Mickey Djuric
CBC and any mainstream media outlet would benefit by creating a Fediverse presence. It would be cheap for them to run a Mastodon instance, (for instance) 🇨🇦
I’ve already told my MPs both federal and provincial to create accounts on mstdn.ca instead of the now alt-right hatred fueled X.
Awesome! That would be a really good step as well. So far I haven’t seen any at all. But we do have a Senator among us! @[email protected]
my phone thinks that’s an email
😆 here’s a better link https://mstdn.ca/@Paulatics
Excellent idea, will replicate when I have the energy
There’s also a really nice activity pub plugin for WordPress, a platform that is already in use by a lot of media outlets.
NPR found the same thing in the states. Engaging on that site does not increase traffic or readership for the news outlet.
So, don’t and let the bots have it.
deleted by creator
Yeah nice… My search results tough 💀 Censored… I mean sure there is a toggle somewhere or I can block that community or somethin, but it caught me unguard.
(Also none for those is the real one but that another topic… And it’s what can happen with federation so it’s expected.)
I don’t get Masterson/Twitter - all I see in that link are the list of their posts, nothinf about people interacting with them?
People are definitely interacting with them. Example: https://social.bbc/@BBCRadio4/111283440897928435
Thing is, this is exactly what Elon wants. He hates the press and doesn’t want them on his platform.
Twitler is trash anyway. Reputable folks/outlets shouldn’t want to be associated with it.
Old habits die hard I’d imagine
Is this even a problem? Elon can keep his fringe groups and trollbots, I don’t mind.
It’s a problem because a lot of people are still on Twitter/X and get information from there. Only now they’re getting more misinformation and less news.
The problem is EM owns the place now and can do what he wants.
As much as we want people to leave Twitter, we can’t force people to leave. If they decide to stay, despite the misinformation, there is nothing we can do about it. Personally I have zero people in my life who use twitter and I have never used it either. So I cannot actually influence anyone to leave.
In the end, you cannot save people form themselves.
To me it would be better for all news outlets to leave than for them to stay.
deleted by creator
He just really needs a win right now, and this win is so pathetic. Just let him have his incredibly expensive truth social, because that’s what he’s trying to turn Twitter into.
im not a bot tho
Exactly what a bot would say!
check my profile you will see that im an human
When you program a bot, the first thing you do is make sure it does not know its a bot.
it just feels like every post that just goes to an article is made my a bot
I feel like their should be a HappyFeet-esque treatment of Bots and their “upbringing”
Edit: 9.3/10 would watch
X needs an involuntary “government-funded anti-government twat” checkmark that, like, “Xes” itself off into implied and objective commercial irrelevancy.
milestone
In a letter written to X’s head of global government affairs Nick Pickles on April 17, the CBC said their label was “factually incorrect” because the government doesn’t have involvement in CBC’s editorial decisions.
Many public broadcasters are set up so that their governance is done at ‘arms-length’ from the sitting government. The problem is that the mechanisms used to achieve this (usually a government-appointed board of directors, a parliamentary committee, etc.) often intervene in coverage on behalf of an annoyed government, including threats to litigate against the entity, termination threats against the director or other personnel, tabling of targeted legislation designed to make the entity’s life worse, etc. These governance bodies are kind of like car brakes made of balsa wood: rock solid when not in use, then a pile of sawdust during the organization’s time of need.
For that reason I’m happy with X’s label, even though I value public broadcasting, because history has shown executive government tends to issue marching orders to media (no matter their ‘independence’) whenever it feels that getting its way is particularly vital. The motive for the label may be ideological given Musk’s record, but it has some utility to the reader in that it reminds them of a broader, awkward truth about government funding.
(I think the general media’s shunning of X has a certain coordination about it, and that it’s really about sector-felt resentment rather than engagement metrics. The metrics stuff is just noise, and likely explains the refusal to disclose the engagement figures mentioned in the article. Musk to them is a foreign occupier, and they are the underground resistance, withholding their content/advertising dollars, determined to undermine his efforts to reforge Twitter to X and ensure they get ‘their’ platform back.)
The main issue with X’s labelling wasn’t that they did it, or some grand semantic difference between state vs. public broadcasters, but that they didn’t apply it evenly.
NPR was labelled a “state broadcaster” even though it’s at best public, while DW wasn’t labelled at all, and btw youtube labels it as public broadcaster, which is factually incorrect, it is a state broadcaster, not allowed to broadcast within Germany itself both because it’s not public and also because it’s run by the federal level. Its editorial policy is literally identical to German foreign policy doctrine (though it has to be said that that doesn’t mean that it’s a bad source of news, it’s in fact a very good one, same as say the Guardian having a policy doesn’t mean they’re a bad source).
If you label one, you have to label them all. If you make a difference between public vs. state, bloody get it right. X labelling NPR as they did IMO is best explained by Elon hating it.
