24 ms·

It seems the Mastodon ecosystem has serious problems scaling. Most of the servers are closed to registrations, and we are just talking about a couple million n

by 323 4y ago

It seems the Mastodon ecosystem has serious problems scaling. Most of the servers are closed to registrations, and we are just talking about a couple million new users over 2 months. What if 100 mil users want to move? Are we going to relive the Twitter history, which crashed every time Justin Bieber tweeted?

vorpalhex 4y ago
That's a feature, not a bug. Each server in the fediverse should stay relatively small. Consider running your own for your friends.
- nerdponx 4y ago
  Or pay a hosting company to run one for you. At least you get to control your own community and moderation. Even if you are still subject to the whims of your hosting company, you still retain a fair amount of autonomy unless you are running a community like Kiwifarms (in which case I find it hard to be sympathetic anyway), or your hosting company happens to be located in a jurisdiction with enforced censorship laws.
  - drstewart 4y ago
    Exactly. The average person is dying to pay to have the privilege of an extra job moderating and administrating their own social feed! This is a bulletproof plan that really understands consumer behavior.
    - vorpalhex 4y ago
      Who says unpaid? Make your friends buy you dinner or throw some cash your way. One of the benefits of the fediverse is that you can experiment with new payment models.
      - BoorishBears 4y ago
        I can't tell if this is satire in response to sarcasm, could you clarify?
        vorpalhex 4y ago
        Not satire! You're providing a real service to your friends - a mastodon server. It takes real time, real skill and real money (buying hardware or renting a vps) to do this. Your friends should compensate you and it's fair to ask them to do so. How you do this is up to you. I host a gameserver for my friends. This is a really nice bit of hardware in a datacenter. It costs me $600 a year directly and maybe 4-6 hours a month. I have about 8 folks who play on it with regularity. For my friend group, we "compensate" via trading food, either cooking for each other or catching dinner out. That works well for my friend group and I perceive this as fair. Your friend group may be different. You may literally ask them to throw in $5 a month or maybe you trade services (your barber friend gives you a free haircut on occasion, whatever). There isn't a magic equation of what is fair or right for your circumstance.. and it's ok to experiment. Part of why the fediverse is good is that these experiments can be run.
        BoorishBears 4y ago
        Then it's not really a good faith reply to their point is it? The problem presented wasn't how you pay, it's the fact that you pay and take on moderation duties and curation. Getting reimbursed by friends doesn't change that, and if anything it convolutes the latter part of the problem by leaving the door open to some awkward dynamics. A centralized group chat that needs funding to stay alive sounds like a pretty awful product.
        vorpalhex 4y ago
        All things require funding. There are no exceptions. My discord guild also requires time and money. So it goes.
        4y ago
    - nerdponx 4y ago
      You are aware that an entire generation of Internet forums operated (and still operate) this way, right? Big forums had big hosting costs and required donations from members, had issues with spam, had to source volunteer moderators from the community, etc., just like big Mastodon instances today. Small forums had few of those issues because the scale was smaller. The problem was not that nobody wanted to run a small forum: it's actually kind of fun to be a forum admin for your friends, and only one person in the group actually needs to be the admin. The problem was that nobody wanted to be on a small forum because it was small. Now you can have it both ways: a small instance with trivial running cost and moderation demands, but all the benefits of being on a huge forum with thousands of concurrent users. See also: Discord servers. Administering a Mastodon instance that you pay someone to host is not much more difficult than administering a Discord server. If people found it difficult to moderate a Discord server, why would so many friend groups, gamer groups, content creators, sub-Reddits, and software projects have their own small Discord servers? The answer is that the cost of moderating a small group of people is really small because small groups are easy to moderate, and the main downside of a small group isn't really relevant when the small group can follow and interact with anyone in the huge federated network.
      - darkwater 4y ago
        > You are aware that an entire generation of Internet forums operated (and still operate) this way, right? And yet many of them died or, better put, most of the new forums were never born nowadays because communities moved to centralized, managed solutions (Facebook, Telegram, Discord, Slack etc)
        kitsune_ 4y ago
        Many of the focused niche discussions around the globe still happen in forums (and subreddits).
        darkwater 4y ago
        Reddit is as centralized as a platform could ever be.
    - kitsune_ 4y ago
      I was 'web socialized' in the 90's. IRC, web forums, and so on. Before that we had BBS. This is nothing new. And nothing prevents a major player to enter the fediverse btw.
