As someone who has set this up before, its not that hard to have an integration where when you post on one platform it cross-posts on others, including a feed on a website.
I mean we used to hear about shit via radio, television, and newspapers. Not everyone had a radio or television nor did they read newspapers. If you know where it’s being posted, but you willfully avoid that medium, who is to blame for your ignorance? (I also do not use xitter and only get on FB once a month to check on elderly family so I learn about stuff via YouTube’s and sometimes imgur but that’s my choice.)
I agree. I'm all for them putting it on existing sites like Facebook and X, since it does make it convenient and easy for people that use those platforms, as long as it's just as accessible on official government locations, too.
My former city council woman got sued by the ACLU, for blocking people from her official FB account, which she used as her primary medium for announcements. Yes, she stopped blocking people, but the issue should have been why she was using FB for official business at all!
I served on a grand jury, where we investigated a city council's practice of routing all email sent to their official email accounts to their private email accounts. Why was this bad? Public accounts are public, official business and are subject to sunshine laws. Private accounts are private. Constituents who got ghosted or worse couldn't search records for messages about their case, meaning they were powerless to get access to their own government.
I was actually thinking we need a 'government' social media. Let me explain a little however - We don't allow the masses to make posts, only government officials and candidates in elections, then we bar them from posting elsewhere in any official capacity. From there, digital round tables, questioning about platform, digital town halls can be done. This is where the citizens make ask questions and the such. Not 100% worked out in my mind yet, but its getting there.
Not to mention that AI is now banning people for no valid reason on these platforms, so even if they had accounts they may be locked out. Meta's AI is currently on a rampage banning people for posting pictures of their children.
Official websites should be the primary source, and then syndicate to social media. Sure, meet the audience where they’re at but don’t depend on the billionaires who sat in the second row at the inauguration to remain neutral forever. If ever.
Oh man, wait till this guy gets a load of the Project 2025 outcomes that lead to everything he's talking about being behind a paywall. Not just a service you have to sign up for but a service you have to pay for a subscription to. It's going to be awesome, and by that I mean it's going to kill people.
We get emergencies and all sorts of alerts by official bodies directly on the mobile phone. On the first trial a couple of years ago it didn’t work, so they had to repeat it six months later. And there is two apps for various op systems one of them is NINA.
Nope. Imgrrr is antisocial media. "Social media" is about harvesting personal data... Stuff that is unavailable and irrelevant via an anonymous image hosting site.
Agreed. Frankly, they shouldn't be using any Privately owned social media service for any official capacity messaging. But you see, all gov't funded websites are trash and most don't work half the time. You should see how hard it is just to send them a document through the FAFSA website...
So go talk to your local legislature. Not everything needs to be solved by the federal government, and it might surprise some people, but that's kind of the point
The Federal government needs to solve the Federal level issue this is. They're the only ones who can. A State or Locality can't force the CDC to use open platforms for press releases, for instance.
actually I disagree. We all know, and joke, about how so many things only cause cancer in California specifically because a state made a choice legally that forced a change at a nation wide level. If California makes a similar law that all messaging that is viewed from government sources within California must also be available on a public website that would just let the rest of us use the site too.
This is the same with businesses, and especially restaurants: it's laziness and tech ineptitude. They don't want to update official webpage, or even have one, because it's complicated and they probably didn't think about how to display these updates, possibly it would require to get the webdesigner involved every time because they have no interface to post something. While social media is so fast and convenient.
naw. It's what most reasonable people want it to do. The federal government was created with the mission statement to protect the rich assholes and it has done that ever since. The few decent things it does are technically the aberration.
Junior DBA here. When I heard what the doge boys were doing to gov't servers/databases - including superuser access after disabling logs, in rooms with staff locked out - gave me the chills and I couldn't sleep that night. This is like giving a child an angle grinder and inviting them to 'work' on your car. Except the child would be smarter and kinder.
