@hipsterelectron @PersistentDreamer @jonny @fasterandworse "... decentralization is a bit of a handicap ..." - this is true, I agree, there is always a decentralization penalty that you have to pay.
But this is like saying that "... democracy has the handicap of being inefficient ..." - which is equally true, but you know, in both cases the inefficiency is a core tenet of it in order to protect it from being usurped by a single bad actor.
Democracy's inefficiency as well as decentralization's is what protects them from being taken over.
Yes, they are and will always be less efficient than a centralized/autocratic system but this also protects them from a single-point-of-failure mistakes.
In a working democracy, if you kill the head of state, it won't destroy the system - same as in a decentralized system: if you kill one fedi instance, it won't affect all of them, unless, of course, that single fedi instance represents more than 10% of fedi citizenry.
Anyhow, just some thoughts...
@ics
> Democracy's inefficiency as well as decentralization's is what protects them from being taken over.
I wouldn't go so far as to call inefficiency a core tennet that protects the system from being taken over.
More like, it's an inevitable side-effect. A necessary evil, maybe. Too many variables to consider.
It's easy to be efficient if you aren't accountable to anyone.
@hipsterelectron @PersistentDreamer @jonny @fasterandworse