7 ms·

Regardless of the legality of the service: I always use xcancel instead of X. I don't have a twitter account and I don't want to sign in. I just occasionally

Regardless of the legality of the service: I always use xcancel instead of X. I don't have a twitter account and I don't want to sign in. I just occasionally want to read what some people had to say about something. Even this is usually a mistake. It's probably better taken as entertainment. My point is: companies stop making your product suck, and people won't have a reason to try and fix it for you.

WarmWash 19d ago
The problem companies have is that "doesn't suck" generally means "it's free with no ads". The internet has this innate expectation that everything digital be totally free and have no form of tracking or ads, or if it does have ads/tracking, that you are trivially capable of blocking them while still totally enjoying the service/product. xcancel, archive, whatever are all tools almost solely meant to access monetized content without having to contribute to the monetize part. Then those companies are told they "suck" when they don't like it. Most importantly, the competitors that the internet endlessly cries for to show up to dethrone these giants, see what is going on and say "lol, nope".
- swed420 19d ago
  > The problem companies have is that "doesn't suck" generally means "it's free with no ads". There's no reason you can't abolish login walls while still serving ads. > The internet has this innate expectation that everything digital be totally free Capital interests have this innate expectation that everything must be profitable. This vision is ripe for the picking: https://www.noemamag.com/the-last-days-of-social-media/ https://www.noemamag.com/the-last-days-of-social-media/
  - WarmWash 19d ago
    >Capital interests have this innate expectation that everything must be profitable. What rubs me the wrong way about statements like this, is that it is almost always said by people who totally miss that they are advocating for things that are personally profitable for them. A website that allows you to skirt paywalls, is immensely profitable to the end user. That same end user, who detests the idea of having to spend money, then complains loudly that corporations just want their money. And it is completely lost on them they are playing the exact same game as corporations. The actual break from "corporate profits" is to not engage with the corporations products at all. But that overwhelming is not what we see. Instead it is just two entities fighting over money, because they both have the same root motivation to maximize money.
    - swed420 19d ago
      > A website that allows you to skirt paywalls, is immensely profitable to the end user. login wall != paywall As for your apples:oranges comparison about maximizing money, which group do you suppose has an unfair advantage these days? Modern Capitalism Is Weirder Than You Think: It also no longer works as advertised https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2022/03/how-asset-managers-have-upended-how-modern-capitalism-works.html https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2022/03/how-asset-managers-h... (https://archive.is/wSmtd https://archive.is/wSmtd)
      - WarmWash 19d ago
        All the evidence in the world that corporations are greedy doesn't detract from the fact the end users are also greedy. It's all greed, all the ways down. I also can't read the article, not going to make an account, and I stand by not backdooring.
        immibis2 19d ago
        What's wrong with that? Capitalism is about everyone being as greedy as possible. If you aren't greedy while your adversary is greedy, you give up everything you have.
        cindyllm 19d ago
        [dead]
        WarmWash 19d ago
        The wrong part is fooling yourself that you are above those principles while actively devoting all your energy too them. And I'm not talking food, water, medicine here. I'm talking entertainment and general internet stuff.
        immibis2 19d ago
        If you aren't being maximally greedy in all things, including entertainment and general internet stuff, you aren't doing capitalism right. The current global power imbalance was shaped to a large part by us not being greedy while the rich people were being greedy. It only resulted in them owning all of our stuff. It's about time we tried to own their stuff, to restore balance.
- thewebguyd 19d ago
  > The problem companies have is that "doesn't suck" generally means "it's free with no ads". Or in the case of X, how about just let me browse without creating an account? Likewise with meta/FB, IG, etc. The reality is businesses and other services post here, share status updates, etc. often before their main pages. I'd like to read those, and yet I have no desire to actually post or interact with any of the content, just read it. I should not need an account for that.
  - WarmWash 19d ago
    Then the correct action is to either create a competitor, or point money/ad views at a competitor. But like I said, the internet is largely unwilling to do this. You won't make a competitor that is a charity, and the internet at large won't point dollars and ad-views at a nascent start-up in the space.
    - thewebguyd 19d ago
      None of that has to do with blocking the content behind a login wall. X can still serve ads just fine to non-logged in users. I'm against the site running ads, at all, I'm against mandatory account creation. The internet ran ad supported without mandatory accounts for years.
      - arjie 19d ago
        True, and Britain ruled the waves with wooden warships for a long time. But if they went back to wooden warships they would not rule the waves. The world has changed. Adblock, archive.is, third party mirrors all exist today.
      - WarmWash 19d ago
        You can rest assured, 100%, that account walls are also there for money. I'd be tickled if you argue that corporations create friction for any other reason than money.
      - bigfishrunning 19d ago
        The login wall provides one more avenue for profit: selling the data of logged-in users. A profile with a history of likes, read-times, etc is more valuable then a pair of eyeballs that are glazed-over and not clicking on an ad...
- afavour 19d ago
