Increasingly, I just want a completely decentralized social networking toolchain, where people can subscribe to the moderation and filtration they like, and nothing can be universally censored.
It's not "completely decentralized" due to various realities, but federated and self hostable services such as Matrix, Mastodon, and PixelFed should mostly work for use with family and friends at this point.
If it's fully decentralized why wouldn't the user change their selected mechanisms?
If all they have is voluntary subscriptions to others' feeds, in what manner can that be corrupted?
If they voluntarily chose to subscribe to a centralized third party as a data source or moderator how is that different from what we currently have? (And why wouldn't they just switch?)
In my vision, the tooling to perform moderation and filtration is independent from the data hose, so one can pick up and move to a different moderation regime when unsatisfied.
I don't think we're ever going to have harmony with one single arbiter at the center, especially when that arbiter also has a financial interest in the overall network.
