4 ms·
The right approach is federation with small, user-operated instances that all talk to each other GNUSocial/Mastodon style. That's the only way to make sustainab
by marktangotango 9y ago
The right approach is federation with small, user-operated instances that all talk to each other GNUSocial/Mastodon style. That's the only way to make sustainable social networks that work in the interests of their users.
It's not yet known if this model is viable, or sustainable. I certainly hope so, but time will tell.
- Sir_Cmpwn 9y agoI think the sustainability of this approach is a tautology. The network cannot die by design, anyone can always stand up new instances.
- pavel_lishin 9y agoBut it can die of two ways - rampant schisms, or total disinterest. Federation without scarcity or central control means that networks can splinter into tiny, insular subgroups. And anyone can always stand up a new instance - if they can be bothered to. Running and moderating a forum or a subreddit is hard, and not everyone is willing to do it (either by refusing to start a new instance, or by administrating one poorly.)
- Sir_Cmpwn 9y ago>Federation without scarcity or central control means that networks can splinter into tiny, insular subgroups. Sometimes rifts can happen but the network never entirely fractures - at least this hasn't happened on the GNUSocial/Mastodon/etc network yet. By default everyone federates with everyone else, and there are enough instances that scisms are rare and isolated, and don't break the network. >And anyone can always stand up a new instance - if they can be bothered to. Running and moderating a forum or a subreddit is hard, and not everyone is willing to do it (either by refusing to start a new instance, or by administrating one poorly.) Not everyone needs to, though. You just need to find someone who is running an instance whose values are aligned with yours. There are several hundred Mastodon instances to choose from, it's easy to find such a place.