• const void*@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    For media, a state platform in order of goodness:

    non state (open) platform > non state (closed) platform > State owned platform

    most times when the state takes an action it deprives it’s citizens of the beneficial outcomes of that action (skill, monetary).

    Which would be better - open instances in each country where the state ( country and regional/s) is a participant along with its citizens?

    Or instances where the state and its infinite power is private and above the people the state would govern?

    My reaction is not to a state using mastodon nor twitter for that matter. My reaction is to a state running mastodon separate from the people.

    • blue_zephyr@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think you’re fundementally misunderstanding the purpose of these state instances. They’re a one-way broadcast channel from the government to the people. It’s not a social platform and no one except the government can create an account.

        • atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          It verifies that what you are seeing is actually from a government agency. Like how .gov as a TLD verifies that you’re in a government website.

          You’re really fundamentally misunderstanding this whole situation. This is like the government running their own webserver to host a blog. It’s not government controlling anything.