6 ms·

Well DW could do something about it by at least adding the fediverse on their abominable "follow us on X, Y, Z". DW does not even have an RSS feed for chris sa

Well DW could do something about it by at least adding the fediverse on their abominable "follow us on X, Y, Z". DW does not even have an RSS feed for chris sake. The press is complicit in the hijacking of the internet. They made a Faustian pact. Now they are crying foul.

marban 3y ago
They have plenty of feeds.
- nologic01 3y ago
  Where exactly? Visible through your rose tinted glasses? There is no visual hint on the page (RSS has a well established logo) and my rss reader does not autodiscover it from the main page.
  - kervantas 3y ago
    Inoreader or Feedly list plenty of RSS links for DW
  - jug 3y ago
    Give me a break. You literally just type dw.com/rss. Logotypes or not this is pretty much a default address for RSS discovery.
    - shortrounddev2 3y ago
      Having to type the URL manually is very poor discoverability. Most people don't use the internet this way
binchol 3y ago
Why would they bother adding the fediverse, it's mostly useless, would provide no benefit to them, and they'd probably get defederated eventually for publishing something someone doesn't like.
- Blaiz0r 3y ago
  Says you. Some media companies are experimenting with it right now: https://www.bbc.com/rd/blog/2023-07-mastodon-distributed-decentralised-fediverse-activitypub https://www.bbc.com/rd/blog/2023-07-mastodon-distributed-dec... It makes sense for media companies to self host.
- nologic01 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    > I can imagine that somebody hurt your feelings on the fediverse This sort of junk is completely out of place. If you have a counter argument, state it.
arran-nz 3y ago
They recently joined, here's their verified account: https://mastodon.social/@dw_innovation https://mastodon.social/@dw_innovation
- actionfromafar 3y ago
  How common is it for companies to run their own Mastodon server?
1vuio0pswjnm7 3y ago
This type of internet forum reply is so commmon there is a name for it and even a Wikipedia page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism The "whatabout" type replies would seem to require that the only websites that can report on the ills of the internet are ones that have no ads, no tracking, no telemetry, no data collection, and so on. Everything must be perfect. That's a bit silly. Shooting the messenger. Arguably, it does not really matter who is delivering the message. It's the message that matters. It's not too difficult to transform sitemap XML into RSS. https://www.dw.com/en/news-sitemap.xml https://www.dw.com/en/news-sitemap.xml https://www.dw.com/en/article-sitemap.xml https://www.dw.com/en/article-sitemap.xml
- nologic01 3y ago
  This type of internet forum reply is so commmon there is a name for it and even a Wikipedia page [1]. "A straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction" I did not ask that they don't have ads, not track their readers, and so on. I asked why there is no link whatsoever besides the usual big tech traps. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
  - PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
    Even if that weren't the case, pointing out that someone is whinging about a situation they put themselves in is not whataboutism.
- 1vuio0pswjnm7 3y ago
  "Whataboutism or whataboutery (as in "what about...?") denotes in a pejorative sense a procedure in which a critical question or argument is not answered or discussed, but retorted with a critical counter-question which expresses a counter-accusation." Critical question or argument: Tech giants are hijacking the internet Counter-question or counter-accusations: 1. Why doesn't DW have a link to a fediverse. 2. DW does not have an RSS feed. 3. The press is complicit in hijacking the internet. The critical question or argument is neither answered or discussed.
josho 3y ago
I think you are misreading the situation. It’s not enough to have open standards if the big guys just consume that data into their closed platforms. The author argues they are too powerful. We had open standards and big tech embraced and then locked it into their platforms. We need regulations at this point.
- nologic01 3y ago
  I agree its a bigger discussion. The fediverse is not a magic wand. Its a direction, not a destination. Lots of unresolved problems. But those giant sclerotic organizations could assume some responsibility for the mess they have helped create by, in the first instance signalling they understand this. Somebody mentioned in the thread they have a trial account on mastodon. Good, five years late but better than never.
- winternett 3y ago
  The universe let it all happen. By using cloud services, analytics, and free email services to allow monoliths to be able to run surveillance on basically every original idea launched since the early 2000s, users let and enabled this to happen. Not only did people open their information and identities deeply to companies like google, they also funded them vastly by caving in once free services became paid services. On the back end, there is I'm sure a complex and covert dashboard project and monitoring systems to detect ideas and trends that fuel/drive decisions in Google's deeply anti-competitive behavior. There's even a solid chance that legislators are tapped via enterprise Gmail services the government now heartily uses (for example), and Google knows everything that is coming through the pipeline. Everyone was warned by scholars long ago about exactly this scenario, but we keep re-inventing the Titanic and the Hindenburg on hubris and ignorance, it never fails. It's far too late to regulate this away. Google needs to be broken up and diversified into new and totally individually distinct and independent companies for future accountability and segregation of info to be upheld.
  - john_the_writer 3y ago
    There is just no alternative. If you want to self host a site your ISP won't let you. If you want to self host email, none of your messages will get through. 15 years ago I could host a site at home. Today, it can't be done. Want to regulate something... Make ISP's allow for self hosting. My 5 year old android phone has the power to host a small personal site, but my ISP won't let it happen.
happytiger 3y ago
So mainstream press finally starts covering the egregious behavior of big tech companies and the response is to attack them as complicit co-conspirators? Might sound smart but perhaps not the wisest of criticism. Let’s encourage dissent so we can preserve democracies.
- anononaut 3y ago
  Is this satire?
  - happytiger 3y ago
    Ceci n'est pas une pipe
- squigz 3y ago
  I don't think it's unreasonable to point out the hypocrisy and affect on this issue the media has had in the past
webdoodle 3y ago
> They made a Faustian pact. Now they are crying foul. Only because they got caught with leaks like the Twitter Files. Now their trustworthiness is at an all time low, and they need to make someone else look like the bad guy. Insert spiderman pointing at spiderman meme here...

