An evidence-based and critical analysis of the Fediverse decentralization promises
https://lemmy.ml/post/20234577
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from morrowind@lemmy.ml
pretty brief paper though ngl, it doesn’t do much
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from morrowind@lemmy.ml
Tl;dr - fediverse probably won’t do too much, and it does have discoverability issues, along with migration issues
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from RagingHungryPanda@lemm.ee
Discoverability issues as per yesterdays search giants methods of crawling the web.
It’s quite clear that companies like Google and Microsoft are vulnerable in the search game right now.
I mean in the end you’re probably right, but if there were ever a time for a well-funded group to take aim at the suddenly low barriered entry, I think this is probably Custer’s last stand.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from foggy@lemmy.world
They define decentralisation as an even distribution of users? Or did I get that wrong skimming the paper?
This seems arbitrary. Mastodon is a decentralised network, no matter how big Mastodon.social is. Lemmy is equally decentralised, even though there's a dominant actor.
The other hubs in the network don't revolve around mastodon.social/lemmy.world. they connect to each other bilaterally - if the central hubs disappeared over night it wouldn't affect them all that much.
I think the notion that decentralised networks can't have hubs of varying sizes is plain wrong, and a fundamental misunderstanding of what decentralized means.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from cabbage@piefed.social
I don’t care if 99% of users are on once instance as long as I can people have the option to create their own instances and build on tech software and content created by the community.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from Fizz@lemmy.nz This content has been proxied by September (3851b).Proxy Information
text/gemini