There's plenty of other instances running on nitter, some secret/invite only (and as such more chance to fly under the radar). The code is open source: https://github.com/zedeus/nitter albeit X DMCA'd the repo.
No they didn't, or you'd see the text "Repository unavailable due to DMCA takedown." and wouldn't have access to the repo at all. Instead you have full access to it, its author having merely archived it out of caution.
Seems you're right. They have done this in the past though, so wouldn't exactly be a surprise.
Here is what the "free speech" platform have censored previously on GitHub:
> X Corp. employs various technical protection measures to control access to its copyrighted works, including those at issue here (API schemas and platform content): e.g., official X Corp. API key/OAuth authentication, rate-limiting mechanisms, proprietary behavioral pattern detection, TLS fingerprint validation, and x-clienttransaction-id checks. The repository referenced above appears specifically designed to circumvent these measures using browser cookies, curl_cffi TLS impersonation, fake headers, request jitter, and reverse-engineered GraphQL queries.
Does things like that even matter anymore? Lots of things shouldn't be what they are, and vice-versa, yet no one seem to do anything. If Microsoft listens to the demands of XCorp, then that's the reality, regardless of what courts say.
The whole point of butchered websites is to direct people to install their more invasive app. It's not like all companies just got bad at making websites somehow. There are conflicting incentives.
So media outlets, influencers, etc have something to link to, and a way to promote Twitter by including tweets in their articles.
If it's public, people can link to it and promote the site. If it's not, then either info there doesn't get free publicity or people just screenshot the tweets instead.
The reasons it's unusable are precisely the reasons they don't want you using anything else. Direct control over your eyeballs. They decide where the ads go on the page, they decide what comes next in your feed, they track everywhere you look or move the mouse. Anything that circumvents this is a business risk to them.
What other versions of twitter there are? I use it on both pc and mobile in browser with adblock and the experience is the same as 20 years ago. If anything the "for you" feed has become actually usable in last couple of years.
They managed to get pretty close to decomming it which is that it's now impossible to sign up on desktop without an account that requires a phone number tied to it.
This to me is a big issue. You have politicians, government entities and other public institutions posting to twitter, but to access we need to log in.
There needs to be a free, non-ad, non-login environment people can use to access this information posted by public entities.
This comment also applies to facebook too, which I think is even worse than twitter.
We used to have that, it was called a blog. I used to subscribe to all my local politicians and journalist blogs back in the late 2000s and would recieve everything I needed in my inbox, but now everyone posts on Twitter. That's where we have ActivityPub.
It's impossible to know what this "legal advice" was, but the software project itself is probably fine. The legal risk is always going to be with the person that hosts it with the intention of facilitating the unauthorized access of Twitter's website. Seems like that could run afoul of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
In cases like these, companies often try to go after the upstream project, not just operators. The law gives them lots of tools for this: the CFAA has a conspiracy provision; The DMCA has a provision against making software for circumventing copyright; Trademark law might make the name nitter or xcancel illegal; and finally even if the claims are weak the litigation itself is an enormous burden
The repo being archived happened after that UPDATE post that you mention. So the project has gone from suspended, to un-suspended, and now it's suspended again (and the repo got archived this time).
That update was made 9/6: 5 days prior to archival and on the same day xcancel.com also "returned". I can find no public updates regarding Nitter project after the 9/11 archival.
Maybe instead of trying to get rid of services that provide a more convenient access to X to non-logged-in users, they should realize that there is a real market behind these services - users that will likely never sign up to X, but who want to read/watch some content without the incessant nagging and limitations that X subjects non-logged-in users to?
> users that will likely never sign up to X, but who want to read/watch some content
They probably don't want their echo chamber leaking to the wider internet, because external discussion of the content would reveal it for the siloed thought bubble that it is.
Consider X now requires personal information to sign up, and after handing that info over, signups are often still rejected with no explanation given. Yet another tell they're very interested in maintaining that echo chamber.
> signups are often still rejected with no explanation given
That's pretty odd. When I google this, there are claims that this is to prevent spam accounts. Obviously, if you choose not to take them at their word, one can read all sorts of odd reasons into it.
To be clear I agree that another reason is pretty likely. I'm just phrasing it neutrally since I don't know.. Above all I'm saying it's weird. I'm used to thinking of twitter and all the others in the same category as wanting to drive user metrics up at the expense of a lot of other priorities. Preventing new accounts seems to run counter to expectations.
'Echo chamber' is an odd thing to say. X has many center left and hard left accounts, they're not banned in the same "women can't be men" was during Woke 1.0.
I quit Twitter because a lot of the people I followed also quit so the site lost relevance/interest, but mainly because those who stay were turning slowly but steadily into something the network was clearly pushing. The force pushing of Elon twits into my timeline was too obvious, and once noticed that I noticed other less obvious pushes and even more insidious, silencing people I was interested in reading but suddenly their twits no longer pop in my timeline. I needed to go to their profile to read their twits.
In short, Twitter was actively pushing me into an echo chamber, even when my follows were diverse. Bluesky, Truth Social or Reddit are users that usually want to be in that echo chamber. At least bans are very notorious there, and not shadowbans/algorithm silencing while Elon says "I am a free speech absolutist".
Excuse my pedantry but "market" implies a possible audience/demographic to _sell_ to. If a user can't be arsed to sign up for Twitter (an action that costs nothing, AFAIK), what makes you think they will pay for read-only access to tweets?
Speaking only for myself, well, no. If Elon doesn't want non-users to be able to read tweets then that's simply one section of the internet I'm swearing off. I'll get my news from actual news sites and I have plenty of hot takes on my own to last me this life and the next.
> without the incessant nagging and limitations that X subjects non-logged-in users to
That is directly the result of the evil pull of advertising. "Logged in" users are more valuable than "non-logged in" users to advertisers (because logged in ones are identified) and so what you are seeing as "nagging" is Shitter (formerly X, formerly Twitter) desperately trying to increase its ad revenue at your expense. You are watching enshittification right before your eyes.
That’s not a market. You are not exchanging anything of value. It’s a public service. One might as well lament that Ferrari doesn’t offer cars to the millions of people who would gladly take one for free.
ISTR in the old days Twitter was easy to read when not logged in, much like Mastodon or Bluesky are now. But once they captured market share, and this happened before Musk!, they started gradually ramping up the pressure to log in or use the app to view tweets.
One can only assume Bluesky would go the same way were it to gain significant market share. One can even imagine a particular Mastodon instance going that way, were it to be popular enough and run by profit-minded people.
Twitter is heavily login-gated, to the point that I can't see Twitter threads at all unless I have an account. I do not wish to make an account. Services like Nitter/XCancel allow me to read those threads, making that speech more free.
The accusation was that Twitter was working with the US government to censor speech on the government's behalf. Which would be a first amendment violation. The FBI's defense is that they technically never ordered Twitter to take down anything, but merely "flagged" posts and sent those flags to Twitter execs.
This type of loophole was (likely) closed after the ruling of Murthy v. Missouri and the "Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship" executive order.
Is that a first amendment violation though if they voluntarily complied?
It’s a private company. Free speech doesn’t mean I’m entitled to use your property to post and amplify my speech.
I also find the context of the whole thing suspect since Trump in his second administration has openly used the FCC and other federal pressures to attack speech he doesn’t like and Musk’s X has not been “free speech absolutist.”
