>Apple was quite clever in their approach: instead of killing the IDFA, which could be construed as anti-competitive, particularly given Apple’s expanding app install ad business (which is expanding beyond App Store search ads), Apple is simply asking users if they would like to be tracked, and letting them render the IDFA useless.
The unstated implication of this is that when required to receive consent from users, the entire ad-tech complex falls apart.
I think Apple is actually smart to do it this way rather than just getting rid of the IDFA altogether, but only because of the political/regulatory environment right now. Any pro-privacy move will be spun as being anticompetitive by the affected parties, until Apple actually wins in court in their first antitrust case. After that the gloves can come off.
I'm curious, though, will Apple's own ads require consent? When you open the App Store for the first time, will there be a popup asking for consent to track for ad purposes?
Imagine, asking consumers what they want and allowing them to consent. It's funny that that's considered a revolutionary new business strategy. I thought that's they way business was supposed to operate?
>Any pro-privacy move will be spun as being anticompetitive by the affected parties, until Apple actually wins in court in their first antitrust case.
That would be anticompetitive behaviour with iOS Appstore or perhaps with not allowing browser engines on iOS and honesty I think Apple would find it comfortable if it was for something like IDFA than those.
It's way more crippling and goes beyond IDFA and basic 3P ad tech - at least from my reading.
Unless I'm misunderstanding?
From my reading of the url below, Apple is mandating this consent popup on all apps that use any advertising (both 3p tracking but also serving their own 'walled garden' e.g. FB) - that is beyond basic contextual.
To me this seems to go way too far. For instance FB in the US would have to get consent to show any ads as they currently run for the vast majority of users. Plus if there is privacy a law like gdpr FB already gets opt-in in those countries this is just adding another opt-in on top.
Quoting Chamath on the rationale for the Facebook Platform is like quoting the current management of Boeing on how to build a plane. If you want the real story on the dynamics behind the Platform, and why it worked so incredibly well when it did, you’d have to talk to Dave Morin, but I’m not sure he’d like to revisit that period in his life. Dave’s open, humble approach (something I think he’d picked up at Apple) attracted the best and brightest companies and programmers to the platform, and gave them the confidence needed to invest in building a presence there. Eventually a bunch of people inside of Facebook got jealous of the attention he was getting and had him demoted.
Chamath takeover and his self-dealing (investing in platform companies while overseeing it? really?) was a large part of the Platform’s failure, not its success. People lost confidence, and confidence is the one thing that every platform — whether it’s a piece of software, or a country’s economy — really runs on. If you want to talk about platforms, and what they are, and what they aren’t, that’s really all it is. People who bring up a million other things and a random Bill Gates quote don’t know what they’re talking about.
Apple is strict and super-weird about some of their rules, but they’re consistent. And it’s in that consistency that they’ve been able to build a large, dominant platform. When people start to see cracks in that consistency — such as the recent Hey drama — both developers AND people within the company immediately freak out, and some statement is made (whether it’s what the developers want to hear is another matter). They’re also super consistent with most of their APIs and their timetables, which further encourages investment.
Facebook is pretty much the exact opposite of this, in every aspect of their business. Whether you’re a newspaper or an Instagram model or a developer, you’re never quite sure where you stand. While things built on top of Facebook might have large-scale near-term value, nobody’s planning their next decade on there (even if suspicious can’t-let-China-win government meddling and the Silicon Valley oligarchy keep them on top for that long).
no idea of the history, but it sounds like you're agreeing with chamath's take, despite whatever opinion you may have of him. just seems like he is guilty of the same behavior he's associating to facebook.
one quip:
> Apple is strict and super-weird about some of their rules, but they’re consistent. And it’s in that consistency that they’ve been able to build a large, dominant platform. When people start to see cracks in that consistency — such as the recent Hey drama — both developers AND people within the company immediately freak out, and some statement is made (whether it’s what the developers want to hear is another matter). They’re also super consistent with most of their APIs and their timetables, which further encourages investment.
As someone who has dabbled in app store development from time to time, none of this seems to be true. Apple is inconsistent with application of their rules and their rules are also internally inconsistent from case to case, especially with regards to what apps are allowed on the platform.
But there is something interesting in there -- was it the developer experience that drew developers to their platform originally or something else? Not sure offhand.
