The internet has always been about standards, otherwise it simply would not work. The visibility of these for the average user has diminished as large platforms have monopolised activities on the web and run them with their own invisible data structures.

Now the internet is the main form of communication there is a growing acknowledgement that organisations pushing updates to the internet need to do it in an open and and ideally internationally standardised format that allows it to disseminate easily and widely.

Standardising Public Information Publishing

An example of this is the Common Alerting Protocol (CAP) that the NZ Metservice has implemented as a way of publishing their weather alerts, their reasons are well documented here but basically boil down to their reasons copied here:

• CAP has a defined standard. This means there is consistency in how it is implemented in different countries, making it easier for developers to use
• A single message can deliver consistent hazard information to multiple systems or end points thus enhancing warning effectiveness
• CAP alerts can be geographically targeted to a defined warning area
• CAP is a rich format capable of including maps, images, video and audio for improved accessibility
• CAP can also support multiple languages

Our local Council the Queenstown Lakes DIstrict Council (QLDC) is an example of an entity similar to the Metservice in that it has important information that needs to be published to a wide population all using different platforms and tools. For example:

• Roading alerts
• Local Emergencies
• Swimming pool and Library service updates

The QLDC currently publishes these to Facebook and on their website which limits their easy dissemination to those two platforms and developers willing to write non-standard code to scrape the data into other systems.

This information could easily be published using the ActivityPub Protocol and set free for users to manage their own interactions with and developers to pull into their platforms in standard ways.

Should an entity run it’s own presence much like they run their own website or email?

A major question is if the QLDC should simply make accounts on an existing Fediverse server, like they have on Facebook, or should stand up their own server that they have complete control over. We contend that the latter is the appropriate solution:

• Easily and cheaply segment information by running multiple accounts with recognisable handles:
  – wanaka-pool@social.qldc.govt.nz
  – queenstown-pool@social.qldc.govt.nz
  – …
• Aggregator handles could auto repost groups of handles i.e. wanaka@social.qldc.govt.nz would repost the pool, library, roading etc alerts in that area
• Publishing can be done from a web app signed into multiple accounts or automated from existing systems with established code libraries
• The software (i.e. gotosocial, snac) can be locked down to reduce security concerns
• Posts can be edited and deleted and either welcome public comment or have it filtered or disabled

Possible disadvantages

• Cost
  While the upfront cost of Facebook is free its cost to society and reliability as a civic actor is not stable. To run a dedicated presence would cost $500 – $1500nzd a year which does not seem much for wrestling back control of dissemination and making it easier for constituents to access public information
• Complexity
  It is a new thing to learn for the people managing the publishing. But it is in a known format, people are used to Social Media, and once people are onboard they find it refreshingly simple. No boosting, ads, gatekeepers.