It's perfectly reasonable and possible for *both* of these statements to be true:

* it is better here than on Twitter
* this better *isn't good enough*

Federation and decentralization *as currently and inconsistently and idiosyncratically practiced* while better, are not good enough.

Digging in and saying that decentralization and federation *is* good enough is really, really unhelpful.

Also, the potential for better does not mean the practical experience is better.

In my opinion[0], without concerted non-technical work[1] like setting norms, belief in decentralization as an unalloyed good and that "people will moderate and run instances well" will instead mean a gazillion diverse *inconsistent* experiences.

Diversity does not imply predictability, stability or safety to those who require it.

[0] Explicitly *an opinion*
[1] Yes, in concert with technical work from protocol to product to design and the entire stack

I accept that the beauty of federation and decentralization means letting a thousand million different instances and points of view bloom and that ultimately, those instances may be shunned.

AND.

It is also reasonable for people to *want and expect* stability and predictability and guarantees of safety. When you want to replicate that across multiple instances, that might even look like a three-ring-binder franchise model. Software will never do everything.