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Your email address will not be published.

Related

FTX Launches Stock And ETF Trading Option In The United States 

A prominent cryptocurrency exchange, FTX, is getting into the stock trading business. Soon, its users will be able to trade equities and exchange-traded funds on the platform.  Only A Few Users In The United States To Enjoy The Service  The Wall Street Journal reports that the firm Sam Bankman-Fried helped establish and serve as its […]

Major Australian Bank Shelves Crypto Launch Plan

CBA’s Crypto App Plan As previously mentioned last year, Australia’s biggest bank disclosed plans to let its users carry out crypto-related transactions on its app.  It has been taking its plan to develop the project but as not stated a particular time it will finally launch the project to the public. It also has plans […]

Cardano (ADA) Whales on Panic Selling Mode: Here’s Why

  Cardano’s price appears to hold the line following the 57% slump to $0.384. Nevertheless, the immediate obstacle at $0.677 might limit further recovery by ADA. A daily candle closing beneath $0.397 will annul the already precarious optimistic tale. Cardano sees its price staying well beyond the latest swing low that printed a possible bottom […]

European Regulators Concerned Over Terra Price Crash

The Recent Terra Drop Portrays Private Instruments as Just an Illusion Panetta in a statement noted that recent developments in the crypto industry show that believing in the usage of private instruments as money is just an illusion, since they cannot be exchanged at the same value as public funds at any time. He also […]

Five States Shut Down Metaverse Casino

On Wednesday, orders were issued to five different metaverse casinos, instructing them to stop the sales of NFTs. Five US regulatory authorities acted fast to close a metaverse casino suspected of having relations with Russia and forced the casino to cease selling NFTs. Five jurisdictions throughout the country collaborated to simultaneously fulfill the orders. State […]