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.
It’s a delicate balance. We champion decentralization, yet there’s still this inherent gravitational pull towards a few popular instances. I guess it’s a bit like city planning in a way – people flock to where the most activity is, even if it puts a strain on that location.
In an ideal fediverse, each server would have its own thriving “Tech” community, or any other topic for that matter, and then these could all be rolled up into an aggregated view. But it seems that human nature (or perhaps the current digital culture) leads us to congregate where we see the most action.
That said, I definitely see your point about the risk of one big server going down and the subsequent fallout. That’s not an ideal situation in a decentralized model. It seems we have some evolution to go in how we utilize these systems.