WatDabney

Yes, though with a feudal system mixed in.

Corporations and wealthy individuals will be the sole property-owners and will play the roles of feudal lords, and the people will be serfs, allowed to live on the lords' estates only if they serve the lords.

Since homelessness will be criminalized while all property will be owned by the feudal lords, those who won't serve the lords "willingly" will be imprisoned, and yes, they will then be slaves.

And they put razor blades in Halloween candy too!

And further - the establishment of a single, fediverse-wide account for each user would make it far too easy for those so inclined to silence anyone they wanted merely by banning their one and only account.

It's not a matter of how ones profile would be accessed, but how it would be created in the first place snd how it would be managed.

Necessarily, those who implement the creation of accounts have control over how they're created, who is allowed to create them and how they will be handled after creation.

Any scheme to establish one "central" (your own term) account for the entire fediverse will necessarily be managed by one "central" service, which means one "central" authority over account creation and management

At this point, all it would take would be to successfully establish the precedent that legal citizens can have their citizenship revoked (which just requires a case getting to the Supreme Court, where the corrupt majority has already demonstrated that they're going to just rubber-stamp whatever Trump wants), then to issue an executive order declaring that [whatever quality] is [whatever has been deemed to be acceptable grounds to have ones citizenship revoked]. It would undoubtedly be challenged, but again, it would wind up in front of the Supreme Court sooner or later, and they'd rubber-stamp it

Decentralization is a feature - not a bug.

And here's a bit of a hint for the slow people out there - they don't need that many agents or that big of a budget if they're only dealing with immigrants.

Meaning is subjective and not intrinsic, so there can be no such thing as "the" meaning of anything.

The artist can have an intended meaning, but the audience not only can but will find their own meaning in it. It might be the case that the audience gets the same meaning from it that the creator intended, but it might just as easily be the case that they get some entirely different meaning from it.

None of them are right or wrong - that's not even a coherent concept in that context. They just are whatever they are.

My immedate thought was, "i wonder who they intended to murder?"

The dead included a well-known film-maker

Oh yeah - absolutely.

That's why even as housing costs get further out of reach for more people, the politicians, at the behest of their wealthy cronies and patrons, are criminalizing homelessness. The goal is to essentially recreate 18th century workhouses.

And you'll count yourself lucky if you get sent to a workhouse instead of a foreign torture prison.

Trump has never had a "deportation" agenda.

What he's had, from the start, is a "send anyone who opposes me to a concentration camp" agenda.

The "deportation" of immigrants was just a cenvenient base from which to start establishing precedents.

Now that you mention it...