  > The internet has this innate expectation that everything digital be totally free and have no form of tracking or ads I don't think we always need to broaden this out to industry wide levels. We can talk about things specifically. In this case, X/Twitter has put a login wall in front of posts to boost signups. It never used to. That's a meaningful difference that people seek alternatives to.
  - fragmede 19d ago
    They went login only in the wake of Hi-Q vs LinkedIn, which established that scraping a login-free site is legal.
    - input_sh 19d ago
      Sure, it definitely didn't happen in the wake of its new owner feeling like it in one of his first major changes to the platform because of his "concerns" with bot traffic. Luckily, he won that fight, and nowadays nobody thinks of bots when thinking of X, The Everything App.
- throwaway894345 19d ago
  Your comment seems to implicitly assume that X has some ethical claim to the content they're monetizing, when in fact they're trying to monetize _others'_ content.
  - WarmWash 18d ago
    It's trivially easy to spin up a website and host your own content. Especially today with LLMs to handhold even the most tech illiterate person through it. I'd imagine you are totally confused why they don't do this. If you aren't confused why, well then you have your answer for why X has a right to monetize it.
    - throwaway894345 18d ago
      I'm not disputing that X has a legal right to monetize the content, but I am not remotely convinced that (1) X has the _exclusive_ legal right to monetize the content (content creators add no value and thus have no right to the content, which seems obviously absurd) (2) X has the exclusive legal right to prevent others from distributing the content for free or (3) your "network-effects-derived moats justify a legal right to monetize content". You seem to be depending on a whole lot of assumptions to get to your "XCancel/Nitter/etc shouldn't be allowed to exist" conclusion.
- wolrah 19d ago
  > The problem companies have is that "doesn't suck" generally means "it's free with no ads". I feel like way too many people forget that there was a great middle ground for the longest time, in the form of Google AdWords. Text only, no animations, flash, iframes serving malware, or any of the other bullshit that had already taken over banner ad networks like Doubleclick at the time. I recall at the time one of the early adblock plugins even had the ability to allowlist AdWords while still blocking the shitware providers with the intent of encouraging the use of "good" ad networks instead of the bad ones. It's a perfectly sustainable business model, it just requires people who actually care about not being annoying more than they care about maximizing profits, and at some point Google lost those people. That's pretty much the general problem with our society as a whole, when given the choice between "profitable and sustainable" or "profitable and high quality" versus "more profitable now but will cause problems in a few years" the incentives of capitalism are all in favor of getting all the profits now and getting out before the consequences catch up.
  - layla5alive 18d ago
    Scalar Monomania (profit maximization in this case) is the root of so much evil :/
    - account42 18d ago
      It's usury that's the root of this evil. Always has been. Whether it's private equity or public shareholders, when you have someone getting more and more money for simply putting in money then that value has to be extracted from somewhere.
- Barrin92 19d ago
  >everything digital be totally free and have no form of tracking or ads, that's not a realistic expectation for everything but it's completely realistic for text based short form communication given how affordable it is to run. That's why there's ad and tracking free alternatives to twitter already. the competitors don't say "lol nope" they'd gladly take the users, it's the latter who stay on twitter like lambs running to the slaughter
- troupo 19d ago
  Instagram is filled with ads, and it sucks. Facebook? Same. Xitter? Same. Youtube? Enshittified beyond measure. Google? Unusable. So tell me. Where are these great amazing services supported by ads?
- account42 18d ago
  The "content" in twitter largely isn't monetized, only the platform profits via rent seeking on other people's writings.
- GrinningFool 18d ago
  Personally I have no problem with ads if they're based on the content. But your post inadvertantly sums the problem: tracking and ads have become inseparable. If you talk about removing tracking, people come out of the woodwork and say how ads are critical for the business model. There was a time where ads were based on the thing you were looking at, and assumptions around your demographics and intentions. It actually worked though returns were lower. (Which makes sense since the psychological warfare was limited to what advertisers thought they knew about the viewer. ) Now, though, if you want to block tracking you're a freeloader, siphoning off resources that other people pay for. And since targeted ads are so (relatively) effective, there is no discussion of separation.
- fuzzfactor 18d ago
  So many people tend to forget what made the internet great. >The internet has this innate expectation that everything digital be totally free and have no form of tracking or ads Roger. I guess you had to be there, either that or have above-average powers of observation, but That's. The. Foundation. Of. The. Internet. And that's how "doesn't suck" has always been defined, except for people who are just trying to make shit up that is quite a bit removed from reality. Now I've accepted ads when I feel like it although lots of times I prefer none, regardless commercial websites have always been less worthwhile than non-commercial, it's not like there's any question. This was settled way before the 1990s were over. I know perfection can not be achieved and I settle for less as much as anybody, plus "absolutely doesn't suck" may not be reached either but it is not a movable goalpost, more like a brick wall where the closer you get the better. If you are willing and able you might be able to do an outstanding job. Otherwise you're going to end up some distance away on the spectrum of "sucks more than it should." You were always already paying plenty to your ISP, and last time I checked you still are. Anything less has always been less than the whole internet you were paying for. The math is not that hard :\
