We were aiming to learn about how much work and cost this involved, how many people we’d reach, what levels of engagement we would get and to explore the risks and benefits of the federated model.
The trial so far has been really effective in helping us learn about how the Fediverse is evolving, what technical support a Mastodon server needs, what the costs are, and how a large media organisation like the BBC can engage with the many different overlapping communities that exist in this rapidly changing space.
We are also planning to start some technical work into investigating ways to publish BBC content more widely using ActivityPub, the underlying protocol of Mastodon and the Fediverse.
Reassuringly, most of the comments and feedback have been positive, welcoming both our interest and the way we have set things up.We’ve had really encouraging levels of engagement(i.e. replies, re-posts and likes) on Mastodon.
Because this an experiment and a trial, it’s not always the main priority for all the teams involved, so we may not be able to engage and reply as much as the Mastodon community and culture expect, and we recognise this could be an issue going forward.
Because of the potential sensitivity around news stories, we need to be particularly careful with our editorial processes and within the scope of this trial we are not in a position to guarantee time and effort from other teams outside of R&D.
The original article contains 692 words, the summary contains 240 words. Saved 65%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Really? Trump mentioning that most nato members do not meet the required defense spending undermines nato.
Yeah I’m sure that was what undermined nato and not the fact that America is the only threatening part of nato and the rest of the members haven’t been contributing shit. I don’t like trump but it’s clear that nato needs a kick up the ass.
Not what I asked. You agree with Trump, which means you agree with what I asked you. Any nuanced opinion saying “countries might need to contribute more” aren’t what he said.
Yes I agree that countries that don’t meet the 2% shouldn’t be in nato. People could let it slide if it were a few countries but it’s majority of nato and the countries can clearly afford it.
Tell me why the us should continue to meet its nato obligations when none of the other members do?
You are taking the the quote out of context. Yes he said exactly what was in the quote but the seriousness portrayed by this article was not there.
Do you honestly think the US and nato would let Russia invade a nato country? Because even the head of Nato doesn’t think that would happen and the article mentions that. The only person saying that would happen is Biden and he is only saying it because it’s great for his election run.
The article mentions the clear “hardball” approach that trump is taking to try and force nato members to pull their weight. Everyone in this comment section seems to be ignoring that and ignoring the comments from the head of Nato and taking trumps words as a binding contract. It’s already clear from trumps existence that he says unhinged shit, I don’t think we have any disagreements there. The disagreement I have with this article is the hypocrisy of saying Nato is undermined by trumps comments when majority of the members are freeloading with no intentions of meeting the requirements. The majority of nato members being useless has become such an issue that presidential candidates are running on the issue.
“Everyone who pushes back is troll”. Ok since this is such obvious trolling you should be able to give a good reason as to why comments from a presidential candidate undermines a 31 country military alliance more than 27 countries in (2017) and 21 countries in (2023) not meeting the minimum contribution requirements.
Please keep in mind that the nato member in this article who made the comments about trump does believe that the us will remain a committed nato ally regardless of election outcome.
The Republican said he had told allies he would "encourage" Russia to attack any Nato member that failed to meet the alliance's target of 2% of their GDP.
That’s not just complaining about not spending enough, it’s literally inviting an invasion.
And you’re saying that doesn’t undermine their security‽
Trump’s inviting the invasion. Let’s not get things twisted. The US has plenty of ways to pressure other member states to contribute more spending to the alliance than threatening publicly to break the treaty and winking towards Russia.
The US demonstrates themselves as an unreliable partner. That’s not in the interest of the US as they lose power globally, when countries rethink their dependence on them.
The US has been pressuring nato for close to a decade. Trump has threatened nato by withdrawing troops and threatened the exclusion of us protection when he was actually the president. The result of this has been an increase in the amount of nato members meetings their minimum obligations. However the amount of members meeting the minimum requirements has only gone from 4/31 in 2017 to 10/31 in 2023. There are still many large countries in Europe not meeting their obligations.
Trump is using this as an issue to run on. He is not seriously inviting Russia to invade. It’s funny to me that you suggest the us being unreliable while they contribute 71% of the spending and only ask that the other countries do the bare minimum. Countries SHOULD rethink their dependence on the us especially Nato countries. Nato countries should consider that they are entirely dependent on the us and consider contributing to their security alliance.
It’s one thing to say that a country not spending even 2% of the GDP should not be able to call Article 5. It’s another thing to say you would “encourage [Russia] to do whatever they wanted to do” with said country.
Nevertheless it’s signaling unreliability, because it would violate the treaty the US has signed. Plenty of NATO countries have helped out the US when they called article 5 on bullshit arguments and lies when invading Afghanistan.
