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
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
text/gemini
This content has been proxied by September (3851b).