It is important to make distinctions:

• as politicians they can use and campaign in whatever platform they want.
• As Government officials, they must be forced by legislation to use a Government Federated instance so everyone has access to their communication and no Big Tech oligarch has the power to decide how these messages reach the population.

Unwilling and also bribed with millions by the BigTech Lobby

same for Twitter for politicians […] “Yeah I want to move away from Twitter, but all the journalists are on there”. Journalists: “Yeah I want to move away from Twitter, but I will miss all the politician’s messages.”

I think this should be solved by legislation. There are already many European government instances, and think its the way. it’s a risk that institutional communications depend on some billionaire’s whim. A legislation that forces politicians (at least the ones in office) to use the corresponding governmental fediverse instances could solve these problems.

It’s very bad title but I didn’t want to change the original

CEO funds right-wing “re-migrate” party in Sweden.

I don’t know if you wrote this in bad faith, but there are many alternative chat applications and platforms mentioned during the video that are more secure than signal.

I agree, the title of the video is awful.

The author mentions many times how they support Signal, but we shouldnt just accept their excuses for the lack of advancement on certain issues just because it’s the most convenient option.

Thanks for this comment, I was looking for the licensing details of this yoinking process but you saved me that effort

and never contribute back

all while having used stolen content through LLM development.

Could also be applied to the Spanish Socialist Party

Yes that’s another ick, GPL would make me consider collaborating.