      - nerdponx 4y ago
        > nothing prevents a major player to enter the fediverse Apparently Tumblr intends to implement ActivityPub, so it might be happening sooner rather than later.
- BoorishBears 4y ago
  I mean you're certainly free to paint it as a feature, but Mastodon is getting pushed very heavily by many Mastodon users to Twitter users as a backup (see "movetodon.org", which starts with "Log in with twitter") so I the scaling issues deserve more than the "that's a feature!" I see thrown at every person who brings them up > Each server in the fediverse should stay relatively small. Certainly doesn't vibe with the project owners pushing a set of "blessed" servers to every visitor: https://joinmastodon.org/servers https://joinmastodon.org/servers I think this is the biggest reason Mastodon will stay a fringe platform. No one who enjoys it will accept anything of its issues as valid criticism, and if you point out the fact that such a mentality will keep it from getting popular, the reply will be "good! I don't want it to get big!" Meanwhile the project itself very clearly wants to get popular, and it's clearly being sponsored with the intent that it should become more and more relevant, much to the chagrin of those who were using it before it was cool. It seems like eventually the cool kids who start to shut out the new kids to stave off an Eternal September, leaving the project in an awkward spot and a steady decline for everyone involved as the old guard shifts energy to building taller and taller fences around their respective echo chambers. (Now what was that about registrations again?)
- fleddr 4y ago
  Serious question: if a community is so small as to be just your friends, why not start a Whatsapp, Telegram, Discord group? Free, fully managed, content preserved, well established.
  - OctopusLupid 4y ago
    Don't forget Matrix.
DiNovi 4y ago
it’s not built to scale as a feature. it won’t be the twitter replacement but some people might stay once they understand the benefits of small niche communities
EarlKing 4y ago
I've tried telling people before that the Fediverse doesn't scale, that decentralized solutions where nobody is paying for anything only work for flashcrowds (i.e. torrents), and ultimately this is going nowhere... but nobody wants to hear it. Everyone is sure that "torrents work, so this will work", neverminding the fact that the entire peer-to-peer ecosystem only works as long as there are people to seed, seeding costs money, and there's plenty of content out there with zero seeders. You'd think that would clue people in that this isn't going to work, but there it is. Hell, you'd think the history of Usenet and FidoNet would've given people a clue, but nobody wants to hear that either. If you're not willing to pay for the services you require... you're going to have a bad time. That is the ultimate lesson of the Fediverse.
- jeffbee 4y ago
  Twitter only works because it is centralized. The fediverse works less and less well as the number of federated instances increase. It has anti-scaling properties. And, on the non-technical side, it has a disorganized anonymous set of moderators you've never met or ever heard of, with no particular guiding philosophy or rules, and these guys have total access to your profile and they can do anything they want. On the technical side, the whole thing is lossy as hell. If I view a foreign profile on my instance it shows a handful of posts and then says that "older posts" aren't shown from other instances. Then if I go to the other instance there are hundreds of posts that aren't older, they were just missing on my instance. None of it really works or makes any sense.
  - phoe-krk 4y ago
    > And, on the non-technical side, it has a disorganized anonymous set of moderators you've never met or ever heard of, with no particular guiding philosophy or rules, and these guys have total access to your profile and they can do anything they want. Didn't you just describe Twitter?
    - jeffbee 4y ago
      Nobody knows what the hell is going on with MuskBird, but when it was still Twitter there was a two-sided terms of service, under which Twitter offered its users concrete, enumerated benefits. Mastodon instances do not have "terms of service" they have "rules". The "rules" are unilateral in that they bind the user and not the service provider. The entire model is strictly worse for the user than Twitter was.
kirbyfan64sos 4y ago
It's because most of the servers are not nearly on the level of setup that a normal large-scale social network would probably need...which in turn is also because a lot of them have been run by hobbyists and the like, which in turn is also because no one ever needed to scale it this high before.
ls15 4y ago
> What if 100 mil users want to move? Some of the new users will have to run new servers. For example if public officials are moving to Mastodon, I expect the state to run their own servers. It was never a good idea to allow Twitter to be a platform for (semi-)official communication.
- fleddr 4y ago
  Which will then need to federate to most other instances, causing an unmanagable load?
  - shapefrog 4y ago
    Is the problem of scale a) broadcasting the one person that millions of people want to see the tweets of or b) millions of people recieving the tweets of one person?
    - fleddr 4y ago
