I think no government should depend on any commercial platform to communicate with its citizens. As low tech as possible and workable would be best I suppose, so maybe just a website? Mastodon could work too I guess.
this post was submitted on 15 Mar 2025
619 points (99.5% liked)
Buy European
3859 readers
3139 users here now
Overview:
The community to discuss buying European goods and services.
Rules:
-
Be kind to each other, and argue in good faith. No direct insults nor disrespectful and condescending comments.
-
Do not use this community to promote Nationalism/Euronationalism. This community is for discussing European products/services and news related to that. For other topics the following might be of interest:
-
Include a disclaimer at the bottom of the post if you're affiliated with the recommendation.
Feddit.uk's instance rules apply:
- No racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia or xenophobia
- No incitement of violence or promotion of violent ideologies
- No harassment, dogpiling or doxxing of other users
- Do not share intentionally false or misleading information
- Do not spam or abuse network features.
- Alt accounts are permitted, but all accounts must list each other in their bios.
Benefits of Buying Local:
local investment, job creation, innovation, increased competition, more redundancy.
Related Communities:
Buying and Selling:
!flohmarkt@lemmy.caBoycott:
!boycottus@lemmy.caStop Publisher Kill Switch in Games Practice:
!stopkillinggames@lemm.eeBanner credits: BYTEAlliance
founded 1 month ago
MODERATORS
RSS feed maybe
But who has an RSS reader (app) these days? Everyone has a web browser. Still an RSS feed would be a lot better than anything controlled by a commercial party, X, Facebook, whatever…
Feedly is a nice one. Using it for years and I can choose the media I want to follow.
Honestly it just seems nutty to me that every sovereign government isn't running its own mastodon instance for PR stuff.
They can continue posting to xitter if they really want.
Everything mission critical to the governent should be open source and secure in my opinion. Of course using mastodon would be nice but what is extremely important is to start using linux insead of microsoft and similar examples because they pose a genuine risk.
just talked with a coworker about that. europe is heavily relying on microsoft products and investing a lot of money into them. we are certain, that all that money can easily pay for an expert team to develop and maintain a eu-gov linux distro.
i know that certain military branches maintain a hardened version of different linux distros for critical systems. why not take this to the next level and have an expert team maintaining your OS?
As opposed to Linux, which poses a penguin risk.
Puns aside, I completely agree with you, but that one might be either the best or the worst thing to happen to OSS. Best case scenario the govt. ensures critical technology is funded and maintained, is invested in and essentially brings a sustainable model for maintainers. Worst case, open source is regulated out of existence as we know it. There was a piece of EU legislation that thankfully didn't pass, which would've resulted in just that. Here's a reference, sorry I don't have the time right now for a better one.
It should've been done already!
Tbh, what I've understood EU has been trying to help create it for years. It just never got wings to fly. Maybe now there's enough lift.
I would love for the "official/non personal" accouts to be on Mastodon. I feel strongly they should do whatever they like in their time off, but for the love of the fediverse please use Mastodon for official communication. A lot of my country's politicians (the Netherlands) are using Twitter/X to communicate and I hate it. (They even argue on there.. I'm not missing that)
A European Citizen Initiative requires a massive investment to come through (quotas of signature per country, amount of signatures, quantity of personal data signatories have to give away, etc.) while at the same time it cannot force the EU to do anything. the Commission can just decide to file it vertically (in the trash can) and they often do.
So speak about a glorified, expansive petition... and you may find modes of action that are way way more efficient.
I will support it yes.
Its nuts that anything is using this. Especially things that have their own infrastructure to begin with like news agencies.
Definitely.
“Support” is vague. Your link is unreachable to Tor users so I can’t see what it’s about.
I boycott Twitter wholly. Will not set foot there. In fact, it’s mutual. Twitter kicked me off their platform when I refused to share a mobile phone number. Thus I inherently support dropping TWTR by not consuming it.
