This is interesting, hosting their own server. It is kinda like truth.social…but with actual truth.
You must log in or register to comment.
Truth is subjective, for world news, yeah they’re pretty on the ball, for UK domestic news, they’re biased as fuck.
They officially represent British interests in their information, which is to be expected, as they act as a UK equivalent to Voice of America, RT, NHK, CCTV or any other international state broadcaster you can think of. Truth is not only subjective but constantly up for grabs. These old school but still massive (as far as reach) often opposing state broadcasters are somehow quaint in todays landscape.
No, they represent English interests, the bias against the other home-nations especially Scotland is incredible even from BBC Scotland itself, it’s quite subtle to an outsider but to someone who lives here, the BBC is not the impartial broadcaster that it’s meant to be anymore.
Apologies for that, and thanks for the very important distinction.
No need to apologise. Glad I cleared things up a bit.
100%…I was making more of a comparative rather than assuming an absolute position. 👍
Please do not link anything the Orange Idiot is associated with to a state sponsored service. Truth.social is so far separated from the BBC or any US sponsored service they may as well be in separate universes.
What the BBC is doing would be akin to NPR or PBS starting a Mastodon instance, which I’m all for.
I saw a bunch of people getting upset and defederating cause apparently the BBC is transphobic. I followed because I’ve got hardly anything interesting to look at on mastodon.
Eh… that’s their problem and they’re free to defederate as long as they don’t harass others to defederate.
I just think it looks really bad when the largest instances defederate over minor things.
What did they do that is supposedly transphobic?
No idea
I know this isn’t a convenient response, but Shaun has been leading some concentrated pushback against BBC’s transphobia for like a year. Check out some of his recent videos for a detailed answer. https://youtube.com/@Shaun_vids
I kinda don’t care enough to watch a whole YouTube video on it, to be honest.
It’s a single article The lesbians who feel pressured to have sex and relationships with trans women, which was previously named “We’re being pressured into sex by some trans women”, that’s being used as the brush to paint the entire BBC transphobic.
If people bothered to read the decision which led to the amended article, and the amended article itself, they would read:
Ultimately, it has been difficult to determine the true scale of the problem because there has been little research on this topic - only one survey to my knowledge. However, those affected have told me the pressure comes from a minority of trans women, as well as activists who are not necessarily trans themselves.
and
Angela created a questionnaire for lesbians and distributed it via social media, then published the results.
She said that of the 80 women who did respond, the majority reported being pressured or coerced to accept a trans woman as a sexual partner.
The survey was not statistically valid since the respondents were self-selecting and Get The L Out is an active campaigning group on lesbian issues. But while Angela acknowledges the sample may not be representative of the wider lesbian community, she believes it was important to capture their “points of view and stories”.
The article is a description of the problems within the queer community itself that seem to be experienced by a minority, brought upon by the extremes of another minority.
The reaction to call the BCC “transphobic” seems to me like a very twitter-esque reaction based in identity politics and hardline “if you’re not with us, you’re against us” tribalism.
I can appreciate wariness toward the kind of tribalism you describe in your last paragraph, but in this case the BBC has actually acted irresponsibly, and you quoted one of the big reasons why from their own article:
The survey was not statistically valid since the respondents were self-selecting and Get The L Out is an active campaigning group on lesbian issues. But while Angela acknowledges the sample may not be representative of the wider lesbian community, she believes it was important to capture their “points of view and stories”.
#1, Get the L Out is not “campaigning on lesbian issues,” they’re campaigning on anti-trans issues. Their stated aim is not to improve the social status and wellbeing of all lesbians or something, but rather to exclusively define lesbianism for all lesbians in such a way that excludes trans women, full stop. From their own website:
Lesbians are exclusively same-sex attracted.
Lesbians do not have penises.
Lesbians do not want to have sex with men who identify as trans-women.Because of this, #2, the article is in no way and never was “a description of the problems within the queer community” (Get the L Out makes this helpfully clear in that the tagline of their group is “Lesbian not Queer.” The article is, in the most generous interpretation, a description of a radical trans-exclusionary group’s grievances deliberately obscured to masquerade as “problems within the queer community.”
And #3, at least most of the respondents (to my recollection and again, self-selected from a group by definition pre-disposed to this grievance) had never felt direct pressure from a trans woman for sex, but rather felt pressure or fear of condemnation due to their own discomfort with trans acceptance.
There are actually many other issues with the article, and the BBC has dragged an anchor in making any corrections. I don’t think this discredits them as a news source in general, but this and other examples do show a pattern of transphobia in the organization at large.
Rabidly screeching at anyone who disagrees with them is kinda a trademark of the trans community at this point, we also saw it with the debate around trans women in sport.
They need to accept they’re not above criticism, and aren’t always right.
The Netherlands did something similar. More countries should follow!
I think it makes perfect sense for groups like these, that will potentially have a lot of official accounts under one umbrella. A bit like an unofficial official badge, knowing a profile comes from a certain instance gives it a sort of credibility.
tbh every corporate should as well for their official social media outlets.