      If my understanding of ActivityPub is correct, it's B.
  - ls15 4y ago
    They don't have to federate to everyone. If the government does not want to put public communication into the hands of tech billionaires again, their second best option after using available software is to build a platform from scratch.
phoe-krk 4y ago
It's an error to treat the Fediverse as you would treat Twitter, where there is a singular platform in some way external to its users. Fediverse is a mesh network with single-user instances being feasible. If a single node has problems scaling, split it up. If a whole network has problems scaling, add more nodes. Fediverse is not yet at levels where the whole network is congested, either.
- hejaodbsidndbd 4y ago
  This makes the network congestion exponentially worse. It’s not scalable.
  - phoe-krk 4y ago
    Email mailing groups figured out a way of scaling despite the same sort of exponential congestion. If anything, Fediverse traffic between larger clusters may eventually ossify around some larger pipes, not unlike the Internet traffic being handled by backbone operators.
    - hejaodbsidndbd 4y ago
- georgyo 4y ago
  This is a nice thought, but reality is always different. A really popular person might have many millions of followers on tens or hundreds of thousands of nodes. That person then boosts a post from another server and they have effectively DDOSed that server. All the other nodes will start querying that server about that post or image. You can say that a single user should not have that many followers, however the root of the issue is that mastodon will have some scaling issues.
  - phoe-krk 4y ago
    Yes, and we're already seeing it e.g. with https://mas.to https://mas.to getting hugged to death because of pg joining it. If anything, it can be treated as a technological problem, solvable e.g. by (theorizing now) splitting a single instance over a series of machines, or a social problem, by (not theorizing anymore) a famous enough person hosting their own instance as already suggested several times on the Fediverse. The Fediverse will eventually establish a concrete way for handling that sort of matters.
jancsika 4y ago
Have you submitted a bug report? :)
jshen 4y ago
Twitter didn’t scale for many years. Remember the fail whale?
mempko 4y ago
Really? Email scaled. Internet scaled. Decentralization is scalable. Why doesn't anyone remember how shitty Twitter was when it was growing. Slow and constantly breaking. Mastodon is working fine even after millions moved to it. Yes, Admins had to scale up, but they did it. I like that I pay my admin. No ads. No bullshit.
- rvz 4y ago
  > Really? Email scaled. Internet scaled. Decentralization is scalable. I don’t see any normal person self-hosting their own email service. Even if they did, good luck with handling spam. It can only viably scale to hundreds of millions with centralization; hence Gmail, Outlook, etc to reduce / limit the spam issue. Mastodon has the same mistakes as the other federated alternatives and has already proven to be unable to scale more efficiently than Twitter, let alone the ridiculous hurdles to begin using it. We are talking about scaling to hundreds of millions, not ten thousand or a shy hundred thousand and it falls over on a single moderator’s instance.
  - radley 4y ago
    > I don’t see any normal person self-hosting their own email service. But email didn't fail as a result. Just as you said, email services popped up. Just give it a little time.
    - rvz 4y ago
      > But email didn't fail as a result. Just as you said, email services popped up. With centralization; hence the spyware, bans and spam prevention which only benefits the big centralized email services like Gmail, Outlook, etc. Email was meant to be used as a decentralized protocol such that one can operate their own email service; but despite many here claiming to run their own, they gave up and many still won't. Even sending an email to a Gmail and Outlook addresses will just fail their spam filter test. So it has been a failure for email without centralizated providers. > Just give it a little time. A 6 year federated experiment is not early days to see that a worse version of Twitter has already failed.
- 4y ago
guerrilla 4y ago
New instances will be (are being) created. Supply will fill demand.
rglullis 4y ago
> What if 100 mil users want to move? Then supply and demand will dictate that people will start paying for accounts, and that will be a good thing.
radley 4y ago
This is like saying email can't scale. Of course Mastodon can scale, especially for those businesses willing to do it as a service. It's an entirely new, legitimate territory.
sangnoir 4y ago
> What if 100 mil users want to move? Tumblr will be happy to host them! Matt[1] from Automattic has stated that Tumblr will be joining the Fediverse soon. 1. https://twitter.com/photomatt/status/1594577983028740096 https://twitter.com/photomatt/status/1594577983028740096
wfaler 4y ago
A couple of things: * It's mostly hobbyists running their instances, some literally in their basement. * Most scaling glitches have usually been addressed within a few days. The comparison to early-day Twitter is fair, maybe people have literally not expected such a fast scaling route. * I don't think anyone in their wildest fever-dreams expected Elon Musk to burn down Twitter this fast, thus causing a mass-migration.
vlugorilla 4y ago
This is why Nostr is the way