This is one of those comments that seems interesting and believable because it's so confidently stated. But is any of this speculation actually accurate?
I agree with the second half of the comment. Facebook has been capricious, and thus it's hard to trust building on top of them for the long term. But the first few paragraphs just seem like unsubstantiated gossip.
Wow, thanks for the scoop! Is there anywhere interested readers can read more about Dave and Chamath's tenure at FB, particularly the latter and the issues you pointed out?
some questions I want to try and look up but it would be cool if you could expand on some of your points.
Did you work there?
From Chamath's wiki he invested in things like Palantir, some storage company, and Playdom which seems like the only company that he could have self dealing over...? Do you have other company examples? I am imagining being in charge of the social graph on fb platform could seem to be very tempting to then purchase/ invest in companies.
Do you know what Dave is doing currently? Slow capital doesn't seem to be a frequent updater on twitter. Before their most recent post, it was like a year ago they posted. And it looks like company related updates not Dave related.
i dont know any of the people involved, but the time when Dave Morin was in the platform was the best for 3rd party developers. it was a really neat, very open platform well ahead of its time, it was reliable and really made developers feel included. FB shut the door for us abruptly in later years because they liked fake news better than virtual sheep.
Facebook had a developer forum in the early days which basically chronicled what was happening on their platform. pity they took it down...
Apple's moat has increasingly become incentivised of late by being the privacy-conscious option to its competitors - thanks primarily to Google's infringement of the same
I think tech people fundamentally misunderstand how the privacy-conscious features of Apple resonate with the non-technical public.
The vast majority of the public do not care, at all, about the type of data tracking that gets HNers so up in arms. That may be a bit of hyperbole - they may care a teeny bit, but the second they have to do something that is even the slightest bit inconvenient in order to get more privacy ("Why do I have to log in here again?") they'll bail.
What Apple has done, though, is frame privacy-consciousness in terms of exclusivity and luxury. It's quite similar to how Tesla rebranded electric cars from dorky and stodgy to cool. Most people's experience with Apple's privacy-conscious features are Touch ID and Face ID. These felt really futuristic when they first came out. And the privacy messaging that Apple does is really great IMO: it's more along the lines of "With Google all your data is shared with crappy advertisers along with the rest of the unwashed masses. With Apple everything is safe and secure, and most importantly protected from their grubby little non-Jony Ive-approved hands."
This has real benefits to consumers (because the privacy advancements with Apple are not just marketing, they're real), but people should understand Apple is still based around exclusivity and luxury, and privacy is just a part of that.
This is such a big win for Apple. I’ve become increasingly disillusioned with Apple, to the point of switching away from the Mac completely and not missed it a bit.
However, my foray into Android was not so rosy. Android felt like playing with Fire. It was scary not knowing what all was taking your data and then finding like half the apps I had downloaded had been stealing data in some form or another.
Moving back to ios was certainly a huge relief. The privacy aspects are just so much better.
Apple's moat is the same moat Google, Amazon and every other big company has - their lobbying efforts to keep the governments in their current state of ignorance and incompetence.
Remember that anti-competitive agreement between the the big tech companies to not compete with each other for employees aka fucking illegal? Remember how many people went to prison for that? Right, 0. These companies are all fine dining together and high fiving each other for their agreement to not compete with one another all the way to the bank.
When a small competitor arises, they just throw a few billion to squash them aka acquire and laugh all the way to the bank some more.
I wouldn't be surprised if this blog is going to get a corporate sponsor sometime soon - it's been such a good boy, making pretend these companies are actually competing.
This article misses a lot:
1) Facebook doesn't necessarily need the IDFA for optimizing advertising -- SKAdNetwork leaves the door open for ads optimization, just not at the user level. This article reveals how little the author understands about digital advertising.
2) I don't believe this move by Apple increases its "moat" in any meaningful way. Apple was almost certainly motivated to deprecate the IDFA to protect consumer privacy -- the only way this enforces Apple's moat is by substantively differentiating Apple's privacy positioning from other hardware vendors. 3) If anything, deprecating the IDFA harms Facebook moreso than it helps Apple to improve its ability to grow its ads business. Apple has increased the scope of its Apple Search Ads business but deprecating the IDFA doesn't help it there except to level the playing field.
