The dispute between President Donald Trump and Twitter has sparked a heated debate about the legality of Twitter’s actions. Ethereum founder Vitalik Buterin expresses strong concerns about whether centralized social networks can guarantee real freedom of speech and press. Buterin calls for a block-chain-based decentralized alternative that offers real freedom from censorship.

A few days ago a fierce dispute broke out between the President of the United States of America, Donald Trump, and Twitter. The social network had marked a tweet from Trump as “allegedly false content” due to allegedly false facts. Trump described in a tweet on Tuesday that during the last presidential elections mailboxes were robbed, ballot papers were falsified and even illegally printed and signed.

Because of the tweet’s labeling, Trump even threatened to close Twitter immediately, emphasizing that the time is ripe for alternatives that actually offer freedom of speech and censorship. The founder of Ethereum, Vitalik Buterin, also agreed with this view.

While Buterin dissociated himself from the content of Trump’s deleted tweets, he emphasized that centralized social networks can influence political opinion in a targeted manner and steer public opinion in a desired direction. Buterin explains that the development clearly shows that a block chain-based alternative must be the solution.

In the long run I am pessimistic about the ability of centralized social media platforms to remain highly independent of the political environment of the country they are in. This only shows even more why we need an alternative.

The current political debate and the waves of censorship on YouTube against Bitcoin or other crypto-based content illustrate the continuing rise in demand for alternatives. The decentralized social network Minds was already founded in 2015 and is based on the Ethereum Blockchain. Minds CEO Bill Ottmann explained that fact-checking is the most used approach of big tech companies like Facebook or Twitter to dictate the real truth.

He sharply criticizes this approach, as selected teams from mainstream media and politics are engaged for the fact-check, which primarily sort out system-critical opinions

As for the warnings on ‘fact-checking’, most big tech’s approach has been to hand-pick selected orgs and mainstream media for this work, which is clearly subject to bias.