So far, this matches up fairly well to a libertarian frame for decentralisation. But Leo XIV goes one step further, and refuses to let subsidiarity stand on its own, and pairs it with solidarity. “When subsidiarity is not linked to solidarity, it ends up becoming merely the protection of particular interests; when solidarity is not supported by subsidiarity, it degenerates into a form of welfare that does not foster responsibility.”

If you read that statement with the fediverse and the atmosphere in mind, this is almost a diagram of the two ways the project can fail. Subsidiarity without solidarity is fragmentation: a thousand instances each guarding their own place, with no shared obligation or collaboration, with no place to maintain the commons that is the network itself. This is exactly what we see in the fediverse right now: sure there are a lot of servers, but the collaboration between instances on things like moderation is virtually nonexistent. There is no form of federated diplomacy, or even a mental framework on how servers should interact, besides defederation when you get too annoyed with another server.

Interesting article in an entirely secular sense as it shows how many aspects that we think of as painfully niche to the Fediverse are expressions of ideas people in other areas see as important just in different jargon. What makes the Fediverse different than the rest of the techworld is the importance of big ideas and making sure we hold on to the good ones, we should look to connect with new groups of people along that shared dimension rather than attempt to convince computer nerds the importance of the philosophy behind the Fediverse. A lot of computer people are never going to see it, but certain kinds of people who see the same problems we see are going to get it far easier than we think.

The protocol world has been trying to solve the problem of how to leave, and the next step is working on how we can stay together.