Ugh, what a load of drivel. Article takes a lot of words to say only two things, and one of them is wrong. Combine that with the synecodochistic fallacy of conflating the fediverse as a whole with mastodon specifically, and it's just a waste of time.

So, I'll save you the read and summarize the author's two observations:

Bluesky was designed to be resilient, but their centralization onto a primary server made them succeptible to DDoS attack anyway.
ActivityPub makes no mention of servers but the supermajority of Mastodon was unaffected by a DDoS attack on the biggest server — the author acts like this is a happy accident, an "emergent property", rather than a core part of the fediverse ethos.

Article does not relate to the title in any way.

And can I say how much it really pisses me off that they got a grant to write this waste of time?

[–] squirrel@cake.kobel.fyi 2 points 1 day ago

I loved the old fediverse report. Ever since the NLnet grant there's often bluesky stuff mixed in in the fediverse articles. It has changed a lot and it makes me a bit sad.

There seems to be room for a new fediverse report that sticks to reporting on what happens in the fediverse.