Design Document: The Distributed Dunbar Protocol (DDP)

J. Rogers, SE Ohio 

Version 1.0 - Human-Scale Social Architecture

1. Abstract

Current social media architectures fail because they conflate broadcasting (one-to-many) with community (many-to-many). By allowing unlimited connectivity, they create environments ripe for radicalization, harassment pile-ons, and algorithmic manipulation.

The Distributed Dunbar Protocol (DDP) proposes a novel network architecture that enforces biological limits on social interaction while retaining the efficiency of mass information dissemination. This system separates the "Intimacy Layer" (social graph) from the "Broadcast Layer" (news feed), utilizing temporal throttling and federated commenting to eliminate global echo chambers while preserving local discourse.

2. System Objectives

1. Enforce Human Scale: Restrict social interaction to a cognitive limit (~150 connections) to preserve context and accountability.
2. Eliminate the Global Pile-On: Mechanically prevent large-scale harassment mobs and virtue signaling.
3. Decouple Consumption from Contribution: Allow users to consume unlimited information without contributing to social noise.
4. Prioritize Quality over Velocity: Use throttling to slow down discourse, reducing reactive rage and promoting reflection.

3. Core Architecture

The DDP consists of two distinct, parallel layers that operate on different rulesets.

Layer A: The Intimacy Layer (The "Circle")

• Connection Limit: Hard cap of 150 connections (bi-directional "friends").
• Visibility: Users only see posts and comments from their 150 connections.
• Identification: Participation in this layer requires verification (Proof of Humanity).
• Purpose: High-trust, high-context social interaction. This is the "Village."

Layer B: The Broadcast Layer (The "Emitter")

• Connection Limit: Unlimited. Users can subscribe to as many Broadcast Emitters as they wish.
• Structure: One-to-many data stream. Examples: News organizations, public figures, emergency services, hobbyists.
• Purpose: Consumption of information and culture. This is the "Newspaper/Radio."

---

4. Interaction Protocols

This section defines how users interact within the DDP. The fundamental innovation is the separation of Broadcasting from Response.

4.1. The Broadcast Emitter

Any user may opt to create a Broadcast Emitter.

• Function: Emitters push content (text, video, links) to all subscribers.
• Scope: The reach is global/unlimited.
• Limitation: An Emitter is a "Firehose." It accepts input from the creator, but it does not accept incoming comments.

4.2. The Federated Reply System

The critical design choice of DDP is how comments are handled. Direct commenting on Broadcast content is disabled.

When a user wishes to discuss a piece of Broadcast content, they engage in a Federated Reply:

1. The Action: User A reads an article from "The Daily News Emitter."
2. The Post: User A writes a reaction/comment.
3. The Routing: This comment is NOT posted to "The Daily News." It is posted exclusively to User A's Intimacy Layer (their 150 followers).
4. The Context: The comment is bundled with a reference/link to the original article.
5. The Effect: User A's 150 friends see User A's take on the news. They do not see the takes of thousands of strangers.

Result:

• No Global Comments Section: This eliminates the primary vector for toxicity, bot farms, and ad hominem attacks on broadcasters.
• Local Discourse: Discussions occur in trusted circles (friends), not in the public square.

4.3. Temporal & Spatial Throttling

To prevent spam and the "rapid-fire" nature of outrage, DDP enforces strict limitations on posting frequency.

• Spatial Throttling (Char count/limit): Posts are concise. The system prioritizes signal over noise. (e.g., 500 char limit for standard posts).
• Temporal Throttling (Time delay):
  • Rate Limit: A user can only post to their Intimacy Layer once every X minutes (e.g., 15 minutes).
  • Burst Penalty: Rapid successive posts trigger a "cool down" period where posting is disabled for an hour.
  • Purpose: Rage is fast. Reason is slow. By forcing a pause between thoughts, the system disincentivizes reactive flaming and encourages intentional communication.

