Recent searches
Search options
Administered by:
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 thank you!
Switching servers might be required to maintain fidelity to the fedi 
@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.
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.
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?
@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.
@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?
@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.
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.
It is a poor experience right now for lots of reasons, not just this hypothetical (although there is no shortage of corporations betraying trust, so not necessarily *that* hypothetical.)
It is hard to get to know your neighbours on a large instance. SOOO many messages. MUCH harder to moderate, which means abusers slip through. Costs more money to run. Waters down core theme (retro, music, academia, etc.) if applicable. Why voluntarily submit to a poorer experience?
@Her_Doing @FediTips As I mentioned in another response, doesn't this just beg the question "what is too big?".
@Mrfunkedude @Her_Doing @FediTips Too big is when the problems of scale (other toots in the conversation have specific examples) grow faster than the economies of scale save effort/resources.
I'd guess this occurs somewhere between 64ki users and 16Mi users in most cases, but depends on the exact cost metrics applied.
If you are having to deal with cluster splitting _within_ your instance infrastructure, you should be 2 (or more) federated instances, instead, e.g.
@BoydStephenSmithJr @Her_Doing @FediTips
May I ask what you mean by "the economies of scale save effort/resources." ?
Thanks.
@Mrfunkedude @Her_Doing @FediTips https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economies_of_scale (mobile link, sorry, on phone)
Running a single 6 user instance is not as hard as running 6 single-user instances, the general name for that kind of phenomenon is an "economy of scale".
@Mrfunkedude @Her_Doing @FediTips No. It doesn't. It's somewhat subjective - but also varies wildly based on the culture associated with the instance particularly.
But it's also a well understood general trend that moderator-to-user ratios are very important to managing an instance.
The idea is to structurally prevent scalability issues not muck around with arbitrary questions of "at what precise amount do grains of sand become a pile"? Because that's completely subjective and completely unreasonable of a lens to take.
@Mrfunkedude @Her_Doing @FediTips From an instance provider's perspective, it's a much more reasonable question because they can relate back to pragmatic primitives like cost and their own experiences of maintainability.
But from an outside perspective? It's completely amorphous.
It's more productive to talk about structurally preventing these issues than it is to mull over what precise size is "too big" in a generalized sense.
@scien @Her_Doing @FediTips I agree that having a good amount of moderators to match the scale of the instance is important for issues that can't be resolved by blocking.
My only issue is that if we're going to talk about "scalability issues" then isn't it important to define what that means since any size instance can have those issues?
Also keep in mind that my original response was regarding the idea that large instances were inherently bad. Hence why I asked what "too big" meant.
@Mrfunkedude @Her_Doing @FediTips
> My only issue is that if we're going to talk about "scalability issues" then isn't it important to define what that means since any size instance can have those issues?
As I mentioned, that is amorphous and unproductive to talk about in a generalized, sweeping manner - it is highly dependent on the circumstances.
Which, again, is why I said it's more productive to talk about how we structurally prevent scalability issues rather than muck about on when, precisely, a scalability issue comes about - since it varies highly.
> Also keep in mind that my original response was regarding the idea that large instances were inherently bad. Hence why I asked what "too big" meant.
I've already mentioned this in another response, but it is not as you say it is. Nobody said "big instances" = bad. The consideration is on centralization. You're misunderstanding the basic premises here.
@FinchHaven @FediTips I'm sorry, but could you explain the irony further? @FediTips and I have had a respectful relationship for a while now. Are you asserting that because I'm on .social that somehow showing that my intentions to other who will read my post that I'm not trying to troll is somehow being ironic?
@FinchHaven @Mrfunkedude @FediTips Dude posed a legitimate question, regardless of which server his account sits on. Why dis his question like that?
@xepher @FinchHaven @Mrfunkedude @FediTips Yeah. I started off on Mastodon.social, and switched away for that reason (and someone I talk to had his server actually defederate M-s due to spam). We’re here to inform and educate.
@colin @xepher @FinchHaven @Mrfunkedude@mastodon.social
Just to give some context here, Mr Funk E. Dude is someone I follow on my personal account and he's a really nice guy, we often chat in threads about totally different topics. He also does fun videos on his channel at @mrfunkedude@davbot.media which I recommend everyone follows.
