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

191–200 of 373 posts

Re: Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X

#191

Post by llm_trw »

llamaimperative wrote: post #153
llm_trw wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's exactly the same meaning but with the sign reversed. Turns out identity politics is a terrible idea. Now the Guardian et al are finding out exactly why when the people they disagree with are doing it too.

But uh... isn't it possible that one exists and the other does not?

> But uh... isn't it possible that one exists and the other does not?

Going through the airport between 2001 and 2021 showed that having a Muslim sounding name was going to be a trigger for a random inspection. The Rotherham child rape gangs investigation into the police clearly showed that complaints against South Asians by Whites were ignored for decades to avoid accusations of racism.

The average Guardian reader was only going to be exposed to the first and not the second. So the Guardian went full bore with the basest form of tribalism to explain the things its readers saw.

Now the same people who were gleefully destroying the social fabric in the name of progress are acting shocked at what happens when it unravels completely. I have the worlds smallest violin for them.

Re: Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X

#192

Post by [deleted] »

llm_trw wrote: post #191
llamaimperative wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But uh... isn't it possible that one exists and the other does not?

> But uh... isn't it possible that one exists and the other does not? Going through the airport between 2001 and 2021 showed that having a Muslim sounding name was going to be a trigger for a random inspection. The Rotherham child rape gangs investigation into the police clearly showed that complaints against South Asians by Whites were ignored for decades to avoid accusations of racism. The average Guardian reader w…

[deleted]

Re: Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X

#193

Post by prvc »

llamaimperative wrote: post #153
llm_trw wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's exactly the same meaning but with the sign reversed. Turns out identity politics is a terrible idea. Now the Guardian et al are finding out exactly why when the people they disagree with are doing it too.

But uh... isn't it possible that one exists and the other does not?

Is it possible that "two-tier policing" exists, while "two-tier policing" does not? In a word, no. I know this a priori.

Re: Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X

#195

Post by gerdesj »

n0id34 wrote: post #129
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.

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.

Let's go back say 40 odd years. I'm from the UK.

Back then "media" largely consisted of three, soon to be four channels on your analogue TV and a lot of newspapers and magazines. The media was largely passive except for the letters pages, which mostly featured real people, and the likes of "Readers's Wives" which was mostly bollocks (quite literally).

If we look at the newspapers back then: they all had a clear and well known set of biases - political and otherwise.

The Times was Conservative, so was the Torygraph (Telegraph). The Grauniad (Guardian - yes, that one) was unable to employ editors capable of effective proof-reading. The Independent was not really independent and the Sun and Mirror published pictures of young ladies alongside their biting political satire. The Sunday Sport had even more piccies of scantily clad young ladies and was barking mad - "Elvis piloted Lancaster bomber found on Moon".

We also had and still have titles such as "Private Eye", who are generally acknowledged to be proper journo outlets.

The media has always had a bias and it was always accepted that you took multiple papers, and watched the BBC and ITN News, if you wanted to appear to have a balanced view and at least appear to be well informed. Note that we forked out dosh for those papers and the UK TV license fee is not trivial.

Back in the day, I didn't have a bunch of Russians trying to spin crap at my front door, pretending to be Jehovah's Witnesses or double glazing salesmen or my work colleague. They bought peerages and sat in the House of Lords or footie teams, but at least they were mostly at a distance! Nowadays the buggers are trying to hack my telly.

Re: Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X

#196

Post by gerdesj »

adastra22 wrote: post #43
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

> The Guardian itself used their own platform to publicly endorse Harris. Isn’t The Guardian a UK publication?

It's the Grauniad.

Re: Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X

#197

Post by thaw24612107 »

dom96 wrote: post #183
EarlKing wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

[flagged]

Re: Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X

#198

Post by jslaby »

dools wrote: post #86
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

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.

I just created an account on X and the list that pops up to follow: Elon, Terrence Williams, Sebastian Gorka, Dinesh D'Souza, Rand Paul, Dan Bongino, Leo Terrell, Tom Fitton, Mark Levin, Tiffany Smiley, Breitbart News, Matt Gaetz... not a single "left leaning" account other than Joe Biden and maybe Neil Degrasse Tyson, but I chose sports and science as my interests. Open and free speech, right..

Re: Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X

#199

Post by oneeyedpigeon »

prvc wrote: post #193
llamaimperative wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But uh... isn't it possible that one exists and the other does not?

Is it possible that "two-tier policing" exists, while "two-tier policing" does not? In a word, no. I know this a priori .

Come on, it's clear they were referring to either my reference to "two different meanings of the term" or the reply's reference to "the same meaning but with the sign reversed"—those are two different meanings.
Post reply on HN