It’s embarassing and very disturbing that the public sector (especially in Europe) uses shitty corporate exclusive walled gardens like Twitter and Facebook. When a politician uses Twitter or Facebook exclusively, they should be sued for free speech infringement. The #1 purpose of free speech is to express yourself to policy makers. When they use an exclusive gatekeeper to block some people from reaching them, it’s an assault on free speech.
Whether they do Mastodon or not does not matter so much. Would be useful if they did, but the real focus should be on just getting them off exclusive tech. They can work out for themselves that Mastodon is useful and inclusive.
Here's a working link: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Citizens%27_Initiative
load more comments
(1 replies)
I'd agree with compelling politicians to change platform only in the case you outline above, where said politician (assuming they are democratically elected) is unreachable through other means of communication. Else I think everyone is free to make their own decision as to what platform/soapbox they want to use, just as much as I have the right to not use that platform.
People don’t have a right to use Twitter -- b/c it’s a private company that excludes people (e.g. people without mobile phones). That’s the first problem.
I heard a rumor that (like Facebook) Twitter was closing read access so only members could /read/ posts. Did that ever happen? Maybe not, because I was just able to reach a twitter timeline without having Twitter creds as a test. If that exclusivity plays out, then politicians will be writing messages that a segment of people are excluded from viewing. It would not be enough that they can be reached by other means. Politicians would also have to copy all of their messages to an accessible space somewhere.
It’s also insufficient that I can reach them outside twitter only by non-microblogging means. E.g. by letter. A letter is a private signal not seen by others. Microblogging is an open letter mechanism. It’s important to deliver your msg to a polician in a way that the msg has an audience. Take away the audience and you take away the power of the signal.
Twitter was closing read access so only members could /read/ posts.
It is indeed the case
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(10 replies)
How does moderation work in that case? It would have to have comments disabled if it's government ran or they risk censoring (or not censoring) people. Either that or a non-government entity could run an eu instance and only give accounts to officials from various countries/groups/entities.
Would it be technically infeasible for their servers to only handle their own stuff, but where responses to it could still be made externally, viewable depending on what you federate with?
I guess if they just don't federate or only federating with other official instances. If people want to discuss it, then they can just link to it. Can you subscribe to non-fed instances?
I clicked the link to support the initiative but I landed on the home page. Am I missing something?
I think the idea of the post is to ask if we would support it, in case it existed.
Yes exactly
Notbsure that i support forcing politicians to transition to a European platform but I would support an initiative to create a safer and more objective alternative where politicians could share their points without being able to promote them by paying for views
Creating a new platform would take time. Mastodon is there, the European Commission already has an instance: https://ec.social-network.europa.eu/@EUCommission
I believe each country should host their instance of Mastodon free of censorship (under legal limits, of course). These instances should give accounts to members of political parties. These instances would be federated with as many other instances as possible.
What would be possible flaws of this system?
I thought we were going to use Bluesky...
How about they just use IRC and also have email addresses they actually read
I actually not want our politicians to personally read all emails I send to them. There's a ton of emails to read and I would prefer the politicians doing something else than just reading endless emails.
They've got aides for that, and the aides will inform the politician about the relevant content in the emails. And will of course forward individual emails to the politician if they so wish. The important thing is that the emails get read by the politician's office.
Solution, another level of politician, perhaps per street?
Somebody still has to do the city-wide politics. This with per street politicians could work, if they functioned like aides, but... then they would be aides.
Also, if there was one politician representing my street, and he is aligned politically very differently than I am, then I've got zero chances of getting the city to hear me. If I want less houses but much taller, and the representative wants single-family homes, me having an idea of how to make it possible to build one more tall house on my street would just crash into my street-representative's political opinions. Now I can contact a politician that thinks the same was I do about what is good and what is bad. I can write them an email. They won't read it, but someone in their office will, and then it will have an effect on the politician's work. Depends on the politician, of course, but that's something I take into account when choosing whom to vote.