5 ms·

I don't disagree but I do wonder if a.) discoverability is really so intractable in a decentralized environment if you're willing to throw a lot of resources to

I don't disagree but I do wonder if a.) discoverability is really so intractable in a decentralized environment if you're willing to throw a lot of resources towards indexing and b.) if that middle ground isn't like balancing a pendulum upside down - a very fragile equilibrium. A bunch of decentralized units might join together, or a large centralized unit might fail, pushing the pendulum to either side. You can think of the golden age of blogs and search as an example of both. Search engines formed a centralized hub with blogs, forums, etc. forming the spokes. For a while that worked well before it was degraded by spam and consolidation of disparate forums etc. into a handful of major platforms (fueled partly be acquisitions).

Animats 1y ago
That's a good point. Thiel's "Zero to One" makes it. In economics, a market needs several reasonably strong businesses to get price competition. An EU study indicated that the minimum number is about 4. Below 4, price competition seems to disappear and you have oligopoly, or, at 1, monopoly. In areas where there's no inherent effect like distance to stop centralization, markets tend towards oligopoly. Look at the number of browsers, the number of big banks, the number of cellular phone companies, and so forth. They're all between 2 and 4. The stable state seems to be around 3 big players. This probably applies to social networks. There's only so much attention available.
hklgny 1y ago
The fediverse folks are violently against any efforts for discoverability. They like the high bar for discovering and joining. Any attempt gets brigaded and shut down quickly
- M2Ys4U 1y ago
  They're against opt-out discovery, not discovery in general.
  - maxbond 1y ago
    Given how toxic big tent communities like Twitter can get, I think that makes perfect sense for some communities. Some plants thrive in full sun, some plants thrive in the shade. Some social interactions happen in the town square and some happen at more intimate functions.
- immibis 1y ago
  Some are. That doesn't mean they can do anything about it. Remember, "the fediverse" is a bit like saying "the internet". "Internet folks are against centralization." Are they?
shadowgovt 1y ago
Fediverse makes the indexing question interesting because some people don't want it deeply indexed: they point to the practice of dredging up old opinions on Twitter as an anti-pattern that the tooling should not support. Indexing without permission is met with hostility / defederation over there, and both individuals and server owners have tools to switch fine-grained indexing on and off. (It is, of course, fundamentally impossible to keep people from indexing a default-open network, but if one does it, one does not advertise doing it outside the service-supported mechanisms).
Animats 1y ago
You can have decentralized discovery via flooding. Everybody gets everything. That's how USENET worked. Torrents sort of work that way. This hits scaling problems. USENET ran into that.

Animats 1y ago

That's a good point. Thiel's "Zero to One" makes it. In economics, a market needs several reasonably strong businesses to get price competition. An EU study indicated that the minimum number is about 4. Below 4, price competition seems to disappear and you have oligopoly, or, at 1, monopoly. In areas where there's no inherent effect like distance to stop centralization, markets tend towards oligopoly. Look at the number of browsers, the number of big banks, the number of cellular phone companies, and so forth. They're all between 2 and 4. The stable state seems to be around 3 big players. This probably applies to social networks. There's only so much attention available.

hklgny 1y ago

The fediverse folks are violently against any efforts for discoverability. They like the high bar for discovering and joining. Any attempt gets brigaded and shut down quickly

M2Ys4U 1y ago
They're against opt-out discovery, not discovery in general.
- maxbond 1y ago
  Given how toxic big tent communities like Twitter can get, I think that makes perfect sense for some communities. Some plants thrive in full sun, some plants thrive in the shade. Some social interactions happen in the town square and some happen at more intimate functions.
immibis 1y ago
Some are. That doesn't mean they can do anything about it. Remember, "the fediverse" is a bit like saying "the internet". "Internet folks are against centralization." Are they?

shadowgovt 1y ago

Fediverse makes the indexing question interesting because some people don't want it deeply indexed: they point to the practice of dredging up old opinions on Twitter as an anti-pattern that the tooling should not support. Indexing without permission is met with hostility / defederation over there, and both individuals and server owners have tools to switch fine-grained indexing on and off. (It is, of course, fundamentally impossible to keep people from indexing a default-open network, but if one does it, one does not advertise doing it outside the service-supported mechanisms).

Animats 1y ago

You can have decentralized discovery via flooding. Everybody gets everything. That's how USENET worked. Torrents sort of work that way. This hits scaling problems. USENET ran into that.