I still can’t believe we haven’t seen a @whitehouse.gov.social or whatever spring up. Why in the world would they not want to control their social media presence in house? Why allow Twitter that luxury?
If they went cold turkey on Twitter and set up @[email protected] the posts would still end up on Twitter because people would cross post them (just like we see Twitter posts on Masto or lemmy).
At least some EU governments have started making their own accounts.
I emailed my region’s national weather service and asked that they join Mastodon and the meteorologist said they wanted to but there’s an approval process for communications and it takes awhile to add new services.
I’m basically completely off X (and haven’t had a Facebook account for years) but during a recent storm, I made a new Twitter account that just follows local government accounts. It’s annoying that the fastest way to find out about flooded roads and stuff is X and I really hope that changes soon.
I follow a couple of not stations that have a Masto presence, but I get where you are coming from.
Hopefully the tide will shift more this year.
I know that some people are upset about Threads federating, but I feel like some people may never end up on Masto but could have a Threads account. A local weather station, for example. But if you could simply subscribe to them via Masto without ever making a Threads account that’d be great. And the weather station gets to serve more people (the “normies” — for lack of a better word — on Threads and the nerds on Masto).
A lot of Masto servers I’ve seen have use the .social extension. I feel like it does lend itself to letting people know what to expect when seeing a handle that ends with .social. It’s maybe an easy connection to make that that’s some sort of social media entity.
They certainly don’t have to use that type of url, but I think it’d be cool and it makes sense for what it is.
I’ve thought that news stations should do the same, too. Like an @[email protected] would be cool and have built in verification simply because they could lock down its users to only approved people so you’d know that @[email protected] is definitely Wolf Blitzer. No need for checkmarks.
I still can’t believe we haven’t seen a @whitehouse.gov.social or whatever spring up. Why in the world would they not want to control their social media presence in house? Why allow Twitter that luxury?
If they went cold turkey on Twitter and set up @[email protected] the posts would still end up on Twitter because people would cross post them (just like we see Twitter posts on Masto or lemmy).
At least some EU governments have started making their own accounts.
I emailed my region’s national weather service and asked that they join Mastodon and the meteorologist said they wanted to but there’s an approval process for communications and it takes awhile to add new services.
I’m basically completely off X (and haven’t had a Facebook account for years) but during a recent storm, I made a new Twitter account that just follows local government accounts. It’s annoying that the fastest way to find out about flooded roads and stuff is X and I really hope that changes soon.
Thank you for doing that!
Good meteorologist
I follow a couple of not stations that have a Masto presence, but I get where you are coming from.
Hopefully the tide will shift more this year.
I know that some people are upset about Threads federating, but I feel like some people may never end up on Masto but could have a Threads account. A local weather station, for example. But if you could simply subscribe to them via Masto without ever making a Threads account that’d be great. And the weather station gets to serve more people (the “normies” — for lack of a better word — on Threads and the nerds on Masto).
Why .social? Why not .us?
Just as an example, really.
A lot of Masto servers I’ve seen have use the .social extension. I feel like it does lend itself to letting people know what to expect when seeing a handle that ends with .social. It’s maybe an easy connection to make that that’s some sort of social media entity.
They certainly don’t have to use that type of url, but I think it’d be cool and it makes sense for what it is.
I’ve thought that news stations should do the same, too. Like an @[email protected] would be cool and have built in verification simply because they could lock down its users to only approved people so you’d know that @[email protected] is definitely Wolf Blitzer. No need for checkmarks.
I have no idea who Wolf Blitzer is, but for example there are social.network.europa.eu, social.bund.de and social.kernel.org. So US can use social.gov.us
Oh yeah. Making a subdomain like that also works. And maybe is even easier for existing domains.
And you don’t even pay for subdomains
They really went for a double subdomain and network.europa.eu is not even a thing. Also it’s insufficiently Latin. curia.europa.eu and consilium.europa.eu is proper, europarl.europa.eu already makes much less sense it should be senatus.europa.eu.
That’s how registrars start cranking up the renewal price for .social domains.
#strongerICANN
ICANN’s renewal fee is $0.18
poontang.gov.social
.us is sketchy AF. They should use something.gov.
.gov domain should be either abolished or allowed for use by any governments. Of course US is sketchy AF.
That would be confusing. I want to be able to tell govt.nz apart from the US one.
I think their preference is to have US government under .gov.us
.gov is allowed for use by any governments that invented the internet.
deleted by creator