@joemcl they are literally just talking about setting up a European-owned propaganda entity instead of an American-owned propaganda entity
Timeline
Post
Remote status
Context
1
@sun @joemcl
Hot take time. Not new; I've had this idea for a long time:
- There should be government-run social media platforms. (Maybe one per country, or per state etc., with federation.)
- These are a supplement to private-run ones, not a replacement.
- Every citizen has a RIGHT to an account with public posting permissions.
- The RIGHT to publish can only be taken away as part of CRIMINAL PUNISHMENT.
- Citizens sign up with their ID, so the account holder is known to the government.
- But the public-facing account name can be a pseudonym.
- (optional) You can publish "nameless" posts that are literally anonymous. Will only reach people searching for a topic, not sent to followers. The government can still look up who posted it, of course.
- People can mute each other, and choose who can reply directly under their posts. Quote-posting is always possible.
Why would this be a good idea, if governments were technically competent enough to implement it without glaring security or stability issues?
- Private corporations with an oligopoly over social media cannot implement mass-censorship of political opinions by using the "it's a private platform bro!" argument.
- Citizens become more keenly aware of what the *law* does and doesn't allow them to speak. If they find it too limiting, this motivates them towards political action to change the law.
- Perfect accountability when someone actually does post something heinous, like direct physical threats, direct incitement to commit a crime, uploading CSAM, etc.
It would have the potential of encouraging everyone to act like adults and partake in political discourse more seriously, because they can't cry to a private platform owner to have them censor unpopular opinions, but also can't post literal criminal shit.
Hot take time. Not new; I've had this idea for a long time:
- There should be government-run social media platforms. (Maybe one per country, or per state etc., with federation.)
- These are a supplement to private-run ones, not a replacement.
- Every citizen has a RIGHT to an account with public posting permissions.
- The RIGHT to publish can only be taken away as part of CRIMINAL PUNISHMENT.
- Citizens sign up with their ID, so the account holder is known to the government.
- But the public-facing account name can be a pseudonym.
- (optional) You can publish "nameless" posts that are literally anonymous. Will only reach people searching for a topic, not sent to followers. The government can still look up who posted it, of course.
- People can mute each other, and choose who can reply directly under their posts. Quote-posting is always possible.
Why would this be a good idea, if governments were technically competent enough to implement it without glaring security or stability issues?
- Private corporations with an oligopoly over social media cannot implement mass-censorship of political opinions by using the "it's a private platform bro!" argument.
- Citizens become more keenly aware of what the *law* does and doesn't allow them to speak. If they find it too limiting, this motivates them towards political action to change the law.
- Perfect accountability when someone actually does post something heinous, like direct physical threats, direct incitement to commit a crime, uploading CSAM, etc.
It would have the potential of encouraging everyone to act like adults and partake in political discourse more seriously, because they can't cry to a private platform owner to have them censor unpopular opinions, but also can't post literal criminal shit.
Replies
0
No replies yet.