Decentralized governance could save social media from political polarization: this is the opinion of Luis Cuende, co-founder of Aragon.
Aragon co-founder Luis Cuende told Cointelegraph that the decentralized technology his company is developing could be perfect for social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter.
In recent months, the content moderation techniques used by social media have been criticised by individuals of all political orientations. Libertarians tend to criticise them for essentially establishing censorship of the politically correct, while liberals claim that such platforms do not do enough to filter offensive content. The tension is such that on 8 October, the FBI accused six people of plotting to kidnap the governor of Michigan, Gretchen Whitmer: it seems that the suspects were coordinating their actions through a private Facebook group.
Jack Dorsey has previously stated that the blockchain will be a revolution for the Internet, and Twitter will be no exception. Dorsey supports decentralized technology in general: on 8 October, his other company, Square, announced that it had purchased $50 million worth of Bitcoin (BTC).
Aragon provides a technology infrastructure for Decentralized Autonomous Organizations, or DAOs. Some of the best-known DeFi projects using Aragon’s technology are AAVE, Curve and mStable. It also provides the structure for a virtual court, where the parties stake a certain amount of crypto and then agree to comply with the decision of a group of decentralized jurors.
Just as in a normal judicial system, the losing party can appeal to the superior court (in Aragon’s case, a court with multiple jurors) and eventually bring their case before what Cuende calls the „Supreme Court“, where the entire network votes on the issue. It should be noted that the Court of Aragon is still in beta and participants have so far solved only a few simple cases.
Cuende believes that the difficulties of moderation encountered by social platforms are a perfect use case for Aragon’s technology. In his view, the polarization stems from the fact that a higher entity, such as Twitter or Facebook, controls the result, which constitutes censorship. On the contrary, if such activity were carried out directly by the community, the results would be more like a real moderation of content:
„I think there is censorship when the rules are defined by one side, moderation implies a consensus on the rules. So, I think that if Twitter and Facebook were actually governed by their users in a way that was right for everyone, then we could decide collectively about the rules. We could decide together what to do and what not to do, and we could go even further. All this can be implemented today, the technology exists“.
Cuende said he hasn’t contacted Dorsey yet, but he probably will in the near future:
„I think it’s still a bit too soon, but I also think it’s a matter of time.“