• @PoliticallyIncorrect
    link
    English
    23
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    It’s such a thing a privately federated system? Seems like an ideological contradiction…

    • HarkMahlberg
      link
      fedilink
      10
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      This is the same criticism that was made of cryptocurrency’s claim to fame regarding decentralization, consensus, and resilience to authoritarian takeover.

      “If you take all these different parts of your identity, all the games you play, all the things you buy, all the groups you join, and stick them into one system, that’s a central system. It doesn’t matter how many servers that system spans, you’ve pooled all that data in one place.

      And ultimately we can make the same criticism of the Fediverse itself. It’s nice that there are different platforms, different instances, different communities… but it’s still just one entity at the end of the day. This is especially apparent with the spam wave we just saw. Misskey, Mastodon, Lemmy, even kbin was not invulnerable. You don’t need to attack them individually, you can attack them all at once, and then they will naturally spread your attack to other instances for you.

        • HarkMahlberg
          link
          fedilink
          0
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          None? I don’t debate that Blue Sky is corporate-owned while Bitcoin and the Fediverse aren’t. Rather, I’m saying the thing they all have in common is that they like to think of themselves as “decentralized” federations of independent systems and users, but in reality they are all “centralized” systems with shared weaknesses. This is the “ideological contradiction” I thought you were referring to.

      • @PoliticallyIncorrect
        link
        English
        13 months ago

        Supposing Bluesky Inc. would want to cut the cord to a particular instance it would be possible? Beside just defederating but getting it completely down?