---

5. User Experience & Workflows

Scenario 1: The Passive Consumer (The "Lurker")

• Action: User logs in. Subscribes to 50 Emitters (News, Tech, Art).
• Experience: They see a clean feed of content from the Emitters. They read the news.
• Interaction: They cannot comment (or choose not to verify ID). They consume information in peace. Zero data is harvested on their reading habits.

Scenario 2: The Social Connector (The "Villager")

• Action: User logs in (Verified ID). Checks Intimacy Layer.
• Experience: Sees updates from their 150 actual friends. Reads thoughtful replies about news articles shared by friends.
• Interaction: Shares a thought. Because of Temporal Throttling, they must wait 15 minutes before posting again. They use that time to refine their thought.

Scenario 3: The Broadcaster (The "Journalist")

• Action: Creates an Emitter. Publishes an article on a controversial topic.
• Outcome: The article is read by 10,000 people.
• Protection: The Broadcaster receives zero direct comments or emails. Their notifications are empty.
• Feedback: The Broadcaster sees how many people subscribed (growth) and how many people "Federated Replied" (shared the article to their friends), but they are insulated from the abuse.

---

6. Mechanism of Defense

This architecture neutralizes modern social media pathogens through structural constraints.

6.1. Prevention of "Pile-Ons"

• Current Mechanism: A user is targeted; 5,000 hostile users flood their comments.
• DDP Mechanism: A user can only be attacked by their 150 friends. An outsider cannot inject hate into the user's feed. To be harassed, the harasser must first trick the user into accepting them as a friend (bumping someone else out of the 150 cap).

6.2. Elimination of "Purity Spirals"

• Current Mechanism: Users compete to post the most extreme take to gain Likes from strangers.
• DDP Mechanism: The audience is fixed at 150. Status signaling is limited to known peers. "Out-extreming" your neighbors in a small group usually results in social sanction, not reward.

6.3. The "Federated Reply" as a Filter

• Current Mechanism: The comments section is a dumpster fire of low-context aggression.
• DDP Mechanism: When a friend shares an article with a hot take, you know the friend. You know their context. If they are being unreasonable, you engage with them personally. If the "News" is inflammatory, it is filtered through the buffer of your friend's personality. You are not exposed to the raw, manipulative headline without a trusted intermediary.

7. Conclusion

The Distributed Dunbar Protocol accepts a trade-off: it sacrifices global viral reach for social stability.

By strictly enforcing the 150-connection limit, the system acknowledges that human empathy does not scale. By utilizing Federated Replies, it acknowledges that public debate is broken, but private discourse is functional.

In this system, you can broadcast to the world, but you can only argue with your neighbors. And you can only do so slowly. This friction is not a bug; it is the primary feature that preserves the sanity of the network.  Appendix A: How to implement right now as a modified Mastodon Instance

Here is exactly how to modify a Mastodon instance to turn it into a DDP Node:

1. The "Intimacy Layer" Mod (The Hard Cap)

Standard Mastodon lets you follow thousands.

• The Mod: You change the server-side logic to strictly reject a new "Follow" request if the user is already following 150 people.

• The Code: A simple if (following_count >= 150) return error check in the relationship controller.

• The UX: The "Follow" button becomes grayed out once you hit your cap, forcing you to Unfollow (make a choice) before you can Follow a new friend.

2. The "Broadcast Layer" Mod (Integration)

This is the beauty of using ActivityPub.

• Interop: Your DDP users can subscribe to any existing Mastodon user, Lemmy community, or WordPress blog (with the ActivityPub plugin).

• The "Broadcaster" Flag: You add a flag to accounts. If an account is external (e.g., @breakingnews@cnn.com) or flagged as a "Broadcaster," the system exempts them from the 150-friend cap.

• Result: You solve the "Empty Platform" problem on Day 1. Your users can already follow millions of existing accounts, but they can only socialize with 150 accounts.

3. The "Federated Reply" Mod (The Critical Change)

This is the most important technical tweak.

• Standard Behavior: When you reply to a post in Mastodon, the server sends the reply to your followers AND to the person you replied to.

• DDP Behavior: You modify the Federation logic.

  • IF user is replying to a "Broadcaster" account...

  • THEN set visibility to followers_only.

