- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
There’s really good BBC bot operating Mastodon too. I’ve followed it since I joined in October last year. It’s even programmed to use CW’s and add image descriptions.
Been following that as well
I know I’m not the only one who has been saying that this type of move makes perfect sense for governments and news organizations, but I’m going to go ahead and take credit for this.
You’re welcome, guys!
💀
call us handsfree, safe, and legal
Even Sam and Dave appreciate you, Garret.
Thanks Garret.
deleted by creator
OH MY GOD GARRET I AM YOUR BIGGEST FAN
All my homies love garret
deleted by creator
ban
Ban a user
Example: @me ban [username - u/THISPART] (duration - days) (delete posts - true/false) (reason - Spaces allowed)unban
Unban a user
Example: @me unban [username - u/THISPART]help
Shows this help message
Example: @me help
Well, I think it’s positive although it’s eerie to have government run instances.
What’s wrong with government-run instances, when they’re used specifically for communication from that government?
The BBC is supposed to be independent, although to what extent it actually is is debatable. That aside, Mastodon is open-source so anyone can set up their own server.
BBC is not the UK government. I’m not sure if there’s a difference or not. (Also please accept my apologies for using this post for a quick federation test)
Idk what to feel about this tbh !
I’m all for it.
No matter how you feel about BBC ( I would at least posit that they are significantly better than some of the corporate, for-profit news networks out of America), journalism and professional-quality media is important to informing people and providing the very first thread of accountability in democratic society. On top of that, I think that self-hosting fediverse software on an official domain (like “social.bbc”) is the ultimate form of content verification, and it much more effective and egalitarian than awarding “influencers” with blue checkmarks or whatever.
Overall I see almost no downside to the BBC hosting content on the Fediverse, and I hope that other media organizations follow their lead on this one.
they should just be out here with links to their own website. once there, look at their ads. if any of these mega corps try to show ads on fedi, they’d be defedied(defederated) quick. it’s got them hesitant about getting shut out
That is fucking awesome.
I love the BBC, I hate seeing what it’s been forced to turn into by threats from a succession of Conservative governments. I still pay my TV license despite pirating all my TV and movie content for years.
I’m glad there’s nuance to the discussion, I was worried by the 95+% glazing going on.
This is good to see like to see more companies using the fediverse
I may be misremembering but seem to recall them being early to Tw*tter too. Good sign
my guy you don’t have to censor the word twitter
I literally saw it everywhere on Mastodon, like, I honestly never saw anyone say it directly, just “birdsite” or a censored version. So I adapted to be polite. And sometimes forget which form of fediverse I’m posting on.
The childish censorship of names of people and things has been one of my biggest internet bug bears over the last few years.
to be fair, the word Mastodon was being censored on Twitter at one point, but doesn’t mean the other way happens in the Fediverse.
Aye. Like nerds using M$ for Microsoft.
Apple? More like Crapple, am I right, fellas?
All that does is give them cred in the rap community.
Well you gotta keep your posts ad friendly, you know?
Musk himself is censoring Twitter
It’s spelled twatter
Are we supposed to call it X now? What a dumb name, in my opinion.
Does that mean DMX is now running the show over there?
They don’t know who we be
I still call it Twitter and will continue to do so. :)
I liked someone’s suggestion to pronounce it as “ten”
‘The site formerly known as twitter’
The unpleasantly long name just makes it funnier imo
“TSFKAT”.
Fewer letters than “Twitter”, expresses more than “X”.
I have seen worse names (“X Æ A-12”) get more eyeballs.
Maybe they were talking about twatter
It’s a funny thing people do. Look it up. Some more examples: Brtish, Frace
You accidentally did a markdown there!
That’s why censoring with 🤮 is better:
Br🤮tish, Fr🤮nchbrish
It would be funny to censor X just with a single *
The Dutch Government also launched an instance not that long ago. It’s a pity it took so long, but Musk’s antics are finally forcing people to move.
At least X allows free speech.
