Maybe now would be the right time to lobby this organization. The impact of Twitter may have brought us Trump and all the destruction which will follow. We can't affort this once more.

[–] fxomt@lemm.ee 112 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

If only it were to mastodon. Though baby steps, i guess

[–] TheObviousSolution@kbin.melroy.org 64 points 15 hours ago (3 children)

Or, hear me out, whatever happened to just hosting your own fucking website and RSS stream? Not everything needs to an opportunity for a random Joe to drop his two cents in.

[–] Scrollone@feddit.it 19 points 14 hours ago

I agree. European institutions should have social presence, but most of the time that leads to random crazy people commenting under official posts.

[–] WamGams@lemmy.ca 26 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

...we are building a social web here, that is why.

If you just want a website with rss, why be here?

[–] TheObviousSolution@kbin.melroy.org 36 points 15 hours ago (2 children)

Not the European institutions. They exist on their own merits that have nothing to do with building social webs.

I'm also sick of LIVE news channels hosting on YouTube that enable chat rooms without any supervision and force it onto your face unless you close them. Just disable that shit, you aren't dedicated streamers, who do bother to moderate chats.

"Social webs" where they are not needed are just increasingly becoming an opportunity to saturate with shit posts, fake news, and propaganda by randoms. I am not going to them for a random two cent Joe's opinion, I am going to them for whatever their trained and paid professionals are providing.

It can be federated to some degree, but shouldn't be as a two way participant . For example, as a read only instance whom you can receive a user in if you are part of that institution, but whose use will also be limited to that instance and with only a very limited and controlled portion of those instances being shared with other instances.

[–] thetreesaysbark@sh.itjust.works 3 points 11 hours ago

Hmm.

It'd be interesting for to see a forum whereby it's all readable by anybody, but only those at the top of their fields can post/comment.

I imagine there'd be a gap between those comments and what the rest of us can understand but I kinda like the idea in terms of ensuring we get intelligent, well thought out, comments on important news stories.

[–] WamGams@lemmy.ca 5 points 14 hours ago

Thankfully this glorious thing is still being built and small enough for your opinion to be seen by those building it.

I disagree, but i think your viewpoint is valid.

[–] fxomt@lemm.ee 10 points 15 hours ago (2 children)

They already have websites. And social media is much more accessible than an RSS feed

[–] Glitchvid@lemmy.world 10 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Somewhat out of scope for this specific article, but in the States' a lot of cities only make announcements over Tw*tter or Facebook.

I was planning on going to a 4th of July parade with my family, and I only learned it was cancelled (wildfires) because somebody else told me, who was following there, the city website had no mechanism for this kind of news.

Which is really what I'd prefer to see, websites maintained for announcements, and if they want to also post that news on other social media they can use software to crosspost. Also RSS feeds for those who still use readers, plenty of 'Content Management' suites provide that functionality by default.

[–] fxomt@lemm.ee 3 points 11 hours ago

Yeah I still think there should be websites and RSS (sorry about what happened BTW), but the top user was implying socials are useless for them. Most people have social media, but most also don't have RSS.

[–] tyler@programming.dev 3 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

Social media requires accounts… by default rss is literally more accessible.

[–] fxomt@lemm.ee 12 points 14 hours ago

I meant to average users. You're right that RSS is easier, but most of their target users have accounts anyway

[–] Evotech@lemmy.world 31 points 14 hours ago

Do Facebook next