4 ms·

https://github.com/zedeus/nitter/ https://github.com/zedeus/nitter/ I think it uses the same functionality as the guest account feature in the Android app as o

https://github.com/zedeus/nitter/ https://github.com/zedeus/nitter/ I think it uses the same functionality as the guest account feature in the Android app as of now.

loveparade 3y ago
If that's true, isn't it just a matter of time before it gets shut off? I don't really see a way to keep this working without somehow crowdsourcing accessing X. Even with an automated way to create fake accounts with phone verification, it would eventually be detected or guarded against.
- toomuchtodo 3y ago
  That’s how archive.today works with news publication site accounts, will be fine if you have to make round robin requests with a bucket of X accounts.
  - loveparade 3y ago
    I would disagree here, I think it's different for several reasons: - The volume and velocity of data and API requests needed for X is much larger than scraping the occasional news article. You'd need a huge number of accounts to make it work. - X has the technology to reliably detect such accounts unless they are incredibly well "hidden" by e.g. crowsourcing requests through regular accounts with normal browsing behavior - X has the incentive to reliably detect such accounts as it has shown in the past by shutting off data access. It seems to care much more about this than most news websites I believe the only reason things like Nitter still work is that it's not yet big enough for X to care about and invest resources into guarding against it, especially with all the other stuff going on at X right now. But it's only a matter of time before that changes.
    - toomuchtodo 3y ago
      I can tell you that a project is already doing this today for archiving with no signs of mitigations (request denials, poisoning the responses, etc). It’ll likely eventually end up in the usual places when you want to see something from way back in the day.
    - nitwit005 3y ago
      > But it's only a matter of time before that changes. If anyone at the helm is paying attention, which seems iffy these days.
    - midoridensha 3y ago
      >- X has the technology to reliably detect such accounts unless they are incredibly well "hidden" Has, or had? With massive layoffs, they might not have the staff or know-how left to do this, or the time to implement it. >- X has the incentive to reliably detect such accounts as it has shown in the past by shutting off data access. It seems to care much more about this than most news websites OK, but still wanting to do something, and actually doing it, are two different things. I'm not convinced this hollowed-out shell of a company still has such ability. >especially with all the other stuff going on at X right now. But it's only a matter of time before that changes. This seems to assume X is going to continue to survive and in fact thrive; I don't think that's a good assumption.
    - da9 3y ago
      They arent scrapping the whole site. The entire site is 99% spam. Its scrap on request, if its not already cached.
      - loveparade 3y ago
        Sure, but that doesn't make a difference. Even the top 1% of the most requested timelines and tweets are huge amounts of requests. That's many many orders of magnitude more data then new articles and requires a large number of accounts.
      - pimlottc 3y ago
        That should be “scrape”/“scraping”, unless you mean they should be throwing the site away :)
- aaron695 3y ago
  [dead]
- rsynnott 3y ago
  I mean, possibly? The loginwall thing is a fairly obviously silly strategy which they may not be excited about doubling down on, though (I would expect it's fairly likely that the loginwall gets reversed at some point; they've already stepped it down so that non-logged-in users can see tweets). But honestly, at this point, _everything_ about twitter is up in the air. Who knows what state it'll be in in a year.

https://github.com/zedeus/nitter/ https://github.com/zedeus/nitter/ I think it uses the same functionality as the guest account feature in the Android app as of now.

loveparade 3y ago

If that's true, isn't it just a matter of time before it gets shut off? I don't really see a way to keep this working without somehow crowdsourcing accessing X. Even with an automated way to create fake accounts with phone verification, it would eventually be detected or guarded against.

toomuchtodo 3y ago
That’s how archive.today works with news publication site accounts, will be fine if you have to make round robin requests with a bucket of X accounts.
- loveparade 3y ago
  I would disagree here, I think it's different for several reasons: - The volume and velocity of data and API requests needed for X is much larger than scraping the occasional news article. You'd need a huge number of accounts to make it work. - X has the technology to reliably detect such accounts unless they are incredibly well "hidden" by e.g. crowsourcing requests through regular accounts with normal browsing behavior - X has the incentive to reliably detect such accounts as it has shown in the past by shutting off data access. It seems to care much more about this than most news websites I believe the only reason things like Nitter still work is that it's not yet big enough for X to care about and invest resources into guarding against it, especially with all the other stuff going on at X right now. But it's only a matter of time before that changes.
  - toomuchtodo 3y ago
    I can tell you that a project is already doing this today for archiving with no signs of mitigations (request denials, poisoning the responses, etc). It’ll likely eventually end up in the usual places when you want to see something from way back in the day.
  - nitwit005 3y ago
    > But it's only a matter of time before that changes. If anyone at the helm is paying attention, which seems iffy these days.
  - midoridensha 3y ago
    >- X has the technology to reliably detect such accounts unless they are incredibly well "hidden" Has, or had? With massive layoffs, they might not have the staff or know-how left to do this, or the time to implement it. >- X has the incentive to reliably detect such accounts as it has shown in the past by shutting off data access. It seems to care much more about this than most news websites OK, but still wanting to do something, and actually doing it, are two different things. I'm not convinced this hollowed-out shell of a company still has such ability. >especially with all the other stuff going on at X right now. But it's only a matter of time before that changes. This seems to assume X is going to continue to survive and in fact thrive; I don't think that's a good assumption.
  - da9 3y ago
    They arent scrapping the whole site. The entire site is 99% spam. Its scrap on request, if its not already cached.
    - loveparade 3y ago
      Sure, but that doesn't make a difference. Even the top 1% of the most requested timelines and tweets are huge amounts of requests. That's many many orders of magnitude more data then new articles and requires a large number of accounts.
    - pimlottc 3y ago
      That should be “scrape”/“scraping”, unless you mean they should be throwing the site away :)
aaron695 3y ago
[dead]
rsynnott 3y ago
I mean, possibly? The loginwall thing is a fairly obviously silly strategy which they may not be excited about doubling down on, though (I would expect it's fairly likely that the loginwall gets reversed at some point; they've already stepped it down so that non-logged-in users can see tweets). But honestly, at this point, _everything_ about twitter is up in the air. Who knows what state it'll be in in a year.