> highlights the risks associated with the centralization of instant messaging services
That seems to be the takeaway.
Centralization of just about anything is an issue, not just messaging.
However, users still want/need the kinds of advantages that we get from monopolies/centralization, and implementing them in distributed systems is really hard.
I wonder if there was ever a path for solving this early, like, we made email and that proliferated, if only we'd landed on better identity management first, would we be in some digital messaging utopia.
Would the world be better if we'd been saying "whats your public key?" instead of "whats your email?" in the 90s?
The public keys won't be stable as we would need to rotate them. We need both a stable identity and a proof of that identity. Security is not very user friendly and would have made the digital tech even more fringe. One of the reasons email and web took off was its comparative ease of use.
Maybe, but, in practice, email has been basically centralized too. For most people, it's just too convenient to get a gmail account for free, and forget about any maintenance headache.
But that only started when gmail launched with a deal that was too good to refuse (a mailbox that was huge for the time, and grew bigger over time). Before that most people just used the free email account they got from their ISP. That also comes without maintenance headache for the user and is at least somewhat less centralized
For messaging i think early skype had it sorted more or less , decentralised - widely used and intuitive identity.
If it had been allowed to evolve identity maybe like email(matrix or even bsky) got federated with custom servers/identities and handles that could still interoperate, would be nice. Instead MS bought it and ran it into the ground.
I think tech companies would've eventually attempted to build some walls around that and monetise it. Regardless of technology, the challenge is someone wants to "take this to the next level" - as long as it's investor driven, it remains "open" only as long as that brings more money or community good will
You trust it more than your government. Which stands to reason at the moment if you are in the US. But there are competent, more trustworthy governments in other parts of the world. And other companies people might trust more than Meta.
Decentralization allows people to choose who they trust. Or rather requires them to really
That seems to be the takeaway.
Centralization of just about anything is an issue, not just messaging.
However, users still want/need the kinds of advantages that we get from monopolies/centralization, and implementing them in distributed systems is really hard.