4 ms·

> One, or a small number, and because this is the history of these types of things. It's worth teasing this apart. There is a befuddling belief on the part of

> One, or a small number, and because this is the history of these types of things. It's worth teasing this apart. There is a befuddling belief on the part of some decentralization advocates -- and of some decentralization detractors! -- that decentralization must imply an even distribution of power or influence. That strikes me as unrealistic in the extreme; meaningful networked ecosystems essentially never converge to uniform distribution. Power laws are the norm, not the exception. I try to avoid "decentralized"'s linguistic baggage by using the term "federated" instead. Email is federated; Gmail is its behemoth... and that's okay. (As for Mastodon: today, the majority of the network's traffic resides on the largest 5 of 3500+ publicly announced instances. It's power laws all the way down.)

wdewind 8y ago
> There is a befuddling belief on the part of some decentralization advocates -- and of some decentralization detractors! -- that decentralization must imply an even distribution of power or influence. No, it's that if you observe that power laws are the norm, as you stated, then you start to see decentralization as a process, not a state of being. The idea that a network (or governance structure) "is decentralized by design" makes no sense. If you know decentralization is temporary, it's hard to take Mastodon etc. seriously.
- davepeck 8y ago
  Alas, I don't quite understand the point you're trying to make (and I'd like to!) Perhaps this will clarify things: I think "decentralized by design" is linguistically ambiguous, because "decentralized" has a bunch of odd baggage -- do you think it's reasonable to say that email is "decentralized by design", and why (or why not)?
  - wdewind 8y ago
    Sorry, I'll attempt to clarify: most human networks obey power laws in terms of centralization. For instance, the vast majority of the content is produced by a tiny minority. Sometimes humans make networks in which this is no longer true, that is content is produced basically equally among all, or at least most, members of the network. These are decentralized networks. These types of networks are not sustainable or large for a broad host of reasons, and so they form only temporarily. But they are desirable, and valuable, which is why they still form at all. Email exists well within our very centralized federated political and cultural system, and so no, it is not meaningfully decentralized. We do have some small, decentralized networks (artist communes, maybe qualify?) within the US, but they do not scale. Mastodon will also fall prey to the same issues: as soon as it is big enough for anyone to care about, regulation will come, and regulation will require significant centralization.
    - davepeck 8y ago
      Got it, thanks. I'm fully in agreement with you on this, given that you take "decentralized" to imply "uniform (or nearly uniform) distribution of power/influence". As an aside, this exemplifies why I tend to avoid the term "decentralized" in the current context: not everyone makes the assumption of uniformity when they read this word. As a double aside, in case you haven't run across it, I highly recommend this book: https://www.cs.cornell.edu/home/kleinber/networks-book/ https://www.cs.cornell.edu/home/kleinber/networks-book/
    - profalseidol 8y ago
      That's just out-of-scope of the tool in question (Mastodon). Any tool is helpless against Human control. If that is the case the I think I know what you mean by "not meaningfully decentralized". BUT, if we can at least break the monopoly of FB and Twitter into at least a hexapoly, then that has still meaning. The internet's design allowed for many to use it meaningfully decentralized for many years. Also, BitTorrent got lots of gov't regulation, but I can still use it since I'm outside the west. And rutrackerDOTorg is so good. I think that is meaningful. The long-term solution for this Human problem -I believe is to for employees to own corporations. Gov't is corruptible by private companies that is run by modern feudal lords called Executives. The larger the domain of these companies, the more influence it can do to the Gov't. And we have now reach a point in history that these Modern Feudal Lords has acquired all their competitions (Oracle, Disney, that rich dirty old man who owns all new corporations, Bezos, etc.) and is ready to reincarnate Hitler but with orange skin. And by employees owning corporations. I mean 1-person-1-vote, instead of 1-share-1-vote. Managers and CEOs can still exist, but is not permanent. Employee-owners can recall them anytime, and they can agree for a quarterly or semi-annual evaluation. Employee-owners also decide how much to pay Managers and CEOs, how to use the profit. You may ask if this company can survive? This has been done in large scale by Mondragon, a corporation and federation of worker cooperatives based in the Basque region of Spain. Not perfect but it has done good progress.
      - wdewind 8y ago
        > The long-term solution for this Human problem -I believe is to for employees to own corporations. We're right back to confederation. No one wants to deal with this shit otherwise they already would, hence federation instead. > And by employees owning corporations. I mean 1-person-1-vote, instead of 1-share-1-vote. Managers and CEOs can still exist, but is not permanent. Employee-owners can recall them anytime, and they can agree for a quarterly or semi-annual evaluation. Employee-owners also decide how much to pay Managers and CEOs, how to use the profit. You may ask if this company can survive? This has been done in large scale by Mondragon, a corporation and federation of worker cooperatives based in the Basque region of Spain. Not perfect but it has done good progress. No one would ever agree to this except employees. Mondragon works because it pays basically what would be paid regardless. The actual executives managing the Mondragon foundation are not constrained to the same pay structures that the people working in the coops are. The number of non-owning employees is also growing fairly rapidly.

