3 ms·

That's basically Mastodon, which isn't free. Plenty of small instances that try the donation model or that are just funded out of pocket go under. And I may be

by krapp 2y ago

That's basically Mastodon, which isn't free. Plenty of small instances that try the donation model or that are just funded out of pocket go under. And I may be wrong but I don't think the recommendation algorithms and other such features take up as much of the cost as you're claiming. I think a lot of the cost of something like Facebook is probably taken up by infrastructure and storage. Recommendation algorithms probably aren't that expensive.

derefr 2y ago
The algorithms themselves aren’t expensive, no. Having extra entire complete copies of the relationship-plus-posts graph, denormalized in various ways (incl. in ways that inherently prevent use of easily map-reducible algorithms, and so require heavy vertical scaling) such that you can run the algorithms, is what’s expensive. And constantly feeding the data into those denormalized models, using specially-tuned realtime ETL technologies that themselves do distributed scaling to ensure no infinite queue backlogging from activity bursts, is also expensive.
- photonthug 2y ago
  In general i would argue that it is bloat that makes it not feasible to fund as a nonprofit, although people may have different ideas about where / what that bloat is. Recommendation algorithms, or unnecessary product changes, etc. I don’t think it’s true that it’s intrinsically impossible for a public service to be self funding, and I think that not everything has to grow / change forever to remain relevant. We need to figure this kind of stuff out, I mean Wikipedia is nice and all but it’s really bad that humanity in general has to rely on megacorp for things as basic as maps while we say we’re living in the Information Age
noirscape 2y ago
Do keep in mind that Mastodon is build on a tech stack that's mainly known for not being very efficient since it solved the scaling question with the answer "throw more computer at it". (In other words, it's a Rails app.) It's not very suitable for a free social media network since it's designed in a way to encourage large silos since that's the only way Rails scales from a financial perspective; you need more from a smaller core of users as opposed to having every user pay a tiny amount. There's other AP implementations that aren't a constant server hog like Mastodon is and can run on much weaker hardware (some of it can run on a raspberry pi). You don't need a full rails stack if your user count never exceeds 100 (which y'know, is the ideal state of AP - small communities who can remotely interact with each other).
- neonsunset 2y ago
  Someone ought to rewrite it in something less embarrassing given you only need to be protocol compatible.
  - ebiester 2y ago
    The second system will always be playing catchup to Mastodon features or they will fork in features, meaning clients will have to support both or take sides.
  - Zak 2y ago
    Multiple people have written multiple compatible alternatives that are lighter weight. Pleroma and its forks (Akkoma looked good last I checked) are popular for single-user servers.

by krapp 2y ago

derefr 2y ago

The algorithms themselves aren’t expensive, no. Having extra entire complete copies of the relationship-plus-posts graph, denormalized in various ways (incl. in ways that inherently prevent use of easily map-reducible algorithms, and so require heavy vertical scaling) such that you can run the algorithms, is what’s expensive. And constantly feeding the data into those denormalized models, using specially-tuned realtime ETL technologies that themselves do distributed scaling to ensure no infinite queue backlogging from activity bursts, is also expensive.

photonthug 2y ago
In general i would argue that it is bloat that makes it not feasible to fund as a nonprofit, although people may have different ideas about where / what that bloat is. Recommendation algorithms, or unnecessary product changes, etc. I don’t think it’s true that it’s intrinsically impossible for a public service to be self funding, and I think that not everything has to grow / change forever to remain relevant. We need to figure this kind of stuff out, I mean Wikipedia is nice and all but it’s really bad that humanity in general has to rely on megacorp for things as basic as maps while we say we’re living in the Information Age

noirscape 2y ago

Do keep in mind that Mastodon is build on a tech stack that's mainly known for not being very efficient since it solved the scaling question with the answer "throw more computer at it". (In other words, it's a Rails app.) It's not very suitable for a free social media network since it's designed in a way to encourage large silos since that's the only way Rails scales from a financial perspective; you need more from a smaller core of users as opposed to having every user pay a tiny amount. There's other AP implementations that aren't a constant server hog like Mastodon is and can run on much weaker hardware (some of it can run on a raspberry pi). You don't need a full rails stack if your user count never exceeds 100 (which y'know, is the ideal state of AP - small communities who can remotely interact with each other).

neonsunset 2y ago
Someone ought to rewrite it in something less embarrassing given you only need to be protocol compatible.
- ebiester 2y ago
  The second system will always be playing catchup to Mastodon features or they will fork in features, meaning clients will have to support both or take sides.
- Zak 2y ago
  Multiple people have written multiple compatible alternatives that are lighter weight. Pleroma and its forks (Akkoma looked good last I checked) are popular for single-user servers.