Was a interesting reaction from some in the fediverse stating they would block the BBC instance etc. In reality how welcome are entity’s that are seen as corporate?
I also cannot understand why the BBC news is not live, possibly they are experimenting with the moderation and management elements. I guess the news feed would get hit harder than Radio 4.
There are some on mastodon that want to live in a fairly defensively disconnected/defederated bubble (compared to many other instances or lemmy/kbin).
And, IMO, that’s totally fine and good … freedom of association gives people and instances that power and it should be embraced when people chose to exercise it TBH, so long as it’s done by admins in a way that isn’t too autocratic against their users and open and transparent.
Socialist as in they send enforcers to your house who have the right to force themselves inside and check how many screens you have got feeding government propaganda into your skull.
You have to pay a TV licence to be lied to. Pretty sweet.
Iirc, the big instance declaring immediately that it would defederate with them was one that’s very well known for being strict with moderation and had firm rules about anti-trans instances. Because the BBC has a history of being anti-trans, they defederated.
I hate defederation with a passion and I’m close to leaving lemmy.world because of its rash defederating. There is no reason to restrict users based on what the few leaders believe.
It’s very different than a site like Facebook or Twitter banning someone. Nobody is kicking them off the internet… just making sure their own site only shows what they want. If you want to see whatever they defederated with, of course you can go there directly or to another instance.
Most of the defeds I have seen have had pretty serious community interaction prior to the decision. You need to stop seeing admins as leaders. And so does everyone else.
An admin certainly has some power over their instance, but the users are not locked into that instance at all. They are not telling people what they can see, they are telling people what they are willing to host, or not host.
Everyone deserves a voice. But nobody is responsible for giving them a megaphone and a box to stand on in their yard.
The BBC has a history of being antitrans?
That’s quite a revelation to me, it has more of a reputation of being extremely liberal and indeed any even remotely right winger here usually whinges and moans about how “woke” it is 🤷🏻♂️
Do you know what in particular triggered their stance that they believed the BBC anti-trans?
It’s the official broadcaster of TERF island. Even their foremost left wing newspaper is transphobia central.
Do you know what in particular triggered their stance that they believed the BBC anti-trans?
There is a series by Shaun (a Youtuber) about anti trans stuff at the BBC and one article in particular.
First of 4 Videos is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4buJMMiwcg
There are lots of people who just want to hear that they are right, that others agree with them. They would rather hang out in an echo chamber where it’s constantly reinforced that their opinions are right rather than hear people who disagree with them.
Personally I value hearing and understanding why others have different opinions than I do.
It’s a difficult design but generally speaking I don’t think news has an obligation to provide both sides.
A. They should not run editorials
B. If they do run editorials presenting both sides is equal to endorsement.
This isn’t the 1960s where the only way to be heard is via letters to the editor.
Lol no, because as far as i can tell they dont do it with other forms of bigotry like racism.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/guidance/impartiality-and-racism
BBC is not impartial on racism.
I had no role in the instance’s decision; don’t try to argue against their decision with me. I’ve got no say in it.
