this post was submitted on 23 Feb 2024
1953 points (99.2% liked)
Technology
59627 readers
2807 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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 @potus@whitehouse.social 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.
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 @news@cnn.social 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 @wolf@cnn.social is definitely Wolf Blitzer. No need for checkmarks.
poontang.gov.social