I always thought it was just the far right being mad their side wasn’t in charge, and that when they got in power they would be even worse. That seems vindicated.
>Is that a first amendment violation though if they voluntarily complied?
The entire point of the case was to determine exactly that. Read the judgement. If it were an open and shut case, it never would have made it to the supreme court.
>and that when they got in power they would be even worse. That seems vindicated
How in the world did you get to that conclusion from Murthy v. Missouri and the "Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship" order?
From the open use of the FCC to threaten television networks for saying things the president doesn't like? Among many other examples? That's just a particularly overt one.
I'm just saying overall behavior -- outside this specific case -- is not consistent with a regime (or a larger political movement) that believes in free speech. It's consistent with "we want to be the ones in charge determining speech," with opposition to Twitter's previous moderation being motivated by that rather than principled belief in free speech.
The net effect of the Twitter takeover was not to make it a free speech absolutist platform but to shift the pattern of selective boosting and selective de-boosting and moderation to one that favors the far right's message.
Elmo himself has conflated "free speech" with his own site. He's also done everything he can to limit that same "free speech".
Yes, we all know what "free speech" really means and it has nothing to do with X, but when the owner of X conflates what it means, we can mock that SOB for it.
I would argue that when he is talking about "free speech" he is always referring to the more general, non-US-Constitutional meaning of the phrase; i.e. the freedom to say what you want without being censored. So when a discussion about free speech on Twitter comes up, I assume that's the kind of free speech we're discussing. To bring in the the more narrow, first amendment meaning of the term is just a distraction or diversion.
I assumed that's what the parent post was referring to when they said "Yes, we all know what 'free speech' really means and it has nothing to do with X," but if I misunderstood then I apologize!
Many feel X, or gating access to X, is fundamentally unjust.
Feeling injustice converts the loss into a claim: "I didn't just lose logged-out access, we're owed logged-out access." The comment above questioned whether the inconvenience is actually an injustice. The flags came because the question threatened the claim.
The free speech are reinforcements on a claim that, imo, doesn't really have much purchase.
There’s an OpenAI billboard in union square right now of a kid eating Chinese food at his desk working on something and every time it just reminds me of that suchir kid because they said he had takeout :/
I wonder what legal gymnastics are needed for "I can scrape anything off the web ignoring copyright and build a product from this, but you can’t even display what’s on my webpage elsewhere”.
Perhaps that is it in fact. The act of protecting it from scraping means you object. 99% of the blogged contents etc. Big AI helped themselves to was just… there. Public. Not free from copyright but still not paywalled.
Precedent is pretty clear: competitive uses bad, transformative uses good. Xcancel scrapes and then competes directly with X, whereas LLM labs scrape the internet to make an agentic intelligent bot, a transformative use of the scraped content.
How clear is it when I google a recipe and get an AI-generated recipe that's clearly derived from the top three results and then placed above those results? That sounds like it's both transformative (in that the recipe created by the AI may not match any one of the scraped recipes perfectly) and also competitive (in that the AI takes page views away from the pages it got the recipes from)
fair, but recipes aren't the only thing where AI summaries at the top of search results are simultaneously transformative and competitive. Any information that is scraped from a website and then summarized by AI in a way that prevents that website from getting views is both transformative and competitive.
Everything is both legal and illegal until a lawsuit happens. Then it collapses depending a little bit on the facts and mostly on who has the better lawyers.
I suspect Nitter's first round with lawyers pointed out that scraping is legal, but now they have been threatened with something else than scraping - Elon claims something else the way Nitter runs is illegal, such as the use of fake accounts to circumvent an access control device (DMCA 1201).
At the end of the day, as an individual or a team or a company, regardless of the statue and case law, you have to perform the calculus on your monetary and legal resources versus your counterparty.
Obviously ungrounded and frivolous cases tend to be easier to defend asymmetrically, but if I was X's legal team, there's no shortage of semi-plauisble claims I could throw at the wall and see what sticks.
As an example of this imbalance in action, BrightData is a 'gray area' company that basically does this exact kind of scraping. They have somehow won against Meta Platforms suing them, and even got X's lawsuit against them for scraping -- identical (?) activity to XCancel -- dismissed.
According to Wikipedia:
> In May 2024, a federal judge dismissed the suit, ruling that Bright Data did not violate X's terms of service or copyright by scraping publicly accessible data.[24] The judge emphasized that such scraping practices are generally legal and that restricting them could lead to information monopolies
But does XCancel have the resources of a company like Bright Data, that's funded and used by companies like Deloitte and Moodys?
Notice it says "terms of service or copyright". If X's lawyers have any intelligence, they'll have a reason why XCancel is not identical to Bright Data. Perhaps this time, instead of claiming it's a copyright violation, they'll claim it's wire fraud because multiple accounts are used.
If the name Bright Data is ringing a bell to anyone, it’s probably because they are a (the?) primary offender running the LG TV “residential proxy” (botnet)
Which, btw, was the least bad thing about those TVs. I support residential proxying as a means to liberate public data that's being held captive by people like Elon.
Anyone can make an account, though, and instantly access that content, so Elon doesn't really have any leg to stand on by claiming they're private. It's not the same as Cambridge Analytica scraping stuff you had to have certain privileges to see by tricking the system into granting those privileges.
Elon unfortunately may have a leg to stand on, because it doesn't functionally matter whether "anyone can make an account and see it". I don't believe any legal ruling to date has been fine with that distinction.
But if they ban the nitter operator surely you can't just bypass that ban legally by making a new X account. That there are bans and the operator has to bypass bans by pretending to be a new person I think that this makes it different.
It's like a club that checks ids to ban people. I wouldn't call that club open to the general public.
It depends what you mean by "not allowed". Breaking ToS isn't a crime, but you might be sued for damages, but how can they show there were any damages?
Tall order. The main Nitter instances were using tens of thousands of accounts to evade detection, IIRC. Adding money to the mix creates more legal liability and a paper trail towards people who can be sued.
It's much easier if thousands of people set up their own Nitter instances.
scraping content is mostly legal, redistributing content is not.
if you started doing the same to, say, instagram content both meta and individual creators would sue you as well.
sites like archive.ph are in a similar bucket btw, and yet nobody's complaining (except websites seeing people evading their paywall). but at the end of the day it's not really fair to apply laws differentially on the basis of whose political ideas we like more.
Meta has no exclusive rights to the content on Instagram, and X has no exclusive rights to the content on X. They have a non-exclusive license to republish it, etc.
It's not that cut and dry or else search engines wouldn't be legal. It depends on how much is used, for what context, etc. This very well may wind up being fair use.
This may be a situation where revealing a solution may end up harming it. For those who use iOS and other Apple OSes, I learned of this recently released free Safari extension called Litterbox that allows looking at one post on x.com.
Yes, you want a space only for those who think the same as Elon Musk, with his thumb being pressed down on the algorithm which you have no choice but to use.
On Bluesky/ATProto, I am free to chose my own algorithm or my own client software and affiliate with the people I want to. My data is always my own because I can host it on my own PDS. On Mastodon, I have similar freedoms, and you can opt into bridging ATProto with ActivityPub through Bridgy Fed. I like the freedom of the open web, but I guess not everybody thinks the same as me.
