I agree with the author completely in regard to the low-effort articles simply rehashing Twitter threads. I'm not sure if fair use would even be taken into acco

I agree with the author completely in regard to the low-effort articles simply rehashing Twitter threads. I'm not sure if fair use would even be taken into account in this case, but I feel like this isn't transformative, and it's aiming to provide a replacement product. However, I disagree on thread readers. They provide attribution to the author, so a reader has just as much opportunity to click through to the author's page as they would within the default Twitter client. Yes the thread reader is getting ad revenue from displaying the content, but this isn't really money that the author would have seen anyway. If anything, Twitter is the one getting ripped off, so it's in their interest to improve the native thread reading experience, to capture back that lost revenue. The author says that they're not providing any added value, but I think their value is the improved readability of the thread. Overall I think she's discounting the improved readability that these sites provide. She mostly just mentions that they improve shareability, which for me is a secondary benefit at best.