ARG1
Senior Member
Unfortunately Twitter is still a massive platform, and for important events like this it's the only real place to post it. Sites like Bluesky are still extremely small.
|
|
|
Premier Doug Ford's Ontario
- Thread starter animatronic
- Start date
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
txlseries4
Active Member
Ownership aside it's insane to me that public entities continue using a platform that doesn't consistently allow non-users to view content. The TTC has their ttcnotices account on X posting service alerts but the most recent able to be viewed on X without an account are years old, and they don't post anywhere else except the website where disruptions disappear forever once cleared. Same goes for https://x.com/ONThealth (Ministry of Health), and https://x.com/OPP_HSD (Highway Safety Division)... the most recent posts I see are from 2022 and earlier. Sometimes current content can be viewed no problem, but other times the site blocks you off entirely and redirects to a sign-in page.
picard102
Senior Member
Why does he need to encourage it, just make it the law.
afransen
Senior Member
The legislature is not yet sworn in.
Mihairokov
Active Member
This becomes/became an issue for situations like fires or emergencies where fire departments or emergency services were posting updates so frequently that FB/Twitter thought they were bots and had them suspended.
It's a failing of public service that our communities and public services rely on private enterprises to get messaging out. Anything public should be totally available to public, and this is especially true in the reality we're entering where the owners of these platforms are actively countering public service with increased late-stage capitalistic bullshit.
picard102
Senior Member
I mean, just saying he would once it's sworn in would likely have the same effect.
lenaitch
Senior Member
So what is the alternative? Each service could maintain a website, but they are not nearly as agile. The reason public-facing services resorted to the social media platforms is because that's where the public hangs out. They don't have to create or maintain the platform, just post to it which is important if circumstances are moving quickly. We don't have mobile data, so how should information be "totally available" to me. What about those who choose nit to/can't afford Internet access?
Mihairokov
Active Member
We should make them agile.
As I pointed out above, though, occasionally they can be caught up in situations where they're either blocked intentionally or not, and so their message can't get out at all on that platform. Their messaging should not be at the whim of private enterprise and should not rely on it broadly.
Radio and print media was how these sorts of things were handled prior to the internet. Between webpages, radio, and general public outreach in physical spaces, most should be covered.
Unfortunately, we've entered a world where almost all media and internet access is owned and operated by some widespread private enterprise capable of distorting or controlling messages for their own good, which is why we need to encourage and support government and public services either getting into these spaces or controlling them entirely. We don't have control over private bodies but we do have control over public ones.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
Exactly - and social media accounts for public services can and does serve as a nucleus and provide legitimacy for the platform. Given the willingness of some of these to engage in antidemocratic influence operations, I am not sure why public bodies should legitimize these unaccountable platforms.
AoD
AoD
zang
Senior Member
We have federated social media outlets now. There’s no reason services can’t create their own personal data servers (much, much easier than maintaining a full web server) and patch into Bluesky or Mastodon (or both).
afransen
Senior Member
I would start with using alternative platforms. Bluesky seems to be the winner in the race to replace Twitter. It's still small, but the government can contribute to network effects by posting there. For reach, they can use other, less disfavoured platforms like Meta, etc.
lenaitch
Senior Member
So, I'm confused. Should the government spend money to develop their own social media platform and hope people use it? I doubt the next government-in-waiting would agree - they want to get rid of the current government-run information platform.
Or should the government use, for want of a better term, a start-up platform and hope people migrate to it?
This discussion started with the stated need to get information out during an emergent situation, which by their nature evolve quickly. Are nefarious forces interfering with that? I can see a platform blocking or throttling multiple posts because their software assumed a scam or attack but that should be solvable between the parties.
Or should the government use, for want of a better term, a start-up platform and hope people migrate to it?
This should be the job of government; to develop a better website platform?
This discussion started with the stated need to get information out during an emergent situation, which by their nature evolve quickly. Are nefarious forces interfering with that? I can see a platform blocking or throttling multiple posts because their software assumed a scam or attack but that should be solvable between the parties.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
No, but government should chose a social media platform that is least susceptible to outside influence - or at the very least,.not owned by demonstrably hostile parties with a history of algorithmic manipulation. As to the next "government-in-waiting" - well, I am sure they'd love to try. especially in the current environment.
The question you should ask isn't whether they are interfering with government information in emergent situation - but whether they can, and may have a motive to shape sentiment. We are in an information war, start to think and act like we are in one, or you'd be looking at a fate similar to our neighbours to the south.
AoD
Last edited:
lenaitch
Senior Member
If the goal is to get information out quickly and widely, why would any government agency, or private business for that matter, shift to a platform with such a small 'market share' that defeats the initial goals? If there are any small business owners on here that rely on social media, have you moved off the 'mainstream platforms' out of principle?
I share the concern with Tic Tok, quite frankly any China-based business, because of government interference. However, I'm not sure of the practical alternatives to the like of FB or X because they are owned by fans of El Duce.
Emergency services are government departments that use products and services in accordance with their parent governments' policies. Maybe we will see an attempt to move them off US-based network platforms such as Microsoft as well, or start buying European vehicles.