zlacker

>>dend+(OP)
This all sounds like renting to me. Instead you should:

  - put a rack in your home
  - buy an IPv4 block
  - buy dark fibre
  - start your own ISP
  - advertise routes over BGP
  - host your own email
  - found a registrar and transfer your domains over

All easily obtainable for less than a million dollars in capital. Though once your FTTH and undersea cable operations ramp up you'll need further access to capital.

>>xyzzy_+6f
The second you have a domain you can move it where you want. Change the software, look and feel. You keep subscribers. You don’t need to own every atom, just enough to give you options.

You can’t move your X or FB account. They can block you anytime, or reduce traffic. Way fewer options.

>>richar+bj
Having control over a domain name doesn't mean all that much when the data hosted on it can be hijacked or held hostage at any point.

>>paxys+Qs
It offers significantly more flexibility and freedom compared to any social network. If your data is "hijacked" (not sure that that means in this context, but let's assume the host terminated your account), you can spin up another hosting account on one of the many hosting providers and point your domain to it. That's it (not to say that it's that trivial for large sites, but that's the gist of it).

If your account on a major social network is terminated, if you had a large community there, you have quite literally no way to access them unless you had some kind of parallel presence somewhere else.