At least X allows free speech.
Nope.
Fair enough. I feel like I disagree with you based on what I’ve seen, but us disagreeing is free speech.
Totally agree, even if I disagree with your opinion it’s fine 🤝
Good job there isn’t a story just today about twitter using threats of legal action to harass researchers for their free speech eh?
The anti hate group research? 🤣
Right on. 😄
Edit to add. I think it swings both ways. I’ve seen the Beeb and ‘X’ curtail speech. It would be hilarious if the BBC got cancelled for being transphobic.
German Public broadcast also has its own instance, as does the government.
Also the EU: social.network.europa.eu
Is it better for companies in the Fediverse to create their own instances, like is that how we’re likely to see the proliferation of corporations here? We’ll see a Pepsi instance, a FoxNews instance, a McDonald’s instance? I imagine that gives them the most control over what happens in their neck of the woods vs just having a single corporate account on like lemmy.world or beehaw or whatever (though I don’t entirely understand what having an instance entails).
Yeah, for any sizable organization running your own instance is the way to go, similarly to how you’d want your own DNS domain, email and web site. And just like with these other services your fedi presence could be hosted somewhere too but you want to be in control of it.
Makes more sense for The NY Times than for McDonalds. A commercial ad account would want to be found on a local feed of the biggest instance. The BBC experiment won’t work unless they commit to supporting it. Ideally, their reporters would have their own accounts, not just at the radio show level.
I love this. No more “blue checkmarks” or paid verification processes. Just check the domain of the post(s) to confirm they are legit.
This makes so much sense.
BBC wouldn’t make their news site under Google Blogger… so why depend on other corporations for your microblogging?
Spin up your own server, have your own verification, then use it on your site and share outs.
Now this is the kind of growth factor the Fediverse needs, not Threads.
removed by mod
Probably because the need of moderation.
If you host an instance and let people in (even if it’s a limited circle, i.E. your students) you are responsible for moderation. I think that’s something institutions back off currently.
For an mail server that’s much easier.
removed by mod
But people can still reply to posts so you’d need moderation still.
removed by mod
And twitter had moderation when these organizations decided to use it.
removed by mod
Many Universities already have their own dedicated subreddits that are usually moderated by a mix of faculty, staff, and students. I know of at least one sub moderated in part by the chair oftheh math department, who is as funny as they are savage.
An above-average level of shitposting goes on, sure, but it’s also a great venue for the school’s online community to engage across organizational boundaries.
Then don’t let people post on the server people can repost if they want to comment
Universities used to have students involved in publishing magazines as journalists, editors etc. This is the evolution. I’m sure a decent sized uni could find or create a student group who can be responsible for moderation under an official administrator.
Universities have experimented with more private social networks. I remember YikYak back in my uni days. They either don’t have the resource to spin one up or they don’t know about it.
Might not qualify as a social network, but university hosted IRC servers were a thing once.
Because of the network effect and content aggregation. With emails you just want to reach a specific person, with public posts you want to reach as many people as possible. But I also think the whole ownership and control problem of centralized social networks wasn’t as apparent as it is now.
Same here, and I doubt their IT departments knows deeply about Fediverse. Also some times the department making communication is non technical and not close to IT so people making decisions just choose what they know (Instagram, Twitter, etc). At least that was the case in the University I studied
It’s mostly the latter from what I’ve seen.
At least in my country IT departments have very little wiggle room as organizations have gotten more rigid with increased control from the top echelons. Some universities in my country used to host a lot of cool services for students to use. Nowdays it seems that the legacy stuff is kept online as long as the people maintaining them are around.
Back in my uni days (1997-01) my uni ran its own Usenet server. Don’t think it carried the alt.binaries, but did have groups specifically for the uni. Sadly only a small handful of people used it.
It’s a smart thing for news sources and ngos to do - run an instance and use it to issue posts and provide a platform for journalists. Twitter and other platforms can still receive posts but the “source of truth” is the Mastodon server