When they tried they were punished, or doge forced their way in under police protection. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/feb/02/usaid-officials-put">-doge">https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/feb/02/usaid-officials-put-on-leave-musk-doge https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/17/us-institute-of-peace-doge
Same, and I'm NEVER aware of town events, even though I'm signed up for my towns newsletter and email blast. I didn't know about a huge food truck/craft show until I pulled up at the park to walk my dog. Why? Cuz they only advertised it on Facebook.
Yes they should, just not exclusively. They should primarily use their own website or newsletter, but also posting on various social media to increase reach and visibility is a good idea.
I agree, I especially think chamber of commerces etc should stop encouraging people to follow them on social media. Why should a for-profit company get more business at the urging of a government body?
what you are describing is what is currently happening. the president posts to a preferred social media and everyone is expected to use that platform to consume that media. if that is the case, that media platform should not be privately owned or for-profit. the advantage of publishing to multiple media channels is that it allows dissemination of information through multiple private sources without any form or preferential treatment and does not give a single private entity control of media.
So... do you agree with me or not because you are providing justifications that support my point that a single dissemination point is bad. Using a single dissemination source among many that is publically owned is far less bad than only using a private one but both are a bad choice instead of just communicating everywhere with whatever people are using if you actually want to communicate
i do not agree that the government should use a preferred private platform to disseminate information, regardless of what people are using. if the government needs a platform to disseminate information, that platform should be publicly owned and not for profit. publishing information on social media is different from a press release, where the information is announced in a forum for multiple media sources to absorb at the same time.
"I do not agree that the government should use a preferred private platform to disseminate information"... yeah, neither do I... that's why I said that in the comment you responded to this with. I'll say again that any one method of dissemination is going to be worse than using every means available to get information to the public during a crisis.
no, not even locally. publish your own city media app if you must. otherwise post to your website. if the government, even local, needs a social media platform like twitter to communicate with people, that platform should be nationalized. yes, that means the federal government should seize X from musk and make it publicly owned. same goes for any essential service, like electric, gas, water, sewage, internet, healthcare. that is the point of a government.
I don't want yet another app or to be forced to go to get another website. Sure, towns should have their important info on the town website, BUT it's good to post that stuff on FB as well. Like, do you think people go to their town's website on a daily basis? I doubt they do. Do people use social media, possibly multiple times per day? Yes! Also, I never have space for more apps on my phone, so fuck that idea.
If the government of one country seizes it and it becomes technically owned by the citizens of that country, what does that mean for people, occurring officials, from all the other countries?
either the government would run it as a for-profit platform generating revenue for the country, or much more likely it would be converted into a platform exclusively for the government to disseminate crucial information. obviously neither of those options are good ideas, which is why the state ought to operate its own exclusive platform for disseminating information, like its website or its own app (which should not be hosted for download on private app stores like google play).
Not technically knowledgeable enough to know if small local municipalities can effectively do this, but the idea of nationalizing a social media platform smacks of 1st amendment violations, and having such things in the hands of the GOP is terrifying. Better to develop free tools that can be used by small organizations to communicate with their communities. Diversify the means, don't gather them up and put them in the hands of a single individual.
It would be like the government nationalizing a newspapers, TV, or radio station. Like it or not, FB and X are used by a vast (majority) percentage of people in the US (I'm not one of them). We might not like who controls those outlets now, but at least they can be held accountable for their actions. Put those outlets in the hands of Tump (or God forbid his GOP sucessor), and they will be beyond the effective reach of the law.
Paper, in the mail... Up until a couple years ago, our town here in Canadaland were putting water or fire restrictions in the mail, like they've always done. Maybe two years ago, I was washing my car and learned that there was a water restriction, I went: "I didn't get anything in the mail!!!" only to be told that they've posted it on their FB page. Some people don't have internet, some don't use FB, some use FB but aren't following the fucking town they live in. I'm waiting for the day that a>
cop or some town idiot shows up to give me a fine if it wasn't in the mail where *insert Gary Oldman* EVERYONE would know about it... then I'll show up at a town meeting and I'll rip them a new asshole. Apparently our "mayor" cuts the questions period really short because he's not really good at his job... Well, good luck dodging that!!!
