12 ms·
Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X
- jacooper 2y agoBluesky is still a very leftist bubble, much better than mastodon, but still not good enough. For me i like the hypothetical decentralization and being able to actually create an anonymous account.
- pianoben 2y agoIf for no other reason, this is good news in that it encourages a larger number of platforms with a diversity of information and opinions. Being centralized on any one platform serves no one except for the platform's ownership.
- dachworker 2y ago[dead]
- aembleton 2y agoWhen they were on x, nothing stopped then from posting on bluesky and hosting their own mastodon instance.
- pianoben 2y agoWhen they were on X, people on X had no incentive to go to other places for Guardian content. Now they do. I don't believe that they'll meaningfully change people's behaviors on their own, but's a step.
- noncoml 2y agoI 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.
- cellwebb 2y agoDo business accounts have the same ToS as regular users?
- viraptor 2y agoThat 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.
- zeroonetwothree 2y agoWhy would the Guardian expect to have to sue X?
- kevingadd 2y agoUnauthorized AI training on their content?
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- stock_toaster 2y ago> 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. Is this even something TOS can legally enforce?
- telotortium 2y agoGoogle's Terms of Service state that "California law will govern all disputes arising out of or relating to these terms, service-specific additional terms, or any related services, regardless of conflict of laws rules. These disputes will be resolved exclusively in the federal or state courts of Santa Clara County, California, USA, and you and Google consent to personal jurisdiction in those courts." [1]. So I suppose as much as any TOS is enforceable. [1] https://policies.google.com/terms?hl=en-US#toc-problems https://policies.google.com/terms?hl=en-US#toc-problems
- rs_rs_rs_rs_rs 2y agoWent 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.
- bboygravity 2y agoYou can hide all political crap using muted words. Just exclude any tweets with the words election(s), Biden, Trump, Kamala, Bitcoin, trading and you're good. All I get is AI and rockets now.
- PaulHoule 2y agoI haven’t muted anything on Bluesky but I have been careful to never follow anybody who talks about #uspol in their first few posts, or their own or somebody else’s gender identity, “fascists”, etc. Also I always hit “less like this” on divisive politics. My “Discover” feed had 1 divisive politics post out of 20, my “Following” feed had 4 out of 20. Gotta prune my following list a little.
- mingus88 2y agoWhat a uselessly glib way to summarize the state of politics today
- evanextreme 2y agoI highly recommend taking a look at some tech starter packs, as i've found them to be very helpful in moving away from that feed. I agree that the political discussion is definitely still in that stage though
- rsynnott 2y agoSometimes, the orange man just is bad.
- WalterBright 2y ago[flagged]
- mikeryan 2y agoIn 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-new-users-week-x-threads https://www.theverge.com/2024/11/11/24293920/bluesky-700000-...
- nicce 2y agoImagine selling Twitter just to create it again. Then some desperate billionaire buys this new Twitter as well, because the audience escaped the old Twitter.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- pkaye 2y agoTwitter was a public company so basically the shareholders decided to sell it when a good deal came up.
- nicce 2y agoI think you missed my irony. It does not matter. It is just happening, whether there was intent or not.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- odo1242 2y agoBluesky was created before Twitter got sold
- talldayo 2y agoWhat 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 bumbling nerd with a sympathetic plight then people would have an easier time defending him. But his aimless endorsement of radical nonsense is basically a mirror to Elon's own behavior, unfortunately. I don't trust Dorsey with power anymore.
- aliasxneo 2y agoIt's comical reading the referenced post[1]. It sounds identical to the posts I would read some years ago (when it was still Twitter), except it was from the opposite party (although we later found out actual censoring was happening). I'm a staunch independent, so it's really just fascinating to watch the pendulum swing so hard. [1]: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2024/nov/04/elon-musk-x-network-donald-trump https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2024/nov/04/elon-musk...
