and network functions, and Desmos serves as a protocol for various applications.

6.3.6. Solana-based

Only1 is a Solana-based social media protocol that connects content creators with their audience through NFTs and the LIKE token. Dialect is a smart messaging protocol with compatibility across different blockchains, allowing developers to embed smart contracts directly into messages.

6.3.7. Binance Smart Chain-based

Torum is a decentralized social media network catering to the crypto community, offering features like NFTs, a mining game, crypto news, and crypto-themed emotes. It utilizes the XTM utility token for enhanced functionality.

6.3.8. Bitcoin SV-based

Twetch, built on the Bitcoin SV blockchain, prioritizes data privacy, decentralization, and transparency. It commits to on-chain operations and incorporates an NFT marketplace for content monetization.

6.3.9. Bitcoin Cash-based

Bitcoin Cash has facilitated the development of platforms like Read.cash, which rewards users in BCH, and Memo.cash, a decentralized social network where each account is associated with a crypto wallet address.

6.3.10. Dfinity-based

DSCVR is a decentralized social network built on Dfinity's Internet Computer protocol. It aims to provide greater user control, decentralization, and privacy while fostering a community-driven and censorship-resistant social media experience.

The rising popularity of blockchain-based social networks is evident, with numerous projects within the cryptocurrency realm amassing millions of users. As technology continues to progress, we can foresee a decentralized social network landscape teeming with initiatives, each introducing distinctive features and expanding their capabilities. With the increasing interest and ongoing innovation in this domain, we can anticipate decentralized social networks diversifying even further, affording users an ever-expanding array of options and functionalities to select from.

7. CHALLENGES OF BLOCKCHAIN-BASED DECENTRALIZED SOCIAL NETWORKS

Blockchain-based decentralized social networks encounter a spectrum of challenges, deeply rooted in the inherent nature of blockchain technology (Zheng et al., 2018). To ensure their widespread adoption and long-term success, these challenges require careful consideration. In Table 5, we provide an overview of these issues, shedding light on the complexities and factors involved in establishing and operating social media platforms on the blockchain.

Building network effects and attracting users away from well-established centralized platforms pose significant challenges. Decentralized social media need to offer compelling incentives and value propositions to entice users to migrate and actively participate in the network. Creating a vibrant and engaged user community is crucial for the success of decentralized networks, as network effects play a pivotal role in driving adoption and increasing the network's utility and value. However, these networks face tough competition from dominant centralized platforms that have amassed large user bases and offer a wide range of features and functionalities.

The value proposition of blockchain-based decentralized social networks is often tied to the support and integration of cryptocurrencies. However, one of the issues faced by these networks is the potential impact of bear markets and fluctuations in the cryptocurrency market. When the market experiences a downturn or significant price volatility, the value of the cryptocurrencies used within the network can decrease. This can have implications for the monetization offerings and incentives provided by the network, as users may be less inclined to participate or engage if the value of the tokens or rewards they receive is diminished. Therefore, decentralized social networks need to consider strategies to mitigate the effects of market fluctuations and ensure the sustainability of their monetization models, potentially by diversifying their offerings or implementing mechanisms to stabilize token value.

Also, scalability is a critical challenge for blockchains (Chauhan et al., 2018; Xie et al., 2019). As blockchain-based decentralized social media expand and attract more users, they must effectively handle the increasing volume of data and transactions. It becomes crucial to ensure scalability while maintaining efficiency and decentralization. Still, achieving this balance is a complex task that requires innovative solutions such as layer 2 protocols or sharding (Zhou et al., 2020). These approaches help alleviate the strain on the network infrastructure and enable decentralized networks to handle the growing demands placed upon them.

Interoperability is another important challenge (Belchior et al., 2021) that needs to be addressed in decentralized social networks. Users should be able to interact and share content seamlessly across different networks without encountering barriers or friction. Achieving interoperability requires the development of standardized protocols and bridges between different networks, enabling the exchange of data and transactions. This fosters a more interconnected and collaborative environment, enhancing the overall user experience and expanding the possibilities within decentralized social networks.

The decentralization of content presents a challenge when utilizing a blockchain as a storage solution due to the potential size limitations. To address this issue, various existing proposals such as IPFS or Arweave appeared. This approach resembles previous methods like DHT.

