Good! They're the leading star for many public european broadcasters. I hope many will follow. I work in public sector, and I have lobbied to get IT to start up mastodon servers on our own
I think this might become more common over time.
Up to this point, a lot of the news company's online presence was probably pretty cut and dry. Some of my local news stations have terrible websites that take forever to load, yet those websites were probably cutting edge at some point. One of them has a layout that hasn't changed in at least 10 years.
If their IT department hasn't expanded their skills beyond making and maintaining those original websites, I could totally see a long delay happening before/if they join the fediverse.
If their IT department hasn't expanded their skills beyond making and maintaining those original websites, I could totally see a long delay happening before/if they join the fediverse.
More likely they aren't given the budget they have requested.
They are also probably busy doing regular IT things like maintaining the IT infrastructure.
Local news stations don't really exist in my country so I don't know how many employees they usually have but it's possible they don't even have an IT department.
Oh, I wouldn't doubt that either
Some of my local news stations have terrible websites that take forever to load, yet those websites were probably cutting edge at some point.
Nah, most local news sites came online as garbage and will never rise above that status. The cleverest of them came online as bare bones, no frills websites that the affordable local website developer they hired could actually maintain.
most local news sites came online as garbage and will never rise above that status
The amount of pop-ups, sleazy Taboola ads, and autoplay videos (with 2 ads at the beginning and end of a 30 second clip) is too damn high. Just clicking a link is a fucking assault on your eyes. And yes some form of this still happens to me with adblockers or firefox.
I guess I thought the goal was to get people to use their websites, not fucking punish them for it.
It's probably owned by clear channel and has an operating budget of ten bucks.
So basically they're not leaving, they are silencing their political coverage. They're not going anywhere, they're caving to pressure.
Yeah pretty much, they might as well say "we've decided to sack Jerry from the Social Media team" because this isn't actually exiting twitter it's more like reducing someone's workload lol.
What accounts did they actually remove? News and sports seem like they would be most of their presence
All the accounts for all their shows, as well as their journos. They produce a lot of original content, and have a lot of journalists. This is not an insignificant measure.
Yeah this is only a bit as the mainstay of ABC is their news account. But it is a step in the right direction.
So, a cop-out and a half then.
Bruce Willis and Burt Reynolds?
This just comes off as "trying" to look good, to me
I hope more broadcasters will follow the BBC’s example and start running their own Mastodon servers.
It would be nice if the BBC instance had more accounts, like for breaking news, though. I know they’re just testing the waters, but they need to try having accounts posting things folks are the most interested in.
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.
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.
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..?
Sadly in UK transphobia seems to be pretty common in liberals and liberal institutions. I think that is because in UK the idea to connect transphobia with "womens rights" was really successful and this results in otherwise really liberal / left leaning / feminist individuals & groups to be actively anti-trans. As far as i know even otherwise trust worthy news papers like the guardian plattform anti trans talking points.
That's a total misunderstanding of what the BBC is. As a public broadcaster representing the whole of the UK, it has a duty to represent all views. While I personally disagree with them, gender critical or TERF views are extant in the UK at present and the public conversation on where this will all land legally is still ongoing, therefore they have an obligation to hear from all sides, no matter how unpalatable one of them may be to some.
Lol no, because as far as i can tell they dont do it with other forms of bigotry like racism.
Because by and large society has decided that racism is a bad and unacceptable thing. There's pockets of it about but no one is taking that seriously. The current discussion around gender and how society moves to accommodate peoples exploration of their identity in the modern world is still very much ongoing.
I don't agree with the gender critical or "TERF" arguments, I'm very much of the belief that everyone should be allowed to identify and live as their chosen gender with access to the rights and services that dictates. However some people don't, for various reasons.
We can call them bigots and attempt to shun them and hide them away, but it's not going to stop smaller news outlets that are actually bigoted like GBNews or Talk TV having them on without the pro-Trans counterpoint that the BBC would have.
Better to shine a light on these people and force them to justify their beliefs in a neutral environment than spred then in one that's already in agreement with them no?
Different presenters can have different positions on issues no?
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.
Go for it. Lemmy accounts are easy to make and itll share the load better.
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.
It's kind of ironic as despite having "corporation" in the name, the BBC is quite a "socialist" endeavour on how it's funded and available to all uk citizens for a flat fee.
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.
You better put your tinfoil hat on, block the propaganda then.
Apparently they'll be running it for six months and then determining if it's worth continuing to operate.
isn't it pretty hard to determine if it's worthwhile if they aren't going all-in on making it an interesting place with breaking news & accounts for certain types of news etc?
