2026-01-07 05:20:38

Recently, the Ugandan government announced plans to ban a decentralized communication app supported by a prominent figure, but the developers directly pushed back — this is worth discussing.

On the surface, this appears to be another round of confrontation between governments and new technologies. But what it really reflects is a key characteristic of decentralized applications: they are difficult to shut down easily. Unlike traditional communication software, these applications have data nodes distributed worldwide. If the government shuts down one, technically, other nodes can continue operating. That’s also why developers dare to push back so hard — from a technical architecture perspective, it’s not a problem that can be solved with a simple "one-click ban."

However, this move has inadvertently given decentralized communication apps some unexpected publicity. Being able to "resist" government control during politically sensitive times naturally attracts a lot of attention. But there’s a practical issue to consider: similar projects have existed before, some defeated by physical network disconnections, others forced to compromise due to political pressure. Having a technology that resists censorship doesn’t guarantee long-term survival.

Another often overlooked point is user scale. Many anti-censorship apps sound cool, but their actual user base is far smaller than mainstream communication platforms. The concept is attractive, but real-world implementation is another story. The real test lies ahead — whether these apps can survive under political pressure and how many genuine users they can accumulate.

In summary, the decentralized communication sector is indeed heating up, but don’t get carried away by the hype. The Uganda incident has prompted everyone to reassess the value and limitations of anti-censorship apps, and it also reminds investors to view this field more calmly.

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

23 Likes

Reward
23
10
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

SellTheBounce

· 01-09 15:01

It sounds great, but history tends to repeat itself—how many censorship-resistant projects end up compromising in the end? No matter how advanced the technical architecture is, when faced with real political pressure, they still kneel. Concepts are always more appealing than reality; user numbers are the true measure. Another hype cycle has been pumped up, and I’m waiting to see who will be the last to survive. Developers boldly confronting the government is cool, but endurance is the real test—how long can this show go on? Every day, they boast about resisting censorship, but as soon as a political wind blows, they collapse. I've seen this pattern many times. Don’t be fooled by the story; ask yourself how many people around you are actually using this stuff. Sell when it rebounds, and the same applies this time—once the hype is over, it’s dead. Technical prowess is impressive, but the government is more ruthless than you think; history has already proven this. In the face of physical internet shutdowns, decentralization also has to admit defeat—I see this as the inevitable outcome.

View OriginalReply0

BuyTheTop

· 01-08 07:06

Sounds impressive, but how many people actually use it? The concept is being hyped up like crazy.

View OriginalReply0

BlockchainBard

· 01-07 10:27

It sounds tough, but how many can actually survive?

View OriginalReply0

TeaTimeTrader

· 01-07 05:50

Sounds good, but where are the real users? Just resisting censorship isn't enough.

View OriginalReply0

ContractTearjerker

· 01-07 05:47

Technological resistance is always romantic, but reality is more brutal... Everything is fragile in the face of physical disconnection from the internet.

View OriginalReply0

SatoshiHeir

· 01-07 05:43

It should be pointed out that resisting censorship ≠ survival. Historical documents repeatedly prove this point. --- The fundamental technology is decentralization, but human nature is inherently compromising. The Uganda incident is a microcosm of this. --- Laughed again, another project praised as a groundbreaking concept. But on-chain data shows the number of real users? --- Satoshi Nakamoto's white paper never mentioned the variable "political will." It's time for a lesson. --- Obviously, distributed nodes sound cool, but they are useless in the face of physical network disconnection. --- Undoubtedly, this is a good story, but can the story exchange for real money? --- Based on historical precedents, the death rate of such projects is ridiculously high. Don’t be brainwashed by media narratives. --- The key issue is buried too deep in the article—user scale is the ultimate variable.

View OriginalReply0

BridgeJumper

· 01-07 05:42

Oh my God, it's that same "our technology is invincible" rhetoric again... It sounds great to listen to, but what about at critical moments? In the face of physical internet disconnection, everything is useless. That's what they say, but I want to ask—do users really care about decentralization? Or is it just for novelty? It's just another wave of marketing; the government banning it actually gives it free advertising. Clever. Censorship resistance is the right direction, but we need to survive first... Just having advanced technology is useless. The fact that major nodes are distributed globally is impressive, but the base is too small—that's the real bottleneck. Honestly, I remain bearish; past lessons are here. How many have truly persisted? Don't be fooled by developers' bravado; the key is having an ecosystem and users. We're still far from that. The most satisfying part of these incidents is the media and speculators; the projects that are actually doing work have fallen silent.

View OriginalReply0

RektButAlive

· 01-07 05:41

Sounds good, but history tells us that good stories often die in execution. --- Technical architecture is indeed tough, but what if the government really pulls the plug on the internet cables? --- Another project forced to go mainstream, marketing perspective is indeed brilliant. --- The key is still user volume; decentralization is useless if no one uses it. --- Developers are tough, but I'm worried they'll compromise even faster later on. --- These types of applications always repeat the same routine at every boom, it's hilarious. --- Let's wait and see; only a few will survive in five years. --- Concepts are always more attractive than reality; a rising track is just routine operation. --- The real test is the moment the government turns hostile, not now. --- It looks like a victory for decentralization, but it might actually just be traffic harvesting.

View OriginalReply0

VirtualRichDream

· 01-07 05:40

It sounds cool, but not many people actually use it. This is the current state of Web3.

View OriginalReply0

AllInAlice

· 01-07 05:39

It sounds awesome, but how many people actually use it? That's the real issue.

View OriginalReply0