> I think there is a key point here. This exactly is the reason why incentives markets built around IPFS are so relevant.
I fundamentally disagree. If someone wants to make filesharing easier, go ahead (personally I think dragging files into a "Shared" folder, like eDonkey/Kazaa/Limewire/etc. would be easier for non-"powerusers" than minting and securing a crypto wallet and trying to convince others of its value in exchange for storage space, but whatever).
To me, such projects seem about as relevant for IPFS as, say, Geocities is for HTTP.
> How is any of this related to consumer level users wanting to keep IPFS data alive?
I'm saying that "consumer level users wanting to keep... data alive" is unrelated to IPFS.
If someone wants to work in that space, they can do so in separate projects (there are already many). Such projects could make use of IPFS; but they could also use HTTP, Bittorrent, GNUNet, Dat/Hyperdrive, Freenet, ED2K, FTP, or whatever seems appropriate (ideally, all of the above and more).
Presumably such projects could encode their text using UTF-8, to 'democratise saying things outside of the Anglosphere'; but that shouldn't de-rail the Unicode consortium into a multi-year crypto pivot.
That's all fine but the fact of the matter is that a lot of web3 content is built on IPFS and not on all those other technologies (partially because IPFS is truly permissionless), so the "just use another tech" argument is quite moot/academic
> the "just use another tech" argument is quite moot/academic
What "argument"? I said that filesharing/storage-incentivising projects can build on whatever they like; and that they have been doing, for decades.
My "argument" is that the IPFS project/protocol is not such a project. It is a network protocol (or suite thereof; for peer discovery, data transfer, hash representations, etc.).
> the fact of the matter is that a lot of web3 content is built on IPFS and not on all those other technologies
So what? Hopefully those projects chose to use IPFS due to its technical features, its stated goals, etc. How's that working out for them?
Note that, in particular, those technical features and stated goals do not include getting other people to host your shit. If some "web3" projects have decided to build their crypto bullshit on top of such a fundamental misunderstanding, then that's hilarious! More realistically, I'm guessing they know full-well that's not how any of this works; and are just keeping the illusion going until their inevitable rug-pull.
Either way, that's not IPFS's problem (which, again, is a (suite of) network protocols).
I fundamentally disagree. If someone wants to make filesharing easier, go ahead (personally I think dragging files into a "Shared" folder, like eDonkey/Kazaa/Limewire/etc. would be easier for non-"powerusers" than minting and securing a crypto wallet and trying to convince others of its value in exchange for storage space, but whatever).
To me, such projects seem about as relevant for IPFS as, say, Geocities is for HTTP.