Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X

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".

It's exactly the same meaning but with the sign reversed.

Turns out identity politics is a terrible idea. Now the Guardian et al are finding out exactly why when the people they disagree with are doing it too.

But uh... isn't it possible that one exists and the other does not?

Exactly: two completely opposing points! I agree that identity politics is a terrible idea.

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".

> But uh... isn't it possible that one exists and the other does not?

Going through the airport between 2001 and 2021 showed that having a Muslim sounding name was going to be a trigger for a random inspection. The Rotherham child rape gangs investigation into the police clearly showed that complaints against South Asians by Whites were ignored for decades to avoid accusations of racism.

The average Guardian reader was only going to be exposed to the first and not the second. So the Guardian went full bore with the basest form of tribalism to explain the things its readers saw.

Now the same people who were gleefully destroying the social fabric in the name of progress are acting shocked at what happens when it unravels completely. I have the worlds smallest violin for them.

Is it possible that "two-tier policing" exists, while "two-tier policing" does not? In a word, no. I know this a priori.

Come on, it's clear they were referring to either my reference to "two different meanings of the term" or the reply's reference to "the same meaning but with the sign reversed"—those are two different meanings.

Were they? They [Guardian] are now claiming that both groups are being treated the same when they were clearly claiming that that wasn’t the case earlier?

Which exact groups they are talking about doesn’t really matter for this specific argument.

Yeah that confused me. I'm a 'moderator' (community note contributor in X lingo) and can see the proposed ones. Top 3:

>The Guardian have reported on two-tier policing, specifically about on race and sexuality, for decades https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/mar/21/metropolitan...

There has been widespread use of force by the police against working class (white) protestors. Including random unprovoked attacks on women and the elderly: https://x.com/ashleasimonbf/status/1820088461182812308

>The concept of 'two-tier' policing is contested, it is neither proven nor disproven, therefore it is equally as inaccurate to call it a myth as it would be to say it is fact. The Guardian view is not accepted by all media commentators as fact: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/08/05/met-chief-grabs-... https://thecritic.co.uk/two-tier-policing/

They all say: Needs more ratings, Not shown on X

I didn't feel inclined to upvote any. The system is there to point out factual errors. Differences of opinion can be posted in the comments (Xed?) as usual. "Two tier myth" seems to be opinion to me. There may have been a public note which disappeared - it's an upvote/downvote type system.

I don't think the Guardian article does claim that if you read it.

>The average Guardian reader was only going to be exposed to the first and not the second

Brief googling showed >30 articles in the Guardian on the second.

The headline claims it, isn't that more important than the article claiming it?

The headline is being construed to claim what it does not.