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

[cwebber@social.coop]

However it's time to compare definitions of *decentralization*. First mine:

> Decentralization is the result of a system that diffuses power throughout its structure, so that no node holds particular power at the center.

I stand by this!

[cwebber@social.coop]

Now here is Bryan's definition (more accurately Mark Nottingham's definition (more accurately, Paul Baran's definition)) of decentralization:

> [Decentralization is when] "complete reliance upon a single point is not always required" (citing Baran, 1964)

Uh, hm... this seems... pretty weak?!

[cwebber@social.coop]

This definition of decentralization is so weak it may as well say "Users occasionally not rely on a central gatekeeper, as a treat"

It's pretty weak, and yeah Bluesky qualifies, but that's... I'm gonna be honest that's an *incredibly* weak definition by comparison

[cwebber@social.coop]

Let's look at the delta between my definition of decentralization and the one chosen by Bryan:
- The discussion of power dynamics, and diffusion thereof, is removed
- The "phrase complete" reliance is introduced, so incomplete reliance is now ok
- And not only that, now it's "not always required!"

[cwebber@social.coop]

In my previous blogpost I had expressed worry about moving the goalposts of "decentralization". That is *exactly* what's happening here, and what's being said is "if we weaken the definition dramatically, then Bluesky qualifies"

This is, IMO, not a very compelling look I've gotta say

[cwebber@social.coop]

Now you might notice this citation [Baran, 1964] and hey if you work on network things you might be thinking "Hey Christine, wait isn't this one of the seminal papers on networking which led to the internet?"

GOOD QUESTION LET'S COME BACK TO THAT

The context is CRITICAL.

Back to that in a moment.

[cwebber@social.coop]

Okay so "decentralization", maybe Bluesky qualifies if we use an unimaginably weaksauce definition that's so loose you don't even have to comply with it hardly at all?

So okay now let's compare definitions of "federation".

[cwebber@social.coop]

My definition:

> [Federation] is a technical approach to communication architecture which achieves decentralization by many independent nodes cooperating and communicating to be a unified whole, with no node holding more power than the responsibility or communication of its parts.

[cwebber@social.coop]

Bryan's definition (more accurately Mark Nottingham's definition):

> [...] federation, i.e., designing a function in a way that uses independent instances that maintain connectivity and interoperability to provide a single cohesive service.

Hm okay, well these don't look quite as far apart, right?

[cwebber@social.coop]

So what's the delta?

- The discussion of power dynamics, once again, is not present.
- "Cooperation" is not present.
- And very specifically, "decentralization" and "no node holding more power than the responsibility or communication of its parts" is not present.

Turns out this has a big effect.

[cwebber@social.coop]

Re-read and compare. Under that last definition, even corporate but proprietary internal microservice architectures or devops platforms would qualify as federated!

Maybe? But it's not federation in a *decentralization* context.

[cwebber@social.coop]

(That last observation is thanks to @vv btw, good observation from a good gf)

[cwebber@social.coop]

Bryan then acknowledges it's a comparatively low bar:

> What about federation? I do think that atproto involves independent services collectively communicating to provide a cohesive and unified whole, which both definitions touch on, and meets Mark's low-bar definition.

[shtrom@piaille.fr]

@cwebber Side adventure: is email federated by that definition?

[cwebber@social.coop]

@shtrom email is absolutely federated per my previous blogpost

[cwebber@social.coop]

But actually in this case, Mark Nottingham's definition happened directly within a context talking about "decentralization mechanisms", enough so that maybe it was stronger in the RFC. I dunno.

More comments on the RFC in a bit though.

[cwebber@social.coop]

However, Bryan does concede the following:

> Overall, I think federation isn't the best term for Bluesky to emphasize going forward, though I also don't think it was misleading or factually incorrect to use it to date.

Well okay, actually that's quite the thing to concede, so massive props on that

[david_megginson@mstdn.ca]

@cwebber Yes, very true. A network is decentralised only if you can remove any node and the network keeps functioning.

If we removed a giant node like mastodon.social, we'd temporarily lose a lot of accounts but the fediverse would keep functioning just fine (probably better in the long run if it permanently eliminated a dominant player).

#fediverse

[octaviaconamore@cutie.city]

@cwebber out of curiosity, has social dot coop ever thought about not having a 500 character limit? I adored your last thread, and I'll eventually get around to reading this one as well, but it feels like having at least a few thousand per post would make it a bit less unwieldy

[cwebber@social.coop]

Bryan also in that same paragraph goes on to mention some very interesting history about Bluesky's earlier prototypes and how the design changed. Worth reading btw. But that's an aside, kinda.