- notahacker 2y agoAnd from a slightly different angle, it's pretty amusing to watch all the people that were shocked that a platform could be so partisan as to consider suppressing a story allegedly involving a foreign power trying to swing an election totally not bothered as Twitter's new CEO runs Trump PACs whilst accounts running Harris fundraisers find themselves mysteriously blocked. Things I haven't heard on the internet: "I was truly hoping that Musk would bring about free speech and political neutrality so now I'm pretty disappointed at the outcome"...
- NotYourLawyer 2y ago[flagged]
- EarlKing 2y agoDoes that include going extinct?
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- NotYourLawyer 2y agoYes, exactly.
- qersist3nce 2y ago[flagged]
- ziddoap 2y ago>tries to undermine the free flow and dissemination of information Maybe I'm out of the loop here, where did the Guardian try to undermine the free flow of information? They even went out of their way to clarify that: >"X users will still be able to share our articles" And >Our reporters will also be able to carry on using the site for news-gathering purposes, just as they use other social networks in which we do not officially engage.
- qersist3nce 2y ago> Maybe I'm out of the loop here, where did the Guardian try to undermine the free flow of information? "given the often disturbing content promoted or found on the platform, including far-right conspiracy theories and racism" Disturbing to who? far-right compared to what point of reference? Which theories are conspiracy and which are legit? What is the definition of racism , who are racist people and why is it a bad thing? Discussion about any of the above points happen in a "free" environment in which all parties can express their views.
- ziddoap 2y agoThat is them stating their opinion. That is not them "undermining the free flow of information". >Discussion about any of the above points happen in a "free" environment in which all parties can express their views. You are free to discuss the article on twitter, or, as you are already doing, here. The Guardian isn't stopping you.
- qersist3nce 2y agoWell from their post alone it seems they would impose their particular world-view in their comment section. Isn't Guardian a "news" outlet, by which being "neutral" and "accommodating to a plurality of ideas" is a inherent virtue? Also it appears their editorial board and "community" is not able to defend their political stances on a free playground. >The Guardian isn't stopping you I think they would have, if there was a technical way to do so. And it's not just about Guardian at this point.
- dagurp 2y agoBut why haven't they posted on Mastodon in two years https://mstdn.social/@TheGuardian https://mstdn.social/@TheGuardian
- EarlKing 2y agoBecause Mastodon and the entire Fediverse is infested with the most rabid sort of users that even Twitter couldn't stomach and has turned a blind eye to this fact? I mean, there's a reason why they keep getting brought up over and over and people continually nope out of signing up over there. They've got a demographic problem, they refuse to acknowledge it, and it's killing growth. Why would any media outlet want to participate knowing that?
- ChocolateGod 2y agoHalf of Mastodon seems to be an obsession with what's in your trousers or what you prefer to sleep with.
- riffraff 2y agoMastodon 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.
- kps 2y agoPersonally, 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).
- ChocolateGod 2y agoAgreed. Politics on micro logging sites is terrible.
- 2y ago
- great_tankard 2y agoAbout time. Any organization or person actively posting on that platform is just lending it undue credibility.
- aeternum 2y agoReal reason: The Guardian can't handle when readers community note them using.. The Guardian. https://twitter.com/MarioNawfal/status/1821189070401249385/photo/1 https://twitter.com/MarioNawfal/status/1821189070401249385/p...
- EarlKing 2y agoThis. 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).
- ryandrake 2y agoTo be fair, Social Media is just like the "Letters to the Editor" section, except the social media company is the publisher and is the one doing the filtering.
- EarlKing 2y agoRight, but that's kind of my point: someone else gets to do the filtering and they can't stand it.
- devindotcom 2y agowe get lots of direct and unsolicited feedback actually, much more than paper days. a fair amount of it is threats though.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- jasonfarnon 2y ago"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 remember pointing out an error of fact on the gaurdian itself back--some review had made some ridiculous point because they were confusing the Aramaic and Amharic languages--and seeing the article later updated and my comment removed.
