I’m not down with the perpetual victim-blaming against X/Twitter users here on Lemmy.
Sources like campaigns, news outlets, authors, studios, engineers, actors, comedians, etc. post on there because they basically have to – if they want to get the word out, that is.
Consumers go there to read from the sources because they basically have to. While each source may have their own separate blog or whatever, X/Twitter is pretty much the only place that unifies those feeds. (I know, I miss the heyday of RSS too.)
Expecting people to just “take the hit” and go dark on their communications so we can build up alternatives to X/Twitter is not an acceptable recommendation.
What we need to do is:
- Make it illegal to block third-party clients from interoperating with services
- Compel providers of a certain size to expose a first-party API
- Make it legal to reverse-engineer APIs so they can’t just make the first-party API suck and call it a day
- Then we integrate X/Twitter into the fediverse, so you can start using something else and still keep your X/Twitter stuff
Victim blaming is a little extreme way to describe it, but yeah I don’t blame politicians for using it, but I absolutely will blame them for exclusively using it and letting their media be controlled by a private entity, especially one that is no longer publicly accessible.
POSSE (publish [on your] own site, syndicate everywhere) is the way to go. Don’t assume everyone is just using a platform, especially if you’re providing a public or essential service.
re your points, I think the EU’s gatekeeper law was pretty good.
What we need to do is: Make it illegal to run a business
Twitter doesn’t owe anyone anything. Kamala could go post anywhere else but she’s not even though the left hates Elon.
The idea that we should pass laws to force twitter to show certain info and expose endpoints to support third party apps is ridiculous. It’s their data and they aren’t putting a gun to anyone’s head.
Passing a law forcing the government to use only FLOSS software for day-to-day activities solves this problem, actually makes sense on a principle level and isn’t a ridiculous overreach of power.
Well, I gotta ask then… How do you feel about HP’s printer business model? The fact that you can only use it with HP-approved ink, in HP-approved ways. Do you think that’s a fair business model which will stand or fall on its own merits, or an abusive one that prevents consumers from using their own stuff the way they want to? Should it be legal?
I don’t like it and wouldn’t buy an HP as my next printer for software reasons alone. I’d suggest supporting another company or getting a used HP for free or next to nothing and buying refilled cartridges from aliexpress or amazon for 30-40% of what HP charges (this is what I do). It’s a shitty practice but it doesn’t make me want to get daddy government involved.
“Right to Repair” is different. If I buy a printer and the ink chassis breaks and I’m capable of sourcing a part and fixing it myself then I have a right to do that on my own because it’s mine.
Edit: As an aside if we explanded my initial proposal to encompass FLOSS hardware as well as software this wouldn’t be a problem because companies would be tripping over themselves for the government contracts.
‘Lol’ Three simple characters. “FLOSS software? Ridiculous. So DUMB.” He says to himself. Finally a single tap and his snarky comment begins it’s instantaneous travail through countless GPL licensed unix systems to reach his victim - an ignorant commenter on an open-source, federated lemmy instance.
