[flir]

> Decentralization limits monetization of anything, so that is going to be a non-starter for investment of resources. Unless you are trying to have your infrastructure survive a nuclear war, no one is going to provide the means to build anything big unless you can sell it or the users of it.

I'll go further: centralised systems can emulate decentralised systems, but not vice versa. Thus, ultimately, the only USP of a decentralised system is that it is decentralised for the sake of being decentralised, and nobody cares much about that. Centralisation is inevitable, and wins out every time.

[int_19h]

They can pretend to be decentralized, but they can't emulate the lack of centralized authority.

People certainly care enough about centralization once it's consistently abused in ways that hurt them (which always happens eventually, given enough time). Our existing anti-monopoly laws came about like that.

[flir]

Signal jumps to mind.

Plus I don't see much evidence people care. This argument reminds me of Accelerationism, which doesn't seem to work either.

[int_19h]

People start to care on the edges (e.g. social networks), but there simply isn't enough abuse wrt email yet for opposition to register.