- lend000 2y agoIt'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).
- grahamj 2y agoFor me it's not about the content. What would take a psychological toll is knowing I'm supporting the orange idiot's #1 fluffer.
- result2vino 2y agoI’m sick to death of everything being described as “opinions that challenge one’s worldview”. There are opinions and there are opinions. There are also philosophical differences of opinion vs things that blatantly factually untrue. Remember “alternative facts”? from the last US election? That was a thing that someone legitimately said in response to specific tangible factually incorrect statements being made about the nature of election fraud. Not wanting to be exposed to content from a news organisation that so aggressively promotes this “worldview” is not the same thing as being a thin-skinned snowflake that only wants to consume content that doesn’t challenge them. The notion that I’m meant to ingest some unfiltered firehose of utter garbage because of some incorrect notion of “all opinions are equally valid” is complete and utter bullshit.
- brink 2y agoI 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.
- boogaboo 2y ago[dead]
- oneeyedpigeon 2y agoAre you including Hacker News in that?
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- EarlKing 2y ago[flagged]
- anglosaxony 2y ago>Anyone else notice that CNN dialed down the hyperbole right around the time it became obvious Orange Man was going to win again? "The cannibal has come out of his lair" "The Corsican Ogre has landed at Golf Juan" "The Tiger has arrived at Gap" "The monster has spent the night at Grenoble" "The Tyrant has crossed Lyon" "The usurper has been seen 60 leagues from the capital" "Bonaparte is advancing with great strides, but will never enter Paris" "Napoleon will be under our ramparts tomorrow" "The Emperor has arrived at Fontainbleu" "His Imperial & Royal Majesty has made his entry into the Tuileries yesterday, amid his faithful subjects."
- feelandcoffee 2y ago[flagged]
- blackeyeblitzar 2y agoThe Guardian isn’t posting there because they get called out all the time on their bad and biased reporting. The notes feature has been a nightmare for them. Also their bias is apparent based on their own messaging when they ask for donations - and this move is just another action that falls under the same bias.
- luddit3 2y agoMusk has one of the highest community note rates on his tweets. Has not stopped him one bit.
- dustedcodes 2y agoExactly, says a lot about the fragility of the Guardian
- boogaboo 2y ago[dead]
- the_mitsuhiko 2y agoOr the community notes are not actually the reason.
- lupusreal 2y agoCan you explain that?
- vitiral 2y agoMusk is stress testing his service's features /s
- seydor 2y agoYann 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
- adastra22 2y ago> The Guardian itself used their own platform to publicly endorse Harris. Isn’t The Guardian a UK publication?
- ThomPete 2y ago[flagged]
- seydor 2y agoYes https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/ng-interactive/2024/oct/23/the-guardian-view-on-the-us-presidential-election-2024-a-democratic-government-is-the-one-we-need https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/ng-interactive/202...
- skissane 2y ago> Isn’t The Guardian a UK publication? Yes and no. For many decades they only operated in the UK. More recently they have launched digital-only US and Australia editions, whose editors are based in the US and Australia respectively, creating content aimed at each country’s audience using local journalists, but the three editions share content for stories of global significance. But still their HQ is in the UK, and I believe their UK staff and readerships are significantly larger than their US or Australia operations
- jfengel 2y agoYes, they are a UK publication. But they cover a lot of US news and have a significant American readership. So, like American newspapers, they have an informed opinion and an audience that wishes to hear that opinion. That's how newspaper endorsements work. In this case the writer of the endorsement cannot themselves vote, but their opinion can still have weight. The Economist, another UK-based periodical with a more right-wing stance, explains why it endorses candidates: https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2024/10/31/why-the-economist-endorses-political-candidates https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2024/10/31/...
- 50208 2y agoLong overdue. There is no good reason for any jounalists, honest organizations ... or people ... to use twitter.com (you can call it "X" ... but it's still twitter.com).
