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

271–280 of 373 posts

Re: Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X

#271

Post by NewJazz »

wruza wrote: post #258
netsharc wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Op eds have always been a component of news.

Re: Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X

#272

Post by self_awareness »

UltraSane wrote: post #218
briandear wrote: post #204

[flagged]

"some people having their feelings hurt that they don’t censor opposing views like they used to." This is an extremely dishonest take on what is happening. What is ACTUALLY happening is the world's richest man using his media company to manipulate an election.

Like it was any different during previous elections. Only the people change, behavior stays the same.

Re: Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X

#273

Post by self_awareness »

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 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 [...]

But for some reason, it was okay the other way around a few years ago?

Re: Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X

#274

Post by mensetmanusman »

fwip wrote: post #266
aeternum wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now do democracy and voting. Or how about serving on a jury. Or serving on a school board. By your definition those also must not be impartial and maybe that is a fair definition but what does it imply? Do you similarly distrust democratic outcomes, jury decisions, etc.?

Jurors do not self-select into jury duty, though some try harder than others to get out of it. So the effect is less. Voters are partial to the candidates they vote for; that's why they vote for them.

I was able to get out of jury duty by saying I tended to agree with police. This was advice given to me by a friend in law enforcement.:.

Re: Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X

#275

Post by poobear22 »

mmooss wrote: post #267
incog_nit0 wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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).

> Counterpoints In the comments section of news websites, it wasn't counterpoints. It was just aggression, lies, toxicity, etc. The Financial Times is pretty rarefied air. Everyone must be subscribed, so no anonymity (I would guesss). How much does a subscription cost? $300+ per year?

i think about $600 a year and the comments are much higher quality.

Re: Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X

#276

Post by drewcoo »

jmward01 wrote: post #170
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...

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…

Lower periodicity does not mean taking more time to say things.

It means more rigid deadlines - more stories that are half-told to meet the deadlines and longer times to corrections.

Re: Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X

#277

Post by pixxel »

noncoml wrote: post #3

I am wondering if the actual reason is the recent change in the terms of service: New terms of service that will take effect on 15 November specify that any lawsuits against X by users must be exclusively filed in the US district court for the northern district of Texas or state courts in Tarrant county, Texas.

The reason is their lack of engagement. Take a long scroll through their timeline: 11m followers and they have single/double digit likes and retweets. It’s been like that for many years.

Re: Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X

#278

Post by ChocolateGod »

kps wrote: post #203
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.

Personally, I don't want to follow people, I want to follow subjects. I want to read Jay Expert's posts on their speciality without their posts on politics and breakfast. Maybe Bluesky feeds will make that possible (in which case Bluesky kills Reddit).

Agreed. Politics on micro logging sites is terrible.

Re: Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X

#279

Post by tonyedgecombe »

poobear22 wrote: post #275
mmooss wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Counterpoints In the comments section of news websites, it wasn't counterpoints. It was just aggression, lies, toxicity, etc. The Financial Times is pretty rarefied air. Everyone must be subscribed, so no anonymity (I would guesss). How much does a subscription cost? $300+ per year?

i think about $600 a year and the comments are much higher quality.

They aren't as good as here though.
Post reply on HN