Xcancel allows HN users and adjacent to swear that they have left Twitter because it has nothing to offer them because its all shit, but still consume Twitter content because every other similar platform really sucks and is boring and has no content
The hatred and jealousy for Musk is so great in this platform, that the comment section becomes a cesspool of contempt.
They all secretly want to use X because it’s very convenient to consume news and other form of content. But they refuse to make an account because of their pettiness. So they rather use third party websites.
Making an X account would take 2 minutes. But they rather just write a hate comment on HN every opportunity they can.
It just feels like every social media site is login-walling public posts. I can't think of a major social media site (reddit, Instagram, FB, Twitter, etc) that doesn't do this to varying degrees. I can only think of minor sites (bluesky, truth social, etc) that allow access.
It's not that they can't. They don't want to. The reasons it is unusable are the things that make them so much money. If they made a usable one they'd lose even more money.
IMO, if you hate Elon so much, you shouldn't be visiting his website.
You look very odd and silly if you still want to engage with it and just use a different UI layer (i.e., "XCancel", "Nitter".)
If they want you to have an account to read the post and you want to read the post, create an account, log in, and move on. If you don't want to do that, nobody is forcing you to view a public website. There's alternatives like "Bluesky" out there that might be good for you.
I don't want to be tracked by x.com, but still want to be able to read links people send me to tweets. It's pretty reductive to say that people are using it because they "hate Elon so much," or even that they "want to engage with it.'
Is engaging with the site just reading its content, not liking or retweeting? Sometimes I just want to read a tweet thread that was sent to me without ditractions in a straightforward UI.
We should update our laws to broaden fair use in order to support this type of copying. If you
1. do not charge anything
2. the original publisher did not charge anything
3. Your presentation is less user-hostile in the sense of reduced TOS, easier sign up, cleaner visual presentation, etc
Then you should be able to repro it and cannot be sued for copyright infringement.
I always use xcancel instead of X. I don't have a twitter account and I don't want to sign in. I just occasionally want to read what some people had to say about something. Even this is usually a mistake. It's probably better taken as entertainment.
My point is: companies stop making your product suck, and people won't have a reason to try and fix it for you.
The problem companies have is that "doesn't suck" generally means "it's free with no ads".
The internet has this innate expectation that everything digital be totally free and have no form of tracking or ads, or if it does have ads/tracking, that you are trivially capable of blocking them while still totally enjoying the service/product.
xcancel, archive, whatever are all tools almost solely meant to access monetized content without having to contribute to the monetize part. Then those companies are told they "suck" when they don't like it.
Most importantly, the competitors that the internet endlessly cries for to show up to dethrone these giants, see what is going on and say "lol, nope".
> The internet has this innate expectation that everything digital be totally free and have no form of tracking or ads
I don't think we always need to broaden this out to industry wide levels. We can talk about things specifically. In this case, X/Twitter has put a login wall in front of posts to boost signups. It never used to. That's a meaningful difference that people seek alternatives to.
Sure, it definitely didn't happen in the wake of its new owner feeling like it in one of his first major changes to the platform because of his "concerns" with bot traffic.
Luckily, he won that fight, and nowadays nobody thinks of bots when thinking of X, The Everything App.
Your comment seems to implicitly assume that X has some ethical claim to the content they're monetizing, when in fact they're trying to monetize _others'_ content.
It's trivially easy to spin up a website and host your own content. Especially today with LLMs to handhold even the most tech illiterate person through it.
I'd imagine you are totally confused why they don't do this. If you aren't confused why, well then you have your answer for why X has a right to monetize it.
I'm not disputing that X has a legal right to monetize the content, but I am not remotely convinced that (1) X has the _exclusive_ legal right to monetize the content (content creators add no value and thus have no right to the content, which seems obviously absurd) (2) X has the exclusive legal right to prevent others from distributing the content for free or (3) your "network-effects-derived moats justify a legal right to monetize content".
You seem to be depending on a whole lot of assumptions to get to your "XCancel/Nitter/etc shouldn't be allowed to exist" conclusion.
> The problem companies have is that "doesn't suck" generally means "it's free with no ads".
I feel like way too many people forget that there was a great middle ground for the longest time, in the form of Google AdWords. Text only, no animations, flash, iframes serving malware, or any of the other bullshit that had already taken over banner ad networks like Doubleclick at the time. I recall at the time one of the early adblock plugins even had the ability to allowlist AdWords while still blocking the shitware providers with the intent of encouraging the use of "good" ad networks instead of the bad ones.
It's a perfectly sustainable business model, it just requires people who actually care about not being annoying more than they care about maximizing profits, and at some point Google lost those people.
That's pretty much the general problem with our society as a whole, when given the choice between "profitable and sustainable" or "profitable and high quality" versus "more profitable now but will cause problems in a few years" the incentives of capitalism are all in favor of getting all the profits now and getting out before the consequences catch up.
It's usury that's the root of this evil. Always has been. Whether it's private equity or public shareholders, when you have someone getting more and more money for simply putting in money then that value has to be extracted from somewhere.
>everything digital be totally free and have no form of tracking or ads,
that's not a realistic expectation for everything but it's completely realistic for text based short form communication given how affordable it is to run. That's why there's ad and tracking free alternatives to twitter already.
the competitors don't say "lol nope" they'd gladly take the users, it's the latter who stay on twitter like lambs running to the slaughter
Personally I have no problem with ads if they're based on the content. But your post inadvertantly sums the problem: tracking and ads have become inseparable. If you talk about removing tracking, people come out of the woodwork and say how ads are critical for the business model.
There was a time where ads were based on the thing you were looking at, and assumptions around your demographics and intentions. It actually worked though returns were lower. (Which makes sense since the psychological warfare was limited to what advertisers thought they knew about the viewer. )
Now, though, if you want to block tracking you're a freeloader, siphoning off resources that other people pay for. And since targeted ads are so (relatively) effective, there is no discussion of separation.
So many people tend to forget what made the internet great.
>The internet has this innate expectation that everything digital be totally free and have no form of tracking or ads
Roger.
I guess you had to be there, either that or have above-average powers of observation, but That's. The. Foundation. Of. The. Internet.
And that's how "doesn't suck" has always been defined, except for people who are just trying to make shit up that is quite a bit removed from reality. Now I've accepted ads when I feel like it although lots of times I prefer none, regardless commercial websites have always been less worthwhile than non-commercial, it's not like there's any question. This was settled way before the 1990s were over.
I know perfection can not be achieved and I settle for less as much as anybody, plus "absolutely doesn't suck" may not be reached either but it is not a movable goalpost, more like a brick wall where the closer you get the better. If you are willing and able you might be able to do an outstanding job. Otherwise you're going to end up some distance away on the spectrum of "sucks more than it should."
You were always already paying plenty to your ISP, and last time I checked you still are.
Anything less has always been less than the whole internet you were paying for.
The lip-biting nazi ceo is someone who I want absolutely no association with. And that includes "free" accounts on Shitter, their swasticars, his sky-destroying starlink and all of their space garbage, and more.
Knowingly associating with nazies makes you one as well. Oh, sorry, ROMAN SALUTE. <SPIT>
The decision to force you to sign in to view replies is clearly not by accident or ineptitude. It's probably not malice either - just a business decision.
If I have something you want and I could give it to you but instead charge you money, is that malice? If so, what system wouldn't make malice indistinguishable from business decisions? If not, what distinguishes that from a login wall in exchange for viewing content?