There are open source alternatives for all such needs and a whole of government approach is fine. Further, the USG has no issue with mandating compliance - that's how you get amber alerts or EBS tests or e911 services.
No need to seize assets, just mandate compliance and compatability and test monthly. In the mean time mandate that all USG business must be done in open standards and on open source software and all USG data must be stored on USG owned hardware.
There's nothing wrong with putting messages out on social media if they're trying to blast stuff out, especially if it's all copied from a public feed.
There is if it generates profit for a preferred private entity, especially if that single private entity has complete control over who sees that message.
Personally I think there should be a standard protocol for official emergency statements. All social media sites should be required to make those available to everyone and actively show them to effected parties, like how emergency broadcasts override normal radio/tv when appropriate.
the government cant require media to do anything. thats the first amendment. theres also a big problem with "All" social media. to avoid showing preference, every little media app or internet forum or website with a news feed would be affected. managing that much media would be impossible and very easy to exploit. a single government owned source, accessible for free, with or without a data plan (like emergency calls and broadcasts), which anyone can reference, is the best solution.
"managing that much media would be impossible and very easy to exploit" ...no? You would just need a couple lines of javascript to comply. If your users give a location, send the zip code in with the request. If there are no emergency notifications, nothing is imported. If there is an emergency notification, its added into the feed.
It would be up to the agency running emergency broadcasts to add bulletins when appropriate and clear them when done.
ive published a new media platform, it is going to fail in 2 days. mattel has a news feed on their website. warthunder has a public forum. how are you going to track every one of these social media platforms and post to them to avoid accusations of preference? will the government be posting to pornhub?
What are you talking about? In my suggestion I say they should publish emergency bulletins. Social sites where people go for news would be required to show that information, so they would just make API calls for that information and add it to feeds.
Hard disagree. I'm a strong proponent that good communication meets the audience where they are with low barriers. Having something like an rss feed makes it possible to post to multiple platforms easily all at the same time.
The biggest problem w/ posting info to private social media is few feeds are linear, meaning a new post might not show up in someone's feed for 2-8 hours, which is very bad if it is an emergency weather warning
Official and primary sources of information must be open standards, open platforms. It is problematic to even use proprietary platforms to extend reach because it endorses the private business, which has a political bias. Should Trump be able to order that all government messaging will be done on Truth Social only? I have no issue with private entities creating unofficial or "company official" bridges between official, open messaging and closed platforms: the USG data is public domain.
For instance, if a school district is determining what platforms to post school closings on, and they know that 40% of parents check platform ___ more often than they check emails, then yes, post to platform ___ even if it is a wretched hive of scum and villainy
I disagree, but I believe government can be a positive force, that we can deliberately choose a better path and by so doing influence better behavior. I have no issue with anyone writing a bridge, but I don't want my tax dollars driving traffic and profits to private companies, I'd prefer the resources go toward improving public source.
The issue with private platform is that at anytime, they can revoke access or conveniently delay, shutter, or disconnect services at their discretion without making "public records" available. Let's not forget the 45th's twitter addiction and mess in which tweets became "public records" and twitter became subsidized by the federal government. Google, MS, AWS have all conveniently gone on "routine maintenance" to wipe records of their choosing. Funny how things work in the private sector.
Which is why you don't post *exclusively* to private platform. But if it is on the .gov website, FB, fasXist, IG, Tik Tok & MySpace, and every single private evil platform puts up paywalls, well then you still have it on the .gov website & MySpace
If it is meaningful to have, NPR/PBS should be ones getting local affiliates instead of sinclair or whatever conglomerate of shi* show broadcasting groups dictating the message. But hey, people seem more willing to blow more advertisement dollars than tax dollars because nobody wants to pay taxes to support public services and vote for politicians that would best serve their interests.
Would you regard it as appropriate for the government to have a dedicated ten minute spot in every hour of a cable news show? Should there be a two-page spread from the national endowment for the arts in every issue of Rolling Stone? And the only way to get this information is to watch/subscribe? That's what you're proposing.
