Praise for small scale
When we read or hear about new, emerging social networks, one topic that is often discussed is their current size and growth potential. This objective, that of growth, is easy to understand when it comes to commercial social networks, since the more users the network can exploit (as is currently the case, due to its business model), the better for the owner of the social network and/or its shareholders. From this perspective, they work to increase the “network effect” of the social network, since by strengthening it, more people will create accounts there and the network will grow.
The network effect is often understood as a force of attraction that someone experiences, derived from the perception of potentially obtaining advantages, even in the short term, simply by being connected to a social network; because, in this way, you can access specific people, thus establishing connections that could bring different benefits to the person who sought the connection. Naturally, from this perspective, the more people this network has, the greater the perception of potential personal benefits and advantages that can be obtained by participating in the network. In this way, we are talking about a utilitarian and pragmatic vision of “attracting” or “pushing” people to use this network. And in a context where the number of people in the network definitely matters.
In addition to this pragmatic perspective of the perception of potentially obtaining future advantages – for those who are actively seeking such advantages – I think that the network effect is also made up of (and strengthened by) two other dimensions:
1) The well-known FOMO (fear of missing out) – the fear of missing out on something, of not participating in something (which could bring you some kind of advantage or benefit, whether in the financial/commercial/professional field, in the romantic field, in the field of entertainment or friendships). Yes, many people consider these situations to be potentially beneficial, even when they find out about them in networks that exploit them in various ways;
2) The fear of being judged or criticized – by friends, acquaintances and even strangers – for expressing positions (and carrying out behaviors) that differ from those of the majority in the groups and communities to which the person belongs.
In this context of commercial social networks, there is the idea that the bigger the network, the better and more valuable it will be, because “everyone” is there and therefore you could potentially access anyone you want. But who really needs or wants to have this prospect of potential access to anyone? (And, what's more, remembering that the other person will have the possibility, greater or lesser, depending on the network, of regulating this access?) And who wants to be accessed by everyone? But above all: what if you have no interest in using social networks to pursue or enhance commercial or professional interests? But you just want to use social networks to keep in touch, to connect with people you already know and to meet new people and have good conversations with them in a context that is uninterested from a financial/commercial point of view? And also without being exploited by the network?
If the network is a non-commercial social network, then the scenario is completely different. Firstly, there's no need for a growth project, or big growth. As no one is going to make money from the network, there is no (financial) incentive for it to grow – growth will be organic, due to people's interest. And in particular, the large growth of certain instances (sites) of these networks will only increase the likelihood of difficulties, due to the increased costs of maintaining the instance and the efforts required for moderation (in the case of networks that do not have features that make moderation virtually unnecessary – the Hubzilla, (streams) and Forte networks have such features). It's therefore better to create more smaller instances than a few instances with lots of people. The fact that one of these networks also communicates with other non-commercial networks further reduces the importance of its own size (in total number of instances and participants). After all, what will be observed and taken into account in practice is the total number of participants in all non-commercial networks – today, a number that is far more than relevant and sufficient, in the millions of people around the world.
But, in these non-commercial networks, the most important thing is that, as participation there is generally devoid of the pragmatic notion of seeking advantages, benefits and gains (the very “small” scale of the network favors this stance), the people participating will orient themselves, move around, connect basically for the opportunity of new encounters, new conversations, good conversations with people we meet there and with whom we discover affinities and common personal interests. As our capacity – in terms of available time and energy – to have really good conversations with other people is very limited, the question of the number of people present in the network becomes even less relevant, because even in a (relatively) small-scale network, with a few thousand (or a few million) people, this number is already enough for affinities to be found and relationships to be established – not crossed by commercial interests. And experience seems to show that this very small scale – alongside all the benefits of using a non-commercial network – is already a factor that is capable of producing a peculiar type of network effect: one that now attracts people interested in the specific types of values and experiences that these networks represent and provide.
[June, 2025] Updated: June 22, 2025