For those of us who've been around for some time and still value privacy, this sort of paradigm is obvious.
The trouble isn't a lack of the right technologies - I'd argue it's a problem in the go-to-market strategy of those building these products/technologies.
Ideas flow along lines carved out by power/influence. Facebook's early strategy was to start with restricting its usage to people at Harvard University - arguably a highly influential institution - and then expand outwards to other highly influential institutions. Only once the "who's who" from those institutions were already onboard did they let down the walls to allow us plebs in, and we all rushed in head-first.
X's current strategy leverages Musk's visibility and influence (for better or worse).
Get the most prominent influencers onboard with your decentralized social network, and others will follow (dramatically easier said than done, of course). But without a significant contingent of influencers/powerful people, your network's DoA.
> prominent influencers onboard with your decentralized social network
That's sort of a contradiction, no? Or at least it assumes transplanting the same mechanisms into a new milieu -- which I argue is something to leave behind, because it's those very mechanisms that have ruined the current internet.
I think instead of tapping into the same addictive attention economy schemes, the distributed / decentralized socials could onboard people en-masse by providing what's missing there, and filling a real need.
Even if they fill a real need, their go-to-market strategy will determine whether the masses even know about them, or give a damn about trying them out in the first place.