I'm saying put it on a place that the source controls, like .gov website *AND* also put it on other platforms
Putting information *ONLY* on a platform that is controlled by someone else is a bad idea
Also, the examples you gave usually cost money where FB / IG / YT etc. are free to upload to. There might be times where it is a good use of tax payer money to pay for a 2 page spread or a commercial slot, but that probably isn't every day
i said only. the government should use only a platform they own to disseminate information. then every platform as the same access to reference the same source and publish whatever they want. if the platform being used currently has become totally necessary and is private, it should be seized and made public.
No. They're saying putting it in *many* places is good. No one is saying it's good to *only* put it in private platforms, but you absolutely shouldn't forbid putting it on private platforms so long as it's also available in other, public, places.
who gets to choose which private platforms get to publish that info? unless its disseminated to ALL private platforms, its preferential. a single dedicated platform for the government to disseminate public information, which private platforms can reference, is the most practical. everyone has access to the same info at the same time with a verifiable source which preferences no one and is easy to access. make it free access like emergency calls are.
kris40k
As someone who has set this up before, its not that hard to have an integration where when you post on one platform it cross-posts on others, including a feed on a website.
rubypilgrim
Name one thing good about this administration.
tidepool
I mean we used to hear about shit via radio, television, and newspapers. Not everyone had a radio or television nor did they read newspapers. If you know where it’s being posted, but you willfully avoid that medium, who is to blame for your ignorance? (I also do not use xitter and only get on FB once a month to check on elderly family so I learn about stuff via YouTube’s and sometimes imgur but that’s my choice.)
toolzgalore2
Dude really need to not have government agencies *only* providing updates on social media
TheGreatSynan
I agree. I'm all for them putting it on existing sites like Facebook and X, since it does make it convenient and easy for people that use those platforms, as long as it's just as accessible on official government locations, too.
chefsoda
My former city council woman got sued by the ACLU, for blocking people from her official FB account, which she used as her primary medium for announcements. Yes, she stopped blocking people, but the issue should have been why she was using FB for official business at all!
rubypilgrim
I served on a grand jury, where we investigated a city council's practice of routing all email sent to their official email accounts to their private email accounts. Why was this bad? Public accounts are public, official business and are subject to sunshine laws. Private accounts are private. Constituents who got ghosted or worse couldn't search records for messages about their case, meaning they were powerless to get access to their own government.
LittleAzie
I was actually thinking we need a 'government' social media. Let me explain a little however - We don't allow the masses to make posts, only government officials and candidates in elections, then we bar them from posting elsewhere in any official capacity. From there, digital round tables, questioning about platform, digital town halls can be done. This is where the citizens make ask questions and the such. Not 100% worked out in my mind yet, but its getting there.
infilTRAITOR
Not to mention that AI is now banning people for no valid reason on these platforms, so even if they had accounts they may be locked out. Meta's AI is currently on a rampage banning people for posting pictures of their children.
SometimesOthertimesAnytime
My town uses several social media sites, its city website, and sends emails (for those who sign up), to ensure important information gets out.
PhailRaptor
Using other forms of media *in addition to* an in-house system is fine. But that in-house system has to exist, and be where they post first.
TinyLiehon
Ah, the USA. Where "news" channels and government have the freedom not to inform you
JiffyPopPhantom
No clue who downvoted you. I'm sure I will be too. You're spot on friend! Lol
Hercules99
My town does it, it's the only reason I use Facebook.
vurcease
Official websites should be the primary source, and then syndicate to social media. Sure, meet the audience where they’re at but don’t depend on the billionaires who sat in the second row at the inauguration to remain neutral forever. If ever.
KR1570F
Oh man, wait till this guy gets a load of the Project 2025 outcomes that lead to everything he's talking about being behind a paywall. Not just a service you have to sign up for but a service you have to pay for a subscription to. It's going to be awesome, and by that I mean it's going to kill people.
