Thread | Brutkey

@Gargron@mastodon.social @mcc@mastodon.social

That just makes it defacto centralized, and kills any sense of community because there are two many different kinds of people in one place. Nevermind making moderation a nightmare.

On smaller servers we can defederate aggressively and enforce protections for any marginalized individuals.

to me that's one of the best things about mastodon. I can protect my friends and our values.

FediThing :progress_pride:
@FediThing@social.chinwag.org

@masukomi@connectified.com @Gargron@mastodon.social @mcc@mastodon.social

Yeah, the "join mastodon.social" thing is going to kill the Fedi if mastodon.social keeps growing.

I get the idea of having a default server but why does it have to be the biggest server?

Why not rotate the default server to something that isn't as huge? Mas.to for example has a good track record and is only 1% of active users compared to mastodon.social's 25%.

Eugen Rochko
@Gargron@mastodon.social

@FediThing@social.chinwag.org @masukomi@connectified.com @mcc@mastodon.social It is an issue of trust, unfortunately. No matter how many pledges or covenants we put together, there is nothing we can do if a third-party admin decides to shut down their server overnight. This has happened to large servers with prominent users before. When it happens, it doesn't just reflect on that server, but on the fediverse as a concept. It's also a resource issue: Handling the traffic can get costly.

Joseph Quattrocchi
@quattrocchi@mastodon.cloud

@Gargron@mastodon.social @FediThing@social.chinwag.org @masukomi@connectified.com @mcc@mastodon.social Has a contingency plan for shut-down servers been considered? Full automated data portability of user posts, boosts, followers, and follows to sustainable instances would make this a non-issue.