User experience is also a challenge (Na & Ye, 2021). As many blockchain-based social media platforms are still in their early stages of development, their user interfaces and overall experience may not be as refined as those of well-established centralized platforms. To attract and retain users, it is vital to improve the user experience and provide seamless and intuitive interactions. Decentralized social networks need to invest in developing user-friendly interfaces and features that rival or surpass what users are accustomed to on centralized platforms.

Moreover, content moderation is an ongoing issue in blockchain-based social networks. Ironically, free speech is a double-edged sword. Without content moderation, they can become breeding grounds for unrestrained hate speech and cyberbullying. Striking the right balance between freedom of speech and preventing the spread of harmful or illegal content is a complex task. It requires careful consideration and innovative approaches to develop effective moderation mechanisms that maintain the network's integrity while upholding user rights and safety.

As a new phenomenon, blockchain and crypto still face regulatory and legal challenges (Yadav et al., Yeoh, 2017). The regulatory landscape surrounding them continues to evolve, requiring blockchain-based social platforms to navigate complex compliance requirements while upholding privacy and security principles. Ensuring regulatory compliance without compromising the core principles of decentralization pose an ongoing challenge that necessitates close collaboration with regulatory authorities and the development of innovative solutions.

Addressing the aforementioned challenges necessitates continuous research, technological advancements, and collaboration within the community. Overcoming them is crucial for blockchain-based decentralized social networks to realize their potential as a more inclusive, transparent, and user-centric alternative to centralized platforms.

CONCLUSION

Blockchain-based decentralized social networks offer promising solutions to the limitations of centralized social platforms. Through the utilization of blockchain's inherent properties such as transparency, immutability, and decentralization, these networks offer enhanced privacy, censorship resistance, and increased user control over personal data.

As these platforms gain popularity, users will enjoy increased autonomy and privacy protection, empowering them to exercise their right to free speech and take charge of their data. This shift toward democratized content creation allows for a diverse array of perspectives, challenging mainstream media dominance and providing a platform for emerging voices to flourish, express their ideas, and share their creativity and knowledge freely.

However, it's essential to acknowledge the challenges faced by blockchain-based decentralized social networks. Scalability, user experience, content moderation, competition with major platforms, interoperability, regulatory compliance, and market volatility are significant hurdles that must be overcome to unlock the full potential of these networks. Overcoming these challenges requires collaboration, research, technological advancements, and innovative solutions. Advancements in distributed ledger technology (DLT) hold promise for addressing scalability and interoperability issues.

Policymakers and regulators must adapt and develop frameworks that balance innovation, user rights, and societal concerns. Implementing effective content moderation techniques is crucial for maintaining a healthy and safe online environment. Furthermore, raising public awareness and educating users about the benefits of decentralized media are essential for accelerating adoption and overcoming competition.

Notably, various blockchain-based social media initiatives have already emerged, with Ethereum as a leading platform for decentralized social applications. The integration of Web2 social media on blockchain and the presence of blockchain social media platforms on various chains expand the possibilities and choices available to users.

The future of decentralized social networks holds great promise. These networks have the potential to empower individuals, foster digital inclusion, and reshape the online landscape. As technology advances and user awareness grows, decentralized social networks can play a pivotal role in creating a more user-centric, private, and democratic online environment.