It's pretty much the standard to either soft-block or hard- block access into silos. Facebook, Reddit, YouTube, Instagram, Tiktok, etc ... all do it. Of course it's an openly anti-consumer practice, but it's one they get away with when they're big enough to flip the service burden to the client.
how is it anti-consumer? Claiming you should be able to freely access the content on some service feels like claiming you should be able to walk into any fast-food place and help yourself to their soda machine.
A business is free to choose that you must login to access their content and you are free to choose not to do business with them if you don't like it. I generally chose the latter
You’re absolutely right. I can just choose to not participate. If I’m lucky enough, enough people realize that they have the agency to not give into this, but if they don’t it doesn’t affect me at all.
Either way, I don’t care. The Internet has become so hostile to users that the only moral and rational choice is to not participate on platforms that have become so hostile that threatening legal action is the only way that they can protect their relevancy in facilitating social discourse.
Your analogy does not work since they can still show ads to logged-out users, nobody is getting anything for free. Meta even creates shadow-profiles of users without accounts to track them across the internet.
It's all about getting people locked into walled gardens. I wish the EU DMA had taken a harder stance on this and required all social media to federate to some extent.
I'm not sure what Twitter's specific reasons are, but AFAIK the general trend of login-walling services over the past few years has happened due to a court decision saying that it's legal to scrape publicly available data ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HiQ_Labs_v._LinkedIn ). If they gate content behind a login wall and put a clause in the EULA forbidding scraping, this lets them use the CFAA to go after anybody who still scrapes the site.
My biggest pet peeve is when people on sites like HN assume software should be tailor made for their objectives and not the company's objectives.
Sometimes the objectives align, but not always. And yes, the world would be a better place if they were better aligned, but we don't live in that world.
I'm sure X's motivation is something along the lines of forcing logins creates more users, or the downside of scraping outweighs the benefits.
I don't really understand this comment. The simplest way to put pressure on companies to align with their user's objectives is to complain loudly. It's not that HN "assumes" anything, it's just that people call shitty things as they are, in the hope that if enough people agree, it'll create enough pressure for the company to change course.
Will it work? Probably not. But not even trying would be self-defeating.
I don't think it's effective though because you're not actually addressing the reality on the ground. To pursuade someone you need to start with their assumptions.
If your argument doesn't even seem aware of them, then they won't listen.
I guess you could say "who cares, X is evil anyway, might as well try" but it just seems ineffective and frankly a little naive.
On the other hand, it is fair to be upset when the objectives seemingly used to align and you had put significant work into creating content for the company as well as providing bootstrapping network effects only to have them change the software against your previously aligned objectives.
One of the problems is that many companies motives are so incredibly misaligned with society at large.
Google, Facebook, X are all explicitly designed to be addictive and provide as little value as possible. Because they want to give everything away for free in a way that keeps you on the site to maximise scraping your data so they can screw you over more later.
They are not even aligned at the most basic level. Everyone needs to stop using it. Or at least circumvent their measures.
This is the same as being mad at sports fans for complaining about the owners. No one would be anywhere near twitter, especially since it got covered in Elon’s ketamine cologne, if not for the users. Thinking the corporation profiting from those users should be free to change the deal on a whim is not a good look.
A company can make their produce suck, on purpose (out of malice), because it fits their bottom line better (at least, in the short term) vs. a better UX.
OP may simply be asking companies to put their customers ahead of their (short-term) profit.
Reddit is another great example of this, where users have been looking for workarounds to their (increasingly more) hostile login wall since they started pressuring people to use their app for years.
You want to read what service XYZ offers, but you dont want to do it within the constraints of service XYZ.
If you dont want to follow the constraints of service XYZ, you dont have to consume its content.
The market would dictate that if X content consumers found it too inconvenient to consume from X and that would result in a significant drop in demand, the X content producers would stop producing their content on X.
I dont like many things about X -- random ads, bookmark folders being a paid feature, enshittification of the algorithm if you god forbid linger over some controversial video or content.
But i keep coming back to it because its the best way to follow the minds of brilliant techies. The basic sign up flow that i did years ago was basically a no-op.
I suspect that for most people, creating an account is basically a few button clicks (thanks OAuth) and they dont mind creating an account.
Last time I tried creating a Twitter account, I couldn't even complete the sign-up flow before getting automatically banned pending giving them my phone number. Giving them my phone number to unban my account, I went to like and follow things. My account was then banned again for suspicious activity.
> If you dont want to follow the constraints of service XYZ, you dont have to consume its content.
I am 100% okay with this. I don't want what Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook offer, so I no longer have an account these platforms. But I do have an account with my local electric utility. It's my only option. And if I want to find information about an outage, it's posted on their Facebook page. I'm 0% okay with this.
That's the issue though, it's not Twitter's "content" and I'm not trying to "consume" it. I want to be able to read and see what others including public official and primary sources for ongoing events have to say. That they are on twitter is coincidental and generally only because Twitter has captured the "public square". That doesn't make what's posted on there theirs anymore than the postal service owns the letters you send.
I won't read anything on twitter as it currently stands, because the product sucks. The "fixed" functionality provided by xCancel is what makes it worth it for me to read. So, if you want me as a customer, you need to provide similar functionality.
Not all customers are as particular as I am, therefore a shitty product continues to thrive, and I can go do other things.
I hate when companies do this. Instagram is a black box for me. Whenever someone sends me a link the web app is completely nonfunctional; clicking links just reload the page, it constantly tries opening the app, etc
The last time I signed up for an Instagram account (2016) it got immediately flagged as a bot account. I think I was supposed to appeal it to have it reinstanted, but why bother if this is how badly they treat users?
Can you imagine going to work as Instagram's web developer, spending your day finding new ways that the app accidentally works and disabling them?
I know there are like 5 trillion Instagram viewers. But I've never actually needed to use any of them because there is absolutely nothing so important on Instagram that I must see it. The entire site is optional.
What!? It's the entire, singular purpose and meaning of life for millions of people to make themselves look glamorous on Instagram, and you say it's optional?! /s
My kids school puts some information that I need to see (not just "would like to see") on Instagram. Same with the sports team they play for.
I've complained to both about it but change is glacial. I'm lucky in that I know how to work around it, and I do my best to keep others who aren't so tech savvy updated about things they need to know but may have missed.
Irony is they moved most of this info from Twitter/X to Instagram.
I'm sorry that I keep posting this but it gets said often enough that I'm just going to hopefully kill it permanently
People say repeatedly Instagram was a 'great acquisition' (it was. It destroyed Facebook's competition. Great for them, not for users). That Zuckerberg bought it when it was 'barely a company'. That it's somehow not antitrust (Zuckerberg in emails: "Instagram can hurt us"). People loved Instagram. Not anymore, not for a long time. Stop giving him the benefit of the doubt
I would listen to every single episode of a podcast that could get the real skinny, not the sanitized feel-good post-facto rationalization, from founders who had a legitimate shot at being a major player in an industry but chose to sell out during their meteoric rise.
There are messages, by the way. I'm paraphrasing, but it's something like "So, Mark messaged me saying he thinks it would be a good idea if he bought Instagram, what if I tell him no" "He'll go into destroy mode" "What if I <something I forget>" "Then he'll go further into destroy mode"
But of course you can't tell the public this, Zuck's reputation in the Valley. So it indeed becomes the feel-good story about Our Beautiful Journey
Maybe if we had some sort of non-profit corporation with a mission to ensure universal access to non-commercial, high-quality educational, cultural, and other content and telecommunications services.
