600
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by quinten@lemmy.world to c/fediverse@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] const_void@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago

tbh - I am not a fan of state-run media, would prefer free market solns where the state has to abide by the rules of the people.

[-] adriaan@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 year ago

Why not have a state-run instance on an open platform? It's better than relying on a corporation's platform. The government is 'the people' more than corporations are.

[-] ojmcelderry@lemmy.one 3 points 1 year ago

Exactly this. In the same way I expect to be able to email the government, but I wouldn't expect to send them a message on Facebook Messenger.

Open platforms over walled gardens.

[-] const_void@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago

Surveillance with neither a warrant nor probable cause.

A private instance on an open platform, by the state, for the state? Sure. Go for it.

[-] locknessmeownster@lemmy.fmhy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

Surveillance? In what sense, here in particular. A bit confused. Also, it depends on the kind of private instance you mean, since this is private too, in the sense you cannot make accounts on it. What other benefit do they gain over people, using this over a corporate website?

[-] const_void@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

It looks like a state government was creating their own mastodon instance which, when plugged into the rest, would give them surveillance and digital wire tapping powers that today they do not have?

[-] locknessmeownster@lemmy.fmhy.ml 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Again, what can they tap or see into that they couldn't before? All info on the other servers is public, that would be true for any federated server. I really don't get how they'd get any more access to your data than another random person on the internet seeing your profile. They're not making their own instance available to make accounts on, or enable users to post on it directly. You aren't giving them any more details than you would if you had a Twitter account that was public. It is quite literally just for official government information dissemination without being locked behind rate limits.

[-] Kerb@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 1 year ago

imo mastadon wont suddenly become "state-run media" just because Goverment instances exist.

there are .gov email adresses already, and emails are pretty far from state-run.

since there is (afaik) no verification on mastadon, ill assume that theyll use the goverment instances to prove that @official@goverment is legit.

[-] curiosityLynx@kglitch.social 1 points 1 year ago

That sounds like a great idea. Kind of like Twitter verification except the verification that you're really a government official comes from the fact that your home server is a government run one.

And the same could go for corporate accounts. You're a public relations guy at Roblox and want an official, verified account on mastodon/in the fediverse? Spin up social.roblox.com as a mastodon server that has your PR account as its only user, disable open account registration and you're good to go. (maybe an optional dummy account to get federation going by subscribing to all known fediverse servers of interest)

[-] blue_zephyr@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Why would a government subject itself to potential censorship of whatever admin is running their instance? It makes perfect sense for a government to host their own instance from where they can freely broadcast announcements.

And the free market has proven to be unreliable. You're subject to whatever billionaire is ego-tripping at the top of whatever platform you're using. The will of the people is nowhere to be seen.

[-] curiosityLynx@kglitch.social 1 points 1 year ago

It's like saying government officers should use gmail accounts instead of writing their emails from their own government-run email servers.

[-] const_void@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

Why shouldn't the state be subject to the same whims as its citizens? How else will the state have skin in the game?

To me, the free market has produced both Lemmy and Mastodon - I wouldn't count it out just yet.

[-] blue_zephyr@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

So Lemmy and Mastodon instances are free market solutions, unless a government does it? I don't even understand what your point is.

[-] const_void@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

For media, a state platform in order of goodness:

non state (open) platform > non state (closed) platform > State owned platform

most times when the state takes an action it deprives it’s citizens of the beneficial outcomes of that action (skill, monetary).

Which would be better - open instances in each country where the state ( country and regional/s) is a participant along with its citizens?

Or instances where the state and its infinite power is private and above the people the state would govern?

My reaction is not to a state using mastodon nor twitter for that matter. My reaction is to a state running mastodon separate from the people.

[-] dizzy@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

This isn’t that though. Running a federated service instance is more akin to them having to abide by the rule of the people than the status quo where Musk or Zuck could boot them from their platform or hide anything they don’t like without any reason at all.

In the fediverse, they’re choosing to run a self-hosted outlet that can interact with other privately or publicly run services. It’s like them choosing to run their own email servers instead of their officials all using gmail accounts.

The free market solutions have just led to unelected billionaire oligarchs controlling the narrative. With this federated stuff, no single entity can control the narrative (once all the kinks are ironed out like vote manipulation, exploits, etc)

[-] const_void@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

Decentralized yet federated open platforms are part of the free market - and a victory of the free market. Consolidating media into an empire is a problem ... but ... ultimately ... a problem the free market can solve, as long as the role of government keeps a free market free.

[-] seeCseas@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

would prefer free market solns where the state has to abide by the rules of the people

you mean like facebook? haha!

[-] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

True free market solutions inevitably lead to the people abiding by the rules of the rich and powerful.

Anything run by the government has to at the very least PRETEND to listen to people who don't have a financial interest in the enshittification of every part of society.

[-] const_void@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

Just the opposite, I would argue...the role of the state should be to keep a market free so that open & standard-based solutions can replace vertical & proprietary solutions.

[-] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

You mean fair, not free. The only way to avoid the tyranny of the powerful is regulation restricting their freedom to abuse their powers.

THAT'S what the government is supposed to do to a market: help the small to regular sized fish and cooperation between them by, amongst other things, erecting fences keeping off the sharks that would otherwise immediately eat them.

Also stuff with plants, I guess, but this ocean analogy is probably long and complicated enough already 😂

this post was submitted on 10 Jul 2023
600 points (99.3% liked)

Fediverse

28388 readers
140 users here now

A community to talk about the Fediverse and all it's related services using ActivityPub (Mastodon, Lemmy, KBin, etc).

If you wanted to get help with moderating your own community then head over to !moderators@lemmy.world!

Rules

Learn more at these websites: Join The Fediverse Wiki, Fediverse.info, Wikipedia Page, The Federation Info (Stats), FediDB (Stats), Sub Rehab (Reddit Migration), Search Lemmy

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS