The terms decentralization, federation, and democratization all carry a historical association with the redistribution of absolute authority.
After the French Revolution, the term "décentralisation" was popularized as French libertarians worked to decentralize the powers held by the monarchy. The terms federation and democratization also have strong origins to the era.
So when techno-libertarians offer decentralized social media as the atonement for Web 2.0’s sins, people reasonably assume a redistribution of power away from the platform oligarchs, and towards the people.
But no digital revolution has occurred. We have toppled not a single power structure. The calls for revolution are coming from inside the house.
So how can we have a new social web with all the same old people?
To be sure, the decentralized social media concept is a response to peoples' general distain for corporations like Meta who've proven that profits come before our general wellbeing. But the problems it solves won't bring us liberation. Like all solutions, offered by those who wield power, decentralization is merely concession disguised as revolution.
Centralization vs Decentralization is a false dichotomy. It's wholesale propaganda shoveled into the web by the same people who told us Web 2.0 would change the world for the better.
So before we rush into the implementation of the solution, perhaps we should example whether the problem was correctly identified. And we should scrutinize those who decided for us whose problems are worth solving.
Decentralization is the "organic” label of the web. Its goal is to make us feel better about the choices we've made, but the term carries no offical definition. It's whatever they, and by extension, we, want it to mean.
---