We don't have to accept solutions presented by the people who caused the problems. We can first scrutinize the dichotomy in which the problem is framed. On the web, the *Protocols, Not Platforms* dichotomy frames our problems as a matter of inadequate technology. *If only we had used the "correct" technology, we might've avoided the rise of Meta*. But, it's not the underpinnings of a tech-stack that gave us the plundering platform era of the last decade. And it's not a protocol that will liberate us from the techno-oligarchs. _Communities, Not Markets_ is about finding opportunities to participate in digital spaces that avoid the growth motive. ## The problem *It is possible to centralize within a decentralized system* In its pursuit of endless growth, by way of unregulated markets, lobbying, and corruption, the ad-tech giants have become the gatekeepers of the internet, and watchers of our digital lives. These companies have generated an unprecedented amount of power and have since started behaving like digital Empires. This power was accumulated, not because of the walled gardens they govern, but because of the dismantling of anti-trust laws, and a corrupt Congress who have vested financial interests in these companies' monopolies. Under any other technology stack, these companies would have become similar digital empires. So decentralizing a single layer in the stack (the protocol), does nothing to disseminate their power and authority over our lives. ## Decentralized social media is not a revolution ## The social graph In theory, decentralizing the protocol layer of the social media technology stack, would allow users to roam the social web freely, popping in an out of different platforms, carrying with them their posts, followers, and their entire digital footprint. This newfound freedom is supposed to force social media companies to compete with each other. If you can pick up and leave Platform X for Platform Y at the touch of a button, while keeping your digital backpack, Platform X, in theory, would work to make its platform a safe and enjoyable experience, lest they lose users. There are a few major flaws with this theory. First, what's to compel Platform X and Platform Y to adopt a decentralized protocol, thus allowing their users to leave its platform? There would need to be a major incentive for adoption, otherwise, for public traded companies in particular, the change would be a miscarriage of fiduciary responsibility. In other words, no CEO of a publicly traded company is going to freely adopt something that would make it easier for their users to leave. Again, unless, there was a bigger incentive. More on that in a moment. Second, decentralizing the protocol layer does nothing to prevent either platform from centralizing another layer in the stack. Like, say, the infrastructure layer. What's the use of a decentralized protocol if one company controls the infrastructure in which each node operates on? Finally, the expectation of decentralized social media is our gained ability to roam the social web freely, with some form of Personal Information Identity (PII) tied to us. To accomplish this "nomad ID," some form of centralization must occur. Either your ID stays with you, or a centralized authority. This ID would necessarily include everything about you, your personal information, your activities on all website, friends, followers, blocks, comments, shares. The more corporations to participate in this decentralized system, the more personal data goes into that backpack. Say, your healthcare provider participates in the social web. All your healthcare information from that provider is thrown in your digital backpack. This is the incentive for corporations to participate—a centralized social graph they can dip into. ## We already have decentalization We already have decentralized systems. We should enforce them. We already have a decentralized network in which these companies operate. It's called the World Wide Web. The Internet, too, is a decentralized network of computers around the world that should have made it impossible for corporations to "own." Decentralization can be a useful tool for taking back the Internet from corporations and placing it back in the hands of the people. But by itself it is, at best, an incomplete strategy, and at worst, can be a stepping stone for the next iteration of the corporatized web. (Email) This document assumes an audience of all technical skill levels, from novice to expert to not ever in my professional wheelhouse. In *Communities, Not Markets*, I argue that the ideals of Technocracy are **not** how we win back the internet from corporations. I challenge the false dichotomy of the Techno-libertarian and billionaire-approved manifesto *Protocols, Not Platforms*. And, finally, I explore the possibilities of introducing community-first digital spaces, and highlight the differences between communities, and the prominent form of digital spaces, markets. ## Technocracy is not the answer