It's distributed into https://github.com
i.e. not in any real sense at all.
In all seriousness, just because that's the way it's currently used doesn't mean it's the only way to do it. At it's core git is decentralized which is how GitHub and gitlab and dozens of others can all exist independently of another and still interoperate.
If lakes form, then it means that water falls downhill. No, "GitHub.com" is not hardcoded, it's the largest of the lakes that we happened to end up with. We could have had different lakes, and might somehow in future. But it shows that the gravitational pull of centralisation is in operation. The technical fact that "core git is decentralized" doesn't matter, centralised usage is the usage subset that prevails in practice, due to social forces.
"Github is not coded in" is not an argument that "decentralisation could have prevailed". Some form of centralisation apparently was inevitable. This is the one that we got.
> GitHub and gitlab and dozens of others can all exist independently of another and still interoperate.
Do they "interoperate"? Isn't it overwhelmingly more usual for a project to pick one of those and stay there. i.e. centralised usage.
Yes, they use the same protocol. it's decentralized like http.
"I'm old enough to remember when the Internet wasn't a group of five websites, each consisting of screenshots of text from the other four." (1)
This indicates that centralising forces are happening here too.
