On Who 'Speaks for' Techrights
Free Software is for Everyone | Free Software is for Everybody
Having just reminded people that the Microsoft-sponsored 'FSFE' does not speak for the FSF and does not represent the FSF in Europe, let's quickly clarify what Techrights is.
In a nutshell, Techrights is a grassroots (pro bono), decentralised, community-controlled, community-owned and shared platform. I am just the editor of Techrights, a volunteer who never profited from it, and we have many other associates, who not only contribute information but also donate time, code, etc.
In that respect, Techrights isn't some registered institution and it is more than just a Web site; it is a collective. It is amorphous but distributed design-wise.
With no hierarchy or formal roles, who does the "speaking" for Techrights? The question is complicated because each individual speak for himself/herself - no collective responsibility that is - and generally speaking, whatever gets published in article form (not IRC logs) can be attributed to Techrights. Citations in Daily Links are not "endorsed" or accepted by Techrights, they are just relayed as links of interest.
So if someone out there claims that "Techrights says..." that typically means that someone who entered our IRC network (anyone can join at any time) uttered something or some article made a statement, which can be attributed to an actual individual.
Techrights is not a person and it lacks a personality; it isn't not a business either, so "Techrights says..." is typically a case of misrepresenting the site. Apropos "Techrights", Google's slop (sold as "AI") gets many of the very basic, fundamental facts wrong. It may look functional and it is neatly presented with good grammar and all; but it's full of mistakes. Slop is pants. █