Comment by rkho | Hacker News Reader

Comment by rkho | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I find it incredibly strange that The Atlantic, a publication I used to have tremendous amounts of respect for, put out an article the other day saying that Twitter has become some alt-right bastion equivalent to Truth Social and Parler[1].

And, of course, this article was boosted from The Atlantic's Verified Organization Twitter account[2].

Seems like they see the value in paying $1000/mo for the gold check on Twitter, even though it's now a "far right social network". I'd like to believe that they just want to make sure they have a presence on every social network to spread awareness and diversity of opinion, but I can't seem to find them on Truth Social[3].

So, has Twitter truly "evolved into a platform that is indistinguishable from the wastelands of alternative social-media sites such as Truth Social" if The Atlantic still finds it valuable to have a presence on Twitter?

It's beyond transparent what legacy media is doing here, and it's quite sad to see.

[1]: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2023/05/elon-...

[2]: https://twitter.com/theatlantic/status/1661113356277653507?s...

[3]: https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Atruthsocial.com+%22Th...

Your argument is manipulative and fallacious. I doubt you have ever subscribed to the Atlantic.

1. Authors of articles do not necessarily reflect the viewpoint of the owners of a publication, except for articles clearly listed as editorial and representing the authors.

2. It is possible to believe that Twitter had become a racist alt-right hellsite (hint, it has) and yet want to connect with readers or potential readers. This is a commercial decision.

3. I’m curious what you think legacy media is doing since you provide no details and the rest of your post suggests you share some disturbing opinions on “MSM.”

This is an amazing Gish gallop. Sprinkling in speculation, "read the terms and conditions", claims without sources, and ad hominem.

No he dressed down why your post is dishonest, and you responded with ad hominem.

> I doubt you have ever subscribed to the Atlantic.

> the rest of your post suggests you share some disturbing opinions on “MSM.”

Is this ad hominem? If not, why?

> It is possible to believe that Twitter had become a racist alt-right hellsite (hint, it has)

Is this speculation? If not, why?

> he dressed down why your post is dishonest

Where? Is it this part ("Your argument is manipulative and fallacious"), where a conclusion is drawn without evidence? If so, why? And if not, where?

Elon gave out a bunch of blue/gold checks for free in a sort of whimsical way so it’s impossible to know if anyone paid for it

I remember blue checks were being given out for free mostly to celebrities, do you have a source on him doing so for gold ones?

As an aside I'm not a big fan of the lack of diligence in verifying orgs for the gold check, it's enabling a lot of bad actors who are willing to pay the thousand dollars for a quick crypto scam.

Here’s one example: https://twitter.com/arictoler/status/1656712316669378568?s=4...

Thanks, that's eye opening.

Here’s a source for the free-gold-check thing: https://www.theverge.com/2023/3/31/23664923/twitter-verifica...

They're completely right if you're paying any attention

Of course The Atlantic is trash.

Try reading one of the CCP's mouthpieces for a week and it will be such a revelation of how bad US news is that you are more informed about the world by a CCP mouthpiece than the US trash news.

In the US, we basically have competing factions of the National Enquirer vs Weekly World News reporting on a constant food fight for clicks. A person is not more informed by reading what side threw a sandwich across the table first.

They are all such complete and utter shit.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com