• const void*@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    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.

    • Kerb@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        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)

    • adriaan@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          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
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            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
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              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.

    • blue_zephyr@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          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
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          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 😂