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

251–260 of 373 posts

Re: Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X

#251

Post by dools »

ImJamal wrote: post #202
dools wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They said that their content can still be shared there. Also that community note just says they have been consistently saying the same thing for decades which sounds okay to me.

The community note is saying that they have not been consistent. In the past they seemed to be saying it is real and in the post they are calling it a myth.

Ah okay. So I searched for the article which is here:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/aug/06/engl...

The myth it is referring to is that there is a two-tiered system targeting white people. That's obviously a myth -- the notes are probably referring to instances where the Guardian has claimed that police treat racial minorities differently which is quite probably the case (happens everywhere else in the old British Empire so not sure why Britain would be any different).

I found the post on ex-Twitter:

https://x.com/guardian/status/1820788959095529653

But that's from 6 August, not 8 August as per the screenshot and there is no community note on it. I can't find a post by the Guardian about this on 8 August, maybe they deleted it? Does seem weird that they would delete one and not the other. It also seems that one would get community noted and not the other (especially since the 6 August post has 1.6m views and the 8 August post screenshotted has 60k views).

I tried to find the articles shown in the community note in the screenshot, and I can find some about two-tier policing that don't really seem directly related to this.

Maybe I can't find the one that's screenshotted because I don't have an account, maybe they deleted that one but not the 6 August one, maybe the screenshot is fabricated.

Either way, I'm quite sure that this "two-tier policing" claim is of the same ilk that equates rejecting racism with being racist; ie. the "leftist bullies" idea. That violent right-wing protests are being "treated differently" because they're white, rather than treated differently because they're a bunch of psychos being whipped into a frenzy by lies spread on ex-Twitter by influencers, including Elon Musk.

I wouldn't say that's the same as claims that, for example, black people are more likely to be subject to police brutality. But right-wingers love to make claims about "reverse racism".

Re: Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X

#252

Post by ranyume »

montagg wrote: post #89
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

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?

You're right. I think hypocrisy is an adult thing. Parent's post gives unjust bad reputation for children.

Re: Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X

#253

Post by fragsworth »

talldayo wrote: post #130
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.

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 bum…

On one hand you have the richest man on earth purchasing one of the largest social platforms, and singlehandedly wielding it to subvert American democracy.

On the other hand you have a guy who kinda liked crypto.

You call it "basically a mirror"? Do you see the absurdity of comparing the two things as if they're even remotely close to one another?

Re: Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X

#254

Post by throw16180339 »

lend000 wrote: post #233
throw16180339 wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

As I mentioned in a sibling comment, your feed is only toxic insofar you are likely to engage with it. I have never seen a single post on my feed of the vein you are describing. By the way, there is equally ridiculous garbage on the left, if you go looking for it. You are doing the same thing that every partisan media outlet does, the oldest trick in the book: arguing against a strawman. Just because there is some le…

Elon endorsed antisemitic comments (https://www.politico.eu/article/elon-musk-row-uk-rishi-sunak...) and conspiracy theories. Several studies found that there was a substantial increase in hate speech (https://www.newsguardtech.com/special-reports/twitter-misinf...) after the acquisition. He substantially manipulated opinions on X to serve his own ends, most recently during the election. It's grossly misleading to compare this to a strawman.

Re: Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X

#255

Post by fragmede »

netsharc wrote: post #248
booleandilemma wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm wondering if it's just economics. Are they losing money from X existing? Are they trying to start some "let's all move away from X" trend?

I deleted my Twitter account when I drew the analogy of: imagine a magazine, that your friends can subscribe to, to read your thoughts. By contributing to this magazine you contribute to your friend's desire to "buy copies" of it, and you contribute to its ability to sell ads. I decided I didn't want to do that any more. Maybe it's the same with the Guardian. Although when I left, Elmo hadn't bought it and it actuall…

Have you stopped buying magazines entirely then? It would seem any other "magazine" would have the same property.

Re: Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X

#256

Post by lend000 »

throw16180339 wrote: post #254
lend000 wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I mentioned in a sibling comment, your feed is only toxic insofar you are likely to engage with it. I have never seen a single post on my feed of the vein you are describing. By the way, there is equally ridiculous garbage on the left, if you go looking for it. You are doing the same thing that every partisan media outlet does, the oldest trick in the book: arguing against a strawman. Just because there is some le…

Elon endorsed antisemitic comments ( https://www.politico.eu/article/elon-musk-row-uk-rishi-sunak... ) and conspiracy theories. Several studies found that there was a substantial increase in hate speech ( https://www.newsguardtech.com/special-reports/twitter-misinf... ) after the acquisition. He substantially manipulated opinions on X to serve his own ends, most recently during the election. It's grossly misleading t…

[flagged]

Re: Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X

#257

Post by wruza »

montagg wrote: post #89
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

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?

There’s no proposition in the root comment, and the opinion and judgment is valuable by itself, imo.

Let them do what they do and let us say what we think. It all does something, right?

Re: Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X

#258

Post by wruza »

netsharc wrote: post #245
tzs wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The discussion in here is infuriatingly childish. Saying a news site is just the same as a site that's ended up as Elon's (and numerous rightwing trolls') soapbox...

As an external observer, it’s all sites working as -ist soapboxes to me. The fact that you call a politically superaffined site “a news site” alone, man. A news site doesn’t promote specific candidates by definition. Seems like some people forget what “news” means.

Saying a leftwing site is just the same as a site that's ended up as Elon's (and numerous rightwing users) soapbox...

Ftfy

Re: Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X

#259

Post by incog_nit0 »

mmooss wrote: post #227
jasonfarnon wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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).

> What value do they add for anyone?

Counterpoints are useful to help negate echo chambers where we end up clicking on the articles which validate our world view.

In addition the most upvoted comments (at least on the Financial Times website) are sometimes more informed and nuanced than the articles themselves. The article often gets the debate rolling - come for the articles, stay for the comments (so to speak).

Re: Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X

#260

Post by wruza »

jslaby wrote: post #201
rurp wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Musk claims a lot of things. Amplifying right wing propaganda and conspiracy theories, often from his own twitter account, is not politically neutral.

It's not even amplified just from his account but the site itself. Create a new account and follow something like sports or entertainment.. then see what floods your feed. I logged in first time today, and it's quite shocking actually. Not a single left leaning account, just all maga that outnumbers the sports or whatever you clicked as interests.

Is it even strange, considering that elections just happened and who’s gonna be the new president?
Post reply on HN