It'll be this cycle of a new platform being fresh and trendy, then they become bigger, care about being taken seriously by traditional media, for getting ad deals with the big players, then a new platform pops up, cycle repeats.
Which will lead to a lot of users being hosted on a single instance which provides convenient access, which completes the loop to centralized. See gmail.
> And if you actually do succeed in this you'll inevitably end up with a platform where highly immoral content is just a wrong click away.
I don't think that is necessarily a problem for most users.
> It'll be this cycle of a new platform being fresh and trendy, then they become bigger, care about being taken seriously by traditional media, for getting ad deals with the big players, then a new platform pops up, cycle repeats.
This is, though. See Reddit :(
[0] https://www.statista.com/statistics/432390/active-gmail-user...
Or, let's say it this way: If someone selfhosting his mail server doesn't receive your mail, it's his problem. If gmail users don't receive your mail, it's your problem. And that's not a sign of decentralisation.
As an example, the censorship and immoral content dilemma is easily solved by letting the user "censor" their own feeds of content they themselves find objectionable. This is already trivially done via block lists and word filters, in the future thanks to ML there can be a much more sophisticated level of control exposed including fuzzy sentiment metrics. I wouldn't be surprised if tools like this are already being built. The key idea here being that the control is with the user rather than with some 3rd-party whom may or may not be taking the users own preferences into account.
What? We HAVE this TODAY. It's called the INTERNET. How would another internet solve the problems that thrived in this version.
How will we have privacy when the graph is open?