Even if it were decentralized, the moment a technology appears to be decentralized, we do everything in our power to add a centralized (management) layer on top (e.g. github). That layer is what the masses will flock to and eat the lunch of the original technology.
If you have a technology that is already centralized which you try to decentralize it will be nothing more than a niche existence (that might not be a bad thing. See centralized Twitter vs decentralized Mastodon as an example of this)
"Distribute", is more practical than "Decentralize" because it lets you articulate the players and don't have to worry about sybils.
The funniest thing right now is the noisy people into NFT "art" who get their work stolen and are appealing to authority in meatspace.
So-called Web3 applications are not pure Web3 - they have many centralized Web2 elements still present. The transition to Web3 will naturally happen incrementally, given it's an entirely new technological stack that has to be built out.
Also, there are benefits to even partial adoption of Web3 by applications. For example, providing a decentralized ownership graph gives the community more power to fork if the centralized server-provider abuses their power, for instance.
See what happened when Steem was seized by a billionaire to be made into a corporate appendage:
Is that really what's holding this idea back, though? Seems doubtful.
I could maybe buy the idea that we'll move to an internet where every site nickel and dimes us. But is it more likely for the world to adopt crypto or is it more likely for our Google and Facebook OAuth accounts to support a non-chain wallet api? The crypto cut seems like it will always be more expensive as well.
> Is that really what's holding this idea back, though?
I personally don't believe it is, but some people seem convinced. Also, there's a lot of money to be made for the early entrants who are promoting this idea.
