Well do you want decentralization or not?

IMO This is like people complaining that multiple Linux distros exist.

the_biot 13 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I thought I did. It worked fantastically well for email and the web, why not this? But it didn't for the reasons I stated (IMHO), and even worse -- even when twitter finally imploded it didn't take over at all.

▲

NaomiLehman a day ago | parent | prev [-]

I think that most people don't want decentralization. Most decentralized systems have bad UX.

The issue is monopolies.

▲

ranger_danger a day ago | parent [-]

What solution is there, if not monopolies or decentralization?

▲

port11 16 hours ago | parent | next [-]

One solution would be smaller cathedrals. Not everyone wants to go to the bazaar to pick what works for them; but most everyone would benefit if there was a limit to how encompassing a tech company can get.

Network effects are also somehow not working very well for decentralised things, possibly because everyone wants to fork Product X but no one wants to improve it for added discoverability or less bugs.

	▲	15 hours ago \| parent [-]
		[deleted]

▲

NaomiLehman 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

there are different solutions to different problems.

for example Substack is a good upgrade to social media. It's centralized, but people have to pay their favorite writers. They do this to avoid bs, ads, being a product. The important part of Substack is that if the platform screw the authors over, they have control over their email lists (unlike social media), and they can just move somewhere else.

So a platform like Substack is a move in the right direction vs. something like Twitter.