swed420 19d ago
> My point is: companies stop making your product suck, and people won't have a reason to try and fix it for you. That assumes the company's behavior is rooted in ineptitude rather than malice, which is too generous at this point. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49695912 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49695912
- deleted 19d ago
  [deleted]
- rusk 19d ago
  It's ineptitude. Of course it is. Otherwise it would be indefensible. EDIT in which I clumsily express my weariness at hearing some of the smartest people in the world claim they “didn’t know” because they have arbitrated foolishness against liability
  - spuz 19d ago
    The decision to force you to sign in to view replies is clearly not by accident or ineptitude. It's probably not malice either - just a business decision.
    - deleted 19d ago
      [deleted]
    - treyd 19d ago
      A system that makes "business decisions" indistinguishable from malice is an interesting one.
      - ToValueFunfetti 19d ago
        If I have something you want and I could give it to you but instead charge you money, is that malice? If so, what system wouldn't make malice indistinguishable from business decisions? If not, what distinguishes that from a login wall in exchange for viewing content?
    - 19d ago
timcobb 19d ago
Twitter itself doesn't even suck too much for me it's the broader context that makes it a no go
- deleted 19d ago
  [deleted]
- gfdd 19d ago
  [dead]
runjake 19d ago
These browser extensions still work: For Chrome: https://github.com/tsvb/post-peek https://github.com/tsvb/post-peek For Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/dumpster-fire/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/dumpster-fire... For Safari: https://andadinosaur.com/launch-litterbox https://andadinosaur.com/launch-litterbox
- classified 18d ago
  Don't you still have to log in to xitter with those?
  - Meneth 18d ago
    No, but they are limited. Longer tweets are cut off, and you don't get to see replies.
- 1vuio0pswjnm7 18d ago
  The Firefox add-on triggers HTTP 451 response
- Cadwhisker 18d ago
  This extension is blocked under Firefox for the following reason: This add-on violates Mozilla's add-on policies by collecting user data without disclosure, consent or control and executing remote code
vladgur 19d ago
You want to read what service XYZ offers, but you dont want to do it within the constraints of service XYZ. If you dont want to follow the constraints of service XYZ, you dont have to consume its content. The market would dictate that if X content consumers found it too inconvenient to consume from X and that would result in a significant drop in demand, the X content producers would stop producing their content on X. I dont like many things about X -- random ads, bookmark folders being a paid feature, enshittification of the algorithm if you god forbid linger over some controversial video or content. But i keep coming back to it because its the best way to follow the minds of brilliant techies. The basic sign up flow that i did years ago was basically a no-op. I suspect that for most people, creating an account is basically a few button clicks (thanks OAuth) and they dont mind creating an account.
- cobbal 19d ago
  Twitter promised an open publishing platform with extensive API access. They're the ones who broke the (social) contract, not us.
  - nkozyra 19d ago
    Well if you're willing to accept that the extensive API access comes at a price, they at least somewhat fulfilled that promise. It's just a different kind of gate, though.
- ImPostingOnHN 19d ago
  They want to consume XYZ, written by A,B,C and posted on twitter. Do A,B,C agree with the changes to loginwall their content ex-post-facto?
  - clcaev 19d ago
    Clearly they approve or they'd at least stop advertising their twitter handles on their websites and handouts. Most brands cannot ignore such a vast network effects and have made the decision to continue despite the changes.
jakevoytko 19d ago
I hate when companies do this. Instagram is a black box for me. Whenever someone sends me a link the web app is completely nonfunctional; clicking links just reload the page, it constantly tries opening the app, etc The last time I signed up for an Instagram account (2016) it got immediately flagged as a bot account. I think I was supposed to appeal it to have it reinstanted, but why bother if this is how badly they treat users? Can you imagine going to work as Instagram's web developer, spending your day finding new ways that the app accidentally works and disabling them?
- bjord 19d ago
  did you sign up with your actual details? or were you using a throwaway email and/or phone? as for using it without an account, try https://codeberg.org/irelephant/kittygram https://codeberg.org/irelephant/kittygram
  - jakevoytko 19d ago
    Actual details.
- voidnullvalue 19d ago
  Imginn.com/whateverrouteoninstagram So instagram.com/foo becomes Imginn.com/foo Hope this helps!
  - jakevoytko 19d ago
    I know there are like 5 trillion Instagram viewers. But I've never actually needed to use any of them because there is absolutely nothing so important on Instagram that I must see it. The entire site is optional.
    - Cockbrand 19d ago
      What!? It's the entire, singular purpose and meaning of life for millions of people to make themselves look glamorous on Instagram, and you say it's optional?! /s
temptemptemp111 19d ago
[dead]
emmelaich 19d ago
X should provide an option to make youor posts public. And govt reps should be required to use it.
- tomashubelbauer 19d ago
  Govt reps should be required to use govt sites and only then repost to private sites, or leave that up to the people.
- maybewhenthesun 18d ago
  govts should be forbidden from using X. Or any other commercial for-profit message service. It's not like one-way communication is a hard problem. Just post that stuff on a website ffs!
  - mitxela 17d ago
    So no internet, TV or radio then. And no billboards. Also no event venues except the town hall.
    - oxzidized 17d ago
      Maybe if we had some sort of non-profit corporation with a mission to ensure universal access to non-commercial, high-quality educational, cultural, and other content and telecommunications services. Perhaps something like that could be expanded upon and utilized for government communication to the public?
    - nancyminusone 17d ago
      Why no radio? The government is the one handing out the spectrum.
      - mitxela 17d ago
        It's all privately operated for profit
dzonga 19d ago
I have a shitter account, I don't use the app but just the web app on safari iOS. recently with videos I can't change playback speed. so I have to use xCancel. before I just used to use Tweetdeck. but that went away or went pro.
zx8080 19d ago
> My point is: companies stop making your product suck, and people won't have a reason to try and fix it for you. What an idealistic nonsense. Companies do anything not for people, but for money. We are not living in a socialist utopia (fortunately!).
- benrutter 19d ago
  I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not, but it's worth pointing out that most businesses outside of tech don't operate a "build a monopoly then bleed it dry" model, and are a lot nicer for it, while still making money. Shops, cinemas, B2B consultancies etc generally make money by selling something people want. (I do get that tech VC doesn't work under this principle and it's not simpld to just change a sectors funding model, but it is worth pointing out that making money does not normally equal making a bad product)
  - account42 18d ago
    > Shops, cinemas, B2B consultancies etc generally make money by selling something people want. There are plenty of dark patterns and enshittification in all of these as well. Tech is just way ahead of the curve but the rest isn't innocent either.
- account42 18d ago
  Companies also have to stay within the bounds determined by the rest of our society. For example just dumping your waste in the next river is more profitable than disposing it responsibly but its bad for everyone so we don't let companies do that.
numpad0 19d ago
^ this and the entire drama is just an ad campaign to make the rebranding stick. what is really going to work is to keep calling it Twitter, as it identifies itself, and slowly move over the scene to Bluesky/Mastodon. What demoralize them the most is to show whoever pays for it doesn't matter.
- mitxela 19d ago
  It would be really funny if Elon lost the Twitter trademark due to not using it.
  - zavec 18d ago
    Just a few days ago there was an article about how they lost the bluebird logo and the word "tweet," so it seems possible!
  - latexr 18d ago
    That was close to happening. He already lost the logo and “tweet”. https://thenextweb.com/news/musk-x-twitter-bird-logo-tweet-trademark-ruling https://thenextweb.com/news/musk-x-twitter-bird-logo-tweet-t...
karim79 19d ago
Enshittification is the new normal, unfortunately.
vachina 19d ago
[flagged]
- abustamam 19d ago
  ??? Have you never tried to visit X on a mobile device? Functional is far from what I'd call it, given that you can't see replies to the tweet or indeed do much else on the site
  - vachina 19d ago
    Yes? I use it exclusively in the mobile browser, logged in of course.
- dented42 19d ago
  By functional do you actually mean impossible to use?
  - vachina 19d ago
    Just fuckin log in?
    - mitxela 19d ago
      I can't create an account. No matter what I try, the app just keeps saying it don't wanna.
- pbasista 19d ago
  Well, I do not have an account and when I open any profile on it right now, I cannot read it properly. I cannot click on posts. I cannot read replies. I cannot open images. In my opinion, that is quite far from "functional". Such a behavior alone is a sufficient justification, in my opinion, for the services like xcancel to exist. And if the X social network does not want their content to be publicly available, fine. They are free to gate it behind a login.
  - 19d ago
benrutter 19d ago
> My point is: companies stop making your product suck, and people won't have a reason to try and fix it for you. Boy this would be nice! X have obviously decided that using the law to take down people fixing its issues is more profitable than fixing them. I'm really curious though, are they right? (Ignoring ethics etc) I used to glance at Twitter when it was less hostile, now I don't bother since it tries to force you to sign in before viewing content and I don't have an account. But now my interaction is 0, nothing is going to get me to make an account. If other people are like me, X will just continue to lose users without gaining any. Which the limited available data on use suggest is in fact happening.
- xvedejas 18d ago
  Is the point really to be profitable? Or could perhaps its owners be willing to risk losing money for more power over the information landscape?
  - snarfy 18d ago
    Yep precisely it. Worth it to control the narrative, even if it's for his own vanity. When you have that much money what else do you spend it on. X is a toy.
  - benrutter 18d ago
    Yeah, that's a really good point that I hadn't really considered. Although, maybe the same argument stands? If X's lockdown leads to less users, then doesn't that translate to less control over the information landscape too?
    - tovej 18d ago
      Well, if one of the big social media platforms is now a far-right playground, that changes the political landscape. Elon Musk is using twitter to create a global far-right platform that right-wing politicians can use to experiment with talking points before watering them down and bringing them to the public.
amelius 18d ago
> My point is: companies stop making your product suck, and people won't have a reason to try and fix it for you. Make companies give up power? Never going to happen.
moomin 18d ago
Indeed, with the best will in the world, nothing on X is that essential. XCancel is the only way I read it.
- criddell 18d ago
  I don't have any data to back this up, but it feels like X may be growing again. I don't post, but I do have an account for reading things on there and a few years ago I was never visiting. Now it seems like I'm going there a few times a month.
mallomarmeasle 18d ago
Wow, I just find out about a service that would allow me to read the occasional post on X just in time to see that the service has been suspended. I have a total embargo for that platform otherwise due to the severe and total enshitification.
- mitxela 17d ago
  Many alternative servers around still. https://status.d420.de/ https://status.d420.de/ or run your own

