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