BlackRoseThe BBC on Mastodon: experimenting with distributed and decentralised social media
Mysteriarch ☀️Seems like the right approach to start their own server, instead of making accounts on some of the flagship instances, which only perpetuates the centralisation dogma.
It also does away with some of the really awkward practices news organizations engage in wrt social media. The number of @JournalistNameCBC handles out there is kind of super cringy, and seems to point to journos having company-specific/company-mandated social media accounts, but without any actual company support for them.
Something like this makes having a company-mandated social media account something they're assigned, just like an email address, rather than something they're personally responsible for.
maegul (he/they)Yep. It’s one pattern that I think really sells the federated social media idea.
mitchYou love to see it.
megane-kunWhat I’d love to see is news companies spinning up their own instances, for example, a CBC-owned Mastodon instance, with accounts such as journalistname@cbcnews. It’d work exactly like a company-assigned e-mail address, and would function as such. That each and every post on such an account would be seen as the journalist working under the company, and not their own personal views.
And if a journalist wants his own personal account, well, they can either spin up their own instance, or perhaps a union of journalists would spin up an instance, with journalists setting up their accounts that are not tied to any news agency or company.
Am I being too naive and optimistic here? Maybe. But do I want this to happen regardless, yes!
SibboWait, so if I just make an account on twitter named @PeterRothenburgCBC, then everyone thinks I am a legit reporter?
CalcProgrammer1As long as you pay for a blue checkmark, sure.
Hopefully this becomes more normalised. The idea that a company runs their own site, but not social now seems a bit backward.
When I joined Mastodon in the November migration, I wondered why media organisations weren’t spinning up their own servers. Give all the journos an account on that server and there’s your verification right away.
Because a company/org specific site for journalists doesn’t get the interactions with people outside that org but within the sector of coverage unless people do a lot of following of others.
Compare mastodon.energy/public/local with social.bbc/public/local
Journalists want the first - not the second.
But note also that the first one isn’t associated with a media organization but rather an industry sector.
You can use social.bbc to broadcasts articles that people want to read, but the “what is going on with the energy grid in the UK” will never show up in local there but rather over at mastodon.energy/@EarthOrgUK … and so that’s where the journalists are… though there’s still a lot going on over at twitter.com/search?q=%23energytwitter
Local isn't a good measure here, though. The BBC local stream is literally just going to be posts by BBC employees.
The global stream isn't a great measure, either, frankly, as journalists primarily want to yet their posts seen, not see a huge field of noise. Those who are doing digging for social media stories maybe want a wider cut of things, but they can still do that through their replies, and through global. Search just isn't going to be as effective as on generalist servers.
But then, search isn't super effective on Mastodon, anyway, and all the big generalist servers are running Mastodon.
There's nothing preventing them from using secondary accounts on .social for research, though.
Some companies do it. For example, toot.thoughtworks.com/explore
Not every organization has the financial resources to stand up their own instance though.
Does it make sense for NPR to spin up their own instance with the additional administration and server costs? Or is it a better use of their money just to have an account on a larger instance… which also makes discovery of them easier (everyone on mstdn.social sees them in the local feed and relevant hashtags without having to specifically follow them on other servers).
The local mastodon instance helps with authenticity, but hinders the discovery of the “buzz” in local of an appropriately topical instance ( mastodon.energy/explore ).
No of course not everyone or every organisation has the means for that. But those that have should, and others should fan out over different instances: local or regional ones, or thematic ones, instead of congregating on the same three instances because it’s ‘the main one’.
everyone on mstdn.social sees them in the local feed and relevant hashtags without having to specifically follow them on other servers
Hashtags work across instances…
The hashtag #fossilfuels works… but it doesn’t work as well as being in mastodon.energy/public/local were things without hashtags exist and all the content is topical.
MyOpinionWelcome to the adventure BBC!
Can you follow mastodon pages on Lemmy?
DeebsterNo, although they can post to Lemmy communities by @ing them.
No but you can on kbin
Ken27238Man I wish other news organizations would join. Press.coop had a bunch of accounts that were mirroring their twitter feeds but the API change killed them.
ZerushLogical decision on the part of a journalistic medium, given that the fediverse has many more sources of information than a monolithic Big Brother traditional social network with mainstream users.
AdaI woke to discover this, and immediately defederated it. I don’t need that transphobia factory in our timelines
favrionClarify?
The BBC is actively transphobic, and regularly publishes transphobic content that stirs up hate. Given that I admin two trans heavy instances, I won’t be federating with them
Are there articles you can link?
kukkurovacaIt’s pretty widely known and has been an issue for a long time. It’s not terribly hard to google for.
I tried to google it before asking
makingStuffForFunI’ve also been looking. I see other websites complaining, but I want to see actual BBC content that’s inflamatory etc, as I can’t find anything. It must exist, but so far, can’t find it.
“Many people have blocked the BBC for posting transphobic content that is harmful to trans folk”
“Hey, can you please share some of that harmful content?”
Well honestly, if it can’t be sourced, is it even true? I’m all for burning a media outlet at the stake. But, I’d want to see evidence first. If it can’t be found, it’s not true for all intent and purpose.
There are links to various articles about it in this discussion tree. You’re either not looking hard for sources, or you’re being disingenuous. I hope it’s the former, but experience tells me it’s the latter.
For the sake of reporting facts and journalism, I believe it’s correct to put the incriminated proof on the internet archive and link them here.
Agree, and I haven’t seen any as yet.
Thank you, added it to the post.
I see. Sorry about your experience.
I’ve always considered them very left leaning historically. Do you have any links that have this content? I can’t find any doing a search.
Aside from the symbolic action (that can only be seen by looking for what isn’t there), what does this accomplish? (And yes, I do note that the symbolic action is important in of itself).
Alternatively, if I wanted to follow @[email protected] in Lemmy (universeodon is a Mastodon instance), how can I get him in my timeline?
As far as I can tell, removing a mastodon instance (in this case social.bbc) from from linked instances in Lemmy has absolutely no impact on what someone will see in subscribed, local, or federated timelines.
I admin a lemmy instance and a regular fediverse instance, both of which are focused towards the queer and gender diverse communities. Blocking transphobia from the feeds of trans folk isn’t symbolic, even though it’s less relevant on lemmy
Ok but not everything revolves around trans people’s issues. Can we be glad for a positive development for once, or will we remove everything that does not 100% agree with our view of the world from the fediverse?
krimsonbunDefederating isn’t irrational, it’s not a matter of personal beliefs it’s a matter of actual people’s lives and being allowed to express themselves. Going against that is inhumane and anyone that does it should be held accountable for their actions. Despite that, mainstream attention direcred towards the fediverse is a positive advancement.
Unsurprisingly given its extremely high profile as a purveyor of transphobic coverage, many mastodon instances have greeted them with a firm block. (If this confuses folks who don’t pay attention to this sort of thing, just picture in your head if it was fox news.)
BBC…transphobic? Sorry, but are you mad?