It's both funny and sad that despite several malicious actions like this, despite wasting a ton of Twitter's social capital and despite years of broken promises (e.g., dealing with bots, bringing back free speech, ending algo/report manipulation), none of the writers and artists whose work I enjoy have even attempted to move away. I mostly just read there, but presumably posters feel bound to their social network. Maybe the site really was worth $44B.
What I find even more amusing is that all the people that screech about how much they hate Elon, Trump, Conservatives etc. They also still basically only use Twitter err X.
The network effect is hard to pull away from especially when you realize nobody is listening elsewhere.
Not that it matters, but my use case for Nitter and XCancel was to provide a link to accompany a screen shot when discussing a tweet on Mastodon. Now I'lll just use a screen shot, there is zero chance I will send them direct traffic of any kind.
And I still can't go over how this title looks like draft version with placeholder, published a bit too fast. How could anyone thing a single letter is good choice for an company/service name?
Seeing all companies are hellbent to have all users logged in with accounts, it means they definitely integrated these accounts to some centralized database in the US or plantir aggregator to accurately track any, or basically ban them and remove them from any social media interaction. I have to warn that this gatekeeping is coming to non social media platforms as well, including your own blog, since you can’t control the domain names.
It’s also hilarious how hypocritical these tech companies, meta steal and sell users data and sue a company for scraping, xitter send C&D letters, AI companies are building models from stolen books and sometimes even physically destroying them, then lecture others when their models get distilled, basically: rules for thee and not for me.
From my understanding scraping a public website you'd otherwise have access to is legal in the US. However, re-hosting that scrapped copyright content, particularly if it isn't transformative/fair-use (inc. only partial content) is very much either violates copyright, or best case is legally a gray area.
Google got dragged into court for exactly this, and they were summarizing/snipping, so they had a fair-use argument to make. This is a 1:1 reproduction of the content, so the legal arguments on fair-use would be harder to make I suspect.
I've personally used XCancel, and I really like it, but stepping back legally they're on shaky ground if Twitter decides to stop it.
AFAIK, to date Twitter hasn't required its users agree to a copyright assignment or an exclusive license to the content of their tweets, so it wouldn't be a copyright suit. Twitter wouldn't have standing to bring suit, as that would be reserved for the actual copyright holders, i.e. Twitter's userbase.
Civil law is not centered around what is or is not legal. It is about resolving problems that fall outside of criminal law. It is a completely different set of procedures and approach to the law.
It's both funny and sad that despite several malicious actions like this, despite wasting a ton of Twitter's social capital and despite years of broken promises (e.g., dealing with bots, bringing back free speech, ending algo/report manipulation), none of the writers and artists whose work I enjoy have even attempted to move away. I mostly just read there, but presumably posters feel bound to their social network. Maybe the site really was worth $44B.
What I find even more amusing is that all the people that screech about how much they hate Elon, Trump, Conservatives etc. They also still basically only use Twitter err X.
The network effect is hard to pull away from especially when you realize nobody is listening elsewhere.
Not that it matters, but my use case for Nitter and XCancel was to provide a link to accompany a screen shot when discussing a tweet on Mastodon. Now I'lll just use a screen shot, there is zero chance I will send them direct traffic of any kind.
Main discussion at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49437283
And I still can't go over how this title looks like draft version with placeholder, published a bit too fast. How could anyone thing a single letter is good choice for an company/service name?
> How could anyone thing a single letter is good choice for an company/service name
In this case, Musk is stuck being his 12 year old self and carrying a 30 year old obsession to use this very cool naming. He finally got the chance.
Seeing all companies are hellbent to have all users logged in with accounts, it means they definitely integrated these accounts to some centralized database in the US or plantir aggregator to accurately track any, or basically ban them and remove them from any social media interaction. I have to warn that this gatekeeping is coming to non social media platforms as well, including your own blog, since you can’t control the domain names.
It’s also hilarious how hypocritical these tech companies, meta steal and sell users data and sue a company for scraping, xitter send C&D letters, AI companies are building models from stolen books and sometimes even physically destroying them, then lecture others when their models get distilled, basically: rules for thee and not for me.
Possible alternative? https://twitterwebviewer.com/
At this point just ditch Twitter.
Also sotwe.com although you need to filter your javascript pretty heavily to use it safely.
Scraping is legal. It's amazing how much these companies benefit from scraping but don't want others to do it.
From my understanding scraping a public website you'd otherwise have access to is legal in the US. However, re-hosting that scrapped copyright content, particularly if it isn't transformative/fair-use (inc. only partial content) is very much either violates copyright, or best case is legally a gray area.
Google got dragged into court for exactly this, and they were summarizing/snipping, so they had a fair-use argument to make. This is a 1:1 reproduction of the content, so the legal arguments on fair-use would be harder to make I suspect.
I've personally used XCancel, and I really like it, but stepping back legally they're on shaky ground if Twitter decides to stop it.
AFAIK, to date Twitter hasn't required its users agree to a copyright assignment or an exclusive license to the content of their tweets, so it wouldn't be a copyright suit. Twitter wouldn't have standing to bring suit, as that would be reserved for the actual copyright holders, i.e. Twitter's userbase.
Sending a C&D ordering someone to stop doing a legal thing is also legal.
Civil law is not centered around what is or is not legal. It is about resolving problems that fall outside of criminal law. It is a completely different set of procedures and approach to the law.
Same strategy as Reddit seems data has too much monetary value
[dupe] Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49437283
Wish I'd known about this years ago.