Interesting take. Obviously for Bitcoin as a hard money maximum decentralisation is very important.
But for social media is maximum decentralisation that important? What people want (or perhaps what people should want) is to have sovereignty over their data and in doing so eliminate bad incentivises for companies to keep people using the platform by whatever means necessary; even if it fractures our collective agreement on what is real and what is not.
Farcaster claims to be “sufficiently decentralised” (I haven’t used Farcaster btw). Mastadon is less decentralised than Nostr through it’s instances, but much more than Twitter or Threads Couldn’t that level of decentralisation be enough to achieve the goal?
Can you port your profile, followers and content from Nostr to Farcaster or Lens and vice verca though?
Surely the real end goal should be cryptographically enshrined data sovereignty. My own encrypted data hub, fragmented and decentrally stored, from which I can sign cryptographic transactions to temporarily (and revocably) share a wide variety of my data with any protocol or application that I choose.