Putting social applications on @Plasma , the first reaction is often: inappropriate. Not because of insufficient throughput, quite the opposite, but because social interactions are most afraid of being 'invisible'.
Plasma is strong at the execution layer, with fast state updates and low costs, but its attitude towards data availability has always been conservative. The fact that transaction results can be adjudicated by the mainnet does not mean that the process data will necessarily be online in the long term. Social interactions, on the other hand, are exactly the opposite; likes, comments, and follower relationships are essentially not about the 'ownership of money,' but rather about public memory. If content disappears because the data was not fully published, it is catastrophic for social interactions.
This means that if one uses Plasma for social interactions, one must accept a reality: Plasma cannot be the final destination for data. You either put the content data on an external layer #DA or simply put '#权属 ' or '#指纹 ' into Plasma, handing the real content over to systems like IPFS or Celestia. Plasma is responsible for 'who has the right to speak, who owns a certain social state,' not 'what everyone can see.'
From this perspective, Plasma is more suitable as a ledger layer for social interactions, rather than the timeline itself. For example, relationships with fans, creator permissions, and the order confirmation of content hashes all have less extreme requirements for data availability, yet need frequent updates.
So the answer is not 'can it be done,' but rather 'which layer to place it on.'
If you expect Plasma to carry complete social data by itself, it is almost destined to fail; but if you treat Plasma as a low-cost state adjudicator, allowing data to go elsewhere, it may actually become the most underestimated piece of the puzzle in decentralized social interactions.