References

• Ahn, D., Shin, D-H (2013). Is the social use of media for seeking connectedness or for avoiding social isolation? Mechanisms underlying media use and subjective well-being. Computers in Human Behavior 29: 2453–2462.
• Aichner, T., Grünfelder, M., Maurer, O., & Jegeni, D. (2021). Twenty-Five Years of Social Media: A Review of Social Media Applications and Definitions from 1994 to 2019. Cyberpsychology, behavior and social networking, 24(4), 215–222. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2020.0134.
• Aiello L.M., Ruffo G. (2012) Lotusnet: tunable privacy for distributed online social network services. Comput Commun35(1):75–88
• Asthana H., Cox I.J. (2013) A framework for peer-to-peer micro-blogging. In: 5th International workshop on peer-to-peer systems and online social networks, (HotPOST 2013).
• Avellaneda, O., Bachmann, A., Barbir, A., Brenan, J., Dingle, P., Duffy, K. H., & Sporny, M. (2019). Decentralized identity: Where did it come from and where is it going? IEEE Communications Standards Magazine, 3(4), 10-13.
• Ba, Cheick & Zignani, Matteo & Gaito, Sabrina. (2022). The role of cryptocurrency in the dynamics of blockchain-based social networks: The case of Steemit. PLOS ONE. 17. e0267612. 10.1371/journal.pone.0267612.
• Baden, Randy & Bender, Adam & Spring, Neil & Bhattacharjee, Bobby & Starin, Daniel. (2009). Persona: An Online Social Network with User-Defined Privacy. Computer Communication Review - CCR. 39. 135-146. 10.1145/1594977.1592585.
• Belchior, R., Vasconcelos, A., Guerreiro, S., & Correia, M. (2021). A survey on blockchain interoperability: Past, present, and future trends. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 54(8), 1-41.
• Benet, J. (2014). IPFS - Content Addressed, Versioned, P2P File System. ArXiv. /abs/1407.3561.
• Benson, V., Saridakis, G. and Tennakoon, H. (2015). Information disclosure of social media users: Does control over personal information, user awareness and security notices matter? Information Technology & People, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 426-441. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-10-2014-0232
• Berners-Lee, T.; Cailliau, R.; Groff, J.-F.; Pollermann, B. (1992). World-Wide Web: The Information Universe. Electron. Netw. Res. Appl. Policy. 2: 52–58. doi:10.1108/eb047254.
• Bhattacharya, R., White, M., Beloff, N. (2021). An Exploration of Blockchain in Social Networking Applications. In: Arai, K. (eds) Intelligent Computing. Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems, vol 284. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-80126-7_60
• Bielenberg, A., Helm, L., Gentilucci, A., Stefanescu, D., & Zhang, H. (2012). The growth of Diaspora - A decentralized online social network in the wild. In 2012 Proceedings IEEE INFOCOM Workshops (pp. 13-18). Orlando, FL. doi: 10.1109/INFCOMW.2012.6193476.
• Bodriagov, O., Buchegger, S. (2013) Encryption for peer-to-peer social networks. In: Security and privacy in social networks.Springer, pp 47–65.
• Boyd, D. M., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 210-230. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00393.x
• Bradshaw, S. and Howard, P. N. (2019). The Global Disinformation Order: 2019 Global Inventory of Organised Social Media Manipulation. University of Nebraska - Lincoln. 207. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/scholcom/207
• Buchegger, S., Schi ̈oberg D, Vu L-H, Datta A (2009) Peerson: P2Psocial networking: early experiences and insights. In: Proceedings of the second ACM EuroSys workshop on social network systems, SNS ’09, pp 46–52.
• Buterin, V. (2013). Ethereum White Paper: A Next Generation Smart Contract & Decentralized Application Platform.
• Chao, C. H., Ting, I. H., Tseng, Y. J., Wang, B. W., Wang, S. H., Wang, Y. Q., & Chen, M. C. (2022). The Study of Decentralized Autonomous Organization (DAO) in Social Network. In Proceedings of the 9th Multidisciplinary International Social Networks Conference (pp. 59-65).
• Chauhan, A., Malviya, O. P., Verma, M., & Mor, T. S. (2018). Blockchain and Scalability. In 2018 IEEE International Conference on Software Quality, Reliability and Security Companion (QRS-C) (pp. 122-128). Lisbon, Portugal. doi: 10.1109/QRS-C.2018.00034.
