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.
this post was submitted on 31 Jul 2023
27 points (100.0% liked)
Fediverse
17522 readers
6 users here now
A community dedicated to fediverse news and discussion.
Fediverse is a portmanteau of "federation" and "universe".
Getting started on Fediverse;
- What is the fediverse?
- Fediverse Platforms
- How to run your own community
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
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.
What 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!
Upon reading the article more closely, this is what the BBC is doing. My bad!
Yep. It's one pattern that I think really sells the federated social media idea.
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.)
I woke to discover this, and immediately defederated it. I don't need that transphobia factory in our timelines
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?
Defederating 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.
Clarify?
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 share?
It'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
edit: the only result i found was this: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/nov/04/bbc-changes-online-article-at-centre-of-transphobia-row
edit2: does this sum it up? https://www.them.us/story/bbc-latest-transphobic-screed-is-a-mockery-of-journalism
I'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.