Using “egalitarian“ instead of “decentralised“ to refer to a network topology without centres
I don’t like the term “decentralised” (which sucks, given how often I use it). For one thing, it’s ambiguous (see, for example, the eternal debate of whether or not to use “decentralised“ or “distributed” when you mean “no centres”). For another, it defines itself in relation to its inverse. I’m going to start using “egalitarian“ to describe the network topology where every node is equal.
@aral I think that would start to shift the meaning of egalitarian.
We don't have egalitarian in mastodon. Even so there are atempts in that direction.
The social status is very different between eugen and a common user.
Also I'm not shure if I like egalitarian at all as it just say (haven't yet read much about egalitarian) having equal right but doesn't define them
Thought we could have very bad equal right..also states use these arguments to opress through the court system
@aral
I've been using the term decentralized and shifted to describing it as federated.
Thought that is pritty acurate describing how it is.
Decentralized misses to describe the relation between the nodes.
distributed is very general in discribing the relation between the nodes.