ActualTttony
Try meeting a woman in a bar. "I'd love to talk more. Can I get your number? "Oh, just catch up with me on Facebook." "I'm actually not on FB." "Oh."
egoAristippos
We get emergencies and all sorts of alerts by official bodies directly on the mobile phone. On the first trial a couple of years ago it didn’t work, so they had to repeat it six months later.
And there is two apps for various op systems one of them is NINA.
BipedalHumanoidWithSlightlyDifferentNoseRidge
I don't have MSM or SM.
I get all the important information straight from the source.
But I don't live in a corporate sponsored fascist country.
KR1570F
you don't have any social media accounts? At all? Not even like one image hosting website that you can think of?
BipedalHumanoidWithSlightlyDifferentNoseRidge
Nope. Imgrrr is antisocial media.
"Social media" is about harvesting personal data...
Stuff that is unavailable and irrelevant via an anonymous image hosting site.
aoshistark
Agreed. Frankly, they shouldn't be using any Privately owned social media service for any official capacity messaging. But you see, all gov't funded websites are trash and most don't work half the time. You should see how hard it is just to send them a document through the FAFSA website...
Puppies717
I agree with this but I have run into issues with the expense of hosting a website. I think that's why you tend to see social media used instead.
freemab
Cities can bear that expense. So can counties and states.
Tishall
So go talk to your local legislature. Not everything needs to be solved by the federal government, and it might surprise some people, but that's kind of the point
eion85
The Federal government needs to solve the Federal level issue this is. They're the only ones who can. A State or Locality can't force the CDC to use open platforms for press releases, for instance.
KR1570F
actually I disagree. We all know, and joke, about how so many things only cause cancer in California specifically because a state made a choice legally that forced a change at a nation wide level. If California makes a similar law that all messaging that is viewed from government sources within California must also be available on a public website that would just let the rest of us use the site too.
eion85
It would not have any effect on Federal Agencies. If it were written to apply to them, the law would be ruled invalid by the court's in short order.
[deleted]
[deleted]
eion85
You're not understanding that California as a State can't force a Federal Agency to do this.
SalmonTheWise
This is the same with businesses, and especially restaurants: it's laziness and tech ineptitude. They don't want to update official webpage, or even have one, because it's complicated and they probably didn't think about how to display these updates, possibly it would require to get the webdesigner involved every time because they have no interface to post something. While social media is so fast and convenient.
eion85
Agreed. Social media pages for governments should be echoing what's on their website already.
AntaNce
i live with this. Sheriff, County, Fire, Local Govt, ALL of them're FB only. They don't have web presence other than pages that say GO TO FB
hexephant
With a link to the website to confirm, because you shouldn't believe shit on social media
MoonMoon89
Their corporate masters demand they force you onto their advertising platform. Obey! /s
ToSisPoS
I’ve said it since Covid. Social media is not a Public Service and it needs to stop being used as one.
MioTaalas
This is the shit federal government is SUPPOSED to do.
To enact and enforce sane laws that improve lives of every day citizens across states.
What the fuck they're doing right now is harmful to everyone.
KR1570F
naw. It's what most reasonable people want it to do. The federal government was created with the mission statement to protect the rich assholes and it has done that ever since. The few decent things it does are technically the aberration.
alcamar
I wonder how many record retention laws are broken daily
OnomatopoeicOnanisma
Junior DBA here. When I heard what the doge boys were doing to gov't servers/databases - including superuser access after disabling logs, in rooms with staff locked out - gave me the chills and I couldn't sleep that night. This is like giving a child an angle grinder and inviting them to 'work' on your car. Except the child would be smarter and kinder.
pixelsnader
No, 1 child would be kind. 𝘚𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘭 children would be kinder.
ProppaGanda
The fact that they were physically able to, without widespread standoffs with people working in those agencies means that the US is already lost.
