Skip to main content

in reply to Aral Balkan

@mastohost Hey Hugo, can we please remove any rate limiting from my server? Thanks :)
in reply to Aral Balkan

Hello Aral, rate limits are hardcoded in Mastodon: github.com/mastodon/mastodon/s…

There are no other rate limits applied on my end.

So, I can't really do much on my end without forking and changing the Mastodon code. Sorry :|

in reply to Masto.host

Thanks! And no worries, I understand. You don’t want to maintain a fork of that beast, trust me :)

Seems I have to devote some time in the future to swapping out Mastodon with a fediverse server designed for a single person. I believe there are a couple of projects in that area.

It’s ridiculous to host something designed to hold a million people for just one person. It’s like living in a skyscraper by yourself: not good for you, not good for the environment, or for anyone :)

in reply to Aral Balkan

oh yeah, I don't want to fork that beast :)

Still, I don't think that the public APIs rate limit should be removed. That would open the door to all sorts of attacks or abuses.

But I agree that rate limits should not affect regular usage of the web interface. For me, is more why does this happen/how to fix it and less on how to disable it.

About the single user software, 100%. I can think of so many way to make that software much simpler and less resource intensive.

CC @c3po

in reply to Masto.host

I would like to see a one person microblog „server“ for the #fediverse which I could install on my share webspace. As much easy as implementing WordPress and co.
in reply to Robert Lender

Sadly, ActivityPub itself makes this difficult but it’s not impossible by any means. But it’s not what ActivityPub was designed for. (So we are somewhat trying to stuff a square peg into a round hole.)

The small web stuff, on the other hand, is being designed with specifically this use case in mind. (But isn’t usable yet. Which means there’s lots of value in exploring these solutions on the fediverse and getting folks thinking in this direction as soon as possible.)

in reply to Eugen Rochko

Because it’s built for you (the moderator/administrator), not for the person with the account.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m hugely thankful for Mastodon. Without it we wouldn’t have the fediverse. But the level of centralisation is a problem.

You’re designing for 800,000 in one place (because that’s what you have to moderate – a task I do not envy you), not 800,000 separate instances.

This is the Achilles' heel of Mastodon/the fediverse.

And, again, I’m hugely grateful it exists.

in reply to Aral Balkan

looks like there has been a feature request to make this configurable, open since early 2021

@Gargron

Unknown parent

Aral Balkan
Yes, it’s true that it requires copious amounts of technical knowledge to host a server that can service 800,000 people. This is the problem.
in reply to Aral Balkan

What's this rate limit that a single person hosting his own instance can cross? Number/frequency of posts? Or follows?
Unknown parent

Aral Balkan
Rate limiting password retries is a security property. Rate limiting message sending (beyond what would remove automated flooding) is a property of designing a system for 1-800,000 people (which means designing for 800,000 people instead of for instances of 1).
in reply to Aral Balkan

IMHO the mistake is separating server from client. p2p software, that encompasses both server and client features, enables true decentralization without running into such walls and complexity
in reply to Alexandre Oliva (moved to @lxo@gnusocial.jp)

Unfortunately p2p systems have their own challenges. Namely: findability and availability. Solving both of those reliably usually entails centralised servers of some type (eg., for signaling, fallback, etc.) So the idea behind a small web architecture is: if we will likely need servers for the foreseeable future, why not make it so that everyone has their own. So you’re topologically decentralising that aspect. And it also simplifies a huge amount of stuff all across the stack.