101–110 of 373 posts
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
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Is it "childish antics" for the Guardian to have their own political viewpoint? When a journal is biased... it is biased. Objectivism is one thing. Bias is another. Bias at the US elections shit is just another level.
> When a journal is biased... it is biased. I would like to know which newspaper or journal is not biased.
It does not exist, it never will exist, and if Serenity has taught us anything, it's that you can't stop the signal, Mal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's much more reasonable for a news outlet to have a political opinion than a social platform.
[flagged]
News media has always been biased and often had some form of agenda, sometimes even driven by the government.
What you used to be able to do though was acknowledge the bias and read with that lense.
What I think was true is that there was an effort of fairness and truth telling that today is far less true. Many media companies are owned by very few billionaires and they explicitly see them as propaganda.
That said, I'd always marked the Guardian as one of the remaining old schoolers. They have some weird and dangerous views, but their ownership structure gives some confidence there is an effort of fairness overall.
(I am also lost on how a foreign media company could publish a political opinion illegally in that country under US election law??)
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-...
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.
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
Maybe this isn't something you believe, but actual adults can have different opinions and then choose not to associate with one another. There's nothing childish about that. Help me understand, though: what are you actually proposing? That The Guardian, while feeling they can't get their own message out given how Musk runs Twitter, should stay on Twitter? Should anyone disadvantaged by how Twitter is run stay there?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's much more reasonable for a news outlet to have a political opinion than a social platform.
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> When a journal is biased... it is biased. I would like to know which newspaper or journal is not biased.
This. Goddamn am I sick of people claiming bias on a news organization with tacit expectation that somewhere the platonic form of news information exists which is objectively true and unbiased. It does not exist, it never will exist, and if Serenity has taught us anything, it's that you can't stop the signal, Mal.