Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 373 posts

Re: Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X

#91

Post by dustedcodes »

jmull wrote: post #60
seydor wrote: post #30

Yann Lecun is also telling everyone on Twitter very loudly that he won't be posting on Twitter. The Guardian in another article explains that they are annoyed because Musk used twitter to promote his preferred candidate. The Guardian itself used their own platform to publicly endorse Harris. This deja-vu of childish antics is just comical in 2024

Is it "childish antics" for the Guardian to have their own political viewpoint? Musk can have a preferred candidate and political stance. And he can run Twitter accordingly. The Guardian can have a preferred candidate and political stance. And they can choose the platforms they use accordingly. It all seems perfectly reasonable to me.

It only seems reasonable until this thinking eventually gets you to the point where the next platform you choose to leave is called Earth. It's pretty dumb because there is nothing like X at the moment. Just for context, the Guardian had almost 11 million followers on X and Bluesky has only just crossed 15 million total users, of which many signed up months ago when it was opened to the public and never logged back in since again.

Re: Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X

#92

Post by grahamj »

lend000 wrote: post #17

It's wild how much most people rely on being in an echo chamber. It takes a psychological toll being confronted with opinions that challenge your worldview on a regular basis, especially if you cannot easily dismiss them. I haven't seen any of the things the Guardian mentions on my feed -- it's mostly startup related, software related, finance news, and science/medical stuff with maybe ~10% of posts I come across hav…

For me it's not about the content. What would take a psychological toll is knowing I'm supporting the orange idiot's #1 fluffer.

Re: Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X

#93

Post by crabmusket »

whamlastxmas wrote: post #82
oneeyedpigeon wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Guardian is a newspaper with a long-proclaimed left-wing bias. Musk has claimed that X is politically neutral.

X is hundreds of millions of people so it’s hard to claim it’s anything

X refers to the company itself, not every user. And by extension naturally it should refer to the algorithms developed by the company.

Re: Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X

#94

Post by dools »

aeternum wrote: post #16

Real reason: The Guardian can't handle when readers community note them using.. The Guardian. https://twitter.com/MarioNawfal/status/1821189070401249385/p...

They said that their content can still be shared there.

Also that community note just says they have been consistently saying the same thing for decades which sounds okay to me.

Re: Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X

#95

Post by the_mitsuhiko »

dustedcodes wrote: post #65
luddit3 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Musk has one of the highest community note rates on his tweets. Has not stopped him one bit.

Exactly, says a lot about the fragility of the Guardian

Or the community notes are not actually the reason.

Re: Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X

#96

Post by gjsman-1000 »

pm90 wrote: post #88
gjsman-1000 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Endorsements for political candidates are done via the editorial boards which are different from the newsrooms. The editorial boards of news organizations have always had opinions and publish them as such. There is nothing problematic with this approach.

> There is nothing problematic with this approach.

A. You assume the editorial board does not have a significant influence over the newsrooms. By endorsing a candidate, they demonstrate which direction the pressure on the newsroom is coming from.

B. This was not why freedom of the press was granted. I was not arguing whether it is a good or bad thing now; merely that this was directly opposed to the role envisioned for them.

Re: Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X

#97

Post by defrost »

qersist3nce wrote: post #63
ziddoap wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is them stating their opinion. That is not them "undermining the free flow of information". > Discussion about any of the above points happen in a "free" environment in which all parties can express their views. You are free to discuss the article on twitter, or, as you are already doing, here. The Guardian isn't stopping you.

Well from their post alone it seems they would impose their particular world-view in their comment section. Isn't Guardian a "news" outlet, by which being "neutral" and "accommodating to a plurality of ideas" is a inherent virtue? Also it appears their editorial board and "community" is not able to defend their political stances on a free playground. >The Guardian isn't stopping you I think they would have, if there…

You haven't made any kind of case that The Guardian is "undermining the free flow of information"

> it seems they would impose

This is your opinion, freely expressed. It's neither evidence nor was it undermined by The Guardian.

> Isn't Guardian a "news" outlet

"strawman framing" with "a side of airquotes".

Even so, can you point to any regulations in the UK or US that define what a "news" outlet is and how they are even required to have a comment section?

> which being "neutral" and "accommodating to a plurality of ideas" is a inherent virtue?

Core news reporting is about "just the facts", editorial stances are another thing that good organisations have and identify when in play - there is no requirement to be neutral about, say, Hitlers poltics (as evidenced by The Daily Mail at the time).

> I think they would have,

Again that's literally just your opinion.

Re: Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X

#98

Post by dools »

mikeryan wrote: post #6

In 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-...

I deleted Twitter as soon as musk took over because he’s a feudalist

Re: Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X

#99

Post by telotortium »

stock_toaster wrote: post #66
noncoml wrote: post #3

I am wondering if the actual reason is the recent change in the terms of service: New terms of service that will take effect on 15 November specify that any lawsuits against X by users must be exclusively filed in the US district court for the northern district of Texas or state courts in Tarrant county, Texas.

> New terms of service that will take effect on 15 November specify that any lawsuits against X by users must be exclusively filed in the US district court for the northern district of Texas or state courts in Tarrant county, Texas. Is this even something TOS can legally enforce?

Google's Terms of Service state that "California law will govern all disputes arising out of or relating to these terms, service-specific additional terms, or any related services, regardless of conflict of laws rules. These disputes will be resolved exclusively in the federal or state courts of Santa Clara County, California, USA, and you and Google consent to personal jurisdiction in those courts." [1]. So I suppose as much as any TOS is enforceable.

[1] https://policies.google.com/terms?hl=en-US#toc-problems

Re: Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X

#100

Post by devindotcom »

EarlKing wrote: post #26
aeternum wrote: post #16

Real 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).

we get lots of direct and unsolicited feedback actually, much more than paper days. a fair amount of it is threats though.
Post reply on HN