3 ms·

members of congress should not be using commercial social media as their exclusive form of pushing out status updates to the populace. We have open standards (

by riffic 5y ago

members of congress should not be using commercial social media as their exclusive form of pushing out status updates to the populace. We have open standards (W3C recommendations) even, and these protocols can be adopted by the content management system used by House.Gov. Congress Critters need to become part of the Fedi.

josephcsible 5y ago
This just pushes censorship down a level, as we found out with Parler and Gab. Remember when Gab used to use Mastodon, and the major app stores told the authors of Mastodon clients that unless they hardcoded a check to prevent their app from connecting to Gab, their apps would be banned?
- riffic 5y ago
  that's fine. I'd prefer if official (public) business were conducted through public infrastructure through open protocols rather than via commercial walled-gardens. They (being the House of Representatives) absolutely should own their namespace and operate under 'house.gov'. Facebook and Twitter could even provide this service, as a commercially managed hosted endeavor (look at how Gmail is white-labeled as "Google Workspace" and sold as a service on a portable domain name).
  - josephcsible 5y ago
    The point is that when the government infrastructure refused to censor the "wrongthink" opinions, Apple and Google would ban any clients for those open protocols that don't hardcode a check to refuse to connect to those servers. And don't Google's Terms of Service apply even to Google's white-label services?
    - riffic 5y ago
      you think the app stores are going to ban clients that don't hard-code communication blocks for "house.gov"?
      - josephcsible 5y ago
        Yes. The precedent was set when they did it for Gab. And Apple and Google are private companies that can ban an app for any reason they want, right?
2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
It's a lot harder making everybody fight with one another if all you have is your own website though.

by riffic 5y ago

josephcsible 5y ago

This just pushes censorship down a level, as we found out with Parler and Gab. Remember when Gab used to use Mastodon, and the major app stores told the authors of Mastodon clients that unless they hardcoded a check to prevent their app from connecting to Gab, their apps would be banned?

riffic 5y ago
that's fine. I'd prefer if official (public) business were conducted through public infrastructure through open protocols rather than via commercial walled-gardens. They (being the House of Representatives) absolutely should own their namespace and operate under 'house.gov'. Facebook and Twitter could even provide this service, as a commercially managed hosted endeavor (look at how Gmail is white-labeled as "Google Workspace" and sold as a service on a portable domain name).
- josephcsible 5y ago
  The point is that when the government infrastructure refused to censor the "wrongthink" opinions, Apple and Google would ban any clients for those open protocols that don't hardcode a check to refuse to connect to those servers. And don't Google's Terms of Service apply even to Google's white-label services?
  - riffic 5y ago
    you think the app stores are going to ban clients that don't hard-code communication blocks for "house.gov"?
    - josephcsible 5y ago
      Yes. The precedent was set when they did it for Gab. And Apple and Google are private companies that can ban an app for any reason they want, right?

2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago

It's a lot harder making everybody fight with one another if all you have is your own website though.