I believe we need dedicated spaces for political discussion that are not based on algorithms optimized for engagement (aka outrage). Lemmy has the advantage that the algorithms ordering content are pretty easy to understand and are not driven by the profit incentives that require maximizing user engagement over all else.
In my opinion, Lemmy lacks two things to facilitate being this public square today. The first is a way to limit bots or bad actors from participating in discussions. To my knowledge the bot problem has not been solved on this platform. (Please correct me if I’m wrong). The second is that some of the people who need to participate in these discussions aren’t on Lemmy.
I believe both of these issues could be fixed by governments hosting their own instances and requiring identification from that country to participate on the platform. An ‘official’ place for representatives and constituents to converse should resolve second issue. I think just a few key people actively participating in discussions would be enough to start this transituon. The ID will make many people nervous, and we should be wary of ways in which governments could abuse this power. I don’t know of a better way to reduce bot influence on public discussions though.
This next bit is American specific (sorry). Having the government host the instance would make it subject to the first amendment, so it should be difficult to silence views through moderation if the constitution still means anything. Even though SCOTUS seems to ignore it, I believe it’s in our best interest to act as if the constitution still works the way we want it to. To act otherwise is to concede its power.
I believe there is existing precedent from SCOTUS that official government Twitter accounts were not allowed to block citizens accounts due to it being a ‘public square’. So that was a govt official taking the action of silencing someone’s ability to respond to them on social media protected by 1A. If the PLATFORM had blocked that user it would have been perfectly valid, since the GOVT did not silence a citizen’s speech.
I believe having the govt run the instance would make the entire forum subject to 1A in a way current social media is not. Would love a constitutional scholar to chime in, but that’s my argument.
I understand the intent, but it is rather optimistic in light of recent events.
Neither of us are legal scholars, are we. If I pretended to be one, I would say the government acting as a user on somebody else’s platform or the government running its own platform are different enough circumstances not to derive comparisons from.