4 ms·

> 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 t

> 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.
- jonahbenton 3y ago
  With respect, "Yes, so?" to the moderation problem is like standing next to Everest and saying "Yes, so?" It's far and away the single biggest concern. Policy is everything. Lots of engineers don't understand this, as engineers we concern ourselves mostly with the "mechanism" side of the "mechanism vs policy" duality. We think about doing things, moving forward, confronting problems as we go. In reality, we live in a bubble. The real issues are policy domain. Policy is mostly about what not to do. Non-corrupt government operating a platform requiring moderation involves so, so many "do not do that, you lose" nodes on the decision tree as we presently understand it that there is no winning strategy. The only way to win is to not play that game. Don't get into the business of moderation if you are a non-corrupt government. > Why couldn't it be structured in a way similar to how PBS operates? Well, for a few reasons. The main one is that government in general and the US government in particular is extremely powerful. That power attracts attention. Everyone with an interest impacted by the government- which is everyone- needs to attend to that power. The President "favoring" a platform will attract many many parties to that platform, who wish to carry influence or have an impact. Many of these parties have their own immense powers, both technical and policy/informational. PBS is in literal terms a TINY operator. $700M in revenues last year. A staff of a couple thousand people. As an organization it doesn't have any of the capabilities to operate a real time two way communication platform requiring it to act as a real time moderator against the myriad actions that a China or Russia not to mention countless other actors could throw against it. Of course, many would argue neither does Facebook. But with 100,000 staff and hundred billion+ revenue- it has more of a chance. Could such an organization be stood up? The policy questions again are- who funds it, to what end? What problem would it solve? There are no good reasons for a govt to spend the $Bs it would require and no good solutions to the first amendment problems it would create. I appreciate that there is a notion of the "public interest" that one would think everyone agrees on, which is what one imagines governments should be about. There can be a sufficiently common shared understanding of "public interest" in small communities, even scaling to homogeneous states (say, single digit millions of citizens). But "public interest" breaks down pretty quickly with sufficient community heterogeneity. > Yeah, communication via Twitter or Facebook was was never considered official. Well, in fact, it was. Prior to Musk, many government agencies had "official" voices/presence on twitter. And much work went into- from a policy perspective- ensuring what was communicated was suitable. Occasionally policy was "made" or announced first on twitter. You will now see those presences increasingly quiet (or loud) quit, due precisely to Musk's failure at the moderation problem.

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.

jonahbenton 3y ago
With respect, "Yes, so?" to the moderation problem is like standing next to Everest and saying "Yes, so?" It's far and away the single biggest concern. Policy is everything. Lots of engineers don't understand this, as engineers we concern ourselves mostly with the "mechanism" side of the "mechanism vs policy" duality. We think about doing things, moving forward, confronting problems as we go. In reality, we live in a bubble. The real issues are policy domain. Policy is mostly about what not to do. Non-corrupt government operating a platform requiring moderation involves so, so many "do not do that, you lose" nodes on the decision tree as we presently understand it that there is no winning strategy. The only way to win is to not play that game. Don't get into the business of moderation if you are a non-corrupt government. > Why couldn't it be structured in a way similar to how PBS operates? Well, for a few reasons. The main one is that government in general and the US government in particular is extremely powerful. That power attracts attention. Everyone with an interest impacted by the government- which is everyone- needs to attend to that power. The President "favoring" a platform will attract many many parties to that platform, who wish to carry influence or have an impact. Many of these parties have their own immense powers, both technical and policy/informational. PBS is in literal terms a TINY operator. $700M in revenues last year. A staff of a couple thousand people. As an organization it doesn't have any of the capabilities to operate a real time two way communication platform requiring it to act as a real time moderator against the myriad actions that a China or Russia not to mention countless other actors could throw against it. Of course, many would argue neither does Facebook. But with 100,000 staff and hundred billion+ revenue- it has more of a chance. Could such an organization be stood up? The policy questions again are- who funds it, to what end? What problem would it solve? There are no good reasons for a govt to spend the $Bs it would require and no good solutions to the first amendment problems it would create. I appreciate that there is a notion of the "public interest" that one would think everyone agrees on, which is what one imagines governments should be about. There can be a sufficiently common shared understanding of "public interest" in small communities, even scaling to homogeneous states (say, single digit millions of citizens). But "public interest" breaks down pretty quickly with sufficient community heterogeneity. > Yeah, communication via Twitter or Facebook was was never considered official. Well, in fact, it was. Prior to Musk, many government agencies had "official" voices/presence on twitter. And much work went into- from a policy perspective- ensuring what was communicated was suitable. Occasionally policy was "made" or announced first on twitter. You will now see those presences increasingly quiet (or loud) quit, due precisely to Musk's failure at the moderation problem.