Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
I don't think you can presume that the whole point of federation is for networks to grow: this system design is actually well suited for reducing the control of States (if they takeover or close one down, the rest of the network is just fine) as well as allowing lots of small entities and individuals to run servers, all adding up the level of capability that would take a lot of money for one single entity to maintain - in other words it makes it possible for lots of independent entities and individuals to run social media outside the control of nation states.
Resilience in the face of state interference is an explanation that makes sense as the protocols were apparently designed by lefties with anarchist tendencies.
Maybe size was also the intention, maybe not, but that's not something somebody can firmly use as a foundation for an entire argument about how the Fediverse should match what ultimatelly are your personal preferences about and pattern of use of social media.
That said, it seems to me we just have a difference of opinion on what we would like to have here, so neither of us can claim to be right on this.
Let's agree to disagree ?! ;)
Let's start with where we seem to agree: I agree that having small niches within the fediverse is a good thing, and because of how it works it's likely that that will be much easier to maintain here than it would in a centralised network where everyone is forced into the same large group by default. If you want an instance where you and your friends or niche community can connect privately, and still import posts from around the fediverse, you're free to do that. The power of this system lies in its ability to accommodate any size of subnetwork without them becoming totally isolated.
Personally I've got a bunch of creative projects, and if I get to the point where I'm making major public releases, I've wondered how I plan to make a forum. I don't really want it to be siloed away, and I don't want it to be on someone else's service where they could shut it down. The obvious solution is to start my own fediverse instance. That's actually only just occurred to me. This is why I like debating these things - it helps me learn and clarify my thoughts. If we just agreed to disagree then that wouldn't have happened. ;) Well, maybe eventually, but this conversation sparked that thought.
I imagine the growth of the fediverse is going to be slower than a comparable capitalist enterprise, because it doesn't have the same insatiable need for growth. That's an important consideration, and it's why the sudden implosion of so many centralised corporate networks happening right now is important to the fediverse, because as that happens it will absorb more and more of the critical parts of those networks. It will grow, and because of its relative stability the more share it is likely to retain, until the mainstream is so fed up of riding the merry-go-round of imploding centralised options they will migrate here en masse.
Here's where we still seem to disagree:
What is that "level of capability" referring to? Because it sounds like you're using the phrase "level of capability" to avoid saying the much simpler phrase, "size". If it means something else, I'm curious to understand what you mean.
And I'm not arguing for my "personal preferences". You're the one that appealled to "Personally, I’m fine with the size the Fediverse has", not me.
I'm talking about how social networks grow and how they influence each other. I'm talking about material reasons why the failure of reddit and other networks affects the fediverse on a fundamental level and giving you a clear A to B on how those effects occur. It's fair to say, "but I like it smaller" and it's similarly fair to say, "that's irrelevant to my point".