by 323 4y ago

vorpalhex 4y ago

That's a feature, not a bug. Each server in the fediverse should stay relatively small. Consider running your own for your friends.

nerdponx 4y ago
Or pay a hosting company to run one for you. At least you get to control your own community and moderation. Even if you are still subject to the whims of your hosting company, you still retain a fair amount of autonomy unless you are running a community like Kiwifarms (in which case I find it hard to be sympathetic anyway), or your hosting company happens to be located in a jurisdiction with enforced censorship laws.
- drstewart 4y ago
  Exactly. The average person is dying to pay to have the privilege of an extra job moderating and administrating their own social feed! This is a bulletproof plan that really understands consumer behavior.
  - vorpalhex 4y ago
    Who says unpaid? Make your friends buy you dinner or throw some cash your way. One of the benefits of the fediverse is that you can experiment with new payment models.
    - BoorishBears 4y ago
      I can't tell if this is satire in response to sarcasm, could you clarify?
      - vorpalhex 4y ago
        Not satire! You're providing a real service to your friends - a mastodon server. It takes real time, real skill and real money (buying hardware or renting a vps) to do this. Your friends should compensate you and it's fair to ask them to do so. How you do this is up to you. I host a gameserver for my friends. This is a really nice bit of hardware in a datacenter. It costs me $600 a year directly and maybe 4-6 hours a month. I have about 8 folks who play on it with regularity. For my friend group, we "compensate" via trading food, either cooking for each other or catching dinner out. That works well for my friend group and I perceive this as fair. Your friend group may be different. You may literally ask them to throw in $5 a month or maybe you trade services (your barber friend gives you a free haircut on occasion, whatever). There isn't a magic equation of what is fair or right for your circumstance.. and it's ok to experiment. Part of why the fediverse is good is that these experiments can be run.
        BoorishBears 4y ago
        Then it's not really a good faith reply to their point is it? The problem presented wasn't how you pay, it's the fact that you pay and take on moderation duties and curation. Getting reimbursed by friends doesn't change that, and if anything it convolutes the latter part of the problem by leaving the door open to some awkward dynamics. A centralized group chat that needs funding to stay alive sounds like a pretty awful product.
        vorpalhex 4y ago
        All things require funding. There are no exceptions. My discord guild also requires time and money. So it goes.
        4y ago
  - nerdponx 4y ago
    You are aware that an entire generation of Internet forums operated (and still operate) this way, right? Big forums had big hosting costs and required donations from members, had issues with spam, had to source volunteer moderators from the community, etc., just like big Mastodon instances today. Small forums had few of those issues because the scale was smaller. The problem was not that nobody wanted to run a small forum: it's actually kind of fun to be a forum admin for your friends, and only one person in the group actually needs to be the admin. The problem was that nobody wanted to be on a small forum because it was small. Now you can have it both ways: a small instance with trivial running cost and moderation demands, but all the benefits of being on a huge forum with thousands of concurrent users. See also: Discord servers. Administering a Mastodon instance that you pay someone to host is not much more difficult than administering a Discord server. If people found it difficult to moderate a Discord server, why would so many friend groups, gamer groups, content creators, sub-Reddits, and software projects have their own small Discord servers? The answer is that the cost of moderating a small group of people is really small because small groups are easy to moderate, and the main downside of a small group isn't really relevant when the small group can follow and interact with anyone in the huge federated network.
    - darkwater 4y ago
      > You are aware that an entire generation of Internet forums operated (and still operate) this way, right? And yet many of them died or, better put, most of the new forums were never born nowadays because communities moved to centralized, managed solutions (Facebook, Telegram, Discord, Slack etc)
      - kitsune_ 4y ago
        Many of the focused niche discussions around the globe still happen in forums (and subreddits).
        darkwater 4y ago
        Reddit is as centralized as a platform could ever be.
  - kitsune_ 4y ago
    I was 'web socialized' in the 90's. IRC, web forums, and so on. Before that we had BBS. This is nothing new. And nothing prevents a major player to enter the fediverse btw.
    - nerdponx 4y ago
      > nothing prevents a major player to enter the fediverse Apparently Tumblr intends to implement ActivityPub, so it might be happening sooner rather than later.
BoorishBears 4y ago
I mean you're certainly free to paint it as a feature, but Mastodon is getting pushed very heavily by many Mastodon users to Twitter users as a backup (see "movetodon.org", which starts with "Log in with twitter") so I the scaling issues deserve more than the "that's a feature!" I see thrown at every person who brings them up > Each server in the fediverse should stay relatively small. Certainly doesn't vibe with the project owners pushing a set of "blessed" servers to every visitor: https://joinmastodon.org/servers https://joinmastodon.org/servers I think this is the biggest reason Mastodon will stay a fringe platform. No one who enjoys it will accept anything of its issues as valid criticism, and if you point out the fact that such a mentality will keep it from getting popular, the reply will be "good! I don't want it to get big!" Meanwhile the project itself very clearly wants to get popular, and it's clearly being sponsored with the intent that it should become more and more relevant, much to the chagrin of those who were using it before it was cool. It seems like eventually the cool kids who start to shut out the new kids to stave off an Eternal September, leaving the project in an awkward spot and a steady decline for everyone involved as the old guard shifts energy to building taller and taller fences around their respective echo chambers. (Now what was that about registrations again?)
fleddr 4y ago
Serious question: if a community is so small as to be just your friends, why not start a Whatsapp, Telegram, Discord group? Free, fully managed, content preserved, well established.
- OctopusLupid 4y ago
  Don't forget Matrix.

