I think it would be a mistake to paint those two courses of action as mutually exclusive categories.

Yes, governments need to regulate businesses and industry if we want to have a meaningful impact on climate change. Blaming the consumer and putting all the impetus for change on them is misguided at best and deliberate obfuscation in many cases. But that doesn’t mean consumers should feel no responsibility at all. If two companies offer different options, we should as consumers choose to support the company with the more ethical business practices.

Likewise, governments need to regulate big tech companies. But users switching to the fediverse are choosing to be part of the solution rather than the problem, and the more it grows the more it looks like a viable alternative for others who don’t care about the ethics of the platforms they’re supporting. And when FOSS platforms reach a critical mass, it will eat into the corporations’ bottom lines.

Governments need to hold corporations accountable and meaningfully regulate them, but effectively giving consumers license to do whatever they want even if that means supporting corporate tech, and pretending it ultimately doesn’t matter, is kind of defeatist. It’s like saying “Why should the workers go on strike? That’s the union’s job.”

I think we can manage to advance on both fronts at the same time if we really try, but if for a time we can only advance on one front, then we should hold the other on as best we can while we advance on the one we can. Cause the time may come when we have to hold that front, but are able to advance on the other.