We will need small and independent commercial providers for the Fediverse.

  • rglullis@communick.newsOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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?

    • wahni@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      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

      • rglullis@communick.newsOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah, institutional instances make sense if the members are representative of the institution. That is completely reasonable.

    • ram@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      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

      • rglullis@communick.newsOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

      • ASCIIansi@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • ram@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          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”