Conversation

Notices

1. Strypey (strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz)'s status on Tuesday, 22-Nov-2022 12:11:03 JST Strypey

   • Aral Balkan

   Thinking some more about this article by @aral :
   https://ar.al/2022/11/09/is-the-fediverse-about-to-get-fryed-or-why-every-toot-is-also-a-potential-denial-of-service-attack/

   I wonder if fediverse accounts ought to have a max number of followers as a default? This number could be changed or the limit removed by the server admin for all accounts. There could also be options for the person using the account to set a limit even when their admin doesn't, or set the number lower than the server allows.

   • simsa04 (simsa04@gnusocial.net)'s status on Tuesday, 22-Nov-2022 12:11:02 JST simsa04

     in reply to
     The issue is less a max number of accounts or a max number of subscriptions but a max number of subsriptions that themselves have a high number of followers. And how would you come to fair guidelines or criteria for that? Perhaps the easiest way would be to either decrease priority of federating to such "celebrity accounts" ("first the little ones") or to federate to such "celebrity accounts" and only their followers to which the the first one subscribes to as well.
   • Strypey (strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz)'s status on Wednesday, 23-Nov-2022 14:03:38 JST Strypey

     in reply to

     • simsa04

     @simsa04
     You might be overthinking it :)

     I'm suggesting we normalize a ceiling on follower numbers, until most instances have them, for their own sustainability. Then people who want to have large numbers of followers (celebrities etc) will need to either join instances whose admins are set up to cope with that, or have their own instance and pay the costs themselves.

     simsa04 likes this.