So, yeah, he really does mean with respect when he disagrees with my posts 
@FediTips @xepher @FinchHaven @Mrfunkedude@mastodon.social @mrfunkedude@davbot.media Ah, the real-life Fediverse. Lol, all good.
@FediTips @colin @xepher @FinchHaven @mrfunkedude@davbot.media It's possible to be kind and respect someone you disagree with. I think that's something that is very lacking in today's climate.
Thank you for the kind words.
My "main fear" -- as you put it -- is that a mega-instance is poorly moderated (if it's moderated at all) such that my public/remote and public feeds are filled with extremely explicit, full-contact, full penetration homosexual pornography, all emanating from Mastodon dot Social exclusively
Which may not trouble you, but de gustibus non est disputandum, right?
cc @FediTips
@FinchHaven @FediTips
The problem with this is that it seems to assume that smaller instances have better moderation. I think it would be better to say that it's "easier" to moderate a small instance. Some small instances are barely moderated at all.
As for the porn, I've been on .social since 2018 and while I have seen all types of porn and nudity here, if it is covered with a CW then it follows the TOS. If not, what's stopping you from blocking it yourself? (Which I've done as well.)
@Mrfunkedude @FinchHaven @FediTips
Uh bro you don't make sense. "easier" leads to better moderation structurally. To put it another way, it may not be a 1:1 relationship, but it IS a major contributive factor.
> "If not, what's stopping you from blocking it yourself?"
This is absurd and completely ignores the idea of moderation to begin with, which is to minimize bad user experience. Networks are large and filled with lots and lots of people. It's impractical to delegate it to users purely.
Preferably, moderation is robust enough that that is an exceedingly rare situation to be in.
@scien @FinchHaven @FediTips Your assumption is that all smaller instances will put an adequate amount of their time and resources into moderating their instances. While this may be true for a large amount of small instances, (whatever that means) it isn't necessarily true for all small instances. So yes, "bro". It does make sense.
@Mrfunkedude @FinchHaven @FediTips
> Your assumption is that all smaller instances will put an adequate amount of their time and resources into moderating their instances.
There is no such assumption. It's simply more difficult to scrounge up and manage a larger moderation team without having large financial structures to facilitate it. This is a commonly seen dynamic.
I am making no judgement of small instances being "better". Simply that moderation oft scales *poorly*. That's all.
Least controversial opinion I know about Mastodon is Don't Start At .social
So if a nasty corporation would buy mastodon.social, how exactly would it be able to "control the network", and would it become any more difficult to switch to another instance if you are not satisfied with how yours (e.g. Mastodon.social) is run?
@sibrosan @FediTips To begin with there's no account portability. In other words, all the account switching is done server-side.
This means it's rather mundane to literally just completely prevent users from leaving the platform. Personally, I consider this to be a intrinsic vulnerability that needs to be addressed ASAP. Even Bluesky has account portability.
The largest issue beyond that is that large instances can restrict in and outwards flow of lots and lots of people. The same way twitter continues to drag people back because there's some people you can only follow there, a large mastodon instance can hold people, their followers, and who they follow, completely hostage.
**TL;DR:** Network effects cause the issue described. Lack of account portability is the largest issue.
It would be able to simply defederate from the smaller instances, and, say, decide to federate with Gab or other such trash heaps.
And by your knee-jerk against the notion of spreading out, you are underscoring the problem: m.s. is incorrectly seen as the default, if it becomes infected, many users will not actually know they can switch instances.
They might know it on some remote intellectual level, but they will not know it as an actual practical option.
Because ms is shown as the default.
Remember when MS got in trouble for promoting their browser as the default?
Same thing.
Although ms is more at risk from being usurped by Meta, atm.
Mastodon.social is already such a large percentage of the network, that many instances feel unable to block it, even if they want to.
The more of the network is on mastodon.social, the worse this situation becomes, and the more power they have over the rest of the network.
"would it become any more difficult to switch to another instance"
They could switch it off, or they could degrade it in some way. Anything is possible once you have the network effect on your side.
@FediTips isso ae é utopia. É claro que um servidor sempre vai se destacar sobre os outros.
@FediTips Well, helping the encroachment of Twitter and Facebook for starters.
That's why I left and didn't join a cult
It shouldn't be controversial. I'd say, bluntly, that mastodon.social is the worst server in Fedi to join.
