Same old. Just follow specific users by copying their full ID (e.g. @Teppic@kbin.social without the space) onto the search on Mastodon and follow as normal.
We should perhaps use hashtags more here because that would would be another way for Mastodon users to find/follow kbin content.
Going the other way to contribute to a kbin magazine from Mastodon, If you want the post to appear in a particular magazine, simply mention it in the post content, for example, "@fediverse@kbin.social" (no space) Note it will appear in the Microblog section.
Federation is the future of social media for exactly this reason, especially in the twitter-like realm where who is saying it is as (or more) important than what is being said. These people and organizations need to control their brand outside the scope of commercial pressure from the platform.
I think this is exactly what I want to see, news orgs (not just “mainstream” news, but let’s say, professional orgs in an industry) hosting their own instances with closed signups for accounts with JUST relevant topics. I tried to find some journalists on journa.host to fill in tech and local news, and while I found the people, it was way too much personal/personality content and not as much news.
Relying on a third party for your social media presence is a bad idea. Imagine if Elon got a bug up his ass and banned all BBC accounts; they’d be left in a lurch. Or if, as we saw, someone else got a blue checkmark and pretended to be the BBC.
But by running their own site they have control over who posts what, while still able to interact with users on other instances.
With Mastodon being a German non-profit company, it’s natural that Germany is also well-represented with a federal instance social.bund.de, instance for the state of Baden-Württemberg bawü.social (both since 2020), world’s largest public broadcasters ARD ard.social and ZDF zdf.social, and AFAIK the first news publisher to officially launch its own instance, Heise social.heise.de. There are probably loads of other instances and accounts I’m missing.
PS: The production company behind ZDF Magazin Royale (late night comedy and investigative journalism show, think Last Week Tonight ) is also running a private instance edi.social and a public instance det.social, named after the Mainzelmännchen.
Is there an editorial about it? They do have a bias, as all news networks do, but I didn’t see any statements about Israel and Palestine other than facts.
I am talking about their bias and misinformation they spread regarding other countries. I mean, they recently have done a whole thing about personality cult in some countries while at the same fucking time England arrest people that won’t bow to their new king.
For example, I think the atrocities committed by russia against Ukraine is pretty well covered so they do not deny russian fascist behaviour at all. Heck, they report on china being buddy-buddy with russia and thus china supporting the war on Ukraine is also covered nicely. I think the BBC is doing fine. Unless you live under the fascist rule of these countries, then you suddenly cannot see clearly anymore. Is that perhaps your problem, that you live in one these shitholes?
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.
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!
When I joined Mastodon in the November migration, I wondered why media organisations weren’t spinning up their own servers. Give all the journos an account on that server and there’s your verification right away.
Because a company/org specific site for journalists doesn’t get the interactions with people outside that org but within the sector of coverage unless people do a lot of following of others.
But note also that the first one isn’t associated with a media organization but rather an industry sector.
You can use social.bbc to broadcasts articles that people want to read, but the “what is going on with the energy grid in the UK” will never show up in local there but rather over at mastodon.energy/ … and so that’s where the journalists are… though there’s still a lot going on over at twitter.com/search?q=%23energytwitter
Local isn't a good measure here, though. The BBC local stream is literally just going to be posts by BBC employees.
The global stream isn't a great measure, either, frankly, as journalists primarily want to yet their posts seen, not see a huge field of noise. Those who are doing digging for social media stories maybe want a wider cut of things, but they can still do that through their replies, and through global. Search just isn't going to be as effective as on generalist servers.
But then, search isn't super effective on Mastodon, anyway, and all the big generalist servers are running Mastodon.
There's nothing preventing them from using secondary accounts on .social for research, though.
Does it make sense for NPR to spin up their own instance with the additional administration and server costs? Or is it a better use of their money just to have an account on a larger instance… which also makes discovery of them easier (everyone on mstdn.social sees them in the local feed and relevant hashtags without having to specifically follow them on other servers).
The local mastodon instance helps with authenticity, but hinders the discovery of the “buzz” in local of an appropriately topical instance ( mastodon.energy/explore ).