  • AND do not deliver the activity to the Broadcaster's inbox.

• Effect: The Broadcaster never gets the notification. The harassment vector is severed at the protocol level.

4. The "Throttling" Mod

Standard Mastodon has rate limits to prevent DDOS, but not for social engineering.

• The Mod: Add a timestamp check on the "Post" button.

• last_posted_time = user.last_post

• if (now - last_posted_time < 15_minutes) return "Chill out for " + remaining_time

Why this approach wins:

Building a social network from scratch is impossible because of the Network Effect (nobody joins because nobody is there).

By building DDP as a Modified Mastodon Instance:

1. Day 1 Content: Your users have access to the entire existing Fediverse (millions of users/news bots) for their Broadcast layer.

2. Day 1 Function: The software stack (iOS apps, Android apps, Web UI) already exists. You just patch the server.

3. Low Cost: You don't need venture capital. You just need a $20/month VPS to host your specific "Village" node.

It effectively becomes a "Client-Side Filter" for the chaotic Fediverse, enforcing discipline on a messy world.

  

By renaming the "Send" button to "Save to Queue" and routing it through a Drafts folder, you turn the act of posting into a Two-Stage Process. This separates the "Hot Self" (the one feeling the emotion) from the "Cool Self" (the one living with the consequences).

Here is why the "Drafts Folder as a Holding Pen" is the killer feature of this system:

1. The "Morning After" Effect

You know that rule people have about never sending an angry email late at night? "Write it, sleep on it, and decide in the morning"? Your system enforces this automatically.

• The Hot Self (1:05 PM): You are furious. You type a scathing, brilliant takedown of your opponent. You hit the button. You feel the rush of satisfaction.
• The Interim (1:06 PM - 1:59 PM): You go do something else. The adrenaline fades. The logic centers of your brain come back online.
• The Cool Self (2:00 PM): The system notifies you: "You have 1 post ready to send."
• The Review: You open the Drafts folder. You read what you wrote. **"Whoa. That was harsh. I don't actually want to be that person."*
• The Result: You delete it or tone it down. The original post never sees the light of day.

2. The "Editor" Persona

In publishing, the writer and the editor are two different jobs.

• The Writer is chaotic, emotional, messy.
• The Editor is cold, ruthless, and focused on quality.

Social media merges them into one panicked finger tapping a glass screen. Your system splits them back up.

• When you type, you are the Writer.
• When you open the Drafts folder an hour later, you are the Editor.
• The Editor looks at the Writer's work and says, "This is going to get us fired. Let's fix it."

3. The "Sobriety Check" for Words

Alcohol impairs judgment. Anger impairs judgment exactly the same way. The Drafts folder acts like a Breathalyzer. It doesn't stop you from drinking (feeling angry), but it stops you from driving (posting) until you are sober again.

If you open the draft and you are still angry and you still think it's a good idea? Go ahead and hit send. But at least now you've made the decision with a clear head.

4. The Neurodivergent Advantage (Context Translation)

For an autistic person, this Drafts folder is a Translation Buffer.

• Direct Draft: "Your idea is logically flawed because A, B, and C. It is stupid to believe this." (This is the literal truth).
• The Review: "Wait, this might hurt their feelings."
• The Edit: "I see where you're coming from, but I think A, B, and C suggest a different perspective." (This is the socially adapted truth).

The cooldown period gives you the time to run that "Social Simulation" in your head that allows you to translate your thoughts into language that won't trigger the Double-Bind.

5. The "Abandoned Draft" Metric

The system could even show you a stat: "Abandoned Drafts: 5."

• That isn't a failure stat. That is a success stat.
• It means the system saved you from 5 potential arguments, 5 hurt feelings, and 5 embarrassments.
• It validates that feeling angry is natural, but acting on it isn't necessary.

Summary

By making the user physically return to the Drafts folder to approve the message, you force them to take ownership of their words a second time. Most people post impulsively and then have to apologize later (or double down). Your system flips it: Regret first, post later.

If you don't want to go back to the folder to approve it, it wasn't worth saying.