The author of this blog is at his best when he's going a mile wide and an inch deep on high-concept subjects like self driving cars and Amazon taking over retail. When he tries to go deep on specific topics, his lack of context often leads him to specious and, frankly, silly conclusions.
He has a concept playbook [1]. His MO is to tie current events back into the concept playbook. If you haven't been following along for a period of years, it is easy to get lost.
The part about Facebook becoming WeChat at the end and thus bypassing the restrictions Apple puts in place doesn’t ring true unless Apple is prevented from restricting apps from building their own mini app stores for games: https://9to5mac.com/2020/06/18/apple-refuses-facebooks-gamin...
I would think so. Of course, it might not be as we know it. However, a world where content works across devices. APIs are standardized. Responsive to multiple sizes. Low barrier to entry and access. It seems to me that Web is the future. Note I say Web, and not browser. An integrated experience built on the web - like Firefox OS might be the open and free platform we need to build our own great experiences. Definitely something worth exploring.
5 - 10 years ago I would have said the same and was sure the web would take over. I've done a lot of work on both web and native mobile platforms and these days I'm really less sure what the future looks like. If web apps do take over they won't be web apps like we know them.
Apple's strategy here with privacy is just so great. From a regulatory standpoint, the EU can't be against it, and the US likes "anti-competitive behavior" when it benefits customers. Facebook, Google, et al will have to basically just live with Apple's choices here while suffering losses to their businesses.
"make lemons out of lemonade." - presumably the author meant "make lemons into lemonade" - I can't comment on the article to correct so am doing so here.
It's sad to see somewhat bright minds, spending their life analyzing what companies are doing to maximize profit.
Why is that interesting and at what point do you notice that every move these companies make, is anti-human?
Take Apple: their entire business model is reliant upon the government never waking up to enforcing open standards and protocols to ensure consumers get hardware-agnostic, operating system-agnostic, service-provider agnostic, company-agnostic tools and services, which is what everyone would agree we want, except the sociopaths who value profit over humanity and run these corporations.
That's what got everyone excited about Bitcoin for a hot second. That it finally escapes the walled gardens all technology is living under. Instead of fixing the walled gardens, these delusional fools think they can technology their way out of corporations owning all key infrastructure. Jesus Christ.
Back to Apple.
Apple's entire business strategy is creating a walled garden because it benefits them, at the expense of everyone else. They give consumers crumbs and call it 'the biggest release ever'.
Facebook's entire business strategy is being a surveillance network, which is again, entirely reliant upon the government never waking up to how creepy, immoral and counter-productive it is on so many levels! There are enough sociopaths in government who think oh good, a surveillance tool, we can make use of it! Good luck having Facebook regulated when we live in a corporatocracy folks!
Everything these big companies do is against the interests of human beings. People are just too dumb to see it because if you drip-feed them 'new emojis' and 'you can have a weather widget on your screen in 2020', they don't realize they are getting fucked!
Sorry, carry on with your 'analysis' of what these sociopaths are up to and pretending you have valuable insight, when the only sane insight to be had is 'these fuckers are out of control'.
> Why is that interesting and at what point do you notice that every move these companies make, is anti-human?
Hyperbole if I've ever read it. "every move"? Is investing in clean energy to power all of their data centers anti-human as Apple has done? Is creating a $100,000,000 education fund for under-represented app developers anti-human? Is encrypting devices by default to protect privacy anti-human?
Now, as you can see I'm a bit of an Apple apologist and of course all of these are good PR moves. But every corporation is by definition just a "group of humans working together for profit." They will do good things for profit and they will do bad things for profit. But a group of humans working together for profit does not make every move they do "anti-human."
As a consumer, I pay more to buy Apple devices because Apple is a walled garden that exercises tight control over its ecosystem. I like the walled garden and it results in a ton of benefits to me as a consumer (the fact that you couldn't even list one benefit just shows that you haven't meaningfully explored your own questions or opposing viewpoints).
You used a lot of words to basically say nothing meaningful and show that you actually don't understand these companies or their customers.
> Take Apple: their entire business model is reliant upon the government never waking up to enforcing open standards and protocols
If the government mandates protocol X, then protocol X is no longer open.
The body directing the development of protocol X becomes an extended part of the government (or simply a direct part), and is subject to an entirely different level of political influence.
> People are just too dumb to see it...
