LWN is now on Mastodon

To do…what exactly? It seems to me like you're saying "use a hammer and…". There's more detail that is needed here to explain why a blockchain is useful at all (and is something missing in a vast majority of blockchain-based efforts). What about a blockchain "makes sure X of your friends" can do anything, nevermind replicating tweets (on a phone no less)? FWIW, I suspect such explanations are missing because it's because it is all buzzword-based and if they were to explain what a blockchain was doing it would boil down to "and make it computationally more expensive than necessary".

> The other problem of those "platforms" is censorship and moderation, which should not happen IMHO.

I'm not sure what kind of (online) world you expect without moderation, but the power of the Internet allows people of all viewpoints to make their own sites and cesspools (as they may be) to exist in the world (cf. forums, "image boards", etc.). I don't see any reason why a single company has to be the host for all of it unless we're willing to classify them as a common carrier and actually remove their powers to do anything active on the site (including advertisements) other than shuttle bits around. Even in such a place, I would hope to see "private" rooms where discussions can happen without ne'er-do-wells being able to drop in and troll their way around (in any conversation).

As for "censorship", there are no rights guaranteed on any existing platforms to these effects (today). The right to self-assemble still exists and (to me) this includes the right to exclude those from any such self-assembly. Now, I believe that there should be limits to these if there is public money involved, but, AFAIK, the platforms at task here mostly mooch off of business advertising accounts, investor money, and/or VC pipelines. So what basis is there to say "these companies are not allowed to self-assemble" and force them to associate with actors they disagree with and to host content they do not wish to distribute? Now, if you want to nationalize one of them and make a government-backed "national communication site", yes, the powers to say "you're not allowed here" is much harder. But I suspect that such actions would not be seen kindly by "free market" aficionados (which I find tend to overlap with those banging on these drums today but are by no means equivalent).

I would suggest that anyone considering such remedies for their goals consider the other things that may be possible with their means instead of saying "this is a way to get what I want, so I'll use it" and ignoring other implications. I really don't think you want the government to be in the business of being able to say what anyone (companies or individuals) can or must say or host.