←back to thread

Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X

(www.theguardian.com)
243 points Jimmc414 | 2 comments | 13 Nov 24 20:58 UTC | HN request time: 0s | 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 #
oneeyedpigeon ◴[13 Nov 24 22:06 UTC] No.42130620[source]▶
The Guardian is a newspaper with a long-proclaimed left-wing bias. Musk has claimed that X is politically neutral.
replies(4): >>42130682 #>>42130870 #>>42130902 #>>42135041 #
1. DrBazza ◴[13 Nov 24 22:30 UTC] No.42130902[source]▶
Well, it is the Guardian leaving rather than being banned. If they think the site is unbalanced, then they’ve just made it worse.
replies(1): >>42130964 #
2. oneeyedpigeon ◴[13 Nov 24 22:36 UTC] No.42130964[source]▶
> If they think the site is unbalanced, then they’ve just made it worse.

Great point, and I think that's totally true. However, an organisation has to make the judgement call between staying on a failing (as they see it) platform in an attempt to rescue it, and leaving for an alternative that is less flawed. Clearly the Guardian thinks they stand little chance in affecting X in any meaningful way.