I think such issues (give developers features) are something that would require a centralized response. This in turn creates liability and the issues of large p

I think such issues (give developers features) are something that would require a centralized response. This in turn creates liability and the issues of large platforms; they are tweaked by an incredibly small % of users who develop the feature, who can't fully foresee the unintended consequences of any large action. Then the results are mostly expressed by another % of loud/angry/extreme users, amplified by the media and then the centralized developers have to answer. In the article, the author mentions 'your policy is what you enforce'. But that's really overly simplistic. There's a gradient, with extreme moderation on one end and no moderation on the other (even those in favor of no moderation will generally agree that nuclear launch sites and codes should be moderated off). And then there's how and where you implement systems to identify cases which require moderation and what systems you put in place to avoid abuse and what incentives you are creating. And all this probably changes with time as people try different things to game systems. Our government(s), economies, etc are getting more and more centralized, controlled by fewer and fewer hands. This skews incentives and positions of leverage, look at what's happened with youtube content creators as a tiny example, but it's way beyond that. By making it decentralized, Jack's basically appealing to the wisdom of crows. I think the article is missing the long of it. Yes, there will be forks, but eventually consensus appears in the community. I feel his comparison to Mastadon is unfair, since it was new and looking for a niche. Twitter is such a big name, everyone will want to have input on such a decentralized system, so there should be strong input from all sides as they are represented, at least within the tech sphere (which is pretty large and diverse when you leave SV/CA). Our current development climate is allowing something as dramatic of a change as P2P protocols in the early 2000s. P2P has mostly disappeared in favor of streaming services, at least in the first world. But it was the P2P that allowed the creation of big streaming services. Without that pressure, I have serious doubts the current IP holders would have allowed Netflix or Hulu to be. Jack's level of vision is reaching way beyond mine, but I think he is on to something, and the payoff can be truly disruptive, not just to business which is a bit boring, but to how things can work.