You are too emotional about this. Federation is an overloaded word that means too many things. Mastodon with decentralised Identity and self hosted servers would have been just fine. ActivityPub is re...
> Reach however is not a human right,
I’m entirely familiar with this kind of subversive libtard rhetoric.
Before the Internet this was not the case. In Marsh v. Alabama, it was ruled (in line with all previous precedent) that privately owned roadways and sidewalks had to allow religious pamphleters, even though it is private property. The court asserted that anywhere that is the forum for public discussion is de facto allowed for political and religious speech regardless of property rights. In the very early days of the Internet things changed, when people tried to assert First Amendment claims on Compuserve chats. Compuserve claimed they weren't the public square, that they were a private service. I think they were correct, in that Compuserve was a very marginal private space and couldn't possibly have been "the public square". But precedent over this tiny service were eventually laundered into much larger and more critical bits of social infrastructure.
In contrast to Compuserve, Twitter and Facebook are definitely the public square. You cannot petition for a redress of grievances or lobby for policy changes without using them. And the political left delights in suppressing their opponents on them but files lawsuits claiming their rights are infringed when they aren't given access to every inch -- such as when they sued Trump for blocking them on his Twitter account:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-dismisses-trump-twitter-block-case/
When libs were barred from interacting even with a very small part of a platform, it is a critical First Amendment violation. When conservatives, racists, sexists, or whatever term you want to use are barred, well, it's a private company bigot.
If something is used by a large segment of society for common speech infrastructure, according to historical American jurisprudence and founding principles, it is, in fact, a human right. I don’t have a right to be on the first page of Google search, but I do have the right to be treated fairly like everyone else by the Google ranking algorithms.
I’m entirely familiar with this kind of subversive libtard rhetoric.
Before the Internet this was not the case. In Marsh v. Alabama, it was ruled (in line with all previous precedent) that privately owned roadways and sidewalks had to allow religious pamphleters, even though it is private property. The court asserted that anywhere that is the forum for public discussion is de facto allowed for political and religious speech regardless of property rights. In the very early days of the Internet things changed, when people tried to assert First Amendment claims on Compuserve chats. Compuserve claimed they weren't the public square, that they were a private service. I think they were correct, in that Compuserve was a very marginal private space and couldn't possibly have been "the public square". But precedent over this tiny service were eventually laundered into much larger and more critical bits of social infrastructure.
In contrast to Compuserve, Twitter and Facebook are definitely the public square. You cannot petition for a redress of grievances or lobby for policy changes without using them. And the political left delights in suppressing their opponents on them but files lawsuits claiming their rights are infringed when they aren't given access to every inch -- such as when they sued Trump for blocking them on his Twitter account:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-dismisses-trump-twitter-block-case/
When libs were barred from interacting even with a very small part of a platform, it is a critical First Amendment violation. When conservatives, racists, sexists, or whatever term you want to use are barred, well, it's a private company bigot.
If something is used by a large segment of society for common speech infrastructure, according to historical American jurisprudence and founding principles, it is, in fact, a human right. I don’t have a right to be on the first page of Google search, but I do have the right to be treated fairly like everyone else by the Google ranking algorithms.
2