Christine Lemmer-Webber @cwebber@social.coop
Public

@thisismissemEmelia πŸ‘ΈπŸ» @mastodonmigration @baralheiaBaral'heia Stormdancer Ξ˜Ξ”πŸ² My analysis assumes a network architecture in which each node is a major participant in the functionality of the network, because as I argue in the piece, from a power distribution perspective of decentralization, it is important. What I describe in the piece is that if you want more than a pantheon of gods-eye view participants, then not having addressed delivery means that the system can't scale down.

And this is true: you can run a gotosocial node that isn't *dependent* on other major players in the network, and it scales down great.

The question is whether or not that matters and is important to people. Maybe it doesn't, I don't know. It matters to me, though.

Christine Lemmer-Webber @cwebber@social.coop
Public

@thisismissemEmelia πŸ‘ΈπŸ» @mastodonmigration @baralheiaBaral'heia Stormdancer Ξ˜Ξ”πŸ² I also think that the ATmosphere and the fediverse could both learn a lot from each other. ATproto could adopt directed messaging, and the fediverse could adopt content addressing and portable identity, both of which I believe are important. This isn't a pivot, I have been saying these things *since 2017*, before ActivityPub became a recommendation, and before ATproto even came on the scene, including even in my co-proposal with Jay Graeber about what Bluesky could be, and including in the articles referenced previously.

Unfortunately, I think there is a real risk that the fediverse is going to learn the *wrong* lessons from the ATmosphere, and adopt some of its "shared centralization" components, rather than the decentralization components that ATproto has that the fediverse doesn't yet. :\

0
0
0

If you have a fediverse account, you can quote this note from your own instance. Search https://social.coop/users/cwebber/statuses/116091658857339841 on your instance and quote it. (Note that quoting is not supported in Mastodon.)