Centralization is the core problem of social media though. It allows a single entity control over the data and as soon as you have that, you have Zuck.

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Centralization isn't the problem, privatization is. If the single entity that controlled the data was democraticly controlled and not run for profitability it'd be the best of all worlds.

[–] Routhinator@startrek.website 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

In 2023, there is very little democratically controlled anything left that has not been tainted by the 'capitalist gains mindset' - most democratic social programs that are far more fundamental than a social network have either been corrupted and impaired by corporate greed or have had enough legislative protections or funding sources cut out that they can no longer operate properly, allowing the argument for 'privatisation' - a one way ticket back to corporate greed. They operate at the whims of corporations and no longer serve the people.

While I believe what you say is true, it's not something we're capable of in the current state of civilisation.

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Everything you said is true, democracy does not exist under the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. I'm just saying, centralization isn't the problem. Furthermore you can't escape capitalism by decentralizing.

[–] Routhinator@startrek.website 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

True, but it makes it possible to breakaway from an instance or leaders that are toxic/circumventing your privacy for profit without having to find a new tool or network. You can just hop to another instance.

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml -2 points 1 year ago

It's possible as long as competition exists, but every market trends towards monopolization. EEE is real.