Fediverse has emerged as the popular choice when people look for Twitter alternatives. Personally I found Mastodon was like the early days of Twitter, without half as much toxicity.

However, Fediverse comprises various instances operated by different people. Users sometimes need to switch between different instances, which can be annoying and challenging to manage effectively. I also feel it lacks the social media vibe.

Similarly, decentralisation, as seen in peer-to-peer networks, also emphasizes privacy and freedom of expression.

While exploring decentralised networks such as Nostr, Scuttlebutt, and WireMin, I found that Nostr has the highest level of recognition, whereas Scuttlebutt and WireMin have relatively small user bases currently. I believe their true value will only surface when they get big in the future. But the question is: will they indeed get big? Will decentralisation actually work?

Will Fediverse be the one to trigger the revolution and replace Twitter or Decentralisation?

What are your thoughts on this matter?

  • Wothe@lemmy.worldEnglish
    7·
    1 year ago

    Fediverse is a part of decentralization, but I think you are talking about P2P network.

    You can think of it this way:

    • Out of 100% of the power in the Fediverse network, 50% is owned by the instance/relay owner.
    • The remaining 50% is distributed among all users using that relay. This gives the owner the authority to remove you from his or her relay.
    • In a fully decentralized network(P2P network), 100% is distributed to every user. Everyone is equal; no individual has more privileges than another, and banning is not possible.

    (Mastodon serves as a good example of Fediverse: you might get banned from an instance, but you can always create a new account on the same instance or join another one with fewer restrictions.)

    (WireMin provides a clear example of Decentralized: in its chat rooms, no one can delete your messages, even if they’re the chat room owner. Moreover, no one can ban you within the WireMin social network.)

    There are pros and cons.

    Fediverse network:

    Pros:

    • Efficiency: The Fediverse network is more efficient than a fully decentralized network. It primarily relies on instances that can be hosted on cloud servers, traditional servers, or by powerful third parties hosting a server.

    Cons:

    • Possibility of banning.
    • Privacy concerns: Data is stored on a cloud server.

    P2P network:

    Pros:

    • Privacy security: Data is not stored on a central server.
    • No banning or censorship.

    Cons:

    • Stability depends on user count: The efficiency of a decentralized network depends on having a large user base. The more users there are, the more efficient and stable the network can be.
    • blue_berry@lemmy.worldEnglish
      4·
      1 year ago

      Please call it “federated network” and “P2P social network”/“full dezentralized network”

      The Fediverse is dezentralized

      • tioute@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
        11·
        1 year ago

        That’s exactly what I’m trying to say. Fediverse is decentralised to some extent, but it’s not fully decentralised.

    • Gormadt@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
      4·
      1 year ago

      Personally I’d move that “possibility of banning” to a positive

      Imagine being unable to ban spammers, scammers, or people posting illegal content.

      Or hell even being unable to remove posts

      Yeah fediverse is better IMO

      • schmorp@slrpnk.netEnglish
        1·
        1 year ago

        If individual users have ways to ban and/or filter spam on the individual level they don’t have to have others moderate content for them.

      • trashgirlfriend@lemmy.worldEnglish
        3·
        1 year ago

        Also completely ignores the fact that there are genuinely good reasons to ban certain people from a social media platform.

        The “Free speech absolutist” position is pretty much braindead.