WarmWash 19d ago

The problem companies have is that "doesn't suck" generally means "it's free with no ads". The internet has this innate expectation that everything digital be totally free and have no form of tracking or ads, or if it does have ads/tracking, that you are trivially capable of blocking them while still totally enjoying the service/product. xcancel, archive, whatever are all tools almost solely meant to access monetized content without having to contribute to the monetize part. Then those companies are told they "suck" when they don't like it. Most importantly, the competitors that the internet endlessly cries for to show up to dethrone these giants, see what is going on and say "lol, nope".

swed420 19d ago
> The problem companies have is that "doesn't suck" generally means "it's free with no ads". There's no reason you can't abolish login walls while still serving ads. > The internet has this innate expectation that everything digital be totally free Capital interests have this innate expectation that everything must be profitable. This vision is ripe for the picking: https://www.noemamag.com/the-last-days-of-social-media/ https://www.noemamag.com/the-last-days-of-social-media/
- WarmWash 19d ago
  >Capital interests have this innate expectation that everything must be profitable. What rubs me the wrong way about statements like this, is that it is almost always said by people who totally miss that they are advocating for things that are personally profitable for them. A website that allows you to skirt paywalls, is immensely profitable to the end user. That same end user, who detests the idea of having to spend money, then complains loudly that corporations just want their money. And it is completely lost on them they are playing the exact same game as corporations. The actual break from "corporate profits" is to not engage with the corporations products at all. But that overwhelming is not what we see. Instead it is just two entities fighting over money, because they both have the same root motivation to maximize money.
  - swed420 19d ago
    > A website that allows you to skirt paywalls, is immensely profitable to the end user. login wall != paywall As for your apples:oranges comparison about maximizing money, which group do you suppose has an unfair advantage these days? Modern Capitalism Is Weirder Than You Think: It also no longer works as advertised https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2022/03/how-asset-managers-have-upended-how-modern-capitalism-works.html https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2022/03/how-asset-managers-h... (https://archive.is/wSmtd https://archive.is/wSmtd)
    - WarmWash 19d ago
      All the evidence in the world that corporations are greedy doesn't detract from the fact the end users are also greedy. It's all greed, all the ways down. I also can't read the article, not going to make an account, and I stand by not backdooring.
      - immibis2 19d ago
        What's wrong with that? Capitalism is about everyone being as greedy as possible. If you aren't greedy while your adversary is greedy, you give up everything you have.
        cindyllm 19d ago
        [dead]
        WarmWash 19d ago
        The wrong part is fooling yourself that you are above those principles while actively devoting all your energy too them. And I'm not talking food, water, medicine here. I'm talking entertainment and general internet stuff.
        immibis2 19d ago
        If you aren't being maximally greedy in all things, including entertainment and general internet stuff, you aren't doing capitalism right. The current global power imbalance was shaped to a large part by us not being greedy while the rich people were being greedy. It only resulted in them owning all of our stuff. It's about time we tried to own their stuff, to restore balance.
thewebguyd 19d ago
> The problem companies have is that "doesn't suck" generally means "it's free with no ads". Or in the case of X, how about just let me browse without creating an account? Likewise with meta/FB, IG, etc. The reality is businesses and other services post here, share status updates, etc. often before their main pages. I'd like to read those, and yet I have no desire to actually post or interact with any of the content, just read it. I should not need an account for that.
- WarmWash 19d ago
  Then the correct action is to either create a competitor, or point money/ad views at a competitor. But like I said, the internet is largely unwilling to do this. You won't make a competitor that is a charity, and the internet at large won't point dollars and ad-views at a nascent start-up in the space.
  - thewebguyd 19d ago
    None of that has to do with blocking the content behind a login wall. X can still serve ads just fine to non-logged in users. I'm against the site running ads, at all, I'm against mandatory account creation. The internet ran ad supported without mandatory accounts for years.
    - arjie 19d ago
      True, and Britain ruled the waves with wooden warships for a long time. But if they went back to wooden warships they would not rule the waves. The world has changed. Adblock, archive.is, third party mirrors all exist today.
    - WarmWash 19d ago
      You can rest assured, 100%, that account walls are also there for money. I'd be tickled if you argue that corporations create friction for any other reason than money.
    - bigfishrunning 19d ago
      The login wall provides one more avenue for profit: selling the data of logged-in users. A profile with a history of likes, read-times, etc is more valuable then a pair of eyeballs that are glazed-over and not clicking on an ad...
afavour 19d ago
> The internet has this innate expectation that everything digital be totally free and have no form of tracking or ads I don't think we always need to broaden this out to industry wide levels. We can talk about things specifically. In this case, X/Twitter has put a login wall in front of posts to boost signups. It never used to. That's a meaningful difference that people seek alternatives to.
- fragmede 19d ago
  They went login only in the wake of Hi-Q vs LinkedIn, which established that scraping a login-free site is legal.
  - input_sh 19d ago
