>Maybe it's just me being older and more cynical but I really don't think most people care about control either, at least not in large enough numbers to matter. I'd be happy to be wrong, of course.

Given that I'm in my mid-fifties, I'm guessing that cynicism has little to do with your age.

I'm not especially sanguine about the masses being all that concerned about control or centralization vs. decentralization either.

That said, I do believe (perhaps I'm just not cynical enough yet...and I hope I never am) that providing those "most people" with an alternative that allows them to maintain the connections they have (via federation with centralized services) and the added value of controlling their own experience using a tool that's simple to use and ubiquitous (think bundled web browsers), they'd jump (or rather use what you dump in their lap) at it.

>Not at all. But I am building something in this space, with decentralization/anonymity as a priority. It is entirely possible for me to be in full support of a move towards decentralized services while accepting the reality that it's not important to most people. Pragmatism does not equal defeatism.

Fair enough. My primary point in posting this "Ask HN" bit was to spur discussion about both the societal and technical issues surrounding decentralized network services in general, and SN services in particular.

Especially since the centralized models we see today are the result of artificial barriers to direct interaction. Those are partly due to software/platform advances that have outpaced the consumer internet access infrastructure (that's not an accident -- it's not a nefarious plot either, just monopsonies attempting to protect their privileged status) and the co-opting of FOSS for corporate use (again, not a nefarious plot, just folks limiting their economic exposure by using free stuff), combined with the fact that marketers will pay big bucks for eyeballs on their messaging and even bigger bucks for their messaging to reach their "target" market.

All of this, combined with the vertical integration of network and content providers has created a "broadcast" mode for most Internet services.

All of which is bad for creativity, content creation/distribution, freedom of expression and real (rather than highly filtered/curated) human interaction.

Do I have all the answers? No.

But I do have the suspicion that by solving the technical challenges that keep folks in these centralized silos, we can create a better, more open and more equitable environment on the 'net.

If we do so, and help "most people" understand how this will allow them to have a superior experience across a vast swathe of their lives -- not just social networking, but personal control of their devices (including IoT) without centralized groups both limiting their activities and charging them "rent" on their own devices.

It's a complex set of topics and I'm not doing them justice here.

That said, there are many blockers that keep folks from decentralizing their access to their fellow humans.

Most of those barriers are artificial and exist to enrich those who own the centralized platforms -- and only continue to exist by buying, copying or forcing out their competition.

I've strayed pretty far afield here, but the reasons why we don't have decentralized social networking are many of the same reasons why corporations like YouTube and Cloudflare are so successful.

I'd only add that anonymity (or pseudonymity, as I practice here) has its place and I support it wholeheartedly. But decentralization adds so much more, IMHO.