Clarifying Costs of Running the Fediverse with Jerry from Infosec.Exchange

submitted by

blenderdumbass.org/articles/clarifying_costs_of…

49

Log in to comment

6 Comments

There is a lack of payment options.

This is the most important issue for me. I am happy to send a couple of bucks to a couple of services via bank transfer. It doesn't cost anything. Paying >3% to paypal or stripe is just nuts. I won't do that.

Edit: I would send 50 cents to many projects but I'd have to pay huge fees on that, so I don't.

we had the centralised model (big corpos hosting all of the stuff) because our devices were shit and internet access was rare and precious. nowadays, with ever-present internet, when my $50 pocket computer has 8 cores and 8 GB RAM, the laptop many times that, let alone the desktop, we should be moving to Pied Piper's vision of a decentralised internet and dedicate all of our resources to that goal.

I've been a part of the fediverse some while now and I admit, I didn't understand it fully. I operated under the premise that whoever put this thing together and then spent their time and energy promoting it has thought this through and then seeing more and more people jumping on, I took it as validation of that idea.

a few years down the road, I have a better understanding, and I don't really like it. it's wasteful and disorganized and I don't see a way where some order out of this chaos emerges.

I thought it's a sort of fail-over distribution of content. so if lemmy.bing is offline/gone, you can interact with lemmy.ding or lemmy.bong and access all data and post and comment and whatnot. not so, when ding is gone, it's gone. its radiated content may be present on other instances, but still there's a ton of issues that way.

instead, I believe a decentralised and distributed system, with no single point of failure, no admins spending their hard earned cash on maintaining lemmy or mastodon instances or, god forbid, dedicated hardware in the vein of i2p or similar, should be the end goal.

Agreed, first path towards that is decentralized identities in my opinion

Yeah, Beehaw doesn't have anywhere near that MAU, but I cannot fathom how it is costing him $5k a month to run a few instances, a few of which have many less MAU.

As he stated, the service is scaled for the heyday of twitter migration with headroom to spare. Naturally the base infra is going to cost quite a bit.

He's probably sized to run 5-6 times the capacity he needs at the moment.

People see social media and other things like e-mail and video content as free services.

They just want to join and get on with their lives. Most "normies" don't really care about being served ads or being tracked. If you tell them about the surveillance industry behind the scenes they just shrug and keep scrolling their Insta feeds and clicking their youtube videos. Even people who complain about ads seem to be incapable of action if you suggest they install ad-blocker.

The people who understand or care about the problem are the ones who might donate, but not all of them. It's a subset or an subset.

As Jerry says, the donation economy would not be sustainable if the Fediverse was the size of Facebook. Unfortunately that has more to do with human psyche than actual technical merits of ActivityPub or the Fediverse.

Comments from other communities

  • There is a lack of payment options. A lot of people that use the Fediverse use it because it is the only Free Software platform that there is. And those people would be the most reliant of it to keep existing. Because for them to go back to Facebook or Twitter is not even an option. Yet those same people cannot donate because donations require things that are not libre. I really hope that more options will appear to support as many donation channels as possible in as many libre projects as possible. So those people that are the most passionate about the whole thing will be able to support it too.

Realistically, how many people object to using a payment processor online on the grounds of "it's not FOSS"?

I know a pretty substantial amount of those people. But most likely they will not object to it. They will just see that the option is not there and move on. They are kind of already used to not seeing an option. Many of them don't even look for it, or even think there could be one. Only maybe FSF has donation options for those people.

What is a "substantial amount of people", relatively to the total amount of people in the Fediverse that a) are already here, b) do not object to using stripe and c) still don't donate anyway?

Anybody who is on something like #fsf on IRC, or who helps to organize the Libre Planet. Or people who buy computers from the Ministry of Truth. Aka people that are as serious about this ( if not more serious ) than Richard Stallman.

This is not the flex you think it is...

Very interesting article! I have immense respect for jerry@infosec.exchange, he was one of the first people I found on the fediverse, and it's no wonder why, he's revered quite highly by others as being a generous and kind admin.

I do want to point out one thing, and that is that Mastodon has some design decisions that make it rather resource and storage intensive.

There are oodles of lighter software out there, some with even more features than Mastodon, and some with less. For example, snac.bsd.cafe (https://snac.bsd.cafe/) runs on Snac, which is fast as hell.

I am going to guess that a not insignificant portion of Jerry's bill is caching assets. Mastodon likes to save everything it encounters, videos, images, avatars, everything... forever (though I imagine this is customisable). Most likely the assets are viewed a handful of times in one day and never seen again... but you'll pay to store it forever!

Most likely the assets are viewed a handful of times in one day and never seen again… but you’ll pay to store it forever!

This is exactly the thing that should optimized immediately. Store relevant content. Delete after it is not relevant. Fetch it back if it is relevant again.

This is exactly the thing that should optimized immediately.

If there's a word that does not go well with Mastodon, it's "immediately"

Things would improve by a lot in Mastodon if they implemented separate storage engines between local and remote resources. Then instance admins could have a way to host, e.g, local resources on their own infrastructure but push all remote instances to some "shared cache", based on IPFS/torrent/TahoeLAFS.

One of the ways that this could improve in the future is that we're working on a notional caching service as a future Fediverse Auxiliary Service Provider, so that this kind of content could be shared between small groups of instances that chose to use it.

It doesn’t store media forever that is routinely cleaned and configurable in the administration settings for the instance.
The content cache, which is database storage used for the text and meta-data of posts is more typically an issue over time because this requires commands to be run on the server to free up space, which many people do not do.
https://fedihost.co/blog/slug/managing-mastodon-storage

You gotta love the transparency.

Did they share any receipts or official documents to back up their claims?

They have a really good racket going on and want to make sure people keep giving them way more money than is necessary. It's simply not true that Infosec.Exchange requires $5000/month to operate unless they're doing something very wrong or just straight up lying.

Money brings out the worst in people. Don't let the useful idiots bring you down because there are more of them.

He is right though, 5000 USD per month for an instance with 12k monthly active users is completely unrealistic, or it is run very inefficiently. mastodon.world is a similar size and costs much less than 2300 Euro per month (which includes numerous other instances like lemmy.world etc).

Like I said, money brings out the worst in people.

You're free to provide evidence to prove me wrong, or you can keep trying to distract and prove me right.

They have a really good racket going on and want to make sure people keep giving them way more money than is necessary. It's simply not true that Infosec.Exchange requires $5000/month to operate unless they're doing something very wrong or just straight up lying.

Yes, internet rando. I totally believe your solid calculations based on .. vibe?

We failed the instance operators if they need to lie about money. What we need to insure is that those people can both run the instance and live a live worth of envy from the money provided by the supporters. Meaning any money above the costs is good money. Any money below the margin of live worthy of envy is not enough money. The line is not at being able to pay for hosting. The line is at live worthy of envy.

We failed the instance operators if they need to lie about money.

Wtf...

I swear, a fool and his money are soon parted.

Just to add thing, I personnaly don't donate regurlarly because I am hosting services from my pocket. Not of his scale for sure but still cost me an average of 30-50€ a month.
May be it is a marginal so that why they didn't think about this answer about not donating.