Given that their average post seems to only get 10s of interactions despite their account having 10 million followers, I don’t think they were getting much out of being on X anyway.
I think you can put it differently: Twitter has changed, the Guardian's target market remains the same. By by now there are so few educated middleclass people on Twitter that as a channel to that market, it's "simply not worth sinking more resources into" as the article says.
I’ve been thinking about this. X appears to be a far right extremist website exactly because extremist far left left en masse, leaving the square to far right people and people that don’t define themselves by what website they have an account on.
So yeah, counter-intuitive, but X appears right-y because leftists left.
Twitter is full of propaganda bots for years, pushing real people away from it. Musk's recent attempts to get rid of bots just result in a hollow shell to become even more hollow, because normal people don't want to have anything in common with a platform.
Bluesky picked up AOC and Mark Cuban in the past couple of days, amid their million-new-users-in-a-week influx, so I think the successor has been chosen and the writing is on the wall for anyone looking for an out.
Twitter has still got sports and sports betting, so I imagine it will do quite a bit better than the limping along myspace did after facebook came along. But, based on the stats I track for social impressions, I think twitter is already down to a rounding error as far as return on investment, so it's not surprising to me, in the least, that companies will be focusing their material on instagram, threads, and bluesky.
False. I have checked the numbers hours ago. The popular vote was 51% (3Mln votes margin in 150Mln); the electoral college results have been the 44th out of 60 - halfway through the lowest (38% for J.Q. Adams) and the median (69% for Clinton '92).
I would like to know how this deliriousness about "landslide" etc. started.
> X has become the news source that is hard to ignore.
Much the opposite for me, had an account since early 2007, my handle was even my name + last name. Mostly lurked there to get breaking news, some art, and threads of relevance to whatever was up in tech.
Completely erased my account a few months ago after getting fed up with absolutely irrelevant posts on my feed since 2 years ago, it only got worse over time with Nazi jokes popping up increasingly more, bullshit American politics infighting, edgy assholes sharing hateful hot takes on some minority, etc. Even though I strictly followed only bigger news institutions, some tech folks, a few independent musicians/photographers.
I deleted the account because there was simply no value anymore to even glance at my feed, it was full of crap, barely any of the breaking news or interesting stuff I was used to 10+ years ago.
It's been much easier to ignore than I expected, even more the past 6-10 months with viable alternatives for the type of content I used to see there without the edgy Nazi jokes or promoted Elon tweet.
> But no need to announce your departure, as this isn't an airport.
Well, they’re a major media organization. If they just stop posting, people will wonder why, and it will leave room for an impersonator to step in. So sometimes, it is like an airport.
Looking at the scatter plot of the Guardian they don't seem to have made any attempt at separating news reporting from opinion pieces. It would be strange for anyone to expect the latter to be unbiased.
Well, you would read their methodology which they have posted and then decide if it's reliable. Opinion is naturally ranked downward in their methodology, so in a sense it is separated.
The chart has been around for a while and is generally believed to be the leader. It's widely used in academia. It's a good tool but not bulletproof, and they admit the bias of their editors freely.
