BBC Mastodon
social.bbc
This is an experimental Mastodon instance run by BBC Research and Development.
      • Oliver@feddit.deEnglish
        451·
        1 year ago

        Probably because the need of moderation.

        If you host an instance and let people in (even if it’s a limited circle, i.E. your students) you are responsible for moderation. I think that’s something institutions back off currently.

        For an mail server that’s much easier.

          • SolidGrue@lemmy.worldEnglish
            12·
            1 year ago

            Many Universities already have their own dedicated subreddits that are usually moderated by a mix of faculty, staff, and students. I know of at least one sub moderated in part by the chair oftheh math department, who is as funny as they are savage.

            An above-average level of shitposting goes on, sure, but it’s also a great venue for the school’s online community to engage across organizational boundaries.

        • lemme_at_it@lemmy.worldEnglish
          10·
          1 year ago

          Universities used to have students involved in publishing magazines as journalists, editors etc. This is the evolution. I’m sure a decent sized uni could find or create a student group who can be responsible for moderation under an official administrator.

      • Phanatik@kbin.social
        15·
        1 year ago

        Universities have experimented with more private social networks. I remember YikYak back in my uni days. They either don’t have the resource to spin one up or they don’t know about it.

        • cryball@sopuli.xyzEnglish
          9·
          1 year ago

          Might not qualify as a social network, but university hosted IRC servers were a thing once.

      • shrugal@lemm.eeEnglish
        6·
        1 year ago

        Because of the network effect and content aggregation. With emails you just want to reach a specific person, with public posts you want to reach as many people as possible. But I also think the whole ownership and control problem of centralized social networks wasn’t as apparent as it is now.

      • zebs@lemmy.worldEnglish
        4·
        1 year ago

        Back in my uni days (1997-01) my uni ran its own Usenet server. Don’t think it carried the alt.binaries, but did have groups specifically for the uni. Sadly only a small handful of people used it.

      • brenno@lemmy.brennoflavio.com.brEnglish
        2·
        1 year ago

        Same here, and I doubt their IT departments knows deeply about Fediverse. Also some times the department making communication is non technical and not close to IT so people making decisions just choose what they know (Instagram, Twitter, etc). At least that was the case in the University I studied

        • cryball@sopuli.xyzEnglish
          21·
          1 year ago

          It’s mostly the latter from what I’ve seen.

          At least in my country IT departments have very little wiggle room as organizations have gotten more rigid with increased control from the top echelons. Some universities in my country used to host a lot of cool services for students to use. Nowdays it seems that the legacy stuff is kept online as long as the people maintaining them are around.

  • garretble@lemmy.worldEnglish
    1971·
    1 year ago

    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!

  • ren (a they/them)@lemmy.worldEnglish
    97·
    1 year ago

    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.

  • HipPriest@kbin.social
    922·
    1 year ago

    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…

    • DogMuffins@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
      5·
      1 year ago

      Yeah me too. I’m Australian, but I really enjoy BBC tv shows, documentaries, and especially podcasts.

      Our own ABC was pretty great in the past, but conservative governments have hollowed them out. They do still produce some good reporting and podcasts but they have fallen from their former glory.

      Seriously, publicly funded broadcasting, which isn’t beholden to vested interests and advertisers, is an infinitely better model.

      • HipPriest@kbin.social
        3·
        1 year ago

        Absolutely. And it’s easy to take a lack of adverts for granted when you watch public TV it has to be said.

  • LakesLem@lemm.eeEnglish
    722·
    1 year ago

    I may be misremembering but seem to recall them being early to Tw*tter too. Good sign

    • Zagorath@aussie.zoneEnglish
      314·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • Echo Dot@feddit.ukEnglish
        82·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • Zagorath@aussie.zoneEnglish
          121·
          1 year ago

          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?

      • Blackmist@feddit.ukEnglish
        305·
        1 year ago

        I think it’s just the one server run by a mentalcase tbh. Not the first time I’ve seen them mentioned. The other thing was them freaking out because of GIMP.

        • kb99@lemmynsfw.comEnglish
          23·
          1 year ago

          It’s honestly great to have the people who like to complain about things separated from the things they complain about. It sets for a more positive vibe in general, and probably does wonders for their blood pressure as well.

          I think anyone who disagrees with this decision would have left that instance a long time ago anyway :)

          • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.socialEnglish
            8·
            1 year ago

            I like this take, despite (or perhaps because) reactionary engagement is more than half the reason social media has proliferated for this long.

            Even if it kills Mastodon, having less angry people shouting at each other is undeniably a good thing

        • kb99@lemmynsfw.comEnglish
          202·
          1 year ago

          Quite the contrary. This way those who think the BBC is super transphobic and would complain about it in their posts don’t have to be exposed to their content; the rest of us don’t have to be exposed to their complaints about it. Everybody wins.

