I'm on the same page with you. I guess i should rephrase.

I said "That's a good thing" from Apple and Google's point of view. They are public companies with shareholders who don't want them to contribute to potentially illegal behaviors. So it's a "good thing" for them to have the companies comply with the governments.

But this phenomenon itself is not a good thing, so I do think decentralized projects should fix this problem. But centralized companies should not advertise themselves as being able to tackle this type of problem because it's not possible.

This brings us back to the original issue I pointed out. Telegram knows Very very well that they have this issue. Ask anyone who has built a mobile app if building a decentralized ecosystem on top of Apple appstore is possible and they would laugh at you. But Telegram did. And they raised billions of dollars for that false vision which they knew was impossible to achieve as a centralized organization with a product that depends on a centralized platform.

It certainly represents a sea change where the "leaders" in tech are now basically gatekeepers to new technology's viability. Thats been the case for a while, but now the players are the ones who were built on the relative freedom of the internet. It could absolutely just shut the whole distributed platform thing down, but the demand will still be there I think, so eventually new platforms could come take its place. Thats of little solace to ICO investors nowadays of course, because it could delay the rollout by a decade or more.