this post was submitted on 09 Aug 2023
1302 points (97.0% liked)
Technology
59466 readers
3247 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- 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
view the rest of the comments
Iirc, the big instance declaring immediately that it would defederate with them was one that’s very well known for being strict with moderation and had firm rules about anti-trans instances. Because the BBC has a history of being anti-trans, they defederated.
The BBC has a history of being antitrans?
That's quite a revelation to me, it has more of a reputation of being extremely liberal and indeed any even remotely right winger here usually whinges and moans about how "woke" it is 🤷🏻♂️
Do you know what in particular triggered their stance that they believed the BBC anti-trans?
There is a series by Shaun (a Youtuber) about anti trans stuff at the BBC and one article in particular.
First of 4 Videos is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4buJMMiwcg
Thank you for that, most interesting.
It's odd given their usually quite liberal stance... I wonder if there some old conservatism creeping in with the Tories being in power for so long..?
Sadly in UK transphobia seems to be pretty common in liberals and liberal institutions. I think that is because in UK the idea to connect transphobia with "womens rights" was really successful and this results in otherwise really liberal / left leaning / feminist individuals & groups to be actively anti-trans. As far as i know even otherwise trust worthy news papers like the guardian plattform anti trans talking points.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/watch?v=b4buJMMiwcg
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.
It’s the official broadcaster of TERF island. Even their foremost left wing newspaper is transphobia central.
It still makes me so sad to see what's become of the Guardian.
That's a total misunderstanding of what the BBC is. As a public broadcaster representing the whole of the UK, it has a duty to represent all views. While I personally disagree with them, gender critical or TERF views are extant in the UK at present and the public conversation on where this will all land legally is still ongoing, therefore they have an obligation to hear from all sides, no matter how unpalatable one of them may be to some.
Lol no, because as far as i can tell they dont do it with other forms of bigotry like racism.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/guidance/impartiality-and-racism
Because by and large society has decided that racism is a bad and unacceptable thing. There's pockets of it about but no one is taking that seriously. The current discussion around gender and how society moves to accommodate peoples exploration of their identity in the modern world is still very much ongoing.
I don't agree with the gender critical or "TERF" arguments, I'm very much of the belief that everyone should be allowed to identify and live as their chosen gender with access to the rights and services that dictates. However some people don't, for various reasons.
We can call them bigots and attempt to shun them and hide them away, but it's not going to stop smaller news outlets that are actually bigoted like GBNews or Talk TV having them on without the pro-Trans counterpoint that the BBC would have.
Better to shine a light on these people and force them to justify their beliefs in a neutral environment than spred then in one that's already in agreement with them no?
I had no role in the instance’s decision; don’t try to argue against their decision with me. I’ve got no say in it.
"Both sides" is BS
Whether you or I may think that, if it's in their remit, then that's their job.
It's a difficult design but generally speaking I don't think news has an obligation to provide both sides.
A. They should not run editorials
B. If they do run editorials presenting both sides is equal to endorsement.
This isn't the 1960s where the only way to be heard is via letters to the editor.
Different presenters can have different positions on issues no?
There are lots of people who just want to hear that they are right, that others agree with them. They would rather hang out in an echo chamber where it's constantly reinforced that their opinions are right rather than hear people who disagree with them.
Personally I value hearing and understanding why others have different opinions than I do.
I hate defederation with a passion and I'm close to leaving lemmy.world because of its rash defederating. There is no reason to restrict users based on what the few leaders believe.
Most of the defeds I have seen have had pretty serious community interaction prior to the decision. You need to stop seeing admins as leaders. And so does everyone else.
An admin certainly has some power over their instance, but the users are not locked into that instance at all. They are not telling people what they can see, they are telling people what they are willing to host, or not host.
Everyone deserves a voice. But nobody is responsible for giving them a megaphone and a box to stand on in their yard.
Go for it. Lemmy accounts are easy to make and itll share the load better.
It’s very different than a site like Facebook or Twitter banning someone. Nobody is kicking them off the internet… just making sure their own site only shows what they want. If you want to see whatever they defederated with, of course you can go there directly or to another instance.