@FediTips I basically agree with this, but …
Considering that the Fediverse is fashioned after Internet email to an extent, isn’t it almost inevitable that mastodon.social (or some other dominant server in future, with enough users and a slightly tweaked feature set) will become the gmail of the Fediverse?
I wouldn’t recommend either mastodon.social or gmail to anyone, but most people (and I’m not totally immune to this) love the feeling of ‘safety in numbers’ (among other reasons for going with a popular choice)
Rather than "safety in numbers", one of the largest reasons there are so few mail providers is in actuality spam and abuse. And also ease of use of services like Gmail & Outlook's free nature, of course.
This isn't something that the Fediverse is immune to either, so it's something I worry about constantly.
We need moderation solutions that scale (perhaps mutualistic blocking, of some form?), otherwise we're going to get screwed over.
In fact, Outlook, Gmail, and co. all block unknown email providers on principle. It's tough running your own mail server - the big names care not for your troubles.
The whole point of federation is that no particular instance is central.
That point becomes lost if any particular instance becomes central by default.
Like, look at Twitter. There are still people on there because all the people they know are on there.
Same with Facebook.
A default instance is anathema to federation.
I don't think it's as inevitable as it seems.
The fact that the Fediverse exists despite the network effect of Twitter etc shows that there's always hope for alternatives to be created.
It would be especially helpful if there were some good stable alternatives to Mastodon's software, either a hard fork or something totally different. (GoToSocial looks particularly nice but it's still in alpha testing and the devs aren't advising its use yet.)
@FediTips To add to this, there's a lot of benefits to maybe running your own instance! I've written a bit about #ownyoursocial here 
https://shellsharks.com/own-my-social
@shellsharks @FediTips the technical knowledge (you may not think so but it is) needed is way too much for any regular person to want to try. They want to focus on other things in their lives and don't want to take a techy side quest.
It's an important alternative, but until it gets easier [one click brainlessly easier] it's not going to happen for the majority of people.
@Bit_form @FediTips In the article I actually chat about my struggles trying to stand up my own instance. Eventually I decide to just go with managed hosting, which beyond configuring DNS is about as easy as signing up for any other service. Not saying the DNS piece isn't alone too big an obstacle, but just pointing out that managed offerings can make it a lot more approachable than some might think.
@FediTips I wish there were "mastodon hosting as a service" providers out there with included admin and moderation.
Moderation is the thing stopping me from rolling my own instance since I don't want it flooded by trolls and Nazis and I would not have time for dealing with that.
@emovulcan @FediTips there are blocklists and allow-lists that you can load up from mods on instances that you can trust yo getbstarted, then it's only maintenance.
There are ready-made blocklists you can put on your instance, more about them here:
https://fedi.tips/importing-ready-made-server-blocklists-on-mastodon/
You can regularly upload the latest blocklist manually, and I think there's a feature on the way that would let you automate this process.
@FediTips What's controversial is that the fact that posts don't transfer is at the very end of the FAQ.
Sorry but if you don't put that at the very top with a yellow background and a 
sign that's just being dishonest to users.
As long as you don't delete the old account, your old posts will redirect people to your new account.
(And it isn't even at the end of the article! )
I agree, it's a good idea that new users to the #fediverse try and spread out a bit instead of crowd up on one large server.
On the flip side I have seen cases where people have advised others against spinning up their own self-hosted single-user instances, making statements such as "that's not what the fediverse is about" or "that doesn't help the fediverse grow".
So I'm kind of wondering if users are advised against joining massive servers and are also advised against hosting their own single-user instance, what is the "middle" ground and who's in charge of defining that?
I feel like this mentality can put people off from exploring the fediverse in general. In my mind people should be able to join the fediverse however they want and are comfortable with, and then have the information available to them on how to move around, as is written in @FediTips excellent guide https://fedi.tips/transferring-your-mastodon-account-to-another-server/
"On the flip side I have seen cases where people have advised others against spinning up their own self-hosted single-user instances, making statements such as "that's not what the fediverse is about" or "that doesn't help the fediverse grow"."
...that's um... sort of weird?
I can understand not doing your own server because of cost or time, and a single user server is more work to get it to notice the rest of the Fedi, but having lots of servers is exactly what the Fedi is about!