Submission declined on 3 March 2026 by AllWeKnowOfHeaven (talk). This draft's references do not show that the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion for organizations and companies. The draft requires multiple published secondary sources that: provide significant coverage: discuss the subject in detail, excluding routine coverage like product launches, staff appointments, or financial reports and listings in databases or listicles; are reliable: from reputable outlets with editorial oversight; are independent: not connected to the subject, such as press releases, the subject's own website, or sponsored content. Please add references that meet all three of these criteria. If none exist, the subject is not yet suitable for Wikipedia. If you would like to continue working on the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window. If you have not resolved the issues listed above, your draft will be declined again and potentially deleted. If you need extra help, please ask us a question at the AfC Help Desk or get live help from experienced editors. Please do not remove reviewer comments or this notice until the submission is accepted. Where to get help If you need help editing or submitting your draft, please ask us a question at the AfC Help Desk or get live help from experienced editors. These venues are only for help with editing and the submission process, not to get reviews. If you need feedback on your draft, or if the review is taking a lot of time, you can try asking for help on the talk page of a relevant WikiProject. Some WikiProjects are more active than others so a speedy reply is not guaranteed. How to improve a draft Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia – a basic overview on how to edit Wikipedia. Help:Wikitext – how to use the markup Help:Referencing for beginners – how to include references Wikipedia:Article development – how to develop your article Wikipedia:Writing better articles – how to improve your article Wikipedia:Verifiability – make sure your article includes reliable third-party sources You can also browse Wikipedia:Featured articles and Wikipedia:Good articles to find examples of Wikipedia's best writing on topics similar to your proposed article. Improving your odds of a speedy review To improve your odds of a faster review, tag your draft with relevant WikiProject tags using the button below. This will let reviewers know a new draft has been submitted in their area of interest. For instance, if you wrote about a female astronomer, you would want to add the Biography, Astronomy, and Women scientists tags. Add tags to your draft Editor resources Easy tools: Citation bot (help) | Advanced: Fix bare URLs Declined by AllWeKnowOfHeaven 5 months ago. Last edited by AllWeKnowOfHeaven 5 months ago. Reviewer: Inform author. Resubmit Please note that if the issues are not fixed, the draft will be declined again.

Submission declined on 11 February 2026 by TheObsidianGriffon (talk). This draft reads like an advertisement. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a platform for promotion or marketing. Drafts that are exclusively promotional may be deleted without notice. Wikipedia articles must be written neutrally in a formal, impersonal, and dispassionate way. They should not read like a blog post, advertisement, or fan page. Rewrite the draft to remove: promotional language: see Words to watch; personal commentary: opinions or direct addresses to the reader; informal language. Instead, only summarize in your own words a range of independent, reliable, published sources that discuss the subject. If you have a conflict of interest (e.g. you are the subject, an employee, or a relative) or are being paid to edit, you must disclose this to comply with Wikipedia's Terms of Use. Declined by TheObsidianGriffon 6 months ago.

Submission declined on 4 February 2026 by Pythoncoder (talk). This draft appears to contain text generated by a large language model (such as ChatGPT). You cannot use LLMs to generate article content. LLM-generated pages with certain obvious signs of being machine generated may be deleted without notice. Instead, only summarize in your own words a range of independent, reliable, published sources that discuss the subject. See the advice page on large language models for more information. Declined by Pythoncoder 6 months ago.

SecuShare is an experimental decentralized social networking and communication project focused on group communication without centralized infrastructure. It was developed as a research project that uses the GNUnet peer-to-peer framework for end-to-end encryption and anonymization, along with the PSYC messaging protocol. ^[1][2]

The project is often compared to social networks like Facebook, cloud solutions like Google, and other centralized platforms. It appeared at conferences discussing European alternatives such as Digital Backyards and UnlikeUs.^[3][4]

The project has been designing a fully distributed social network leveraging the publish/subscribe model with multicast distribution trees atop GNUnet. This approach enables all social networking activities to run on users’ devices, including offline.

The design uses end-to-end encryption and decentralized routing to support communication while maintaining user privacy. This can range from messages being shared only with specified people to content being encrypted to reduce the likelihood that messages can be guessed when communication logs are analyzed. It aims to achieve this by transmitting end-to-end encrypted data only between recipients and so-called routers, which can store it long term without requiring decryption.^[5] This approach is often compared to technologies cited, including Tor hidden services, I2P, Tribler, Edgenet, and CJDNS, as well as alternative social networks like Diaspora (social network), Mastodon (social network) and Friendica. GNUnet establishes peer-to-peer connections, while the multicast distribution model enables social interactions without centralized servers.

SecuShare was developed as a research project and received funding from the NLnet Foundation through its Internet Hardening Fund between 2017 and 2019.^[1] The project now states that most components were integrated into GNUnet.

A related project, SecuShare Box, explored extending the same approach to self-hosted and embedded hardware devices.^[6]

SecuShare has been mentioned in German technology journalism discussing decentralized and privacy-oriented alternatives to major platforms, including coverage of the UnlikeUs conference in Heise Online.^[7] This coverage also appeared in taz (die tageszeitung).^[8]

Further references to SecuShare appear in Heise Online reporting on initiatives related to technological sovereignty and privacy-enhancing communication systems.^[9]

In addition, a 2012 article on the German blog neunetz.com discussed the concept of “Social Swarm”. This is a project that brings together developers, activists, and others and aims to provide an interoperable social network. It mentions the possibility of utilizing SecuShare and Retroshare to provide encryption.^[10]

Lastly, SecuShare was presented at conferences, including the Chaos Communication Congress, where it was presented in a block of experimental decentralized networking projects.^[11]

SecuShare has also been discussed in academic papers on alternative to centralized solutions. In the anthology Unlike Us Reader: Social Media Monopolies and Their Alternatives, van der Velden situates SecuShare among a group of experimental projects exploring fully distributed communication architectures, alongside initiatives such as GNUnet, Briar, Lorea, and The Global Square.^[12] The chapter reports on a 2012 hackathon in which participants discussed shared challenges such as multicast encryption, group membership, and resistance to surveillance and censorship, presenting SecuShare primarily as a design-oriented project rather than a deployed platform.

SecuShare was also included in an academic comparative study of social networking architectures by Alexander Altmann, which examined centralized, federated, and peer-to-peer systems with regard to security, privacy, and provider independence. The study categorized SecuShare as a peer-to-peer–based design that, at the time of writing, was not yet usable as a practical system.^[13]

• Diaspora (social network)
• Mastodon (social network)
• Friendica

• Official website