Technology

There is no should or shouldn't, they've always had and been entitled to that choice. People who develop and host those platforms can make whatever choice they want.

ActivityPub/the Fediverse is only a protocol. If you philosophically disagree with how a platform makes use of that protocol, then you can (theoretically) just use another platform.

There are no platforms on the Fediverse that do that. There are servers that are refusing and will refuse to communicate with other servers, and that's their right. If you don't like their policies, you can pick a different server.

Your power as a user is to select your administrators, by selecting whose server you want to log in to. You don't get to decide whose content they mirror. If they don't want to host content from Meta, or from Mastodon.social, or from anywhere else, they don't have to, and you shouldn't be able to force them to.

This isn't a mainframe and client system. There's no "fediverse" server out there that the different instances are gating. There's just 10 thousand partial mirrors, each offering local access to that mirrored content.

If you want complete and total control over what content is being hosted where ever you're logged in, host your own server. That's your other option.

I feel that that is not what their post was saying.I read it more like the possibility that Mark Zuckerberg would want to talk to the core developer of Mastodon and e.g. buy Mastodon.social, and then when GoToSocial would grow Zuck would want to talk with them as well.I'd be surprised if the GoToSocial software would have Meta Threads blocked by default in their source code.

LOL

Because giving people the option to opt-in to the platform that birthed the resurgence of Fascism worked out so well. I'm good with not hearing your weird uncle's incoherent rants about chemtrails and lizard people, thanks.