Perhaps something like that could be expanded upon and utilized for government communication to the public?
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not, but it's worth pointing out that most businesses outside of tech don't operate a "build a monopoly then bleed it dry" model, and are a lot nicer for it, while still making money.
Shops, cinemas, B2B consultancies etc generally make money by selling something people want.
(I do get that tech VC doesn't work under this principle and it's not simpld to just change a sectors funding model, but it is worth pointing out that making money does not normally equal making a bad product)
> Shops, cinemas, B2B consultancies etc generally make money by selling something people want.
There are plenty of dark patterns and enshittification in all of these as well. Tech is just way ahead of the curve but the rest isn't innocent either.
Companies also have to stay within the bounds determined by the rest of our society. For example just dumping your waste in the next river is more profitable than disposing it responsibly but its bad for everyone so we don't let companies do that.
^ this and the entire drama is just an ad campaign to make the rebranding stick. what is really going to work is to keep calling it Twitter, as it identifies itself, and slowly move over the scene to Bluesky/Mastodon.
What demoralize them the most is to show whoever pays for it doesn't matter.
> My point is: companies stop making your product suck, and people won't have a reason to try and fix it for you.
Boy this would be nice! X have obviously decided that using the law to take down people fixing its issues is more profitable than fixing them. I'm really curious though, are they right? (Ignoring ethics etc)
I used to glance at Twitter when it was less hostile, now I don't bother since it tries to force you to sign in before viewing content and I don't have an account. But now my interaction is 0, nothing is going to get me to make an account. If other people are like me, X will just continue to lose users without gaining any. Which the limited available data on use suggest is in fact happening.
Well, if one of the big social media platforms is now a far-right playground, that changes the political landscape.
Elon Musk is using twitter to create a global far-right platform that right-wing politicians can use to experiment with talking points before watering them down and bringing them to the public.
I'm sorry, the purpose was to underline that catering to the far-right and providing them with a space try out messaging is not a very hidden aspect of X.
Yep precisely it. Worth it to control the narrative, even if it's for his own vanity. When you have that much money what else do you spend it on. X is a toy.
Well, Twitter/X is also a service with very large network effects. So many people I knew at some level tuned out that it became a very optional thing to glance at--and none of the replacements really took off in my estimation. The bottom line is that I just stopped using that whole category of social media.
Reddit seems to have reversed course with making users sign in as well (or my adblock has updated and removed the forced login modal or something.) but my thought was simply: "Well, I guess I just won't view Reddit content anymore, big whoop."
> "Reddit seems to have reversed course with making users sign in as well (or my adblock has updated and removed the forced login modal or something.)"
I don't know if Reddit are doing it less now or not, but it's worth noting that it's always been somewhat hit and miss.
I suspect a mix of very data-driven testing (to try to show it to people who will login, and not show it to those who'll just bounce), and technical debt confusing things. But often it will vary not only from one person to another, but even for the same person between two different web browsers, or connected through two different IPs, or whatever.
Last week I was getting hit with the login requirement constantly, not at first but after scrolling a little bit or clicking on a link. This week, haven't seen that once.
There's the dichotomy of the walled garden, how to minimize scraping/bots/inauthentic amplification etc. Is a town square a town square if you can't hear what's going on from the public lawn on the edge of the square? I feel like HN does a better job, and the ecosystem of external views, LLM/human summary, HN search etc. Is quite exciting! but the scale between the two is one factor and the moderation we accept here also comes with a constraint on topics discussed and restrictions on speech (tradeoffs that I feel are worth it in our context here) So worlds apart and yet adjacent!
I don't have any data to back this up, but it feels like X may be growing again. I don't post, but I do have an account for reading things on there and a few years ago I was never visiting. Now it seems like I'm going there a few times a month.
Wow, I just find out about a service that would allow me to read the occasional post on X just in time to see that the service has been suspended. I have a total embargo for that platform otherwise due to the severe and total enshitification.
I do take your point, that someone against using twitter for training data in AI who then uses a service that might be violating copyright seems hypocritical. But first of all, the people voicing these opinions may not be the same person, despite commenting on the same website.
But more directly addressing your point, I do think you could easily find a consistent moral stance that thinks taking tweets to train AI is worse than republishing those same tweets on a website. An argument can be made that the person writing those tweets wants to be heard, so republishing the tweet is in line with (your best guess of) what they want. Whereas consumption of the tweet for AI training is less likely to be consistent with the wants of the original author.
That's the type of moral stance which doesn't encode well into reality. I don't even agree with it, but it is surely consistent enough from your end. The real issue is that it crosses so many practical legal boundaries, mainly around intent that it will never survive as representative of your actual morals—through the grinder that is the modern legal system.
Suggestion: Every time someone uses nitter, the post in question is copied over to Mastodon and subsequent accesses just redirect to the copied post. That way you can interact with the copy on Mastodon.
Just by googling "twitter api" I am able to find an "unofficial API" (scraped, obviously), that gives you access to tweets for around $0.15/1k tweets. Which is expensive if you want to, let's say, train a model, but super cheap for a casual user.
A nice UI around such API probably can be one-shotted with modern LLM-coding models and tools.
Or, you can go the hard way and vibecode something around buying twitter accounts (just several bucks per each) and proxies.
What I'm trying to say, that with modern tools it is incredibly easy to bypass the restrictions on reading twitter without an account, even if they manage to take down all the nitter instances, try to make finding nitter source code harder etc.
You can scrape twitter pretty easily yourself with an account (lots of free code on github) but that's the thing - you need an account which is legally complicated but for your own personal use you can just create a dummy account and you'll never be blocked.
Well that wouldn't be instantly but either of those can be added with almost no real costs at personal-use scale. Throw away phone number for x.com registration is <0.25$. You can bypass all anti-bot and manage your account pool with https://github.com/CloakHQ/CloakBrowser-Manager and mobile IP hotspot. x.com is so heavily botted that your personal 1,000 scrapes per day will not even trigger any alarms.
it's going to be a cat and mouse game for as long as X can legally afford to keep it going (i.e. til the heat death of the universe)
regardless, no matter how hard elon turns the screws on their customers, people will continue to use twitter/X because "that's where everyone is" and places like HN will continue to allow these links because "that's where the news is" despite healthier alternatives like the Mastodon network and Bluesky existing.
whatever. i've redirected x to 0.0.0.0 when the first warning shot was fired and called it a day. rocks are looking like a great place to live under right about now.
311 comments
[ 4.7 ms ] story [ 224 ms ] threadI wish legal didn't exist for this and X stop attacking projects that provide information for free.
No they didn't, or you'd see the text "Repository unavailable due to DMCA takedown." and wouldn't have access to the repo at all. Instead you have full access to it, its author having merely archived it out of caution.
No reference to nitter in https://github.com/github/dmca/
Here is what the "free speech" platform have censored previously on GitHub:
> X Corp. employs various technical protection measures to control access to its copyrighted works, including those at issue here (API schemas and platform content): e.g., official X Corp. API key/OAuth authentication, rate-limiting mechanisms, proprietary behavioral pattern detection, TLS fingerprint validation, and x-clienttransaction-id checks. The repository referenced above appears specifically designed to circumvent these measures using browser cookies, curl_cffi TLS impersonation, fake headers, request jitter, and reverse-engineered GraphQL queries.
https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/b2c88bad7dd771dc7d1842ff...
