4 ms·
I know you could technically say that Mastodon is a decentralized network, but I like to say that it just distributes the kind of power associated with centrali
by Funes- 7y ago
I know you could technically say that Mastodon is a decentralized network, but I like to say that it just distributes the kind of power associated with centralisation. What I mean is this: each server in Mastodon is governed by a small group of people that decides upon the kind of content they will either host or ban; they will determine which other servers can communicate with them, as well, so your vision of the "fediverse" won't be exhaustive or complete. They also own your unencrypted data. That's not the case with most XMPP servers, for instance--to name another federated communication protocol.
- dublinben 7y agoMastodon entirely fits the definition of a decentralized network, not just "technically." You're just pointing out inherent properties of decentralized network topology. The next step would be a distributed topology, where every user of the network communicates directly with every other user. Pure p2p communication protocols have failed to catch on with users for a multitude of reasons.
- Funes- 7y ago>Mastodon entirely fits the definition of a decentralized network, not just "technically." You're just pointing out inherent properties of decentralized network topology. No. I am pointing out the sense in which federated networks aren't decentralized by the definition of the word "decentralized" itself, and not the topologic category--which gets its definition from the meaning of the word as well, of course, but is an umbrella term. They are decentralized in how servers communicate between them; they are not in how each server is organized, even more so in the case of Mastodon, as I already said.