But you’re right. It’s good European countries rethink their dependence. Too bad it comes with rethinking their alliances as well, with a belligerent USA.
Obviously it would be best if trump didn’t say something so unhinged but no one thinks trump is inviting Russia to invade.
Nato is undermining itself by doing nothing and putting their entire security burden on one country in a completely different continent. Trump is threatening nato. He is saying you better carry your weight or we may not save you.
I would argue that trumps threat should strengthen nato because if he is elected then his stance puts pressure on nato members to meet their obligations. Nato members meeting their obligations makes nato stronger. If nato members are worried about getting invaded and having no support from the us there is a simple solution contribute 2% gdp to military spending. If nato members are so worried about an invasion then they should probably participate in their military alliance.
Obviously it would be best if trump didn’t say something so unhinged but no one thinks trump is inviting Russia to invade.
I 100% think that Trump is inviting Russia to invade. He’s literally stated multiple times that if he were president, he’d try to end the Russian invasion by making Ukraine surrender. That’s literally his stated goal. How is that not inviting Russia to invade?
And he also wants to pull the US out of NATO, which would weaken it and make it far easier for individual members to be attacked. Again, that’s his stated goal. How does this not make Russian invasions much easier?
The quote is talking about an invasion of a nato state not Ukraine.
He only wants to pull the us out of nato because nato is carried by the us and provide nothing. If nato members actually met their obligations he would have no issue remaining. To me that’s a reasonable stance.
Edit: actually its not fair to say trump wants to pull the US out of Nato. Its clear to Nato that the US does not want to leave nato but they(trumps admin) are playing hardball to force Nato members to meet their obligations.
“Oh yeah, he is inviting a Russian invasion of that one country, but surely not any others!”
“Yeah, he keeps saying he wants to pull out of NATO, but he doesn’t really plan to”
And what will you say when he actually follows through on both accounts? “It’s the countries fault, they didn’t follow his demands, they made him do it”
If trump pulls out of nato I wouldn’t blame the us. The blame would clearly be on the nato members who have repeatedly failed to uphold their security agreements.
If you are given an option. Pay and be protected or don’t pay and don’t be protected and you choose the 2nd option then you are you to blame when you have no protection. These countries signed agreements stating that they would all pay this minimum amount.
I’m saying that the comment undermines nato security less than the majority of nato not contributing to nato security.
If these nations cared so much about their security and cared about the nato alliance they would simply contribute the agreed 2% gdp.
Also trump said similar statements about exclusion from us protection when he was president. It didn’t happen then and it’s even less likely now that he is not president.
While I highly doubt you have anything interesting or realistic to say on this issue my comments are in good faith if you want to discuss where we disagree. I’ve replied to a few other comments if you want to read over them for more explanation of my reasoning.
Your opinion is so out of the realm of reality that many are questioning your intentions here, including myself. Maybe start with a comment that has some geopolitical accuracy.
lmao. Read the room bra. No one here is buying your delusional bullshit. I’m not swayed by “headlines” I’m actually, you know, listening to the words that come out of the orange shitstain’s mouth. Please continue to waste your time responding though. It’s not like you have the self awareness to believe no one here agrees with you.
Everyone here can disagree with me and be wrong. That’s fine. I’m sure Russia was waiting for the green light from a non president trump to invade nato countries and now they have it according to you. It’s over for nato I guess.
Obviously you’re looking for an echo chamber, which you will not find here. You should go back to Fox News, OANN or whatever other shitty propaganda source that feeds your biases.
Really? Trump mentioning that most nato members do not meet the required defense spending undermines nato.
As a member of a NATO military that doesn’t meet the targets for spending, I agree this doesn’t undermine NATO, it’s just the truth that we need to start pulling more weight monetarily.
BUT that’s not the point and you missed key details about what he said that absolutely DOES undermine NATO, such as:
“I said: ‘You didn’t pay? You’re delinquent?’… ‘No I would not protect you, in fact I would encourage them to do whatever they want. You gotta pay.’”
So you’re showing that you either didn’t read the article, didn’t understand the article or are being willfully ignorant of the article.
As a member of a NATO military that doesn’t meet the targets for spending, I agree this doesn’t undermine NATO, it’s just the truth that we need to start pulling more weight monetarily.
You dont think Nato members not ever meeting spending targets undermines NATO? Europe would be able to protect themselves if they met the targets and the US would be a bonus to NATO not a requirement.
BUT that’s not the point and you missed key details about what he said that absolutely DOES undermine NATO, such as: “I said: ‘You didn’t pay? You’re delinquent?’… ‘No I would not protect you, in fact I would encourage them to do whatever they want. You gotta pay.’”
