In todays news...

[mangocrazy]

Guardian has lobbed its toys out of the pram over X/Twitter!

The Guardian has announced that it will no longer be posting on X, branding Elon Musk’s social media platform as “far-right and toxic”.

The publication claimed that “far-right conspiracy theories and racism” are promoted on the site and cited that as the reason why they no longer wish to publish content on there.

Readers of The Guardian will still be able to share articles on the site, and news reporters can continue to use Musk’s platform to gather information for stories.

Announcing the change, the newspaper said: “We think that the benefits of being on X are now outweighed by the negatives and that resources could be better used promoting our journalism elsewhere.

Along with the majority of advertisers. Surprised it took them so long.

[Taipan]

Guardian has lobbed its toys out of the pram over X/Twitter!

The Guardian has announced that it will no longer be posting on X, branding Elon Musk’s social media platform as “far-right and toxic”.

The publication claimed that “far-right conspiracy theories and racism” are promoted on the site and cited that as the reason why they no longer wish to publish content on there.

Readers of The Guardian will still be able to share articles on the site, and news reporters can continue to use Musk’s platform to gather information for stories.

Announcing the change, the newspaper said: “We think that the benefits of being on X are now outweighed by the negatives and that resources could be better used promoting our journalism elsewhere.

Along with the majority of advertisers. Surprised it took them so long.

You don't present your case and/or change opinions by running though...

[Saga Lout]

Guardian has lobbed its toys out of the pram over X/Twitter!

The Guardian has announced that it will no longer be posting on X, branding Elon Musk’s social media platform as “far-right and toxic”.

The publication claimed that “far-right conspiracy theories and racism” are promoted on the site and cited that as the reason why they no longer wish to publish content on there.

Readers of The Guardian will still be able to share articles on the site, and news reporters can continue to use Musk’s platform to gather information for stories.

Announcing the change, the newspaper said: “We think that the benefits of being on X are now outweighed by the negatives and that resources could be better used promoting our journalism elsewhere.

Elon Musk responded that he will not write for the Guardian in the future.

N.B. This might be fake news.

[Cousin Jack]

If this fake news is on X I will not see it.

I wish I could say I have left X because of Musk, the reality is I have never been on X.

[DefTrap]

You don't present your case and/or change opinions by running though...

Twitter is owned by the guy who'll be standing at Trump's right-hand - the days that you could say it is impartial are long gone. That bird has flown.

So, other media outlets taking a moral stand? Yeah, why not. It'd be like the Guardian advertising in the Daily Mail.

[mangocrazy]

Guardian has lobbed its toys out of the pram over X/Twitter!

Along with the majority of advertisers. Surprised it took them so long.

You don't present your case and/or change opinions by running though...

I'd suggest that the Grauniad has concluded that their advertising dollar is best spent elsewhere, as most of the adults have left X/Twitter

[Taipan]

You don't present your case and/or change opinions by running though...

Twitter is owned by the guy who'll be standing at Trump's right-hand - the days that you could say it is impartial are long gone. That bird has flown.

So, other media outlets taking a moral stand? Yeah, why not. It'd be like the Guardian advertising in the Daily Mail.

I still think they're foolish to leave, but then if they go too wokey they'd probably get banned anyway! Damned if you do...

[Taipan]

Along with the majority of advertisers. Surprised it took them so long.

You don't present your case and/or change opinions by running though...

I'd suggest that the Grauniad has concluded that their advertising dollar is best spent elsewhere, as most of the wokeys have left X/Twitter

True dat...

[Newey]

and news reporters can continue to use Musk’s platform to gather information for stories.

So The Guardian still think that X is a place to go for useful and relevant information/fact checking/stories.

[mangocrazy]

and news reporters can continue to use Musk’s platform to gather information for stories.

So The Guardian still think that X is a place to go for useful and relevant information/fact checking/stories.

Er, no. The opposite, in fact.

[Newey]

and news reporters can continue to use Musk’s platform to gather information for stories.

So The Guardian still think that X is a place to go for useful and relevant information/fact checking/stories.

Er, no. The opposite, in fact.

The Guardian statement says different.

[mangocrazy]

So The Guardian still think that X is a place to go for useful and relevant information/fact checking/stories.

Er, no. The opposite, in fact.

The Guardian statement says different.

The GB News piece states 'news reporters can continue to use Musk’s platform to gather information for stories.'

Just like they can for any of the thousands of other 'news' outlets. They're not stopping Guardian readers from sharing their stories on X and the Guardian's reporters can use X to get notified of stories, but the Guardian will no longer publish content on X because it's a toxic place to be.

[Taipan]

Er, no. The opposite, in fact.

The Guardian statement says different.

The GB News piece states 'news reporters can continue to use Musk’s platform to gather information for stories.'

Just like they can for any of the thousands of other 'news' outlets. They're not stopping Guardian readers from sharing their stories on X and the Guardian's reporters can use X to get notified of stories, but the Guardian will no longer publish content on X because it's a toxic place to be.