• Chowdhury, S.R., Roy, A.R., Shaikh, M. et al. (2015). A taxonomy of decentralized online social networks. Peer-to-Peer Netw. Appl. 8, 367–383. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12083-014-0258-2
• Chu, J., Labonte, K., & Levine, B. N. (2002). Availability and locality measurements of peer-to-peer file systems. In Proceedings of ITCom.
• Ciriello, Raffaele & Beck, Roman & Thatcher, Jason. (2018). The Paradoxical Effects of Blockchain Technology on Social Networking Practices. Conference: International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS 2018).
• Cong, L. W., He, Z. (2019). Blockchain disruption and smart contracts. The Review of Financial Studies, 32(5), 1754-1797.
• Cutillo, L., Molva R., Strufe, T. (2009) Safebook: a privacy-preserving online social network leveraging on real-life trust.Commun Mag IEEE 47(12):94–101.
• Datta, A., Buchegger, S., Vu, L.-H., Strufe, T., Rzadca, K. (2010). Decentralized online social networks. In Handbook of Social Network Technologies and Applications (pp. 349-378). Springer.
• De Salve, A., Mori, P., & Ricci, L. (2018). A survey on privacy in decentralized online social networks. Computer Science Review, 27, 154-176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosrev.2018.01.001
• De Salve, A., Mori, P., Ricci, L., & Di Pietro, R. (2023). Content privacy enforcement models in decentralized online social networks: State of play, solutions, limitations, and future directions. Computer Communications, 203, 199-225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comcom.2023.02.023
• Di Domenico, Giandomenico, J. Sit, A. Ishizaka, D. Nunan (2021) Fake news, social media and marketing: A systematic review. Journal of Business Research, Volume 124. Pp 329-341. ISSN 0148-2963. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.11.037.
• Dib, O., & Toumi, K. (2020). Decentralized identity systems: Architecture, challenges, solutions and future directions. Annals of Emerging Technologies in Computing (AETiC), Print ISSN, 2516-0281.
• DiNucci, Darcy (1999). Fragmented Future. 53 (4): 32.
• van Dijck, J. (2013) The Culture of Connectivity: A Critical History of Social Media. Oxford University Press.
• Dhawan, S., Hegelich, S., Sindermann, C., & Montag, C. (2022). Re-start social media, but how? Telematics and Informatics Reports, 8, 100017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.teler.2022.100017
• Dixon, S. (2022). Average daily time spent on social media worldwide 2012-2022. Statista. Retrieved  2023-06-18.
• Dixon, S. (2023). Daily time spent on social networking by internet users worldwide from 2012 to 2022. Statista. Retrieved  2023-06-18.
• Douceur, J. R., & Wattenhofer, R. P. (2001). Large-scale simulation of replica placement algorithms for a serverless distributed file system. In Proceedings of MASCOTS.
• Famulari A, Hecker A (2013) Mantle: a novel dosn leveraging free storage and local software. In: Advanced Infocomm Technology. 213–224. Springer.
• Forsyth, S., Daudjee, K. (2013) Update management in decentralized online social networks. In 5th International workshop on peer-to-peer systems and online social networks (HotPOST 2013)22.
• Franco, A. (2021). How Blockchain Technology Can Help Rearchitect Social Networks: An Analysis of Desmos Network. Università Ca' Foscari Venezia. Retrieved from: http://dspace.unive.it/handle/10579/19800
• Graffi, Kalman & Gross, Christian & Stingl, Dominik & Hartung, Daniel & Kovacevic, Aleksandra & Steinmetz, Ralf. (2011). LifeSocial.KOM: A Secure and P2P-based Solution for Online Social Networks. 554 - 558. 10.1109/CCNC.2011.5766541.
• Gunitsky, S. (2015). Corrupting the Cyber-Commons: Social Media as a Tool of Autocratic Stability. Perspectives on Politics, 13(1), 42-54. doi:10.1017/S1537592714003120
• Guidi, B. (2020). When Blockchain meets Online Social Networks. Pervasive and Mobile Computing, 62, 101131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmcj.2020.101131
• Guidi, B. (2021). An Overview of Blockchain Online Social Media from the Technical Point of View. Applied Sciences. 11. 9880. 10.3390/app11219880.
• Guidi, B., Michienzi, A., & Ricci, L. (2020). Steem Blockchain: Mining the Inner Structure of the Graph. IEEE Access, 8, 210251-210266. doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3038550.
• Global Social Media Statistics (2023) DataReportal – Global Digital Insights. Retrieved 2023-06-18.
