4 ms·
If you’re for getting rid of this because it’s got a login wall, then let’s get rid of anything that has one as well. NYT, WSJ, the list goes on. Forget archive
by stonethrowaway 2y ago
If you’re for getting rid of this because it’s got a login wall, then let’s get rid of anything that has one as well. NYT, WSJ, the list goes on. Forget archive, just don’t allow that domain or any redirects to that domain.
- angoragoats 2y agoI’m in favor of getting rid of it because it’s a cesspool that’s a detriment to humanity, but even ignoring that, Twitter’s login wall is worse than most others. 1) There’s often much less content visible than on other paywalled sites. 2) The technical methods that services like nitter use to bypass the wall are being systematically patched/disabled by Twitter. 3) Reader mode doesn’t work to bypass the paywall, unlike some other sites.
- stonethrowaway 2y agoOn one hand I’m more fine with Twitter than the paywalls. Twitter I understand on moral grounds people not willing to sign up for an account. But I’m not paying a site to read thinly veiled, often racist and misandrist propaganda written by people far removed from journalistic integrity. (Pardon my rant). I’d rank the latter, for me personally, much worse.
- angoragoats 2y ago> But I’m not paying a site to read thinly veiled, often racist and misandrist propaganda written by people far removed from journalistic integrity. I can't tell if this sentence is referring to Twitter or other websites.
- rsynnott 2y agoThe login walls on NYT, WSJ et al are trivial to circumvent. I think HN does generally ban, at least implicitly/as a community thing (I'm not sure if it's an actual rule) things with hard login walls, like The Information. Twitter's somewhere in between, but particularly since the (more or less) demise of nitter, it's on the harder end.