“As the social media landscape ebbs and flows, the team at BBC Research & Development are researching social technologies and exploring possibilities for the BBC. One part of our work is to establish a BBC presence in the distributed collection of social networks known as the Fediverse, a collection of social media applications all linked together by common protocols. The most common software used in this area is Mastodon, a Twitter-like social networking service with around 2 million active monthly users. We are now running an experimental BBC Mastodon server at https://social.bbc where you can follow some of the BBC’s social media accounts, including BBC R&D, Radio 4 and 5 Live. We hope to be able to add more accounts from other areas of the BBC at some point.”
That’s amazing, I hope all journalists and government alerts have their own instance. It’s way better than a blog because it can be updated so easily, they’re used to twitter and their alerts and it’s open to see while they control everything about it. Happy to see it.
Edit: Cool graphic too: https://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/sites/50335ff370b5c262af000004/assets/64c7859d06d63e5047000311/fediverse-overview-16x9.png
Why an instance instead of joining an existing one? They can join the effort and do few ones where several publishers can use to create official accounts
Edit. Why you guys are downvoting a discussion? Is this place becoming reddit? We are just chatting, relax
Because they can control who is on it, they’re journalists only, and still be out in the open with no sign ins. What would be the benefit of them joining other instances? That would be an odd choice.
exactly this, they can control what is on it, give their journalists, shows, etc accounts and it being a self contained hub for everything bbc, while interacting with rest of the fediverse.
Im guessing they will also get more statistics and information from hosting it themselves as well. its a no brainer.
Because then someone else would be able to control and censor their content. Really every business should make their own server to ensure that they’re the ones fully in control of their content - this is the entire point of federation.
I think the USA’s National Weather Service Twitter presence is a good example.
If you look deep enough you’ll see caveats like “supplemental service provided by NWS” and “Twitter feeds and tweets do not always reflect the most current information”, but the truth is that a lot of people (and news organizations) depend on Twitter as their main interface to the NWS, and rarely if ever go to their website.
That obviously creates a tension, which bubbles up in scares like this:
Before last weekend’s storm, the National Weather Service’s Baltimore-Washington office sent this tweet saying that because of a new Twitter policy, automated tweets that show advisories, watches, and warnings might not load.
Contrast that to a world where NOAA (the federal administration which runs NWS) has their own instance: they get the benefit of being able to disseminate updates in a consumer friendly ‘social media’ style and they retain full control of platform and can be sure the service won’t be held hostage, or go down in the middle of a storm.
Finally: if you’re reading this from the USA, consider contact NOAA/NWS to let them know you’d like a fediverse presence, I did!
Finally: if you’re reading this from the USA, consider contact NOAA/NWS to let them know you’d like a fediverse presence, I did!
Good idea! I just emailed NWS.PA@noaa.gov to ask them not only for a Mastodon instance to replace this stuff, but also for a PeerTube instance to replace https://www.youtube.com/@noaanationalweatherservice .
Them having their own instance would serve the same purpose as being verified because of the domain.
One of Germany’s public broadcasting services also started running an instance for anyone part of the federal media network: https://ard.social/about
Translation:
ARD.social is a basis for ARD’s appearances in the #Fediverse network, an amalgamation of various platforms and projects. Regional and nationwide brands, broadcasts, programs and institutions of the federal media network can create profiles at ARD.social. The Mastodon instance ARD.social is operated by Norddeutscher Rundfunk (NDR).
Also the Tagesschau, which is the most important television news show in Germany, is there.
The other one did as well (https://zdf.social)
even if that’s true, which it isn’t, wouldn’t that still be a hundred times bettee than shit like Fox News? or what Bezos did with news company he bought?
If you look at the structure of the BBC, it’s an INDEPENDENT, publicly funded news organisation. The government has no say in its editorial. It has exposed many British government scandals in the past.
While the person you’re replying to seems to be trolling, there is a legitimate argument that the BBC is influenced by the current government. The argument is that the current government has had a hand in appointing the current BBC director, and he’s a member of the Conservative party or a donor.
I haven’t looked into it for a while, so am not up to speed on the details, but if the detractors are correct, it’s not a good look for the BBC.
Every media is. You must filter news from multiple Organisation to understand the Real news
Even though I take issue with the BBC, I hope they choose to stay on mastadon in the long term. A large organisation like the BBC on a federated platform is sure to spread word and hopefully convince more people to join the fediverse and see it a a feasible alternative to the current big tech landscape.
What social do most UK users use ATM? Are they on meta/twitter or some UK specific one?