• Han, L., Nath, B., Iftode L., Muthukrishnan S. (2011) Social butterfly: social caches for distributed social networks. In: Proceedings ofSocialCom/PASSAT, pp 81–8623.
• Han, L., Punceva M., Nath B., Muthukrishnan S.M., Iftode L. (2012) SocialCDN: caching techniques for distributed social networks. In: 2012 IEEE International conference on peer-to-peer computing.
• Hwang, H., & Kim, O. (2015). Social media as a tool for social movements: The effect of social media use and social capital on intention to participate in social movements. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 39(5), 478-488. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12221
• Jain, A.K., Sahoo, S.R. & Kaubiyal, J. (2021) Online social networks security and privacy: comprehensive review and analysis. Complex Intell. Syst. 7, 2157–2177. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40747-021-00409-7.
• Jahid, S., Nilizadeh, S., Mittal, P., Borisov, N., & Kapadia, A. (2012). Decent: A decentralized architecture for enforcing privacy in online social networks. In Pervasive Computing and Communications Workshops, 2012 IEEE International Conference on (pp. 326-332).
• Jemielniak, D. (2020). Researching Social Networks: Opportunities and Challenges. Frontiers in Human Dynamics, 2, 528336. https://doi.org/10.3389/fhumd.2020.00001
• Jiang, L., Zhang, X. (2019). Bcosn: A blockchain-based decentralized online social network. IEEE Transactions on Computational Social Systems, 6(6), 1454-1466.
• Jing, T. W., & Murugesan, R. K. (2019). A theoretical framework to build trust and prevent fake news in social media using blockchain. In Recent trends in data science and soft computing: Proceedings of the 3rd international conference of reliable information and communication technology (IRICT 2018) (pp. 955-962). Springer International Publishing.
• Kaur, J. and Dabas, D. (2023). Literature Review of Smart Contracts Using Blockchain Technology. New Approaches for Multidimensional Signal Processing. 10.1007/978-981-19-7842-5_16. (171-187).
• Kidd, D., & McIntosh, K. (2016). Social Media and Social Movements. Sociology Compass, 10(9), 785-794. https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12399
• Kuem, J., Ray, S., Siponen, M., & Kim, S. S. (2017). What leads to prosocial behaviors on social networking services: a tripartite model. Journal of Management Information Systems, 34(1), 40–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2017.1296744.
• La Cava, L., Greco, S., & Tagarelli, A. (2021). Understanding the growth of the Fediverse through the lens of Mastodon. Applied Network Science, 6(1), 1-35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41109-021-00392-5
• Li, Y., Li, Y., Yan, Q., & Deng, R. H. (2015). Privacy leakage analysis in online social networks. Computers & Security, 49, 239-254.
• Liu, Z., Li, Y., Min, Q., & Chang, M. (2022). User incentive mechanism in blockchain-based online community: An empirical study of Steemit. Information & Management, 59(7), 103596. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2022.103596.
• Maesa, D. D. F., Mori, P., Ricci, L. (2017). Blockchain-based access control. In IFIP International Conference on Distributed Applications and Interoperable Systems (pp. 206-220). Springer.
• Marcon, M., Viswanath, B., Cha, M., & Gummadi, K. P. (2011). Sharing social content from home: A measurement-driven feasibility study. In Proceedings of NOSSDAV '11 (pp. 45-50).
• Madhavan, N. (2007, July 6). India gets more Net Cool. Hindustan Times. Retrieved July 30, 2007 from http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/StoryPage.aspx?id=f2565bb8-663e-48c1-94ee-d99567577bdd
• Mannell, K., & Smith, E. T. (2022). Alternative Social Media and the Complexities of a More Participatory Culture: A View From Scuttlebutt. Social Media + Society. https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051221122448
• McHatton, J., Ghazinour, K. (2023) Mitigating Social Media Privacy Concerns - A Comprehensive Study. In Proceedings of the 9th ACM International Workshop on Security and Privacy Analytics (IWSPA '23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 27–32. https://doi.org/10.1145/3579987.3586565
