I agree that public spaces need rules, resolution of conflicts, etc - because as we can see networks are flooded with spam - i think this is the toughest question - how to govern them. Still, one centralised governance for all public spaces looks like not the best solution. I think ideas about more local governance - when for example categories / themes are governed by those who create it

Bluesky using layers for moderation seems very promising to me. Yes you need restriction but no it definitely doesn't have to be centralized.

Bluesky definitely does do their own moderation too on the content they host. But as they federate, the centralized solution becomes obviously insufficient.

What you say is completely correct. But I have only vague guesses at how you got to talking about a unified internet controlled by one elite/group. T

This article is explicitly talking about protocols to let neurons talk with each other. Directly. About disintermediation. So, I'm not sure what your seeming sense of alarm is here. Provided the protocols do what they say on the tin. I feel like your getting tripped up on fear uncertainty and doubts, but it's exactly what's trying to be addressed here, so it's really confusing to see your post. From the article:

> This separateness is not the biggest problem; what is more dangerous is that in each of these versions of the Internet, the neurons can’t talk and express themselves directly to each other.

I think a local first alternative and a direct connection of nodes in the network would lead to a healthier network if we think of it as a nervous system that connects us

actually, I agree, one unified internet that is controlled by one group could be even worse than the different parts we have today