Asklemmy

43945 readers

1063 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

113

How are we going to pay for all this? (sh.itjust.works)

submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by psylancer@sh.itjust.works to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

143 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I'm really enjoying lemmy. I think we've got some growing pains in UI/UX and we're missing some key features (like community migration and actual redundancy). But how are we going to collectively pay for this? I saw an (unverified) post that Reddit received 400M dollars from ads last year. Lemmy isn't going to be free. Can someone with actual server experience chime in with some back of the napkin math on how expensive it would be if everyone migrated from Reddit?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] panoptic@fedia.io 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

That's what they're saying.

Essentially - if someone from the small instance subscribes to a community that has a ton of data (huge post volume, images, whatever), the small instance needs to pull data over from the larger instance. At some point there may be communities that are so large small instances can't pull them in without tanking.

[–] honk@feddit.de 1 points 1 year ago

maybe I phrased that poorly and you didn't understand what I was trying to say. The size of the bigger instance shouldn't matter at all because only data from communities is pulled, that a member of the smaller instance is subscribed to. So if the bigger instance has 1000 members or 2 million members wouldn't make a difference. The only thing relevant should be how active the communities are that members are subscribed to.

[–] ShadowAether@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Could that be solved by caching? Can't the smaller instance avoid some duplication?

[–] panoptic@fedia.io 1 points 1 year ago

If I'm reading the protocol right, it's probably larger instances that will avoid more duplication, since:

There's a higher chance they're going to have more communities shared among users (for really tiny instances you're probably going to get a lot of overlap since those people likely have interconnected interests, but I expect that would fall off quickly, but then converge at scale).
The larger number of users will mean they 'use' more of the content they're pulling down (I can't read all of a highly active community in a day, but 1000 people together checking through the day might 'use' it all).

I'm not sure I see where you see caching fitting in.
I am surprised I don't see some kind of lower resolution digest concept in the protocol (which might be what you're looking for)