6 ms·

Per HN guidelines this should point to https://x.com/holger_r/status/1828526705306411410 https://x.com/holger_r/status/1828526705306411410.

nottorp 2y ago
Your link is unreadable without being logged into a twitter account. I'd be happy if links requiring a login (paid or free) were banned completely tbh.
- jajko 2y ago
  I never had twitter account (refusing to ack that child's efforts with renaming, just like most of the world), and I can see it on desktop on Firefox just fine.
  - id00 2y ago
    On mobile, I can't see the thread. Just the first message
  - maicro 2y ago
    I do love how just about every place that site is mentioned, even Google search results, it's in the format "X (formerly Twitter)".
  - kelnos 2y ago
    I have a Twitter account, am logged out of it, but when I visit Twitter links, I can only see the post linked, but not any replies, unless I log in. Sometimes I can't even see the linked post without logging in. Unsurprisingly, people have different experiences with sites like these that really want you to log in, but will sometimes allow you to view some content without logging in, as a way to entice you.
    - nottorp 2y ago
      My desktop firefox only shows the linked post too. Could be something about my uBlock Origin, but I'm not taking it down for anyone. I've also never had a twitter account.
Me000 2y ago
[dead]
randunel 2y ago
I can only read the first paragraph using your link, so the HN guidelines need updating. The original "thereaderapp" link is much better, and I've frequently seen URL updates to pages with better content, even when the story doesn't originate there. De facto, HN should and does allow links with actually readable content.
- LorenDB 2y ago
  The guidelines say this: > Please submit the original source. If a post reports on something found on another site, submit the latter. Just like links to sites like WSJ or NYT have their archive.today links in the comments rather than as primary sources, Twitter/X should be the primary link with Thread Reader in the comments. I don't like Twitter's login policy either, but we have rules around here and I'm going to encourage people to follow those rules by posting x.com links as primary links unless and until the rules are changed.
  - randunel 2y ago
    The archive purpose isn't circumventing login, but archiving. They wouldn't want people to default to using them in lieu of the websites you mentioned, anyway. The reader app's purpose is organising different x posts into a more coherent article, actually readable. While the content is a concatenation of x posts, it's an article by itself. It sounds to me like you want to enforce rules for the sake of enforcing rules. There doesn't seem to be a reason other than that in your comment. X makes this website's experience worse, so let's follow the spirit of the rules when our interactions are considerably better, and not be rule extremists. HN has repeatedly broken its own rules for the sake of making things better for HN. The same thing happens here.
  - zamadatix 2y ago
    Perhaps the rule is fine and your strict interpretation is what's off? E.g. I've always taken that "original source over reporting on the original source" rule as being "post what the original source said instead of what somebody said about the original source" not as "don't ever post verbatim archives of the original source, even if it makes them accessible to read". Or maybe it's not... but isn't it at least worth considering that kind of debate before admonishing others for not wanting to follow the rule you don't even agree with for the sake of following rules?
jurassicfoxy 2y ago
HN guidelines should ban "x.com" links entirely.
- pajeets 2y ago
  why?
  - randunel 2y ago
    In my experience, the vast majority of x.com links are unreadable, either an out of context message or some introductory phrase with no actual content. I'd support such a ban, there are far better sources for that content, such as the link provided in this post. HN doesn't enforce an "original link only" rule, and there are frequent URL changes to non-original content, mostly articles, which are more readable, or provide more information. Simply put, x.com links seldom offer content for us to digest and comment on.
  - acdha 2y ago
    X puts most functionality behind a login check. Most importantly, you can’t view threads.
- karlzt 2y ago
  Not necessary, use LibRedirect[0] on Firefox so when you click on an X link it redirects to Nitter. [0]https://libredirect.github.io/ https://libredirect.github.io/
  - anonfordays 2y ago
    Nitter is dead. After the API changes all the instances are broken and no longer work. Nitter the project itself states this: https://nitter.cz/ https://nitter.cz/ What a neat project it was, truly showed the capabilities and development easy of Nimlang.
- andrewinardeer 2y ago
  Censorship? No.

