To kind of summarize some of the recent #Bluesky drama. Yesterday Bluesky changed their Terms of Service to require binding arbitration. Users are unhappy, but there's nothing they can do about it because Bluesky is not decentralized and there is no place they can go. Today, Bluesky banned a user for wishing ill of J.K. Rowling for her anti-trans hate. Users are very unhappy, but there's nothing they can do about it because Bluesky is not decentralized and there is no place they can go.
Get it?
So, wrote this long thread today about Mastodon introducing required binding arbitration in a July update to their Terms of Service (https://mastodon.online/@mastodonmigration/115039859311593214). It turns out users hated this, pushed back hard and as a result Mastodon put the decision on hold.
The thing here is that the real reason that users had the power to affect this policy decision is that Mastodon is actually really truly decentralized, and users can indeed move to an instance that does not require binding arbitration.
What we're witnessing real time is the difference between real functioning decentralization and phony, or at best aspirational, decentralization. It's analogous to the difference between a real functioning democracy and a phony rigged democracy.
To actually give power to the people you need to relinquish control by giving them options. Then you need to attend to their desires and concerns. Relinquishing power is anathema to centralized authorities because they don't want to serve their people.
We are a network of scientists, developers and organizations building the next generation of digital spaces for open science.
