One of the things I would miss here on Mastodon was all of the alerts from my local infrastructure and government twitter accounts. These will likely take a very long time to make the migration.

With https://bird.makeup, you can create bot accounts that put those tweets in your Mastodon timeline. For instance, I follow the Washington State Patrol account for regional weather related road closures and accident reports:

@[email protected]

EDIT: I Should have tagged the project's creator: @vincent

bird.makeup - Home

@awilbert @wspd7pio Could ask WSPD if they have an RSS feed for the content they tweet (it's not in their main website). Government agencies should be using open platform/noncommercial communications methods first before commercial platforms.

Good example why this is necessary: during recent mass shooting at UVA students didn't know whether to trust local police dept. Twitter feed, relied on ad hoc method instead.

@femme_mal @awilbert @wspd7pio
I was thinking that each government should host their own instance. Considering they'd want to moderate differently, it would be interesting to see how the atmosphere changes as you browse different countries' instances.

@smellythief I don't think US local, state, or federal governments will launch and operate instances to do anything more than host official accounts.

Moderating non-official speech by individuals would violate the First Amendment's prohibition of government regulation of speech even with Sect. 230's protections for hosting entities like ISPs.

@femme_mal I don't think they will either, but also not sure it would be a bad idea. With all the talk of Twitter as a public square and the associated concerns about it being privately held, national instances make a certain sort of sense. Verification could be tied to a national ID.
Re: 1A, the FCC already limits speech around certain topics for OTA broadcasts. New laws or carve-outs could allow limiting at least amplification of messages that denigrate protected classes of people, for eg.

@smellythief @smellythief For other countries what you suggest works. But the US doesn't have a national ID and likely won't. We shouldn't have the REAL ID for voting as it is since it is merely another layer of voter suppression.

As for FCC regs: now you're looking at an entirely different kettle of fish because this would mean legislation changing status of internet services to match that of publicly-owned broadcast bandwidth, or telecom which is common carrier.

@femme_mal I was just giving an example of an exception we accept to the 1st Ammendment. I personally don’t think it should be absolute, and that was one example of how we currently don’t treat it as such, though we come closer than other countries of course. But legally allowing oversight of speech on one government-operated internet-base service would actually not require the same application to all internet services, esp if the law was written that way.