Decentralized Technology Can Assist In Protecting Democracy

Recent political incidents in the United States have illustrated the critical problems which were posed to democracy as a result of centralized technology platforms. For example, centralized platforms were used by the political as well as social leaders to amplify false agendas like White nationalism, to promote violence. Proud boys planned social events by using decentralized social media platforms. These events have eventually resulted in producing fear in the minds that decentralized or peer to peer technology will become a more powerful source for domestic terrorists; in reality, that is just one side of the coin, but on the other side of the coin, there is a fact that the use of decentralized technology can keep us away from the centralized platforms while ultimately protecting the democratic framework.

There is a point to be noticed that, unlike the other centralized platforms, the peer-to-peer technology does not target the whole audience with a particular purpose by providing them specific content of their interest. It can provide us a safer way to control the social impact of technology on the public. This is not much different from the conventional way of sharing a message by phone calls, emails, and speeches.

A decentralized framework can provide a better alternative to centralized technology platforms because its inductive stimulant is different. If you design a private application with a decentralized framework, it will be difficult for the designer to compile more data in the limited resources. Also, he cannot send the information quickly to more people. The reason is that, in the peer-to-peer design, outreach is very limited.

The decentralized platforms cannot replace the centralized ones completely; therefore, in order to encounter the false content, there is a need to regulate the centralized platforms accordingly. However, democracy can be protected by the fact that there is a very limited chance for mass sharing by the decentralized systems because the outreach to the target audience has been removed to prevent the spread of harmful content in this case. The difference between centralized and peer-to-peer platforms can be summarized in one line as; it’s illegal to yell `fire` in the public if there isn’t, but it’s not illegal to secretly lie to the neighbor that there is fire.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related

Switzerland Sets to Use Blockchain for Supply Management

A very effective way to utilize blockchain technology is for managing the chain of supply. This chain is no longer a linear one from producer to consumer but now contains multiple sequences of producers, partners, clients, agents, etc.; hence, the use of blockchain is of high importance as it would enable assets to be traced […]

Coinbase Ticker COIN to Go Green on NASDAQ Today

The largest crypto-based enterprise and exchange platform Coinbase, has joined the ranks of public listed companies at NASDAQ. The COIN ticker is not just a new face on the block, but it has managed to make a grand entry into the cut-throat stock market in a manner that it is impossible to ignore its presence. […]

Collectors of Art Would be Able to Purchase New Token by Burning NFTs

The mysterious and successful NFT artist Pak has recently announced the launch of a new token, ASH. However, not every other investor would be able to purchase this token with digital assets or fiat currencies. A person who wants to own ASH would have to be willing to burn the NFT artwork under their ownership.  […]

SEC Actions Putting Bitcoin and Ethereum Investors at Risk, another Crypto Lawsuit

Yet another blockchain enterprise has gone under the radar of the Securities and Exchange Commission of the United States (SEC). LBRY Inc. is a blockchain-based and decentralized file sharing and payment network. The blockchain-based service is unique in a manner that it allows the users to get access to social media content, streaming services, and […]