Fedi.TipsJun 27, 2024

Okay, this is possibly going to be controversial in some quarters, but it has to be said for the good of the Fediverse:

Mastodon.social is not a good way to join Mastodon. If you're already on mastodon.social, you might want to move your account to another server. I've done an article about this topic at:

➡️ https://fedi.tips/its-a-really-bad-idea-to-join-a-big-server

If you want to move your account, there's a complete step-by-step guide to how to do it here:

➡️ https://fedi.tips/transferring-your-mastodon-account-to-another-server

#FediTips #Mastodon #MastodonSocial

Mastodon.social is not a good way to join Mastodon. If you’re already on it, you might want to move your account to a different Mastodon server. | Fedi.Tips – An Unofficial Guide to Mastodon and the Fediverse

An unofficial guide to using Mastodon and the Fediverse

Show threadMr. Funk E. Dude 🍑💨Jun 27, 2024

@FediTips With all due respect...

Your main argument seems to be a fear that if offered a lot of money, that someone running a huge instance like mastodon.social will eagerly sell it if a large enough offer comes up.

My question to you is, what constitutes a "large instance"? Is there an exact number and if so, do you believe that all instances should be capped at that number and no longer allowed to accept new users?

Thanks.

Show threadFediThing 

@Mrfunkedude @FediTips

I do actually discuss this in the article?

Mastodon.social is by far the largest instance and growing, and it is the only instance being promoted as a default on the official apps and official website.

It makes sense to suggest a single instance to non-techy people who can't make up their mind, but it doesn't make sense to suggest the largest instance to them.

There are plenty of other reliable instances with good track records going back years, which I link to in the article. They could suggest from a rotating pool of those.

Jun 27, 2024 at 4:48pmWeb
Show threadMr. Funk E. Dude 🍑💨Jun 27, 2024

@FediThing @FediTips

So wait. Your problem isn't that .social is so big, it's that it's not fair of it to take the bulk of the users when there are "plenty of other reliable instances with good track records going back years". Is that right?

If so why mention the fear of a billionaire buying a large instance?

Also, if people were sent to a "rotating pool" of instances, what happens when they become "to big"? Do we remove them from the list? Again, what is "to big" to you?

Show threadScienJun 27, 2024

@Mrfunkedude @FediThing @FediTips
Uh. dude I don't think you're getting what's being put down.

It's not that an instance is "too big" purely, it's the relative scale to other instances. The whole point of the fediverse is to be uncentralized.

The idea being proposed is that the rotating pool would prevent a *single* network from becoming the predominate authority on the fediverse.

It's especially dangerous right now because of no account portability - everything is done serverside so it can be patched out overnight.

Show threadMr. Funk E. Dude 🍑💨Jun 27, 2024

@scien @FediThing @FediTips I don't know what makes you think that I don't get it?

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.

Also, how does the size of an instance presuppose it's "authority"? What kind of "authority" do you imagine in a decentralized service?

Show threadScienJun 27, 2024

@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.

Show threadFediThing Jun 27, 2024

@Mrfunkedude @FediTips

It's that it's a large proportion of the Fediverse and growing, and that the official Mastodon apps are making it grow even more. The last estimate I saw was over 20% of the Fediverse being on m.s

The greater the proportion of the Fedi on one server, the greater the danger for the Fedi as a whole.

There's also a danger of an instance containing so many key accounts that other instances become afraid of defederating it. At that point the moderation really deteriorates.

If you have a rotating pool, that at least spreads people out on many instances. It's not perfect, but it's better than just having m.s.