4 ms·

The discussions how a decentralized system like Mastodon won't work reminds me of the early days of networks. People were saying the same thing about the web an

by mempko 4y ago

The discussions how a decentralized system like Mastodon won't work reminds me of the early days of networks. People were saying the same thing about the web and the internet and claiming CompuServe and AOL would dominate. Twitter is like CompuServe and AOL, Mastodon is like the internet. One based on proprietary systems, the other based on open standards like ActivityPub. History showed that centralization is ultimately extremely fragile.

adamrezich 4y ago
> History showed that centralization is ultimately extremely fragile. but how many people today use Discord et al. compared to IRC? I think the centralized-decentralized thing is a cycle, not a one-way logical progression.
- OctopusLupid 4y ago
  My comment is uninformed, but I feel like centralised companies have the R&D resources to create innovation, which communities then steal (in a good way) to make the technology free (as in freedom) for everyone. That's why there's a cycle.
boredhedgehog 4y ago
> Mastodon is like the internet Which is why I believe that once the fediverse has fractured along ideological lines, as it inevitably must, the end result won't look much different from the old internet: big influencers running their own site/blog, with loose connections to ideological allies and a bunch of commenters in orbit.
- rsynnott 4y ago
  I mean, arguably that has _already happened_; it's just that the Big Two far-right mastodon instances (Gab and Truth Social) do not federate. Note that Gab actually used to.
- OkayPhysicist 4y ago
  IMO, the most likely result is one or more large, heavily connected meshes centered around an ideological middle ground of significantly online people (probably divided by liberal/conservative ideology), sparsely connected to somewhat more fringe instances (maybe a socialist instance that doesn't restrict overt calls to violence, but is still largely ideologically acceptable to the average liberal), and some archipelagos/unfederated instances of even more fringe social groups. And that's a good thing. Individuals get to choose servers that align with their views on moderation and morality, server moderators only need to deal with occasional maliciousness rather than trying to walk a fine line of tolerance, and your social group isn't at risk of being disrupted by a billionaire moving in and blowing it up.

by mempko 4y ago

adamrezich 4y ago

> History showed that centralization is ultimately extremely fragile. but how many people today use Discord et al. compared to IRC? I think the centralized-decentralized thing is a cycle, not a one-way logical progression.

OctopusLupid 4y ago
My comment is uninformed, but I feel like centralised companies have the R&D resources to create innovation, which communities then steal (in a good way) to make the technology free (as in freedom) for everyone. That's why there's a cycle.

boredhedgehog 4y ago

> Mastodon is like the internet Which is why I believe that once the fediverse has fractured along ideological lines, as it inevitably must, the end result won't look much different from the old internet: big influencers running their own site/blog, with loose connections to ideological allies and a bunch of commenters in orbit.

rsynnott 4y ago
I mean, arguably that has _already happened_; it's just that the Big Two far-right mastodon instances (Gab and Truth Social) do not federate. Note that Gab actually used to.
OkayPhysicist 4y ago
IMO, the most likely result is one or more large, heavily connected meshes centered around an ideological middle ground of significantly online people (probably divided by liberal/conservative ideology), sparsely connected to somewhat more fringe instances (maybe a socialist instance that doesn't restrict overt calls to violence, but is still largely ideologically acceptable to the average liberal), and some archipelagos/unfederated instances of even more fringe social groups. And that's a good thing. Individuals get to choose servers that align with their views on moderation and morality, server moderators only need to deal with occasional maliciousness rather than trying to walk a fine line of tolerance, and your social group isn't at risk of being disrupted by a billionaire moving in and blowing it up.