I honestly don't believe you can share, understand, or speak for the interests of people you hold in contempt. The thing is, they aren't dumb, no more so than you, I or anyone else. You may not understand their perspective, but they have one whether you can see it or not.
I couldn't agree more with this. "Drip feeding 'new emojis'" sent chills down my spine.
The problem always seems to be the question, "How do you get a decentralized system to a reach critical mass of mainstream usage?"
Consider the concept of a labor union. The word "union" implies a unification, formalization, and to some extent a centralization of workers around an administrative structure that is not the business that employs them. I think many people would agree that such a union is a necessary counter force if you want to achieve progressive workplace reforms.
Technology to free us from the walled garden always pursues decentralization as a means to evade control. But there must be some unified, centralized force promoting it early on.
The downside to this is that it creates a large attack surface vulnerable to legal threat and infiltration of competing interests. However, we can't replace the global internet with enmeshed home networks. We can't replace fiber with dreams, or iphones with raspberry pis.
It would be great if the governments represented the people, and did not act like some self-interested third party so much of the time. Perhaps, the government--our government--would be an appropriate body to administer a formative revolution. But since we know that they like to spy, control, and arbitrarily regulate, it forces the question of how to form a dedicated central entity powerful enough to promote the changes we want to see, but resistant to the trappings of other corporations and government.
It's a deep question that arises when you pursue freedom of any kind.
[+] [-] Despegar|5 years ago|reply
The unstated implication of this is that when required to receive consent from users, the entire ad-tech complex falls apart.
I think Apple is actually smart to do it this way rather than just getting rid of the IDFA altogether, but only because of the political/regulatory environment right now. Any pro-privacy move will be spun as being anticompetitive by the affected parties, until Apple actually wins in court in their first antitrust case. After that the gloves can come off.
[+] [-] exhilaration|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] SmokeyHamster|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tzm|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Abishek_Muthian|5 years ago|reply
That would be anticompetitive behaviour with iOS Appstore or perhaps with not allowing browser engines on iOS and honesty I think Apple would find it comfortable if it was for something like IDFA than those.
[+] [-] dillondoyle|5 years ago|reply
Unless I'm misunderstanding?
From my reading of the url below, Apple is mandating this consent popup on all apps that use any advertising (both 3p tracking but also serving their own 'walled garden' e.g. FB) - that is beyond basic contextual.
To me this seems to go way too far. For instance FB in the US would have to get consent to show any ads as they currently run for the vast majority of users. Plus if there is privacy a law like gdpr FB already gets opt-in in those countries this is just adding another opt-in on top.
https://developer.apple.com/app-store/user-privacy-and-data-...
[+] [-] numair|5 years ago|reply
Quoting Chamath on the rationale for the Facebook Platform is like quoting the current management of Boeing on how to build a plane. If you want the real story on the dynamics behind the Platform, and why it worked so incredibly well when it did, you’d have to talk to Dave Morin, but I’m not sure he’d like to revisit that period in his life. Dave’s open, humble approach (something I think he’d picked up at Apple) attracted the best and brightest companies and programmers to the platform, and gave them the confidence needed to invest in building a presence there. Eventually a bunch of people inside of Facebook got jealous of the attention he was getting and had him demoted.
Chamath takeover and his self-dealing (investing in platform companies while overseeing it? really?) was a large part of the Platform’s failure, not its success. People lost confidence, and confidence is the one thing that every platform — whether it’s a piece of software, or a country’s economy — really runs on. If you want to talk about platforms, and what they are, and what they aren’t, that’s really all it is. People who bring up a million other things and a random Bill Gates quote don’t know what they’re talking about.
Apple is strict and super-weird about some of their rules, but they’re consistent. And it’s in that consistency that they’ve been able to build a large, dominant platform. When people start to see cracks in that consistency — such as the recent Hey drama — both developers AND people within the company immediately freak out, and some statement is made (whether it’s what the developers want to hear is another matter). They’re also super consistent with most of their APIs and their timetables, which further encourages investment.
Facebook is pretty much the exact opposite of this, in every aspect of their business. Whether you’re a newspaper or an Instagram model or a developer, you’re never quite sure where you stand. While things built on top of Facebook might have large-scale near-term value, nobody’s planning their next decade on there (even if suspicious can’t-let-China-win government meddling and the Silicon Valley oligarchy keep them on top for that long).
