You're not a free expression advocate or truly opposed to the corporate press if you're not using and supporting decentralized social media. You're the opposite. You're locking your followers into platforms controlled by billionaires and advertisers. #fediverse
Well that's wrong.
Your followers are humans who can make their own choices. You're not locking them into anything.
And there are different forms of advocacy. It's not like a religious practice where there's One True Way of going about it.
You are forcing people to use that service to follow you on that service, unlike here.
And sure, there are other ways to advocate for free speech etc. You could be a billionaire and use that money to crush every alternative media outlet, but get up every morning and tweet out "I support free speech".
But we have a huge opportunity to decentralize micro blogging, which has become an important medium. And if the fedi becomes dominant, it could snowball into other mediums.
You're not forcing anyone to do anything of the sort.
If a person doesn't want to use the service then they don't get your content. It's up to them.
semantics. the context makes it clear what I mean. some people would say nobody can force anybody to do anything unless they actually move their arms etc. even under violent threat, you could just choose to let yourself get shot etc.
I'd say it makes a big difference here in how the decisions are made.
Publishers need to keep in mind that their readers might not bother subscribing if they're on a platform that the users don't think is worth it. That's solid motivation for a publisher to choose a different platform.
On the other hand, if a publisher feels like they can lock readers in as you framed it, meh, the publisher doesn't have nearly the practice incentive to change.
The publisher can't lock in users. That's exactly why they might choose a better platform.
