Fediverse

27740 readers

285 users here now

A community to talk about the Fediverse and all it's related services using ActivityPub (Mastodon, Lemmy, KBin, etc).

If you wanted to get help with moderating your own community then head over to [email protected]!

Rules

Posts must be on topic.
Be respectful of others.
Cite the sources used for graphs and other statistics.
Follow the general Lemmy.world rules.

Learn more at these websites: Join The Fediverse Wiki, Fediverse.info, Wikipedia Page, The Federation Info (Stats), FediDB (Stats), Sub Rehab (Reddit Migration), Search Lemmy

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Fediverse sustainability (lemmy.ml)

submitted 11 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

122 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I prefer good faith discussions please. I love the Fediverse and love what it can be long term. The problem is that parts of the culture want nothing to do with financial aspect. Many are opposed to ads, memberships, sponsorships etc The “small instances” response does nothing to positively contribute to the conversation. There are already massive instances and not everyone wants to self host. People are concerned with larger companies coming to the Fedi but these beliefs will drive everyday users to those instances. People don’t like feeling disposable and when you hamstring admins who then ultimately shut down their instances that’s exactly how people end up feeling. There has to be an ethical way of going about this. So many people were too hard just to be told “too bad” “small instances” I don’t want to end up with a Fediverse ran by corporations because they can provide stability.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 3 points 11 months ago (3 children)

This is ONE instance. Search or make a post and ask how many instances have shut down due to finances. Outside of finances it’s burnout due to moderation.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

I think "shut down due to finances" really means "it was too much work to organize this, collect donations and run a production website" or "my site was too niche to attract users and i didn't want to put the effort in".

There's enough instances with public finances, to show that it's a solvable problem.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Does it matter? What if I start 24 instances tomorrow and shut them all down by friday? Does that really have an impact on sustainability? Conversely them pointing to lemmy.world is a prime example of exactly how it is sustainable. As long as one instance remains running it is sustaining. Other instances may come and go and that's sad and all. But it's pretty affordable by most metrics

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

It does matter if people are on your instance, just say you don’t care about others. Several instances have shutdown without warning and people lost their accounts. It matters because people matters. We should also want good experiences. Stating that people will get over it and find a new instance and make new posting history is selfish af

[–] [email protected] 3 points 11 months ago

Untold email servers have shut down and people have lost their accounts there. But email seems pretty sustainable still. So that doesn't seem like a good metric either.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Could you explain in detail how you, personally, are helping?

Or, more generally, on what basis do you think you know better?