I couldn't agree more with this. "Drip feeding 'new emojis'" sent chills down my spine. The problem always seems to be the question, "How do you get a decentra

I couldn't agree more with this. "Drip feeding 'new emojis'" sent chills down my spine. The problem always seems to be the question, "How do you get a decentralized system to a reach critical mass of mainstream usage?" Consider the concept of a labor union. The word "union" implies a unification, formalization, and to some extent a centralization of workers around an administrative structure that is not the business that employs them. I think many people would agree that such a union is a necessary counter force if you want to achieve progressive workplace reforms. Technology to free us from the walled garden always pursues decentralization as a means to evade control. But there must be some unified, centralized force promoting it early on. The downside to this is that it creates a large attack surface vulnerable to legal threat and infiltration of competing interests. However, we can't replace the global internet with enmeshed home networks. We can't replace fiber with dreams, or iphones with raspberry pis. It would be great if the governments represented the people, and did not act like some self-interested third party so much of the time. Perhaps, the government--our government--would be an appropriate body to administer a formative revolution. But since we know that they like to spy, control, and arbitrarily regulate, it forces the question of how to form a dedicated central entity powerful enough to promote the changes we want to see, but resistant to the trappings of other corporations and government. It's a deep question that arises when you pursue freedom of any kind.