4 ms·

I guess it's subjective - some websites like X / twitter are super terrible if you're not logged in, but almost usable if you are logged in.

PaulHoule 3y ago
I wish people just didn’t post links to X because of this and because even if somebody did had something to say, wouldn’t it take more than 140 characters to say it? I mean sure, somebody like Bari Weiss can write a sequence of 50 numbered Xes that add up to tell a real story but whether you see just the first post or the story backwards, or the first post and a thousand followers yelling “SQUEE!” or nothing at all, or least likely, the posts in correct order seems to be totally random. X already suppresses visibility of stories that link to the outside, someday they might prohibit them entirely. Why can’t we just give them a taste of their own medicine and quit linking in? I’ve gotten more than one complaint from people who couldn’t clear the cookie popup from El Pais although I cleared it and it hasn’t posted me since. Maybe it is a problem on mobile, or a certain screen size, or a certain browser, in a case like that maybe I should be sending El Pais a ticket although I have no idea what the common denominator of those complaints is. (This points to the route of grading the site instead of the page which does not have to be particularly algorithmic. You could just make some web site where people grade sites for annoyingness and average the scores.)
- tacostakohashi 3y ago
  How about these two categories then: * Website: a static page that doesn't set nor rely on any cookies, doesn't require an account, doesn't have any popups, click-throughs, etc., all anonymous if you want. * Web apps / social media: anything that needs a login, an identity, accepting terms, etc. The bar for a 'website' should be that it works just fine when hitting it the first time in incognito mode, and doesn't rely on any previous cookies / tracking stuff, etc... sounds like 'El Pais' doesn't qualify, and is in the app / social bucket :(
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]

PaulHoule 3y ago

I wish people just didn’t post links to X because of this and because even if somebody did had something to say, wouldn’t it take more than 140 characters to say it? I mean sure, somebody like Bari Weiss can write a sequence of 50 numbered Xes that add up to tell a real story but whether you see just the first post or the story backwards, or the first post and a thousand followers yelling “SQUEE!” or nothing at all, or least likely, the posts in correct order seems to be totally random. X already suppresses visibility of stories that link to the outside, someday they might prohibit them entirely. Why can’t we just give them a taste of their own medicine and quit linking in? I’ve gotten more than one complaint from people who couldn’t clear the cookie popup from El Pais although I cleared it and it hasn’t posted me since. Maybe it is a problem on mobile, or a certain screen size, or a certain browser, in a case like that maybe I should be sending El Pais a ticket although I have no idea what the common denominator of those complaints is. (This points to the route of grading the site instead of the page which does not have to be particularly algorithmic. You could just make some web site where people grade sites for annoyingness and average the scores.)

tacostakohashi 3y ago
How about these two categories then: * Website: a static page that doesn't set nor rely on any cookies, doesn't require an account, doesn't have any popups, click-throughs, etc., all anonymous if you want. * Web apps / social media: anything that needs a login, an identity, accepting terms, etc. The bar for a 'website' should be that it works just fine when hitting it the first time in incognito mode, and doesn't rely on any previous cookies / tracking stuff, etc... sounds like 'El Pais' doesn't qualify, and is in the app / social bucket :(
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]