Fediverse server admins: have you considered putting a limit on the number of people that can join your instance?
If not, please do.
(This should really be a feature in fediverse servers like Mastodon, etc. “Max occupancy” or something with an auto-shutoff when it’s reached.)
Remember, small is beautiful ;)
If nothing else, I’m sure none of you want to become mini Zuckerbergs or Musks – eww – so let’s make sure we set the right incentives from the start.
@aral Also, have a read of the implications when it becomes too much for one person & other things in life take precedence.
https://ashfurrow.com/blog/mastodon-technology-shutdown/
Ash has done the best thing in the situation but others might not be so ethical
@Hamishcampbell
> the quality has plumaged
Does that mean the quality has gotten worse (aka plunged) or become lovely (aka like a bird's feathers)?
I totally agree that no one instance should have hundreds of thousands of users, but I also see a benefit of being on a larger instance (such as #Fosstodon, my home instance): the local timeline is a great source of interaction.
The issue is that the timelines you get on Mastodon are (from smallest to largest): notifications, people you're following, your local instance's timeline, and the federated timeline.
...
...
The issue with a smaller instance is that there isn't anything between the relative trickle of the local timeline and the utter flood of noise that is the federated timeline.
Of course, this can be supllemented with #hashtags and #followfriday toots, but it still does make it a little harder to get started.
How would you suggest someone who's on a small instance to get started and find a vibrant community in the #fediverse?
Cheers!
@aral See https://codeberg.org/Windfluechter/check_mastodon.sh for Mastodon and https://codeberg.org/Windfluechter/check_friendica.sh for Friendica servers.
For Friendica there is exactly such a feature request to get this function into the software as well...
Maybe there should be gradually more friction on joining as the limiit is approached?
Otherwise it's like "99,999 - come on in!" ➡️ "100,000 - go somewhere else!" and people who aren't sure how federation works may be confused. The momentum of everyone joining may tempt the admin to stay open.
Maybe when a server gets to (for example) 70% of capacity it could switch to the "why do you want to be a member?" form which creates a bit more friction, and might push people to look elsewhere.
@FediThing Great idea… it could then start offering links to alternative instances that are not close to capacity, for example.
This should be in the fundamental design of fediverse software if the goal isn’t to grow your own instance as large as you can. (And if that’s your goal, you should really be doing Big Tech instead as you’ll never beat them at their own game.)
CC @Gargron
The default behaviour for fediverse instances really ought to be 'request an account', with the admin offered options after install to;
1) stick with default
2) change to invite-only
3) change to open registration
Choosing 3) brings up a bright red warning about the costs in time and money of hosting a large instance, the moderation work required, and the risk of mass defederation if you get it wrong. At the bottom it asks "Are you sure", with yes/no buttons.
@strypey @aral @FediThing @Gargron
It is okay like it is.
The problem is not closing instances. The problem is redirecting people to other instances.
@pthenq1
> It is okay like it is.
Unless an admin knows how to handle growth and prevent overgrowth, defaulting to open registration sets them up for stress and failure.
> The problem is redirecting people to other instances
The list of endorsed instances at joinmastodon.org seems like a good dataset to use. Just linking to that on the signup page would be an improvement, regardless of whether registrations are open, by request, invite-only or closed.
@strypey @aral @FediThing @Gargron
Perhaps we could consider to add a broader list of instances. So we are getting ready for at least 5% of the 490 millions of the twitter's user base.
Still joinmastodon.org list is better than what we have today.
@pthenq1 @strypey @aral @Gargron
A problem is that instances aren't a commodity, they are qualitatively different.
You have to have some minimum requirement for reliability and responsibility. IMHO joinmastodon's list is pretty good for this, it's short and do-able on a low budget: https://joinmastodon.org/covenant
To do a list you'd have to contact each instance owner and get them to agree to requirements like this.
I wouldn't want to send new people to a list that didn't do this (or similar).
@pthenq1 @strypey @aral @Gargron
Also would be good to have more people starting instances, which is happening. Saw some twitter astronomers just got together and set up their own new instance for example.
Institutions like unis are good for this, they have lots of people who know how to run IT stuff. That's possibly why a lot of online services began in universities.
@FediThing
> You have to have some minimum requirement for reliability and responsibility. IMHO joinmastodon's list is pretty good for this,
True. @pthenq1 has a point though that outsourcing this responsibility to Mastodon isn't the only way to do it. Also it doesn't solve the problem for instances in general, only Mastodon ones.
@FediThing
Independent instance-auditing that uses similar methods across so fedi software would be a cool project. It could help each software project set up an approved instance list like the one at JoinMastodon.org, then aggregate all the lists on a single platform.
@pthenq1
Signup pages for all fediverse software also need to emphasize that you can follow people from many instances, no matter which one you sign up on, and encourage users to consider going for smaller ones to spread the load of hiding costs and admin.
@aral
Maybe even, "Are you sure you want to be the next Elon Musk?" :)
Yeah, even making people aware big servers are a problem would be a start.
At the moment there's no info about this when you sign up.
wont do that@jucka It limits the influence of that one instance and its admins.
Consider an instance with hundreds of thousands of people on it: if they block an instance with ten people on it, they effectively cut off those ten people from hundreds of thousand of people. That’s a power imbalance.
Now consider that they end up with millions of people on it and the costs of running it skyrocket so they need more money and a venture capitalist comes knocking…
This is not the path towards decentralisation.
Graham Gold
Aral Balkan
Chris
vagabond
bhaugen
Ellenor Bjornsdottir 
R. L. Dane 
ij
FediThing has moved!
…might work for coffee…
Strypey
lord pthenq1
dave
Lamp Enjoyer
Lukas
Cees Grootes
Mieke Roth
Mitch Devinck
aBe
Hiker
still aetios anyway
Fabian【ファビアン】🏳️🌈
Mtumishi
Arkadiusz Wieczorek
Jigme Datse
skeeter
jucka
mintybadger
pmatteo1998
Jelmer Evers