• Modi, N. (2023). Comparative Analysis of Different Blockchain Technology to Improve the Security in Social Network. In: Balas, V.E., Semwal, V.B., Khandare, A. (eds) Intelligent Computing and Networking. Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems, vol 632. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-0071-8_7
• Na Liu & Zuoliang Ye (2021) Empirical research on the blockchain adoption – based on TAM, Applied Economics, 53:37, 4263-4275, DOI: 10.1080/00036846.2021.1898535
• Nakamoto, S. (2008). Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System. Retrieved from https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
• Nasim, R., Buchegger, S. (2014). Xacml-based access control for decentralized online social networks. In 2014 IEEE/ACM 7th International Conference on Utility and Cloud Computing (pp. 671-676). doi:10.1109/UCC.2014.108.
• Nath, K., Dhar, S., & Basishtha, S. (2014). Web 1.0 to Web 3.0 - Evolution of the Web and its various challenges. In 2014 International Conference on Reliability Optimization and Information Technology (ICROIT) (pp. 86-89). Faridabad, India. doi: 10.1109/ICROIT.2014.6798297.
• Ngak, Chenda (2011) Then and now: a history of social networking sites. CBS news. Retrieved 2023-06-20.
• Nepali, Raj & Wang, Y.. (2013). SONET: A SOcial NETwork model for privacy monitoring and ranking. 162-166. 10.1109/ICDCSW.2013.49.
• Nilizadeh, S., Jahid, S., Mittal, P., Borisov, N., & Kapadia, A. (2012). Cachet: A decentralized architecture for privacy preserving social networking with caching. In Proceedings of the 8th CoNEXT (pp. 337-348). ACM.
• Paul, T., Famulari, A., & Strufe, T. (2014). A survey on decentralized Online Social Networks. Computer Networks, 75, 437-452. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comnet.2014.10.005
• Pennycook, G., McPhetres, J., Zhang, Y., Lu, J. G., & Rand, D. G. (2020). Fighting COVID-19 misinformation on social media: Experimental evidence for a scalable accuracy-nudge intervention. Psychological Science, 31(7), 770–780.
• Pfeiffer, A., Kriglstein, S., Wernbacher, T., & Bezzina, S. (2020). Blockchain technologies and social media: A snapshot. In ECSM 2020 8th European Conference on Social Media (p. 196). Academic Conferences and publishing limited.
• Pouwels, J. L., Keijsers, L., & Odgers, C. (2022). Who benefits most from using social media, the socially rich or the socially poor? Current Opinion in Psychology, 47, 101351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2022.101351.
• Pouwelse, J.A., Garbacki P., Wang J., Bakker A., Yang J., Iosup A., Epema D.H, Reinders M., Van Steen M.R., Sips H.J. (2008) Tri-bler: a social-based peer-to-peer system. Concurr Comput PractExperience 20(2):127–138.
• Qamar, M., Malik, M., Batool, S., Mehmood, S., Malik, A. W., & Rahman, A. (2016). Centralized to decentralized social networks: Factors that matter (pp. 37-54).
• Ranttila, K. (2020). Social Media and Monopoly. Ohio NUL Rev., 46, 161.
• Rathore, S., Sharma, P. K., Loia, V., Jeong, Y., & Park, J. H. (2017). Social network security: Issues, challenges, threats, and solutions. Information Sciences, 421, 43-69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2017.08.063
• Senthil Kumar, N.,  Saravanakumar, K.,  Deepa, K., (2016). On Privacy and Security in Social Media – A Comprehensive Study. Procedia Computer Science, 78, 114-119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2016.02.019.
• Seong, S.-W., Seo, J., Nasielski, M., Sengupta, D., Hangal, S., Teh, S. K., Chu, R., Dodson, B., & Lam, M. S. (2010). Prpl: A decentralized social networking infrastructure. In Proceedings of the 1st ACM Workshop on Mobile Cloud Computing & Services: Social Networks and Beyond (pp. 8:1-8:8).
• Shakimov, A., Lim H., Caceres R., Cox L.P., Li K.A., Liu D., Varshavsky A. (2011) Vis-`a-vis: privacy-preserving online social networking via virtual individual servers. In: Proceedings of COMSNETS, pp 1–10.
• Shahriar, N., Sharmin, M., Ahmed, R., Rahman, M., Boutaba, R., & Mathieu, B. (2012). Diurnal availability for peer-to-peer systems. In Proceedings of CCNC, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA, Jan 2012.
• Shahriar N., Chowdhury S.R., Sharmin M., Ahmed R., Boutaba R., Mathieu B. (2013) Ensuring β-Availability in P2P Social Networks. In: 5th International workshop on peer-to-peer systems and online social networks (HotPOST 2013).
