[neiman]

> By making the protocol centralized and stupid-simple, it's also stupid-simple to replace in when everyone is done painting the perfect bikeshed.

Can you recall any example of anyone replacing a centralized protocol with a decentralized one?

[ncallaway]

Didn’t Bluesky ship centralized, and then later replaced the centralized protocol with the decentralized at proto?

[neiman]

Did they? Heh, I didn't know that. But I thought they launched with the AT protocol already, no?

[ncallaway]

They did, which is why it seems like a relevant example to your question. They shipped centralized, and have already replaced the centralized service they shipped with a decentralized service.

[threeseed]

Threads sits on top of the Instagram infrastructure.

And they have added ActivityPub integration moving everything closer to decentralisation.

Given how much of a win-win for Meta it is it wouldn't surprise me to see all their networks move in that direction.

[troupo]

> Given how much of a win-win for Meta

How much?

> to see all their networks move in that direction.

Why would they? What exactly will the move entail?

[threeseed]

a) They can monetise content that didn't originate on their platform.

b) It shifts regulators attention from them to closed platforms like X.

c) They can leverage their advantages e.g. ad serving, safety to push competitors into niches.

[troupo]

> They can monetise content that didn't originate on their platform.

They have been doing it for years.

> It shifts regulators attention from them to closed platforms like X.

It doesn't. Threads is just as closed (despite integrating an open protocol), and is still subject to the same scrutiny and provisions as the rest of Meta's products.

> They can leverage their advantages e.g. ad serving, safety to push competitors into niches.

So, let me get it straight. Facebook gained so much from adopting a decentralized protocol so they will inevitably move in the same direction that:

- they will use it to remain the only centralized service?

- they will use it to do the same thing they do before (serve ads, collect user data etc.) but somehow will be absolved of regulations and scrutiny?

[mgraczyk]

Facebook messenger is not completely decentralized, but it is E2E encrypted now after years of struggle with governments and UX. It's definitely possible to move centralized systems to be more decentralized.

[rglullis]

How is that an answer to the question?

[mgraczyk]

It's an example of somebody replacing a centralized protocol with a more decentralized one. It's also one of the biggest direct messaging platforms in the world with E2E encryption.

[troupo]

How is it decentralized? It's running from and through Facebook servers.

[mgraczyk]

Facebook cannot read your messages, so it is more decentralized than a system that stores messages in plaintext (or stores the decryption keys).

[alternatex]

That's not what decentralized means though. This whole comment thread is unclear on whether decentralization or encryption is what's desired.

[DaSHacka]

Seems like its simply a more private option

it being encrypted but routed through a single companies servers means its just as centralized as if it were unencrypted though

[wmf]

Bluesky.