67
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 23 Aug 2022
67 points (91.4% liked)
Asklemmy
43980 readers
1146 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
I don't know what you mean? If I am the admin of an instance or the moderator of a group, I could delete comments or is this just not possible?
Why doing this? Wouldn't it be enough to block the illegal instances and those who are explicitly against your topics?
I am trying to be as green as possible. Having a blog on one server and the comments on another sounds like an inefficient way of using resources. Why not just put the articles where the comments are?
With Mastodon I had the same idea, that I will publish an article, post a link with short description on Mastodon and then use the Mastodon post as the comment section, then edit the blog article and put the link to Mastodon on the end of the article with a simple text link like "Comment section".
But even this idea felt a bit odd and more unprofessional.
Lemmy looks like a really good solution to this atm.
If you're looking for efficiency, nothing beats a static website.
To be honest, I think whichever approach you take is unlikely to have a significant effect on how much energy your website uses overall.
For example, servers in datacentres are very powerful and are able to run more than one thing at once. So if you were hosting your own Lemmy/Mastodon instance, there'd be no reason why you couldn't also host a standalone website on that same server. The difference in energy usage would be negligible.
In contrast, you could argue that Lemmy is less efficient than a straightforward static website because the content of your blog posts will inevitably end up being federated to many other instances. That means multiple copies of your blog will be transferred between multiple servers and stored on multiple hard drives, etc. Whereas a static website lives in one place and doesn't end up using so many resources.
At the end of the day, whichever you choose will likely have very little impact. So I wouldn't worry too much about your blog's green credentials.
I'm saying this as somebody who is pro protecting the environment, but also pro prioritising our efforts in the places they'll have greatest impact. You'll probably have a bigger impact by walking to the store instead of driving.
Whataboutism isn't really helpful, because you can believe me, that I have already optimized every other field in my life and people even call me extreme.
I really want to put the focus on this specific topic.
But you might be somehow right, that IF a server is already used for an energy consuming tool (like a fediverse tool [Mastodon, Lemmy, Kbin, FireFish, etc.]), the energy consumption is pretty low in comparison of the fediverse tool, if there is a static website running on the same server. What IF there isn't this energy consuming tool?
Actually, I am really worried that this could be used as an excuse and the rebound effect takes effect, using a lot of tools on the same server.