Now this is the kind of growth factor the Fediverse needs, not Threads.
I know I’m not the only one who has been saying that this type of move makes perfect sense for governments and news organizations, but I’m going to go ahead and take credit for this.
You’re welcome, guys!
💀
Thanks Garret.
deleted by creator
This makes so much sense.
BBC wouldn’t make their news site under Google Blogger… so why depend on other corporations for your microblogging?
Spin up your own server, have your own verification, then use it on your site and share outs.
I love this. No more “blue checkmarks” or paid verification processes. Just check the domain of the post(s) to confirm they are legit.
I’m a fan of the BBC, they make a lot of terrific programmes and the breadth of the audience their radio stations cater to is pretty phenomenal.
They also have a history of experimenting with technology so it’s not a total surprise they’ve taken this step. Since most people on Mastodon are either sharing British news sources from the BBC or The Guardian anyway it will be interesting to see how they fare…
I may be misremembering but seem to recall them being early to Tw*tter too. Good sign
This is good to see like to see more companies using the fediverse
How can one add social.bbc to my Lemmy subscribed list?
Lemmy doesn’t do microblogging.
And this is why I use Kbin.
You cannot follow the entire instance as such, rather the individual accounts on the instance - such as @BBCRD, @BBC_News_Labs, @Connected_Studio etc.
Kbin users can subscribe to whatever content is shared from social.bbc on federated instances by subscribing to /d/social.bbc, but I’m not sure how much sense that makes. :)
Edit: In Lemmy you’d find the users by entering for example /u/BBCRD@social.bbc, but as @roguetrick pointed out Lemmy is not really made for microblogging.
The Dutch Government also launched an instance not that long ago. It’s a pity it took so long, but Musk’s antics are finally forcing people to move.
German Public broadcast also has its own instance, as does the government.
Also the EU: social.network.europa.eu
At least X allows free speech.
This is great! The Dutch government made their own official instance (social.overheid.nl) too!
Is it better for companies in the Fediverse to create their own instances, like is that how we’re likely to see the proliferation of corporations here? We’ll see a Pepsi instance, a FoxNews instance, a McDonald’s instance? I imagine that gives them the most control over what happens in their neck of the woods vs just having a single corporate account on like lemmy.world or beehaw or whatever (though I don’t entirely understand what having an instance entails).
Makes more sense for The NY Times than for McDonalds. A commercial ad account would want to be found on a local feed of the biggest instance. The BBC experiment won’t work unless they commit to supporting it. Ideally, their reporters would have their own accounts, not just at the radio show level.
Yeah, for any sizable organization running your own instance is the way to go, similarly to how you’d want your own DNS domain, email and web site. And just like with these other services your fedi presence could be hosted somewhere too but you want to be in control of it.
deleted by creator
As much as I distrust these big corps, we need them to join the fediverse if we want this place to grow proper. I do worry over the possibility of them trying to monetize the platforms though.
As far as big corps go I think the BBC is probably one of the safest in terms of worries about monetisation. I’m not saying they’re perfect but it’s very different to if it was Sky or another commercial channel.
…and already blocked by at least one instance, mastodon.art.
While I don’t think it’s necessarily sufficient to justify defederating their whole instance, it’s worth noting that the reason they gave is definitely accurate. The BBC is incredibly transphobic. Here’s a Wikipedia article about one of their worst, most prominent instances. It’s no more so than is pretty standard in Britain these days, sadly, but that’s not a good bar to measure yourself against.
There was a big campaign of utilising the BBC’s complaints process to complain about the many flaws in that article. Here’s a YouTube video by one person involved in that campaign. That’s part 1 of 4 as the different stages of the process played out. The TL;DW is that the BBC ended up ignoring the complaints and ended up picking up on small flaws in the way the complaint was phrased (or just making up flaws where they didn’t really exist) to use as an excuse to “respond” saying there was no problem with their journalistic standards.
Obviously I would not want to defend that article. But it is worth pointing out that the BBC lets all sorts publish. So it’s not that the institution is necessarily transphobic, it’s just that individual who wrote the article is.
So it’s not that the institution is necessarily transphobic, it’s just that individual who wrote the article is.
This would be a reasonable response, were it not for the way that they repeatedly defended the article and did some crazy mental gymnastics to avoid responding to the critiques levied at it. Because the people responding to complaints going through the formal complaints process have to be ones who truly represent what the BBC as an institution is about. If they don’t, what’s the point of that process existing?
This is the way.
Why am I not surprised lol
Cool.
Very!
This could set a precedent!
