A decentralized Reddit running on the Olas protocol? Will that allow to create any kind of content?

Olas Features
1

Hi Olasians,

As many of you probably know, I’m an avid Reddit user. I believe it’s still one of the few places on the internet where you can engage in civil discussions and learn from others, unlike the dumpster fire that X has become (I don’t even consider Facebook a social media platform anymore). Recently, there’s been some buzz about Reddit shutting down certain subreddits, and people have been flocking to the FreeSpeech subreddit to vent their frustrations.

First off, I support Reddit’s decision. One of the subreddits they closed was literally called “menshouldrape.” If you disagree with that move, please tell me why such vile content should be allowed in a public space. It’s absolutely despicable. Now, in some cases, the reasons for shutting down subreddits may not be as clear, which has led to a lot of complaints and outrage. What people often forget is that Reddit is a private company, and like any private platform, they can and should curate content—especially if it involves preventing the spread of harmful material like rape apologia.

A Reddit user summed this up well:
“Social media accounts are all about ‘your profile’ or ‘your photos’—but if you read the terms and conditions, you’ll quickly discover that anything uploaded becomes their content, not yours. These T&Cs are essential; without them, companies would have no control over what happens on their site.
A good analogy is a bar: the public can come in, socialize, buy drinks, and listen to music. You might write something on a beer mat or pick songs on the jukebox, but none of that gives you ownership of the bar, the beer mat, or the jukebox. And if you break the bar’s rules, they can ban you. If you’re banned, there are always other bars to go to. But if you’re banned from every bar in town—that’s a violation of your rights.
Social media works the same way. Getting banned from one site (or part of it) isn’t a violation of free speech, just like getting banned from one bar isn’t. Every social media platform has its own rules, and users agree to follow them when they sign up."

I have no objections to this—it is what it is. This is the reality when data transmitters and content editors are the same, as we’ve discussed in other thread. However, it raises interesting questions about how things would work on a decentralized platform like Olas, where data transmitters and content editors are distinctly separate.

What if someone decided to build a platform promoting harmful content, like rape, on top of Olas? Would the Olas governing body step in and disconnect it? Who would even be part of this governing body? And what if a judge orders a particular page on Olas to be shut down? Could that even be enforced? Right now, in many countries, internet providers comply with legal orders to cut off access to certain sites. I’m curious to hear if any of you have thought about how Olas would handle such situations and what approach you plan to take.

3 Likes
2

I completely agree that content like “menshouldrape” or anything promoting pedophilia, violence, or abuse has no place in public forums. In cases like these, I fully support Reddit or any platform stepping in to shut them down. Free speech has its limits when it crosses into harming others, especially physically or through incitement to violence. There’s no debate there.

That said, the conversation does get a bit more complicated when you’re talking about decentralized platforms like what Olas aims to be. Unlike Reddit or any private company, where moderation decisions are top-down, in a decentralized model, it’s a lot harder to enforce rules or remove harmful content. On a decentralized Reddit-style platform, there needs to be a mechanism where the majority agrees to remove or ban harmful content. But getting that consensus is the tricky part.

The biggest concern with decentralized platforms is the potential for bad actors to exploit that freedom. If no central authority can step in, you run the risk of truly harmful content being hosted and spread without a clear way to take it down.

And Facebook feels more like an ad network or a digital billboard at this point, just collecting data and throwing ads at you.

IMO the idea is to create a space for open discussions and differing viewpoints, while still having a responsible approach to truly harmful content. It’s a tough balance to strike, and I’m curious to see how it plays out!

Would love to hear your thoughts.

1 Like
3

In a decentralized setup, things are definitely trickier. Without one central team making the rules, it’s tough to figure out who decides what’s okay to post and what’s not. If someone starts sharing really harmful stuff, who steps in? And how would they even enforce any rules? It’s all about finding a balance between freedom and keeping the platform safe, which is a big challenge without clear answers yet.

1 Like
4

The concerns you raise are very valid, especially in the context of decentralized platforms like Olas. In traditional social media, companies act as gatekeepers and content moderators, which allows them to make decisions on what’s acceptable or not. This centralized control is easier for enforcing policies and responding to legal obligations. However, the decentralized nature of Olas would indeed complicate things.

Decentralized platforms aim to separate data transmission from content editing, empowering users with more control. But this also presents a challenge when harmful content appears. Without a central authority to moderate or remove content, dealing with cases like “rape apologia” would be a gray area. It raises questions about whether such a network can still have ethical standards and, if so, how these would be enforced.

If a governing body did exist for Olas, there would need to be a clear, transparent framework for managing disputes and taking action against harmful content. This could include community-driven moderation, where users vote on what stays or goes, or some form of consensus mechanism. However, enforcing compliance, especially when legal orders are involved, is less straightforward than on traditional platforms.

Regarding legal orders, Olas would face unique hurdles. On the traditional internet, internet providers can block sites, but on a decentralized network, the content might still be accessible through alternative nodes. This makes a “shutdown” much harder to enforce. It would require new legal and technical frameworks to ensure compliance while balancing the ideals of decentralization.

The questions you’re raising touch upon the very core of decentralized governance and content moderation, and finding the right balance is a significant challenge that Olas (or any decentralized platform) will need to navigate carefully.

1 Like
5

This is a good question and admittedly this is the least developed part of the Olas protocol. There are other questions such as defamation and whether an invasion into someone’s private life is a matter of public interest.

There are ways above the protocol (such as ISPs as you say) that can remove access to some articles but I think there’s going to have to be some protocol level system for dealing with this stuff. The bar for taking things down would be extremely high and based on a jurisdiction, such as the EU, that seeks a good balance between freedom of speech and privacy, etc.

2 Likes
6

I guess that probably the liability should be on the guys using the protocol to publish anything, rather than the protocol itself. Separating transmiter (the protocol, not liable for content) from the editor (fully liable as it curates the publication). In that way, probably the protocol only needs to ask editors to provide accurate ID and agree on some terms and conditions that can legally protect Olas. I mean, no government is prosecuting a phone company for crimes committed using it. The same should apply to Olas.

2 Likes
7

This is going to be an important regulatory factor. We’ve seen how this has played when it relates to Decentralized Finance applications, such as Tornado Cash, where the full weight of the law was implemented to those who wrote the code rather than those who transacted on the platform.

1 Like
8

Yes primarily. There should probably still be a way of taking stuff down that could ruin someone’s life however. Achieving that without sacrfising decentralisation and resistance to authoritarian regimes is the tough part. As I said, a part of the protocol we haven’t developed yet but I have a few ideas. Something like the judging panel system that’ll exist for news and possibly only consisting of lawyers.

2 Likes
9

Yeah, both Instagram and Facebook have become one large marketplace. It’s not a personal platform anymore.

Exactly. Now I wonder, why this opinion isn’t applicable to other social media? Why is a ‘‘violation of someone’s speech rights’’ if your any-wing opinion isn’t accepted on, say, Twitter or Facebook? Why don’t we normalize rules? If a platform steers to one side of the compass, let it. Move to the one who is the nearest to your heart.

1 Like
10

Exactly!

This is the appropriate response to being unsatisfied with a product or community there in. You go for a different one. But unfortunately society has become less open minded and willing to entertain wrong ideas, analyse them, and prove they are wrong with right ideas or counter facts.

1 Like
11

yes input and output

12

Completely agree. And, I might add, outright lazy for not exploring the internet to the max. There are spaces for almost every niche and it’s impossible to claim there isn’t a space for you to express yourself.

1 Like