• Sharma R., Datta A. (2012) Supernova: super-peers based architecture for decentralized online social networks. In: Proceedings ofCOMSNETS, pp 1–10.
• Shilina, S. (2022). A comprehensive study on Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs): Use cases, ecosystem, benefits & challenges. doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.15324.67206.
• Shu, K., Bhattacharjee, A., Alatawi, F., Nazer, T. H., Ding, K., Karami, M., & Liu, H. (2020). Combating disinformation in a social media age. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, 10(6), e1385. https://doi.org/10.1002/widm.1385
• Schwittmann, Lorenz & Wander, Matthäus & Boelmann, Christopher & Weis, Torben. (2014). Privacy Preservation in Decentralized Online Social Networks. Internet Computing, IEEE. 18. 16-23. 10.1109/MIC.2013.131.
• Smith, M., Szongott, C., Henne, B., & von Voigt, G. (2012). Big data privacy issues in public social media. In 2012 6th IEEE International Conference on Digital Ecosystems and Technologies (DEST) (pp. 1-6). Campione d'Italia, Italy. doi: 10.1109/DEST.2012.6227909.
• Stutzbach, D., & Rejaie, R. (2006). Understanding churn in peer-to-peer networks. In Proceedings of IMC (pp. 189-202).
• Trepte, S. (2021). The Social Media Privacy Model: Privacy and Communication in the Light of Social Media Affordances. Communication Theory, 31(4), 549-570. https://doi.org/10.1093/ct/qtz035
• Ur. Rahman, M., Guidi, B., & Baiardi, F. (2020). Blockchain-based access control management for Decentralized Online Social Networks. Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing, 144, 41-54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpdc.2020.05.011
• Vosoughi, S., Roy, D., & Aral, S. (2018). The spread of true and false news online. Science (New York, N.Y.), 359(6380), 1146–1151. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aap9559
• Wang, Pingshui & Zhu, Jianwen & Ma, Qinjuan. (2023). Private Data Protection in Social Networks Based on Blockchain. International Journal of Advanced Networking and Applications. 14. 5549-5555. 10.35444/IJANA.2023.14407.
• Wellman B. (1996) Computer networks as social networks: collaborative work, telework, and virtual community. Annual Review of Sociology. 293:2031–2034.
• Xie, J., Yu, F. R., Huang, T., Xie, R., Liu, J., & Liu, Y. (2019). A Survey on the Scalability of Blockchain Systems. IEEE Network, 33(5), 166-173. doi: 10.1109/MNET.001.1800290.
• Yadav, S.P., Agrawal, K.K., Bhati, B.S. et al. (2022). Blockchain-Based Cryptocurrency Regulation: An Overview. Comput Econ 59, 1659–1675. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10614-020-10050-0
• Yen, N.Y., Zhang, C., Waluyo, A.B. et al. (2015) Social Media Services and Technologies Towards Web 3.0. Multimed Tools Appl 74, 5007–5013. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-015-2461-4.
• Yeoh, P. (2017), "Regulatory issues in blockchain technology", Journal of Financial Regulation and Compliance, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 196-208. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFRC-08-2016-0068
• Yeung, C., Liccardi, I., Lu, K., Seneviratne, O., & Berners-Lee, T. (2011). Decentralization: The Future of Online Social Networking (2nd ed.).
• Yurder, Y. & Akdol, B. (2020). Social Media as a Communication Channel. In A. Özbebek Tunç & P. Aslan (Eds.), Business Management and Communication Perspectives in Industry 4.0 (pp. 115-131). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-9416-1.ch007
• Zheng, Z., Xie, S., Dai, H. N., Chen, X., & Wang, H. (2018). Blockchain challenges and opportunities: A survey. International journal of web and grid services, 14(4), 352-375.
• Zhou, Q., Huang, H., Zheng, Z., & Bian, J. (2020). Solutions to Scalability of Blockchain: A Survey. IEEE Access, 8, 16440-16455. doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2967218.
• Zignani, M., Gaito, S., & Rossi, G. P. (2018). Follow the “Mastodon”: Structure and Evolution of a Decentralized Online Social Network. Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, 12(1), 541-550. https://doi.org/10.1609/icwsm.v12i1.14988
• Zulli, D., Liu, M., Gehl, R. (2020). Rethinking the "social" in "social media": insights into topology, abstraction, and scale on the Mastodon social network. New Media & Society, 22(7), 1188-1205. doi: 10.1177/1461444820912533.