Don't you love how the government is supporting private for-profit businesses? I received an amber alert 2 days ago and when I clicked the link it took me to Twitter. I don't have a Twitter account and the page wouldn't load. What in the actual fuck? Our government is using a website run by an insane man-child for critical infrastructure.

[–] Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world 20 points 5 months ago (1 children)

That’s just the link the local cops pasted into the alert form. They can put in a link to hampsterdance.com if they wanted to.

[–] Anticorp@lemmy.world 13 points 5 months ago (1 children)

My point is that they should have a dedicated public service website that they use for these sorts of things.

[–] Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world 4 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Your state or county is probably using what was identified as an easy and accessible solution several years ago. It was probably selected because it was something any yahoo could easily access and post to.

Now that there are a lot of cheap and easy FOSS alternatives, it probably wouldn’t be too hard to petition for a ballot initiative that required these alerts to be published on a state masto instance or something.

[–] Flax_vert@feddit.uk 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

The sooner they use the fediverse the better

[–] ziixe@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

I had a conversation with a friend from the US (I'm not, he's from Like the New England area idk where exactly), he's very conservatist, like the typical "I own a ~~guy~~ gun and I like it" type of person (lucky that he doesn't base his entire personality on it), and even he said that both options sucked ass and very much envied that most of the European countries have a sensible system of voting that has more than two parties, since when one sucks go to the another, and the possibility of all candidates being absolutely trash is basically zero when you got like 7+ parties, compared to the two in the US

If y'all had a functioning government and something that resembles capitalism (a few leading members while everyone else gets fucked around, sounds similar? cough Meta, Google, Microsoft cough and others) and had some competition it would go all way different than it's currently going

[–] Flax_vert@feddit.uk 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I own a guy and I like it

😧

[–] ziixe@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 5 months ago

Ducking autocorrect

[–] adj16@lemmy.world 29 points 5 months ago

Dethreaderate

[–] shininghero@kbin.social 18 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

There's also a limited federation mode that server admins can use. Users and posts are still searchable, but they do not show on the public federated feed.
Useful for this exact case where a server may have beneficial accounts, but the rest should be hidden for moderation reasons.

Still would prefer it being on a proper mastodon server, but I can live with this. Whatever server ends up hosting a President's account now has to deal with record preservation laws for their posts. Let's leave that bureaucratic stuff to threads.

[–] Jumuta@sh.itjust.works 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

how about having the American government just host their own fediverse servers? it's not like they don't have the money to do so

[–] btaf45@kbin.social 1 points 5 months ago

And some usenet servers too while they are at it.

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 6 points 5 months ago

I mean, it's not like he's reading the Threads users' comments either.

[–] electricprism@lemmy.ml 5 points 5 months ago (2 children)

That would be like Gmail blocking Yahoo, it defeats the purpose of a Fediverse especially when users can already block content from domains they dislike.

[–] GreatDong3000@lemm.ee 2 points 5 months ago

No, big corp with millions of users they cannot moderate defeats the purpose of a fediverse.

[–] Draconic_NEO@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago

First of all, no it doesn't. The fediverse is about servers communicating with each other, that doesn't mean all servers, it just means that multiple servers communicate, and if a server is being problematic it will be blocked or limited, as another example a good amount of servers limit or block Mastodon.social and due to spam issues. Threads in this regard is no different, it just so happens to be a much bigger problem than Mastodon.social hence why there is much stronger efforts to defederate it.

especially when users can already block content from domains they dislike.

No, you are deliberately or unintentionally misrepresenting how domain blocks and indeed blocking in general works in Lemmy (Domain blocks target communities and do not hide users or their content), and even with Mastodon this doesn't solve the biggest problems with threads, that being the extremely poor moderation and the EEE threat which are server wide problems and not user preference issues.