5 ms·

A US government run social media site would be terrible. For one, our political parties are extremely polarized, so any subjective moderation would flip with re

A US government run social media site would be terrible. For one, our political parties are extremely polarized, so any subjective moderation would flip with regime changes. To avoid this, it'd just become linkedin. Vacuous virtue-signaling 'safe' garbage.

l33t233372 3y ago
> Vacuous virtue-signaling 'safe' garbage. It’s noteworthy to mention that what you are describing is just what one party likes and the other does not.
- ARandomerDude 3y ago
  Both parties virtue signal with safe topics, but they disagree on what counts as safe (or virtuous). Simple examples: every public Democratic figure will support pride month and every Republican will support the 2nd Amendment, regardless of what they actually think about the issues. If they don't, their own side will eat them.
  - l33t233372 3y ago
    I agree with your first point, but I’m unsure about the second. I don’t think many Democrats secretly don’t support pride month or many Republicans secretly don’t support the 2nd amendment, but then go on to publicly show support so their side doesn’t attack them.
    - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
      > don’t support There's a certain baseline level of affirmation that's sometimes required for it not to be considered that one specifically disagrees with some hot button topic that was brought up. It's what's being spoken against with the sentiment, "Not everything has to be about X." It's less that one secretly doesn't support X, just that they're talking about Y right now as a separate issue from X. X is important, and may even be related to Y, but Y is what's being discussed. Such an assertion is often met with, "Oh, so you don't support X!?" and that comes off as hostile, regardless of actual intentions.
- 1MachineElf 3y ago
  The context of that description is LinkedIn, and it's an accurate way to describe interactions on LinkedIn. I get the point you're making about politics, but it's not what GP was talking about (IMO).
  - l33t233372 3y ago
    I agree that it’s accurate to describe LinkedIn, but the larger context is subjective moderation on a government run social media platform, so I was trying to point out that what’s safe on LinkedIn is generally considered to be good by the Democratic party.
undersuit 3y ago
I disagree. Government run social media has no reason to promote engaging(antagonizing) content towards you. You log in, see a post or two from your local, state, and Federal representatives and departments that no longer have to post on a dozen different private social media to disseminate public info and some post from people you have specifically chosen to follow. A chronological feed too, the site doesn't need to keep you scrolling and engaged to view ads. Open up the API and let people layer their own engagements on top of it.
- batch12 3y ago
  I dont agree, but thats okay. You and I don't have the same level of trust that future government employees and leadership will be objective and reasonable with their interpretation of what we post to our friends and family, I guess. I hope you're the right one here, but I cant make myself believe it.
  - undersuit 3y ago
    I trust them just as much as I trust private interests.
    - batch12 3y ago
      The balance of power between the two is far from equal though. One can take your freedom, money, and life. The other can deplatform you.
      - undersuit 3y ago
        Don't slippery slope me on what can happen in social media when both public and private interests do what you are worried about right now!
- thebigkick 3y ago
  Why can't this just be on their website? Not everything needs engagement from the masses. Also building online communities is incredibly difficult and resource heavy, seeing that we can barely get enough funding for teachers to run their classrooms appropriately would this be the best use of taxpayers money?
sharts 3y ago
Whether it would suck or not, it’s really the only place where laws the rules would be what the law actually is —-Truly free speech and a platform where people can legitimately vote and be part of the rule making process. Having a public competitor to private enterprise only improves things like a properly funded USPS over UPS/FedEx or even banking.

l33t233372 3y ago

> Vacuous virtue-signaling 'safe' garbage. It’s noteworthy to mention that what you are describing is just what one party likes and the other does not.

ARandomerDude 3y ago
Both parties virtue signal with safe topics, but they disagree on what counts as safe (or virtuous). Simple examples: every public Democratic figure will support pride month and every Republican will support the 2nd Amendment, regardless of what they actually think about the issues. If they don't, their own side will eat them.
- l33t233372 3y ago
  I agree with your first point, but I’m unsure about the second. I don’t think many Democrats secretly don’t support pride month or many Republicans secretly don’t support the 2nd amendment, but then go on to publicly show support so their side doesn’t attack them.
  - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
    > don’t support There's a certain baseline level of affirmation that's sometimes required for it not to be considered that one specifically disagrees with some hot button topic that was brought up. It's what's being spoken against with the sentiment, "Not everything has to be about X." It's less that one secretly doesn't support X, just that they're talking about Y right now as a separate issue from X. X is important, and may even be related to Y, but Y is what's being discussed. Such an assertion is often met with, "Oh, so you don't support X!?" and that comes off as hostile, regardless of actual intentions.
1MachineElf 3y ago
The context of that description is LinkedIn, and it's an accurate way to describe interactions on LinkedIn. I get the point you're making about politics, but it's not what GP was talking about (IMO).
- l33t233372 3y ago
  I agree that it’s accurate to describe LinkedIn, but the larger context is subjective moderation on a government run social media platform, so I was trying to point out that what’s safe on LinkedIn is generally considered to be good by the Democratic party.

undersuit 3y ago

I disagree. Government run social media has no reason to promote engaging(antagonizing) content towards you. You log in, see a post or two from your local, state, and Federal representatives and departments that no longer have to post on a dozen different private social media to disseminate public info and some post from people you have specifically chosen to follow. A chronological feed too, the site doesn't need to keep you scrolling and engaged to view ads. Open up the API and let people layer their own engagements on top of it.

batch12 3y ago
I dont agree, but thats okay. You and I don't have the same level of trust that future government employees and leadership will be objective and reasonable with their interpretation of what we post to our friends and family, I guess. I hope you're the right one here, but I cant make myself believe it.
- undersuit 3y ago
  I trust them just as much as I trust private interests.
  - batch12 3y ago
    The balance of power between the two is far from equal though. One can take your freedom, money, and life. The other can deplatform you.
    - undersuit 3y ago
      Don't slippery slope me on what can happen in social media when both public and private interests do what you are worried about right now!
thebigkick 3y ago
Why can't this just be on their website? Not everything needs engagement from the masses. Also building online communities is incredibly difficult and resource heavy, seeing that we can barely get enough funding for teachers to run their classrooms appropriately would this be the best use of taxpayers money?

sharts 3y ago

Whether it would suck or not, it’s really the only place where laws the rules would be what the law actually is —-Truly free speech and a platform where people can legitimately vote and be part of the rule making process. Having a public competitor to private enterprise only improves things like a properly funded USPS over UPS/FedEx or even banking.