3 ms·

I find it fascinating that they're announcing they won't be posting on X anymore, yet at least in the article OP linked, there is absolutely zero mention of whe

I find it fascinating that they're announcing they won't be posting on X anymore, yet at least in the article OP linked, there is absolutely zero mention of where they will be posting. This makes the announcement itself feel like a disingenuous, politically motivated, anti-X hit piece to me, rather than an informational notice about where people can go to read their content. If this really is born out of their dedication to 'humanist values, our commitment to press freedom and media pluralism, and our fight against all forms of hatred and discrimination', then why is there no mention at all of where we can go to hear more about these positive values?

talldayo 2y ago
> the announcement itself feel like a disingenuous, politically motivated, anti-X hit piece I don't see how. There is no reason that journalists should feel "grandfathered in" to X because they used Twitter before. Elon Musk has very strong opinions about traditional media that rightfully leaves these employed journalists with little hope for the platform. They could be sharing the best-researched articles on the platform and it would consistently underperform relative to whatever the manufactured outrage is on Trending. It's just frogs noticing the pot boil. Social media has always been a raw deal for these publishers, and now it's probably a loss leader. Why stay on the platform if it's going to go from "shit" to "flaming shit"?
- anonym29 2y ago
  >There is no reason that journalists should feel "grandfathered in" to X because they used Twitter before. Elon Musk has very strong opinions about traditional media that rightfully leaves these employed journalists with little hope for the platform. They could be sharing the best-researched articles on the platform and it would consistently underperform relative to whatever the manufactured outrage is on Trending. >It's just frogs noticing the pot boil. Social media has always been a raw deal for these publishers, and now it's probably a loss leader. Why stay on the platform if it's going to go from "shit" to "flaming shit"? No argument against any of this. If this isn't a hit piece, why is there zero mention of where we can get their content? This isn't a notice saying they're moving away from platform X and over to platform Y because of reasons A, B, and C, which is what an informational notice for the intended audience (people like me who are interested in reading what EFJ journalists have to say) should include. This is a piece that's only saying they're moving away from platform X for reasons A, B, and C. That's not useful for conveying where their target audience can go to read EFJ content, it's just a roundabout way of criticising platform X for reasons A, B, and C. P.S. upvoted your comment after I saw it went gray. Your question appears good faith to me and I really wish we could all stop downvoting good faith and thoughtful responses like yours rather than weaponizing downvotes to suppress ideas and perspectives we don't agree with.

talldayo 2y ago

> the announcement itself feel like a disingenuous, politically motivated, anti-X hit piece I don't see how. There is no reason that journalists should feel "grandfathered in" to X because they used Twitter before. Elon Musk has very strong opinions about traditional media that rightfully leaves these employed journalists with little hope for the platform. They could be sharing the best-researched articles on the platform and it would consistently underperform relative to whatever the manufactured outrage is on Trending. It's just frogs noticing the pot boil. Social media has always been a raw deal for these publishers, and now it's probably a loss leader. Why stay on the platform if it's going to go from "shit" to "flaming shit"?

anonym29 2y ago
>There is no reason that journalists should feel "grandfathered in" to X because they used Twitter before. Elon Musk has very strong opinions about traditional media that rightfully leaves these employed journalists with little hope for the platform. They could be sharing the best-researched articles on the platform and it would consistently underperform relative to whatever the manufactured outrage is on Trending. >It's just frogs noticing the pot boil. Social media has always been a raw deal for these publishers, and now it's probably a loss leader. Why stay on the platform if it's going to go from "shit" to "flaming shit"? No argument against any of this. If this isn't a hit piece, why is there zero mention of where we can get their content? This isn't a notice saying they're moving away from platform X and over to platform Y because of reasons A, B, and C, which is what an informational notice for the intended audience (people like me who are interested in reading what EFJ journalists have to say) should include. This is a piece that's only saying they're moving away from platform X for reasons A, B, and C. That's not useful for conveying where their target audience can go to read EFJ content, it's just a roundabout way of criticising platform X for reasons A, B, and C. P.S. upvoted your comment after I saw it went gray. Your question appears good faith to me and I really wish we could all stop downvoting good faith and thoughtful responses like yours rather than weaponizing downvotes to suppress ideas and perspectives we don't agree with.