Then yes there’s EEE danger. Hopefully the Mastodon developers will resist that.
Unfortunately developers can do very little to prevent that. EEE works by first attracting a large userbase into a service and later on prevent them from leaving. It’s up to instances admins and users to defederate to prevent EEE.
My bad, I got confused by https://codeberg.org/calckey/calckey/issues/3235 - thank you!
The protocol could require “dual-homing” user accounts, where each account is automatically replicated on 2 different instances without need for hacks and workarounds. That would prevent users from losing their account if an instance is shut down, and also make it easy to migrate to a new instance without losing followers etc. The clients following your account always check for updates on both instances and if you move one of your accounts they update automatically.
(This would not create significant additional load on the network: your toots are already being replicated on all instances where you have followers.)
IMHO, you can only provide tools
No, tools are rarely “neutral”. They encourage or discourage workflows and behaviors.
It’s not that simple. ActivityPub is at risk of centralization, just like email. There are no built-in protections against centralization or EEE (Embrace, Extend, Extinguish). Furthermore, Mastodon makes it difficult to migrate accounts, especially from an instance that is unreachable or just disabled the export function.
Unfortunately locking users into a platform is extremely valuable because they can be shown ads, used for data mining, manipulation (like Cambridge Analytica). ActivityPub is not automatically immune to all of this.
The comparison with IRC is not very meaningful: moving from one server to another is much easier because IRC users don’t lose followers, bookmarks, posts, etc.
I did the survey but please would you mind identifying yourself and linking to the research paper when it’s ready?