OnomatopoeicOnanisma
When they tried they were punished, or doge forced their way in under police protection.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/feb/02/usaid-officials-put">-doge">https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/feb/02/usaid-officials-put-on-leave-musk-doge
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/17/us-institute-of-peace-doge
Bystandr
I dont use any social media besides imgur now myself
CyanideBreathMint
This is my only SM, ever
toolzgalore2
I use fb marketplace a decent bit
Hyzenthlay021
Welcome friend :)
Bystandr
Thanks
Gewesen
Same
Illithidbane
Even Imgur isn't as fun as it used to be. I find myself mostly in small Discord communities now. This is pretty isolating.
MadamPuddifoot
Same, and I'm NEVER aware of town events, even though I'm signed up for my towns newsletter and email blast. I didn't know about a huge food truck/craft show until I pulled up at the park to walk my dog. Why? Cuz they only advertised it on Facebook.
HiddenSanity
I use a little bluesky for artists I like
mksu
Completely agree. Government run websites should always be the best way to find out what the government is up to.
Elkarlo77
Trump disagree and you have to pay to get the Information you need.
IceWeaselX
Sadly, the current US administration's official websites now blatantly lie to our faces. Can't even look at whitehouse.gov without wanting to vomit.
IndependenceHallPhiladelphiaPA
the government shouldnt use private social media. period.
Eldis
Social media shouldn't be privately owned, so I agree with you as a hard principle.
bhraal
Yes they should, just not exclusively. They should primarily use their own website or newsletter, but also posting on various social media to increase reach and visibility is a good idea.
nddstgm9gz12
I agree, I especially think chamber of commerces etc should stop encouraging people to follow them on social media. Why should a for-profit company get more business at the urging of a government body?
TK421isAFK
True, but if that law passes right now, you know damn well the asshole will get Congress to sign another bill forcing us to buy his site.
Youhavinagiraffe
That's kinda dumb. Can you imagine applying this to anything else. Like if Presidential TV broadcasts only went out on PBS
IndependenceHallPhiladelphiaPA
what you are describing is what is currently happening. the president posts to a preferred social media and everyone is expected to use that platform to consume that media. if that is the case, that media platform should not be privately owned or for-profit. the advantage of publishing to multiple media channels is that it allows dissemination of information through multiple private sources without any form or preferential treatment and does not give a single private entity control of media.
Youhavinagiraffe
So... do you agree with me or not because you are providing justifications that support my point that a single dissemination point is bad. Using a single dissemination source among many that is publically owned is far less bad than only using a private one but both are a bad choice instead of just communicating everywhere with whatever people are using if you actually want to communicate
IndependenceHallPhiladelphiaPA
i do not agree that the government should use a preferred private platform to disseminate information, regardless of what people are using. if the government needs a platform to disseminate information, that platform should be publicly owned and not for profit.
publishing information on social media is different from a press release, where the information is announced in a forum for multiple media sources to absorb at the same time.
Youhavinagiraffe
"I do not agree that the government should use a preferred private platform to disseminate information"... yeah, neither do I... that's why I said that in the comment you responded to this with. I'll say again that any one method of dissemination is going to be worse than using every means available to get information to the public during a crisis.
Autittuderp
Right?! That's what got me...
Sure local governments...small pieces of community but not Federally...no.
IndependenceHallPhiladelphiaPA
no, not even locally. publish your own city media app if you must. otherwise post to your website. if the government, even local, needs a social media platform like twitter to communicate with people, that platform should be nationalized. yes, that means the federal government should seize X from musk and make it publicly owned. same goes for any essential service, like electric, gas, water, sewage, internet, healthcare. that is the point of a government.
Lontri
I don't want yet another app or to be forced to go to get another website. Sure, towns should have their important info on the town website, BUT it's good to post that stuff on FB as well. Like, do you think people go to their town's website on a daily basis? I doubt they do. Do people use social media, possibly multiple times per day? Yes! Also, I never have space for more apps on my phone, so fuck that idea.
IndependenceHallPhiladelphiaPA
it is not good to give a preferred private company control over public information
RunawaySpoons
If the government of one country seizes it and it becomes technically owned by the citizens of that country, what does that mean for people, occurring officials, from all the other countries?