          • ominouslemon@lemmy.worldEnglish
            216·
            1 year ago

            I get it, but picture this: a person wants to join mastodon.art because they like art. They see the rules that go “no transphobia” or whatever and they go: “OK, seems reasonable”. So they join, they invest their time and energy into the instance, and one day the admin decides that the whole national broadcasting network is someway evil and transphobic and must be blocked. I’d honestly be sooo pissed.

            And not because the BBC’s account is absolutely necessary to a good Mastodon experience, but because blocking a whole instance for shit like this does not make sense. It’s not like the BBC goes around the Fediverse harassing trans people. The idea that you must block something so huge and valuable because it is - admittedly - partly dysfunctional is fucking mental. It’s the BBC, for God’s sake, not the KKK.

            The Fediverse only works if we stop digging trenches and we start communicating more. It’s called the Fediverse, not the De-fediverse. It’s autonomous communities that talk to each other, not little fiefdoms at war with one another

            • Venomnik0@lemmy.worldEnglish
              112·
              1 year ago

              and one day the admin decides that the whole national broadcasting network is someway evil and transphobic and must be blocked. I’d honestly be sooo pissed. The Fediverse only works if we stop digging trenches and we start communicating more. It’s called the Fediverse, not the De-fediverse. It’s autonomous communities that talk to each other, not little fiefdoms at war with one another

              The amount of irony in this comment is hilarious to a point. In all honesty, where was these points when a vast majority of Lemmy and Mastodon admins (and a majority of users) defederated or wanted to be defederated from Threads as soon as even a mention that they were federating with the fediverse came out. Furthermore, some instances just did it instantly without even asking their user base for these exact same reasons.

              Besides, the BBC is a largely conservative network. Not as much as America (which says alot about our politics but that’s not the point). They had shown that they were not willing to even apologize for the blatant transphobia when they released that terrible article even out of numerous protests and complaints. There is a really good video by Shaun that really puts into perspective how transphobic and shit the BBC really is: https://vid.puffyan.us/watch?v=b4buJMMiwcg (invidious instance). It upsets me that alot of users here didn’t really give a damn about this exact issue when Threads was being defederated.

              Besides my point, mastodon.art is quite known for being very quick to block and having very strict rules. No matter what, that’s something that users have to (or already have) come to respect. It is both the user and admins decsion to whatever they want with an instance. If a user doesn’t like it, leave. Move to another instance. Almost every other instance is allowing BBC to have access. Don’t support this behavior by continuing to use that platform.

              So they join, they invest their time and energy into the instance Ironically, the beauty of the mastodon (and really the fediverse really) is the fact that you can easily move and migrate over to a different instance. All your followers move over to the new account on the new instance while all your posts are archived on the old instance. So if you really wanted to leave .art, you could and even have an archive for your followers that can link you back to your account. This just really shows a lack of understanding or even care about Activity Pub. Otherwise, why be bothered. You’re not there. Why judge users and their admins on what they can or can’t do. Let the users who actually USE the platform to decide (maybe they want a really restrictive space).

              • ominouslemon@lemmy.worldEnglish
                172·
                1 year ago

                OK just a couple of points here. I’m not gonna be brief because I care about all this. Sorry.

                De-federating from Threads is not the same thing as de-federating from the BBC, it’s another issue entirely. Those who did it explained their choice with the fear that Meta could somehow “embrace, extend, and extinguish” Mastodon, plus with the fear of data collection etc etc. Now I’m not saying they are right (I don’t even know where I stand on this), but if those are their fears, we’re talking about the destruction of Mastodon itself. Which is not even comparable to what the BBC’s instance could do.

                About the trasphobia itself: what the BBC did or did not do is besides the point: the BBC is too relevant to just block it willy-nilly, and also very reductive. If you block it, you throw away the baby with the bath water.

                I would also dispute the idea that the BBC is “largely conservative”, but even that’s beside the point. Let’s pretend that it is: so what? Being conservative is not a crime and not all conservatives are Trump. I’m not conservative by any means, but I still want to see and hear what conservatives think. As a left-leaning dude, I WANT to know what they are up to.

                My fear is that we’re weaponizing the Fediverse to create communities which are completely sheltered by the actual world. For all its flaws, Twitter was great in that it showed you a bit of everything. I don’t want to see the Fediverse become a series of spaces where people only agree with each other and don’t even want to engage in a discussion with someone they don’t agree with. What we’re both doing right now (disagreeing and debating) is so much more valuable that people think.

                Lastly: being on it since 2017, I know full well how the fediverse works. And no, migrating from one Mastodon instance to another is not easy by any means. This article gained some traction recently and it explains why. But even this is besides the point. First, because ideally, you should not have to migrate to another instance. It’s possible, but is sucks. Second, because I’m talking about some cultural aspects of the Fediverse, and bringing the discussion to a technical level is a moot point.

                My question and my whole point is this: is there a risk that the Fediverse is becoming an instrument to isolate ourselves from everything we don’t agree with? I.e. an instrrument of isolation instead of an instrument of federation?

