Free speech is at risk without decentralized, open-source technology

By: bitcoin ethereum news|2025/05/03 14:30:01
0
Share
copy
Opinion by: Chris Jenkins, adviser to Pocket Network Tim Berners-Lee’s vision of the World Wide Web is dead. Instead of an open and accessible global information system, the web is controlled by centralized global data conglomerates, which don’t just restrict free speech but also monetize your data as a price of entry. Web2 firms have built walled gardens with massive information asymmetry between companies and users. Blockchain-based decentralized tech challenges the status quo, offering an alternative to Web2’s closed-source infrastructure. It enables developers and engineers to build a censorship-resistant and accessible open-data web to champion the cause of free speech. Open-source technology creates a paradigmatic shift in a fair and inclusive internet where centralized web companies won’t dictate the terms. A vision deferred In 1989, Berners-Lee’s invention created a virtual space for collaboration, sharing and learning from one another. The web’s first iteration was based on openness, where anyone could contribute, access information, work together, and enjoy the same opportunities. The internet is no longer free in 2025. Capital’s brute force has emboldened centralized companies to exercise authoritarian control over data and information flows. Unfortunately, these companies have acquired their power and resources from unaware users who unknowingly contributed to their capital accumulation strategies. Web2 companies surreptitiously collect data from users without fair compensation and use that as a weapon to control user behavior. Corporations harness user data to train opaque algorithms and deploy information “discoverability” to shape users’ beliefs and emotions. This practice is visible mainly on centralized social media platforms such as Facebook, Instagram and X, with multiple scandals and pending litigations eroding user trust. For example, in June 2024, Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, received 11 complaints from European Union members. The complaints concerned using personal data like posts and images to train Meta’s AI models without consent, violating EU privacy laws. Recent: The case against Pavel Durov and why it’s important for crypto The Cambridge Analytica scandal demonstrated how companies mine data to shape political perspectives and election outcomes. These companies also construct pre-determined narratives and shape market behavior by promoting or subverting curated reports, sometimes shaping public perspectives on health and economic data. Under its Digital Markets Act, the European Commission has initiated a noncompliance investigation into Apple, Meta, Amazon and Alphabet’s practices. Meta has also incurred a $1.3 billion fine for failing to comply with privacy regulations. In this environment, “free speech” remains a far-fetched dream because the entire tech stack is hostile to accessibility and openness. To realize Berners-Lee’s vision, apps must use a decentralized tech stack and be built from the ground up on an open architecture. Make the internet free (again) An app’s tech stack consists of its front and back ends, data storage and Content Delivery Network (CDN). Web2 platforms depend on a centralized tech stack that puts free speech at risk, while most blockchain-powered apps leverage a censorship-resistant decentralized tech stack with high uptime. Some decentralized applications (DApps) build their front end on a decentralized interface. Most of their back end, however, is still stuck on centralized data infrastructure. For example, despite their censorship vulnerabilities and single failure points, decentralized applications (DApps) often use centralized cloud providers and data hosting platforms. These types of attack vectors make projects like Tornado Cash subject to the changing moods of state actors. Shifting to open-source protocols for distributed data storage like InterPlanetary File System (IPFS) and Filecoin upholds the free speech philosophy on DApps. These protocols offer a censorship-resistant, tamper-proof storage facility that remains accessible without arbitrary outages. DApps also use centralized remote procedure call (RPC) providers to supply data from the back-end to the front-end interface, especially across multiple networks. But any outage or attack, like the one on X, can lead to downtime, inaccuracies, data gaps and disconnected information flows. If it doesn’t seem like much, remember downtime or inaccuracies in decentralized finance can cost billions. Decentralized protocols avoid these situations by transforming data accessibility and transfer channels with independent node operators. Data queries are distributed across the network, eliminating any single point of failure and providing uninterrupted data availability. More importantly, it safeguards free speech rights because no single node can block or obstruct data flow, and the network remains accessible even if several nodes go offline. CDNs, yet another crucial component for serving user requests, can become inaccessible due to market pressure or political influence. Opaque decisions from closed-door meetings dictate data flows on CDNs without any certainty in information flows. Start with the basics Decentralized protocols remove the need for centralized decision-making by enabling apps to directly access data without intermediaries. These permissionless protocols connect open-source data and service providers with users and applications, removing human interaction and associated manufactured problems. Blockchain-powered platforms lay the foundation for a decentralized tech stack that promotes free speech and isn’t controlled by centralized Web2 companies. These permissionless protocols build an open-source world and return the internet to Berners-Lee’s vision of a global and accessible network. Opinion by: Chris Jenkins, adviser to Pocket Network. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal or investment advice. The views, thoughts, and opinions expressed here are the author’s alone and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views and opinions of Cointelegraph. Source: https://cointelegraph.com/news/free-speech-is-at-risk?utm_source=rss_feed&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=rss_partner_inbound

