I may be on the "Wayland" side here, but I have the exact same reasoning when I am on the other side: I hate systemd, but I genuinely cannot say that "I am forced to use it". I have the freedom to choose a distro that supports alternatives, and that is what I do.
For Wayland it seems even easier: it's just something you install on top (unlike the init system or the libc).
I think it's fine to hate Wayland and to believe that it is the wrong direction, just like it is fine to hate systemd and believe it is the wrong direction. But I don't think I am forced to use any of those.
Again, Linux is everywhere and the better thing to do is to consider how the bad rollout of Wayland affects everyone -- especially, e.g. that rising 2 or 3 percent who are going for it on the desktop. It is FAR more important to raise that marketshare -- or at least to consider the possibility of it -- than it is to preserve some notion of "well it works for me."
I don't see why. Most users of OSes couldn't care less about their OS. The vast majority of humans are happy with Windows, macOS, iOS or Android. To the point where those who aren't are a rounding error.
I don't want to make Linux look like Windows, such that those people can finally use Linux and I can proudly look at a marketshare. If a Linux distro ever gets a "decent" marketshare, if won't be Linux: it will be a specific distro that managed to look like Windows or macOS. I most certainly won't be using that distro.
> I don't see why
Regardless of which distro you use or how into free software you are, there's a very simple truth: the more Linux users there are, the more people will develop software for Linux. More software supporting Linux == better.
This applies both to proprietary software that people might want (e.g I'd kill for a Linux-native version of FL studio, the only thing I use wine for these days), and also for FLOSS software (more Linux users -> more exposure to FLOSS ideals -> more converts -> more FLOSS software).
Having the ecosystem grow is a good thing.
See, I'd argue that the "nobody is forcing you" rhetoric, spoken out loud and with a straight face while vendors drop support for decades-old, stable, and well-established standards in favour of immature, incompatible, broken new shininess, is an extremely dated argument strategy.
It would seem I didn't read your post properly, I think I must have just been tired or something. I took "who is forced to use it" as a statement (i.e "I'm a user who is forced to use it") rather than a question. Reading it again now when I'm awake it makes a lot more sense!