Can online platforms like Youtube and Facebook really be decentralized?

[CRYPTORALF]

I started to learn about crypto two months ago. Bitcoin, Monero, Ethereum etc. make total sense to me.

I can't, however, understand why it would make sense to decentralize large online platforms like Youtube and Facebook. Or let's say: I don't understand how this could work.

Bitcoin has a decentralized ledger where all transactions are stored. How would that ledger look for a decentralized Youtube or Facebook?

Or am I missing something? Does decentralization mean something different in this regard?

Thank you!

PS: I'm asking because I again and again read headlines that say something along the line of "everything will be decentralized".

[1715187742]

1715187742

[1715187742]

1715187742

[1715187742]

1715187742

[1715187742]

1715187742

[1715187742]

1715187742

[sunsilk]

I think I've seen different projects that aims to have a decentralized social network but it didn't do good. People still prefer the centralized social networks because we've used to use it and it's hard to get away from it.

About decentralized platform like youtube, I think dlive suits the description of it.

[Ayiranorea]

Maybe something similar to YouTube and Facebook can get into existence functioning over the smart contract platform. The present platform can't be changed to be entirely decentralized. Also there is no need of making YouTube completely decentralized, because without reviewing the contents it isn't possible to broadcast to the public. Through smart contract it can be performed, but some contents create controversy.

[hello_good_sir]

Let's first take a look at what makes these platforms bad, and why centralization in this particular industry isn't that good.

There happens to be a lot of censorship when it comes to these platforms, and Youtube, in particular, is very well known for fucking over their creators, whether it's from demonization, copyright strikes, or other issues that comes to their content.

With the decentralization of these platforms, these issues would be non-existent, and the way this would be done would be via everyone controlling a bit of youtube, and it works in a decentralized democratic environment.

[goinmerry]

Facebook and Youtube switching into a decentralized thing is not an easy task to do. They are already good at their current status so no need or necessity for a big change. There will be lots of questions if they will plan for a decentralized concept. Cross fingers that they will not do something shitty in the future although chances are low.

But as how blockchain evolves through years, expect that more and more industries will adopt the idea of being decentralized.

Don't think about it too much or maybe there is something you need to know and we might give you a better answer without using Facebook and Youtube as an example.

[LUCKMCFLY]

Facebook and YouTube decentralized is something almost impossible, especially for Facebook, it is said that a lot of data has been leaked from there for different government fines, it is also a goldmine in information, it could not be decentralized, since Mark would not , or maybe think so, but with all the development he has had lately I do not think so, in fact even Snowden thinks that both Facebook and Google do not have good intentions.

The case of YouTube, is changing completely, has new policies where many influencers are complaining, far from all this I don´t see a decentralization.

These platforms can use Blockchain to have much more control and be able to do some audits, but controlled by their owners, a decentralization technology cannot be confused by applying the technology to already centralized platforms, it is like affirming that a bank will be decentralized because it wants to acquire blockchain technology or use blockchain.

[NathanJB]

I think it is possible to decentralize everything, even the likes of youtube and facebook. I cannot go on the specifics because I am not a programmer nor a coder myself but there are apps that are decentralized, popularly known as DApps. I think an app similar to youtube or facebook which is built on a distributed ledger is going to become a decentralized one. 

[AniviaBtc]

I think it is possible to decentralize everything, even the likes of youtube and facebook. I cannot go on the specifics because I am not a programmer nor a coder myself but there are apps that are decentralized, popularly known as DApps. I think an app similar to youtube or facebook which is built on a distributed ledger is going to become a decentralized one. 

I think not, it doesn't mean that if you observed something that decentralize, all of the things around you can also decentralized. They have different levels of standard to be able to achieve that.

For example, let's say Youtube, it is a powerful and broad social media platform and nothing can influences it easily. You need to achieve those standards.

[paskah01]

I think it is possible to decentralize everything, even the likes of youtube and facebook. I cannot go on the specifics because I am not a programmer nor a coder myself but there are apps that are decentralized, popularly known as DApps. I think an app similar to youtube or facebook which is built on a distributed ledger is going to become a decentralized one. 

I think not, it doesn't mean that if you observed something that decentralize, all of the things around you can also decentralized. They have different levels of standard to be able to achieve that.

For example, let's say Youtube, it is a powerful and broad social media platform and nothing can influences it easily. You need to achieve those standards.

Absolutely agree.

I think both decentralization and centralization system have their plus and minus. Not all thing can and should be decentralized, for Youtube and Facebook i think it's better that way- centralized (but not too obvious/ much) . Different for financial transactions i believe decentralization will be so much better..

But do you think we can trust the system much more than what we have trust yeaarsss ago from bank? I mean, it'll be hard to be the part of something different from what's already in mind..

[CRYPTORALF]

thanks guys, but no reply really answers my question how this would look in detail

[avikz]

I started to learn about crypto two months ago. Bitcoin, Monero, Ethereum etc. make total sense to me.

I can't, however, understand why it would make sense to decentralize large online platforms like Youtube and Facebook. Or let's say: I don't understand how this could work.