Even if you fill out all the credentials needed, the app can't login to get the content.
So it's basically a kill switch that X implemented, and every other instance was shut down at the same time.
Consider running your own to spread out the HN/Slashdot effect.
It's been discussed before:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49571634 ("Nitter has more working instances than before the takedowns")
*if you log in to an account
A big reason many people use Nitter instances is that X has become very locked down for unauthenticated users.
If it's public, people can link to it and promote the site. If it's not, then either info there doesn't get free publicity or people just screenshot the tweets instead.
There needs to be a free, non-ad, non-login environment people can use to access this information posted by public entities.
This comment also applies to facebook too, which I think is even worse than twitter.
RSS.
https://github.com/zedeus/nitter
UPDATE: Following legal advice, the Nitter project will continue. More details will be announced soon.
It's impossible to know what this "legal advice" was, but the software project itself is probably fine. The legal risk is always going to be with the person that hosts it with the intention of facilitating the unauthorized access of Twitter's website. Seems like that could run afoul of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
Those people should seek their own legal advice.
Meanwhile it's OK for OpenAI, Anthropic and Meta to hack companies all willy-nilly. Mad world!
They probably don't want their echo chamber leaking to the wider internet, because external discussion of the content would reveal it for the siloed thought bubble that it is.
Consider X now requires personal information to sign up, and after handing that info over, signups are often still rejected with no explanation given. Yet another tell they're very interested in maintaining that echo chamber.
That's pretty odd. When I google this, there are claims that this is to prevent spam accounts. Obviously, if you choose not to take them at their word, one can read all sorts of odd reasons into it.
Considering who owns it, it'd be weird if they didn't want a carefully curated echo chamber of sanitized thought.
Elon Musk declares ‘cis’ and ‘cisgender’ will be considered slurs on Twitter that can be punishable with suspension
https://fortune.com/2023/06/21/elon-musk-declares-cis-cisgen...
There are tons and tons of people using the term. All the time. Last result was 11 seconds ago (as of posting this).
Slurs aren't allowed on most platforms.
They're simply doing this to boost engagement and break scrapers.
In short, Twitter was actively pushing me into an echo chamber, even when my follows were diverse. Bluesky, Truth Social or Reddit are users that usually want to be in that echo chamber. At least bans are very notorious there, and not shadowbans/algorithm silencing while Elon says "I am a free speech absolutist".
[citation needed] - an echo chamber you agree with is still an echo chamber.
Bluesky: "8% of the links were to right-leaning websites" https://labhorizons.co.uk/2025/02/new-study-highlights-blues...
Reddit: "There is a strong Pro-Left/Anti-Right bias to the top 100 posts of Reddit with 112x more posts (99.1%) favoring the American Left Wing compared to the Right" https://rsisinternational.org/journals/ijriss/articles/reddi...
TruthSocial: do I really need to pull that up?
Speaking only for myself, well, no. If Elon doesn't want non-users to be able to read tweets then that's simply one section of the internet I'm swearing off. I'll get my news from actual news sites and I have plenty of hot takes on my own to last me this life and the next.
They won't, that's why dealerships don't give away free cars but it's still a market.
That is directly the result of the evil pull of advertising. "Logged in" users are more valuable than "non-logged in" users to advertisers (because logged in ones are identified) and so what you are seeing as "nagging" is Shitter (formerly X, formerly Twitter) desperately trying to increase its ad revenue at your expense. You are watching enshittification right before your eyes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enshittification
The internet used to be treated as a public service.
It is all about capturing the platform to change the conversation around 2024 US presidential election cycle and US politics.
It’s effectively become a political propaganda machine owned by billionaires
One can only assume Bluesky would go the same way were it to gain significant market share. One can even imagine a particular Mastodon instance going that way, were it to be popular enough and run by profit-minded people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_Files
This type of loophole was (likely) closed after the ruling of Murthy v. Missouri and the "Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship" executive order.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-411_3dq3.pdf
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Order_14149
It’s a private company. Free speech doesn’t mean I’m entitled to use your property to post and amplify my speech.
I also find the context of the whole thing suspect since Trump in his second administration has openly used the FCC and other federal pressures to attack speech he doesn’t like and Musk’s X has not been “free speech absolutist.”
I always thought it was just the far right being mad their side wasn’t in charge, and that when they got in power they would be even worse. That seems vindicated.
The entire point of the case was to determine exactly that. Read the judgement. If it were an open and shut case, it never would have made it to the supreme court.
>and that when they got in power they would be even worse. That seems vindicated
How in the world did you get to that conclusion from Murthy v. Missouri and the "Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship" order?
I'm just saying overall behavior -- outside this specific case -- is not consistent with a regime (or a larger political movement) that believes in free speech. It's consistent with "we want to be the ones in charge determining speech," with opposition to Twitter's previous moderation being motivated by that rather than principled belief in free speech.
The net effect of the Twitter takeover was not to make it a free speech absolutist platform but to shift the pattern of selective boosting and selective de-boosting and moderation to one that favors the far right's message.
Yes, we all know what "free speech" really means and it has nothing to do with X, but when the owner of X conflates what it means, we can mock that SOB for it.
He speaks out both sides of his mouth.
Perhaps that is it in fact. The act of protecting it from scraping means you object. 99% of the blogged contents etc. Big AI helped themselves to was just… there. Public. Not free from copyright but still not paywalled.
Recipes can’t be copyrighted
Here’s one discussion about this https://www.nycbar.org/reports/secret-ingredients-how-to-pro...
I suspect Nitter's first round with lawyers pointed out that scraping is legal, but now they have been threatened with something else than scraping - Elon claims something else the way Nitter runs is illegal, such as the use of fake accounts to circumvent an access control device (DMCA 1201).
Obviously ungrounded and frivolous cases tend to be easier to defend asymmetrically, but if I was X's legal team, there's no shortage of semi-plauisble claims I could throw at the wall and see what sticks.
As an example of this imbalance in action, BrightData is a 'gray area' company that basically does this exact kind of scraping. They have somehow won against Meta Platforms suing them, and even got X's lawsuit against them for scraping -- identical (?) activity to XCancel -- dismissed.
According to Wikipedia:
> In May 2024, a federal judge dismissed the suit, ruling that Bright Data did not violate X's terms of service or copyright by scraping publicly accessible data.[24] The judge emphasized that such scraping practices are generally legal and that restricting them could lead to information monopolies
But does XCancel have the resources of a company like Bright Data, that's funded and used by companies like Deloitte and Moodys?
Isn't Nitter abusing account sign-in for this?
It's like a club that checks ids to ban people. I wouldn't call that club open to the general public.
See hiQ Labs vs. LinkedIn. hiQ was scraping LinkedIn using accounts, and they were found to be in breach of LinkedIn's terms.
1) Nitter offers a deal: download our browser extension, sign up for Twitter, and we'll give you some kind of perk (Amazon credits, whatever).
2) Browser extension surfs Twitter on the user's behalf, scraping and sending copies to Nitter.
3) We find out how serious the legal system is about legalizing scraping.