I think this is exactly what I want to see, news orgs (not just “mainstream” news, but let’s say, professional orgs in an industry) hosting their own instances with closed signups for accounts with JUST relevant topics. I tried to find some journalists on journa.host to fill in tech and local news, and while I found the people, it was way too much personal/personality content and not as much news.
Relying on a third party for your social media presence is a bad idea. Imagine if Elon got a bug up his ass and banned all BBC accounts; they’d be left in a lurch. Or if, as we saw, someone else got a blue checkmark and pretended to be the BBC.
But by running their own site they have control over who posts what, while still able to interact with users on other instances.
I think governmental organizations should do the same. It’s absurd that FEMA or whoever essentially has to rely of Elon’s goodwill.
The Dutch government already made an official mastodon instance: social.overheid.nl
The Netherlands just can’t stop being based
Someone tell me how to feel! Do I hate this or like this!?
edit: I have been told to like this, and thus… I do.
Disclaimer: please ignore my negative initial vote score, as I have the privilege of being bot-downvoted by CCP sympathizers because of comments on this post https://lemmy.world/post/2338419, there is also the possibility that I’m just an asshole.
It’s a news organisation, so it’s okay. We definitely want more journalists and news organisations in the Fediverse. I’d much rather have them directly on mastodon than the million different bird.tld mirrors.
Yes, and it also prides itself on journalistic values, unlike a lot of the Murdoch empire, for example.
yes, unless it reports on the Iraq war and use ‘embedded’ journalists or reports on the Syria war and instead of sending journalists on the ground, just reprints white house memos or reporting on lgbt issues and just parrots gender critical views. But apart from that, it’s integrity is 100%, or just the bar is too low these days, idk ;(
BBC is not a news organization, it’s government propaganda as it always was intended
People on the left think it’s government propaganda, people on the right think it’s left-wing.
These things can’t both be correct.
It is good in that it makes Mastodon more useful. People can use Mastodon instead of Twitter to see BBC tweets.
And karma isn’t a thing here, otherwise I just blew a lot of it on North Korea.
Although there’s not a general karma score on your profile, seeing a post heavily downvoted tends to make people disregard it… I assume it’s the intention, that or to make the user feel unhappy / harried and close their profile
Maybe, but we aren’t at the critical mass where downvotes posts and comments are routinely hidden. People will see downvoted content and interact with it.
You are also missing that the other site used karma as a way to judge if an account should be allowed to talk more. I had enough karma there so that I stopped getting the “you’re commenting too much” pause when commenting a lot. Some subs also used minimum karma points as a way to judge if someone was a troll or not. That doesn’t exist here.
there is also the possibility that I’m just an asshole
Me anytime I do anything that sometimes gets anyone slightly upset
I can’t figure out how to quote that comment. When I click the quote things it doesn’t work. I have settled with italics
Got it thanks
You can manually do a quote block the same as on reddit, just put a right-chevron (I don’t know how to type it without it triggering quote, mine is the same key as “.”) directly before the text
Just like on reddit, the escape character is a \. You can easily remember this by thinking of all the shrug emoticons that were missing their arm, like so: ¯_(ツ)_/¯ because the backslash wasn’t itself escaped.
So, if you want to type a character that normally results in formatting, precede it with a blackslash.
\*checks notes* results in *checks notes* instead of checks notes.
Edit: This comment was confusing to format. haha
Me anytime I do anything that sometimes gets anyone slightly upset
Exactly my thoughts.
p.s. You can quote using the “>” (greater than) symbol at the beginning of the line.
Disclaimer: please ignore my initial negative vote score, as I have the privilege of being bot-downvoted by CCP sympathizers because of comments on this post https://lemmy.world/post/2338419, there is also the possibility that I’m just an asshole.
Dude, get rid of that stupid disclaimer. Do you seriously put that at the bottom of all your comments?
No one cares.
I think it depends on what sort of content is posted. If it’s mostly promotional stuff some people may feel that it doesn’t fit the vibe of Mastodon. If it’s thought-provoking content (especially journalism) then it will be a win. Either way, having The BBC on Mastodon seems like a big deal, to me, and maybe it will induce other journalists to explore the fediverse.
It’s risk mitigation on their part to not have their platform controlled by somebody else, especially someone with an agenda like Elon Musk.
Would like to see them set up a Lemmy instance as well.
And of course, it’s always good to get in these things early, but not too early in case things don’t work out.
Federation is the future of social media for exactly this reason, especially in the twitter-like realm where who is saying it is as (or more) important than what is being said. These people and organizations need to control their brand outside the scope of commercial pressure from the platform.
especially in the twitter-like realm where who is saying it is as (or more) important than what is being said.
I know right? So great to be in a place where nobody cares who you are. Gets tiring.
It’s nice to just not stand out and be accepted as a normal member of a community.
