I have my own (managed by masto.host) #Mastodon instance since 4 years.
On a typical day it handles 20.000 tasks (pushing new toots, synchronising, cleaning up etc).
Yesterday it went to 500.000 tasks.
And that's just one simple single-user instance. It's almost magical how the federated, distributed network of all ActivitiyPub instances managed to survive that brutal Tsunami of yesterday.
In short: We are ready for a new and better future, free from centralised gatekeepers.
@jwildeboer ...towards a future of semi-centralized gatekeepers who defederate whole instances on a whim ("hosts mainstream journalists" was the best excuse I heard for defederating journa.host).
And "well, then go and host your own Mastodon instance" is not the solution it sounds like.
@tomalak You obviously belong to the "Glass half empty" group, where I am strongly in the "Glass half full" group. I am happy with my setup (a single-use instance since 4+y years) and my followers. And I have said it many times. Federation is not the goal, it's a step towards better decentralisation. We are not finished ...
@jwildeboer But you also belong to a very tiny group of people technically, mentally and intellectually able and willing to put up with the cornucopia of bullshit that hosting your own instance practically is.
Most people (99% or so) want an app on their phone where they can pull down, and new content appears.
That's two completely irreconcilable approaches, but both are completely valid.
@jwildeboer Case in point:
https://weirder.earth/@hollie/109366535377095578
Defederating mastodon.social because it is "too big" and "badly moderated" (whatever that means) is actively harmful IMO.
Telling people to move to different instances sounds cool ("scale horizontally!) but is not solving the problem; it makes people's user experience miserable and likely drives them away.
@tomalak @jwildeboer Well, as it stand, it's up to the local admin(s) to defedarate an instance. With no method of apeal or even transparent information. And they seem to decide on much more individual terms than, say, postmasters — https://fba.ryona.agency/?domain=mastodon.social has some 'reasons' listed that, in my view, asks for the defederation of _those_ instances … (1/4)
@tomalak @jwildeboer As for the "power" the users have: well, surely they can relocate to another instance, but not without loss.
1) Their old handle is lost — can it actually be reused by someone else?
2) They loose their lists.
3) Their content still stays with the old instance.
4) Followership migt have to be granted again.
(2/4)
@tomalak @jwildeboer As has been pointed out, the timeline of every instances differs. Without following people, your instance's timeline would stay boring. Without already knowing a bunch of people, that's not really to change on a small instance, as you likely never find out who to follow …
Yes, one can move aways from an instance that got itself an 'dictator' as an admin. How often is one supposed to endure this? (3/4)
@tomalak @jwildeboer And as @tomalak pointed out, defederating e. g. mastodon.social – 240k active users – would cause some interference already. Will there be a point at which admins (have to) decide to refrain from defederation instances that got "too big too fail"? (4/4)