6 ms·

> I think you're maybe forgetting that the goal of Mastodon, or any federated (as opposed to distributed) system, is not to have every single user run and admin

> I think you're maybe forgetting that the goal of Mastodon, or any federated (as opposed to distributed) system, is not to have every single user run and administer their own instances, but rather to enable users to freely select from a wide variety of compatible interconnected peers. This looks like a networking protocol, but this is actually process for electing the main node in the network, which will eventually revert it back to the mean of centralization. Let's see how Mastodon scales. > I think people mostly want a smaller power to do it for them, or at least a "smaller than The Platform, or The Government". People want the freedom of small networks while gaining the moderation protection of larger ones. People's beliefs about this are largely incoherent imo. That being said I'm broadly against heavy handed moderation, and so I'm happy to see it being solved by fragmenting the community rather than enforcing undesirable norms across it.

394549 8y ago
> This looks like a networking protocol, but this is actually process for electing the main node in the network, which will eventually revert it back to the mean of centralization. Let's see how Mastodon scales Would you say the same about email? Gmail may be huge, but I still wouldn't call email a centralized system. I imagine Mastodon would have a similar fate, if it gets big.
hannasanarion 8y ago
> This looks like a networking protocol, but this is actually process for electing the main node in the network, which will eventually revert it back to the mean of centralization. Let's see how Mastodon scales. I don't entirely understand why you assume that one node will come to dominate such that it will be equivalent to a centralized system? The term "federation" is borrowed from political science for a reason. Just like in the USA, multiple federated states who share broad-strokes policies maintain interoperability while also maintaining their own sovreignty. The main difference is that, if you want something smaller and less overbearing, it's a lot cheaper to move from mastodon.social to some small instance than it is to move from California to Vermont.
- wdewind 8y ago
  > I don't entirely understand why you assume that one node will come to dominate such that it will be equivalent to a centralized system? One, or a small number, and because this is the history of these types of things. > The term "federation" is borrowed from political science for a reason. Just like in the USA, multiple federated states who share broad-strokes policies maintain interoperability while also maintaining their own sovreignty. The USA is actually not a federation, and purposefully stopped being one (it turned in a confederation, removing the right to leave, effectively centralizing it under federal control) when the country was founded. (Edit: I reversed the terms confederation and federation here, but what I mean is that the founding of the US removed sovereignty from the states.) This is where the rubber meets the road: any decentralized system will need to be able to answer the question "how do we [the govt, usually] forcibly remove content from the network?" The way you answer that question will be the way the network centralizes. The history of true confederations (Colonial States, Personal Computing, the Internet) is that they are temporary chaotic moments before we revert back to the mean of centralization (United States, SaaS/FB/Gmail/centralized communication and iphones as tracking devices, PRISM). This is all an instance of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_law. Our culture is not confederated, and so we wont be able to build scalable confederated systems within it.
  - hannasanarion 8y ago
    > The USA is actually not a federation, and purposefully stopped being one (it turned in a confederation You have it backwards. The USA was a Confederation (a weak alliance of almost entirely independent nations) under the Articles of Confederation, 1776-1789 Then in 1789 it became a Federation (a strong national union of autonomous but not independent states) with the new Constitution. In a confederation, the central government has negligible power and states can come and go as they please. The EU is arguably a confederation, and it's pretty much the only modern example, because confederations rarely last long. Historical confederations include the CSA and Holy Roman Empire. That is not the model that the Fediverse wants to uphold (otherwise it would be called the confediverse). Mastodon is intended to be structured as a Federation, like the United States, Germany, or Malaysia, with a strong but limited central power that maintains unity among the federated members, while mostly letting them do their own thing.
HeadsUpHigh 8y ago
>This looks like a networking protocol, but this is actually process for electing the main node in the network, which will eventually revert it back to the mean of centralization. Let's see how Mastodon scales. You are missing the point. The fact that some instances will get way bigger than others is fine. People will choose whatever instance they prefer and will have that power. This will allow for heavily curated instances as well as more free ones. You choose your poison. You can't do that on other platforms.

394549 8y ago

> This looks like a networking protocol, but this is actually process for electing the main node in the network, which will eventually revert it back to the mean of centralization. Let's see how Mastodon scales Would you say the same about email? Gmail may be huge, but I still wouldn't call email a centralized system. I imagine Mastodon would have a similar fate, if it gets big.

hannasanarion 8y ago

> This looks like a networking protocol, but this is actually process for electing the main node in the network, which will eventually revert it back to the mean of centralization. Let's see how Mastodon scales. I don't entirely understand why you assume that one node will come to dominate such that it will be equivalent to a centralized system? The term "federation" is borrowed from political science for a reason. Just like in the USA, multiple federated states who share broad-strokes policies maintain interoperability while also maintaining their own sovreignty. The main difference is that, if you want something smaller and less overbearing, it's a lot cheaper to move from mastodon.social to some small instance than it is to move from California to Vermont.

wdewind 8y ago
> I don't entirely understand why you assume that one node will come to dominate such that it will be equivalent to a centralized system? One, or a small number, and because this is the history of these types of things. > The term "federation" is borrowed from political science for a reason. Just like in the USA, multiple federated states who share broad-strokes policies maintain interoperability while also maintaining their own sovreignty. The USA is actually not a federation, and purposefully stopped being one (it turned in a confederation, removing the right to leave, effectively centralizing it under federal control) when the country was founded. (Edit: I reversed the terms confederation and federation here, but what I mean is that the founding of the US removed sovereignty from the states.) This is where the rubber meets the road: any decentralized system will need to be able to answer the question "how do we [the govt, usually] forcibly remove content from the network?" The way you answer that question will be the way the network centralizes. The history of true confederations (Colonial States, Personal Computing, the Internet) is that they are temporary chaotic moments before we revert back to the mean of centralization (United States, SaaS/FB/Gmail/centralized communication and iphones as tracking devices, PRISM). This is all an instance of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_law. Our culture is not confederated, and so we wont be able to build scalable confederated systems within it.
- hannasanarion 8y ago
  > The USA is actually not a federation, and purposefully stopped being one (it turned in a confederation You have it backwards. The USA was a Confederation (a weak alliance of almost entirely independent nations) under the Articles of Confederation, 1776-1789 Then in 1789 it became a Federation (a strong national union of autonomous but not independent states) with the new Constitution. In a confederation, the central government has negligible power and states can come and go as they please. The EU is arguably a confederation, and it's pretty much the only modern example, because confederations rarely last long. Historical confederations include the CSA and Holy Roman Empire. That is not the model that the Fediverse wants to uphold (otherwise it would be called the confediverse). Mastodon is intended to be structured as a Federation, like the United States, Germany, or Malaysia, with a strong but limited central power that maintains unity among the federated members, while mostly letting them do their own thing.

HeadsUpHigh 8y ago

>This looks like a networking protocol, but this is actually process for electing the main node in the network, which will eventually revert it back to the mean of centralization. Let's see how Mastodon scales. You are missing the point. The fact that some instances will get way bigger than others is fine. People will choose whatever instance they prefer and will have that power. This will allow for heavily curated instances as well as more free ones. You choose your poison. You can't do that on other platforms.