←back to thread

244 points Jimmc414 | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.206s | source
Show context
aeternum ◴[] 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 ◴[] 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 #
jasonfarnon ◴[] 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 #
1. nicbou ◴[] 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.