🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
@snow We are actually one of the largest mastodon instances. Last I checked I think we were one of the top 20 largest. So we are "mainstream" enough in that sense.
But I agree to a point. Most people dont want thoughtful nuanced content. They want sound bytes they agree with and little more.
Our goal as an instance shouldnt be to get the attention of most people, but rather the attention of quality people.
🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
I disagree, it isnt about the size of an instance it is about the fluidity allowing to leave sn instance for another (migrate) without consequence that is more important.
🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
I disagree, it isnt about the size of an instance it is about the fluidity allowing to leave sn instance for another (migrate) without consequence that is more important.
Though I would say size, either small or large, should not be the intended goal of an instance. Quality should be.
🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
I never claimed that my notion of quality applies to everyone equally. Everyone will have a different notion of quality and that is why we have different instances, because people have different ideas of quality.
As for it only being satisfiable if instances are kept small, I dont see that as being the case. The fluidity to migrate instances is a technological one. So long as i can migrate my account to a new server and forward my old followers to my new account then it is satisfied, regardless of size.
🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
Servers have limited capacity for sure, but that is not an argument for smaller servers.
Large servers imply that those servers are well enough paid for to be able to support its user base. Their existence increases the capacity of the network does not decrease it.
Obviously if there is some mega server and everyone migrates and there are only a few small instance servers then it couldnt support the migration this is true. But even if that mega instance never existed the network wouldn't have been able to support the capacity anyway, so its a moot point.
It feels like your stretching reality to prove a point. here.
🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
@snow Fair
🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
That has been the case before, we have simply exapnded the number of moderators we have when that happens.
🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
Why wouldnt it scale? More users mean more people to select for moderator positions. So long as the ratio of moderators to users stays the same the effort should be reasonable per moderator.
I do agree that our goal is not to grow at all costs. But i see no need to also intentionally try to keep the instance small.
🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
Why wouldnt they. The federated moves pretty fast and i respond to what catches my attention, even if its 1% of the content that is passing before my eyes.
With many moderators each would notice a small percentage but cumulatively they would have coverage if there were enough of them.
🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
Agreed
🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
I dont have the time right now to continue this conversation in depth..
I'll say this much though. I do agree partitioning the feed would be more efficient. But just because not doing so is less efficient doesnt mean it wont work. Just means you'd need extra moderators to make up for any inefficiencies.
🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
I would agree with that. follows the same principle as Amdahl's Law, which without some sort of way to resolve contention would ultimately result in what you describe should a server get big enough. But as you pointed out that may be so large its not really a consideration here anytime in the near future.
Bobinas P4G is a social network. It runs on GNU social, version 2.0.1-beta0, available under the GNU Affero General Public License.
All Bobinas P4G content and data are available under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license.