> However, I disagree with some of the analysis, and have a couple specific points to correct.

[cwebber@social.coop]

Baran "decentralization" cotd:

> Such a network is sometimes called a "decentralized" network, because complete reliance upon a single point is not always required.

OKAY WE'RE DONE

But look at it all together! He's talking about how "decentralization" is a term of art but it's still CENTRALIZED

[cwebber@social.coop]

Baran didn't make up the term "decentralized" it already was being used in practice to talk about top-down hierarchical systems! Baran calls this version centralized even if there's a "loop" (a small number of top-level providers)!

YOU GUYS THIS IS NOT HOW WE ARE USING "DECENTRALIZED"

[cwebber@social.coop]

WE are not describing the future of routing small packets in 1964, that is NOT the world we are existing in, where "decentralized" meant a top-down hierarchical structure

When WE talk about "decentralized", we mean roughly a spectrum, with "centralized" on one side and "decentralized" on the other

[cwebber@social.coop]

Now I don't think Bryan Newbold realized that when he pulled his definition from Mark Nottingham who pulled his definition from Paul Baran, that this was the case. I think this is a game of telephone.

(I don't know how Mark Nottingham didn't realize it but that's an aside)

[cwebber@social.coop]

What I DO know is that it means that the entire structure of analyzing decentralization in Mark's paper and Bryan's blogpost thus, in practice, surround a term that is weak because it was FUNDAMENTALLY describing a centralized system, so it could criticize it

The loss of context here is BRUTAL

[cwebber@social.coop]

To conflate the two *automatically* introduces decentralization-washing. I don't think this is intentional, but it explains a lot.

It explains how a "weak" definition of decentralization could come from one of the boldest visions of what that very *idea* could be

[cwebber@social.coop]

Now okay let's point out the irony here because I feel like if I don't I'm being mean. Bryan does say:

> To some degree, I don't really want to spend time in a terminology debate.

And I just did! At length!

But the whole debate this whole time is "is Bluesky decentralized" so we kinda HAVE to

[cwebber@social.coop]

But also what happened was:

- I lay out a strong definition of decentralization; Bluesky doesn't match
- Bryan suggests an alternate definition, pulls
from
- An RFC which despite the title is extremely lukewarm AT BEST about decentralization which pulls from
- A definition describing centralization

[cwebber@social.coop]

And I don't think this was malicious on Bryan's part in the least because I know Bryan well enough to know he's not like that!

I am pretty annoyed at Mark though for quoting this out of context in such a way that it can completely confuse a narrative like this. I'll assume that was a mistake but

[cwebber@social.coop]

The reality is that Bluesky didn't match my definition of decentralization, and I hope it's pretty clear now that the alternate definition supplied was literally one about centralization

And so that cannot possibly be a lower bar that we say "okay maybe Bluesky can pass this one" I am sorry

[cwebber@social.coop]

Let's PLEASE not move the goalposts on "decentralization". Let's certainly not move them back to something that was literally "here's what centralization looks like in practice".

That's what I'm asking for here. That's why I went so goddamned HARD on terminology here.

[cwebber@social.coop]

Let's check the time.

It's 7:30pm where I am. I woke up at 4:30am and resumed work on my blogpost at 5am.

I have been, for the most part, between the blogpost, my job, and this thread, sitting at my computer fighting for decentralization for about 14 hours. It's been like that a lot lately.

[rwg@aoir.social]

@cwebber we're right here with you!

[cwebber@social.coop]

I have a reputation at work of being good at pushing others to take off time and they HAVE to take off time OR ELSE and I try to be that way in general. But I am really truly bad at doing so for myself and I know I have crossed my limits for today.

So let's wrap up for *tonight* in a sec

[cwebber@social.coop]

We're about halfway through this blogpost. There's a lot going on in my life. I am trying so hard to keep the organization I work for alive and moving forward. I am tired. I need rest. And I still need to drive two hours across the state tonight.

We're going to resume tomorrow. But first...

[cwebber@social.coop]

There's a reason I'm going really hard on this. I really care a lot about the shape of the internet. And tomorrow we're going to get into some more analysis and a talk about *values*, and one thing I like is that Bryan talked at length about Bluesky's values. And I think that part was really good.

[damon@social.wedistribute.org]

@[email protected] Agreed as long as people stop conflating federated and decentralised

[cwebber@social.coop]

For tonight, I need to unwind, I need to put a label on a mailbox, I need to eat dinner, I need to drive across the state, I need to sleep.

Maybe I appear ridiculous. I get it. I go pretty hardcore on this stuff. If you know me you know I tend to go all in.

[darius@friend.camp]

@cwebber thank you for contextualizing the Baran 1964 citations btw.

[cwebber@social.coop]

I am signing off for the night. Tomorrow we will analyze whether or not my assertion that "ATProto has explosive behavior as it approaches decentralization" problems.

I'm not going to read notifications until I finish this. Maybe someone will prove me wrong before I get it done.

I'll be oblivious.