4 ms·

If you have a pointer to that definition I'd love to read it. I mean that earnestly.

throwawaygh 5y ago
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/public_benefit_corporation https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/public_benefit_corporation The platforms where we talk online should be most analogous, legally, to a library or city hall.
- daveevad 5y ago
  I've wondered in the past if something like 1st.gov shouldn't exist, basically a Twitter clone protected by the 1st Amendment payed for by the citizens of the United States.
  - wizzwizz4 5y ago
    That would be horrible. Web hosting, sure. A Twitter clone, with (next to) no moderation‽ It'd better have better self-moderation tools than I've seen on any Twitter clone ever. A Twitter clone is a good environment for metric maximisation: what makes you click “share” thrives, being reworded and altered occasionally, in a manner analogous to evolution (but with a more deliberate mutation process than randomness). Something has to fight that process if you want the site to have value to anyone but sociologists.
    - throwawaygh 5y ago
      Doesn't have to be one thing. You can let there be a market of platforms. Just no profiteering, either directly or indirectly. Easier said than done, of course. Also, shouldn't be .gov. Public benefit but not government-owned.
      - wizzwizz4 5y ago
        Sounds like the Fediverse.
        throwawaygh 5y ago
        The crux is disallowing or otherwise destroying the profit motive for platform creation, as much as or more than creating a functional alternative.
        wizzwizz4 5y ago
        Pretty much none of the Fediverse is for-profit. People have tried, before. Nobody uses the for-profit Fedi services, because they're just bad. (There are for-profit hosting providers like Masto.host, but I don't think they count.)
        throwawaygh 5y ago
        Right but how do you mandate the use of Fediverse (as opposed to tiktok/fb/insta/twitter/substack/etc.)?
        wizzwizz4 5y ago
        Why would you want to mandate it? That would kill Fedi faster than anything. Make it an available option that stands the test of time, while other things come and go, and people will use it eventually. (The Fediverse is already over a decade and a half old; almost as old as Facebook.) Although, there are some proposals in the EU to make it mandatory for social media companies to use open communication protocols like ActivityPub (an exaggeration of their existing obligations under GDPR, which most of them are ignoring already)...
        throwawaygh 5y ago
        It's less about mandating a specific platform or network and more about reducing the ability to profiteer off of political speech.
      - daveevad 5y ago
        > government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth
        jimmygrapes 5y ago
        very underrated comment and observation, and something that set off a cascade of fantasy scenarios and services in my mind where such an idea was more important and protected than any other. gonna have weird dreams tonight I think.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/public_benefit_corporation https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/public_benefit_corporation The platforms where we talk online should be most analogous, legally, to a library or city hall.

daveevad 5y ago
I've wondered in the past if something like 1st.gov shouldn't exist, basically a Twitter clone protected by the 1st Amendment payed for by the citizens of the United States.
- wizzwizz4 5y ago
  That would be horrible. Web hosting, sure. A Twitter clone, with (next to) no moderation‽ It'd better have better self-moderation tools than I've seen on any Twitter clone ever. A Twitter clone is a good environment for metric maximisation: what makes you click “share” thrives, being reworded and altered occasionally, in a manner analogous to evolution (but with a more deliberate mutation process than randomness). Something has to fight that process if you want the site to have value to anyone but sociologists.
  - throwawaygh 5y ago
    Doesn't have to be one thing. You can let there be a market of platforms. Just no profiteering, either directly or indirectly. Easier said than done, of course. Also, shouldn't be .gov. Public benefit but not government-owned.
    - wizzwizz4 5y ago
      Sounds like the Fediverse.
      - throwawaygh 5y ago
        The crux is disallowing or otherwise destroying the profit motive for platform creation, as much as or more than creating a functional alternative.
        wizzwizz4 5y ago
        Pretty much none of the Fediverse is for-profit. People have tried, before. Nobody uses the for-profit Fedi services, because they're just bad. (There are for-profit hosting providers like Masto.host, but I don't think they count.)
        throwawaygh 5y ago
        Right but how do you mandate the use of Fediverse (as opposed to tiktok/fb/insta/twitter/substack/etc.)?
        wizzwizz4 5y ago
        Why would you want to mandate it? That would kill Fedi faster than anything. Make it an available option that stands the test of time, while other things come and go, and people will use it eventually. (The Fediverse is already over a decade and a half old; almost as old as Facebook.) Although, there are some proposals in the EU to make it mandatory for social media companies to use open communication protocols like ActivityPub (an exaggeration of their existing obligations under GDPR, which most of them are ignoring already)...
        throwawaygh 5y ago
        It's less about mandating a specific platform or network and more about reducing the ability to profiteer off of political speech.
    - daveevad 5y ago
      > government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth
      - jimmygrapes 5y ago
        very underrated comment and observation, and something that set off a cascade of fantasy scenarios and services in my mind where such an idea was more important and protected than any other. gonna have weird dreams tonight I think.