    Sure, it definitely didn't happen in the wake of its new owner feeling like it in one of his first major changes to the platform because of his "concerns" with bot traffic. Luckily, he won that fight, and nowadays nobody thinks of bots when thinking of X, The Everything App.
throwaway894345 19d ago
Your comment seems to implicitly assume that X has some ethical claim to the content they're monetizing, when in fact they're trying to monetize _others'_ content.
- WarmWash 18d ago
  It's trivially easy to spin up a website and host your own content. Especially today with LLMs to handhold even the most tech illiterate person through it. I'd imagine you are totally confused why they don't do this. If you aren't confused why, well then you have your answer for why X has a right to monetize it.
  - throwaway894345 18d ago
    I'm not disputing that X has a legal right to monetize the content, but I am not remotely convinced that (1) X has the _exclusive_ legal right to monetize the content (content creators add no value and thus have no right to the content, which seems obviously absurd) (2) X has the exclusive legal right to prevent others from distributing the content for free or (3) your "network-effects-derived moats justify a legal right to monetize content". You seem to be depending on a whole lot of assumptions to get to your "XCancel/Nitter/etc shouldn't be allowed to exist" conclusion.
wolrah 19d ago
> The problem companies have is that "doesn't suck" generally means "it's free with no ads". I feel like way too many people forget that there was a great middle ground for the longest time, in the form of Google AdWords. Text only, no animations, flash, iframes serving malware, or any of the other bullshit that had already taken over banner ad networks like Doubleclick at the time. I recall at the time one of the early adblock plugins even had the ability to allowlist AdWords while still blocking the shitware providers with the intent of encouraging the use of "good" ad networks instead of the bad ones. It's a perfectly sustainable business model, it just requires people who actually care about not being annoying more than they care about maximizing profits, and at some point Google lost those people. That's pretty much the general problem with our society as a whole, when given the choice between "profitable and sustainable" or "profitable and high quality" versus "more profitable now but will cause problems in a few years" the incentives of capitalism are all in favor of getting all the profits now and getting out before the consequences catch up.
- layla5alive 18d ago
  Scalar Monomania (profit maximization in this case) is the root of so much evil :/
  - account42 18d ago
    It's usury that's the root of this evil. Always has been. Whether it's private equity or public shareholders, when you have someone getting more and more money for simply putting in money then that value has to be extracted from somewhere.
Barrin92 19d ago
>everything digital be totally free and have no form of tracking or ads, that's not a realistic expectation for everything but it's completely realistic for text based short form communication given how affordable it is to run. That's why there's ad and tracking free alternatives to twitter already. the competitors don't say "lol nope" they'd gladly take the users, it's the latter who stay on twitter like lambs running to the slaughter
troupo 19d ago
Instagram is filled with ads, and it sucks. Facebook? Same. Xitter? Same. Youtube? Enshittified beyond measure. Google? Unusable. So tell me. Where are these great amazing services supported by ads?
account42 18d ago
The "content" in twitter largely isn't monetized, only the platform profits via rent seeking on other people's writings.
GrinningFool 18d ago
Personally I have no problem with ads if they're based on the content. But your post inadvertantly sums the problem: tracking and ads have become inseparable. If you talk about removing tracking, people come out of the woodwork and say how ads are critical for the business model. There was a time where ads were based on the thing you were looking at, and assumptions around your demographics and intentions. It actually worked though returns were lower. (Which makes sense since the psychological warfare was limited to what advertisers thought they knew about the viewer. ) Now, though, if you want to block tracking you're a freeloader, siphoning off resources that other people pay for. And since targeted ads are so (relatively) effective, there is no discussion of separation.
fuzzfactor 18d ago
So many people tend to forget what made the internet great. >The internet has this innate expectation that everything digital be totally free and have no form of tracking or ads Roger. I guess you had to be there, either that or have above-average powers of observation, but That's. The. Foundation. Of. The. Internet. And that's how "doesn't suck" has always been defined, except for people who are just trying to make shit up that is quite a bit removed from reality. Now I've accepted ads when I feel like it although lots of times I prefer none, regardless commercial websites have always been less worthwhile than non-commercial, it's not like there's any question. This was settled way before the 1990s were over. I know perfection can not be achieved and I settle for less as much as anybody, plus "absolutely doesn't suck" may not be reached either but it is not a movable goalpost, more like a brick wall where the closer you get the better. If you are willing and able you might be able to do an outstanding job. Otherwise you're going to end up some distance away on the spectrum of "sucks more than it should." You were always already paying plenty to your ISP, and last time I checked you still are. Anything less has always been less than the whole internet you were paying for. The math is not that hard :\

swed420 19d ago

> My point is: companies stop making your product suck, and people won't have a reason to try and fix it for you. That assumes the company's behavior is rooted in ineptitude rather than malice, which is too generous at this point. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49695912 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49695912

