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

[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.

[cwebber@social.coop]

It seems that there might be more of a concession here that Bluesky isn't federated, so the bigger question really is whether or not it's decentralized.

I mentioned that the definition is interesting in context and BOY is it interesting in context, oh gosh oh boy

[cwebber@social.coop]

Hey remember earlier when I said this thing:

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

Did you notice all the parentheses? That's not JUST because I love lisp

I mean I do love lisp

But not only

[flippac@types.pl]

@cwebber @shtrom which is to say: the power issues arise because so many people use one of three or so providers, making them dominant within the federation

similar dynamics in B5 and at least some Trek if you want to look for them

[cwebber@social.coop]

We need to understand Mark Nottingham's RFC and we need to understand Paul Baran's seminal 1964 paper both, within the contexts they were written, before we can pull this quote-of-a-quote out.

So let's start with the RFC.

[cwebber@social.coop]

If you hear "Respected standards technologist Mark Nottingham's independent IETF RFC 9518: Centralization, Decentralization, and Internet Standards", what do you think you'll find inside?

I'll tell you what I'd expect

Rah rah decentralization!! The internet was meant to be free!!!

Well...

[cwebber@social.coop]

You should read the RFC yourself, here it is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc9518/

Mark Nottingham is a respected, accomplished standards author. And with good reason. Most of his work history is representing standards for big corporate players.

That's how most of it is these days, actually

[cwebber@social.coop]

The surrounding context of the RFC is a debate within the IETF and elsewhere: gosh! this internet! it sure seems to have centralized a *lot*, is this really what we wanted to happen to it? This wasn't the original vision!

Shouldn't standards orgs do something to fix it?!

Well should they?

[cwebber@social.coop]

Mark Nottingham's own words answer better than I do, and you should read the RFC. It's not quite one way or the other. It's kind of a "well decentralization is great and yeah centralization is bad but how realistic is decentralizing things anyway and when?"

But Mark's own words handle it better

[cwebber@social.coop]

From the RFC:

> This document argues that, while decentralized technical standards may be necessary to avoid centralization of Internet functions, they are not sufficient to achieve that goal because centralization is often caused by non-technical factors outside the control of standards bodies. As a result, standards bodies should not fixate on preventing all forms of centralization; instead, they should take steps to ensure that the specifications they produce enable decentralized operation.

[cwebber@social.coop]

Let me emphasize a sentence there for you:

> standards bodies should not fixate on preventing all forms of centralization

That is the crux of this RFC

It's an interesting read, it's very thoughtful, it analyzes from many angles. It's worth reading! But that is the broad sweep of RFC 9518.

[cwebber@social.coop]

Mark examines centralization's effects from multiple angles. He has a *great* section called "Centralization Can Be Harmful". Covers the general ground.

But it's immediately followed by "Centralization Can Be Helpful"!

This is not a radical pro-decentralization RFC, is what I'm saying.

[cwebber@social.coop]

Mark does address the radicals:

> Many engineers who participate in Internet standards efforts have an inclination to prevent and counteract centralization because they see the Internet's history and architecture as incompatible with it.

So true bestie, that's me you're describing

[cwebber@social.coop]

While Mark analyzes both, his position is ultimately that of someone who does care about standards, but takes a kind of pragmatism that hey, look, decentralization, it's a great goal, but it's pretty hard, and maybe actually centralization is pretty helpful too, let's not go too wild here

[cwebber@social.coop]

The history of the internet and the web *is* of big dream believers making big strides. The internet has been moving away from that, and it's getting harder to participate in standards without being a big corporate player. (Trust me, I know *all too well.*)

So, *should* standards orgs do something?

[cwebber@social.coop]

As a side note on the thread on the other place, Bluesky dropped one of my replies and literally refuses to pull it up for me even though it acknowledges it's there

I have the worst time navigating replies on Bluesky, sometimes I send people threads and they say "I don't see the reply you're talking about there"

Dear god for all the claims of ATProto and Bluesky having a big deal of no missing replies it's really frustrating dealing with replies on Bluesky's UX

Anyway...

[cwebber@social.coop]

Anyway Mark, tell us, what should standards orgs do?

> Centralization and decentralization are increasingly being raised in technical standards discussions. Any claim needs to be critically evaluated. As discussed in Section 2, not all centralization is automatically harmful. Per Section 3, decentralization techniques do not automatically address all centralization harms and may bring their own risks.

[puppygirlhornypost2@transfem.social]

@[email protected] no no hold on. You see, what’s super fucking annoying to me is the BLOCKED thing. You can never tell if the user is blocking you, if it was manually removed or what. It makes thread traversal nearly impossible. Huge pet peeve, I understand kinda why but they need to make it better so you can see the replies before the section being removed.