2 ms·
You neglect to consider that these social media websites were giant bait & switches - they were open-access to trick people into going there and making them pop
by like_any_other 12d ago
You neglect to consider that these social media websites were giant bait & switches - they were open-access to trick people into going there and making them popular, and only when they got enough network-effect lock-in, did they turn hostile. Morally equivalent to fraud.
- spullara 12d agothis entire thing is about people that aren't even users of the service.
- like_any_other 12d agoUsers were affected in exactly the same way. And every user - i.e. poster - was first just a visitor. Much fewer would have become posters if they'd been greeted by a login wall that wanted an e-mail and phone-number.
- spullara 12d agoi don't think there is a page on x that just gives you a login wall that a normal non-logged in user would go to. if you link to something like a tweet or a profile page it shows you them. these services are for scraping.
- like_any_other 12d agoDon't lie. When not logged in, if you visit someone's profile, X shows you only 5 tweets. If you visit a tweet, only 3 replies are visible. It's not "scraping" (which is perfectly fine and legal to scrape public content by the way) - you cannot read conversations or follow someone's posts in any meaningful capacity without logging in.
- spullara 12d agoit is legal if you can do it, doesn't mean they have to like it. keeping features for logged in seems super reasonable to me.
- Dylan16807 12d ago"features" for logging in is in a broad sense reasonable. When one of those features is being able to see the most recent tweets from an account, that's asinine. In other words: If you link to a profile page, X doesn't properly show you. It gives you a random selection of popular tweets that person has made, often several years old.