this post was submitted on 13 Nov 2024
470 points (97.4% liked)

Technology

59345 readers
5951 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] AllNewTypeFace@leminal.space 57 points 1 day ago (4 children)

They could spin up a Mastodon instance, but given how lousy their UK editorial department is with TERFs, it would be justifiably blocked for transphobia.

[–] Cheradenine@sh.itjust.works 37 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I really enjoy quite a bit of the Guardians coverage. Their staff editorial department is often infuriating to the point I often wonder if they actually work for a different news agency.

[–] AllNewTypeFace@leminal.space 13 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Their US and Australian divisions are solid. The UK one varies, and has some decent people, but also has a persistent infestation of TERF/SWERFs. A few high-profile ones have left after their comments became irreconcilable with the paper’s ostensibly liberal/progressive line, but you still get regular Observer opinion columns about pronoun-mongers sexualising our children or other scare campaigns. There’s a rumour that the editor, Kath Viner, is herself a TERF and personally protecting them, though I haven’t seen any evidence one way or the other.

[–] futatorius@lemm.ee 6 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

the paper’s ostensibly liberal/progressive line

They're aligned with the Liberal party, which is a centrist party which is seldom if ever progressive. The Guardian does put up some articles by progressives, on occasion, but they also publish articles by conservatives. When the Labour Party was led by Corbyn, the Guardian was consistently critical of Labour policy and bought into the rightwing press's phony accusations that Corbyn was antisemitic. Overall, the Guardian's core politics are those of the metropolitan bourgeoisie, as can also be seen by their lifestyle and media commentary, as well as their general smugness. And on economic matters, their coverage is utterly useless. On that, the Economist and the FT are far superior, despite their occasionally odious politics in their editorial pages.

I still read the Graun, though, since the rest of the British press is far, far worse.

[–] wewbull 29 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I really wish running your own mastodon was as accepted as running your own email server. There'll be no "blue check mark" problem if your company runs the server and only provides accounts to employees.

[–] Alphane_Moon@lemmy.world 10 points 1 day ago (1 children)

This seems like a win-win scenario for everyone involved.

[–] taladar@sh.itjust.works 1 points 23 hours ago

I think the problem is that ActivityPub doesn't scale as well as email does thanks to the constant need to update and cache data from each instance one of your users interacts with.

[–] gedaliyah@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago

That's exactly right.

[–] fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.com 8 points 1 day ago (1 children)

They don't need to do any of that. Just make an account on any instance and go forth.

If you can leave X, you can change instances if needed in the future, too.

[–] Wispy2891@lemmy.world 11 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Tbh that would put a lot of strain on someone else’s server. It’s not like they’re a small business that can’t afford a dedicated server, and each journalist could have a dedicated handle

[–] fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.com 1 points 7 hours ago

Pretty sure if they joined mastadon.social, they'd be fine. Plus the clout for mastadon would be woth the orgs investment if it was needed, though their infrastructure would likely be fine. We're not talking millions of viewers.

[–] moe90@feddit.nl -3 points 1 day ago (3 children)

tbh Bluesky also a nice alternative as well.

[–] fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.com 2 points 7 hours ago

You mean Future-X?

[–] Nadru@lemmy.world 25 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Bluesky is at risk to be bought by another Musk in the future

[–] merde@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

how many twitters can one man sell to an elmo?

[–] Nadru@lemmy.world 2 points 10 hours ago

We'll have to wait and see, at least one for now ;)

[–] Intergalactic@lemmy.world 15 points 1 day ago (1 children)

BlueSky can be bought and influenced. No thanks.

[–] AllNewTypeFace@leminal.space 10 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

BlueSky has already received funding from venture capital, and so will need to find a way to monetise its user base. Once enough people depend on the site for their social connections and friend circles, the promise of decentralisation will be quietly removed, APIs will be restricted (as on Reddit/Xitter), terms of service updated to ban circumvention, and the user-controlled algorithms modified to deliver your eyeballs to the advertisers and your data to data brokers, and before long, it’ll be an Instagram-style slot machine, where you mostly see ads and AI pink-slime, but keep pulling the lever in case there’s another update you care about in there somewhere.

[–] Intergalactic@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago

Certainly, this aligns closely with the stance I express in a blog post scheduled for publication on Medium today in opposition to BlueSky. Users will likely be disheartened when BlueSky essentially replicates the characteristics of 2019-2020 Twitter. Ads suck. Centralization sucks. Millionaires and billionaires running these platforms for profit suck.