Email or username:

Password:

Forgot your password?
Aral Balkan

“Hey, some fediverse instances are growing larger and larger, isn’t that great? Yay!”

Stop and think about what this means. You’re celebrating the creation of fiefdoms and feudal lords. Mini Zuckerbergs, if you will.

There’s a reason I’ve been shouting from the rooftops about limiting server sizes for as long as I can remember.

e.g., If mastodon.social blocks my instance of one, they block 1,196,910 accounts from interacting with me. If I block them… I do the exact same thing to myself.

18 comments
dch

@aral its allowing the defacto implementation of a power differential, shifting from an implicit collaborative mindset, and enabling a coercive approach, if the larger instance chooses to. Not good.

Konrad

@aral So who will be Mastodon's Google Reader for RSS?

Juanjo Salvador

@aral So, is it only harmful when other people block .art but not when .art block other instances? 🤔

I'm sure Stux has their reasons to reach this extreme, honestly.

DELETED

@aral I’d love to self-host but wouldn’t know where to start, so at least being on mastodon.online which appears to be run by an adult, I’m reasonably safe from a childish tantrum (for now).

Craven~: Strafeslut, Pumpslut~

@JamesGLA90 @aral I'm afraid m.o is ran by the exact same team as m.s... AKA, zero moderation, and was basically set up so people stopped going "mastodon might as well be centralised because everyone is on m.s"

DELETED

@MxCraven Oh I know it’s run by the “central team” but I’d rather that for now than being open to the whims of a child

Jay Stephens

@aral one of my first thoughts when I joined fedi was "there should be a pact to only federate with instances below X" - had anything like that emerged or been proposed?

Marco van Burgsteden

@jaystephens @aral Dubar's number of some sort? It sure would help self-regulation, preventing anonymous ttolling crap.

Jay Stephens

@Marrekoo @aral
that would be one kind of fediverse (which I would enjoy) but I was thinking more like 100x that, so the upper bound on instance size is like a smallish city. Assuming the median instance size ended up around 1/4 of that, you'd then need around 100,000 instances to approach Meta's user count.

yetzt

@aral meta will be scraping fedi btw lol.

aroom

@yetzt @aral the already are I think. I mean do they need to have an instance to scrap it?

aroom

@aral my instance muted .social because of spam and lack of moderation. I don't discuss their decision it's up to them and I trust them.

But the user experience is really bad, account from .social that I don't follow are not being displayed. It breaks a lot of conversations, it's a real mess.

aroom

@aral My conclusion : we should limit the number of users in any instance to keep moderation bearable. .social should ask user to move to another instance after a 30 days period, keeping the onboarding easy. .social should open a lot of new instances.

but also we need a way to migrate our accounts, with posts and all. so we could easily reshape the distribution.

Gilou

@aral thing is.. It's not that easy to choose or host one that would do better, and it could be hard to migrate for those that chose those now "big" elephants a while back.
But I agree, and at least you made me advance that point in my todo list.. Thanks ;-)

Nuno & Lua :DsaprvingLua:

@aral perhaps there is a need for a kind of small instance pact towards blocking when one of them is served with a unjustified block. With enough critical mass they'd have to think twice before doing it.

Go Up