Alt Text
Show parent replies
there are no representative mechanisms whatsoever. like with the concepts i laid out above, the social arrangement of power almost doesn't arise??? because we're talking about the linkages of servers to other servers, and kinda proxying the human ownership of those servers as power holders.
but this is literally just confused and worthlessly messy. i do not see a meaningful, useful way in which the arrangement of networks can be described without parasitically referencing human relations, but the reference to human relations is actually entirely ignored.
i think it is entirely a worthwhile endeavor to theorize about how the tech we interact with is structured, but these loose metaphors suck fucking ass and i wish computer scientists of all people would be more discrete with their engagement
to demonstrate my point, like you can also just call all protocols federated because erm actually a bunch of servers (separate actors) utilize a standardized communication method, and so they are operating under its authority
BUT THATS STUPID. AND TOTALLY WORTHLESS. like then ig the follow-up is like ok sure after we establish federated vs non-federated (what would a non-federated protocol look like? it probably exists i just can't think of how), then we can talk about "centralization". so like who owns the computers
talking to each other. if they're all owned by one actor (remember, actors can be organizations of people, like bsky pbc), then they're centralized, and the degree to which there are many actors means it's decentralized. and again this is coherent but i actually don't think it tells you anything
REMOTELY MEANINGFUL. it's nowhere near sufficient to get at the type of things FOSSy fucks like. and maybe its like ok fine thats our bare minimum, and they're really just defining two attributes they dislike and saying any of the cool kids can't have that shit.
but... bro.... there's no shot you're just sit down all satisfied after serving that absolutely worthless, vacuous drivel. i asked you what your ethics are and you said that you hate murder. ???? cool ig???? i mean i know that people have strong strong preferences with how networks are designed,
but those are actually quite discrete. which in a way is great! people are having very grounded debates without the mess, in a way. but what that means is
that there is this massive under-theorized chasm between "we're a federated republic hur de durr" and some hyperspecific nerd shit i've never heard before in my life (/pos). i think the philosophy matters a lot, everyone just sucks at it, and a lot of the competent people just ignore it, fairly.
at a minimum i'm saying most tech people should probably just stay in their lane and use the vocabulary that has independently evolved within their domain of expertise to describe how their systems work. there's an abundance of evaluative material in their already to work with
loser philosophers should get their shit together and understand what's going on so they can contribute. there are people that exist with a foot in both camps, and for those, idk what to tell ya. you're probably shit at philosophy, just like everyone else, and maybe i just have to get over that
to the person who liked and retweeted this - i likely disagree with you and do not support your interpretation. :)
also i typo'd kms
i'm gonna clarify more. i'm not saying that us philosophers are so wise and untouchable that the tech dregs can't keep up. i'm saying that theoreticians are so shit at their role that tech folks should insulate themselves from our retardation by using the frameworks developed within the specialty,
not because these are infallible (they're probably super deficient in their own ways too), but because there are likely less degrees of separation from the actual problem, and most of the time they may not need the abstraction to describe the admirable traits of their preference