Using “egalitarian“ instead of “decentralised“ to refer to a network topology without centres
I don’t like the term “decentralised” (which sucks, given how often I use it). For one thing, it’s ambiguous (see, for example, the eternal debate of whether or not to use “decentralised“ or “distributed” when you mean “no centres”). For another, it defines itself in relation to its inverse. I’m going to start using “egalitarian“ to describe the network topology where every node is equal.
I wonder if there's not two different conversations here.
One is the soft aspects/benefits that you might address with "egalitarian". These would concern privacy, security, data control...
The other is the physical blue prints of a distributed network that need described in appropriate/conventional terms. The techie shit, whether it's called decentralized, or whatever.
Discussions would include both, respective to purpose. But you can't effectively use one to mean both.