←back to thread

Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X

(www.theguardian.com)
243 points Jimmc414 | 5 comments | 13 Nov 24 20:58 UTC | HN request time: 1.968s | source
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 #
oneeyedpigeon ◴[13 Nov 24 22:10 UTC] No.42130659[source]▶
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".
replies(2): >>42130859 #>>42130998 #
llm_trw ◴[13 Nov 24 22:27 UTC] No.42130859[source]▶
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.

replies(2): >>42130912 #>>42130913 #
llamaimperative ◴[13 Nov 24 22:30 UTC] No.42130912[source]▶
But uh... isn't it possible that one exists and the other does not?
replies(2): >>42131139 #>>42131169 #
prvc ◴[13 Nov 24 23:00 UTC] No.42131169[source]▶
Is it possible that "two-tier policing" exists, while "two-tier policing" does not? In a word, no. I know this a priori.
replies(1): >>42131232 #
1. oneeyedpigeon ◴[13 Nov 24 23:08 UTC] No.42131232[source]▶
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.
replies(1): >>42134588 #
2. ywvcbk ◴[14 Nov 24 09:51 UTC] No.42134588[source]▶
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.

replies(1): >>42135586 #
3. tim333 ◴[14 Nov 24 12:31 UTC] No.42135586[source]▶
I don't think the Guardian article does claim that if you read it.
replies(1): >>42143201 #
4. aeternum ◴[15 Nov 24 01:44 UTC] No.42143201{3}[source]▶
The headline claims it, isn't that more important than the article claiming it?
replies(1): >>42147185 #
5. llamaimperative ◴[15 Nov 24 14:20 UTC] No.42147185{4}[source]▶
The headline is being construed to claim what it does not.