A couple of them.

• I review flashlights and occasionally other everyday carry gear at https://zakreviews.com/
• I share photographs and very rarely words at https://zaktakespictures.com/

Both have RSS feeds and associated Mastodon accounts. It’s also possible to follow the latter directly with ActivityPub software that allows following users (not Lemmy). I might put up a third and talk about programming and tech.

Federation doesn’t inherently require large amounts of memory. Fundamentally, it’s a matter of selecting a list of unique servers (likely tens, maybe hundreds) from a larger set of followers (likely hundreds, maybe thousands) and sending an HTTP request to each when there’s a new post. There’s a speed/size tradeoff for how many to send in parallel, but it’s not a resource-intensive operation.

Growth beyond a few tens of megabytes was a bug in Writefreely, which is a likely-suitable option several comments here recommended.

I’d put it farther removed from the technical side than that; dreadbeef is thinking like a manager. OP might be better off paying a third party $3/month to handle the details and host a heavyweight, full-featured blog for them, but that’s not what they asked for.

This is selfhosted, which I think implies a desire to self-host things even if it might seem a wiser use of resources to do something else.

I’m thinking like a programmer about what a basic blog has to do and the computing resources necessary to accomplish it. Software that needs more than a few tens of megabytes to accomplish that is not lightweight regardless of its merits.

This comment seems to be arguing that one should not demand blog software be lightweight because there’s inexpensive hosting for something heavyweight. That’s a fine position to take, I guess, but OP did ask for lightweight options.

It wants a gigabyte of RAM. Maybe that passes for lightweight in 2025, but given the fundamental things a blog has to do, I’d probably put the cutoff at less than a tenth that amount.

I see where you’re coming from now. In most English-speaking cultures, it is not conventional to use hand gestures as a substitute for spoken words in a conversation. Breaking social conventions for no apparent reason is at least potentially rude.

You’re translating those conventions directly to chat. Chat is not spoken word, and it is conventional to use emojis, at least the really unambiguous ones, instead of typed words in chat some of the time. People do not usually do this with any rude or insulting intent.

It depends on what it’s in response to.

Dinner at 6 at Greasy Spoon?
👍 

Entirely reasonable.

Should we do the project in COBOL?
👍 

Entirely unreasonable, but not rude.

My cat just died.
👍 

Rude.