What to do once you admit that decentralization never seems to work (2018)

Post by GhettoMaestro » Sat, Aug 31, 2019, 4:02 PM UTC

jasode wrote: post #31

netsensei wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Decentralisation isn't a collection of technology. Rather, it's a set of principles or tenets. It's above all the by-product of the choices one makes. Sure, you can install a gazillion packages, use serverless, static site generators, SaaS platforms, install CMS x, y or z. But then again, you can still use a simple FTP program, copy HTML files over TCP/IP to a remote server with a process running in the background th…

>Decentralisation - at it's core - is about ownership. If you put content and data on a host, who owns that? You or the owner of the host? This is where the entire discussion becomes a legal debate. Your analysis that "ownership of data" being the core tenet of decentralization is incorrect. Consider the 3 major examples of centralization complaints: - Youtube is too centralized. A decentralized alternative is PeerTu…

Post by nyolfen » Sat, Aug 31, 2019, 4:10 PM UTC

mikeash wrote: post #61

nyolfen wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

devolution implies a return to a previous, lower level of sophistication. since the US was not previously split into two regional political structures, it's not an accurate descriptor, so it sounds more like an attack on the legitimacy of such an order. critiques of the legitimacy of the confederacy are typically moral in nature.

I thought it just meant to delegate power from a higher level of government to more local governments. I don’t recall ever seeing it used to imply any sort of backward movement.

Post by nwah1 » Sat, Aug 31, 2019, 4:16 PM UTC

nyolfen wrote: post #19

nwah1 wrote: post #15

Decentralization and devolution are often confused. For instance, in the US Civil War, the splintering could be described as devolution. But it certainly wasn't decentralizing power to the slaves. Which side was the side of "decentralization?" It's almost a meaningless question, unless being very well defined. Obviously, the Pareto Principle is usually at work, even if protocols are decentralized by design. Email is…

>For instance, in the US Civil War, the splintering could be described as devolution. But it certainly wasn't decentralizing power to the slaves. it was decentralizing in the sense that secession was meant to grant political authority to local elites. 'devolution' just sounds like a moral judgment, which while fair is not very useful for these purposes.

Post by leetcrew » Sat, Aug 31, 2019, 4:28 PM UTC

mikeash wrote: post #61

nyolfen wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

devolution implies a return to a previous, lower level of sophistication. since the US was not previously split into two regional political structures, it's not an accurate descriptor, so it sounds more like an attack on the legitimacy of such an order. critiques of the legitimacy of the confederacy are typically moral in nature.

I thought it just meant to delegate power from a higher level of government to more local governments. I don’t recall ever seeing it used to imply any sort of backward movement.

Post by marknadal » Sat, Aug 31, 2019, 4:47 PM UTC