"As the social media landscape ebbs and flows, the team at BBC Research & Development are researching social technologies and exploring possibilities for the BBC. One part of our work is to establish a BBC presence in the distributed collection of social networks known as the Fediverse, a collection of social media applications all linked together by common protocols. The most common software used in this area is Mastodon, a Twitter-like social networking service with around 2 million active monthly users. We are now running an experimental BBC Mastodon server at https://social.bbc where you can follow some of the BBC’s social media accounts, including BBC R&D, Radio 4 and 5 Live. We hope to be able to add more accounts from other areas of the BBC at some point."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] PeleSpirit@lemmy.world 229 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

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.

Edit: Cool graphic too: https://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/sites/50335ff370b5c262af000004/assets/64c7859d06d63e5047000311/fediverse-overview-16x9.png

[–] Zeth0s@lemmy.world 28 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children)

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

[–] PeleSpirit@lemmy.world 98 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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.

[–] dimspace@lemmy.world 43 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] Zeth0s@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago

Good point

[–] tcj@lemmy.world 64 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Zeth0s@lemmy.world 22 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Good point. You guys are right. It is a good choice

[–] SasquatchBanana@lemmy.world 24 points 1 year ago

Just for records sake, we can see recently with Musk and Twitter and how he manipulated NPR's image by denoting them as "state media".

[–] davetapley@lemmy.world 39 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I think the USA's National Weather Service Twitter presence is a good example.

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!

[–] Zeth0s@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Thanks for the details

[–] grue@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

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 NWS.PA@noaa.gov to ask them not only for a Mastodon instance to replace this stuff, but also for a PeerTube instance to replace https://www.youtube.com/@noaanationalweatherservice .

[–] neutron@thelemmy.club 19 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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.

[–] SmashingSquid@notyour.rodeo 18 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Them having their own instance would serve the same purpose as being verified because of the domain.

[–] Zeth0s@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

Thanks, makes sense

[–] skilltheamps@feddit.de 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

One of Germany's public broadcasting services also started running an instance for anyone part of the federal media network: https://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.

[–] Vittelius@feddit.de 3 points 1 year ago

The other one did as well (https://zdf.social)