Gregory's ServerI remember, years back now, coming across someone arguing with fervor that proprietary software was better than open source software because it was more secure. It was a culture shock to me, because usually I am surrounded by people for whom the benefits of open-source software are self-evident. I got the same feeling today arguing with some folks who genuinely believe that being locked into a proprietary, centralized silo is actually better than having control over your own platform...
|
12 comments
 Decentralization isn't everything. It's not the goal in itself. There is a long tail of product design decisions that make or break a platform (which is why I find it kind of silly that Bluesky spent 2 years arguing over protocol design, though that's a different story). But that point is that decentralization is the foundation for a viable platform. Without it you're doomed to repeat the path of hundreds of social media apps of the past... Just a different paint on the same exact structure.  @Gargron Totally agree. Thank you for all your work on Mastodon. They (Cohost) think they're better because they're nonprofit, but there are plenty of bad nonprofits. I mean, just look at all the problems with philanthropy. Profit or not, by creating a closed platform, they're looking to put themselves in a position of dominating other people, if Cohost is successful.  @Gargron personally, i do think decentralization is important, and i'm glad Mastodon is decentralized however, i'm not completely sure decentralization is absolutely necessary for a viable platform furthermore, decentralization, and especially federation, does come with different tradeoffs, and i don't think sweeping them under the rug does anyone any good I think decentralization is important. One of the fundamental protocols for the functioning of the Internet and the Web is DNS which is a decentralized and distributed protocol. I think Mastodon in a future version could interact with the DNS protocol. For example, those who own a domain name could enter public keys or information about the instances to which they are enrolled in the TXT record.    @Gargron It's not so simple. Mastodon is a rare open source project that makes money. You invested in yourself (and us!) by building it first and then thankfully finding money for it. You could probably quadruple your income by doing literally anything in the US considering the leadership and skills you have demonstrated. That's a huge opportunity cost. Most businesses need to borrow money just to get started. But some borrow too much, and resort to exploitation to make it back. This is bad. @Gargron I had a discussion at work with someone who said the first, though at least he was honest with why he preferred non-open source: because if software breaks a thing, someone needs to take responsibility, which (generally) doesn't happen with OS. (i don't agree, but I understand his position in that exact situation) |
@Gargron Security by obscurity relies on the age old principle of "ignorance is bliss"