208
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 07 Jul 2023
208 points (96.8% liked)
Selfhosted
40438 readers
460 users here now
A place to share alternatives to popular online services that can be self-hosted without giving up privacy or locking you into a service you don't control.
Rules:
-
Be civil: we're here to support and learn from one another. Insults won't be tolerated. Flame wars are frowned upon.
-
No spam posting.
-
Posts have to be centered around self-hosting. There are other communities for discussing hardware or home computing. If it's not obvious why your post topic revolves around selfhosting, please include details to make it clear.
-
Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or github here. Just post the link for folks to click.
-
Submission headline should match the article title (don’t cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).
-
No trolling.
Resources:
- selfh.st Newsletter and index of selfhosted software and apps
- awesome-selfhosted software
- awesome-sysadmin resources
- Self-Hosted Podcast from Jupiter Broadcasting
Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.
Questions? DM the mods!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Doesn't that significantly increase the load on your instance and, if many instances use it, all instances? This system isn't designed with the idea that each instance receives everything from every other instance.
It might be better to run this on a single dedicated site which people can come to to browse. If you could learn where each user had their account, you could send their upvotes, downvotes and comments to that instance.
It increases load during execution. Afterward it’s not significant. My instance is heavily instrumented and monitored. The load this incurs subscribing to 24000 communities is less than adding a single, moderately active user to your instance.
It’s a huge miss if the intended design was to silo information.
What this provides, as far as I’m concerned, is essential to prevent centralization to a few instances.
Is there a better way to do it inherently in Lemmy itself? Probably, and I am excited to help with that!
Well that sounds quite reasonable then. It definitely answers a need for better discoverability of material on Lemmy. And it would be great if something like this could ultimately be integrated into Lemmy itself.
I think your idea is on the right track when thinking longer term and assuming the worst case in both design and admin behavior. :)
The whole network needs to be split into "active" and "archive." New activity (or at the very least stubs to where new activity is happening) needs to be updated regardless of where it occurs without having to capture anything extra.