- From: Marcus Rohrmoser <me+swicg@mro.name>
- Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2023 15:06:27 +0200
- To: public-swicg@w3.org
On 22 Apr 2023, at 23:00, Bob Wyman wrote: > it is also essential that the needs of large and even > "huge" nodes be addressed. if it comes at a cost for the small ones: No. The small need protection and stewardship, not the big. The big will use arbitrary force at will anyway. > 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. I don't understand that, please elaborate. > Meta, etc., will provide the preferred foundation for the future > SocialWeb. They are not social today and won't be tomorrow. Be it with our help or without. FYI: I care about the participants, not the nodes nor operators. My vision is all just participants. > 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. No. They have different needs. /Marcus
Received on Sunday, 23 April 2023 18:20:32 UTC