• blue_zephyr@lemmy.worldEnglish
    2·
    1 year ago

    Why would a government subject itself to potential censorship of whatever admin is running their instance? It makes perfect sense for a government to host their own instance from where they can freely broadcast announcements.

    And the free market has proven to be unreliable. You’re subject to whatever billionaire is ego-tripping at the top of whatever platform you’re using. The will of the people is nowhere to be seen.

    • curiosityLynx@kglitch.social
      1·
      1 year ago

      It’s like saying government officers should use gmail accounts instead of writing their emails from their own government-run email servers.

    • const void*@lemmy.worldEnglish
      01·
      1 year ago

      Why shouldn’t the state be subject to the same whims as its citizens? How else will the state have skin in the game?

      To me, the free market has produced both Lemmy and Mastodon - I wouldn’t count it out just yet.

      • blue_zephyr@lemmy.worldEnglish
        1·
        1 year ago

        So Lemmy and Mastodon instances are free market solutions, unless a government does it? I don’t even understand what your point is.

        • const void*@lemmy.worldEnglish
          01·
          1 year ago

          For media, a state platform in order of goodness:

          non state (open) platform > non state (closed) platform > State owned platform

          most times when the state takes an action it deprives it’s citizens of the beneficial outcomes of that action (skill, monetary).

          Which would be better - open instances in each country where the state ( country and regional/s) is a participant along with its citizens?

          Or instances where the state and its infinite power is private and above the people the state would govern?

          My reaction is not to a state using mastodon nor twitter for that matter. My reaction is to a state running mastodon separate from the people.