[+] [-] femiagbabiaka|5 years ago|reply
one quip:
> Apple is strict and super-weird about some of their rules, but they’re consistent. And it’s in that consistency that they’ve been able to build a large, dominant platform. When people start to see cracks in that consistency — such as the recent Hey drama — both developers AND people within the company immediately freak out, and some statement is made (whether it’s what the developers want to hear is another matter). They’re also super consistent with most of their APIs and their timetables, which further encourages investment.
As someone who has dabbled in app store development from time to time, none of this seems to be true. Apple is inconsistent with application of their rules and their rules are also internally inconsistent from case to case, especially with regards to what apps are allowed on the platform.
But there is something interesting in there -- was it the developer experience that drew developers to their platform originally or something else? Not sure offhand.
[+] [-] tossmeout|5 years ago|reply
I agree with the second half of the comment. Facebook has been capricious, and thus it's hard to trust building on top of them for the long term. But the first few paragraphs just seem like unsubstantiated gossip.
[+] [-] roosterdawn|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] boldslogan|5 years ago|reply
Did you work there?
From Chamath's wiki he invested in things like Palantir, some storage company, and Playdom which seems like the only company that he could have self dealing over...? Do you have other company examples? I am imagining being in charge of the social graph on fb platform could seem to be very tempting to then purchase/ invest in companies.
Do you know what Dave is doing currently? Slow capital doesn't seem to be a frequent updater on twitter. Before their most recent post, it was like a year ago they posted. And it looks like company related updates not Dave related.
[+] [-] buboard|5 years ago|reply
Facebook had a developer forum in the early days which basically chronicled what was happening on their platform. pity they took it down...
[+] [-] TheArcane|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hn_throwaway_99|5 years ago|reply
The vast majority of the public do not care, at all, about the type of data tracking that gets HNers so up in arms. That may be a bit of hyperbole - they may care a teeny bit, but the second they have to do something that is even the slightest bit inconvenient in order to get more privacy ("Why do I have to log in here again?") they'll bail.
What Apple has done, though, is frame privacy-consciousness in terms of exclusivity and luxury. It's quite similar to how Tesla rebranded electric cars from dorky and stodgy to cool. Most people's experience with Apple's privacy-conscious features are Touch ID and Face ID. These felt really futuristic when they first came out. And the privacy messaging that Apple does is really great IMO: it's more along the lines of "With Google all your data is shared with crappy advertisers along with the rest of the unwashed masses. With Apple everything is safe and secure, and most importantly protected from their grubby little non-Jony Ive-approved hands."
This has real benefits to consumers (because the privacy advancements with Apple are not just marketing, they're real), but people should understand Apple is still based around exclusivity and luxury, and privacy is just a part of that.
[+] [-] addicted|5 years ago|reply
However, my foray into Android was not so rosy. Android felt like playing with Fire. It was scary not knowing what all was taking your data and then finding like half the apps I had downloaded had been stealing data in some form or another.
Moving back to ios was certainly a huge relief. The privacy aspects are just so much better.
[+] [-] three_seagrass|5 years ago|reply
As long as you're not in China that is:
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2018/03/apple-privacy...
[+] [-] beigeoak|5 years ago|reply
But after Apple declined to implement 16 Web APIs in Safari due to privacy concerns, she bough an iPhone.
She's 8.
[+] [-] onlyrealcuzzo|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] alexashka|5 years ago|reply
Remember that anti-competitive agreement between the the big tech companies to not compete with each other for employees aka fucking illegal? Remember how many people went to prison for that? Right, 0. These companies are all fine dining together and high fiving each other for their agreement to not compete with one another all the way to the bank.
When a small competitor arises, they just throw a few billion to squash them aka acquire and laugh all the way to the bank some more.
I wouldn't be surprised if this blog is going to get a corporate sponsor sometime soon - it's been such a good boy, making pretend these companies are actually competing.
[+] [-] DataSciGuy_401|5 years ago|reply
The author of this blog is at his best when he's going a mile wide and an inch deep on high-concept subjects like self driving cars and Amazon taking over retail. When he tries to go deep on specific topics, his lack of context often leads him to specious and, frankly, silly conclusions.
