[_m8fo]

Isn't the web already inherently decentralized (of course we all know there are forces trying to create their own walled gardens)? In the end, you just have to make something better that requires decentralization, and then it will win. In this way, the "survival of the fittest" for memes holds.

What's a problem that only a decentralized web can solve?

- Privacy? (Most) People don't care. Irrelevant.

- Security? (Most) People don't care. Irrelevant.

etc.

Even Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies would be irrelevant if it were not for their volatility, resulting in speculation, creating a feedback loop.

[detaro]

I thought the article pretty clearly framed the problem they try to solve as "benefits of connectivity for places and situations that don't have direct or regular connectivity to the internet (and thus no reliable access to centralized services)".

[_m8fo]

I don't see the relevance of this comment to my original point. Also, why do you need a whole new "internet" to make what you describe (and the article describes) as an offline application?

[the_common_man]

I keep hearing this "people don't care" argument but this is not at all true. People very much care. It's easy to be in one's bubble and assume that nobody cares because everyone around you is handing out data left and right.

Education and messaging are obviously required to make the general public care but even companies like Slack went through this phase where they had to educate people about the product. But tbh, the real problem is that the solutions just aren't good enough and convenient. Tell me today, what is a good solution for me or average joe to keep all my data to myself without giving it to the big G and at the same time have a good experience sharing it with friends and family? I would love to hear proper solutions.

For example, people would _love_ to use firefox for privacy and security reasons but they aren't because firefox is not good enough compared to chrome.

[_m8fo]

Are you actually disagreeing with me? If people cared the product would be good. The lack of a good product reflects the apathy. As for your question, the two are inherently at odds. People prefer the later to the former. That's my point.