I like this idea, but also have trouble reconciling it, on the upstream side, with needing scale for the things on which we build, and on the downstream side of needing scale to be accessible and inclusive.
maybe there are different kinds of scaling that help resolve this?
@deejoe I'm not sure how not scaling to, say, thousands of users reduces accessibility, except that it requires more instances to be set up?
there's a premise that some people hold that accessibility requires centralization, but i don't agree with that.
yeah, maybe that's an entirely different idea than what people usually mean by scale. I think being able to do needful things does mean "bigger" in absolute terms than many of us are comfortable with, but not necessarily the "move fast and break things on the way to acquiring market share and excluding competitors" type of scaling.
yeah, I don't know. Accessibility aside for the moment, we also see small communities struggle with shifting priorities over time, burnout in the people running things, chasing upgrades, moderating, a hothouse environment for personality clashes, all that.
Best way to put this that comes to me just now is to shoot for "organic scaling"?
Or to trot out a more familiar usage: How do we maintain critical mass without it either fizzle out or a blowing up?
Also as long as even a small community welcomes diversity, accessibility can be achieved.
I am part of a forum about vintage electronics where there are a lot of older people present, and the users will speak up if fonts / colours are hard to see and things get changed (they also share positive discussions on how to deal with doing things like close work and driving as their eyesight changes due to ageing)
The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!