76
submitted 1 year ago by scroll_responsibly to c/sdfpubnix
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] remkit@lemmy.kya.moe 2 points 1 year ago

Would you say that also applies to the largest Lemmy instances currently like lemmy.world and lemmy.ml etc.?

[-] jadero 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Edit: this comment changed my mind. In a nutshell, if we can't keep a large instance controlled by "the enemy" from destroying what we've got, then we just have to do better next time.

Yes, I would. Even if they are administered by people that have the best interests everyone at heart, sheer size means that they must be taken into account as the tools and clients evolve over time.

It's not that the system itself should be unable to cope with large instances, it's that the only reason for the system itself to gain that capability is in response to the rise or introduction of large instances. Some of what I've seen discussed is the need to change the development roadmap to accommodate the seemingly unexpected rise and possible introduction of very large instances. In other words, those instances are already controlling the direction taken.

this post was submitted on 06 Jul 2023
76 points (91.3% liked)

sdfpubnix

1331 readers
2 users here now

Fans of SDF

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
SDF