That’s my feeling. They’ve created 4 accounts for things people can’t really interact with. Making a sports account on Mastodon, which is honestly most populated by tech nerds? Y’all. No. You’re doing it wrong.
Even one news account would be so much more useful.
Why do you assume someone into tech wouldn't also like sports?
Because they are not assuming that. What they're assuming is less overlap on a Venn diagram.
Ok, going by this and your other reply to me, you’re looking for an argument, and I won’t be giving it to you.
Why do you even posting on forums if the thought of a conversation is that frightening to you you assume the other party is looking for a row?
Either way, I'll leave you too it, no offence intended, enjoy your day.
I even noticed that ARD and ZDF have their own Mastodon servers/instances. But I'm interested in how the BBC's experimental Mastodon server would fare after their stated six-month time frame.
I wish they had region or language specific accounts (bbc world service, bbc spanish, french, russian, etc.).
The top comments on X are some idiotic take by an asshat with an agenda and $8. This isn't debate, it is idiocy.
Everyone has an agenda. The question is whether it's a reasonable one.
The answer is almost always "not a reasonable one".
I disagree. My agenda is not to be an asshole (although I fail more often than not, but I think is a reasonable agenda nonetheless).
And now it's time for them to set up a Mastodon instance.
They’ve been there for a while.
That's the W I'm looking for
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The ABC is shutting down almost all of its official accounts on Twitter – now known as X under Elon Musk’s ownership – citing “toxic interactions”, cost and better interaction with ABC content on other social media platforms.
Anderson said the closure of the Insiders, News Breakfast and ABC Politics accounts earlier this year limited the amount of toxic interactions which had grown more prevalent under Musk and made engagement with the shows more positive.
“We also found that closing individual program accounts helps limit the exposure of team members to the toxic interactions that unfortunately are becoming more prevalent on X,” he said.
The announcement comes after the corporation recently shifted resources towards making content for other social media platforms including TikTok and Instagram.
Anderson said the vast majority of the ABC’s social media audience was located on official sites on YouTube, Facebook, Instagram and TikTok.
The ABC is the third big public service broadcaster to remove itself from Twitter, following NPR and PBS in April.
Tbh this sounds like it's more about cost cutting and "toxic" twitter is the excuse to cut down on their use and move resources to other platforms. The fact they have left other accounts up would seem to hint that they will cope with "toxic" users to a certain point.
Still good to see bigger entity's leaving.
Good bot
So this is "Austrailia Broadcasting Corporation", not the ABC (American broadcasting Company) which I am familiar with in the US. I presume they share no more than an acronym.
Correct
In regards to that twats tweet regarding the “the Australian people” - as a member of “the Australian people” I want to put it on record that that asshat does not speak for many of us here…..some of us are pleased about this (the ABC app is a far better source of news without the rubbish and downright unintelligent comments that come from posting articles on social media anyway….)
I like “twat tweet”, but really I absolutely love twats themselves and it’s somewhat defamatory to compare Elron to them (defamatory to labias etc, I mean)
Well lucky I am a woman then and personally don’t think my lady parts are offended at all….
I just mean that “Twat” is too good for him
Jesse what the fuck are you talking about
Twats are better than he is, I mean
Good move by ABC, but they need to go further.
STOP USING TWEETS ON QANDA THEN! After what happened with Stan Grant ABC really need to evaluate how they use social media sites like Twitter. They needed to do this the moment Stan raised it as an issue and had to step away from his role.
They have stopped. It’s in the article.
Not because of the racism that Stan identified though. They're okay with drawing a line around 'toxic behaviour' but not the racism, ableism, sexism, transphobia and homophobia that they have platformed for years through their use of tweets on QandA.They should have immediately responded to Stan's experience with an assessment of how their engagement with social media enabled the racist abuse directed at Stan. The ABC has a terrible problem with racism in their own institution and have not anything to address or remedy this. Stan is not the only person who has drawn attention to this and the ABC regularly receives complaints about people like Paul Barry while continuing to give them a platform.
Roll
We want freedom of speech!
media bias being called out too much
Yes sure, tinfoil hat is getting hot i see
Boo hoo! a giant corporate outlet owned by disney is being bullied! ABC leaving twitter is a good thing.
ABC as in Australian Broadcasting Corporation, the public broadcaster.
Somebody let me know when they actually leave twitter. This is a bullshit half measure.
I agree. I'd like to see them host their own Mastodon and leave a forwarding address on 'X'.
