So I recently got an excuse rant about my opinions on federated tech. I think it's pretty much the best we can hope for in terms of liberating tech, with very few niches where fully distributed tech is preferable.
Needing a server places users under the power of the server administrator. Why do we bother? "No gods, no masters, no admins!' I hear you shout. Well, there's a couple reasons...
Maybe using software is just an intrinsically centralized activity. One or a few people design and code it, and an unlimited number of people can digitally replicate and use it. Sure, it may be free software that everyone can inspect and modify... but how many people will really bother? (Nevermind that most people don't even have the skills necessary.)
Okay, so we always kind of rely on a central-ish dev team when we use tech. Why rely on admins on top of that? I believe the vast vast majority of people doesn't have the skills and time to operate a truly independent node of a fully distributed tech. Let's take Jami as an example:
"With the default name server (ns.jami.net), the usernames are registered on an Ethereum blockchain."
So a feature of Jami is (for most users) implemented as a centralized service. Yikes. You could build and run your own name server (with less embarrassing tech choices hopefully), but who will really bother?
But say you bothered, wouldn't it be nice if your friends could use that name server too, and gain a little independence? That sounds a lot like decentralized/federated tech.
Keeping a decent service online is a pain in the butt. Installing SW updates, managing backups, paying for hardware and name services... nevermind just the general bothering to understand all that mess. And moderation, don't forget moderation. I'm saying it's not for everyone (and we should appreciate the fuck out of [local admin]).
I believe that servers and admins are our best bet for actual non-centralized tech. A tech-literate person tending a service for a small- to medium-size community is much more feasible than every person running their independent node (which will probably still depend on something centralized).
And maybe that's just the way we bring good ol' division of labour to the Internet. You have your shoemaker, your baker, your social media admin. A respectable and useful position in society. And they lived happily ever after.
I think a better solution is to truly emulate what really happens in the real world via peer to peer networking, and appointing / trusting certain individual as an admin/moderator for the node. That way a node can choose to become independent or have a quorum system or fully trust a single other node. That is my idea anyway, I haven't dug much deeper into this idea.
Like a co-op where management is just a hired position?
Edit:
my Y Combinator pitch: Patreon, but for professional moderators on the distributed web.
The notion of “professional moderator” should perhaps ring some alarm bells. Sure, some people will be good at that sort of things, but:
treehouse.systems had a nice thread recently about their modding arrangement, but I can’t find a handy link to it right now.
aka the job known as Trust & Safety
Didn’t Silicon Valley have them all flung into the abyss? Or maybe they were just a myth made up to annoy venture capitalists?
(But yes, I probably should have said “freelance” rather than just “professional”. I haven’t actually thought very hard about how commercial moderation is done, beyond reading horror stories about Facebook)
I don't know what a co-op is, but I see the moderation system at BlueSky and think if that can be generalized then maybe that is the answer to a lot of centralization problems. So a node representing a peer can do basically anything that node operator/peer wishes including delegating his node operation to another node or a quorum of node. And if the peer wishes so, they could also take their node back anytime. For example in communication, we already have decentralized web of trust from PGP or other Public Key Infrastructure.