9 ms·

You don't need to use Twitter's JS to show Tweets. If you choose to use their system, you're subject to their rules. If you don't like their rules, don't use th

• sacrosancty 5y ago
  I think this is a little unexpected though since "you" are still hosting the text of the tweet on your site and publishing it to your visitors but also with a Twitter script that hides it.
  • causi 5y ago
    Doesn't that mean it should be pretty easy to automate converting all your "deleted" embedded Tweets to a local rendering, albeit without the integration back to Twitter?
    • sacrosancty 5y ago
      Probably, but hardly anyone will do that. It's not lost for good, just inconvenienced away.
• hda2 5y ago
  > Twitter is under no obligation to retain this kind of stuff on your behalf. They declared something worked one way then silently changed how that thing works without properly announcing the change first and giving people enough time to adapt. Would you still be willing to make these excuses if your emails provider decided to do the same thing? Even if it's their system, there's a limit where people would rightfully start to object.
  • bennyp101 5y ago
    An email provider (which you most likely pay for - and don't publish on a website) is very different to a social media site (that you don't pay for and want it out in the public) It's a free service that they provide - why can they not change how their system works when they want? People can object whenever they want - but it doesn't change the fact that they don't have any 'rights' to show someone elses content via a 3rd party on their website. Maybe if you paid to embed tweets? Sure ok, they changed the contract - so deal with that. Is it a bit annoying if you use it? Probably. Is it bad that the docs are out of date? Ok. Twitter doesn't have any responsibility to you as someone who wants to quote someone else via their platform.
    • nicce 5y ago
      I would argue that statistically the most people don’t pay for their email provider with money. In that term not a very strong argument.
      • bennyp101 5y ago
        The "Would you still be willing to make these excuses if your emails provider decided to do the same thing?" statement I was replying to was a bit weak as weak :) But in the case of not paying for your email, then that is also on you to acknowledge there is a set of terms, and you can adhere or not. I certainly wouldn't expect a free service to owe me anything.
    • simonw 5y ago
      If I embed your JavaScript on my page I am giving you a HUGE amount of my trust. You should treat that as sacred.
      • montroser 5y ago
        But why would you trust a corporation that owes you nothing?
        • 5y ago
• theelous3 5y ago
  > Twitter is under no obligation to retain this kind of stuff on your behalf. You have badly missed the most crucial message of the post. When you copy the embed link, you are copying the string literal of the tweet too. You put this text on your site. You are the one retaining it. The twitter module is hiding the text from the rendered page, rather than loading the local copy.
  • raverbashing 5y ago
    Yes and it's tricky because in one side you're siding with the person that copied it, and in another, with the original author of the tweet.
    • macspoofing 5y ago
      >with the original author of the tweet. Not necessarily. The example VOX article[1] had Trump's tweets embedded in the article, which are now hidden. Trump didn't delete those tweets. He was banned. [1] https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/4/13/17233422/donald-trump-james-comey-twitter-slime-ball https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/4/13/17233422/d...
      • raverbashing 5y ago
        There are many more cases of deletions than banned ones, let's not think of the exception as the rule And the blog author still has the text as well
        • macspoofing 5y ago
          >There are many more cases of deletions than banned ones, let's not think of the exception as the rule But that isn't the exception. Banned users tend to be the ones that have some level of public interest, as evidenced by the VOX quote. >And the blog author still has the text as well That's right and maybe in some way this new policy accidentally leads to good things, in that it may incentive sites that embed Twitter's content on their page, to simply bypass that.
• simonw 5y ago
  "If you want to act as a repository for the public record, you better use your own system." I deliberately chose Twitter's JavaScript because I inspected the design of how it worked and saw that they had deliberately built it in a way that would respect my preferences for how deletion should be handled. They've changed that on me - without even announcing the change. This is a rug-pull. Now I have to replace their code with my own implementation, and they've hurt my trust.
  • chaps 5y ago
    Why did you trust them from the beginning? Serious question.
    • epeus 5y ago
      We trusted them because they were committed to being part of the wider web, and as you can see from Ben Ward's tweet at the time, took that seriously.
      • BlueTemplar 5y ago
        You mean like when they removed their public API in 2014 ?
      • tofuahdude 5y ago
        Naive at best, honestly. Twitter from their very beginning has screwed over developers who used their platform. So have many of the other companies in their cohort.
  • tom_ 5y ago
    Ask for your money back.
    • renewiltord 5y ago
      Why should I? I demand payment in public opinion because I can. You needn’t care but Twitter will pay from those that do.
• epeus 5y ago
  If they want to change this, they can have a new version of the widgets script that makes it clear that it will edit your site, and switch to that in future embed links from the site. Changing the existing one is leaving holes all over the web. Buzzfeed is decimated.
