This leads me to two thoughts/questions:
1. Maybe successful decentralization schemes should be made providing for some peers that will be private for-profit? I know that (for example) IPFS encourages building services.
2. What could we do to ensure that small private peers will continue to be viable, even if some large for-profit peers will dominate? Of course such measures should be reasonably resistant to being used by bad spammy/illegal actors etc. ("Bad actors being bad" is always a handy rhetoric for overcentralization, but the problem itself should be obviously addressed.)
I'm sceptikal as well, about a federated protocol being able to replace an existing entrenched player. Buy I still hope.
>Not to mention the majority of people get their email hosted by a proprietary service these days.
But all the proprietary services talk to eachother, and, mostly, talk to private instances as well. There are absolutely allowed to be proprietary PeerTube instances.