More precisely, there’s a world of difference between scaling vertically (à la the tumours of Silicon Valley) and scaling horizontally (sustainably, in a non-colonial fashion, with increasing numbers of individually-owned-and-controlled interoperable nodes).

TBH I think being able to scale is important.

Being able to scale down is the hard part in many cases, can it serve a small community, can it help a team of 5?

Scaling up by throwing more resources at it, oh well, that is what computers are good at.

And no, with increase in users it will not magically be profitable, or better. Just more people use it.

@mwfc It’s a very different thing to design a system optimised to serve one person than it is to design a system capable of serving 1-1,000,000 people. 1,000,000 copies of the former can serve 1,000,000 people better – if by better we mean “in a way that respects their human rights“ – than a scaled-up version of the latter. (As the former will be owned and controlled by those people instead of whomever owns the centralised tumour in the latter.)

@aral Individually-owned-and-controlled interoperable nodes are for those who enjoy privelege and/or live in rich countries. There are also places on this Earth that don't even have electricity. There needs to be some degree of cooperation at local levels, or nothing will happen there and the centralization relapse will set in again.

@aral @gert Coops and small orgs running nodes is very common

Even me who hosts out of my home, hosts email, xmpp, friendica and more for several friends

Small scale definitely doesn't mean not small nodes that serve community
Sign in to participate in the conversation
Aral’s Mastodon

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!