• Oliver@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        45
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months 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.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            12
            ·
            11 months 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.

          • ymhr@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            11 months ago

            But people can still reply to posts so you’d need moderation still.

        • lemme_at_it@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months 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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        11 months 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.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          11 months ago

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

      • shrugal@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months 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.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        11 months 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.br
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 months 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.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months 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.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    197
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    11 months 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.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    98
    ·
    11 months 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
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    92
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    11 months 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.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      11 months 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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        11 months 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.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    72
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    11 months ago

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

    • Zagorath@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      31
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      11 months 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.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months 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.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months 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?

  • ghariksforge@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months 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.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months 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.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      11 months 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.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        11 months 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.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months 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.ee
            cake
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            11 months 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.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              11 months 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.ee
                cake
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                11 months 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.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  11 months 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.uk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            11 months 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.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              11 months 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.ee
    cake
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months 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.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    11 months 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.