DiNovi 4y ago

it’s not built to scale as a feature. it won’t be the twitter replacement but some people might stay once they understand the benefits of small niche communities

EarlKing 4y ago

I've tried telling people before that the Fediverse doesn't scale, that decentralized solutions where nobody is paying for anything only work for flashcrowds (i.e. torrents), and ultimately this is going nowhere... but nobody wants to hear it. Everyone is sure that "torrents work, so this will work", neverminding the fact that the entire peer-to-peer ecosystem only works as long as there are people to seed, seeding costs money, and there's plenty of content out there with zero seeders. You'd think that would clue people in that this isn't going to work, but there it is. Hell, you'd think the history of Usenet and FidoNet would've given people a clue, but nobody wants to hear that either. If you're not willing to pay for the services you require... you're going to have a bad time. That is the ultimate lesson of the Fediverse.

jeffbee 4y ago
Twitter only works because it is centralized. The fediverse works less and less well as the number of federated instances increase. It has anti-scaling properties. And, on the non-technical side, it has a disorganized anonymous set of moderators you've never met or ever heard of, with no particular guiding philosophy or rules, and these guys have total access to your profile and they can do anything they want. On the technical side, the whole thing is lossy as hell. If I view a foreign profile on my instance it shows a handful of posts and then says that "older posts" aren't shown from other instances. Then if I go to the other instance there are hundreds of posts that aren't older, they were just missing on my instance. None of it really works or makes any sense.
- phoe-krk 4y ago
  > And, on the non-technical side, it has a disorganized anonymous set of moderators you've never met or ever heard of, with no particular guiding philosophy or rules, and these guys have total access to your profile and they can do anything they want. Didn't you just describe Twitter?
  - jeffbee 4y ago
    Nobody knows what the hell is going on with MuskBird, but when it was still Twitter there was a two-sided terms of service, under which Twitter offered its users concrete, enumerated benefits. Mastodon instances do not have "terms of service" they have "rules". The "rules" are unilateral in that they bind the user and not the service provider. The entire model is strictly worse for the user than Twitter was.

kirbyfan64sos 4y ago

It's because most of the servers are not nearly on the level of setup that a normal large-scale social network would probably need...which in turn is also because a lot of them have been run by hobbyists and the like, which in turn is also because no one ever needed to scale it this high before.

ls15 4y ago

> What if 100 mil users want to move? Some of the new users will have to run new servers. For example if public officials are moving to Mastodon, I expect the state to run their own servers. It was never a good idea to allow Twitter to be a platform for (semi-)official communication.

fleddr 4y ago
Which will then need to federate to most other instances, causing an unmanagable load?
- shapefrog 4y ago
  Is the problem of scale a) broadcasting the one person that millions of people want to see the tweets of or b) millions of people recieving the tweets of one person?
  - fleddr 4y ago
    If my understanding of ActivityPub is correct, it's B.
- ls15 4y ago
  They don't have to federate to everyone. If the government does not want to put public communication into the hands of tech billionaires again, their second best option after using available software is to build a platform from scratch.

