Fediverse

Other governments:

• CH 🇨🇭: https://social.admin.ch
• DE 🇩🇪: https://social.bund.de
• FR 🇫🇷: https://social.numerique.gouv.fr
• NL 🇳🇱: https://social.overheid.nl

Truth Social is already literally a Mastodon instance. They just don't federate with anything else.

Trump could open up federation, but that would ruin their safe space, I mean echo chamber.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_Social#Platform

Truth Social is modeled heavily after Twitter; users are able to make posts ("Truths", similar to tweets) and share other users' posts ("ReTruths", similar to retweets). The Truth Social platform uses a custom version of the free and open-source social network hosting software Mastodon as its backend, which omits several features, including polls and post visibility options.

The platform uses the Soapbox frontend instead of Mastodon's native frontend. TMTG has advertised for developers with skills in using Elixir, the programming language used to build Pleroma.

On October 21, 2021, the Software Freedom Conservancy group stated they suspected Truth Social had violated Mastodon's AGPLv3 license by not offering its source code to all users. The Mastodon developers then formally requested that Truth Social comply with the terms of the software license, with Truth Social publishing its source code as a ZIP file on the website on November 12, 2021. On February 22, 2022, the source code download was moved to the website's legal section. A mirror of the source code is available at GitHub, where it was uploaded by uninvolved individuals.

The server does not have to be open for registration.

Personally I think the biggest hurdle will be moderation and defederation as it pertains to the first amendment. I believe there was already a supreme Court case where blocking a user on Twitter (from an official govt account) was deemed unconstitutional. This precedent might mean a govt instance is not allowed to defederate with any other server unless they defederate with all(?) This is pure speculation on my part, but I can guarantee it would go to the courts.

They'd just pay a contractor to stand up a server on azure or AWS. Most of the labor would be moderation which is probably why they won't do it.

They couldn't remove anything without Republicans crying censorship. And because it's government run, first amendment protections apply. Which means they couldn't remove a lot of what moderators already do.

If you don't think some Lemmy instances are being run from Fort Meade and Quantico, you're not paranoid enough.

Other governments have done it, even the BBC have as well

I don't think the First Amendment would ever require the government to host private speech. The rule is basically that if you host private speech, you can't discriminate by viewpoint (and you're limited in your ability to discriminate by content). Even so, you can always regulate time, place, and manner in a content-neutral way.

The easiest way to do it is to simply do one of the suggestions of the linked article, and only permit government users and government servers to federate inbound, so that the government hosted servers never have to host anything private, while still fulfilling the general purpose of publishing public government communications, for everyone else to host and republish on their own servers if they so choose.

Yeah, I don't have a complete answer here. I think that Terms of Service requiring standards of behavior are quite reasonable - people in Congress, for example, are required to conduct themselves to a certain standard or be ejected. Same goes for courtrooms.

There may be a "minimum threshold" for content or communities that are blocked, on the basis of materials provided (hate speech, harassment campaigns, doxxing, CSAM), but I'll readily admit that this is conjecture.