The idea of the internet being a free, decentralized space feels like a utopia. Growing up with gatekeepers like Google, Meta, Amazon and Elon’s X (formerly Twitter), decentralization means we get our power back. In blockchain circles, tokens like SpaceCoin are the embodiment of this dream; a cryptocurrency that imagines a new digital commons where value flows peer-to-peer, not through mega-platforms. But as a tech enthusiast, I’ve learned that every technological “liberation” has its own shadows. When Network Effects Become Shackles Economists have long observed that networks gain value as they add more users. There is a feedback loop in this case, where the value to one user of a service is a function of how many other users there are of the same service. Social networks like Facebook, Twitter and Instagram operate on this network effect: your relatives and friends are on it, so you remain on it. When a service gains a first mover advantage, tipping of markets is induced by network effects, the method with which one system drifts away from rivals and turns into a natural monopoly. For tipping to occur, the payoffs from continued use of the incumbent must be higher than the payoffs to differentiation, and consumers must bear hugel switching and multi‑homing costs. Once established, even privacy invasion or algorithmic bias rarely prompts people to leave. Decentralized platforms are not much behind. Competing networks like Mastodon experienced phenomenal peaks in 2022: 30,000 new users joined up after the acquisition announcement in April 2022 and 70,000 additional users signed up on 28 October when the acquisition finished. Download rates doubled daily from 3,400 to more than 113,000 towards the beginning of November. Nevertheless, by January 2023 active Mastodon users dropped to less than two million. This serves to demonstrate the strength of network effects; when the anger has cooled, everyone tends to come back to the platform upon which the majority of their social graph is based. 30,000 new users Breaking these chains requires more than technical skill. Interoperability protocols that allow users to carry their connections and content with them when they change platforms can reduce switching costs. ActivityPub and efforts like BlueSky attempt to do so, but adoption is a function of making multi-homing easy and effortless. Reward systems, even a SpaceCoin‑style reward to pioneers, can breach the critical mass ceiling, where the reward of being in an initial new network will eventually be greater than the inconvenience of leaving the old. Algorithms and Invisible Governance Centralization critics always talk about corporate censorship but the more sinister one is algorithmic rule. Scholars Christian Katzenbach and Lena Ulbricht define algorithmic governance as a method of social ordering in the sense that it applies rules within "complex computer-based epistemic procedures". Algorithms are value-laden; they mirror the values and business conduct of their creators. On big platforms, algorithms for recommendations control what gets shared, what ads can reach you and what gets marked as "borderline". Parliaments don't discuss those decisions; they're made inside black box machine-learning systems, with proprietary data being fed into them. Christian Katzenbach and Lena Ulbricht Automated content moderation is a prime example of the same. Social media platforms have adopted AI to scan through the humongous amount of posts and videos; there are too many to be moderated manually. Political pressure to remove hate speech, fake news and copyright content has compelled companies to automate more. But Facebook, YouTube and Twitter companies are vehemently secretive about how these systems work. Even where they do post high-level standards, there is evidence that these sorts of systems like YouTube's ContentID, over-block legitimate speech and provide no transparency or viable appeal. Facebook uses classifiers to flag every post for hate speech before it passes it on to human moderators but the public cannot hold those models accountable for bias. In a decentralized internet, communities would be free to create open moderation algorithms and vote on configurations. Federated social networks like Mastodon allow each instance to make its own decisions. Decentralization is not the same as no algorithms; however, smaller servers can still utilize recommendation bots, spam filters and blocklists. The challenge is not to avoid technology but to be held accountable. That means open-source algorithms, community oversight and legal rules that require openness when automated systems are used to regulate speech. The Promise and Pitfalls of Decentralized Social Networks Decentralized social networks (DSNs) like Mastodon and BlueSky take authority away from a central node and give it to end-users. DSNs are seen as the future of the internet. Using normative free-speech theories, this highlights both the promises and pitfalls of decentralization. It emphasizes two design challenges: balancing the decentralization ideal with the constant need for central coordination and empowering users to meaningfully exercise control. Shared blocklists and opt-in search functions are examples where design choices have value implications. Freedom comes with responsibility: moderators on federated servers have to enforce codes of conduct, deal with harassment and coordinate with other servers. Because each instance enforces its own rules, a “free speech” instance can choose to accept content that others find abhorrent and defamatory. This can create echo chambers. And DSNs still have central points of control: the domain names that resolve server addresses and the app stores where users download clients are centralized. If Apple or Google decides a DSN app violates their policies, they can remove it. Decentralization doesn’t eliminate power; it just redistributes it. Invisible Centralization in the Plumbing of the Web Most Web3 discussions focus on applications, but a free internet requires rethinking the infrastructure. The current internet is built on a hierarchical Domain Name System (DNS), the Hypertext Transfer Protocol, and IP addressing. These services are client–server