questions for and about decentralized alternatives to big tech

originally wrote this in early 2024 for a book chapter but publication has been indefinitely stalled, so dropping it on the blog

questions for and about decentralized alternatives to big tech

originally wrote this in early 2024 for a book chapter but publication has been indefinitely stalled, so dropping it on the blog

 https://blog.isthisa.com/decentralization-and-its-discontents/

you might enjoy my failed attempt at defining decentralization in 2021: https://shazow.net/posts/decentralization/

i decided it's best to simply not use that word anymore at all, and talk about specific failure modes instead:

artist and software developer, mother of lifeforms, dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good 🏴

you might enjoy my failed attempt at defining decentralization in 2021: https://shazow.net/posts/decentralization/

i decided it's best to simply not use that word anymore at all, and talk about specific failure modes instead: https://shazow.net/posts/open-social-2025/

A doodler and computerer. I like permissive/permissionless open source, smart contracts, p2p systems, room-scale VR, and NixOS.

shazow.net

Currently: WhatsABI

absolutely!

i've found that everyone has their own meaning of the word, and for most people it's some version of "does this have central vibes?" which is supremely misleading.

could have a "central" actor who is fully constrained and safe, or a bunch of participants who don't "feel" central but actually each compound failure modes.

a better framing I've found is talking about "quality of trust", we can have low quality or high quality trust. math is high quality, an 8ball is low quality. trust is heavily dependent on context, too: a person i trust fully can still betray me if there's a gun to their head, whereas math doesn't care unless there's a bug or incorrect assumption. 

related older post I'm considering rewriting:

absolutely!

i've found that everyone has their own meaning of the word, and for most people it's some version of "does this have central vibes?" which is supremely misleading.

could have a "central" actor who is fully constrained and safe, or a bunch of participants who don't "feel" central but actually each compound failure modes.

a better framing I've found is talking about "quality of trust", we can have low quality or high quality trust. math is high quality, an 8ball is low quality. trust is heavily dependent on context, too: a person i trust fully can still betray me if there's a gun to their head, whereas math doesn't care unless there's a bug or incorrect assumption. 

related older post I'm considering rewriting: https://shazow.net/posts/trustless/

ah these are both great. I'll be teaching an intro to decentralized social in a few months, and I might include your post on this in the readings, if all good w you. I've been in agreement that the word "decentralization" is almost meaningless, at least without further explanations, for some time ... but I still find myself encountering it regularly in the wild (as in this upcoming curriculum "Dweb for creators" lol)