I might, for the sake of supporting the fediverse, and commenting on or paticipating in government stuff. I'm certainly not using that as my main account.

It wouldnt be fit to fediverse in any way in that case. If you enable federation, then users from all sorts of different instances can join in the discussion without ID anyways. If you disable federation, you essentially have nothing that makes lemmy itself.

My government originated chat control. Not a chance.

That said, I definitely think the government should get the fuck away from twitter and host their own mastodon for official communication if they think updating a website is too much work.

No. No, man. Shit no, man! I believe you'd get your ass raided by ice doin’ something like that, man.

That sounds like an awful idea lmao. I would never.

ID requirement is terrible for everyone but that especially seems like you're limiting this to citizens or at least people who have managed to get appropriate immigration documents, which is a difficult and obstructive process that many migrants haven't got yet. Plus a lot of countries make it hard to get ID without a fixed address.

Maybe.

An official government forum where politicians engage with the people they represent, provide reasoning for their votes, and actually listen to what members of the public want would be great. There's a case for using verified real names in such a forum.

A place where internet randoms yell at each other about politics, on the other hand would probably not be improved by identity checks.

no, i think neither government nor corporation should have any spots. let lemmy be by the people and for the people.

Yes i would..

Afterall, my governemnt already issue me an id and much more than that.

Would I use it as my only or main Lemmy instance? Surely not.

I would use it only for government related stuff and express none of my political views.

I want no media nor communication directly ran by the government

I believe we need dedicated spaces for political discussion that are not based on algorithms optimized for engagement (aka outrage).

So do we, which is one of the reasons why Lemmy was created, and why Lemmy does not have algorithms for rage engagement. Lemmy is all cost and no revenue, so there is no financial incentive for it to “maximize ‘engagement.’”

The first is a way to limit bots or bad actors from participating in discussions.

Where are the actually-existing the “bot problems” on Lemmy? While it could happen, I don’t think it actually is happening to any significant extent presently.

No, I would not want to join such an instance but I wouldn't mind its existence. Nobody could really federate with it. So you create a niche server in an already niche environment.

I am not convinced the conclusion "if the government runs it, the first amendment has to apply" is apt. Even if the server was run from under the house majority leader's desk - which I don't think it would, this smells more like an outsourced undertaking - moderation on the platform is not "making a law." And proprietors of platforms are legally compelled to moderate in certain cases, e.g. when illegal stuff like child sexual abuse is involved.

It is the responsibility of every other instance to defederate from them.

tldr

lol. Fucking no

Of fucking course not.

No I get way too cheeky online

This would just end up being Facebook in the long run.

One thing that would be nice is if we can know that we're actually talking to people from the same country as us and that the different accounts represent different people. But I think something like a web of trust is preferable for that purpose.

I wouldn’t make my worst enemies use it