It's much easier if thousands of people set up their own Nitter instances.
if you started doing the same to, say, instagram content both meta and individual creators would sue you as well.
sites like archive.ph are in a similar bucket btw, and yet nobody's complaining (except websites seeing people evading their paywall). but at the end of the day it's not really fair to apply laws differentially on the basis of whose political ideas we like more.
So, I take it some Twitter users took an issue with their tweets being redistributed by another platform and sued XCancel?
Because surely you're not claiming that Twitter has any ownership of what gets posted on that platform, are you?
>if you started doing the same to, say, instagram content both meta and individual creators would sue you as well.
By that logic, Meta could sue me for posting my photos on other platforms.
Meta doesn't have a case here, and neither does Twitter, but something tells me Twitter is involved in this nevertheless.
[1]: https://andadinosaur.com/launch-litterbox
- bluesky - mastodon
Why does anybody (that’s not some right wing, white Christian nationalist nut job) still use twitter?
Because not everybody thinks the same as you?
People are entitled to their own opinions, just because you think something is wrong doesnt make it objectively wrong.
On Bluesky/ATProto, I am free to chose my own algorithm or my own client software and affiliate with the people I want to. My data is always my own because I can host it on my own PDS. On Mastodon, I have similar freedoms, and you can opt into bridging ATProto with ActivityPub through Bridgy Fed. I like the freedom of the open web, but I guess not everybody thinks the same as me.
Either you cancel X. Meaning: NOT consuming X content.
Or you just visit X.com.
Right? Right?
Xcancel allows HN users and adjacent to swear that they have left Twitter because it has nothing to offer them because its all shit, but still consume Twitter content because every other similar platform really sucks and is boring and has no content
They all secretly want to use X because it’s very convenient to consume news and other form of content. But they refuse to make an account because of their pettiness. So they rather use third party websites.
Making an X account would take 2 minutes. But they rather just write a hate comment on HN every opportunity they can.
^1: Concept of Acronyms
Oh no! How awful! So terrible! People who produce nothing of value might earn slightly less!
Moving on to more pressing matters...
It feels like an end of an era.
But at least reddit still has lots of nitter-style mirrors as an alternative.
Bluesky is here anyway.
Hell, you’re arguably on a Twitter alternative right now.
Despicable behavior.
You look very odd and silly if you still want to engage with it and just use a different UI layer (i.e., "XCancel", "Nitter".)
If they want you to have an account to read the post and you want to read the post, create an account, log in, and move on. If you don't want to do that, nobody is forcing you to view a public website. There's alternatives like "Bluesky" out there that might be good for you.
Why? The site still hosts plenty of content worth seeing. Is it really so silly to do it via a better UI, or to not want an account?
1. do not charge anything 2. the original publisher did not charge anything 3. Your presentation is less user-hostile in the sense of reduced TOS, easier sign up, cleaner visual presentation, etc
Then you should be able to repro it and cannot be sued for copyright infringement.
I always use xcancel instead of X. I don't have a twitter account and I don't want to sign in. I just occasionally want to read what some people had to say about something. Even this is usually a mistake. It's probably better taken as entertainment.
My point is: companies stop making your product suck, and people won't have a reason to try and fix it for you.
The internet has this innate expectation that everything digital be totally free and have no form of tracking or ads, or if it does have ads/tracking, that you are trivially capable of blocking them while still totally enjoying the service/product.
xcancel, archive, whatever are all tools almost solely meant to access monetized content without having to contribute to the monetize part. Then those companies are told they "suck" when they don't like it.
Most importantly, the competitors that the internet endlessly cries for to show up to dethrone these giants, see what is going on and say "lol, nope".
I don't think we always need to broaden this out to industry wide levels. We can talk about things specifically. In this case, X/Twitter has put a login wall in front of posts to boost signups. It never used to. That's a meaningful difference that people seek alternatives to.
Luckily, he won that fight, and nowadays nobody thinks of bots when thinking of X, The Everything App.
I'd imagine you are totally confused why they don't do this. If you aren't confused why, well then you have your answer for why X has a right to monetize it.
You seem to be depending on a whole lot of assumptions to get to your "XCancel/Nitter/etc shouldn't be allowed to exist" conclusion.
I feel like way too many people forget that there was a great middle ground for the longest time, in the form of Google AdWords. Text only, no animations, flash, iframes serving malware, or any of the other bullshit that had already taken over banner ad networks like Doubleclick at the time. I recall at the time one of the early adblock plugins even had the ability to allowlist AdWords while still blocking the shitware providers with the intent of encouraging the use of "good" ad networks instead of the bad ones.
It's a perfectly sustainable business model, it just requires people who actually care about not being annoying more than they care about maximizing profits, and at some point Google lost those people.
That's pretty much the general problem with our society as a whole, when given the choice between "profitable and sustainable" or "profitable and high quality" versus "more profitable now but will cause problems in a few years" the incentives of capitalism are all in favor of getting all the profits now and getting out before the consequences catch up.
that's not a realistic expectation for everything but it's completely realistic for text based short form communication given how affordable it is to run. That's why there's ad and tracking free alternatives to twitter already.
the competitors don't say "lol nope" they'd gladly take the users, it's the latter who stay on twitter like lambs running to the slaughter
Facebook? Same.
Xitter? Same.
Youtube? Enshittified beyond measure.
Google? Unusable.
So tell me. Where are these great amazing services supported by ads?
There was a time where ads were based on the thing you were looking at, and assumptions around your demographics and intentions. It actually worked though returns were lower. (Which makes sense since the psychological warfare was limited to what advertisers thought they knew about the viewer. )
Now, though, if you want to block tracking you're a freeloader, siphoning off resources that other people pay for. And since targeted ads are so (relatively) effective, there is no discussion of separation.
>The internet has this innate expectation that everything digital be totally free and have no form of tracking or ads
Roger.
I guess you had to be there, either that or have above-average powers of observation, but That's. The. Foundation. Of. The. Internet.
And that's how "doesn't suck" has always been defined, except for people who are just trying to make shit up that is quite a bit removed from reality. Now I've accepted ads when I feel like it although lots of times I prefer none, regardless commercial websites have always been less worthwhile than non-commercial, it's not like there's any question. This was settled way before the 1990s were over.
I know perfection can not be achieved and I settle for less as much as anybody, plus "absolutely doesn't suck" may not be reached either but it is not a movable goalpost, more like a brick wall where the closer you get the better. If you are willing and able you might be able to do an outstanding job. Otherwise you're going to end up some distance away on the spectrum of "sucks more than it should."
You were always already paying plenty to your ISP, and last time I checked you still are.
Anything less has always been less than the whole internet you were paying for.
The math is not that hard :\
That assumes the company's behavior is rooted in ineptitude rather than malice, which is too generous at this point.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49695912
Knowingly associating with nazies makes you one as well. Oh, sorry, ROMAN SALUTE. <SPIT>
A business is free to choose that you must login to access their content and you are free to choose not to do business with them if you don't like it. I generally chose the latter
Either way, I don’t care. The Internet has become so hostile to users that the only moral and rational choice is to not participate on platforms that have become so hostile that threatening legal action is the only way that they can protect their relevancy in facilitating social discourse.
It's all about getting people locked into walled gardens. I wish the EU DMA had taken a harder stance on this and required all social media to federate to some extent.
as I recall it was the large number of bot accounts not scraping but commenting.
Sometimes the objectives align, but not always. And yes, the world would be a better place if they were better aligned, but we don't live in that world.
