5 ms·

Mastodon is not decentralized, it's federated. So no, it wouldn't fit any common definition of web3.

SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago
> Mastodon is not decentralized it's federated Are you saying that this federation is not a form of decentralization? I'm pretty sure that Mastodon is not centralised like Twitter is. This is akin to the pedant/trolls who usually pop up and say "the USA is not a democracy, it's a republic!" in conversations that compare the USA's regular elections to dictatorial autocracies. https://act.represent.us/sign/democracy-republic https://act.represent.us/sign/democracy-republic
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- dist1ll 4y ago
  Federation is a very weak form of decentralization. In practice, many federated platforms turn into cartels of giant centralized providers. It's better than Twitter, but not something I'd call decentralization.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago
    > Federation is a very weak form of decentralization ... not something I'd call decentralization ... is not decentralized Uh, OK; this is not all the same claim. > In practice, many federated platforms turn into cartels of giant centralized providers Sure that's a worry; for example: email is global, so lets all use GMail. git is decentralized onto GitHub and a few other providers. I think that this tendency is not just a mastodon thing, and is a separate and wider concern though than "it is not decentralized".
    - dist1ll 4y ago
      I thought a bit more about it. I stand by my statement that federation is not decentralization. Federation is a pre-requisite for decentralization, but not a sufficient criterion. (I said weaker form, what I meant to say was necessary condition) Federation gives you an opportunity to develop a decentralized ecosystem...but that depends entirely on how users use the platform, or what rules the platform enforces. Decentralized platforms are always federated, and on top of that have strong fault-tolerance, redundancy and democratic control mechanisms. This may be enforced by a protocol, or it may also be enforced by the people (the latter is highly unrealistic because human trust doesn't scale) So I'll revise my statement to: Mastodon is not decentralized by default, but at least it is federated.
  - ceejayoz 4y ago
    Is there a form of decentralization not prone to this? Blockchain certainly seems to trend towards "cartels of giant centralized providers".
k__ 4y ago
This. Mastodon basically shards data via instances. If someone shuts one down, the data there is gone. Plus, it's not permissionless. Most instances are invite only.
- SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago
  > Plus, it's not permissionless. Most instance admins first check if they like your face before you get in Is this really a blocker? If your face is really that objectionable, you can buy your own mastodon-as-a-service for single-digit dollars per month. (1) This doesn't seem at all "centralised" to me. 1) https://masto.host/ https://masto.host/
  - lzooz 4y ago
    You can do all of that and then talk to yourself because no one will federate with you.
    - SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago
      If you're really objectionable, no one will listen to you. Sounds more like a feature than a bug to me. And still not centralised.
  - acomjean 4y ago
    “New subscriptions are closed”.. guess business has been good the past few weeks.
SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago
> it wouldn't fit any common definition of web3. To be clear, in my opinion, in summary, mastodon = "twitter without the centralised company", and web3 = "useless crypto shit". So I don't need or want mastodon to "fit" web3. I'm just pointing out that the above proposed definition of web3 can't be right, as it fits something that thankfully isn't and doesn't aspire to being web3.
acdha 4y ago
It's true that it doesn't fit the common definition of web3 but that's because it doesn't involve blockchains. Since anyone can implement the protocol and use it without the permission of other users, it fits any common definition of decentralization.

> Mastodon is not decentralized it's federated Are you saying that this federation is not a form of decentralization? I'm pretty sure that Mastodon is not centralised like Twitter is. This is akin to the pedant/trolls who usually pop up and say "the USA is not a democracy, it's a republic!" in conversations that compare the USA's regular elections to dictatorial autocracies. https://act.represent.us/sign/democracy-republic https://act.represent.us/sign/democracy-republic

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
dist1ll 4y ago
Federation is a very weak form of decentralization. In practice, many federated platforms turn into cartels of giant centralized providers. It's better than Twitter, but not something I'd call decentralization.
- SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago
  > Federation is a very weak form of decentralization ... not something I'd call decentralization ... is not decentralized Uh, OK; this is not all the same claim. > In practice, many federated platforms turn into cartels of giant centralized providers Sure that's a worry; for example: email is global, so lets all use GMail. git is decentralized onto GitHub and a few other providers. I think that this tendency is not just a mastodon thing, and is a separate and wider concern though than "it is not decentralized".
  - dist1ll 4y ago
    I thought a bit more about it. I stand by my statement that federation is not decentralization. Federation is a pre-requisite for decentralization, but not a sufficient criterion. (I said weaker form, what I meant to say was necessary condition) Federation gives you an opportunity to develop a decentralized ecosystem...but that depends entirely on how users use the platform, or what rules the platform enforces. Decentralized platforms are always federated, and on top of that have strong fault-tolerance, redundancy and democratic control mechanisms. This may be enforced by a protocol, or it may also be enforced by the people (the latter is highly unrealistic because human trust doesn't scale) So I'll revise my statement to: Mastodon is not decentralized by default, but at least it is federated.
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  Is there a form of decentralization not prone to this? Blockchain certainly seems to trend towards "cartels of giant centralized providers".

k__ 4y ago

This. Mastodon basically shards data via instances. If someone shuts one down, the data there is gone. Plus, it's not permissionless. Most instances are invite only.

SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago
> Plus, it's not permissionless. Most instance admins first check if they like your face before you get in Is this really a blocker? If your face is really that objectionable, you can buy your own mastodon-as-a-service for single-digit dollars per month. (1) This doesn't seem at all "centralised" to me. 1) https://masto.host/ https://masto.host/
- lzooz 4y ago
  You can do all of that and then talk to yourself because no one will federate with you.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago
    If you're really objectionable, no one will listen to you. Sounds more like a feature than a bug to me. And still not centralised.
- acomjean 4y ago
  “New subscriptions are closed”.. guess business has been good the past few weeks.

SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago

> it wouldn't fit any common definition of web3. To be clear, in my opinion, in summary, mastodon = "twitter without the centralised company", and web3 = "useless crypto shit". So I don't need or want mastodon to "fit" web3. I'm just pointing out that the above proposed definition of web3 can't be right, as it fits something that thankfully isn't and doesn't aspire to being web3.

acdha 4y ago

It's true that it doesn't fit the common definition of web3 but that's because it doesn't involve blockchains. Since anyone can implement the protocol and use it without the permission of other users, it fits any common definition of decentralization.