Farcaster, the decentralized social network being repositioned as the Network State Protocol, is introducing a social contract that sets explicit rules for participation, according to an October 16 report by BitcoinKE. The new framework includes restrictions on hate speech, death threats, scams, stalking, and repeated harassment.

Users who decline to accept the terms will not be locked out of the network entirely. They can retain read-only access through the main application, and they remain free to move their keys, funds, followers, and post history to another client built on the protocol — an option that keeps the exit path open for anyone unwilling to operate under the new rules. That portability is a key differentiator from conventional social networks, where leaving a platform generally means leaving its data and audience behind.

A Broader Redefinition of Decentralization

The changes reflect a broader shift in how decentralization is being defined. Rather than focusing exclusively on blockchain infrastructure and resistance to corporate control, the debate is increasingly about who sets community rules, who controls access, and who determines how users interact.

Farcaster's approach is built around the idea that online communities can develop shared rules and eventually extend them into physical societies. Alongside the social contract, the platform also plans to introduce AI-powered moderation and to progressively require users to verify that they are human.

The move highlights a tension at the heart of decentralized social media: an open protocol does not necessarily guarantee unrestricted participation within individual applications. In practice, decentralized networks can allow users to move between competing clients while still giving application operators discretion over moderation and access.

The practical value of that freedom, however, depends on whether users can retain their audiences, identities, and social connections when they leave one client for another.

A Model for Community-Level Governance

Farcaster's transition could help establish a model in which communities exercise greater control over membership and conduct without requiring a single application to govern the entire network. At the same time, it raises questions about how much power application operators should retain over users who depend on their services.

That distinction is becoming increasingly important as decentralized social platforms seek to offer alternatives to conventional networks, where companies typically control both the underlying infrastructure and the rules governing participation.

For Farcaster, the test will be whether users can retain meaningful control over their digital identities and relationships while communities enforce their own rules.

The outcome, the report notes, could help shape whether decentralization is ultimately defined primarily by open technology, by user ownership, or by the ability of communities to govern themselves. How the planned AI moderation and human-verification requirements are implemented — and whether users choose to exercise their portability options — will offer a practical measure of the new framework in action.