BBC has just started doing that at https://social.bbc
Good! They're the leading star for many public european broadcasters. I hope many will follow. I work in public sector, and I have lobbied to get IT to start up mastodon servers on our own
I think this might become more common over time.
Up to this point, a lot of the news company's online presence was probably pretty cut and dry. Some of my local news stations have terrible websites that take forever to load, yet those websites were probably cutting edge at some point. One of them has a layout that hasn't changed in at least 10 years.
If their IT department hasn't expanded their skills beyond making and maintaining those original websites, I could totally see a long delay happening before/if they join the fediverse.
More likely they aren't given the budget they have requested.
They are also probably busy doing regular IT things like maintaining the IT infrastructure.
Local news stations don't really exist in my country so I don't know how many employees they usually have but it's possible they don't even have an IT department.
Oh, I wouldn't doubt that either
Nah, most local news sites came online as garbage and will never rise above that status. The cleverest of them came online as bare bones, no frills websites that the affordable local website developer they hired could actually maintain.
The amount of pop-ups, sleazy Taboola ads, and autoplay videos (with 2 ads at the beginning and end of a 30 second clip) is too damn high. Just clicking a link is a fucking assault on your eyes. And yes some form of this still happens to me with adblockers or firefox.
I guess I thought the goal was to get people to use their websites, not fucking punish them for it.
It's probably owned by clear channel and has an operating budget of ten bucks.
So basically they're not leaving, they are silencing their political coverage. They're not going anywhere, they're caving to pressure.
Yeah pretty much, they might as well say "we've decided to sack Jerry from the Social Media team" because this isn't actually exiting twitter it's more like reducing someone's workload lol.
What accounts did they actually remove? News and sports seem like they would be most of their presence
All the accounts for all their shows, as well as their journos. They produce a lot of original content, and have a lot of journalists. This is not an insignificant measure.
Yeah this is only a bit as the mainstay of ABC is their news account. But it is a step in the right direction.
So, a cop-out and a half then.
Bruce Willis and Burt Reynolds?
This just comes off as "trying" to look good, to me
I hope more broadcasters will follow the BBC’s example and start running their own Mastodon servers.
It would be nice if the BBC instance had more accounts, like for breaking news, though. I know they’re just testing the waters, but they need to try having accounts posting things folks are the most interested in.
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.
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?
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..?
Sadly in UK transphobia seems to be pretty common in liberals and liberal institutions. I think that is because in UK the idea to connect transphobia with "womens rights" was really successful and this results in otherwise really liberal / left leaning / feminist individuals & groups to be actively anti-trans. As far as i know even otherwise trust worthy news papers like the guardian plattform anti trans talking points.
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.
It still makes me so sad to see what's become of the Guardian.
That's a total misunderstanding of what the BBC is. As a public broadcaster representing the whole of the UK, it has a duty to represent all views. While I personally disagree with them, gender critical or TERF views are extant in the UK at present and the public conversation on where this will all land legally is still ongoing, therefore they have an obligation to hear from all sides, no matter how unpalatable one of them may be to some.
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
Because by and large society has decided that racism is a bad and unacceptable thing. There's pockets of it about but no one is taking that seriously. The current discussion around gender and how society moves to accommodate peoples exploration of their identity in the modern world is still very much ongoing.
I don't agree with the gender critical or "TERF" arguments, I'm very much of the belief that everyone should be allowed to identify and live as their chosen gender with access to the rights and services that dictates. However some people don't, for various reasons.
We can call them bigots and attempt to shun them and hide them away, but it's not going to stop smaller news outlets that are actually bigoted like GBNews or Talk TV having them on without the pro-Trans counterpoint that the BBC would have.
Better to shine a light on these people and force them to justify their beliefs in a neutral environment than spred then in one that's already in agreement with them no?
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.
"Both sides" is BS
Whether you or I may think that, if it's in their remit, then that's their job.
Different presenters can have different positions on issues no?
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.
Go for it. Lemmy accounts are easy to make and itll share the load better.
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.
It's kind of ironic as despite having "corporation" in the name, the BBC is quite a "socialist" endeavour on how it's funded and available to all uk citizens for a flat fee.
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.
You better put your tinfoil hat on, block the propaganda then.
I wasn’t aware. What’s the BBC Mastodon server?
I hadn't heard about it either but according to their blog post announcing it, it's https://social.bbc
Apparently they'll be running it for six months and then determining if it's worth continuing to operate.
isn't it pretty hard to determine if it's worthwhile if they aren't going all-in on making it an interesting place with breaking news & accounts for certain types of news etc?
