Network effects can be achieved with or without federation. They aren't mutually exclusive.
Network effects can be achieved with or without federation. They aren't mutually exclusive.
Email was once the main way social networking was done via mailing lists. This was kind of federated, because you had to ask the listserv to add you to the list. The federated aspects of email are what caused it to die and get replaced by forums which in turn got replaced by Reddit and Twitter.
(Notice the trend? Mailing lists -> forums -> Reddit. From federated to centralized. Network effects.)
You can send messages to anyone regardless of the instance they're on. This is also exactly the same on both Mastodon and email.
Precisely how are these different in any relevant way?
Email, conversely, often is a limited-scope conversation that can only be observed or interacted with between the people participating in said message. Of course, this changes slightly with the use-case of mailing lists, which often provide a public archive of prior messages. But email content is generally not accessible from the web in the same manner that a status is.
There was nothing wrong in your description of the differences between the Fediverse and email, but none of those differences explain the previous poster's assertion that the protocols work at fundamentally different levels.
A quick look at websites talking about email trends finds that the only people who are bullish on email are marketers. And that's why everyone else hates it: it's predominantly spam. So if you want to compare ActivityPub to email you'd better have a strong argument for why it won't just become another vehicle for spam if it ever becomes widespread.
[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/16/personal-email-is-dead--but-...