ONO White Paper: Part 6 Critique of Centralized Social Media, Abusive Behavior Management
Critique of Centralized Social Media
Recently, Facebook has been questioned and harshly criticized by people the world over for leaking the private data of nearly 50 million users.
Social networks like this are not only selling private user data for profit, but may even be creating larger negative consequences such as influencing political events, controlling people’s thinking, and destroying people’s online livelihoods.
Resolving the Paradox
As a result, users will have similar concerns: Does ONO also sneak, sell, or leak users’ own data like Facebook or other centralized platforms?
The answer is no.
Any centralized organization should not interfere with users’ rights to data freedom. When a centralized platform exploits its users’ rights, they are acting in an unethical manner.
ONO is a free and decentralized social network. Its mission is to return rights to its users. Therefore, ONO and all founding members swear that they will never leak, sell, or reveal user data.
In order to ensure the quality of the user experience, early adopters’ content will be stored using small centralized solutions. When the decentralized IPFS technology is mature, and deemed to be safe to use, we will migrate it there and destroy the original data. So, as of now there is a centralized server. To ensure its openness and transparency, we will gradually open all the code to eliminate user concerns.
However, there is another issue that cannot be ignored: is the ONO social network a completely anarchist, “completely free” social network? Can I post whatever I want, even illegal stuff?
The answer is also no.
A social network, its mission and significance, will not only be a simple developer tool and chat software. As we said in the economic system, it’s also a humanistic gold mine that carries intangible assets of human cultural heritage. It will have a long-term and far-reaching impact on human society.
The original intention of launching such a social network like ONO is to define the value of attention, inspire excellent content, and to reduce the attention given to inferior content.
In fact, from the long-term perspective of human civilization, producing and disseminating inferior content goes against human progress. We are trying to solve this problem by creating a content management plan for social co-governance.
As mentioned in the previous part of the White Paper, the emergence of the Referendum makes the governance system of the ONO social network quite democratic. Almost anything can be changed through a Referendum vote.
However, will national democracy cause confusion?
Contrary to what we have been taught about centralized hierarchies, the existence of crowd-sourcing activities promotes the formation of organized social structures in the long term. This is not only the belief of ONO, but is also supported by the phenomena such as Wikipedia and open source software repeatedly prove.
So What is Immutable?
In order to create a free and prosperous social networking environment, we are determined to follow these guidelines:
ONO uses the Common Program as the primary source of ethics; it takes the mission of equality, respect and happiness of all ONO users as its mission; and the prosperity of ONO’s social networking ecosystem is its long-term vision. These are the values of ONO, which naturally exist, are not affected by anyone’s will, and are permanent.
ONO’s Management of Abusive Behavior
“Freedom is the right to do anything that is harmless to others.” — Article 4 of the Universal Declaration of Man, 1789.
Let’s imagine that ONO is an unsupervised and completely “free” social network. Anybody can use ONO to commit harmful acts without hesitation. Then, the experience of ONO will become worse than the dark web and all that it contains: crime, discrimination, extreme speech, rumors and terror. Content that is extremely uncomfortable or even harmful to society and to humanity, will become rampant in ONO. It will eventually manifest a situation where the bad currency and environment drives away good money, or it may even cause terrible results such as hatred and war.
In fact, this is not really a definition of freedom. Freedom should be based on the responsibility, obligation, and respect for other people’s equal rights, not on the basis of evil, and not on the basis of human beings expressing their personal will in ways that harms others.
ONO will not tolerate any action that harms or interferes with anyone else’s rights. Such content will be collapsed and users who act with malicious intent, or without due care for the well-being and rights of others will be warned and punished.
So, another question arises: Who defines the content as good or bad, and who performs ONO content management?
We always insist on decentralization and democratic governance. ONO’s values do not support any centralized approach. Centralized judgment and management will produce a large number of unpleasant experiences for users.
The role of Super Partners was created in ONO, which resembles a sort of electoral system both for efficiency and democracy. The Super Partners (see chapter ONO Partners) are elected by the Referendum of all users of ONO and represent the will of all ONO users.
Read the ONO White Paper:
ONO White Paper CH. 2: ONO DApp
ONO White Paper CH. 3: Technical
ONO White Paper CH. 4: Economic System
ONO White Paper CH. 5: Advertising System
ONO White Paper CH. 6: Abuse Management
ONO White Paper CH. 7: ONO DAC
ONO White Paper CH. 8: Common Program
ONO White Paper CH. 9: Roadmap
ONO White Paper CH. 10: Challenges & Strategies
ONO White Paper CH. 11: ONO Core Team
ONO White Paper CH. 12: Investors
ONO White Paper CH. 13: Nome Foundation
ONO White Paper CH. 14: Disclaimer