phoe-krk 4y ago

It's an error to treat the Fediverse as you would treat Twitter, where there is a singular platform in some way external to its users. Fediverse is a mesh network with single-user instances being feasible. If a single node has problems scaling, split it up. If a whole network has problems scaling, add more nodes. Fediverse is not yet at levels where the whole network is congested, either.

hejaodbsidndbd 4y ago
This makes the network congestion exponentially worse. It’s not scalable.
- phoe-krk 4y ago
  Email mailing groups figured out a way of scaling despite the same sort of exponential congestion. If anything, Fediverse traffic between larger clusters may eventually ossify around some larger pipes, not unlike the Internet traffic being handled by backbone operators.
  - hejaodbsidndbd 4y ago
georgyo 4y ago
This is a nice thought, but reality is always different. A really popular person might have many millions of followers on tens or hundreds of thousands of nodes. That person then boosts a post from another server and they have effectively DDOSed that server. All the other nodes will start querying that server about that post or image. You can say that a single user should not have that many followers, however the root of the issue is that mastodon will have some scaling issues.
- phoe-krk 4y ago
  Yes, and we're already seeing it e.g. with https://mas.to https://mas.to getting hugged to death because of pg joining it. If anything, it can be treated as a technological problem, solvable e.g. by (theorizing now) splitting a single instance over a series of machines, or a social problem, by (not theorizing anymore) a famous enough person hosting their own instance as already suggested several times on the Fediverse. The Fediverse will eventually establish a concrete way for handling that sort of matters.

jancsika 4y ago

Have you submitted a bug report? :)

jshen 4y ago

Twitter didn’t scale for many years. Remember the fail whale?

mempko 4y ago

Really? Email scaled. Internet scaled. Decentralization is scalable. Why doesn't anyone remember how shitty Twitter was when it was growing. Slow and constantly breaking. Mastodon is working fine even after millions moved to it. Yes, Admins had to scale up, but they did it. I like that I pay my admin. No ads. No bullshit.

rvz 4y ago
> Really? Email scaled. Internet scaled. Decentralization is scalable. I don’t see any normal person self-hosting their own email service. Even if they did, good luck with handling spam. It can only viably scale to hundreds of millions with centralization; hence Gmail, Outlook, etc to reduce / limit the spam issue. Mastodon has the same mistakes as the other federated alternatives and has already proven to be unable to scale more efficiently than Twitter, let alone the ridiculous hurdles to begin using it. We are talking about scaling to hundreds of millions, not ten thousand or a shy hundred thousand and it falls over on a single moderator’s instance.
- radley 4y ago
  > I don’t see any normal person self-hosting their own email service. But email didn't fail as a result. Just as you said, email services popped up. Just give it a little time.
  - rvz 4y ago
    > But email didn't fail as a result. Just as you said, email services popped up. With centralization; hence the spyware, bans and spam prevention which only benefits the big centralized email services like Gmail, Outlook, etc. Email was meant to be used as a decentralized protocol such that one can operate their own email service; but despite many here claiming to run their own, they gave up and many still won't. Even sending an email to a Gmail and Outlook addresses will just fail their spam filter test. So it has been a failure for email without centralizated providers. > Just give it a little time. A 6 year federated experiment is not early days to see that a worse version of Twitter has already failed.
4y ago

guerrilla 4y ago

New instances will be (are being) created. Supply will fill demand.

rglullis 4y ago

> What if 100 mil users want to move? Then supply and demand will dictate that people will start paying for accounts, and that will be a good thing.

radley 4y ago

This is like saying email can't scale. Of course Mastodon can scale, especially for those businesses willing to do it as a service. It's an entirely new, legitimate territory.

sangnoir 4y ago

> What if 100 mil users want to move? Tumblr will be happy to host them! Matt[1] from Automattic has stated that Tumblr will be joining the Fediverse soon. 1. https://twitter.com/photomatt/status/1594577983028740096 https://twitter.com/photomatt/status/1594577983028740096

wfaler 4y ago

A couple of things: * It's mostly hobbyists running their instances, some literally in their basement. * Most scaling glitches have usually been addressed within a few days. The comparison to early-day Twitter is fair, maybe people have literally not expected such a fast scaling route. * I don't think anyone in their wildest fever-dreams expected Elon Musk to burn down Twitter this fast, thus causing a mass-migration.

vlugorilla 4y ago

This is why Nostr is the way