{"p":"","h":{"iv":"ROXSYW+cfvEbFHu5","at":"ocxplSQjdRC3tXEtB/9/wg=="}}

@eprenen @aral Yes, that's the sad reality. Convincing someone to sign up on a server hosted by someone else (especially a recognizable non-profit) is much easier than convincing them to get into self-hosting. Many people are neither capable nor willing (although SaaS offerings help, any hosting cost is a hurdle not to be discounted). We need scalable servers for the masses. Luckily the system supports both use cases.

2
Share
Share on Mastodon
Share on Twitter
Share on Facebook
Share on Linkedin
ash

@Gargron @eprenen @aral Cant you disable or mark a range of maximum for each servers. This won't be big effort.

0
2y
snabelen.no 🇳🇴

@Gargron @eprenen @aral

Maybe you agree on this?

80/20 is a nice ideal. 80% of the users are on 20% of the onstances, while 20% of the users are on 80% of the instances. It seems to be a pattern that is hard to break

And it pretty nice to have somewhat large instances that have authority but also is very much responsible.

Going too far with decentralization we prpbably all agree only leads to libertarian cryptotech blunders as well.

Idk how the mastostats are compared to 80/20 though

0
2y
Replies