Yeah, or local governments, or governments in general, seems strange to me too. But then probably they'd use Facebook/Instagram/Whatever instead of Twitter if Twitter wasn't available, and seemingly it's impossible for them to use something that isn't built like a panopticon that also wants to slurp up as much data from their users as possible.
There should be a law mandating government agencies to not limit their electronic communications to private third party platforms.
If they post something on Twitter, or worse, Facebook, they must also provide a copy of the post on their own website. Some kind of online government gazette, if you will.
ISPs and infrastructure in the Internet are generally considered common carriers unlike social media platform who can do whatever they want. I don't understand why you think this would be hard to define at all.
The same reason is wrong to require a Google or Apple phone to exercise basic civil duties within government services. You are gating the service, or information, behind a 3rd party ToS, a login, and basically stating that you are not allowed to have it until you hand over personal data to such companies.
To live in our 'free' western society, you need to register your birth, get a social security number, and attend state dictated education.
Life in general is now gated, and if you do not abide by the rules you do not get the benefits of society. How is this any different to "you are not allowed to have it until you hand over personal data".
Gated by a provate company where they have no recourse if they ban you is an issue. Also they just repeatedly boil to frog with anti user experiences. No, I won't install your app!
Why is it wrong?
Is it wrong to require people to use certain tools? I don’t think so.
It’s the same thing as requiring dress code to go to the tribunal or anything formal.
> Is it wrong to require people to use certain tools?
As the state or a representative thereof, yes; that's why public service is either run by itself or contracts to operators who must then abide by requirements (like no discrimination, unconditional access to information, social pricing, or similar provisions depending on your jurisdiction), that they would scrape the very day their activity became free market.
In France, even banks, a sector without a public actor in most countries, are legally required to open accounts ("droit au compte"). I don't mean _any_ kind of account, but at least one. On which banks naturally don't make a profit...
Google or Apple on the other hand, have no legal duty to let you in, which means in practice that they can lock you out of public services that they gate access to.
Yeah, or local governments, or governments in general, seems strange to me too. But then probably they'd use Facebook/Instagram/Whatever instead of Twitter if Twitter wasn't available, and seemingly it's impossible for them to use something that isn't built like a panopticon that also wants to slurp up as much data from their users as possible.
There should be a law mandating government agencies to not limit their electronic communications to private third party platforms.
If they post something on Twitter, or worse, Facebook, they must also provide a copy of the post on their own website. Some kind of online government gazette, if you will.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_gazette
How would you define it so the internet wouldn't also be considered a third-party platform?
ISPs and infrastructure in the Internet are generally considered common carriers unlike social media platform who can do whatever they want. I don't understand why you think this would be hard to define at all.
Governments in the EU, that's actually the worst group. Shows how addicted politicians are to attention.
Why?
Because I want to identify with luxury brands, celebrities and lifestyle corporations, but can't stand when they virtue signal what I hate.
....in your own opinion.
Everything here is "in your own opinion". No need to be explicit about it.
Why is it “so wrong” to meet your audience where they are?
The same reason is wrong to require a Google or Apple phone to exercise basic civil duties within government services. You are gating the service, or information, behind a 3rd party ToS, a login, and basically stating that you are not allowed to have it until you hand over personal data to such companies.
I've made this same comment several times now.
To live in our 'free' western society, you need to register your birth, get a social security number, and attend state dictated education.
Life in general is now gated, and if you do not abide by the rules you do not get the benefits of society. How is this any different to "you are not allowed to have it until you hand over personal data".
Gated by a provate company where they have no recourse if they ban you is an issue. Also they just repeatedly boil to frog with anti user experiences. No, I won't install your app!
The comment I replied to said "large companies", not government, and I don't see the equivalence.
Why is it wrong? Is it wrong to require people to use certain tools? I don’t think so. It’s the same thing as requiring dress code to go to the tribunal or anything formal.
People here overthink so much about this topic.
> Is it wrong to require people to use certain tools?
As the state or a representative thereof, yes; that's why public service is either run by itself or contracts to operators who must then abide by requirements (like no discrimination, unconditional access to information, social pricing, or similar provisions depending on your jurisdiction), that they would scrape the very day their activity became free market.
In France, even banks, a sector without a public actor in most countries, are legally required to open accounts ("droit au compte"). I don't mean _any_ kind of account, but at least one. On which banks naturally don't make a profit...
Google or Apple on the other hand, have no legal duty to let you in, which means in practice that they can lock you out of public services that they gate access to.
BTW: overthinking is how society moves forward :)
Because the owner of said tool is a white nationalist
I think you’ve confused HN for BlueSky.
[dead]
[flagged]