Decentralization and erasure: Blacksky, Bluesky, and the ATmosphere

The Nexus of Privacy

I don't think decentralized is meaningless, I think it has different meanings and interpretations.

Does decentralized refer to network topology, power dynamics, or both?
If we're talking about network topology, does it matter if different nodes in the network are owned by different entities?
If an architecture is in principle decentralized, but the current implementation has one or ore single points of failure, is it in fact decentralized?
If one layer of the system is decentralized (web, PDSs) but power is heavily concentrated in another layer (search engines, relays) is it a decentralized network?
If we're talking about equitable distribution of power, what kinds of power are we talking about, and how equitable does it have to be to be considered decentralized?

etc etc etc

Jer Warren

@thenexusofprivacy @rysiek where I keep getting hung up is "who controls my identity and content?"

On the fediverse, my identity and content are absolutely controlled by my instance, which makes that a huge obvious centralization point.

Sure I can "migrate" my identity, but that just causes (many of) my followers to automatically follow the new account, which comes with its own new identity. Now there are two identities out there. Unless my instance goes down, in which case I cannot "migrate" my identity.

But then, topologically speaking, even if I host my own instance on my own domain, I can't ever point that domain to a different instance without causing federation problems that require all the other instances on the fediverse to take action to get federation going again.

Those two things make my experience on the fediverse incredibly centralized.

Michał "rysiek" Woźniak · 🇺🇦

@nyquildotorg is e-mail a centralized or decentralized service, in your opinion?

What about XMPP?

Can you provide an example of a communication system that is, in your opinion, decentralized?

@thenexusofprivacy

Jer Warren

@rysiek @thenexusofprivacy email and xmpp are federated.

"Decentralized" doesn't apply, because in order to get and send your mail, you have to connect to a central point.

(Email is also now a bad example because so much of it really is centralized. Almost every email you send or receive talks to GMail servers.)

Michał "rysiek" Woźniak · 🇺🇦

@nyquildotorg you don't have to connect to a "central" point.

You have to connect to *a* point. There are *many* points that could be your entrances into the network.

The network will survive if one or several of such points disappear. Such network is a meaningfully more decentralized network than a network with a single global point of failure.

@thenexusofprivacy

Jer Warren

@rysiek @thenexusofprivacy with email, you do have to connect to the email server that (federated, not decentralized) DNS records point to. If your mail server goes down, email sent to you does not get to you set up an account on a new mail server and then configure DNS records and hope an eventual retry delivers that mail to the new central point that manages your mail.

XMPP works essentially the same. The servers federate, but are not decentralized. And even if you are ok with calling the server topology itself "decentralized," you still have to lean on DNS, which is absolutely not decentralized.

Michał "rysiek" Woźniak · 🇺🇦

@nyquildotorg

> And even if you are ok with calling the server topology itself "decentralized," you still have to lean on DNS, which is absolutely not decentralized.

Incidentally, this is 100% the case with all Bluesky identifiers currently.

@thenexusofprivacy

Jer Warren

@rysiek @thenexusofprivacy just to be clear, I've never claimed that Bluesky is decentralized. My claim is "neither is the fediverse," and all these discussions going around and around about it get us nowhere."

But also, the fediverse leans on DNS, too, so I guess this is a good time to pack in the discussion about "decentralized" lol.

Michał "rysiek" Woźniak · 🇺🇦

@nyquildotorg sure.

Basically to me this boils down to some version of: could Musk buy out a given social network today and screw it all up if he throws enough money at it.

With Bluesky, that's a "yes". With fedi, that's a "no". That, to me, is a pretty important difference in the context of *why* people are migrating off of Xitter.

@thenexusofprivacy

Jer Warren

@rysiek @thenexusofprivacy I absolutely agree. But Musk buying Bluesky is actually the primary thing ATProto was designed to prevent, and part of the reason I think they've joined in on using (erroneously , I believe) "decentralized."

(Whether their VC funding will allow that to remain true is something I am absolutely not holding my breath for.)

damon

@[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] I ask how is it practically different than Musk buying the two instances by Mastodon nonprofit which make up 30% of the MAU. People notoriously don’t like change, there’s no easy way for them to keep their content, their social graphs would be severely impacted. No it wouldn’t shut down the fedi but it would be catastrophic

damon

@[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] Federated and decentralised are not the same thing. Would you consider the United States to be decentralised?

Michał "rysiek" Woźniak · 🇺🇦

@damon the difference is that *if* people from these instances decide to move to other instances, their contacts from the remaining ~30k instances will still be there, accessible to them.

Plus, those largest instances are not managed by a *company*, so "buying them out" is a bit more difficult.

And finally, I wrote about the large instance problem on fedi a while ago:
https://rys.io/en/168.html

@nyquildotorg @thenexusofprivacy

damon

@[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] you can’t say that for sure. If it was Elon Musk people would respond in kind by blocking those instances so fast and if people never downloaded the .csv those people are screwed

Michał "rysiek" Woźniak · 🇺🇦

@damon there is a massive, massive difference between "all of the network and every single person on it is no longer accessible to you" and "a large part of the network is no longer accessible to you, but a large part of it remains accessible to you".

I will insist that such difference *is* meaningful.

Because it *does*, in very real way, undermine the network effects holding people hostage to *actually* centralized services.

@nyquildotorg @thenexusofprivacy

Michał "rysiek" Woźniak · 🇺🇦

@damon and also note how many "ifs" you had put in there:

- *if* it was Elon and other instances blocked…
- *if* people were not able to download .csv…

These two "ifs" do not even exist in Bluesky. No CSVs to download, no independent Bluesky-social-network instances to migrate to, no migration facility…

And even then "these people" are not "screwed". They can set up accounts on other instances and reconnect with people already there.

@nyquildotorg @thenexusofprivacy

damon

@rysiek

Your point is mute then because you said if Elon comes to buy it. I’ve seen you move the needle so many times it’s ridiculous and I can’t take your opinion seriously. I don’t believe you engage in good faith. You have your opinion which as others have pointed out in terms of decentralisation is very flawed, you don’t budge. You point out my using ifs yet I’ve tracked all of the conversations you’ve had concerning this and yours are also laced with ifs and possibilities

damon

@rysiek There is a massive difference but the difference isn’t negligible as you keep trying to insist. 30% of the MAU are on Mastodon nonprofits servers. Probably higher if you discount the servers widely blocked. There’s users whom the vast majority of their followers are on .social