What would happen if instead of users swarming existing servers when a fediverse service was put in the spotlight, each user spun up their own micro-instance and tried to federate with existing servers?

There’s always the odd person who decides to host a personal fediverse service in their homelab for themselves, but would the fediverse work if that was actually the primary mode of interaction? Or would it fail in a similar way to now where the servers which receive the most federation requests need to scale up?

Presumably the failure modes for federation are easier to scale than browser requests since it’s an async process.

  • rektifier@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    What you’re describing is no longer federation but full P2P. From a purely technical point of view, it may work, but the biggest problem will be abuse (spam, excessive resource use, illegal content). When a new instance shows up, how do you know if it’s a spammer or not? And if an instance is blocked by another instance, whose side should you be on?

    • Lucien@beehaw.orgOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      It wouldnt really be full P2P: I’d expect moderated communities to act as a funnel which everyone interacts with each other through. I wasn’t really considering the hypothetical micro instances to be like a normal server, since even when federated its unlikely that they would consume as much federation bandwidth as a large instance. Most people wouldn’t run a community, simply because they don’t want to moderate it.

      Realistically, the abuse problems you mention can already currently happen if someone wants to. It’s easier to make an account on an existing server with a fresh email, spam a bit, and get banned than it is to register a new domain ($) and federate before doing the same. I think social networks would have a lot less spam if every time you wanted to send an abusive message, you had to spend $10 to burn a domain name.

      Most of the content would still live on larger servers, so you end up moderating in the same place. Not much difference between banning an abusive user on your instance and banning an abusive single-user instance.

  • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I would be shocked if it worked well, seeing as it wasn’t designed for that.

    Even if it did though, where would we be having this conversation? It would work more like a texting app than any kind of community.

  • bdonvr@lemmy.rogers-net.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    The way activitypub works is that each community has a list of every server that has at least one subscriber to that community.

    Every time someone does something in that community, the community sends all those servers a message that tells them what just happened.

    So instead of a few hundred servers it might have to inform of your one upvote of a post, it would have to basically inform every user (every user’s server)

    It would be bad, it’s not designed to do that.

  • learning2Draw@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Possibly failure, because setup isn’t just a simple or of box plop. And i can’t see how pings from 5000 microservers is better than 5000 users looking to register? But that’s more of a question than an informed opinion

    • Lucien@beehaw.orgOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Maybe I should clarify with “each user successfully spun up…” I’m mostly curious if the 5000 microservers trying to federate is a more sustainable access pattern than 5000 users hitting the website.

      Since federation is an async process, it can be optimized on both ends in a way that user browser requests cannot.

      At the same time, federation would overall result in more bandwidth being used because not every user wants to view every post in the frontend.

      • rysiek@szmer.info
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Maybe I should clarify with “each user successfully spun up…” I’m mostly curious if the 5000 microservers trying to federate is a more sustainable access pattern than 5000 users hitting the website.

        Sustainable in what sense?

        It’s way more sustainable in the sense of “one website is not controlling the entirety of the experience of a given type of service for 5000 users”, for example. I think it’s important to talk about specific kinds of sustainability, and specific threats to it.

        Things to consider (apart from bandwidth-related considerations):

        • technical knowledge necessary to safely and securely run and maintain a service
        • space, time, and resources (including financial) to do so
        • ability, willingness, and energy to moderate a service (this is where Big Tech platforms are falling flat on their faces, for example, and where smaller fedi communities work pretty damn well)