5 years ago, the general trends were NOT in favor of de-centralized social media.

1. All the focus on decentralization was on crypto, not social media
2. If there were de-centralized proposals on social media, it was usually "make a status update, earn a coin"
3. Tech press wanted more centralization of social media, not less
4. No one wanted to invest in new social networks at all believing Facebook would forever own the space

Don't laugh at me.

I was *tempted* to build something off Blockchain.

A friend made $50 million selling crypto software to a billionaire. He had only worked on the project for 7 months.

But then I looked into how blockchain actually works and I discovered that it is extremely slow and thus ill-suited for social media data.

That's when I realized that just because the blockchain can do something doesn't mean it should.

What's interesting is the "alternative" de-centralized social media we had built compared to the Fediverse.

1. Our MVP was a messaging app
2. It was based on P2P connections with "always on" passive nodes directing traffic
3. At its core was self-sovereign identity with every peer able to self-define relational personas

We got pretty far. We were able to send and receive messages.

The problem with building a decentralized P2P social network with strong cryptographic aspects:

The moment you say "decentralized", "P2P", and "cryptographic," people believe you're trying to sell a new coin. And we had nothing to do with digital currencies.

Which alienates two kinds of people:

1. People who like cryptocurrencies
2. People who hate cryptocurrencies

So even though I loved the tech, believed it was what the world needed -- I reached a dead end due to the zeitgeist.

(By the way, let this be a strong lesson to anyone building bleeding edge tech. Even if you're right about the tech, right about the need, and right about the principles -- if the zeitgeist runs completely counter to you, it's a tough sell.)

When I first saw #ActivityPub, my first thought was, "What a bunch of bozos! Don't these people know that the server/client paradigm will just result in centralization happening all over again?"

But it turns out I was the bozo.

🤡

Even though I was working on a completely different approach to decentralized social media, I joined Mastodon back in 2018.

I figured that the folks on the Fediverse were a member of my tribe, and maybe I could coax you all to give a P2P social media a try.

But as I used Mastodon, I realized that this thing had real traction, and once something has traction, it's impossible to fight it.

And besides, bad decentralization is better than no decentralization.

That was my logic.

Last year, I pretty much gave up on building a P2P social media app. A few things happened in my life that required my immediate attention.

And I thought I was on my way to retirement.

But then a few months in, I realized that I wanted to work on *something* even if at a very low capacity, and I ended up doing QA at a local tech incubator.

Not trying to change the world, super low stakes, just something fun.

Last March, something visceral and traumatic happened that was so infuriating, I decided I'd do everything in my power to destroy Twitter.

Like you don't understand.

To me, Twitter was Enemy #1 -- and in my crosshairs.

So I got on the phone with a friend, and I said, "I'm going to f*cking help build this Fediverse!"

And ever since then, I've had a fire in my belly about making decentralized social media happen -- even if it's imperfect.

In my time working on decentralized social networks, here's a strange paradox:

1. The people with no money have something usable now, along with people who actually use it
2. The people with money have nothing usable now, and no one likely to use it

This is one of the few times that VCs and billionaires have been caught with their pants down.

And I'm here for it!