• macspoofing 5y ago
  There's always a few that posts like this. Yes Twitter has a legal right to do stuff like this but can YOU separate what Twitter is legally allowed to do from what is the right thing to do? What's wrong with criticizing a particular policy from a corporate behemoth?
  • tofuahdude 5y ago
    The real issue is expecting that a for-profit company does "the right thing" according to some random moral compass.
• newswasboring 5y ago
  > I'm not trying to say that this is right or wrong Why are you not, though? I feel like we have been so co-opted by the system that we forgot we are allowed to criticize it. A giant company with billions of dollars should not be given get out of moral jail free cards. They should absolutely be held to higher standards because of all the power they wield.
  • nobodyandproud 5y ago
    I feel like two groups are talking over each other. One is saying Twitter shouldn’t have done this and should be called out for breaking a promise. The other group mostly agrees, but is pointing out that problem was giving Twitter so much control over one’s own content in the first place. I agree with this: Banking on what’s nothing more than a handshake is a bad call. Having to go to the court of public opinion is largely a failure, not the recourse of choice. The commercial internet of today works this way, and it’s increasingly becoming fragile for it.
    • newswasboring 5y ago
      > I agree with this: Banking on what’s nothing more than a handshake is a bad call. But shouldn't we be striving for a world where it isn't a bad call? Reputation used to mean something, I have read about it in old books. That was back when choice was a thing. Digg got destroyed in a matter of weeks because they did something users didn't like. Now Facebook is openly contributing to destroying democracy and all they get is one bad financial year. These things are way too big and wield way too much power. And, with all due and undue respect, statements like yours are part of the problem. I don't know what your intent was, but you come off as defending twitter on this as there was no written contract. While everyone is equal under codified law, we shouldn't forget some people have more influence than others over what gets codified.
      • nobodyandproud 5y ago
        > But shouldn't we be striving for a world where it isn't a bad call? Reputation used to mean something, Reputation isn’t proof. It also carries no context. If the service is very meaningful to you, then why wouldn’t you want a legal contract? > I don't know what your intent was, but you come off as defending twitter on this as there was no written contract. While everyone is equal under codified law, we shouldn't forget some people have more influence than others over what gets codified. Case and point of reputation. You assume I’m defending Twitter, because you can’t imagine that I can agree that it’s a scummy move while also pointing out that it’s bad practice to rely on a company’s word. As for my intent? I’m annoyed, dealing with like-minded individuals and engineers. Having to teach engineers that coding and behavioral contracts get broken, and so code must be written defensively; in a world where pushing out features and adoption is “impact” is quite the uphill battle. It just took a couple of decades for businesses to realize that “free” has some severe hidden costs. And appealing on social media hoping to get attention, in a world where there’s too much information and noise? I’m flabbergasted.
• batch12 5y ago
  It is entertaining to watch the waves of opinion crash against each other when things happen that people don't like. The cognitive dissonance must must a deafening roar. On one hand, people get miffed when twitter changes their JS to block out quotes of deleted tweets, citing an alteration of the public record. On the other hand, people argue that twitter is not a "public square" and can do what they want with the content and users of their platform. Edit: clarified js change
  • smaryjerry 5y ago
    Right seems like people are confusing very different points of view: they can do it and they should do it. It’s like reviewing a murder case and seeing arguments talking past each other, one side saying “He was allowed to shoot his gun” and the other saying “He shouldn’t have shot his gun.” The arguments aren’t even on the same level and aren’t mutually exclusive. Both could be true, and the responses just ignore the others point completely.
  • quitit 5y ago
    I feel a frequent problem in tech discussion is that the problem is greatly exaggerated, often to levels which are out of scope or come across as unreasonable demands. It has some similarities to Godwin's law. The follow-up discussion then unfortunately is not so much about the grievance or problem, but about the needless hyperbole. In the end, because the problem no longer feels reasonable or relatable, it seems more like the author has an axe to grind. There's too many examples to cite, but one could follow any discussion that surrounds a change made by large tech company to find numerous examples.
  • jeromegv 5y ago
    It's almost like there's a diverse range of opinions and there isn't a monolithic Hackernews.
    • batch12 5y ago
      I have a hard time believing there isn't much crossover between those who want to punt opinions from a mainstream platform and those who want to nail someone down for a comment they made forever
• gentleman11 5y ago
  I agreed with this several years ago, but I’m not sure any more. Software networks are very different than other things humans have had in the past. They are inherently winner take all and give the owner/creator unprecedented power over users that creators in past generations could only have dreamed of. I wonder if software companies should have some restrictions to make up for this