Most active commenters
  • mmooss(5)

←back to thread

Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X

(www.theguardian.com)
243 points Jimmc414 | 14 comments | 13 Nov 24 20:58 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source | bottom
Show context
aeternum ◴[13 Nov 24 21:49 UTC] No.42130415[source]▶
Real reason: The Guardian can't handle when readers community note them using.. The Guardian.

https://twitter.com/MarioNawfal/status/1821189070401249385/p...

replies(10): >>42130445 #>>42130532 #>>42130621 #>>42130659 #>>42130717 #>>42130985 #>>42131005 #>>42131035 #>>42134175 #>>42142921 #
EarlKing ◴[13 Nov 24 21:51 UTC] No.42130445[source]▶
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).
replies(4): >>42130500 #>>42130750 #>>42130856 #>>42131569 #
1. jasonfarnon ◴[13 Nov 24 22:27 UTC] No.42130856[source]▶
"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.

replies(3): >>42131015 #>>42131378 #>>42131665 #
2. reaperman ◴[13 Nov 24 22:41 UTC] No.42131015[source]▶
ArsTechnica always handled this well. They promote corrections in comments so they’re extra visible.
3. nicbou ◴[13 Nov 24 23:28 UTC] No.42131378[source]▶
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.
4. mmooss ◴[14 Nov 24 00:07 UTC] No.42131665[source]▶
IME the comments almost universally had no value, and were very often toxic. I wouldn't want that on my website - why? What value do they add for anyone?

Nobody allows that on their website now - that was before many lessons were learned. HN doesn't allow anything like it (and never has, afaik).

replies(2): >>42132893 #>>42134714 #
5. incog_nit0 ◴[14 Nov 24 03:32 UTC] No.42132893[source]▶
> What value do they add for anyone?

Counterpoints are useful to help negate echo chambers where we end up clicking on the articles which validate our world view.

In addition the most upvoted comments (at least on the Financial Times website) are sometimes more informed and nuanced than the articles themselves. The article often gets the debate rolling - come for the articles, stay for the comments (so to speak).

replies(1): >>42133338 #
6. mmooss ◴[14 Nov 24 05:19 UTC] No.42133338{3}[source]▶
> Counterpoints

In the comments section of news websites, it wasn't counterpoints. It was just aggression, lies, toxicity, etc.

The Financial Times is pretty rarefied air. Everyone must be subscribed, so no anonymity (I would guesss). How much does a subscription cost? $300+ per year?

replies(2): >>42133661 #>>42135369 #
7. poobear22 ◴[14 Nov 24 06:40 UTC] No.42133661{4}[source]▶
i think about $600 a year and the comments are much higher quality.
replies(1): >>42134070 #
8. tonyedgecombe ◴[14 Nov 24 08:09 UTC] No.42134070{5}[source]▶
They aren't as good as here though.
9. raxxorraxor ◴[14 Nov 24 10:12 UTC] No.42134714[source]▶
> What value do they add for anyone?

What about the example at the head of this comment chain?

I think news sites did lose something without feedback. I can accept a chess pool with a single good comment to make up for it. So it does provide value for me and I disagree with the "lessons learned". Also, the legal risks of showing user content should be scraped for anything that is not explicitly illegal.

We have information bubbles now that are way worse than the occasional comment in bad taste.

replies(1): >>42138347 #
10. tim333 ◴[14 Nov 24 11:59 UTC] No.42135369{4}[source]▶
You get some worthwhile commentary even on trashy sites (eg. Daily Mail, X) You just have to filter a bit.

I'm find it kind of annoying when you can't comment on an article with obvious things wrong.

replies(1): >>42138326 #
11. mmooss ◴[14 Nov 24 17:08 UTC] No.42138326{5}[source]▶
Most give you an option to contact the author. I've corresponded with a few - most of what they get is death threats, etc.
12. mmooss ◴[14 Nov 24 17:09 UTC] No.42138347{3}[source]▶
> I can accept a chess pool with a single good comment to make up for it.

Have fun with that.

> the occasional comment in bad taste.

That's a lot different than most social media.

replies(1): >>42145300 #
13. raxxorraxor ◴[15 Nov 24 09:36 UTC] No.42145300{4}[source]▶
> Have fun with that.

I do, that is the argument.

It would also leave me better informed since the example clearly shows that the statements could benefit from a wider context. And this wouldn't be the only case.

If comments don't provide value for you, you can ignore them. No reason to remove them for everybody else too.

I stopped reading the Guardian a few years ago. It once had really good content. That changed significantly in my opinion.

replies(1): >>42149548 #
14. mmooss ◴[15 Nov 24 18:31 UTC] No.42149548{5}[source]▶
> It would also leave me better informed

You do you, but my argument is that it leaves you worse informed:

1) There is a lot of false information, which will mislead you inevitably (you're not that smart; nobody is)

2) There is a lot of noise for the signal, a lot of waste. You are worse informed because you could have spent the time learning from higher quality information.