4 ms·

Mastodon can be both a website and a federated microblogging platform.

andsoitis 3y ago
My thinking is: governments already have a website. So now you’re asking citizens to go to two different places to seek out information instead of one. Or worse: now the government feels they need to post on: their own website, Twitter, threads, Facebook, mastodon, etc.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- bobthepanda 3y ago
  They already do. Government has found it easier to go where the people are than to try to lead the people to water they won’t drink.
  - gochi 3y ago
    Exactly. So there is no added benefit to this beyond the usual methods of government officials making accounts on every network. Negating the entire original comment about how this "makes more sense than Twitter".
    - bobthepanda 3y ago
      Twitter was rate limiting people and those people affected could not see government posts if they exceeded their quota. So in that strict sense it is quite reasonable. Several government entities where I am left after the blue checkmark fiascos meant people were trying to impersonate the official accounts.
      - gochi 3y ago
        None of this is exclusive to Mastodon. They could have done the same on Facebook or any other network that isn't federated.
        SideburnsOfDoom 3y ago
        "They could have done the same on Facebook or any other network that they don't control and can't rely on" They can however control a Mastodon instance, and starting one is a off-the-shelf operation now. Another poster described it as "problems of governments relying on the whims of tech players in getting these messages out" which is exactly right. Those other platforms might have decided today not to show you the emergency warning unless you have an account and are logged in and have watched some ads first. It is - for good reason - conventional wisdom that in order to get a message out thoroughly, you have "outposts" on _all_ the media that you don't own (including Facebook and twitter) and push content to there, but the "home base" is not on some platform where it can be locked, rate-limited or taken from you at the whim of some other company in some other country.
        bobthepanda 3y ago
        They are there too. https://www.government.nl/contact https://www.government.nl/contact I think the more pressing thing is that they want to get anyone affected by Twitter, and Mastodon is a similar type of service. I’m sure they’re evaluating Threads as we speak.
- vidarh 3y ago
  People go to a gov website when they know they need to get information or get something done. Social media is a way to push information out about new policies etc. Governments have whole departments dedicated to getting the word out about things because people aren't all in one place. This is not a big additional effort but it is different in two essential way: They control it, and it has APIs anyone can connect to, including to bridge elsewhere.
- bob-09 3y ago
  You can ask citizens to go to your website to stay informed, but they will turn around and complain that nobody told them about X,Y,Z because they're not naturally going to the website on a regular basis unless they have an immediate need. Elected officials will turn on you and blame you for not meeting the citizens where they already are.
  - WeylandYutani 3y ago
    Public broadcasting exists in Europe. In fact they were established precisely for this purpose all the way back before internet in the 1930s. Really you don't need Twitter to stay informed- very few people actually follow government tweets and most of them are journalists.
- FireInsight 3y ago
  Well, usually governments don't just have one website. Different entities use different channels for official communications + Twitter which is the one everyone reads. Why not have a governments official mastodon for the governments official communication interoperable with the network everyone else is on?
- tremon 3y ago
  Why can't the government website not have a widget/subpage showing the latest Mastodon posts?

My thinking is: governments already have a website. So now you’re asking citizens to go to two different places to seek out information instead of one. Or worse: now the government feels they need to post on: their own website, Twitter, threads, Facebook, mastodon, etc.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
bobthepanda 3y ago
They already do. Government has found it easier to go where the people are than to try to lead the people to water they won’t drink.
- gochi 3y ago
  Exactly. So there is no added benefit to this beyond the usual methods of government officials making accounts on every network. Negating the entire original comment about how this "makes more sense than Twitter".
  - bobthepanda 3y ago
    Twitter was rate limiting people and those people affected could not see government posts if they exceeded their quota. So in that strict sense it is quite reasonable. Several government entities where I am left after the blue checkmark fiascos meant people were trying to impersonate the official accounts.
    - gochi 3y ago
      None of this is exclusive to Mastodon. They could have done the same on Facebook or any other network that isn't federated.
      - SideburnsOfDoom 3y ago
        "They could have done the same on Facebook or any other network that they don't control and can't rely on" They can however control a Mastodon instance, and starting one is a off-the-shelf operation now. Another poster described it as "problems of governments relying on the whims of tech players in getting these messages out" which is exactly right. Those other platforms might have decided today not to show you the emergency warning unless you have an account and are logged in and have watched some ads first. It is - for good reason - conventional wisdom that in order to get a message out thoroughly, you have "outposts" on _all_ the media that you don't own (including Facebook and twitter) and push content to there, but the "home base" is not on some platform where it can be locked, rate-limited or taken from you at the whim of some other company in some other country.
      - bobthepanda 3y ago
        They are there too. https://www.government.nl/contact https://www.government.nl/contact I think the more pressing thing is that they want to get anyone affected by Twitter, and Mastodon is a similar type of service. I’m sure they’re evaluating Threads as we speak.
vidarh 3y ago
People go to a gov website when they know they need to get information or get something done. Social media is a way to push information out about new policies etc. Governments have whole departments dedicated to getting the word out about things because people aren't all in one place. This is not a big additional effort but it is different in two essential way: They control it, and it has APIs anyone can connect to, including to bridge elsewhere.
bob-09 3y ago
You can ask citizens to go to your website to stay informed, but they will turn around and complain that nobody told them about X,Y,Z because they're not naturally going to the website on a regular basis unless they have an immediate need. Elected officials will turn on you and blame you for not meeting the citizens where they already are.
- WeylandYutani 3y ago
  Public broadcasting exists in Europe. In fact they were established precisely for this purpose all the way back before internet in the 1930s. Really you don't need Twitter to stay informed- very few people actually follow government tweets and most of them are journalists.
FireInsight 3y ago
Well, usually governments don't just have one website. Different entities use different channels for official communications + Twitter which is the one everyone reads. Why not have a governments official mastodon for the governments official communication interoperable with the network everyone else is on?
tremon 3y ago
Why can't the government website not have a widget/subpage showing the latest Mastodon posts?