Post APqnAIkXfKY9ru8bIm by renamedpm@mastodon.nz
(DIR) More posts by renamedpm@mastodon.nz
(DIR) Post #APqdhWg3u8bh4yFKVc by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2022-11-22T02:35:04Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
Thinking some more about this article by @aral :https://ar.al/2022/11/09/is-the-fediverse-about-to-get-fryed-or-why-every-toot-is-also-a-potential-denial-of-service-attack/I wonder if fediverse accounts ought to have a max number of followers as a default? This number could be changed or the limit removed by the server admin for all accounts. There could also be options for the person using the account to set a limit even when their admin doesn't, or set the number lower than the server allows.
(DIR) Post #APqeJ7AnB3dKz0XltQ by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2022-11-22T02:41:53Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
Maybe exceptions could be made for a follow that adds a new server to the followers Federated timeline - particularly helpful for single-user servers.The logic of this proposal - aside from addressing the technical problems @aral identified with federating to large numbers of following accounts - is that it structurally discourages parasocial relationships in the 'verse, and encourages more peer-to-peer ones. After all, there's only so many followers you can actually reply to.
(DIR) Post #APqeoV2EVd49xzVPiy by lohang@mastodon.social
2022-11-22T02:47:31Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@strypey #Epicyon has a default number of users: 10 :)Of course others like Mastodon are able to have much larger instances with thousands of users. But having a limit by default is definitely a progressive idea. I am not so sure how easy will it be to introduce such a limit at this stage to applications like Mastodon because, like any other platform, Mastodon is defined by the culture it has fostered over the years. There will be a huge outcry against it :(
(DIR) Post #APqnAIkXfKY9ru8bIm by renamedpm@mastodon.nz
2022-11-22T04:21:06Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@strypey @aral I think I'd personally rather see a design change that allows this kind of load to be taken up by relaying between instances.I don't see any reason why the entire load needs to be borne by the source server - why not simply allow the messages to follow the existing web of connections between servers, and go with a fan-out style approach? That would remove the bottleneck entirely, which is IMO better than trying to cope with it long term via resource management policy.
(DIR) Post #APstYCPZs1EpCb1vu4 by lohang@mastodon.social
2022-11-22T02:49:10Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@strypey In other words, I think it might be too late to introduce such a limit to Mastodon and the likes.
(DIR) Post #APstYCrEDDM8aLy10C by lohang@mastodon.social
2022-11-22T02:53:08Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@strypey oh, struggling with my new eyeglasses I misread your post. Sorry. You were talking about a max number of followers, not a limit of accounts.But my concern is still relevant to that too.
(DIR) Post #APstYDHSdgL7tiExtI by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2022-11-23T04:42:05Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@lohangI'm imagining that the fediverse is going to be 10 times it's current size in a few years (maybe only a few months). A friend recently described what's going on as a "Cambrian explosion", which illustrates the dynamic nicely ;) So although changes made to the default config of Mastodon distributions won't affect existing instances - exempt by example - they're certainly capable of shaping the culture going forward.
(DIR) Post #APsu9AVrtM8W1pbJuy by simsa04@gnusocial.net
2022-11-22T03:10:40Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
The issue is less a max number of accounts or a max number of subscriptions but a max number of subsriptions that themselves have a high number of followers. And how would you come to fair guidelines or criteria for that? Perhaps the easiest way would be to either decrease priority of federating to such "celebrity accounts" ("first the little ones") or to federate to such "celebrity accounts" and only their followers to which the the first one subscribes to as well.
(DIR) Post #APsu9B75exuVtH12w4 by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2022-11-23T04:48:45Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@simsa04You might be overthinking it :)I'm suggesting we normalize a ceiling on follower numbers, until most instances have them, for their own sustainability. Then people who want to have large numbers of followers (celebrities etc) will need to either join instances whose admins are set up to cope with that, or have their own instance and pay the costs themselves.
(DIR) Post #APszI7Tp2NSUzzjPge by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2022-11-23T05:46:26Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@renamedpm> load to be taken up by relaying between instances.Relays do exist in the 'verse. But it seems to me this just moves the problem sideways. Who pays for the relays? How do we make sure those generating the lion's share of the traffic contribute, especially those who have more financial (or technical) means to do so then the average fedizen?@aral
(DIR) Post #APszqwd1NKenTjdkGm by lohang@mastodon.social
2022-11-23T05:52:32Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@strypey That certainly is a very good way to put it! I think I didn't consider the full scale of future growth and potential directions it can take when I said "it is too late." I am a bit overwhelmed by what is going on at the moment :)
(DIR) Post #APt0tZowjK5LZ52LfU by renamedpm@mastodon.nz
2022-11-23T06:04:23Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@strypey @aral I'm not talking about *adding* relays - as you say, that would just move the problem. I'm suggesting having instances relay between themselves.For example, the origin server could push the message to just a handful of other servers, which could in turn send it on to a handful of other servers, etc. I.e. a fan-out/ tree style distribution model, rather than the flat model where the origin server must push to every server on its own. That removes bottlenecks the current model has.
(DIR) Post #APteyAZI2fPArNSUZU by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2022-11-23T13:33:26Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@lohang> I am a bit overwhelmed by what is going on at the moment :)Join the club :P
(DIR) Post #APtfR9VB5MrTx0M59E by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2022-11-23T13:38:40Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@renamedpm> I'm suggesting having instances relay between themselvesOk. The ActivityPub standard describes the protocol by which instances in the fediverse communicate (keep in mind this is much bigger than just Mastodon). So this is what you're proposing to change. A bunch of the Fedi developers have been involved in SocialHub. Maybe start a discussion there on how your proposed protocol change would work?http://socialhub.activitypub.rocks/@aral