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.
It wouldnt be fit to fediverse in any way in that case. If you enable federation, then users from all sorts of different instances can join in the discussion without ID anyways. If you disable federation, you essentially have nothing that makes lemmy itself.
My government originated chat control. Not a chance.
That said, I definitely think the government should get the fuck away from twitter and host their own mastodon for official communication if they think updating a website is too much work.
You can fix bots by using real id and giving up all your privacy. Sounds like a bad idea.
I was assuming you’d make an account with the ID for the govt instance and use anonymous accounts for all other browsing. At least that’s what I would do.
Yeah I guess, but I think long term, they would want that real id to be used everywhere on all sites. Its Googles wet dream to control the internet fully that way. And limit what things you can run on your computer.
That sounds like an awful idea lmao. I would never.
ID requirement is terrible for everyone but that especially seems like you’re limiting this to citizens or at least people who have managed to get appropriate immigration documents, which is a difficult and obstructive process that many migrants haven’t got yet. Plus a lot of countries make it hard to get ID without a fixed address.
Hot take.
Short answer: wouldn’t touch it with a 10 ft pole.
No. No, man. Shit no, man! I believe you’d get your ass raided by ice doin’ something like that, man.
Yes i would…
Afterall, my governemnt already issue me an id and much more than that.
Would I use it as my only or main Lemmy instance? Surely not.
I would use it only for government related stuff and express none of my political views.
no, i think neither government nor corporation should have any spots. let lemmy be by the people and for the people.
Maybe.
An official government forum where politicians engage with the people they represent, provide reasoning for their votes, and actually listen to what members of the public want would be great. There’s a case for using verified real names in such a forum.
A place where internet randoms yell at each other about politics, on the other hand would probably not be improved by identity checks.
Nice try FBI…
I want no media nor communication directly ran by the government
I believe we need dedicated spaces for political discussion that are not based on algorithms optimized for engagement (aka outrage).
So do we, which is one of the reasons why Lemmy was created, and why Lemmy does not have algorithms for rage engagement. Lemmy is all cost and no revenue, so there is no financial incentive for it to “maximize ‘engagement.’”
The first is a way to limit bots or bad actors from participating in discussions.
Where are the actually-existing the “bot problems” on Lemmy? While it could happen, I don’t think it actually is happening to any significant extent presently.
I also don’t get the impression there is a large bot presence here today. I do think if the platform was used as a normal communication network between constituient and representative it would probably become a target for foreign and domestic bots.
only ones I see are the plethora of onlyfans posts by what I presume is some Russian dude stealing photos or paying women for photo’s
It is the responsibility of every other instance to defederate from them.
How many of those instances defederated from Threads?
No, I would not want to join such an instance but I wouldn’t mind its existence. Nobody could really federate with it. So you create a niche server in an already niche environment.
I am not convinced the conclusion “if the government runs it, the first amendment has to apply” is apt. Even if the server was run from under the house majority leader’s desk - which I don’t think it would, this smells more like an outsourced undertaking - moderation on the platform is not “making a law.” And proprietors of platforms are legally compelled to moderate in certain cases, e.g. when illegal stuff like child sexual abuse is involved.
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.
lol. Fucking no
