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

181–190 of 373 posts

Re: Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X

#181

Post by dools »

briandear wrote: post #121
dools wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm not sure about the veracity of your claims of bias pre-Musk (I have heard of the NY Post story issue, as far as I'm aware they suppressed it on advice from law enforcement that it was foreign propaganda, which was later withdrawn and the block removed).

However in answer to this question:

> Did X suppress support of the other side?

If you have 2 options and you promote one artificially then that is the same as suppressing the other option, in either case you're making sure more people see one option than the other.

Re: Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X

#182

Post by throw16180339 »

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…

> 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 can easily dismiss antisemitic conspiracy theories, queerphobia, bigotry, and racism. There's an infinite stream of garbage positions, why would would I engage with them?

Re: Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X

#183

Post by dom96 »

EarlKing wrote: post #37
dagurp wrote: post #13

But 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…

> most rabid sort of users

Rabid in what way?

Re: Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X

#184

Post by xnx »

hombre_fatal wrote: post #166
xnx wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Twitter could make itself real interesting if it took "community notes" web-wide. So many attempts at this have tried and failed, but Elon may just have the itch, audience, and disposable money to do it. Would also necessitate forking a special browser, since there would be no way to support web page comments in a first-class way in stock mobile browsers.

Idk, what Twitter has is much better than this since they are how people find content. Building some special infra and viewer for per-website notes just seems like a downgrade that gets worse and worse the more you try to hash out how exactly it should work.

Discoverability of comments/dissenting views is the key factor. I would bet that most readers of any given article on the Guardian site did not get there from Twitter, and therefore could benefit from a browser that displayed community notes. The details of knowing how to show what comments where are definitely challenging, but certainly worth another attempt with the capable AI techniques that could address previously intractable problems.

Re: Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X

#186

Post by nicce »

pkaye wrote: post #34
nicce wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think you missed my irony. It does not matter. It is just happening, whether there was intent or not.

Re: Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X

#187

Post by throw16180339 »

thruway516 wrote: post #108

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…

I don't think he needs to care. The election demonstrated that most people will believe anything they're told.

Re: Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X

#188

Post by cguess »

jay_kyburz wrote: post #169
secstate wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes but, a new organization should at least _strive_ to be objective, even if the journalists have subconscious bias. If you lean in to your biases you stop being news and start being entertainment.

"Reality has a well-known liberal bias" There's a difference between being objective and being unbiased.

Re: Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X

#189

Post by UncleOxidant »

seydor wrote: post #80
jmull wrote: 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.

Antics refers to the passiveaggressiveness. It remains to be seen what will happen if Trump goes back to posting on twitter

> It remains to be seen what will happen if Trump goes back to posting on twitter

I have a strong suspicion that he will, but it'll be because "Truth" Social and Xitter have merged. They're pretty much both the same thing now so why not merge? It would also be a way for Musk to pass a lot of $$$ to Trump.

Re: Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X

#190

Post by amrocha »

WalterBright wrote: post #111
the_mitsuhiko wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When a journal is biased... it is biased. I would like to know which newspaper or journal is not biased.

They all are. But they can do something like Firing Line, where people of opposing viewpoints are invited to debate. The editorial board can also hire a cross section of political views.

Journalism’s responsibility is to the truth, not to some perceived notion of fairness. The right in the US has been living in their own reality for a while now. Media does not owe liars any time of day.

Don’t take this to mean the democrats are the left and aren’t guilty of the same thing. They’re also right wing, and they lie, but to a lesser extent.

Post reply on HN