Sometimes I read about people asking for a taxpayer-paid, publicly-owned social media platform, and I wonder what that would look like in the US thanks to our government’s 1st Amendment obligations. How much power would the agency who runs it even have to moderate Nazis and abuse? Any power to control abuse will be weaponized by regressive states to control progressive speech. Is a public social media stratum really going to be better than the Fediverse?
And think of the surveillance that might occur. I’m pretty sure a government-run platform will pretty quickly require real ID checks for accounts for “security” reasons and to participate in any government business online.
I understand the desire for a truly democratized, money-is-not-speech communications platform. But a common transport layer for messages is only the beginning. Who does the administration? Will they do better than today’s private counterparts? How will admin powers not be abused to silence legitimate dissent?
@drahardja That’s kind of a zero to escape velocity type of a thing. That and it doesn’t feel the 1st means much right now.
If we look at USPS (which needs new leadership and a lot more funding!) they won’t open mail to see if it’s ok to deliver it.
So a government ran social media would either be completely unmoderated or straight up Stasi. There are a lot of things I think the government should provide (healthcare, clean air and water, the internet, education, etc). But social media, no.
@drahardja I do think the government should provide UBI (and not some fraction of minimum wage version for the record), which would free up a lot of people to do things that benefits society instead of make the rich richer.
So I think that one layer of indirection is better for social media and society than the department of microblogs and racist memes.
Add comment