[flagged]
Does that include going extinct?
Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X
31–40 of 373 posts
Re: Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X
#32[flagged]
Is there anything concrete that would suggest this or is this just a gut feeling you’re sharing here?
Without being the conspiracy fool. I think there is a lot of biased information on British news outlets. It is certainly not the worst one. That award goes to the Daily Express.
Re: Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X
#33[flagged]
>Anyone else notice that CNN dialed down the hyperbole right around the time it became obvious Orange Man was going to win again?
"The cannibal has come out of his lair"
"The Corsican Ogre has landed at Golf Juan"
"The Tiger has arrived at Gap"
"The monster has spent the night at Grenoble"
"The Tyrant has crossed Lyon"
"The usurper has been seen 60 leagues from the capital"
"Bonaparte is advancing with great strides, but will never enter Paris"
"Napoleon will be under our ramparts tomorrow"
"The Emperor has arrived at Fontainbleu"
"His Imperial & Royal Majesty has made his entry into the Tuileries yesterday, amid his faithful subjects."
Re: Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X
#34In related news Bluesky added 700,000 new users in the week after the election. Count me in the group who deleted Twitter as soon as the election was over - (I had planned to do so however the election went) https://www.theverge.com/2024/11/11/24293920/bluesky-700000-...
Imagine selling Twitter just to create it again. Then some desperate billionaire buys this new Twitter as well, because the audience escaped the old Twitter.
Twitter was a public company so basically the shareholders decided to sell it when a good deal came up.
Re: Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X
#35Went to Bluesky too, at the moment too much "orange man bad" and not really anything else in Discover. At least on Twitter you can still find some nice technical discussion after you weed out the "orange man good" parts.
You can hide all political crap using muted words. Just exclude any tweets with the words election(s), Biden, Trump, Kamala, Bitcoin, trading and you're good. All I get is AI and rockets now.
I haven’t muted anything on Bluesky but I have been careful to never follow anybody who talks about #uspol in their first few posts, or their own or somebody else’s gender identity, “fascists”, etc. Also I always hit “less like this” on divisive politics. My “Discover” feed had 1 divisive politics post out of 20, my “Following” feed had 4 out of 20. Gotta prune my following list a little.
Re: Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X
#36Real reason: The Guardian can't handle when readers community note them using.. The Guardian. https://twitter.com/MarioNawfal/status/1821189070401249385/p...
This. It's not just The Guardian, though. It's pretty much all moss media. They got too used to an era where they could talk and the public couldn't talk back (or they could but only through letters to the editor which they could conveniently filter to just the voices they wanted to hear).
To be fair, Social Media is just like the "Letters to the Editor" section, except the social media company is the publisher and is the one doing the filtering.
Re: Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X
#37But why haven't they posted on Mastodon in two years https://mstdn.social/@TheGuardian
Because Mastodon and the entire Fediverse is infested with the most rabid sort of users that even Twitter couldn't stomach and has turned a blind eye to this fact? I mean, there's a reason why they keep getting brought up over and over and people continually nope out of signing up over there. They've got a demographic problem, they refuse to acknowledge it, and it's killing growth. Why would any media outlet want to participate knowing that?
Re: Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X
#38[flagged]
> tries to undermine the free flow and dissemination of information Maybe I'm out of the loop here, where did the Guardian try to undermine the free flow of information? They even went out of their way to clarify that: > "X users will still be able to share our articles" And > Our reporters will also be able to carry on using the site for news-gathering purposes, just as they use other social networks in which we do…
> Maybe I'm out of the loop here, where did the Guardian try to undermine the free flow of information?
"given the often disturbing content promoted or found on the platform, including far-right conspiracy theories and racism"
Disturbing to who? far-right compared to what point of reference? Which theories are conspiracy and which are legit? What is the definition of racism , who are racist people and why is it a bad thing?
Discussion about any of the above points happen in a "free" environment in which all parties can express their views.
Re: Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
This. It's not just The Guardian, though. It's pretty much all moss media. They got too used to an era where they could talk and the public couldn't talk back (or they could but only through letters to the editor which they could conveniently filter to just the voices they wanted to hear).
To be fair, Social Media is just like the "Letters to the Editor" section, except the social media company is the publisher and is the one doing the filtering.
Right, but that's kind of my point: someone else gets to do the filtering and they can't stand it.
Re: Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X
#40But why haven't they posted on Mastodon in two years https://mstdn.social/@TheGuardian
that doesn't look official and doesn't have a verified url. some random person just put up a bot