Recent actions in Brazil towards x shows that social platforms will have hard time to establish resiliency for freedom of speech or to thrive as fair and open social spaces.

Eventually x would need to take down accounts that are unlawful for whatever legal decision or interpretation of the law. This also means that politized judgements or interpretations of the law can become a reason to take down opinionated accounts.

There are lot of cases in history where the law or court judgements have been used as a political tool.

A way to enable open and fair social spaces would be by relying on a network that can ensure data integrity for social data (accounts, followers, content). If a node does not respect the data integrity, it gets disqualified and removed. New nodes will appear due to the cryptoeconomic incentives.

Thats why I am also bearish on existing federated data models since there are little incentives to establish data integrity. Nodes can be paid to run these servers to serve data and “to be nice” but without a consensus, there is no guarantee for data integrity.

Once there is a consensus over data integrity, social primitives can be established and ownership rights issued to private/public key holders of the network participants. Virtually Bitcoin relies on the same mechanism for establishing ownership guarantees over a financial primitive.

This is why I am bullish on using onchain for providing security to ensure data integrity and ownership that eventually can enable censorship resistance. Moderation would still work on an application/platform level without seizing users accounts and voice on protocol level.

It’s a fundamental transition from don’t be evil to can’t be evil.