Recently, I was chatting with a friend, and we were talking about ‘de-Googling’, federated networks and self-hosted services. As I was listing the benefits and my largely positive experience with them (the Fediverse for the most part), my friend pointed out that it isn’t an environmentally friendly solution, nor is it optimised for the long term. He told me that it requires more machines that consume more energy than a single large one, as these machines aren’t specialised for hosting services. What’s your view on the argument that ‘several small machines that consume more energy are less optimised and eco-friendly than a single large one built and designed for that purpose’? I realise that the large machine goes hand in hand with techno-fascists and that they are the real problem, but what if we were to look at this from a purely technical, forward-looking perspective on a clean future? How would you respond to this ?
The computer itself isn’t the only element that makes up a centralized social media platform. Reddit, for example, isn’t just a random giant server in the middle of a desert; it requires tons of additional costs and inefficiencies to run that business, like entire buildings and hundreds or thousands of people.
When it comes to the electrical impact, concentration matters a lot, too. 100MWH consumed by a single data center stresses the infrastructure far more than the same total amount of power being consumed by 10,000 locations spread around the world.
ah yeah, that’s the trap when you try to answer such a leading question… I totally forget to see the big picture in all aspects of such an infrastructure !
Not only that, but if you run the server in your home, you get 100% efficient electrical heating as a side effect.