Comment by zahlman
1 day ago
> There's zero excuse, none.
How about the general lack of awareness of "open platforms", or of any given one of your objections to X?
Most people are not in the HN bubble.
1 day ago
> There's zero excuse, none.
How about the general lack of awareness of "open platforms", or of any given one of your objections to X?
Most people are not in the HN bubble.
An open platform could be as simple as hosting their own website. You don’t need to be in a “bubble” to know about websites.
“As simple as hosting their own website” is contradictory for a majority of the people using the internet.
The context of the thread is public institutions.
I promise you, most public institutions are capable of hosting a web site or running a bluesky account
4 replies →
We are talking about organizations here who are communicating with the public.
Go ask your mom why she never posts on her own website, but does on closed platform social media. Her answer will be the same as all the people outside of the tech bubble you're in.
My mum used to blog on her own website daily, and she's not tech savvy at all
3 replies →
This is not a conversation about mothers. The root of this thread was referring to "accessibility of public-facing government communications."
1 reply →
If it's not the case currently, it should be, that public institutions MUST make their public statements widely available. The old POSSE way seems correct. Blocked, or EULA'd or Paywalled on third-party platforms doesn't do that.
[flagged]