Quinten@lemmy.world to Fediverse@lemmy.worldEnglish · edit-21 year agoDutch government starts own Mastodon instance as reaction to the instability of Twitterlemmy.worldimagemessage-square76fedilinkarrow-up1178arrow-down12file-text
arrow-up1176arrow-down1imageDutch government starts own Mastodon instance as reaction to the instability of Twitterlemmy.worldQuinten@lemmy.world to Fediverse@lemmy.worldEnglish · edit-21 year agomessage-square76fedilinkfile-text
minus-squareconst void*@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up0arrow-down1·1 year agoWhy 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.
minus-squareblue_zephyr@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·edit-21 year agoSo Lemmy and Mastodon instances are free market solutions, unless a government does it? I don’t even understand what your point is.
minus-squareconst void*@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up0arrow-down1·1 year agoFor 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.
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.
So Lemmy and Mastodon instances are free market solutions, unless a government does it? I don’t even understand what your point is.
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.