No it doesn't, the tech crowd settled on fediverse, make your peace and move on. It's might be dumb sounding term, but then so was "electronic mail" or "wiki".
Despite your framing, I'm actually curious about your criticisms. To me, a federated world is strictly better than the increasingly centralized world we find ourselves in. Are you suggesting anything less than fully decentralized is not worth the effort?
I'm being fairly literal when I say that federated social networking is feudalism.
That's not a better/worse value judgment -- just pointing out that some folks make the mistake of believing otherwise.
As far as value judgments go though, I've long been saying that the current model for the internet is crushing us; that collectively as a society we should get together and abolish the use and creation of social networking sites (the same way qualuudes don't exist today); and that "skin in the game" should be required for online services -- no more "free" stuff where the product is actually the user. I will gladly pay for an email account that isn't mining my data, or a search engine that's actually useful, etc.
Thanks for the clarification. The part I disagree with is the binary classification, and also individuals paying is not a guarantee to get free of the power structure, for instance take Youtube premium. It's not obvious that the platform itself must concentrate power, but I totally agree that the power differential is core and needs fixing.
its a maximalist position that is hard to parse. you can run your own instance, keep it very local to a group of friends and family etc. what is feudal about that?
