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
@paulfree14 I mean very specifically to describe the network topology where every node truly is equal. In other words, imagine if the norm in the Mastodonsphere/ActivityPubsphere was instances of one. Or imagine any peer-to-peer topology where the nodes truly are equal (I don't mean in terms of how many followers you have but in terms of the features of the nodes themselves). That’s what I’d use it for. Not as a replacement for “decentralised” or “federated”.
@aral
ok from that perpective it seems to make sense.
Still somehow is equalitarian linked in my brain somehow negative.
I might be biased, and it might change.
But right now it reminds me of a majority rulling class defining the rights everyone should have, could be through using binary majority voting systems, and claiming to protect those rights based on equalitarian philosophy.