[+] [-] silentsea90|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] extra__tofu|5 years ago|reply
[1] https://stratechery.com/concepts/
[+] [-] rwbt|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nmfisher|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ec109685|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jonny_eh|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] riverlong|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] catchmeifyoucan|5 years ago|reply
I would think so. Of course, it might not be as we know it. However, a world where content works across devices. APIs are standardized. Responsive to multiple sizes. Low barrier to entry and access. It seems to me that Web is the future. Note I say Web, and not browser. An integrated experience built on the web - like Firefox OS might be the open and free platform we need to build our own great experiences. Definitely something worth exploring.
[+] [-] jamil7|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ericmay|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jmalicki|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kentf|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 12xo|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] alexashka|5 years ago|reply
Why is that interesting and at what point do you notice that every move these companies make, is anti-human?
Take Apple: their entire business model is reliant upon the government never waking up to enforcing open standards and protocols to ensure consumers get hardware-agnostic, operating system-agnostic, service-provider agnostic, company-agnostic tools and services, which is what everyone would agree we want, except the sociopaths who value profit over humanity and run these corporations.
That's what got everyone excited about Bitcoin for a hot second. That it finally escapes the walled gardens all technology is living under. Instead of fixing the walled gardens, these delusional fools think they can technology their way out of corporations owning all key infrastructure. Jesus Christ.
Back to Apple.
Apple's entire business strategy is creating a walled garden because it benefits them, at the expense of everyone else. They give consumers crumbs and call it 'the biggest release ever'.
Facebook's entire business strategy is being a surveillance network, which is again, entirely reliant upon the government never waking up to how creepy, immoral and counter-productive it is on so many levels! There are enough sociopaths in government who think oh good, a surveillance tool, we can make use of it! Good luck having Facebook regulated when we live in a corporatocracy folks!
Everything these big companies do is against the interests of human beings. People are just too dumb to see it because if you drip-feed them 'new emojis' and 'you can have a weather widget on your screen in 2020', they don't realize they are getting fucked!
Sorry, carry on with your 'analysis' of what these sociopaths are up to and pretending you have valuable insight, when the only sane insight to be had is 'these fuckers are out of control'.
[+] [-] WoodenChair|5 years ago|reply
Hyperbole if I've ever read it. "every move"? Is investing in clean energy to power all of their data centers anti-human as Apple has done? Is creating a $100,000,000 education fund for under-represented app developers anti-human? Is encrypting devices by default to protect privacy anti-human?
Now, as you can see I'm a bit of an Apple apologist and of course all of these are good PR moves. But every corporation is by definition just a "group of humans working together for profit." They will do good things for profit and they will do bad things for profit. But a group of humans working together for profit does not make every move they do "anti-human."
[+] [-] askafriend|5 years ago|reply
You used a lot of words to basically say nothing meaningful and show that you actually don't understand these companies or their customers.
[+] [-] jmull|5 years ago|reply
If the government mandates protocol X, then protocol X is no longer open.
The body directing the development of protocol X becomes an extended part of the government (or simply a direct part), and is subject to an entirely different level of political influence.
> People are just too dumb to see it...
I honestly don't believe you can share, understand, or speak for the interests of people you hold in contempt. The thing is, they aren't dumb, no more so than you, I or anyone else. You may not understand their perspective, but they have one whether you can see it or not.
[+] [-] bonestormii_|5 years ago|reply
The problem always seems to be the question, "How do you get a decentralized system to a reach critical mass of mainstream usage?"
Consider the concept of a labor union. The word "union" implies a unification, formalization, and to some extent a centralization of workers around an administrative structure that is not the business that employs them. I think many people would agree that such a union is a necessary counter force if you want to achieve progressive workplace reforms.
Technology to free us from the walled garden always pursues decentralization as a means to evade control. But there must be some unified, centralized force promoting it early on.
The downside to this is that it creates a large attack surface vulnerable to legal threat and infiltration of competing interests. However, we can't replace the global internet with enmeshed home networks. We can't replace fiber with dreams, or iphones with raspberry pis.
It would be great if the governments represented the people, and did not act like some self-interested third party so much of the time. Perhaps, the government--our government--would be an appropriate body to administer a formative revolution. But since we know that they like to spy, control, and arbitrarily regulate, it forces the question of how to form a dedicated central entity powerful enough to promote the changes we want to see, but resistant to the trappings of other corporations and government.
It's a deep question that arises when you pursue freedom of any kind.