One tech field where this kind of centralization is now at similar levels with social media is cloud computing, where a handful of giant actors (AWS, Azure, GCE) hold 99% of the market, providing cheap solutions at the hidden cost of an increased centralization of power.
I believe the paradigm shift on social media cannot operate on the application layer if it is not also met with a similar paradigm shift on the platform layer, otherwise it will only transfer this power to hidden entities. Decentralization is becoming more than a buzzword, especially with net neutrality under assault.
Wut?
I mean, otherwise yout point still stands, and I agree, but I think it's even stranger with "cloud" stuff, in that it's very much not cheap.
We are unlikely to see a large-scale movement towards self-reliance by users, or any government in the U.S. or Europe taking this on directly. Instead they will penalize companies until they do it.
So the companies that got big are ending up with the governance job because nobody else wants it. Mostly they started with semi-libertarian philosophies until they found that social media does not work that way and someone needs to handle the filth. And a lot of companies that started out with online forums (like newspapers) decided that it's not worth it and shut down their forums, so there are fewer players.
This makes it convenient for scapegoating. We can blame the big tech companies when they get it wrong, because we don't want to do the work ourselves.
It's a little bit more complex. Everyone wants the profit, no one wants the liability. Everyone wants data they can sell to advertisers, no one wants responsibility for handling it.
I think the governments have to enforce an open standard which would allow intercompatibility between different social networks.
Sure, some die-hards would continue to use the smaller ones, but most people would sign up on the biggest.
