Ryan Sean Adams

And I kind of vaguely remember discussions that remind me of what you just said.

I'm like mailing lists or something 20 or 40 years ago, whatever it was.

And with Linux, it has resulted in almost no additional freedom for the end user.

Like if you imagine an end user who's not a specialist, right?

They're not a super shadow coder or whatever.

They're just a normal person who has like other interests and priorities in life and they just want to do a thing like install a new app and use it.

I don't know if Linux is giving them any more options today than they would have had if Linux had never existed.

So I can imagine that scenario going like that because the Facebook or Wall Street or whoever can use the technology, which is what they did with Linux and do today with Linux, while denying their users access

like the option, the freedom to exit, like alternatives, lower barriers to entry for their competitors.

They can leave all that part out.

So when you're telling that story, I was thinking, okay, well, would that mean that users, unsophisticated users, or sometimes if there's just like, if 10% of the users know how to do a thing, that's still enough pressure that it,

motivates the competitors to behave better.

It's okay if the other 90% of the users wouldn't do the thing or wouldn't figure it out.

Maybe.

But anyway, my question is, suppose Wall Street or Facebook or whoever is going to adopt some technology that the crypto industry has pioneered.

would that mean that any of their users now have like the ability to exit Facebook while taking all their social graph with them or the ability to have the AI constrained to keep their private communications private and invisible to the server, the Facebook or whatever?

Or would it not?

Same with Wall Street.

Like, I don't understand this Wall Street technology stuff.

Would it result in investors having some power to do something better for themselves without relying on the institution to allow them to do the thing?