nottorp 2y ago

Your link is unreadable without being logged into a twitter account. I'd be happy if links requiring a login (paid or free) were banned completely tbh.

jajko 2y ago
I never had twitter account (refusing to ack that child's efforts with renaming, just like most of the world), and I can see it on desktop on Firefox just fine.
- id00 2y ago
  On mobile, I can't see the thread. Just the first message
- maicro 2y ago
  I do love how just about every place that site is mentioned, even Google search results, it's in the format "X (formerly Twitter)".
- kelnos 2y ago
  I have a Twitter account, am logged out of it, but when I visit Twitter links, I can only see the post linked, but not any replies, unless I log in. Sometimes I can't even see the linked post without logging in. Unsurprisingly, people have different experiences with sites like these that really want you to log in, but will sometimes allow you to view some content without logging in, as a way to entice you.
  - nottorp 2y ago
    My desktop firefox only shows the linked post too. Could be something about my uBlock Origin, but I'm not taking it down for anyone. I've also never had a twitter account.

Me000 2y ago

[dead]

randunel 2y ago

I can only read the first paragraph using your link, so the HN guidelines need updating. The original "thereaderapp" link is much better, and I've frequently seen URL updates to pages with better content, even when the story doesn't originate there. De facto, HN should and does allow links with actually readable content.

LorenDB 2y ago
The guidelines say this: > Please submit the original source. If a post reports on something found on another site, submit the latter. Just like links to sites like WSJ or NYT have their archive.today links in the comments rather than as primary sources, Twitter/X should be the primary link with Thread Reader in the comments. I don't like Twitter's login policy either, but we have rules around here and I'm going to encourage people to follow those rules by posting x.com links as primary links unless and until the rules are changed.
- randunel 2y ago
  The archive purpose isn't circumventing login, but archiving. They wouldn't want people to default to using them in lieu of the websites you mentioned, anyway. The reader app's purpose is organising different x posts into a more coherent article, actually readable. While the content is a concatenation of x posts, it's an article by itself. It sounds to me like you want to enforce rules for the sake of enforcing rules. There doesn't seem to be a reason other than that in your comment. X makes this website's experience worse, so let's follow the spirit of the rules when our interactions are considerably better, and not be rule extremists. HN has repeatedly broken its own rules for the sake of making things better for HN. The same thing happens here.
- zamadatix 2y ago
  Perhaps the rule is fine and your strict interpretation is what's off? E.g. I've always taken that "original source over reporting on the original source" rule as being "post what the original source said instead of what somebody said about the original source" not as "don't ever post verbatim archives of the original source, even if it makes them accessible to read". Or maybe it's not... but isn't it at least worth considering that kind of debate before admonishing others for not wanting to follow the rule you don't even agree with for the sake of following rules?

jurassicfoxy 2y ago

HN guidelines should ban "x.com" links entirely.

pajeets 2y ago
why?
- randunel 2y ago
  In my experience, the vast majority of x.com links are unreadable, either an out of context message or some introductory phrase with no actual content. I'd support such a ban, there are far better sources for that content, such as the link provided in this post. HN doesn't enforce an "original link only" rule, and there are frequent URL changes to non-original content, mostly articles, which are more readable, or provide more information. Simply put, x.com links seldom offer content for us to digest and comment on.
- acdha 2y ago
  X puts most functionality behind a login check. Most importantly, you can’t view threads.
karlzt 2y ago
Not necessary, use LibRedirect[0] on Firefox so when you click on an X link it redirects to Nitter. [0]https://libredirect.github.io/ https://libredirect.github.io/
- anonfordays 2y ago
  Nitter is dead. After the API changes all the instances are broken and no longer work. Nitter the project itself states this: https://nitter.cz/ https://nitter.cz/ What a neat project it was, truly showed the capabilities and development easy of Nimlang.
andrewinardeer 2y ago
Censorship? No.