Conservatives: “We don’t believe that you should have full control over your body and will happily pass laws to prevent you from exercising that control, including laws that will send you to prison for a life-saving medical procedure.”
Women: “oh fuck. Wow. Uh. Okay, I will not be associating with you.”
You: “WOAHHHHH WOAHHHHHHHH WOW CALM DOWN THERE LITTLE MISS BIGOT HOW ABOUT SOME RESPECT FOR PEOPLE HUH?”
I mean, if we extend this logic though, stealing a license is still harmful to the person who possesses the copyright. Breaking into a hotel room deprives the current possessor the exclusive right to possess the room; stealing a piece of software deprives the copyright holder the exclusive right to control their copyrighted work.
Like, I’m not even anti-piracy for the most part. I just think the comparison in the OP is bad and doesn’t make a lot of sense.
Someone else in this thread said it best – “just enjoy ya loot.”
So I’m still learning all of this too, but my understanding is this:
Your accounts on each instance get you access to whatever that instance is federated with. My mind goes to bundling, almost – e.g., if you have a Hulu subscription, you can access Showtime through it as well.
When the instances defederate, it’s like losing part of a bundle. Nothing stops you from making an account on that instance, though, while retaining your accounts on other instances.
So, in how it plays out: I have my account on reddthat.com. When I scroll through my feed, I get content from communities hosted on reddthat and from communities hosted on instances that are federated with reddthat.
But suppose I want to see content from communities on instances that aren’t federated. All I have to do is switch over to another account on an instance that is federated or to an account on that instance specifically. I still have both of my accounts and all I need to do is switch.
The talk about shadowbanning just means that if you’re trying to access content from an account not in federation, you won’t be able to comment or anything like that.
Again, I’m still learning all of this stuff, so this may not be right and I welcome any and all corrections of anything I’ve said that isn’t accurate.
Your definition of socialism is more akin to a definition of social democracy, which is… maybe a form of socialism, depending on who you ask – it is historically contentious and generally accepted that social democrats aren’t socialists.
Socialism can have all of the things that you described, but it is decidedly anti-capitalist. It reorients how workers relate to the means of production. Under capitalism, the means of production are owned by the bourgeois class, while under socialism, they are collectively owned by the workers.