other co-author have a very different way to handle criticism. some are really clear about the limitation of the protocol, even stating that it was not ready to be adopted by mastodon.
the issue with evan p. for me is that he's being really vocal, try to be a public figure, attract a lot of followers by design, but blocks anyone with a divergent point of view. that's his prerogative of course, but you can't pretend to be public figure and censure any criticism.
the discussion around activitypub is really interesting, and yes the protocol is far from perfect. how can we get there if the main goal is just to push its name and not design a better and efficient decentralised network? (I don't care about the protocol being used. If we are to build a new way of designing social network, we need to build it on a good code, and create new soft to interact, not just copy of the gafam products.)
to be clear, evan p. blocked me after I asked him (we were mutual on mastodon) if the co-authors thought about the efficiency of the protocol when designing it. he answers me "No." and blocked me, because this was a subject that he would rather not think about (server load / electrical consumption / efficiency / reducing our impact).
I can't stand this attitude. I've read him lecturing some of his followers when talking about the impact of our way of living. But when the subject was close to him personally it was not ok. This is hypocritical and led me to see him as a total narcissist.
I don't do narcissist. They are a total waste of time.