Rethinking Social Network(Again)

Posted on Edited on In

This is an upgrade to my previous post: Rethinking Social Networks | Untitled Dream

From Social Network Idea to Universal Framework: A Journey into Decentralization

Sometimes, the best ideas start with a specific goal in mind and end up taking on a life of their own. I started working on a decentralized social network to tackle some big challenges: keeping conversations rational, protecting privacy, and reducing harmful behavior without relying on a central authority. But as I worked through it, I realized this design could go way beyond just social networking. Here’s how it all started as a concrete idea, got distilled into its core elements, and ended up as a flexible framework for decentralized interaction.

The Starting Point: A Social Network with Autonomy and Privacy at Its Core

My initial concept was straightforward: build a social network where users could have more control over who they connected with and how they interacted. Here’s what it looked like:

  1. Discovery Servers (DS): I introduced these to help people find and connect with others.

    • Public DS would be for anyone to join, while Private DS would work for more closed settings, like companies or schools.

  2. Connection Protocol: Every connection required a secret key shared between two users. The beauty of this was that both parties had the power to end the connection whenever they wanted. Connections were private, consent-driven, and totally in control of the people involved.

  3. Indirect Connection Requests: If you wanted to connect with someone you didn’t have a direct link to, you could use an intermediary—a friend of a friend. In this model, Discovery Servers were like “special friends” that only helped with introductions, not controlling anything.

The setup felt fresh because, unlike traditional networks, there was no central authority overseeing everything. Users kept their privacy through keys, and connection requests made through friends of friends added a layer of trust. It was a social network built on consent and autonomy.

Stepping Back: Turning It into a More Flexible Network Model

I realized that the design could be even more flexible if I focused less on “social network” features and more on the core protocols for connection. This gave rise to two basic protocols:

  1. Direct Connection Protocol: A simple, secure link between two people based on mutual consent and a shared key.
  2. Request Connection Protocol: For situations where two people didn’t have a direct link. Here, an intermediary—someone already connected to both—could act as a bridge.

This model made Discovery Servers just another type of participant, or “node,” in the network. They helped people find connections without having control over them. It wasn’t just a social network model anymore; this could work for any network where privacy and trusted connections were needed.

I started seeing that the network could be even simpler and more universal. I stripped away all the specifics like “users,” “servers,” and even “nodes.” Here’s what I landed on:

  1. Units: Any independent participant in the network could be a “unit.” Whether it was a person, a company, or something else, a unit could choose its own connections and how it interacted with others.

  2. Links: Connections between units were now just “links,” each with a unique key as a form of mutual consent. Links could be direct (between two units) or indirect (using a third unit as a bridge).

  3. Dynamic Facilitators: In cases where a group needed to stay connected, one unit could take on the temporary role of a facilitator to coordinate the conversation. And if another unit had better network conditions, the role could switch over—keeping things efficient.

This stripped-down setup meant the network was even more adaptable. Any type of unit could connect and organize itself in whatever way made sense, and links were always private and flexible. Now it felt like a true, decentralized system that could work for way more than just social connections.

The Ultimate Abstraction: Elements, Connections, and Rules

Finally, I wondered, how simple could I make it? I wanted to see if I could reduce the model to its bare bones without losing any of its core ideas. Here’s the ultra-abstract version that I came up with:

  1. Elements: Any independent entity in the system. Each element decides its own connections and controls how it engages with others.

  2. Connections: Secure links between elements that allow for interactions. These connections are always based on mutual agreement, so either side can terminate them whenever they want. Connections can be direct or indirect, using intermediaries when needed.

  3. Interaction Rules:

    • Direct Connection Rule: Elements connect directly if they both agree.
    • Indirect Connection Rule: Elements can connect indirectly through another element, adding a layer of trust and privacy.
    • Dynamic Role Assignment Rule: If a group of elements needs temporary coordination, one element can step up as a facilitator. This role can change hands as needed, keeping things flexible and efficient.

And that was it. This ultra-abstract model boiled down to just elements, connections, and some basic rules about how they interact. It could be applied to any kind of decentralized system—social networks, resource-sharing systems, even collaboration platforms. It was a system that focused on autonomy, privacy, and adaptability, with connections that grew organically and didn’t need any central authority.

Why This Matters: A Foundation for Decentralized Systems

The journey from concrete social network to ultra-abstract framework showed me that a few simple principles—autonomy, consent, privacy, and flexibility—can support almost any decentralized network. By focusing on just these essentials, the model could adapt to nearly any context while staying true to what makes decentralized systems powerful.

In a world where centralized control often limits privacy and individual choice, this decentralized interaction model opens up possibilities. Whether you’re building a new kind of social network, a resource-sharing community, or a collaborative workspace, this framework provides the foundation for a truly user-driven, adaptive network that lets each participant stay in control.

Wrapping Up: Decentralization doesn’t have to mean complexity. By focusing on simplicity and core values, we can create networks that respect autonomy and privacy while being flexible enough to meet diverse needs. This framework offers a way forward—a blueprint for building decentralized systems that are adaptable, resilient, and, most importantly, human-centered.