I think that comment does far less damage to NATO than the members who do not meet minimum requirements. The US has been trying to get Nato to contribute to their own security for a long time. Trumps plan to get this done has been to threaten Nato members with removal of US security. This seems to have worked better than other methods tried. Trump is not saying this to encourage russia to attack Nato, trump is saying this to force Nato members to meet their obligations.
I do not understand how you can look a nation asking the US to defend them for free and the US saying no and think that the US is one putting them at risk. They put themself at risk because they choose to spend no money on defense obligations.
To understand why it is not a call for russia to attack nato you must know the context. In the clip Trump mentions Nato being broken before he “fixed” it. In 2016 only 5 countries met the minimum nato obligations (US, UK, Greece, estonia, Poland).
Trump recalls a conversation he had with a Nato leader. He says the leader asked him “if we dont pay are you still going to protect us” trump replied “absolutely not”. This is a huge shock to the nato leaders as America has always asked them to pay but never forced their hand like this. They ask again “if we dont pay and we are attacked by Russia will you still protect us?” then you get the harsher response from trump.
No I would not protect you, in fact I would encourage them to do whatever they want. You gotta pay. full quote since you left out the important part.
Europe is vulnerable to an attack from Russia they know this. They MUST meet their alliance obligations to ensure their security its that simple. Trump is telling the European leader this to scare them into meeting their obligations. Russia didnt hear about this until trump mentioned it at his rally a few days ago. After all this happened years ago the Nato contribution increased and states meeting their obligation goes from 5 to 11.
Please explain to me how that is trump inviting war? Trump isnt asking Nato to freeload. He is asking them to meet their obligations and remain in the alliance with the US.
Please explain to me how that is trump inviting war?
Sure, when Trump says:
I would encourage them to do whatever they want
“Them” is Russia, and “whatever they want” is to invade. So Trump is saying “I would encourage {Russia] to [Invade].”
I’m not going along with your “he doesn’t mean what he says” BS. He is running for government office, if he doesn’t mean what he’s saying then he shouldn’t say it. I’m not going to play “guess what the politician really means when they say something. Maybe they mean the opposite. who knows?”
The Biden administration definitely are paying a small group of people to whisper in their ear “We’re the good guys, we’re the good guys, we’re the good guys.” just to get through the day when people mention Gaza.
So are they just going to tighten them up real well and call it a day? Also are these the same planes they were urging the FAA to let them flight without further inspection?
Oh there’s still some stuff around. Seems like the Russian courts have cleared their schedules of all things Navalny. But, there isn’t a lot. Gone Baby Gone.
Not that I want that to drop out of the media circuit but there’s only so much to report on. How many different ways can you say a politician disappeared? Especially when the guy responsible is a dictator that simply won’t answer any questions regarding the person at hand.
Brazil says that it is deploying troops along its border with Venezuela after the Venezuelan government announced plans to incorporate an area controlled by Guyana into its territory.
Venezuela renewed its land claims after offshore oil and gas reserves were discovered a few years ago.
While Guyana has its troops on high alert, the Brazilian army has said that it is moving more soldiers to the border city of Boa Vista, the capital of Roraima state, as well as bringing in more armed vehicles.
According to AFP news agency, Brazil’s army has said it is reinforcing its presence in the region as part of efforts to “guarantee the inviolability of the territory”.
A Guyanese army helicopter with seven people on board was reported missing near the Venezuelan border on Wednesday.
However, the Guyanese Chief of Staff, Omar Khan, said there was “no information suggesting Venezuela was involved”.
The original article contains 260 words, the summary contains 147 words. Saved 43%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
I am just citing Queermunist who asked for additional proof when there were reports that a hostage self reported (!) that he/she was being held by a UNRWA teacher in Gaza.
The comment had quite a lot of upvotes by Lemmy users and I am just wondering where these hypocrites are now.
A man born without hands or legs has been told he will soon no longer get a daily visit from a care worker to help him shower and get dressed.
It added that it understood “the worry it is causing”, and would “seek an alternative provider” that would “support him to continue living independently in his own home”.
His care is provided by Connected Health but that is due to end on 1 December, with the company telling BBC News NI that it was “increasingly stretched in ever more demanding circumstances”.
Mr Calvert’s friend Vicky has been making additional visits to help four days a week but now that looks to be the only assistance he will get.
Mr Calvert’s mother, Heather, said she “just couldn’t believe it” when she heard that her son was losing his care package.
She told Evening Extra that over the past seven months the situation surrounding DJ’s care has been “a rollercoaster”.
The original article contains 776 words, the summary contains 158 words. Saved 80%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
I mean, yes fact checking is good, but beyond translating existing Japanese sources on a Supreme Court ruling, which is already written down... there's not much to clarify here. It's not like it's war coverage where it's dangerous to even cover stories at all.
bbc.co.uk
Top