The fact that you can follow the president of the United States (@potus) from your Mastodon account instead of being forced to have an X or Threads account for it is a huge W in my book. Of course our team is fully available to help if they'd want to set up Mastodon on whitehouse.gov. I believe governments should not rely on 3rd party platforms to connect with their constituents.
Chris Trottier likes this.
stux⚡
in reply to Eugen Rochko • • •Chris Trottier likes this.
Solitha
in reply to stux⚡ • • •@stux Honestly though I don't feel like it's much of a choice.
If I understand correctly, to interact with that account in any way is to allow Threads access to any and all data they can extract from me here, which... I'm here because I don't want to play that game any more.
It's a step in the right direction but I sure don't count it as a W.
Diane
Unknown parent • • •@atomicpoet
I saw a pretty strong argument that given the current interpretations of the American 1st amendment, it would mean that if the US government hosted a mastodon server it would be illegal for the government to moderate who could post comments to it.
Most other western democratic freedom of speech laws aren't nearly as absolute and so their governments can block incitements to violence or obvious hate speech.
eatyourglory
in reply to Diane • • •Killick
Unknown parent • • •Um, do you have to allow replies to your Mastodon posts? I'm asking, because if you don't allow ANY replies to your posts, then you can't be guilty of viewpoint (or any other) discrimination. If no one is allowed to reply, then you haven't violated anyone's 1st amendment rights because they can still post whatever they'd like on their OWN account. In this way, POTUS could at least have the outlet, if not the interaction, through Mastodon.
Fjord In Progress
Unknown parent • • •Mx. Luna Corbden
in reply to Fjord In Progress • • •@semiotic_pirate
That is a great point and I believe you are correct from how I understand it as well.
I have followed POTUS in support but maybe I should unfollow. For the record, I am for #FediPact and against Threads being on here for reasons like you cite, and also because they're a proven poor moderator of hate groups and hate speech, and because they will undoubtedly Embrace, Extend, Extinguish, as I've seen happen on the internet over and over again. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace%2C_extend%2C_and_extinguish
@atomicpoet @Gargron
Microsoft business strategy in acquiring software platforms
Contributors to Wikimedia projects (Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.)Dave Nanian
in reply to Eugen Rochko • • •Which, truly, I'd love to be able to do.
Unfortunately, @trumpet has elected to not federate with threads at all...even if I want to follow one account from there.
It's regrettable.
Mark Gardner
in reply to Dave Nanian • • •Dave Nanian
in reply to Mark Gardner • • •Mark Gardner
in reply to Dave Nanian • • •Dave Nanian
in reply to Mark Gardner • • •Mark Gardner
in reply to Dave Nanian • • •@dnanian As I understand it, those advocating a complete #Threads domain block take issue with the possibility that parent company #Meta may misuse *incoming* #fediverse content and metadata, not their *outgoing* traffic.
This is ironic because, apart from anonymized "likes,” Threads users who have opted in can’t receive federated messages yet.
mathew
in reply to Mark Gardner • • •@mjgardner @dnanian Your understanding is incorrect. Many of those who want to see Threads blocked at system level are concerned with Threads' moderation policies and the hateful and dangerous rhetoric they continue to allow.
To pick one example, Chaya Raichik (Libs of Tiktok) is on Threads.
https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/internet/libs-tiktok-x-chaya-raichik-bomb-threat-twitter-of-libsoftiktok-rcna102784
After Libs of TikTok posted, at least 21 bomb threats followed
David Ingram (NBC News)Mark Gardner
in reply to mathew • • •@mathew Cool, so rather than managing your own moderation so that sort of thing never darkens your feed, you’re agitating for everyone on the #fediverse to live under an indiscriminate ban-hammer.
And before you suggest folks like @dnanian move to another server with moderation they like, realize that you could do the same.
You just want others to do your work.
moggie
Unknown parent • • •Given the recent court rulings that elected officials in the United States can't block constituents on social media if they're posting in an official capacity, I'm not sure it would be feasible for the US government to run a fediverse instance. They might be required to leave it essentially unmoderated except for content that is outright illegal.
@atomicpoet @Gargron