We don't want decentralized systems, we want small ones

The piece argues that the real problem is not centralization versus decentralization but scale: systems that stay small are cheaper, easier to maintain, and demand far less moderation. Small, centralized communities - shared Unix "tildes," a Friend Camp of ~50 users (~$30/month, roughly one moderation request per month), or a personal Forgejo with ten active users - feel nothing like massive platforms because members know each other and trust a single admin. Distributed protocols often collapse into centralized usage because most people do not want to run or maintain servers themselves, so they rely on large providers. Concrete contrasts include Mastodon instances ranging from ~133 active users to 3.4 million accounts; the mid-sized instance shut down due to admin burnout, while the largest survives only because it raises millions in donations.

Size determines sustainability: volunteer-run communities survive when the workload fits one or a few people, and deliberate caps, closed registrations, or waiting lists help keep communities manageable. To grow without burnout a project must either secure substantial funding or become a commercial operation - neither of which guarantees better service. The prescription is simple and practical: when choosing where to publish, host code, or socialize, prioritize how many people are inside and whether you can contact the person who runs it, because smallness preserves reliability and human accountability.