←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: 0.764s | 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 #
dimal ◴[13 Nov 24 22:40 UTC] No.42131005[source]▶
A screenshot on X? It must be true! I’m sure those links back up the assertion. No one would just post something misleading on X, right? /s

Maybe the assertion in the tweet is true and maybe it isn’t, but to me, this is the real reason that X should be abandoned. No one on X can be trusted to engage in honest discourse. I don’t believe anything, whether it’s coming from the right or the left if it’s posted on X. You might as well have posted something from 4Chan.

replies(1): >>42131694 #
iszomer ◴[14 Nov 24 00:11 UTC] No.42131694[source]▶
And Wikipedia.
replies(1): >>42132122 #
1. dimal ◴[14 Nov 24 01:14 UTC] No.42132122[source]▶
Wikipedia isn’t the cesspool that X is, but yeah, it’s not as reliable as many people think it is.
replies(1): >>42132171 #
2. defrost ◴[14 Nov 24 01:23 UTC] No.42132171[source]▶
Trust, reliability, bias are things that have a scale.

I'm always skeptical of things I read, the advantage Wikipedia has is that it's easy enough to see what references are used and how active community edits and debate on an article is.

Nuggets of "information" posted to X, Faceook, and the like are often much harder to dig into and peer behind the curtain of.