Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is that he is trying to monetize the distribution of content. All his talk about decentralization is pointless, because he wants a system where there are gatekeepers, the only difference from Twitter (or Facebook/Google) is that in his view these gatekeepers should be baked into the protocol. It would be comical if it wasn't diabolical.
> he wants a system where there are gatekeepers Does he? He says "it can't have an advertising model" and that it shouldn't be centralised. > in his view these gatekeepers should be baked into the protocol I don't see how that could in practise be done, and my reading is that Dorsey either doesn't want it or doesn't think it's possible (or both).
That does not contradict the idea that you can have gatekeepers: just make it so that the your "decentralized platform" requires payment for distribution of content and/or that it is not subject to any equivalent to "Common Carrier" rules. Sure, in theory everyone would be playing by the same rules, but in practice you'll be turning one single gatekeeper (Twitter) into many (Big Corporations, VCs, media companies, already established influencers), and everyone would presumably be paying a cut to whoever is running the distribution platform.