A Dutch research institute in Amsterdam that publishes critical writing on internet culture, networks, social media and generative AI.
HN commenters link it for its explanation of federated versus decentralized versus distributed networks, which they use in discussions of Matrix, DNS and Wikipedia.
To add to that, I guess the intent of the writers is explained by the following:
> We expect that more research will appear in the coming years that has similar biases, oversights, and false claims to scientific objectivity in order to “launder” human prejudice and discrimination.
Historical theories are brought up (1) to show that they are resurfacing and (2) because sciences (and I'm inclined to say DL in particular) are susceptible for making similar mistakes. The hard part is that these biases are often not clear at all, as they are based on general preconceptions/stereotypes and the theories thus confirm something we think we know (confirmation bias).
For example, I have been examining emotion recognition software [1] with which, just as with physiognomy, the face is taken as a proxy for a person's mental state. Just as OP examines the terms "criminal" and "justice" one could inquiry into the concepts underlying the digitization of emotions, such as "anger" and "joy". Terms that seem very clear on a brief encounter, but when further examining them turn out to be heavily influenced by eg. culture. Though not as obviously poignant as incriminating an innocent person, one should still wonder then what it means to feel 34% angry.
Now, this is a single example, but I guess OP's use of historical theories allows for a critical look at more DL applications out there. And maybe helps convince laymen (policy makers that buy and employ such technology) that DL is not an easy…
Baran drew this pic almost 80 years ago. Since then, 'Decentralized' has become an umbrella term for both decentralized and distributed networks, and 'Federated' is currently a commonly accepted name for Email/XMPP type of networks. [1]
This makes sense, because Baran was describing a communication network, like later ethernet, where nodes were interchangeable, wherever in XMPP the nodes are not interchangeable: if you have an account on xmpp.org server, you can't connect to xmpp.jp server and receive your messages. Thus, such networks required a special more narrow name to define it.
[1] https://networkcultures.org/unlikeus/resources/articles/what-is-a-federated-network/
Your confusing the Wikipedia community of users, which anyone is free to participate in, and have passed this RFC, with the Wikimedia Foundation, which accepts donations and runs the systems and networks that Wikipedia runs on.
https://networkcultures.org/cpov/2010/03/27/mayo-fuster-morell-the-role-of-the-wikimedia-foundation/
Such hybrid and “community” driven systems are far from problem-free. But this one has created Wikipedia, which most people think is a good thing. Obviously it’s tricky to walk the line.
Well, if everyone is running their own homeserver Matrix wouldn't be "federated" anymore, it would be "distributed" instead. You seem to argue for Matrix to go in two different directions :)
The following graph is helpful in this context: https://networkcultures.org/unlikeus/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2013/03/networktypes.png
Matrix is aiming for (B) here while you're arguing they should go all the way to (C). As long as it isn't (A), I'm personally happy.
For those who did not immediately grasp the parents claim that DNS is federated and not decentralized; here [0] is a nice article I found that talks about network architecture terminology definitions used in various famous research papers. It is a very nice, terse, compare and contrast.
[0] https://networkcultures.org/unlikeus/resources/articles/what-is-a-federated-network/
Thank you for sending me down the rabbit hole klabb3! :)
I'm not sure I agree with you.
Yes, classified information will continue to leak, as it always has.
But WikiLeaks, at least to my knowledge, is deeply wrapped up with Assange, and it is not clear (to me, at least) how it would function in his absence. In the words of this article (http://networkcultures.org/wpmu/geert/2010/08/30/ten-theses-on-wikileaks/), WikiLeaks is essentially a "Single Person Organization".