←back to thread

Are we decentralized yet?

(arewedecentralizedyet.online)
487 points Bogdanp | 1 comments | 30 Aug 25 19:26 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
stebalien ◴[30 Aug 25 20:40 UTC] No.45077820[source]▶
"Decentralization" isn't the end-goal so measuring it here isn't all that meaningful. Personally, I care about:

1. How hard is it to censor the network.

2. How hard would it be for some major player to enshittify the network.

Furthermore, while the fediverse has a single axis for decentralization, BlueSky has 3: number of "big index servers", number of PDSs, number of domain names (how many people own their handle):

1. Increasing the number of PDSs doesn't make it harder to censor the network when everyone still uses the same big index node.

2. BlueSky's primary defense against enshittification is user account portability. I'd love to see metrics on how many users have their own domain names. Having many PDSs is also a good defense here because it reduces the impact of BlueSky (the company) shutting off the firehose, but I still think account portability is the primary defense here.

replies(2): >>45077850 #>>45079862 #
1. toofy ◴[31 Aug 25 02:38 UTC] No.45079862[source]▶
> “ Decentralization" isn't the end-goal…

it would be high in my list of desirability because decentralization means agency to move freely.

i like the fact that if i find the city or state i live in to be boring or economically terrible, i can move.

i like it that if i don’t like the food or atmosphere of a restaurant, i can go to a different restaurant.

i like that if i think billy is a constant asshole, me and my friends can move to the next table over and leave billy behind.

social networks are absolutely no different, no matter how hard certain people try to convince online is different, it isn’t.

we should be soooo incredibly leery of anyone who tells us it’s a good thing to have no agency to eat different food or go party at a different bar.

the hair on the back of our neck should stand up every time someone tries to convince us to go to only a couple of places with the same set of rulers and tries to convince us this is somehow good for us.

how many times have you heard “you want to avoid echo chambers” followed by “therefor everyone should all be on the exact same set of websites with the same set of rulers” followed by “anything less than everyone on the same site is a failure”

it’s double speak: if you are not trapped here, you have an echo chamber.

freedom of movement, freedom of association, etc… are incredibly important to the future health of the internet.