• laurens@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      Germany (social.bund.de) and the EU (social.network.europa.eu) already have it. I think it’s very likely that other governments, especially european ones, will start to do this.

      With the internet being so dominated by american voices, I dont think a lot of people have fully appreciated the sentiment change in the higher levels of european governments. Sovereign control over their digital spaces is something that is actually mattering on the level of nation states. Its a way of thinking that is kind of new to most people, as we rarely think about the sovereign powers of nation states, and even less so in the context of the internet. But now were starting to do that again, and it actually matters.

      • maegul (he/they)@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        With the internet being so dominated by american voices, I dont think a lot of people have fully appreciated the sentiment change in the higher levels of european governments.

        Absolutely. I was on an instance, run by North Americans, that had blocked European Govt instances because they didn’t trust government agencies spying on them etc. Some German users picked up on this and voiced a lot of frustration over it. There was a clear cultural divide. Even more ironic, I think it was the German department of privacy or something to that effect.

        Nonetheless, it was quite interesting to see a tension between the small hacker aspect of the fediverse and the “this is the new internet” aspect and how much the US dominated perspective probably completely missed the mark.

        EDIT: European Govt from “European” to clarify I was referring to government run instances.

        • fediverse_report@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          ha yeah I remember that, that was fun.

          To riff on this a little bit further: its also visible in how little attention in the gazillion conversations about Threads is paid to the fact that the entirety of the EU cannot even access it yet due to the new DMA and DSA.

          Or one of the articles I wrote that got relatively low traction, that was specificially about how all of the Nordic countries got an official recommendation to use ActivityPub for their governmental communications. I dont mind that some articles get less traction than others, but it does stand out when you consider how impactful such things are for the long term structure of the fediverse. Lots of EU governments are now talking about needing sovereign public digital spaces, and are actively looking how ActivityPub can help with that. And that matters way more than whatever Elons latest shenanigans are.

      • moitoi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        With the internet being so dominated by american voices,

        Europe has to build something new that isn’t a big corp, that isn’t centralized. It has to find its own way, and the Fediverse model is a good beginning. It’s to show we can do something but in the European spirit.

    • const void*@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      tbh - I am not a fan of state-run media, would prefer free market solns where the state has to abide by the rules of the people.

      • adriaan@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Why not have a state-run instance on an open platform? It’s better than relying on a corporation’s platform. The government is ‘the people’ more than corporations are.

        • const void*@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Surveillance with neither a warrant nor probable cause.

          A private instance on an open platform, by the state, for the state? Sure. Go for it.

          • locknessmeownster@lemmy.fmhy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Surveillance? In what sense, here in particular. A bit confused. Also, it depends on the kind of private instance you mean, since this is private too, in the sense you cannot make accounts on it. What other benefit do they gain over people, using this over a corporate website?

            • const void*@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              It looks like a state government was creating their own mastodon instance which, when plugged into the rest, would give them surveillance and digital wire tapping powers that today they do not have?

              • locknessmeownster@lemmy.fmhy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Again, what can they tap or see into that they couldn’t before? All info on the other servers is public, that would be true for any federated server. I really don’t get how they’d get any more access to your data than another random person on the internet seeing your profile. They’re not making their own instance available to make accounts on, or enable users to post on it directly. You aren’t giving them any more details than you would if you had a Twitter account that was public. It is quite literally just for official government information dissemination without being locked behind rate limits.

      • Kerb@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        imo mastadon wont suddenly become “state-run media” just because Goverment instances exist.

        there are .gov email adresses already, and emails are pretty far from state-run.

        since there is (afaik) no verification on mastadon, ill assume that theyll use the goverment instances to prove that @official@goverment is legit.

      • blue_zephyr@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-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.

        • const void*@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          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.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            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.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              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.

      • dizzy@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        This isn’t that though. Running a federated service instance is more akin to them having to abide by the rule of the people than the status quo where Musk or Zuck could boot them from their platform or hide anything they don’t like without any reason at all.

        In the fediverse, they’re choosing to run a self-hosted outlet that can interact with other privately or publicly run services. It’s like them choosing to run their own email servers instead of their officials all using gmail accounts.

        The free market solutions have just led to unelected billionaire oligarchs controlling the narrative. With this federated stuff, no single entity can control the narrative (once all the kinks are ironed out like vote manipulation, exploits, etc)

        • const void*@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Decentralized yet federated open platforms are part of the free market - and a victory of the free market. Consolidating media into an empire is a problem … but … ultimately … a problem the free market can solve, as long as the role of government keeps a free market free.

      • seeCseas@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        would prefer free market solns where the state has to abide by the rules of the people

        you mean like facebook? haha!

      • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        True free market solutions inevitably lead to the people abiding by the rules of the rich and powerful.

        Anything run by the government has to at the very least PRETEND to listen to people who don’t have a financial interest in the enshittification of every part of society.

        • const void*@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Just the opposite, I would argue…the role of the state should be to keep a market free so that open & standard-based solutions can replace vertical & proprietary solutions.

          • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            You mean fair, not free. The only way to avoid the tyranny of the powerful is regulation restricting their freedom to abuse their powers.

            THAT’S what the government is supposed to do to a market: help the small to regular sized fish and cooperation between them by, amongst other things, erecting fences keeping off the sharks that would otherwise immediately eat them.

            Also stuff with plants, I guess, but this ocean analogy is probably long and complicated enough already 😂