Is it toxic or is it free speech? Under his ownership i'd say its probably the last place you can enjoy free speech, although in the UK the Govt will now come for you if it doesn't suit their definition. But, all said and done, its still the largest news platform in the world but rather than engage opposition, The Guardian have chosen to run away, which from an newspaper whose tagline is comment is free is really pathetic. Perhaps they should change their tagline to "Comment is free, but only if it suits out political ideology"!

[mangocrazy]

The Guardian statement says different.

The GB News piece states 'news reporters can continue to use Musk’s platform to gather information for stories.'

Just like they can for any of the thousands of other 'news' outlets. They're not stopping Guardian readers from sharing their stories on X and the Guardian's reporters can use X to get notified of stories, but the Guardian will no longer publish content on X because it's a toxic place to be.

Is it toxic or is it free speech? Under his ownership i'd say its probably the last place you can enjoy free speech, although in the UK the Govt will now come for you if it doesn't suit their definition. But, all said and done, its still the largest news platform in the world but rather than engage opposition, The Guardian have chosen to run away, which from an newspaper whose tagline is comment is free is really pathetic. Perhaps they should change their tagline to "Comment is free, but only if it suits out political ideology"!

It all depends on whether you take the Guardian's stated reasons for pulling out at face value or not. I don't see why they would tell porkies about that. You're conveniently upending the way that the Guardian and a lot of fellow advertisers view the X platform. You're (rather comically) trying to make it out to be the last shining bastion of free speech. The truth is diametrically opposite to that. The rather cumbersome tagline you ascribe to the Guardian far more accurately describe's Elon Musk's X/Twitter.

IMHO. of course...

[Horse]

Is it toxic or is it free speech?

It can be both.

I don't know whether this example extensively used X or not. If not, there are others.

Rapidly after the children at the dance school were attacked, rumours spread that the attacker was an illegal immigrant, just off a boat.

It was posted on here too.

Totally unfounded. At best - and there's probably a more appropriate word - it was a mistake. But at worst it was deliberate, someone using a horrible event to further their own agenda.


Re The Guardian, they're choosing the freedom of not speaking.

[Taipan]

The GB News piece states 'news reporters can continue to use Musk’s platform to gather information for stories.'

Just like they can for any of the thousands of other 'news' outlets. They're not stopping Guardian readers from sharing their stories on X and the Guardian's reporters can use X to get notified of stories, but the Guardian will no longer publish content on X because it's a toxic place to be.

Is it toxic or is it free speech? Under his ownership i'd say its probably the last place you can enjoy free speech, although in the UK the Govt will now come for you if it doesn't suit their definition. But, all said and done, its still the largest news platform in the world but rather than engage opposition, The Guardian have chosen to run away, which from an newspaper whose tagline is comment is free is really pathetic. Perhaps they should change their tagline to "Comment is free, but only if it suits out political ideology"!

It all depends on whether you take the Guardian's stated reasons for pulling out at face value or not. I don't see why they would tell porkies about that. You're conveniently upending the way that the Guardian and a lot of fellow advertisers view the X platform. You're (rather comically) trying to make it out to be the last shining bastion of free speech. The truth is diametrically opposite to that. The rather cumbersome tagline you ascribe to the Guardian far more accurately describe's Elon Musk's X/Twitter.

IMHO. of course...

Well I've just heard that the original founder of twitter has started up BlueSky as a counter to X, which is good in some ways I suppose, but if we end up with the left on blue sky and the right on X, then we have no debate and just self applauding echo chambers. Arguments and debate is the way to change opinions and stop hate becoming entrenched and in IMO The Guardian has got it wrong by leaving and they'd do well to support free speech in all its guises and remember the fleet street battle cry of publish and be damned! .

[Taipan]

Is it toxic or is it free speech?

It can be both.

I don't know whether this example extensively used X or not. If not, there are others.

Rapidly after the children at the dance school were attacked, rumours spread that the attacker was an illegal immigrant, just off a boat.

It was posted on here too.

Totally unfounded. At best - and there's probably a more appropriate word - it was a mistake. But at worst it was deliberate, someone using a horrible event to further their own agenda.


Re The Guardian, they're choosing the freedom of not speaking.

Wrong yes, but has happened many times before. Remember the angry mob who went after the pediatrician as they thought he was a paedophile! Rumour mill, Chinese whispers etc. Plus, teh authorities had the accurate information pretty much within hours and could have quashed it.

[Mr. Dazzle]

Plus, teh authorities had the accurate information pretty much within hours and could have quashed it.

How, exactly?

Once a BS story (or even a true one!) gets legs on twitter there's no stopping it even if you take it down.

Look how many people still think vaccines cause autism for example.

[MrLongbeard]

Well I've just heard that the original founder of twitter has started up BlueSky as a counter to X,which is good in some ways I suppose, but if we end up with the left on blue sky and the right on X, then we have no debate and just self applauding echo chambers.

It's been a thing for years, and opened for the great unwashed to join since February, whatever you think may happen would have already happened.

[MrLongbeard]

Plus, teh authorities had the accurate information pretty much within hours and could have quashed it.

How, exactly?

Post on twitter init