SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The Guardian has announced it will no longer post content on Elon Musk's social media platform, X, from its official accounts.
In an announcement to readers, the news organisation said it considered the benefits of being on the platform formerly called Twitter were now outweighed by the negatives, citing the "often disturbing content" found on it.
"We wanted to let readers know that we will no longer post on any official Guardian editorial accounts on the social media site X," the Guardian said.
...
Responding to the announcement, Musk posted on X that the Guardian was "irrelevant" and a "laboriously vile propaganda machine".Last year National Public Radio (NPR), the non-profit US media organisation, stopped posting on X after the social media platform labelled it as "state-affiliated media". PBS, a US public TV broadcaster, suspended its posts for the same reason.
This month the Berlin film festival said it was quitting X, without citing an official reason, and last month the North Wales police force said it had stopped using X because it was "no longer consistent with our values".
In August the Royal National orthopaedic hospital said it was leaving X, citing an "increased volume of hate speech and abusive commentary" on the platform.
(Score: 0, Redundant) by khallow on Monday November 18 2024, @08:48PM (6 children)
First, we've already abandoned the premise that sites can censor on any basis and still be in compliance with Section 230. This would fully fall under good faith restriction of stuff that is objectionable because it is off topic.
A better example would be your meal recipe site hired another company to help keep it clean of that list of undesirable stuff, and then you find that they're deliberately censoring posts from anyone who talks about low carb recipes for political reasons.
As long as SN select stories that are mostly STEM related, they're good, right?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18 2024, @09:02PM (1 child)
https://www.techdirt.com/2020/06/23/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act/ [techdirt.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday November 18 2024, @09:26PM
(Score: 3, Informative) by janrinok on Monday November 18 2024, @09:15PM (1 child)
No we haven't - you have, but you are wrong.
So 'objectionable' could be anything we want it to be, which is in complete contradiction to the first of your statements that I have quoted. Your Alice-in-Wonderland interpretation of meaning whatever you want it to mean has not been tested in court.
In fact, everything you are claiming is actually explained in the original link passed to you in " rel="url2html-130627">https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?noupdate=1&sid=62663&commentsort=0&mode=threadtng&threshold=-1&page=1&cid=1382245#commentwrap
You cannot have read it otherwise you would not be spouting the rubbish that you are.
[nostyle RIP 06 May 2025]
(Score: 0, Troll) by khallow on Monday November 18 2024, @09:36PM
Who is "we"? Newsguard is neither the platform provider or user. And the rest of your post, I already addressed [soylentnews.org]. The link in question doesn't address censorship done in bad faith even though the author asserts otherwise.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 19 2024, @12:29AM (1 child)
You abandoned it. That doesn't make it so, khasslltakerow.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday November 19 2024, @12:54PM
I hope you realize that was really dumb.