grue

You can say what you want about "Páshka" or "Passover", but there's no way in Hell "Easter" isn't related to "Ēostre" (and "estrus," and "east" -- think 'rising sun' -- and spring/rebirth/fertility concepts in general). Just because a holiday may not have been appropriated from an earlier one for the Greeks or Romans, doesn't mean it wasn't appropriated from an earlier one for the Germanic peoples.

Ah, thanks. I figured that, like the US, it was some kind of other policy that had a side effect of artificially skewing the numbers.

That's almost good, because leaf litter is habitat for bugs like fireflies (they lay their eggs in it).

The problem is you've apparently removed it before they could hatch.

But why do you love helping Google control web standards, when you could just be using a Mozilla-based browser instead?

They know they have the system rigged and they're flaunting their power.

Conservatism absolutely is, though.

But maybe you’re imagining a world where that question is moot—in a world where there’s no separation of users and [providers].

Yes, that's exactly what I'm imagining. (Any tips on how I could've made that clearer from my first comment?)

Why is France also an outlier?

"Intellectual property theft" isn't a thing. The correct terms are "copyright infringement" or "trademark infringement" or "plagiarism" or something like that, and you should be specific about which you're talking about.

Conservatives crave being subjugated. It is fundamental to their ideology.

That’s how federation works with[out] requiring a direct connection from every instance to every other instance. My instance can connect to yours to get your content, but also the content from all other instances that you federate with. And vice-versa.

So what? That's like saying ISPs should require Section 230 to avoid liability because they route packets. We're talking about legality: it's stuff like intent and responsibility that matters, not the technical details. Each instance owner still gets to decide which other instances they want to federate with; some 'middle hop' in that connection is irrelevant.

The fundamental issue that Section 230 is designed to address is the separation between the users posting the content and the platform owners who control who sees it, and the moral hazard that creates. If you eliminate the separation, there's nowhere left for the moral hazard to exist.

I'm usually a big fan of the EFF, but it's wrong on this one. If you decentralize to the limit -- i.e., such that each user is running their own instance for themselves -- it becomes okay for the service to become liable for the user's speech because the user and the service owner are one in the same. In reality, (extremely) federated social media is the only kind that can survive without Section 230 and thus repealing it entirely would be a win for the Fediverse.

(You could argue "but users won't go to the trouble of running their own instance," but to that I'd say "they will if the law doesn't give them any other choice, short of not participating at all.")