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

201–210 of 373 posts

Re: Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X

#201

Post by jslaby »

rurp wrote: post #139
oneeyedpigeon wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Guardian is a newspaper with a long-proclaimed left-wing bias. Musk has claimed that X is politically neutral.

Musk claims a lot of things. Amplifying right wing propaganda and conspiracy theories, often from his own twitter account, is not politically neutral.

It's not even amplified just from his account but the site itself. Create a new account and follow something like sports or entertainment.. then see what floods your feed. I logged in first time today, and it's quite shocking actually. Not a single left leaning account, just all maga that outnumbers the sports or whatever you clicked as interests.

Re: Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X

#202

Post by ImJamal »

dools wrote: post #94
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...

They said that their content can still be shared there. Also that community note just says they have been consistently saying the same thing for decades which sounds okay to me.

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.

Re: Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X

#203

Post by kps »

riffraff wrote: post #114
ChocolateGod wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Half of Mastodon seems to be an obsession with what's in your trousers or what you prefer to sleep with.

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).

Re: Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X

#205

Post by nicbou »

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…

Comments are user generated content that you host. They require a certain level of moderation just to avoid spam and illegal or deeply unpleasant comments.

Re: Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X

#206

Post by valval »

dom96 wrote: post #178
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.

X is pretty moderate to be honest. At least the popular opinions are the same moderates held in the 00s.

Re: Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X

#207

Post by briandear »

jmward01 wrote: post #170
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...

There is power to slow news. Taking time to consider what to say next and how to reply, especially if you are wrong, is very important. That also applies to when you should stop commenting, even if you are wrong. Eventually every story needs to end because the resources needed to constantly follow up on old stories, and comments on them, need to be balanced with keeping up with new things. Basically, I am saying that…

“Journalism” isn’t failing to report a story because of who it might offend. If it happened, it’s valid. Even worse, journalism isn’t telling the opposite story because the real story might offend.

That’s the problem with the Guardian. They spend a lot of this time writing defensive stories, while missing the real ones.

Didn’t Guardian write a single story about how Kamala Harris got her political start under the patronage of Willie Brown? I don’t recall a single Guardian story critical of anything Kamala Harris did once she became the candidate.

Re: Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X

#208

Post by valval »

dools wrote: post #98
mikeryan wrote: post #6

In 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-...

I deleted Twitter as soon as musk took over because he’s a feudalist

[flagged]

Re: Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X

#209

Post by valval »

montagg wrote: post #89
seydor wrote: post #30

Yann Lecun is also telling everyone on Twitter very loudly that he won't be posting on Twitter. The Guardian in another article explains that they are annoyed because Musk used twitter to promote his preferred candidate. The Guardian itself used their own platform to publicly endorse Harris. This deja-vu of childish antics is just comical in 2024

Maybe this isn't something you believe, but actual adults can have different opinions and then choose not to associate with one another. There's nothing childish about that. Help me understand, though: what are you actually proposing? That The Guardian, while feeling they can't get their own message out given how Musk runs Twitter, should stay on Twitter? Should anyone disadvantaged by how Twitter is run stay there?

I’m more interested in what it is you’re proposing with your questions. It seems like you’re implying that the way “Musk runs” X would disadvantage media sites like The Guardian operating on their platform.

Re: Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X

#210

Post by [deleted] »

devindotcom wrote: post #100
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).

we get lots of direct and unsolicited feedback actually, much more than paper days. a fair amount of it is threats though.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN