Facebook alone has 918.27 acres of data servers. All for centralized storage. 40 million sqft globally. This is for all the things that people care about photos and video.

Could everyone self storage again? Perhaps that’s the way? But the vast majority of people are too inept or lazy to figure that out. I assume the vast majority want the security of having their information on a centralized exchange. For safety alone.

Though, as I’m thinking through this, perhaps that’s fine. There’s room for both: centralized storage with non centralized access.

@deaddodo addresses this on. Ycombinator forum: What bugs me about it is their naivety to solved technical problems. For instance, they answer the question of “why this hasn’t been done?” with:

> I don't know, but I imagine it has to do with the fact that people making social networks are either companies wanting to make money or P2P activists who want to make a thing completely without servers.

Except it has been done. In fact, that’s literally what KaZaA was with its “superpeers”. And what they realized was that by making a semi-decentralized system, they just introduced the weaknesses of both systems (slow downloads via peer-latency and network limits + easy censorship by killing relays/nodes). In addition, this is exactly how IRC works, despite the fact that it’s mostly used with a few nodes these days.

I’m not against semi-decentralized systems. They’re great and help deal with some scalability problems; but they don’t solve for the number one issue most people moving to decentralized are seeking (anonymity, privacy and free speech), so it’s not fair to compare it to platforms/protocols that do offer those features.