Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Guardian Will No Longer Post on Elon Musk's X

posted by janrinok on Sunday November 17 2024, @05:32AM   Printer-friendly

c0lo writes:

From the horse's own mouth:

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.

Original Submission

 
This discussion was created by janrinok (52) for logged-in users only, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Guardian Will No Longer Post on Elon Musk's X | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 57 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday November 18 2024, @09:52PM (2 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 18 2024, @09:52PM (#1382378) Journal
    That assumes (c)(2)(B) applies - like users censoring other posts with moderation. When it doesn't, like when you have a third party doing censoring on your site, then you're stuck with (c)(2)(A).

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18 2024, @10:21PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18 2024, @10:21PM (#1382387)

    That assumes (c)(2)(B) applies - like users censoring other posts with moderation. When it doesn't, like when you have a third party doing censoring on your site, then you're stuck with (c)(2)(A).

    You mean like when people with a clue mod you down? Does that mean you think you can hold SoylentNews liable for third-party moderations? Or that you could sue SoylentNews for deleting your posts altogether? Your "reasoning" isn't. It's just making unsupported claims that something you *wish* was so is actually so. Sorry, thinking doesn't make it so.

    And there's no jurisprudence to support your bullshit either.

    Go ahead. Show me one case. Even one case where a judge has ruled that way. Just one.

    CDA was enacted 28 years ago. If that were actually the law we should have seen at least one case where that happened.

    I won't hold my breath.

    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday November 18 2024, @10:41PM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 18 2024, @10:41PM (#1382392) Journal

      You mean like when people with a clue mod you down? Does that mean you think you can hold SoylentNews liable for third-party moderations? Or that you could sue SoylentNews for deleting your posts altogether? Your "reasoning" isn't. It's just making unsupported claims that something you *wish* was so is actually so. Sorry, thinking doesn't make it so.

      My post was the opposite of what you assert above. No I don't mean that and if you had read my post, you would have known that.

      That assumes (c)(2)(B) applies - like users censoring other posts with moderation. When it doesn't, like when you have a third party doing censoring on your site, then you're stuck with (c)(2)(A).

      I find it bizarre that you even quote it and still don't get what is said. Combine this inability to read with your now six times you've reposted the TechDirt link rather than argue in good faith, means you don't have a serious argument.

      I guess I'll just have to talk to the grown ups in the thread instead.