- prvc 2y ago[flagged]
- result2vino 2y agoThey were stating a technical reality for those that have less of an understanding of how the internet works. The target audience is more than…you.
- dustedcodes 2y ago[flagged]
- Sol2Sol 2y agoI 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 realize that in this epoch we are living in the only rule is that money and power gives you the right to do as you please. This may be old school but I think that values, honesty and ethics matter too and should guide our behaviors in life and in business. Kudos to the Guardian for taking a stand even if it costs them a few dollars.
- selivanovp 2y agoI 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 actually have any social platform for free and open speech.
- jasonfarnon 2y agoDon'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.
- tzs 2y agoI watch a lot of YouTube, often without an ad blocker, and I see almost no political content on my home page. The only place I regular saw political content was in the in-video ads which appeared to be just normal paid ads purchased by the campaigns.
- karaterobot 2y ago> X users will still be able to share our articles, and the nature of live news reporting means we will still occasionally embed content from X within our article pages. I wonder if that'll turn out to be true. There's no reason Musk has to let them, and I could see him just blocking links from The Guardian in retaliation. For the record, I don't support temper tantrums on either side, and it feels like this is a very politely stated temper tantrum. But, I also think everyone should get off Twitter. Maybe what I don't like is just that everybody should have gotten off Twitter many years ago, because it's bad for journalism and the human brain in general, and not suddenly pretend to realize it's a bad place now that it's coincidentally less popular, and there's less incentive to hold your nose and stay. Seems hypocritical.
- JansjoFromIkea 2y agoThe issue is that a huge chunk of journalists have been horrifically addicted to Twitter from long before Musk's time. Realistically everyone in that field should've bailed the second subscribers got bumped to the top of replies across the website.
- bparsons 2y agoMost sane people left the platform several years ago.
- cringelibs 2y ago[dead]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- thinkingemote 2y agoThe traditional news in their assessments on why the Democrats lost and Trump won seem to be focusing on platforms and sites. They think the content of a message and where the message appears is more important than the messaging or how a message is conveyed. The guardian will no longer post to twitter but they will keep on harvesting news from it and about it. On average every 3 days someone submits to HN an article against Elon Musk written by The Guardian. I imagine there are more articles written than are submitted. Musk and Twitter provide a huge amount of material for them. Past year HN submissions (111): https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=pastYear&page=0&prefix=true&query=elon%20theguardian&sort=byPopularity&type=story https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=pastYear&page=0&prefix=tru...
- ribadeo 2y agoSocial media largely feeds the petty culture war that substitutes for political dialog. I would say it's a strong net negative.
- ribadeo 2y agoSocial media is not the PUBLIC, but billionaires busy brainwashing and fleecing the public.
- 7952 2y agoI think the main effect of social media is just in neutralising emotion and real world action. It give people a place to vent. And then they get angry when nothing in the real world changes. The power is still in the hands of a few geriatrics that can be bothered to go outside and do something. For the moment this benefited trump but it could just as easily swing in another direction.
- dustedcodes 2y ago[flagged]
- nozzlegear 2y ago> Someone on X summarised it pretty accurately That screed sounds less like it was aiming for accuracy and more like it was aiming to be inflammatory. But what do I know, I haven't had a Twitter account since 2014.
- fwip 2y agoLikely that passes for analysis on Twitter, these days.
- wrs 2y agoX is not a place for "debate". It's designed to optimize for rumor mongering and mob outrage. Which is not a good recipe for a "signal" useful for any kind of decision making.
- thruway516 2y agoI don't follow Musk on any social media, do not engage with any of his posts, or any even mildly related posts. Yet everytime I login, there he is again at the top of my timeline usually promoting some inane conspiracy theory. Does he think so little of my intelligence that he doesn't think he needs to be even a little bit subtle about manipulating the content I consume or he just doesn't care? Yeah I too have left for good. Not that anyone cares, but maybe someone will care about the Guardian.