deleted 19d ago
[deleted]
rusk 19d ago
It's ineptitude. Of course it is. Otherwise it would be indefensible. EDIT in which I clumsily express my weariness at hearing some of the smartest people in the world claim they “didn’t know” because they have arbitrated foolishness against liability
- spuz 19d ago
  The decision to force you to sign in to view replies is clearly not by accident or ineptitude. It's probably not malice either - just a business decision.
  - deleted 19d ago
    [deleted]
  - treyd 19d ago
    A system that makes "business decisions" indistinguishable from malice is an interesting one.
    - ToValueFunfetti 19d ago
      If I have something you want and I could give it to you but instead charge you money, is that malice? If so, what system wouldn't make malice indistinguishable from business decisions? If not, what distinguishes that from a login wall in exchange for viewing content?
  - 19d ago

timcobb 19d ago

Twitter itself doesn't even suck too much for me it's the broader context that makes it a no go

deleted 19d ago
[deleted]
gfdd 19d ago
[dead]

runjake 19d ago

These browser extensions still work: For Chrome: https://github.com/tsvb/post-peek https://github.com/tsvb/post-peek For Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/dumpster-fire/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/dumpster-fire... For Safari: https://andadinosaur.com/launch-litterbox https://andadinosaur.com/launch-litterbox

classified 18d ago
Don't you still have to log in to xitter with those?
- Meneth 18d ago
  No, but they are limited. Longer tweets are cut off, and you don't get to see replies.
1vuio0pswjnm7 18d ago
The Firefox add-on triggers HTTP 451 response
Cadwhisker 18d ago
This extension is blocked under Firefox for the following reason: This add-on violates Mozilla's add-on policies by collecting user data without disclosure, consent or control and executing remote code

vladgur 19d ago

You want to read what service XYZ offers, but you dont want to do it within the constraints of service XYZ. If you dont want to follow the constraints of service XYZ, you dont have to consume its content. The market would dictate that if X content consumers found it too inconvenient to consume from X and that would result in a significant drop in demand, the X content producers would stop producing their content on X. I dont like many things about X -- random ads, bookmark folders being a paid feature, enshittification of the algorithm if you god forbid linger over some controversial video or content. But i keep coming back to it because its the best way to follow the minds of brilliant techies. The basic sign up flow that i did years ago was basically a no-op. I suspect that for most people, creating an account is basically a few button clicks (thanks OAuth) and they dont mind creating an account.

cobbal 19d ago
Twitter promised an open publishing platform with extensive API access. They're the ones who broke the (social) contract, not us.
- nkozyra 19d ago
  Well if you're willing to accept that the extensive API access comes at a price, they at least somewhat fulfilled that promise. It's just a different kind of gate, though.
ImPostingOnHN 19d ago
They want to consume XYZ, written by A,B,C and posted on twitter. Do A,B,C agree with the changes to loginwall their content ex-post-facto?
- clcaev 19d ago
  Clearly they approve or they'd at least stop advertising their twitter handles on their websites and handouts. Most brands cannot ignore such a vast network effects and have made the decision to continue despite the changes.

jakevoytko 19d ago

I hate when companies do this. Instagram is a black box for me. Whenever someone sends me a link the web app is completely nonfunctional; clicking links just reload the page, it constantly tries opening the app, etc The last time I signed up for an Instagram account (2016) it got immediately flagged as a bot account. I think I was supposed to appeal it to have it reinstanted, but why bother if this is how badly they treat users? Can you imagine going to work as Instagram's web developer, spending your day finding new ways that the app accidentally works and disabling them?

bjord 19d ago
did you sign up with your actual details? or were you using a throwaway email and/or phone? as for using it without an account, try https://codeberg.org/irelephant/kittygram https://codeberg.org/irelephant/kittygram
- jakevoytko 19d ago
  Actual details.
voidnullvalue 19d ago
Imginn.com/whateverrouteoninstagram So instagram.com/foo becomes Imginn.com/foo Hope this helps!
- jakevoytko 19d ago
  I know there are like 5 trillion Instagram viewers. But I've never actually needed to use any of them because there is absolutely nothing so important on Instagram that I must see it. The entire site is optional.
  - Cockbrand 19d ago
    What!? It's the entire, singular purpose and meaning of life for millions of people to make themselves look glamorous on Instagram, and you say it's optional?! /s

temptemptemp111 19d ago

[dead]

emmelaich 19d ago

X should provide an option to make youor posts public. And govt reps should be required to use it.

tomashubelbauer 19d ago
Govt reps should be required to use govt sites and only then repost to private sites, or leave that up to the people.
maybewhenthesun 18d ago
govts should be forbidden from using X. Or any other commercial for-profit message service. It's not like one-way communication is a hard problem. Just post that stuff on a website ffs!
- mitxela 17d ago
  So no internet, TV or radio then. And no billboards. Also no event venues except the town hall.
  - oxzidized 17d ago
    Maybe if we had some sort of non-profit corporation with a mission to ensure universal access to non-commercial, high-quality educational, cultural, and other content and telecommunications services. Perhaps something like that could be expanded upon and utilized for government communication to the public?
  - nancyminusone 17d ago
    Why no radio? The government is the one handing out the spectrum.
    - mitxela 17d ago
      It's all privately operated for profit

dzonga 19d ago

I have a shitter account, I don't use the app but just the web app on safari iOS. recently with videos I can't change playback speed. so I have to use xCancel. before I just used to use Tweetdeck. but that went away or went pro.

