In general I think decentralisation is significantly oversold as a panacea, and conversely its advocates deliberately ignore that there are pretty concrete advantages to centralisation.
Worse, the advantages to centralisation are almost entirely on the end user experience side - “you can talk to anyone on the service no matter who!”, “you only need to register one account!” - while the advantages of decentralisation are all remote and philosophical - “nobody can take it over!”, “you can run your own service!”. So centralised services will keep winning because they have the best pitch - or, at the very least, servers on decentralised services that become so big and have so many users that they are effectively centralised services all on their own (e.g. Mastodon.social, Kbin).
Most people don’t care about philosophical stuff but they do care about having a usable service. It reminds me a bit of Linux advocates who preach the gospel about open source and how bad Microsoft is and how DRM will eat their nans or whatever, but fail to see the glaring issue that for 99% of users Windows works just fine and they don’t actually care about anything philosophical, because they see their computer as a tool that plays a minor part in their life, rather than a means of self-actualisation.
That said, I think the best way to explain fediverse is to not. You don’t need to tell people all the technical details, you just need to sell them on what they care about. Leading with decentralisation as your USP is a hiding to nothing because most people don’t care - “it’s a chill place here and you can do XYZ” will work far better. Anyone who cares will find out.
Centralization has another aspect that is simultaneously both good and bad: you can easily remove offensive content and problematic users. A centralized approach makes it very easy to remove cancerous people, groups, and content, while a decentralized approach makes that far harder. But in a centralized system, who defines what is cancerous content, et al.? Reddit did a great job at removing racist content, for instance (or, if you go back farther, they removed ‘jailbait’ and ‘creepshots’ communities, which were producing content that was just on the line of being obscene). But they also took a “both sides are bad” approach when it came to literal nazis v. antifascists.
I’m a Reddit refugee, so it’s going to take me a while to learn to navigate this. And yeah, I’ve been kicked off Twitter, so Mastodon was already on my radar.
I believe disassociating from Nazis, CSAM, etc is still very possible in a distributed network like this, the instance admin just blacklists the instances they don’t want to interact with. But it requires the user to find the server that best aligns with what they want to see. A centralized admin won’t do it for them.
In general I think decentralisation is significantly oversold as a panacea, and conversely its advocates deliberately ignore that there are pretty concrete advantages to centralisation.
Worse, the advantages to centralisation are almost entirely on the end user experience side - “you can talk to anyone on the service no matter who!”, “you only need to register one account!” - while the advantages of decentralisation are all remote and philosophical - “nobody can take it over!”, “you can run your own service!”. So centralised services will keep winning because they have the best pitch - or, at the very least, servers on decentralised services that become so big and have so many users that they are effectively centralised services all on their own (e.g. Mastodon.social, Kbin).
Most people don’t care about philosophical stuff but they do care about having a usable service. It reminds me a bit of Linux advocates who preach the gospel about open source and how bad Microsoft is and how DRM will eat their nans or whatever, but fail to see the glaring issue that for 99% of users Windows works just fine and they don’t actually care about anything philosophical, because they see their computer as a tool that plays a minor part in their life, rather than a means of self-actualisation.
That said, I think the best way to explain fediverse is to not. You don’t need to tell people all the technical details, you just need to sell them on what they care about. Leading with decentralisation as your USP is a hiding to nothing because most people don’t care - “it’s a chill place here and you can do XYZ” will work far better. Anyone who cares will find out.
Centralization has another aspect that is simultaneously both good and bad: you can easily remove offensive content and problematic users. A centralized approach makes it very easy to remove cancerous people, groups, and content, while a decentralized approach makes that far harder. But in a centralized system, who defines what is cancerous content, et al.? Reddit did a great job at removing racist content, for instance (or, if you go back farther, they removed ‘jailbait’ and ‘creepshots’ communities, which were producing content that was just on the line of being obscene). But they also took a “both sides are bad” approach when it came to literal nazis v. antifascists.
I’m a Reddit refugee, so it’s going to take me a while to learn to navigate this. And yeah, I’ve been kicked off Twitter, so Mastodon was already on my radar.
I believe disassociating from Nazis, CSAM, etc is still very possible in a distributed network like this, the instance admin just blacklists the instances they don’t want to interact with. But it requires the user to find the server that best aligns with what they want to see. A centralized admin won’t do it for them.