51–60 of 250 posts
> EU Voice is open for registrations only to EU institutions, body and agencies. Disappointing. Better then nothing, but why not provide a platform for everyone, or at least every EU citizen?
It's federation. You also wouldn't expect every citizen to get an @europarl.europa.eu e-mail-adress. The platform is decentralised by design, so just by joining, the EU is contributing to "providing a platform" imho.
> EU Voice is open for registrations only to EU institutions, body and agencies. Disappointing. Better then nothing, but why not provide a platform for everyone, or at least every EU citizen?
It is better to have an official instance just like you have official websites. It means that accounts on this instance are official, that you can take their words as official statement. Having one big instance for every EU citizen is just political centralisation and is not a lot better than the economical one done by Twitter. We have to unlearn that "everything centralized is good and the only way to go"
The EU could verify official accounts on their instance.
> Having one big instance for every EU citizen is just political centralisation and is not a lot better than the economical one done by Twitter.
It would be an alternative. People would of course remain free to choose other instances.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's federation. You also wouldn't expect every citizen to get an @europarl.europa.eu e-mail-adress. The platform is decentralised by design, so just by joining, the EU is contributing to "providing a platform" imho.
I don't see why the EU shouldn't give every citizen an @europa.eu email address.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's federation. You also wouldn't expect every citizen to get an @europarl.europa.eu e-mail-adress. The platform is decentralised by design, so just by joining, the EU is contributing to "providing a platform" imho.
I don't see why the EU shouldn't give every citizen an @europa.eu email address.
https://github.com/mastodon/mastodon/pull/19218
"This project was funded through the NGI0 Discovery Fund, a fund established by NLnet with financial support from the European Commission's Next Generation Internet programme, under the aegis of DG Communications Networks, Content and Technology under grant agreement No 825322."
I think it is a much better investment in the future of federated social networking, than trying to get control of it by setting up a centralized instance for EU-citizens, as someone else suggests in the comments.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's federation. You also wouldn't expect every citizen to get an @europarl.europa.eu e-mail-adress. The platform is decentralised by design, so just by joining, the EU is contributing to "providing a platform" imho.
I don't see why the EU shouldn't give every citizen an @europa.eu email address.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't see why the EU shouldn't give every citizen an @europa.eu email address.
For the same reason not every US citizen is entitled to a .gov address?
It always baffled me that so many governments relied on a private solution that only has 5% of the world population as users (Twitter) as the preferred mode of communication with their citizens. It's good to see a solution made by the government instead. The next step is to make it mandatory for officials to use this platform (and Twitter or Facebook in addition if they want to, I don't care) for all their official c…
You can't exactly use tax payer money to develop an in-house solution
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't use Twitter but seen numerous tweets cited in all the other media I consume. Twitter is sort of backbone, fairly useless on it's own, but important for what it enables in wider context. It's not much weirder that people use private Twitter than that people use private google.
I'm not talking about people, I'm talking about government officials. The fact that the British PM will post information, in his official capacity, on Twitter that will not be posted on gov.uk is ridiculous and should be illegal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't use Twitter but seen numerous tweets cited in all the other media I consume. Twitter is sort of backbone, fairly useless on it's own, but important for what it enables in wider context. It's not much weirder that people use private Twitter than that people use private google.
I'm not talking about people, I'm talking about government officials. The fact that the British PM will post information, in his official capacity, on Twitter that will not be posted on gov.uk is ridiculous and should be illegal.
You are right, it should be illegal, at the extremes it totally breaks down - "I announced it publicly" could legitimately be "I stood at the back door of Downing street and whispered it out loud".