4 ms·

I'd like to call out that individual responses to this don't matter. What matters is if Twitter remains a place for public discourse. So long as we allow public

by d4mi3n 4y ago

I'd like to call out that individual responses to this don't matter. What matters is if Twitter remains a place for public discourse. So long as we allow public discourse to happen on private platforms that aren't held responsible for maintaining the availability, accountability, and freedom (as in speech) of these public forums, Twitter will continue to be problematic. Whether it's Musk or a private group of shareholders, the ownership doesn't much matter if whoever controls it at the time can decide what the public is or is not allowed to discuss or share.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
usrn 4y ago
Maybe people will finally start moving the "official" accounts of politicians and government agencies to something federated like Mastodon or Pleroma.
- d4mi3n 4y ago
  That's one approach. Regulation is another--we have regulatory models and regimes for broadcast television, radio, and newspaper. Social media is a bit more complex as it is both broadcast and at times bi-directional, but I suspect a lot of concepts between mediums still apply. EDIT: I'd appreciate counterpoints over downvotes. This isn't Reddit. Make your thoughts known, I welcome insights or opinions other than my own.
  - usrn 4y ago
    I didn't downvote you but I think regulation here could only make things worse. IMO it only did harm to TV and radio. Most people are probably tired of hearing and debating this idea.
    - d4mi3n 4y ago
      Apologies for the confusion, my previous comment was not directed at you @usrn, but at downvoters not participating in this dialog. You may be correct that the topic is a bit of a dead horse. In my own experience, I find regulation is both an unpopular and controversial topic on HN. I suspect this is why it has been a frustratingly difficult topic to solicit substantial counterpoints on. Your thoughts, while different than my own, are very much welcome.
- rglullis 4y ago
  It still boggles my mind how none of the big media conglomerates haven't even tried to set up their own servers. To me is the biggest evidence that big media doesn't really care about the the quality of public discourse of the dominance of closed platforms, and all those editorials are just posturing.
  - amalcon 4y ago
    They've pretty much all tried having comment sections, and removed them. Turns out, it's kind of hard and the incentives discourage it.
    - rglullis 4y ago
      This is not what I mean. What I mean is that they (CNN, FOX, MSNBC, NYT, WSJ et caterva) could, e.g, set up a Mastodon server and give accounts to their staff and at least encourage cross-posting. They could give free accounts to their subscribers. There is so much that they could to send a strong signal that they are against Twitter/Facebook as the single place of public discourse. But of course they don't do any of that. The NYT is more interested in paying 7 million dollars to buy Wordle than in combating the Big Tech oligopoly.
      - riffic 4y ago
        They don't even need to use Mastodon itself. CNN, Fox, MSNBC, NYT etc could put ActivityPub in their content management systems and be direct participants to this wider standards-based ecosystem. btw it'd be nice to see the fedi grow beyond being the "mastoverse", other implementations of AP exist
        rglullis 4y ago
        Definitely, I used Mastodon as an example because it is what has become associated as the alternative for Twitter. But the important thing would be for them to adopt ActivityPub and get the "public square" out of the control from any single entity.
w0de0 4y ago
The platforms themselves, expressions of free enterprise and free association, are part of the discourse - not merely a location. We're not, and never really have been over the full course of the information age so far, in need of new, online public fora. (Go to your city council meetings.) They are just neat.
- JakeAl 4y ago
  If you think people on Twitter are crazy, go to your city council meetings. Especially if you live in a major city.
grundoon 4y ago
...Twitter ... a place for public discourse..." lol
matt321 4y ago
freedom of peach is only a thing in the USA. Your forget that most of the humans on this planet aren't in the USA an don't expect freedom of peach.

by d4mi3n 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

usrn 4y ago

Maybe people will finally start moving the "official" accounts of politicians and government agencies to something federated like Mastodon or Pleroma.

d4mi3n 4y ago
That's one approach. Regulation is another--we have regulatory models and regimes for broadcast television, radio, and newspaper. Social media is a bit more complex as it is both broadcast and at times bi-directional, but I suspect a lot of concepts between mediums still apply. EDIT: I'd appreciate counterpoints over downvotes. This isn't Reddit. Make your thoughts known, I welcome insights or opinions other than my own.
- usrn 4y ago
  I didn't downvote you but I think regulation here could only make things worse. IMO it only did harm to TV and radio. Most people are probably tired of hearing and debating this idea.
  - d4mi3n 4y ago
    Apologies for the confusion, my previous comment was not directed at you @usrn, but at downvoters not participating in this dialog. You may be correct that the topic is a bit of a dead horse. In my own experience, I find regulation is both an unpopular and controversial topic on HN. I suspect this is why it has been a frustratingly difficult topic to solicit substantial counterpoints on. Your thoughts, while different than my own, are very much welcome.
rglullis 4y ago
It still boggles my mind how none of the big media conglomerates haven't even tried to set up their own servers. To me is the biggest evidence that big media doesn't really care about the the quality of public discourse of the dominance of closed platforms, and all those editorials are just posturing.
- amalcon 4y ago
  They've pretty much all tried having comment sections, and removed them. Turns out, it's kind of hard and the incentives discourage it.
  - rglullis 4y ago
    This is not what I mean. What I mean is that they (CNN, FOX, MSNBC, NYT, WSJ et caterva) could, e.g, set up a Mastodon server and give accounts to their staff and at least encourage cross-posting. They could give free accounts to their subscribers. There is so much that they could to send a strong signal that they are against Twitter/Facebook as the single place of public discourse. But of course they don't do any of that. The NYT is more interested in paying 7 million dollars to buy Wordle than in combating the Big Tech oligopoly.
    - riffic 4y ago
      They don't even need to use Mastodon itself. CNN, Fox, MSNBC, NYT etc could put ActivityPub in their content management systems and be direct participants to this wider standards-based ecosystem. btw it'd be nice to see the fedi grow beyond being the "mastoverse", other implementations of AP exist
      - rglullis 4y ago
        Definitely, I used Mastodon as an example because it is what has become associated as the alternative for Twitter. But the important thing would be for them to adopt ActivityPub and get the "public square" out of the control from any single entity.

w0de0 4y ago

The platforms themselves, expressions of free enterprise and free association, are part of the discourse - not merely a location. We're not, and never really have been over the full course of the information age so far, in need of new, online public fora. (Go to your city council meetings.) They are just neat.

JakeAl 4y ago
If you think people on Twitter are crazy, go to your city council meetings. Especially if you live in a major city.

grundoon 4y ago

...Twitter ... a place for public discourse..." lol

matt321 4y ago

freedom of peach is only a thing in the USA. Your forget that most of the humans on this planet aren't in the USA an don't expect freedom of peach.