Right, but I mean, the platform was originally designed without them in mind, and there’s no real reason why every piece of software needs to have every piece of functionality… I’m can see why they wouldn’t be prioritising it

I suspect I would love it if groups were in mastodon, but I’m not entirely sure it won’t backfire in some horrendous way (this is social media after all)

Mastodon doesn’t have groups?

“This kind of thing” being big picture dynamics of how to run a social media project.

I’ve also had a mastodon PR stall, but I think they get so many, many with competing demands, and have so few staff, that it’s not really surprising that it’s a bit mess on that front…

That first post is very good. I really appreciate the way he’s handled the first 10 years, and I hope he has fun doing whatever he does next.

Eugen has always seemed pretty clear-eyed about this kind of thing.

Like this? https://piefed.zip/c/privacy/p/663340/mullvad-will-shut-down-its-privacy-focused-search-proxy-leta-on-november-27-2025#post_replies

Yea, I’m not into it…

Perhaps if it explicitly showed my subscribed communities first, and had a clear separator for non-subscribed communities. But I would prefer an option to not see stuff from other communities at all

I’m thinking more about less clutter while reading

You can already do that in Lemmy and piefed - crossposts are listed at the top

Nah, because if if there’s a post that’s of interest to more than one community, and I’m only in one of those, then I probably don’t want to see comments from those other communities, because they will be related to topics/aspects that I’m not here for (otherwise I’d also be subscribed to those communities).

I think there is potentially a lot of value in having separate crossposts per community… E.g. if a link touches on multiple separate topics (say, cinematography and nature), then people visiting an cinematography community would probably prefer to see conversation related to their interest…

Agree that crossposts from similar communities (same name) across different servers should be merged though (although there probably should be a way for community mods to opt out of that…)

I don’t believe that’s true… It currently has around 9k servers, but I think the vast majority of those will have less than 10 users.

Anyway, there’s currently about 1m active users, so the real question is will it scale by 3 orders of magnitude? And my point being that I’d expect the network to become more connected as it scales (at least for the main archipelago, which is probably always going to house a majority of users).

Is that really true though? Say we end up with 10k servers with 100-1000 users each, even if only 10% of those users have a connection to a server that no one rose on their server is connected to, that’s still a highly connected network.

Then add boosts from other servers (that incentivise cross-network follows)…

I like this take, but I wonder if there’s eventually a combinatoric problem with having hundreds of thousands of small instances, each with thousands of connection to other instances? I have no idea how that relates to the network/computational constraints…

Gold

Instance admins can block the instance

Is your argument here that your preferred way to deal with cockroaches is to let them have the run of your house? Hard to red anything rose out of that, given the context.

Oh wow, did you post this direct from mastodon just by tagging the community? Didn’t realise that works, that’s super cool.

This probably shouldn’t be marked NSFW?

Ok

https://github.com/LemmyNet/lemmy/issues/3100 - Co-hosting communities across instances (e.g. “sharding”)