I have been interested in "decentralised", "open", or "federated" social networks since my teenage years. These networks include software such as Mastodon, Pixelfed, and Bluesky, as well as to some extent Meta's Threads. In contrast to existing platforms such as Facebook and Twitter (X), users can more easily leave platforms without being cut off from the rest of society, as services on the "open social web" co-operatively talk to one another. This is very similar to how email functions: I can send a message from my ed.ac.uk address to your outlook or gmail address. User choice would put market pressure on social media companies to provide better services, avoiding the infamous "enshittification" of platforms.
Embedded Files
Partly because incumbent platforms lack this market pressure, recent legislation has come into force to regulate platforms. The UK's Online Safety Act focuses on reducing the presence of harmful content. Meanwhile, the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act focuses on the root cause of social media problems: a lack of user choice.
I identify a tension in the current approach of the OSA and the DMCCA. Openness typically comes at odds with safety. For instance, to take down content spread across a decentralised network, many providers have to coordinate, while only one entity needs to act to remove harmful content from current closed networks. On the other hand, openness could allow users to choose safer services. I argue that if these problems are properly anticipated by regulators, including updated guidance from Ofcom, as well as safety-sensitive interoperability mandates from the CMA, then global society could benefit from both enhanced safety and less "enshittification" on social media.
Opening Up the Market for Safe Social Media - Thomas Campbell.pdfPage updated
Google Sites
Report abuse