Earlier quoted context omitted.
>>At which point you're in the minority because the set of people who affirmatively want to give up their privacy is not larger than the set who either don't want to or don't care. The set of people who affirmatively want to give up their privacy is in the majority if most people don't care about privacy but want privacy reducing features. Sure, in a perfect world they'd take both, but we're talking about which is mo…
OK, so let's actually talk about those people then. The theory is that there is an unavoidable compromise between privacy and features and some people will legitimately choose features. That can be true, e.g. to do "people like you also viewed ..." you need the data on what people like you also viewed. But those things are relatively rare and can be separated out. You can layer them on top of a decentralized system -…
This criticism of decentralization is in addition to my parallel comment in this thread about how you cannot realistically and significantly improve privacy with feature parity.
The performance and reliability would also be difficult to manage without centralized servers. You're not going to be maintaining the same uptime guarantees.
Finally, how are you going to motivate development in a decentralized manner? You're removing capitalist incentives to improve the product. This would have to be managed by a consortium of companies, which doesn't sound like a much better situation than we have now, or it would have to be an open protocol. If companies weren't earning a profit on developing features for further user demand, how would the products improve as well as they do now?