                • MrScottyTay@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
                  5·
                  1 year ago

                  I always argue that defederation will just result in echo chambers for both sides. And that can ultimately be worse.

                  In the case of defedding conservative instances, you’re also making their instances more of an echo chamber and increasing the likelihood of radicalising themselves further due to them no longer getting challenged on their beliefs, either by conversation/debate, or just by seeing positive posts from the opposite side.

                  If you have something bad to say about the bbc, defedding is not the answer to get your voice heard and potentially change them. They’ll hear about you defedding once (if at all), and then forget and move on. How would people be able to protest if the protest can’t even be seen.

                  (When I say “you” I’m not actually implying you feel these things, I’m just using generalist language to create a point - I agree with you and just extending from your point)

                • Venomnik0@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  2·
                  1 year ago

                  I absolutely see this point honestly. Defederating should be taken absolutely seriously and not just abused all the time. The more I sit on it, the more it just kinda sounds egotistical in a way. Though I am worried how it may feel like we are ignoring the trans community but I also feel you’re absolutely right when it comes to this point.

            • gunnm@monero.townEnglish
              11·
              1 year ago

              It’s free speech my friend, with it we should have the fediverse.

            • demonsword@lemmy.worldEnglish
              56·
              1 year ago

              because blocking a whole instance for shit like this does not make sense

              does not make sense to you, for people at mastodon.art it makes perfect sense I guess

              • ominouslemon@lemmy.worldEnglish
                72·
                1 year ago

                I’ve tried to explain why I think it does not make sense, but thanks for your comment I guess, I had not thought about it /s

                • demonsword@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  41·
                  1 year ago

                  I don’t get why you’re so triggered by that. This doesn’t affect you at all unless you have an account at that instance.

  • ghariksforge@lemmy.worldEnglish
    301·
    1 year ago

    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.

  • pqdinfo@lemmy.worldEnglish
    24·
    1 year ago

    Removed as a protest against the community’s support for campaigns to bring about the deaths of members of marginalized groups, and opposition to private entities working to prevent such campaigns, together with it’s mindless flaming and downvoting of anyone who disagrees.

    • garretble@lemmy.worldEnglish
      9·
      1 year ago

      @BBCRadio4@social.bbc has also popped up today. Seems like the least “experimental” of them so far (in name at least).

      Seems like if the “experiment” goes well this account will just be ready to roll.

      • wewbull@feddit.ukEnglish
        8·
        1 year ago

        Radio 4 is the most serious channel they do as well. Mostly news and politics, with documentaries and a small amount of comedy.

        • Historical_General@lemmy.worldEnglish
          54·
          1 year ago

          I ignore all the politics from the BBC, though general news and entertainment, documentaries are all broadly fine. But they’re *politically *compromised by state-funding and imo are blatantly corrupt.

          • 8orange8@lemm.eeEnglish
            3·
            1 year ago

            Technically the BBC are not “state-funded” but funded by UK viewers paying for a voluntary licence to watch.

            I would certainly agree though that the UK government’s influence in appointing staff in the upper echelons of the organisation (and also general government interference in its day to day running) leaves it open to criticism.

            • MrScottyTay@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
              3·
              1 year ago

              They don’t treat it like a voluntary license, they constantly harass people that don’t pay. Assuming you’re always guilty if you don’t have one.

              • 8orange8@lemm.eeEnglish
                4·
                1 year ago

                Yeah definitely. I remember the fake “Detector Vans” designed to frighten people but I suspect going forward with more and more younger people only using Netflix/Amazon Prime etc their attitude will have to change.

                • MrScottyTay@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
                  2·
                  1 year ago

                  They tell you to notify them if you don’t need a license, but it changes fuck all, you still get letters every couple of months that get increasingly more threatening. It’s so dumb.

          • wewbull@feddit.ukEnglish
            2·
            1 year ago

            Not sure why you felt the need to piggy back your general critique of BBC journalistic independence on my post. Feels like a major swerve in topic.

            I was explaining to those that may not know BBC Radio 4 what kind of channel it is and how it might be a good sign of them taking Mastodon seriously. I wasn’t suggesting people listen to it.

            • Historical_General@lemmy.worldEnglish
              11·
              1 year ago

              Because your comment was related to what I had to say, and I also agreed with you. I did see a comment that echoed my criticism of the BBC lower down, but I hadn’t seen it before I posted my comment.

  • arc@lemm.eeEnglish
    241·
    1 year ago

    It’s a smart thing for news sources and ngos to do - run an instance and use it to issue posts and provide a platform for journalists. Twitter and other platforms can still receive posts but the “source of truth” is the Mastodon server

  • dan@lemm.eeEnglish
    19·
    1 year ago

    That is fucking awesome.

    I love the BBC, I hate seeing what it’s been forced to turn into by threats from a succession of Conservative governments. I still pay my TV license despite pirating all my TV and movie content for years.