>Mastodon entirely fits the definition of a decentralized network, not just "technically." You're just pointing out inherent properties of decentralized network

>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.