I think that what bothers me about the "there's a power imbalance between who can host an instance and who can't and that's why fedi is unsustainable" argument, is that it doesn't acknowledge that *this is true for every alternative too*.

This isn't a problem of Mastodon or fedi specifically. It is a problem of technology in general, a problem that even predates computers. It holds true for any infrastructure that involves technical complexity. Once it becomes a specialization, there's a power imbalance.

Even if you just look at social media sites - how is this any different for Twitter, Cohost, and so on? There's still the same admin vs. user power imbalance, just now you don't even get to choose who is the admin, and there's no real accountability because the cost of leaving is social exclusion.

I'm not convinced that this problem (of power imbalance in technical complexity) is actually solvable, and I also don't think that it's a useful *goal* to try and solve it - it feels to me like the same old 'rugged individualism' in a new coat of progressive-sounding paint.

The more useful goal here would be to *acknowledge* that those power imbalances exist, and try to erase or at least minimize their impact through building healthy communities and trust relationships. Not by replacing it with a centralized silo that has the same problems but worse.

(And no, P2P isn't a solution either. There's still a power imbalance between developer and user there.)