74
New Marker Just Dropped for Frequent Upvoters
(thelemmy.club)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 06 Jul 2026
74 points (92.0% liked)
Fediverse memes
3283 readers
63 users here now
Memes about the Fediverse.
Rules
General
- Be respectful
- Post on topic
- No bigotry or hate speech
- Memes should not be personal attacks towards other users
- We are not YPTB. If you have a problem with the way an instance or community is run, then take it up over at !yepowertrippinbastards@lemmy.dbzer0.com.
- Addendum: Yes we know that you think ml/hexbear/grad are tankies and or .world are a bunch of liberals but it gets old quickly. Try and come up with new material.
- This is not the place to start flamewars between Lemmy, Mbin and Piefed.
Elsewhere in the Fediverse
Other relevant communities:
- !fediverse@lemmy.world
- !yepowertrippinbastards@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- !lemmydrama@lemmy.world
- !fediverselore@lemmy.ca
- !bestofthefediverse@lemmy.ca
- !fedigrow@lemmy.zip
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
It is also about server load, yeah.
The server infrastructure that we provide is a commons - a finite shared resource that people use. Why would we let 0.02% of the people take half of it? Couldn't we just rein in that 0.02% and then spend way less money on servers?
You seem to keep flipping on this point, which is confusing to me.
If a limit must be applied for that reason, then so be it.
How much server costs would be saved though by this limiting, or is that simply a theoretical consideration?
Wouldn't more savings be possible by something else like limiting uploaded image sizes, or like only allow 10 images per month (uploading a new one automatically deletes the prior one)? And if so, what is the benefit of that other solution vs. the effects of throttling the top contributors? Both decrease the overall health of the network, so which at least maximizes the savings from having done so?