←back to thread

Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X

(www.theguardian.com)
243 points Jimmc414 | 1 comments | 13 Nov 24 20:58 UTC | HN request time: 0.2s | source
Show context
seydor ◴[13 Nov 24 21:53 UTC] No.42130473[source]▶
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

replies(18): >>42130525 #>>42130571 #>>42130597 #>>42130616 #>>42130620 #>>42130694 #>>42130705 #>>42130752 #>>42130802 #>>42130828 #>>42130857 #>>42130892 #>>42130907 #>>42131498 #>>42131663 #>>42131841 #>>42132444 #>>42134987 #
jmull ◴[13 Nov 24 22:06 UTC] No.42130616[source]▶
Is it "childish antics" for the Guardian to have their own political viewpoint?

Musk can have a preferred candidate and political stance. And he can run Twitter accordingly.

The Guardian can have a preferred candidate and political stance. And they can choose the platforms they use accordingly.

It all seems perfectly reasonable to me.

replies(7): >>42130657 #>>42130669 #>>42130677 #>>42130713 #>>42130849 #>>42130922 #>>42135808 #
seydor ◴[13 Nov 24 22:11 UTC] No.42130677[source]▶
Antics refers to the passiveaggressiveness.

It remains to be seen what will happen if Trump goes back to posting on twitter

replies(2): >>42130855 #>>42131131 #
1. davorak ◴[13 Nov 24 22:27 UTC] No.42130855[source]▶
Normally when I think of passive aggressiveness I think of a contradiction in between what someone says and what they mean or only communicating something negative indirectly rather than directly.

The Guardian is being direct as far as I can tell about what they do not like and why they are leaving.