This is an interesting development:
I oppose decentralisation only on the grounds of complexity of set up (and not for the open source).
For example, Gab started as a fork of Mastodon (and they even used Brave browser for some time to start a commenting system). It was immediately yanked off the fediverse because it wasn’t politically palatable.
The champions of free speech define the “freedoms” based on their convenience.
This one from another blog:
Mastodon attempts to censor free speech social network Gab by blocking its domain
The fediverse should be pretty much what it says on the box: a federated (so – not centralized) online universe of interconnected servers. In other words: a bunch of those publishing social networks, microblogs, websites, or file hosting compatible with the same protocols and open standards. Like those Mastodon is based on.
Gab, for its part, is as of its latest version an open-source fork of Mastodon itself.
However, the fact that the social network has become the refuge of many of those banned and/or demonetized – including prominent US conservatives – from major global giants over the past months and years, has rubbed those with a voice in the Mastodon community the very wrong way.
There are politically correct opinions; WordPress attempts to congregate blogs and adds a visual layer to collected links to “attract the normies” (or the Instagram crowd). Serious write ups hardly get a reference. Since the object here isn’t to drive up traffic, but to use this for mental callisthenics, I haven’t cared much. Therefore, I can easily afford to call out the hypocrisy. Initially, I had planned to install the plugins, but my long-term reading is that Fediverse is again a flash in the pan. Unless the government (or companies) is willing to push towards “decentralisation”, it wouldn’t be good enough to pursue this line of thinking. Existing system is fine. Why change something which isn’t broken?
RadOncNotes 