[umanwizard]

99.99% of people who create and share things via the internet do so via centralized social media providers, and that would continue to be true if the whole world were magically IPv6-only.

I think it’d be nice to self-host things to, but it’s inaccurate and even a bit insulting to claim that the millions of people creating content on the internet today don’t exist.

[throw0101b]

> I think it’d be nice to self-host things to, but it’s inaccurate and even a bit insulting to claim that the millions of people creating content on the internet today don’t exist.

It's not just about self-hosting, but peer-to-peer clients as well.

When Skype originally came out it was P2P, but because of NAT they created (ran?) "super-nodes" that could do things like STUN/TURN/ICE. Wouldn't it be nice to be able to (e.g.) communicate with folks without a central authoritative server that could be warranted by various regimes?

[umanwizard]

I agree! I was just taking issue with the overly broad claim that being behind NAT only lets you consume, not create.

[JohnFen]

And then there are people like myself who host publicly-available internet services from my home internet service that's absolutely behind CGNAT. That makes things a bit more hassle to get working, but it's certainly possible.