@administrator
... and how would one even find a rule of thumbs for that? Perhaps somethign like: the "igh interaction subscriptions" of a gs.net account are the last to be federated ...
The federation interaction could easily exceed exponentiality. The problem for gs.net is less the number of user accounts but the number of high interaction subscriptions allowed for every account.
I'm happy that we sit on this beautiful little island, sipping drinks at the sunny beach, enjoying the occasional #gnusocialmagic this lovely instance happens to put up in front of us for our pleasant amusement. Ah! Paradise, endless vacation, Gnusocial for ever :-)
« If ActivityPub (the protocol) and Mastodon (a server that adheres to that protocol) were designed to incentivise decentralisation, having more instances in the network would not be a problem. In fact, it would be the sign of a healthy, decentralised network.
However, ActivityPub and Mastodon are designed the same way Big Tech/Big Web is: to encourage services that host as many “users” as they can.
This design is both complex (which makes it difficult and expensive to self-host) and works beautifully for Big Tech (where things are centralised and scale vertically and where the goal is to get/own/control/exploit as many users as possible).
In Big Tech, the initial cost of obtaining such scale is subsidised by vast amounts of venture capital [...]
However, unlike Big Tech, the stated goal of the fediverse is to decentralise things, not centralise them. Yet how likely is it we can achieve the opposite of Big Tech’s goals while adopting its same fundamental design?
When you adopt the design of a thing, you also inherit the success criteria that led to the evolution of that design. If that success criteria does not align with your own goals, you have a problem on your hands.»
I sent an email to mastodon@tilde.zone asking if there were some decisions on their side with regard to (partial) defederation or some other glitches, but didn't hear back from them yet.
A wonderful blogpost explaining why mass and scale are a danger to the #fediverse. Thanks @aral for unearthing this problem for the #Fediverse (not just the silo-esk Mastodon-network).
--------------
« [O]n the fediverse, I find myself in a somewhat unique situation where:
1. I have my own personal Mastodon instance, just for me.4
2. I’m followed by quite a number of people. Over 22,000, to be exact.
3. I follow a lot of people and I genuinely enjoy having conversations with them. [...]
Unfortunately, the combination of these three factors creates a perfect storm which means that now, every time I post something that gets lots of engagement, I essentially end up carrying out a denial of service attack on myself. [...]
So, what’s the solution?
Well, there’s only one thing you can do when you find yourself in such a pickle: scale up your Mastodon instance. The problem with that? It starts getting expensive. »
--------------
Yes, scale the instance and have it get more expensive is one problem.
But the other is that by doing so you either oust smaller instances or force them to scale up as well to stay visible and "see" enough accounts.
Yes, that may be a solution: Single-user groups to sort content. And as even groups with the same name have different URLs (as stemming from
different instances) there will be no confusion or intrusion of unwanted content.
Instances, IMO are not places but conversations (or: doors into communication). They have their own atmosphere, grow their own reputation, they rise and vanish.
The "house-landlord-tenant" image involves a hierarchy that neglects the mutual dependence of user and admin, and the mutual responsibilities thereof.
Forget the technicalities and the hardware. The fediverse and its instances are a far more floating and evanescent thing.
To put it even more in visual language: What we are doing (with the use of technicalities and infratstructure) is:
* Instances are not *places*. Instances are not places at all but *conversations*, most often mingling with others farer away.
* Accordingly, not only are users dependent on their hosts but hosts are dependent on their users as well, for the quality of the conversations that take place, the atmosphere that rules the instance, and the reputation the instance "acquires" (or rather: *grows*) from that.
Obviously one should support the host/admin in the various ways that are possible. But an instance is not an "appartment buidling" in which the landlord deals with raucous tenants ("My house, my rules"). Nor is it a "community". It's voices mingling, and ideas taking advantage of that, pursuing their own goals and destinations.