I thought the point of a fediverse was distribution making it so that no one site becomes death star sized. If one site has ALL the biggest communities… What happens if that site goes down? Shouldn’t each site that wants one have a “Tech” community, and then those get aggregated into Tech? Wouldn’t that be a better approach? Doesn’t it make more sense that no one site has so many users the server can’t handle the load (been waiting for over a week for subscriptions on lemmy.ml to complete). Before someone feels the need to explain to me what they think a federation is, I’ve taught the subject. The point I’m trying to make is… Why do we keep pretending that being the biggest is a benefit, when it is directly detrimental to the architecture that we are using? #justanotheridiot #whatdontiget #federationday

P.S. before anybody goes out of their way to be offended, my hash tags are an attempt at self deprecating humor.

  • finn
    link
    fedilink
    English
    41 year ago

    It’s a delicate balance. We champion decentralization, yet there’s still this inherent gravitational pull towards a few popular instances. I guess it’s a bit like city planning in a way – people flock to where the most activity is, even if it puts a strain on that location.

    In an ideal fediverse, each server would have its own thriving “Tech” community, or any other topic for that matter, and then these could all be rolled up into an aggregated view. But it seems that human nature (or perhaps the current digital culture) leads us to congregate where we see the most action.

    That said, I definitely see your point about the risk of one big server going down and the subsequent fallout. That’s not an ideal situation in a decentralized model. It seems we have some evolution to go in how we utilize these systems.

    • @sudsieskymo
      link
      English
      11 year ago

      I feel like it’s really just more important that not all users are on the same instance, and that not all communities are on the same instance. Sure, it would be better if there were a bunch of separate “tech” communities that aggregate together. But each of those communities need moderation.

      I honestly think that we will see this over time. People will want their own version of a community and create it.

  • @ilickfrogs@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    11 year ago

    This is the reason I made my account on lemmy.world and not one of the smaller is I feel this one is more likely to exist long term. But on the flip side if too many of us go with the same one I feel things would be centralized enough that they would be by and large the dominant instance. Hopefully as this place grows we can come to some solution via discussion.

  • Dick Justice
    link
    fedilink
    English
    11 year ago

    Dont new users choose where to sign up? Are you suggesting some kind of system for distributing user accounts as they come in or something?

  • @locatedunder@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    11 year ago

    Usage can’t really be moderated in that sense, the bigger a community is the more people want to be part of it etc, this is how big sites like reddit and twitter are even born, the only solution to that would be technical, things like all content on the fediverse being replicated across all instances equally to prevent it’s loss, which would put quite a strain on small instances and make beehaw people mad

  • @daniskarma@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    11 year ago

    That wouls be the point. But I see some issues:

    • Communications between instances are still not refined enough to be able to provide a smooth experience. Basically everytime you enter the new page of another instance you are logged out (as you do not have an account there), and discovering communities of other instances is not as smooth as it should.

    • Smaller instances give less confidence to make an account in. Smaller instances tend to mean smaller admin group, in fact maybe it’s just one person. They could leave at any time, take bad decisions for the instance (like defederation), or they can have stricter rules than you spected and ban you. The server could also be worse maintained than a bigger one.

    • People are multifaceted. People usually don’t have one interest, so a general instance seems more attractive to make an account in than smaller instances based on a interest.

    • Data and community duplication could became stupidly big very easily. Firsly the way the fediverse works many instances means that the same data is replicated in more servers. Also many instances could easily try to have the same Communities (for instances a Meme community) spliting the fanbase and potential users.

    How I see it should be. Probably the best is a few big instances. Not one, but also not a million. The ideal would probably be big regional instances, so people could join depending on where they live. But instance iteration issued should be resolved first. Then if one lf this big instances fail people could move to other of the big instances, as it would be harder for several big instances to fail at once. Also we need a way to make a Community distribution or a way to share big communities among several instances or something like that.

    And of course there’s a place for small instances. A single person or company that want an instance of their own for whatever reason. Or maybe a niche topic that could easily be handled in an instance better than in a community in another instance. But in general I think the aim for new users should be having a few well stablished generalistic instances.