4 ms·

The word federated makes total sense. Thanks! The word decentralized was written by the author of the OP, not by me and that's why I needed to ask the folks her

by distcs 4y ago

The word federated makes total sense. Thanks! The word decentralized was written by the author of the OP, not by me and that's why I needed to ask the folks here if Mastodon is really decentralized. Your comment clarifies it for me. So thank you!

dekken_ 4y ago
Mastodon is part of the Fediverse. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fediverse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fediverse
taurusnoises 4y ago
Maybe a little sticky, but decentralization doesn't discount that there are nodes, or points where things gather. In fact, decentralization, as I've always understood it (coming from anarchism background), is that there is no central node to which all others are beholden. Rather, there are centers (plural). So.... At the level of instances (plural), no one is central. The network is decentralized, containing multiple centers, all (most) of which are connected through federation (the word "affiliation" is not too far off either). And, while yes, any one instance could be considered a "center" and thus maybe considered to be centralized, it really isn't. Decentralization is less about a single specific object or node, and more about how said objects interact and relate. Side note: I think when it comes to convos around decentralized networks, there really needs to be more investment in how they differ from distributed networks. In that difference is a ton of insight about how systems function, etc, imo. Personally, I'm much more interested in distributed networks.
r721 4y ago
I like how Jay Graber (who is now CEO at Bluesky) formulated it in old blog post: >Calling a network “decentralized” only defines it by what it is not — it is not dependent on a single set of servers run by one company. What it actually is can look like many different things. Federated and peer-to-peer (p2p) protocols are different approaches to designing networks that structurally empower users. https://medium.com/decentralized-web/decentralized-social-networks-e5a7a2603f53 https://medium.com/decentralized-web/decentralized-social-ne...

by distcs 4y ago

dekken_ 4y ago

Mastodon is part of the Fediverse. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fediverse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fediverse

taurusnoises 4y ago

Maybe a little sticky, but decentralization doesn't discount that there are nodes, or points where things gather. In fact, decentralization, as I've always understood it (coming from anarchism background), is that there is no central node to which all others are beholden. Rather, there are centers (plural). So.... At the level of instances (plural), no one is central. The network is decentralized, containing multiple centers, all (most) of which are connected through federation (the word "affiliation" is not too far off either). And, while yes, any one instance could be considered a "center" and thus maybe considered to be centralized, it really isn't. Decentralization is less about a single specific object or node, and more about how said objects interact and relate. Side note: I think when it comes to convos around decentralized networks, there really needs to be more investment in how they differ from distributed networks. In that difference is a ton of insight about how systems function, etc, imo. Personally, I'm much more interested in distributed networks.

r721 4y ago

I like how Jay Graber (who is now CEO at Bluesky) formulated it in old blog post: >Calling a network “decentralized” only defines it by what it is not — it is not dependent on a single set of servers run by one company. What it actually is can look like many different things. Federated and peer-to-peer (p2p) protocols are different approaches to designing networks that structurally empower users. https://medium.com/decentralized-web/decentralized-social-networks-e5a7a2603f53 https://medium.com/decentralized-web/decentralized-social-ne...