You may also like

TAO is Elon Musk, who invested in OpenAI, and Subnet is Sam Altman

Most of the capital invested in TAO will ultimately subsidize development activities that do not provide value back to token holders.

The era of "mass coin distribution" on public chains comes to an end

The market is becoming increasingly intelligent, and they are abandoning ecosystems that rely solely on funding to support false activity. Now, what is being rewarded is real throughput, real users, and real revenue.

Soaring 50 times, with an FDV exceeding 10 billion USD, why RaveDAO?

What exactly is RaveDAO? Why is Rave able to rise so much?

1 billion DOTs were minted out of thin air, but the hacker only made 230,000 dollars

Liquidity saved Polkadot's life.

After the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, when will the war end?

The US has taken away Iran’s most important card, but has also lost the path to ending the war

Before using Musk's "Western WeChat" X Chat, you need to understand these three questions

The X Chat will be available for download on the App Store this Friday. The media has already covered the feature list, including self-destructing messages, screenshot prevention, 481-person group chats, Grok integration, and registration without a phone number, positioning it as the "Western WeChat." However, there are three questions that have hardly been addressed in any reports.


There is a sentence on X's official help page that is still hanging there: "If malicious insiders or X itself cause encrypted conversations to be exposed through legal processes, both the sender and receiver will be completely unaware."


Question One: Is this encryption the same as Signal's encryption?


No. The difference lies in where the keys are stored.


In Signal's end-to-end encryption, the keys never leave your device. X, the court, or any external party does not hold your keys. Signal's servers have nothing to decrypt your messages; even if they were subpoenaed, they could only provide registration timestamps and last connection times, as evidenced by past subpoena records.


X Chat uses the Juicebox protocol. This solution divides the key into three parts, each stored on three servers operated by X. When recovering the key with a PIN code, the system retrieves these three shards from X's servers and recombines them. No matter how complex the PIN code is, X is the actual custodian of the key, not the user.


This is the technical background of the "help page sentence": because the key is on X's servers, X has the ability to respond to legal processes without the user's knowledge. Signal does not have this capability, not because of policy, but because it simply does not have the key.


The following illustration compares the security mechanisms of Signal, WhatsApp, Telegram, and X Chat along six dimensions. X Chat is the only one of the four where the platform holds the key and the only one without Forward Secrecy.


The significance of Forward Secrecy is that even if a key is compromised at a certain point in time, historical messages cannot be decrypted because each message has a unique key. Signal's Double Ratchet protocol automatically updates the key after each message, a mechanism lacking in X Chat.


After analyzing the X Chat architecture in June 2025, Johns Hopkins University cryptology professor Matthew Green commented, "If we judge XChat as an end-to-end encryption scheme, this seems like a pretty game-over type of vulnerability." He later added, "I would not trust this any more than I trust current unencrypted DMs."


From a September 2025 TechCrunch report to being live in April 2026, this architecture saw no changes.