No of course not everyone or every organisation has the means for that. But those that have should, and others should fan out over different instances: local or regional ones, or thematic ones, instead of congregating on the same three instances because it’s ‘the main one’.
The hashtag #fossilfuels works… but it doesn’t work as well as being in mastodon.energy/public/local were things without hashtags exist and all the content is topical.
That’s amazing, I hope all journalists and government alerts have their own instance. It’s way better than a blog because it can be updated so easily, they’re used to twitter and their alerts and it’s open to see while they control everything about it. Happy to see it.
even if that’s true, which it isn’t, wouldn’t that still be a hundred times bettee than shit like Fox News? or what Bezos did with news company he bought?
If you look at the structure of the BBC, it’s an INDEPENDENT, publicly funded news organisation. The government has no say in its editorial. It has exposed many British government scandals in the past.
While the person you’re replying to seems to be trolling, there is a legitimate argument that the BBC is influenced by the current government. The argument is that the current government has had a hand in appointing the current BBC director, and he’s a member of the Conservative party or a donor.
I haven’t looked into it for a while, so am not up to speed on the details, but if the detractors are correct, it’s not a good look for the BBC.
Unfortunately, BBC news has been corrupted from the inside. It used to be impressively independent of the UK government. It was happy to hold any politician’s feet to the fire. This is why the conservative party worked so hard to put their own stooge at the top. Careers now stop progressing, if you are overly critical of the government, at least in the news department.
Overall the BBC still leans slightly left, and produces a lot of good material. I no longer trust it to report evenly on our government anymore. It’s still a lot better than most news organisations overall however.
Why an instance instead of joining an existing one? They can join the effort and do few ones where several publishers can use to create official accounts
Edit. Why you guys are downvoting a discussion? Is this place becoming reddit? We are just chatting, relax
Because they can control who is on it, they’re journalists only, and still be out in the open with no sign ins. What would be the benefit of them joining other instances? That would be an odd choice.
exactly this, they can control what is on it, give their journalists, shows, etc accounts and it being a self contained hub for everything bbc, while interacting with rest of the fediverse.
Im guessing they will also get more statistics and information from hosting it themselves as well. its a no brainer.
Because then someone else would be able to control and censor their content. Really every business should make their own server to ensure that they’re the ones fully in control of their content - this is the entire point of federation.
Having their own instance as a public organization adds more legitimacy to their publications. Think of government officials using the organizations domains for email instead of gmail.
If you look deep enough you’ll see caveats like “supplemental service provided by NWS” and “Twitter feeds and tweets do not always reflect the most current information”, but the truth is that a lot of people (and news organizations) depend on Twitter as their main interface to the NWS, and rarely if ever go to their website.
That obviously creates a tension, which bubbles up in scares like this:
Before last weekend’s storm, the National Weather Service’s Baltimore-Washington office sent this tweet saying that because of a new Twitter policy, automated tweets that show advisories, watches, and warnings might not load.
Contrast that to a world where NOAA (the federal administration which runs NWS) has their own instance: they get the benefit of being able to disseminate updates in a consumer friendly ‘social media’ style and they retain full control of platform and can be sure the service won’t be held hostage, or go down in the middle of a storm.
Finally: if you’re reading this from the USA, consider contact NOAA/NWS to let them know you’d like a fediverse presence, I did!
Finally: if you’re reading this from the USA, consider contact NOAA/NWS to let them know you’d like a fediverse presence, I did!
Good idea! I just emailed [email protected] to ask them not only for a Mastodon instance to replace this stuff, but also for a PeerTube instance to replace www.youtube.com/ .
One of Germany’s public broadcasting services also started running an instance for anyone part of the federal media network: ard.social/about
Translation:
ARD.social is a basis for ARD’s appearances in the #Fediverse network, an amalgamation of various platforms and projects. Regional and nationwide brands, broadcasts, programs and institutions of the federal media network can create profiles at ARD.social. The Mastodon instance ARD.social is operated by Norddeutscher Rundfunk (NDR).
Also the Tagesschau, which is the most important television news show in Germany, is there.
