There's another article here (written in a less confusing first person; I vaguely suspect that the third-person article linked above is intended for newswire or something): https://www.theguardian.com/media/2024/nov/13/why-the-guardi... which goes a bit into it.
tl;dr - Twitter is bad, and also not as important as it used to be. The Guardian does not want to and is not financially forced into producing clickbait for social media.
(The Guardian is owned by a weird non-profit, the Scott Trust (which is, confusingly, no longer a trust); it's allowed the odd principled decision, as a treat.)
tl;dr - Twitter is bad, and also not as important as it used to be. The Guardian does not want to and is not financially forced into producing clickbait for social media.
(The Guardian is owned by a weird non-profit, the Scott Trust (which is, confusingly, no longer a trust); it's allowed the odd principled decision, as a treat.)