IndependenceHallPhiladelphiaPA
either the government would run it as a for-profit platform generating revenue for the country, or much more likely it would be converted into a platform exclusively for the government to disseminate crucial information. obviously neither of those options are good ideas, which is why the state ought to operate its own exclusive platform for disseminating information, like its website or its own app (which should not be hosted for download on private app stores like google play).
Hyzenthlay021
Not technically knowledgeable enough to know if small local municipalities can effectively do this, but the idea of nationalizing a social media platform smacks of 1st amendment violations, and having such things in the hands of the GOP is terrifying. Better to develop free tools that can be used by small organizations to communicate with their communities. Diversify the means, don't gather them up and put them in the hands of a single individual.
IndependenceHallPhiladelphiaPA
im curious why you think that would violate the 1st.
Hyzenthlay021
It would be like the government nationalizing a newspapers, TV, or radio station. Like it or not, FB and X are used by a vast (majority) percentage of people in the US (I'm not one of them). We might not like who controls those outlets now, but at least they can be held accountable for their actions. Put those outlets in the hands of Tump (or God forbid his GOP sucessor), and they will be beyond the effective reach of the law.
MapleSyrupMafia
Paper, in the mail... Up until a couple years ago, our town here in Canadaland were putting water or fire restrictions in the mail, like they've always done. Maybe two years ago, I was washing my car and learned that there was a water restriction, I went: "I didn't get anything in the mail!!!" only to be told that they've posted it on their FB page. Some people don't have internet, some don't use FB, some use FB but aren't following the fucking town they live in. I'm waiting for the day that a>
MapleSyrupMafia
cop or some town idiot shows up to give me a fine if it wasn't in the mail where *insert Gary Oldman* EVERYONE would know about it... then I'll show up at a town meeting and I'll rip them a new asshole. Apparently our "mayor" cuts the questions period really short because he's not really good at his job... Well, good luck dodging that!!!
gesel
There are open source alternatives for all such needs and a whole of government approach is fine. Further, the USG has no issue with mandating compliance - that's how you get amber alerts or EBS tests or e911 services.
No need to seize assets, just mandate compliance and compatability and test monthly. In the mean time mandate that all USG business must be done in open standards and on open source software and all USG data must be stored on USG owned hardware.
AgainstMethod
There's nothing wrong with putting messages out on social media if they're trying to blast stuff out, especially if it's all copied from a public feed.
IndependenceHallPhiladelphiaPA
There is if it generates profit for a preferred private entity, especially if that single private entity has complete control over who sees that message.
Wolfshead009
The critical part is it being COPIED from something accessible, like their own website. If it is the ONLY message, THAT is the problem.
CBadger
Personally I think there should be a standard protocol for official emergency statements. All social media sites should be required to make those available to everyone and actively show them to effected parties, like how emergency broadcasts override normal radio/tv when appropriate.
IndependenceHallPhiladelphiaPA
the government cant require media to do anything. thats the first amendment. theres also a big problem with "All" social media. to avoid showing preference, every little media app or internet forum or website with a news feed would be affected. managing that much media would be impossible and very easy to exploit. a single government owned source, accessible for free, with or without a data plan (like emergency calls and broadcasts), which anyone can reference, is the best solution.
CBadger
"managing that much media would be impossible and very easy to exploit"
...no? You would just need a couple lines of javascript to comply. If your users give a location, send the zip code in with the request. If there are no emergency notifications, nothing is imported. If there is an emergency notification, its added into the feed.
It would be up to the agency running emergency broadcasts to add bulletins when appropriate and clear them when done.
IndependenceHallPhiladelphiaPA
ive published a new media platform, it is going to fail in 2 days. mattel has a news feed on their website. warthunder has a public forum. how are you going to track every one of these social media platforms and post to them to avoid accusations of preference? will the government be posting to pornhub?
CBadger
What are you talking about? In my suggestion I say they should publish emergency bulletins. Social sites where people go for news would be required to show that information, so they would just make API calls for that information and add it to feeds.
seehemewe
Hard disagree. I'm a strong proponent that good communication meets the audience where they are with low barriers. Having something like an rss feed makes it possible to post to multiple platforms easily all at the same time.
