6 ms·

Policy rather than technical issue. US has first amendment, other regimes do not. What will the moderation policies on that instance be? How nazi or porn does s

Policy rather than technical issue. US has first amendment, other regimes do not. What will the moderation policies on that instance be? How nazi or porn does someone's post need to be to be "censored" where in this case it is actual censorship since it is a govt managed instance. What degree of promotion by govt constitutes propaganda? How much energy would be wasted litigating these arguments. Just completely infeasible from policy standpoint for a US govt entity to operate a public publishing platform. [edit] And yes, a Presidential candidate owning / operating / profiting from / accepting laundry and bribes on / such a platform is- should be- completely unacceptable.

krapp 3y ago
Also people would complain that their tax money is being wasted on pointless government infrastructure when Twitter, Facebook, etc. are right there, and free.
- rglullis 3y ago
  The cost to run and operate a social media server is negligible in comparison with the payroll for people managing POTUS account on all the different platforms. Also, "people" complain about everything, it doesn't stop the government from spending however they want. When there is a will, there is a way. If these are the best "reasons" to not do it, seems like it is just a lack of will to be independent from Big Tech.
  - krapp 3y ago
    The people are already there, the infrastructure is already there, and the cost is already being borne by someone else. You could describe that as "a lack of will to be independent from Big Tech" if you want, but the fact remains there is no rational reason for the government to run and maintain its own social media infrastructure when it doesn't need to, and when almost no one would bother to care if they did.
rglullis 3y ago
I mean running a service only for officials. They don't have to accept any type of content that they wouldn't accept in their own published websites, and they would moderate the content just like it was an account hosted on the existing platforms. Why would it be any different? > What degree of promotion by govt constitutes propaganda? How does that differ from any information that is distributed through Facebook/Threads/Instagram?
- jonahbenton 3y ago
  > Why would it be any different Sure, running a Mastodon that didn't accept non govt users and on which there was no engagement with the public- no different than a website, and as the technology is in every respect less mature, scalable, secure, etc than web platforms, no reason to do it. > How is it different... It is tied into the "censorship" issue and who else is allowed to publish. Think about any actual "state" controlled press- China and Russia are famous examples. The only publishable statements are those that align with goals. And there is no user engagement. Imagine a govt platform with engagement, publishing a controversial statement leading to a large response. There will have to be moderation. How well do those moderation policies align with or conflict with information propagation goals? A commercially mediated platform has its own incentives and its own business to run, to act in ways that balance concerns. And sometimes it may decide not to permit govt officials to spew what amounts to propaganda. Such a decision would never occur on a govt operated platform, of course. == Relatedly, the main subtext from Biden's announcement of course is that Twitter is no longer a viable "official" publishing/engagement platform. Look for many, many other govt bodies to arrive at similar determination.
  - rglullis 3y ago
    > didn't accept non govt users and on which there was no engagement with the public That's not what I said. You can have a server where only govt officials have accounts, and other people could respond to it. > There will have to be moderation. Yes, so? > Such a decision would never occur on a govt operated platform, of course. Why couldn't it be structured in a way similar to how PBS operates? > Twitter is no longer a viable "official" publishing/engagement platform Your quotes are doing a lot of work there. Yeah, communication via Twitter or Facebook was was never considered official. And it shouldn't be. And honestly, it shouldn't even change if it was happening from their own servers, because while the medium can be useful to get people closer to the "debate", in reality the real action and "official" communication warrants a lot more formality and weight than any microblogging platform provides.
rsynnott 3y ago
Nothing stopping them running something along the lines of https://social.network.europa.eu/ https://social.network.europa.eu/ (the EC's mastodon instance); as only government bodies have accounts, it's not doing moderation for the general public. > Just completely infeasible from policy standpoint for a US govt entity to operate a public publishing platform. Poor Voice of America :(

krapp 3y ago

Also people would complain that their tax money is being wasted on pointless government infrastructure when Twitter, Facebook, etc. are right there, and free.

rglullis 3y ago
The cost to run and operate a social media server is negligible in comparison with the payroll for people managing POTUS account on all the different platforms. Also, "people" complain about everything, it doesn't stop the government from spending however they want. When there is a will, there is a way. If these are the best "reasons" to not do it, seems like it is just a lack of will to be independent from Big Tech.
- krapp 3y ago
  The people are already there, the infrastructure is already there, and the cost is already being borne by someone else. You could describe that as "a lack of will to be independent from Big Tech" if you want, but the fact remains there is no rational reason for the government to run and maintain its own social media infrastructure when it doesn't need to, and when almost no one would bother to care if they did.

rglullis 3y ago

I mean running a service only for officials. They don't have to accept any type of content that they wouldn't accept in their own published websites, and they would moderate the content just like it was an account hosted on the existing platforms. Why would it be any different? > What degree of promotion by govt constitutes propaganda? How does that differ from any information that is distributed through Facebook/Threads/Instagram?

jonahbenton 3y ago
> Why would it be any different Sure, running a Mastodon that didn't accept non govt users and on which there was no engagement with the public- no different than a website, and as the technology is in every respect less mature, scalable, secure, etc than web platforms, no reason to do it. > How is it different... It is tied into the "censorship" issue and who else is allowed to publish. Think about any actual "state" controlled press- China and Russia are famous examples. The only publishable statements are those that align with goals. And there is no user engagement. Imagine a govt platform with engagement, publishing a controversial statement leading to a large response. There will have to be moderation. How well do those moderation policies align with or conflict with information propagation goals? A commercially mediated platform has its own incentives and its own business to run, to act in ways that balance concerns. And sometimes it may decide not to permit govt officials to spew what amounts to propaganda. Such a decision would never occur on a govt operated platform, of course. == Relatedly, the main subtext from Biden's announcement of course is that Twitter is no longer a viable "official" publishing/engagement platform. Look for many, many other govt bodies to arrive at similar determination.
- rglullis 3y ago
  > didn't accept non govt users and on which there was no engagement with the public That's not what I said. You can have a server where only govt officials have accounts, and other people could respond to it. > There will have to be moderation. Yes, so? > Such a decision would never occur on a govt operated platform, of course. Why couldn't it be structured in a way similar to how PBS operates? > Twitter is no longer a viable "official" publishing/engagement platform Your quotes are doing a lot of work there. Yeah, communication via Twitter or Facebook was was never considered official. And it shouldn't be. And honestly, it shouldn't even change if it was happening from their own servers, because while the medium can be useful to get people closer to the "debate", in reality the real action and "official" communication warrants a lot more formality and weight than any microblogging platform provides.

rsynnott 3y ago

Nothing stopping them running something along the lines of https://social.network.europa.eu/ https://social.network.europa.eu/ (the EC's mastodon instance); as only government bodies have accounts, it's not doing moderation for the general public. > Just completely infeasible from policy standpoint for a US govt entity to operate a public publishing platform. Poor Voice of America :(