@manton “Larger platforms create new problems. Massive, centralized platforms have even more problems, inherent in their scale. The web is generally better when it’s more distributed. That means more, smaller servers.”

I don’t think it’s self-evident that smaller servers are always better. Looking at how human populations organize themselves - whether in cities, towns, states, or nations - we see different structures emerging that enable various levels of organizational complexity.

In today’s social web, people seek spaces to establish their digital identity and presence. What’s happening with Threads and Meta illustrates this: at the scale of hundreds of millions of users, we need smaller subsections (like groups) and community architectures that enable localized rules and moderation decisions. Community Notes is one mechanism that scales, though not doesn’t necessarily lead to coherence or cohesion.

When moderation decisions affect hundreds of millions of users without proper systems of adjudication, justice, or representative governance, you inevitably create widespread frustration, particularly directed at platform administrators. While I share concerns about Meta’s direction, we should be pragmatic about how the social web is maturing and along with a need for varied governance structures. We should pursue interoperability to prevent digital Berlin Walls that keep people separated unnecessarily.

So while small and distributed systems are crucial for innovation and preserving long-term choice and freedom, I can’t agree that small is inherently superior in all cases.