358
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by pewgar_seemsimandroid@lemmy.blahaj.zone to c/technology@lemmy.world

Mickey Djuric

all 29 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Grant_M@lemmy.ca 73 points 1 year ago

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) 🇨🇦

[-] cyborganism@lemmy.ca 41 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] Grant_M@lemmy.ca 16 points 1 year ago

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! @Paulatics@mstdn.ca

my phone thinks that's an email

[-] Grant_M@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)
[-] cheese_greater@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

Excellent idea, will replicate when I have the energy

[-] Pons_Aelius@kbin.social 62 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] stopthatgirl7@kbin.social 27 points 1 year ago

Thing is, this is exactly what Elon wants. He hates the press and doesn’t want them on his platform.

[-] Grant_M@lemmy.ca 31 points 1 year ago

Twitler is trash anyway. Reputable folks/outlets shouldn't want to be associated with it.

[-] bobs_monkey@lemm.ee 7 points 1 year ago

Old habits die hard I'd imagine

[-] TheEntity@kbin.social 18 points 1 year ago

Is this even a problem? Elon can keep his fringe groups and trollbots, I don't mind.

[-] stopthatgirl7@kbin.social 14 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] Pons_Aelius@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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.

[-] ericisshort@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] Pons_Aelius@kbin.social 17 points 1 year ago

When you program a bot, the first thing you do is make sure it does not know its a bot.

[-] cheese_greater@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I feel like their should be a HappyFeet-esque treatment of Bots and their "upbringing"

Edit: 9.3/10 would watch

it just feels like every post that just goes to an article is made my a bot

[-] PrincessLeiasCat@sh.itjust.works 17 points 1 year ago

Exactly what a bot would say!

check my profile you will see that im an human

[-] cheese_greater@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

X needs an involuntary "government-funded anti-government twat" checkmark that, like, "Xes" itself off into implied and objective commercial irrelevancy.

[-] fosstulate@iusearchlinux.fyi -5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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.)

[-] barsoap@lemm.ee 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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.

this post was submitted on 22 Oct 2023
358 points (95.2% liked)

Technology

59144 readers
2297 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