Bitcoin has a decentralized ledger where all transactions are stored. How would that ledger look for a decentralized Youtube or Facebook?

Or am I missing something? Does decentralization mean something different in this regard?

Thank you!

PS: I'm asking because I again and again read headlines that say something along the line of "everything will be decentralized".

Can be done! Facebook and Youtube, both can be decentralized with some tweaking in the existing blockchain system so that the privacy of the users are not evaded! Distributed ledger usually means that your data will be available openly for public viewing, but that structure can be changed using an authorization layer to ensure only authorized people are able to see your profile and not everyone on the earth!

However, it literally makes no sense for these two conglomerates to move onto a blockchain! Blockchain is bette used in transactions based platforms and that's why it can be used better in fintech. Blockchain is not really made for large social media portals!

[Kyraishi]

It would work with no one having full control of the content platforms, which means that they wouldn't be able to regulate their platforms unless everyone would agree with the moves.

Wouldn't it function like Wikipedia? So it would work that people require permission from everyone in order for things to be changed (so it would need permission from everyone in order for content to be taken down).

That's the way it should work - single companies don't need this much power.

[paskah01]

It would work with no one having full control of the content platforms, which means that they wouldn't be able to regulate their platforms unless everyone would agree with the moves.

Wouldn't it function like Wikipedia? So it would work that people require permission from everyone in order for things to be changed (so it would need permission from everyone in order for content to be taken down).

That's the way it should work - single companies don't need this much power.

But rich can pay people to spam the network with same point for it to be change... Anyone with money and power can change the truth and it can be centralized in some other way...

[shoreno]

for facebook yes they should make it decentralized so that the issue of data breach are going to be fixed  but on youtube , there is no problem with it right now .  not just these two but other cex social media platform should turn to decentralized so that people are sure that thier datas were safe and wont be exploited by someone else because those people are only getting the benefit the most but it also harm us users  .

[dimonstration]

PS: I'm asking because I again and again read headlines that say something along the line of "everything will be decentralized".

Not everything, crypto supposed to be decentralized but there are many who changes it's purpose. They tend to do it in a way that they will benefit like how those countries implementing their own token to ban other cryptocurrencies. Facebook and youtube will be that way, they will just use token maybe for the sense of having a currency that can be used in their platform but not as decentralized since they knew our infos.

[CryptoBry]

Bitcoin has a decentralized ledger where all transactions are stored. How would that ledger look for a decentralized Youtube or Facebook? Or am I missing something? Does decentralization mean something different in this regard?

I don't see these famous platforms decide to be decentralized. Decentralization entails a lot of things and on top of that is the control and censorship. Facebook and YouTube will never be multi-billion companies if they are not controlled platforms though they are open to the public still decisions on many matters are done by the corporate personalities and not by the users themselves. There had been many attempts to introduce decentralized social media platforms but up to now not one is flourishing all of them are still unknown and many are already dead.

[mu_enrico]

If it is free, then the simple answer is no. Ever heard of "economies of scale?" It is about the bigger you are, the cheaper your service is. Youtube et al. can offer free service because of this centralization. They will beat small competitors in terms of the price until no competitors left.

The problem is they offer you "free" services, but actually, you have to pay it with your soul data. Furthermore, they can do whatever they want, including blocking unpopular speech (censorship), demonetizing, and clogging your feed with advertisements.

Now, if we want decentralization, we must pay for these services with money and not with our privacy/freedom. Then perhaps, fund startups with this business model.

[Wexnident]

A decentralized social media platform? No. Just with the problem with content itself, having it decentralized would already become quite a problem. Having a central decision maker actually makes social media platforms gain dominance over anyone using their services. This avoids constant change of rules which could be a problem in a decentralized system.

Besides, this could go to a situation where for example youtube has different implementations for each platform. America has x feature while India don't have it but India has y feature instead.

Basically, it's a pain when dealing with decisions. Comparing crypto to social media platforms in terms of decentralization isn't really that much of a good idea.

[alexsandria]

Of course, NO. Though internet is decentralized because the distribution must be one way or another, that doesn't mean such popular platforms must be decentralized. It has to be controlled though, 'cause if not it will be surely problematic. In addition, platforms has its own databases which in the first place has one single authority that regulates a certain platforms to avoid data breach, and other such information loss.

[Hydrogen]

I started to learn about crypto two months ago. Bitcoin, Monero, Ethereum etc. make total sense to me.

I can't, however, understand why it would make sense to decentralize large online platforms like Youtube and Facebook. Or let's say: I don't understand how this could work.

Bitcoin has a decentralized ledger where all transactions are stored. How would that ledger look for a decentralized Youtube or Facebook?

Decentralization could be applied to corporations like facebook, in terms of its leadership, decision making and authority structures becoming more democratic. A CEO based structure where Mark Zuckenberg ruled with absolute power could represent centralization. Decentralization could entail breaking up the power and authority of a single person and distributing it amongst multiple people. This would come with advantages and disadvantages of course.

The centralized arrangement could resemble a dictator state like north korea where Kim Jong rules within a centralized format. With decentralization being more like the united states where power is split between congress, a senate and a President.