I really wish more news sites set up their own instances. At the start I realize they wouldn’t be getting as many eyeballs, but it seems to make a lot of sense to have a @news@cnn.social or something. Then Wolf could have @Wolf.Blitzer@cnn.social.

Instant “verification” that way, too.

But we’ll see.

[–] CodeMonkeyDance@lemmy.world 34 points 1 year ago

Wow. Decentralization as a whole will be a game changer for all corners of media, science etc.

[–] 2bR02b@lemmy.one 33 points 1 year ago

Given how the fediverse is kinda like e-mail, this feels like a natural next step.

[–] Dapado@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

That's a really great idea. It makes so much sense that it seems weird that it's not already the way things are done.

[–] AnotherPerson@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

I had the same exact thoughts when the first twitter migration happened. I doubt we will see it, but I can dream.

[–] Thteven@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The only way they would do that is if they could monetize it somehow.

[–] cacheson@kbin.social 10 points 1 year ago

It'd be another method to drive traffic to their websites and gain more ad revenue. Same as maintaining a presence on twitter or facebook, or providing an RSS feed.

[–] garretble@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah totally.

I had the thought that since Threads “doesn’t want politics” on their platform, and Twitter is trash, maaaaybe activity pub could be a thing.

But you are right: they won’t do anything if it won’t make money.

[–] Jourei@lemm.ee 9 points 1 year ago

Isn't their entire strategy to fish people onto their site, make money that way? Twitter doesn't pay them either.

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Does CNN already own that domain?

[–] variaatio@sopuli.xyz 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

For some crazy reason they haven't snatched it up yet. Atleast a domain seller website is saying it is free for pickings, if you want it.

Then again maybe their policy is to put everything as subdomain on cnn.com and make cnn.com their sole brand "if it's not on cnn.com, it's not that CNN". Still i would have though they defensive register all relevant TLDs, even if they never ever use them.

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 3 points 1 year ago

I don't remember which pizza chain (or it has since been fixed) but something like papajohns.pizza used to redirect to dominos.com.

[–] garretble@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I have no idea. That’s just an example.

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 3 points 1 year ago

Ah, okay, it would make more sense to say something like social.cnn.com since they already own and use cnn.com.

[–] Fonchote@lemmy.world -4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Agreed, not sure how I feel about governments setting up their own servers, but news organizations definitely.

[–] klieg2323@lemmy.piperservers.net 12 points 1 year ago

How would you propose government officials officially distribute verified information? Just for government officials and distribution, that's the whole point of having a .gov domain is so you can know it's official

[–] Freesoftwareenjoyer@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago

Only employees can have an account on those servers. Registration is not open to the public.