marban 3y ago

They have plenty of feeds.

nologic01 3y ago
Where exactly? Visible through your rose tinted glasses? There is no visual hint on the page (RSS has a well established logo) and my rss reader does not autodiscover it from the main page.
- kervantas 3y ago
  Inoreader or Feedly list plenty of RSS links for DW
- jug 3y ago
  Give me a break. You literally just type dw.com/rss. Logotypes or not this is pretty much a default address for RSS discovery.
  - shortrounddev2 3y ago
    Having to type the URL manually is very poor discoverability. Most people don't use the internet this way

binchol 3y ago

Why would they bother adding the fediverse, it's mostly useless, would provide no benefit to them, and they'd probably get defederated eventually for publishing something someone doesn't like.

Blaiz0r 3y ago
Says you. Some media companies are experimenting with it right now: https://www.bbc.com/rd/blog/2023-07-mastodon-distributed-decentralised-fediverse-activitypub https://www.bbc.com/rd/blog/2023-07-mastodon-distributed-dec... It makes sense for media companies to self host.
nologic01 3y ago
[flagged]
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  > I can imagine that somebody hurt your feelings on the fediverse This sort of junk is completely out of place. If you have a counter argument, state it.

arran-nz 3y ago

They recently joined, here's their verified account: https://mastodon.social/@dw_innovation https://mastodon.social/@dw_innovation

actionfromafar 3y ago
How common is it for companies to run their own Mastodon server?

1vuio0pswjnm7 3y ago

This type of internet forum reply is so commmon there is a name for it and even a Wikipedia page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism The "whatabout" type replies would seem to require that the only websites that can report on the ills of the internet are ones that have no ads, no tracking, no telemetry, no data collection, and so on. Everything must be perfect. That's a bit silly. Shooting the messenger. Arguably, it does not really matter who is delivering the message. It's the message that matters. It's not too difficult to transform sitemap XML into RSS. https://www.dw.com/en/news-sitemap.xml https://www.dw.com/en/news-sitemap.xml https://www.dw.com/en/article-sitemap.xml https://www.dw.com/en/article-sitemap.xml

nologic01 3y ago
This type of internet forum reply is so commmon there is a name for it and even a Wikipedia page [1]. "A straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction" I did not ask that they don't have ads, not track their readers, and so on. I asked why there is no link whatsoever besides the usual big tech traps. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
- PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
  Even if that weren't the case, pointing out that someone is whinging about a situation they put themselves in is not whataboutism.
1vuio0pswjnm7 3y ago
"Whataboutism or whataboutery (as in "what about...?") denotes in a pejorative sense a procedure in which a critical question or argument is not answered or discussed, but retorted with a critical counter-question which expresses a counter-accusation." Critical question or argument: Tech giants are hijacking the internet Counter-question or counter-accusations: 1. Why doesn't DW have a link to a fediverse. 2. DW does not have an RSS feed. 3. The press is complicit in hijacking the internet. The critical question or argument is neither answered or discussed.

josho 3y ago

I think you are misreading the situation. It’s not enough to have open standards if the big guys just consume that data into their closed platforms. The author argues they are too powerful. We had open standards and big tech embraced and then locked it into their platforms. We need regulations at this point.

nologic01 3y ago
I agree its a bigger discussion. The fediverse is not a magic wand. Its a direction, not a destination. Lots of unresolved problems. But those giant sclerotic organizations could assume some responsibility for the mess they have helped create by, in the first instance signalling they understand this. Somebody mentioned in the thread they have a trial account on mastodon. Good, five years late but better than never.
winternett 3y ago
The universe let it all happen. By using cloud services, analytics, and free email services to allow monoliths to be able to run surveillance on basically every original idea launched since the early 2000s, users let and enabled this to happen. Not only did people open their information and identities deeply to companies like google, they also funded them vastly by caving in once free services became paid services. On the back end, there is I'm sure a complex and covert dashboard project and monitoring systems to detect ideas and trends that fuel/drive decisions in Google's deeply anti-competitive behavior. There's even a solid chance that legislators are tapped via enterprise Gmail services the government now heartily uses (for example), and Google knows everything that is coming through the pipeline. Everyone was warned by scholars long ago about exactly this scenario, but we keep re-inventing the Titanic and the Hindenburg on hubris and ignorance, it never fails. It's far too late to regulate this away. Google needs to be broken up and diversified into new and totally individually distinct and independent companies for future accountability and segregation of info to be upheld.
- john_the_writer 3y ago
  There is just no alternative. If you want to self host a site your ISP won't let you. If you want to self host email, none of your messages will get through. 15 years ago I could host a site at home. Today, it can't be done. Want to regulate something... Make ISP's allow for self hosting. My 5 year old android phone has the power to host a small personal site, but my ISP won't let it happen.

happytiger 3y ago

So mainstream press finally starts covering the egregious behavior of big tech companies and the response is to attack them as complicit co-conspirators? Might sound smart but perhaps not the wisest of criticism. Let’s encourage dissent so we can preserve democracies.

anononaut 3y ago
Is this satire?
- happytiger 3y ago
  Ceci n'est pas une pipe
squigz 3y ago
I don't think it's unreasonable to point out the hypocrisy and affect on this issue the media has had in the past

webdoodle 3y ago

> They made a Faustian pact. Now they are crying foul. Only because they got caught with leaks like the Twitter Files. Now their trustworthiness is at an all time low, and they need to make someone else look like the bad guy. Insert spiderman pointing at spiderman meme here...