and maintained by a few organizations. Researchers exploring the “blockchain for decentralization of the internet” note that DNS is a critical protocol translating IP addresses to human-readable names, and it’s a centralized service. Proposed solutions like SocialDNS, BlockDNS and ConsortiumDNS use blockchain and peer–to–peer technology to decentralize naming systems. In these systems, domain records are stored across multiple nodes instead of one registry, reducing the risk of censorship and a single point of failure. Researchers But blockchain solutions introduce their own problems. Consensus mechanisms consume energy and are slow. The same research notes that communication protocols like TCP/IP and HTTPS were designed around the client–server model; blockchain has its own standards and bridging the two requires new protocols. Plus, IPv4 exhaustion and the slow migration to IPv6 make interoperability harder. Without careful design, the decentralized layer can become a bottleneck just like the centralized layer. Censorship and its Hydra‑Headed Substitutes One of the biggest arguments for decentralization is that it will eliminate censorship. There’s some truth to that: a federated network makes it harder for a government to just flip a switch and shut down a platform. The 2022 migration of Chinese users to Mastodon in response to increasing online censorship shows how decentralization can be a refuge. But censorship rarely disappears; it evolves. Every community exercises some form of moderation to curb spam, abuse or illegal content. In DSNs, these decisions are made by instance administrators and their moderators rather than by a single corporate entity. This can produce local censorship; a user banned from one server may still post on another, but their reach shrinks. Second, legal frameworks still apply. European regulators have said that services distributing illegal content will face penalties regardless of whether they are centralized or federated. Third, infrastructure is a chokepoint. If internet service providers or hosting providers refuse to connect a server, that instance disappears. Subtle power dynamics can emerge in decentralized systems. During the 2022 exodus from Twitter, most traffic flowed through a few large Mastodon servers, especially the (mastodon.social) instance, so those servers held disproportionate power. A federated network can quickly recentralize around a few hubs because hosting is expensive and moderation is labor-intensive. Wealthy actors can fund servers and set rules that smaller communities must accept to be part of the larger network. Without transparent governance, decentralization can replace one set of gatekeepers with another. Toward a Free and Accountable Internet So how do we take power away from the central entities that run the internet without descending into chaos? One answer is interoperability. By using open protocols and standards, platforms can compete on features rather than on the captive power of their user base. Laws can force dominant platforms to open their APIs, making it easier for new entrants to interoperate. Interoperability also reduces switching costs, erodes the network effect moat. Another solution is transparent, participatory governance. Decentralized projects should specify how the rules are made, who can change them and how disputes are resolved. Governance tokens or reputation systems can allow stakeholders to vote on policies, but must not be plutocratic. Algorithmic governance requires transparency: open source moderation tools, independent audits and the ability for users to appeal decisions. Technologists must design systems that allow human agency, fairness and accountability. Finally user empowerment is key. The free internet can’t just be built for users; it must be built with them. Empowering users to control their experience is as important as technical decentralization. Education, intuitive interfaces and support networks help users run their own servers, manage their data and participate in governance. Conclusion Decentralization is a seductive idea: a web owned by its users, free from censorship and algorithmic control. But the promise of freedom can’t blind us to the complexities and downsides. Network effects and switching costs still tie us to the big platforms. Algorithms won’t disappear; they’ll just move from corporate back rooms to community servers where new power dynamics will play out. Infrastructure and legal frameworks are still centralized and present choke points. The dark side of decentralization isn’t a reason to give up; it’s a warning to build smart. A truly free internet isn’t one without rules; it’s one where rules are transparent, participatory and accountable. It’s not one without algorithms; it’s one where algorithms can be seen, corrected and governed by those they affect. And it’s not a frontier where we escape power; it’s a space where we negotiate and distribute power more fairly. SpaceCoin and other decentralized technologies can be part of this, but only if we stay aware of the human and institutional choices in the code. In the end the future of the internet won’t be handed down by technologists; it will be written by us.

The is an opinion piece based on the author’s POV and does not necessarily reflect the views of HackerNoon.

Facebook

YouTube

Amazon

Managing Stateful Applications in Containerized Environments

Read My Stories

Too Long; Didn't Read

CTA: Download the FREE AI Productivity Shift report

The Dark Side of Decentralization: Can We Handle a Truly Free Internet?

About Author

Comments

TOPICS

THIS ARTICLE WAS FEATURED IN

Related Stories

Untitled Story

Managing Stateful Applications in Containerized Environments

(1/100) Crypto Countdown: Golem

A Research Report on the Trader $JOE DeFi Platform

07/03/2018: Biggest Stories in the Cryptosphere

05/02/2018: Biggest Stories in the Cryptosphere

Managing Stateful Applications in Containerized Environments

(1/100) Crypto Countdown: Golem

A Research Report on the Trader $JOE DeFi Platform

07/03/2018: Biggest Stories in the Cryptosphere

05/02/2018: Biggest Stories in the Cryptosphere

Light-Mode

Classic

Newspaper

Dark-Mode

Neon Noir

Minty

HN StartUps