wdewind 8y ago

> There is a befuddling belief on the part of some decentralization advocates -- and of some decentralization detractors! -- that decentralization must imply an even distribution of power or influence. No, it's that if you observe that power laws are the norm, as you stated, then you start to see decentralization as a process, not a state of being. The idea that a network (or governance structure) "is decentralized by design" makes no sense. If you know decentralization is temporary, it's hard to take Mastodon etc. seriously.

davepeck 8y ago
Alas, I don't quite understand the point you're trying to make (and I'd like to!) Perhaps this will clarify things: I think "decentralized by design" is linguistically ambiguous, because "decentralized" has a bunch of odd baggage -- do you think it's reasonable to say that email is "decentralized by design", and why (or why not)?
- wdewind 8y ago
  Sorry, I'll attempt to clarify: most human networks obey power laws in terms of centralization. For instance, the vast majority of the content is produced by a tiny minority. Sometimes humans make networks in which this is no longer true, that is content is produced basically equally among all, or at least most, members of the network. These are decentralized networks. These types of networks are not sustainable or large for a broad host of reasons, and so they form only temporarily. But they are desirable, and valuable, which is why they still form at all. Email exists well within our very centralized federated political and cultural system, and so no, it is not meaningfully decentralized. We do have some small, decentralized networks (artist communes, maybe qualify?) within the US, but they do not scale. Mastodon will also fall prey to the same issues: as soon as it is big enough for anyone to care about, regulation will come, and regulation will require significant centralization.
  - davepeck 8y ago
    Got it, thanks. I'm fully in agreement with you on this, given that you take "decentralized" to imply "uniform (or nearly uniform) distribution of power/influence". As an aside, this exemplifies why I tend to avoid the term "decentralized" in the current context: not everyone makes the assumption of uniformity when they read this word. As a double aside, in case you haven't run across it, I highly recommend this book: https://www.cs.cornell.edu/home/kleinber/networks-book/ https://www.cs.cornell.edu/home/kleinber/networks-book/
  - profalseidol 8y ago
    That's just out-of-scope of the tool in question (Mastodon). Any tool is helpless against Human control. If that is the case the I think I know what you mean by "not meaningfully decentralized". BUT, if we can at least break the monopoly of FB and Twitter into at least a hexapoly, then that has still meaning. The internet's design allowed for many to use it meaningfully decentralized for many years. Also, BitTorrent got lots of gov't regulation, but I can still use it since I'm outside the west. And rutrackerDOTorg is so good. I think that is meaningful. The long-term solution for this Human problem -I believe is to for employees to own corporations. Gov't is corruptible by private companies that is run by modern feudal lords called Executives. The larger the domain of these companies, the more influence it can do to the Gov't. And we have now reach a point in history that these Modern Feudal Lords has acquired all their competitions (Oracle, Disney, that rich dirty old man who owns all new corporations, Bezos, etc.) and is ready to reincarnate Hitler but with orange skin. And by employees owning corporations. I mean 1-person-1-vote, instead of 1-share-1-vote. Managers and CEOs can still exist, but is not permanent. Employee-owners can recall them anytime, and they can agree for a quarterly or semi-annual evaluation. Employee-owners also decide how much to pay Managers and CEOs, how to use the profit. You may ask if this company can survive? This has been done in large scale by Mondragon, a corporation and federation of worker cooperatives based in the Basque region of Spain. Not perfect but it has done good progress.
    - wdewind 8y ago
      > The long-term solution for this Human problem -I believe is to for employees to own corporations. We're right back to confederation. No one wants to deal with this shit otherwise they already would, hence federation instead. > And by employees owning corporations. I mean 1-person-1-vote, instead of 1-share-1-vote. Managers and CEOs can still exist, but is not permanent. Employee-owners can recall them anytime, and they can agree for a quarterly or semi-annual evaluation. Employee-owners also decide how much to pay Managers and CEOs, how to use the profit. You may ask if this company can survive? This has been done in large scale by Mondragon, a corporation and federation of worker cooperatives based in the Basque region of Spain. Not perfect but it has done good progress. No one would ever agree to this except employees. Mondragon works because it pays basically what would be paid regardless. The actual executives managing the Mondragon foundation are not constrained to the same pay structures that the people working in the coops are. The number of non-owning employees is also growing fairly rapidly.