4 ms·

I've never quite wrapped my head around where decentralization ends and federation begins. What's really the difference between the two? Is it a question of de

I've never quite wrapped my head around where decentralization ends and federation begins. What's really the difference between the two? Is it a question of degree, or in this example is it only decentralized if individuals in the network own their own content?

pessimizer 3y ago
Don't worry about definitions. Explain exactly what you're discussing, then introduce the technical term as a shorthand. Even if people had a previous understanding of that term, they'll know what you're talking about, which is all that matters. I associate arguments about the meaning of the word "decentralization" with pseudo-arguments about how nobody wants to run a server that require "decentralization" to mean that everybody has to run a server.
- flagrant_taco 3y ago
  The definitions are interesting to me because the terms are often used as as punchline with little extra context. Agreed that the context of how a person intends to use each term is more important. I just wish we could have a consistent definition so it didn't require a full explantion each time.
1123581321 3y ago
It’s not just degree. In the context of social networks, decentralization refers to the location(s) of the servers and federation refers to ownership of the data. In that context, federation refers to multiple operators owning portions of the data in the wider network, not the ops structure a single provider is using in their back end. Theoretically you could have a centralized federated model where users own servers in a single data center! The most extreme form of both decentralization and federation is a p2p model where each user owns their own data on their own computer. I agree with the other thread that it’s best to understand the meaning behind these terms and not to rely on them as shorthand or gotchas, but we do need separate terms for these two concepts.
- flagrant_taco 3y ago
  That's a really investing way to put it, thanks! (and just a slightly different phrasing to the other thread that clicks better for me for some reason) I've never thought of decentralization as a purely geographic concern - may very well be my own bias towards caring deeply about data ownership and viewing geolocation of servers as an implementation detail that I care little about

pessimizer 3y ago

Don't worry about definitions. Explain exactly what you're discussing, then introduce the technical term as a shorthand. Even if people had a previous understanding of that term, they'll know what you're talking about, which is all that matters. I associate arguments about the meaning of the word "decentralization" with pseudo-arguments about how nobody wants to run a server that require "decentralization" to mean that everybody has to run a server.

flagrant_taco 3y ago
The definitions are interesting to me because the terms are often used as as punchline with little extra context. Agreed that the context of how a person intends to use each term is more important. I just wish we could have a consistent definition so it didn't require a full explantion each time.

1123581321 3y ago

It’s not just degree. In the context of social networks, decentralization refers to the location(s) of the servers and federation refers to ownership of the data. In that context, federation refers to multiple operators owning portions of the data in the wider network, not the ops structure a single provider is using in their back end. Theoretically you could have a centralized federated model where users own servers in a single data center! The most extreme form of both decentralization and federation is a p2p model where each user owns their own data on their own computer. I agree with the other thread that it’s best to understand the meaning behind these terms and not to rely on them as shorthand or gotchas, but we do need separate terms for these two concepts.

flagrant_taco 3y ago
That's a really investing way to put it, thanks! (and just a slightly different phrasing to the other thread that clicks better for me for some reason) I've never thought of decentralization as a purely geographic concern - may very well be my own bias towards caring deeply about data ownership and viewing geolocation of servers as an implementation detail that I care little about