I noted collateral freedom, and I noted, “it seems to run counter to most of the projects I am interested in at the moment, specifically, decentralization and federation, which means collateral freedom doesn’t apply, or at least isn’t as effective.”
This concept seems like a useful mental model, but also depends on the concept of “too big to fail”, which doesn’t feel right, as the table is set at the moment (meaning, the only people who can obtain such a status are already running the game.
The space I think about right now is based on Mastodon, but collateral freedom doesn’t apply, because we are split across jurisdictions, and any single node can be taken out relatively easily by a government player (or someone using litigation, and therefore invoking a gov. player).
Collateral freedom doesn’t seem to apply to any freedom networks I can think of. It seems to be a tool used by corporate silos to gain leverage on public agencies… am I just not appreciating this because I am in the US? Is this useful in other countries?
It makes me wonder what advantage F-Droid feels it has, because I am pretty sure that Fairphone aside, Google and probably Samsung and a few other manufacturers could take out F-Droid if it even made a blip on their radars. I say that as someone that only installs apps via F-Droid.
So what does collateral freedom mean for F-Droid?