Live data from Hacker News

Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X

theguardian.com

361–370 of 373 posts

Re: Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X

#361
post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Let's flip your script: The Guardian broke the Edward Snowden story. The Guardian supported Assange before it was hip with the "new right" to do so. The Guardian has more rights to the label "populist" than the recent wave of astroturf turkeys voting for Thanksgiving. All i have ever seen on Twitter was posturing and sniping. The fact that many folks consider social media propagation of one-sided polemics posing as n…

>All i have ever seen on Twitter was posturing and sniping. The fact that many folks consider social media propagation of one-sided polemics posing as news does not persuade me of the value of this sewage flow of emotion and bile.

Then you've been looking very selectively. Also, do you include left-leaning and often hysterically hateful rants by left progressives and the hardcore woke in your idea that Twitter is mostly full of posturing, sniping and one-sided polemics?

Twitter, or now X, certainly has plenty of people doing the above from the right of the so-called spectrum, but it also has many doing the same from the left, and it used to have even more of them (people already seem to forget what kind of identity politics Twitter used to be famous for before being owned by Musk.)

Or does your specific worldview not recognize that such emotional, hysterically ideological attitudes also exist from the left?

>Using the weaknesses of democracy to destroy the democratic world

Another classic from many opponents of Trump (aside from whether one favors him or not, because many who aren't of the left also dislike him) The idea that those who do favor him are automatically "destroying" the democratic world".

Implicit behind this is the notion that democratic processes should only be allowed to count if they give majority votes to people and ideas you happen to favor, and if they don't, then well, democracy is suddenly a danger and those who used it for a certain voter mandate are dangerous ignorants who need their betters to tell them how to think.

>I do not see any positive side to Twitter or Facebook circa 2024.

Really? Nothing? So I suppose the many supporters of the progressive left and their pages/accounts on Facebook and Twitter are also negative?

>I find it disturbing that those who seek to destroy our society is running it.

Have you even paid the least attention to the specific things that many people support from candidates like Trump? For many of them, a rejection of obsessive identity politics and mistrusting claims about immigration or the economy that don't ring true are staples, and far from being unreasonable ideas that mean the end of society.

It's absurd how many people share your apparently, blindly one-side views, while attributing all evils to the supposedly monstrous other side, and then complain about how one-sidedness has taken over politics. Funny too.

Re: Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X

#362

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…

> your feed is only toxic insofar you are likely to engage with it. Right, and bigotry raises engagement. This isn't rocket science. Garbage opinions get popular because of how garbage they are. It's the same reason why traffic slows down when there's a car wreck on the other side of the interstate.

>Garbage opinions get popular because of how garbage they are

What a neatly convenient and circular argument for completely dismissing anything that gains appeal but you happen to dislike. It must be popular because it's garbage, and couldn't possibly have any parts worth examining.

Re: Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X

#363
post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think the Guardian article does claim that if you read it.

The headline claims it, isn't that more important than the article claiming it?

The headline is being construed to claim what it does not.

Re: Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X

#364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> your feed is only toxic insofar you are likely to engage with it. Right, and bigotry raises engagement. This isn't rocket science. Garbage opinions get popular because of how garbage they are. It's the same reason why traffic slows down when there's a car wreck on the other side of the interstate.

>Garbage opinions get popular because of how garbage they are What a neatly convenient and circular argument for completely dismissing anything that gains appeal but you happen to dislike. It must be popular because it's garbage, and couldn't possibly have any parts worth examining.

It's just the truth, sorry to be the one to tell you.

The more garbage an opinion is the more outrage it causes. This means more engagement, more comments, more replies, more stitches, more views, more everything. This means creators are incentivized to make this content, and the "algorithms" purposefully promote this content too. Because, objectively, it does very well. Much better than tame or normal content.

It's not just "what I happen to dislike", lol, it's everything. Sure, there's skinheads and such on the right who say blatantly racist or sexist stuff. Some of them are even in Congress (MTG). But on the left, you have those cringe compilations with "blue hair" feminists. I'm a feminist, but I don't agree with those people.

Of course, neither is truly representative of "their side" or, really, anyone. They're just insane wackos. But those opinions garner A LOT of attention, because they're garbage.

Re: Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X

#365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Are the Nazis more or less courteous on X? I'm not sure which distinction you're trying to make here.

Re: Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X

#366
post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I can accept a chess pool with a single good comment to make up for it. Have fun with that. > the occasional comment in bad taste. That's a lot different than most social media.

> Have fun with that. I do, that is the argument. It would also leave me better informed since the example clearly shows that the statements could benefit from a wider context. And this wouldn't be the only case. If comments don't provide value for you, you can ignore them. No reason to remove them for everybody else too. I stopped reading the Guardian a few years ago. It once had really good content. That changed si…

> It would also leave me better informed

You do you, but my argument is that it leaves you worse informed:

1) There is a lot of false information, which will mislead you inevitably (you're not that smart; nobody is)

2) There is a lot of noise for the signal, a lot of waste. You are worse informed because you could have spent the time learning from higher quality information.

Re: Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X

#367
post #203

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).

That's why I follow hashtags instead of people on Mastodon. It gives me a very high signal to noise ratio.

Re: Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X

#368
post #321

It's really hard to find serious journalism being done out there, and The Guardian is definitely not helping on that.

Breaking the Snowden story wasn't serious journalism for you? I get that their culture/lifestyle take is a bit of a culture war outrage session, but their core journalism is some of the strongest in the world.

Sure it is! I am talking in general. I was a paid user and stopped it. I could not ignore the opinionated garbage factory it became.

Re: Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X

#369
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…

Jack is no longer involved, he was thrown out in 2023.

Re: Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X

#370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> 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.

That last bit, it should be noted, also describes Musk, not just Dorsey.

Post reply on HN