an activitypub server with fixed resource requirements per account as its top-level goal would be an interesting experiment to see happen.
-
an activitypub server with fixed resource requirements per account as its top-level goal would be an interesting experiment to see happen.
-
DJ Sundog - from the toot-labreplied to DJ Sundog - from the toot-lab last edited by
for some value of "fixed" - as @ajroach42 mentioned earlier today, disk space is currently cheap, mostly, so categorized quotas where some may be set to "unlimited" would be something I'd still consider to be "fixed" for the purposes of this experiment.
-
DJ Sundog - from the toot-labreplied to DJ Sundog - from the toot-lab last edited by
but!
I want to see fixed resource requirements across the board. what's the account's following quota? what's their follower quota? their post quota? reply? boost? fav? is there just an interact quota? do you rate-limit it at the api level?
how constrained can the operator get with the resources needed to operate the server?
interesting things to ponder maybe.
-
DJ Sundog - from the toot-labreplied to DJ Sundog - from the toot-lab last edited by
rate-limiting server to server communications is absolutely on the table.
"sorry, I am just not going to take any more posts from your server for a bit bc y'all are loud and we're maxed out on loud rn"
-
DJ Sundog - from the toot-labreplied to DJ Sundog - from the toot-lab last edited by
setting and respecting boundaries is the key in social interactions yeah? shouldn't our software tools model that if that's what we value?
-
Sandrockcstm, in space!replied to DJ Sundog - from the toot-lab last edited by
@djsundog I think I like this idea. It'd be even cooler if you could have a panel visible to users showing which servers were under a rate limit, so that you don't create an administrative overhead for admins. "Why can't I see my friend's picture?" "Rate limited".
One downside I could see to this is that it could create a dynamic where end users, not knowing the value of rate limiting to the server's health, move to larger servers without those restrictions, creating large servers on accident.
-
Sandrockcstm, in space!replied to Sandrockcstm last edited by
@djsundog In theory over time those servers would either shut down due to cost or implement rate limiting, but in general I think you do have a problem to solve there of getting user buy in.
-
DJ Sundog - from the toot-labreplied to Sandrockcstm last edited by
@Sandrockcstm and ultimately that's one of the core issues that needs "solving" in the social network space - how do we recondition ourselves and each other, compassionately, to reset our expectations on how things work to a new model that isn't based directly on the manipulative counterproductive designs of the hypercapitalist systems we're trying to leave behind? it's always a "people problem" haha
-
Wealthy mousereplied to DJ Sundog - from the toot-lab last edited by
Combining this with the idea of a web of trust:
I trust my friends.
I trust the friends of my friends (but a little less).
I trust that if my friends block someone, they are likely worth blocking.If someone is everyone's friend, that makes them not a good friend, because they simply don't have the capacity to be a good friend to a hundred people.
Therefore:
A decentralized network that priorizes delivering messages between good friends.
Other friends after that. -
Mike Macgirvin 🖥️replied to DJ Sundog - from the toot-lab last edited byRedmatrix 2012 (now called Hubzilla).
-
Jonreplied to DJ Sundog - from the toot-lab last edited by
FYI @smallpatatas -- interesting thread here on fixed resource requirements