It’s interesting that they decided to make their own server and not just join a popular instances like Mastodon Social. I know part of it is then experimenting but if the goal is to just have a presence in the Fediverse, it sounds like a lot of effort for little reason.
It’s interesting you have this opinion; I figured this would be the biggest draw for corporations-- they’re no longer beholden to some third party for their media presence-- it’s all hosted and controlled by themselves;.
Yes and no. And verifying by domain is better, especially for people who are likely to be impersonated (ex. Journalists).
Rel=“me” doesn’t actually verify a user’s identity, it verifies that a user has a relationship with a website. The problem is that you need to leave Mastodon to make sure that the website actually verifies their identity. I’ve verified a connection between a Mastodon and Pixelfed account, for example, but it doesn’t tell you anything about who I am. It’s also much easier to spoof a website than it is to get the BBC to give you an account on their private instance.
It really works great the other way though! If you have a known identity here, you can be sure that the linked sites are legit.
I guess with twitter they learned the lesson of being beholden to a rogue CEO/admin who can take away verified status or change the rules on a whim. It is better that they maintain their own official presence that they control.
No, this is what they should be doing. It’s the difference between owning your house and renting. They get to make the rules on their instance, they’re not at the mercy of a tech bro company or a trash billionaire that might have a political agenda against actual journalism…
After what happened to the BBC and NPR on Twitter, who can blame them for saying “Fine, we’ll do it ourselves!”
Someone tell me how to feel! Do I hate this or like this!?
edit: I have been told to like this, and thus… I do.
Disclaimer: please ignore my negative initial vote score, as I have the privilege of being bot-downvoted by CCP sympathizers because of comments on this post lemmy.world/post/2338419, there is also the possibility that I’m just an asshole.
It’s a news organisation, so it’s okay. We definitely want more journalists and news organisations in the Fediverse. I’d much rather have them directly on mastodon than the million different bird.tld mirrors.
yes, unless it reports on the Iraq war and use ‘embedded’ journalists or reports on the Syria war and instead of sending journalists on the ground, just reprints white house memos or reporting on lgbt issues and just parrots gender critical views. But apart from that, it’s integrity is 100%, or just the bar is too low these days, idk ;(
Me anytime I do anything that sometimes gets anyone slightly upset
Exactly my thoughts.
p.s. You can quote using the “>” (greater than) symbol at the beginning of the line.
Disclaimer: please ignore my negative initial vote score, as I have the privilege of being bot-downvoted by CCP sympathizers because of comments on this post lemmy.world/post/2338419, there is also the possibility that I’m just an asshole.
Disclaimer: please ignore my initial negative vote score, as I have the privilege of being bot-downvoted by CCP sympathizers because of comments on this post lemmy.world/post/2338419, there is also the possibility that I’m just an asshole.
You can manually do a quote block the same as on reddit, just put a right-chevron (I don’t know how to type it without it triggering quote, mine is the same key as “.”) directly before the text
Just like on reddit, the escape character is a . You can easily remember this by thinking of all the shrug emoticons that were missing their arm, like so: ¯_(ツ)_/¯ because the backslash wasn’t itself escaped.
So, if you want to type a character that normally results in formatting, precede it with a blackslash.
*checks notes* results in checks notes instead of checks notes.
Although there’s not a general karma score on your profile, seeing a post heavily downvoted tends to make people disregard it… I assume it’s the intention, that or to make the user feel unhappy / harried and close their profile
Maybe, but we aren’t at the critical mass where downvotes posts and comments are routinely hidden. People will see downvoted content and interact with it.
You are also missing that the other site used karma as a way to judge if an account should be allowed to talk more. I had enough karma there so that I stopped getting the “you’re commenting too much” pause when commenting a lot. Some subs also used minimum karma points as a way to judge if someone was a troll or not. That doesn’t exist here.
I think it depends on what sort of content is posted. If it’s mostly promotional stuff some people may feel that it doesn’t fit the vibe of Mastodon. If it’s thought-provoking content (especially journalism) then it will be a win. Either way, having The BBC on Mastodon seems like a big deal, to me, and maybe it will induce other journalists to explore the fediverse.
bbc.co.uk
Hot