[flagged]
Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X
11–20 of 373 posts
Re: Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X
#12Went 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.
What a uselessly glib way to summarize the state of politics today
Re: Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X
#13But why haven't they posted on Mastodon in two years https://mstdn.social/@TheGuardian
Re: Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X
#14About time. Any organization or person actively posting on that platform is just lending it undue credibility.
Re: Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X
#15I 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.
That doesn't feel likely. 1 because Guardian isn't really in a position to enter a legal battle vs ~unlimited spiteful money. 2 because this is likely not enforcible if anyone actually has a reason to sue them abroad where the company has presence. It's just terms of service rather than a contract binding you in other ways - they can deny you service after you sue.
Re: Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X
#16Real reason: The Guardian can't handle when readers community note them using.. The Guardian.
https://twitter.com/MarioNawfal/status/1821189070401249385/p...
Re: Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X
#17It'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 haven't seen any of the things the Guardian mentions on my feed -- it's mostly startup related, software related, finance news, and science/medical stuff with maybe ~10% of posts I come across having a political tinge (I do not seek out any political discourse in my feed). But this ratio hasn't changed much in the last few years, except that the flavor of political content has moved rightward (it started off pretty left, which I also did not seek out).
Re: Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X
#18I 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.
Why would the Guardian expect to have to sue X?
Re: Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X
#19I have yet to be on a social media platform that isn't toxic in some form.
I think it's more likely that they'll find people who agree with their biases on Bluesky, and that's the real reason they're switching.
Re: Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X
#20In related news Bluesky added 700,000 new users in the week after the election. Count me in the group who deleted Twitter as soon as the election was over - (I had planned to do so however the election went) https://www.theverge.com/2024/11/11/24293920/bluesky-700000-...
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.