The title doesn't really represent the article. The thesis of the article is that > there’s someone who stands to make a large profit (or avoid losing their la

The title doesn't really represent the article. The thesis of the article is that > there’s someone who stands to make a large profit (or avoid losing their large profit) from ensuring decentralised systems fail. But you can't actually make decentralized systems fail. Email's still around despite Google's abuse of spam filtering. RSS is still around despite Google's manhandling. Git is still around despite Github. IRC is still around despite Discord. None of the truly decentralized options are as popular as the centralized-ish alternatives, but that seems entirely inevitable in an internet where most users have near-zero technical proficiency and want someone to hold their hand, which is just not viable without commercialization. I think just like the world needs both a Linux and a Mac OS, it also needs centralized and decentralized options and while the decentralized options will drive actual progress, lots of people will get rich profiting from centralized bastardizations.