In a February 9, 2026 tweet, Musk pledged to undergo rigorous security tests of X Chat before its launch on X Chat and to open source all the code.



As of the April 17 launch date, no independent third-party audit has been completed, there is no official code repository on GitHub, the App Store's privacy label reveals X Chat collects five or more categories of data including location, contact info, and search history, directly contradicting the marketing claim of "No Ads, No Trackers."


Issue 2: Does Grok know what you're messaging in private?


Not continuous monitoring, but a clear access point.


For every message on X Chat, users can long-press and select "Ask Grok." When this button is clicked, the message is delivered to Grok in plaintext, transitioning from encrypted to unencrypted at this stage.


This design is not a vulnerability but a feature. However, X Chat's privacy policy does not state whether this plaintext data will be used for Grok's model training or if Grok will store this conversation content. By actively clicking "Ask Grok," users are voluntarily removing the encryption protection of that message.


There is also a structural issue: How quickly will this button shift from an "optional feature" to a "default habit"? The higher the quality of Grok's replies, the more frequently users will rely on it, leading to an increase in the proportion of messages flowing out of encryption protection. The actual encryption strength of X Chat, in the long run, depends not only on the design of the Juicebox protocol but also on the frequency of user clicks on "Ask Grok."


Issue 3: Why is there no Android version?


X Chat's initial release only supports iOS, with the Android version simply stating "coming soon" without a timeline.


In the global smartphone market, Android holds about 73%, while iOS holds about 27% (IDC/Statista, 2025). Of WhatsApp's 3.14 billion monthly active users, 73% are on Android (according to Demand Sage). In India, WhatsApp covers 854 million users, with over 95% Android penetration. In Brazil, there are 148 million users, with 81% on Android, and in Indonesia, there are 112 million users, with 87% on Android.



WhatsApp's dominance in the global communication market is built on Android. Signal, with a monthly active user base of around 85 million, also relies mainly on privacy-conscious users in Android-dominant countries.


X Chat circumvented this battlefield, with two possible interpretations. One is technical debt; X Chat is built with Rust, and achieving cross-platform support is not easy, so prioritizing iOS may be an engineering constraint. The other is a strategic choice; with iOS holding a market share of nearly 55% in the U.S., X's core user base being in the U.S., prioritizing iOS means focusing on their core user base rather than engaging in direct competition with Android-dominated emerging markets and WhatsApp.


These two interpretations are not mutually exclusive, leading to the same result: X Chat's debut saw it willingly forfeit 73% of the global smartphone user base.


Elon Musk's "Super App"


This matter has been described by some: X Chat, along with X Money and Grok, forms a trifecta creating a closed-loop data system parallel to the existing infrastructure, similar in concept to the WeChat ecosystem. This assessment is not new, but with X Chat's launch, it's worth revisiting the schematic.



X Chat generates communication metadata, including information on who is talking to whom, for how long, and how frequently. This data flows into X's identity system. Part of the message content goes through the Ask Grok feature and enters Grok's processing chain. Financial transactions are handled by X Money: external public testing was completed in March, opening to the public in April, enabling fiat peer-to-peer transfers via Visa Direct. A senior Fireblocks executive confirmed plans for cryptocurrency payments to go live by the end of the year, holding money transmitter licenses in over 40 U.S. states currently.


Every WeChat feature operates within China's regulatory framework. Musk's system operates within Western regulatory frameworks, but he also serves as the head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). This is not a WeChat replica; it is a reenactment of the same logic under different political conditions.


The difference is that WeChat has never explicitly claimed to be "end-to-end encrypted" on its main interface, whereas X Chat does. "End-to-end encryption" in user perception means that no one, not even the platform, can see your messages. X Chat's architectural design does not meet this user expectation, but it uses this term.


X Chat consolidates the three data lines of "who this person is, who they are talking to, and where their money comes from and goes to" in one company's hands.


The help page sentence has never been just technical instructions.


Popular coins

Latest Crypto News

Read more