While the world does need it, the demand isn’t unavoidable yet. Most people aren’t motivated enough to act even for their own long-term good, let alone for an abstract ideal of decentralization. From a behavioral-economics view, the blocker is misaligned motivation: a decentralized photo app is a convenience for the few who care about autonomy, not a tangible benefit for the average user.
What might change this is a new class of tools—open-source or paid—built for power users who want to steer their own information environment. Think of them as “choose-your-own-reality” browsers that mix resource-fetching and synthetic-media recycling to create a more self-curated web. That seems a more plausible path than a mass migration to a decentralized Instagram clone.
We’ll also see the big platforms fragment as large sub-groups become dissatisfied and peel off. The result won’t look like a single decentralized network, more like many semi-centralized ones—small, durable ecosystems that eventually cross their own chasms. Investor optimism about infinite platform growth feels misplaced; we may have passed peak consolidation. The next decade should be interesting.
I very much agree. I think that one of the fundamental things that would make it easier for a healthier way forward would be the ability to more easily move from one platform to the other, hence reducing inertia-induced monopoly. Bluesky's At Protocol baked in interoperability seems like a step forward.
It’s worrying how much control platforms like Meta have over what people see. Their moderation and ranking systems often act as invisible filters—shadowbanning, or quietly removing reach without transparency.
This kind of centralization makes open discourse fragile. It’s why I think distributed and independent ways of sharing information are becoming essential—so no single company decides which voices are amplified or buried.
Regarding Bluesky-based Flashes, there is an ongoing GoFundMe campaign, but it's been there for 7 months and hasn't reached its 40k goal. Regardless of the funding goal, aren't there enough people interested in this to make it happen?
>Any thoughts on main blockers and near-to-medium future developments on this matter?
the target audience of Instagram - regular people - has no incentive to use a decentralized alternative, no matter how solid and easy to use it might be, because centralization and censorship do not bother them.
we already saw it with the twitter exodus, which, despite a period of intense hyping up by the media, had accomplished nothing. regular people, for better or worse, simply don't give a shit.
I think that's indeed one of the main problems, although I think people don't care because they don't understand what are the risks that directly concern them. A valid question would be at what point (if ever, and I want to believe that is going to happen, sooner or later) is the average user going to perceive the problems associated with centralized, censoring, opinion-steering platforms?
I think that for most part you are right. However Twitter does not seem to be good example. Just here on HN front page - there used to be at least one or to tweets per day. Now there are barely two per week. Even that is usually just from two accounts - Carmack or Karpathy.
I have the feeling that social media adoption can be very volatile - that makes me hope that something decentralized and healthier could take over soon.
While the world does need it, the demand isn’t unavoidable yet. Most people aren’t motivated enough to act even for their own long-term good, let alone for an abstract ideal of decentralization. From a behavioral-economics view, the blocker is misaligned motivation: a decentralized photo app is a convenience for the few who care about autonomy, not a tangible benefit for the average user.
What might change this is a new class of tools—open-source or paid—built for power users who want to steer their own information environment. Think of them as “choose-your-own-reality” browsers that mix resource-fetching and synthetic-media recycling to create a more self-curated web. That seems a more plausible path than a mass migration to a decentralized Instagram clone.
We’ll also see the big platforms fragment as large sub-groups become dissatisfied and peel off. The result won’t look like a single decentralized network, more like many semi-centralized ones—small, durable ecosystems that eventually cross their own chasms. Investor optimism about infinite platform growth feels misplaced; we may have passed peak consolidation. The next decade should be interesting.
I very much agree. I think that one of the fundamental things that would make it easier for a healthier way forward would be the ability to more easily move from one platform to the other, hence reducing inertia-induced monopoly. Bluesky's At Protocol baked in interoperability seems like a step forward.
It’s worrying how much control platforms like Meta have over what people see. Their moderation and ranking systems often act as invisible filters—shadowbanning, or quietly removing reach without transparency.
This kind of centralization makes open discourse fragile. It’s why I think distributed and independent ways of sharing information are becoming essential—so no single company decides which voices are amplified or buried.
Regarding Bluesky-based Flashes, there is an ongoing GoFundMe campaign, but it's been there for 7 months and hasn't reached its 40k goal. Regardless of the funding goal, aren't there enough people interested in this to make it happen?
Maybe one catch on Flashes: it's not open-source, is it?
>Any thoughts on main blockers and near-to-medium future developments on this matter?
the target audience of Instagram - regular people - has no incentive to use a decentralized alternative, no matter how solid and easy to use it might be, because centralization and censorship do not bother them.
we already saw it with the twitter exodus, which, despite a period of intense hyping up by the media, had accomplished nothing. regular people, for better or worse, simply don't give a shit.
I think that's indeed one of the main problems, although I think people don't care because they don't understand what are the risks that directly concern them. A valid question would be at what point (if ever, and I want to believe that is going to happen, sooner or later) is the average user going to perceive the problems associated with centralized, censoring, opinion-steering platforms?
I think that for most part you are right. However Twitter does not seem to be good example. Just here on HN front page - there used to be at least one or to tweets per day. Now there are barely two per week. Even that is usually just from two accounts - Carmack or Karpathy.
I have the feeling that social media adoption can be very volatile - that makes me hope that something decentralized and healthier could take over soon.
I would be totally open to use it!