zx8080 19d ago

> My point is: companies stop making your product suck, and people won't have a reason to try and fix it for you. What an idealistic nonsense. Companies do anything not for people, but for money. We are not living in a socialist utopia (fortunately!).

benrutter 19d ago
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not, but it's worth pointing out that most businesses outside of tech don't operate a "build a monopoly then bleed it dry" model, and are a lot nicer for it, while still making money. Shops, cinemas, B2B consultancies etc generally make money by selling something people want. (I do get that tech VC doesn't work under this principle and it's not simpld to just change a sectors funding model, but it is worth pointing out that making money does not normally equal making a bad product)
- account42 18d ago
  > Shops, cinemas, B2B consultancies etc generally make money by selling something people want. There are plenty of dark patterns and enshittification in all of these as well. Tech is just way ahead of the curve but the rest isn't innocent either.
account42 18d ago
Companies also have to stay within the bounds determined by the rest of our society. For example just dumping your waste in the next river is more profitable than disposing it responsibly but its bad for everyone so we don't let companies do that.

numpad0 19d ago

^ this and the entire drama is just an ad campaign to make the rebranding stick. what is really going to work is to keep calling it Twitter, as it identifies itself, and slowly move over the scene to Bluesky/Mastodon. What demoralize them the most is to show whoever pays for it doesn't matter.

mitxela 19d ago
It would be really funny if Elon lost the Twitter trademark due to not using it.
- zavec 18d ago
  Just a few days ago there was an article about how they lost the bluebird logo and the word "tweet," so it seems possible!
- latexr 18d ago
  That was close to happening. He already lost the logo and “tweet”. https://thenextweb.com/news/musk-x-twitter-bird-logo-tweet-trademark-ruling https://thenextweb.com/news/musk-x-twitter-bird-logo-tweet-t...

karim79 19d ago

Enshittification is the new normal, unfortunately.

vachina 19d ago

[flagged]

abustamam 19d ago
??? Have you never tried to visit X on a mobile device? Functional is far from what I'd call it, given that you can't see replies to the tweet or indeed do much else on the site
- vachina 19d ago
  Yes? I use it exclusively in the mobile browser, logged in of course.
dented42 19d ago
By functional do you actually mean impossible to use?
- vachina 19d ago
  Just fuckin log in?
  - mitxela 19d ago
    I can't create an account. No matter what I try, the app just keeps saying it don't wanna.
pbasista 19d ago
Well, I do not have an account and when I open any profile on it right now, I cannot read it properly. I cannot click on posts. I cannot read replies. I cannot open images. In my opinion, that is quite far from "functional". Such a behavior alone is a sufficient justification, in my opinion, for the services like xcancel to exist. And if the X social network does not want their content to be publicly available, fine. They are free to gate it behind a login.
- 19d ago

benrutter 19d ago

> My point is: companies stop making your product suck, and people won't have a reason to try and fix it for you. Boy this would be nice! X have obviously decided that using the law to take down people fixing its issues is more profitable than fixing them. I'm really curious though, are they right? (Ignoring ethics etc) I used to glance at Twitter when it was less hostile, now I don't bother since it tries to force you to sign in before viewing content and I don't have an account. But now my interaction is 0, nothing is going to get me to make an account. If other people are like me, X will just continue to lose users without gaining any. Which the limited available data on use suggest is in fact happening.

xvedejas 18d ago
Is the point really to be profitable? Or could perhaps its owners be willing to risk losing money for more power over the information landscape?
- snarfy 18d ago
  Yep precisely it. Worth it to control the narrative, even if it's for his own vanity. When you have that much money what else do you spend it on. X is a toy.
- benrutter 18d ago
  Yeah, that's a really good point that I hadn't really considered. Although, maybe the same argument stands? If X's lockdown leads to less users, then doesn't that translate to less control over the information landscape too?
  - tovej 18d ago
    Well, if one of the big social media platforms is now a far-right playground, that changes the political landscape. Elon Musk is using twitter to create a global far-right platform that right-wing politicians can use to experiment with talking points before watering them down and bringing them to the public.

amelius 18d ago

> My point is: companies stop making your product suck, and people won't have a reason to try and fix it for you. Make companies give up power? Never going to happen.

moomin 18d ago

Indeed, with the best will in the world, nothing on X is that essential. XCancel is the only way I read it.

criddell 18d ago
I don't have any data to back this up, but it feels like X may be growing again. I don't post, but I do have an account for reading things on there and a few years ago I was never visiting. Now it seems like I'm going there a few times a month.

mallomarmeasle 18d ago

Wow, I just find out about a service that would allow me to read the occasional post on X just in time to see that the service has been suspended. I have a total embargo for that platform otherwise due to the severe and total enshitification.

mitxela 17d ago
Many alternative servers around still. https://status.d420.de/ https://status.d420.de/ or run your own