Wojciech Wiewiórowski was intent on calling mastodon a failure for political reasons. When pressed on the harms of public services using Twitter and Facebook, he defends them on the basis of content moderation. Of course what’s despicable about that stance is that a private sector surveillance advertiser is not who should be moderating who gets to say what to their representatives. Twitter, for example, denies access to people who do not disclose their mobile phone number to Twitter, which obviously also marginalises those who have no mobile phone subscription to begin with.
Effectively, the government has outsourced the duty of governance to private corporations -- without rules. Under capitalism.
The lack of funding on the free world platforms was due to lack of engagement. When the public service does not get much engagement they react by shrinking the funding.
We need the Facebook and Twitter users to stop engaging with gov agencies on those shitty platforms. Which obviously would not happen. Those pushover boot-licking addicts would never do that.
tl;dr: is it a good idea to put Elon Musk in control of who gets to talk to their government?
I’m not sure how it works but it may still conform to standards (just not conventional norms). E.g. consider eduroam which is common in EU schools. You need a special app for eduroam but it’s possibly combining various authentication standards with wi-fi standards. Before using eduroam I skimmed through all 1000+ SLOC of the bash script before deciding to trust it. I was revolted that I had to inspect all that code just to safely connect to campus wi-fi with confidence.
That said, I have no idea how wifi4eu works. It could be similar to eduroam and perhaps a FOSS app will eventually emerge. But until then, all we get is an all-rights-reserved copyrighted black box and no specs (AFAIK). So yes, it’s a shit show of exclusivity and privacy surrender nonetheless.