Except you’re NOT free to choose, every major distro shoves it into your face

You can't have been using Linux long if you think this is what not being free to choose means.

Don't use a "major distro", use one made by likeminded folks. Example: https://www.devuan.org/

Why do major distros have to make only the decisions you want them to make? Bugs the shit out of me that Gnome is the default desktop damn near everywhere, but so what? Are you paying their bills or otherwise contributing to some degree that they should change their decisions to suit you?

Here's a list from 2021: https://www.howtogeek.com/713847/the-best-linux-distributions-without-systemd/

Another from2022: https://itsfoss.com/systemd-free-distros/

Or build LFS without systemd.

Or build Arch yourself without systemd.

Want to remove it from Ubuntu? Here you go. I'm sure there are similar howtos for most major distros.

The freedom of Linux and FLOSS is that you can roll up your sleeves and do it differently if you want to. Not that anyone owes it to you to do it for you. For that you have to hope other folks who have rolled up their sleeves have the same opinions you do - and in this case, some do!

I have no concern about your opinion on systemd. But you seem really confused about what freedom is.

How is that different to when every distribution shoved their implementation of sysv-init into your face? You were never free to choose your init, it always came from the distribution. You could (and still can) replace the init system, if you are willing to do the work involved.

That's the whole point: Nobody is willing to do the work for one distribution, if they can just improve systemd and fix a whole bunch of distributions at once. That's why developers flock to the systemd umbrella project to implement their ideas there, which is why systemd keeps getting cool be features for the plumbing layer of Linux -- which is far more than just the init system.

Thinking about it from your point of view, maybe MS was right and Linux is a cancer too. Technically it behaves similarly to systemd, since most Unixes are actually Linuxes nowadays (excluding BSD ofc, but they are still in the minority, similarly to alternatives to systemd). It even is a binary blob as well!

Should every distro use/develop a different kernel? Should we focus our resources on providing alternatives and again have a multitude of different Unix versions, every incompatible with each other? Isn't it better that we have this solid foundation and make it as good as it can be?

Overall I think standardization of init is not so bad, just like adopting the Linux kernel was. It is actually quite nice that you can hop from distro to distro and know what to expect from such a basic thing as init process.

Anyways, in Linux land you actually have a possibility to replace it. Granted, it is not as easy, however there are plenty of distros that allow you to ditch systemd in favor of something else.

Every major distro uses systemd, because before that it was nearly impossible to properly implement things that distros have to provide.
Most startup scripts were incredible set of hacks to make services behave. Those were very inefficient (they could not be efficient being shell scripts calling other commands for various simple repetitive tasks) and would often break when circumstances were different from ideal.

Systemd just makes building Linux distribution much easier, and the resulting system is more reliable, more consistent and more flexible. Why would distro developers chose anything else?

Missing my point. It's a shitty comparison that is incredibly insensitive towards people who suffer with cancer and their friends and family.

"I went to McDonald's and they kept shoving burgers and fries in my face! smh"