4 ms·
I want to agree with you, but then I hear about the concept of "defederating" and how small instances are subject to a ton of scrutiny and might even be blocked
by saurik 4y ago
I want to agree with you, but then I hear about the concept of "defederating" and how small instances are subject to a ton of scrutiny and might even be blocked by some large instances by default, and I see this as a concentration of power--akin to "Google and Microsoft get to decide who can send e-mail and you are an idiot to run your own mail server"--more than as a mere happenstance of decentralized systems being (of course) made up of centralized endpoints.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- BaseballPhysics 4y agoFirst, I've never heard of "small instances [being] subject to a ton of scrutiny [or being] blocked by some large instances by default", so I'm not sure where that's coming from. Regardless, which is better: A federation where, yeah, there might be a bit of drama over who blocks whom, but each instance can set its own policy? Or a single private entity controlling the entire platform? You cannot solve the problem you're highlighting with technology. What you're describing is the human consequences of people exercising their freedom of association. But what you can do is place that freedom in the hands of the community, and I struggle to see how that is anything but a definite improvement over the current status quo.