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

221–230 of 373 posts

Re: Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X

#221

Post by tzs »

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).

Most mainstream newspapers and magazines publish letters to the editor and guest editorials or opinion pieces from those who disagree with the publication's reporting or editorial opinions.

What they filter out is the utter crap that invariably comes to completely dominate any unfiltered comment section that is open to the general public and takes effectively anonymous submissions via the internet.

Re: Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X

#222

Post by 7952 »

Sol2Sol wrote: post #71

I don't have a problem with Musk supporting one candidate or the other. But I do have a problem with Musk apparently tweaking the algorithm to specifically promote one candidate and to bombard me with political content that skews a certain way even when I selected other interests or never used the platform to engage in political discourse. This while bellowing about X being a platform for free and open speech. I real…

I do have a problem with musk supporting a political candidate. Not for any kind of high minded reason. Just because I am uneasy that someone has so much power. It is simply a threat. And people get too wrapped up in the argument to notice that.

Re: Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X

#223

Post by 7952 »

thinkingemote wrote: post #84

The traditional news in their assessments on why the Democrats lost and Trump won seem to be focusing on platforms and sites. They think the content of a message and where the message appears is more important than the messaging or how a message is conveyed. The guardian will no longer post to twitter but they will keep on harvesting news from it and about it. On average every 3 days someone submits to HN an article…

I think the main effect of social media is just in neutralising emotion and real world action. It give people a place to vent. And then they get angry when nothing in the real world changes. The power is still in the hands of a few geriatrics that can be bothered to go outside and do something. For the moment this benefited trump but it could just as easily swing in another direction.

Re: Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X

#224

Post by EarlKing »

talldayo wrote: post #67
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…

> Why would any media outlet want to participate knowing that? Presumably for the same reason they find the optics of X acceptable but what do I know.

Pretty sure there's a massive difference in both the breadth and scope of the demographics of X and Mastodon/the Fediverse.

Re: Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X

#225

Post by EarlKing »

riffraff wrote: post #114
ChocolateGod wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Half of Mastodon seems to be an obsession with what's in your trousers or what you prefer to sleep with.

Mastodon does not have an automated feed like Twitter does, so what you see in your feed is people you follow and their boosts. Just don't follow people who are interested in your sex life.

[flagged]

Re: Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X

#226

Post by tzs »

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

Generally, when newspapers endorse a candidate that runs on the editorial page.

How did Musk use Twitter to promote his candidate? Was it on whatever the Twitter equivalent of editorial pages are? Was it promoting posts favorable to that candidate in people's feed and/or demoting posts favorable to other candidates?

Details matter in these things.

Re: Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X

#227

Post by mmooss »

jasonfarnon wrote: post #133
EarlKing wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

"They got too used to an era where they could talk and the public couldn't talk back" Maybe--a lot of folks made the same point in the mid 2010s when news outlets began shutting down comment sections on their sites. They usually said it was the "toxic" atmosphere. But I imagine they really didn't like when the top comment was pointing out some obvious error (of fact, logic, grammar etc) in their article. I actually r…

IME the comments almost universally had no value, and were very often toxic. I wouldn't want that on my website - why? What value do they add for anyone?

Nobody allows that on their website now - that was before many lessons were learned. HN doesn't allow anything like it (and never has, afaik).

Re: Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X

#228

Post by iszomer »

dimal wrote: post #175
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...

A screenshot on X? It must be true! I’m sure those links back up the assertion. No one would just post something misleading on X, right? /s Maybe the assertion in the tweet is true and maybe it isn’t, but to me, this is the real reason that X should be abandoned. No one on X can be trusted to engage in honest discourse. I don’t believe anything, whether it’s coming from the right or the left if it’s posted on X. You…

And Wikipedia.

Re: Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X

#229

Post by class3shock »

briandear wrote: post #207
jmward01 wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is power to slow news. Taking time to consider what to say next and how to reply, especially if you are wrong, is very important. That also applies to when you should stop commenting, even if you are wrong. Eventually every story needs to end because the resources needed to constantly follow up on old stories, and comments on them, need to be balanced with keeping up with new things. Basically, I am saying that…

“Journalism” isn’t failing to report a story because of who it might offend. If it happened, it’s valid. Even worse, journalism isn’t telling the opposite story because the real story might offend. That’s the problem with the Guardian. They spend a lot of this time writing defensive stories, while missing the real ones. Didn’t Guardian write a single story about how Kamala Harris got her political start under the pat…

Some but certainly not as much criticism as was written about Trump. Mentioned negatives include her support for Israel, lackluster interview performance, poor performance in 2020 primaries, and previous stances as a prosecutor.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/nov/02/rashida-tlai...

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jul/22/kama...

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jul/24/kama...

Edited to be less opinionated / more factual

Re: Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X

#230

Post by archagon »

EarlKing wrote: post #225
riffraff wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mastodon does not have an automated feed like Twitter does, so what you see in your feed is people you follow and their boosts. Just don't follow people who are interested in your sex life.

[flagged]

Most of the degeneracy I see is on Twitter, not Mastodon.
Post reply on HN