4 ms·

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

• d4mi3n 5y 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 5y 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 5y 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 5y 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 5y 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 5y 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 5y 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 5y 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.
      • amalcon 5y ago
        I don't think this is the best way to send that message. The best way to send that message would be to stop breathlessly covering the various goings-on on Twitter. If done well, that sends the message that there are plenty of other ways to have public discourse than on two specific websites. Edit: Trying to compete with Twitter specifically will just reenforce the impression that what's happening there is uniquely valuable. Attempting to clone Twitter, even if only for their staff and subscribers and/or in a federated form, opens them up to the exact same issues that motivated them to get rid of the comment sections. There would even be the additional problem that they'd need to advertise the thing. The software being available off the shelf doesn't matter, because the software is not the only hard part. Of course NYT are more interested in buying Wordle than in trying to "combat" the big tech oligopoly. They also didn't try to compete with, say, Ma Bell or Clear Channel, but they have been a big player in the word game space for longer than the personal computer has existed.