The biggest problem w/ posting info to private social media is few feeds are linear, meaning a new post might not show up in someone's feed for 2-8 hours, which is very bad if it is an emergency weather warning
SavageDrums
"newest first" wasn't profitable.
gesel
Official and primary sources of information must be open standards, open platforms. It is problematic to even use proprietary platforms to extend reach because it endorses the private business, which has a political bias. Should Trump be able to order that all government messaging will be done on Truth Social only? I have no issue with private entities creating unofficial or "company official" bridges between official, open messaging and closed platforms: the USG data is public domain.
seehemewe
You're hitting on a couple different things.
Should gov *ONLY* post official info to a specific private platform? No, of course not b/c it goes against transparency
Should gov *NOT* re-post info on a private platform b/c that platform has political interests? Ugh, that gets sticky very very fast
Ideally, gov should have a metric that ignores politically leanings but is still able to decide what platforms to or not to post to
seehemewe
For instance, if a school district is determining what platforms to post school closings on, and they know that 40% of parents check platform ___ more often than they check emails, then yes, post to platform ___ even if it is a wretched hive of scum and villainy
gesel
I disagree, but I believe government can be a positive force, that we can deliberately choose a better path and by so doing influence better behavior. I have no issue with anyone writing a bridge, but I don't want my tax dollars driving traffic and profits to private companies, I'd prefer the resources go toward improving public source.
shadowhunter100
The issue with private platform is that at anytime, they can revoke access or conveniently delay, shutter, or disconnect services at their discretion without making "public records" available. Let's not forget the 45th's twitter addiction and mess in which tweets became "public records" and twitter became subsidized by the federal government. Google, MS, AWS have all conveniently gone on "routine maintenance" to wipe records of their choosing. Funny how things work in the private sector.
seehemewe
Which is why you don't post *exclusively* to private platform. But if it is on the .gov website, FB, fasXist, IG, Tik Tok & MySpace, and every single private evil platform puts up paywalls, well then you still have it on the .gov website & MySpace
shadowhunter100
If it is meaningful to have, NPR/PBS should be ones getting local affiliates instead of sinclair or whatever conglomerate of shi* show broadcasting groups dictating the message. But hey, people seem more willing to blow more advertisement dollars than tax dollars because nobody wants to pay taxes to support public services and vote for politicians that would best serve their interests.
IndependenceHallPhiladelphiaPA
NPR and PBS are private non-profit organizations. they are not government owned.
OlaphOfTheNorth
Would you regard it as appropriate for the government to have a dedicated ten minute spot in every hour of a cable news show? Should there be a two-page spread from the national endowment for the arts in every issue of Rolling Stone? And the only way to get this information is to watch/subscribe? That's what you're proposing.
seehemewe
I never said "only"
I'm saying put it on a place that the source controls, like .gov website *AND* also put it on other platforms
Putting information *ONLY* on a platform that is controlled by someone else is a bad idea
Also, the examples you gave usually cost money where FB / IG / YT etc. are free to upload to. There might be times where it is a good use of tax payer money to pay for a 2 page spread or a commercial slot, but that probably isn't every day
IndependenceHallPhiladelphiaPA
i said only. the government should use only a platform they own to disseminate information. then every platform as the same access to reference the same source and publish whatever they want. if the platform being used currently has become totally necessary and is private, it should be seized and made public.
KevinStrexcorp
No. They're saying putting it in *many* places is good. No one is saying it's good to *only* put it in private platforms, but you absolutely shouldn't forbid putting it on private platforms so long as it's also available in other, public, places.
IndependenceHallPhiladelphiaPA
who gets to choose which private platforms get to publish that info? unless its disseminated to ALL private platforms, its preferential. a single dedicated platform for the government to disseminate public information, which private platforms can reference, is the most practical. everyone has access to the same info at the same time with a verifiable source which preferences no one and is easy to access. make it free access like emergency calls are.