That’s my feeling. They’ve created 4 accounts for things people can’t really interact with. Making a sports account on Mastodon, which is honestly most populated by tech nerds? Y’all. No. You’re doing it wrong.
Even one news account would be so much more useful.
Why do you assume someone into tech wouldn't also like sports?
Because they are not assuming that. What they're assuming is less overlap on a Venn diagram.
Ok, going by this and your other reply to me, you’re looking for an argument, and I won’t be giving it to you.
Why do you even posting on forums if the thought of a conversation is that frightening to you you assume the other party is looking for a row?
Either way, I'll leave you too it, no offence intended, enjoy your day.
They’re just testing it out for now.
The BBC on Mastodon: experimenting with distributed and decentralised social media
Perfect. Thanks for the info.
I even noticed that ARD and ZDF have their own Mastodon servers/instances. But I'm interested in how the BBC's experimental Mastodon server would fare after their stated six-month time frame.
I wish they had region or language specific accounts (bbc world service, bbc spanish, french, russian, etc.).
The top comments on X are some idiotic take by an asshat with an agenda and $8. This isn't debate, it is idiocy.
Everyone has an agenda. The question is whether it's a reasonable one.
The answer is almost always "not a reasonable one".
I disagree. My agenda is not to be an asshole (although I fail more often than not, but I think is a reasonable agenda nonetheless).
And now it's time for them to set up a Mastodon instance.
They’ve been there for a while.
That's the W I'm looking for
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The ABC is shutting down almost all of its official accounts on Twitter – now known as X under Elon Musk’s ownership – citing “toxic interactions”, cost and better interaction with ABC content on other social media platforms.
Anderson said the closure of the Insiders, News Breakfast and ABC Politics accounts earlier this year limited the amount of toxic interactions which had grown more prevalent under Musk and made engagement with the shows more positive.
“We also found that closing individual program accounts helps limit the exposure of team members to the toxic interactions that unfortunately are becoming more prevalent on X,” he said.
The announcement comes after the corporation recently shifted resources towards making content for other social media platforms including TikTok and Instagram.
Anderson said the vast majority of the ABC’s social media audience was located on official sites on YouTube, Facebook, Instagram and TikTok.
The ABC is the third big public service broadcaster to remove itself from Twitter, following NPR and PBS in April.
I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Tbh this sounds like it's more about cost cutting and "toxic" twitter is the excuse to cut down on their use and move resources to other platforms. The fact they have left other accounts up would seem to hint that they will cope with "toxic" users to a certain point.
Still good to see bigger entity's leaving.
Good bot
So this is "Austrailia Broadcasting Corporation", not the ABC (American broadcasting Company) which I am familiar with in the US. I presume they share no more than an acronym.
Correct
In regards to that twats tweet regarding the “the Australian people” - as a member of “the Australian people” I want to put it on record that that asshat does not speak for many of us here…..some of us are pleased about this (the ABC app is a far better source of news without the rubbish and downright unintelligent comments that come from posting articles on social media anyway….)
I like “twat tweet”, but really I absolutely love twats themselves and it’s somewhat defamatory to compare Elron to them (defamatory to labias etc, I mean)
Well lucky I am a woman then and personally don’t think my lady parts are offended at all….
I just mean that “Twat” is too good for him
Jesse what the fuck are you talking about
Twats are better than he is, I mean
Good move by ABC, but they need to go further.
STOP USING TWEETS ON QANDA THEN! After what happened with Stan Grant ABC really need to evaluate how they use social media sites like Twitter. They needed to do this the moment Stan raised it as an issue and had to step away from his role.
They have stopped. It’s in the article.
Not because of the racism that Stan identified though. They're okay with drawing a line around 'toxic behaviour' but not the racism, ableism, sexism, transphobia and homophobia that they have platformed for years through their use of tweets on QandA.They should have immediately responded to Stan's experience with an assessment of how their engagement with social media enabled the racist abuse directed at Stan. The ABC has a terrible problem with racism in their own institution and have not anything to address or remedy this. Stan is not the only person who has drawn attention to this and the ABC regularly receives complaints about people like Paul Barry while continuing to give them a platform.
Roll
We want freedom of speech!
media bias being called out too much
Yes sure, tinfoil hat is getting hot i see
Boo hoo! a giant corporate outlet owned by disney is being bullied! ABC leaving twitter is a good thing.
ABC as in Australian Broadcasting Corporation, the public broadcaster.