Live data from Hacker News

Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X

theguardian.com

121–130 of 373 posts

Re: Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X

#121
post #86
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

Musk claims he is trying to be an open and free speech town square. I don’t have an opinion on whether he did this or not but it is certainly the case that if he put his finger on the scales that goes against his claims.

Did X suppress support of the other side? The Hunter Biden laptop story is a prime example of the difference between X and Twitter. The suppression of Covid debate is another example.

On old Twitter you could call someone a Nazi and accuse them (falsely) of genocide. But if you “dead name” a celebrity, you’d get banned.

Re: Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X

#122

I don't follow Musk on any social media, do not engage with any of his posts, or any even mildly related posts. Yet everytime I login, there he is again at the top of my timeline usually promoting some inane conspiracy theory. Does he think so little of my intelligence that he doesn't think he needs to be even a little bit subtle about manipulating the content I consume or he just doesn't care? Yeah I too have left f…

[dead]

Re: Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X

#123
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

Looking past the childish antics, don’t you think it’s kind of rich that;

1) The party which has been kvetching the most about being deplatformed and canceled by mainstream media and colleges etc. is now in power and in the name of promoting free speech promises to go after institutions in academia etc. that are full of their political opponents (who lean left) for “claming down on free speech and calling it disinformation”

2) One man bought Twitter and controls everything about the platform, some things definitely increase freedom of speech (eg proliferation of neo nazi and openly antisemitic viewpoints) and some of his own decisions clamp down on it (eg overnight declaring that “cis”, the opposite if “trans”, is a slur and cannot be said on Twitter anymore)

3) The same man will now be heading up D.O.G.E., the bureau of government efficiency, together with another private sectir billionaire (who got public sector money) to defund many public sector things, or at least make them more efficient

To sum up, we’ll be in the strange situation where the party in power is concerned about increasing freedom of speech (usually the counterculture wants this freedom while the ones in power want to repress dissent). We will have the world’s “most free social network” actually OWNED AND CONTROLLED by one guy, who happens to also work for the government, in fact head up a new government agency tasked with defunding others, and is a super-Fed.

People on the left will start to question the optics and unusualness of all this. Will the MAGA party (the acronym GOP seems very outdated) in good faith encourage speech against themselves, and will the owner of X, while heading up a major new agency in the federal government, also encourage loud criticism of their own activities?

Or will their algorithms — which one man will continue to ultimately control — silently (and maybe only as an emergent behavior) prioritize what they want and suppress what they don’t?

As long as Zuck controls Facebook (sorry, “Meta”), Elon controls Twitter (sorry, “X”), and a few on the top control Google, YouTube, TikTok etc. I do not see true power for the people. “Freedom of speech” is just another expression the owners and corporations co-opted and hijacked to mean “controlling a platform” and “owning an audience”.

Why do we simply donate our audience and content to these platforms? Because they have the backend software infrastructure and we don’t.

I believe that we need open source alternatives that anyone can host, that no one can own the entire network. Not even Durov. Mastodon and Matric and Bluesky are a good start. I’m working on my own too:

https://community.qbix.com/t/growing-your-community/305

And yes, it is possible for the entire ecosystem to make money serving the people with open source infrastructure, just like Wordpress, Drupal etc. Here is how it could work:

https://qbix.com/ecosystem

Re: Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X

#124
post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 i…

And who exactly controls the Earth, such that I would want to leave the platform due to mismanagement?

Also, the "nothing else is like twitter" argument is both wrong (lots of social media platforms are bigger) and irrelevant (it assumes that having something like twitter is a net positive -- the validity of which assumption I am not convinced).

Re: Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X

#128
post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 e…

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

I view it as an attempt by a group of left-leaning media/news outlets hoping to de-crown X out of its popularity as a neutral forum for expressing political views.

Yes, these are my opinions or ... "comment replies". People can post their comments or fact-checks, the things Guardian people don't like to engage with.

Re: Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X

#129
post #60
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's ridiculous for any media to have a political bias, defeats the entire purpose of the media if it's already skewed when it's consumed.

Re: Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X

#130
post #20
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-...

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.

What ruined Dorsey for me was the crypto nonsense. I didn't use Twitter but it seemed like he was the typical asocial self-loathing nerd for a while. Then he went full on savior-syndrome and tried to use Twitter as a marketing tool for NFTs and cryptocurrency, more or less signing the platform's death warrant. I don't know a single person that actually enjoyed Twitter's brazen embrace of crypto.

If he was still a bumbling nerd with a sympathetic plight then people would have an easier time defending him. But his aimless endorsement of radical nonsense is basically a mirror to Elon's own behavior, unfortunately. I don't trust Dorsey with power anymore.

Post reply on HN