I don’t think you can presume that the whole point of federation is for networks to grow: this system design is actually well suited for reducing the control of States (if they takeover or close one down, the rest of the network is just fine) as well as allowing lots of small entities and individuals to run servers, all adding up the level of capability that would take a lot of money for one single entity to maintain - in other words it makes it possible for lots of independent entities and individuals to run social media outside the control of nation states.

Resilience in the face of state interference is an explanation that makes sense as the protocols were apparently designed by lefties with anarchist tendencies.

Maybe size was also the intention, maybe not, but that’s not something somebody can firmly use as a foundation for an entire argument about how the Fediverse should match what ultimatelly are your personal preferences about and pattern of use of social media.

That said, it seems to me we just have a difference of opinion on what we would like to have here, so neither of us can claim to be right on this.

Let’s agree to disagree ?! ;)