I wrote at the Corbett Report:

The only sane “alternative” is to abandon social media all together.

How can we complain about data collection, mass manipulation, etc. while indulging in ANY form of “social media”?

Maintaining contact with others is important, if facebook did it wrong, it doesn’t mean “social media” is a bad thing in general. I do, however, have an urge to burn it with fire.

I think the best way to burn down the centralized websites on the Internet is to create decentralized variants of them and make them very popular. The “make them very popular” part is one of the key challenges.

Note this Mix blockchain is based on Ethereum, which doesn’t scale. Or least won’t scale decentralized in any of the various proposed redesigns I have seen.

But the elephant in the room is onboarding and promoting popularity. Steem attempted to reward people for blogging, but its design favors concentration of the rewards by whales, because I showed in my 2016 Steemit blog that there is no way to reward tokens by minting them from a collective money supply that can avoid the winner-take-all outcome. I believe this is why Steemit and Minds have ostensibly not been able to grow above a few 1000s of active non-bot, real human users despite of the million or so sockpuppet accounts created on these platforms.

To achieve the goal is going to require some out-the-box thinking and design. James is correct with his questioning in his interview to imply that anti-censorship is not a strong enough incentive to drive mainstream to shift to these “decentralized” social networks. More details are available at the following blog of mine:

https://steemit.com/cryptocurrency/@anonymint/why-crypto-tokens-are-important

Note the Mix blockchain creator’s idea for a WoT is not a viable solution for preventing illegal content from being served from IPFS servers. Also a WoT doesn’t scale, i.e. trusting those who those who you trust trust, is a major hole to be exploited because of the domino effect of for example phishing.