Also, I’m once again spreading the word about twtxt

@lyxal@twtxt.net Nice! I’ve had that ‘push-back’ about decentralisation as well, in response to my using it with yarn.social. I wouldn’t say, by extension, that all open source projects could then fall under that definition, since, starting with the simplest argument, not all projects are code that’s to be self-hosted and publicly-facing. But, even beyond that, many of those projects won’t be designed to ‘federate’, in the loosest sense. And I think yarn.social does federate in that sense, and is therefore a valid example of a decentralised social platform.

That said, though, there is no redundancy whatsoever. I haven’t spent enough time in this space to know how much redundancy/replication and federation are supposed to be a part of any and all things decentralised. I mean, there’s a network’s ability to sustain attack on its infrastructure, and then there’s its ability to maintain the pseudonymity of its clients, writ large and under such attacks. So, in a nutshell, maybe I am using the term incorrectly when talking about yarn.social. :-P

@prologic@twtxt.net Good points, on all fronts. :-) Not suggesting we need redundancy, btw; just that it’s a part of resiliency, itself often part of a decentralised network that has some sort of service level agreement, or similar expectation.