[scohesc]

This really reads like a badly disguised hit piece against Elon, doesn't it?

The guy posted something he thought was real, then deleted it when it turns out it wasn't.

Then the writer goes on to mention he "hasn't apologized" and "continues sharing material criticizing the UK government and law enforcement authorities' responses to the riots".

Why does he need to apologize? Oh no, he made a mistake - going by that logic, the Guardian's owners should publicly apologize to all their readers if they get anything wrong. I doubt they do. I would assume they put little "addendums" underneath articles - knowing full well that anybody who has already read the article isn't going back to read it a second time to check for corrections.

And then they list further "hit-piece-y" tidbits about criticisms about how he's run the platform, how companies have decided to leave, how he's suing advertisers...

I don't like the guy for his attitude and demeanor, but come on, it's so clear this was written by someone who needed to get an article out before a deadline.

Is the Guardian located in the same place the riots are happening? It would make more sense I guess, since the riots are affecting the publisher directly, but still...?

[peutetre]

> This really reads like a badly disguised hit piece against Elon, doesn't it?

No.

> the Guardian's owners should publicly apologize to all their readers if they get anything wrong

What, you mean they should publish corrections and clarifications in an easy to see way:

https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/series/correctionsan...

You mean they should be aware of their own history and publish that too:

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/may/12/guardian-200-t...

> I doubt they do.

Why doubt? Why not simply see for yourself.

[scohesc]

Putting corrections in a link that nobody realistically sees or cares about is not publicly apologizing.

It's hiding your mistakes because realistically 99% of the population who reads news doesn't care about the corrections.

[JohnFen]

> Why does he need to apologize? Oh no, he made a mistake

That's why he needs to apologize. Decent people apologize for their mistakes, and it's particularly important with people holding huge megaphones.

> going by that logic, the Guardian's owners should publicly apologize to all their readers if they get anything wrong.

Absolutely. Whether or not they actually do, I have no idea, but that would be proper behavior. I see other news outlets doing it all the time.

[JumpCrisscross]

> guy posted something he thought was real, then deleted it when it turns out it wasn't

Difference between memory holing and retracting.

> Why does he need to apologize?

Because he fucked up in a stupid way with material consequences. And because he's facing impending Ofcom regulations that makes it stupid to needlessly piss off Westminster right now.

[rsynnott]

The riots are (or were, they seem to be calming down now that some of the leadership has been arrested and the foot soldiers are seeing that it’s maybe not just a bit of fun but something that might have serious consequences for them) nationwide.

Like, if he’s too stupid to fact-check extraordinary-sounding things being tweeted by a prominent neo-fascist before promoting him, he probably needs adult supervision of his twitter account.

[bdjsiqoocwk]

> I doubt they do.

See, your problem here is media literacy.

[aeternum]

They do (sometimes) but in such a way that almost no one sees them, especially online.

If a tree falls in the forest..