←back to thread

243 points Jimmc414 | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
qersist3nce[dead post] ◴[] No.42130391[source]
[flagged]
ziddoap ◴[] No.42130448[source]
>tries to undermine the free flow and dissemination of information

Maybe I'm out of the loop here, where did the Guardian try to undermine the free flow of information?

They even went out of their way to clarify that:

>"X users will still be able to share our articles"

And

>Our reporters will also be able to carry on using the site for news-gathering purposes, just as they use other social networks in which we do not officially engage.

replies(1): >>42130506 #
qersist3nce ◴[] No.42130506[source]
> Maybe I'm out of the loop here, where did the Guardian try to undermine the free flow of information?

"given the often disturbing content promoted or found on the platform, including far-right conspiracy theories and racism"

Disturbing to who? far-right compared to what point of reference? Which theories are conspiracy and which are legit? What is the definition of racism , who are racist people and why is it a bad thing?

Discussion about any of the above points happen in a "free" environment in which all parties can express their views.

replies(2): >>42130523 #>>42134870 #
1. ywvcbk ◴[] No.42134870[source]
Except it can’t happen in that environment. Twitter always was and is inherently unsuitable for any semi-productive discussion due its format.

However that is besides the point any discussion in such “free” environment will be drowned by noise and bigotry (from both sides). Pretending otherwise is silly.