Yeah, as much of a fan as i am of decentralization, i have to acknowledge that certainly - and unfortunately - any challenges to wider participation are not mer

Yeah, as much of a fan as i am of decentralization, i have to acknowledge that certainly - and unfortunately - any challenges to wider participation are not merely technically, but do consist of "soft" challenges, such as those related to behavior, incentives, and such. Its a tough nut to crack, no doubt. I'm sure early adopters of other similar systems like email brought up similar questions back in the day. Although, one has to wonder, do the folks leading the charge for these decentralized services really want each and every single person on facebook to over-night migrate to the new communities? Maybe; but i would gather maybe not. Maybe it started with some programmer simply scratching their own itch, and offering others to "come on over and have fun at our party"? It's fun and encouraging to hear recent popularity with some decentralized platforms. And my being a fan of such platforms does bias me; triggering delight in me when i hear such news. But I don't believe that the default (or only) goal of any decentralized social service is to amass the maximum number of users. Wouldn't that be more of a goal for a centralized silo, or a shiny, new startup? If i set up my own Gnu Social server/instance and my family, and i use it to post fun stuff for ourselves, maybe that's my only goal.