I wonder if it’d be feasible to get local governments to fund instances of these platforms as a sort of public square 🤔
It’s a total fever dream, but would be really interesting to see!
A quick test for cases where you might think “the Goverment” should be involved: do you think it would be a good idea regardless of who is in power? If you are in the US, would you like to have an instance where Trump accolades are moderators? If you are in Turkey, would you feel comfortable joining a community controlled by Erdogan?
Doesn’t this apply regardless of whether the owner is the government or a private organization? All types of owners have their pros and cons, so I’d prefer a healthy mix so that users can pick the one they prefer.
There is also a need for governments to setup their own instances for their employees and institutions to avoid them having to sign up to a third party service if their work involves communicating on the fediverse, which also makes it clear that messages sent from this instance are official government communication (like governments have done with email for a long time). That’s how the EU’s Mastodon instance is setup: https://social.network.europa.eu/about
Local governments, so the city. Or even coming out of a local fund to a third party entity who handles administration and moderation. Moderation should be established and guided by third party audits of this entity.
I don’t think the government should have a direct hand in deciding the moderation guidelines, but should leave this to other entities, preferably non-profits and cooperatives.
Granted I’m just spitballing here, don’t hold me to the fire over this lol
Having local governments would definitely be better, but I for one just don’t see what’s so bad about just having equally-smaller business performing this function. We’ve grown so used to hating on “capitalists”, but to me the real issue is about Corporations and their scale.
I see corporations as a people-eating machine. That is to say, they are a system of parts whose functions are to obtain profit, and if proverbially “eating people” is necessary to do so, the machine will do so. As they’re smaller, well meaning people will still be in control of the machine, but the machine will still want to eat people (again, figuratively).
There’s many things we can do to help offset that risk. Having many small competing businesses is a great way, so long as we can keep them small, and keep them competing. Introducing public options that are free is another way. Should the machine start eating people, there’s nothing stopping people from going to the no-frills one provided to them.
This is also the idea behind a “public option” for internet and telecoms - not to completely get rid of ISPs and telecom companies, but to make ISPs and telecoms compete against a cheap or free option that works only to exist and give the basic needs of the service to people. This has worked out in spades for the Canadian province of Saskatchewan, whose crown corporation Sasktel has ensured the province has the best rates for phones and internet in the country, regardless of what provider you go with.
No need to apologize and I fully agree with the idea that it is important to have a mix of providers. To me, this seems the best way to ensure that we always have a diverse ecosystem for a good civil discourse can happen.
I can’t help but think that the censorship would be way way worse if local governments were hosting. Not to mention that they would be most likely to require having people’s true identities when creating accounts.
I’m simply suggesting it as an option, not as the entire thing. Nothing would stop people from having their own instances, and as far as the local governments front, they would likely each have their own criteria for joining, if any.
This is the only way I could realistically see an actual “public square of the internet”
I wonder if it’d be feasible to get local governments to fund instances of these platforms as a sort of public square 🤔 It’s a total fever dream, but would be really interesting to see!
A quick test for cases where you might think “the Goverment” should be involved: do you think it would be a good idea regardless of who is in power? If you are in the US, would you like to have an instance where Trump accolades are moderators? If you are in Turkey, would you feel comfortable joining a community controlled by Erdogan?
Doesn’t this apply regardless of whether the owner is the government or a private organization? All types of owners have their pros and cons, so I’d prefer a healthy mix so that users can pick the one they prefer.
There is also a need for governments to setup their own instances for their employees and institutions to avoid them having to sign up to a third party service if their work involves communicating on the fediverse, which also makes it clear that messages sent from this instance are official government communication (like governments have done with email for a long time). That’s how the EU’s Mastodon instance is setup: https://social.network.europa.eu/about
Yeah, institutional instances make sense if the members are representative of the institution. That is completely reasonable.
Local governments, so the city. Or even coming out of a local fund to a third party entity who handles administration and moderation. Moderation should be established and guided by third party audits of this entity.
I don’t think the government should have a direct hand in deciding the moderation guidelines, but should leave this to other entities, preferably non-profits and cooperatives.
Granted I’m just spitballing here, don’t hold me to the fire over this lol
Having local governments would definitely be better, but I for one just don’t see what’s so bad about just having equally-smaller business performing this function. We’ve grown so used to hating on “capitalists”, but to me the real issue is about Corporations and their scale.
I see corporations as a people-eating machine. That is to say, they are a system of parts whose functions are to obtain profit, and if proverbially “eating people” is necessary to do so, the machine will do so. As they’re smaller, well meaning people will still be in control of the machine, but the machine will still want to eat people (again, figuratively).
There’s many things we can do to help offset that risk. Having many small competing businesses is a great way, so long as we can keep them small, and keep them competing. Introducing public options that are free is another way. Should the machine start eating people, there’s nothing stopping people from going to the no-frills one provided to them.
This is also the idea behind a “public option” for internet and telecoms - not to completely get rid of ISPs and telecom companies, but to make ISPs and telecoms compete against a cheap or free option that works only to exist and give the basic needs of the service to people. This has worked out in spades for the Canadian province of Saskatchewan, whose crown corporation Sasktel has ensured the province has the best rates for phones and internet in the country, regardless of what provider you go with.
Sorry for the rant!
No need to apologize and I fully agree with the idea that it is important to have a mix of providers. To me, this seems the best way to ensure that we always have a diverse ecosystem for a good civil discourse can happen.
I can’t help but think that the censorship would be way way worse if local governments were hosting. Not to mention that they would be most likely to require having people’s true identities when creating accounts.
I’m simply suggesting it as an option, not as the entire thing. Nothing would stop people from having their own instances, and as far as the local governments front, they would likely each have their own criteria for joining, if any.
This is the only way I could realistically see an actual “public square of the internet”