@Mrfunkedude @FediThing @FediTips
> I don't know what makes you think I don't get it?
The entire thing about hyperfocusing on what "big" qualifies as. It's completely tangential to the actual point.
> You contradict yourself in the second paragraph by first saying it's not about being "too big" and then say that it's "about the relative scale" which is a measurement of size. Neither have anything to do with centralization.
No I don't. You're speaking size as if it were some fundamental concept we were viewing in isolation. We're talking about the share of who's on what. There is no "begging the question" there because the precise level of size is not relevant like the actual real problems are.
This is a type of "when does a collection of grains become a pile" problem you're trying to implement but it's entirely irrelevant to the larger points.
> Also, how does the size of an instance presuppose it's "authority"? What kind of "authority" do you imagine in a decentralized service?
I don't think you get the context and history of the fediverse if you're asking this question, frankly. The entire design of the fediverse is to prevent the network scalability effect as seen in twitter, facebook, and various other platforms that lock their users and their interactions to a single place.
Such a thing can technically be implemented in a fediverse instance overnight. There is no account portability - currently everything runs serverside. It's a passive risk.