Using “egalitarian“ instead of “decentralised“ to refer to a network topology without centres
I don’t like the term “decentralised” (which sucks, given how often I use it). For one thing, it’s ambiguous (see, for example, the eternal debate of whether or not to use “decentralised“ or “distributed” when you mean “no centres”). For another, it defines itself in relation to its inverse. I’m going to start using “egalitarian“ to describe the network topology where every node is equal.
@aral I think that would start to shift the meaning of egalitarian.
We don't have egalitarian in mastodon. Even so there are atempts in that direction.
The social status is very different between eugen and a common user.
Also I'm not shure if I like egalitarian at all as it just say (haven't yet read much about egalitarian) having equal right but doesn't define them
Thought we could have very bad equal right..also states use these arguments to opress through the court system
@paulfree14 I mean very specifically to describe the network topology where every node truly is equal. In other words, imagine if the norm in the Mastodonsphere/ActivityPubsphere was instances of one. Or imagine any peer-to-peer topology where the nodes truly are equal (I don't mean in terms of how many followers you have but in terms of the features of the nodes themselves). That’s what I’d use it for. Not as a replacement for “decentralised” or “federated”.
@paulfree14 @aral I mean, with "egalitarian" you're going to run into these issues all the time. Especially in environments with a lot of people who feel strongly about social issues (and people on Fediverse often do).
@rysiek @paulfree14 The other alternative is to invent a new term of some sort, like “equinodal” – but, again, then you run into the accessibility issue.
@rysiek @paulfree14 @aral
I like "equinodal" very much. It's fresh and doesn't lead to other interpretations debate. "Equinodal" it's fresh. I'll try to use both to see how it's understood by people I'm talking to.
@rysiek @paulfree14 I feel it’s important that the term itself does not imply that the norm is centralised. It’s not. It’s just the dominant topology today. e.g., PCs didn’t decentralise Mainframes; they created their own topology. I see the same for the Personal Networking era. It’s a new topology; not an evolution of the existing Web/Cloud, even if it may use some of the same technologies.
@aral @paulfree14 I like "equinodal". What accessibility issue are you talking about?
@rysiek @paulfree14 If I talk to someone without technical knowledge, I will have to explain “peer to peer.” Equinodal, I’d have to explain to everyone (since it’s not a term that exists). When you say “egalitarian”, nearly everyone – regardless of technical skill – has an idea what you mean.
@aral @paulfree14 with "egalitarian" everyone has an idea, but as this thread proves it's the wrong one... :)
@rysiek @aral @paulfree14 I think to avoid confusion we need to insert a pro-feminist context when we use the word egalitarian rather than to cede the word to patriarchal authoritarians. Although making up new words is fun, it creates an 'ingroup' and 'outgroup' dynamic of people who know what it means and those that don't. I'm not saying you are wrong. We might need to make up new words to fight back. The downside to creating a feminist context is that context is hard to convey in soundbites.
@ewankeep @aral @paulfree14 sure, but we were talking about how to refer to specific network topography.
While I recognize network topographies and social struggles are related (that's precisely why you won't find me in walled gardens), that's a broader discussion.
@rysiek @aral @paulfree14 This is a tough problem. Explaining technical information to a non-tech audience is hard enough!
@rysiek @aral @paulfree14 I think the context here is the fact that you are talking about a technical subject. I don't think feminists would misunderstand egalitarian network typography to mean anti-feminist. You are using it for a precise and well defined meaning. I believe in this case it is clear to a general audience and preferable to a made up word that needs to be explained.
@ewankeep @aral @paulfree14 point is, in this very thread somebody misunderstood how the world "egalitarian" was being used.
So., there's that.
@aral
ok from that perpective it seems to make sense.
Still somehow is equalitarian linked in my brain somehow negative.
I might be biased, and it might change.
But right now it reminds me of a majority rulling class defining the rights everyone should have, could be through using binary majority voting systems, and claiming to protect those rights based on equalitarian philosophy.
@aral @paulfree14 perhaps, to avoid confusion, we need a different term than "egalitarian"?
"Egalitized" (as a call-back to "decentralized")?