- From: Bob Wyman <bob@wyman.us>
- Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2023 17:00:34 -0400
- To: public-swicg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CAA1s49XL0uvud5oAqCvRbnTy_00+1p4E6HGruTLuk+ET66j1nQ@mail.gmail.com>
Marcus Rohrmoser writes <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swicg/2023Apr/0059.html>: > Designing for huge nodes' needs doesn't align with the 'fedi' nor the > 'verse' if conflicts with small nodes' needs. And complexity is against > small nodes. Huge nodes already exist and it is inevitable that there will be more of them. While it is essential that Fediverse protocols are easily implemented for small nodes, it is also essential that the needs of large and even "huge" nodes be addressed. If the full breadth of scaling needs are not supported well, the Fediverse itself will not scale. The key truth in Marcus' statement is that it is important that complexities introduced to serve the needs of large nodes must not make it difficult to implement or deploy a small node. Similarly, simplicities introduced in order to enable deployment of small, simple nodes, must not be allowed to conflict with the needs of larger nodes. While addressing a broad range of scales is challenging, I believe that it is possible through the careful definition of protocols, options, and extensions. According to https://fediverse.observer/list there are now at least 14 Fediverse nodes with more than 100K users. The largest, Mastodon.social, has over 1 million users. On the other hand, Facebook claims <https://investor.fb.com/investor-news/press-release-details/2023/Meta-Reports-Fourth-Quarter-and-Full-Year-2022-Results/default.aspx#:~:text=Facebook%20daily%20active%20users,2%25%20year%2Dover%2Dyear.> that during December 2022, they had 2.0 billion average daily users and 2.96 billion monthly active users. During the same month, Twitter claimed <https://www.statista.com/statistics/303681/twitter-users-worldwide/#:~:text=368%20million%20monthly%20active%20users%20worldwide.> 368 million active users. So, scaling to the size of Twitter would take over 300 nodes the size of Mastodon.social, or vastly more smaller nodes. To scale to the size of Facebook would require at least 3,000 nodes with as many users as Mastodon.social has today -- or, an even more vast number of smaller nodes. I suggest that the current protocols are neither optimal for supporting thousands of million-member nodes, nor for supporting millions of smaller nodes. Those who dream of a SocialWeb reliant on a Fediverse composed of small nodes would be better served by seeking to ensure that small nodes provide distinct value rather than resisting the protocol enhancements and innovations that would address the needs of those building larger nodes. Crippling our protocols to limit their utility to only small nodes will be no more effective than are the many efforts to provide security via obscurity. In any case, if the openly defined SocialWeb protocols do not expand to handle the full breadth of requirements, we will soon find that those who address those broader needs via more closed processes, such as BlueSky, Meta, etc., will provide the preferred foundation for the future SocialWeb. If we want to ensure that federation works well for small SocialWeb nodes, we'll need to also ensure that it works well for large ones. bob wyman
Received on Saturday, 22 April 2023 21:00:52 UTC