I agree:
"The network effect is the only thing the closed social platforms have going for themselves....
by the time the #Fediverse has sufficient numbers of users, it’s game over for proprietary social networks...
Note that the critical 'sufficient number of users' can likely be substantially smaller than the user populations of those closed networks...because all value accrues to users...For many of my own use cases...the Fediverse has critical mass today already."
https://reb00ted.org/tech/20230322-open-networks-are-more-valuable-fediverse/
But this argument seems to miss the very importance of the network effect, so it comes across as both circular and Pollyannish.
The network effect drives growth and provides value. Heck yeah, that’s the thing the successful platforms have going for them, but to say Fediverse will match that value once it has lots of people misses that without first having that value it will have trouble attracting those lots of people.
It’s like saying the only thing dollars have over Bitcoin is that they’re accepted so broadly.
Well… yeah.
