You are attempting to enforce what would likely be a sub-optimal network structure which in turn increases the cpu, network, and storage costs that an individua

You are attempting to enforce what would likely be a sub-optimal network structure which in turn increases the cpu, network, and storage costs that an individual/small group may see as too expensive. That in turn leads most people to head to the main/largest instance of the given part of the federated network which is even more of a risk. If you try to enforce this, you will get mastodon.social and a much of larger-smaller sites rather than hundreds of even smaller federated sites. It becomes too expensive for the small sites to federate with all of them (you'll note that turn key hosted instances of mastodon often have limits to how many different sites they can federate with). The famous quote of "The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it." is from Usenet. It took very concerted efforts in order to moderate or completely censor a badly behaving site. I would contend that usenet did a very good job of handling its robustness of delivery that didn't involve spending too much time for a given site to try to peer everywhere.