Thus, I stand by my original belief that the source code has to be made available to users, and that snail mail / individual requests of the source code are a viable means to comply with the license. And I stand by my original belief that this copyleft group is politically motivated, as it publicized the claim that truth social is not complying before it gave it any time to comply.
> Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, if you modify the Program, your modified version must prominently offer all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network (if your version supports such interaction) an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source of your version by providing access to the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge, through some standard or customary means of facilitating copying of software.
You're welcome to believe whatever you want about the SFC's motivations. But the language of the AGPL is clear.
> You may convey a covered work in object code form under the terms of sections 4 and 5, provided that you also convey the machine-readable Corresponding Source under the terms of this License [...]
Emphasis mine.
Put another way: this section has no impact on TRUTH's legal obligations, which consist primarily of the sections I've quoted above[1]. They're merely additional things that TRUTH could do to be a good member of the OSS community.
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28959468