- cross-posted to:
- lemmyworld
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- lemmyworld
- [email protected]
I thought the point of a fediverse was distribution making it so that no one site becomes death star sized. If one site has ALL the biggest communities… What happens if that site goes down? Shouldn’t each site that wants one have a “Tech” community, and then those get aggregated into Tech? Wouldn’t that be a better approach? Doesn’t it make more sense that no one site has so many users the server can’t handle the load (been waiting for over a week for subscriptions on lemmy.ml to complete). Before someone feels the need to explain to me what they think a federation is, I’ve taught the subject. The point I’m trying to make is… Why do we keep pretending that being the biggest is a benefit, when it is directly detrimental to the architecture that we are using? #justanotheridiot #whatdontiget #federationday
P.S. before anybody goes out of their way to be offended, my hash tags are an attempt at self deprecating humor.
You might be right about human nature, but I don’t think that the current state of lemmy is a good argument in that direction. Since there isn’t a way to aggregate multiple communities together, network effects drive users towards centrilization. It’d be interesting to see what happens if cross-instance community aggregation becomes possible.
That’s the paradox we’re grappling with in a decentralized model. If cross-instance community aggregation becomes a reality, it may help to balance things out by bringing together diverse and distributed communities. However, even then, it might not completely mitigate the tendency to gravitate towards more popular instances due to perceived value. It’s a fascinating space to watch evolve, to say the least.