I don't want to be too confrontational / personal but your comment contains hubris at levels I've rarely seen & it's something I think may be worth reflecting o

I don't want to be too confrontational / personal but your comment contains hubris at levels I've rarely seen & it's something I think may be worth reflecting on. The worst offender: > probably a large fraction of the people building it are introverted engineers who have difficulty even comprehending how someone can want to interact At least this starts with "probably", admitting some level of uncertainty, but the overall tone shows a derision & contempt for a group of people you've almost certainly (ironically) never interacted with. I guarantee the developers behind Mastodon understand how people want to interact much better than you do; they're highly intelligent & have actively engaged on the problems around human interaction for years. This is not a system that's been created in a vacuum. > the most high profile Twitter users explicitly want > They are going there literally to get > They will not understand > they will see You've made a lot of very confident statements here about what these high profile people want and will do: I'm not seeing a lot of data to back that up. Regardless, even if there are a subset of people who do want that: what makes them high profile? Mostly it's the platform they're on. If they don't gain a high profile on Mastodon, it's not Mastodon's loss, it's theirs. All Mastodon needs to do is serve the needs of a critical quorum in aggregate, not the needs of a specific supposedly-influential few users. All-in-all, the main reason people favour centralisation is habit. In reality, even on e.g. Facebook you see communities developing within its "groups" feature, as a parallel to what Mastodon is fundamentally designed around.