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

281–290 of 373 posts

Re: Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X

#281

Post by MrSkelter »

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 is incorrect. The example you give is perfect. Twitters community notes reflect the received wisdom of a mob. Not the truth. They stand when the Twitter user base thinks they should.

As a right wing hub they oppose realities which don’t fit their world view.

Using the example you linked there is a long documented history of minorities in the Uk, including the Irish, being treated much more harshly by British police. Stop and search laws and multiple incidents of innocent people being framed for crimes.

The rights which to pretend this is targeted at the white majority, simply because multiply convicted criminals like Tommy Robinson are being jailed, is a myth.

No British policeman can stop you on the street by psychically intuiting your political views. They can stop you if you are breaking windows, chanting slogans, or have a different skin color.

The Guardian publishing real journalism (the paper has broken more significant news stories in recent decades than any other British outlet) into a toilet of right wing opinion doesn’t make sense.

As there is no way to rebut a community note the last word is always with the mob.

Re: Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X

#282

Post by aembleton »

pianoben wrote: post #2

If for no other reason, this is good news in that it encourages a larger number of platforms with a diversity of information and opinions. Being centralized on any one platform serves no one except for the platform's ownership.

When they were on x, nothing stopped then from posting on bluesky and hosting their own mastodon instance.

Re: Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X

#283

Post by stvltvs »

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

It sounds like you're unfamiliar with the split between the news desk and the editorial desk, two separate functions in the same org. Last I checked the Fox News news desk was a pretty reliable source of info. All the editorial programming on the other hand, wackadoodle partisan hackery.

Re: Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X

#284

Post by nickpp »

MrSkelter wrote: post #281
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 is incorrect. The example you give is perfect. Twitters community notes reflect the received wisdom of a mob. Not the truth. They stand when the Twitter user base thinks they should. As a right wing hub they oppose realities which don’t fit their world view. Using the example you linked there is a long documented history of minorities in the Uk, including the Irish, being treated much more harshly by British pol…

> Twitters community notes reflect the received wisdom of a mob. Not the truth.

Do you have an example of such flawed community notes? The ones I encountered were pretty sane and middle of the road, often correcting Elon himself.

Re: Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X

#285

Post by ywvcbk »

oneeyedpigeon wrote: post #199
prvc wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Were they? They [Guardian] are now claiming that both groups are being treated the same when they were clearly claiming that that wasn’t the case earlier?

Which exact groups they are talking about doesn’t really matter for this specific argument.

Re: Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X

#286

Post by rswskg »

MrSkelter wrote: post #281
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 is incorrect. The example you give is perfect. Twitters community notes reflect the received wisdom of a mob. Not the truth. They stand when the Twitter user base thinks they should. As a right wing hub they oppose realities which don’t fit their world view. Using the example you linked there is a long documented history of minorities in the Uk, including the Irish, being treated much more harshly by British pol…

', or have a different skin color.'.

Really?

Re: Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X

#287

Post by ywvcbk »

dools wrote: post #251
ImJamal wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> there is a two-tiered system targeting white people. That's obviously a myth

Except… That’s obviously not what Farage et al are saying.

The claim is that white nationalists (verging on fringe(?) neo-nazi) protestors and rioters were treated more harshly than protestors and rioters belonging to other races or subscribing to other (also violent and radical) political (or religious) ideologies.

It does not seem obvious at all to me that this is clearly a myth.

Re: Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X

#288

Post by defrost »

ywvcbk wrote: post #287
dools wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> there is a two-tiered system targeting white people. That's obviously a myth Except… That’s obviously not what Farage et al are saying. The claim is that white nationalists (verging on fringe(?) neo-nazi) protestors and rioters were treated more harshly than protestors and rioters belonging to other races or subscribing to other (also violent and radical) political (or religious) ideologies. It does not seem obviou…

It seems clear that the current crop of "white nationalists (verging on fringe(?) neo-nazi) protestors and rioters" were treated with kid gloves in comparison to the treatment of "other race" protestors in the Brixton riots.

The current claim that current "other race" UK protestors are (oranges to oranges in same circumstances) better treated than white protestors is subjective, it's not suprise that such a claim is being made by Farage and Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon .. it's very much their schtick.

Re: Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X

#289

Post by raxxorraxor »

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?

What about the example at the head of this comment chain?

I think news sites did lose something without feedback. I can accept a chess pool with a single good comment to make up for it. So it does provide value for me and I disagree with the "lessons learned". Also, the legal risks of showing user content should be scraped for anything that is not explicitly illegal.

We have information bubbles now that are way worse than the occasional comment in bad taste.

Re: Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X

#290

Post by ywvcbk »

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #96
pm90 wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Endorsements for political candidates are done via the editorial boards which are different from the newsrooms. The editorial boards of news organizations have always had opinions and publish them as such. There is nothing problematic with this approach.

> There is nothing problematic with this approach. A. You assume the editorial board does not have a significant influence over the newsrooms. By endorsing a candidate, they demonstrate which direction the pressure on the newsroom is coming from. B. This was not why freedom of the press was granted. I was not arguing whether it is a good or bad thing now; merely that this was directly opposed to the role envisioned f…

> This was not why freedom of the press was granted

Not about this specific point but people making these decisions back in the 1700s and 1800s were at least as flawed as us (arguably much more) and made some extremely horrible/stupid choices in hindsight.

Treating them as effectively infallible religious figures is well.. just that.

Especially if we consider that the interpretation of what freedom of speech (and press) meant was extremely narrow by modern standards well into the late 1800s and beyond.

Post reply on HN