It’s now been three months since the Great X-odus truly gained traction. X (née Twitter) saw thousands of users leave the network in the wake of Elon Musk taking over the platform in 2022. But Trump’s US election victory in November (the president returned to X last summer) along with concerns over content moderation practices on X, plus Musk’s involvement with Trump’s campaign, prompted a phalanx of journalists, PRs and other media professionals to suddenly depart for social media platform Bluesky.

A group of UK journalists, in an open letter, declared X as “no longer a useful tool for objective reporting.” This was followed by the Guardian openly declaring that it would cease its social media activity on X. The PR industry also became a part of the X-odus with the CIPR also migrating to Bluesky.

At the time of writing, Bluesky currently has nearly 30m registered users, while other decentralised platforms such as Mastodon and Diaspora are taking off. They’re all examples of a new form of media that isn’t run by a single entity (think of how Meta owns Instagram and Facebook), but which could offer a more democratised experience for users, with fresh algorithms unshaped by programmatic advertising.

The question is, what is the future for decentralised social media and could it change the way PRs work and operate?

What is decentralised social media?

In a nutshell, decentralised social media platforms are not controlled by a single company or authority. Instead of being hosted on servers owned by a single organisation, these platforms use a distributed network of servers or “nodes.” Think of it like a peer-to-peer system, where the control of data, moderation policies, and user interaction is shared across multiple independent entities.

Platforms such as Bluesky, Mastodon and Diaspora are often based on open-source code, meaning anyone can modify or contribute to the development of the network. The decentralised structure also allows users to choose or even create their own servers, each with its own rules, themes, and moderation practices.

The core idea is to give users more control over their data, content, and social connections, moving away from a model where a single company dictates how the platform works.

How is decentralised media different from X (Twitter) or Facebook?

1. Ownership and control

Centralised media: A central authority makes all decisions on platforms like X (Twitter) or Facebook. Not only does this mean they own the servers and data, but they also have the last word on everything from content moderation to the development of new features.

Decentralised media: Control is distributed among many servers/nodes. No single entity has the power to ban someone across the entire network or dictate what content should be promoted or demoted.

2. Content moderation and policies

Centralised media: Run by uniform rules which are enforced across the entire user base. If the platform decides to suspend or ban an account (for misinformation, hate speech, or any other reason), it’s generally applied across the whole network.

Decentralised media: Each server or community can set its own rules, making content moderation more flexible and tailored to the community’s needs. However, this decentralised moderation can also mean varying standards and potentially more space for harmful content, depending on the server’s policies.

3. Data privacy and security

Centralised media: One big concern about centralised platforms is data privacy. All user posts, likes, and interactions are stored in a central database controlled by the platform, which can sell this data to third parties or use it to target ads.

Decentralised media: Gives users greater control over their data. Since information is spread across multiple servers and there’s no single point of access, it becomes harder for any one entity to collect or exploit your data.

4. Algorithmic influence and feed control

Centralised media: Often uses algorithms to curate the content appearing on users’ feeds, prioritising posts that maximise engagement, espouse controversial opinions, viral content, and trending news.

Decentralised media: Usually has less reliance on algorithms. Users may have more freedom to customise how they receive content, choosing feeds based on chronological order, relevance to their interests, or server-based themes. While this reduces the risk of algorithmic echo chambers, discovering content from beyond your chosen community can also make it more challenging.

How decentralised platforms could change how we consume news

1. A shift in gatekeeping and moderation

Decentralised platforms could democratise gatekeeping, with each community deciding its own acceptable standards for news or opinions. This could promote more diverse viewpoints and allow niche communities to thrive. However, it also raises concerns about misinformation and extremist content spreading on platforms with less moderation.

2. The democratisation of virality

With decentralised platforms, there’s less emphasis on virality through algorithms. Content may not get boosted simply because it provokes outrage or has been widely shared. This has the potential to create a more organic spread of news, but it might also make it harder for breaking news to quickly reach a large audience.

3. Increased privacy and data control

As data privacy becomes an increasing concern, decentralised platforms could offer an alternative to the data-hungry models of Facebook and X. Since users have more control over their data and privacy settings, journalists, activists, or ordinary users may find these platforms more appealing for open discussions or whistleblowing.

However, with increased privacy, accountability becomes a challenge. If content is spread across a network of private servers, it might be more challenging to trace the origins of misinformation or address bad actors who exploit these platforms.

4. Fragmentation of communities and news bubbles

By their nature, decentralised platforms encourage the formation of many smaller, interest-based communities. This can be great for creating niche spaces and fostering a sense of belonging, but it also raises the risk of fragmenting public discourse.

Instead of one shared “town square,” decentralised social media could lead to multiple, parallel conversations happening in silos, which may reinforce echo chambers. For example, news consumption might be more aligned with the views of a particular server or community, making it harder for contrasting viewpoints to break through.

Challenges and opportunities

While decentralised platforms promise more user control, privacy, and freedom of speech, they also come with challenges. Content moderation at scale becomes harder when policies differ from server to server. With robust algorithms likely to promote popular or relevant news, it might be easier for people to find the content they care about or discover important stories outside their bubble.

These challenges also present opportunities for innovation. Some decentralised platforms are experimenting with community-based moderation, where trusted users collectively decide which content is appropriate. Others are building algorithms that prioritise user preferences rather than just optimising for engagement.

In the long-term, decentralised social media could potentially provide a healthier model for online discourse that respects privacy, values diverse communities, and reduces the power of tech giants over the public sphere. However, how well these platforms handle misinformation, hate speech, and user privacy will determine whether they can genuinely rival the dominance of platforms like X and Facebook.

As more users grow discontented with how centralised platforms handle their data and shape their feeds, the demand for a more user-centric, open-source alternative might continue to grow.

However, drawing upon the work of my favourite media theorists, Jürgen Habermas (particularly his notion of a public sphere) when users who have certain leanings or ideologies migrate to a new platform, it can possibly draw a wedge between the left and right, leading to two polarised public spheres instead of a single. balanced one with multiple viewpoints. This could potentially increase the risk of having more reinforced echo chambers with blind, biased validation taking up the space for healthy debate, constructive criticism and healthy public discourse.

Article first published on influenceonline.co.uk

Curzon PR is a London-based PR firm working with clients globally. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact our Business Development Team bd@curzonpr.com