Yes!
#Fediverse is not fully decentralized; it's centralized around instances. Recentralized if you will.
This actually matters practically as it's caused issues, for example with the traffic surges as the centralized servers around the internet reach out for page previews to cache all at once.
And in the debates over defederation.
#ActivityPub is not a decentralized system design, although it could have been, and I think some opportunities were missed there.
@volkris @SrRochardBunson It's decentralized in the sense that not one single entity owns it. It's also decentralized in that it builds duplication of content across multiple servers.
It still depends on server/client architecture -- so it's not *completely* decentralized, and there's opportunities for recentralization.
Nevertheless, it's a step in the right direction.
Yeah, it's a step, but I want us to be clear that it's not a tremendous leap, and that's not just trying to cast shade on #Mastodon, but it's also to highlight remaining, practical problems with retaining this level of centralization.
The system *could have* been much more decentralized, so we wouldn't have to rely on the whims of instance owners, and since it's not, we do.
For another example, because of the centralized design choices of #ActivityPub we have #privacy issues where we rely on third party instances to operate in good faith for everything from deleting content through not sharing beyond our privacy settings.
These things are really important to me, and they come directly from the federated vs decentralized issue.
I really think so much comes down simply to a well-done UI that more or less hides machinery from the user.
For example, in my mind public key encryption should be core to all of this, and yet various instant messenger clients have managed to make end to end encryption accessible to masses without them having to know the term "signing key" at all.
FWIW, I really think mass adoption just comes down to creating a user experience that isn't actually all that big a hurdle to overcome.
But maybe I'm too optimistic :)
@volkris @SrRochardBunson It's not just UI/UX.
I tried to build a true P2P messenger with a sleek UI/UX.
Problem is that I found myself fighting the tech zeitgeist.
If you say the words "P2P", "cryptographic" and "decentralized" together, people automatically believe you're talking about blockchain or cryptocurrency.
Try and explain that you're doing something else, you get met with even more skepticism.
This will take time and socialization.
Number 1, I wouldn't say those words :)
The whole point is to not bother the user with all that stuff, so why bring it up in the marketing?/
Number 2, Mastodon's success thus far shows that "decentralized" is not the dealbreaker, even though I'd argue that the platform is not.
@volkris My app never even got out of closed alpha. I was talking to (mostly) technically proficient people who *should* know better.
Nevertheless, the zeitgeist is the zeitgeist -- if a cultural narrative has taken hold, it's nearly impossible to fight it.
As for Mastodon's success, "decentralization" is not the dealbreaker *now* because more people understand the risks of walled gardens. That wasn't the case 5 years ago.
Until now, the Fediverse was a tough sell.
@volkris I'm not sure you remember this, but 5 years ago, the orthodox opinion was that decentralization was evil.
Every time I tried to bring it up, "progressive" folks said that I was being a tech bro that just wanted to destroy marginalized communities.
@volkris @SrRochardBunson SSB and Manyverse are much more de-centralized. Those services pretty much offer what you're looking for.
Problem is they're too much of a paradigm shift for mass adoption.
True decentralization will take steps.