- cringelibs 2y ago[dead]
- throw16180339 2y agoI don't think he needs to care. The election demonstrated that most people will believe anything they're told.
- UltraSane 2y agoLike the proles in 1984.
- cringelibs 2y ago[flagged]
- oneeyedpigeon 2y agoThis tired and unfunny 'joke' might at least be relevant when it's a little-known individual announcing their departure, but less so when it's a national newspaper with 11 million followers.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- sagolikasoppor 2y ago[flagged]
- booleandilemma 2y agoI'm wondering if it's just economics. Are they losing money from X existing? Are they trying to start some "let's all move away from X" trend?
- davorak 2y ago> Are they trying to start some "let's all move away from X" trend? Can not think of a reason that would not have applied before musk took over.
- netsharc 2y agoI deleted my Twitter account when I drew the analogy of: imagine a magazine, that your friends can subscribe to, to read your thoughts. By contributing to this magazine you contribute to your friend's desire to "buy copies" of it, and you contribute to its ability to sell ads. I decided I didn't want to do that any more. Maybe it's the same with the Guardian. Although when I left, Elmo hadn't bought it and it actually had legitimate businesses buying ad space.
- fragmede 2y agoHave you stopped buying magazines entirely then? It would seem any other "magazine" would have the same property.
- ywvcbk 2y agoMore 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.
- sagolikasoppor 2y ago
- rakfhG 2y agoSo, 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-fascist 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.
- UltraSane 2y agoThat seems largely irrelevant to the core thesis of the article.
- 0xbadcafebee 2y agoI haven't used social media in years, so it's a trip to me that people still voluntarily wade into a cesspool of inane quips on a daily basis
- firecall 2y agoRegardless of what you think of The Guardian, if you are posting on X, then you may as well be posting on 4-Chan at this point.
- briandear 2y ago[flagged]
- UltraSane 2y ago"some people having their feelings hurt that they don’t censor opposing views like they used to." This is an extremely dishonest take on what is happening. What is ACTUALLY happening is the world's richest man using his media company to manipulate an election.
- self_awareness 2y agoLike it was any different during previous elections. Only the people change, behavior stays the same.
- rgrieselhuber 2y ago“All the people flocking to Bluesky — were you outraged at the Covid censorship and Hunter Biden laptop election interference in October 2020?” And the same gaslighting was echoed here on HN as well, don’t hold your breath for any such acknowledgement though.
- consteval 2y ago1. nobody cares about Hunter's laptop. Even the GOP doesn't care, they just pretend to care for outrage, meaning it's just rage bait. Hunter Biden isn't related to anything to do with politics 2. Covid censorship. In case we've all forgotten, over 500,000 Americans died due to Covid. There was a lot of misinformation spread around Covid. This misinformation costs lives. Now, granted, it's not necessarily intentional misinformation because Covid was novel. So, our understanding was constantly changing. But telling people to, say, inject bleach or take horse tranquilizers is legitimately irresponsible.
- hashstring 2y agoIt makes a lot of sense. 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-algorithm-bias-b2640976.html https://www.independent.co.uk/tech/elon-musk-trump-x-algorit... [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37130060 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37130060 [3] https://web.archive.org/web/20230714080253/https://help.twitter.com/en/using-twitter/creator-ads-revenue-sharing https://web.archive.org/web/20230714080253/https://help.twit...
- incomingpain 2y agoThere is a great deal of misinformation on X. Guardian leaving X is reducing that amount of misinformation. Countless examples of Guardian contradicting themselves.
- shark1 2y agoIt's really hard to find serious journalism being done out there, and The Guardian is definitely not helping on that.
- ribadeo 2y agoBreaking 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.
- shark1 2y agoSure 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.
- pmkary 2y agoThis is really good news. Despite all the comments here, standing up to Must is a necessity. People like us leaving and using Mastodon is not significant, big corporations leaving is the thing. (For whatever reason) I'm happy to see people not playing along with Musk.