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.
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?
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
Thank you for that, most interesting.
It’s odd given their usually quite liberal stance… I wonder if there some old conservatism creeping in with the Tories being in power for so long…?
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/watch?v=b4buJMMiwcg
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source, check me out at GitHub.
It’s the official broadcaster of TERF island. Even their foremost left wing newspaper is transphobia central.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