I'm sure X's motivation is something along the lines of forcing logins creates more users, or the downside of scraping outweighs the benefits.
Will it work? Probably not. But not even trying would be self-defeating.
If your argument doesn't even seem aware of them, then they won't listen.
I guess you could say "who cares, X is evil anyway, might as well try" but it just seems ineffective and frankly a little naive.
Google, Facebook, X are all explicitly designed to be addictive and provide as little value as possible. Because they want to give everything away for free in a way that keeps you on the site to maximise scraping your data so they can screw you over more later.
They are not even aligned at the most basic level. Everyone needs to stop using it. Or at least circumvent their measures.
A company can make their produce suck, on purpose (out of malice), because it fits their bottom line better (at least, in the short term) vs. a better UX.
OP may simply be asking companies to put their customers ahead of their (short-term) profit.
Reddit is another great example of this, where users have been looking for workarounds to their (increasingly more) hostile login wall since they started pressuring people to use their app for years.
For Chrome: https://github.com/tsvb/post-peek
For Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/dumpster-fire...
For Safari: https://andadinosaur.com/launch-litterbox
This add-on violates Mozilla's add-on policies by collecting user data without disclosure, consent or control and executing remote code
If you dont want to follow the constraints of service XYZ, you dont have to consume its content.
The market would dictate that if X content consumers found it too inconvenient to consume from X and that would result in a significant drop in demand, the X content producers would stop producing their content on X.
I dont like many things about X -- random ads, bookmark folders being a paid feature, enshittification of the algorithm if you god forbid linger over some controversial video or content.
But i keep coming back to it because its the best way to follow the minds of brilliant techies. The basic sign up flow that i did years ago was basically a no-op.
I suspect that for most people, creating an account is basically a few button clicks (thanks OAuth) and they dont mind creating an account.
Most people do not use X.
X usage is down year over year.
The smartest people I know don't post there anymore.
The smartest people i know, i mostly know because of their X presence.
I am 100% okay with this. I don't want what Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook offer, so I no longer have an account these platforms. But I do have an account with my local electric utility. It's my only option. And if I want to find information about an outage, it's posted on their Facebook page. I'm 0% okay with this.
That's the issue though, it's not Twitter's "content" and I'm not trying to "consume" it. I want to be able to read and see what others including public official and primary sources for ongoing events have to say. That they are on twitter is coincidental and generally only because Twitter has captured the "public square". That doesn't make what's posted on there theirs anymore than the postal service owns the letters you send.
Not all customers are as particular as I am, therefore a shitty product continues to thrive, and I can go do other things.
The last time I signed up for an Instagram account (2016) it got immediately flagged as a bot account. I think I was supposed to appeal it to have it reinstanted, but why bother if this is how badly they treat users?
Can you imagine going to work as Instagram's web developer, spending your day finding new ways that the app accidentally works and disabling them?
as for using it without an account, try https://codeberg.org/irelephant/kittygram
So instagram.com/foo becomes Imginn.com/foo
Hope this helps!
My kids school puts some information that I need to see (not just "would like to see") on Instagram. Same with the sports team they play for.
I've complained to both about it but change is glacial. I'm lucky in that I know how to work around it, and I do my best to keep others who aren't so tech savvy updated about things they need to know but may have missed.
Irony is they moved most of this info from Twitter/X to Instagram.
You have to disable all ad-blocking (either extensions or Pi-Hole) in order to make it past that "feature".
People say repeatedly Instagram was a 'great acquisition' (it was. It destroyed Facebook's competition. Great for them, not for users). That Zuckerberg bought it when it was 'barely a company'. That it's somehow not antitrust (Zuckerberg in emails: "Instagram can hurt us"). People loved Instagram. Not anymore, not for a long time. Stop giving him the benefit of the doubt
But of course you can't tell the public this, Zuck's reputation in the Valley. So it indeed becomes the feel-good story about Our Beautiful Journey
It's not like one-way communication is a hard problem. Just post that stuff on a website ffs!
Perhaps something like that could be expanded upon and utilized for government communication to the public?
recently with videos I can't change playback speed. so I have to use xCancel.
before I just used to use Tweetdeck. but that went away or went pro.
What an idealistic nonsense. Companies do anything not for people, but for money. We are not living in a socialist utopia (fortunately!).
Shops, cinemas, B2B consultancies etc generally make money by selling something people want.
(I do get that tech VC doesn't work under this principle and it's not simpld to just change a sectors funding model, but it is worth pointing out that making money does not normally equal making a bad product)
There are plenty of dark patterns and enshittification in all of these as well. Tech is just way ahead of the curve but the rest isn't innocent either.
What demoralize them the most is to show whoever pays for it doesn't matter.
https://thenextweb.com/news/musk-x-twitter-bird-logo-tweet-t...
Boy this would be nice! X have obviously decided that using the law to take down people fixing its issues is more profitable than fixing them. I'm really curious though, are they right? (Ignoring ethics etc)
I used to glance at Twitter when it was less hostile, now I don't bother since it tries to force you to sign in before viewing content and I don't have an account. But now my interaction is 0, nothing is going to get me to make an account. If other people are like me, X will just continue to lose users without gaining any. Which the limited available data on use suggest is in fact happening.
Elon Musk is using twitter to create a global far-right platform that right-wing politicians can use to experiment with talking points before watering them down and bringing them to the public.
So I don't think experimentation is an angle.
Media does report on far-right output on twitter sometimes, but not often. And when they do, it often boosts the message instead.
It's the same mechanism as how Donald Trump originally got elected.
...and at the same time, they are focus-testing extremist messaging.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."
I don't know if Reddit are doing it less now or not, but it's worth noting that it's always been somewhat hit and miss.
I suspect a mix of very data-driven testing (to try to show it to people who will login, and not show it to those who'll just bounce), and technical debt confusing things. But often it will vary not only from one person to another, but even for the same person between two different web browsers, or connected through two different IPs, or whatever.
(I'm not necessarily agreeing with this; after all it's trivial to make an account for an AI company. I'm just saying that's the reasoning behind it)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49576815
Make companies give up power? Never going to happen.
The consistent view is one regarding IP in general - not reverse engineering your morals based on the case.
But more directly addressing your point, I do think you could easily find a consistent moral stance that thinks taking tweets to train AI is worse than republishing those same tweets on a website. An argument can be made that the person writing those tweets wants to be heard, so republishing the tweet is in line with (your best guess of) what they want. Whereas consumption of the tweet for AI training is less likely to be consistent with the wants of the original author.
A nice UI around such API probably can be one-shotted with modern LLM-coding models and tools.
Or, you can go the hard way and vibecode something around buying twitter accounts (just several bucks per each) and proxies.
What I'm trying to say, that with modern tools it is incredibly easy to bypass the restrictions on reading twitter without an account, even if they manage to take down all the nitter instances, try to make finding nitter source code harder etc.
Youll be instantyl blocked, because accounts without Biometric login and Phone numbers get flagged and asked for validation after 36 hours.
regardless, no matter how hard elon turns the screws on their customers, people will continue to use twitter/X because "that's where everyone is" and places like HN will continue to allow these links because "that's where the news is" despite healthier alternatives like the Mastodon network and Bluesky existing.
whatever. i've redirected x to 0.0.0.0 when the first warning shot was fired and called it a day. rocks are looking like a great place to live under right about now.