SoylentNews

Guardian Will No Longer Post on Elon Musk's X

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

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

• Re:Asked and Answered, Counselor(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday November 18 2024, @10:34PM

  by khallow (3766) on Monday November 18 2024, @10:34PM (#1382390) Journal

  I find it interesting how you posted that link four times rather than argue in good faith. Remember the quotable definition of insanity [quoteinvestigator.com]? You could spam that link a thousand times and you be no more wrong or right than you are now - though a thoughtful reader would correctly observe that repetition is a common symptom of error.

  There is no "restriction" there. If you run a service which allows 3rd party content, Section 230 shields you from lawsuits relating to content posted by third parties. Full stop.

  This observation while correct is irrelevant. Remember I just wrote:

  The two are not the same. The server is being used to provide a public forum space which exploits Section 230. If you want the protection of that law, you need to follow the restrictions of that law.
  
  Further, with some research, I found that Newsguard exhibits [soylentnews.org] cartel behavior as well as threatening behavior. At that link, I mention a blog that was interrogated after the owner had publicly criticized Newsguard which asked pointed and intrusive questions about the funding for the blog as well as why the blog did not self-describe itself as "a conservative or libertarian perspective" (answer: because the owner of the blog did not perceive themselves as having a conservative or libertarian perspective nor felt that value would be added to the blog by clarifying their political stances). The implication being that if Newsguard didn't like the answers to their questions then something bad could happen to the advertising revenue for that blog (which apparently is non existent).

  That has nothing to do with the alleged liability from third party content. Newsguard doesn't provide content. It censors content. Even then, if it were censoring content on the grounds allowed by (c)(2)(A) (since it isn't a information content provider, it doesn't get to hide behind the more permissive (c)(2)(B)), it would be in the good. But it's creating a censorship cartel instead. That's bad faith and may run afoul of anti-trust law or RICO as well, depending on how things play out.

  Parent