@Gargron you can definitely have a network with a central point in it

@Gargron No. There's probably a formal graph theory distinction based on node centrality distribution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrality).

@Gargron not. Network is referring to the connections, centralized (or otherwise) about the control or configuration or organisation

@Gargron Argentina used to have a weird centralized communist Internet for coordinating factory production and letting people self-report their happiness. The control center looked like the bridge of the Enterprise. So no, networks aren't inherently decentralized.

@Gargron
Or is it a Pleonasm?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleonasm

@Gargron I wouldn't think so. A centralized network has a bottleneck or central point of failure. A decentralized network, in contrast, does not have such a nexus.

@Gargron well, you can have a network topology that's essentially nodes attached to a hub, and those nodes might or might not act as hubs themselves. That's the typical network topology of the internet - although it was designed not to be like that: it's just how it's ended up because of commercial ISPs.

@Gargron I don't have any friends!! help me 😞

@Gargron I don't think so no. A network is an obvious plurality, but can easily have a central coordinator (master) and consist of mostly satellite/slave units. An example could be a local network of time share terminals with all the logic in the central machine.