Are you wondering why this place is on so many servers?
There are really important reasons for this, to do with user safety, sustainability, and empowerment of users and grassroots communities. You can read all the reasons here:
On a centralised network like Twitter etc, if owners turn bad, users are stuck there, powerless to do anything. Owners can get away with terrible things.
On decentralised networks, users have real power, and bad owners suffer consequences.
The problem is, the fediverse is more brittle than this makes it sound. It's still better than any centralized platform, but it's not as robust as it should be:
1. Small servers can and will go down without a warning, leaving users stranded and their data lost. The Mastodon pledge tries to get a handle on this, but only works when people adhere to it.
1/5
2. Similarly, it is still much too difficult (or mostly downright impossible) to move accounts between different fediverse services. If a whole project withers away - usually because the lead and only dev loses interest - it can leave an entire ecosystem with nowhere to go.
2/
3. Moderation is still an unsolved problem, in that bad actors can only get acted on 𝘢𝘧𝘵𝘦𝘳 the damage has already been done. Centralized platforms can actually get out in front of this easier because they can at least implement some pre-screening during signup. The fediverse signup process is completely unmoderated, as bad actors can just use bad platforms (or their own) to launch their harassment from.
3/
4. I think we underestimate the power billionaires can have when they want to take over an entire technology. If they really put their power and money to it, they don't need to "outcompete" us with their own services, they can go to the root and sabotage ActivityPub itself.
4/
Not really... ActivityPub itself is just a set of open standards which people are free to ignore or interpret. It's not some kind of central server or resource.
If there was some terrible change made to it, Fedi developers are free to ignore the change, or switch to another protocol. Mastodon didn't always use ActivityPub, and the Fediverse predates the creation of ActivityPub.
You could say the same about HTML and yet big tech has hijacked the W3C to implement DRM, for example.
You don't have to use W3C's recommendations if you feel the organisation is compromised?
That's true, but they more or less maintain the HTML standard. You would have to have a lot of skill and dedication to come up with a different standard and implement it. Also, if the big browsers (or, for the fediverse, the big apps) don't support your competing standard, you're just running your service for yourself.
I'm not saying it can't be done, but right now we absolutely rely on the common goodwill of all fediverse developers. Bad apples can spoil the bunch.
"or, for the fediverse, the big apps"
That's why I'm trying to discourage people from relying too much on one project or one platform. Monoculture brings this kind of risk whatever it's in, on the internet, in politics, in food etc.
The issue is still centralisation, where too much power lies in too few hands. If we can keep things diverse and spread out, we are safer.
That is absolutely correct, which is why I think it's key to be able to transfer all account data, easily, between services.
P.S.: I'm sorry, I didn't mean to hijack your post. I'm just a very anxious person and I've thought about these issues way too much, and that seemed as good a place as any to write them down.
Let's say, Eugen at one point says: "You know what? I'll take 450 million and sell the project and website to Meta." That money can shield you quite well from the public outrage it would create and the more of a threat the fediverse poses, the more money our enemies are likely to spend on silencing it.
Everyone has a price.
I agree totally, that's why I am so concerned about us relying too much on mastodon.social, and about the official Masto app telling people to sign up there: