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

171–180 of 373 posts

Re: Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X

#171

Post by rakfhG »

So, the Guardian is probably community-noted on beautiful hit pieces like this one:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/nov/04/is-trump-a-f...

Stanley continued: “Trump and the people behind him have already promised to replace the government at all levels with loyalists. [LGBTQ+] citizens, particularly trans citizens and their families, will have to leave the country. Political opponents will be targeted in some way ranging from financial penalties to prison.”

Dear Guardian: Hitler got to power in large part because of Ernst Röhm, the leader of the paramilitary SA organization who was openly gay. Hitler supported Röhm's LGBTQ membership until 1934, when the size of the SA surged to 4,000,000 and Röhm became too powerful. Himmler and others intrigued against Röhm, purged him and then suddenly LGBTQ was persecuted. Selectively persecuted, since well-known gay people like Reichsminister Rudolf Hess, who was known gay, stayed in power.

Re: Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X

#172

Post by pharrington »

seneca wrote: post #135
the_mitsuhiko wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When a journal is biased... it is biased. I would like to know which newspaper or journal is not biased.

This lazy "everyone is bias, therefore bias doesn't exist" argument is nonsense, and is just FUD thrown about to cover for extremists when people point out their extremism. Many news organizations pursue as unbiased a voice as they can. The Guardian is not one of them. Here's an organization attempting an objective rating of media bias, if you're actually interested in the topic: https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/m…

The poster never implied that bias's ubiquity means bias doesn't exist.

Re: Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X

#173

Post by EGreg »

jasonfarnon wrote: post #160
EGreg wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Looking past the childish antics, don’t you think it’s kind of rich that; 1) The party which has been kvetching the most about being deplatformed and canceled by mainstream media and colleges etc. is now in power and in the name of promoting free speech promises to go after institutions in academia etc. that are full of their political opponents (who lean left) for “claming down on free speech and calling it disinfor…

As long as Zuck controls Facebook (sorry, “Meta”), Elon controls Twitter (sorry, “X”), off topic, but one thing I always wonder is why the press goes along with company re-branding? If everyone knows it as Twitter or Meta, wouldn't the easiest thing be to just keep referring to it that way in your articles etc and not help the company in its massive undertaking of changing everyone's name for the product?

Yeah the Google -> Alphabet, Facebook -> Meta, Twitter -> X happened all pretty close to one another.

I mean hey, I can understand why someone like Blackwater renamed themselves to the more innocuous-sounding “Academi” LOL. But why does the media go along with it?

For the same reason they go along with other things, like covering Trump 24/7 in 2015-2016 even though they hated him. The incentives push them that way. A lot of things just go on autopilot. “This is what everyone is doing so we must too. This is the controversy so we must cover it before others do”.

I had a conversation about Capitalism and Freedom of Speech with Noam Chomsky twice on my show:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_JtMSpMrOw

(Earlier: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUPZ8rSESZo)

It’s an emergent behavior of the system. Here is George Carlin with a darker take than me:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QT0OJEFlq7A

Re: Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X

#174

Post by Vuska »

oneeyedpigeon wrote: post #70
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...

It's difficult to tell because the tweet doesn't link to the original, screenshotting it instead. But the explanation is probably that these are two different meanings of the term "two-tier policing".

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.

Re: Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X

#175

Post by dimal »

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...

A screenshot on X? It must be true! I’m sure those links back up the assertion. No one would just post something misleading on X, right? /s

Maybe the assertion in the tweet is true and maybe it isn’t, but to me, this is the real reason that X should be abandoned. No one on X can be trusted to engage in honest discourse. I don’t believe anything, whether it’s coming from the right or the left if it’s posted on X. You might as well have posted something from 4Chan.

Re: Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X

#176

Post by jasonfarnon »

selivanovp wrote: post #113
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 do not know if Musk tweaked the algorithm in favor of Trump as I've left Twitter several years ago due to getting tired of propaganda bots. But what I do know is that Google and Facebook (as well as previous Twitter owners) practicing targeted propaganda for years already, pushing political agenda in your throat no matter how you ask them to not recommend you specific authors, channels or topics. I don't think we a…

Don't forget youtube. Of course, when they were doing that, it wasn't "pushing political agenda" it was just "doing what's right" and "respecting the rights of others".

Are there books recounting the history of editorial positions put forth by these platforms? I really had no idea where google stood on political issues in the 2000s. I remember thinking they were quite pro-free speech sometimes callously so through that decade. I do remember them putting forth issues on gay marriage when it was a live political issue, though.

Re: Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X

#177

Post by reaperman »

jasonfarnon wrote: post #133
EarlKing wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This. It's not just The Guardian, though. It's pretty much all moss media. They got too used to an era where they could talk and the public couldn't talk back (or they could but only through letters to the editor which they could conveniently filter to just the voices they wanted to hear).

"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…

ArsTechnica always handled this well. They promote corrections in comments so they’re extra visible.

Re: Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X

#178

Post by dom96 »

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...

I don't think that's true. But if it is, can you blame them? Community notes are not impartial and X has become incredibly biased towards the far right.

Re: Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X

#179

Post by oneeyedpigeon »

Vuska wrote: post #174
oneeyedpigeon wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's difficult to tell because the tweet doesn't link to the original, screenshotting it instead. But the explanation is probably that these are two different meanings of the term "two-tier policing".

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".
Post reply on HN