Guardian will no longer post on Elon Musk’s X from its official accounts
www.theguardian.com
Platform’s coverage of US election crystallised longstanding concerns about its content, says Guardian

Summary

The Guardian has announced it will stop posting on Elon Musk’s platform, X, citing “often disturbing content” such as far-right conspiracy theories and racism.

The news outlet, with 27 million followers across over 80 accounts, stated that the US presidential election coverage on X reinforced its view that the platform had become “toxic.”

While The Guardian’s official accounts will withdraw, reporters may still use X for newsgathering.

This move follows similar actions by NPR, PBS, and other organizations concerned about the platform’s content standards under Musk’s ownership.

    • moe90@feddit.nlEnglish
      282·
      2 days ago

      normies does not really care about corporate or not. the good thing about bluesky are: easy signups compare to mastodon (noobs do not want to join “servers”), better language filter than mastodon (I tried to pick specific language on mastodon setting. But, I still got unused language that I want to see), customized feed (good to find engagement), less ragebait than X and it is open source.

      • gedaliyah@lemmy.worldM
        233·
        2 days ago

        If news organizations, universities, and governments begin adopting Mastodon, then others will follow

    • lennybird@lemmy.worldEnglish
      97·
      2 days ago

      It’s still decentralized and has marketing far better than Mastodan. With 15 million members and its origin from Dorsey himself, it’s going to win.

      • wandermind@sopuli.xyz
        14·
        2 days ago

        As far as I’m aware, you can host your own Bluesky server, but the main servers don’t federate with anybody else so it’s a moot point.

        • sibachian@lemmy.mlEnglish
          7·
          2 days ago

          exactly, it’s just virtue signaling at this point. they have no intention of competing with third parties by legitimizing them through federation - because bluesky is a corporate service and it exists to generate profit for its eventual shareholders. this is the exact thing that let google and facebook kill XMPP. and what google, microsoft, yahoo, and apple - are doing to the email protocol right now.

        • lennybird@lemmy.worldEnglish
          7·
          2 days ago

          What is the concern? That if Bluesky falls, the instances fall because of the choke-point?

          Isn’t this their plan in the long-term? (Article from February):

          Bluesky is taking a big leap toward federating. On Thursday, the social network announced that it is opening up early access for users and developers who want to self-host their data. While this isn’t true federation yet, the company plans to open up federation to larger servers with even more users in its next phase. When the dust settles, anyone can (in theory) create their own server with their own rules on Bluesky’s AT Protocol.

          • wandermind@sopuli.xyz
            5·
            2 days ago

            The concern is that without true federation Bluesky is still for all intents and purposes a corporation-controlled social media, just like Twitter, and therefore subject to the exact same enshittification cycle.

            I’ll believe they’ll add true federation when it happens. Color me sceptical, but I’ll be happy to be proven wrong.

          • TORFdot0@lemmy.worldEnglish
            3·
            2 days ago

            You can self host your data but you have to rely on the main Bluesky servers as a relay. It’s still centralized. Using other relays will be too expensive to be feasible