Democracy by design: How decentralised alternatives can contribute to a better social media ecosystem

In today’s digital discourse landscape, privately-owned social media platforms dominate — and are increasingly subject to regulation. However, more is needed for sustainable change: the democratising potential of decentralised networks should be given more attention.

A healthy digital discourse is a key component of opinion formation, exchange, and information in democratic societies. Currently, however, this discourse takes place in privatised spaces, with the power over rules and conditions concentrated in the hands of a few, profit-oriented companies. Most of the regulation in this area focuses on the power of dominant platforms like Instagram, TikTok, and others. This is important because respective legislation — especially the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA) — increases transparency and introduces a range of new control mechanisms. However, there is no democratisation of platforms that more directly incorporates the interests of citizens. For that, we need other ideas.

One frequently discussed idea is the establishment of platform councils to promote more participation and inclusivity in shaping the digital space. This means involving individuals outside the company to better integrate and oversee fundamental rights and values on platforms (cf. Berger et al.; Kettemann et al.; Riedel; Pietron and Haas). Meta’s Oversight Board is a first implementation example and certainly a step in the right direction, while many other platforms are still hesitant to introduce comparable governance mechanisms. However, the Meta Oversight Board also highlights the difficulty of integrating “democratic” elements into a privately-owned company: The board has limited power as it can only make non-binding recommendations. The same applies to its resources: It can only handle a few cases while millions of content moderation decisions are pending (notably during the super election year or with regard to non-English content), limiting its overall impact. In addition, there is a lack of transparency, especially regarding algorithms, which hampers long-term systemic changes. Although platform councils are a good idea, they face other challenges in practice: There is a risk that government regulatory agencies will be weakened, and responsibilities diversified. Furthermore, implementing democratic feedback mechanisms requires significant resources, including creating incentives for less privileged groups to promote inclusive participation (for more information, see our analysis conducted with other experts). 

So, what now? Is that all, or how could a digital space with less monopolisation and power imbalances look? And what does that mean for users?

Users currently have little room for action and decision-making in the social media ecosystem: They have limited platform choices, inadequate protection of personal data, and a lack of transparency about the architecture and design of the platforms they use. Regulation can only partially solve this. What could a more democratic social media ecosystem look like for users? And what would be necessary for users to fully realise this potential?

Here are four ideas from decentralised platforms that could contribute to the democratisation of the social media ecosystem:

• Data sovereignty and privacy: Control over personal data is a central aspect of decentralised platforms. For example, many instances in the Fediverse do not allow third-party tracking, meaning users can regain control over their personal data depending on the instance they choose. This contrasts with centralised platforms that collect vast amounts of user data and often reuse it without user consent. Decentralised examples like Mastodon and Diaspora show that this strengthens user sovereignty and reduces the risk of mass surveillance and data misuse. However, users must understand the importance of this and know where and how to manage their data, as there are also decentralised alternatives that allow data collection and analysis for advertising purposes, such as Meta’s decentralised platform Threads (see Berger and Freihse). More power thus also requires more responsibility and competence. For decentralised platforms, this form of data sovereignty means they need new financing models. One possibility is a subscription model, which requires users to be willing to pay with money instead of their data.
• Independence of decentralised instances: Decentralised platforms like Mastodon allow users and/or groups to operate their own servers, minimising the potential for centralised control and censorship by a single organisation. This is not only interesting for individual users but also for media professionals and other institutions that want to contribute information to the discourse. However, to fully exploit this potential, significant resources are needed—both in terms of server costs and resources for content moderation, as well as the technical knowledge to set up and manage these servers. To prevent only well-equipped actors from entering the field, support and guidance are needed for marginalised actors with few resources. Financing models for decentralised platforms should take this into account.
• Freedom of choice and diversification through interoperability: Open protocols foster innovation and competition, as users are less dependent on changes and conditions on platforms. This can encourage the development of new features and services that are better tailored to users’ needs. PeerTube, for example, allows users to run their own video hosting instances, creating a diversified landscape of video content not restricted by the monopoly of a single platform like YouTube. Interoperability allows users to leave platforms more easily and gives smaller platforms and servers a better chance of being used. This leads to more diversity and plurality. However, for verified news content—especially from traditional media—this could mean greater difficulties in reaching users and being widely visible. Therefore, it is necessary to consider how to support quality information, especially from established media, on decentralised platforms.
• Co-determination and self-governance: In decentralised networks, users often have more say in the design and management of the platform. Participatory governance models allow users to influence rules, moderation policies, and technical developments. Platforms like Mastodon, which use participatory governance models, or concepts like an algorithm marketplace on the decentralised platform BlueSky, create a more democratic and user-centred environment (see Freihse and Sieker). This form of participation could lead to greater platform loyalty from users in an interoperable ecosystem. However, clear and accessible governance structures and the engagement and participation of users in decision-making processes are essential.

What needs to be done now

Our research over the past two years has repeatedly highlighted great potential: Those who demand resilience and healthy digital discourse in challenging democratic times must take action and assume responsibility. One lever to do this is to develop and implement approaches for redesigning our social media ecosystem. Regulation of existing platforms is no longer sufficient—it is time to promote decentralised alternatives to counter the tendencies of concentration in the platform economy. For policy-makers, this means investing money and actively promoting these developments by specifically supporting decentralised alternatives and creating conditions that enable the construction of a more democratic and diverse social media ecosystem.