>This is not the internet that I wanted growing up.

As someone who worked in libraries in the 90s, and helped patrons find information using tools like Archie to find unbiased, researched-based answers to their questions- a notion that seems quaint today- these are my feelings as well.

>Furthermore, why do public servants (your Congress people) post on Twitter? Or for that matter, why would local communities post updates on Twitter? Your fire department? Or your local city council? Again, the concern here is: should not public entities post on public owned infastructure?

I think it's a great point, and a public fediverse is a damn good idea.

Some will scream about it- the same people who are forever piqued by NPR and PBS. Those people don't understand the value of the public square, obviously, so why worry about them?

If a nation votes to uphold certain data handling standards and privacy rights, those would always apply on the public web. It's a chance for truly equitable discourse with no deus ex machina of big bucks threatening to take the toys away if they are criticized on the platform.

Although it must be also observed, private investment in public communications (like, say, the Koch brothers sponsoring NPR programs- which they do) might be a problem down the road. When big money gets involved, they want something in return. Ideally they want the sort of equal opportunity and lack of corporate oversight public information exchanges represent. But, the warm fuzzies of goodwill (and reputation-smoothing) conferred by merely being a sponsor big enough to get a mention may ultimately not be enough. So imho public investment in maintaining a universal data infrastucture would be necessary.

It's an interesting thought experiment at least.

I’ve been recently trying to unpack an imperfect idea of trying to publicly fund social media (and how to generally improve the internet).