I watched that at the time. I found his insistence on comparing his 7-year-old centralised protocol to a 60-year-old federated protocol uncompelling: his point

I watched that at the time. I found his insistence on comparing his 7-year-old centralised protocol to a 60-year-old federated protocol uncompelling: his point that "nothing changes with federated protocols" was slightly undermined by that gargantuan gap of inception. Couple that with the highly conspicuous skipping over of XMPP (much more comparable, only the briefest of mentions, no mention of things like OMEMO), and ignoring of Matrix (the most comparable, and not a single mention). Overall it's a pretty ridiculous talk in this context. He goes on to describe some challenges for federated protocols in their solutions to censorship, availability & control. On censorship, the challenges are real and it's QUITE EASY to reason about possible solutions. Many of which already exist or are in development. It's clear he hasn't spent much time thinking about this. On availability, his entire argument is "Yahoo mail exists"; his discussion here is just straight-up disingenuous. Finally, on control, he segues into unrelated areas around XMPP extensibility and seems to think extensions have no value without ubiquity (though fails to expand on his reasons for this conclusion). I'd agree XMPP's XEPs are highly flawed architecturally, but again... there's newer protocols, we've learned and evolved this already. Leaving aside that the bulk of the middle of the talk is exclusively selling new features ("new techniques") of Signal that have no direct connection to the talk's stated topic ("distributed and decentralized technology"), there are a few salient points he made that I'd agree with: 1. Federated & decentralised protocols are by their nature harder to do, and harder/slower to change. This is true, but is by no means an absolute; it's a trade-off against other benefits. 2. E2E encrypted email is too hard and probably not worth doing. Yes, PGP is highly flawed, and in general layering encryption on top of a 60-year-old protocol is hard. (Though as above, his insistence on focusing only on email for comparison rather than Signal's direct viable competitors is telling). 3. Signal's E2E/crypto-specific innovations are cool, and current federated state-of-the-art is behind on many of them.