There's a claim going around that Mastodon is "centralizing around a few instances" because 1% of instances account for 84% of users. https://mathstodon.xyz/@manlius/109383027753990134

That's misleading. 1% of instances is ~360. That's a lot more than I expected! Impressively decentralized.

Measuring centralization as a % doesn't make sense. Hypothetically, if 100K new people each started their own instance, centralization as measured by this stat would greatly *increase*, even though that's not what actually happened.

Manlio De Domenico (@[email protected])

Attached: 1 image Again, a quick and dirty analysis, but if I have no bugs then the 1% largest #Mastodon instances accounts for 84% of all users. The top 5% accounts for 97% of all users. We can say that the system is effectively centralizing around a few instances, and this might be a problem for the overall stability and sustainability. @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] #MastoStat #ComplexSystems

Mathstodon

The goal of decentralization shouldn't be a uniform distribution of instance sizes. That's unnecessary and unrealistic.

Decentralization prevents any one entity from exerting too much power over the whole ecosystem, allows cultural differences between communities, and enables semi-independent technical experimentation by instances so that successful innovations can percolate. These are the things that made the web successful. Mastodon has all of these, and isn't in danger of losing them.

@randomwalker it feels like the measure for decentralisation is simply "how big is the biggest instance?" (or top 5 instances).

Another metric would also be how easy it is to move your profile to another instance (for any reason). So far I understand it is fairly easy and might prevent any instance to force/capture users. Until custom features are introduced, this should be ok.