Johannes ErnstIf you were in charge of social media industrial policy in the European Union, and you had complete freedom to decide, what would it be?
Or what would your advice be to them?
ohmrun@j12t Support Haxe, and by inference OCaml, and that there is a toolchain that is independent of US corporate devices, and can interoperate with a great deal of languages (c, c++, java, js, c#, lua, python, php)
(edit) OCaml coming from the academy, and Haxe (written in OCaml) being a small private enterprise baby.
(edit) OCaml coming from the academy, and Haxe (written in OCaml) being a small private enterprise baby.
@ohmrun That appears to be an idea quite far away from social media. Whether or not a particular compiler / toolchain (this one or any other) is better supported won't make, say, misinformation on X go away?
Philip Mallegol-Hansen@j12t Quite frankly, I think I’d sit down, shut up, and find some smart humanities people to weigh in.
Software engineers thinking they’re the right people to make society altering decisions, is exactly how we got here.
ShadSterling@j12t get rid of the age verification; adopt a rulemaking goal of making social media (& social networking) safe for everyone. Ban tracking and advertising. Require interoperability. Require a data download option that always includes all data in a single request. Require all functionality be available through the website, ban requiring an app for anything. I’m not sure what they should be, but there’s got to be rules about notifications too
Johanna, CanCon varietydigital social access used by any government, public agency, institution or representatives thereof needs to be considered essential modern infrastructure, completely open and free for any citizen to use, without exploitation or fees.
Regulations are needed to ensure:
-- corporations are paying for their own profit-taking uses of technology and not intruding on citizens' non-commercial use of it without consent.
-- the entirety of the tech stack spec needs to be on public record
- regulation applies to the tech and the developers/deployers/providers (like gov't agencies who regulate telephony) and not to citizen users
- government comms should not be permitted on private/corporate platforms. Period. the institutions need to own their means and their messaging.
@johannab It occurs to me that the traditional press briefing depends on privately owned infrastructure (TV companies) to transmit government communications. Same thing with the fiber in the ground that transmits our IP packets, even if it's all community / public-owned open source software on the layers above. Even the TV sets and telephone handsets are commercial. Where's the line here? (I agree with you, but I'm not sure I can formulate a coherent argument myself ...)
@j12t Yeah, it's tough. At one point, at least some jurisdictions were considering that the base, hardware infrastructure - lines and wires - should be nationalized. Communications are as essential as interstate roads/rails and water supply networks in terms of public infrastructure. Unfortunately at least Canada has continued to abdicate governance and devolve authority/functionality to increasingly RWNJ-dominated provinces.
@j12t Where think some recovery could be had, though, is realizing those news releases should be directly public, published on the open web, under the gov'ts domains, and whether or not any *particular* press outlet or media tech empire picks them up or transmits them shouldn't matter. The Gov't of Canada already operates four federal data centres across the country. Why are they not *hosting* their own media distribution?