I don't feel that comfortable with Mastodon's decentralised concept. While the servers are decentralised accounts are tied to one server.
Who's behind a server, how commited they are to continue their service: Nobody knows. (Except for mastodon.social itself.)
With server-specific accounts, one's in the hands of the admins: When they decide to stop, the accounts' accumulated social capital is gone.
I'd love to have accounts you can migrate from one server to another without losing connections.
@fxneumann the same can be said about any centralized social network only in there case the issue is VC fonding where in Mastodon admin take pride on there instance so they are less likely to quit. Even if they had to because life someone else can take up the touch. that can't be said about centralized social network. if the company behind it gose down so does all there uses "social capital"
@fxneumann the other admis skin is building a community around what they like. right now all the instances are just general for people to join, however, specialty or topic instance are appearing. for example, I have a second account that's on an instance focus on people with a infosec background. that's a specialty instance
@gozes That's true, and decetralised servers are a step in the right direction – on the one hand. On the other hand: I don't know what skin in the game random Mastodon server operators have. mastodon.social seems super safe, as it may not fail to ensure the project's success -- just as Facebook Inc. or Twitter Inc. have the best incentives to keep their service working.