4 ms·

I think there are some differences that are key. 1. The fediverse doesn't necessarily need to scale to 100 million or more people, and if it were to hypothetic

I think there are some differences that are key. 1. The fediverse doesn't necessarily need to scale to 100 million or more people, and if it were to hypothetically hit a hard limit at 10 million, that would still be fine. Anecdotally, many people are reporting similar levels of engagement--and more positive engagement--with even a small percentage of their twitter audience. 2. Usenet failed largely because it was overrun with spam. While Fediverse moderation is distributed and therefore inefficient, it's still done, so spam doesn't seem likely to overrun anything. In theory, each server moderator moderates their own server, and any servers that don't end up blocked. 3. At least at this point in time, people seem to be willing to pay for their own servers. Many servers are running patreon accounts or similar, and most I'm aware of are running a surplus of funds. Of course, that might not always be true. Smaller server are very cheap to run. 4. I wouldn't think of torrents as an example, but rather the web itself. So so so many individual websites are out there being paid for out of pocket, and nobody seems to be worried about them all failing at once.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
crazygringo 4y ago
Regarding 1), I'm sorry but that makes no sense. Barack Obama has more than 100 million followers on Twitter. So no, a hard limit of 10 million users makes no sense for any messaging service that intends to connect people across the world. That would be a showstopper if there ever were one. Would you say the same thing about e-mail, that it "would still be fine" if it only ever scaled to 10 million people?
- pwinnski 4y ago
  The world, it turns out, contains more than just hammers. The fediverse, it turns out, isn't primarily a messaging service. So yes, if you define X as "a messaging service that intends to connect people across the world," then X must support as many people as possible. But if you don't define X that way, then not supporting 100 million people isn't such a big deal. Millions of people are already happily on fediverse servers despite the lack of any current or former presidents there. People who want to follow whatever Obama wants to say can do so in any number of ways. The Fediverse might be one of those ways, or not, and it wouldn't really detract from the Fediverse if it weren't. I mean, I see stuff from the most recent former president all the time, and he's on neither twitter nor the fediverse.
  - crazygringo 4y ago
    I'm sorry, but just a million times no. If Mastodon isn't "a messaging service that intends to connect people across the world", then I can't even imagine what it's supposed to be. Because that is exactly what it is. And if it somehow hit a limit at 10 million total users, then it would be a complete failure. And to say that "it wouldn't really detract from the Fediverse" if you couldn't follow popular people because some limit were hit, you couldn't be more wrong. It would detract from it entirely and totally. It would defeat the entire purpose. And just because you don't want to follow popular people doesn't mean other people don't. Precisely because the entire point of federation is that you're not stuck with separate forums, each on their own server, that don't talk to each other. The entire point is that they communicate in order to connect as many people across the world as users desire. Again, how is this any different from if e-mail were capped at 10 million users total? Since you didn't answer the question.
    - lapcat 4y ago
      I think you're missing the point of a social network. Barack Obama is not social on Twitter. You can't talk to him. You can't have a conversation. Look at his Twitter feed: when's the last time he's replied to anyone? He issues mini press releases, that's all. You can't email Barack Obama either, by the way. I mean, you can try, but good luck with that. You talk about a messaging service, but it's entirely one-way messaging between famous people and non-famous people. Mastodon users aren't looking to follow famous people and be passive recipients of press releases from famous people. They're looking to have conversations with each other. In this respect, Obama is irrelevant.
      - crazygringo 4y ago
        You're missing the point that Obama was just an example, to use the most followed person on Twitter. There are tons of people on Twitter with over 10 million followers who interact with Twitter a ton. They're very "social". If a social network can't handle people who are popular, then that's a real problem. And remember, people's accounts can start unpopular, and then they gain millions of followers over years. So what do you do, boot them off for the sin of saying things lots of people want to listen to and interact with?

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

crazygringo 4y ago

Regarding 1), I'm sorry but that makes no sense. Barack Obama has more than 100 million followers on Twitter. So no, a hard limit of 10 million users makes no sense for any messaging service that intends to connect people across the world. That would be a showstopper if there ever were one. Would you say the same thing about e-mail, that it "would still be fine" if it only ever scaled to 10 million people?

pwinnski 4y ago
The world, it turns out, contains more than just hammers. The fediverse, it turns out, isn't primarily a messaging service. So yes, if you define X as "a messaging service that intends to connect people across the world," then X must support as many people as possible. But if you don't define X that way, then not supporting 100 million people isn't such a big deal. Millions of people are already happily on fediverse servers despite the lack of any current or former presidents there. People who want to follow whatever Obama wants to say can do so in any number of ways. The Fediverse might be one of those ways, or not, and it wouldn't really detract from the Fediverse if it weren't. I mean, I see stuff from the most recent former president all the time, and he's on neither twitter nor the fediverse.
- crazygringo 4y ago
  I'm sorry, but just a million times no. If Mastodon isn't "a messaging service that intends to connect people across the world", then I can't even imagine what it's supposed to be. Because that is exactly what it is. And if it somehow hit a limit at 10 million total users, then it would be a complete failure. And to say that "it wouldn't really detract from the Fediverse" if you couldn't follow popular people because some limit were hit, you couldn't be more wrong. It would detract from it entirely and totally. It would defeat the entire purpose. And just because you don't want to follow popular people doesn't mean other people don't. Precisely because the entire point of federation is that you're not stuck with separate forums, each on their own server, that don't talk to each other. The entire point is that they communicate in order to connect as many people across the world as users desire. Again, how is this any different from if e-mail were capped at 10 million users total? Since you didn't answer the question.
  - lapcat 4y ago
    I think you're missing the point of a social network. Barack Obama is not social on Twitter. You can't talk to him. You can't have a conversation. Look at his Twitter feed: when's the last time he's replied to anyone? He issues mini press releases, that's all. You can't email Barack Obama either, by the way. I mean, you can try, but good luck with that. You talk about a messaging service, but it's entirely one-way messaging between famous people and non-famous people. Mastodon users aren't looking to follow famous people and be passive recipients of press releases from famous people. They're looking to have conversations with each other. In this respect, Obama is irrelevant.
    - crazygringo 4y ago
      You're missing the point that Obama was just an example, to use the most followed person on Twitter. There are tons of people on Twitter with over 10 million followers who interact with Twitter a ton. They're very "social". If a social network can't handle people who are popular, then that's a real problem. And remember, people's accounts can start unpopular, and then they gain millions of followers over years. So what do you do, boot them off for the sin of saying things lots of people want to listen to and interact with?