There are two distinct groups that want 'social media'. There is 99% of people who use social media because people who make money are on social media and the co

There are two distinct groups that want 'social media'. There is 99% of people who use social media because people who make money are on social media and the corporation behind it uses it's status to allow flows of money between people. To these people the social media is a job and their followers follow them at their job. The money is the point. Then there are the groups <1 million people who actually want social media for communication who do not need money flows. These people can be happy and thrive without corporate money flows. They form communities like IRC, mastodon, matrix, etc. But for the vast majority of people these alternative networks do not have the one feature they are there for: ability to make it a job. And that is why decentalized social media has never been, and never will be an alternative for most social media users. No government in the world will allow a decentralized system to have money flows capable of a living wage. Just look at the continuous attacks on actual cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin. In conclusion: no. Decentralized social media is only an alternative for a tiny part of the population. It doesn't mean this is bad. But setting up decentralized social networks that cater to the masses is useless. The one feature they want will never be there.