Not sure this article is internally coherent. It starts out saying that centralization or decentralization should be an implementation detail. At the end, it ad

Not sure this article is internally coherent. It starts out saying that centralization or decentralization should be an implementation detail. At the end, it advocates for a market-oriented centralization approach. Throughout, it calls out problems that seem to be features. The analogy to decentralized package hosting seems misaligned. If a package repo disappears, it breaks a tree of dependencies. If a social media instance disappears, the followers (the "dependencies") can adapt without being disrupted. This seems like a feature. On the issue of "not agreeing what it should look like," this also seems like a feature. Communities can use the platform to self-organize according to their own visions and priorities. Surely, someone who has spent time exploring the various instances available can quickly identify this. Not agreeing what it should look like is what makes it what it is. Not having to force everyone to agree what it is, is what it is. Again, it's a feature, and something fediverse users have happily "learned to live with," and moreover, embraced. Moderation and illegal content are a legitimate challenge on any platform. With the decentralized fediverse, everyone handles it according to their own policies. This does mean some admins allow it perhaps more than they should, but it also means they face the consequences directly. Admins who work to keep it out do face a daunting task in many cases, but there are tools for it. And a process of sort of natural selection already seems to favor those who have the resources and energy and motivation and skill to do it well. Seems, again, like a feature. "Mastodon is old." Not sure how this has anything at all to do with centralization or decentralization. We all use things that are old. Many old things work great. As far as others not getting their changes merged back, well, that's the benefit of forking and open source. Anyone who wants changes that aren't part of the upstream can fork it and make those changes. If enough people like them, people will move to the fork. It happens all the time. Feature. Technical challenges described are demonstrably surmountable. Market-based approach: well, we're living it, and Mastodon in particular is succeeding in the market. There are competitors like Pleroma and microblog.pub. If enough people decide Mastodon proper has "fucked up too much," then there are others right behind it ready to "step in and replace it." I dunno. There are arguable advantages to centralization, but I'm not sure this article touches on them, or at least not convincingly. Rather, it seems like the main complaints, if they're not in fact addressed by the design and operation of the fediverse, are design choices that give the fediverse advantages in other aspects. In any case, I don't see how the claim of the headline is well-supported by the points raised in the article.