301–310 of 373 posts
Went to Bluesky too, at the moment too much "orange man bad" and not really anything else in Discover. At least on Twitter you can still find some nice technical discussion after you weed out the "orange man good" parts.
[flagged]
More like the fact that Elon Musk literally bought himself a cabinet position and basically the president himself in almost the most blatant and transparently corrupt way possible. > it's sad Even more sad when people lack the concept of nuance and see the world as entirely black and white.
This double standards is what people are fed up with and people just don't care what mainstream news have tp say anymore because we can listen to the people we want to listen to directly without journalists as a filter.
There used to be some kind of honor in media but like in everything else that has evaporated so now they have made themselves irrelevant.
Twitter is not the community that it used to be. Twitter used to provide me with new updates and cool communities of people.
Since the platform got repurposed to become X, the feeds became a negative in my day— so much ragebait, violence and other negative content that pushed me away.
Apart from the fact that the algorithm was tweaked to become Elon and Trump biased [1] and that link load times to “undesired” websites got artificially increased [2], the whole monetisation strategy attracted cheap, ragebait content [3]. The platform started paying out for 5M+ impressions. This incudes negative and positive impressions and essentially drives up polarising content more than anything.
I believe the issue isn’t about community notes at all, as some suggest, that is such a small thing and critical replies were always a thing. In contrast I believe the real problem is: 1) there’s no point engaging on a platform where every feature can and will be manipulated to serve personal agendas that you do not have control over. 2) Maintaining a presence on X has become a liability– it’s damaging to a set of brands both now and likely in the future.
I’m glad the Guardian and other accounts are moving away from X.
[1] https://www.independent.co.uk/tech/elon-musk-trump-x-algorit... [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37130060 [3] https://web.archive.org/web/20230714080253/https://help.twit...
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'm find it kind of annoying when you can't comment on an article with obvious things wrong.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was curious about this. This appears to be the original tweet, but I do not see any notes on it when I view it: https://x.com/guardian/status/1820788959095529653 There are more screenshots of the note in the replies, but none with the complete links to the articles.
Thanks. I think you actually need to be a Community Notes 'moderator' to view them until they're approved—I see them as "proposed Community Notes".
>The Guardian have reported on two-tier policing, specifically about on race and sexuality, for decades https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/mar/21/metropolitan...
There has been widespread use of force by the police against working class (white) protestors. Including random unprovoked attacks on women and the elderly: https://x.com/ashleasimonbf/status/1820088461182812308
>The concept of 'two-tier' policing is contested, it is neither proven nor disproven, therefore it is equally as inaccurate to call it a myth as it would be to say it is fact. The Guardian view is not accepted by all media commentators as fact: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/08/05/met-chief-grabs-... https://thecritic.co.uk/two-tier-policing/
They all say: Needs more ratings, Not shown on X
I didn't feel inclined to upvote any. The system is there to point out factual errors. Differences of opinion can be posted in the comments (Xed?) as usual. "Two tier myth" seems to be opinion to me. There may have been a public note which disappeared - it's an upvote/downvote type system.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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…
Brief googling showed >30 articles in the Guardian on the second.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.:.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are community notes impartial?
Community notes are not impartial, they are written and approved by the users who sign up to do so (and actually take the time to do this unpaid labor). Thus, they tend to reflect the biases of the kind of people who most want to (and have time to) write and approve community notes, drawn from the pool of people who use your site.